To be more accurate, the whole world was experiencing a depression before our stock market crashed. Think post-WWI Europe... Britain was turning inward; they'd gotten beaten pretty hard. The Germans were trying to pay their war reparations with money they no longer had, and the French were taking anything they could from the Germans. This was killing was Europe; they did not yet understand the economic interdependance they had of each other. Further, U.S. investors were investing in Germany, and rather than build industry and infrastructure they spent the money on lavish living. When our market crashed, all these U.S. investors called on Germany to return the money. This plunged Europe deeper, and I'm not sure but would assume when German companies could not repay their foreign debts, those nations would too be totally screwed.
Sorry for the history lesson. I just wanted to clarify that it was the entire world that F-ed up our economy following WWI. It's really OK though, because we soon picked up the pieces and really whooped some ass.
-Robert
Or how about the "buddy system" where good 'ole Brad calls in favors from local law enforcement to help him deal with those pesky music theives? That's the concern that I have, and I can totally see it happening. I mean come on, most Police Department are like good 'ole boy networks anyway, what makes anyone think the feds are any different. The shitty thing is that he's "retiring" from the ATF (meaning he gets his pension) PLUS I'm sure he'll be taking a crazy salary from the industry group. And yet they're supposed to be making CD's cost _less_. All quite interesting... bastards.
Did IBM request _specifically_ that it be given unfettered access (*read: NO NDA) to the code in question?
I wouldn't be surprised if SCO told IBM "You can see the code in question, but please sign the NDA." I'm sure they'll force the Court to _declare_ that discovery be "open." You can expect some more run around before the discovery actually "completes." Since none, or at least few, of us are lawyers, this might be a valid question. I would assume discovery cannot be dependant upon any encumbering NDA. But SCO proves time and time again they're just stalling for a buy-out.
The plain and simple of it is that Henry Ford sold _his_ cars to people, not the _other_ manufacturers. Like it or not, once you sign with most of the major labels, you are "covered" by the RIAA. By virtue of this they pretty much own you and your music.
The only way the defendants in the recent RIAA vs. Joe Schmo cases have any legal standing is if they downloaded _NON-RIAA_ "covered" music. In the Ford analogy, the NON-RIAA music is analogous to the Model-T and the RIAA music (which is just about anything most people are interested in) is analogous to the Seldon Patent cars.
I'm personally sorry about the state of things, but that's just the way it is right now. What we need are more flexible labels _interested_ in working with new media such as freely downloadable music. My personal best suggestion is that artists make themselves more accessible by signing with such labels and touring like they've been... and making money! I'll bet that most Slash readers would be more than happy to buy a CD from a concert KNOWING that he or she was SUPPORTING their favorite artists, rather than through FYE or wherever. But that's just my 0.02
Here here!! Now there's a concept... Smart admins?! Who would ever have thought? The problem is PHB's like to see those damned certifications, which inevitably mean the "admin" knows enough to know where to go (the company that "sponsored" the certification). As far as I'm concerned, an RHCE is on the same level as an MCSE. I believe that the only way to measure a system administrator's true competence is to look for one certification. Theses sys admins KNOW what they are doing, regardless of the OS in front of them; these are the people you want working for you.
Regarding cases in general, doesn't a judge have the authority to weigh the benefits of a judgment based on One versus Many? I don't know the term, but basically where you rule one way because it would benefit more people than the one person.
To bring it in to kernel suit terms: you have ONE company (which by legal definition is one person/entity) who has IP rights (and lets not argue IP rights for sake of this question), on the other side you have THOUSANDS of other IP contributors in the kernel. Would it not make sense that by ruling in favor of the ONE company, you would be disenfranchising the THOUSANDS? It would stand to reason that the THOUSANDS contributors pose a greater good.
Add to this the fact that SCO have refused to adequately back up their assertion over IP theft (NDA's don't hold much water IMHO). As a matter of legal process, is it _normal_ in tech cases to sign NDA's during the discovery period?
If schools choose to go this route, the only acceptable method is via per-user charge, tacked on to _BOARDING_ fee. As an off-campus student, I will see no benefit personally of _any_ dorm-related services. As such, I should NOT be charges for said services. My university is already increasing tuition this coming semester, and having worked for the school since I transferred, I can say that they have no business doing so (raising tuition); the campus wastes money like a bitch and I'd hate to have yet-another fee tacked on to increasingly absurd tuition rates.
Just as a side-note... Didn't they get poked in the bum by DOJ for poking us in the bum for so many years, pricewise? I beleive it's called anti-competitive or monopolistic collusion behavior. I guess they have to make up for the lawyer fees. It's apparent that the US Legal system operates with blinders; if the current practices don't _seem_ to be related to the current case (which often refers to events significantly past), DOJ are blind.
Just think of all the nasty things a terrorist could do with those disc(s). It's a threat to national security! It's a good thing we have nothing like that here in America... HA
Granted _we_ all know the conclusion is obvious, but how many media exec's read Slashdot? We should thank the Frank Rich for the article and hope that it lights some idea bulbs in the massholes (marketing assholes) in the various "industryassociatios". If to steal "content" (and I don't care for the word steal, as the cartels put it; they are really stealing from us) or to pay marks a consumer as "discriminating," then so be it. It's about time _someone_ gives _credit_ to "consumers" being "discriminating."
Maybe you read it the first time when it was called Pentagon Wants IPv6 by 2008. I know that Yahoo! isn't exactly known for their great reporting skills but come on folks... sheesh. And its dupes like this that keep my crummy news suggestions from getting accepted.
12% may sound like a lot to some of y'all, but the thing that I will _NEVER_ understand is how "non-creative" entities make MORE on the artists art than the artist him/her-self. You will _NEVER_ convince me that the system is as it should be. Artists deserve the majority of the compensation, not the other way around. Period.
Sounds to me the law should be clarified to allow for intent... if there is a way to prove it. Obviously if SCO Group thought this out months ago, and all the big-wigs decided at _that_ time to set up an "automatic" sell ( knowing full well they were _planning_ to wreak havoc on the market that would cause changes like this in the stocks) they should be held for fraud and any pertinent SEC violations. Otherwise, they are getting off on a technicality. And this goes for Martha too, damnit!
There were many a night I stayed up late playing on BBS's. We had many chatters in my area, some had dialin nodes in all the state counties (!), and it was so cool to be able to talk to people from around the state. Downloading MOD's, game demos, playing the online ones. A friend of mine ran his own for a while on a little 386. What a crazy bastard he was. One phone line and a 386 being held together with duct tape (seriously)! But he had The Pit, and what an awesome game it was! Hell, we almost failed High School;-)
Thank you. Bite my ass while you're at it. Dipwad. Slashdot is at this point way over-rated. I really don't care what you think about my post. Log in and reply next time.
Because there are hundreds of millions of mindless sheep either not knowing or worse yet not _CARING_ about holding their privacy. They have gotten used to giving up little bits of information so that "convenience" can be part of their everyday life. Why on earth should a simple phone company have my "social security" number? Of course for that matter, why should I be assigned one?
Sorry mates, but for every one of "us" who care about our privacy and protecting it in the future, there are MILLIONS of sheep to take our place... And in an economy based on majority wins philosophy, there is nothing else for us to do to accept our defeat.
PS. If anyone is interested in buying an island and establishing it for the sole purpose of "Laissez faire" society, please give me a ring. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
To be more accurate, the whole world was experiencing a depression before our stock market crashed. Think post-WWI Europe... Britain was turning inward; they'd gotten beaten pretty hard. The Germans were trying to pay their war reparations with money they no longer had, and the French were taking anything they could from the Germans. This was killing was Europe; they did not yet understand the economic interdependance they had of each other. Further, U.S. investors were investing in Germany, and rather than build industry and infrastructure they spent the money on lavish living. When our market crashed, all these U.S. investors called on Germany to return the money. This plunged Europe deeper, and I'm not sure but would assume when German companies could not repay their foreign debts, those nations would too be totally screwed.
Sorry for the history lesson. I just wanted to clarify that it was the entire world that F-ed up our economy following WWI. It's really OK though, because we soon picked up the pieces and really whooped some ass.
-Robert
Or how about the "buddy system" where good 'ole Brad calls in favors from local law enforcement to help him deal with those pesky music theives? That's the concern that I have, and I can totally see it happening. I mean come on, most Police Department are like good 'ole boy networks anyway, what makes anyone think the feds are any different. The shitty thing is that he's "retiring" from the ATF (meaning he gets his pension) PLUS I'm sure he'll be taking a crazy salary from the industry group. And yet they're supposed to be making CD's cost _less_. All quite interesting... bastards.
-Robert
Did IBM request _specifically_ that it be given unfettered access (*read: NO NDA) to the code in question?
.02
I wouldn't be surprised if SCO told IBM "You can see the code in question, but please sign the NDA." I'm sure they'll force the Court to _declare_ that discovery be "open." You can expect some more run around before the discovery actually "completes." Since none, or at least few, of us are lawyers, this might be a valid question. I would assume discovery cannot be dependant upon any encumbering NDA. But SCO proves time and time again they're just stalling for a buy-out.
Just my
-Robert
The only way the defendants in the recent RIAA vs. Joe Schmo cases have any legal standing is if they downloaded _NON-RIAA_ "covered" music. In the Ford analogy, the NON-RIAA music is analogous to the Model-T and the RIAA music (which is just about anything most people are interested in) is analogous to the Seldon Patent cars.
I'm personally sorry about the state of things, but that's just the way it is right now. What we need are more flexible labels _interested_ in working with new media such as freely downloadable music. My personal best suggestion is that artists make themselves more accessible by signing with such labels and touring like they've been... and making money! I'll bet that most Slash readers would be more than happy to buy a CD from a concert KNOWING that he or she was SUPPORTING their favorite artists, rather than through FYE or wherever. But that's just my 0.02
-Robert
This Is Something to FEAR
-Robert
-Robert
To bring it in to kernel suit terms: you have ONE company (which by legal definition is one person/entity) who has IP rights (and lets not argue IP rights for sake of this question), on the other side you have THOUSANDS of other IP contributors in the kernel. Would it not make sense that by ruling in favor of the ONE company, you would be disenfranchising the THOUSANDS? It would stand to reason that the THOUSANDS contributors pose a greater good.
Add to this the fact that SCO have refused to adequately back up their assertion over IP theft (NDA's don't hold much water IMHO). As a matter of legal process, is it _normal_ in tech cases to sign NDA's during the discovery period?
Some things to think about at least.
-Bob
-Bob
-Bob
My 0.02
-Robert
You making a funny? Cuase I was trying. It's kinda hard to get intent through text, eh?
No no... remember that EULA you read and agreed to before opening the box? They are just licensing the right to _use_ the Xbox to you! BAH.
Just think of all the nasty things a terrorist could do with those disc(s). It's a threat to national security! It's a good thing we have nothing like that here in America... HA
Get a rubber stamp ready folks and stick it right back to them! Fawk da telemarketers.
Granted _we_ all know the conclusion is obvious, but how many media exec's read Slashdot? We should thank the Frank Rich for the article and hope that it lights some idea bulbs in the massholes (marketing assholes) in the various "industry associatios". If to steal "content" (and I don't care for the word steal, as the cartels put it; they are really stealing from us) or to pay marks a consumer as "discriminating," then so be it. It's about time _someone_ gives _credit_ to "consumers" being "discriminating."
Maybe you read it the first time when it was called Pentagon Wants IPv6 by 2008. I know that Yahoo! isn't exactly known for their great reporting skills but come on folks... sheesh. And its dupes like this that keep my crummy news suggestions from getting accepted.
12% may sound like a lot to some of y'all, but the thing that I will _NEVER_ understand is how "non-creative" entities make MORE on the artists art than the artist him/her-self. You will _NEVER_ convince me that the system is as it should be. Artists deserve the majority of the compensation, not the other way around. Period.
Hey... it looks to me like he works or worked for IBM. Check here. Does this represent any further issues?
Sounds to me the law should be clarified to allow for intent... if there is a way to prove it. Obviously if SCO Group thought this out months ago, and all the big-wigs decided at _that_ time to set up an "automatic" sell ( knowing full well they were _planning_ to wreak havoc on the market that would cause changes like this in the stocks) they should be held for fraud and any pertinent SEC violations. Otherwise, they are getting off on a technicality. And this goes for Martha too, damnit!
I wouldn't sign a settlement statement unless there were provisions that stated the ARTISTS would receive 100% of the "fine."
-Bob
There were many a night I stayed up late playing on BBS's. We had many chatters in my area, some had dialin nodes in all the state counties (!), and it was so cool to be able to talk to people from around the state. Downloading MOD's, game demos, playing the online ones. A friend of mine ran his own for a while on a little 386. What a crazy bastard he was. One phone line and a 386 being held together with duct tape (seriously)! But he had The Pit, and what an awesome game it was! Hell, we almost failed High School ;-)
Thank you. Bite my ass while you're at it. Dipwad. Slashdot is at this point way over-rated. I really don't care what you think about my post. Log in and reply next time.
why they have no market share.
while he's been offline and will stick it to the man soon!
-Bob
Sorry mates, but for every one of "us" who care about our privacy and protecting it in the future, there are MILLIONS of sheep to take our place... And in an economy based on majority wins philosophy, there is nothing else for us to do to accept our defeat.
PS. If anyone is interested in buying an island and establishing it for the sole purpose of "Laissez faire" society, please give me a ring. Thanks.
-Bob