Like my wide, my WiFi barely works in the bedroom.
Make that NEVER works in the bedroom, now that my freudian slip has insinuated that she's fat. Her "Someone was thinking I look fat!" 6th sense will now kick in and there is no hope for further bedroom function.
People keep saying "Google is now accountable to shareholders".
Well, I suppose in theory, but the vast majority of the company is still not publically traded, and it's not like the people in charge of the company don't own a controlling stake - so why would they care if they piss off all the shareholders? It's not like they can be fired.
Most of these companies that get so concerned with quarter-to-quarter earnings are entirely different from Google, which is still, what, 80% privately owned?
Fact of the matter is the self-interest of Google's main owners, the guys running the show, is still heavily in favor of long-term performance.
But court decisions are generally very easy to read, I think mainly because judges don't have any financial incentive to obfuscate. They write what the ruling is in nice plain english.
Contrast with lawyers paid by the hour, and supposedly paid to do something the client can't do on their own. There you have an incentive to write in a manner beyond the comprehension of your average person. "What? You can't understand this? That's why you need to hire me."
Personal comment is also fairly common in judicial rulings, more so the higher up the chain you go, and a sense of humor is certainly not lost upon jurists. If you've ever had the opportunity to work in a "very serious environment" (e.g. surgical/emergency room, in a combat zone, air traffic control, mission critical system support, etc.) you'll find that the people who have worked there for a while don't behave very "seriously". They can't, because if they did so full time they'd go nuts. If you're never been to a Supreme Court hearing, you should try one - you'd be surprised how much ribbing the Justices do of the lawyers and each other along with the liberal application of witty sarcasm, even from the conservative members of the bench, despite the often quite serious cases being presented.
SCOs lawyers and executives don't get paid for being right.
They get paid for being there.
You get paid more for conducting a few years of litigation you're going to lose than you do by just saying "Damn, nobody wants to buy our stuff." and closing up shop.
Because if they don't, they lose to the people who do. No company can develop and maintain a proprietary OS and remain cost-competitive with another company that uses an OS they only have to do a little development for (i.e. some extensions for their hardware).
Before there was a free OS, everyone could play the "My OS is better than their OS, and you should pay me for it." But now it's "This other company is giving me a free OS with their hardware, why should I pay you for yours?"
It's capitalism at work - what used to be a comparatively inefficent system (every vendor maintaining their own proprietary OS) has been replaced by a more efficient system - every vendor using a common OS.
It's not the free as in speech that's winning here, it's the free as in beer. (Altough it could be argued you'd be giving away bud light instead of guiness were it not for the free as in speech.)
The only thing the GPL does is grant people rights they otherwise would not have. Now, if SCO had FOLLOWED the GPL, and THEN IBM had sued them for copyright infringement, and the judge ruled that they had not violated the copyright due to the GPL, then that would be a GPL test case. Or, if one of SCO's "customers" was sued by SCO and the customer prevailed due to SCO having given them the code under the GPL, then that would also be a test case.
But this is just the usual "You can't copy copywritten code without permission." Nothing new to see here folks. (Well, aside from a good stomping.)
Real wants you to pay for their software, then they're evil. Apple wants you to buy songs from them only, that's ok. Why is real obligated to give users stuff for free?
I'm a little confused as to why a lot of Slashdot readers are so supportive of the Apple/iPod thing. Attempting to force owners of iPods to buy their content through the iTunes store no better than the printer manufacturers who try to force you to buy ink refills from the manufacturer. It's the equivalent of Sony selling you a DVD player that only plays DVDs.
If I bought an iPod, and someone offers to sell me songs that will play on my iPod, and Apple then does something so that the iPod will no longer play those songs, why is that OK? Where's the slashdot overreaction to this unwarranted control of hardware I own?
I pay 15% payroll tax. Rich people pay 0 or 3%, depending on where they get their income.
Additionally, I pay in the 30%+ tax brackets on the majority of my income. This extra payroll tax is more than enough to offset the difference in income tax, especially since almost all of my income is from actually working, while the rich can derrive quite a bit of income from things like interest, capital gains, etc, which have no payroll tax, and in the case of capital gains, are taxed at a much lower rate.
In the United States, the largest tax for 74% of taxpayers is the payroll ax - the combination of Medicare and Social Security taxes that are a flat 15.30 percent - unless you're rich.
See, the payroll tax is really a worker tax, beause the only people who pay it are workers. If you're unemployed, you obviously don't pay it, but if you're fortunate enough to already HAVE money and live on interest/dividends/capital gains, then you also pay... nada! Not to mention that only the first $87,000 or so of wages are subject to the tax, so if you're filthy, filthy rich you get a very low percentage payroll tax as well.
Bearing in mind that advertising something on the TV or radio and crawling into someone's house through an open window and pinning a flyer on the fridge are not the same thing...
If you crawl into their house, you might actually get a cookie.
Slashdot Mirror
Like my wide, my WiFi barely works in the bedroom.
Make that NEVER works in the bedroom, now that my freudian slip has insinuated that she's fat. Her "Someone was thinking I look fat!" 6th sense will now kick in and there is no hope for further bedroom function.
Like my wide, my WiFi barely works in the bedroom. I'm not worried about it working at the neighbors.
People keep saying "Google is now accountable to shareholders".
Well, I suppose in theory, but the vast majority of the company is still not publically traded, and it's not like the people in charge of the company don't own a controlling stake - so why would they care if they piss off all the shareholders? It's not like they can be fired.
Most of these companies that get so concerned with quarter-to-quarter earnings are entirely different from Google, which is still, what, 80% privately owned?
Fact of the matter is the self-interest of Google's main owners, the guys running the show, is still heavily in favor of long-term performance.
But court decisions are generally very easy to read, I think mainly because judges don't have any financial incentive to obfuscate. They write what the ruling is in nice plain english.
Contrast with lawyers paid by the hour, and supposedly paid to do something the client can't do on their own. There you have an incentive to write in a manner beyond the comprehension of your average person. "What? You can't understand this? That's why you need to hire me."
Personal comment is also fairly common in judicial rulings, more so the higher up the chain you go, and a sense of humor is certainly not lost upon jurists. If you've ever had the opportunity to work in a "very serious environment" (e.g. surgical/emergency room, in a combat zone, air traffic control, mission critical system support, etc.) you'll find that the people who have worked there for a while don't behave very "seriously". They can't, because if they did so full time they'd go nuts. If you're never been to a Supreme Court hearing, you should try one - you'd be surprised how much ribbing the Justices do of the lawyers and each other along with the liberal application of witty sarcasm, even from the conservative members of the bench, despite the often quite serious cases being presented.
SCOs lawyers and executives don't get paid for being right.
They get paid for being there.
You get paid more for conducting a few years of litigation you're going to lose than you do by just saying "Damn, nobody wants to buy our stuff." and closing up shop.
It's the same reason everyone else is.
Because if they don't, they lose to the people who do. No company can develop and maintain a proprietary OS and remain cost-competitive with another company that uses an OS they only have to do a little development for (i.e. some extensions for their hardware).
Before there was a free OS, everyone could play the "My OS is better than their OS, and you should pay me for it." But now it's "This other company is giving me a free OS with their hardware, why should I pay you for yours?"
It's capitalism at work - what used to be a comparatively inefficent system (every vendor maintaining their own proprietary OS) has been replaced by a more efficient system - every vendor using a common OS.
It's not the free as in speech that's winning here, it's the free as in beer. (Altough it could be argued you'd be giving away bud light instead of guiness were it not for the free as in speech.)
The only thing the GPL does is grant people rights they otherwise would not have. Now, if SCO had FOLLOWED the GPL, and THEN IBM had sued them for copyright infringement, and the judge ruled that they had not violated the copyright due to the GPL, then that would be a GPL test case. Or, if one of SCO's "customers" was sued by SCO and the customer prevailed due to SCO having given them the code under the GPL, then that would also be a test case.
But this is just the usual "You can't copy copywritten code without permission." Nothing new to see here folks. (Well, aside from a good stomping.)
I was worried for a while there, but apparently the heat output of Toronto is only 1906044444443 kilowatt-hours.
Real wants you to pay for their software, then they're evil. Apple wants you to buy songs from them only, that's ok. Why is real obligated to give users stuff for free?
that should read SONY DVDs.
I'm a little confused as to why a lot of Slashdot readers are so supportive of the Apple/iPod thing. Attempting to force owners of iPods to buy their content through the iTunes store no better than the printer manufacturers who try to force you to buy ink refills from the manufacturer. It's the equivalent of Sony selling you a DVD player that only plays DVDs.
If I bought an iPod, and someone offers to sell me songs that will play on my iPod, and Apple then does something so that the iPod will no longer play those songs, why is that OK? Where's the slashdot overreaction to this unwarranted control of hardware I own?
At least as long as you need to decode the one time pad.
I just come over to your house and beat you until you give me your pad and decode the message.
I beat you over the head and take your CD.
That's the biggest issue with the one-time pad - it has to physically exist somewhere, so now you have to secure it physically.
On the other hand, a "password" can exist in a head. Maybe not as computationally secure, but definitely more physically secure.
Nuclear missiles will spontaneously launch and direct themselves to your house.
At least my neighbors will be safe.
I pay 15% payroll tax. Rich people pay 0 or 3%, depending on where they get their income.
Additionally, I pay in the 30%+ tax brackets on the majority of my income. This extra payroll tax is more than enough to offset the difference in income tax, especially since almost all of my income is from actually working, while the rich can derrive quite a bit of income from things like interest, capital gains, etc, which have no payroll tax, and in the case of capital gains, are taxed at a much lower rate.
If It's Capitalized, It Must Be Important.
Wired magazine.
Hrm... nope.
It is wrong to punish people for being successful.
I havn't seen too many successful people deciding to start failing miserably due to their punishment for being successful.
I don't mind paying much more in taxes than poor people. I *DO* mind that filthy rich people tend to pay a lower percentage of taxes than me.
In the United States, the largest tax for 74% of taxpayers is the payroll ax - the combination of Medicare and Social Security taxes that are a flat 15.30 percent - unless you're rich.
See, the payroll tax is really a worker tax, beause the only people who pay it are workers. If you're unemployed, you obviously don't pay it, but if you're fortunate enough to already HAVE money and live on interest/dividends/capital gains, then you also pay... nada! Not to mention that only the first $87,000 or so of wages are subject to the tax, so if you're filthy, filthy rich you get a very low percentage payroll tax as well.
OSTG invests in decetralized IT department to reduce redundcancy.
If Kerry governs in exactly the same way that a rotten tree stump would
Who says we can't get a second chance at Gore?
the real world is much more complicated than that
Not if you're George W. Bush.
"Breathing air is illegal, unless you're a duly appointed officer of the law."
BE honest: When people mention OSS, what do they describe as the best feature?
A) "Dude, you can get stuff for free!"
B) "Dude, you can download lots of stuff in a completely legal manner without infringing anyone's copyright!"
We're all simpletons.
in order to avoid all situations where a person might get frustrated that their own computer won't let them do something.
Work for more than 5 minutes without receiving a popup?
Bearing in mind that advertising something on the TV or radio and crawling into someone's house through an open window and pinning a flyer on the fridge are not the same thing...
If you crawl into their house, you might actually get a cookie.