Your point fails when you consider that Google left Google.com operating, with a Chinese interface, being served to Chinese users from American servers, fully uncensored. So, if I want to search for a specific receipe or something, I can search using Google.cn, and not worry about traffic interruptions. If I want to search for democracy related sites, I could then use Google.com, but the Chinese firewall may block access, through no fault of Google's.
The viewpoints expressed here are immature IMHO. Why punish a company for bowing to cultural norms? What is to gain by Google staying out of China? Not much, the Chinese government isn't going to cave, they'll tell Google to go fly a kite and not to let the door hit their ass on the way out. They'll expect the citizens to use another search engine before they'll let an American corporation push them around.
By providing Google.cn, Google is offering better access to the 99.99% of information that is uncensorred, so that people who don't give two shits about democracy or anything like that can find the information that is relevant to them. Much like Western citizens know where to go to find pirated content, even if those places aren't offical, Chinese citizens that are government activists will know to go to Google.com for this purpose.
I honestly cannot think of a single thing Chinese citizens lose by having Google.cn operating in China, but can think of numerous things that they gain. I really fail to see what the big deal is. The Chinese citizens have endured censorship for decades, why punish them by removing their use of a local Google site that can offer better service just because of a situation outside of their control? This logic baffles me.
I'm willing to bet a lot of Chinese will agree with me on this, but that wouldn't matter one bit to the American government.
In short, this is a whole lot of nothing, and isn't as big an issue as people make it out to be as far as I'm concerned.
Anyways, what about private corporations, such as the one my parents owned? You can't tell me there isn't a single corporation in the entire world that isn't run ethically, because I can use that not so well known one as an example.
Anyways, this really is a completely pointless argument we are all having. I'm going to quit posting now.
"They have no ethics, morals or any guiding principles other then "make more money"."
The bolded parts were the ones I was countering when I named those companies. You seem to equate the bolded parts with making more money in your last post, even though it is possible to make money without having the qualities of the bolded parts. Still following me here? I never meant that the companies I named don't want to make money, I'm saying that they do have ethics, morals and guiding principals, while continuing to make money. I'm not confusing you, am I?
Ummm, when have Microsoft and Google turned anyone in to the Chinese government? Google doesn't even store their records in China. Yahoo! has co-operated with the Chinese government in that regard, but that doesn't mean ALL American Internet Companies will.
Courts generally accept the decisions made by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal accepts SUSE's position, most of SCO's complaint against Novell is dead in the water. Much quicker than having Novell become a repeat of the IBM case (endless delay). Arbitration is very quick, usually about a half year.
Ummm...not really. SUSE could have filed this arbitration clause,private company or Novell subsidiary. Being a subsidiary of Novell doesn't change anything for IBM. In-fact, this whole thing has little to do with the IBM case, except for one of IBM's counterclaims.
Ummm, SCO couldn't argue that because Caldera, not Santa Cruz, signed the UnitedLinux agreement. SCO Group is a successor in interest, without a doubt, in Caldera. It is Santa Cruz that SCO likes to pretend is their predecessor when they really aren't, and Santa Cruz has nothing to do with this.
AT&T sent out a letter almost 20 years ago saying something completely contrary to what SCO is claiming, that they had no intention of claiming control over others' work, unless it was combined with their work. SCO's theory is that since AIX was once combined with SVRX (and still is) that none of the AIX code, even if not including SVRX code, can be contributed to Linux. It is plainly contrary to what the agreements actually say (check on Groklaw, all of them are there), to what AT&T said, to what Novell said and to what Santa Cruz said. Then add one these letters for good measure.
Ummm...you do realize that you can't ignore someone sueing you right? Outside of the courtroom, IBM HAS ignored SCO all of this time. IBM has to, under the law, finish the lawsuit. IBM is trying to end it ASAP now.
IBM has already made an attempt, back in 04, to finish this case for good, via summary judgement. They have indicated they are going to do so again.
Umm, current SCO paid Santa Cruz about $5 million for their IP in Unix (which isn't really much). The rest was for the reseller channel. According to the SEC documents anyways. That 5 million was probably for the few copyrights Santa Cruz does own (code they wrote themselves seperate from Novell).
Santa Cruz before SCO paid *nothing* for Unix. Santa Cruz assigned Novell several thousand shares in the company, Novell assigned Unix and Unixware to Santa Cruz with Novell retaining ownership of the copyrights, patents and the SVRX royalties. They also retained a share of the Unixware royalties until 2003. And last but not lease, they retained the right to direct Santa Cruz to modify SVRX licenses in any manner Novell saw fit, and to take the action on behalf of Santa Cruz should they ignore Novell's direction. No actual money changed hands at this stage in the game.
SCO claims they paid $150 million for Unix. Bullshit, that $150 million was for royalties between the years of 1995 and 2003 owed to Novell. Completely different thing.
1) Novell published the letters first, then was sued. Check Groklaw's history/archives.
2) Novell never published the transfer request letters. They published all correspondance AFTER May 2003, but not before, and the requests were made before May. No one is sure why Novell never published those letters.
3) SCO is claiming breach of contract, not copyright infringement. The copyrights are essentially irrelevant in the IBM case. However, whether SCO has standing to sue IBM is another matter (Novell waived numerous SCO rights).
Novell retained a lot of rights under the APA, including the rights referenced in this letter. SCO is acting as Novell's agent with regards to SVRX..and Novell does not agree with SCO's position regarding AIX and Dynix. Novell has provided plenty of evidence in the letters linked to here, and earlier ones, as to why SCO is wrong about IBM's responsibilities...and SCO didn't even write back! They don't have a leg to stand on.
I was looking at smaller stereos (ie. personal stereos). There was a selection of about 8 (this store tends to focus on bigger stereos), and the only comparable one to the one I bought was a Panasonic, which was about $150 more. This is quite a big difference when the Sony was $340. The Panasonic sitting in the same price range didn't even have a sub, and the sound quality was shit in comparison. The Sony's sound is actually pretty good for what I paid.
I totally agree with this. I was planning on never buying a Sony product again after the rootkit fiasco...then I wanted to buy a stereo. In the store I went to, Sony's product was the best, had the best sound, and was cheaper than the similar Panasonic that had shitier sound. So I bought Sony.
If you install FreePOPs, set the incoming server to localhost, the port number to 2000 and use your full email address as your login, you can use any POP3 account to check your Hotmail (or most other webmail's for that matter)
Slashdot Mirror
Your point fails when you consider that Google left Google.com operating, with a Chinese interface, being served to Chinese users from American servers, fully uncensored. So, if I want to search for a specific receipe or something, I can search using Google.cn, and not worry about traffic interruptions. If I want to search for democracy related sites, I could then use Google.com, but the Chinese firewall may block access, through no fault of Google's.
The viewpoints expressed here are immature IMHO. Why punish a company for bowing to cultural norms? What is to gain by Google staying out of China? Not much, the Chinese government isn't going to cave, they'll tell Google to go fly a kite and not to let the door hit their ass on the way out. They'll expect the citizens to use another search engine before they'll let an American corporation push them around.
By providing Google.cn, Google is offering better access to the 99.99% of information that is uncensorred, so that people who don't give two shits about democracy or anything like that can find the information that is relevant to them. Much like Western citizens know where to go to find pirated content, even if those places aren't offical, Chinese citizens that are government activists will know to go to Google.com for this purpose.
I honestly cannot think of a single thing Chinese citizens lose by having Google.cn operating in China, but can think of numerous things that they gain. I really fail to see what the big deal is. The Chinese citizens have endured censorship for decades, why punish them by removing their use of a local Google site that can offer better service just because of a situation outside of their control? This logic baffles me.
I'm willing to bet a lot of Chinese will agree with me on this, but that wouldn't matter one bit to the American government.
In short, this is a whole lot of nothing, and isn't as big an issue as people make it out to be as far as I'm concerned.
No, you're thinking of Gmailfs. Gdrive was leaked from Google, or something along those lines.
Mozilla Corporation : http://www.mozilla.com/about/
Anyways, what about private corporations, such as the one my parents owned? You can't tell me there isn't a single corporation in the entire world that isn't run ethically, because I can use that not so well known one as an example.
Anyways, this really is a completely pointless argument we are all having. I'm going to quit posting now.
Well let me quote your original post.
"They have no ethics, morals or any guiding principles other then "make more money"."
The bolded parts were the ones I was countering when I named those companies. You seem to equate the bolded parts with making more money in your last post, even though it is possible to make money without having the qualities of the bolded parts. Still following me here? I never meant that the companies I named don't want to make money, I'm saying that they do have ethics, morals and guiding principals, while continuing to make money. I'm not confusing you, am I?
Opera? Mozilla Corporation? Canonical? May not be big companies, but companies none the less.
Why not try Groupwise?
http://www.novell.com/products/groupwise/
Ummm, when have Microsoft and Google turned anyone in to the Chinese government? Google doesn't even store their records in China. Yahoo! has co-operated with the Chinese government in that regard, but that doesn't mean ALL American Internet Companies will.
Those searches are then logged to his ip address (and probably his account too, because of the same ip address).
Courts generally accept the decisions made by the Tribunal. If the Tribunal accepts SUSE's position, most of SCO's complaint against Novell is dead in the water. Much quicker than having Novell become a repeat of the IBM case (endless delay). Arbitration is very quick, usually about a half year.
Ummm...not really. SUSE could have filed this arbitration clause,private company or Novell subsidiary. Being a subsidiary of Novell doesn't change anything for IBM. In-fact, this whole thing has little to do with the IBM case, except for one of IBM's counterclaims.
Ummm, SCO couldn't argue that because Caldera, not Santa Cruz, signed the UnitedLinux agreement. SCO Group is a successor in interest, without a doubt, in Caldera. It is Santa Cruz that SCO likes to pretend is their predecessor when they really aren't, and Santa Cruz has nothing to do with this.
At the time I submitted this article, that was the latest, and only, article on the subject.
Macs would probably need to get a BIOS before you could do that.....
It's called "Summary Judgement".
AT&T sent out a letter almost 20 years ago saying something completely contrary to what SCO is claiming, that they had no intention of claiming control over others' work, unless it was combined with their work. SCO's theory is that since AIX was once combined with SVRX (and still is) that none of the AIX code, even if not including SVRX code, can be contributed to Linux. It is plainly contrary to what the agreements actually say (check on Groklaw, all of them are there), to what AT&T said, to what Novell said and to what Santa Cruz said. Then add one these letters for good measure.
7 _03_n-sco.pdf1 0_03_n-sco_ibm.pdf_ 04_n-sco.pdf1 _04_n-sco.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/2_6
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/2_1
SCO's reading of the publically available documents makes absolutely no sense.
Ummm...you do realize that you can't ignore someone sueing you right? Outside of the courtroom, IBM HAS ignored SCO all of this time. IBM has to, under the law, finish the lawsuit. IBM is trying to end it ASAP now. IBM has already made an attempt, back in 04, to finish this case for good, via summary judgement. They have indicated they are going to do so again.
Umm, current SCO paid Santa Cruz about $5 million for their IP in Unix (which isn't really much). The rest was for the reseller channel. According to the SEC documents anyways. That 5 million was probably for the few copyrights Santa Cruz does own (code they wrote themselves seperate from Novell).
Santa Cruz before SCO paid *nothing* for Unix. Santa Cruz assigned Novell several thousand shares in the company, Novell assigned Unix and Unixware to Santa Cruz with Novell retaining ownership of the copyrights, patents and the SVRX royalties. They also retained a share of the Unixware royalties until 2003. And last but not lease, they retained the right to direct Santa Cruz to modify SVRX licenses in any manner Novell saw fit, and to take the action on behalf of Santa Cruz should they ignore Novell's direction. No actual money changed hands at this stage in the game.
SCO claims they paid $150 million for Unix. Bullshit, that $150 million was for royalties between the years of 1995 and 2003 owed to Novell. Completely different thing.
1) Novell published the letters first, then was sued. Check Groklaw's history/archives. 2) Novell never published the transfer request letters. They published all correspondance AFTER May 2003, but not before, and the requests were made before May. No one is sure why Novell never published those letters. 3) SCO is claiming breach of contract, not copyright infringement. The copyrights are essentially irrelevant in the IBM case. However, whether SCO has standing to sue IBM is another matter (Novell waived numerous SCO rights).
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/2_6_ 04_n-sco.pdf
1 _04_n-sco.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/2_1
Novell retained a lot of rights under the APA, including the rights referenced in this letter. SCO is acting as Novell's agent with regards to SVRX..and Novell does not agree with SCO's position regarding AIX and Dynix. Novell has provided plenty of evidence in the letters linked to here, and earlier ones, as to why SCO is wrong about IBM's responsibilities...and SCO didn't even write back! They don't have a leg to stand on.
The MacBook is the replacement for Powerbook, not iBook. Intel iBooks (or w/e they change the name to) are still going to be released AFAIK.
I was looking at smaller stereos (ie. personal stereos). There was a selection of about 8 (this store tends to focus on bigger stereos), and the only comparable one to the one I bought was a Panasonic, which was about $150 more. This is quite a big difference when the Sony was $340. The Panasonic sitting in the same price range didn't even have a sub, and the sound quality was shit in comparison. The Sony's sound is actually pretty good for what I paid.
I totally agree with this. I was planning on never buying a Sony product again after the rootkit fiasco...then I wanted to buy a stereo. In the store I went to, Sony's product was the best, had the best sound, and was cheaper than the similar Panasonic that had shitier sound. So I bought Sony.
Google has already been sued over Google Cache....and Google won too.
Yahoo! has offered bookmarks for ages. Google has introduced a bookmark service recently too.
If you install FreePOPs, set the incoming server to localhost, the port number to 2000 and use your full email address as your login, you can use any POP3 account to check your Hotmail (or most other webmail's for that matter)