I have to agree that the customer is almost never right. 99% of the people who complain - and by complain, I mean whine like a 2 year old - are not right, and deserve to be beaten with a hose. the only customer that is right, is the customer that is quite and just pays.
My case in point:
"This sign says 2 confections for 2 dollars!"
"It says 2 HERSHEY candies for 2 dollars."
"So?"
"Gobstoppers and popcorn don't count, and "almost" only counts in horse-shoes."
And then the customer will whine, and whine, and whine, and whine, and whine. My god, I've never heard so many adult-aged persons whine so much.
It's always something retarded they whine about too: they misunderstood the advertisement and want the deal anyway (yeah, right), or they know somone who used to work here and wants an employee discount, or they have a coupon... that expired two years ago.
No, I don't need anger managment. I need a shotgun and some whiskey.
Ultimately you foot the bill & suffer with the barrage of adverts, they reap the sales & expense write offs.
No-fucking-duh. You also fit the bill for more R&D, paid vacations, marketing, T1 lines, multiple phone lines, desktop computers, upgrades to a server, an electric bill (or two), some hapless janitor named roger wilco, and a retarded monkey being used for scientific experiments on the effects of caffine on a monkeys ass.
But, your $1.25 only fits part of that bill. Let's not forget that most retail outlets will jack up their cost from distribution a good 20% or so. And a lot of that money has to be sent on keeping up the distribution warehouse, getting raw materials, paying employees, etc...
...
What was your point again?
Oh, that's right: you didn't have any because you're a slashdot tool.
Let's be totally honest here: it's not just "western" states that have this problem. It's every person that is naive and incapable of independant thought. While it's true that teens are brainwashed by the MPAA/RIAA/Other capitalist industries - it's just as bad in other "non-western" countries where the same age group is brainwashed by government/non-capitalistic propaganda.
Hell, it's true in every country on the planet earth: in order to stay in power you need to keep the masses aligned with your point of view. How do you do that? Make sure they grow up hearing your rehtoric. "Capitalism, good - communisim bad" vs. "Allah good, western world bad!"
Sorry, I just get a little peeved when somone implies that it's only western countries that are "brainwashing" people.
I'm starting to agree. Every little piece of SCO information - even the ones that don't directly deal with the lawsuit - are getting posted on Slashdot. It's time we stop documenting every breath Daryl & Co. make and start focusing on stuff that actually matters.
What you failed to understand about the parents post is that he is talking about site license fees, renewal fees, etc... You don't have to spend $500/seat with Linux every five years as you do with Microsoft. "It's theirs for the duration" means, simply, that they don't need to pay out the nose. Itdoes not refer to the GPL.
A note about the GPL, which you also missed, is that if you make a change to somones GPL'd software, you must also make your code GPL, or a compatible license. However, providing source code is a provision only when you are distributing. If you don't distribute that work outside of the company, your GPL'd work doesn't see the light of day. Once you distribute it, however, you need to provide a way for the person who obtained the binary to obtain the source code.
Also, you need not provide everyone with the source code: you only need to provide those who have obtained, through you, the source code in question. Of course, they are also given the right to use, modify and distribute that source code. However, that doesn't mean you need to put it on a public FTP server in a tarball for every person in the world to download. Which, actually, destorys your argument in it's entierty really. You can profit, you just can't have a stranglehold on the world with your technology.
Actually, it's more of a "let's do what Microsoft does, so when the Pointy Haired Boss comes by with his excel spreadsheets on a floppy disk, I can actually read it on my Linux system without having to dual boot, or buy another license for Microsofts overpriced office suite."
Honestly, I think the reasoning here is threefold:
First, and foremost, it was the political lobbying. Hey, if I had that kind of money, I sure as hell would use it to my advantage.
Secondly, and not as prominetly, it was also a fear of this just turning into a political flamewar
Third, the bitch needs to be sacked. To say that Opensource undercuts the ideals of "intellectual property" just goes to show either how incompetant she is, or to what degreee she has been bought.
If it was so goddam ugly, how did it get in in the first place?
Well, let's think outside of your trolling existance, shall we?
It could've very well been a "first phase" implimentation. That is, it was needed, somone donated it, and it worked. It didn't work well, and it sucked up memory, but everything else either didn't work, broke something, or nobody else offered a solution at the time. So, it was implimented.
Upon implimentation, somone, down the road, said to themselves "hey man, what the fuck is going on here? WHY are we allocating resources that never get used?" and decided to mention it to the public, as well as offer a solution.
In fact, that's exactly how the Linux kernel has grown. There have been several implimentations of various things. They start off as "just working," and move on up to better implimentations as people notice different things.
Also, the function in question is a utility - not many people pay attention to them. Not only that, but it was not used much outside of a few functions. Considering that kernel hackers like to work on the sexiest things, as well as the fact that there are over a million lines of code in the kernel, would lead to this little bit being overlooked quite easily.
Then, as I said, one day, someone, somewhere, came along and said "you know what, Linus? there's a better way to do this..."
Thank you! I was looking for that, but forgot what section it was in. For somone that relies heavily on copyright, you would think I would have the section memorized.
There is something very critical in both the GPL and Copyright law that he has missed...
Copyright allows for one personal copy, a backup, in case the media it was originally on melts, or some other catastrophie occurs, so you won't need to buy it again. If you read license agreements nowadays, especially Nintendo games, they specifically say you don't need to make a backup copy, this is to get around the fact that you can't make a backup copy because of their anti-piracy methods. If, however, you read some of the older license agreements, such as those from Sierra On-Line (pre-vivendi), you'll notice that they readily inform the user that they can make one backup copy for personal use.
However, copyright law does not limit how many copies you can make when you are given the right, by the copyright holder, to do so. The GPL allows for unlimited distribution and modification provided that it all falls within the constraints of the GPL. This is similar to how indi games get distributed in retail form: the developers license their software to a distributor for X number of copies. Usually it's an unlimited number of copies, with a certain percent of royalties per copy sold. The GPL is similar (it grants unlimited distribution), though it also gives many additional rights (such as being able to modify the code), so long as everything falls within the GPL.
The GPL does not place a restriction on the number of personal backups youmay have, nor does it overrule the laws of copyright. You still have the right to hold one backup copy - it's just a nice side effect to have the ability to use that work without having to make a new agreement.
Can't we all just agree that every single interesting case mod has already been done to death and not post them to slashdot every time somone finds a copy of HTML for Dummies?
Every argument here thus far has been either to strip the SCO support, or not to. Mostly as a symbolic gesture, but have all of you forgotten how open source works? Even if you do strip SCO support, they (SCO, people compiling under SCO, etc...) can readily use their old versions of GCC, and even put SCO support back into newer versions and create a different branch.
Quite honestly, I don't see where the harm comes into play, other than this being a symbolic gesture.
By the legal system as I understand it, the recipient of the stolen goods is also liable
Er, it's not that simple.
First you need to prove that the person who purchased the stolen items know they were stolen. If he didn't, he's not guilty; but he is out X ammount of dollars because he'll have the return the product. For example, a while back my uncle, who owned a small video game store, had one of his Playstation rental units stolen. Three weeks later it was found in a pawn shop. The owner noticed the "rental" tag and called the police. Eventually my uncle got the playstation back. The person who hocked the Playstation, however, did not know it was stolen (he had bought it from his friend). The person who bought it is not libable for the stolen goods in that situation because this was, in his mind, a legitimate sale, although they are short the ammount of money they put down, until he can take his ex-friend to court and get the money back.
Also, with copyright, as is the case with SCO, if somone is illegaly licensing something, as SCO appears to be doing so, the person/entity who buys the license is not libable for SCO's actions; however, SCO is fully liable on all monies claimed plus damages, etc... The reason this undisclosed company is not liable is that nothing has been proven in court.
SPEWS only adds one IP. When the spam-friendly ISP/Host changes the spammers IP, the block of IPs gets larger.
SomethingAwefuls visitors are not exactly the... brightest... people on the planet. You're not going to get into a debate so much as an argument.
SA and it's members often encourage one another to flood the mentioned websites with crap, pages of text, and a general amount of spamming.
While I do sense a bit of sarcasam and a bit of "we're never really going to win this fight" in the article, SA has two options: either get a new host, or get a seperate IP address for their mail server.
The article goes on and on into what seems to be perpetual whining. If he had at least attempted to talk with his host about the situation, rather than bitch and moan, and encourage the readers to flood the newsgroup.
4 TB a month? I call bullshit.
If they're not making enough money to get on a different host, then they really need to review their course of action.
I don't agree with using SPEWS, as I think it's too drastic, but SPEWS has a right to exist. I should also point out that there is no case of slander/libel as SPEWS keeps evidence. As for staying totally anonymous, they don't want to be spammed, theatened, or be litigated into oblivion. Also, Seeing as how it's the ISP's bandwidth, the ISP's have the right to use, opr ignore SPEWS. Yes, places like SA get caught in the middle, but, honestly, if it's just places like SA, I really don't want them. They're, quite frankly, just childish.
Also, this is a case of consumer ignorance. If a customer does not know they their ISP uses SPEWS, then it's their own damn fault.
When all else fails, use Hotmail, or setup your own mail server.
The goal of every for-profit business is to earn a profit (I say for-profit because people seem to get confused between non-profit organizations and business entities here). However, many corporations choose to remain private. That is, their stock is held soley within the company, usually only within the Board of Directors and corporate officers.
Public companies, which have some stock for sale, do not always conform to the notion that they must appease the public stockholders. For example, Amazon, since going public, has bent over backwards to please their stockholders and inflate the value of their stock (which, in the world of the business, means they have more money); however, some public companies trade soley for capital (that is, the inital investment) in order to become a bigger company. Once these companies have gained enough ground, they cut back on the ammount of stock (sometimes less than 1% of their total stock), in order to turn the stock market into a potential stream of income (their stock trades at a higher value, it's really a very complicated system), the rest of the stock remains within the company. Off the top of my head, I can't name (and backup that claim) of the companies that do this, but some behemoth companies do.
Other companies, as you said, are in the business of maximizing shareholder value.
Basically, all I'm saying is, don't simply say "business = please stockholders" That's not how it works for many businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
My case in point:
"This sign says 2 confections for 2 dollars!"
"It says 2 HERSHEY candies for 2 dollars."
"So?"
"Gobstoppers and popcorn don't count, and "almost" only counts in horse-shoes."
And then the customer will whine, and whine, and whine, and whine, and whine. My god, I've never heard so many adult-aged persons whine so much.
It's always something retarded they whine about too: they misunderstood the advertisement and want the deal anyway (yeah, right), or they know somone who used to work here and wants an employee discount, or they have a coupon ... that expired two years ago.
No, I don't need anger managment. I need a shotgun and some whiskey.
I was going to mod your post up, but jesus that joke sucked.
"I can still see the vid and I'm laughing harder the first time than I did the first or second."
--LordKaT
No-fucking-duh. You also fit the bill for more R&D, paid vacations, marketing, T1 lines, multiple phone lines, desktop computers, upgrades to a server, an electric bill (or two), some hapless janitor named roger wilco, and a retarded monkey being used for scientific experiments on the effects of caffine on a monkeys ass.
But, your $1.25 only fits part of that bill. Let's not forget that most retail outlets will jack up their cost from distribution a good 20% or so. And a lot of that money has to be sent on keeping up the distribution warehouse, getting raw materials, paying employees, etc ...
What was your point again?
Oh, that's right: you didn't have any because you're a slashdot tool.
--LordKaT
Hell, it's true in every country on the planet earth: in order to stay in power you need to keep the masses aligned with your point of view. How do you do that? Make sure they grow up hearing your rehtoric. "Capitalism, good - communisim bad" vs. "Allah good, western world bad!"
Sorry, I just get a little peeved when somone implies that it's only western countries that are "brainwashing" people.
--LordKaT
You work for SCO, don't you? ;)
--LordKaT
Heh, if you read the DirecTV User Agreement, you can't get sunday ticket. Unless you hack the card, that is.
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
What you failed to understand about the parents post is that he is talking about site license fees, renewal fees, etc ... You don't have to spend $500/seat with Linux every five years as you do with Microsoft. "It's theirs for the duration" means, simply, that they don't need to pay out the nose. Itdoes not refer to the GPL.
A note about the GPL, which you also missed, is that if you make a change to somones GPL'd software, you must also make your code GPL, or a compatible license. However, providing source code is a provision only when you are distributing. If you don't distribute that work outside of the company, your GPL'd work doesn't see the light of day. Once you distribute it, however, you need to provide a way for the person who obtained the binary to obtain the source code.
Also, you need not provide everyone with the source code: you only need to provide those who have obtained, through you, the source code in question. Of course, they are also given the right to use, modify and distribute that source code. However, that doesn't mean you need to put it on a public FTP server in a tarball for every person in the world to download. Which, actually, destorys your argument in it's entierty really. You can profit, you just can't have a stranglehold on the world with your technology.
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
First, and foremost, it was the political lobbying. Hey, if I had that kind of money, I sure as hell would use it to my advantage.
Secondly, and not as prominetly, it was also a fear of this just turning into a political flamewar
Third, the bitch needs to be sacked. To say that Opensource undercuts the ideals of "intellectual property" just goes to show either how incompetant she is, or to what degreee she has been bought.
--LordKaT
Well, let's think outside of your trolling existance, shall we? It could've very well been a "first phase" implimentation. That is, it was needed, somone donated it, and it worked. It didn't work well, and it sucked up memory, but everything else either didn't work, broke something, or nobody else offered a solution at the time. So, it was implimented.
Upon implimentation, somone, down the road, said to themselves "hey man, what the fuck is going on here? WHY are we allocating resources that never get used?" and decided to mention it to the public, as well as offer a solution.
In fact, that's exactly how the Linux kernel has grown. There have been several implimentations of various things. They start off as "just working," and move on up to better implimentations as people notice different things.
Also, the function in question is a utility - not many people pay attention to them. Not only that, but it was not used much outside of a few functions. Considering that kernel hackers like to work on the sexiest things, as well as the fact that there are over a million lines of code in the kernel, would lead to this little bit being overlooked quite easily.
Then, as I said, one day, someone, somewhere, came along and said "you know what, Linus? there's a better way to do this ..."
And, the cycle continues.
--LordKaT
This allocation code has been used in compiler and OS design classes in college textbooks for _years_.
They've gotta have something else ... I mean, if this is the best they have ... they're dumber than I thought.
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
Copyright allows for one personal copy, a backup, in case the media it was originally on melts, or some other catastrophie occurs, so you won't need to buy it again. If you read license agreements nowadays, especially Nintendo games, they specifically say you don't need to make a backup copy, this is to get around the fact that you can't make a backup copy because of their anti-piracy methods. If, however, you read some of the older license agreements, such as those from Sierra On-Line (pre-vivendi), you'll notice that they readily inform the user that they can make one backup copy for personal use.
However, copyright law does not limit how many copies you can make when you are given the right, by the copyright holder, to do so. The GPL allows for unlimited distribution and modification provided that it all falls within the constraints of the GPL. This is similar to how indi games get distributed in retail form: the developers license their software to a distributor for X number of copies. Usually it's an unlimited number of copies, with a certain percent of royalties per copy sold. The GPL is similar (it grants unlimited distribution), though it also gives many additional rights (such as being able to modify the code), so long as everything falls within the GPL.
The GPL does not place a restriction on the number of personal backups youmay have, nor does it overrule the laws of copyright. You still have the right to hold one backup copy - it's just a nice side effect to have the ability to use that work without having to make a new agreement.
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
Every argument here thus far has been either to strip the SCO support, or not to. Mostly as a symbolic gesture, but have all of you forgotten how open source works? Even if you do strip SCO support, they (SCO, people compiling under SCO, etc ...) can readily use their old versions of GCC, and even put SCO support back into newer versions and create a different branch.
Quite honestly, I don't see where the harm comes into play, other than this being a symbolic gesture.
--LordKaT
Er, it's not that simple.
First you need to prove that the person who purchased the stolen items know they were stolen. If he didn't, he's not guilty; but he is out X ammount of dollars because he'll have the return the product. For example, a while back my uncle, who owned a small video game store, had one of his Playstation rental units stolen. Three weeks later it was found in a pawn shop. The owner noticed the "rental" tag and called the police. Eventually my uncle got the playstation back. The person who hocked the Playstation, however, did not know it was stolen (he had bought it from his friend). The person who bought it is not libable for the stolen goods in that situation because this was, in his mind, a legitimate sale, although they are short the ammount of money they put down, until he can take his ex-friend to court and get the money back.
Also, with copyright, as is the case with SCO, if somone is illegaly licensing something, as SCO appears to be doing so, the person/entity who buys the license is not libable for SCO's actions; however, SCO is fully liable on all monies claimed plus damages, etc ... The reason this undisclosed company is not liable is that nothing has been proven in court.
--LordKaT
--LordKaT
Oh well, I'll bite.
I don't agree with using SPEWS, as I think it's too drastic, but SPEWS has a right to exist. I should also point out that there is no case of slander/libel as SPEWS keeps evidence. As for staying totally anonymous, they don't want to be spammed, theatened, or be litigated into oblivion. Also, Seeing as how it's the ISP's bandwidth, the ISP's have the right to use, opr ignore SPEWS. Yes, places like SA get caught in the middle, but, honestly, if it's just places like SA, I really don't want them. They're, quite frankly, just childish.
Also, this is a case of consumer ignorance. If a customer does not know they their ISP uses SPEWS, then it's their own damn fault.
When all else fails, use Hotmail, or setup your own mail server.
--LordKaT
The goal of every for-profit business is to earn a profit (I say for-profit because people seem to get confused between non-profit organizations and business entities here). However, many corporations choose to remain private. That is, their stock is held soley within the company, usually only within the Board of Directors and corporate officers.
Public companies, which have some stock for sale, do not always conform to the notion that they must appease the public stockholders. For example, Amazon, since going public, has bent over backwards to please their stockholders and inflate the value of their stock (which, in the world of the business, means they have more money); however, some public companies trade soley for capital (that is, the inital investment) in order to become a bigger company. Once these companies have gained enough ground, they cut back on the ammount of stock (sometimes less than 1% of their total stock), in order to turn the stock market into a potential stream of income (their stock trades at a higher value, it's really a very complicated system), the rest of the stock remains within the company. Off the top of my head, I can't name (and backup that claim) of the companies that do this, but some behemoth companies do.
Other companies, as you said, are in the business of maximizing shareholder value.
Basically, all I'm saying is, don't simply say "business = please stockholders" That's not how it works for many businesses.
--LordKaT
As long as you're on our side, all is forgiven ;)
--LordKaT