the SCO claim to BSD has a more solid basis in fact than the linux claims
Perhaps so. Neither claim makes much sense, but there is a kind of logic there. Suppose there was a way that SCO could get the original BSD decision annulled (I cannot see how they could, but IMNAL: something about terms of the agreement not followed?). Then SCO might actually end up with code they own being used illegally.
True, but don't forget about other MS activities. Like bundling agreements with OEMs, who charged you for Windows even if you didn't want it or have them install it. (If they were even allowed to forego installation!)
Basically, if you bought a system, you got it and paid for it whether you wanted to or not.
... and before anyone thinks Microsoft learned their lesson, and will be less of an abusive monopoly in the future, reflect on this. According to my contacts in Japan, these kinds of bundling arrangements are still being enforced there.
The current US administration is not motivated to curb Microsoft's anti competitive activities. They can be expected to continue and, perhaps, even worsen.
You should be frightened by the fact that almost everything he does works out in the end.
I am terrified, but not because of the long term benefits of what he does. History might accurately evaluate the long term effects of the (note that I do not say his as I think he is manipulated) current policies. Today, the really frightening observation is that:
a few jingoistic speeches can pursuade so many Americans to accept the dismantling of the constitution and invasion of Iraq in the face of world opposition, and to accept the branding any domestic opposition as unpatriotic;
a state governor can be seen as strong for glorying in the number of executions carried out on his watch (I doubt he ever, for a moment, considered any of the appeals to him on these cases -- that would have been weakness);
a president can get away with rewarding his pals for their financial and other support in getting him to the White House (define "corruption") -- or maybe the huge deficits and environmental damage that ensue will be proved to be beneficial in the end;
I do not know about global dimming, but it seems to apply to the United States of America.
Well, he got the equipment for free (give or take fixing it: RTFA). As it stands, not a very practical general solution, but a really cool (pun intended) one off that may spur some new research somewhere.
Over 99% of discussion on elimination of spam always seems to resolve around
* Make every stupid person smart so noone responds to spam
* Change every mail server in the world to use a new protocol
* Use client-side spam detection to hide spam and expect the stupid people to use it
Well, I have less than complete faith in any of these methods providing an adequate short term solution. So, why cannot we look at the big picture?
A few major spammers are sending millions of emails. The effect is close to being a DoS attack on the entire Internet. These emails are susceptible to pattern analysis if analyzed on a global basis. Surely what we need is somethng akin to an Internet-wide intrusion detection system. When pattern analysis indicates a spam attack, we simply block the traffic as close to the source as possible.
Wouldn't there be a cost associated with this? Sure. But the spam problem needs to be resolved and this is the only realistic short term solution that I can envisage.
This is from U.S. Code Collection, Title 17 (copyrights), Chapter 1, Section 101: "Definitions." In short, this is from the very first section in copyright law -- the section that defines terms even before those terms are used. This is some pretty fundamental stuff when it comes to copyrights in the U.S.
Pertinent, if you will.
And note how copyright law expressly includes "the expectation of receipt" of anything of value, and expressly mentions "receipt of other copyrighted works" as such a thing of value. And that's the very definition of "financial gain," as far as U.S. copyright law is concerned.
Obviously, Darl's argument is that (in the same way as the GPL is unconstitutional) this part of the copyright law is also unconstitutional. You will argue that does not make sense. I reply: perhaps not, but which of SCO's "case" does?
It is more likely that he wants to base some WMD's there than to check if anyone else has any. Or, perhaps he needs somewhere to test the US' next generation of weapons (such as the mininukes) conveniently bypassing existing (earth based) nuclear test ban treaties.
(Off topic) Has anyone seen anywhere the accepted criteria for nations allowed to have WMD's versus those who should be threatened with serious consequences for their possession? Is China these days allowed WMD's? Are any nations with caucasian leaders disqualified? Do any nations with black leaders qualify? Note: I am white and not a left wing fringe radical.
But why are so-called experts making these stupid predictions? There must be some ulterior motive.
I have not read the original IEEE paper, but I strongly suspect this is a typical example of the media sensationalising a good piece of research.
First, let us review what Gordon Moore (co-founder of Intel, the same company that employs the authors of this paper) actually said. It was that, since the invention of the integrated circuit and for the foreseeable future, the number of transistors on IC's appears to double about every 18-24 months. In practice, this has held true for almost 40 years since and has been achieved primarily by ever increasing miniaturisation and packing densities. However, Gordon Moore himself has stated that such exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely.
Assuming the quotes in the article are correct, it seems that the paper examines fundamental issues that will inevitably be faced as transistor gates shrink to 5nm and below. The paper states that these will prevent continued exponential growth in transistors per IC within the constraints of current IC form factors. The paper then goes on to speculate about radically new approaches that could allow continued development of more powerful processors, in the face of such physical limitations.
These "so-called experts" are recognised as some of the leading authorities in this area with many contributions to peer moderated publications. I see no reason to assume any kind of ulterior motive behind their latest paper. You have posted as an AC. If you have credentials to debunk the conclusions of the paper, by all means let us know who you are and the basis of your objections.
Sorry you see it that way. I intended it as an (out of character) expression of modesty. While I have all kinds of wonderful ideas about how to instantly turn China into Utopia, I refrain from revealing this miraculous plan in order to avoid showing the rest of you up.
Nice plan, but it won't work for ever - it
never works for ever.
Right, but that probably includes most of the various forms of "Western demoncracy" that is currently held up by the US and EU as the ultimate ideal. I see ample evidence, for instance, of deterioration in the US system. One man one vote does not guarantee true representative government; when elections are determined by media campaigns costing vast amounts of money; when these campaigns are overwhelmingly funded by a small number of vested interests; when most politicians regard payoffs for campaign contributions as part of the game: government is not of the people by the people. Add to that a willingness by some to subvert the system directly (for example, look at actions taken before and during the last presidential election in Florida -- and I am not referring to chards). Frankly, the US is not well placed to criticize those in other countries for trying to conserve their power by improper means.
I hope the Chinese people take control back soon, so China can regain some of its former glory.
This one sentence reveals many (commonly held) misimpressions of the China of today. Firstly, and most important, there is no single Chinese people. China is an empire. Given right of self determination, many Chinese regions would undoubtedly not be part of China today. Democracy in any meaningfull form is incompatible with China in its current form.
Secondly, China's former glory was based on exactly the kind of repressive system that is in place today: indeed at the height of China's power, the repression was even more extreme. None of China's peoples, apart from a tiny elite, ever had any power. The time in history when power was distributed a little more widely was during the Cultural Revolution: not exactly a ringing endorsement for student power, Chinese style.
Does this mean that I approve of China's system? Absolutely not. But I do recognise that it is nonsense (except as a propoganda ploy) to demand that China adopt a system that would lead to its self destruction. If China's current economic progress can be leveraged to directly benefit the population at large (and people become overwhelmingly satisified with their lives personally) tolerating most forms of dissent may become practicable. As things stand today, allowing political pluralism would probably result in violent upheaval in the short term interests of nobody.
This is a truly excellent presentation, as we would expect from IBM. For enterprises, there are two specific aspects that will really inspire confidence:
1. IBM has over 15,000 existing internal Linux clients and this is rapidly expanding.
2. There is no attempt to gloss over potential issues, such as browser incompatibility with IE and weaknesses so far in supporting knowledge workers. These are accepted, but demonstrated to be applicable only to certain categories of users.
The general message, which is convincing, is to look at each user segment separately and objectively and use Linux where it makes sense at the time.
Actually, the biggest assumption is that the historically reported amount of gunpowder, 2500kg, is reliable. I strongly suspect that, in the same way governments today are inclined, for political reasons, to exaggerate "weapons of mass destruction", the same may have applied in the early 17th century.
First, while the current algorythms with current key lengths would be trivially broken on a full scale quantum computer, the computational power of such a machine is not infinite in pactice. A quantum computer with infinite processing power would be infinite in size. One can imagine a science fiction approach where a quantum computer builds itself to a huge size (using nano machine replication approaches) but that is not on the near time horizon. Thus, similar encryption schemes to those in use today will still be feasible, albeit with much longer keys.
My second point is on the subject of government control. Sure, governments would love to control this stuff. That is one of the main reasons they will fund research: attempt to acquire leverage. But, this kind of research is a global undertaking involving collaboration between disparate organisations and individuals that cannot be controlled by individual governments. The (for instance) US government might try to control dissemination of sensitive research results, but they can only slow development, not stop it.
Identify what IBM may plausibly have illegally inserted into Linux. Then ask IBM to show that they are not guilty.
For SCO to say at first "we found lots of incriminating code", and then later say "we cannot show any incriminating code until we know what it is" is just ridiculous.
...he didn't wait for them to go steady state, he just waited an hour.
Not true. He ran a three hour burn in test and a 24 hour normal usage test. Further, while the point about surface area sounds logical, given the position of the thermal sensor, I think the reported internal hdd temperature is accurate. IMHO the empirical evidence is quite convincing.
If used in a close election - where exit polling and other secondary measurements are unable to confirm the results of the counting - the wrong person might actually get elected President of the United States of America.
That probably happened in the last election for US President. I say "probably" because so much spin surrounded the shenanigans over postal ballots and turning away of registered voters (erroneously barred as former felons) that I may have misinterpreted the evidence.
Does anyone else find it frightfully disturbing that 16% of CIO believed the SCO's claims to hold enough water that they've changed their implementation strategies?
No, not frightfully disturbing but something of a concern. What it probably means, in most cases, is that they have temporarily shelved new Linux projects.
Another concern is the effect on the 27% that currently have no Linux implementation plans. I suspect some of them may now make long term plans that will make Linux difficult to introduce later. Without this SCO circus, they would likely at least try to keep Linux options open.
... 84 percent of CIOs with Linux installation plans had not re-evaluated their plans in response to the SCO litigation. Of the respondents, 73 percent had Linux implementation plans, according to the survey
I agree with you that being "powerful" does not automatically mean "dangerous". However, history has shown that China, like the US, will tend to project its power when the opportunity presents itself. China is potntially extremely dangerous and I expect the next global conflict to be caused by a spat between the US and China.
Interesting question: Do you also need ten sets of speakers (and ten sound cards) to be able to play the sound on all of these stations concurrently? Or, is the sound satisfactory mixing everything through a single sound card? If using a single sound card, can you easily adjust down the volume on MTV so that the baseball commentary and the Star Trek sound track are easily audible?
I found a backdoor to this (sorry about the formatting):
SCO Files 2nd Motion Asking the Red Hat Judge for a Delay on Discovery
Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 04:25 AM EDT
There has been quite a lot of activity in the Red Hat case.
SCO filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in its entirety, as you know, and Red Hat filed its answering brief. But since we last reported on this case, Red Hat initiated discovery. They asked SCO for documents and for answers to some pointed questions. IBM is forcing SCO into a corner in Utah, and Red Hat is forcefully and aggressively trying to do the same in Delaware. You'll see, I think, that we haven't been wasting our time telling the world the details of this story. The big picture is that Red Hat is telling SCO to prove their allegations with specificity. They also want all their source code, and I'm sure you can figure out what they want to do with it, when I tell you that they asked for the complete Linux Kernel Personality source code, among the other products for which they have requested source code.
They also want to hear some details about the relationship between Canopy and SCO, including any stock or intellectual property transfers. They want SCO to "identify by title, version, module(s) and line(s)" what they think is misappropriated in any way or in violation of any of its rights. They ask for the details of Microsoft and Sun's licensing arrangement with SCO. They want to know who those 1500 companies were that got the letter, and what happened next. They want to know exactly what SCO has filed a copyright on. They want all the details of SCOsource, including all the folks who have seen the code SCO has been showing under the NDA and what they saw, and any other contact with any Linux users about supposed liability. They want to know how they compared the UNIX and Linux code to determine infringement. They want to know if they've done any comparisons of the two and what the results were. They want to know all the stock or industry analysts SCO has met with or talked to and what was said. In short, it's like the kind of fantasy a guy might have about a bully getting his at last, because they asked them everything we wanted somebody to finally ask SCO and make them answer.
SCO responded to Red Hat's discovery requests by filing a new motion, and it has told the judge, in a Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss, it would like a delay until after the first motion, the Motion to Dismiss, is ruled on. They surely don't seem in any hurry to get this matter resolved. They argue that because they are simultaneously providing discovery to IBM (of course IBM says they aren't seeing anything, as I recall), they can't possibly do both, and anyway, if they win their motion, it'd be moot. In short, they would very much like not to have to do this, presumably so that if they win the Motion to Dismiss they can continue to refuse to give any particulars about their case. If the judge doesn't grant their Motion to Dismiss, they'd like the judge to give them 30 days to provide all the discovery items.
Both of Red Hat's discovery documents are attached to this SCO Motion to Stay Discovery, and they begin with definitions, like what is "intellectual property" within the context of the document, and instructions, like how to identify the writers of documents, etc.. The first document begins on page 7 of the pdf, but we find out what Red Hat is asking for on page 12, where the list begins.
Red Hat in its "First Request for the Production of Documents and Things" asks SCO to produce the following documents:
1. All documents concerning the subject matter of the Complaint.
2. All documents concerning any customer, or potential customer, of Red Hat.
3. All communications between SCO and Red Hat or any employee of Red Hat.
4. All communications between SCO and any user or potential user of a Linux product, including Red Hat LINUX product, concerning any rights to Linux, or UNIX th
I'd wager there must have been some "UNIX" code in Linux at one time, albeit not intentionally and perhaps only small chunks for SCO to have made any claim at all.
You could be right, but I personally think their entire case is built on fantasy. They may have assumed they would find something to justify the case as it went forward. One reason they are stalling is that they are desperately trying to find something, anything to prevent the case just being declared frivolous.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps so. Neither claim makes much sense, but there is a kind of logic there. Suppose there was a way that SCO could get the original BSD decision annulled (I cannot see how they could, but IMNAL: something about terms of the agreement not followed?). Then SCO might actually end up with code they own being used illegally.
2. Your product, perceived or otherwise, has to be better then your competitors.
Hmmm ... seems reasonable ... but then explain Microsoft's success.
Basically, if you bought a system, you got it and paid for it whether you wanted to or not.
The current US administration is not motivated to curb Microsoft's anti competitive activities. They can be expected to continue and, perhaps, even worsen.
I am terrified, but not because of the long term benefits of what he does. History might accurately evaluate the long term effects of the (note that I do not say his as I think he is manipulated) current policies. Today, the really frightening observation is that:
- a few jingoistic speeches can pursuade so many Americans to accept the dismantling of the constitution and invasion of Iraq in the face of world opposition, and to accept the branding any domestic opposition as unpatriotic;
- a state governor can be seen as strong for glorying in the number of executions carried out on his watch (I doubt he ever, for a moment, considered any of the appeals to him on these cases -- that would have been weakness);
- a president can get away with rewarding his pals for their financial and other support in getting him to the White House (define "corruption") -- or maybe the huge deficits and environmental damage that ensue will be proved to be beneficial in the end;
I do not know about global dimming, but it seems to apply to the United States of America.Well, he got the equipment for free (give or take fixing it: RTFA). As it stands, not a very practical general solution, but a really cool (pun intended) one off that may spur some new research somewhere.
* Make every stupid person smart so noone responds to spam
* Change every mail server in the world to use a new protocol
* Use client-side spam detection to hide spam and expect the stupid people to use it
Well, I have less than complete faith in any of these methods providing an adequate short term solution. So, why cannot we look at the big picture?
A few major spammers are sending millions of emails. The effect is close to being a DoS attack on the entire Internet. These emails are susceptible to pattern analysis if analyzed on a global basis. Surely what we need is somethng akin to an Internet-wide intrusion detection system. When pattern analysis indicates a spam attack, we simply block the traffic as close to the source as possible.
Wouldn't there be a cost associated with this? Sure. But the spam problem needs to be resolved and this is the only realistic short term solution that I can envisage.
Pertinent, if you will.
And note how copyright law expressly includes "the expectation of receipt" of anything of value, and expressly mentions "receipt of other copyrighted works" as such a thing of value. And that's the very definition of "financial gain," as far as U.S. copyright law is concerned.
Obviously, Darl's argument is that (in the same way as the GPL is unconstitutional) this part of the copyright law is also unconstitutional. You will argue that does not make sense. I reply: perhaps not, but which of SCO's "case" does?
(Off topic) Has anyone seen anywhere the accepted criteria for nations allowed to have WMD's versus those who should be threatened with serious consequences for their possession? Is China these days allowed WMD's? Are any nations with caucasian leaders disqualified? Do any nations with black leaders qualify? Note: I am white and not a left wing fringe radical.
I have not read the original IEEE paper, but I strongly suspect this is a typical example of the media sensationalising a good piece of research.
First, let us review what Gordon Moore (co-founder of Intel, the same company that employs the authors of this paper) actually said. It was that, since the invention of the integrated circuit and for the foreseeable future, the number of transistors on IC's appears to double about every 18-24 months. In practice, this has held true for almost 40 years since and has been achieved primarily by ever increasing miniaturisation and packing densities. However, Gordon Moore himself has stated that such exponential growth cannot continue indefinitely.
Assuming the quotes in the article are correct, it seems that the paper examines fundamental issues that will inevitably be faced as transistor gates shrink to 5nm and below. The paper states that these will prevent continued exponential growth in transistors per IC within the constraints of current IC form factors. The paper then goes on to speculate about radically new approaches that could allow continued development of more powerful processors, in the face of such physical limitations.
These "so-called experts" are recognised as some of the leading authorities in this area with many contributions to peer moderated publications. I see no reason to assume any kind of ulterior motive behind their latest paper. You have posted as an AC. If you have credentials to debunk the conclusions of the paper, by all means let us know who you are and the basis of your objections.
Secondly, China's former glory was based on exactly the kind of repressive system that is in place today: indeed at the height of China's power, the repression was even more extreme. None of China's peoples, apart from a tiny elite, ever had any power. The time in history when power was distributed a little more widely was during the Cultural Revolution: not exactly a ringing endorsement for student power, Chinese style.
Does this mean that I approve of China's system? Absolutely not. But I do recognise that it is nonsense (except as a propoganda ploy) to demand that China adopt a system that would lead to its self destruction. If China's current economic progress can be leveraged to directly benefit the population at large (and people become overwhelmingly satisified with their lives personally) tolerating most forms of dissent may become practicable. As things stand today, allowing political pluralism would probably result in violent upheaval in the short term interests of nobody.
China's problems are complex.
1. IBM has over 15,000 existing internal Linux clients and this is rapidly expanding.
2. There is no attempt to gloss over potential issues, such as browser incompatibility with IE and weaknesses so far in supporting knowledge workers. These are accepted, but demonstrated to be applicable only to certain categories of users.
The general message, which is convincing, is to look at each user segment separately and objectively and use Linux where it makes sense at the time.
Actually, the biggest assumption is that the historically reported amount of gunpowder, 2500kg, is reliable. I strongly suspect that, in the same way governments today are inclined, for political reasons, to exaggerate "weapons of mass destruction", the same may have applied in the early 17th century.
First, while the current algorythms with current key lengths would be trivially broken on a full scale quantum computer, the computational power of such a machine is not infinite in pactice. A quantum computer with infinite processing power would be infinite in size. One can imagine a science fiction approach where a quantum computer builds itself to a huge size (using nano machine replication approaches) but that is not on the near time horizon. Thus, similar encryption schemes to those in use today will still be feasible, albeit with much longer keys.
My second point is on the subject of government control. Sure, governments would love to control this stuff. That is one of the main reasons they will fund research: attempt to acquire leverage. But, this kind of research is a global undertaking involving collaboration between disparate organisations and individuals that cannot be controlled by individual governments. The (for instance) US government might try to control dissemination of sensitive research results, but they can only slow development, not stop it.
For SCO to say at first "we found lots of incriminating code", and then later say "we cannot show any incriminating code until we know what it is" is just ridiculous.
Not true. He ran a three hour burn in test and a 24 hour normal usage test. Further, while the point about surface area sounds logical, given the position of the thermal sensor, I think the reported internal hdd temperature is accurate. IMHO the empirical evidence is quite convincing.
That probably happened in the last election for US President. I say "probably" because so much spin surrounded the shenanigans over postal ballots and turning away of registered voters (erroneously barred as former felons) that I may have misinterpreted the evidence.
No, not frightfully disturbing but something of a concern. What it probably means, in most cases, is that they have temporarily shelved new Linux projects.
Another concern is the effect on the 27% that currently have no Linux implementation plans. I suspect some of them may now make long term plans that will make Linux difficult to introduce later. Without this SCO circus, they would likely at least try to keep Linux options open.
Not according to the article:
I agree with you that being "powerful" does not automatically mean "dangerous". However, history has shown that China, like the US, will tend to project its power when the opportunity presents itself. China is potntially extremely dangerous and I expect the next global conflict to be caused by a spat between the US and China.
... can you imagine the behometh they could produce with their budget if they used a similar approach?
Interesting question: Do you also need ten sets of speakers (and ten sound cards) to be able to play the sound on all of these stations concurrently? Or, is the sound satisfactory mixing everything through a single sound card? If using a single sound card, can you easily adjust down the volume on MTV so that the baseball commentary and the Star Trek sound track are easily audible?
You could be right, but I personally think their entire case is built on fantasy. They may have assumed they would find something to justify the case as it went forward. One reason they are stalling is that they are desperately trying to find something, anything to prevent the case just being declared frivolous.
Yea, you must be new here would probably be moderated as "Funny" but I beat you to it.