IF YOU had taken the time to read the article before rushing to post, you would have found that the ads are displayed via ad-ware that runs on your computer. If you are using Linux that is not a problem. But if you are using Windows, then any "free" software that you download might be infected with spy-ware. How else do you think that a competitor's ad could pop-up when you visit UHaul.
Once again, we have some one that did not read the article before posting. Could we have a mod option for "posted with out reading the article?" I mean this could save a lot of miss information on/.
Whahoo. I am excited now. I am glad to know that some jugde just decried that I accepted Spam and other unsolicited garbage when I hooked up to the internet. Last time I checked, I hooked up to the internet so that I could get information that I wanted. Spam, eta al, I did not want.
Then the other problem I have is that who really consents to the dumb software? I mean, how many of you actually know that you installed ad-ware when you download a program. They don't exactly you that you installed ad-ware. I have sent a whole bunch of emails to Gator yelling at them and asking how on earth to get the trash off my computer. They never respond.
I guess this what you get when you run Windows. Worse yet, this is what happens when a judge rules on something that he knows nonething about.
Does RIAA read/.? I mean with everyone annoucing that they are file sharers, if I were RIAA I would be following/.
(Sorry RIAA, I am no file sharer. I am just boycotting you, complained about your actions to my congressman and generally and specifically hate the actions of your organization. I actually hope that you and your archaic business model fold and die. Well, with that off my chest...good night)
We should rename the DCMA to the Digitial Copyright and Monopoly Act. It seems that all it is doing is helping monopolies get stronger. It seems that the DCMA in this case is strengthening monopolies.
But wait a minute, if I produce a document, then that document is my copyrighted work. Since when does Microsoft get to claim DCMA protection on a work that is not THEIRS. IF the work was produced by M$ then I could see protection. If Microsoft was to chase down OpenOffice for DCMA issues, then I could see all sorts of court fun -- anti-competive practices, et al. Besides, who gives M$ the right to say what program can read my files.
No, we need to create a honeypot farm. You remember that article way back when on Slashdot? It described how to implenent a whole farm. Then we strictly prohibit scanning of the networks for MD5 checksums. Since RIAA is using bots, they won't read the warning and fire off the subeona. When you get a subeona, then you slam them with a computer crime lawsuit. See, you can still get rich from RIAA. But how do you get illegal MD5 check sums with out possesing the files? If you wanna screw with RIAA you have to be damned sure that you right.
No it is called black mail, and extortion. At the very least you are entitled to a full refund of the purchase price. I would mail them back the CD's, tell 'em you wiped your system of there version of Linux and demand a full refund, because there is no way you will give them $200. If they balk, take them to small claims court. SUE THE BASTAGES!
Well, since SCO has violated the GPL by argueing it invalid, then the Samba team ought to charge $699 per CPU on each OpenServe computer sold. Better yet, they ought to charge $20,000 each for copyright enfringment. Screw SCO at their own game. Heck, lets start a GNU fundraiser to collect funds for a legal offense. SCO may be big, but if the Samba team uses the same tactics as SCO, then it could hurt their sales. What would you think if you were stupid enough to buy an SCO Openserve and then WHAM! you find a note from the Samba team telling you that you must cease and desist use of your server because of copyright and licensing infringment that is PROVABLE. If I were in that situation, I would not even want to have a "conflict machine."
Do these pricks at SCO really have any idea what morons they are? You can not claim a model is invalid, reject it, file suit against it, claim it is illegal, and at the same time enjoy the fruits of it. I don't care what form of convoluted logic you follow, it does not work, and it can not work.
I can tell you this much, SCO will never have my money. I will stop using computer before I even give that unethical, lying, corrupt company any money. As far as I am concerned, they can drop dead.
And SCO if your reading this, I am running FreeBSD. I am just pissed off that you are attacking the Free Software movement so that you can line your own pockets. I have half a mind to put togther a Linux machine just so I perhaps in some small way get under your skin -- but I won't, because I like the style of FreeBSD. GO TO HELL. (Excuse my French)
Acutally, if you check out this NASDAQ chart, (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=SCO X&selected=SCOX) you will find some rather interesting numbers. For example, one Mr. Broughton, a vice president has sold more than 35,000 shares with the intent to sell another 10,000 shares. Further, no SCO exec has bought any shares in the past three months, but have sold over 107,000 shares. Now, if you really had faith in your company, why would you be selling stocks.
Here is the history for the last three months.
BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES VP 8/5/2003 Sell
5,000 $12.570 120,000
BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES VP 7/30/2003 Sell
30,000 $12.810 125,000
HUNSAKER JEFF F VP 7/23/2003 Sell
10,000 $13.440 20,494
WILSON MICHAEL S VP 7/15/2003 Sell
12,000 $10.800 -
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 7/11/2003 Sell
8,000 $10.990 58,830
BENCH ROBERT K CF 7/8/2003 Sell
7,000 $11.120 228,043
BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES VP 6/25/2003 Sell
10,000 $10.000 155,000
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 6/11/2003 Sell
6,000 $8.660 66,830
BENCH ROBERT K CF 6/9/2003 Sell
7,000 $9.300 235,043
HUNSAKER JEFF F VP 6/6/2003 Sell
5,000 $8.900 30,494
BAWA OPINDER VP 6/4/2003 Sell
7,916 $6.600 15,000
BENCH ROBERT K CF 4/8/2003 Sell
4,100 $2.900 241,094
BENCH ROBERT K CF 3/10/2003 Sell
7,000 $3.060 245,194
MCBRIDE DARL C OD 10/14/2002 Buy
8,000 $1.130 5,000
BENCH ROBERT K CF 7/12/2002 Buy
15,000 $0.900 251,749
YARRO RALPH J D 7/9/2002 Buy
10,000 $0.820 5,328,669
BENCH ROBERT K CF 6/6/2002 Buy
21,900 $0.920 71,749
TARANTELLA INC B 4/15/2002 Sell
174,400 $1.080 3,115,000
BENCH ROBERT K CF 4/12/2002 Buy
40,100 $1.030 49,849
TARANTELLA INC B 3/28/2002 Sell
500,000 $1.110 3,289,400
Another interesting fact is that in the year prior, there were only 14 insider transactions. If that is not good enough here are the proposed insider transactions.
If you check out the website listed above (Slashdot would not let me post any more of the above) you would see that our friend Reginald is wanting to sell another 50,000 or so stock shares. Anybody want to explain the VP Reginald's plan? I mean, he sells of 35,000, has another 10,000 shares pending for sale, and now he wants to sell more? Give me a break. The numbers are not lying. Gee, I don't know....11 transactions in the past three months, with Darl being one of the few buyers, and everyone else is selling. Hummmm....
The SCO website in the FAQ says that even SCO Linux must be licensed under the new program. Which seems interesting, because some people already paid for it. They would most likely be the first targets.
How come Linus, who owns the trademark to Linux doesn't simply revoke the right for SCO to use the Linux trademark? I mean, SCO launched this whole attempt to hijack Linux, why doesn't Linus just really screw up SCO whole plan and demand that for every time SCO even mentions the name Linux they owe Linus some money, and then he donates the money to the Redhat or IBM lawsuits.
I am thinking that the pricing plan should follow:
with 1 PAGE $699 with 2 PAGE $1,149 with 4 PAGE $2,499 with 8 PAGE $4,999 Each page thereafter: $749
A single, non-linking page: $199 (this must be a page which is not referranced by any other page, however if may referrance any other document...violation of this will revert the document back to the one page price)
Further, Linus has the power to audit the documents of SCO. Linus will pay for the auditing of SCO unless SCO is found to have non-liscenced pages exceeding $5000. In that event, SCO will pay Linus for the auditing and the unlicensed documents. This is to protect Linus' "IP" rights, and to ensure that internal, undeclared documents do not contain unlicensed
In addition, SCO agrees to follow an internal method of keeping track of documents containing the trademark "Linux." SCO will have the power to review these records upon demand.
Actually, for a good laugh, check out the SCO website. Even if you bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux, quess what? YOU HAVE TO BUY AN IP LICENSE. Now isn't that nice? So for those that bought an SCO Linux, your going to get raped again. Looks like SCO took licensing lessons from Microsoft. Go figure.
Anybody have the home address of a couple of SCO execs?
We could publish that and then have Slashdot readers send them a letter of protest. Imagine the pain and agony as an SCO exec has to sort through thousands of pieces of mail just to find his mortage bill, his phone bill, his credit card bill.....
Does anybody know if SCO and RIAA are sharing the same law firm? I mean, both companies said, "Let's take on the world." And they are both suprised about the response. Perhaps the real solution wouild be to try the laywers advising both RIAA and SCO for malpractice....
"It is the company policy that we destroy the random database after it is written into the secruity key. We do not keep the duplicates and nobody in this world other than you has the duplicates."
Came straight from the company website....
http://www.enovatech.net
How about extortain, rackateering and insider trading charges for the SCO folks?
Honestly, lets look at the options. SCO says they have a case, and from what we are seeing they don't. Whether or not they have a case, SCO is fried. But let's have fun with the fall of the moronic.
Extortion: If SCO does not own the rights to Unix as they claim they do, then the companies which have been put on notice could file extortion charges. The fact remains that they are argueing that there are problems with the Linux code, but they refuse to tell people, publicly, what pieces of the code have the suspect issues. That is like me walking up to you and saying that your car violates my patent rights. When you ask which ones I tell you that it confidentail. Then I demand royalties. Trying to enforce an unknown violation with out evidence and demanding money is extortion.
Rackateering: This one could be fun. Federal law says that one guilty of rackateering has to fork out quadriple damages. Three or four charges of extortion could then make the scope of the criminal charges go to rackateering.
Collusion: Isn't it interesting that Microsoft is one of two companies to license the suspect code? I think that a public discussion on the subject could be interesting. We all know that Microsoft claims that Linux is a "viral software" and a "threat." Is Microsoft supporting SCO to help put Linux down? Let's get the FTC there too.
Unethical business practices: This is pretty obvious. Staying in business by acquiring and then sueing is pretty low if you ask me. Since invided the FTC for collusion, let's have them look at this one too.
Insider Trading: Let's invite the SEC to the table for a little fun too. Can't let the FBI have all the fun. Let's look at whether any of the SCO people who would have had any knowlegde of this law suit have bought, sold or traded any shares in any company that got a letter from SCO. If within a time frame before or after the announcement stocks where sold, then it would constitute insider trading. The best part, is that it doesn't matter how many shares. Wouldn't it be fun if the CEO of SCO had sold off his IBM shares just prior? I think that the SCO execs would make great cells mates to Martha Stewart.
Hey, between the suits, and counter suits from IBM, Novell, and the others that will shortly come a little external pressure from the FBI, Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commision, and the Securities and Exchange Commision might help SCO to make an informed decision about future "business moves."
Slashdot Mirror
IF YOU had taken the time to read the article before rushing to post, you would have found that the ads are displayed via ad-ware that runs on your computer. If you are using Linux that is not a problem. But if you are using Windows, then any "free" software that you download might be infected with spy-ware. How else do you think that a competitor's ad could pop-up when you visit UHaul. Once again, we have some one that did not read the article before posting. Could we have a mod option for "posted with out reading the article?" I mean this could save a lot of miss information on /.
Whahoo. I am excited now. I am glad to know that some jugde just decried that I accepted Spam and other unsolicited garbage when I hooked up to the internet. Last time I checked, I hooked up to the internet so that I could get information that I wanted. Spam, eta al, I did not want. Then the other problem I have is that who really consents to the dumb software? I mean, how many of you actually know that you installed ad-ware when you download a program. They don't exactly you that you installed ad-ware. I have sent a whole bunch of emails to Gator yelling at them and asking how on earth to get the trash off my computer. They never respond. I guess this what you get when you run Windows. Worse yet, this is what happens when a judge rules on something that he knows nonething about.
Does RIAA read /.? I mean with everyone annoucing that they are file sharers, if I were RIAA I would be following /.
/. get a spell checker?
(Sorry RIAA, I am no file sharer. I am just boycotting you, complained about your actions to my congressman and generally and specifically hate the actions of your organization. I actually hope that you and your archaic business model fold and die. Well, with that off my chest...good night)
Can
We should rename the DCMA to the Digitial Copyright and Monopoly Act. It seems that all it is doing is helping monopolies get stronger. It seems that the DCMA in this case is strengthening monopolies. But wait a minute, if I produce a document, then that document is my copyrighted work. Since when does Microsoft get to claim DCMA protection on a work that is not THEIRS. IF the work was produced by M$ then I could see protection. If Microsoft was to chase down OpenOffice for DCMA issues, then I could see all sorts of court fun -- anti-competive practices, et al. Besides, who gives M$ the right to say what program can read my files.
No, we need to create a honeypot farm. You remember that article way back when on Slashdot? It described how to implenent a whole farm. Then we strictly prohibit scanning of the networks for MD5 checksums. Since RIAA is using bots, they won't read the warning and fire off the subeona. When you get a subeona, then you slam them with a computer crime lawsuit. See, you can still get rich from RIAA. But how do you get illegal MD5 check sums with out possesing the files? If you wanna screw with RIAA you have to be damned sure that you right.
Already did...the reply is that it is a federal matter and they can't interfer.
No it is called black mail, and extortion. At the very least you are entitled to a full refund of the purchase price. I would mail them back the CD's, tell 'em you wiped your system of there version of Linux and demand a full refund, because there is no way you will give them $200. If they balk, take them to small claims court. SUE THE BASTAGES!
Well, since SCO has violated the GPL by argueing it invalid, then the Samba team ought to charge $699 per CPU on each OpenServe computer sold. Better yet, they ought to charge $20,000 each for copyright enfringment. Screw SCO at their own game. Heck, lets start a GNU fundraiser to collect funds for a legal offense. SCO may be big, but if the Samba team uses the same tactics as SCO, then it could hurt their sales. What would you think if you were stupid enough to buy an SCO Openserve and then WHAM! you find a note from the Samba team telling you that you must cease and desist use of your server because of copyright and licensing infringment that is PROVABLE. If I were in that situation, I would not even want to have a "conflict machine." Do these pricks at SCO really have any idea what morons they are? You can not claim a model is invalid, reject it, file suit against it, claim it is illegal, and at the same time enjoy the fruits of it. I don't care what form of convoluted logic you follow, it does not work, and it can not work. I can tell you this much, SCO will never have my money. I will stop using computer before I even give that unethical, lying, corrupt company any money. As far as I am concerned, they can drop dead. And SCO if your reading this, I am running FreeBSD. I am just pissed off that you are attacking the Free Software movement so that you can line your own pockets. I have half a mind to put togther a Linux machine just so I perhaps in some small way get under your skin -- but I won't, because I like the style of FreeBSD. GO TO HELL. (Excuse my French)
Acutally, if you check out this NASDAQ chart, (http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/Holdings.asp?symbol=SCO X&selected=SCOX) you will find some rather interesting numbers. For example, one Mr. Broughton, a vice president has sold more than 35,000 shares with the intent to sell another 10,000 shares. Further, no SCO exec has bought any shares in the past three months, but have sold over 107,000 shares. Now, if you really had faith in your company, why would you be selling stocks.
Here is the history for the last three months.
BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES VP 8/5/2003 Sell
5,000 $12.570 120,000
BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES VP 7/30/2003 Sell
30,000 $12.810 125,000
HUNSAKER JEFF F VP 7/23/2003 Sell
10,000 $13.440 20,494
WILSON MICHAEL S VP 7/15/2003 Sell
12,000 $10.800 -
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 7/11/2003 Sell
8,000 $10.990 58,830
BENCH ROBERT K CF 7/8/2003 Sell
7,000 $11.120 228,043
BROUGHTON REGINALD CHARLES VP 6/25/2003 Sell
10,000 $10.000 155,000
OLSON MICHAEL P VP 6/11/2003 Sell
6,000 $8.660 66,830
BENCH ROBERT K CF 6/9/2003 Sell
7,000 $9.300 235,043
HUNSAKER JEFF F VP 6/6/2003 Sell
5,000 $8.900 30,494
BAWA OPINDER VP 6/4/2003 Sell
7,916 $6.600 15,000
BENCH ROBERT K CF 4/8/2003 Sell
4,100 $2.900 241,094
BENCH ROBERT K CF 3/10/2003 Sell
7,000 $3.060 245,194
MCBRIDE DARL C OD 10/14/2002 Buy
8,000 $1.130 5,000
BENCH ROBERT K CF 7/12/2002 Buy
15,000 $0.900 251,749
YARRO RALPH J D 7/9/2002 Buy
10,000 $0.820 5,328,669
BENCH ROBERT K CF 6/6/2002 Buy
21,900 $0.920 71,749
TARANTELLA INC B 4/15/2002 Sell
174,400 $1.080 3,115,000
BENCH ROBERT K CF 4/12/2002 Buy
40,100 $1.030 49,849
TARANTELLA INC B 3/28/2002 Sell
500,000 $1.110 3,289,400
Another interesting fact is that in the year prior, there were only 14 insider transactions. If that is not good enough here are the proposed insider transactions.
If you check out the website listed above (Slashdot would not let me post any more of the above) you would see that our friend Reginald is wanting to sell another 50,000 or so stock shares. Anybody want to explain the VP Reginald's plan? I mean, he sells of 35,000, has another 10,000 shares pending for sale, and now he wants to sell more? Give me a break. The numbers are not lying. Gee, I don't know....11 transactions in the past three months, with Darl being one of the few buyers, and everyone else is selling. Hummmm....
The SCO website in the FAQ says that even SCO Linux must be licensed under the new program. Which seems interesting, because some people already paid for it. They would most likely be the first targets.
How come Linus, who owns the trademark to Linux doesn't simply revoke the right for SCO to use the Linux trademark? I mean, SCO launched this whole attempt to hijack Linux, why doesn't Linus just really screw up SCO whole plan and demand that for every time SCO even mentions the name Linux they owe Linus some money, and then he donates the money to the Redhat or IBM lawsuits.
I am thinking that the pricing plan should follow:
with 1 PAGE $699
with 2 PAGE $1,149
with 4 PAGE $2,499
with 8 PAGE $4,999
Each page thereafter: $749
A single, non-linking page: $199 (this must be a page which is not referranced by any other page, however if may referrance any other document...violation of this will revert the document back to the one page price)
Further, Linus has the power to audit the documents of SCO. Linus will pay for the auditing of SCO unless SCO is found to have non-liscenced pages exceeding $5000. In that event, SCO will pay Linus for the auditing and the unlicensed documents. This is to protect Linus' "IP" rights, and to ensure that internal, undeclared documents do not contain unlicensed
In addition, SCO agrees to follow an internal method of keeping track of documents containing the trademark "Linux." SCO will have the power to review these records upon demand.
Unless it is in Virginia. VA Law prescribes theft of $200, and then it goes felony....
Actually, for a good laugh, check out the SCO website. Even if you bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux, quess what? YOU HAVE TO BUY AN IP LICENSE. Now isn't that nice? So for those that bought an SCO Linux, your going to get raped again. Looks like SCO took licensing lessons from Microsoft. Go figure.
Anybody have the home address of a couple of SCO execs? We could publish that and then have Slashdot readers send them a letter of protest. Imagine the pain and agony as an SCO exec has to sort through thousands of pieces of mail just to find his mortage bill, his phone bill, his credit card bill.....
Does anybody know if SCO and RIAA are sharing the same law firm? I mean, both companies said, "Let's take on the world." And they are both suprised about the response. Perhaps the real solution wouild be to try the laywers advising both RIAA and SCO for malpractice....
"It is the company policy that we destroy the random database after it is written into the secruity key. We do not keep the duplicates and nobody in this world other than you has the duplicates." Came straight from the company website.... http://www.enovatech.net
How about extortain, rackateering and insider trading charges for the SCO folks? Honestly, lets look at the options. SCO says they have a case, and from what we are seeing they don't. Whether or not they have a case, SCO is fried. But let's have fun with the fall of the moronic. Extortion: If SCO does not own the rights to Unix as they claim they do, then the companies which have been put on notice could file extortion charges. The fact remains that they are argueing that there are problems with the Linux code, but they refuse to tell people, publicly, what pieces of the code have the suspect issues. That is like me walking up to you and saying that your car violates my patent rights. When you ask which ones I tell you that it confidentail. Then I demand royalties. Trying to enforce an unknown violation with out evidence and demanding money is extortion. Rackateering: This one could be fun. Federal law says that one guilty of rackateering has to fork out quadriple damages. Three or four charges of extortion could then make the scope of the criminal charges go to rackateering. Collusion: Isn't it interesting that Microsoft is one of two companies to license the suspect code? I think that a public discussion on the subject could be interesting. We all know that Microsoft claims that Linux is a "viral software" and a "threat." Is Microsoft supporting SCO to help put Linux down? Let's get the FTC there too. Unethical business practices: This is pretty obvious. Staying in business by acquiring and then sueing is pretty low if you ask me. Since invided the FTC for collusion, let's have them look at this one too. Insider Trading: Let's invite the SEC to the table for a little fun too. Can't let the FBI have all the fun. Let's look at whether any of the SCO people who would have had any knowlegde of this law suit have bought, sold or traded any shares in any company that got a letter from SCO. If within a time frame before or after the announcement stocks where sold, then it would constitute insider trading. The best part, is that it doesn't matter how many shares. Wouldn't it be fun if the CEO of SCO had sold off his IBM shares just prior? I think that the SCO execs would make great cells mates to Martha Stewart. Hey, between the suits, and counter suits from IBM, Novell, and the others that will shortly come a little external pressure from the FBI, Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commision, and the Securities and Exchange Commision might help SCO to make an informed decision about future "business moves."
So your saying that I should not check out PriceWatch.com right now for a 80gig? Damn...