Sadaam Hussein is not George Bush. My retarded cousin is not George Bush. Dennis Kusinich is not George Bush. Ralph Nader is not George Bush. I do not see why "not George Bush" should compel me to do anything, much less vote for Kerry.
If either Sadam or your retarded cousin have a better chance of beating Bush for the presidency, they've got my vote. Kucinich is no longer running, and Nader only thinks he is.
The other poster is trying to blow smoke up your ass. Both Bush presidents were fighter pilots.
What I find interesting is that we haven't heard from anyone who served with Bush in the National Guard, especially after the Alabama transfer. No one remembers seeing him, even the guy who thought Bush would be fun to party with and went looking for him. The only record of Bush being on base in Alabama was when he had a dentist appointment. (Cheap shot: I guess getting Bush to show up for duty was like pulling teeth.)
He left the job unfinished in Afganistan, didn't catch Bin Ladin, but instead enganged in an expensive and ill-planned war in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction that were not there. All he really managed to accomplish was drive a wedge between America and its allies, weaken NATO, increase anti-American sentiment to unprecedented levels, and drive up terrorist recruiting.
I just wanted to point out that the war itself was well planed and well executed by the military. They did everything they set out to do and they did it well.
The peace, however, was poorly planned, and based on NeoCon wet dreams. Even if you support the unspoken basis of the war, i.e., to control the oil, you should still want to vote out Bush for failing to get rid of the NeoCons after they've clearly demonstrated how divorced from reality they are. If you're going to engage in realpolitik, you have to have some grounding in reality, and be able to adjust to new realities. Bush has not shown an ability to do this.
If you're hard core to the right, but not a bleating republican sheep, you should vote against Bush, let Kerry deal with the mess, and take heart in the fact that the surplus went into the pockets of Halliburton and other contractors, instead of paying for the medical insurance for children of deadbeats.
You make a good point, but the problem is beyond personal displays of wealth. We live in a consumer society, and many, if not most, of the societal messages we get are based on pegging ones worth to ones level of consumption.
What I said was its wrong to say what if SCO is correct in claiming they own the copyrights to IBM's code since that isn't what they are claiming. [emphasis mine]
If you want to start changing what you said, that's fine with me. I know it's impossible to get the pathologically stubborn to ever admit they're wrong. Just the fact that you've changed your tune gives me satisfaction enough.
Funny, I remember you arguing that it was immaterial to do a "what if" SCO owned any copyrights to code in the linux kernal, because the case was not about copyrights.
I also remember you saying that SCO never actually claimed to own any such copyrights, which was preposterous.
However, as you've changed your argument, it now seems we are in agreement.
SCO's problem is that they decided (highly unwisely from a litigation viewpoint) to spin their action in the press. This is completely contrary to standard practice when it comes to lawsuits ("No comment, the matter is before the courts"). All of their ill-informed, contradictory and bombastic press quotes are coming back to haunt them, as you can be sure that IBM will use any prior inconsistent statement to cross-examine and impeach their evidence now.
Which is why the whole situation makes no sense unless we look at other factors, i.e., pump and dump stock scheme, MS FUD campaign proxy.
Asking the court to unseal certain documents is an admission of defeat, imo. They would be saying, "We're going to lose here, so we want to try the court of public opinion, where we had some early successes."
I actually find the analyses in the main stories pretty good, once I've filtered out bias. Since the bias is usually so over the top, it's not difficult, even for me.
I used to read the comments as well, but that area of Groklaw has become almost like a cult. It's too bad, because I am sure there are insights to be gained there. It's just not worth it to me to wade through all the boring self-righteous crap.
There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.
Hmm , now given 2 companies , IBM and SCO... and given the evidence - who do we think the dictionary definition of fraudulant bastards best describes ?
The Bush Administration?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Go ahead and mod me to oblivion.
It depends on what the clause actually says. If the clause says all bets are off if there is a change in control, that does have a great deal of bearing.
This is all speculation, though. The only place I've seen the issue of such a clause come up is in the transfer (or non transfer) of copyrights from Novell to oldSCO to newSCO.
I was surprised to see her byline on this, but if you've been following the case, she isn't always so kind to SCO. And if anything, she's scooping them, revealing their plan before they've managed to issue a press release.
Groklaw also provides analysis, which is usually spot on, but also often bombastic and filled with hyperbole. Occassionally PJ descends into appeals to emotion, etc. When she is dryly humorous it works much better, imo.
However, it is fairly easy to separate the facts and the analysis from the emotion laden language, so I continue to read it. Overall, it's an excellent source, but if one without the superfluous bile appeared, I'd read that instead. I highly doubt that the SCO site is going to give us neutral analysis. Judging from what I've seen, they're not giving any analysis.
If you're an avid reader like I am, you probably already read this, which pretty much demolished your argument that the case was merely about contracts and not about copyright.
At some point, SCO realized how weak their copyright claims would be in a court of law, and tried to reframe their case. However, they believed they could still threaten and intimidate on the copyright issue outside of the courtroom, as if the court would be some how hermetically sealed, and that so long as they weren't pressing these issues in court, they were safe.
This has always been about copyrights, no matter how SOC tries to to frame it in court. If it wasn't, why shouldn't SCO just go along with IBM on the partial summary judgement and declare linux non-infringing?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we made it this far this time without any name calling, so let's just call it a day and agree to disagree.
Sadaam Hussein is not George Bush. My retarded cousin is not George Bush. Dennis Kusinich is not George Bush. Ralph Nader is not George Bush. I do not see why "not George Bush" should compel me to do anything, much less vote for Kerry.
If either Sadam or your retarded cousin have a better chance of beating Bush for the presidency, they've got my vote. Kucinich is no longer running, and Nader only thinks he is.
The other poster is trying to blow smoke up your ass. Both Bush presidents were fighter pilots.
What I find interesting is that we haven't heard from anyone who served with Bush in the National Guard, especially after the Alabama transfer. No one remembers seeing him, even the guy who thought Bush would be fun to party with and went looking for him. The only record of Bush being on base in Alabama was when he had a dentist appointment. (Cheap shot: I guess getting Bush to show up for duty was like pulling teeth.)
I just wanted to point out that the war itself was well planed and well executed by the military. They did everything they set out to do and they did it well.
The peace, however, was poorly planned, and based on NeoCon wet dreams. Even if you support the unspoken basis of the war, i.e., to control the oil, you should still want to vote out Bush for failing to get rid of the NeoCons after they've clearly demonstrated how divorced from reality they are. If you're going to engage in realpolitik, you have to have some grounding in reality, and be able to adjust to new realities. Bush has not shown an ability to do this.
If you're hard core to the right, but not a bleating republican sheep, you should vote against Bush, let Kerry deal with the mess, and take heart in the fact that the surplus went into the pockets of Halliburton and other contractors, instead of paying for the medical insurance for children of deadbeats.
It means you can aspire to be a dork. Everyone needs a goal.
You could put a lock on it and see if anyone cuts the frame to steal the lock.
Exactly. Almost all these stories are appearing in the BUSINESS section.
I imagine you'd then sell your new replacement locks on ebay.
You make a good point, but the problem is beyond personal displays of wealth. We live in a consumer society, and many, if not most, of the societal messages we get are based on pegging ones worth to ones level of consumption.
This, however, does not fully explain thievery.
You had the thing in your hands. You didn't check for and note down a serial number?
No, I think the others are right. You're a troll. Or a dumbass.
What I said was its wrong to say what if SCO is correct in claiming they own the copyrights to IBM's code since that isn't what they are claiming. [emphasis mine]
If you want to start changing what you said, that's fine with me. I know it's impossible to get the pathologically stubborn to ever admit they're wrong. Just the fact that you've changed your tune gives me satisfaction enough.
Funny, I remember you arguing that it was immaterial to do a "what if" SCO owned any copyrights to code in the linux kernal, because the case was not about copyrights.
I also remember you saying that SCO never actually claimed to own any such copyrights, which was preposterous.
However, as you've changed your argument, it now seems we are in agreement.
Thankfully, for the alcoholics in the audience, he didn't specify the size of the bottle.
Which is why the whole situation makes no sense unless we look at other factors, i.e., pump and dump stock scheme, MS FUD campaign proxy.
Asking the court to unseal certain documents is an admission of defeat, imo. They would be saying, "We're going to lose here, so we want to try the court of public opinion, where we had some early successes."
Excellent advice.
I actually find the analyses in the main stories pretty good, once I've filtered out bias. Since the bias is usually so over the top, it's not difficult, even for me.
I used to read the comments as well, but that area of Groklaw has become almost like a cult. It's too bad, because I am sure there are insights to be gained there. It's just not worth it to me to wade through all the boring self-righteous crap.
I'm using Safari, so I don't know this mere speculation, but maybe Linuxworld only works properly with Internet Exploder?
Hmm , now given 2 companies , IBM and SCO ... and given the evidence - who do we think the dictionary definition of fraudulant bastards best describes ?
The Bush Administration?
Sorry, couldn't resist. Go ahead and mod me to oblivion.
It depends on what the clause actually says. If the clause says all bets are off if there is a change in control, that does have a great deal of bearing.
This is all speculation, though. The only place I've seen the issue of such a clause come up is in the transfer (or non transfer) of copyrights from Novell to oldSCO to newSCO.
I was surprised to see her byline on this, but if you've been following the case, she isn't always so kind to SCO. And if anything, she's scooping them, revealing their plan before they've managed to issue a press release.
It's not all Jackson's fault. Blame also the Ashcroft DoJ, that basically rolled over for MS.
$$$
To some, it's more important than reputation.
Also, once an attorney accepts a case, it is very very difficult to walk away from it.
Groklaw also provides analysis, which is usually spot on, but also often bombastic and filled with hyperbole. Occassionally PJ descends into appeals to emotion, etc. When she is dryly humorous it works much better, imo.
However, it is fairly easy to separate the facts and the analysis from the emotion laden language, so I continue to read it. Overall, it's an excellent source, but if one without the superfluous bile appeared, I'd read that instead. I highly doubt that the SCO site is going to give us neutral analysis. Judging from what I've seen, they're not giving any analysis.
It's their way of saying, "And now a word from our sponsor."
So you're agreeing with me now? =)
If you're an avid reader like I am, you probably already read this, which pretty much demolished your argument that the case was merely about contracts and not about copyright.
At some point, SCO realized how weak their copyright claims would be in a court of law, and tried to reframe their case. However, they believed they could still threaten and intimidate on the copyright issue outside of the courtroom, as if the court would be some how hermetically sealed, and that so long as they weren't pressing these issues in court, they were safe.
This has always been about copyrights, no matter how SOC tries to to frame it in court. If it wasn't, why shouldn't SCO just go along with IBM on the partial summary judgement and declare linux non-infringing?