In corporate law there is no need to get their assets frozen. If SCO attempted to give out all their assets before a fine was imposed they'd be guilty of an illegal divestigure, and those responsible would not only have to pay it back, they'd wind up in jail.
Shareholders are only able to lose the value of their stock. You can't start punishing shareholders... and in all fairness I doubt most shareholders have even heard of this.
We all have brains, or at least rudimentary nervous systems, and it's not an act of terror to use them
The department of Homeland Security will be the judge of THAT!
Is it really consent when you give people a chance to give it and when they don't you then impose your decisions on them anyways?
Sounds like a good way to salve the collective conscience of the tyranny of a majority.
Overuse of electricity is a similar problem, so why not just have the power company break into your house while you're sleeping and see if you've got any electrically inefficient appliances hooked up?
Or let the telcos monitor phone calls to see if people are talking about something worth talking about?
Yeah, but my $40 is only getting me a 256k/128k nowadays... and I get nasty phone calls if someone SSHs into my box on the internet side of my network.
I'm paying $40 a month for cable modem service right now, two years ago I was paying $30, and it was twice as fast, and there weren't any restrictions on what I could do with my bandwidth.
Everything else in the technology world is getting faster, cheaper, and less restrictive. Broadband is going to opposite way.
And the government is definately a non-partial arbiter of the truth, especially where something that often has a political element is concerned, right? I'm sure all the people executed in the Soviet Union for speaking lies about the government feel much better now.
At any rate, I'm willing to argue that libel laws are almost as bad. At the very least, however, in a libel trial the burden of proof is on the accusor to prove that the statement is false and caused material damage.
However, we have strayed far, far off topic.
The simple truth is this whole section of thread was started when someone called Canada "socially libertarian" and I pointed out that social libertarians do not, under any circumstances, ban books.
The problem with the notion that we must be forbidden from speaking certain lies is that we do not have some omniscient god-judge capable of always determining what the truth really is.
Even at $19, SCOX is trading at a market cap of only $250 million. Even if we assume that the only thing of value is the company's possible billion dollar bonanza from IBM, this would hint that the market is pricing in only a 25% possibility of winning.
The thing is, its not a matter of whose really right or wrong here, because its entirely possible the court system could 'get it wrong'. Even if we all agree that SCO is 100% in the wrong here and has no possible evidence at all, I wouldn't want to bet that a jury would find the same way.
Everything you said about the book is true, and then some. On the other hand, how would we make that determination if it just gets outlawed everywhere?
Little Sisters was the most obvious one, but when I posted I was actually thinking along the lines of literature deemed "hateful".
Friend of mine in Ontario got stopped by the provincial police awhile back and they had a fit because he had a copy of the Turner Diaries in the back seat. They confiscated it and threatened to haul him off to jail for being a racist until he convinced them he was from the US and honestly didn't know it was illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe now I can convert more of you guys to SuSE.
In corporate law there is no need to get their assets frozen. If SCO attempted to give out all their assets before a fine was imposed they'd be guilty of an illegal divestigure, and those responsible would not only have to pay it back, they'd wind up in jail.
Shareholders are only able to lose the value of their stock. You can't start punishing shareholders... and in all fairness I doubt most shareholders have even heard of this.
This sounds a lot more like 8.3 to me.
They upped from 7.x to 8.x when we got into KDE 3... there's no tremendous new version of anything important except YaST.
We all have brains, or at least rudimentary nervous systems, and it's not an act of terror to use them
The department of Homeland Security will be the judge of THAT!
That's a beauty part.
We can just as easily use Mountain Dew!
*ducks*
Is it really consent when you give people a chance to give it and when they don't you then impose your decisions on them anyways? Sounds like a good way to salve the collective conscience of the tyranny of a majority.
That's a pretty specious argument.
In fact, those who are being ruled over without giving the implied consent of voting have much more right to complain.
Maybe because the 'voters' of a state usually constitutes a very small minority of the occupants of a state.
I lost my number, can I have yours?
Moreover, why stop at that?
Overuse of electricity is a similar problem, so why not just have the power company break into your house while you're sleeping and see if you've got any electrically inefficient appliances hooked up?
Or let the telcos monitor phone calls to see if people are talking about something worth talking about?
You can, however, run X on a Zaurus, its just not the default, but more because it takes up too much space.
I'm using it anyways
Well... Lesstif
I asked Klaus about mplayer support a long time ago, and he basically said there was no point since most of the codecs are non-free.
Yeah, but my $40 is only getting me a 256k/128k nowadays... and I get nasty phone calls if someone SSHs into my box on the internet side of my network.
I can see where he's coming from though.
I'm paying $40 a month for cable modem service right now, two years ago I was paying $30, and it was twice as fast, and there weren't any restrictions on what I could do with my bandwidth.
Everything else in the technology world is getting faster, cheaper, and less restrictive. Broadband is going to opposite way.
And the government is definately a non-partial arbiter of the truth, especially where something that often has a political element is concerned, right? I'm sure all the people executed in the Soviet Union for speaking lies about the government feel much better now.
At any rate, I'm willing to argue that libel laws are almost as bad. At the very least, however, in a libel trial the burden of proof is on the accusor to prove that the statement is false and caused material damage.
However, we have strayed far, far off topic.
The simple truth is this whole section of thread was started when someone called Canada "socially libertarian" and I pointed out that social libertarians do not, under any circumstances, ban books.
And if the Internet isn't neccesary for everyone, is that neccesarily a failing on its part?
Prediction:
Windows Rights Management System (RMS) will eventually give way to Windows Everybody Supports Rights management (ESR)
The problem with the notion that we must be forbidden from speaking certain lies is that we do not have some omniscient god-judge capable of always determining what the truth really is.
Even at $19, SCOX is trading at a market cap of only $250 million. Even if we assume that the only thing of value is the company's possible billion dollar bonanza from IBM, this would hint that the market is pricing in only a 25% possibility of winning.
The thing is, its not a matter of whose really right or wrong here, because its entirely possible the court system could 'get it wrong'. Even if we all agree that SCO is 100% in the wrong here and has no possible evidence at all, I wouldn't want to bet that a jury would find the same way.
And when those two principles are at odds, we must always err on the side of fascism, right?
How many true statements does it take to get modded a Troll? Just one: Canada bans books
sounds like you need a new battery, or else there's something serious wrong with that particular model of IPAQ.
I've got a Zaurus myself, and I can leave it unplugged and untouched for a week and its still more than 90% charged up.
nobody needs a first ammendment to write a cookbook.
Everything you said about the book is true, and then some. On the other hand, how would we make that determination if it just gets outlawed everywhere?
Little Sisters was the most obvious one, but when I posted I was actually thinking along the lines of literature deemed "hateful".
Friend of mine in Ontario got stopped by the provincial police awhile back and they had a fit because he had a copy of the Turner Diaries in the back seat. They confiscated it and threatened to haul him off to jail for being a racist until he convinced them he was from the US and honestly didn't know it was illegal.