Coincidentally, he and his brother got fired after they threw a chair at the CEO during a company meeting, who then in turn stapled one of them 10 or so times in the chest and face. Good times, good times.
Please tell me that you have a more complete write-up of your trials and tribulations at this company up on the web.
I find your stories intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I would think that doing this could put one in dangar of lossing their service.
It's much worse than that in fact. The last time there was an article on/. about a similar hack, the follow up was when the FBI busted in a bunch of doors, confiscated the computers and arrested the people who were uncapping their modems.
Many people who vote Republican are strongly on the side of Linux, and consider the SCO matter more of the same litigiousness that big-government types seem to relish.
The Republicans *are* the big government ones, or hadn't you been paying attention lately?
That would have been Charles Lindbergh. Then Lindy double checked the work himself. He also personally oversaw the design and construction of the Spirit personally.
And I used to work in the building that all happened in.
5 points to anybody who can guess who I was working for.
When you aren't obeying laws, you aren't part of any system - communist, capitalist, or whatever. You are, by definition, outside of the system. The fact that you haven't been caught is irrelevant to the fact that you have chosen to not be a part of the given system.
This isn't correct. You may be operating outside legal boundaries, but those are individual to a given jurisdiction. Laws really have nothing to do with being inside or outside of the capitalist system.
In fact, breaking the law is done all the time with capitalistic motivation. Companies will calculate the cost of doing business within the law, and the cost of doing business outside the law. Whichever is cheaper they do. If they get caught, then (assuming their calculations were correct) they will pay out less in fines then they made doing the crime.
Now a lot of companies probably don't do things like this in such a calculating manner but the fact that many do puts the "good" companies in a bad position competetively. Without stricter controls, this leads to honest companies going out of business and criminal companies increasing their market share.
How is this outside capitalism? It's an inevitable result of capitalism. Another fundamental flaw.
Exactly. Before people knew they were corrupt, we thought they were a great company. Now that we know that they were involved in illegal businesses, we know that they are not. This proves my point.
No, it doesn't.
Now they are yet another example of the horrible things which occur with increasing regularity in capitalism gone out of control. They are a flashing billboard screaming out that our controls are not working and they need updating.
Your statement would indicate that it is not possible for such a company to have ever come into being.
The reality is that this sort of behavior is becoming the rule rather than the exception, exactly as expected. This is how capitalism is fundamentally flawed.
No, capitalism operates within the confines of law. He admitted to breaking and entering into others' computers.
No, it doesn't. See Enron for an example. They were held up as a shining example of the wonders of capitalism before it was widely reported that the leaders of the company were, in fact, scum.
Making any absolute statements like that about an abstract concept don't work.
Capitalism is an inherently flawed system just like every other economic system ever proposed.
Does this mean that there is a "better" system out there? There might be, but I've never heard of it.
Given the fact that capitalism is flawed and we know more or less exactly what those flaws are, it absolutely needs to be regulated. Monopolies and cartels are the principle problems, although there are others.
If you actually have any interest in debating the issue, then what regulations are required for the most efficient operation of the economy is really the only area which is relevant.
Making obviously false statements like you did does nothing to help out, it merely shows that you have no qualms about lying about things which are proven untrue on an increasingly frequent basis.
Alternatively, if you actually do believe what you said then you have demonstrated that you are dumber than a bag of rocks.
And since you get some of our not-so-smart ones, too... (Aaaahh-nuld)... It's okay with me. I'll have the last laugh when Schwarzenegger becomes president.
Laugh away.
And when you figure out that without a constitutional amendament That stupid fuckwad can't be president we'll laugh at you.
While this a VERY important document, most people use the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other Amedments to decide whether something is "American" or not(including the courts).
I haven't mentioned the courts (and you are, of course, right that that document has no bearing there), but The Declaration of Independence and specifically that quote is essentially the determining thing in what is "American". That is what set it in motion (as a rallying force rather than the political, economic and historical forces). Freedom and equality are the rallying cries almost everybody uses to push their agenda whether they are actually in favor of those things or if they are trying to take them away. So I think that it is relevant to what is "American".
Remember, the DofI you are quoting from didn't even include women or non-white people as "men", those Amendments were WAY later. So if you are using DofI LITERALLY, as your support for your arguement, gay men can get married but gay women can't.;-) I don't think that is what you mean.
True, but we have come to realise long before either of us were born that "men" should be replaced by "people" and that people means all of us regardless of race. Granted many people still don't really believe that should apply, but again I say, should ignorant hatred be what we are ruled by, and can you really call that freedom and equality?
"There is no adverse effect on other Americans, so there is no reason not to give them these rights". Then support with examples, data, or logic. People who are opposed believe that gay marriage will damage society so you have to prove otherwise if you are going to get support.
Again, I am not the one claiming something. The people who claim that it will have an adverse effect are the ones who need to provide an argument, or even any hypothetical mechanism by which such a thing would even be possible. Since there isn't one, they can't and haven't. They base their arguments solely on religious based hatred. So given that there is no possible way that allowing a gay person to visit the love of their life when they are dying in the hospital could harm society, that assertion makes no sense.
Ahhh, but it does. See, the DofI and the Constitution both state that the law can be changed by THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE(two thirds vote of House or Senate, can't remember which). So it is very important what the rest of the country thinks. The Will of the People can become what IS American, if your definition of what is American is what is in the Constitution!
I already made that point. If enough people have that much hatred in them, then an amendment can be passed. At this point, it hasn't been. If there is an amendment passed saying that some people are more equal than others than that will be the law. There is not such an amendment at this point. You did nothing to address my point though. Such an amendment would fundamentally change what the concept of "America" means.
Would you want "America" to be redefined as a land of extremist hatred and intolerance based on one single passage in an old version of a book relevant to two religions? Especially given that the new version that the majority of the religious people in the country claim to follow soundly refutes that?
I wouldn't. I want to live in "The Land of the Free" like I've been promised since birth.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry you had to go through all that, but that is freaking hilarious.
;-)
Wise move on the donuts. You seem the sort who can tell which way the wind is blowing
Coincidentally, he and his brother got fired after they threw a chair at the CEO during a company meeting, who then in turn stapled one of them 10 or so times in the chest and face. Good times, good times.
Please tell me that you have a more complete write-up of your trials and tribulations at this company up on the web.
I find your stories intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I would think that doing this could put one in dangar of lossing their service.
/. about a similar hack, the follow up was when the FBI busted in a bunch of doors, confiscated the computers and arrested the people who were uncapping their modems.
It's much worse than that in fact.
The last time there was an article on
I know I tried it _several_ times and couldn't get through.
Come on, automation is your friend.
I just have a terminal open running ping -f www.sco.com
When it starts actually replying regularly I'll know it's good to go again.
Yes unfortunately kerry is the kind of BS artist that populates washington D.C. and looks like he's going to win, but don't group them all together.
Don't forget Kerry is a skull and bones man just like the traitor Bush. Don't expect anytyhing positive if he wins.
I thought it was kinda funny too. I don't know why this was in the list.
It was probably on the list because they had to redo the commercial because some overly offendable jagoff whined like a little bitch about it.
They just changed that part and had the guy playing with the other pups or something.
isn't the greatest vaporware of 2003 the "millions" or "thousands" lines of SCO code in Linux?
No, that would be the "thousands" of WMDs Iraq was prepared to launch within 45 minutes.
Many people who vote Republican are strongly on the side of Linux, and consider the SCO matter more of the same litigiousness that big-government types seem to relish.
The Republicans *are* the big government ones, or hadn't you been paying attention lately?
That would have been Charles Lindbergh. Then Lindy double checked the work himself. He also personally oversaw the design and construction of the Spirit personally.
And I used to work in the building that all happened in.
5 points to anybody who can guess who I was working for.
Q: Where will the XYZ building be at 8:00 P.M. and how fast is it moving?
Come on now, you can tell me either of those facts and I can tell you the other but I can't tell you both from a single place and time.
Maybe before condemning him as a "troll," you losers should actually look into what he's talking about.
A quick perusal of his homepage was illuminating.
Oh well, wife's ready. Off to the party.
does this mean you have to be a citizen of a Commonwealth country to qualify?
Clearly not.
Jack Ryan is an American and he was knighted. I believe it was in Patriot Games.
When you aren't obeying laws, you aren't part of any system - communist, capitalist, or whatever. You are, by definition, outside of the system. The fact that you haven't been caught is irrelevant to the fact that you have chosen to not be a part of the given system.
This isn't correct.
You may be operating outside legal boundaries, but those are individual to a given jurisdiction. Laws really have nothing to do with being inside or outside of the capitalist system.
In fact, breaking the law is done all the time with capitalistic motivation. Companies will calculate the cost of doing business within the law, and the cost of doing business outside the law. Whichever is cheaper they do. If they get caught, then (assuming their calculations were correct) they will pay out less in fines then they made doing the crime.
Now a lot of companies probably don't do things like this in such a calculating manner but the fact that many do puts the "good" companies in a bad position competetively. Without stricter controls, this leads to honest companies going out of business and criminal companies increasing their market share.
How is this outside capitalism?
It's an inevitable result of capitalism.
Another fundamental flaw.
I guess you totally misunderstood my statement.
"capitalism operates within the confines of law."
Perhaps you would care to explain what that meant then?
Exactly. Before people knew they were corrupt, we thought they were a great company. Now that we know that they were involved in illegal businesses, we know that they are not. This proves my point.
No, it doesn't.
Now they are yet another example of the horrible things which occur with increasing regularity in capitalism gone out of control. They are a flashing billboard screaming out that our controls are not working and they need updating.
Your statement would indicate that it is not possible for such a company to have ever come into being.
The reality is that this sort of behavior is becoming the rule rather than the exception, exactly as expected. This is how capitalism is fundamentally flawed.
No, capitalism operates within the confines of law. He admitted to breaking and entering into others' computers.
No, it doesn't.
See Enron for an example. They were held up as a shining example of the wonders of capitalism before it was widely reported that the leaders of the company were, in fact, scum.
Making any absolute statements like that about an abstract concept don't work.
Capitalism is an inherently flawed system just like every other economic system ever proposed.
Does this mean that there is a "better" system out there? There might be, but I've never heard of it.
Given the fact that capitalism is flawed and we know more or less exactly what those flaws are, it absolutely needs to be regulated.
Monopolies and cartels are the principle problems, although there are others.
If you actually have any interest in debating the issue, then what regulations are required for the most efficient operation of the economy is really the only area which is relevant.
Making obviously false statements like you did does nothing to help out, it merely shows that you have no qualms about lying about things which are proven untrue on an increasingly frequent basis.
Alternatively, if you actually do believe what you said then you have demonstrated that you are dumber than a bag of rocks.
Actually, the funniest is acropyropedonecrobestiality.
Fucking a dead burning baby sheep while jumping off a cliff,
I'm not good at languages useful in writing games, my art sucks, but I'm quite good at design/storytelling.
OK, tell me a story.
The idea that you can write a compiler in XSLT is perverse, but nonetheless really, really cool.
How the heck can you do that?!? XSLT doesn't even have variables.
exactly. we have a common goal (space exploration). why do we have to be patriotism and politics into this?
The word is Jingoism. It's basically the opposite of patriotism.
And since you get some of our not-so-smart ones, too... (Aaaahh-nuld)... It's okay with me. I'll have the last laugh when Schwarzenegger becomes president.
Laugh away.
And when you figure out that without a constitutional amendament That stupid fuckwad can't be president we'll laugh at you.
Beagle 2 is 68 Kilograms. The Viking landers were around 576 Kilograms, around 200 pounds of which was fuel.
Dude, seriously don't mix up your units. We already crashed one over that.
It walks down stairs, rolls over in pairs
;-)
*Alone* or in pairs. The fact that your version made no sense should have tipped you off
While this a VERY important document, most people use the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other Amedments to decide whether something is "American" or not(including the courts).
;-) I don't think that is what you mean.
I haven't mentioned the courts (and you are, of course, right that that document has no bearing there), but The Declaration of Independence and specifically that quote is essentially the determining thing in what is "American". That is what set it in motion (as a rallying force rather than the political, economic and historical forces). Freedom and equality are the rallying cries almost everybody uses to push their agenda whether they are actually in favor of those things or if they are trying to take them away. So I think that it is relevant to what is "American".
Remember, the DofI you are quoting from didn't even include women or non-white people as "men", those Amendments were WAY later. So if you are using DofI LITERALLY, as your support for your arguement, gay men can get married but gay women can't.
True, but we have come to realise long before either of us were born that "men" should be replaced by "people" and that people means all of us regardless of race.
Granted many people still don't really believe that should apply, but again I say, should ignorant hatred be what we are ruled by, and can you really call that freedom and equality?
"There is no adverse effect on other Americans, so there is no reason not to give them these rights". Then support with examples, data, or logic. People who are opposed believe that gay marriage will damage society so you have to prove otherwise if you are going to get support.
Again, I am not the one claiming something. The people who claim that it will have an adverse effect are the ones who need to provide an argument, or even any hypothetical mechanism by which such a thing would even be possible.
Since there isn't one, they can't and haven't. They base their arguments solely on religious based hatred. So given that there is no possible way that allowing a gay person to visit the love of their life when they are dying in the hospital could harm society, that assertion makes no sense.
Ahhh, but it does. See, the DofI and the Constitution both state that the law can be changed by THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE(two thirds vote of House or Senate, can't remember which). So it is very important what the rest of the country thinks. The Will of the People can become what IS American, if your definition of what is American is what is in the Constitution!
I already made that point. If enough people have that much hatred in them, then an amendment can be passed. At this point, it hasn't been. If there is an amendment passed saying that some people are more equal than others than that will be the law.
There is not such an amendment at this point.
You did nothing to address my point though.
Such an amendment would fundamentally change what the concept of "America" means.
Would you want "America" to be redefined as a land of extremist hatred and intolerance based on one single passage in an old version of a book relevant to two religions? Especially given that the new version that the majority of the religious people in the country claim to follow soundly refutes that?
I wouldn't. I want to live in "The Land of the Free" like I've been promised since birth.
Hello, 1998 wants its BSOD joke back.
Actually, I got a BSOD ( admittedly one of only a few ever ) last night when installing Diablo 2. After rebooting, it worked fine.