Exactly... the parent post's author seems to be saying that only corporations have web sites.
If anything, it'll hit the "personal site" maintainer hardest, because they are the least likely to have backups, etc. If some prick hacks into a web site, deletes the original content, and puts up an "owned" site, that not only costs someone time, but also may cost them the content if they can't recover it. It's not like these script kiddies will differentiate between corporate and personal websites. Thinking that they would is just naieve.
I also take particular issue with the implied concept that "my time doesn't cost anything".
Paypal donations to hi-tech hit squads, a la Tom Clancy and his Mr. Clark, to track down and eliminate, with EXTREME prejudice, any and all spammers, anywhere in the world. I'd give them $5/month, easy. Hell, film it and broadcast it like COPS. It's not like the embedded media have any real use for those handy portable vidcams they were sporting recently. Now _THAT'S_ a pay per view!
These guys don't care about laws, and any and all fines they MAY receive are just a cost of doing business and a lesson learned on how NOT to do it next time. Mind you, I think they'd start caring if they starting being hurt and/or killed.
And I'm only half kidding...
Anyone wishing to apply for such a squad, please email to...
How about people just stop buying the junk the spammers are selling? I guarantee you it will all disappear overnight if everyone does. Thats the beauty of the free market- its only around if it remains desirable.
I doubt that will work out all that well... according to the article, spammers rely on 1 sale per million spam emails. I personally know that the "stupid" or "has-a-clue" ratio is WAY lower than that.
My personal observations are that it's closer to being 1 in a hundred people are "stupid" or "clueless".
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Benchmark? We don't need no stinkin benchmarks!
on
G5 Benchmark Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A lot of people seem to be making a big deal out of benchmarks, but at the end of the day, I'm still going to buy the thing because it's the fastest Mac on the planet, and I don't care HOW it compares to other chips/boxes.
The only comparison I'm interested in is how it does against the G4... and it ROCKS.
Now I'm just waiting for a dual proc G5 XServe to be released...
Yeah, but it's not like it's hard for them to figure out your phone number... they know the exchanges for a particular region, and they start at xxx-0001, xxx-0002, etc.
They don't care that it's unlisted, and they have no desire (generally) to link the number to you as an individual.
Sure, some telemarketing scum like to try to personalize the "hello" message by asking for a particular person, but they're the exception rather than the rule, and they only do that if the information is there.
But the reason they were told to do this by the lower court was because of what Microsoft had tried to do with Java in the first place, which is splinter the market by shipping a version of Java that would only create programs that would only Windows systems.
True. But this means that the court should do something along the lines of squashing that version of Java, not promoting the "real" one.
Also, if IBM buys out SCO, doesn't that mean that IBM will inherit all of the legal headaches that SCO has raised? If it's shown that SCO has caused damage to other companies through their actions, SCO could be held liable for it... and if IBM owns SCO, then maybe some of that liable will be IBM's responsibility?
Then again, maybe they can buy SCO and keep it far far away like that leprous piece of shit that it is.
I'd say that they would argue that it is still the same, original infraction, therefore is covered under the original class-action settlement. They'd probably come up with some crap about them having to do studies before setting new prices, or some drivel about inflation catching up with the prices.
After all, have they stopped gauging us? I'd say "no".
But that's the problem... this is now a class-action lawsuit, so it's not about YOU being involved in a single action, it's about a group of people being involved in a single lawsuit that covers a number of similar actions.
A lot of people don't realize that class action law-suits are more of a protection for the parties being sued (like the RIAA) than anything else. It means that they can deal with the issue once, and then not have to worry about more litigation later on for the same issue.
As a lot of people here are discussing, it was up to THEM to either join or explicitly exlude themselves from the suit. Even if they didn't know about it, they're screwed from future actions similar to this.
Can any employee of the Company turn around and sell the software for $2 to someone? Can he sell the entire company?
Probably not.
He can only be considered an "Agent" if he's doing something that is consistant with his job description and his role in the company.
Now, if it was reasonable to expect him to be able to unilaterally assign these rights as part of his job function, then yes, it would be enforceable. If not, then no.
If he was the Pres/CEO, and it was HIS company, then he could probably act as it's agent in those situations... if he's a mail-room clerk, then probably not.
I totally agree with what you are saying... it's all about the size/complexity of the configuration and the amount of resources available. Being CTO of 2 new startups, I know ALL about the (lack of) cash thing, and linux routers/firewalls are what we're using for our own installations because we don't have the cash, and it's cheaper for us to use our time instead of spend the cash on hardware.
At the same time, for some of our larger clients (banks, etc.) we'll spec out and install proprietary high-end gear.
I think you may be mixing up "performance" and "cost-effectiveness".
Performance is usually related to cost, but just because you can "throw more hardware at the problem for less money" doesn't mean that it has superior performance. It MAY work out that it is more cost-effective, or even more affordable, but that does not mean it is better performing.
I'll still put my money on a big (and expensive) Cisco or Extreme box when it comes to performance, as long as cost is not a factor or issue.
Besides, in such a (Corporate) situation, seemless and transparent fault-tolerance is usually an issue as well, and it's VERY difficult (if not impossible) to supply the same level of redundancy and failover with commodity PC gear.
This makes me yearn for the days of the "ejectrode".
For those of you who don't remember/know, an ejectrode was a device (usually a stretched out paper-clip) that was used to manually extricate floppies out of their drive when they refused to pop out themselves. This was done by pushing the ejectrode into the small hole beside the floppy entrance, as there was no manual ejection button like on most modern floppy drives.
It was pretty funny, because you would see a few of those around any mac office (at least around our office in the mid 90's), and you knew EXACTLY what they were for.
It's too bad that the Combo drives have no such feature.
Down 4% since the market opened this morning, half of that in the last 20 minutes.
Down almost 10%, now 11%.
Seems like they're in for a bit of a rough ride. I still think it'll be interesting to see who exactly is selling on the inside. If you're going to go out, might as well go out with a bang!
To get into the gritty Unix stuff, you can also pick up Mac OS X for Unix Geeks.
This is an AWESOME book. Having been a Solaris/Linux admin for many years, this was the book that provided the real *click*, "so THAT'S how that works in OSX!" that made me feel like "root" again.;)
Unfortunately, a legal defense takes time, effort, and money. Lots of it. Lots and LOTS of it.
I'm thinking that they're sitting back, biding their time, seeing where this is going, and seeing if this is having an effect on their revenue. Don't confuse that with "not getting any legal advice"... I'm sure they have some VERY high retainers being paid even as we speak to get some "what the hell is going on here and what are our options" advice.
They may have grounds, but that's like me suing the crazy old lady next door because she tells everyone willing to listen that I'm a swinger engaging in deviant sexual activities. (She's got no proof, I tell ya!)
If SCO is the equivalent of that crazy old lady who's going to die soon anyway, and doesn't have anything of value to pay any possible damages, then maybe it IS smarter to just shake your head, do some damage control marketting, wait for it to blow over, and then chock it up to "life" and the "cost of doing business".
Now, if they feel that people are listening to SCO, and taking them seriously, or SCO all of a sudden has a bunch of big family members move into that house with them (Microsoft?), then they'll probably do something. Beause they'd HAVE to.
All I know is that it should make for an interesting book in a couple of years, and I'll STILL be running Linux, cuz regardless of all the FUD, it's NOT going away.
I wonder if I would have grounds to sue SCO for similar reasons? I'm a Linux consultant, and as a result of SCO's very public lawsuit, I am now suffering from lack of customers who wish to install Linux in their environments.
It's be great if all of a sudden there were 100,000 such lawsuits from all the Linux consultants out there. Tell me that wouldn't just bury SCO in legal headaches for a while!
Except that the cat is now out of the bag, according to SCO (it's part of their complaint), so these trade secrets are now part of the public domain.
To me, it makes more sense that SCO wants to decrease the amount of time that the defense has to put up a defense.
Right now there are a number of Open Source dudes/dudettes that would be more than happy to assist IBM in sniffing out SCO's bullshit, so if SCO were to release the details, then those people would know what to look for.
But hey, it's only a thought.
Regardless, it's going to be interesting to see the results.
The jacket is designed for women only. Its small size and narrow armholes are intended to prevent men from using it as an offensive weapon.
Yeah, cuz only small women are ever assaulted. As an aside, some of the most vocally paranoid women I've known/seen when it comes to the fear of being assaulted would NEVER fit in that jacket.
If this becomes more common, I can see a grounding strap being added to standard police gear. And to mugging gear.
Never mind that the jacket will not stop a baton smack to the head. In some bizzarro world this might become the new SOP when someone is wearing one of these. Knock her out and then roll her around in water puddles until the sparking dies down.
What happens when someone tries to wear it on a subway or bus, and you "accidentally" rub up against another passenger?
I can see this thing being banned pretty quickly as an offensive (or at the very least, a non-discriminating) weapon. It's no different than the guys who tried charging up the door handles and steering wheels of their cars so people wouldn't steal them.
I still think that the best means of protecting yourself from a physical attack is by increasing your situational awareness, and not putting yourself into situations where you are vulnerable. Just cuz it's my right to walk around in the drug-dealing part of town at 3:30am, doesn't mean I will, as my chances of getting shit-kicked and mugged go up from somewhat possible to "you better believe your ass is gonna get whacked".
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly... the parent post's author seems to be saying that only corporations have web sites.
If anything, it'll hit the "personal site" maintainer hardest, because they are the least likely to have backups, etc. If some prick hacks into a web site, deletes the original content, and puts up an "owned" site, that not only costs someone time, but also may cost them the content if they can't recover it. It's not like these script kiddies will differentiate between corporate and personal websites. Thinking that they would is just naieve.
I also take particular issue with the implied concept that "my time doesn't cost anything".
Paypal donations to hi-tech hit squads, a la Tom Clancy and his Mr. Clark, to track down and eliminate, with EXTREME prejudice, any and all spammers, anywhere in the world. I'd give them $5/month, easy. Hell, film it and broadcast it like COPS. It's not like the embedded media have any real use for those handy portable vidcams they were sporting recently. Now _THAT'S_ a pay per view!
These guys don't care about laws, and any and all fines they MAY receive are just a cost of doing business and a lesson learned on how NOT to do it next time. Mind you, I think they'd start caring if they starting being hurt and/or killed.
And I'm only half kidding...
Anyone wishing to apply for such a squad, please email to...
How about people just stop buying the junk the spammers are selling? I guarantee you it will all disappear overnight if everyone does. Thats the beauty of the free market- its only around if it remains desirable.
I doubt that will work out all that well... according to the article, spammers rely on 1 sale per million spam emails. I personally know that the "stupid" or "has-a-clue" ratio is WAY lower than that.
My personal observations are that it's closer to being 1 in a hundred people are "stupid" or "clueless".
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
A lot of people seem to be making a big deal out of benchmarks, but at the end of the day, I'm still going to buy the thing because it's the fastest Mac on the planet, and I don't care HOW it compares to other chips/boxes.
The only comparison I'm interested in is how it does against the G4... and it ROCKS.
Now I'm just waiting for a dual proc G5 XServe to be released...
*drool*
Yeah, but it's not like it's hard for them to figure out your phone number... they know the exchanges for a particular region, and they start at xxx-0001, xxx-0002, etc.
They don't care that it's unlisted, and they have no desire (generally) to link the number to you as an individual.
Sure, some telemarketing scum like to try to personalize the "hello" message by asking for a particular person, but they're the exception rather than the rule, and they only do that if the information is there.
The call is still made, regardless.
But the reason they were told to do this by the lower court was because of what Microsoft had tried to do with Java in the first place, which is splinter the market by shipping a version of Java that would only create programs that would only Windows systems.
True. But this means that the court should do something along the lines of squashing that version of Java, not promoting the "real" one.
The blurb for this contained so much drivel-doublespeak I couldn't bring myself to read the rest.
Noooo shit! How appropriate is it then that I received a link to Bullfigher, which is pretty funny...
especially coming from Deloitte Touche Consulting.
LOL
I can't help but wonder how much coding thy do and how much drawing.
Well, they probably don't do any more coding, as they're all lawyers now... and the signs were probably done by legal secretaries and interns.
Also, if IBM buys out SCO, doesn't that mean that IBM will inherit all of the legal headaches that SCO has raised? If it's shown that SCO has caused damage to other companies through their actions, SCO could be held liable for it... and if IBM owns SCO, then maybe some of that liable will be IBM's responsibility?
Then again, maybe they can buy SCO and keep it far far away like that leprous piece of shit that it is.
which is impossible to do reliably
Never said it was reliable... but then again, people that are into stocks for the short-term are gambling, not investing.
Would you pay 50 dollars for a dollar bill just because millions of fuckwits were also paying 50 dollars for a dollar bill?
If I had a good reason to believe that those same fuckwits would buy that same dollar bill one week later for $60, you bet I would.
Unfortunately, most investors these days are looking at the short term for the quick buck, and probably don't even know what a P/E ratio is.
In that case, you aren't investing in the company, but in the actions of the company's investors.
I'd say that they would argue that it is still the same, original infraction, therefore is covered under the original class-action settlement. They'd probably come up with some crap about them having to do studies before setting new prices, or some drivel about inflation catching up with the prices.
After all, have they stopped gauging us? I'd say "no".
But that's the problem... this is now a class-action lawsuit, so it's not about YOU being involved in a single action, it's about a group of people being involved in a single lawsuit that covers a number of similar actions.
My head hurts.
A lot of people don't realize that class action law-suits are more of a protection for the parties being sued (like the RIAA) than anything else. It means that they can deal with the issue once, and then not have to worry about more litigation later on for the same issue.
As a lot of people here are discussing, it was up to THEM to either join or explicitly exlude themselves from the suit. Even if they didn't know about it, they're screwed from future actions similar to this.
employee!=agent
Exactly.
Can any employee of the Company turn around and sell the software for $2 to someone? Can he sell the entire company?
Probably not.
He can only be considered an "Agent" if he's doing something that is consistant with his job description and his role in the company.
Now, if it was reasonable to expect him to be able to unilaterally assign these rights as part of his job function, then yes, it would be enforceable. If not, then no.
If he was the Pres/CEO, and it was HIS company, then he could probably act as it's agent in those situations... if he's a mail-room clerk, then probably not.
The really scary thing is that she's a member of MENSA...
;)
Now, I wonder how long it'll be before we read a whack of "well, so am I" posts from people who's egos can't accept that?
I totally agree with what you are saying... it's all about the size/complexity of the configuration and the amount of resources available. Being CTO of 2 new startups, I know ALL about the (lack of) cash thing, and linux routers/firewalls are what we're using for our own installations because we don't have the cash, and it's cheaper for us to use our time instead of spend the cash on hardware.
At the same time, for some of our larger clients (banks, etc.) we'll spec out and install proprietary high-end gear.
It's all about the right tool for the job.
I think you may be mixing up "performance" and "cost-effectiveness".
Performance is usually related to cost, but just because you can "throw more hardware at the problem for less money" doesn't mean that it has superior performance. It MAY work out that it is more cost-effective, or even more affordable, but that does not mean it is better performing.
I'll still put my money on a big (and expensive) Cisco or Extreme box when it comes to performance, as long as cost is not a factor or issue.
Besides, in such a (Corporate) situation, seemless and transparent fault-tolerance is usually an issue as well, and it's VERY difficult (if not impossible) to supply the same level of redundancy and failover with commodity PC gear.
This makes me yearn for the days of the "ejectrode".
For those of you who don't remember/know, an ejectrode was a device (usually a stretched out paper-clip) that was used to manually extricate floppies out of their drive when they refused to pop out themselves. This was done by pushing the ejectrode into the small hole beside the floppy entrance, as there was no manual ejection button like on most modern floppy drives.
It was pretty funny, because you would see a few of those around any mac office (at least around our office in the mid 90's), and you knew EXACTLY what they were for.
It's too bad that the Combo drives have no such feature.
Down 4% since the market opened this morning, half of that in the last 20 minutes.
Down almost 10%, now 11%.
Seems like they're in for a bit of a rough ride. I still think it'll be interesting to see who exactly is selling on the inside. If you're going to go out, might as well go out with a bang!
how very Zen of you. ;)
To get into the gritty Unix stuff, you can also pick up Mac OS X for Unix Geeks.
;)
This is an AWESOME book. Having been a Solaris/Linux admin for many years, this was the book that provided the real *click*, "so THAT'S how that works in OSX!" that made me feel like "root" again.
Unfortunately, a legal defense takes time, effort, and money. Lots of it. Lots and LOTS of it.
I'm thinking that they're sitting back, biding their time, seeing where this is going, and seeing if this is having an effect on their revenue. Don't confuse that with "not getting any legal advice"... I'm sure they have some VERY high retainers being paid even as we speak to get some "what the hell is going on here and what are our options" advice.
They may have grounds, but that's like me suing the crazy old lady next door because she tells everyone willing to listen that I'm a swinger engaging in deviant sexual activities. (She's got no proof, I tell ya!)
If SCO is the equivalent of that crazy old lady who's going to die soon anyway, and doesn't have anything of value to pay any possible damages, then maybe it IS smarter to just shake your head, do some damage control marketting, wait for it to blow over, and then chock it up to "life" and the "cost of doing business".
Now, if they feel that people are listening to SCO, and taking them seriously, or SCO all of a sudden has a bunch of big family members move into that house with them (Microsoft?), then they'll probably do something. Beause they'd HAVE to.
All I know is that it should make for an interesting book in a couple of years, and I'll STILL be running Linux, cuz regardless of all the FUD, it's NOT going away.
I wonder if I would have grounds to sue SCO for similar reasons? I'm a Linux consultant, and as a result of SCO's very public lawsuit, I am now suffering from lack of customers who wish to install Linux in their environments.
It's be great if all of a sudden there were 100,000 such lawsuits from all the Linux consultants out there. Tell me that wouldn't just bury SCO in legal headaches for a while!
Except that the cat is now out of the bag, according to SCO (it's part of their complaint), so these trade secrets are now part of the public domain.
To me, it makes more sense that SCO wants to decrease the amount of time that the defense has to put up a defense.
Right now there are a number of Open Source dudes/dudettes that would be more than happy to assist IBM in sniffing out SCO's bullshit, so if SCO were to release the details, then those people would know what to look for.
But hey, it's only a thought.
Regardless, it's going to be interesting to see the results.
The jacket is designed for women only. Its small size and narrow armholes are intended to prevent men from using it as an offensive weapon.
Yeah, cuz only small women are ever assaulted. As an aside, some of the most vocally paranoid women I've known/seen when it comes to the fear of being assaulted would NEVER fit in that jacket.
If this becomes more common, I can see a grounding strap being added to standard police gear. And to mugging gear.
Never mind that the jacket will not stop a baton smack to the head. In some bizzarro world this might become the new SOP when someone is wearing one of these. Knock her out and then roll her around in water puddles until the sparking dies down.
What happens when someone tries to wear it on a subway or bus, and you "accidentally" rub up against another passenger?
I can see this thing being banned pretty quickly as an offensive (or at the very least, a non-discriminating) weapon. It's no different than the guys who tried charging up the door handles and steering wheels of their cars so people wouldn't steal them.
I still think that the best means of protecting yourself from a physical attack is by increasing your situational awareness, and not putting yourself into situations where you are vulnerable. Just cuz it's my right to walk around in the drug-dealing part of town at 3:30am, doesn't mean I will, as my chances of getting shit-kicked and mugged go up from somewhat possible to "you better believe your ass is gonna get whacked".