It is interesting that when SCUMX was at $10, everyone was clammering to short the stock. Some wise posts said "Be carefull, if it continues to go up, your broker might cancel your margin and force you to buy the stock at a higher value for your loss"... I wonder how many people got burned because sco went to $20.
Sure the stock is garbage, and its probably being pumped, but that doesn't mean it will go up further before the crash.
if you shorted the.com stocks at IPO, even though 90% are trading (if still trading) at prob 10% of their ipo price, you still would have lost because your broker wouldn't have let you owe them, when the stocks were skyrocketing.
My 2k box needs to be rebooted prob once every 2 weeks. Not bad actually.
Why you might ask does it need rebooting where yours doesn't?
Maybe because over the course of the last 3 years, I've downloaded more shitty little apps, lieing around in various states of install due to failed uninstallations.
I clean up and defrag sometimes, but due to the typical developers work week (60+hrs on work computer, Linux), I really don't want to be bothered with my 2k box until something really bad happens. As long as counterstrike, Mozilla and my photoprinter run, I'm fine.
Compared though to my old Win 98/NT 4 and my nightmare with ME, 2K stands the test for lack of daily maintance with moderate speed problems.
BTW, I just got a new gaming box, going to reinstall all my programs, and start fresh, with 2k.
I think also to the point is that by writing NUMA and RCU for AIX, IBM was in no ways bound not to rewrite NUMA and RCU for linux.
It might turn out that the code in question was really only supportave code, libraries and header information taken from a common ancestor, BSD or earlier unixies
SCO might be trying to make the point that by taking some code from BSD/AIX and merging with other code then releasing it to Linux, IBM in fact released all the code to linux.
I point to other posts, made throughout all this time, that AIX's supportave architecture and framework is fastly different then Linux, and a direct copy of code would not work.
NUMA and SMP will probably be yanked, the kernel will revert back to it's 2.2 days and probably stay there for a long, long time, until someone comes up with something completely original to replace whats missing.
I gather you have no idea how a large corporation like IBM develops Ideas.
IBM has an R&D wing, and its say in Boulder Colorodo (don't know for sure). There is a bunch of PHDs there who think up great new ideas. Also in that office is a large legal team which immediatly applies for a patent on those ideas. That is all that department produces.
IBM's product managers now evaluate the ideas created and says, "Hey I like this idea they've created out there, I think it would be great for AIX". So they direct teh AIX team (probably somewhere else in the US, say Boston, MA), to develop it for some planned upgrade of AIX.
Now, those product managers later say, "hey, Linux could use that idea too, put that idea into Linux!". The order is sent to the Linux team in San Jose, CA, and they are integrated into the Linux Kernal.
Then, before release, it goes to an oversite board to figure out if they can release, if the GPL is the right license for it (might be LGPLed). Then its released.
IE, just because the feature was developed at IBM, and was put both into AIX and Linux, does not mean it went FROM AIX TO Linux!
Now, SCO is sueing IBM saying it didn't have the right to put that idea into Linux becuase SCO somehow owned the idea. Its not going to work.
Read my other post about this, basically the Put trades are large frequent purchases. Large investors in insurance and airline industries play put options to balance their investments. All in All, companies spend HUNDREDS of MILLIONs of dollars buying theses options per year. Note, that's not the payoff, that's the cost of buying the option, which is usually far under the cost of the payoff. A put option with a strike price of 20 on a stock that recently went from 30 to 40, is probably very very cheap.
BTW, those airlines slipped 50% from the beginning of 2001 to just before the tragedy. Stocks that slip such as that are prime targets for buying put options.
Well, the Snopes sight specifies that the transactions before sept 11 were 200 times normal, but it doesn't specify the fequency 200 times normal spikes happen (1 per 200 days?). If one heavy institutional investor was responsible for the infrequent but regualar put purchases it would still explain it properly yet Snopes would still tell the truth.
BTW, the snopes article was updated Oct 3, 2001, less then 3 weeks from the tradegy. I don't think suffcient time had passed for a througho debunking.
The CIA is going to raise $2.5 million dollars by investing in the Sept 11th tragedy?
Please, common sense dictates that when you factor in the size of the CIA budget and other less nefarious ways of procuring more cash (drug sales, counterfeiting foreign currency), the idea that they would risk investing in the Sept 11th tragedy seems ludicrous.
I heard from a snopes like site (which actually makes it just about as relevent as any source on the options story), that there WAS a large amount of put options on UAL and AA place before 9/11, but also there was alot of put options place before 5/11 and 1/11. Basically there is always people hedging bets in the airline industries against tragedy by buying put options (anytime a airplane goes down the respective share prices drop drastically, Alaska saw this happen). Its basically an insurance policy, and in this case it came through.
This is a case where an action looked at out-of-context looks nefarious because of circumstance. Once you know that people often buy large put options in industries prone to disaster, the fact that a routine purchase happened close to 9/11 looks pretty normal. In fact, its no more nefarious then buying an insurance policy against the World Trade Center collapsing (there was one). Does the purchase of that policy PROVE pre-existanct knowledge of the 9/11 attacks? Not by a long shot.
It is considered wise to buy a life insurance policy on yourself to protect your family in case of sudden death? Does this mean you EXPECT to die suddenly? No, your just being careful and cautious.
BTW, the purchase of a put option depends on the stock and the percentage difference in the price. The further you go from the current price the cheaper they get. There was a case when Warren Buffet (sp?) bought both put and get options on the same stock because he wanted some insurance in a volitle market.
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that (because you loaned your weapon to someone during the time in question, even if they can't prove he did it), then you are acquitted.
This is really a red herring, if the person who was killed was in some way related to you, if you were seen threatening the person.. etc etc etc, then even though you gave your gun to someone else, you still could found guilty if they don't belive that you gave it away.
But,moving closer to the RIAA situation, the closest analogy would be the murder victim's family sueing you for wrongful death, because they're going to try and prove that you should have known that the person you gave a gun to was going to go out and kill someone. OR a procescutor may try to get you for conspiracy to commit murder or acomplice to the fact, if they can prove that you knowningly supplied the weapon.
I know of and used DSL reports to pick my broadband. However, the fact at one point I found them usefull, or that I might think they provide a useful service doesn't lead me to conclude that everything they do is saintly and beyond question.
" In addition, they are selling another company's software without permission."
So in your opinion, once you buy software you shouldn't be allowed to sell it until you get the permission of the creator? Wow, didn't know the DMCA has gotten this deep already.
Please tell me the "SPAMMER" did more then post 2 messages in an forum which actually shares the same topic as his posts?
Or is it just enough that someone labeled him a "Spammer" that we have to "dump garbage on his lawn"?
Was it just an AD? IF this really was only about 2 posts in a FORUM, not emails, not anything else, something that the forum moderator could delete if requested, then this actually makes me sick.
But there's no guarrantee that the meticulously developed code will be more agile at responding to these unforseen inputs than the dirty code. Remember, the meticulous code was designed around a specific requirement, and now the requirement changed.
True, there is no Gaurantee, but there is a much higher probablility that clean code is more agile to requirements changing.
An example, one of the earliest temptations towards Q&D in developing web based applications is to abandon MVC. Put the database calls in the view and display the results of the calls. For small script programs (simple message boards, feedback pages) this is adiquate. Each row in the table matches perfectly to the data on the page.
But, say your new requirement is a new database? The client INSISTS on Oracle, or an integration to another database program? Basically the time you saved by not abstracting your model in a class and passing that to the view is lost by having to redo all your view pages. As well, the maintance aspects of that is also a concern, in that instead of creating a nice 'switch' in the back end to two different DAOs both giving the same bean, you have to maintain two sets of views. OR you put the database switch logic into the view (Ewww).
There are many cases like that, where slowing down, doing things with a methodology instead of jumping in feet first is a huge advantage to change requests. In J2EE and MVC (for web applications), change management were huge considerations in the development of the framework.
Yeah, but what if you do it right AND make the deadline?
In the example we're working on, there is no gaurantee that you're still in business at 2.0 ship time. Remember your compition is going to start from scratch implementing a better version of your product as soon as you tell anyone the features of your Rev 1.0 product. Only Microsoft can force compition out by getting in early with a buggy 1.0 product.
Maybe you havn't heard of Osborne computers (dead before 2.0), netscape (lost it at 4.7), Commodore (Amiga 3000 era) or the many other company's who raced out and created something cool in V1.0 and were first, but couldn't upgrade because it was too tough, too slow or too expensive.
As far as 'making the schedule', if you hack up a quick and dirty fix, expect your sales force to expect you to deliver on every project in that time frame. As well, if your code is complete, quick and dirty and you deliver it to the customer and miss a requirement or two (it always happen) or the customer thinks up a new nifty requirement (and wants to pay), good luck ripping open a Q&D mess to implement new functionality and keep it functional. In the product world, it is nearly a gaurantee that compition will implement a feature that marketing (or engineering) will figure is a "Must Have", while your product is in alpha Q/A.
Anal planning, overwriten code documentation and laborous code requirements probably never delivered a project on time, but total Q&D hack programming probably never delivered a stable bug free project/product.
And what do you want your new managers to hear on the reference call?
Your old company probably would like to say,
"um, yeah, Joe? Man, that guy coded up a storm and we got the project out, but we had to ditch all of his stuff when we wanted to go to Rev 2.0."
"In the end, it cost use twice as much to develop 2.0 because we most of our time trying to upgrade his stuff, then we had to start over. Actually we nearly had a programmer quit when he heard he had to support the old Rev 1.0 customers. From now on, when our developers start to code quick and dirty, we tell them not to Joe the code."
most likely your old company would say though, " yeah, Joe was young and inexpirenced. He was quick, but left unsupervised he tended to write code that wasn't usable elsewhere. As well, he kinda was tough to work with, he had a kinda prima-donna attitude. Would I hire him again? Umm... well... if i had some small one-off projects I needed done, I'd like him there, but I think in any large project work, he'd probably feel like the procedures were holding him back and he'd rebel"
forgot to see this, RFID, radio frequency identification, is used as a way to imbed a unique number in a product that is identifable by radio frequency scanning.
Serial Numbers are used as a way to imbed a unique number in a product that is identifable optically.
The ways you use this (tracking, validating) are all secondary. I always remember in movies at least, bank robbers and kidnappers wanting to be paid in non-sequntial ammounts so that the numbers couldn't be tracked. Hmmm...
People might not go to a store that scanned every bill they used, but with RFID, the scanner is located in the countertop or cash register, and will work automatically on any bills within a certain area.
Not that you'd still be reading this,
a) in your example, how would they tie you to the bill if the scanning system was hidden?
b) you're saying, people wouldn't go to a store where their bills were scanned, but they'd go to a store when their bills are scanned. No one, supposedly, would ever find out the RFID trackers were installed? If merchants could count on that kind of employee loyalty at the retail level, what makes you assume your bills aren't passed over a small optical reading strip right now, its just your not noticing?
Your credit card, shoes, belt, wallet, wedding ring, gold tooth, driver's license and PDA might all be singing at the same time.
So what stops them from right now doing an optical scan of the serial number on the bill and marking that with an optical scan of your face/finderprint or other means of identifying you?
A) you can't readily reproduce the orginal from the thumbnail
B) the purpose of the thumbnail is to reference the original piece and not replicate it.
C) the purpose of the thumbnail is not commercial in nature. INAL, but...
Finding a huge 4000x4000 pixel color image and shrinking it down to a 100x100 pixel B&W and using it on your commercial website as part of the artwork is still a no-no.
Finding a huge 4000x4000 pixel image, shrinking it down to a 100x100 pixel B&W image to use on your website as a link to the orginal art piece, as a diagram or example in an article is still OK.
There's one big assumption, that is that SCO is distributing a version of Linux that CONTAINS the illegal code?
They may be distributing Linux, but I thought the versions they were claiming copyright to were the newer versions? Could it be they's saying, "Ok, up to this point we were tricked, but we have customers to support, so we release. But since we own that code, and its up to us to set licence terms, the code outside of the kernals we released, no longer falls under the GPL. If you wish to develop under linux under GPL you must start from our code base. Otherwise contact us for license details."
Maybe the kernal on the ftp site doesn't even include the code their claiming infringment over? They could have modified it, and relased the new version to GPL, thus supporting the customers, but creating a fork via licencing vrs features.
In fact they include some features in their claims that have only been included with the 2.5 dev tree. It seems to me that SCO has already thought of this.
Actually.... Matel released the Aquarius home computer, which I belive was based on the intellevision platform. I'm not sure about any Colecovision Adam like upgrades for the intelivision tho. Speaking of the Adam, anyone programming a new OS for that beast?
Re:My father's Minivan already has this
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You should NEVER use both the positive and negative terminal's from a battery for boosting. Basically by doing this your essentially flicking a lighter by a source of hydrogen (the battery). When you make the final connection between batteries there is ALWAYS a large amount of sparks. Batteries product hydrogen and in some cases will explode if you provide a spark near them. This has the handy side-effect of showering everyone near by with large amounts of Sulfuric acid.
The WAY you should boost a car is to connect positive battery terminal to positve battery terminal, then connect the negative to a part of the frame where there is no paint and you can get a good connection, away from the battery compartment.
If you absolutly must connect to the negative terminal (can't find a good ground), connect the most dangerous negative terminal first (most enclosed space, less water in battery etc). That way there will be no sparks near the dangerous battery.
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting that when SCUMX was at $10, everyone was clammering to short the stock. Some wise posts said "Be carefull, if it continues to go up, your broker might cancel your margin and force you to buy the stock at a higher value for your loss"... I wonder how many people got burned because sco went to $20.
.com stocks at IPO, even though 90% are trading (if still trading) at prob 10% of their ipo price, you still would have lost because your broker wouldn't have let you owe them, when the stocks were skyrocketing.
Sure the stock is garbage, and its probably being pumped, but that doesn't mean it will go up further before the crash.
if you shorted the
My 2k box needs to be rebooted prob once every 2 weeks. Not bad actually.
Why you might ask does it need rebooting where yours doesn't?
Maybe because over the course of the last 3 years, I've downloaded more shitty little apps, lieing around in various states of install due to failed uninstallations.
I clean up and defrag sometimes, but due to the typical developers work week (60+hrs on work computer, Linux), I really don't want to be bothered with my 2k box until something really bad happens. As long as counterstrike, Mozilla and my photoprinter run, I'm fine.
Compared though to my old Win 98/NT 4 and my nightmare with ME, 2K stands the test for lack of daily maintance with moderate speed problems.
BTW, I just got a new gaming box, going to reinstall all my programs, and start fresh, with 2k.
I think also to the point is that by writing NUMA and RCU for AIX, IBM was in no ways bound not to rewrite NUMA and RCU for linux.
It might turn out that the code in question was really only supportave code, libraries and header information taken from a common ancestor, BSD or earlier unixies
SCO might be trying to make the point that by taking some code from BSD/AIX and merging with other code then releasing it to Linux, IBM in fact released all the code to linux.
I point to other posts, made throughout all this time, that AIX's supportave architecture and framework is fastly different then Linux, and a direct copy of code would not work.
NUMA and SMP will probably be yanked, the kernel will revert back to it's 2.2 days and probably stay there for a long, long time, until someone comes up with something completely original to replace whats missing.
I gather you have no idea how a large corporation like IBM develops Ideas.
IBM has an R&D wing, and its say in Boulder Colorodo (don't know for sure). There is a bunch of PHDs there who think up great new ideas. Also in that office is a large legal team which immediatly applies for a patent on those ideas. That is all that department produces.
IBM's product managers now evaluate the ideas created and says, "Hey I like this idea they've created out there, I think it would be great for AIX". So they direct teh AIX team (probably somewhere else in the US, say Boston, MA), to develop it for some planned upgrade of AIX.
Now, those product managers later say, "hey, Linux could use that idea too, put that idea into Linux!". The order is sent to the Linux team in San Jose, CA, and they are integrated into the Linux Kernal.
Then, before release, it goes to an oversite board to figure out if they can release, if the GPL is the right license for it (might be LGPLed). Then its released.
IE, just because the feature was developed at IBM, and was put both into AIX and Linux, does not mean it went FROM AIX TO Linux!
Now, SCO is sueing IBM saying it didn't have the right to put that idea into Linux becuase SCO somehow owned the idea. Its not going to work.
Simple,
have 3 teams of project leads build 3 sets of specs to do the same job. Job being to fly the plane.
But from the many many projects i've been on, I doubt 3 teams would be enough.
Read my other post about this, basically the Put trades are large frequent purchases. Large investors in insurance and airline industries play put options to balance their investments. All in All, companies spend HUNDREDS of MILLIONs of dollars buying theses options per year. Note, that's not the payoff, that's the cost of buying the option, which is usually far under the cost of the payoff. A put option with a strike price of 20 on a stock that recently went from 30 to 40, is probably very very cheap.
BTW, those airlines slipped 50% from the beginning of 2001 to just before the tragedy. Stocks that slip such as that are prime targets for buying put options.
Well, the Snopes sight specifies that the transactions before sept 11 were 200 times normal, but it doesn't specify the fequency 200 times normal spikes happen (1 per 200 days?). If one heavy institutional investor was responsible for the infrequent but regualar put purchases it would still explain it properly yet Snopes would still tell the truth.
/ 2/ 62018.shtml
BTW, the snopes article was updated Oct 3, 2001, less then 3 weeks from the tradegy. I don't think suffcient time had passed for a througho debunking.
btw... here's a source
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6
The CIA is going to raise $2.5 million dollars by investing in the Sept 11th tragedy?
Please, common sense dictates that when you factor in the size of the CIA budget and other less nefarious ways of procuring more cash (drug sales, counterfeiting foreign currency), the idea that they would risk investing in the Sept 11th tragedy seems ludicrous.
I heard from a snopes like site (which actually makes it just about as relevent as any source on the options story), that there WAS a large amount of put options on UAL and AA place before 9/11, but also there was alot of put options place before 5/11 and 1/11. Basically there is always people hedging bets in the airline industries against tragedy by buying put options (anytime a airplane goes down the respective share prices drop drastically, Alaska saw this happen). Its basically an insurance policy, and in this case it came through.
This is a case where an action looked at out-of-context looks nefarious because of circumstance. Once you know that people often buy large put options in industries prone to disaster, the fact that a routine purchase happened close to 9/11 looks pretty normal. In fact, its no more nefarious then buying an insurance policy against the World Trade Center collapsing (there was one). Does the purchase of that policy PROVE pre-existanct knowledge of the 9/11 attacks? Not by a long shot.
It is considered wise to buy a life insurance policy on yourself to protect your family in case of sudden death? Does this mean you EXPECT to die suddenly? No, your just being careful and cautious.
BTW, the purchase of a put option depends on the stock and the percentage difference in the price. The further you go from the current price the cheaper they get. There was a case when Warren Buffet (sp?) bought both put and get options on the same stock because he wanted some insurance in a volitle market.
It is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and if they can't do that (because you loaned your weapon to someone during the time in question, even if they can't prove he did it), then you are acquitted.
.. etc etc etc, then even though you gave your gun to someone else, you still could found guilty if they don't belive that you gave it away.
This is really a red herring, if the person who was killed was in some way related to you, if you were seen threatening the person
But,moving closer to the RIAA situation, the closest analogy would be the murder victim's family sueing you for wrongful death, because they're going to try and prove that you should have known that the person you gave a gun to was going to go out and kill someone. OR a procescutor may try to get you for conspiracy to commit murder or acomplice to the fact, if they can prove that you knowningly supplied the weapon.
I know of and used DSL reports to pick my broadband. However, the fact at one point I found them usefull, or that I might think they provide a useful service doesn't lead me to conclude that everything they do is saintly and beyond question.
" In addition, they are selling another company's software without permission."
So in your opinion, once you buy software you shouldn't be allowed to sell it until you get the permission of the creator? Wow, didn't know the DMCA has gotten this deep already.
Please tell me the "SPAMMER" did more then post 2 messages in an forum which actually shares the same topic as his posts?
Or is it just enough that someone labeled him a "Spammer" that we have to "dump garbage on his lawn"?
Was it just an AD? IF this really was only about 2 posts in a FORUM, not emails, not anything else, something that the forum moderator could delete if requested, then this actually makes me sick.
But there's no guarrantee that the meticulously developed code will be more agile at responding to these unforseen inputs than the dirty code. Remember, the meticulous code was designed around a specific requirement, and now the requirement changed.
True, there is no Gaurantee, but there is a much higher probablility that clean code is more agile to requirements changing.
An example, one of the earliest temptations towards Q&D in developing web based applications is to abandon MVC. Put the database calls in the view and display the results of the calls. For small script programs (simple message boards, feedback pages) this is adiquate. Each row in the table matches perfectly to the data on the page.
But, say your new requirement is a new database? The client INSISTS on Oracle, or an integration to another database program? Basically the time you saved by not abstracting your model in a class and passing that to the view is lost by having to redo all your view pages. As well, the maintance aspects of that is also a concern, in that instead of creating a nice 'switch' in the back end to two different DAOs both giving the same bean, you have to maintain two sets of views. OR you put the database switch logic into the view (Ewww).
There are many cases like that, where slowing down, doing things with a methodology instead of jumping in feet first is a huge advantage to change requests. In J2EE and MVC (for web applications), change management were huge considerations in the development of the framework.
Yeah, but what if you do it right AND make the deadline?
In the example we're working on, there is no gaurantee that you're still in business at 2.0 ship time. Remember your compition is going to start from scratch implementing a better version of your product as soon as you tell anyone the features of your Rev 1.0 product. Only Microsoft can force compition out by getting in early with a buggy 1.0 product.
Maybe you havn't heard of Osborne computers (dead before 2.0), netscape (lost it at 4.7), Commodore (Amiga 3000 era) or the many other company's who raced out and created something cool in V1.0 and were first, but couldn't upgrade because it was too tough, too slow or too expensive.
As far as 'making the schedule', if you hack up a quick and dirty fix, expect your sales force to expect you to deliver on every project in that time frame. As well, if your code is complete, quick and dirty and you deliver it to the customer and miss a requirement or two (it always happen) or the customer thinks up a new nifty requirement (and wants to pay), good luck ripping open a Q&D mess to implement new functionality and keep it functional. In the product world, it is nearly a gaurantee that compition will implement a feature that marketing (or engineering) will figure is a "Must Have", while your product is in alpha Q/A.
Anal planning, overwriten code documentation and laborous code requirements probably never delivered a project on time, but total Q&D hack programming probably never delivered a stable bug free project/product.
And what do you want your new managers to hear on the reference call?
Your old company probably would like to say,
"um, yeah, Joe? Man, that guy coded up a storm and we got the project out, but we had to ditch all of his stuff when we wanted to go to Rev 2.0."
"In the end, it cost use twice as much to develop 2.0 because we most of our time trying to upgrade his stuff, then we had to start over. Actually we nearly had a programmer quit when he heard he had to support the old Rev 1.0 customers. From now on, when our developers start to code quick and dirty, we tell them not to Joe the code."
most likely your old company would say though,
" yeah, Joe was young and inexpirenced. He was quick, but left unsupervised he tended to write code that wasn't usable elsewhere. As well, he kinda was tough to work with, he had a kinda prima-donna attitude. Would I hire him again? Umm... well... if i had some small one-off projects I needed done, I'd like him there, but I think in any large project work, he'd probably feel like the procedures were holding him back and he'd rebel"
forgot to see this, RFID, radio frequency identification, is used as a way to imbed a unique number in a product that is identifable by radio frequency scanning.
Serial Numbers are used as a way to imbed a unique number in a product that is identifable optically.
The ways you use this (tracking, validating) are all secondary. I always remember in movies at least, bank robbers and kidnappers wanting to be paid in non-sequntial ammounts so that the numbers couldn't be tracked. Hmmm...
People might not go to a store that scanned every bill they used, but with RFID, the scanner is located in the countertop or cash register, and will work automatically on any bills within a certain area.
Not that you'd still be reading this,
a) in your example, how would they tie you to the bill if the scanning system was hidden?
b) you're saying, people wouldn't go to a store where their bills were scanned, but they'd go to a store when their bills are scanned. No one, supposedly, would ever find out the RFID trackers were installed? If merchants could count on that kind of employee loyalty at the retail level, what makes you assume your bills aren't passed over a small optical reading strip right now, its just your not noticing?
Your credit card, shoes, belt, wallet, wedding ring, gold tooth, driver's license and PDA might all be singing at the same time.
So what stops them from right now doing an optical scan of the serial number on the bill and marking that with an optical scan of your face/finderprint or other means of identifying you?
RFID is a technology designed EXPLICITLY for tracking things
so is the printing of easy to read/scan unique serial numbers... whoops, money already has those.
You should read the article.
What makes a thumnail ok is,
A) you can't readily reproduce the orginal from the thumbnail
B) the purpose of the thumbnail is to reference the original piece and not replicate it.
C) the purpose of the thumbnail is not commercial in nature.
INAL, but...
Finding a huge 4000x4000 pixel color image and shrinking it down to a 100x100 pixel B&W and using it on your commercial website as part of the artwork is still a no-no.
Finding a huge 4000x4000 pixel image, shrinking it down to a 100x100 pixel B&W image to use on your website as a link to the orginal art piece, as a diagram or example in an article is still OK.
just as SCO's stock price gets near $10, they release a new interview, news report or statement?
Hmmm
There's one big assumption, that is that SCO is distributing a version of Linux that CONTAINS the illegal code?
They may be distributing Linux, but I thought the versions they were claiming copyright to were the newer versions? Could it be they's saying, "Ok, up to this point we were tricked, but we have customers to support, so we release. But since we own that code, and its up to us to set licence terms, the code outside of the kernals we released, no longer falls under the GPL. If you wish to develop under linux under GPL you must start from our code base. Otherwise contact us for license details."
Maybe the kernal on the ftp site doesn't even include the code their claiming infringment over? They could have modified it, and relased the new version to GPL, thus supporting the customers, but creating a fork via licencing vrs features.
In fact they include some features in their claims that have only been included with the 2.5 dev tree. It seems to me that SCO has already thought of this.
Actually.... Matel released the Aquarius home computer, which I belive was based on the intellevision platform. I'm not sure about any Colecovision Adam like upgrades for the intelivision tho. Speaking of the Adam, anyone programming a new OS for that beast?
You should NEVER use both the positive and negative terminal's from a battery for boosting. Basically by doing this your essentially flicking a lighter by a source of hydrogen (the battery). When you make the final connection between batteries there is ALWAYS a large amount of sparks. Batteries product hydrogen and in some cases will explode if you provide a spark near them. This has the handy side-effect of showering everyone near by with large amounts of Sulfuric acid.
The WAY you should boost a car is to connect positive battery terminal to positve battery terminal, then connect the negative to a part of the frame where there is no paint and you can get a good connection, away from the battery compartment.
If you absolutly must connect to the negative terminal (can't find a good ground), connect the most dangerous negative terminal first (most enclosed space, less water in battery etc). That way there will be no sparks near the dangerous battery.