SCO can sell any "license" they can get idiots to buy. Whether such is worth anything depends upon the outcome of the court case. SCO can claim that they own anything and everything.
It all comes down to whether the court will support their claim when they try to get money from someone for selling or licensing what SCO claims they own.
If they're making.doc's on Win3.1, they are not compatible with most of the world. MS was messing with the.doc format in Office95 and forward.
That is how MS used to push their latest versions.
I'll wait for the deployment to actually start before I trust anything published on a pro-Windows webpage.
With VMWare, they could run Win3.1 and all those apps, with a Linux base, and slowly migrate over to 100% Linux on the desktop.
When you're a city like Munich, you don't really need compatibility with the rest of the world. There aren't that many organizations bigger than you (aside from the national government) that you deal with. Everyone else will adopt whatever requirements you publish.
I say that we should wait and see what will actually be deployed and how.
He seems to like the look, but he can't hack the walk.
He even went AWOL from his Reserve unit, which he was placed in so he wouldn't have to face real combat.
No, I don't think he'd fight in this war, or any war. He seems to like to talk tough when surrounded by security. But he's had plenty of chances go active military and he's never done so.
That's right, it's a license.
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
As you noted, the music on the CD is covered by a license.
The same as the code on a Linux CD is covered by a license.
Stealing the music CD from a music store is the same as stealing the Linux CD from Frye's.
Copying the music from a music CD is the same as copying the code from a Linux CD.
If you don't want to follow the license, don't use the code.
You're making the furniture,
on
All The Rave
·
· Score: 1
but you're not making the music.
No one would have a problem if you listened to a song and then sang it in the shower at home.
By your logic, there is nothing wrong if Microsoft takes bits of Linux code without following the GPL. After all, the Linux code is still there.
No, I think that people on/. would have a big problem with that. Even the people like you.
You claim that our spy sats aren't good enough to spot what is being moved, yet back in the 60's they were good enough to spot the missiles the USSR had on Cuba.
But now they aren't that good.
Damn, if only we had had 1960's era technology to spot the weapons Saddam was hiding.
I have a degree and I did not have to "work hard mentaly" to get it.
College for me consisted of a lot of parties and sex. But I didn't have to study much for the tests. Maybe I'm just naturally gifted or something.
But I do see a lot of middle managers with degrees that would qualify as "dumb". They're good at social and political games. The kind where you get support for your projects because you golf with someone higher up the ladder.
He did this so the inspectors would not find anything and that would stop the US from attacking.
And you think this was "quite intelligent" of him?
After the US puts troops on his border. After the US blows off the UN. After the US gives him 48 hours to leave.
Well, you know, the US might not follow through on that. After all, you only tried to have Bush's daddy killed 10 years earlier. It probably isn't personal with Junior.
Junior just might not attack.
And you claim that Saddam was "quite intelligent"?
I said that Saddam did not use WMD's in that war. You said he did, on the Kurds.
No he did not. Not in the that war. The Kurds were gassed years before that war started.
It seems that you don't even know what happened in which war.
And the fact that we haven't found anything yet does mean something. It means that our intelligence on the subject was not accurate.
You can keep claiming that there was "lots of evidence that Iraq had WMD's", but that evidence exists only in your mind.
In each and every single instance where the US sent US troops and US inspectors to check a suspected WMD site, nothing has been found.
At last admission, over 100 sites had been checked (the top 100 most likely sites accourding to our intelligence) and nothing has been found.
Don't try that religious argument on me. I'm looking at verifiable facts.
Now, to some people, the absense of any evidence indicating any crime and the proof that such "evidence" as was claimed was false would seem to indicate that there was no crime.
But not to you. That just indicates that someone is hiding something. Because you know that there was a crime. That is very typical of certain religious viewpoints. Never let facts or the absence of supporting evidence get in your way.
It clearly illustrates the fact that no one liked Saddam.
Even in his own country there were thousands of people who would have been happy to kill him.
He couldn't travel from city to city without the body doubles and armor and body guards.
This guy was not a threat to the US. Not in the slightest way. He couldn't do a thing to hurt us.
Yet our government started the media blitz to build him into the worst dictator ever. Meanwhile, the killings were going on in Africa and we just skipped over them.
People who don't believe that our government could have lied about how bad Saddam was need to get over it.
Our government has admitted that Bush gave out incorrect information in his speech to the nation.
Face the fact, people. Your government lied to you. Your government admits it lied to you.
Just because Saddam was a bad guy who would have been killed in his own country does not mean he is worth a SINGLE US SOLDIER'S LIFE.
The US did give satelite intel to Iraq. But the US also provided biological samples and agricultural loans to Iraq. Those loans were used to develop Iraq's chemical weapons.
You also try to dodge the point on the killings that are happening right now. I'm not talking about mistakes in the past. I'm talking about how people get upset over killings that happened 10 years ago in Iraq, but don't care about killings happening last week in Africa. That is because this war was not about the killings.
No, the chances of finding WMD's are not slim. If those WMD's actually exist. The easiest way to have found them would be for Saddam to have used them on our invading forces. But he didn't.
Yes, Saddam had them in the past because we provided them. But the past is not the present.
Call it whatever you want. The facts speak for themselves.
Now as for your claim that Saddam violate the original cease fire that demanded he destroy his WMD's....... where are those WMD's that you claim he did not destroy?
Again, the facts seem to contradict your claims.
France and Russia would have serious problems back home if the UN inspectors had turned up any WMD's. But they didn't. That's the problem with a democracy.
Again, I have to correct you. People voting in a free election can elect to become a radical theocracy.
As for the media stunt, your claims just don't match with the pictures. Yes, the military would be the first to draw attention to it. Why do you even have to ask that?
Oh, that's one of those "rhetorical" questions, isn't it? It's one of those incorrect rhetorical questions.
Wow. Saddam didn't know we were going to attack? After we were building up troops on his border?
Maybe he didn't see our troops.
So Saddam had his people hide the weapons? Hide them where?
Well, that's obvious. They hid them somewhere where they couldn't get to them for days while the US troops advanced.
Iraq isn't that big. Hiding something on the other side of the country would only take a week.
So, the troops in eastern Iraq hid their weapons in western Iraq and the troops in western Iraq hid their weapons in eastern Iraq.
And they both promised not to use each other's weapons.
Yes, I can see how you'd believe that. Particularly since you believe that Saddam managed to "get millions of peace lovers around the world supporting him, even while he butchered his own people".
You're one of those "if you ain't fer us, you're agin us" types, aren't you?
It is possible to not support Saddam and still not support the invasion.
But you don't see that, do you? To you, it is better that the Iraqi civilians die free (when a US bomb hits their house) than live under Saddam.
The people pushing this war were the same people selling Saddam those weapons.
We didn't care about him killing his people when we were the ones selling him weapons. But now you think that it matters?
And where do you get off claiming that Bush is demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside of Iraq).
The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. The CIA even told the British that the info wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to push this war so he used information that was known to be bogus.
As for this being another "Vietname" or "quagmire", check the body count since Bush claimed the war was "over".
No, we did not have any "moral, legal and political justification for removing Saddam Hussein".
We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support our invasion.
As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until the first "elections" are held. Wait until they elect a radical Islamic priest.
You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis and Saddam's statue. That's because our government doesn't want you to forget it. It was shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of Iraqis. It was all a publicity stunt.
Slashdot Mirror
www.sfmuseum.org/hist1/norton.html
All SCO has done so far is talk a lot.
In Germany, that got them into trouble.
SCO can sell any "license" they can get idiots to buy. Whether such is worth anything depends upon the outcome of the court case. SCO can claim that they own anything and everything.
It all comes down to whether the court will support their claim when they try to get money from someone for selling or licensing what SCO claims they own.
Until that point, they're just like Norton.
It had to be said.
If they're making .doc's on Win3.1, they are not compatible with most of the world. MS was messing with the .doc format in Office95 and forward.
That is how MS used to push their latest versions.
I'll wait for the deployment to actually start before I trust anything published on a pro-Windows webpage.
With VMWare, they could run Win3.1 and all those apps, with a Linux base, and slowly migrate over to 100% Linux on the desktop.
When you're a city like Munich, you don't really need compatibility with the rest of the world. There aren't that many organizations bigger than you (aside from the national government) that you deal with. Everyone else will adopt whatever requirements you publish.
I say that we should wait and see what will actually be deployed and how.
So you believe Bush would fight in the military if he did not have a chance at re-election?
But then he went AWOL from his Reserve unit. And he was in the Reserves so he wouldn't go to war.
But you still believe that he'd fight in the military if he didn't have something better to do?
That same reasoning can be applied to any draft-dodger. They just value their own life and such more than they want to fight in the military.
Clinton was also the Commander in Chief.
Maybe he was also skipping out on military service so he'd be around to be President.
He seems to like the look, but he can't hack the walk.
He even went AWOL from his Reserve unit, which he was placed in so he wouldn't have to face real combat.
No, I don't think he'd fight in this war, or any war. He seems to like to talk tough when surrounded by security. But he's had plenty of chances go active military and he's never done so.
As you noted, the music on the CD is covered by a license.
The same as the code on a Linux CD is covered by a license.
Stealing the music CD from a music store is the same as stealing the Linux CD from Frye's.
Copying the music from a music CD is the same as copying the code from a Linux CD.
If you don't want to follow the license, don't use the code.
but you're not making the music.
/. would have a big problem with that. Even the people like you.
No one would have a problem if you listened to a song and then sang it in the shower at home.
By your logic, there is nothing wrong if Microsoft takes bits of Linux code without following the GPL. After all, the Linux code is still there.
No, I think that people on
You claim that our spy sats aren't good enough to spot what is being moved, yet back in the 60's they were good enough to spot the missiles the USSR had on Cuba.
But now they aren't that good.
Damn, if only we had had 1960's era technology to spot the weapons Saddam was hiding.
I have a degree and I did not have to "work hard mentaly" to get it.
College for me consisted of a lot of parties and sex. But I didn't have to study much for the tests. Maybe I'm just naturally gifted or something.
But I do see a lot of middle managers with degrees that would qualify as "dumb". They're good at social and political games. The kind where you get support for your projects because you golf with someone higher up the ladder.
You'll see how good the spy sats were back in the 60's.
Check our our pics of Korea's nuke program. That's how good they are today.
We'd be able to see them burying thousands of barrels of agents.
You say he had them.
But that he hid them from the inspectors.
He did this so the inspectors would not find anything and that would stop the US from attacking.
And you think this was "quite intelligent" of him?
After the US puts troops on his border.
After the US blows off the UN.
After the US gives him 48 hours to leave.
Well, you know, the US might not follow through on that. After all, you only tried to have Bush's daddy killed 10 years earlier. It probably isn't personal with Junior.
Junior just might not attack.
And you claim that Saddam was "quite intelligent"?
I said that Saddam did not use WMD's in that war. You said he did, on the Kurds.
No he did not. Not in the that war. The Kurds were gassed years before that war started.
It seems that you don't even know what happened in which war.
And the fact that we haven't found anything yet does mean something. It means that our intelligence on the subject was not accurate.
You can keep claiming that there was "lots of evidence that Iraq had WMD's", but that evidence exists only in your mind.
In each and every single instance where the US sent US troops and US inspectors to check a suspected WMD site, nothing has been found.
At last admission, over 100 sites had been checked (the top 100 most likely sites accourding to our intelligence) and nothing has been found.
Don't try that religious argument on me. I'm looking at verifiable facts.
Now, to some people, the absense of any evidence indicating any crime and the proof that such "evidence" as was claimed was false would seem to indicate that there was no crime.
But not to you. That just indicates that someone is hiding something. Because you know that there was a crime. That is very typical of certain religious viewpoints. Never let facts or the absence of supporting evidence get in your way.
It clearly illustrates the fact that no one liked Saddam.
Even in his own country there were thousands of people who would have been happy to kill him.
He couldn't travel from city to city without the body doubles and armor and body guards.
This guy was not a threat to the US. Not in the slightest way. He couldn't do a thing to hurt us.
Yet our government started the media blitz to build him into the worst dictator ever. Meanwhile, the killings were going on in Africa and we just skipped over them.
People who don't believe that our government could have lied about how bad Saddam was need to get over it.
Our government has admitted that Bush gave out incorrect information in his speech to the nation.
Face the fact, people. Your government lied to you. Your government admits it lied to you.
Just because Saddam was a bad guy who would have been killed in his own country does not mean he is worth a SINGLE US SOLDIER'S LIFE.
The US did give satelite intel to Iraq. But the US also provided biological samples and agricultural loans to Iraq. Those loans were used to develop Iraq's chemical weapons.
You also try to dodge the point on the killings that are happening right now. I'm not talking about mistakes in the past. I'm talking about how people get upset over killings that happened 10 years ago in Iraq, but don't care about killings happening last week in Africa. That is because this war was not about the killings.
No, the chances of finding WMD's are not slim. If those WMD's actually exist. The easiest way to have found them would be for Saddam to have used them on our invading forces. But he didn't.
Yes, Saddam had them in the past because we provided them. But the past is not the present.
Call it whatever you want. The facts speak for themselves.
Now as for your claim that Saddam violate the original cease fire that demanded he destroy his WMD's....... where are those WMD's that you claim he did not destroy?
Again, the facts seem to contradict your claims.
France and Russia would have serious problems back home if the UN inspectors had turned up any WMD's. But they didn't. That's the problem with a democracy.
Again, I have to correct you. People voting in a free election can elect to become a radical theocracy.
As for the media stunt, your claims just don't match with the pictures. Yes, the military would be the first to draw attention to it. Why do you even have to ask that?
Oh, that's one of those "rhetorical" questions, isn't it? It's one of those incorrect rhetorical questions.
#1. UN inspectors could not find any evidence of WMD's.
#2. Saddam did not use any WMD's in the war.
#3. US troops did not find any evidence of WMD's after the war.
What is so difficult about that?
They couldn't find any before the war and he didn't use any during the war and we can't find any after the war.
#4. All evidence provided by intelligence agencies about attempts to acquire the materials has been shown to be false.
They didn't find, he didn't use, we cannot find and the evidence has been show to be false.
And still you have a problem?
Sounds to me like you have a religious belief in those WMD's that no amount of factual evidence will disprove.
Nor that it was attempting to develop them.
They had them because we provided them in the past.
They did not have them any more.
Wow. Saddam didn't know we were going to attack? After we were building up troops on his border?
Maybe he didn't see our troops.
So Saddam had his people hide the weapons? Hide them where?
Well, that's obvious. They hid them somewhere where they couldn't get to them for days while the US troops advanced.
Iraq isn't that big. Hiding something on the other side of the country would only take a week.
So, the troops in eastern Iraq hid their weapons in western Iraq and the troops in western Iraq hid their weapons in eastern Iraq.
And they both promised not to use each other's weapons.
Yes, I can see how you'd believe that. Particularly since you believe that Saddam managed to "get millions of peace lovers around the world supporting him, even while he butchered his own people".
You're one of those "if you ain't fer us, you're agin us" types, aren't you?
It is possible to not support Saddam and still not support the invasion.
But you don't see that, do you? To you, it is better that the Iraqi civilians die free (when a US bomb hits their house) than live under Saddam.
Prisoners of the US have died while undergoing questioning.
Doctors who have seen the victims have said that they appear to have been tortured to death by the US troops.
If a US citizen commits a crime in Canada, the US can send him to Canada to be tried and sentenced and jailed.
We have treaties that allow for this.
If not this President, then the last one should have.
If not our country, then another should have.
Or the UN should have.
Or we should have brought it to the UN.
Maybe Bush didn't have a paper to read the reports by the UN inspectors about how they didn't find any evidence of WMD's.
When we find the person responsible for paying the paper boy, he will be immediately fired, with only a minor severence package.
This adminstration will not stand for incompetance in critical areas of intelligence.
I'm glad you brought up those other nations with the mass killings happening right now.
In Iraq, Saddam had UN inspectors and the world watching him.
The graves we're finding are old.
Meanwhile, in other countries, thousands of people are being killed and we're doing nothing about it.
So, why are we so concerned about thousands of people who were killed in Iraq in years gone by?
Why are we so unconcerned about thousands being slaughtered right now?
The people pushing this war were the same people selling Saddam those weapons.
We didn't care about him killing his people when we were the ones selling him weapons. But now you think that it matters?
And where do you get off claiming that Bush is demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside of Iraq).
The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. The CIA even told the British that the info wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to push this war so he used information that was known to be bogus.
As for this being another "Vietname" or "quagmire", check the body count since Bush claimed the war was "over".
No, we did not have any "moral, legal and political justification for removing Saddam Hussein".
We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support our invasion.
As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until the first "elections" are held. Wait until they elect a radical Islamic priest.
You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis and Saddam's statue. That's because our government doesn't want you to forget it. It was shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of Iraqis. It was all a publicity stunt.
And you fell for it.
http://www.counterpunch.org/statue.html
And you're the one talking about closed eyes?
Where he gets a JOB!?!
Dude, you're a corpse raised to enact vengence.
You don't have to pay taxes.
Holy Santa Cruz, Batman!