How your last comment has anything to do with this I don't know. I happen to agree by the way but that's a different point.
The majority of people use Word it is for the majority of people that have an open format would get the most benefit. Just because I could use OpenOffice instead of Word doesn't if there was an open format doesn't mean that's where the greatest benefit lies. But because I can't actually look inside the Word document, bypass the fancy formatting, disregarding the application that is embedded(god what a shitty idea), I can't do what I might want to do with it. And it doesn't matter that I can store in a different format it is what the majority of people use that makes it difficult.
Furthermore, I bet at least 70% if not more of Word users don't even know they have the option of saving in a different format.
Lastly, I don't expect Microsoft to operate in a completely open manner, I do expect them, and anyone else, to give me complete access to my data!
I'm currently part of a group tasked to purchase a rather large and expensive piece of software. I continue to push that we must ask the vendors for their complete Database schema, I keep being told that they "won't want to give it to us". Well too damn bad, it's my/our data, yes even the schema, because in the end we are agreeing that the schema they use is what we view as the best for the job.
The concept that a vendor should be allowed to hide your data from you is just stupid.
Quick, tell me. Was this supposed to support my comment or try to refute it? 'cause frankly I don't see how it does either.
Betamax was a closed, proprietary format that failed, the fact that it is closed is what has put you in the position you are in (with your movies not being able to be played). Even so, you can still transfer those movies to VHS and/or DVD, just go to a specialty shop they have them just for this case. And why does this work? Because ultimately the signal that comes out the back of the machine is analog and wide open and there is jack shit that Sony can do about it.
There is no similar easy way to capture a Word file and convert it into an OpenOffice format. Screen captures turn the data in to an image which is NOT the native format of a word processing document. An analog signal is the native format of a movie.
Except that there currently is no "libertarian" free market. I don't think there has ever been and I doubt there ever will be. As long as this is the case than laws like the one proposed make good sense in order to level the playing field.
Hell they aren't saying you have to publish the source of your proprietary program they're saying you have to publish the format that the data is stored in. That's my data in that Word document, formatting and all and I have to be given the ability to do with it whatever I want. If Microsoft chooses to embed applications in my Word document than they must publish that format as well. Maybe if they had to do that the practice would stop and we could go back to not worrying about Word viruses and the like. Ah, I'm going to wax whimsical over the loss of OpenDoc, if only it had succeeded...
Get an extra drive and just do a dd copy to the second drive, hell you only have 60 GB, buy a 120 GB and dd the original to files. You can mount the files on a loopback device and they act just like another drive (in case you want to restore individual files), or use dd to dump the contents of the files back to the destroyed/replaced disk.
I won't be harsh because maybe this hasn't occurred to you, but it's simple, clean,effective, it's the Linux way!!!
And before you complain that it's too expensive, you save $60 just from not using CD's plus you can run a cron job at night so it's always current and than there's the cost of your time that your saving.
You see their nefarious plot but you don't see just how screwed up they are.
I believe entirely that SCO is trying the shadiest type of trick here, attempting to claim "IP rights", whatever those are, on all "derivitive work" from System V Unix. Unfortunately for them it will have to be from their contracts and not from the source.
This is in no way a classic definition of "derivitive work". As an example lets look at JFS. If System V Unix had a journaling file system and someone told me how it worked. I could write JFS and there's nothing the original author code do UNLESS they had a patent. What I wrote is NOT a derivitive work as it used nothing of the original.
But in fact this lawsuit is sillier than that, I truely believe that SCO is trying to claim that "we have a file system in System V Unix, therefore any other Unices that have a file system are based on our IP and therefore we're claiming IP rights".
Now, the fact there's no such thing as IP rights won't stop them. If this is how SCO is playing the game, than they better have a really incredible contract with IBM otherwise they really will get squashed like a bug.
No. In the case against IBM, SCO has yet to identify any claim of copyright infringement. They are running purely on their supposed Unix contract rights with IBM. In fact it could very well be that IBM has not performed any copyright infringement in the least and still be found guilty of breaking their contract with SCO. There could be absolutely 0 SCO code in Linux and IBM could still lose.
SCO's claims of IP infringement, copyright infringement, "ooh I stubbed my toe", all of that doesn't matter. What matters is IBM's contract with SCO and what rights that gives SCO stemming over original work in Unix even work that isn't theirs. However, it will be a stretch or a really poorly written contract that would give SCO claim over any work not done by them.
Go reread the cnet link, it clearly says they have yet to lay copyright infringement claims against IBM. When you realize that is the case you see everything else they have been doing as a total and utter smokescreen.
For crying out loud, I thought people with some intelligence hung out on this site. Obviously that's only partly true.
It's no more toxic either chemically or radioactively than tonnes of other commonly used substances.
We do know what to do with it. Store it in containers until we need to reprocess it for further use in Breeder reactors. Than store this waste (less radioactive, but longer term) in the ground where it came from.
Cyonide doesn't decay.
Terrorists have a hell of a lot of better ways to kill you than trying to blow up a nuke plant. Even if they managed to somehow "blow-up" the plant, whatever that means, the damage would likely be greater due to the loss of electricity than due to any deaths due to radioactivity.
Christ, read a little, get over your fears and terrorists won't have any hold on you. You give them power by feeding unsubstantiated and mindless fears.
Just for note, nowhere do I say that nuclear plants are not dangerous. Any large scale attempt to convert energy is dangerous, however nuclear power plants are no where near as dangerous to health and the well being of this planet than almost every other transformation of massive amounts of energy we use. The risk to anything goes up in proportion to how much you use it. The world is a dangerous place, live with it. By shunning nukes we have in fact made it more dangerous.
>> SCO is obligated to disclose the supposed "infringing" code in order to reduce any possible harm.
>Nope. You are simply wrong.
Won't be the last time I'm sure...
>"Harm", for SCO, started the moment IBM commited >the act SCO claims (if, indeed, IBM did the deed
Yup, not in dispute.
>SCO is under no obligation to "reduce" harm. It >simply can't collect on harm it could have >prevented.
As I noticed on slashdot the other day "a difference, that makes no difference is not a difference".
This is in fact exactly what I meant by "mitigating harm". They can't collect on harm they can prevent.
>In this case, SCO will hold that releasing the >"secret" they are trying to protect would be more >harmful than letting the market move on as it >were for a short while longer. Thus they might >claim they ARE trying to mitigate the greatest of >multiple harms in this case.
They can claim the moon is made of blue cheese, it won't make it so. The "secret" is already out there, it makes no difference whether they release that info now or later except in that users and developers of Linux would be able to remove the supposedly infringing code, something that will happen eventually. This removal isn't a nefarious plot to rob them of their due monies since they can't rightfully collect on harm that might result from this point when they are refusing to reveal that code. As you noted if they were harmed than IBM must pay for harm already performed. The harm can continue in the future as it reduced the value of the secret. But by not revealing a "secret" that is no longer secret they are making no good faith attempt to stop any supposed copyright or trade secret infringement by others. So they will not be able to collect damages from others for supposed harm during this period.
>> Secondly by not disclosing the supposed >>infringing code they could be viewed to be >>implicitly agreeing to it's disemination via the >>GPL license.
>Again wrong. No such thing as "implicit" >agreements when it comes to Copyrights, Patents, >or Trade Secrets. If it isn't explicity granted >by the owner, there is simply no agreement >binding on the owner.
I said they "could be viewed as implicitly agreeing" I didn't say it was legalling binding.
>> They can't simply say that they are being >>harmed and will be harmed in the future >>therefore everyone give us money.
>At least you got that one sort of right. But >you've still missed the target.
Since it was an extremely colloquial statement I'm not surprised you think so.
>Damages happen when you mis-appropriate IP >without the owners permission AND act in bad >faith.... > >Red Hat distributes Linux under a good faith >undertstanding that the owner (Linus) permits >said distribution. Red Had cannot be held for >damages unless... 2) SCO demonstrates they have >a rightful ownership interest of their own AND >Red Hat fails to abide by SCOs terms. > >"Damages" start the moment you know, or should >have known, you were misappropriating another's >IP. > >The Day SCO demonstrates a legal interest in >Linux is the day YOU must start paying royalties >to them for using it. Or, that is the day you >must stop using it altogether. If you do neither >that day, damages start.
No, the day SCO demonstrates a legal interest in some code that may be in the Linux kernel is the day I must stop using that code. They must reveal that code to me for me to stop using it. This does not mean I must stop using Linux. Due to the nature of this software as both a user and possible distributor of the source code they must reveal how I am infringing their copyright so that I can remove that code myself.
Attempting to place the court proceedings under Trade Secret status will do them no good
When it cannot have any possible damage to your case, and would only go towards increasing your stock value. Something which I just realized is that share holders of SCO could argue that the executives are actually depressing the stock price since if they released the evidence and it actually "proved" their case the stock would go through the roof. Thus they have a fiduciary responsibility to reveal that code NOW not later.
Look, if they've been harmed, than they've been harmed and there is nothing that IBM or anyone else can do. The evidence must be presented before trial anyway to give IBM time to prepare a defense. With IBMs stable of lawyers that time period will be as long as they need. You can't just walk in to court and say "hey here's the evidence, now show today that we're wrong or pay up!" This isn't a case on Perry Masonary. There will be no surprise evidence in this case.
The only thing gained by not clearly disclosing which lines of code have supposedly been infringed is continued uncertainty and continued exposure in the media. In fact because it can be argued that SCO is not disclosing this code and thus not actively trying to mitigate harm that they will get a less favorable view in front of the judge.
Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself, as long as they hold out for no good* legal reason they may be implicitly agreeing to the GPL'ing of the supposedly infringing code.
* since nothing is gained by holding out, and the code must be presented long before the trial goes to court to give IBM a chance to respond the current ramblings of SCO have no basis in legal fact or fiction, e.g. "no good legal reason".
This has already been answered a thousand times, but whats a thousand and one amongst friends.
SCO is obligated to disclose the supposed "infringing" code in order to reduce any possible harm. They can't simply say that they are being harmed and will be harmed in the future therefore everyone give us money. They must act to mitigate that harm.
Secondly by not disclosing the supposed infringing code they could be viewed to be implicitly agreeing to it's disemination via the GPL license.
True but irrelevant, or at least I'm not sure what your point is.
My point is that these bozos don't have the wherewithal to perform quick and dirty hand calculations which would make it immediately obvious that a 2 lb projectile travelling at greater than 500 miles/hour will do severe damage. I don't need to do an expensive test to figure that one out. The guy in the story talked about the "intuitive sense of physics", he has none, period! He should be fired or charged with murder for gross indifference to human life!
Sure it seems odd, but I can imagine a swirling wind, especially when confined between larger buildings, or otherwise turbulent type flow around a building peaked in the manner that it is.
In a related news item NASA engineers were heard to be lamenting that they have access to million dollar computers that can calculate the question to the universe (the answer is known to be 42) but not one of them has even a $1 calculator. They were also told never to use a pencil and paper or even that tried and true scientific calculation devise, the back of a envelope.
Interestingly the world was heard to say, "These guys are idiots right?"
To be fair, I have seen reference somewhere that the wind at the top of the empire state building is such that the penny would simply be blown back in to the building.
Now, a good physicist would ignore wind resistance etc. and calculate that the penny would have enough energy to kill someone. The point is for effect not whether it would REALLY happen.
Note the difference in language. SCO is being extremely weasly here. Novell is talking Patent and Copyright rights, SCO is talking "contract" rights. Presumably they have the right to subcontract their rights to IBM and others. However, this isn't what SCO has been complaining about mostly.
Their problems with IBM may be a contract dispute but they've been actively claiming IP rights to all kinds of things to discourage Linux use. This may have something to do with the Monterey project and IBM pulling out of that. If so SCO may have a case if IBM used some of that work in Linux but this has nothing to do with System V work previous to that project. As such Linux wouldn't be in any bind except with respect to work provided by IBM with regards to the Monterey project. If SCO is claiming IBM violated rights with respect to Unix System V work, the IP rights of which are held by Novell, than SCO is going to get crushed like a bug.
The discovery phase occurs outside the court and SCO is obligated to provide the evidence at that time.
This isn't Perry Mason ya know. There is no surprise evidence in this type of case only "interpretation" of the facts that must be presented before going to court.
I have no formal training in CS but I've been coding for years and read extensively. My understanding is that an algorithm can be reduced to a mathematical construct(addition, subtraction, equality etc.). As such it behooves the proponents of software patents to show that all math is patentable. Last time I looked this still wasn't the case.
This ranks right up there with patenting genes.
They are discoveries not inventions. Imagine the chaos if we had allowed patents on the structure of the atom. "Look I've discovered the structure of gold. Anyone wanting to use gold must pay me in, umm, well platinum! Yeah that's it!"
Now the expression of that algorithm in software may be copyrightable(a different debate) or the wiring of it in hardware may be patentable.
I think that at the very least all software patents must express themselves in the underlying mathematics of how they operate. As such it would be obvious to any second grader that it's not a patentable object. If someone can come up with a way not to use this inherent attribute in an algorithm, well than that would be patentable.
Similarly the method/machine used in the discovery of the structure of a gene or substance would be patentable. That is the purpose behind patents and not simply patenting something just because you got there first.
"Look that big bright orange object in the sky I will call the sun. I patent the sun. Everyone wanting to use the sun must pay me in gold!"
I know what "people" do but the question is what are "you" going to do. The fact is the deck is stacked. The chances of electorial reform is non-existant in the current climate. So if in fact B is the best choice for everyone not just you than "eventually" B will win, but only if you vote for him this time. You have to take the chance of putting up with "shit". Otherwise you'll perpetually get bile and sometimes you'll get shit anyway.
There's only two ways out of the mess we've dug ourselves and one of them causes a lot of unnecessary death. The other takes longer and may hurt but in the end is much more satisfying and quite possibly more enduring.
You just can't think short term.
This is sadly reminiscent of the Simpson's episode where the aliens kill and than masquerade as Clinton and Dole. They're found out before the election but "What are you going to do? It's a two party system." gets one of them elected anyway.
The short sited concept of "what's in it for me this time?", absolutely sickens me.
You sound like a reasonable person to me so don't take this too harshly.
But, that is the absolutely stupidest thing I've ever read. It's this type of thinking that keeps 3rd parties out of the race. Vote for who is going to represent your interests, not for whom might be the least of the evils otherwise nothing, absolutely nothing changes.
Your only real power in a democracy is to fire the employees. The only way to do that is to not vote for them. As a practical consideration every vote for a 3rd party in a given election likely raises their profile for the next. Talk to others about voting for a 3rd party, tell them that you did it because you expect change "eventually" not necessarily this election, only than are you likely to see change. Otherwise you'll be perpetually waiting for "change"(shit) to happen.
It's likely you'll be disappointed in "this" election, and the next, and maybe even the one after that. But...the one after that, now it stood up, and that's what you'll inherit, the strongest castle in the land. Oops, I slipped into Monty Python mode but you get the idea. Don't set your sites on today or you'll perpetually be disappointed.
George Sr. had a chance to rid the world of this mad man 12 years ago. He even called on the Iraqis to stand up and fight for themselves, and than abandoned them.
US/UN sanctions calling for the ouster of the head of state of a country are distastful and uncalled for. It could have been enough simply for sanctions for disarmament, but no, the US wanted Saddam out.
Thirdly no one, not one person can "guarantee" your safety. You live in a free and democratic country. Your ultimate safety is your own responsibilty and even you can't guarantee it.
Question: What's wrong with continual "inspections" with the threat of force? Eventually Saddam will die or his own people will revolt. Note that you asked for ideas to "guarantee" your safety and not necessarily to "free" the Iraqis, which obviously this would have no affect on.
It's far too late to argue if this should or shouldn't happen. The next question is, will the US f*(k things up again once they've deposed the current government? Japan seems to be the only country the US has successfully "democratised" in the last 60 years.
Slashdot Mirror
How your last comment has anything to do with this I don't know. I happen to agree by the way but that's a different point.
The majority of people use Word it is for the majority of people that have an open format would get the most benefit. Just because I could use OpenOffice instead of Word doesn't if there was an open format doesn't mean that's where the greatest benefit lies. But because I can't actually look inside the Word document, bypass the fancy formatting, disregarding the application that is embedded(god what a shitty idea), I can't do what I might want to do with it. And it doesn't matter that I can store in a different format it is what the majority of people use that makes it difficult.
Furthermore, I bet at least 70% if not more of Word users don't even know they have the option of saving in a different format.
Lastly, I don't expect Microsoft to operate in a completely open manner, I do expect them, and anyone else, to give me complete access to my data!
I'm currently part of a group tasked to purchase a rather large and expensive piece of software. I continue to push that we must ask the vendors for their complete Database schema, I keep being told that they "won't want to give it to us". Well too damn bad, it's my/our data, yes even the schema, because in the end we are agreeing that the schema they use is what we view as the best for the job.
The concept that a vendor should be allowed to hide your data from you is just stupid.
Quick, tell me. Was this supposed to support my comment or try to refute it? 'cause frankly I don't see how it does either.
Betamax was a closed, proprietary format that failed, the fact that it is closed is what has put you in the position you are in (with your movies not being able to be played). Even so, you can still transfer those movies to VHS and/or DVD, just go to a specialty shop they have them just for this case. And why does this work? Because ultimately the signal that comes out the back of the machine is analog and wide open and there is jack shit that Sony can do about it.
There is no similar easy way to capture a Word file and convert it into an OpenOffice format. Screen captures turn the data in to an image which is NOT the native format of a word processing document. An analog signal is the native format of a movie.
Except that there currently is no "libertarian" free market. I don't think there has ever been and I doubt there ever will be. As long as this is the case than laws like the one proposed make good sense in order to level the playing field.
Hell they aren't saying you have to publish the source of your proprietary program they're saying you have to publish the format that the data is stored in. That's my data in that Word document, formatting and all and I have to be given the ability to do with it whatever I want. If Microsoft chooses to embed applications in my Word document than they must publish that format as well. Maybe if they had to do that the practice would stop and we could go back to not worrying about Word viruses and the like. Ah, I'm going to wax whimsical over the loss of OpenDoc, if only it had succeeded...
Oh that's hard, "a standards group set up for such a purpose", what you've never heard of ISO compliance?
Christ man, haven't you ever heard of 'dd'.
Get an extra drive and just do a dd copy to the second drive, hell you only have 60 GB, buy a 120 GB and dd the original to files. You can mount the files on a loopback device and they act just like another drive (in case you want to restore individual files), or use dd to dump the contents of the files back to the destroyed/replaced disk.
I won't be harsh because maybe this hasn't occurred to you, but it's simple, clean,effective, it's the Linux way!!!
And before you complain that it's too expensive, you save $60 just from not using CD's plus you can run a cron job at night so it's always current and than there's the cost of your time that your saving.
You see their nefarious plot but you don't see just how screwed up they are.
I believe entirely that SCO is trying the shadiest type of trick here, attempting to claim "IP rights", whatever those are, on all "derivitive work" from System V Unix. Unfortunately for them it will have to be from their contracts and not from the source.
This is in no way a classic definition of "derivitive work". As an example lets look at JFS. If System V Unix had a journaling file system and someone told me how it worked. I could write JFS and there's nothing the original author code do UNLESS they had a patent. What I wrote is NOT a derivitive work as it used nothing of the original.
But in fact this lawsuit is sillier than that, I truely believe that SCO is trying to claim that "we have a file system in System V Unix, therefore any other Unices that have a file system are based on our IP and therefore we're claiming IP rights".
Now, the fact there's no such thing as IP rights won't stop them. If this is how SCO is playing the game, than they better have a really incredible contract with IBM otherwise they really will get squashed like a bug.
No. In the case against IBM, SCO has yet to identify any claim of copyright infringement. They are running purely on their supposed Unix contract rights with IBM. In fact it could very well be that IBM has not performed any copyright infringement in the least and still be found guilty of breaking their contract with SCO. There could be absolutely 0 SCO code in Linux and IBM could still lose.
SCO's claims of IP infringement, copyright infringement, "ooh I stubbed my toe", all of that doesn't matter. What matters is IBM's contract with SCO and what rights that gives SCO stemming over original work in Unix even work that isn't theirs. However, it will be a stretch or a really poorly written contract that would give SCO claim over any work not done by them.
Go reread the cnet link, it clearly says they have yet to lay copyright infringement claims against IBM. When you realize that is the case you see everything else they have been doing as a total and utter smokescreen.
For crying out loud, I thought people with some intelligence hung out on this site. Obviously that's only partly true.
It's no more toxic either chemically or radioactively than tonnes of other commonly used substances.
We do know what to do with it. Store it in containers until we need to reprocess it for further use in Breeder reactors. Than store this waste (less radioactive, but longer term) in the ground where it came from.
Cyonide doesn't decay.
Terrorists have a hell of a lot of better ways to kill you than trying to blow up a nuke plant. Even if they managed to somehow "blow-up" the plant, whatever that means, the damage would likely be greater due to the loss of electricity than due to any deaths due to radioactivity.
Christ, read a little, get over your fears and terrorists won't have any hold on you. You give them power by feeding unsubstantiated and mindless fears.
Just for note, nowhere do I say that nuclear plants are not dangerous. Any large scale attempt to convert energy is dangerous, however nuclear power plants are no where near as dangerous to health and the well being of this planet than almost every other transformation of massive amounts of energy we use. The risk to anything goes up in proportion to how much you use it. The world is a dangerous place, live with it. By shunning nukes we have in fact made it more dangerous.
>Sadly, I think the only real option is going nuke.
Please explain why this is sad?
>> SCO is obligated to disclose the supposed "infringing" code in order to reduce any possible harm.
... 2) SCO demonstrates they have >a rightful ownership interest of their own AND >Red Hat fails to abide by SCOs terms.
>Nope. You are simply wrong.
Won't be the last time I'm sure...
>"Harm", for SCO, started the moment IBM commited >the act SCO claims (if, indeed, IBM did the deed
Yup, not in dispute.
>SCO is under no obligation to "reduce" harm. It >simply can't collect on harm it could have >prevented.
As I noticed on slashdot the other day "a difference, that makes no difference is not a difference".
This is in fact exactly what I meant by "mitigating harm". They can't collect on harm they can prevent.
>In this case, SCO will hold that releasing the >"secret" they are trying to protect would be more >harmful than letting the market move on as it >were for a short while longer. Thus they might >claim they ARE trying to mitigate the greatest of >multiple harms in this case.
They can claim the moon is made of blue cheese, it won't make it so. The "secret" is already out there, it makes no difference whether they release that info now or later except in that users and developers of Linux would be able to remove the supposedly infringing code, something that will happen eventually. This removal isn't a nefarious plot to rob them of their due monies since they can't rightfully collect on harm that might result from this point when they are refusing to reveal that code. As you noted if they were harmed than IBM must pay for harm already performed. The harm can continue in the future as it reduced the value of the secret. But by not revealing a "secret" that is no longer secret they are making no good faith attempt to stop any supposed copyright or trade secret infringement by others. So they will not be able to collect damages from others for supposed harm during this period.
>> Secondly by not disclosing the supposed
>>infringing code they could be viewed to be
>>implicitly agreeing to it's disemination via the
>>GPL license.
>Again wrong. No such thing as "implicit" >agreements when it comes to Copyrights, Patents, >or Trade Secrets. If it isn't explicity granted >by the owner, there is simply no agreement >binding on the owner.
I said they "could be viewed as implicitly agreeing" I didn't say it was legalling binding.
>> They can't simply say that they are being >>harmed and will be harmed in the future
>>therefore everyone give us money.
>At least you got that one sort of right. But >you've still missed the target.
Since it was an extremely colloquial statement I'm not surprised you think so.
>Damages happen when you mis-appropriate IP
>without the owners permission AND act in bad
>faith....
>
>Red Hat distributes Linux under a good faith >undertstanding that the owner (Linus) permits >said distribution. Red Had cannot be held for >damages unless
>
>"Damages" start the moment you know, or should >have known, you were misappropriating another's >IP.
>
>The Day SCO demonstrates a legal interest in >Linux is the day YOU must start paying royalties >to them for using it. Or, that is the day you >must stop using it altogether. If you do neither >that day, damages start.
No, the day SCO demonstrates a legal interest in some code that may be in the Linux kernel is the day I must stop using that code. They must reveal that code to me for me to stop using it. This does not mean I must stop using Linux. Due to the nature of this software as both a user and possible distributor of the source code they must reveal how I am infringing their copyright so that I can remove that code myself.
Attempting to place the court proceedings under Trade Secret status will do them no good
When it cannot have any possible damage to your case, and would only go towards increasing your stock value. Something which I just realized is that share holders of SCO could argue that the executives are actually depressing the stock price since if they released the evidence and it actually "proved" their case the stock would go through the roof. Thus they have a fiduciary responsibility to reveal that code NOW not later.
Look, if they've been harmed, than they've been harmed and there is nothing that IBM or anyone else can do. The evidence must be presented before trial anyway to give IBM time to prepare a defense. With IBMs stable of lawyers that time period will be as long as they need. You can't just walk in to court and say "hey here's the evidence, now show today that we're wrong or pay up!" This isn't a case on Perry Masonary. There will be no surprise evidence in this case.
The only thing gained by not clearly disclosing which lines of code have supposedly been infringed is continued uncertainty and continued exposure in the media. In fact because it can be argued that SCO is not disclosing this code and thus not actively trying to mitigate harm that they will get a less favorable view in front of the judge.
Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself, as long as they hold out for no good* legal reason they may be implicitly agreeing to the GPL'ing of the supposedly infringing code.
* since nothing is gained by holding out, and the code must be presented long before the trial goes to court to give IBM a chance to respond the current ramblings of SCO have no basis in legal fact or fiction, e.g. "no good legal reason".
This has already been answered a thousand times, but whats a thousand and one amongst friends.
SCO is obligated to disclose the supposed "infringing" code in order to reduce any possible harm. They can't simply say that they are being harmed and will be harmed in the future therefore everyone give us money. They must act to mitigate that harm.
Secondly by not disclosing the supposed infringing code they could be viewed to be implicitly agreeing to it's disemination via the GPL license.
True but irrelevant, or at least I'm not sure
what your point is.
My point is that these bozos don't have the wherewithal to perform quick and dirty hand
calculations which would make it immediately obvious
that a 2 lb projectile travelling at greater than 500 miles/hour will do severe damage. I don't need to do an expensive test to figure that one out. The guy in the story talked about the "intuitive sense of physics", he has none, period! He should be fired or charged with murder for gross indifference to human life!
Sure it seems odd, but I can imagine a swirling wind, especially when confined between larger buildings, or otherwise turbulent type flow around a building peaked in the manner that it is.
In a related news item NASA engineers were heard to be lamenting that they have access to million dollar computers that can calculate the question to the universe (the answer is known to be 42) but not one of them has even a $1 calculator. They were also told never to use a pencil and paper or even that tried and true scientific calculation devise, the back of a envelope.
Interestingly the world was heard to say, "These guys are idiots right?"
To be fair, I have seen reference somewhere that the wind at the top of the empire state building is such that the penny would simply be blown back in to the building.
Now, a good physicist would ignore wind resistance etc. and calculate that the penny would have enough energy to kill someone. The point is for effect not whether it would REALLY happen.
Actually the URL that was posted had an extra space at the " 28". Remove it and it works, nothing nefarious.
Note the difference in language. SCO is being extremely weasly here. Novell is talking Patent and Copyright rights, SCO is talking "contract" rights. Presumably they have the right to subcontract their rights to IBM and others. However, this isn't what SCO has been complaining about mostly.
Their problems with IBM may be a contract dispute but they've been actively claiming IP rights to all kinds of things to discourage Linux use. This may have something to do with the Monterey project and IBM pulling out of that. If so SCO may have a case if IBM used some of that work in Linux but this has nothing to do with System V work previous to that project. As such Linux wouldn't be in any bind except with respect to work provided by IBM with regards to the Monterey project. If SCO is claiming IBM violated rights with respect to Unix System V work, the IP rights of which are held by Novell, than SCO is going to get crushed like a bug.
Actually your wrong.
The discovery phase occurs outside the court and SCO is obligated to provide the evidence at that time.
This isn't Perry Mason ya know. There is no surprise evidence in this type of case only "interpretation" of the facts that must be presented before going to court.
Exactly which album was it? I don't have them all but I have all the early ones and I can't think of one of them that I had trouble finding.
If you find any more hot redheads who love Chris DeBurgh send them my way.
I have no formal training in CS but I've been coding for years and read extensively. My understanding is that an algorithm can be reduced to a mathematical construct(addition, subtraction, equality etc.). As such it behooves the proponents of software patents to show that all math is patentable. Last time I looked this still wasn't the case.
This ranks right up there with patenting genes.
They are discoveries not inventions. Imagine the chaos if we had allowed patents on the structure of the atom. "Look I've discovered the structure of gold. Anyone wanting to use gold must pay me in, umm, well platinum! Yeah that's it!"
Now the expression of that algorithm in software may be copyrightable(a different debate) or the wiring of it in hardware may be patentable.
I think that at the very least all software patents must express themselves in the underlying mathematics of how they operate. As such it would be obvious to any second grader that it's not a patentable object. If someone can come up with a way not to use this inherent attribute in an algorithm, well than that would be patentable.
Similarly the method/machine used in the discovery of the structure of a gene or substance would be patentable. That is the purpose behind patents and not simply patenting something just because you got there first.
"Look that big bright orange object in the sky I will call the sun. I patent the sun. Everyone wanting to use the sun must pay me in gold!"
This is true, and irrelevant to my point.
I know what "people" do but the question is what
are "you" going to do. The fact is the deck is stacked. The chances of electorial reform is non-existant in the current climate. So if in fact B is the best choice for everyone not just you than "eventually" B will win, but only if you vote for him this time. You have to take the chance of putting up with "shit". Otherwise you'll perpetually get bile and sometimes you'll get shit anyway.
There's only two ways out of the mess we've dug ourselves and one of them causes a lot of unnecessary death. The other takes longer and may hurt but in the end is much more satisfying and quite possibly more enduring.
You just can't think short term.
This is sadly reminiscent of the Simpson's episode where the aliens kill and than masquerade as Clinton and Dole. They're found out before the election but "What are you going to do? It's a two party system." gets one of them elected anyway.
The short sited concept of "what's in it for me this time?", absolutely sickens me.
You sound like a reasonable person to me so don't
take this too harshly.
But, that is the absolutely stupidest thing I've
ever read. It's this type of thinking that keeps
3rd parties out of the race. Vote for who is going
to represent your interests, not for whom might be
the least of the evils otherwise nothing, absolutely
nothing changes.
Your only real power in a
democracy is to fire the employees. The only way
to do that is to not vote for them. As a practical
consideration every vote for a 3rd party in a
given election likely raises their profile for
the next. Talk to others about voting for a
3rd party, tell them that you did it because
you expect change "eventually" not necessarily
this election, only than are you likely to see
change. Otherwise you'll be perpetually waiting
for "change"(shit) to happen.
It's likely you'll be disappointed in "this" election, and the next, and maybe even the one
after that. But...the one after that, now it
stood up, and that's what you'll inherit, the
strongest castle in the land. Oops, I slipped
into Monty Python mode but you get the idea.
Don't set your sites on today or you'll perpetually be disappointed.
Um that's a Canadian station. We haven't be subsumed by the Americans quite yet.
Nice try.
George Sr. had a chance to rid the world of this mad man 12 years ago. He even called on the Iraqis to stand up and fight for themselves, and than abandoned them.
US/UN sanctions calling for the ouster of the head of state of a country are distastful and uncalled for. It could have been enough simply for sanctions for disarmament, but no, the US wanted Saddam out.
Thirdly no one, not one person can "guarantee" your safety. You live in a free and democratic country. Your ultimate safety is your own responsibilty and even you can't guarantee it.
Question: What's wrong with continual "inspections" with the threat of force? Eventually Saddam will die or his own people will revolt. Note that you asked for ideas to "guarantee" your safety and not necessarily to "free" the Iraqis, which obviously this would have no affect on.
It's far too late to argue if this should or shouldn't happen. The next question is, will the US f*(k things up again once they've deposed the current government? Japan seems to be the only country the US has successfully "democratised" in the last 60 years.