While it's an interesting idea (bring back one of the actors who played the Doctor, if they're still alive, to play his grownup grandson-turned-enemy that he hasn't fathered yet) I think it would cause him enough headaches keeping things straight while writing the episodes that he won't do it.
As far as I remember, in the original series the first Doctor has a granddaughter called Susan. Travel being what it will be, there's plenty of scope for him to father one of her parents at some point that hasn't happened yet. But yeah, it would get complicated. Fun though if they spun it out over a while and did it right (which they wouldn't).
I think Caldera investors who wanted a quick return pressured the management. They seem to think that short-term, possible gains are more important than long term ones, which is unfortunate.
I wonder who these short term investors could be. Seems they're the villains in all this.
You might be right then, but it's the first sentence that's crucial. The second one is full of holes, and in particular one-click affects interaction with a user not just between a program and a computer, network etc. Even with the first sentence in there I won't be surprised to see them let it through.
That isn't a business process patent it's a software patent. Who cares whether you can use the business model if nobody can implement one click buying in software?
"Ha! You're hoist with your own petard there because if you were the REAL FunWithHeadlines you'd know very well that I am who I say I am."
Aha! But as I notice you should have said, "hoisted with your own petard," I must be the real FunWithHeadlines after all.
So if you're the real FunWithHeadlines, and we've already established that that means you know that I am who I say I am, then I am who I say I am. QED.
I like how slashdot will post any and all stories that are anti-SCO, but never post any stories that might actually show SCO to be right.
They posted the open letter from Darl McBride. If his own words, complete and in context, are anti-SCO or don't show SCO to be right then I doubt there's much more Slashdot can do.
For those of you wondering what this whole SCO vs. Linux thing was about, I can finally reveal the truth.
As chairman and CEO of Canopy I've done a lot for the Open Source community. I've promoted investments in companies like Linux Networx, who make the third fastest supercomputer in the world and use Linux to do it. Companies like Lineo the masters of embedded Linux. Also Trolltech producing the incredible QT widget set used by the KDE project. And of course Caldera, producing the finest Linux distribution and pushing forwards the United Linux initiative.
But one shadow lay over my record of achievements. Despite all I had done for the Linux and Open Source communities, I still had never achieved the triumph I most desperately sought. Not once had an article I submitted been accepted by Slashdot:(
I'm sure my fellow Slashdotters can understand how this gnawed away at my soul.
Together with Darl McBride and David Boies I hatched a master plan, to achieve my dream of an accepted Slashdot article or to destroy Linux trying.
Caldera would purchase IP rights from the Santa Cruz Operation and with funding from Sun and Microsoft would use them as the springboard to launch a devastating legal and PR blitz against Linux. As part of this Darl would write a searing open letter to the Open Source community, drawing responses in return. One of these from Groklaw would give me the opportunity I needed...
As you can see everything has gone exactly to plan. I have my successful Slashdot submission, and I'm sure that looking back on it you can all see it was worth any 'collateral damage' along the way.
basically, there are only two revenue models in this world:
1. sell your product or service to end users
2. sell access to your end users to advertisers
Damn. Now you tell me. Where were you when Darl was talking me into this whole 'antagonise the biggest company you can find and work the open source community up into a bloodlust against you' startegy?
Re:SCO is not the problem. Canopy is.
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
They own ~ 2% of Troll Tech, I somehow dont think they have the ability to do any more than anyone else who owns shares of Troll Tech.
While I whole-heartedly agree with your general theme of "don't be so harsh on Canopy, they're okay!", in the interests of accuracy I feel I should point out it's over 5%.
Re:SCO is not the problem. Canopy is.
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 0
Huh. I don't know what to say about a man who wants to kill Linux being on the board of a company that is the foundation of one of Linux's major desktop environments.
*sigh* we only control only a little more than 5% of Trolltech's stock. And of course, it's not like we own all of SCO. And we have a completely hands off approach to all our companies, why I'd never even heard of SCO until this morning and this whole law suit thing is a complete shock to me. Still, I'm sure Darl knows what he's doing, whoever he is. I would never interfere in the company in any way.
In fact our investment in Trolltech proves how much we love Linux and just want to cuddle it.
You're all witnesses that I'm posting on Slashdot right now and not conspiring with Darl in anyway whatsoever. Expect to be subpoenad.
Re:Any ideas?
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
which begs the question. when it's all over if they lose do they have to give the money back???
Probably they won't have to repay any licence fees, at least not unless they're separately sued by the fee payers which is unlikely to happen. Those paying the fees know, or should know, that the case is unproven. SCO have been very careful to advise potential licencees to consult their own attorneys etc.
However, the end result of the IBM countersuit and the Red Hat suit is likely to extinguish any cash or other assets SCO has, whether form Linux licences or anywhere else, if SCO does lose. The arguable damage to those businesses is going to be massive and SCO just won't have that sort of money. And quite right too, if they aren't legally in the right then they deserve to lose everything over this.
Of course, dividends already paid out to investors and money paid to, for example, other Canopy companies for legitimate services is another matter entirely. I'm sure we'd all agree that that shouldn't be affected and that they should be allowed the proceeds of their legitimate investments.
Ralphie Yarro
Re:SCO is not the problem. Canopy is.
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Canopy own SCO. Darl McBride can't take a dump without Ralph J. Yarro's approval.
FUD. Darl's contract permits him considerable leeway so far as dumping is concerned, provided that it is on Linux developers.
Say Ralphie, shouldn't you be talking to your lawyers about IBM's supena, rather than spending time on slashdot trolling?
Good point, Nonny, but I do find it reassuring that you're the first one of those who responded who connects me with the case at all.
Which is quite right as I am completely uninvolved and in no way pulling strings from behind the scenes. Everyone focus on McBride, please. That's what he's for.
As a businessman with a lot at stake for the various companies I have responibility for, I'll be carefully considering whether I should buy one of these licences. I know that won't be a popular position here, but I have to be practical about this.
Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with anyone at SCO so far, so I don't know yet how good a case they have.
They don't spy on employees...they are helping the Linux battle against SCO, not to mention helping further open source by contributing to Linux, eclipse, and others.
It all adds up: while they're not watching what their employees are doing, their employees are contributing things to Linux that are getting them sued by SCO.
God has given me a mission, and my investors call me to it.
No we don't. Canopy has a hands off approach to the companies it invests in and is in no way directing your activities. Please ensure that any further public statements are run by my secretary to ensure this point is always kept clear; that recent subpoena was pretty embarrassing. Please ignore the man behind the curtain, not you Darl, just everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
While it's an interesting idea (bring back one of the actors who played the Doctor, if they're still alive, to play his grownup grandson-turned-enemy that he hasn't fathered yet) I think it would cause him enough headaches keeping things straight while writing the episodes that he won't do it.
As far as I remember, in the original series the first Doctor has a granddaughter called Susan. Travel being what it will be, there's plenty of scope for him to father one of her parents at some point that hasn't happened yet. But yeah, it would get complicated. Fun though if they spun it out over a while and did it right (which they wouldn't).
This bit Ransom says seems very mysterious:
I think Caldera investors who wanted a quick return pressured the management. They seem to think that short-term, possible gains are more important than long term ones, which is unfortunate.
I wonder who these short term investors could be. Seems they're the villains in all this.
Here, the looser generally pays court costs.
Presumably because if they're too tight then they won't pay up anyway. That's a very pragmatic approach.
You might be right then, but it's the first sentence that's crucial. The second one is full of holes, and in particular one-click affects interaction with a user not just between a program and a computer, network etc. Even with the first sentence in there I won't be surprised to see them let it through.
That isn't a business process patent it's a software patent. Who cares whether you can use the business model if nobody can implement one click buying in software?
"Ha! You're hoist with your own petard there because if you were the REAL FunWithHeadlines you'd know very well that I am who I say I am."
Aha! But as I notice you should have said, "hoisted with your own petard," I must be the real FunWithHeadlines after all.
So if you're the real FunWithHeadlines, and we've already established that that means you know that I am who I say I am, then I am who I say I am. QED.
I'm very disappointed in my fellower /.ers. Isn't it blatantly obvious that this is not the real Ralph Yarro?
Ha! You're hoist with your own petard there because if you were the REAL FunWithHeadlines you'd know very well that I am who I say I am.
Your company's website does almost nothing to explain what it is your company does.
So you think our website should explain what we do? And have the SEC shutting us down? I don't think so.
This was one of the best stories ever on Slashdot.
:) If IBM wipe Canopy out of existence after finishing with SCO then I might need all the positive references I can get.
Thank you
I like how slashdot will post any and all stories that are anti-SCO, but never post any stories that might actually show SCO to be right.
They posted the open letter from Darl McBride. If his own words, complete and in context, are anti-SCO or don't show SCO to be right then I doubt there's much more Slashdot can do.
For those of you wondering what this whole SCO vs. Linux thing was about, I can finally reveal the truth.
:(
As chairman and CEO of Canopy I've done a lot for the Open Source community. I've promoted investments in companies like Linux Networx, who make the third fastest supercomputer in the world and use Linux to do it. Companies like Lineo the masters of embedded Linux. Also Trolltech producing the incredible QT widget set used by the KDE project. And of course Caldera, producing the finest Linux distribution and pushing forwards the United Linux initiative.
But one shadow lay over my record of achievements. Despite all I had done for the Linux and Open Source communities, I still had never achieved the triumph I most desperately sought. Not once had an article I submitted been accepted by Slashdot
I'm sure my fellow Slashdotters can understand how this gnawed away at my soul.
Together with Darl McBride and David Boies I hatched a master plan, to achieve my dream of an accepted Slashdot article or to destroy Linux trying.
Caldera would purchase IP rights from the Santa Cruz Operation and with funding from Sun and Microsoft would use them as the springboard to launch a devastating legal and PR blitz against Linux. As part of this Darl would write a searing open letter to the Open Source community, drawing responses in return. One of these from Groklaw would give me the opportunity I needed...
As you can see everything has gone exactly to plan. I have my successful Slashdot submission, and I'm sure that looking back on it you can all see it was worth any 'collateral damage' along the way.
Darl, you can call off the dogs now.
God bless you all.
Ralphie
basically, there are only two revenue models in this world:
1. sell your product or service to end users
2. sell access to your end users to advertisers
Damn. Now you tell me. Where were you when Darl was talking me into this whole 'antagonise the biggest company you can find and work the open source community up into a bloodlust against you' startegy?
They own ~ 2% of Troll Tech, I somehow dont think they have the ability to do any more than anyone else who owns shares of Troll Tech.
While I whole-heartedly agree with your general theme of "don't be so harsh on Canopy, they're okay!", in the interests of accuracy I feel I should point out it's over 5%.
Huh. I don't know what to say about a man who wants to kill Linux being on the board of a company that is the foundation of one of Linux's major desktop environments. *sigh* we only control only a little more than 5% of Trolltech's stock. And of course, it's not like we own all of SCO. And we have a completely hands off approach to all our companies, why I'd never even heard of SCO until this morning and this whole law suit thing is a complete shock to me. Still, I'm sure Darl knows what he's doing, whoever he is. I would never interfere in the company in any way. In fact our investment in Trolltech proves how much we love Linux and just want to cuddle it. You're all witnesses that I'm posting on Slashdot right now and not conspiring with Darl in anyway whatsoever. Expect to be subpoenad.
which begs the question. when it's all over if they lose do they have to give the money back???
Probably they won't have to repay any licence fees, at least not unless they're separately sued by the fee payers which is unlikely to happen. Those paying the fees know, or should know, that the case is unproven. SCO have been very careful to advise potential licencees to consult their own attorneys etc.
However, the end result of the IBM countersuit and the Red Hat suit is likely to extinguish any cash or other assets SCO has, whether form Linux licences or anywhere else, if SCO does lose. The arguable damage to those businesses is going to be massive and SCO just won't have that sort of money. And quite right too, if they aren't legally in the right then they deserve to lose everything over this.
Of course, dividends already paid out to investors and money paid to, for example, other Canopy companies for legitimate services is another matter entirely. I'm sure we'd all agree that that shouldn't be affected and that they should be allowed the proceeds of their legitimate investments.
Ralphie Yarro
Canopy own SCO. Darl McBride can't take a dump without Ralph J. Yarro's approval. FUD. Darl's contract permits him considerable leeway so far as dumping is concerned, provided that it is on Linux developers.
Say Ralphie, shouldn't you be talking to your lawyers about IBM's supena, rather than spending time on slashdot trolling?
Good point, Nonny, but I do find it reassuring that you're the first one of those who responded who connects me with the case at all.
Which is quite right as I am completely uninvolved and in no way pulling strings from behind the scenes. Everyone focus on McBride, please. That's what he's for.
As a businessman with a lot at stake for the various companies I have responibility for, I'll be carefully considering whether I should buy one of these licences. I know that won't be a popular position here, but I have to be practical about this.
Of course, I haven't dicussed any of this with anyone at SCO so far, so I don't know yet how good a case they have.
They don't spy on employees...they are helping the Linux battle against SCO, not to mention helping further open source by contributing to Linux, eclipse, and others.
It all adds up: while they're not watching what their employees are doing, their employees are contributing things to Linux that are getting them sued by SCO.
Er... is what SCO might say...
God has given me a mission, and my investors call me to it. No we don't. Canopy has a hands off approach to the companies it invests in and is in no way directing your activities. Please ensure that any further public statements are run by my secretary to ensure this point is always kept clear; that recent subpoena was pretty embarrassing. Please ignore the man behind the curtain, not you Darl, just everyone else.