IBM wants money, just like any other shareholder-loving corporation.
Yes, but what they get out of thrashing SCO is worth more than the pittance SCO would pay them for legal fees. What would we be talking about there? A few million, tops? That's nothing compared to the insurance IBM would be buying themselves. That insurance is the knowledge in every two-bit holding company like Canopy that taking over a small company with questionable IP holdings to go after IBM is a really shitty idea.
IBM will want most to make sure the message is clear to everyone out there, and settling doesn't do that. Compared to the massive amounts of cash that are at stake, come on, *legal fees*? No way.
Quite frankly, when it becomes apparant that SCO won't be making money from "licensing" linux, the company won't be worth squat anyway, so how much would they be able to offer IBM in the form of a settlement?
The GPL will only get a full vetting when it goes to court. SCO will never let this case see a courtroom.
They can't make IBM dismiss the counterclaim. Unless they go bankrupt or something, this is probably going to court - I think IBM doesn't want this sort of thing to happen again, and it appears SCO will be made an example/bitch.
Darl, I'll let you sleep on the couch in my basement. Note though that my cat is very fussy, you'll have to completely bury your turds in the litterbox or she'll get mad. Thanks, buddy!
Darl's such a turd, your cat will try to bury HIM.
It might follow that more returns == less spam, since fewer returns seems to == more spam
fewer returns == some more spam
more returns == buckets more spam
From a supply/demand standpoint, a larger pie will mean more people trying for it. All we need is one spammer out there who decided to get in because of the higher rates, and the total spam increases. I doubt any of the others will simply be happy with their current levels of penis pump sales; there could always be more.
Sorry, you read the article wrong. Japan shows the same trend.
Actually, I insist that I did NOT. Japan was in blue, the midwest of America was in red (indicating different changes, +/-, in temperature. Read the PNAS paper.
In case we've already forgotten, during the no-fly restriction after the WTC attack, daily temperature variations changed by up to two degrees Fahrenheit per day in areas normally having the highest levels of air traffic.
It does. How does that, however, explain the areas (like all of Japan) that have the opposite trend? This effect isn't as simple as some would like to believe. In fact, the authors don't even claim it as certainty, because it's not. The fact that the effect is positive in some areas and negative in others underscores that.
... and that definitely contributes to more pollution being in the air which will definitely have an effect on temperatures.. I don't know what's being "discovered" here..
Really? Because global warming doesn't act over a period of days, for God's sake. So the answer isn't nearly as simple as your average uneducated slashbot seems to believe. Science rarely is.
Because we all know that people let the issue of not being annoyed by telemarketers trumps less important ones such as abortion, the degree of environmental protection, the merits and demertis of social security and medicare and other welfare programs, etc.
The difference there is that no one is solving those problems. But if you vote against a plan to get rid of telemarketers, you are politically dead. And 412 Congress(wo)men in the house know it. This is also something where everyone's on the same side. If you take a stance on social security, you *can't* please everyone. Here, you can. So yes, it's going to be a big deal - why else would Congress have moved so quickly on it? Because they understand the importance politically.
I do think that those people that will loose their jobs because of this will remember this too.
"Representative government" goes both ways.
...to a wonderful land called "Spameria" where they'll actually make up any significant sort of majority. Otherwise, it's the people who voted against it that will probably get nuked come Nov 2004.
...but so is a regular telephone line. sure, it's analog "data," as opposed to digital for VOIP. If we follow that argument, then we shouldn't have to pay for telephone usage, either.
Not only that, but of we follow that quite reasonable logic, then *taxing* VOIP won't be illegal. If they actually read the fine print of the bill, it says that discriminatory taxing of the internet is illegal. Taxing VOIP wouldn't necessarily count, as they already tax phones and they could be rolled up into the same taxing scheme.
Another example of a lot of blustering before any real thinking in Congress.
In retrospect, yes....but you can't deny that situations arise when you have to admitt that you've been making mistakes...at which time you correct them and move on. You don't keep on blindly making the same mistakes even after you realize that you are doing it, do you?
Depends what you call a mistake. What fraction of elections even *get* that close for one? Second, there is no perfect system - by that measure, and under their intepretation, it would be impossible to ever have an election that doesn't violate the constitution.
Wether there is actually anything wrong with the election procedure or not is a different matter. And wether it is more important to fix newly recognized short commings or to modify a schedule based on tradition to allow those changes to be made is a seperate issue too.
As much as I disagree with the 3-judge panel, they weren't ignoring the law. Their ruling was based on the Constitution, which talks about the right to vote, equal protection, etc.
And it's a preposterous stretch - if that were the case, then nearly every election that has EVER BEEN HELD was done so in violation of the constitution. The idea that we can't even hold an election in case it's close to within 0.001% is an absolute farce.
What it was, was politicking by the Dems to get the recall postponed so A) they could have 6 more months in power, and B) to ride out the wave of interest and ultimately decrease the "angry voter" turnout.
You are making a big assumption that HP has thousands of Linux customers. Maybe they have only a few and this wouldn't cost them much money, but it's great publicity.
The publicity is only worth anything to the linux crowd, which is worthless if they're only selling a few units. For this to mean anything, they'd have to actually sell units, and at that point, there's a constant ratio of Lawsuit damages/unit sold, and there's no way they come out on top if that risk is real.
It also puts lots of pressure on IBM and Dell to do something similar.
It does, but I suspect their strategy is NOT to simply lose less money than Dell and IBM by shipping fewer units and defending fewer customers. How does that play out, they intentionally sucker IBM into a game where they all lose money and IBM goes out of business, leaving all IBM's customers to HP? It's not a zero-sum game where if IBM loses, HP wins. If that lawsuit were real and both companies were indemnifying, they both lose.
Really, no matter how you look at it, no company does this if they think there's a real risk of liability
Everyone stop right now, and CALL the Oklahoma Judicial branch, and tell them ALL about unsolicited phone calls, and how much you just LOVE to get them.
Right, because it was those poor fucking secretaries who rendered this decision, and I'm sure they are very much advocates of phone spam. For Christ's sake, why not shoot his dog too, as I'm sure Fido is a big telemarketing fan as well.
If you're going to do anything that immature, at least hit the right target- call him at home.
...it doesn't even make sense. Why would HP indemnify if they think they're going to have to back up thousands of users with huge damages? There's no way HP does this if the lawsuit has ANY merit.
I know I'm preaching to the converted, but SCO's take isn't even logical within their own little world.
which is of course even funnier because no judge would think about trying to strike that down even though it's blatantly unconstitutional since congress doesn't actually have the power to create something like that
1) Why is that unconstitutional?
2) If congress doesn't have that power, who does?
3) If that power is against the FTC mandate, who gave the FTC that mandate in the first place?
Since this isn't a free speech issue (read the decision), SOMEBODY has to have the power to go tell this judge to shove it up his ass, and it's either Congress or Bush - and both would be dogshit dumb not to go along with this theoretical "Do Not Call" bill as elections draw ever closer.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, there's a REASON that the flat tax is mainly supported by rich people like Forbes.
Yes, but what they get out of thrashing SCO is worth more than the pittance SCO would pay them for legal fees. What would we be talking about there? A few million, tops? That's nothing compared to the insurance IBM would be buying themselves. That insurance is the knowledge in every two-bit holding company like Canopy that taking over a small company with questionable IP holdings to go after IBM is a really shitty idea.
IBM will want most to make sure the message is clear to everyone out there, and settling doesn't do that. Compared to the massive amounts of cash that are at stake, come on, *legal fees*? No way.
Quite frankly, when it becomes apparant that SCO won't be making money from "licensing" linux, the company won't be worth squat anyway, so how much would they be able to offer IBM in the form of a settlement?
Normally, yes. Here, I doubt it. IBM wants blood now, and I think they're going to have it.
It's public, so that would be the shareholders,and I'm sure they're not liable. Management could be hit for the obvious pump-n-dump scheme tho.
They can't make IBM dismiss the counterclaim. Unless they go bankrupt or something, this is probably going to court - I think IBM doesn't want this sort of thing to happen again, and it appears SCO will be made an example/bitch.
Darl's such a turd, your cat will try to bury HIM.
more returns == buckets more spam
From a supply/demand standpoint, a larger pie will mean more people trying for it. All we need is one spammer out there who decided to get in because of the higher rates, and the total spam increases. I doubt any of the others will simply be happy with their current levels of penis pump sales; there could always be more.
Actually, I insist that I did NOT. Japan was in blue, the midwest of America was in red (indicating different changes, +/-, in temperature. Read the PNAS paper.
It does. How does that, however, explain the areas (like all of Japan) that have the opposite trend? This effect isn't as simple as some would like to believe. In fact, the authors don't even claim it as certainty, because it's not. The fact that the effect is positive in some areas and negative in others underscores that.
Really? Because global warming doesn't act over a period of days, for God's sake. So the answer isn't nearly as simple as your average uneducated slashbot seems to believe. Science rarely is.
The difference there is that no one is solving those problems. But if you vote against a plan to get rid of telemarketers, you are politically dead. And 412 Congress(wo)men in the house know it. This is also something where everyone's on the same side. If you take a stance on social security, you *can't* please everyone. Here, you can. So yes, it's going to be a big deal - why else would Congress have moved so quickly on it? Because they understand the importance politically.
...to a wonderful land called "Spameria" where they'll actually make up any significant sort of majority. Otherwise, it's the people who voted against it that will probably get nuked come Nov 2004.
No, of course not. Not like 50 million Americans still believe in frikkin' astrology or anything.
Hell, 25 million Americans still probably believe in Santa Claus. Sure, they're children, but that's really no excuse. ;)
Effectively, all that means is that Darl's wife (plague ridden cow) is home (SCO's castle).
Not only that, but of we follow that quite reasonable logic, then *taxing* VOIP won't be illegal. If they actually read the fine print of the bill, it says that discriminatory taxing of the internet is illegal. Taxing VOIP wouldn't necessarily count, as they already tax phones and they could be rolled up into the same taxing scheme.
Another example of a lot of blustering before any real thinking in Congress.
Depends what you call a mistake. What fraction of elections even *get* that close for one? Second, there is no perfect system - by that measure, and under their intepretation, it would be impossible to ever have an election that doesn't violate the constitution.
Wether there is actually anything wrong with the election procedure or not is a different matter. And wether it is more important to fix newly recognized short commings or to modify a schedule based on tradition to allow those changes to be made is a seperate issue too.
That's certainly true.
Yeah, but you're posting on slashdot, it's not like you were probably going to be doing anything with your junk anytime soon anyway.
Yeah, BeOS is definitely a joke.
And it's a preposterous stretch - if that were the case, then nearly every election that has EVER BEEN HELD was done so in violation of the constitution. The idea that we can't even hold an election in case it's close to within 0.001% is an absolute farce.
What it was, was politicking by the Dems to get the recall postponed so A) they could have 6 more months in power, and B) to ride out the wave of interest and ultimately decrease the "angry voter" turnout.
...the other one. ;)
The publicity is only worth anything to the linux crowd, which is worthless if they're only selling a few units. For this to mean anything, they'd have to actually sell units, and at that point, there's a constant ratio of Lawsuit damages/unit sold, and there's no way they come out on top if that risk is real.
It also puts lots of pressure on IBM and Dell to do something similar.
It does, but I suspect their strategy is NOT to simply lose less money than Dell and IBM by shipping fewer units and defending fewer customers. How does that play out, they intentionally sucker IBM into a game where they all lose money and IBM goes out of business, leaving all IBM's customers to HP? It's not a zero-sum game where if IBM loses, HP wins. If that lawsuit were real and both companies were indemnifying, they both lose.
Really, no matter how you look at it, no company does this if they think there's a real risk of liability
Right, because it was those poor fucking secretaries who rendered this decision, and I'm sure they are very much advocates of phone spam. For Christ's sake, why not shoot his dog too, as I'm sure Fido is a big telemarketing fan as well.
If you're going to do anything that immature, at least hit the right target- call him at home.
Who? ;) *Where's my gun?*
...it doesn't even make sense. Why would HP indemnify if they think they're going to have to back up thousands of users with huge damages? There's no way HP does this if the lawsuit has ANY merit.
I know I'm preaching to the converted, but SCO's take isn't even logical within their own little world.
1) Why is that unconstitutional?
2) If congress doesn't have that power, who does?
3) If that power is against the FTC mandate, who gave the FTC that mandate in the first place?
Since this isn't a free speech issue (read the decision), SOMEBODY has to have the power to go tell this judge to shove it up his ass, and it's either Congress or Bush - and both would be dogshit dumb not to go along with this theoretical "Do Not Call" bill as elections draw ever closer.