I know it's kind of a running joke, but twice in the last few years I've ended up with an Impala as a rental car while on vacation, and both times came away rather impressed. My current car's approaching end of life, I'm considering an Impala for my next one.
Good, I won't have to bother.
It's not WoW's PVP, I've seen it in a dozen games, each of which has claimed to "do it right." Despite what some people say, not "everyone really, really likes PVP down underneath it all, you know... if it's done RIGHT."
Lego Star Wars is really excellent for casual gaming. My 3-year-old daughter got on a SW kick recently, and we bought some goodies for her. LSW2 looked like something fun I could play with her watching and making suggestions. I've found myself also playing it at night after she goes to bed a bit.
Allows for 2-player co-op too.
For all the good it did, after returning to the US from a vacation in Canada in 2005 and learning of the whole deal (front page news there, nary a peep here) I wrote both my Senators and my congresswoman, urging them to just settle the claims.
I doubt it did anything, but here's one American who tried.
Actually, I was considering a move there a year or two ago and looked into it. While property crime is moderately high in Vancouver, violent crime is exceptionally low (save for the odd cannibalistic pig farmer).
So it's entirely possible that you could have a greater incidence of crime around you and still feel safer.
No doubt, UO came first. But EQ had some important differences, namely clearly superior graphics, first-person play, and what could be seen as a reversion -- level-based character advancement.
Almost every moderately-successful MMOGs that came after EQ, including WoW, on the whole bear a much closer resemblance to EQ than they do to UO.
I haven't either. Frankly, there's not much in pop music I'm interested in, so I don't mind shelling out $15 for a CD the once a year I get an itch to hear something. As for movies, I just can't imagine sitting at my PC watching the movie. If I'm sitting there, I'm either working or playing some sort of game. I'll sit on my couch and watch the movie that Netflix mailed me or TiVo saved. It's just... less irritating, and I can afford the small monthly fees.
It's not even that I have a big moral objection to the downloading -- any more than I had to accepting a mix tape from a friend in 1982 and listening to it. It's just not worth my bother. Those PIRACY = STEALING advertizements on DVDs I'm forced to fast forward through and stuff like this though are nearly irritating enough to get over the inertia that's keeping me legal.
Here's how I finally got someone to "Get it."
You pick a door, and before anything else, I say "what if I offer you everything behind the other two doors instead of what's behind the door you initially picked." Don't answer yet... you're inclined to take it. It's obviously better.
Now I tell you "I'm revealing now that there's at least one goat behind those two doors." It shouldn't change your answer -- from logic there MUST be at least one goat behind those two doors, so I'm not revealing any new information.
Now... you're inclined to take the other two doors... why does it matter if I show you where that one goat is?
It doesn't.
That's what switching does -- the choice to switch gives you everything behind the other two doors, we just show you the goat that you already know is there in advance.
And if that STILL doesn't do it -- just program it and check it out empirically.
Heh, I know one of these who needs a job. Guy came in as a consultant on a huge db conversion project we were insanely understaffed on, so as a highly paid contractor, they gave him a part of it and left him alone.
Naturally his part got delayed and whatnot, and as it became clear toward the end of the main body of the project was nearing an end, he was hired on by management in a senior admin position, despite some vague warnings from those in the trenches.
Once his part of it got finished, well behind the rest, all the rank-and-file admins realized he was a complete incompetent, who would just drone on and on based on bad premises to anyone who would listen. To anyone who didn't know better (read: management) he was a brilliant admin with biting analysis. To everyone with a clue, he was a clueless idiot doing pointless busiwork to hide it.
Of course, management loved him, and he stayed with us for nearly THREE YEARS before finally there were enough documented cases of him destroying stuff for management to give in and restrict his rights -- whereupon he used what access he did still have to let himself back in under someone else's ID. At that point, caught red-handed, and finally confessing after denying it, he FINALLY got canned because there was simply no other option.
Weeeeeeeell... that's all true, but like an earlier poster, not relevant to THIS decision. This particular one was about an upcoming hearing about a couple of matters: IBM wants reconsideration on the "produce everything" document, SCO wants to ammend its claims AGAIN, and IBM wants the judge to force SCO to pin down its claims now, instead of at the end of discovery.
Oh, and the Palmisano deposition.
Anyway, SCO wanted to postpone the whole mishmosh until June, and the judge said no. So next week, they go to court. Don't expect anything decided that day. On the spot rulings have been very rare in this case, in most instances it's been 2 days to 2 weeks before the rulings come down, although the "No Credible Evidence" ruling of a few weeks ago makes one think SCO's bankroll of goodwill with the judges is wearing thin.
Really now? HHGTTG has been at various times, as sanctioned by Adams, a book, a stage play, a television show, and originally a radio series.
And all of these are amazingly inconsistent with each other. So if the movie doesn't match all or any of these, so what? It's all in the great tradition of the stories. As long as they stay on theme and there's some relation, I'm good.
Well, yeah, and it'll have to be entertaining too. But "it doesn't match the book" is about the silliest anti- argument ever for this.
1. SCO wanted a dismissal of IBM's 10th counterclaim. Flatly denied, the court says it's relevant to the main case and will be covered.
2. IBM's 10th counterclaim for a finding of non-infringement. Denied, and this one has the "SCO's shown no evidence yet" language. The only reason covered is that discovery's not done yet. The judge doesn't even use the word "deny." He says "the court cannot grant summary judgment to IBM given the posture of this case at the present time. However, IBM is free to renew or refile its motion on its Tenth Counterclaim after the close of discovery."
3. A SCO motion relevant to the 10th CC was rendered moot.
4. IBM trying to strike the motions of Sontag, et al. This one is a loss for IBM, but it's not relevant to the case itself. The judge's ruling indicates that they're relevant only at this point in regards to the recent discovery motions. They have no relevance to the actual facts of the case.
5. & 6. IBM looking for PSJ on the 8th counterclaim and SCO's breach of contract claim. Again, like the 10th, "many of the claims and counterclaims are dependent on the resolution of other claims and that judicial economy is not served in this action by entertaining dispositive motions prior to the close of discovery." No comment as to the validity of the argument.
I count there one minor loss for IBM, one minor loss for SCO, one thing ruled irrelevant, and 3 items delayed. That's a push at worst. Add in the actual text, and it's very clear SCO's in a lot of trouble unless they come up with something in the extended discovery.
That's a bit of a stretch. There's a strong case to be made for taking a stand based on disobedience. Rosa Parks was breaking the law, doesn't mean she wasn't a "true patriot."
BWAHHH! The call was freakin' BRUTAL on SCO. Let me see if I can recap the Q&A
Q1: So, what's the basis for the AutoZone suit? I read the guy who did the conversion says IBM wasn't involved, nor did they use any of your code. [This was on Groklaw] A: Third party sites are really just shills for IBM. But sorry, Wells [judge in the IBM case] told us not to get into specifics. This is about our IP though blah blah protectrightscakes. We'll leave it for the courtroom.
Q2 [Skiba]: Is the $3.4 mil you spent on legal expenses expected to cover the new suits too? A: Yes
Q3 [Boston Globe]: So what does the Daimler suit have to do with Linux? A: It's actually about them not answering the letter we sent them ordering them to state they're not illegally running any of our stuff, as they should of done, since we had a contract. Follow Up Q: So, this doesn't have anything to do with Linux per se? A: Well, we don't have any proof, but they haven't said that they're NOT infringing, so we'll sue and see what happens.
Q4: Why AutoZone and Daimler? A: AZ's using our IP and DC hasn't answered our letter.
Q5 [E-Week]: Clarify on AutoZone... is it about the conversion libraries? A: It's an issue, but it's not the core of the copyright claim.
Q6 [Computerworld]: So what happens if companies continue to not pay? A: We'll sue them too. FUQ: Will you return the money if you lose the relevant cases, and it's found that you have no IP rights in Linux? A: We revealed some code last summer and Linux people admitted our code was erroneously in Linux. We're very confident that infringement is occuring. [Totally ducks the question]
Q7: So you're not actually claiming any infringement on Daimler? A: No.
Q8: Don't these two new suits hinge on you winning vs. Novell to show who actually owns the IP? A: No, because we own the IP. We have a filed copyright for it.
Q9: Are you planning to take this litigation strategy abroad? A: Yes, we're looking into Asia and Europe right now.
Q10 [Investors Business Daily]: Aren't you afraid of sending the message you're going after your own customers first? When are you going to sue Linux users who AREN'T your customers? A: AutoZone and Daimler aren't CURRENT SCO customers, they haven't paid us for a while. But they're still bound by our licenses and contracts, so we're suing them.
Q11: How's this timeline for the new cases going to be affected by the IBM and Novell cases? A: It's impossible to predict the future, neither of these are relevant to the IBM case, and the Daimler suit is s astate case, so it will proceed more quickly.
Q12: Any upcoming suits in the UK, say in the next few months? A: Not going to discuss that today. We're working on IP enforcement in Europe and Japan, but they're a bit behind. FUQ: Can you comment on the Australian case? [A group called CyberKnights have filed complaints with the Australian CCC (like the FTC in the US) that's similar to the RedHat v. SCO suit]. A: Nobody's suing us in Australia. FUQ: You're not familiar with CyberKnights? A: No.
Q13: So we've seen SCOsource have one customer [EV1]. How do you count that revenue? A: As we receive the money. Some are one time, some are over time. EV1 is paying over time, but we can't go into specifics.
Q14: You said before the Novell suit has no bearing on these cases, but it seems like it has a lot of bearing on any copyright suit. A: Well, they said they had it, then backed off, then came back. We've always said the copyright is ours. FUQ: But both of you have registered the copyright. Don't you have to prove you own it? A: That's for the court to decide. FUQ: Why's you file in Nevada for AutoZone? A: That's where they are. FUQ: Back to the bit about suing ex-/customers, don't you think that'll scare off potential customers? A: Our current customers love us, they're cheering us on for protecting their rights. FUQ: I mean FUTURE customers. A:
Actually, there is a reason. Monopoly was a non-commercial game popular with the Quaker community in Atlantic City, NJ at the time that Darrow learned it, changed almost nothing, and sold it to Parker Brothers.
Hasbro (now owner of Parker Brothers) likes to pretend that Darrow invented it, but the courts have ruled elsewise.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's kind of a running joke, but twice in the last few years I've ended up with an Impala as a rental car while on vacation, and both times came away rather impressed. My current car's approaching end of life, I'm considering an Impala for my next one.
I'd like to visit The Moon on a rocket ship high in the air. Yes, I'd like to visit The Moon, but I don't think I'd like to live there.
It did say, however, that the season pass was valid for all season 5 episodes aired in 2012.
This fellow from Stratford made Shakespeare not boring with live video depictions of his plays around 1600, give or take 15 years.
Good, I won't have to bother. It's not WoW's PVP, I've seen it in a dozen games, each of which has claimed to "do it right." Despite what some people say, not "everyone really, really likes PVP down underneath it all, you know... if it's done RIGHT."
Lego Star Wars is really excellent for casual gaming. My 3-year-old daughter got on a SW kick recently, and we bought some goodies for her. LSW2 looked like something fun I could play with her watching and making suggestions. I've found myself also playing it at night after she goes to bed a bit. Allows for 2-player co-op too.
For all the good it did, after returning to the US from a vacation in Canada in 2005 and learning of the whole deal (front page news there, nary a peep here) I wrote both my Senators and my congresswoman, urging them to just settle the claims.
I doubt it did anything, but here's one American who tried.
Let's start with the part where pi equals 3. We can go on from there.
Actually, I was considering a move there a year or two ago and looked into it. While property crime is moderately high in Vancouver, violent crime is exceptionally low (save for the odd cannibalistic pig farmer).
So it's entirely possible that you could have a greater incidence of crime around you and still feel safer.
Almost every moderately-successful MMOGs that came after EQ, including WoW, on the whole bear a much closer resemblance to EQ than they do to UO.
With the tags and everything? Cool!
I haven't either. Frankly, there's not much in pop music I'm interested in, so I don't mind shelling out $15 for a CD the once a year I get an itch to hear something. As for movies, I just can't imagine sitting at my PC watching the movie. If I'm sitting there, I'm either working or playing some sort of game. I'll sit on my couch and watch the movie that Netflix mailed me or TiVo saved. It's just... less irritating, and I can afford the small monthly fees.
It's not even that I have a big moral objection to the downloading -- any more than I had to accepting a mix tape from a friend in 1982 and listening to it. It's just not worth my bother. Those PIRACY = STEALING advertizements on DVDs I'm forced to fast forward through and stuff like this though are nearly irritating enough to get over the inertia that's keeping me legal.
Here's how I finally got someone to "Get it." You pick a door, and before anything else, I say "what if I offer you everything behind the other two doors instead of what's behind the door you initially picked." Don't answer yet... you're inclined to take it. It's obviously better. Now I tell you "I'm revealing now that there's at least one goat behind those two doors." It shouldn't change your answer -- from logic there MUST be at least one goat behind those two doors, so I'm not revealing any new information. Now... you're inclined to take the other two doors... why does it matter if I show you where that one goat is? It doesn't. That's what switching does -- the choice to switch gives you everything behind the other two doors, we just show you the goat that you already know is there in advance. And if that STILL doesn't do it -- just program it and check it out empirically.
>
Heh, I know one of these who needs a job. Guy came in as a consultant on a huge db conversion project we were insanely understaffed on, so as a highly paid contractor, they gave him a part of it and left him alone.
Naturally his part got delayed and whatnot, and as it became clear toward the end of the main body of the project was nearing an end, he was hired on by management in a senior admin position, despite some vague warnings from those in the trenches.
Once his part of it got finished, well behind the rest, all the rank-and-file admins realized he was a complete incompetent, who would just drone on and on based on bad premises to anyone who would listen. To anyone who didn't know better (read: management) he was a brilliant admin with biting analysis. To everyone with a clue, he was a clueless idiot doing pointless busiwork to hide it.
Of course, management loved him, and he stayed with us for nearly THREE YEARS before finally there were enough documented cases of him destroying stuff for management to give in and restrict his rights -- whereupon he used what access he did still have to let himself back in under someone else's ID. At that point, caught red-handed, and finally confessing after denying it, he FINALLY got canned because there was simply no other option.
So, yeah, hire him. Your boss deserves it.
Weeeeeeeell... that's all true, but like an earlier poster, not relevant to THIS decision. This particular one was about an upcoming hearing about a couple of matters: IBM wants reconsideration on the "produce everything" document, SCO wants to ammend its claims AGAIN, and IBM wants the judge to force SCO to pin down its claims now, instead of at the end of discovery. Oh, and the Palmisano deposition. Anyway, SCO wanted to postpone the whole mishmosh until June, and the judge said no. So next week, they go to court. Don't expect anything decided that day. On the spot rulings have been very rare in this case, in most instances it's been 2 days to 2 weeks before the rulings come down, although the "No Credible Evidence" ruling of a few weeks ago makes one think SCO's bankroll of goodwill with the judges is wearing thin.
Really now? HHGTTG has been at various times, as sanctioned by Adams, a book, a stage play, a television show, and originally a radio series.
And all of these are amazingly inconsistent with each other. So if the movie doesn't match all or any of these, so what? It's all in the great tradition of the stories. As long as they stay on theme and there's some relation, I'm good.
Well, yeah, and it'll have to be entertaining too. But "it doesn't match the book" is about the silliest anti- argument ever for this.
Well, anything that leads to the bombing of AOL can't be ALL bad.
1. SCO wanted a dismissal of IBM's 10th counterclaim. Flatly denied, the court says it's relevant to the main case and will be covered.
2. IBM's 10th counterclaim for a finding of non-infringement. Denied, and this one has the "SCO's shown no evidence yet" language. The only reason covered is that discovery's not done yet. The judge doesn't even use the word "deny." He says "the court cannot grant summary judgment to IBM given the posture of this case at the present time. However, IBM is free to renew or refile its motion on its Tenth Counterclaim after the close of discovery."
3. A SCO motion relevant to the 10th CC was rendered moot.
4. IBM trying to strike the motions of Sontag, et al. This one is a loss for IBM, but it's not relevant to the case itself. The judge's ruling indicates that they're relevant only at this point in regards to the recent discovery motions. They have no relevance to the actual facts of the case.
5. & 6. IBM looking for PSJ on the 8th counterclaim and SCO's breach of contract claim. Again, like the 10th, "many of the claims and counterclaims are dependent on the resolution of other claims and that judicial economy is not served in this action by entertaining dispositive motions prior to the close of discovery." No comment as to the validity of the argument.
I count there one minor loss for IBM, one minor loss for SCO, one thing ruled irrelevant, and 3 items delayed. That's a push at worst. Add in the actual text, and it's very clear SCO's in a lot of trouble unless they come up with something in the extended discovery.
Bless me, Father, for I have GOTOed.
That's a bit of a stretch. There's a strong case to be made for taking a stand based on disobedience. Rosa Parks was breaking the law, doesn't mean she wasn't a "true patriot."
>I'm posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
Well, of course.
1. You're Darl.
2. You make no sense.
But I'm being redundant....
BWAHHH! The call was freakin' BRUTAL on SCO. Let me see if I can recap the Q&A
Q1: So, what's the basis for the AutoZone suit? I read the guy who did the conversion says IBM wasn't involved, nor did they use any of your code. [This was on Groklaw]
A: Third party sites are really just shills for IBM. But sorry, Wells [judge in the IBM case] told us not to get into specifics. This is about our IP though blah blah protectrightscakes. We'll leave it for the courtroom.
Q2 [Skiba]: Is the $3.4 mil you spent on legal expenses expected to cover the new suits too?
A: Yes
Q3 [Boston Globe]: So what does the Daimler suit have to do with Linux?
A: It's actually about them not answering the letter we sent them ordering them to state they're not illegally running any of our stuff, as they should of done, since we had a contract.
Follow Up Q: So, this doesn't have anything to do with Linux per se?
A: Well, we don't have any proof, but they haven't said that they're NOT infringing, so we'll sue and see what happens.
Q4: Why AutoZone and Daimler?
A: AZ's using our IP and DC hasn't answered our letter.
Q5 [E-Week]: Clarify on AutoZone... is it about the conversion libraries?
A: It's an issue, but it's not the core of the copyright claim.
Q6 [Computerworld]: So what happens if companies continue to not pay?
A: We'll sue them too.
FUQ: Will you return the money if you lose the relevant cases, and it's found that you have no IP rights in Linux?
A: We revealed some code last summer and Linux people admitted our code was erroneously in Linux. We're very confident that infringement is occuring. [Totally ducks the question]
Q7: So you're not actually claiming any infringement on Daimler?
A: No.
Q8: Don't these two new suits hinge on you winning vs. Novell to show who actually owns the IP?
A: No, because we own the IP. We have a filed copyright for it.
Q9: Are you planning to take this litigation strategy abroad?
A: Yes, we're looking into Asia and Europe right now.
Q10 [Investors Business Daily]: Aren't you afraid of sending the message you're going after your own customers first? When are you going to sue Linux users who AREN'T your customers?
A: AutoZone and Daimler aren't CURRENT SCO customers, they haven't paid us for a while. But they're still bound by our licenses and contracts, so we're suing them.
Q11: How's this timeline for the new cases going to be affected by the IBM and Novell cases?
A: It's impossible to predict the future, neither of these are relevant to the IBM case, and the Daimler suit is s astate case, so it will proceed more quickly.
Q12: Any upcoming suits in the UK, say in the next few months?
A: Not going to discuss that today. We're working on IP enforcement in Europe and Japan, but they're a bit behind.
FUQ: Can you comment on the Australian case? [A group called CyberKnights have filed complaints with the Australian CCC (like the FTC in the US) that's similar to the RedHat v. SCO suit].
A: Nobody's suing us in Australia.
FUQ: You're not familiar with CyberKnights?
A: No.
Q13: So we've seen SCOsource have one customer [EV1]. How do you count that revenue?
A: As we receive the money. Some are one time, some are over time. EV1 is paying over time, but we can't go into specifics.
Q14: You said before the Novell suit has no bearing on these cases, but it seems like it has a lot of bearing on any copyright suit.
A: Well, they said they had it, then backed off, then came back. We've always said the copyright is ours.
FUQ: But both of you have registered the copyright. Don't you have to prove you own it?
A: That's for the court to decide.
FUQ: Why's you file in Nevada for AutoZone?
A: That's where they are.
FUQ: Back to the bit about suing ex-/customers, don't you think that'll scare off potential customers?
A: Our current customers love us, they're cheering us on for protecting their rights.
FUQ: I mean FUTURE customers.
A:
you're using my IP too! Please send me $1 million. What? I've shown you as much proof as SCO has.
Well, there's a lot of gnome punting discussed in EQ, and I haven't seen anyone banned for it yet.
Actually, there is a reason. Monopoly was a non-commercial game popular with the Quaker community in Atlantic City, NJ at the time that Darrow learned it, changed almost nothing, and sold it to Parker Brothers. Hasbro (now owner of Parker Brothers) likes to pretend that Darrow invented it, but the courts have ruled elsewise.