I bought an upgrade, and it took me ages to get it sorted out (all sorts of problems - you'd think they'd want my money).
About a month later, I did a clean re-install (for another reason, and hey ho, I got a free year).
What I hope Symantec do is sell me a fairly cheap anti-virus (say 15) that lasts for a year, requires activation, can be renewed for say 10, but never requires me to buy another AV package. One of theirs was dropped, and they stopped producing defs for it, so I had to spend 35 on a new AV package).
If I'm forced to buy a new AV package, I'll find another vendor.
If you need to buy a big truck then go right ahead. If you want one just because it's big, try to remember that your actions have consequences.
Europe has a good way to deal with this. You pay a fuel tax. It forces pressure on the market to use more efficient cars. You still can go out and buy a 4.5 litre 4WD, but it will really hurt when you fill up.
So, even though you are all for conservation you are not going to consider what actions you might need to take about it (such as using less fossil fuel) and instead assert your choice to pollute.
What about the choice of people in certain parts of the world to not have their ecosystems damaged by global warming caused by rising CO2 levels?
If I'm reading your post correctly, it seems you assume I am a high income person living in the middle of a city.
I am not. I live in the UK in a town.
My comments were partly about walking instead of driving short distances, but also about issues like 'food miles' where goods are transported (in the UK) thousands of miles unnecessarily. We now have strawberries all year round and flown in from around the world. Vegetables are grown on the other side of England and transported where they could be grown locally.
The 'unnecessary journey' thing is about trying to combine journeys, car sharing, that sort of thing.
Partly, to do with people using their cars unnecesarily, but also to do with how we transport goods. Production of many products is centralised, and then requires huge transportation costs.
The USA produces I think about 20% of the world's pollution. How much could you reduce this if people walked more and stopped driving huge SUVs?
I used to run a small business, and if I had treated my clients like the BSA treated this guy, I'd have been out of work in weeks.
For example: If a client goes outside the payment terms, you CAN start suing them immediately for breach of contract. Of course, you'll never see them again.
Sometimes, it just takes a phone call to the effect of "just to remind you that you are outside of the payment terms, and we'd appreciate payment as soon as". Often the response can be "sorry buddy, must have missed that" and the cheque arrives a few days later.
People are human and genuine mistakes occur. Treating it like a human is the best way.
Bottom line is that where there is a legal market, buyers will nearly always opt for it and sellers will nearly always move into it or quit.
Those who don't, are often doing so for immoral reasons. Prostitution in Amsterdam is licensed and tolerated. There's a ton of rules about things like age, coersion, health, etc. So, if someone is working as a prostitute without a license, either they are unhealthy, coerced, underage etc.
Let's say you licensed sale of hash. Rules might be: no sales to under 18s, strict control of materials being sold. Small tax of say 25c per joint.
Why would someone work outside that? To save 25c? hardly. It would be to sell to under 18s. So few people would do it though, because once the punters reached 18, they'd switch to shop purchases meaning they'd lose their market, and secondly, you wouldn't have the over 18s buying from them, meaning that their current morally acceptable practise would be mixed up. In other words, you wouldn't see a drug dealer on the streets as someone breaking a stupid rule, you'd see them as a drug dealer selling to kids.
It's why you don't get alcohol sellers outside schools.
Marijuana, my opinion on the subject is irrelevant, is not a priority in this country. It's still considered a drug, its prohibition "worked" and didn't cause a massive revolt like alcohol's did, and it's not terribly important (medical use is another thread totally).
Caffeine is a drug, and legal.
Has it's prohibition worked, or any other drugs in the USA? The war on drugs has been a dismal failure.
It largely didn't cause a massive revolt because not enough people use it. It's still an infringement of people's liberty though.
And it is important, because it's an infringement of liberty. It is a personal issue (unlike say someone murdering someone). Its illegality supports illegal crime networks. Its illegality allows stronger drugs to coexist. The illegality also ignores any age limit (think how many alcohol sellers hang around outside schools). It costs the US people a small fortune running the DEA and spending time going through courts. It costs to lock up dealers and those charged with possession.
Finally, it is important because it could be done very quickly and very cheaply. The thing about decriminalisation, is that it largely can be done by passing an act (and maybe licensing). It costs almost nothing. This cannot be said for fighting terrorism, introducing medicare or improving inner cities.
In fact, with licensing (say charging hash bar owners to have a license), the government could probably be $s up, regardless of the DEA/legal system/prison savings.
Without showing infringement to customers, could you seriously sue for damages?
In other words, if I use something that I assume to be OK, and it isn't, then surely I have a right to remove it and if I don't, then the copyright holder can claim damages (in other words, you can't sue for damages except from AFTER when you show the issue).
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s &t=1d&l=on&z=m&q=l
Ha ha Darl. That didn't move your stock price, did it? Now we'll hit back - every news source is going to get the low down on the code that you showed and how pathetic your case is.
I want to give say $20 to a fund to fight these fuckers, so that the first mom-and-pop store running Linux has a gazillion bucks, and won't settle.
Where is this, or do I have to start it?
The internet has certainly become a good free flow of information about movies
The mainstream media have become utter c**ks**kers over the movie companies and stars. In the UK, premieres are full of z-list celebs queueing up, stars are interviewed in those 'in-out' interview things (with the movie on a poster to the side of the star) and anodyne questions are asked.
Some media companies have links, or do features which hype a movie because they are on a deal of 'do a nice preview and we'll get you an interview'.
I read stuff on Usenet and IMDB. Individuals giving frank reviews of films.
Yeah, but why was Finding Nemo great? Because Pixar put some cool CGI in, or because they came up with a good story, characters, script, dialogue (all the fundamental stuff) and then used CGI to make an interesting design and means to tell the story?
I've not seen Nemo, but the documentary I saw on Toy Story 2 suggested that Lasseter(?) et al worked their socks off on the story before anything else.
There's nothing right or wrong about CGI, it's just a technique to get the story on the screen. The trouble is when people start from the "make cool computer graphics" first and story last.
But these 'dogs' are caused by people in studios doing movies the wrong way round.
Up to the 1940s, it seems people generally made movies by getting/writing a script from a story, hiring a director, choosing a cast, shooting it and release it.
This later changed to: come up with vague idea for movie. Find star to associate with movie. Ask star how they would like film to fit in with their image. Ask star to clear director for movie. Get script written on the cheap, in a hurry. Get star to approve script. Shoot film which typically runs out of steam 3/4s of the way through. Spend gazillions of dollars hyping it. Release it.
Remember that $131 million is the Gross. That's the figure that is taken at the box office, not how much the studio gets.
Based on what I've read in newsgroups, for a film to be success, it typically has to have 3 times gross than budget (and this still hasn't made money back at this point - but the video/tv sales will make it).
I'm often puzzled why more studios don't make more comedies.
It seems to me that well written comedies are easy money makers.
Firstly, casting don't cost much. You can often get away with smaller, lower paid stars. Apart from maybe Jim Carrey, most comedy actors fall outside of "A-list".
Secondly, they have reasonably low budgets on special effects etc.
Thirdly, they work as date movies, maximising audience (whether romantic comedies or gross out).
I recall there being a movie (but can't remember the name) where the studio tried to hype it as a 'sleeper' making out that it was growing from nothing in order for people to go because sleepers are generally better.
So because they showed some god knows how old code that appears to be BSD licensed, the only reason they did that is because they didn't want to give away any IP.
Considering that they could have thrown away half a dozen of their 70, 800, 9200 or 15,000 googol lines of code* to show an infringement but instead showed something that was freely available to be copied puzzles me. Surely, they want to show a genuine case.
This proves nothing. SCO should come up with some real evidence or shut up.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought an upgrade, and it took me ages to get it sorted out (all sorts of problems - you'd think they'd want my money).
About a month later, I did a clean re-install (for another reason, and hey ho, I got a free year).
What I hope Symantec do is sell me a fairly cheap anti-virus (say 15) that lasts for a year, requires activation, can be renewed for say 10, but never requires me to buy another AV package. One of theirs was dropped, and they stopped producing defs for it, so I had to spend 35 on a new AV package).
If I'm forced to buy a new AV package, I'll find another vendor.
The Sunday Times is a bit of a rag in its own right, though. IIRC that was the paper that published the 'Hitler Diaries'.
Europe has a good way to deal with this. You pay a fuel tax. It forces pressure on the market to use more efficient cars. You still can go out and buy a 4.5 litre 4WD, but it will really hurt when you fill up.
What about the choice of people in certain parts of the world to not have their ecosystems damaged by global warming caused by rising CO2 levels?
I am not. I live in the UK in a town.
My comments were partly about walking instead of driving short distances, but also about issues like 'food miles' where goods are transported (in the UK) thousands of miles unnecessarily. We now have strawberries all year round and flown in from around the world. Vegetables are grown on the other side of England and transported where they could be grown locally.
The 'unnecessary journey' thing is about trying to combine journeys, car sharing, that sort of thing.
Partly, to do with people using their cars unnecesarily, but also to do with how we transport goods. Production of many products is centralised, and then requires huge transportation costs.
The USA produces I think about 20% of the world's pollution. How much could you reduce this if people walked more and stopped driving huge SUVs?
They give me a user ID and password to their service. Therefore I am authorised. Same as a website blocking me from visiting their site with Mozilla.
Then, Microsoft could provide the service which would be bound up in the user ID/password, and anyone could use any client.
For example: If a client goes outside the payment terms, you CAN start suing them immediately for breach of contract. Of course, you'll never see them again.
Sometimes, it just takes a phone call to the effect of "just to remind you that you are outside of the payment terms, and we'd appreciate payment as soon as". Often the response can be "sorry buddy, must have missed that" and the cheque arrives a few days later.
People are human and genuine mistakes occur. Treating it like a human is the best way.
Is showing sections of the code without their appropriate license the equivalent of SCO breaching the BSD license on distribution?
Those who don't, are often doing so for immoral reasons. Prostitution in Amsterdam is licensed and tolerated. There's a ton of rules about things like age, coersion, health, etc. So, if someone is working as a prostitute without a license, either they are unhealthy, coerced, underage etc.
Let's say you licensed sale of hash. Rules might be: no sales to under 18s, strict control of materials being sold. Small tax of say 25c per joint.
Why would someone work outside that? To save 25c? hardly. It would be to sell to under 18s. So few people would do it though, because once the punters reached 18, they'd switch to shop purchases meaning they'd lose their market, and secondly, you wouldn't have the over 18s buying from them, meaning that their current morally acceptable practise would be mixed up. In other words, you wouldn't see a drug dealer on the streets as someone breaking a stupid rule, you'd see them as a drug dealer selling to kids.
It's why you don't get alcohol sellers outside schools.
Caffeine is a drug, and legal.
Has it's prohibition worked, or any other drugs in the USA? The war on drugs has been a dismal failure.
It largely didn't cause a massive revolt because not enough people use it. It's still an infringement of people's liberty though.
And it is important, because it's an infringement of liberty. It is a personal issue (unlike say someone murdering someone). Its illegality supports illegal crime networks. Its illegality allows stronger drugs to coexist. The illegality also ignores any age limit (think how many alcohol sellers hang around outside schools). It costs the US people a small fortune running the DEA and spending time going through courts. It costs to lock up dealers and those charged with possession.
Finally, it is important because it could be done very quickly and very cheaply. The thing about decriminalisation, is that it largely can be done by passing an act (and maybe licensing). It costs almost nothing. This cannot be said for fighting terrorism, introducing medicare or improving inner cities.
In fact, with licensing (say charging hash bar owners to have a license), the government could probably be $s up, regardless of the DEA/legal system/prison savings.
In other words, if I use something that I assume to be OK, and it isn't, then surely I have a right to remove it and if I don't, then the copyright holder can claim damages (in other words, you can't sue for damages except from AFTER when you show the issue).
SCO going after Google.
Hopefully Google would respond by redirecting all searches for "SCO" to the goatse man.
It's time to sink SCO in every way possible.
How about Gollum talking about Darl McBride and his precioussss code (you know, the stuff released under BSD).
I want to give say $20 to a fund to fight these fuckers, so that the first mom-and-pop store running Linux has a gazillion bucks, and won't settle. Where is this, or do I have to start it?
The mainstream media have become utter c**ks**kers over the movie companies and stars. In the UK, premieres are full of z-list celebs queueing up, stars are interviewed in those 'in-out' interview things (with the movie on a poster to the side of the star) and anodyne questions are asked.
Some media companies have links, or do features which hype a movie because they are on a deal of 'do a nice preview and we'll get you an interview'.
I read stuff on Usenet and IMDB. Individuals giving frank reviews of films.
I've not seen Nemo, but the documentary I saw on Toy Story 2 suggested that Lasseter(?) et al worked their socks off on the story before anything else.
There's nothing right or wrong about CGI, it's just a technique to get the story on the screen. The trouble is when people start from the "make cool computer graphics" first and story last.
Up to the 1940s, it seems people generally made movies by getting/writing a script from a story, hiring a director, choosing a cast, shooting it and release it.
This later changed to: come up with vague idea for movie. Find star to associate with movie. Ask star how they would like film to fit in with their image. Ask star to clear director for movie. Get script written on the cheap, in a hurry. Get star to approve script. Shoot film which typically runs out of steam 3/4s of the way through. Spend gazillions of dollars hyping it. Release it.
More information, please.
Based on what I've read in newsgroups, for a film to be success, it typically has to have 3 times gross than budget (and this still hasn't made money back at this point - but the video/tv sales will make it).
It seems to me that well written comedies are easy money makers.
Firstly, casting don't cost much. You can often get away with smaller, lower paid stars. Apart from maybe Jim Carrey, most comedy actors fall outside of "A-list".
Secondly, they have reasonably low budgets on special effects etc.
Thirdly, they work as date movies, maximising audience (whether romantic comedies or gross out).
I recall there being a movie (but can't remember the name) where the studio tried to hype it as a 'sleeper' making out that it was growing from nothing in order for people to go because sleepers are generally better.
Considering that they could have thrown away half a dozen of their 70, 800, 9200 or 15,000 googol lines of code* to show an infringement but instead showed something that was freely available to be copied puzzles me. Surely, they want to show a genuine case.
This proves nothing. SCO should come up with some real evidence or shut up.
* Whatever today's figure is.