- a MIPS tax, socking it to the rich suckers who can afford that top-of-the-line processor (sort of a PC SUV tax)
That would reinvent Bracket creep:
Remember that the progressive income tax was pushed through on the "soak the rich" principle.
At first there was a floor below which you didn't pay, so only the rich pay any income tax. Then brackets were invented, so only the rich would pay killer rates but the Fed would tax the middle class a little bit, too.
But then the government started running the printing presses to pay for its programs by inflating the currency. And gradually a dollar would buy progressively less. But there were progressively more of 'em circulating. So you got a "raise" that put you back where you were, with more dollars but about the same purchasing power.
Except it wasn't, really. Because the tax brackets were denominated in dollars, with no index to inflation. So middle income, and then lower income, and pretty soon just about any above-the-poverty-line income was pushed into those "soak the rich" tax brackets.
Oops!
Your (tongue-in-cheek) proposal would do the same, thanks to Moore's Law inflation of CPU speed. (Run the same apps on a newer machine and the processor just spins more in the idle loop - but you pay for that spin.)
You forget that it is basically impossible for CLEC's to install DSLAMs at all POP's because there is "insufficient room" yet when the ILEC wants to expand their equipment there is plenty of rack space.
And when there isn't "sufficient room" for a CLEC's equipment the ILEC will be required either to MAKE more room or to rent their own equipment at the regulated price. Want to bet whether there will be room? B-)
The key is to make it possible for the ILEC to make money on leasing and expanding the legacy (and former-monopoly subsidized) wiring for broadband last-mile, without giving them a competitive advantage on their own uses of it. That's what the FCC is trying to arrange - in the same way the courts pulled it off with long-distance service while leaving the local service as a monopoly. It's a tough act to pull off. But the approach they've chosen looks right.
(Note that they're ALSO trying to break the local POTS service monopoly in half on similar lines. But for that service the switching equipment is ALSO a subsidized legacy, so they're mantaining the requirement that the ILECs share it. But broadband equipment is NOT legacy, so they're instead requiring the CLECs to buy their own, and only requiring the ILECs to share the legacy wire and fiber.)
If the ILECs had their way the FCC would have just assumed that CLECs were dead forever and dropped the sharing requirements completely. Instead the FCC is effectively splitting the ILECs' broadband operation into two businesses - dry/dark wiring and providing services over it - and making the latter half play on an equal footing with the (now mostly hypothetical) CLECs as a customer of the former half. So the FCC isn't giving up on CLECs even now that they're effectively dead.
While I agree that the ILEC should not be required to provide networking services for less than the cost of deployment I DO think they should be required to provide undundled access to the DSLAM.
Which brings us back to the situation before the regulation change - where the ILEC drags its feet on installing DSLAMs, until just about every CLEC is dead and customers only get DSL where it's convenient for the ILEC.
Also every expert that isn't employed by the ILECs has stated that this will do NOTHING to speed up broadband rollout and will result in higher prices.
Please note that I'm a system architect for an independent equipment-manufacturing company, making two kinds of the boxes used by both the ILECs and the CLECs to provide broadband service.
The president of said company made exactly the same case I just did (I'm virtually quoting him) and spent a bunch of time in Washington pushing the FCC toward exactly this ruling - in the hope that the darned Tellcos will get off the dime and start rolling out (and buying more of our equipment) before we go under.
He and I have occasional differences of opinion on some subjects, but we're of one mind on this one. I would hope that we both would qualify as "experts" on this subject. And we're DEFINITELY not employed by ILECs. B-)
In February, the FCC freed the ILECs from a requirement that they lease at regulated discounted rates the portion of their networks that competitors use to provide Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (i.e., broadband) service.
This means that, with a decrease in competition, we'll see a nice big hike in the cost of DSL... Welcome to America, where the government bows to the will of the big companies...
Unless I misread the FCC order, it isn't what it's portrayed to be.
Before the order, the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers - i.e. The Old Monopoly Phone Company, mostly baby-bells) were required to sell their whole infrastructure to their competition (the CLECs), at a price less than it cost them to build more. Not just copper pair and fiber, but timeslots, switching equipment, DSLAM channels, DS1(T1 bandwidth and format - in copper, fiber, or microwave), DS3 (T3 bandwidth and format, ditto), and STS-n (SONET bandwidth and format), repeaters, SONET nodes, and so on.
Of course this meant that if the ILECs expanded the infrastructure to meet the load, they lost money. So they dragged their feet as much as possible, until virtually all the CLECs went under. And STILL they dragged their feet, because if they ever actually started builiding out there'd be a new crop of CLECs to compete with them using their own investment. And the equipment manufacturers started going belly-up, the bulk of the fiber remained dark, and the broadband market remained inadequately served.
The rule change was not to ELIMINATE this, but to cut it back to only the outside plant. They have to rent the CLECs copper pair to your house (on which the CLEC can hang their OWN DSLAM and maybe a phone switch), but they don't have to rent the slots on their own DSLAMs and switches, or connect the CLEC's DSLAM to the ILEC's POTS line (renting the DSL part of their local phone service and requiring a truck roll every time a new subscriber buys DSL from an ILEC). They have to rent the dark fiber, but not the repeaters, network node line cards, and timeslots in their bright fibers. They have to provide access to the drops, phone closets, junction boxes, apartment house/business building internal wiring, etc. where they own them.
And this is mitigated somewhat: Existing connections are grandfathered, so they can't just cut 'em off. Where they wired a neighborhood with a fiber-to-remote-concentrator / copper-to-the-house hybrit, instead of copper from house to central office, they still have to rent that out and provide access to DSL channels in the concentrator. They have to provide DS1s and up to two DS3 loops to businesses - though nothing more than signal hauling. And state communication commissions can require more on a case-by-case basis.
The result is that:
The ILECs still have to provide wire and switching for POTS service to their competitors.
The ILECs still have to provide raw copper and fiber to their competitors - for broadband or POTS.
The ILECs do NOT have to provide the electronics to DRIVE the copper and fiber (unless they've taken a shortcut that makes the copper or fiber unavailable unbundled).
The ILECs do NOT have to sell just the DSL portion of one of THEIR POTS lines. (CLECs must rent the whole line unless they cut an individual deal.)
So the monopoly-subsidized installed base of copper and fiber is made available to all on a level basis. But the new equipment to put broadband on it must be installed separately by each carrier.
So (IF the regulated prices on the copper and fiber are set correctly) the ILECs, CLECs, cable internet companies, wireless internet companies are now competing on an equal footing.
The ILECs no longer have an incentive to drag their feet on broadband instalation for fear of subsidizing their competition, and can build out, competing with cable and wireless on a more equal footing and letting the technology drive the costs
Vonage customers have to agree not to say or listen to anything offensive!
Actually, they're just setting up a contractual obligation not to use their service for obscene phone calls or planning crimes. That's so they are covered against suits if their customers misbehave.
Why did they do this? Because they believe they AREN'T a phone company (common carrier), and that they thus wouldn't be protected by the laws that keep a phone company from being sued for what its customers send over its wires.
Where things get tricky are services that don't outright replace residential or business phone services, but offer a quasi-phone service such as the voice services now being offered as part of some instant message services. At what point do these unregulated services cross the line where they become subject to local public utility commission regulations?
How about the point where they interconnect and exchange calls with the POTS network?
Talk only to other net phones, you're a net application. Interconnect net calls with POTS calls as a service to your customers and you're a phone company.
And when I say "as a service to your customers" I'm making a distinction:
If you're selling connectivity to the POTS network to general customers, suitable for replacing local phone service, you're a telco - whether you're doing it over copper, fiber, "cellphone" packet, 802.*, infrared, wires-through-wormholes, or what-have-you.
If you're selling a PBX replacement, hooking up a customer to his own lines for which he's ALREADY paying off a telco and the telco's tax man, you're an equipment/software vendor.
Thank you. I always forget "details" like that for some reason (must have to do with the fact that my AP Gov't teacher back in high chool was also my offensive line coach and I ditched that lecture). I (like many others) jump on legal phrases like "innocent until proven guilty" so fast that they become cliche. Call it a character flaw.
Given your response I'll call it a defective education foisted on you by a government with a vested interest in keeping you confused, rather than any character flaw on your part.
But, as someone who is innocent until proven guilty, what right do they have to {spy on, steal from, stalk} me?
You misunderstand the "innocent until proven guilty" quote.
That quote refers to the government not applying sanctions to a person who has not (yet) been convicted of a crime. As he goes through the legal process (assuming he ends up convicted) he may start out as a "subject" (of an investigation), and graduate to "suspect" (of a crime), then to "accused" (of the crime before the court), then to "convict" (-ed of the crime, i.e. "guilty"). It is only at this point where the government imposes sanctions as punishment - which is what the "innocent until proven guilty" line is about.
But there is plenty that may (indeed, sometimes must must) be done at earlier stages. Like warrants for search, supported by probable cause. Or imprisionment to prevent escape or to insure identificication. Or intervention to stop a crime in progress. Or searches WITHOUT warrant when an officer has probable cause before him and the risk of flight is high.
And of course a victim may act in self-defense to prevent a crime (such as assault, kidnapping, etc.)
One thing a victim may do, should said victim believe him/herself to be imprisioned and possibly enslaved, is cry for help. And the cry for help is probable cause, allowing an officer to immediately intervene without waiting around for a warrant to be issued.
Which is exactly what the program is doing, when it believes it is being run without proper licensing.
= = = =
Of course that's not to say that I'm happy with programs which "phone home" to say "User x is running me on machine y at ip address z and I don't see that he has permission to do so." If nothing else, sometimes programs goof on that subject. (And sometimes they might send that info even when they're running legally - in which case it IS spyware.) And because of this, along with the risk that they might send out other information that they shouldn't disclose, I would normally refuse to accept such software in my own shop, and would certainly disqualify a vendor who includes such functionality without disclosing it prior to purchase (unless there's no alternative available for a mission-critical job).
But I do recognize that a program which runs but phones home if unlicensed is a much more effective tool for the vendor than one which refuses to run.
For starters, a pirate with a won't-run program gets immediate feedback about when he has successfully bypassed its protection mechanism. But a phone-home program will provide evidence to charge him, and deliver it to the appropriate department at the vendor. (And it won't disrupt the operation of a shop if it really IS licensed but there's a bug - in the program, the install, or the license server.)
If I were running a messaging service and I found that users were using a version of software that allowed omebody to send them a specially crafted message and take over their computer (think buffer overflow), I would disable that client and tell the user to upgrade.
Maybe that's what YOU would do.
I, on the other hand, would immediately fix the server so that such "specially crafted packets" wouldn't be forwarded.
I'd also ask people using broken versions of MY client to upgrade to an unbroken version. And I'd warn any of my customers who were using broken versions of OTHER people's clients to ask their vendors for a fix, and notify the vendors of their potential vulnerability.
Let's not fool anyone. Even with an unreal amount of growth in Linux use, Windows would still be the most used OS by far.
Let's not fool ourselves the other way, either, at least for enterprise applications - which have always been Windows' strong draw. Things like the blaster worm have been hitting them hard and very visibly. (Even the media is beginning to report these as Windows/Microsoft problems rather than generic computer or network problems.)
At some point a few businesses are going to see that the ongoing costs (and risks of company-killing disasters) are so great that it's time to bite the bullet and switch to something else. At first a few will switch. Then they'll tell their stories and a bunch will switch. And then there will be a stampede. (It's called a "Shelling point" - where everybody realizes at the same time that "Now is the time!" to do something.)
Once the stampede starts, Microsoft's Windows software family can easily go the way of MacOS, or DOS, or SunOS, or CPM, or any of the other OSes or the various software products that were relegated to a niche market or died. It can happen VERY fast. Microsoft knows this. It's why they're fighting Linux tooth-and-nail.
But for the stampede to occur there must be a clear place to stampede TO. Up until the SCO suit Linux was the obvious place: Lowest cost, one of the highest reliabilities (and climbing), support and customization available (and not dependent on a single-source ventor - or you can do it yourself if all else fails).
The other Unixes come out a bit behind - proprietary ones are expensive and single-source, while free ones have a smaller support community. Other OSes also suffer from one or the other of these problems.
Also, I don't think very many companies are sitting around saying "Well we were going to develop this or Linux, but not anymore", etc.
With the SCO suit the risks of going to Linux are increased. Maybe you move all your business critical processes to Linux and THEN the courts decide SCO can ban it (so all your conversion costs are sunk with no return - and then you get to convert AGAIN to something ELSE) or soak you for a few hundred megabux you didn't budget. YOU BETCHA management is not going to go with a Linux solution while SCO is trying to exercise a "nuclear option". Ditto with AIX!
So the stampede is on hold until the suit is settled, its risks are no longer percieved to be large, an alternative to both Windows and Linux makes the cut (AND is perceived to STILL be the price vs. cost+risk leader even against Linux should SCO be defeated), or sticking with Windows becomes SO costly that these costs outweigh even the heightened cost of the SCO suit's risks.
[...] every large commercial software manufacturer, including MS, included language in their EULAs that indemnified the customer against patent- or copyright-infringing code.
So maybe what they're doing is trying to cause a significant amount of legal and financial damage to a large number of customers, so IBM, RedHat, etc. become liable for a MASSIVE indemnity payment.
Another move to make it more expensive to fight them than to buy them off. (And buying them off, if it doesn't include buying them out, just makes them stronger when they stage their NEXT attack on someone who HASN'T knuckled under.)
What the hell is keeping IBM/RedHat/FSF/HP/Samba/the Pope from having an injunction slapped on these crooks?
Probably the same legal issues that caused the judge to throw out a similar move against DirecTV's extortion of money from purchasers of smartcard programming hardware.
They're threatening legal action. Any notices associated with it are "privileged". They don't get a cent unless they prove their cases in court or the defendant folds, so the legal system assumes the defendant is being properly handled and "gets his day in court".
Now AFTER you WIN you MIGHT be able to go after them if you can show they knew their case was bogus. But until it gets ground through the legal mill you're stuck.
Since the issues of this case is obvously not her field of expertise, it must be of some concerns that she is willing to issue conclusive and sweeping statements using only one source of information, namely the SCO insiders.
Not to mention that, as a Windows specialist, she has a vested interest in keeping its market share large enough that it remains newsworthy, so she doesn't have to retrain to stay in business. B-)
But by the same token signing the NDA could end the carreer of a Linux analyst. So it will be hard to get any to sign up just to view the internals of SCO's FUD.
My father in law is homeless and it is his choice. He has family that would take him in, but he is unwilling to: a) get a job b) pay taxes c) stop smoking pot d) stay sober
And some people are homeless because they don't want the government butting into their lives - and are willing to do without a fixed address and a plethora of creature comforts in exchange for that freedom.
The government can already easily track people who have a fixed residence, along with those who wander but have a major documented income. Now they're trying to use "helping the homeless" (along with the "war on terrorism") as an excuse to track everyone else.
A "tax event" is a transaction that is significant for computing taxes. Typically it's a transfer of money or some other trade of valuable considerations where a price can be established for computing taxes.
For instance:
- Your employer hands you/mails/deposits a paycheck. (You get taxed on the "gain" - counting your time as worth nothing and the pay as profit.)
- You buy some stock. (The price of the stock becomes the "basis".)
- You sell some stock. (The selling price, minus the basis is your profit, on which you're taxed, or your loss, for which you can get a deduction against other taxes.)
The stock you bought for a dollar might go up to a thousand and back to two dollars before you sell it. But the daily price is not a "tax event". You buy at one dollar, you sell at two, you earned (and get taxed on) one.
In the case of options there are several events, of which only some are tax events:
- You are GRANTED an option. Not a tax event.
- You EXERCISE the option (or some fraction of it). This IS a tax event. You're buying shares of stock for the option price, when the market price on that day may be higher. You're taxed on the difference between the higher market price and the option price, and the market price becomes the new basis for when you sell it. (For employee stock options you can put off paying this tax until you finally sell the stock, though you may have to pay some "alternaitve minimum tax" - an ancient soak-the-rich scheme - for which you can get partial credit later if you take a loss from the basis when you finally sell the shares.)
- The stock, or the option, "vests". This is NOT a tax event. "Vesting" means you REALLY have a right to it. A typical employee stock option might vest over four years, with the first quarter vesting in a lump (the "vesting cliff") at the end of one year, and a month's worth of additional stock vesting each month thereafter. You can "exercise" either vested or unvested shares - and you'll typically exercise unvested shares to lock in a cheap price and start the clock for dropping to the capital-gains tax rate. But you can't SELL unvested shares until they vest. (That's because, if something happens to stop the vesting - like you quit or get laid off - you have to sell the unvested shares back to the company at the option price.)
- You SELL the option shares on the open market, or your unvested shares back to the company. This IS a tax event. You're taxed on the difference between the basis (the price on the day you exercised the option) and the price you sold them for.
Now if the SCO executives said that the vesting was a tax event they were lying - and they ought to know it.
If they said they'd sold because they EXERCISED the stock that WOULD be a reasonable explanation. A typical thing to do with an unexercised option on a stock that is trading far above the option price is to exercise it and simulteneously sell off enough of the stock to pay the option price - or that plus the taxes on the gain. Then you own the rest of the stock free-and-clear, with no out-of-pocket expense, and no taxes until you finally sell it off. You'll make money when you finally sell it even if it goes down all the way to zero - because when you sell the rest you'll only pay taxes against the gain since the day of the exercise, and if it's trading BELOW that day's price you'll get taxes BACK on the loss.
But if that were the case they'd have said the executives had EXERCISED their options - not made up FUD about being taxed on vesting.
While we're at it, the claim that you only have a statutory right to make ONE backup copy is ALSO FUD. It comes from a (deliberate?) misreading of the scope of the phrase "a copy" in the law:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
You can make "a copy" if either of the conditions are met. Notice that there is NOTHING in the conditions about ALREADY having made another copy which is still in existence. That alone would mean it's allowed. (Even if the meaning WAS ambiguous, there is a rule requiring the court to read ambiguous wording in favor of the accused.)
But in the case of archives it's obvious that the legislators explicitly considered having more than one backup copy - because they said that "all archival copies" must be destroyed if the ownership of the original is "no longer rightful".
Yes, the lawyers for the software manufacturers would love you to think you're limited to one backup - which could also be corrupted, or inconvenient to keep track of - and thus increase the chances you'll lose 'em both and have to buy another. And they write their shrinkwrap contracts that way, too. But the statue grants you an explicit right to make as many backups as you want, regardless of the copyright holder's wishes or a shrinkwrap's boilerplate.
The same, of course, applies to the other exception. But there it's obvious that a multiplicity of intermediate copies or derived works must be created (in buffers, RAM, caches, registers, compiler tables, installed component files, and the like) as necessary steps in "utilizing" the computer program even once.
The statute's limit on these copies is on the USES you put them to, not their number.
Dictionary.com defines parasite as: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
And a foetus contributes to the host by passing on its DNA to a new generation - evolutionarily the greatest contribution possible. This is what EVERYTHING ELSE is for, including the host's survival.
(And if dictionary.com limits the associated organism's contribution to survival of the host, excluding propagation of the host's DNA, the definition is in error.)
The issue at hand is still whether or not a fetus counts as a human, and the answer to that isn't scientific, it's theological - which makes it good fodder for debate, but not as a basis for advancing or hindering scientific research. Just like the RIAA's supposed 'potential income', you can't quantify 'potential humanity'.
Actually, it's more a matter of "definitional", though theology is one of the major factors in people's choice of definitions.
My own take is that humanity includes a functional brain - which squares nicely with the Supreme Court's choice of the start of the third trimester as the cutoff between lump-of-tissue and human being. (Up through about the first week of the third trimester the individual cells of the brain are unconnected - a "brain kit" rather than a mind. After that they start wiring up. I can't define where in that process what I'd consider to be a human being emerges, and conception time is often a bit uncertain. So give the foetus the benefit of the doubt and the third trimester start is a good choice.
But there are other arguments:
The Libertarians might point out that, even if the foetus IS a human from day one, if the mother can't kick it out it's holding her in slavery. Even if the slave-slaveowner relationship is necessary to the life of the slaveowner, many ethical systems accept that the slave may free him/herself whenever the opportunity arises. Dead slaveowner? Tough luck.
The state might express an interest in preserving the life of the foetus as one of its citizens. At that point the question becomes when is it appropriate to risk the life, freedom, and welfare of ANOTHER of its citizens for this purpose. Different states will argue for differnt points, of course. But in the US I could imagine a future in which a "compelling state interest" was invoked once the foetus is viable if extracted from the mother and the extraction is possible without major risks to the mother's health. Such a claim might be used to limit voluntary late-term pregnancy-ending procedures to those that attempt to preserve the baby's life.
I guess if they wanted their information private they wouldn't use wireless phones and 802.11g connections.
they are broadcasting information, why shouldn't someone else listen? [...] not that this idea is perfect, as it makes parabolic and laser mikes alot more acceptable, which I don't like.
There's already a legal test that distinguishes between people using their ears and people using a parabolic microphone. (It appears in some state laws. I don't know if the fed ever ruled on this.):
If a "reasonable and prudent man", in the situation of the eavesdropee, would have a "reasonable expectation" that his conversation would be overheard, it's up to him not to say anything that he doesn't want to show up in court. A nearby undercover cop can testify to anything he hears. If he has a reasonable expectation that he would NOT be overheard (because he can see whether anybody is within normal earshot, or because he's at home), the cops can't use parabolic mike or bug evidence unless they got a warrant to use the devices in advance.
Similarly (and I believe the Supremes did rule on this one) if you toss the incriminating documents in the trash, the cops can dumpster-dive and bust you. If you shred them, the cops don't get to reassemble them and bust you - because you took reasonable precautions and have a reasonable expectation that your discarded papers would be secure.
Unfortunately, the legislatures have recently moved away from this sensible approach, when it involves radio, with such laws as the ban on recievers capable of listening in on analog cellphone calls. (Which is why scanners sold in the US have a blank spot for that part of the band - unless you open 'em up and change the jumpers to tell 'em they were sold somewhere else.)
Before that the rule was "don't DIVULGE directed transmissions". Anybody could listen in to a transmission that was intended to go to a particular party, such as a walkie-talkie conversation, radiophone call, police call, fire dispatch, etc. But you weren't allowed to disclose the CONTENT of such calls to a third party. (And once you'd listened in you knew the transmission was directed.) So you could watch the network feed yourself, or even record it. But couldn't play the tape the neighbors or print a transcript in the newspaper.
But first the cellphone users, used to the idea of phone calls as private, got congress to ban listening to them. Then the entertainment conglomerates got into this "They're stealing our product!" kick, and got congress to ignore the court precents from the last three or so similar episodes (with tape recording, video tape, and the like) and ban listening in on THEM. So the former simple rule, tho still in effect, is not the only limit on these cases.
Hopefully the SEC will investigate. Definitely sounds like a pump and dump move to me.
$1.2 million worth among ALL the execs after a factor-of-ten jump? Peanuts. I'm surprised it isn't far more.
Even if they are darned sure they're going to win (and you NEVER know for sure with a court case), this looks like a bubble. It's much more likely to pop than keep rising. Even if it keeps going up the big inflation is probably over.
"Take the money and run." As I learned the hard way by NOT doing so before MY company took a factor-of-1,000 dive in the internet bubble-pop. Went from a paper multi-millionaire back to a multi-thousandaire - i.e. a working stiff with a mortgage - with enough still out on a credit card to just about cancel out my cash reserves. These guys have been through it before and it's hardly surprising if they want to lock in - or spend - some of their gain.
By the way: Looks like their war chest just got a $40 million boost from Computer Associates, who just caved on a suit SCO filed against them in 2001.
It's always seemed odd to me that we are "up here" while apes and chimps are "down there" and other mammals kind of dribble down from that.
I'm reminded of the Wizard of Id strip where King Id is visiting with a sultan. The majordomo introduces him to the hundred wives "each more beautiful than the next". The wiz whispers to the majordomo "Is each really more beautiful than the next?" to which the majordomo replies "Only if you line them up that way."
"At the top" is defined as "Most like us." Of course we're "at the top" - the best at our particular specialties - while our closest surviving nonhuman relatives are "down there" a bit below us while more distant relatives "kinda dribble down from that".
Why nothing in-between? It would be cool if there was some other species that slightly filled that gap bewteen us and the animals.
Have you considered whether we might be so darned GOOD at our specialties that we outcompeted or absorbed the rest of 'em?
But there is some evidence that humans have a drive to make war on anything nonhuman that talks. "Competitor for the niche." Something like cats and dogs (where the battle still goes on because the niches only overlap partially, so nobody goes extinct.)
According to this theory gorillas and chimps don't get exterminated because they lack a part of the brain that's necessary to emit vocal speech (although they seem to have enough of the rest of the mechanisms to understand spoken human language and reply gramattically in sign.) So now this drive to furious genocide only comes into play in making war on other humans who speak differently and have a different appearance - and then only after prolonged propaganda about how the enemy is really non-human.
As of April 26, 2003, Cisco has about $3,940,000,000 in cash. As of March 31, 2003, IBM has about $4,195,000,000 in cash. SCO sure knows how to pick a good fight.
I'd bet they're thinking more in terms of "picking a deep pocket". B-)
If I only I had realized sooner that "Linux=Tivo" would convince nongeeks of the severity of SCO's unethical behavior...
But now that SCO has caused the scales to fall from our eyes (and applied the argument to THIS battle for us) we can use that in HUNDREDS of other contexts.
Watch for Linux=Tivo to become a catchphrase.
THANK you, SCO!
And thank YOU, AC, for making the argument explicit. Your boyfriend has no idea what a smart cookie he's hanging out with. B-)
I believe that's why the Lear Fan private jet model was aborted.
Made mostly of composites, with the biggest single piece of metal being the spindle of the Jet and the bulk of the metal being the avionics, it had such a small radar cross-section that it didn't show up on airport search radar until it was actually over the field...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be surprised if we see:
- a MIPS tax, socking it to the rich suckers who can afford that top-of-the-line processor (sort of a PC SUV tax)
That would reinvent Bracket creep:
Remember that the progressive income tax was pushed through on the "soak the rich" principle.
At first there was a floor below which you didn't pay, so only the rich pay any income tax. Then brackets were invented, so only the rich would pay killer rates but the Fed would tax the middle class a little bit, too.
But then the government started running the printing presses to pay for its programs by inflating the currency. And gradually a dollar would buy progressively less. But there were progressively more of 'em circulating. So you got a "raise" that put you back where you were, with more dollars but about the same purchasing power.
Except it wasn't, really. Because the tax brackets were denominated in dollars, with no index to inflation. So middle income, and then lower income, and pretty soon just about any above-the-poverty-line income was pushed into those "soak the rich" tax brackets.
Oops!
Your (tongue-in-cheek) proposal would do the same, thanks to Moore's Law inflation of CPU speed. (Run the same apps on a newer machine and the processor just spins more in the idle loop - but you pay for that spin.)
You forget that it is basically impossible for CLEC's to install DSLAMs at all POP's because there is "insufficient room" yet when the ILEC wants to expand their equipment there is plenty of rack space.
And when there isn't "sufficient room" for a CLEC's equipment the ILEC will be required either to MAKE more room or to rent their own equipment at the regulated price. Want to bet whether there will be room? B-)
The key is to make it possible for the ILEC to make money on leasing and expanding the legacy (and former-monopoly subsidized) wiring for broadband last-mile, without giving them a competitive advantage on their own uses of it. That's what the FCC is trying to arrange - in the same way the courts pulled it off with long-distance service while leaving the local service as a monopoly. It's a tough act to pull off. But the approach they've chosen looks right.
(Note that they're ALSO trying to break the local POTS service monopoly in half on similar lines. But for that service the switching equipment is ALSO a subsidized legacy, so they're mantaining the requirement that the ILECs share it. But broadband equipment is NOT legacy, so they're instead requiring the CLECs to buy their own, and only requiring the ILECs to share the legacy wire and fiber.)
If the ILECs had their way the FCC would have just assumed that CLECs were dead forever and dropped the sharing requirements completely. Instead the FCC is effectively splitting the ILECs' broadband operation into two businesses - dry/dark wiring and providing services over it - and making the latter half play on an equal footing with the (now mostly hypothetical) CLECs as a customer of the former half. So the FCC isn't giving up on CLECs even now that they're effectively dead.
While I agree that the ILEC should not be required to provide networking services for less than the cost of deployment I DO think they should be required to provide undundled access to the DSLAM.
Which brings us back to the situation before the regulation change - where the ILEC drags its feet on installing DSLAMs, until just about every CLEC is dead and customers only get DSL where it's convenient for the ILEC.
Also every expert that isn't employed by the ILECs has stated that this will do NOTHING to speed up broadband rollout and will result in higher prices.
Please note that I'm a system architect for an independent equipment-manufacturing company, making two kinds of the boxes used by both the ILECs and the CLECs to provide broadband service.
The president of said company made exactly the same case I just did (I'm virtually quoting him) and spent a bunch of time in Washington pushing the FCC toward exactly this ruling - in the hope that the darned Tellcos will get off the dime and start rolling out (and buying more of our equipment) before we go under.
He and I have occasional differences of opinion on some subjects, but we're of one mind on this one. I would hope that we both would qualify as "experts" on this subject. And we're DEFINITELY not employed by ILECs. B-)
This means that, with a decrease in competition, we'll see a nice big hike in the cost of DSL... Welcome to America, where the government bows to the will of the big companies...
Unless I misread the FCC order, it isn't what it's portrayed to be.
Before the order, the ILECs (Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers - i.e. The Old Monopoly Phone Company, mostly baby-bells) were required to sell their whole infrastructure to their competition (the CLECs), at a price less than it cost them to build more. Not just copper pair and fiber, but timeslots, switching equipment, DSLAM channels, DS1(T1 bandwidth and format - in copper, fiber, or microwave), DS3 (T3 bandwidth and format, ditto), and STS-n (SONET bandwidth and format), repeaters, SONET nodes, and so on.
Of course this meant that if the ILECs expanded the infrastructure to meet the load, they lost money. So they dragged their feet as much as possible, until virtually all the CLECs went under. And STILL they dragged their feet, because if they ever actually started builiding out there'd be a new crop of CLECs to compete with them using their own investment. And the equipment manufacturers started going belly-up, the bulk of the fiber remained dark, and the broadband market remained inadequately served.
The rule change was not to ELIMINATE this, but to cut it back to only the outside plant. They have to rent the CLECs copper pair to your house (on which the CLEC can hang their OWN DSLAM and maybe a phone switch), but they don't have to rent the slots on their own DSLAMs and switches, or connect the CLEC's DSLAM to the ILEC's POTS line (renting the DSL part of their local phone service and requiring a truck roll every time a new subscriber buys DSL from an ILEC). They have to rent the dark fiber, but not the repeaters, network node line cards, and timeslots in their bright fibers. They have to provide access to the drops, phone closets, junction boxes, apartment house/business building internal wiring, etc. where they own them.
And this is mitigated somewhat: Existing connections are grandfathered, so they can't just cut 'em off. Where they wired a neighborhood with a fiber-to-remote-concentrator / copper-to-the-house hybrit, instead of copper from house to central office, they still have to rent that out and provide access to DSL channels in the concentrator. They have to provide DS1s and up to two DS3 loops to businesses - though nothing more than signal hauling. And state communication commissions can require more on a case-by-case basis.
The result is that:
The ILECs still have to provide wire and switching for POTS service to their competitors.
The ILECs still have to provide raw copper and fiber to their competitors - for broadband or POTS.
The ILECs do NOT have to provide the electronics to DRIVE the copper and fiber (unless they've taken a shortcut that makes the copper or fiber unavailable unbundled).
The ILECs do NOT have to sell just the DSL portion of one of THEIR POTS lines. (CLECs must rent the whole line unless they cut an individual deal.)
So the monopoly-subsidized installed base of copper and fiber is made available to all on a level basis. But the new equipment to put broadband on it must be installed separately by each carrier.
So (IF the regulated prices on the copper and fiber are set correctly) the ILECs, CLECs, cable internet companies, wireless internet companies are now competing on an equal footing.
The ILECs no longer have an incentive to drag their feet on broadband instalation for fear of subsidizing their competition, and can build out, competing with cable and wireless on a more equal footing and letting the technology drive the costs
If the CLECs revive or new ones
Vonage customers have to agree not to say or listen to anything offensive!
Actually, they're just setting up a contractual obligation not to use their service for obscene phone calls or planning crimes. That's so they are covered against suits if their customers misbehave.
Why did they do this? Because they believe they AREN'T a phone company (common carrier), and that they thus wouldn't be protected by the laws that keep a phone company from being sued for what its customers send over its wires.
How about the point where they interconnect and exchange calls with the POTS network?
Talk only to other net phones, you're a net application. Interconnect net calls with POTS calls as a service to your customers and you're a phone company.
And when I say "as a service to your customers" I'm making a distinction:
If you're selling connectivity to the POTS network to general customers, suitable for replacing local phone service, you're a telco - whether you're doing it over copper, fiber, "cellphone" packet, 802.*, infrared, wires-through-wormholes, or what-have-you.
If you're selling a PBX replacement, hooking up a customer to his own lines for which he's ALREADY paying off a telco and the telco's tax man, you're an equipment/software vendor.
Thank you. I always forget "details" like that for some reason (must have to do with the fact that my AP Gov't teacher back in high chool was also my offensive line coach and I ditched that lecture). I (like many others) jump on legal phrases like "innocent until proven guilty" so fast that they become cliche. Call it a character flaw.
Given your response I'll call it a defective education foisted on you by a government with a vested interest in keeping you confused, rather than any character flaw on your part.
But, as someone who is innocent until proven guilty, what right do they have to {spy on, steal from, stalk} me?
You misunderstand the "innocent until proven guilty" quote.
That quote refers to the government not applying sanctions to a person who has not (yet) been convicted of a crime. As he goes through the legal process (assuming he ends up convicted) he may start out as a "subject" (of an investigation), and graduate to "suspect" (of a crime), then to "accused" (of the crime before the court), then to "convict" (-ed of the crime, i.e. "guilty"). It is only at this point where the government imposes sanctions as punishment - which is what the "innocent until proven guilty" line is about.
But there is plenty that may (indeed, sometimes must must) be done at earlier stages. Like warrants for search, supported by probable cause. Or imprisionment to prevent escape or to insure identificication. Or intervention to stop a crime in progress. Or searches WITHOUT warrant when an officer has probable cause before him and the risk of flight is high.
And of course a victim may act in self-defense to prevent a crime (such as assault, kidnapping, etc.)
One thing a victim may do, should said victim believe him/herself to be imprisioned and possibly enslaved, is cry for help. And the cry for help is probable cause, allowing an officer to immediately intervene without waiting around for a warrant to be issued.
Which is exactly what the program is doing, when it believes it is being run without proper licensing.
= = = =
Of course that's not to say that I'm happy with programs which "phone home" to say "User x is running me on machine y at ip address z and I don't see that he has permission to do so." If nothing else, sometimes programs goof on that subject. (And sometimes they might send that info even when they're running legally - in which case it IS spyware.) And because of this, along with the risk that they might send out other information that they shouldn't disclose, I would normally refuse to accept such software in my own shop, and would certainly disqualify a vendor who includes such functionality without disclosing it prior to purchase (unless there's no alternative available for a mission-critical job).
But I do recognize that a program which runs but phones home if unlicensed is a much more effective tool for the vendor than one which refuses to run.
For starters, a pirate with a won't-run program gets immediate feedback about when he has successfully bypassed its protection mechanism. But a phone-home program will provide evidence to charge him, and deliver it to the appropriate department at the vendor. (And it won't disrupt the operation of a shop if it really IS licensed but there's a bug - in the program, the install, or the license server.)
If I were running a messaging service and I found that users were using a version of software that allowed omebody to send them a specially crafted message and take over their computer (think buffer overflow), I would disable that client and tell the user to upgrade.
Maybe that's what YOU would do.
I, on the other hand, would immediately fix the server so that such "specially crafted packets" wouldn't be forwarded.
I'd also ask people using broken versions of MY client to upgrade to an unbroken version. And I'd warn any of my customers who were using broken versions of OTHER people's clients to ask their vendors for a fix, and notify the vendors of their potential vulnerability.
Let's not fool anyone. Even with an unreal amount of growth in Linux use, Windows would still be the most used OS by far.
Let's not fool ourselves the other way, either, at least for enterprise applications - which have always been Windows' strong draw. Things like the blaster worm have been hitting them hard and very visibly. (Even the media is beginning to report these as Windows/Microsoft problems rather than generic computer or network problems.)
At some point a few businesses are going to see that the ongoing costs (and risks of company-killing disasters) are so great that it's time to bite the bullet and switch to something else. At first a few will switch. Then they'll tell their stories and a bunch will switch. And then there will be a stampede. (It's called a "Shelling point" - where everybody realizes at the same time that "Now is the time!" to do something.)
Once the stampede starts, Microsoft's Windows software family can easily go the way of MacOS, or DOS, or SunOS, or CPM, or any of the other OSes or the various software products that were relegated to a niche market or died. It can happen VERY fast. Microsoft knows this. It's why they're fighting Linux tooth-and-nail.
But for the stampede to occur there must be a clear place to stampede TO. Up until the SCO suit Linux was the obvious place: Lowest cost, one of the highest reliabilities (and climbing), support and customization available (and not dependent on a single-source ventor - or you can do it yourself if all else fails).
The other Unixes come out a bit behind - proprietary ones are expensive and single-source, while free ones have a smaller support community. Other OSes also suffer from one or the other of these problems.
Also, I don't think very many companies are sitting around saying "Well we were going to develop this or Linux, but not anymore", etc.
With the SCO suit the risks of going to Linux are increased. Maybe you move all your business critical processes to Linux and THEN the courts decide SCO can ban it (so all your conversion costs are sunk with no return - and then you get to convert AGAIN to something ELSE) or soak you for a few hundred megabux you didn't budget. YOU BETCHA management is not going to go with a Linux solution while SCO is trying to exercise a "nuclear option". Ditto with AIX!
So the stampede is on hold until the suit is settled, its risks are no longer percieved to be large, an alternative to both Windows and Linux makes the cut (AND is perceived to STILL be the price vs. cost+risk leader even against Linux should SCO be defeated), or sticking with Windows becomes SO costly that these costs outweigh even the heightened cost of the SCO suit's risks.
[...] every large commercial software manufacturer, including MS, included language in their EULAs that indemnified the customer against patent- or copyright-infringing code.
So maybe what they're doing is trying to cause a significant amount of legal and financial damage to a large number of customers, so IBM, RedHat, etc. become liable for a MASSIVE indemnity payment.
Another move to make it more expensive to fight them than to buy them off. (And buying them off, if it doesn't include buying them out, just makes them stronger when they stage their NEXT attack on someone who HASN'T knuckled under.)
What the hell is keeping IBM/RedHat/FSF/HP/Samba/the Pope from having an injunction slapped on these crooks?
Probably the same legal issues that caused the judge to throw out a similar move against DirecTV's extortion of money from purchasers of smartcard programming hardware.
They're threatening legal action. Any notices associated with it are "privileged". They don't get a cent unless they prove their cases in court or the defendant folds, so the legal system assumes the defendant is being properly handled and "gets his day in court".
Now AFTER you WIN you MIGHT be able to go after them if you can show they knew their case was bogus. But until it gets ground through the legal mill you're stuck.
Since the issues of this case is obvously not her field of expertise, it must be of some concerns that she is willing to issue conclusive and sweeping statements using only one source of information, namely the SCO insiders.
Not to mention that, as a Windows specialist, she has a vested interest in keeping its market share large enough that it remains newsworthy, so she doesn't have to retrain to stay in business. B-)
But by the same token signing the NDA could end the carreer of a Linux analyst. So it will be hard to get any to sign up just to view the internals of SCO's FUD.
My father in law is homeless and it is his choice. He has family that would take him in, but he is unwilling to:
a) get a job
b) pay taxes
c) stop smoking pot
d) stay sober
And some people are homeless because they don't want the government butting into their lives - and are willing to do without a fixed address and a plethora of creature comforts in exchange for that freedom.
The government can already easily track people who have a fixed residence, along with those who wander but have a major documented income. Now they're trying to use "helping the homeless" (along with the "war on terrorism") as an excuse to track everyone else.
Microsoft killed the windowsupdate.com domain.
Did anyone else read this with the tune of "video killed the radio star" playing in their head?
NOW I am. Thanks a LOT!
Eight, sir!
Seven, sir!
Six, sir!
Five, sir!
Four, sir!
Three, sir!
Two, sir!
One!
Tenser! said the tensor.
Tenser! said the tensor.
Tension,
Apprehsnsion,
and Dissention
have begun!
(Back atcha from Alfred Bester, via _The Demolished Man_.)
WTFH is a "tax event"?
A "tax event" is a transaction that is significant for computing taxes. Typically it's a transfer of money or some other trade of valuable considerations where a price can be established for computing taxes.
For instance:
- Your employer hands you/mails/deposits a paycheck. (You get taxed on the "gain" - counting your time as worth nothing and the pay as profit.)
- You buy some stock. (The price of the stock becomes the "basis".)
- You sell some stock. (The selling price, minus the basis is your profit, on which you're taxed, or your loss, for which you can get a deduction against other taxes.)
The stock you bought for a dollar might go up to a thousand and back to two dollars before you sell it. But the daily price is not a "tax event". You buy at one dollar, you sell at two, you earned (and get taxed on) one.
In the case of options there are several events, of which only some are tax events:
- You are GRANTED an option. Not a tax event.
- You EXERCISE the option (or some fraction of it). This IS a tax event. You're buying shares of stock for the option price, when the market price on that day may be higher. You're taxed on the difference between the higher market price and the option price, and the market price becomes the new basis for when you sell it. (For employee stock options you can put off paying this tax until you finally sell the stock, though you may have to pay some "alternaitve minimum tax" - an ancient soak-the-rich scheme - for which you can get partial credit later if you take a loss from the basis when you finally sell the shares.)
- The stock, or the option, "vests". This is NOT a tax event. "Vesting" means you REALLY have a right to it. A typical employee stock option might vest over four years, with the first quarter vesting in a lump (the "vesting cliff") at the end of one year, and a month's worth of additional stock vesting each month thereafter. You can "exercise" either vested or unvested shares - and you'll typically exercise unvested shares to lock in a cheap price and start the clock for dropping to the capital-gains tax rate. But you can't SELL unvested shares until they vest. (That's because, if something happens to stop the vesting - like you quit or get laid off - you have to sell the unvested shares back to the company at the option price.)
- You SELL the option shares on the open market, or your unvested shares back to the company. This IS a tax event. You're taxed on the difference between the basis (the price on the day you exercised the option) and the price you sold them for.
Now if the SCO executives said that the vesting was a tax event they were lying - and they ought to know it.
If they said they'd sold because they EXERCISED the stock that WOULD be a reasonable explanation. A typical thing to do with an unexercised option on a stock that is trading far above the option price is to exercise it and simulteneously sell off enough of the stock to pay the option price - or that plus the taxes on the gain. Then you own the rest of the stock free-and-clear, with no out-of-pocket expense, and no taxes until you finally sell it off. You'll make money when you finally sell it even if it goes down all the way to zero - because when you sell the rest you'll only pay taxes against the gain since the day of the exercise, and if it's trading BELOW that day's price you'll get taxes BACK on the loss.
But if that were the case they'd have said the executives had EXERCISED their options - not made up FUD about being taxed on vesting.
You can make "a copy" if either of the conditions are met. Notice that there is NOTHING in the conditions about ALREADY having made another copy which is still in existence. That alone would mean it's allowed. (Even if the meaning WAS ambiguous, there is a rule requiring the court to read ambiguous wording in favor of the accused.)
But in the case of archives it's obvious that the legislators explicitly considered having more than one backup copy - because they said that "all archival copies" must be destroyed if the ownership of the original is "no longer rightful".
Yes, the lawyers for the software manufacturers would love you to think you're limited to one backup - which could also be corrupted, or inconvenient to keep track of - and thus increase the chances you'll lose 'em both and have to buy another. And they write their shrinkwrap contracts that way, too. But the statue grants you an explicit right to make as many backups as you want, regardless of the copyright holder's wishes or a shrinkwrap's boilerplate.
The same, of course, applies to the other exception. But there it's obvious that a multiplicity of intermediate copies or derived works must be created (in buffers, RAM, caches, registers, compiler tables, installed component files, and the like) as necessary steps in "utilizing" the computer program even once.
The statute's limit on these copies is on the USES you put them to, not their number.
Dictionary.com defines parasite as: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
And a foetus contributes to the host by passing on its DNA to a new generation - evolutionarily the greatest contribution possible. This is what EVERYTHING ELSE is for, including the host's survival.
(And if dictionary.com limits the associated organism's contribution to survival of the host, excluding propagation of the host's DNA, the definition is in error.)
The issue at hand is still whether or not a fetus counts as a human, and the answer to that isn't scientific, it's theological - which makes it good fodder for debate, but not as a basis for advancing or hindering scientific research. Just like the RIAA's supposed 'potential income', you can't quantify 'potential humanity'.
Actually, it's more a matter of "definitional", though theology is one of the major factors in people's choice of definitions.
My own take is that humanity includes a functional brain - which squares nicely with the Supreme Court's choice of the start of the third trimester as the cutoff between lump-of-tissue and human being. (Up through about the first week of the third trimester the individual cells of the brain are unconnected - a "brain kit" rather than a mind. After that they start wiring up. I can't define where in that process what I'd consider to be a human being emerges, and conception time is often a bit uncertain. So give the foetus the benefit of the doubt and the third trimester start is a good choice.
But there are other arguments:
The Libertarians might point out that, even if the foetus IS a human from day one, if the mother can't kick it out it's holding her in slavery. Even if the slave-slaveowner relationship is necessary to the life of the slaveowner, many ethical systems accept that the slave may free him/herself whenever the opportunity arises. Dead slaveowner? Tough luck.
The state might express an interest in preserving the life of the foetus as one of its citizens. At that point the question becomes when is it appropriate to risk the life, freedom, and welfare of ANOTHER of its citizens for this purpose. Different states will argue for differnt points, of course. But in the US I could imagine a future in which a "compelling state interest" was invoked once the foetus is viable if extracted from the mother and the extraction is possible without major risks to the mother's health. Such a claim might be used to limit voluntary late-term pregnancy-ending procedures to those that attempt to preserve the baby's life.
I guess if they wanted their information private they wouldn't use wireless phones and 802.11g connections.
they are broadcasting information, why shouldn't someone else listen? [...] not that this idea is perfect, as it makes parabolic and laser mikes alot more acceptable, which I don't like.
There's already a legal test that distinguishes between people using their ears and people using a parabolic microphone. (It appears in some state laws. I don't know if the fed ever ruled on this.):
If a "reasonable and prudent man", in the situation of the eavesdropee, would have a "reasonable expectation" that his conversation would be overheard, it's up to him not to say anything that he doesn't want to show up in court. A nearby undercover cop can testify to anything he hears. If he has a reasonable expectation that he would NOT be overheard (because he can see whether anybody is within normal earshot, or because he's at home), the cops can't use parabolic mike or bug evidence unless they got a warrant to use the devices in advance.
Similarly (and I believe the Supremes did rule on this one) if you toss the incriminating documents in the trash, the cops can dumpster-dive and bust you. If you shred them, the cops don't get to reassemble them and bust you - because you took reasonable precautions and have a reasonable expectation that your discarded papers would be secure.
Unfortunately, the legislatures have recently moved away from this sensible approach, when it involves radio, with such laws as the ban on recievers capable of listening in on analog cellphone calls. (Which is why scanners sold in the US have a blank spot for that part of the band - unless you open 'em up and change the jumpers to tell 'em they were sold somewhere else.)
Before that the rule was "don't DIVULGE directed transmissions". Anybody could listen in to a transmission that was intended to go to a particular party, such as a walkie-talkie conversation, radiophone call, police call, fire dispatch, etc. But you weren't allowed to disclose the CONTENT of such calls to a third party. (And once you'd listened in you knew the transmission was directed.) So you could watch the network feed yourself, or even record it. But couldn't play the tape the neighbors or print a transcript in the newspaper.
But first the cellphone users, used to the idea of phone calls as private, got congress to ban listening to them. Then the entertainment conglomerates got into this "They're stealing our product!" kick, and got congress to ignore the court precents from the last three or so similar episodes (with tape recording, video tape, and the like) and ban listening in on THEM. So the former simple rule, tho still in effect, is not the only limit on these cases.
Hopefully the SEC will investigate. Definitely sounds like a pump and dump move to me.
$1.2 million worth among ALL the execs after a factor-of-ten jump? Peanuts. I'm surprised it isn't far more.
Even if they are darned sure they're going to win (and you NEVER know for sure with a court case), this looks like a bubble. It's much more likely to pop than keep rising. Even if it keeps going up the big inflation is probably over.
"Take the money and run." As I learned the hard way by NOT doing so before MY company took a factor-of-1,000 dive in the internet bubble-pop. Went from a paper multi-millionaire back to a multi-thousandaire - i.e. a working stiff with a mortgage - with enough still out on a credit card to just about cancel out my cash reserves. These guys have been through it before and it's hardly surprising if they want to lock in - or spend - some of their gain.
By the way: Looks like their war chest just got a $40 million boost from Computer Associates, who just caved on a suit SCO filed against them in 2001.
It's always seemed odd to me that we are "up here" while apes and chimps are "down there" and other mammals kind of dribble down from that.
I'm reminded of the Wizard of Id strip where King Id is visiting with a sultan. The majordomo introduces him to the hundred wives "each more beautiful than the next". The wiz whispers to the majordomo "Is each really more beautiful than the next?" to which the majordomo replies "Only if you line them up that way."
"At the top" is defined as "Most like us." Of course we're "at the top" - the best at our particular specialties - while our closest surviving nonhuman relatives are "down there" a bit below us while more distant relatives "kinda dribble down from that".
Why nothing in-between? It would be cool if there was some other species that slightly filled that gap bewteen us and the animals.
Have you considered whether we might be so darned GOOD at our specialties that we outcompeted or absorbed the rest of 'em?
But there is some evidence that humans have a drive to make war on anything nonhuman that talks. "Competitor for the niche." Something like cats and dogs (where the battle still goes on because the niches only overlap partially, so nobody goes extinct.)
According to this theory gorillas and chimps don't get exterminated because they lack a part of the brain that's necessary to emit vocal speech (although they seem to have enough of the rest of the mechanisms to understand spoken human language and reply gramattically in sign.) So now this drive to furious genocide only comes into play in making war on other humans who speak differently and have a different appearance - and then only after prolonged propaganda about how the enemy is really non-human.
they'll have to reveal WHAT was infringed to pursue it legally,
But they'll only have to reveal it to the judge and the lawyers.
Any bets on whether they'll try to keep the information about what code is supposedly infringing "under seal"?
As of April 26, 2003, Cisco has about $3,940,000,000 in cash. As of March 31, 2003, IBM has about $4,195,000,000 in cash. SCO sure knows how to pick a good fight.
I'd bet they're thinking more in terms of "picking a deep pocket". B-)
If I only I had realized sooner that "Linux=Tivo" would convince nongeeks of the severity of SCO's unethical behavior...
But now that SCO has caused the scales to fall from our eyes (and applied the argument to THIS battle for us) we can use that in HUNDREDS of other contexts.
Watch for Linux=Tivo to become a catchphrase.
THANK you, SCO!
And thank YOU, AC, for making the argument explicit. Your boyfriend has no idea what a smart cookie he's hanging out with. B-)
Can't be radar visible if it's that small.
I believe that's why the Lear Fan private jet model was aborted.
Made mostly of composites, with the biggest single piece of metal being the spindle of the Jet and the bulk of the metal being the avionics, it had such a small radar cross-section that it didn't show up on airport search radar until it was actually over the field...
Exactly WTF is an "aeroplane"? I've heard of an "airplane" before... is this some sort of strange dialect?
I believe it's the original form, still in common use in some English-speaking countries, of which "airplane" is an American English contraction.
(But I'm sure somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. B-) )