Some of it came from Sequent supposedly. Sequent had a different license. IBM needs the judge to say that the Sequent UNIX work falls under IBM's license now rather than the Sequent one.
No doubt SCO will try to claim that all of IBM's work falls under the Sequent license now or some other fluff. Right afterwards, SCO will bring out a picture of Chewbacca and well nvm:D
"Just wait. Businesses will be requiring this data for "demographics". The RIAA can search for those who talk about "downloading music". Police can use it to track those who distribute kiddie porn."
Now...which one of those is completely out of place? If they use it to catch child exploiters, I'm all for it.
Re:What do you mean 99% useless to others?
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 0
Which would be a minus for corporations that don't want their employees installing software that management doesn't want on their machines. Or is this "feature" configurable?
I believe the policy is whether or not they knowingly sold them to terrorists or had suspicions but still sold them or simply never even checked at all who the hell they were selling them to.
If we imprisoned everybody that even unknowingly aided terrorists, we'd be imprisoning everyone that donated to a charity that was really going to terrorists. AFAIK, we're not doing that.
No. Most believe the only way to make it safe is to eliminate guns completely by getting rid of the 2nd amendment altogether and hunting down those who own guns and imprisoning them. Gun-control is only the first step. Once they ban some guns, they'll ban others, than others then when there's very few guns left and people have been desensitized to the prospect of losing the second amendment due to not having any guns anymore anyway, that is the next to go.
Freedom for those who use the GPL and piss on everyone else? An operating system should not dictate the terms of the license of third party software through obstruction or any other means. If it does, it is robbing developers of the freedom to choose their own license for THEIR hard work.
If it weren't for Microsoft and IE, Netscape would still be *selling* some POS based on Netscape 4.x instead of starting the Mozilla project.
I don't want to use Apple's overpriced Mac hardware either.
I also don't want to see the OSS brand of lockin where nobody can develop anything non-OSS anymore because they get accused of stealing from a competing product that has its source plastered all over.
I'd like to see real competition without the "all or nothing" attitude of the OSS community where they believe that they must be the only thing on the block or just a niche OS for elitists.
"It has two interesting features - first, in addition to mass mailing, it also distributes itself via the P2P network Kazaa."
A fully patched Outlook install would probably not allow infection unless the user chose to run the attachment. As for Kazaa, people executing trojans they downloaded off Kazaa have only themselves to blame.
I don't see how proper security precautions and common sense can't stop this worm. Unfortunately, people don't learn. It shouldn't be MS's or any OS vendor's responsibility to forsee every stupid thing a user can do and disallow it. If they did, the OSS community would be up in arms and using it as a reason to get away from MS. "They are taking control away from the user!" etc etc
In the case of lawyers, it is considered unethical for lawyers to not represent their clients as aggressively as the law allows and the client requests.
Defamation for those who are being blocked as "collateral damage". Being known as a spammer is bad for business. Being falsely identified as a spammer in people's block lists is bad for business as they may not get legit mail. If they were not intentionally adding collateral damage blocks as punishment for those who "harbor spammers", it would be different. They are putting them in intentionally and so they are intentionally attacking the reputation of those businesses who are hosted by the "harborers".
Obtaining a political objective by intimidation or coercion.
Sounds like SPEWS to me. But yes, terrorist is a bit harsh for SPEWS. Misguided is what we should be looking for.
And yes, intentionally providing lists of non-spammers to admins while saying it will keep spam out of thier system is misleading and by doing so SPEWS is doing harm. By intentionally adding non-spammers to their lists, they are going beyond the scope of an spamblocking list into the realm of attempting to impose their will on the internet simply because of their user base. Sounds like a bully, doesn't it?
The worst part is their blocks are broad by design in order to cause harm to non-spammers. They think by hurting innocents, those innocents will complain and make their ISPs get rid of the spammers.
If an ISP actually tried to cover themselves with "not warrant that they will be uninterrupted, error-free or free of viruses or other harmful components" (which covers non-intentional losses) then they are worse off in the brains department then I thought. At the very least, if they are using a blocklist they SHOULD spell out that they do not warrant that the blacklist they happen to use doesn't block legitimate mail. A content-based filter blocking legit mail is a false-positive (error), outright denying mail because SPEWS says so is not.
/* Pass in first company name for lawsuit and sue everyone until we have the rights needed to win. */
bool fileFrivolousLawsuit(char* defendent) { // We can Win!
if (gatherEvidence(defendent)) return true; // Sue someone else so we can Win!
else return fileFrivolousLawsuit(RandomCompany());
}
Slashdot Mirror
Some of it came from Sequent supposedly. Sequent had a different license. IBM needs the judge to say that the Sequent UNIX work falls under IBM's license now rather than the Sequent one.
:D
No doubt SCO will try to claim that all of IBM's work falls under the Sequent license now or some other fluff. Right afterwards, SCO will bring out a picture of Chewbacca and well nvm
ARGH. You've sunk my airhead carrier full of Darls :(
We KNOW they have WMD. We never gave them a receipt for thier purcahse.
"Just wait. Businesses will be requiring this data for "demographics". The RIAA can search for those who talk about "downloading music". Police can use it to track those who distribute kiddie porn." Now...which one of those is completely out of place? If they use it to catch child exploiters, I'm all for it.
Which would be a minus for corporations that don't want their employees installing software that management doesn't want on their machines. Or is this "feature" configurable?
All GNU/Linux needs is a little polish and some good GUI configuration/setup tools and it will be ready to go for most end users.
I believe the policy is whether or not they knowingly sold them to terrorists or had suspicions but still sold them or simply never even checked at all who the hell they were selling them to. If we imprisoned everybody that even unknowingly aided terrorists, we'd be imprisoning everyone that donated to a charity that was really going to terrorists. AFAIK, we're not doing that.
No. Most believe the only way to make it safe is to eliminate guns completely by getting rid of the 2nd amendment altogether and hunting down those who own guns and imprisoning them. Gun-control is only the first step. Once they ban some guns, they'll ban others, than others then when there's very few guns left and people have been desensitized to the prospect of losing the second amendment due to not having any guns anymore anyway, that is the next to go.
These benchmarks will be the proof SCO was waiting for!
Freedom for those who use the GPL and piss on everyone else? An operating system should not dictate the terms of the license of third party software through obstruction or any other means. If it does, it is robbing developers of the freedom to choose their own license for THEIR hard work.
And about an inch down the article there's Amazon saying they cut 25% of their tech costs by going to Linux. Now that's gotta hurt MS's feelings.
"Shut the fuck up, there are grown-ups having a conversation here," says the foul-mouthed Anonymous Coward. :P
The interview occurred in the future? O_O
If it weren't for Microsoft and IE, Netscape would still be *selling* some POS based on Netscape 4.x instead of starting the Mozilla project. I don't want to use Apple's overpriced Mac hardware either. I also don't want to see the OSS brand of lockin where nobody can develop anything non-OSS anymore because they get accused of stealing from a competing product that has its source plastered all over. I'd like to see real competition without the "all or nothing" attitude of the OSS community where they believe that they must be the only thing on the block or just a niche OS for elitists.
"It has two interesting features - first, in addition to mass mailing, it also distributes itself via the P2P network Kazaa." A fully patched Outlook install would probably not allow infection unless the user chose to run the attachment. As for Kazaa, people executing trojans they downloaded off Kazaa have only themselves to blame. I don't see how proper security precautions and common sense can't stop this worm. Unfortunately, people don't learn. It shouldn't be MS's or any OS vendor's responsibility to forsee every stupid thing a user can do and disallow it. If they did, the OSS community would be up in arms and using it as a reason to get away from MS. "They are taking control away from the user!" etc etc
In the case of lawyers, it is considered unethical for lawyers to not represent their clients as aggressively as the law allows and the client requests.
It's automatically not spam when they are putting the mails on their own servers...
Defamation for those who are being blocked as "collateral damage". Being known as a spammer is bad for business. Being falsely identified as a spammer in people's block lists is bad for business as they may not get legit mail. If they were not intentionally adding collateral damage blocks as punishment for those who "harbor spammers", it would be different. They are putting them in intentionally and so they are intentionally attacking the reputation of those businesses who are hosted by the "harborers".
Purposely using their userbase to bully innocent internet users into complaining to their ISP for them shouldn't be blamed on SPEWS? Ouch.
Obtaining a political objective by intimidation or coercion. Sounds like SPEWS to me. But yes, terrorist is a bit harsh for SPEWS. Misguided is what we should be looking for. And yes, intentionally providing lists of non-spammers to admins while saying it will keep spam out of thier system is misleading and by doing so SPEWS is doing harm. By intentionally adding non-spammers to their lists, they are going beyond the scope of an spamblocking list into the realm of attempting to impose their will on the internet simply because of their user base. Sounds like a bully, doesn't it?
The worst part is their blocks are broad by design in order to cause harm to non-spammers. They think by hurting innocents, those innocents will complain and make their ISPs get rid of the spammers.
If an ISP actually tried to cover themselves with "not warrant that they will be uninterrupted, error-free or free of viruses or other harmful components" (which covers non-intentional losses) then they are worse off in the brains department then I thought. At the very least, if they are using a blocklist they SHOULD spell out that they do not warrant that the blacklist they happen to use doesn't block legitimate mail. A content-based filter blocking legit mail is a false-positive (error), outright denying mail because SPEWS says so is not.
the only code SCO has ever written:
/*
// We can Win!
// Sue someone else so we can Win!
Pass in first company name for lawsuit and sue everyone until we have the rights needed to win.
*/
bool fileFrivolousLawsuit(char* defendent) {
if (gatherEvidence(defendent)) return true;
else return fileFrivolousLawsuit(RandomCompany());
}
I'm shocked and apalled that someone would copy and paste posts on /.
I'm more shocked that you found that old post lol.
Here comes the next wave in DMCA lawsuits :D