In the current system, the voter can always lie to a candidate, and within the privacy of the voting room, do what he/she wishes.
If anyone ever approached me to buy my vote, I'd gladly accept their money. Then, I would go into the voting booth and vote against them. If a person is buying votes, do I really want to vote for them? I think not.
For any of you guys who think that you can make aquick killing on SCO stock, please take this warning seriously: I would not recommend breaking your first tooth (any type of investment, especially selling short or options) on SCO! What you don't realize is that 90% of stock market investors exist solely to give their money to the other 10%. The stock market is still run by the good-old-boy network. You are not part of the "in-the-loop" crowd!
If you are a veteran investor and you feel comfortable investing in it, have fun. You probably already know that there are several things working against you: 1. This case is not scheduled to go to court until 2005. The stock could very well sit around $17.50 for a long time. Plus, if the last six months is any indicator, the stock is only a couple of news articles away from being $25. You have a huge possible loss on the upside. 2. Any news that you hear about the case is old. If you were to analyze price history of stocks before they made major announcements, you would see that a lot of the moves occur BEFORE the announcements are made public. How can that be, since NOBODY knows what happened before the announcement?! 3. I believe most brokers are refusing to short SCO. That alone should tell you something. You'll probably have a hard time finding someone to lend you the shares. I haven't checked to see if SCO is optionable, and if it is, how attractive the options look. You might be able to use them to limit your losses.
Seriously guys, SAVE your money! You don't really need to give it to the fat cats on Wall Street. I, for one, am staying away from SCO stock. There's just too much uncertainty.
Actually, the reverse is true, assuming that you can use the stock market as a gauge of the economy. The market tends to be good during election years, and be bad during the first year of a president's term. I read this last weekend while reviewing some of my investment books.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we vote GWB into office a second time just to avoid the economic lag that occurs during a president's first year of office.
that SCO has declared the GPL invalid (or unenforceable, I don't remember the exact wording they used). Given that fact, can anyone really claim to be surprised by this story? Isn't SCO's suit against IBM a contractual dispute in which SCO cliams that IBM had no right to put code that IBM developed into linux, while IBM thinks they have every right to do so?
Suppose you offer a licence for your app at X pounds; if I don't like the licence, the application doesn't nonetheless become mine.
Your assuming that you and SCO are playing by the same rules. You're not! While you are all about fair play, SCO seems to be making up their own rules.
How much would you be willing to pay for the more extensive prior art search that the patent office would be required to do? That is money that would come from taxes. Making the person/company filing for the patent pay for the prior art search would put patents out of the reach of the little people.
I, too, believe that the patent office has some flaws. I'm just not sure of the best way to go about fixing it. The peer review process I read in about in another post has some merit, and perhaps should be examine more closely.
Slashdot Mirror
who sees this as a very bad precedent to set? Give your users money because they don't want to type number into a spreadsheet in OO rather than MSO?
In the current system, the voter can always lie to a candidate, and within the privacy of the voting room, do what he/she wishes.
If anyone ever approached me to buy my vote, I'd gladly accept their money. Then, I would go into the voting booth and vote against them. If a person is buying votes, do I really want to vote for them? I think not.
For any of you guys who think that you can make aquick killing on SCO stock, please take this warning seriously: I would not recommend breaking your first tooth (any type of investment, especially selling short or options) on SCO! What you don't realize is that 90% of stock market investors exist solely to give their money to the other 10%. The stock market is still run by the good-old-boy network. You are not part of the "in-the-loop" crowd!
If you are a veteran investor and you feel comfortable investing in it, have fun. You probably already know that there are several things working against you:
1. This case is not scheduled to go to court until 2005. The stock could very well sit around $17.50 for a long time. Plus, if the last six months is any indicator, the stock is only a couple of news articles away from being $25. You have a huge possible loss on the upside.
2. Any news that you hear about the case is old. If you were to analyze price history of stocks before they made major announcements, you would see that a lot of the moves occur BEFORE the announcements are made public. How can that be, since NOBODY knows what happened before the announcement?!
3. I believe most brokers are refusing to short SCO. That alone should tell you something. You'll probably have a hard time finding someone to lend you the shares. I haven't checked to see if SCO is optionable, and if it is, how attractive the options look. You might be able to use them to limit your losses.
Seriously guys, SAVE your money! You don't really need to give it to the fat cats on Wall Street. I, for one, am staying away from SCO stock. There's just too much uncertainty.
Actually, the reverse is true, assuming that you can use the stock market as a gauge of the economy. The market tends to be good during election years, and be bad during the first year of a president's term. I read this last weekend while reviewing some of my investment books.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we vote GWB into office a second time just to avoid the economic lag that occurs during a president's first year of office.
that SCO has declared the GPL invalid (or unenforceable, I don't remember the exact wording they used). Given that fact, can anyone really claim to be surprised by this story? Isn't SCO's suit against IBM a contractual dispute in which SCO cliams that IBM had no right to put code that IBM developed into linux, while IBM thinks they have every right to do so?
Suppose you offer a licence for your app at X pounds; if I don't like the licence, the application doesn't nonetheless become mine.
Your assuming that you and SCO are playing by the same rules. You're not! While you are all about fair play, SCO seems to be making up their own rules.
How much would you be willing to pay for the more extensive prior art search that the patent office would be required to do? That is money that would come from taxes. Making the person/company filing for the patent pay for the prior art search would put patents out of the reach of the little people. I, too, believe that the patent office has some flaws. I'm just not sure of the best way to go about fixing it. The peer review process I read in about in another post has some merit, and perhaps should be examine more closely.