Linux fans cheered the Wells ruling, viewing it as a sign that SCO's case is doomed. Hatch says they're celebrating too soon.
"You can't read big things into all these little wars," Hatch says. "It's like saying the North didn't win the Civil War just because a couple of battles were bad for us."
Of course, what Hatch is saying is like saying that SCO is fighting to keep the war-torn Linux world as one Union of the people, by the people, and for the people, by suing the pants off Linux developers, threatening to charge license fees to corporate users of Linux, accusing Linux developers of plagiarism and copyright violation and now obstruction of justice. They've got General Sherman in their back pocket just waiting to pillage his way through IBM's case. I think he works as a mathematician for MIT. Also, IBM owns slaves.
"Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed 'dozens' of its Linux developers...to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers," SCO's objection claims.
"One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer," SCO says.
Come on, I thought the copyright infringement claims were going to show that parts of System V were copied into Linux. The argument that it's illegal for IBM to put their own code from Dynix into Linux has always been barely there. I guess if this destruction really happened, IBM will call SCO's bluff and say that they didn't know it was illegal to destroy their own code, because their legal department couldn't anticipate the need to preserve AIX and Dynix to prove SCO's wacky legal theory.
1) How long and how many man hours did it take congress to come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to buy energy efficient servers?
2) Why are there four dissenting votes? More to the point, what's tacked onto this that would make a congressmen go on record as appearing to vote against energy efficiency.
1) Congress didn't spend that much time. All they had to do was rubber-stamp the findings of a lucrative no-bid study contracted to Halliburton.
2) Those four are obviously the ones in the pocket of Big Energy.
Honestly, I don't understand how a conservative government can increase the size of government this much, and ask for internet regulations, I mean it does not follow the philosophy at all. Am I the only libertarian here?
It's not just a conservative government, it's compassionately conservative. Let me point out charitably that Karl Rove has got your number if you think Bush II's government is conservative. You were snookered.
The truth is that this "conservative" government is crowing today about enormous budget deficits coming down a fraction (when we were balanced under Clinton), while ignoring long-term structural deficits caused by tax cuts for the richest Americans that have only increased the wage gap over the last several years. Throwing cash around like water, paying off Halliburton and Big Pharma and scumbags like Abramoff and on and on... how much evidence do you need of the mendacity involved in labeling the profligate Bush government "fiscally conservative"?
When the civil war starts, we broadcast the failsafe, and peace breaks out when the guns don't fire. A decade later, every family in Iraq will have a garden fork attached to the end of the rusty barrel, and Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will join hands in a magnificent circle.
That's the sue-ee's argument all right, that the obviousness rule has not been applied well.
It's hard to say that this one thing would just fix the problem, though. Applying the obviousness test fairly means that the invention has to be pretty explicitly anticipated in the technical literature prior to the patent filing; this eliminates arbitrary guesswork where the court sees a discovery and says "but that's so obvious now that I see how it works." It's unfair to the inventor that actually comes up with a great, should-have-been-obvious idea that no one actually thought of. The article talks about this.
The paradox is that for something to fail the obviousness test, it has to be mentioned in the technical literature, but the technical literature, with the possible exception of textbooks, is geared toward specialization and originality, not the things experts find generic and obvious. And patenting is happening on the bleeding edge of technology, where standard textbooks haven't been written yet. So I don't think this is going to be the common-sense, but difficult-to-apply "I know it when I see it" ruling that will entirely eliminate goofy business-method patents like One-Click.
But these guys with the gas pedal patent would probably be out of luck.
You and Trahloc responded to me essentially the same way, so let me consolidate my thoughts to both of you here.
I don't think it takes six billion dollars to have a fulfilling life. We all agree about that. Where we seem to disagree is where to draw the line. Zacchaeus drew it at 50% and Jesus Christ said he was saved on the spot. Warren Buffett drew it at 85%; I can't judge his motives, but he certainly doesn't deserve the trash talk from the OP about how rich people can afford to give away their money.
Also, a line from the article that appears to have slipped past you both: "He now owns close to 31% of the company-worth nearly $44 billion in late June - and that proportion will ultimately be cut to around 5%. Sticking to his long-term intentions, Buffett says the residual 5%, worth about $6.8 billion today, will in time go for philanthropy also, perhaps in his lifetime and, if not, at his death." As you find out when you read the article, he and his wife planned to give away all their money decades ago, and this is just the first stage.
Does this change how you view his gift? It should look pretty frigging impressive now if you believe your own arguments. But I am tempted to say it doesn't change things, for me. Buffett could have taken those billions and done whatever selfish things he liked, created the next Walton family. But he didn't. He's a public figure and people will always suspect his motives, saying that he's trading cash for PR. Maybe he just wanted to be altruistic with his money, and that is as deep as it goes.
I call BS. The point of the incident is that the rich people gave much more in absolute terms but much less in proportional terms. They only gave to those in need up to the point where it would start hurting their financial position, then stopped.
That is not the case here. No one can afford to give away 37 billion dollars, not even the second richest man in the world. Only special people walk away from 80 percent of their life savings, whether they've saved a few bucks a month like that janitor who gave $2 million to the University of Great Falls or the laundry lady who gave $150000 to the University of Southern Mississippi, or they've amassed amazing wealth through high finance.
Would that we all had the principle and bravery to finally deny the love of money and consumerism. "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". Whatever else Warren Buffett is, he managed to make the end product of his life's work into charity.
Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today." So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
All the people saw this and began to mutter, "He has gone to be the guest of a sinner."
But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount."
Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."
This broadcast flag in no way acts in their interest. Presumably with no major television producers in Alaska we can assume it isn't what his constituents want as it doesn't benefit them in any way.
I agree with you; like I said, he gets the bridge to nowhere, he sneaks in the broadcast flag for someone else. It's the pork fat that greases the engines of democracy.
What I find even weirder (trans: more hypocritical) about this is that Stevens dissed on the broadcast flag in the January hearings. Stevens, we hardly knew ye.
Anime heroin is two parts narcotic, one part soul of the forest, and one part nanobot. Somebody told me they were starting to put in ground Pikachu, but who could harm that little thing? Except Mew Two, that is.
And God knows they've been aching to end their litigious ways. How it pained them to go to court, for the good of their bottom line! My heart bleeds for them.
But what happy days have come to stay! No more in thrall to the IP'd gentry, the RIAA can return to their first love: recording.
Schneier's column at Wired is about security decisions, not just software. It is a regular feature.
Go to his blog to read the comments from the well-informed readers he attracts rather than the Slashdot monkey mob. Some of the readers there also ask where the beef is on vendor liability, and it turns out the question is not a new one to Schneier's body of work. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/alig ning_intere.html
The only thing I agree with in what you said is that the Slashdot article summary is misleading. Otherwise, you are at best grossly misinformed, at worst on a bit of an afternoon drunk yourself.
I realize that you, a lowly commenter on Slashdot, feel less responsibility to grammar than a front page book reviewer on Slashdot. However, setting yourself up as an arbiter of good and bad grammar while not possessing said grammar yourself is asinine. Here in English, we have a few aphorisms you should study:
Don't throw stones in glass houses. Pot. Kettle. Black. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.
And here's the classic treatment from Jesus: Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
At least, that's according to the WorldNetDaily article, which uses the fact to accuse Google of liberal bias.
However, they're ignoring the implication that should be obvious: If Google hires some of the smartest people in the world, and basically all of them are Democrats with a liberal bias...
I suppose you could argue that being smart and voting Democrat is a gigantic coincidence. Gigantic. And I would like to read that argument.
Your argument rests on a false equivalence between the angry right and the angry left. New Media Journal said (in "How Has Islam Enriched Your Life?"): "It's an entirely new situation now that most of Europe has caved in and the influence and power of the World of Islam is growing at an alarming rate. Mainly because it is common for the men to have multiple wives, and harvest many children with each of his wives to train for martyrdom." Hey, I'm part of the angry left, and I didn't just slander/libel/stereotype the better part of a billion people as polygamist bomber breeders.
Engagement with these sorts of meritless claims of the angry right is to give them a cachet they really don't deserve. That quote betrays an inability to understand the world and a firm concentration on ideology at the expense of reality; for instance, the reality that most Muslims do not blow themselves up, but that a sizable number are pissed at the United States' unjust war of aggression (oh, I mean of stopping an imminent Iraqi attack, or was it disabling a thriving WMD program, or was it regime change or democracy promotion, or I forget, was it to fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here, or better yet to strike a symbolic blow at the heart of the war on terror and why do we need permanent military bases to do any of that, or was it all for the oil, or to wedge Iran, or to protect Israel).
So go ahead and call it PC, my refusal (and many like-minded people's refusals) to countenance idiotic arguments like these. I call it not casting pearls before swine.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux fans cheered the Wells ruling, viewing it as a sign that SCO's case is doomed. Hatch says they're celebrating too soon.
"You can't read big things into all these little wars," Hatch says. "It's like saying the North didn't win the Civil War just because a couple of battles were bad for us."
Of course, what Hatch is saying is like saying that SCO is fighting to keep the war-torn Linux world as one Union of the people, by the people, and for the people, by suing the pants off Linux developers, threatening to charge license fees to corporate users of Linux, accusing Linux developers of plagiarism and copyright violation and now obstruction of justice. They've got General Sherman in their back pocket just waiting to pillage his way through IBM's case. I think he works as a mathematician for MIT. Also, IBM owns slaves.
"Weeks after SCO filed its lawsuit, IBM directed 'dozens' of its Linux developers...to delete the AIX and/or Dynix source code from their computers," SCO's objection claims.
"One IBM Linux developer has admitted to destroying source code and tests, as well as pre-March 2003 drafts of source code he had written for Linux while referring to Dynix code on his computer," SCO says.
Come on, I thought the copyright infringement claims were going to show that parts of System V were copied into Linux. The argument that it's illegal for IBM to put their own code from Dynix into Linux has always been barely there. I guess if this destruction really happened, IBM will call SCO's bluff and say that they didn't know it was illegal to destroy their own code, because their legal department couldn't anticipate the need to preserve AIX and Dynix to prove SCO's wacky legal theory.
It wasn't perjury, remember. It was thoroughly vetted lawyer talk, and it was slimy, but Clinton never broke that law.
1) How long and how many man hours did it take congress to come to the conclusion that it's a good idea to buy energy efficient servers?
2) Why are there four dissenting votes? More to the point, what's tacked onto this that would make a congressmen go on record as appearing to vote against energy efficiency.
1) Congress didn't spend that much time. All they had to do was rubber-stamp the findings of a lucrative no-bid study contracted to Halliburton.
2) Those four are obviously the ones in the pocket of Big Energy.
Honestly, I don't understand how a conservative government can increase the size of government this much, and ask for internet regulations, I mean it does not follow the philosophy at all. Am I the only libertarian here?
d nt-like-nixon-_b_11735.html
It's not just a conservative government, it's compassionately conservative. Let me point out charitably that Karl Rove has got your number if you think Bush II's government is conservative. You were snookered.
The truth is that this "conservative" government is crowing today about enormous budget deficits coming down a fraction (when we were balanced under Clinton), while ignoring long-term structural deficits caused by tax cuts for the richest Americans that have only increased the wage gap over the last several years. Throwing cash around like water, paying off Halliburton and Big Pharma and scumbags like Abramoff and on and on... how much evidence do you need of the mendacity involved in labeling the profligate Bush government "fiscally conservative"?
I will point out, however, that the conservative movement has had free rein to choose its policies. If the ship has run aground, we know who has been at the wheel. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-perlstein/i-di
If you want a fiscally conservative government, kick out the neocons and vote for some Democrats. Or you could vote for the Greens, it worked in 2000.
We give a few million of these guns away.
When the civil war starts, we broadcast the failsafe, and peace breaks out when the guns don't fire. A decade later, every family in Iraq will have a garden fork attached to the end of the rusty barrel, and Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will join hands in a magnificent circle.
That's the sue-ee's argument all right, that the obviousness rule has not been applied well.
It's hard to say that this one thing would just fix the problem, though. Applying the obviousness test fairly means that the invention has to be pretty explicitly anticipated in the technical literature prior to the patent filing; this eliminates arbitrary guesswork where the court sees a discovery and says "but that's so obvious now that I see how it works." It's unfair to the inventor that actually comes up with a great, should-have-been-obvious idea that no one actually thought of. The article talks about this.
The paradox is that for something to fail the obviousness test, it has to be mentioned in the technical literature, but the technical literature, with the possible exception of textbooks, is geared toward specialization and originality, not the things experts find generic and obvious. And patenting is happening on the bleeding edge of technology, where standard textbooks haven't been written yet. So I don't think this is going to be the common-sense, but difficult-to-apply "I know it when I see it" ruling that will entirely eliminate goofy business-method patents like One-Click.
But these guys with the gas pedal patent would probably be out of luck.
Except obvious means you don't know it when you've seen it, you know it when you've foreseen it.
The rule is obvious to a skilled practitioner, not obvious to a patent examiner.
You and Trahloc responded to me essentially the same way, so let me consolidate my thoughts to both of you here.
I don't think it takes six billion dollars to have a fulfilling life. We all agree about that. Where we seem to disagree is where to draw the line. Zacchaeus drew it at 50% and Jesus Christ said he was saved on the spot. Warren Buffett drew it at 85%; I can't judge his motives, but he certainly doesn't deserve the trash talk from the OP about how rich people can afford to give away their money.
Also, a line from the article that appears to have slipped past you both: "He now owns close to 31% of the company-worth nearly $44 billion in late June - and that proportion will ultimately be cut to around 5%. Sticking to his long-term intentions, Buffett says the residual 5%, worth about $6.8 billion today, will in time go for philanthropy also, perhaps in his lifetime and, if not, at his death." As you find out when you read the article, he and his wife planned to give away all their money decades ago, and this is just the first stage.
Does this change how you view his gift? It should look pretty frigging impressive now if you believe your own arguments. But I am tempted to say it doesn't change things, for me. Buffett could have taken those billions and done whatever selfish things he liked, created the next Walton family. But he didn't. He's a public figure and people will always suspect his motives, saying that he's trading cash for PR. Maybe he just wanted to be altruistic with his money, and that is as deep as it goes.
That is not the case here. No one can afford to give away 37 billion dollars, not even the second richest man in the world. Only special people walk away from 80 percent of their life savings, whether they've saved a few bucks a month like that janitor who gave $2 million to the University of Great Falls or the laundry lady who gave $150000 to the University of Southern Mississippi, or they've amassed amazing wealth through high finance.
Would that we all had the principle and bravery to finally deny the love of money and consumerism. "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also". Whatever else Warren Buffett is, he managed to make the end product of his life's work into charity.
I was thinking of this: http://jimmysweblog.net/2004/10/richard-stallman.j pg
But you're right, I was having trouble sticking in that extra adjective.
I, for one, will welcome our hairy new penguin-gnu crossbreed overlords.
This broadcast flag in no way acts in their interest. Presumably with no major television producers in Alaska we can assume it isn't what his constituents want as it doesn't benefit them in any way.
I agree with you; like I said, he gets the bridge to nowhere, he sneaks in the broadcast flag for someone else. It's the pork fat that greases the engines of democracy.
What I find even weirder (trans: more hypocritical) about this is that Stevens dissed on the broadcast flag in the January hearings. Stevens, we hardly knew ye.
Your fault, Alaska! Your fault!
He really wants that frigging bridge.
Anime heroin is two parts narcotic, one part soul of the forest, and one part nanobot. Somebody told me they were starting to put in ground Pikachu, but who could harm that little thing? Except Mew Two, that is.
[/BS]
Many Bothans died to bring us this four-projector spherical diagram apparatus.
And God knows they've been aching to end their litigious ways. How it pained them to go to court, for the good of their bottom line! My heart bleeds for them.
But what happy days have come to stay! No more in thrall to the IP'd gentry, the RIAA can return to their first love: recording.
you play football.
In the US, Soccer plays you! At least, things are heading that direction.
http://schneier.com/
g ning_intere.html
http://schneier.com/blog/
Schneier's column at Wired is about security decisions, not just software. It is a regular feature.
Go to his blog to read the comments from the well-informed readers he attracts rather than the Slashdot monkey mob. Some of the readers there also ask where the beef is on vendor liability, and it turns out the question is not a new one to Schneier's body of work.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/06/ali
The only thing I agree with in what you said is that the Slashdot article summary is misleading. Otherwise, you are at best grossly misinformed, at worst on a bit of an afternoon drunk yourself.
I realize that you, a lowly commenter on Slashdot, feel less responsibility to grammar than a front page book reviewer on Slashdot. However, setting yourself up as an arbiter of good and bad grammar while not possessing said grammar yourself is asinine. Here in English, we have a few aphorisms you should study:
Don't throw stones in glass houses.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.
And here's the classic treatment from Jesus:
Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
philistine.
At least, that's according to the WorldNetDaily article, which uses the fact to accuse Google of liberal bias.
However, they're ignoring the implication that should be obvious: If Google hires some of the smartest people in the world, and basically all of them are Democrats with a liberal bias...
I suppose you could argue that being smart and voting Democrat is a gigantic coincidence. Gigantic. And I would like to read that argument.
Your argument rests on a false equivalence between the angry right and the angry left. New Media Journal said (in "How Has Islam Enriched Your Life?"): "It's an entirely new situation now that most of Europe has caved in and the influence and power of the World of Islam is growing at an alarming rate. Mainly because it is common for the men to have multiple wives, and harvest many children with each of his wives to train for martyrdom." Hey, I'm part of the angry left, and I didn't just slander/libel/stereotype the better part of a billion people as polygamist bomber breeders.
Engagement with these sorts of meritless claims of the angry right is to give them a cachet they really don't deserve. That quote betrays an inability to understand the world and a firm concentration on ideology at the expense of reality; for instance, the reality that most Muslims do not blow themselves up, but that a sizable number are pissed at the United States' unjust war of aggression (oh, I mean of stopping an imminent Iraqi attack, or was it disabling a thriving WMD program, or was it regime change or democracy promotion, or I forget, was it to fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here, or better yet to strike a symbolic blow at the heart of the war on terror and why do we need permanent military bases to do any of that, or was it all for the oil, or to wedge Iran, or to protect Israel).
So go ahead and call it PC, my refusal (and many like-minded people's refusals) to countenance idiotic arguments like these. I call it not casting pearls before swine.