SCO's stock price, which fell 38 cents yesterday to $6.80 a share, has dropped 30 percent since last Thursday, the day BayStar sent its redemption letter.
So how long before SCO files a lawsuit against BayStar for defamation, or some such. After all, "contracts are what you use to sue... with"!!
I'm sure a portion of this trend is a ploy to keep the repairs of auto's in-house.
It also allows them to end-of-life cars sooner, without the built-in-obsolecence they tried in the 70's (which nearly destroyed the US automobile industry).
We recently had to get rid of a not-very-new Ford Aerostar because of this issue. Ford stopped making them, and don't have a decent replacement. But the van started hesitating and idling rough, sometimes cutting out at stoplights. Our regular mechanic could not get enough information from his diagnostic machine (apparently the problem was in one of the computer modules), and suggested we try the dealer. Probably will be expensive, we thought, but OK.
What did the dealer do? Refused to work on it because "it's too old"!!!!
At that point, our options were to junk it, or start replacing (rather expensive) control modules until it works (hopefully). And if any of those modules require adjustment on-board, there won't be any way to fix it at all.
So, this is double-bonus for the manufacturers. The dealers corner the market on repairs (how long before the prices double and triple?), and when they decide you've had the car long enough, you're forced to buy a new one.
I can just see the blue book listings for these cars now:
6. Would you re-use blocks of code written elsewhere
a) ( ) Only if you were confident that nobody would find out
b) ( ) Whether it would be found out or not
Kind of like:
7. Would you beat your children:
a) Only if I knew they wouldn't tell.
b) Even if I thought they would tell someone.
hmph! Sounds like the author already has a story and a conclusion, and just needs to gather a few numbers to justify the pre-determined results.
TV has been replaced by the Internet for instant-access news, information, and interactive entertainment.
If I could find enough good Internet content to replace HGTV and the other myriad decorating shows, I might be able to talk my wife into dropping cable TV, too. As it is, if she doesn't get her daily dose of "Trading Spaces" and Kitty Bartholomew, well, I just can't deal with the fall-out.
So if IBM is now going to be using Suse, does this mean that the Blue Linux rumor is bogus?
I don't know, but it makes me wonder... IBM has always been Big Blue. Novell always used red (big red N, everything shipped in red, etc.) If you worked for any time in a Netware shop, you know what I mean. That seems destined to change, since Red and Linux is pretty much taken by Red Hat.
So with IBM throwing money at Novell, and Novell getting into Linux, will we now have a combination, like Purple Linux? Or will Novell stick with SuSE colors, and turn green? Or combine the two for... Yellow Linux? No, wait... that's too confusing with Yellow Dog Linux around.
Ok, maybe all three... Blue, Red, Green OMG! It's White Linux!!!
I also question the benefit to open source java. Microsoft Java? Maybe, but they built C# because Sun took them to task for violating their license, and creating a "write once, run on Microsoft" version. I don't really see any compelling arguments for making it open source. IBM, BlackBerry, and other java SDKs without an open source license, and there is a community process for submitting changes to the specs.
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.
Hmmm... Now there's an idea I could get behind. Maybe. Although I'm not sure how much a database product would benefit from community involvement. IBM has already ported it to just about everything. The free (as in beer) aspect would probably kill off Oracle and SQL Server pretty quick, though.
There was an interesting article I read recently, I think in Wired. It talked about how instead of being a privacy issue, RFID could actually become a device to empower the consumer. Unless they try to create some new draconian law to allow copyrighting a database, the RFID tag information will likely become publicly available.
What's useful about that? How about a PDA-size device that has a subset of the RFID database. It will have your preferences in it, on things like "environmentally friendly companies", or "made in my country", or threshold settings for customer satisfaction.
Now, instead of having to do a lot of research on everything you buy, just wave your little comsumer RFID reader over it, and decide if it's the kind of thing you want to buy. No more reading between the lines on the package small print.
It's funny that you're claiming "supression" in a message that uses various broken rhetoric, mainly mere denial, to supress my engagement of your position in this debate.
Well, first you claimed that I am a racist, by reading into my post things that I did not say. Anything I attempt to say in response to that is merely evidence to you that I am in denial.
There is no way to refute this type of twisted logic, you are stuck in a rhetorical loop as difficult to argue against as a bible-toting fundamentalist Christian that won't accept an argument that contradicts the "absolute truth" of the bible.
You claim no racism, yet you demand we deny rights to some people, based on their race - the contradiction is that simple.
I never made any such demand, and, again, you are interpreting things I said to support your own contentions. The idea of increased scrutiny for public safety reasons is reasonable. The debate about whether to use any sort of profiling or purely random screening involves the type of criteria to use for profiling. Considering that this increased security was instigated to deal with a declaration of war from a group of a particular religion, of certain easily identified national origins, it may make sense to use that criteria in the profiles.
If you're ready for nuance, I'm ready to stay engaged in this discussion.
If by this you mean "if you are ready to accept my presupposition about where your opinions are coming from", then no, I am not.
You are suffering from the "fetish" version of racism. You think "white" people, whatever exactly that is, are safer.
Thanks for the biting psycoanalysis, Doc_Ruby, unfortunately, you have jumped to a incredably wrong conclusion, and cried racism where none exists, in an attempt to silence anyone that chooses to discuss something that you don't think should be talked about.
I suppose we should just go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law at this point, since you are only a half-step from accusing me of Nazi, and wanting to exterminate an entire race.
You seem to think that I particularly object to classifying Muslims. I don't want ANYBODY to be classified for ANY REASON. That sort of surveillance is more dangerous to our freedom and safety than the odd terrorist attack.
I do actually agree with you here. Although there is justification for airport screening, it would make more sense, and protect our freedoms better, to provide a "speed pass" type system, where if you are a frequent flyer, you can optionally apply for a pre-check, and have a quick way through the security checks. There's no justification for data gathering and classification of every passenger.
We are not fighting a war. Wars happen between nation states. There is no other nation state for us to be at war with. Therefore, using warfighting techniques is going to be not effective.
If you want to define war that narrowly, then I guess there is no war. Unfortunately, at least 1 group (Al Quieda) has declared war and seems to believe that they are at war with the U.S. and several other countries.
While conventional warfare won't work (now) because the groups have been routed from their hosting country (Afghanistan), other techniques that have been effectively used in wars CAN be used, namely intelligence gathering, spy networks, comminication taps, etc.
Unfortunately, many in the U.S. government seem to think that since they need to use these tools, they get to use them against their own people for whatever purpose they want. And therein is the problem.
It's not the RACE that is the relevent factor. It's the RELIGION.
You are correct, of course. But then, judging by the response to suggesting that being arab could play SOME role in screening, I can just imagine the outcry if someone suggested that Muslims, or even "radical Islamists" should be more closely scrutinized.
I don't want to point out what a stretch this is to make your point (oops, I guess I did anyway), but MY granny (and probably many others) would know better.
She would know that her own sacrifice would mean handing a major victory to the opposition in a vicious war, while her grandchildrens' sacrifice, while mourned, would be honored.
She would also understand that she would have no way to enforce the terrorists' promises, and that more likely, since it worked the first time, they would then call her granchildrens father to do then next deed, then their mom, and uncle, and ad infinitum until they were no longer of any use and could be killed.
MY grandma understands that those terrorist that called her are scorpions
and that they cannot be trusted to act rationally.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not the national origin of recent immigrants should be used as criteria in airport screening, but maybe that's just one of those things that we are not allowed to talk about.
Generalizations? You mean like "... kill all Americans, wherever you find them"? Not the IRA making those threats.
Yes, generalizations can be dangerous, but you have to make all weigh all kinds of issues when you are fighting a war (and war has been declared).
We're talking about looking at history, here, and if you are using lots of criteria to evaluate a threat, then use them all. So maybe if you are Irish Catholic, it may give you a +2 or +3 to your risk assessment; there have been many domestic terrorists with military records (Tim McVeigh and Oswald come to mind), so maybe if you have military background without an honorable discharge, you could get a +5 or +6.
And while being of Arab descent wouldn't be a risk at all, if you are a recent immigrant, your visa has expired, you have a brother-in-law in the Bath party, spent 6 months in Yeman, and you have a one-way ticket on a 950-passenger DC-10 out of LAX, then MAYBE you deserve some increased scrutiny.
Yes, I supposed I should have pointed out that the assumption was wrong. According to the article and the information on CAPPS II (as far as it can be believed), they only check for outstanding warrants, and then only for violent crimes.
No, CAPPS II will NOT run a criminal background check on every passenger....
CAPPS II also performs a risk assessment, including a check against lists of terrorists and known or suspected threats, to detect individuals who may pose a terrorist-related threat or who have
outstanding Federal or state warrants for crimes of violence.
I don't know why I am responding to an obvious troll. You have labeled me a bigot and it seems unlikely I'll convince you otherwise.
You can screen for (known) brain damage, too. There were plenty of red flags on Timothy McVeigh's profile without any other consideration being required. And as I mentioned, you don't use anything like race as a primary factor, but to blindly ignore it in this situation is foolish. Although I don't think classifying anyone as "darkie" (as you have done) is anything but moronic.
I don't know what the PIRA is, so I can't comment on that, but I can DO know which group has CLAIMED to have carried out every major terrorist attack in the last YEAR that I have heard of. And they ain't from Mexico.
This "paper" you refer to is nothing but a bunch of academic gobbledy-gook designed to make an impression more by volume of words and footnote count that by presenting any sort of compelling argument.
They first talk about how a "terrorist cell" can be sophisticated enough to game the system by sending through lots of members on test flights to determine who is getting flagged. Then they go on to mention how "diverse" terrorists are by mentioning brain-damaged anti-socials like Ted Kaczinski and Lucas Helder!
And their argument is that random searches that can't distinguish between an 80-year-old WWII veteran in a wheelchair and recent immigrant from Saudi Arabia, by way of Yeman and Berlin. That's utter bullshit, I don't care how many damn footnote links are in the paper, or how many big words they use!
Nothing unconstitutional about letting law enforcement know that "Hey, that guy with the warrant for triple rape and murder? Yea, well, he'll be at the airport on Tuesday. You might want to have somebody there."
Now, if they start doing the same for the guys wanted for marijuana possesion, I might think that's a little overboard. David Crosby probably would be a little upset, too.
Excuse me, but in the case of airport screening for terrorist activity I do think that racial discrimination is exactly part of the *right* approach.
Before I get modded as a troll, please think about this for a minute. Is a 60 year old white female EXACTLY AS LIKELY to be a suicide bomber looking to blow up a few American White Devils as a 24 year old Saudi Arabian of Palistinean lineage? Do you really think so?
This is not the same thing as pulling over all the white cadilacs on I-95 driven by black males, which is obviously unneeded and morally reprehensible. This is about trying to make some sort of judgment about just who should need to go through a little extra scrutiny to prevent fireballs with hundreds dead crashing into national landmarks.
I'm not proposing that every Arab needs a strip search. Most (of course) are opposed to terrorism, and probably a little tired of some of the misplaced suspicion. Still, to discount race entirely as a factor in airport screening is just being foolish, and unduly sensitive.
I read this the same way you did, the first time. Reading the article, though, (even though it is a direct quote) makes it a little more plain that they should have said "Passengers with a profile that raises questions..."
OTOH, while they are pretty specific about what the system will NOT do (read the "myths about CAPPS II" from the link), it is pretty vague on specifics about things they will be looking for. They metion "suspected terrorists" and that those with "outstanding state or federal warrants for violent crimes", but there is obviously more to the rating that those 2 factors. They just never say what they are.
Why is it that so many of these government security programs seem afronted by the concept of "transparency". They say things like "race and national origin will absolutely not be considered", but they don't give you any idea of what WILL be.
Great explanation! This is the best summary of the issues I have seen regarding Higgs bosons, that didn't involve actual equations (which I probably wouldn't be able to follow). I am very much a layman in particle physics, but this explanation was very clear to me.
Ok, I'm confused (which you already pointed out!). "Dark Energy" (or the cosmological constant) is thought to explain the accelleration of the expansion of the univers, as you pointed out, since measurements of the microwave background radition indicate that there is no curvature to space. Since space is flat, that is, light travels in a straight line, there must be this mysterious force ("Dark Matter") driving the expansion.
Why is this completely unrelated to dark matter, though? What are the observations of "more gravitational attraction" that you refer to?
I thought the dark matter was required because the total mass of the universe (total amount of baryonic matter) was too small by about 2/3?
No doubt you are correct. I DO understand that the (over my head) math involved in predicting particle behavior proves (or at least implicates) the existance of the Higgs boson variations you are talking about.
I suppose my post came across as a a rather flip criticism of particle physics, but in fact it was meant as a commentary on the article itself. I realize that it was intended to explain the concept for laymen (such as myself), but often these articles obscure more than they explain.
I hope no astrophysicists read my post, or I'll be dealing with their rebuke as well!
Slashdot Mirror
So how long before SCO files a lawsuit against BayStar for defamation, or some such. After all, "contracts are what you use to sue ... with"!!
It also allows them to end-of-life cars sooner, without the built-in-obsolecence they tried in the 70's (which nearly destroyed the US automobile industry).
We recently had to get rid of a not-very-new Ford Aerostar because of this issue. Ford stopped making them, and don't have a decent replacement. But the van started hesitating and idling rough, sometimes cutting out at stoplights. Our regular mechanic could not get enough information from his diagnostic machine (apparently the problem was in one of the computer modules), and suggested we try the dealer. Probably will be expensive, we thought, but OK.
What did the dealer do? Refused to work on it because "it's too old"!!!!
At that point, our options were to junk it, or start replacing (rather expensive) control modules until it works (hopefully). And if any of those modules require adjustment on-board, there won't be any way to fix it at all.
So, this is double-bonus for the manufacturers. The dealers corner the market on repairs (how long before the prices double and triple?), and when they decide you've had the car long enough, you're forced to buy a new one.
I can just see the blue book listings for these cars now:
2015 Retail Value - Ford Cobina
It's a pretty elegant theory, and explains a lot of anamolies that don't really satisfy current physical models.
a) ( ) Only if you were confident that nobody would find out
b) ( ) Whether it would be found out or not
Kind of like:
7. Would you beat your children:
a) Only if I knew they wouldn't tell.
b) Even if I thought they would tell someone.
hmph! Sounds like the author already has a story and a conclusion, and just needs to gather a few numbers to justify the pre-determined results.
If I could find enough good Internet content to replace HGTV and the other myriad decorating shows, I might be able to talk my wife into dropping cable TV, too. As it is, if she doesn't get her daily dose of "Trading Spaces" and Kitty Bartholomew, well, I just can't deal with the fall-out.
I don't know, but it makes me wonder... IBM has always been Big Blue. Novell always used red (big red N, everything shipped in red, etc.) If you worked for any time in a Netware shop, you know what I mean. That seems destined to change, since Red and Linux is pretty much taken by Red Hat.
So with IBM throwing money at Novell, and Novell getting into Linux, will we now have a combination, like Purple Linux? Or will Novell stick with SuSE colors, and turn green? Or combine the two for... Yellow Linux? No, wait... that's too confusing with Yellow Dog Linux around.
Ok, maybe all three... Blue, Red, Green OMG! It's White Linux!!!
"Go open source with DB2 and then you can tell me what to do with my assets," was McNealy's response to IBM.
Hmmm... Now there's an idea I could get behind. Maybe. Although I'm not sure how much a database product would benefit from community involvement. IBM has already ported it to just about everything. The free (as in beer) aspect would probably kill off Oracle and SQL Server pretty quick, though.
What's useful about that? How about a PDA-size device that has a subset of the RFID database. It will have your preferences in it, on things like "environmentally friendly companies", or "made in my country", or threshold settings for customer satisfaction.
Now, instead of having to do a lot of research on everything you buy, just wave your little comsumer RFID reader over it, and decide if it's the kind of thing you want to buy. No more reading between the lines on the package small print.
Just make sure that database remains open!
Especially for MS, as they are always forgetting to renew their domain names ...
Well, first you claimed that I am a racist, by reading into my post things that I did not say. Anything I attempt to say in response to that is merely evidence to you that I am in denial.
There is no way to refute this type of twisted logic, you are stuck in a rhetorical loop as difficult to argue against as a bible-toting fundamentalist Christian that won't accept an argument that contradicts the "absolute truth" of the bible.
You claim no racism, yet you demand we deny rights to some people, based on their race - the contradiction is that simple.
I never made any such demand, and, again, you are interpreting things I said to support your own contentions. The idea of increased scrutiny for public safety reasons is reasonable. The debate about whether to use any sort of profiling or purely random screening involves the type of criteria to use for profiling. Considering that this increased security was instigated to deal with a declaration of war from a group of a particular religion, of certain easily identified national origins, it may make sense to use that criteria in the profiles.
If you're ready for nuance, I'm ready to stay engaged in this discussion.
If by this you mean "if you are ready to accept my presupposition about where your opinions are coming from", then no, I am not.
Thanks for the biting psycoanalysis, Doc_Ruby, unfortunately, you have jumped to a incredably wrong conclusion, and cried racism where none exists, in an attempt to silence anyone that chooses to discuss something that you don't think should be talked about.
I suppose we should just go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law at this point, since you are only a half-step from accusing me of Nazi, and wanting to exterminate an entire race.
I do actually agree with you here. Although there is justification for airport screening, it would make more sense, and protect our freedoms better, to provide a "speed pass" type system, where if you are a frequent flyer, you can optionally apply for a pre-check, and have a quick way through the security checks. There's no justification for data gathering and classification of every passenger.
We are not fighting a war. Wars happen between nation states. There is no other nation state for us to be at war with. Therefore, using warfighting techniques is going to be not effective.
If you want to define war that narrowly, then I guess there is no war. Unfortunately, at least 1 group (Al Quieda) has declared war and seems to believe that they are at war with the U.S. and several other countries.
While conventional warfare won't work (now) because the groups have been routed from their hosting country (Afghanistan), other techniques that have been effectively used in wars CAN be used, namely intelligence gathering, spy networks, comminication taps, etc.
Unfortunately, many in the U.S. government seem to think that since they need to use these tools, they get to use them against their own people for whatever purpose they want. And therein is the problem.
You are correct, of course. But then, judging by the response to suggesting that being arab could play SOME role in screening, I can just imagine the outcry if someone suggested that Muslims, or even "radical Islamists" should be more closely scrutinized.
She would know that her own sacrifice would mean handing a major victory to the opposition in a vicious war, while her grandchildrens' sacrifice, while mourned, would be honored.
She would also understand that she would have no way to enforce the terrorists' promises, and that more likely, since it worked the first time, they would then call her granchildrens father to do then next deed, then their mom, and uncle, and ad infinitum until they were no longer of any use and could be killed.
MY grandma understands that those terrorist that called her are scorpions and that they cannot be trusted to act rationally.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not the national origin of recent immigrants should be used as criteria in airport screening, but maybe that's just one of those things that we are not allowed to talk about.
Yes, generalizations can be dangerous, but you have to make all weigh all kinds of issues when you are fighting a war (and war has been declared).
We're talking about looking at history, here, and if you are using lots of criteria to evaluate a threat, then use them all. So maybe if you are Irish Catholic, it may give you a +2 or +3 to your risk assessment; there have been many domestic terrorists with military records (Tim McVeigh and Oswald come to mind), so maybe if you have military background without an honorable discharge, you could get a +5 or +6.
And while being of Arab descent wouldn't be a risk at all, if you are a recent immigrant, your visa has expired, you have a brother-in-law in the Bath party, spent 6 months in Yeman, and you have a one-way ticket on a 950-passenger DC-10 out of LAX, then MAYBE you deserve some increased scrutiny.
Shhhh!! Don't give them any ideas!
According to the "Myths about CAPPS II" page (emphasis mine):
I don't know why I am responding to an obvious troll. You have labeled me a bigot and it seems unlikely I'll convince you otherwise.
You can screen for (known) brain damage, too. There were plenty of red flags on Timothy McVeigh's profile without any other consideration being required. And as I mentioned, you don't use anything like race as a primary factor, but to blindly ignore it in this situation is foolish. Although I don't think classifying anyone as "darkie" (as you have done) is anything but moronic.
I don't know what the PIRA is, so I can't comment on that, but I can DO know which group has CLAIMED to have carried out every major terrorist attack in the last YEAR that I have heard of. And they ain't from Mexico.
This "paper" you refer to is nothing but a bunch of academic gobbledy-gook designed to make an impression more by volume of words and footnote count that by presenting any sort of compelling argument.
They first talk about how a "terrorist cell" can be sophisticated enough to game the system by sending through lots of members on test flights to determine who is getting flagged. Then they go on to mention how "diverse" terrorists are by mentioning brain-damaged anti-socials like Ted Kaczinski and Lucas Helder!
And their argument is that random searches that can't distinguish between an 80-year-old WWII veteran in a wheelchair and recent immigrant from Saudi Arabia, by way of Yeman and Berlin. That's utter bullshit, I don't care how many damn footnote links are in the paper, or how many big words they use!
Now, if they start doing the same for the guys wanted for marijuana possesion, I might think that's a little overboard. David Crosby probably would be a little upset, too.
Before I get modded as a troll, please think about this for a minute. Is a 60 year old white female EXACTLY AS LIKELY to be a suicide bomber looking to blow up a few American White Devils as a 24 year old Saudi Arabian of Palistinean lineage? Do you really think so?
This is not the same thing as pulling over all the white cadilacs on I-95 driven by black males, which is obviously unneeded and morally reprehensible. This is about trying to make some sort of judgment about just who should need to go through a little extra scrutiny to prevent fireballs with hundreds dead crashing into national landmarks.
I'm not proposing that every Arab needs a strip search. Most (of course) are opposed to terrorism, and probably a little tired of some of the misplaced suspicion. Still, to discount race entirely as a factor in airport screening is just being foolish, and unduly sensitive.
OTOH, while they are pretty specific about what the system will NOT do (read the "myths about CAPPS II" from the link), it is pretty vague on specifics about things they will be looking for. They metion "suspected terrorists" and that those with "outstanding state or federal warrants for violent crimes", but there is obviously more to the rating that those 2 factors. They just never say what they are.
Why is it that so many of these government security programs seem afronted by the concept of "transparency". They say things like "race and national origin will absolutely not be considered", but they don't give you any idea of what WILL be.
Great explanation! This is the best summary of the issues I have seen regarding Higgs bosons, that didn't involve actual equations (which I probably wouldn't be able to follow). I am very much a layman in particle physics, but this explanation was very clear to me.
Very insiteful!
Why is this completely unrelated to dark matter, though? What are the observations of "more gravitational attraction" that you refer to?
I thought the dark matter was required because the total mass of the universe (total amount of baryonic matter) was too small by about 2/3?
I suppose my post came across as a a rather flip criticism of particle physics, but in fact it was meant as a commentary on the article itself. I realize that it was intended to explain the concept for laymen (such as myself), but often these articles obscure more than they explain.
I hope no astrophysicists read my post, or I'll be dealing with their rebuke as well!