Also remember, Microsoft's security models are not based on allowing the minimum privileges necessary to complete an operation. Due to the way they handle hardware, especially video, they can't be or they'd break huge amounts of their own most basic software, and they weill never get free of these issues.
Never get free of these issues? I don't think you are quite up to speed on Vista. Here is a high level look at some of the security improvments in Vista.
The part most directly related to your claim can be found under the "User Account Protection" heading, but here is some if it:
Today, many Windows users run with administrative privileges in both the enterprise and the home. Running as administrator results in a desktop that is hard to manage and has the potential for high support costs. Deploying desktops without users being administrators can result in cost savings because a non-administrative user no longer has the ability to accidentally mis-configure the network or install an application that might affect system stability. Running without administrative privileges is challenging today, as many applications fail to run and end users get frustrated by the inability to perform common tasks such as adding printers. In Windows Vista, the User Account Protection initiative introduces fundamental operating system changes to enhance the experience for the non-administrative user. For example, in the enterprise context, a mobile laptop user will be able to set a WEP key to attach to a home wireless network, install a printer, download and install application updates, setup and configure a VPN (Virtual Private Network) connection, and perform many other standard tasks, all while running as a non-administrator.
By default, Windows Vista runs most applications with limited permissions, even if the user logs on to his or her computer with administrative privileges. This won't stop users from performing administrative tasks that you've granted them permissions to perform. When users attempt to perform administrative tasks, Windows Vista explicitly asks them to confirm their intentions or provide administrative credentials, depending on the policy setting that you've chosen. You can also control this feature with Group Policy settings.
If users log on as standard users, who are not members of the Administrators local group, they can still run most Windows Vista applications without additional rights. Although there will be some exceptions, most applications will run equally well under either the administrator account or a standard user account.
For those times when you do need administrator privileges, you don't have to click Run As because Windows Vista automatically prompts you, as shown in Figure 1.
Some applications will not run on Windows XP without administrative privileges because they attempt to make changes to file and registry locations that affect the entire computer, such as C:\Program Files, C:\Windows, or HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. Registry and file virtualization in Windows Vista redirects per-machine file and registry writes to per-user locations if the user doesn't have administrative privileges. This enables standard accounts to run applications that need to write to areas of the registry or file system that only administrators can access.
Now we'll have to see how well this is all implemented. I'm sure like any MS 1.0 product (or any 1.0 product in general really) there will be some issues, but it seems the days that your complaint remains valid could be numbered.
I completely agree, and really I tend to back and forth betwen considering myself agnostic and atheist. Its just a matter of symantics I guess. I don't "think" there is a god because as you say there is no evidence. It seems in discussions I've had with other atheists they "believe" there is no god. They sometimes just seem a bit to hard-core for me. So I now tend to call my self the other. Perhaps I should term a new phrase. I'm apatheist (apatheic and atheist);-) I don't think there is a god, but then again I don't really care;-)
Agnostics ("you can't tell whether there is a god or not") are, basically, people with no balls to take a clear position.
I'd rather consider myself pragmatic. If someone is able to prove there is a god, cool. If someone is able to prove there ins't a god, cool. I really don't care. If someone is able to prove my "you can't tell" feeling wrong that fine and I'll adjust my view.
Thats the problem I see with all other positions, they aren't flexible to new information that may be available. They have "faith" in whatever it is they believe and no new evidence will change that. I don't really care, but if you have solid scientific proof to show god does or doesn't exist I'd be willing to except it. Others that any "evidence" that they are wrong and just ignore it.
Earth is round, Earth circles the Sun Earth wasn't created in 7 days, Earth is a bit more than a few thouhsand years old, OK maybe God didn't make Adam & Eve, etc, etc, etc, etc. Before these were disproven, they were pretty core concepts to many faiths. However, that is never enough to make them question the core faith. They are just like "OK, maybe we missed a few the rest is still 100% true!". Of course until the next one.
Yes, it is basically the same tech inside (there are differences but not enough to account for the price difference you point out). The big difference between PCs and game consoles are:
1) Volume
2) Competition
The volume differences are easy to see and even though there are a few different consoles which are competition to each other, until all games can be played across all consoles it won't really be true competition in the sense of PCs. And more importantly, until Dell can sell cheap (not meaning bad) knock-offs.
The whole reason Apple has stayed with the one-button mouse for so long is because grandmas don't right-click. Why would you be explaining this to her?
Because she has REALLY bad arthritis in one hand (all but unusable) so actions that require a mouse click and keyboard press are litterally quite painful. The ability map actions to another button would probably be more useful to her than most users.
I guess you are right, this is just really another one button mouse. If you are willing to sacrafice the Appple coolness factor, just stick with the existing multi-button mice from other manufactures that cost less and are much simplier.
My question about this mouse is if Apple wanted to avoid two button mice because it was to confusing for "grandma", why when they finally do release a two button mouse where are there not two buttons?
I mean, sure for someone used to two mouse buttons its not hard to figure out, but for those who don't this seems much more confusing than actually having two buttons. I cannot even imagine try to to explain to my grandmother how to "right-click" without her being able to SEE the right button.
Why cannot they just say they like the one button mouse because they think it looks cooler and be done with it? If simplicity for new users was the reason, then this mouse seems a HUGE step back in intutitive two button mouse design.
Come on man. I wasn't trying to say we should trust these sources (at least for science)! I was just making a joke about the current artifical limits placed on science by politicians and that there could well be a time when scientists are forced "underground" to do research. CERTAINLY, don't think this would be good and was mostly just a joke.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I had a better example I thought was better (funnier).
"An anonymous researcher reports he has used stem cells to cure cancer, diabeties, and parkensons.......President Bush has vowed to hunt the terrorist down and bring him to justice!".
One must ask, then, how the scientific community manages so well using only verifiable sources? No scientific journal editor would even consider allowing a reference to an anonymous source.
Give it a few more years and you just might;-)
"An anonymous source reports he has verifiable proof of evolution in a population of ants in the Amazon rainforest.......FBI is investigating".
I live in the Cayman Islands, but the head office is in NYC. We have a leased line connecting us, but all confidential data is on servers here in Cayman.
Perhaps your right. I'm not to up to speed with the whole patent thing. From the patents I've read though it seems like they are almost just ideas (no implementation included) at least from the aplications. If you are actaully forced to submit an implementation today then ignore my previous post;-)
My thinking was that this wasn't required and today people are just applying for ideas without even planning to implement it (just wait for someone else and sue). My thought was you can submit it without an implementation (like I think you can today) to "reserve" the patent, but it won't actaully be granted unless you show an implementation in a certain period of time. If you don't meet that time limit than others are free to implement it without being sued (they can then get the patent). It seems today there is a lot of sumbitting ideas with no plan to implement (just wait and sue). If they were forced to implement, then fine at least the product can actually get to market or else they are denied and others can bring it to market. The key point being if a patent is given then there should be product on the market corresponding to that patent. Not just patent a bunch of ideas, sit and wait till someone else does it and sue.
This seems like a rational idea;-) Too many posts on this topic get WAY to "religious". I think patents do have a purpose but as you say the current system seems pretty screwy. It seems there are two main problems with the current patent system.
The first is obviously patents being granted for WAY to trivial concepts (one-click, etc). These are obviously difficult to "fix". What seems obvious to one person could seem amazingly original to another. You have to look no further than the prevous post on Apples new mouse to see this. Apple fans talk about how innovative and amzaing it is while the non-Apple crowd is like "duh they FINALLY have a mouse with more than one button". What is "new" or "innovative" is just pretty abstract and will depend on personal views so it is hard to "fix" this problem. Now certainly, there are ways to improve this (I kind of like the peer review of patents idea), but it isn't trivial.
The second problem I see (which bothers me even more) are patents on fairly nebulous concepts which are never even meant to bring a product to market. It seems too many people kind of get a "boy wouldn't it be cool if" idea, write up a patent application and then wait for someone else to do it so they can sue them. This seems like it should be pretty easy to fix. Why not require at least a alpha/beta prototype of the idea before the patent is granted? You can submit the patent as soon as you get the idea. That will promise no body else will be granted the same patent until you have had the chance to implement it (assuming your application was the first for that idea). There is some "reasonable" timeframe in which you must actually develop the idea before the actual patent will be granted. Perhaps 6 months to year would be enough time? Now it would't have to be a polished production implementation, but at least a working model of the idea to prove you intend to actually bring it to market.
Now that certainly isn't perfect plan, but could some variation of it actually improve the current system?
Sure, there are actually a decent number of them but here are a few of my favorites (for z-wave and all home automation needs):
HomeSeer - Also the site of the home automation software I use. I is MS tech and only runs on Windows, but GREAT software with an AMAZING community of users. Check out the forums on this site for basically ANY home automation info and if it isn't there all us users are VERY willing to help anyone. This stuff is a love for lots of us;-)
Automated Outlet - a great guy runs this who gives great service (not me;-)
SmartHome - Another site I order from from time to time.
CocoonTechNot a reseller but another good HA site.
Let me know if there is any other info you'd like. Always happy to share home automation info;-)
Don't even need to be down the block;-) My entire HA system is web based so I can control it from anywhere. Thus script kiddie's from around the world can screw with me;-)
This is actually aimed at a whole different set of products. This is aimed at home/industrial automation not "fat pipe" issues a like wireless lans. This (like slightly more establised z-wave) are meant for simple wireless control systems. I use z-wave at home (very similar) for my home automation system. Mixing z-wave light switches and (currently) wired motion sensors my automation computer can automatically sense when I enter or leave a room and turn lights on/off.
These applications just need a tiny pipe. I forget the exact specs of the communication but its something like a few bytes (just telling a module to turn on/off/dim/etc). One big advantage is power. These things require VERY little power. They also for a wireless mesh network so if my computer cannot directly communicate with a module (big metal object blocking the transmission or just out of range) other modules can relay the command to the module I'm trying to control. Pretty cool stuff, but yeah in NO WAY meant for use like broadband.
Agreed, it will be interesting to see. They'd just better start getting some products to market. Z-Wave already has a few companies offering basic devices (light switches, outlets, remotes, etc) and recently thermostats and motion sensors are just being released. From a home automation standpoint both protocols are awfully similar and z-wave already making a foothold will make ZigBee a tough sale (already too many protocols). From what little I've read it sounds like ZigBee may offer better range, but for my house z-wave is already working well and probably won't bother with adding ZigBee just for the heck of it. Unless they can get a LOT of products to market VERY soon, the residential automation market will have already settled on other options. Sounds like ZigBee could certainly have some advantages in industrial automation though.
Yeah, the "how can it not happen" was a reference to the original write up that the original reply was saying was by no means a given. Since you replied arguing I'd assumed you agreed it was a given. Anyway, I REALLY didn't mean to get in a big arguement about this;-) I'd like to see it happen, but I think its a long-shot for the reasons stated above. We'll have to just wait and see I guess, but I still would VERY comfortably bet against this being granted. May well be wrong, I'd be pretty compfortable betting against it. Not saying it shouldn't happen or won't happen, but with what the judge has to base his decision on I just don't see it. I may well be wrong
Again, that would be 66% of the company value being taken from shareholders, creditors, etc. Why does Novell get "first bite" at the assets for "maybe" at the expense of 100% for sure creditors/shareholders?
If this was say MS where the ruling would cause a basically 0% harm to all those other parties then it would have a much better chance. Even though your 12M idea wouldn't take ALL thier asstes, a court isn't going to cause such MAJOR harm for "maybe".
What this may do (as I'm sure its meant to) is cause additional questions for shareholders. If this IS true, then SCO's balance sheet just got another HUGE liablity on it and the value of thier investment has taken even more of a nose dive.
Maybe it will happen, who can say for CERTAIN, but to say "how can it not happen" seems a bit "hopeful";-)
Yeah, that does sound reasonable on the face of it but the judge will have to look at a MUCH bigger picture. I don't know the amounts involved, but if this is about enough cash to either bancrupt SCO or even cause significant damage it would be VERY hard to see thier request be granted.
The ONLY way this could be considered is by making a case of irreperable harm to Novell if it isn't done and that thier is a VERY reasonable chance of Novell winning judgement in the end. The first part of this seems pretty easy and lets assume the second part as well (even though I don't know enough to even guess on that). So we'll assume Novell would suffer irreperable harm and there is a very good chance they actually are owed the money.
The judge cannot (or at least would be VERY unusual) ONLY consider those facts. When considering "irreperable harm" for one party he'll have to consider "irreperable harm" for all parties involved if the order is granted as well. Ignoring all other parties, if the judge just considers SCO itself and in fact it would cause them to fail (or cause major problems) then he wouldn't side with Novell unless NOT siding with them would basically cause them the same or more harm.
The courts won't want to cause a company to fail because they MIGHT owe someone money. In this case they'd want all evidence and a full case before cause such harm for a "maybe".
The even bigger problem (as the GP points out) is other creditors. If in fact this would bankraupt SCO or cause major issues, then this ruling for a "maybe" would cause irreperable harm to hundred, thousands, or even millions of other parties (creditors, shareholder, etc).
It would be a VERY hard case to make that it is better to harm thousands of parties (varying degrees from destroying them to minor harm) just to protect one party which "might" be harmed a little.
It might be fun to watch it happen, but I wouldn't hold your breath;-)
After reading tons of discussion about IE7 and FireFox here I'd like to propose a poll. This poll is specifically for FireFox users, but anyone is welcome to join.
Does IE7 suck because:
1) It looks JUST LIKE FireFox (they stole everything)!
2) It just LOOKS HORRIBLE!
3) I haven't used it or even bothered looking a screenshots yet, but all the above!
There just seems to be two distinct groups of FireFox fans here with one thinking it just looks HORRIBLE so they hate it and the other hates it because it LOOKS JUST LIKE FIREFOX. I'm getting confused, please respond and let me know which one is true please;-)
Wondering the same thing. Are the rover landings precise enough to land in that 35 km crater? The crater sides themselves seem pretty severe and pretty deep, I'd think driving (at least the current rovers) down would be a VERY long shot.
Slashdot Mirror
Also remember, Microsoft's security models are not based on allowing the minimum privileges necessary to complete an operation. Due to the way they handle hardware, especially video, they can't be or they'd break huge amounts of their own most basic software, and they weill never get free of these issues.
Never get free of these issues? I don't think you are quite up to speed on Vista. Here is a high level look at some of the security improvments in Vista.
The part most directly related to your claim can be found under the "User Account Protection" heading, but here is some if it:
Today, many Windows users run with administrative privileges in both the enterprise and the home. Running as administrator results in a desktop that is hard to manage and has the potential for high support costs. Deploying desktops without users being administrators can result in cost savings because a non-administrative user no longer has the ability to accidentally mis-configure the network or install an application that might affect system stability. Running without administrative privileges is challenging today, as many applications fail to run and end users get frustrated by the inability to perform common tasks such as adding printers. In Windows Vista, the User Account Protection initiative introduces fundamental operating system changes to enhance the experience for the non-administrative user. For example, in the enterprise context, a mobile laptop user will be able to set a WEP key to attach to a home wireless network, install a printer, download and install application updates, setup and configure a VPN (Virtual Private Network) connection, and perform many other standard tasks, all while running as a non-administrator.
By default, Windows Vista runs most applications with limited permissions, even if the user logs on to his or her computer with administrative privileges. This won't stop users from performing administrative tasks that you've granted them permissions to perform. When users attempt to perform administrative tasks, Windows Vista explicitly asks them to confirm their intentions or provide administrative credentials, depending on the policy setting that you've chosen. You can also control this feature with Group Policy settings.
If users log on as standard users, who are not members of the Administrators local group, they can still run most Windows Vista applications without additional rights. Although there will be some exceptions, most applications will run equally well under either the administrator account or a standard user account.
For those times when you do need administrator privileges, you don't have to click Run As because Windows Vista automatically prompts you, as shown in Figure 1.
Some applications will not run on Windows XP without administrative privileges because they attempt to make changes to file and registry locations that affect the entire computer, such as C:\Program Files, C:\Windows, or HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. Registry and file virtualization in Windows Vista redirects per-machine file and registry writes to per-user locations if the user doesn't have administrative privileges. This enables standard accounts to run applications that need to write to areas of the registry or file system that only administrators can access.
Now we'll have to see how well this is all implemented. I'm sure like any MS 1.0 product (or any 1.0 product in general really) there will be some issues, but it seems the days that your complaint remains valid could be numbered.
I completely agree, and really I tend to back and forth betwen considering myself agnostic and atheist. Its just a matter of symantics I guess. I don't "think" there is a god because as you say there is no evidence. It seems in discussions I've had with other atheists they "believe" there is no god. They sometimes just seem a bit to hard-core for me. So I now tend to call my self the other. Perhaps I should term a new phrase. I'm apatheist (apatheic and atheist) ;-) I don't think there is a god, but then again I don't really care ;-)
Agnostics ("you can't tell whether there is a god or not") are, basically, people with no balls to take a clear position.
I'd rather consider myself pragmatic. If someone is able to prove there is a god, cool. If someone is able to prove there ins't a god, cool. I really don't care. If someone is able to prove my "you can't tell" feeling wrong that fine and I'll adjust my view.
Thats the problem I see with all other positions, they aren't flexible to new information that may be available. They have "faith" in whatever it is they believe and no new evidence will change that. I don't really care, but if you have solid scientific proof to show god does or doesn't exist I'd be willing to except it. Others that any "evidence" that they are wrong and just ignore it.
Earth is round, Earth circles the Sun Earth wasn't created in 7 days, Earth is a bit more than a few thouhsand years old, OK maybe God didn't make Adam & Eve, etc, etc, etc, etc. Before these were disproven, they were pretty core concepts to many faiths. However, that is never enough to make them question the core faith. They are just like "OK, maybe we missed a few the rest is still 100% true!". Of course until the next one.
Hey!!! It isn't torture unless they have organ failure! Didn't you get the memo?
Yes, it is basically the same tech inside (there are differences but not enough to account for the price difference you point out). The big difference between PCs and game consoles are:
1) Volume
2) Competition
The volume differences are easy to see and even though there are a few different consoles which are competition to each other, until all games can be played across all consoles it won't really be true competition in the sense of PCs. And more importantly, until Dell can sell cheap (not meaning bad) knock-offs.
The whole reason Apple has stayed with the one-button mouse for so long is because grandmas don't right-click. Why would you be explaining this to her?
Because she has REALLY bad arthritis in one hand (all but unusable) so actions that require a mouse click and keyboard press are litterally quite painful. The ability map actions to another button would probably be more useful to her than most users.
I guess you are right, this is just really another one button mouse. If you are willing to sacrafice the Appple coolness factor, just stick with the existing multi-button mice from other manufactures that cost less and are much simplier.
My question about this mouse is if Apple wanted to avoid two button mice because it was to confusing for "grandma", why when they finally do release a two button mouse where are there not two buttons?
I mean, sure for someone used to two mouse buttons its not hard to figure out, but for those who don't this seems much more confusing than actually having two buttons. I cannot even imagine try to to explain to my grandmother how to "right-click" without her being able to SEE the right button.
Why cannot they just say they like the one button mouse because they think it looks cooler and be done with it? If simplicity for new users was the reason, then this mouse seems a HUGE step back in intutitive two button mouse design.
I believe Joe Wilson and his wife (I wont' use her name) the undercover CIA agent aren't set for life.
Come on man. I wasn't trying to say we should trust these sources (at least for science)! I was just making a joke about the current artifical limits placed on science by politicians and that there could well be a time when scientists are forced "underground" to do research. CERTAINLY, don't think this would be good and was mostly just a joke.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I had a better example I thought was better (funnier).
"An anonymous researcher reports he has used stem cells to cure cancer, diabeties, and parkensons.......President Bush has vowed to hunt the terrorist down and bring him to justice!".
One must ask, then, how the scientific community manages so well using only verifiable sources? No scientific journal editor would even consider allowing a reference to an anonymous source.
;-)
Give it a few more years and you just might
"An anonymous source reports he has verifiable proof of evolution in a population of ants in the Amazon rainforest.......FBI is investigating".
I live in the Cayman Islands, but the head office is in NYC. We have a leased line connecting us, but all confidential data is on servers here in Cayman.
Perhaps your right. I'm not to up to speed with the whole patent thing. From the patents I've read though it seems like they are almost just ideas (no implementation included) at least from the aplications. If you are actaully forced to submit an implementation today then ignore my previous post ;-)
My thinking was that this wasn't required and today people are just applying for ideas without even planning to implement it (just wait for someone else and sue). My thought was you can submit it without an implementation (like I think you can today) to "reserve" the patent, but it won't actaully be granted unless you show an implementation in a certain period of time. If you don't meet that time limit than others are free to implement it without being sued (they can then get the patent). It seems today there is a lot of sumbitting ideas with no plan to implement (just wait and sue). If they were forced to implement, then fine at least the product can actually get to market or else they are denied and others can bring it to market. The key point being if a patent is given then there should be product on the market corresponding to that patent. Not just patent a bunch of ideas, sit and wait till someone else does it and sue.
This seems like a rational idea ;-) Too many posts on this topic get WAY to "religious". I think patents do have a purpose but as you say the current system seems pretty screwy. It seems there are two main problems with the current patent system.
The first is obviously patents being granted for WAY to trivial concepts (one-click, etc). These are obviously difficult to "fix". What seems obvious to one person could seem amazingly original to another. You have to look no further than the prevous post on Apples new mouse to see this. Apple fans talk about how innovative and amzaing it is while the non-Apple crowd is like "duh they FINALLY have a mouse with more than one button". What is "new" or "innovative" is just pretty abstract and will depend on personal views so it is hard to "fix" this problem. Now certainly, there are ways to improve this (I kind of like the peer review of patents idea), but it isn't trivial.
The second problem I see (which bothers me even more) are patents on fairly nebulous concepts which are never even meant to bring a product to market. It seems too many people kind of get a "boy wouldn't it be cool if" idea, write up a patent application and then wait for someone else to do it so they can sue them. This seems like it should be pretty easy to fix. Why not require at least a alpha/beta prototype of the idea before the patent is granted? You can submit the patent as soon as you get the idea. That will promise no body else will be granted the same patent until you have had the chance to implement it (assuming your application was the first for that idea). There is some "reasonable" timeframe in which you must actually develop the idea before the actual patent will be granted. Perhaps 6 months to year would be enough time? Now it would't have to be a polished production implementation, but at least a working model of the idea to prove you intend to actually bring it to market.
Now that certainly isn't perfect plan, but could some variation of it actually improve the current system?
Yeah, right ;-) Its possible for them to screw with me, but I don't want to make it too easy ;-)
Sure, there are actually a decent number of them but here are a few of my favorites (for z-wave and all home automation needs):
;-)
;-)
;-)
HomeSeer - Also the site of the home automation software I use. I is MS tech and only runs on Windows, but GREAT software with an AMAZING community of users. Check out the forums on this site for basically ANY home automation info and if it isn't there all us users are VERY willing to help anyone. This stuff is a love for lots of us
Automated Outlet - a great guy runs this who gives great service (not me
SmartHome - Another site I order from from time to time.
CocoonTechNot a reseller but another good HA site.
Let me know if there is any other info you'd like. Always happy to share home automation info
Don't even need to be down the block ;-) My entire HA system is web based so I can control it from anywhere. Thus script kiddie's from around the world can screw with me ;-)
This is actually aimed at a whole different set of products. This is aimed at home/industrial automation not "fat pipe" issues a like wireless lans. This (like slightly more establised z-wave) are meant for simple wireless control systems. I use z-wave at home (very similar) for my home automation system. Mixing z-wave light switches and (currently) wired motion sensors my automation computer can automatically sense when I enter or leave a room and turn lights on/off.
These applications just need a tiny pipe. I forget the exact specs of the communication but its something like a few bytes (just telling a module to turn on/off/dim/etc). One big advantage is power. These things require VERY little power. They also for a wireless mesh network so if my computer cannot directly communicate with a module (big metal object blocking the transmission or just out of range) other modules can relay the command to the module I'm trying to control. Pretty cool stuff, but yeah in NO WAY meant for use like broadband.
Agreed, it will be interesting to see. They'd just better start getting some products to market. Z-Wave already has a few companies offering basic devices (light switches, outlets, remotes, etc) and recently thermostats and motion sensors are just being released. From a home automation standpoint both protocols are awfully similar and z-wave already making a foothold will make ZigBee a tough sale (already too many protocols). From what little I've read it sounds like ZigBee may offer better range, but for my house z-wave is already working well and probably won't bother with adding ZigBee just for the heck of it. Unless they can get a LOT of products to market VERY soon, the residential automation market will have already settled on other options. Sounds like ZigBee could certainly have some advantages in industrial automation though.
Yeah, the "how can it not happen" was a reference to the original write up that the original reply was saying was by no means a given. Since you replied arguing I'd assumed you agreed it was a given. Anyway, I REALLY didn't mean to get in a big arguement about this ;-) I'd like to see it happen, but I think its a long-shot for the reasons stated above. We'll have to just wait and see I guess, but I still would VERY comfortably bet against this being granted. May well be wrong, I'd be pretty compfortable betting against it. Not saying it shouldn't happen or won't happen, but with what the judge has to base his decision on I just don't see it. I may well be wrong
Again, that would be 66% of the company value being taken from shareholders, creditors, etc. Why does Novell get "first bite" at the assets for "maybe" at the expense of 100% for sure creditors/shareholders?
;-)
If this was say MS where the ruling would cause a basically 0% harm to all those other parties then it would have a much better chance. Even though your 12M idea wouldn't take ALL thier asstes, a court isn't going to cause such MAJOR harm for "maybe".
What this may do (as I'm sure its meant to) is cause additional questions for shareholders. If this IS true, then SCO's balance sheet just got another HUGE liablity on it and the value of thier investment has taken even more of a nose dive.
Maybe it will happen, who can say for CERTAIN, but to say "how can it not happen" seems a bit "hopeful"
Yeah, that does sound reasonable on the face of it but the judge will have to look at a MUCH bigger picture. I don't know the amounts involved, but if this is about enough cash to either bancrupt SCO or even cause significant damage it would be VERY hard to see thier request be granted.
;-)
The ONLY way this could be considered is by making a case of irreperable harm to Novell if it isn't done and that thier is a VERY reasonable chance of Novell winning judgement in the end. The first part of this seems pretty easy and lets assume the second part as well (even though I don't know enough to even guess on that). So we'll assume Novell would suffer irreperable harm and there is a very good chance they actually are owed the money.
The judge cannot (or at least would be VERY unusual) ONLY consider those facts. When considering "irreperable harm" for one party he'll have to consider "irreperable harm" for all parties involved if the order is granted as well. Ignoring all other parties, if the judge just considers SCO itself and in fact it would cause them to fail (or cause major problems) then he wouldn't side with Novell unless NOT siding with them would basically cause them the same or more harm.
The courts won't want to cause a company to fail because they MIGHT owe someone money. In this case they'd want all evidence and a full case before cause such harm for a "maybe".
The even bigger problem (as the GP points out) is other creditors. If in fact this would bankraupt SCO or cause major issues, then this ruling for a "maybe" would cause irreperable harm to hundred, thousands, or even millions of other parties (creditors, shareholder, etc).
It would be a VERY hard case to make that it is better to harm thousands of parties (varying degrees from destroying them to minor harm) just to protect one party which "might" be harmed a little.
It might be fun to watch it happen, but I wouldn't hold your breath
OK, I missed the part where you contrasted the google patent to the Amazon patents. Why was any one better than the others?
After reading tons of discussion about IE7 and FireFox here I'd like to propose a poll. This poll is specifically for FireFox users, but anyone is welcome to join.
;-)
Does IE7 suck because:
1) It looks JUST LIKE FireFox (they stole everything)!
2) It just LOOKS HORRIBLE!
3) I haven't used it or even bothered looking a screenshots yet, but all the above!
There just seems to be two distinct groups of FireFox fans here with one thinking it just looks HORRIBLE so they hate it and the other hates it because it LOOKS JUST LIKE FIREFOX. I'm getting confused, please respond and let me know which one is true please
Wondering the same thing. Are the rover landings precise enough to land in that 35 km crater? The crater sides themselves seem pretty severe and pretty deep, I'd think driving (at least the current rovers) down would be a VERY long shot.