Remember this though, they could have kept the whole thing confidential, just like the "other" companies SCO brags about. EV1 apparently have had no problem letting SCO use their name, which makes you wonder how sincere they are in their "gee, we really didn't want to do this but we needed to protect ourselves" plea.
My vote goes with either a financial company or a media/effects company. Personally I think they'll go after the latter first, as, while the former have lots more money, they are usually pitbulls with a lot of legal firepower. An effects team *might* be able to be bled of enough cash to call it a day and roll.
The idea is, they can't possibly win, but they can attract lots and lots of attention to themselves because they can drag out the trial ad infinitum.
This is what I suspect will happen:
SCO: We'll sue ACME ACME: Judge, we're being sued over copyrights when those copyrights haven't been established (see Novell case for SysV code, IBM for SCO's "We control everything else" code) Judge: This case is postponed until the copyrights are established.
SCO gets to blow lots of hot air knowing that for all intents and purposes that case is going to be put on hold. They can also then try to squeeze the nuts of ACME for a settlement.
Quite possibly very naive question from a non-perl
on
Perl's Extreme Makeover
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
user...
Is Parrot something akin to the JVM /.NET runtime engine? If so is the plan for it to be as robust as the JVM /.NET runtime: i.e. could the same type of applications that people are building for Java /.NET be just as easily built with Parrot?
If I'm reading all of this right Parrot may well become everything Sun wants Java to become / MS wants.NET to become without the "what are those bastards going to do to the platform" stench.
Of course, if I have the wrong end of the stick here I apologise. Perl isn't my strong suit.
The biggest affect has been that communication within groups of like-minded individuals has been greatly increased. Between sites like meetup.com for live meetings and email discussion lists for ongoing meetings online, if you care about an issue or set of issues, you can coordinate with others who feel the same way.
For the most part I agree (or at least agreed) with your observations, but this post-mortems of Dean's run (by a Dean supporter no less) does, I think, a hell of a job pointing out some of the shortcomings of Dean's use of the internet. The Cliff Notes version: if it doesn't generate votes, it ain't worth squat.
I still think they're going after the angle that JFS, NuMA, et al (basically anything that looks or smells like Unix) are "derivatives" of SysV, and their ownership of Unix means that they control everything related. Thus, IBM shouldn't have contributed to the kernel without first asking SCO's permission. This, I believe, is the heart of their case (they are also still saying there's actual SysV code in Linux, but haven't show squat legally and isn't part of the case as far as I know).
Of course, this is going to be hard to win since it requires them to prove:
a) the license with IBM actually gives them control of derivatives b) IBM's code is a derivative of SysV
Frankly, I thought they had a much better chance with the Trade Secret stuff since there may have been some Monterey issues non of us knew about. The "derivative" argument seems like one hell of a stretch considering copyright and contract law along with the *BSD settlement.
Basically, though, the new copyright stuff seems pretty damn empty. I'll be surprised if it goes anywhere.
The big news the Slashdot post seems to have missed is that:
SCO HAS DROPPED THEIR TRADE SECRET CLAIM
Remember when this crap all began Darl's mantra was "It isn't about copyright, its about trade secrets." Well, apparently not any more. Highly suggest parusing Groklaw for some great coverage. IBM's court filings from yesterday are brilliant.
They caused their product to malfunction. All that malfunctioning did was destroy bogus cards, but what if it caused certain DirecTV boxes to catch on fire? Is that "terrorism?"
The fact of the matter is the Soviets *stole* technology. They were too dumb to test out what they had stolen. They only have themselves to blame.
If I had the ability to add to my car the ability to pump 50,000 volts of electricity thru the nuts of someone who stole it I would do it in a heartbeat (and use it if necessary). You steal from me, you lose the moral high ground. You steal from another country and are too stupid to test what you've stolen, you've also lost the moral high ground. And I would say the exact same thing if the US had pinched (intentionally farked-up) Soviet technology and it blew up in our face. Not terrorism!
I disagree that PS2 development was "strong out of the gate.
Good point. I should have said "As strong as they would have been without backwards compatibility." New games are what drive a new platform. The PS2 wouldn't have been any stronger out of the gate if Sony had dropped the backwards compatibility. The PS2 (like any other system) is going to succeed or fail on the games that are developed for it.
As with any new system you're going to have developers who take a "wait and see" attitude, and those who you line up to take a chance by having games available at launch. One certain way of pissing off those earlier developers is to say "stop developing games for the old system." How gung-ho would EA have been if Sony said "0nly make Madden2K for the PS2. Kill the PS1 version!" EA would have told them to take a flying leap. And, frankly, Sony would have been shooting themselves in the foot by passing up all the licensing fees they would have reaped with the PS1 version.
People upgraded to the PS2 because it was new, more powerful, and could run circles around the PS1, but everyone's not going to run out the first week its on sale and purchase one (if they did, PS2 sales would have been close to zero the last few years). All cutting off PS1 games would do is piss your loyal following off to no end.
And mark my words, no matter what happens with the neXtBox and backwards compatibility, regular xBox games will continue to be developed and marketed after the neXtBox's introduction. If the neXtBox is "all that and a bucket of chicken" it will sell, regardless of how many xBox games continue to be developed. Remember, Madden is still developed for the PS1. How many people are sitting around saying "you know, I'm not going to upgrade to the PS2 because I can still get a perfectly good version of Madden for the PS1?"
Backwards compatibility has a negligable effect on sales.
Since new games are critical to the acceptance of a platform Microsoft wants to encourage developers to create new games that require the new console. It's really as simple as that.
Notice how PS2 development was strong out of the gate while there was still development of the PS1? The lack of backwards compatibility isn't going to influence developers one whit. Most will sign onboard for neXtBox development and some will conntinue to develop xBox games. Why? Because there's a few million units floating around this planet and some people will continue to buy games for it. Remember, MS gets a cut of any game sold, so frankly it shouldn't care which platform sells.
As I said before, backwards compatibility will be included if the development costs are cheaper than the potential marketing. If it's fairly easy (i.e. cheap) to include they will do it. If it isn't (because they remove the hardware, for some reason the emulation layer is buggier than all hell) they won't. But MS inclusion of it isn't going to change a damn thing when it comes to software development for both the xBox and the neXtBox.
Keep dreaming, but don't expect to play your existing XBox games on the new console.
First of all, I never said they would include backwards compatiblity, simply that they could. The parent poster claimed it would be impossible to emulate a 733Mhz PIII on a G5. As I said before Microsoft already owns VirtualPC, VirtualPC runs pretty damn well currently on a G4, let alone on a G5; in 2 years there should be no problem emulating 733Mhz PIII on the neXtBox.
They don't want you to play the old games you have lying around. They want you to buy new games. They aren't going to spend time and money making software so you can run your old games on the XBox2.
So what are they going to do, come over and break your existing xBox? That's an amazingly dumb statement. No on is going to buy a neXtBox simply to play old Xbox games. If someone buys a neXtBox it will be because they want to play new neXtBox games. The ability to play old games will be included if Microsoft feels the development cost is worth the marketability of said feature.
Well, considering MS bought Connix assets (i.e. Virtual PC) I'd have to disagree with you. 733 Mhz emulation should be well within the range in a couple years, if not already today (it runs rather spiffily on a G4, let alone a G5)
(version two since the brackets gummed up version one)
Why?
For a few reasons:
First, the original post's logical chain was
Safire used to work in intelligence -} the intelligence community is under scrutiny -} ergo, Safire's only writing this to take heat off of the intelligence community.
Which is, how do you say it, RATHER FLIMSY evidence at best (hence, I though you were taking the piss)
So after your original statement is greeted by moi with less-than-believeable cries of 'kook' by me you follow up with a long ass post that has nothing to do with the original arguement that basically implies "well, if you don't believe me you must be one of those people who believes everything the gov't says... yeah... that's the ticket."
Let me set you straight: I no more take the word of the gov't at face value than I take the word of some poxy git who posts to slashdot at face value.
>>Why? the intelligence community is under scrutiny -> ergo, Safire's only writing this to take heat off of the intelligence community.
Which is, how do you say it, RATHER FLIMSY evidence at best (hence, I though you were taking the piss)
So after your original statement is greeted by moi with less-than-believeable cries of 'kook' by me you follow up with a long ass post that has nothing to do with the original arguement that basically implies "well, if you don't believe me you must be one of those people who believes everything the gov't says... yeah... that's the ticket."
Let me set you straight: I no more take the word of the gov't at face value than I take the word of some poxy git who posts to slashdot at face value.
>>I think there should be a new word for this type of person - a person who finds it impossible to imagine those in authority acting in a bad way even that is a reasonable logical conclusion based on the facts. Or perhaps there is already a word for this type of person and I don't know it. Any ideas anyone?
Well, before I thought you were just goofing around, but now you totally sound like a paranoid conspiracy nutter.
Oh, and by the way, stop picking your nose... we're watching you and it's grossing Big Brother out.
No, the Russians blew up the gas pipeline. Considering they stole the technology, then didn't test it they really have no one to blame but themselves. Sorta like blaming Sony when you buy a VCR that "fell off the back of a truck" when it stops working.
It'll actually cost MS *more* money. In two years who's going to be making 5 gig hard drives? That's right, no one. Thus they'll have to pay someone extra $$$ to ramp up production. Which HD manufacturer in their right mind would cut into their production of hard drives in order to make a non-standard part that MS will demand be priced less than their cheapest unit?
A couple of things: when the outsourced labor sucks (because of the reasons you state) that causes you to lose money / customers / reputation you stop doing it. For instance Dell. They just brought some of their call center work back to the states.
When I was forced into bankruptcy by the dot-com implosion, and couldn't find decent steady work for over a year, only to eventually find a job that required me to do more work for about a third of the money that I used to make, even a $99 iPod would have been too expensive.
Which means you were probably overpaid in the first place. That was one of the MAJOR problem of the dot.com boom: Labor squeeze, which begat wage inflation. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed some nice paydays as well, but let me ask you this: Did you save anything you made during the boom? Did you rent/buy the best you could afford, buy/lease a phat ride? Did you have all the latest toys (PS, state of the art computer, PDA, the entire Think Geek catalogue)? Did you party every night like you were Prince?
Considering you went bankrupt, unless you owned a house who's value plummeted or had an uninsured medical catastrophe, I suspect it was due to some wicked credit card debt.
Sorry, but the gravy train never lasts forever, and the world doesn't own anyone shit. Just because the cricket partied his ass off doesn't mean he gets to eat the ant's grain.
Agreed.. I ment to say "they'll lose a some profit on each sale..." I think they'll still make money on the hardware side of things, just maybe not as much per iPod than when they sell it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember this though, they could have kept the whole thing confidential, just like the "other" companies SCO brags about. EV1 apparently have had no problem letting SCO use their name, which makes you wonder how sincere they are in their "gee, we really didn't want to do this but we needed to protect ourselves" plea.
My vote goes with either a financial company or a media/effects company. Personally I think they'll go after the latter first, as, while the former have lots more money, they are usually pitbulls with a lot of legal firepower. An effects team *might* be able to be bled of enough cash to call it a day and roll.
The idea is, they can't possibly win, but they can attract lots and lots of attention to themselves because they can drag out the trial ad infinitum.
This is what I suspect will happen:
SCO: We'll sue ACME
ACME: Judge, we're being sued over copyrights when those copyrights haven't been established (see Novell case for SysV code, IBM for SCO's "We control everything else" code)
Judge: This case is postponed until the copyrights are established.
SCO gets to blow lots of hot air knowing that for all intents and purposes that case is going to be put on hold. They can also then try to squeeze the nuts of ACME for a settlement.
user...
.NET runtime engine? If so is the plan for it to be as robust as the JVM / .NET runtime: i.e. could the same type of applications that people are building for Java / .NET be just as easily built with Parrot?
.NET to become without the "what are those bastards going to do to the platform" stench.
Is Parrot something akin to the JVM /
If I'm reading all of this right Parrot may well become everything Sun wants Java to become / MS wants
Of course, if I have the wrong end of the stick here I apologise. Perl isn't my strong suit.
The biggest affect has been that communication within groups of like-minded individuals has been greatly increased. Between sites like meetup.com for live meetings and email discussion lists for ongoing meetings online, if you care about an issue or set of issues, you can coordinate with others who feel the same way.
For the most part I agree (or at least agreed) with your observations, but this post-mortems of Dean's run (by a Dean supporter no less) does, I think, a hell of a job pointing out some of the shortcomings of Dean's use of the internet. The Cliff Notes version: if it doesn't generate votes, it ain't worth squat.
I still think they're going after the angle that JFS, NuMA, et al (basically anything that looks or smells like Unix) are "derivatives" of SysV, and their ownership of Unix means that they control everything related. Thus, IBM shouldn't have contributed to the kernel without first asking SCO's permission. This, I believe, is the heart of their case (they are also still saying there's actual SysV code in Linux, but haven't show squat legally and isn't part of the case as far as I know).
Of course, this is going to be hard to win since it requires them to prove:
a) the license with IBM actually gives them control of derivatives
b) IBM's code is a derivative of SysV
Frankly, I thought they had a much better chance with the Trade Secret stuff since there may have been some Monterey issues non of us knew about. The "derivative" argument seems like one hell of a stretch considering copyright and contract law along with the *BSD settlement.
Basically, though, the new copyright stuff seems pretty damn empty. I'll be surprised if it goes anywhere.
Oh, and I should add that the copyright infrigement isn't about Linux, its about AIX being distributed by IBM after SCO revoked their license.
But remember, SCO revoked IBM's license due to trade secret violation...
Violations that SCO isn't going to legally persue
Which rhymes with Catch 22
Which sums up SCO's claims now quite nicely.
The big news the Slashdot post seems to have missed is that:
SCO HAS DROPPED THEIR TRADE SECRET CLAIM
Remember when this crap all began Darl's mantra was "It isn't about copyright, its about trade secrets." Well, apparently not any more. Highly suggest parusing Groklaw for some great coverage. IBM's court filings from yesterday are brilliant.
Has DirecTV caused their products to explode?
They caused their product to malfunction. All that malfunctioning did was destroy bogus cards, but what if it caused certain DirecTV boxes to catch on fire? Is that "terrorism?"
The fact of the matter is the Soviets *stole* technology. They were too dumb to test out what they had stolen. They only have themselves to blame.
If I had the ability to add to my car the ability to pump 50,000 volts of electricity thru the nuts of someone who stole it I would do it in a heartbeat (and use it if necessary). You steal from me, you lose the moral high ground. You steal from another country and are too stupid to test what you've stolen, you've also lost the moral high ground. And I would say the exact same thing if the US had pinched (intentionally farked-up) Soviet technology and it blew up in our face. Not terrorism!
I disagree that PS2 development was "strong out of the gate.
Good point. I should have said "As strong as they would have been without backwards compatibility." New games are what drive a new platform. The PS2 wouldn't have been any stronger out of the gate if Sony had dropped the backwards compatibility. The PS2 (like any other system) is going to succeed or fail on the games that are developed for it.
As with any new system you're going to have developers who take a "wait and see" attitude, and those who you line up to take a chance by having games available at launch. One certain way of pissing off those earlier developers is to say "stop developing games for the old system." How gung-ho would EA have been if Sony said "0nly make Madden2K for the PS2. Kill the PS1 version!" EA would have told them to take a flying leap. And, frankly, Sony would have been shooting themselves in the foot by passing up all the licensing fees they would have reaped with the PS1 version.
People upgraded to the PS2 because it was new, more powerful, and could run circles around the PS1, but everyone's not going to run out the first week its on sale and purchase one (if they did, PS2 sales would have been close to zero the last few years). All cutting off PS1 games would do is piss your loyal following off to no end.
And mark my words, no matter what happens with the neXtBox and backwards compatibility, regular xBox games will continue to be developed and marketed after the neXtBox's introduction. If the neXtBox is "all that and a bucket of chicken" it will sell, regardless of how many xBox games continue to be developed. Remember, Madden is still developed for the PS1. How many people are sitting around saying "you know, I'm not going to upgrade to the PS2 because I can still get a perfectly good version of Madden for the PS1?"
Backwards compatibility has a negligable effect on sales.
Since new games are critical to the acceptance of a platform Microsoft wants to encourage developers to create new games that require the new console. It's really as simple as that.
Notice how PS2 development was strong out of the gate while there was still development of the PS1? The lack of backwards compatibility isn't going to influence developers one whit. Most will sign onboard for neXtBox development and some will conntinue to develop xBox games. Why? Because there's a few million units floating around this planet and some people will continue to buy games for it. Remember, MS gets a cut of any game sold, so frankly it shouldn't care which platform sells.
As I said before, backwards compatibility will be included if the development costs are cheaper than the potential marketing. If it's fairly easy (i.e. cheap) to include they will do it. If it isn't (because they remove the hardware, for some reason the emulation layer is buggier than all hell) they won't. But MS inclusion of it isn't going to change a damn thing when it comes to software development for both the xBox and the neXtBox.
Keep dreaming, but don't expect to play your existing XBox games on the new console.
First of all, I never said they would include backwards compatiblity, simply that they could. The parent poster claimed it would be impossible to emulate a 733Mhz PIII on a G5. As I said before Microsoft already owns VirtualPC, VirtualPC runs pretty damn well currently on a G4, let alone on a G5; in 2 years there should be no problem emulating 733Mhz PIII on the neXtBox.
They don't want you to play the old games you have lying around. They want you to buy new games. They aren't going to spend time and money making software so you can run your old games on the XBox2.
So what are they going to do, come over and break your existing xBox? That's an amazingly dumb statement. No on is going to buy a neXtBox simply to play old Xbox games. If someone buys a neXtBox it will be because they want to play new neXtBox games. The ability to play old games will be included if Microsoft feels the development cost is worth the marketability of said feature.
Well, considering MS bought Connix assets (i.e. Virtual PC) I'd have to disagree with you. 733 Mhz emulation should be well within the range in a couple years, if not already today (it runs rather spiffily on a G4, let alone a G5)
If you're VCR breaks its terrorism?
So I take it when DirecTV popped those who were using hacked cards that was terrorism as well.
Whatever floats your boat.
(version two since the brackets gummed up version one)
Why?
For a few reasons:
First, the original post's logical chain was
Safire used to work in intelligence -}
the intelligence community is under scrutiny -}
ergo, Safire's only writing this to take heat off of the intelligence community.
Which is, how do you say it, RATHER FLIMSY evidence at best (hence, I though you were taking the piss)
So after your original statement is greeted by moi with less-than-believeable cries of 'kook' by me you follow up with a long ass post that has nothing to do with the original arguement that basically implies "well, if you don't believe me you must be one of those people who believes everything the gov't says... yeah... that's the ticket."
Let me set you straight: I no more take the word of the gov't at face value than I take the word of some poxy git who posts to slashdot at face value.
>>Why?
the intelligence community is under scrutiny ->
ergo, Safire's only writing this to take heat off of the intelligence community.
Which is, how do you say it, RATHER FLIMSY evidence at best (hence, I though you were taking the piss)
So after your original statement is greeted by moi with less-than-believeable cries of 'kook' by me you follow up with a long ass post that has nothing to do with the original arguement that basically implies "well, if you don't believe me you must be one of those people who believes everything the gov't says... yeah... that's the ticket."
Let me set you straight: I no more take the word of the gov't at face value than I take the word of some poxy git who posts to slashdot at face value.
>>I think there should be a new word for this type of person - a person who finds it impossible to imagine those in authority acting in a bad way even that is a reasonable logical conclusion based on the facts. Or perhaps there is already a word for this type of person and I don't know it. Any ideas anyone?
Well, before I thought you were just goofing around, but now you totally sound like a paranoid conspiracy nutter.
Oh, and by the way, stop picking your nose... we're watching you and it's grossing Big Brother out.
>>Draw your own conclusions.
Okay: You are a kook.
How's that?
No, the Russians blew up the gas pipeline. Considering they stole the technology, then didn't test it they really have no one to blame but themselves. Sorta like blaming Sony when you buy a VCR that "fell off the back of a truck" when it stops working.
It'll actually cost MS *more* money. In two years who's going to be making 5 gig hard drives? That's right, no one. Thus they'll have to pay someone extra $$$ to ramp up production. Which HD manufacturer in their right mind would cut into their production of hard drives in order to make a non-standard part that MS will demand be priced less than their cheapest unit?
Small correction: Project was named Monterey.
Merced was a code name for a the Itanium.
"HP Windows boxen" (when did that become plural for boxes?)
About the same time "moosen" became the plural of moose (as in "I see a flock of moosen").
(props to Brian Regan)
A couple of things: when the outsourced labor sucks (because of the reasons you state) that causes you to lose money / customers / reputation you stop doing it. For instance Dell. They just brought some of their call center work back to the states.
When I was forced into bankruptcy by the dot-com implosion, and couldn't find decent steady work for over a year, only to eventually find a job that required me to do more work for about a third of the money that I used to make, even a $99 iPod would have been too expensive.
Which means you were probably overpaid in the first place. That was one of the MAJOR problem of the dot.com boom: Labor squeeze, which begat wage inflation. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed some nice paydays as well, but let me ask you this: Did you save anything you made during the boom? Did you rent/buy the best you could afford, buy/lease a phat ride? Did you have all the latest toys (PS, state of the art computer, PDA, the entire Think Geek catalogue)? Did you party every night like you were Prince?
Considering you went bankrupt, unless you owned a house who's value plummeted or had an uninsured medical catastrophe, I suspect it was due to some wicked credit card debt.
Sorry, but the gravy train never lasts forever, and the world doesn't own anyone shit. Just because the cricket partied his ass off doesn't mean he gets to eat the ant's grain.
Agreed.. I ment to say "they'll lose a some profit on each sale..." I think they'll still make money on the hardware side of things, just maybe not as much per iPod than when they sell it themselves.