Actually, no, it isn't being used for the development of nuclear weapons. It's being used in place of actual detonation of nuclear weapons. Without these computers, the choice the U.S. Government would make is not decomissioning its arsenal of nuclear weapons; the choice it would make is to resume underground nuclear testing.
Selective enforcement is relevant if a party to the dispute has done selective enforcement. A claim that IBM selectively enforces the GPL is on-point.
However, the SCO claim is that the FSF does selective enforcement. This is like my saying Wal-Mart cannot sue me for breach of my contract because K-Mart did not enforce an identically-worded contract against my competitor. It's a substantially different claim than saying Wal-Mart didn't enforce the contract against my competitor.
That's what makes it not just a routine claim, but a risable one.
Okay, it is just barely possible that a failure by the Free Software Foundation to enforce the GPL on works that the FSF holds the copyright to bars the FSF, as a matter of equity, form enforcing it on FSF-copyrighted works. "[M]atter of equity" is a rather broad argument, and a judge can drive a truck through it if he is so inclined, though it ups his chance of being reversed on appeal.
However, the actions of the FSF in no way impacts IBM's enforcment of its licensing terms for software to which it holds the copyright, whether or not they license it under the GPL. The FSF and IBM are different corporations, even if they, like SCO itself, have used the same license on some software.
Example: I could license software on which I hold the copyright to you under terms identical to a Microsoft license. I could then fail to enforce that license. That would in no way impact Microsoft's right to enforce its licenses on its software, ever. Similarly, how the FSF treats violations of FSF licenses to FSF code has no relevance to IBM's rights regarding violations of IBM licenses to IBM code.
Frankly, if I were the judge, I'd pin SCO's ears back for making the argument. Yes, shotgun claims area common practice, but this is especially ridiculous, and needs to be discouraged.
A pointless grumble here, but I submitted a story that covered this 36 hours ago, and was rejected. Oh, BTW, it also covered the EU and Massachusetts antitrust cases, too. My link? Here. Read about the antitrust trifecta.
Right, but the claim was that it was in "WinXP or higher". The Microsoft version is included in Windows 2003, and was in the resource kit for NT 4.0 and Windows 2000, and is in the XP Embedded Server Command Line Tools. Microsoft probably hands it out other places, too.
But it's not in XP itself. If you don't have access to one of the Microsoft versions, then the place to go is cmdtools.com and get their version.
Not sure what it says, but it's the Taiwan Google's logo.
The position of the characters is usually where the country name is. Also, the mainland China Google logo is the same as the Taiwanese except for the characters in parenthesees.
So, I'm betting that it says "China (Republic)", "China (Taiwan)", "China (Taipei)", or something like that, while the mainland Chinese one says "China (People's Republic)", "China (Mainland)", or the like.
Like Rep. Ron Paul. He honestly believes that the DNC list (along with Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies, welfare, drug laws, labor laws -- anyting not specifically mentioned in Article I section 8, basically) is unconstitutional. Since a Congressman takes an oath to the U.S. Consitution, he's obligated to vote against anything he thinks is unconstitutional.
Now, I'm not saying you should agree with him. But disagree by helping his opponents in the next election, don't harass him. He's an honest guy just trying to uphold his oath, even if it costs him votes or even his office.
(Of course, nobody seems to be pointing out that there's going to be the demand for some tremendous bandwidth and heavy servers pretty on-the-spot if they choose to do that. I find myself wondering which company will attempt to step up to the bat and steal the gold ring, if VeriSign fucks this up.)
Me? I'd hope Google would do it. If there's a company both big enough and which I'd trust to run a registry (and WHOIS servers, ideally), it's them.
In order for Newton's Law of Gravitation to work out with the observed orbit of Mercury, a new planet closer to the sun, generally called Vulcan, was postulated. It was never observed, but it had to be there, because of the gravitational effects.
Then Einstein showed we didn't understand gravity sufficiently, and his General Relativity eliminated the need for Vulcan.
In order for Einstein's General Relativity to work out for the observed motions of galaxies, dark matter and dark energy have been postulates. They've never been observed, but they have to be there, because of the gravitational effects.
Will someone else come along and show that we don't understand gravity sufficiently, and postulate a theory that will eliminate the need for dark matter and energy?
Do we really want the gov (at any level) to start getting their hands in this? Do we want another self appointed body saying what can and cannot go?
VeriSign runs.com and.net under a contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce. Similarly, ICANN is *not* self-appointed; it was appointed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The government is already in this up to its elbows.
I'm not defending this judge's interpretation in this context. I'm merely pointing out the logical consequence of saying corporations don't have rights.
If corporations don't have rights, then a law barring, say, the New York Times from publishing something is perfectly Constitutional. Do you really want to go there?
Yep, and if corporations don't have the right to free speech, it's within Ashcroft's power to muzzle the ACLU, Democratic Party, and New York Times, all incorporated entities. Ooops!
The people who claim corporations don't have rights never seem to remember that, for example, the New York Times is a corporation. Does this mean that the New York Times should not have freedom of the press? How about the ACLU, another corporation? Or political parties, which are also corporate in form? Should they all be outside Constitutional protection? Should the government be able to ban the Democratic Party from campaigning against George Bush?
By email, phone, fax, telegram, or letter (or better, several of these), let them know what you think. These are the people who can give Verisign reasons to change their behavior.
The tool to use is, yes, a Pentel 0.5mm mechanical pencil. But the clear choice among them is not the finger-clicker model, but the Forte Pro, with rubber finger grip/pad, metal clip, and plastic cap over the eraser.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no, it isn't being used for the development of nuclear weapons. It's being used in place of actual detonation of nuclear weapons. Without these computers, the choice the U.S. Government would make is not decomissioning its arsenal of nuclear weapons; the choice it would make is to resume underground nuclear testing.
Selective enforcement is relevant if a party to the dispute has done selective enforcement. A claim that IBM selectively enforces the GPL is on-point.
However, the SCO claim is that the FSF does selective enforcement. This is like my saying Wal-Mart cannot sue me for breach of my contract because K-Mart did not enforce an identically-worded contract against my competitor. It's a substantially different claim than saying Wal-Mart didn't enforce the contract against my competitor.
That's what makes it not just a routine claim, but a risable one.
Okay, it is just barely possible that a failure by the Free Software Foundation to enforce the GPL on works that the FSF holds the copyright to bars the FSF, as a matter of equity, form enforcing it on FSF-copyrighted works. "[M]atter of equity" is a rather broad argument, and a judge can drive a truck through it if he is so inclined, though it ups his chance of being reversed on appeal.
However, the actions of the FSF in no way impacts IBM's enforcment of its licensing terms for software to which it holds the copyright, whether or not they license it under the GPL. The FSF and IBM are different corporations, even if they, like SCO itself, have used the same license on some software.
Example: I could license software on which I hold the copyright to you under terms identical to a Microsoft license. I could then fail to enforce that license. That would in no way impact Microsoft's right to enforce its licenses on its software, ever. Similarly, how the FSF treats violations of FSF licenses to FSF code has no relevance to IBM's rights regarding violations of IBM licenses to IBM code.
Frankly, if I were the judge, I'd pin SCO's ears back for making the argument. Yes, shotgun claims area common practice, but this is especially ridiculous, and needs to be discouraged.
A pointless grumble here, but I submitted a story that covered this 36 hours ago, and was rejected. Oh, BTW, it also covered the EU and Massachusetts antitrust cases, too. My link? Here. Read about the antitrust trifecta.
Remember, VeriSign is busy telling them its side of the story. We need to tell them ours!
Well, based on the company financial reports (most recent data on Yahoo and CBS marketwatch is end of second quarter . . .)
IBM has $4.842 billion in cash on-hand, while Sun only has $2.015 billion.
In current assets (sans inventory) minus current liabilities, IBM has a total of $4.923 billion, while Sun has $2.234 billion.
If we add in inventory, which may not sell, IBM moves to $8.284 billion while Sun goes up to $2.65 billion.
In total assets minus total liabilities, IBM has a total of $26.573 billion, while Sun has $6.491 billion.
While I appreciate that the US may be huge and need these kind of things for rural communities
Oregon alone (96,000 sq. mi.) is bigger than the United Kingdom (94,525 sq. mi.), but has 1/15th the population.
Right, but the claim was that it was in "WinXP or higher". The Microsoft version is included in Windows 2003, and was in the resource kit for NT 4.0 and Windows 2000, and is in the XP Embedded Server Command Line Tools. Microsoft probably hands it out other places, too.
But it's not in XP itself. If you don't have access to one of the Microsoft versions, then the place to go is cmdtools.com and get their version.
Correct. clip isn't built in.
.
Clip is one of the utilities from http://www.cmdtools.com/
Ah. That makes sense.
Not sure what it says, but it's the Taiwan Google's logo.
The position of the characters is usually where the country name is. Also, the mainland China Google logo is the same as the Taiwanese except for the characters in parenthesees.
So, I'm betting that it says "China (Republic)", "China (Taiwan)", "China (Taipei)", or something like that, while the mainland Chinese one says "China (People's Republic)", "China (Mainland)", or the like.
[Nod.]
Like Rep. Ron Paul. He honestly believes that the DNC list (along with Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies, welfare, drug laws, labor laws -- anyting not specifically mentioned in Article I section 8, basically) is unconstitutional. Since a Congressman takes an oath to the U.S. Consitution, he's obligated to vote against anything he thinks is unconstitutional.
Now, I'm not saying you should agree with him. But disagree by helping his opponents in the next election, don't harass him. He's an honest guy just trying to uphold his oath, even if it costs him votes or even his office.
(Of course, nobody seems to be pointing out that there's going to be the demand for some tremendous bandwidth and heavy servers pretty on-the-spot if they choose to do that. I find myself wondering which company will attempt to step up to the bat and steal the gold ring, if VeriSign fucks this up.)
Me? I'd hope Google would do it. If there's a company both big enough and which I'd trust to run a registry (and WHOIS servers, ideally), it's them.
In order for Newton's Law of Gravitation to work out with the observed orbit of Mercury, a new planet closer to the sun, generally called Vulcan, was postulated. It was never observed, but it had to be there, because of the gravitational effects.
Then Einstein showed we didn't understand gravity sufficiently, and his General Relativity eliminated the need for Vulcan.
In order for Einstein's General Relativity to work out for the observed motions of galaxies, dark matter and dark energy have been postulates. They've never been observed, but they have to be there, because of the gravitational effects.
Will someone else come along and show that we don't understand gravity sufficiently, and postulate a theory that will eliminate the need for dark matter and energy?
No, that's not celbration, that's Yet Another Y.
You know how many replacements for X called Y have been along?
Sheesh, maybe open source needs some marketroids to take over naming things.
Do we really want the gov (at any level) to start getting their hands in this? Do we want another self appointed body saying what can and cannot go?
.com and .net under a contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce. Similarly, ICANN is *not* self-appointed; it was appointed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The government is already in this up to its elbows.
VeriSign runs
I'm not defending this judge's interpretation in this context. I'm merely pointing out the logical consequence of saying corporations don't have rights.
If corporations don't have rights, then a law barring, say, the New York Times from publishing something is perfectly Constitutional. Do you really want to go there?
Yep, and if corporations don't have the right to free speech, it's within Ashcroft's power to muzzle the ACLU, Democratic Party, and New York Times, all incorporated entities. Ooops!
The people who claim corporations don't have rights never seem to remember that, for example, the New York Times is a corporation. Does this mean that the New York Times should not have freedom of the press? How about the ACLU, another corporation? Or political parties, which are also corporate in form? Should they all be outside Constitutional protection? Should the government be able to ban the Democratic Party from campaigning against George Bush?
By email, phone, fax, telegram, or letter (or better, several of these), let them know what you think. These are the people who can give Verisign reasons to change their behavior.
Because writers who don't follow the rules are going to be taken to Gitmo.
The tool to use is, yes, a Pentel 0.5mm mechanical pencil. But the clear choice among them is not the finger-clicker model, but the Forte Pro, with rubber finger grip/pad, metal clip, and plastic cap over the eraser.
Right, but the ice displaces its mass in salt water, and so does the fresh water (fresh water is less dense than salt). Zero effect.