Japan has been in recession for as long as I can remember. Most European countries have double digit unemployment. Yes, protectionism sure does work great.
Even if SCO were to win their lawsuit against Novell, I don't think this would put Novell out of the Linux business. It would just keep them from being able to assert ownership of various Unix copyrights.
You're assuming that the RIAA has to follow the same laws as the rest of us. But they don't, since they have bought themselves exemptions (i.e. warantless searches).
On that note, I wonder what Darl will sue SCO for when he leaves them? He has a record of staying at companies briefly, ruining things, then filing a lawsuit after leaving.
This really isn't all that uncommon. With all the lawsuits in the business world, frequently a company will get sued by someone who has a relationship with a company that they also have a relationship with. The lawsuit may piss the company off, but not enough to sever the business relationship altogether. I suspect Novell feels like their shares under the Norda trust are valuable enough not to sell them just because they are being sued by a Canopy company. Especially since this lawsuit represents little long term harm to Novell.
What I'm saying is that maintaining a collection of facts (ie. a journal service) will become a lot more expensive if facts that were previously collected freely now have to be licensed from the owner. I can't imagine how the service would not have to start charging a lot more since their costs would have increased substantially.
This bill would be the end of libraries as we know them. Other than copyrighted books, there's not much they would be able to have in their collections. How could they afford what would be the new astronomical prices of those indexes and journals once the 'fact tax' is paid to all the corporations that claim ownership to the facts?
I'd love to see how many companies drop their SCO support contracts if this actually does happen. Its pretty hard to justify keeping an overpriced contract with an obsolete vendor that is likely to use the contract against you to help with a stock scam. In any case, any company that still uses SCO servers needs to make plans to switch so they won't be without support once SCO folds in a year or so.
Suing EV1 less than 72 hours after they bought an SCO Linux IP License would be completely illogical, even for SCO. Everyone, including the Deutsch Bank anal-ists and Laura Didio, would then see the entire case as a big sham. They would completely lose the propaganda battle, which is the only battle they have a chance of winning in the first place. The entire scam would unravel as people realized there was no chance of SCO making money on Linux licenses, since nobody would buy one just to get sued 3 days later.
When SCO does finally sue someone, it will not be for using a Linux distribution like they want you to think. When the court filings are examined, it will probably be a breach of contract suit for some silly violation, which means they will have to sue a current SCO Unix customer. But they will do their best to spin it to the press as a Linux IP infringement suit, and lots of dumbasses will eat it all up and buy more SCO stock.
Add that to the list of things that Gates predicted which were, to say the least, a little inaccurate. Remember 640K is enough for anyone? How about viruses being obsolete with Windows XP?
It would be interesting to see what would happen if SPEWS and other organizations blocked all of UUNET. Not that I expect this to happen, but they may have a different attitude if their customers all of a sudden started getting mail blocked.
Humans also existed for a long time before indoor plumbing, so you could just get rid of that too. Then you won't even have any pipes that could freeze and no need for heat at all. The rest of us, however, prefer to live in the 21st century.
You could also call it "Corporate Socialism", since it is a method of transferring wealth from the productive to the unproductive. Oddly enough, people engaged in this practice will scream about the virtues of free market capitalism when anyone suggests passing laws making this type of 'business' more difficult.
This is why you must look for the octane label, instead of just the word Premium. Mislabeling the octane of a gasoline for sale is a big time violation of the law.
You must not live in the United States. Here, cell phone users are actually charged for any use of the phone, whether incoming or outgoing. The only exception is for toll free numbers that begin with a *. Most people have plans that allow for a certain number of minutes to be used each month, and there is usually 'free nights and weekends' or something like that. In Europe, I know you don't have to pay for incoming cell minutes, but the caller has to pay extra for calling a cell phone, which is not the case in the States.
Sounds like a really shitty lawyer. Not only were they not driving, but they were not even on a road. Traffic laws cannot be enforced outside of public roads. If what you are saying is true, cops could go through a privately owned campground some evening and arrest any person sleeping in an RV that happens to be intoxicated. And since it would be hard to prove who was driving if nobody was in the driver's seat, they'd just have to arrest everyone in the vehicle, wouldn't they?
The TSA employees are generally more professional than the former rent a cops were, because there is actually some accountability in their jobs. And getting fired actually means something, because it is a fairly well paying position compared to what it used to be. The only upside to dealing with the former minimum wage rent a cops was that they had no real legal authority. They were not permitted to physically restrain you for any reason whatsoever, even if you ran through the checkpoint with a gun. If these clowns overreached their authority and you pressed a complaint against them, they were usually fired without any due process since it was easier for the security company to just hire a new one. If only I knew then what I know now.
At least then, they are only hurting themselves and not other people on the road, unless these dumbasses go out and drive knowing they are double the legal limit.
Because, silly, that would reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road, therefore reducing the fines that city and state governments collect. Then they would have to do something else to bring in funding for their pet projects, like raise property taxes and then all the reps would get voted out of office by the old people.
I'm just waiting for the day when your car gets seized just for driving 15 MPH over the limit. You know that law will be passed somewhere within the next 20 years.
While driving is officially considered a privilege (thank god I haven't seen anyone spell this yet with a 'd'), it is realistically a right that can be taken away if deserved. Anyone who meets the most basic criteria can get a license. You don't have to be intelligent or even be able to drive, for that matter. All you have to do is be able to pass a written test at about a third grade level of difficulty, follow instructions on a brief road test, and be able to see what's in front of you. Assuming you don't do anything terrible, like multiple DUIs, you get to keep driving. While it may be a privilege, it is not something that can be arbitrarily denied to people and the criteria to be licensed is not all that great.
According to my friends who have security clearances, you are much more likely to be denied a clearance for drug related offences than for violent offences like sexual assault. Yes folks, that is where our country's priorities are.
Slashdot Mirror
Japan has been in recession for as long as I can remember. Most European countries have double digit unemployment. Yes, protectionism sure does work great.
Even if SCO were to win their lawsuit against Novell, I don't think this would put Novell out of the Linux business. It would just keep them from being able to assert ownership of various Unix copyrights.
You're assuming that the RIAA has to follow the same laws as the rest of us. But they don't, since they have bought themselves exemptions (i.e. warantless searches).
On that note, I wonder what Darl will sue SCO for when he leaves them? He has a record of staying at companies briefly, ruining things, then filing a lawsuit after leaving.
This really isn't all that uncommon. With all the lawsuits in the business world, frequently a company will get sued by someone who has a relationship with a company that they also have a relationship with. The lawsuit may piss the company off, but not enough to sever the business relationship altogether. I suspect Novell feels like their shares under the Norda trust are valuable enough not to sell them just because they are being sued by a Canopy company. Especially since this lawsuit represents little long term harm to Novell.
What I'm saying is that maintaining a collection of facts (ie. a journal service) will become a lot more expensive if facts that were previously collected freely now have to be licensed from the owner. I can't imagine how the service would not have to start charging a lot more since their costs would have increased substantially.
This bill would be the end of libraries as we know them. Other than copyrighted books, there's not much they would be able to have in their collections. How could they afford what would be the new astronomical prices of those indexes and journals once the 'fact tax' is paid to all the corporations that claim ownership to the facts?
I'd love to see how many companies drop their SCO support contracts if this actually does happen. Its pretty hard to justify keeping an overpriced contract with an obsolete vendor that is likely to use the contract against you to help with a stock scam. In any case, any company that still uses SCO servers needs to make plans to switch so they won't be without support once SCO folds in a year or so.
Suing EV1 less than 72 hours after they bought an SCO Linux IP License would be completely illogical, even for SCO. Everyone, including the Deutsch Bank anal-ists and Laura Didio, would then see the entire case as a big sham. They would completely lose the propaganda battle, which is the only battle they have a chance of winning in the first place. The entire scam would unravel as people realized there was no chance of SCO making money on Linux licenses, since nobody would buy one just to get sued 3 days later.
When SCO does finally sue someone, it will not be for using a Linux distribution like they want you to think. When the court filings are examined, it will probably be a breach of contract suit for some silly violation, which means they will have to sue a current SCO Unix customer. But they will do their best to spin it to the press as a Linux IP infringement suit, and lots of dumbasses will eat it all up and buy more SCO stock.
Add that to the list of things that Gates predicted which were, to say the least, a little inaccurate. Remember 640K is enough for anyone? How about viruses being obsolete with Windows XP?
It would be interesting to see what would happen if SPEWS and other organizations blocked all of UUNET. Not that I expect this to happen, but they may have a different attitude if their customers all of a sudden started getting mail blocked.
No, it would be the licensee, EV1, that could be sued. You didn't sign anything with SCO.
Humans also existed for a long time before indoor plumbing, so you could just get rid of that too. Then you won't even have any pipes that could freeze and no need for heat at all. The rest of us, however, prefer to live in the 21st century.
You could also call it "Corporate Socialism", since it is a method of transferring wealth from the productive to the unproductive. Oddly enough, people engaged in this practice will scream about the virtues of free market capitalism when anyone suggests passing laws making this type of 'business' more difficult.
This is why you must look for the octane label, instead of just the word Premium. Mislabeling the octane of a gasoline for sale is a big time violation of the law.
You must not live in the United States. Here, cell phone users are actually charged for any use of the phone, whether incoming or outgoing. The only exception is for toll free numbers that begin with a *. Most people have plans that allow for a certain number of minutes to be used each month, and there is usually 'free nights and weekends' or something like that. In Europe, I know you don't have to pay for incoming cell minutes, but the caller has to pay extra for calling a cell phone, which is not the case in the States.
Sounds like a really shitty lawyer. Not only were they not driving, but they were not even on a road. Traffic laws cannot be enforced outside of public roads. If what you are saying is true, cops could go through a privately owned campground some evening and arrest any person sleeping in an RV that happens to be intoxicated. And since it would be hard to prove who was driving if nobody was in the driver's seat, they'd just have to arrest everyone in the vehicle, wouldn't they?
The TSA employees are generally more professional than the former rent a cops were, because there is actually some accountability in their jobs. And getting fired actually means something, because it is a fairly well paying position compared to what it used to be. The only upside to dealing with the former minimum wage rent a cops was that they had no real legal authority. They were not permitted to physically restrain you for any reason whatsoever, even if you ran through the checkpoint with a gun. If these clowns overreached their authority and you pressed a complaint against them, they were usually fired without any due process since it was easier for the security company to just hire a new one. If only I knew then what I know now.
The reason they get the DUI is because they didn't get a lawyer and fight it. These cases are dismissed in court if challenged.
At least then, they are only hurting themselves and not other people on the road, unless these dumbasses go out and drive knowing they are double the legal limit.
Because, silly, that would reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road, therefore reducing the fines that city and state governments collect. Then they would have to do something else to bring in funding for their pet projects, like raise property taxes and then all the reps would get voted out of office by the old people.
I'm just waiting for the day when your car gets seized just for driving 15 MPH over the limit. You know that law will be passed somewhere within the next 20 years.
While driving is officially considered a privilege (thank god I haven't seen anyone spell this yet with a 'd'), it is realistically a right that can be taken away if deserved. Anyone who meets the most basic criteria can get a license. You don't have to be intelligent or even be able to drive, for that matter. All you have to do is be able to pass a written test at about a third grade level of difficulty, follow instructions on a brief road test, and be able to see what's in front of you. Assuming you don't do anything terrible, like multiple DUIs, you get to keep driving. While it may be a privilege, it is not something that can be arbitrarily denied to people and the criteria to be licensed is not all that great.
According to my friends who have security clearances, you are much more likely to be denied a clearance for drug related offences than for violent offences like sexual assault. Yes folks, that is where our country's priorities are.