Why do people keep quoting Zawinski. This is a guy who couldn't cut it in the IT world and went on to open up a nightclub. He is not even in the industry anymore.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with pimping alcohol for a living but come on why not take a quote from your local bartender from 10 years ago and post that. It'd be just as relevent.
IF SCO loses they will appeal anyway. It's not like Kimball can do anything to prevent that. She might as well do what she paid to do which is to make judgements.
The problem is that SCO really doesn't have a lot money left. Most of what they have is already promised to Boies et al.
Eventually novell is going to ask for it's 95% of the money from MS and Sun and the IBM lawyers will start demanding money for having to write so many opposition documents to their silly, stupid delay motions and demands for irrational discovery.
What shocks me about all this is the lack of any rationality from the judges. More then two years into the case and judge kimball hasn't demanded that SCO produce the evidence it based the lawsuit on, or stop SCO from changing its case over and over.
Absolutely it could. As I said it wasn't too long ago that MS and Sun signed an IP cross licensing deal. MS could very well have the right to sue open source developers for patents that sun has on solaris.
I don't think neither MS nor Sun can be trusted at this point.
" John Kerry (and other Democrats) were on the 9/11 commision and do not share your view. "
That's right. They don't.
"Many of the things you won't believe are testemony in this. John Kerry as a member of the 9/11 commision also "did not hold one person responsible for this collasal failure.""
That's right. And he is not the president. It's the president's job to hold people responsible. He is the commander in chief. He doesn't get to throw the ball on somebody elses lap and go play golf.
"If you want to blame Bush for 9/11,"
I do blame him for 9/11. I also blame him for all the horrible things he as done after 9/11. Most of all I blame him for not being man enough fire everybody whose job it was to keep us safe.
BTW you keep bringing kerry and clinton into this. You are saying that there is no difference between kerry, clinton and bush. Is that how you think of bush? That he is no better then clinton and kerry?
" So your saying everyone was telling Bush Osama was about to attack and he didn't believe them."
No he ignored them.
"That is not what the 9/11 commision found."
Of course not, what else would a republican congress find?
'Your only listening to one side."
I am listening to the two people who you admit would be in the best position to know. The people in charge of fighting terrorism under both clinton and bush.
"Most of the senior people dealing with antiterroism were doing the exact same job under the Bush administration as they were under the Clinton administration. This includes Clarke and Beers."
That's right. And they have both said that Bush didn't take the threat seriously. In fact Beers left the administration and helped kerry.
". If antiterrorism efforts were messed up while Bush was in office then they were also messed up before he took office because nothing changed with antiterrorism when he took office."
Once again you keep repeating this lie and hoping it comes true. Both Clarke and Beers have testified there were a lot of differences. Once again constantly repeating a lie will not make it come true.
" The two people you keep quoting have good reasons to be biased."
Yes they do. The became disgusted with the way Bush handled the events before and after 9/11. Clarke was a registered republican who worked for Bush Sr. They are not biased because they were born that way, they are biased because of what they experienced first hand.
"The FBI was unable to connect the dots to give credibility to the terrist threats before 9/11."
And Bush did not hold one person responsible for this collasal failure.
"The intelligence reports warning of 9/11 put the attack in Europe or the Middle East. Every day there are threats agaist the US."
Yes and that's why the title of the report was "Osama determined to attack in the United States".
"There was no credible warning given for 9/11."
And Bush did not hold one anybody for this collasal failure of intelligence.
Absolutely. And tommorow when the business climate changes they will make abrupt changes in attitude. They will go back on every word they have said today. Just because they act kind of nice today doesn't mean they will do so tommorow.
Companies are not bound by ethics, in fact acting ethically can get a company sued by it's shareholders if it results in less profits.
Today Sun is thinking about opening up solaris, tommorow they could file a lawsuit against everybody who read the source code and then worked for another project.
You never know with corporations, they are psychotic homocidal manic depressives.
Why doesn't sun want the code from solaris transfered to linux? That's a serious question because it seems to me if you don't want linux (or freebsd) to benefit from solaris code why did you open source it in the first place. The answer is probably something like "because we want people to code for solaris without getting paid".
I have onether question.
Recently MS and Sun signed an IP cross licensing deal. Presumably this means that both MS and SUN are in a position to sue people for patent infringement.
Has sun promised to..
a) Never sure people who may have looked at the solaris code and contributed to other projects. b) To protect people if they are sued by MS or proxies of MS.
" Richard Clark and Rand Beers were hired by Clinton and kept on by Bush."
Great. So that means they can both accurately testify as to what the differences were between the two administrations.
"Bush made no significant changes to Clintons plan for dealing with terrorism."
That's your lie. You can keep repeating that lie but it won't turn into a truth. How do I know it's a lie? Becasue both Clarke and Beers say so. They have both testified under oath that Bush did not care all that much about osama, that bush diverted resources from terrorism and that he just didn't really want to hear about it.
"Bush was not in office long enough to make the kind of changes it would take to prevent 9/11."
This is bullshit. Again both Clarke and Beers made it clear to Bush that Osama was going to attack the US Imminently. Bush chose to ignore that.
Whatever you use make sure to drop unison on your USB key. That way you can sync bidirectionally all kinds of stuff. Try it with home directory, emacs, eclipse etc.
" Bush made no significant changes to Clintons plan for dealing with terrorism."
Well that's a lie. Don't take my word on it just ask Rand Beers and Richard Clarke. Both of them worked closely with bush (clarke with clinton and Bush sr too) and they both say Bush really didn't care all that much about terrorism.
Well now that your first sentece was a lie let's tackle your second one.
"So if Bush wasn't doing a good job preventing terrorism then neither was Clinton."
It didn't happen on Clinton's watch? Why? Maybe because he was paying attention. Maybe because he wasn't so one sided about the israeli/palestenian problems, maybe because he invited prominent muslims to the white house during ramadan, maybe because he did not set himself up as the christian god's spokesperson on earth.
Either way it didn't happen on his watch so that makes it MOSTLY Bush's fault.
"Bush and Clinton are just as responsible for 9/11."
What about what happened afterwards? Is Clinton also responsible for lying to the congress about Iraq's nuclear program? Is Clinton also responsible for lying to the UN about 6000 tons of VX? Is clinton also responsible for invading iraq for no real reason? Is Clinton also responsible for the deaths of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dead iraqis and a thousand dead US soldiers? Is Clinton also responsible for the sinking dollar, the net job loss, and record deficits?
While you are at it why don't you blame clinton for the darkness and cold too.
Southerners? You mean those bigoted, bible thumpin, science hating, cousin fuckers? You mean those people? Yes I am bigoted against ignorant, racist, homophobic, idiots.
"The real topic was that peer review does not guarantee correctness, only mainstream scientific respect."
Right?
"What I did say and intend to convey is that we cannot rely on peer review to provide unbiased results, only LESS BIASED than they would be by default."
Well DUH fuckhead.
"In other words: be a critical thinker, and never let any process or organization make you think that you no longer NEED to think."
Thanks for the advice. I'll keep that in mind. And here I though I no longer needed to think anymore.
'Or "Nature";-)"
Right, because there is no difference between a peer reviewed scientific publication and the bible or rush limbaugh.
Instead we should ourselves undertake decades of study in climatology and physics. Then we should do our own experiments because people who have done experiments can't be trusted to be unbiased. Only then after we have thought for ourselves should we come to any kind of conclusion.
Needless to say this applies to everybody. After spending decades studying and performing experiments everybody should simply ignore you and start over from scratch because you may be biased. After all they need to think for themselves.
" Your point? The bottom line is that This can;t be pegged on a single president."
Mmmm. Ok then it was partially bush's fault and yet nobody held him responsible. The odd thing is that it's kind of understandable in the case of Clinton. You may remember that he was being impeached for where he put his cock, maybe that proved to be some sort of a distraction, maybe that distraction put the country in danger.
What's Bush's excuse? That he was vacation?
And what about afterwards? What about a botched invation of iraq? what about lying to congress about WMDs, what about lying to the world in the UN? Remember powell saying to the world at the UN that iraq had four tons of VX? How come nobody was held responsible for those lies?
"And what the hell does this have to do with gay marriage? "
Because the red staters it's more important not to let the fags marry then it is to hold somebody responsible for what happened on 9/11. Litening all those toby keith records while fucking your cousin tends to do that I guess.
"The real topic was that peer review does not guarantee correctness, only mainstream scientific respect."
Aaah this clears it up. Of course this can only mean that all peer reviewed is wrong, or at least none of it can be trusted to be right.
Since we can not trust any methodology which is not 100% perfect we can go on believing in whatever we want. We can safely ignore all science and scientists and just open up the bible or listen to Rush Limbaugh. Rush is a 100% correct 100% of the time.
9/11 was the single largest failure of US security agencies in history. It happened two years into an administration where the topic of terrorism was pretty much ignored.
NOT ONE PERSON WAS HELD RESPONSIBLE. NOBODY LOST THEIR JOBS. Nobody, not one, nada, zippo, zilch.
Why? If we held the president responsible for falling asleep on the jobs the homosexuals would be able to get married and they would be teaching that evolution in shcools that's why.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, this guy can't even afford a decent slide scanner. Clearly he is not making any real money being a photographer.
What's the sense of buying a new operating system or a computer when you can't even afford a decent slide scanner?
Here is my advice, buy a decent slide scanner and worry about what you are going to plug into after that.
He is using a flatbed scanner, you think he will pay 700 for photoshop or pay for a mac and a cinema display? I think not.
Why do people keep quoting Zawinski. This is a guy who couldn't cut it in the IT world and went on to open up a nightclub. He is not even in the industry anymore.
I am not saying there is anything wrong with pimping alcohol for a living but come on why not take a quote from your local bartender from 10 years ago and post that. It'd be just as relevent.
IF SCO loses they will appeal anyway. It's not like Kimball can do anything to prevent that. She might as well do what she paid to do which is to make judgements.
The problem is that SCO really doesn't have a lot money left. Most of what they have is already promised to Boies et al.
Eventually novell is going to ask for it's 95% of the money from MS and Sun and the IBM lawyers will start demanding money for having to write so many opposition documents to their silly, stupid delay motions and demands for irrational discovery.
What shocks me about all this is the lack of any rationality from the judges. More then two years into the case and judge kimball hasn't demanded that SCO produce the evidence it based the lawsuit on, or stop SCO from changing its case over and over.
" Could this be a setup?"
Absolutely it could. As I said it wasn't too long ago that MS and Sun signed an IP cross licensing deal. MS could very well have the right to sue open source developers for patents that sun has on solaris.
I don't think neither MS nor Sun can be trusted at this point.
" John Kerry (and other Democrats) were on the 9/11 commision and do not share your view. "
That's right. They don't.
"Many of the things you won't believe are testemony in this. John Kerry as a member of the 9/11 commision also "did not hold one person responsible for this collasal failure.""
That's right. And he is not the president. It's the president's job to hold people responsible. He is the commander in chief. He doesn't get to throw the ball on somebody elses lap and go play golf.
"If you want to blame Bush for 9/11,"
I do blame him for 9/11. I also blame him for all the horrible things he as done after 9/11. Most of all I blame him for not being man enough fire everybody whose job it was to keep us safe.
BTW you keep bringing kerry and clinton into this. You are saying that there is no difference between kerry, clinton and bush. Is that how you think of bush? That he is no better then clinton and kerry?
One hopes that a reader of slashdot is able to descern between the two products and licenses.
So in other words Sun wants people to work on solaris without pay.
" So your saying everyone was telling Bush Osama was about to attack and he didn't believe them."
No he ignored them.
"That is not what the 9/11 commision found."
Of course not, what else would a republican congress find?
'Your only listening to one side."
I am listening to the two people who you admit would be in the best position to know. The people in charge of fighting terrorism under both clinton and bush.
"Most of the senior people dealing with antiterroism were doing the exact same job under the Bush administration as they were under the Clinton administration. This includes Clarke and Beers."
That's right. And they have both said that Bush didn't take the threat seriously. In fact Beers left the administration and helped kerry.
". If antiterrorism efforts were messed up while Bush was in office then they were also messed up before he took office because nothing changed with antiterrorism when he took office."
Once again you keep repeating this lie and hoping it comes true. Both Clarke and Beers have testified there were a lot of differences. Once again constantly repeating a lie will not make it come true.
" The two people you keep quoting have good reasons to be biased."
Yes they do. The became disgusted with the way Bush handled the events before and after 9/11. Clarke was a registered republican who worked for Bush Sr. They are not biased because they were born that way, they are biased because of what they experienced first hand.
"The FBI was unable to connect the dots to give credibility to the terrist threats before 9/11."
And Bush did not hold one person responsible for this collasal failure.
"The intelligence reports warning of 9/11 put the attack in Europe or the Middle East. Every day there are threats agaist the US."
Yes and that's why the title of the report was "Osama determined to attack in the United States".
"There was no credible warning given for 9/11."
And Bush did not hold one anybody for this collasal failure of intelligence.
"As for taking improvements to Linux, I wonder if Linux can be forked into a more restrictive License, which doesnt go against the GPL."
Only if every single contributor agrees. In other words no.
Absolutely. And tommorow when the business climate changes they will make abrupt changes in attitude. They will go back on every word they have said today. Just because they act kind of nice today doesn't mean they will do so tommorow.
Companies are not bound by ethics, in fact acting ethically can get a company sued by it's shareholders if it results in less profits.
Today Sun is thinking about opening up solaris, tommorow they could file a lawsuit against everybody who read the source code and then worked for another project.
You never know with corporations, they are psychotic homocidal manic depressives.
Why doesn't sun want the code from solaris transfered to linux? That's a serious question because it seems to me if you don't want linux (or freebsd) to benefit from solaris code why did you open source it in the first place. The answer is probably something like "because we want people to code for solaris without getting paid".
I have onether question.
Recently MS and Sun signed an IP cross licensing deal. Presumably this means that both MS and SUN are in a position to sue people for patent infringement.
Has sun promised to..
a) Never sure people who may have looked at the solaris code and contributed to other projects.
b) To protect people if they are sued by MS or proxies of MS.
" Richard Clark and Rand Beers were hired by Clinton and kept on by Bush."
Great. So that means they can both accurately testify as to what the differences were between the two administrations.
"Bush made no significant changes to Clintons plan for dealing with terrorism."
That's your lie. You can keep repeating that lie but it won't turn into a truth. How do I know it's a lie? Becasue both Clarke and Beers say so. They have both testified under oath that Bush did not care all that much about osama, that bush diverted resources from terrorism and that he just didn't really want to hear about it.
"Bush was not in office long enough to make the kind of changes it would take to prevent 9/11."
This is bullshit. Again both Clarke and Beers made it clear to Bush that Osama was going to attack the US Imminently. Bush chose to ignore that.
Whatever you use make sure to drop unison on your USB key. That way you can sync bidirectionally all kinds of stuff. Try it with home directory, emacs, eclipse etc.
It's double plus good.
" Bush made no significant changes to Clintons plan for dealing with terrorism."
Well that's a lie. Don't take my word on it just ask Rand Beers and Richard Clarke. Both of them worked closely with bush (clarke with clinton and Bush sr too) and they both say Bush really didn't care all that much about terrorism.
Well now that your first sentece was a lie let's tackle your second one.
"So if Bush wasn't doing a good job preventing terrorism then neither was Clinton."
It didn't happen on Clinton's watch? Why? Maybe because he was paying attention. Maybe because he wasn't so one sided about the israeli/palestenian problems, maybe because he invited prominent muslims to the white house during ramadan, maybe because he did not set himself up as the christian god's spokesperson on earth.
Either way it didn't happen on his watch so that makes it MOSTLY Bush's fault.
"Bush and Clinton are just as responsible for 9/11."
What about what happened afterwards? Is Clinton also responsible for lying to the congress about Iraq's nuclear program? Is Clinton also responsible for lying to the UN about 6000 tons of VX? Is clinton also responsible for invading iraq for no real reason? Is Clinton also responsible for the deaths of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dead iraqis and a thousand dead US soldiers? Is Clinton also responsible for the sinking dollar, the net job loss, and record deficits?
While you are at it why don't you blame clinton for the darkness and cold too.
Southerners? You mean those bigoted, bible thumpin, science hating, cousin fuckers? You mean those people? Yes I am bigoted against ignorant, racist, homophobic, idiots.
"No, of course I did not say, nor intend that."
;-)"
Really? It was you who said
"The real topic was that peer review does not guarantee correctness, only mainstream scientific respect."
Right?
"What I did say and intend to convey is that we cannot rely on peer review to provide unbiased results, only LESS BIASED than they would be by default."
Well DUH fuckhead.
"In other words: be a critical thinker, and never let any process or organization make you think that you no longer NEED to think."
Thanks for the advice. I'll keep that in mind. And here I though I no longer needed to think anymore.
'Or "Nature"
Right, because there is no difference between a peer reviewed scientific publication and the bible or rush limbaugh.
Instead we should ourselves undertake decades of study in climatology and physics. Then we should do our own experiments because people who have done experiments can't be trusted to be unbiased. Only then after we have thought for ourselves should we come to any kind of conclusion.
Needless to say this applies to everybody. After spending decades studying and performing experiments everybody should simply ignore you and start over from scratch because you may be biased. After all they need to think for themselves.
" Your point? The bottom line is that This can;t be pegged on a single president."
Mmmm. Ok then it was partially bush's fault and yet nobody held him responsible. The odd thing is that it's kind of understandable in the case of Clinton. You may remember that he was being impeached for where he put his cock, maybe that proved to be some sort of a distraction, maybe that distraction put the country in danger.
What's Bush's excuse? That he was vacation?
And what about afterwards? What about a botched invation of iraq? what about lying to congress about WMDs, what about lying to the world in the UN? Remember powell saying to the world at the UN that iraq had four tons of VX? How come nobody was held responsible for those lies?
"And what the hell does this have to do with gay marriage? "
Because the red staters it's more important not to let the fags marry then it is to hold somebody responsible for what happened on 9/11. Litening all those toby keith records while fucking your cousin tends to do that I guess.
It may have taken more then 8 months to cook up but the vast majority of the implementation phase was happening in those 8 months.
But I understand your reluctance to hold the Bush administration responsible for anything, we wouldn't want to let the fags get married would we?
There is ample testimony by people involved in the counter terrorism services that Bush didn't give a flying fuck about osama.
"The real topic was that peer review does not guarantee correctness, only mainstream scientific respect."
Aaah this clears it up. Of course this can only mean that all peer reviewed is wrong, or at least none of it can be trusted to be right.
Since we can not trust any methodology which is not 100% perfect we can go on believing in whatever we want. We can safely ignore all science and scientists and just open up the bible or listen to Rush Limbaugh. Rush is a 100% correct 100% of the time.
Persecuted? You mean like having scientists disagree with you publicly persecuted or like US soldiers raping you in prison persecuted?
Capitalism is great for those with capital. As Jesse Jackson said. "Capitalism without capital is just another ism".
Alas the rich and powerful have found out that people are very easily manipulated using the "opiate of the masses"
Try the other side.
9/11 was the single largest failure of US security agencies in history. It happened two years into an administration where the topic of terrorism was pretty much ignored.
NOT ONE PERSON WAS HELD RESPONSIBLE. NOBODY LOST THEIR JOBS. Nobody, not one, nada, zippo, zilch.
Why? If we held the president responsible for falling asleep on the jobs the homosexuals would be able to get married and they would be teaching that evolution in shcools that's why.