Maybe they should try sponsoring a sporting event or television program; like Formula 1, for example.
You can watch the whole sports event without comercials except for a logomark that appears for a short time at the top left corner of the screen and maybe a short blurb like "Google. Search and find what you are looking for.", During the pause where the comentator takes a drink of water or whatever.
When you get close you should hear wailing and screaming, and see debris and body parts, all of which are a good indication an explosion has in fact occured.
That goal would be control. More specifically control of emotions felt by people. Emotions of victory and conquest amonst the groups who are on one side of the conflict. Emotions of FUD amonst those who are on the other side.
What makes terrorism "bad" (disconsidering death) is that the defense against such measures also create FUD and certainly a lot of inconvenience. In the strict sense of creating fear, getting public attiontion is a victory.
The effectiveness of these methods are all based on fear of mortality. It could be argued that another goal is to overcome fear; something a successful recuit can prove though his devotion while following such an order. The (in)sanity of individuals depends very much on the value we give our beliefs whether religous or otherwise, and whether or not we have the courage to face our own mortality to do what we think best.
Take torture for example, what hell (literally) are you ready to experience to protect your coveted beliefs. (regardless of the actual merits of such a belief, what is important are your perceived value) Some cultures do give value to the strengths required to endure such things.
That's why the ideas of dfenstrate (202098) won't work for fundamentalists. But I think a large amount of the human population aren't fundamentalists by nature and would chose to do other things with their lives given the range of choices that could be available.
The sponsors of these control seeking tactics/activities are cowards; while they may endure torture and/or speak of such philosofies as morality. They seek power/control over the people that follow them and not any true clarification.
The fundamentals of mortality exists for everyone. We experience it when a relative/loved one dies. And it certainly can be exploited by a "fundamentalist" who has a belief that the end justifies the means.
I challenge assumptions, let's start with the assumption that the group trying to control their followers are muslim. Is is possible that such methods can be used by power hungry "fundamentalists" to boost public support? Why?
Try rereading this post while challenging the above assumption. Then hahaha... well flame me.
... Then I suppose hacking a lock down is quite a bit different from creating applications that interface themselves to a microsoft server and do something useful
Microsoft licenses their software with a license they agree with. Nobody can force them to agree to a license they don't want to agree too. Why should Linus or anyone?
Maybe because they feel that the progress being made is not accessible to them if they don't agree?
DRM seen the way he explains certainly seems simple. I am not up to date on the issue to argue any point.
I think it would have been better for SCO to publish a book on C programming. Call it "Learn C in 23 hours" or something. Besides the actual copywrite they might patent the paper it's written on, the method of turning pages in the book and the method to scan over the glyphs from left to right while reading.
Just so their patent is original they can optionally consider binding the book on the right side.
They then send a free copy to every software developer in their DB, especially the ones who work for known software companies like Borland. (They may not realize Borland no longer exists)
They then would have laid the framework to claim copywrite on all software written since 1960. Their book is the proof; anyone who read their book with their patented reading technology, has had their mind tainted. Whatever code they will write or had written belongs to SCO. As proof to the court they will present the sample code snippets scanned from their book.
Sometimes when it's really cold (like -120 C) you may find methane lakes. At that temp where water is solid these Hydrocarbons may evaporate and consense, form slushy puddles/lakes (rivers)?
As I understand Google will be sued by MS on this idea as the former company has a patent granted regarding the information transfer technology involved with google pulp.
Skin data transfer technology has existed since when the first life forms started crawling around and feeling things (data signals sent to brain).
However the prospect of a judge ruling in favor of google depends on whether the data signals from his skin are sent to his brain and whether or not he those signals where correctly interpreted by the patent office.
Maybe it would make sense to start promoting SLD's (Second Level Domains)
So, boeing could get boeing.aero.com
Embraer (a brazilian company who manufactures planes) may get embraer.aero.com as well as embraer.com.br.
A person who hacks may get 3v1l7w1n.hacker.net
And TV broadcasters can get HBO.tv.com and get a refund for the 50 m paid to Tuvalu.
And everyone can be happy appending a ".com" to everything.
All of a sudden your completely legitimate linux software falls into the warez category (the grey area between kosher and pirate). As a result it would no longer be a viable option for medium to large companies since they become easy legal targets.
What's more is the rustlin in the Canopy Hen House. William Mustard (Canopy's Rent-an-Exec) is counter suing a couple of ex-Execs. That whole fiasco may well be Canopy's best line of defense. I don't know if it would really matters but you never know that type of ineptitude one party might accuse the other to try and defend itself.
They saw the tide go out and they are preparing themselves for when the tide comes back.
Is the question where does IBM thinks they can reach the most money, or how they can "rubber stamp" the validity of linux in the market (or both)? Of course I presume they are motivated by money but that doesn't mean that linux is a bad bet.
Dead trees are 'easily accessable', they're just not computer-searchable.
The thing with telephone directories is that they *should* only be searchable by their primary index (last name). A computer searchable CDROM can be ?hacked? to allow the user to create a database searchable by whatever information was contained (phone number, address, first name). So the CDROM version is a bit *too* accessible (maybe). For the phone company the less accessible their directory the more anonymous their customers are.
Perhaps the judges idea of easily accessible differs a bit from source code to a telephone directory.
But given the quantity of information, that first few truckloads of CD's, may only contain stuff like smit, the IBM compiler whatever other proprietry IBM code they may have around; they may not have to send a single line of actual kernel code until about the 5th? 10th? 20th? truckload. I don't think the judge specified that AIX kernel code specifically, rather AIX as a system. Plus nobody says they have to fill the CD's to capacity.:)
One of the conditions with handing over data is that it's in an easily accessible format. So dumping miles of continuos dot matrix paper isn't acceptable in court.
IBM is probably going to hand over a truckload packed with CD's written with some output of there software versioning system (almost as bad)
Worse yet, the cd's are probably only marked with some alfanumeric indicator written in a felt pen. Those alfanumeric symbols probably will be references that only make sense if you have an index CD with a database of information dereferencing those alfanumeric indicators.
If IBM just packed the index CD in with the rest, it means somebody will be wading carefully though a truckload of optical media trying to find a specific alfanumeric value written on some disk.
If the recieving party isn't carefull about the way the CD's are unloaded then this could take a very long time. Each step in their fishing expedition will prove to be like trying to fish with a rusty hook on the end of a tangled line with no bait in a mosquito infested pond.
RE: Soft Technology Offerings
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 0
BSD probably wouldn't exist if not for linux (correct me if I'm wrong but it uses the linux kernel right?)
Excuse me. My mistake, didn't mean it that way...
I appologize to the BSD folks. I'll be more certain before posting my personal (sometimes mistaken) opinions.
Soft Technology Offerings
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 1
If linux didn't exist, I don't think MS would monopolize the server market, but I just don't know what other alternative there is that would compete.
BSD probably wouldn't exist if not for linux (correct me if I'm wrong but it uses the linux kernel right?)
Solaris, Aix, HPuX? Tighly bound to [insert name] hardware
Minix?
Unix? Perhaps SCO was just trying to make linux disappear to make this happen but would they be sucessful if linux didn't exist? Small minds...
Amiga?
Novell?
Some unknown flavor of lisp running on a lisp machine?
What other OS would have become the MS competitor in the server market?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they should try sponsoring a sporting event or television program; like Formula 1, for example.
You can watch the whole sports event without comercials except for a logomark that appears for a short time at the top left corner of the screen and maybe a short blurb like "Google. Search and find what you are looking for.", During the pause where the comentator takes a drink of water or whatever.
Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows Me
yeah just follow follow the sirens.
When you get close you should hear wailing and screaming, and see debris and body parts, all of which are a good indication an explosion has in fact occured.
Or was it 640K?
That goal would be control. More specifically control of emotions felt by people. Emotions of victory and conquest amonst the groups who are on one side of the conflict. Emotions of FUD amonst those who are on the other side.
What makes terrorism "bad" (disconsidering death) is that the defense against such measures also create FUD and certainly a lot of inconvenience. In the strict sense of creating fear, getting public attiontion is a victory.
The effectiveness of these methods are all based on fear of mortality. It could be argued that another goal is to overcome fear; something a successful recuit can prove though his devotion while following such an order. The (in)sanity of individuals depends very much on the value we give our beliefs whether religous or otherwise, and whether or not we have the courage to face our own mortality to do what we think best.
Take torture for example, what hell (literally) are you ready to experience to protect your coveted beliefs. (regardless of the actual merits of such a belief, what is important are your perceived value) Some cultures do give value to the strengths required to endure such things.
That's why the ideas of dfenstrate (202098) won't work for fundamentalists. But I think a large amount of the human population aren't fundamentalists by nature and would chose to do other things with their lives given the range of choices that could be available.
The sponsors of these control seeking tactics/activities are cowards; while they may endure torture and/or speak of such philosofies as morality. They seek power/control over the people that follow them and not any true clarification.
The fundamentals of mortality exists for everyone. We experience it when a relative/loved one dies. And it certainly can be exploited by a "fundamentalist" who has a belief that the end justifies the means.
I challenge assumptions, let's start with the assumption that the group trying to control their followers are muslim. Is is possible that such methods can be used by power hungry "fundamentalists" to boost public support? Why?
Try rereading this post while challenging the above assumption. Then hahaha... well flame me.
... Then I suppose hacking a lock down is quite a bit different from creating applications that interface themselves to a microsoft server and do something useful
Well they didn't have a chief marketing director handly to help them with that one...
I wonder if here are any chief software architect/marketing guys would be willing to fill out an application...
Microsoft licenses their software with a license they agree with. Nobody can force them to agree to a license they don't want to agree too. Why should Linus or anyone?
Maybe because they feel that the progress being made is not accessible to them if they don't agree?
DRM seen the way he explains certainly seems simple. I am not up to date on the issue to argue any point.
I think it would have been better for SCO to publish a book on C programming. Call it "Learn C in 23 hours" or something. Besides the actual copywrite they might patent the paper it's written on, the method of turning pages in the book and the method to scan over the glyphs from left to right while reading.
Just so their patent is original they can optionally consider binding the book on the right side.
They then send a free copy to every software developer in their DB, especially the ones who work for known software companies like Borland. (They may not realize Borland no longer exists)
They then would have laid the framework to claim copywrite on all software written since 1960. Their book is the proof; anyone who read their book with their patented reading technology, has had their mind tainted. Whatever code they will write or had written belongs to SCO. As proof to the court they will present the sample code snippets scanned from their book.
If an SK bank was using MS software to handle it's transactions, it probably already went out of business.
I think someone should update the Get the Facts materials about how government law enforcement can raise TCO.
Leo
Sometimes when it's really cold (like -120 C) you may find methane lakes. At that temp where water is solid these Hydrocarbons may evaporate and consense, form slushy puddles/lakes (rivers)?
It A1 every day for MS proof?
Get The Facts!
As I understand Google will be sued by MS on this idea as the former company has a patent granted regarding the information transfer technology involved with google pulp.
Skin data transfer technology has existed since when the first life forms started crawling around and feeling things (data signals sent to brain).
However the prospect of a judge ruling in favor of google depends on whether the data signals from his skin are sent to his brain and whether or not he those signals where correctly interpreted by the patent office.
Read http://gentooexperimental.org/nt I give it a 9/10 rating. I believed for the 5 minutes I was thinking about how dumb the idea was.
Maybe it would make sense to start promoting SLD's (Second Level Domains) So, boeing could get boeing.aero.com Embraer (a brazilian company who manufactures planes) may get embraer.aero.com as well as embraer.com.br. A person who hacks may get 3v1l7w1n.hacker.net And TV broadcasters can get HBO.tv.com and get a refund for the 50 m paid to Tuvalu. And everyone can be happy appending a ".com" to everything.
Why should software patents affect open-source?
All of a sudden your completely legitimate linux software falls into the warez category (the grey area between kosher and pirate). As a result it would no longer be a viable option for medium to large companies since they become easy legal targets.
What's more is the rustlin in the Canopy Hen House. William Mustard (Canopy's Rent-an-Exec) is counter suing a couple of ex-Execs. That whole fiasco may well be Canopy's best line of defense. I don't know if it would really matters but you never know that type of ineptitude one party might accuse the other to try and defend itself.
They saw the tide go out and they are preparing themselves for when the tide comes back.
Is the question where does IBM thinks they can reach the most money, or how they can "rubber stamp" the validity of linux in the market (or both)? Of course I presume they are motivated by money but that doesn't mean that linux is a bad bet.
The thing with telephone directories is that they *should* only be searchable by their primary index (last name). A computer searchable CDROM can be ?hacked? to allow the user to create a database searchable by whatever information was contained (phone number, address, first name). So the CDROM version is a bit *too* accessible (maybe). For the phone company the less accessible their directory the more anonymous their customers are.
Perhaps the judges idea of easily accessible differs a bit from source code to a telephone directory.
But given the quantity of information, that first few truckloads of CD's, may only contain stuff like smit, the IBM compiler whatever other proprietry IBM code they may have around; they may not have to send a single line of actual kernel code until about the 5th? 10th? 20th? truckload. I don't think the judge specified that AIX kernel code specifically, rather AIX as a system. Plus nobody says they have to fill the CD's to capacity. :)
One of the conditions with handing over data is that it's in an easily accessible format. So dumping miles of continuos dot matrix paper isn't acceptable in court.
IBM is probably going to hand over a truckload packed with CD's written with some output of there software versioning system (almost as bad)
Worse yet, the cd's are probably only marked with some alfanumeric indicator written in a felt pen. Those alfanumeric symbols probably will be references that only make sense if you have an index CD with a database of information dereferencing those alfanumeric indicators.
If IBM just packed the index CD in with the rest, it means somebody will be wading carefully though a truckload of optical media trying to find a specific alfanumeric value written on some disk.
If the recieving party isn't carefull about the way the CD's are unloaded then this could take a very long time. Each step in their fishing expedition will prove to be like trying to fish with a rusty hook on the end of a tangled line with no bait in a mosquito infested pond.
Excuse me. My mistake, didn't mean it that way...
I appologize to the BSD folks. I'll be more certain before posting my personal (sometimes mistaken) opinions.
If linux didn't exist, I don't think MS would monopolize the server market, but I just don't know what other alternative there is that would compete.
BSD probably wouldn't exist if not for linux (correct me if I'm wrong but it uses the linux kernel right?)
Solaris, Aix, HPuX? Tighly bound to [insert name] hardware
Minix?
Unix? Perhaps SCO was just trying to make linux disappear to make this happen but would they be sucessful if linux didn't exist? Small minds...
Amiga?
Novell?
Some unknown flavor of lisp running on a lisp machine?
What other OS would have become the MS competitor in the server market?