homeless don't like to be entangled, don't like to make agreements, and really just want to be left alone with no responsibility, no registration, no contractural obligations...
Well, since attacking the GPL provides zero benefit to SCO (that I can see), one can only conclude that somebody else put them up to it. Let's see now, who would benefit from SCO attacking the GPL... could it be...
SATAN?!?
Or maybe just his wholly owned subsidiary in Redmond...
For a boycott to work, you would have to find somebody actually contemplating buying a product from SCO (people that have already paid for it don't count). Seems to me, people that stupid are going to be pretty hard to find!
HP distributes thosands of copies of Linux every day embedded in HP devices. SCO has now put HP on notice that it owes them $32 for every copy of embedded Linux it distributes. Gee, I can't think of any reason HP would be unhappy with SCO... can you?
The only time I've seen an amature lobbyist actually get results was when said lobbyist was a gorgeous blond in Sacramento -- but I guess it does prove that state legislators ARE interested in something besides money!
when legislators in a financially strapped state insist on paying _more_ for something then they need to. Even if they have no intention of using anything but Microsoft software, the minute they present open source as a viable alternative, Microsoft will swoop in offering massive discounts as incentives to stay locked in to their proprietary solutions. Why anybody would intentionally work to block this negotiating tactic can only be explained as corruption. But then, these are the same people trying to introduce a bill to pass a law preventing the city of Portland from buying the local electric utility (PGE) from the now discredited Enron -- despite the fact that Portland had made no attempt yet to do so. Again, they're effective tying their own hands; in the latter case, they are preventing the city of Portland from using the threat of Eminent Domain to extract concessions from Enron. Why anbody would do this, short of being handed a stack of unmarked bills under the table by company executives, is beyond me...
"We want a single platform." == "We want EVERY machine to be effected by any virus or worm that's going around." How 'bout doing some research first to see if supporting multiple platforms really does cost more?
The fact that you haven't harmed me doesn't do anything to stop me from filing a lawsuit against you! Sure, I won't prevail in court, but in the meantime it will cost you big bucks in legal fees! Trust me.. I was sued for $500,000 by somebody who subsequently dropped the suit, but not before I'd spent over $1000 on lawyers to respond to her claims. (If you don't respond, they automatically win.) And of course, she claimed to be transigent, which means the court waived all filing fees, and her attorney was working on a commission basis. Bottom line -- she managed to cost me thousands, and didn't have to spend a dime of her own money!
But I'm digressing. Yes, here in the US, you _do_ need to protect yourself from litigation, even if the litigation is totally unjustified and spurious. And countersuing for abuse of process offers little relief when the entity suing you has no assets of values anyway. SCO has nothing to lose, that's what makes it dangerous!
If these 148 files are "direct Sequent UNIX code", then shouldn't they still have the Sequent copyright in them? I've never worked for any company that didn't put a copyright notice in every file as a matter of general principle. Is SCO alleging they copied the files but removed the copyright notices?
If I go into a chat room and make false claims about some company in order to make it's stock go up or down, I can be charged with securities fraud. (As at least one person has been.) Why then is it ok to make equally inacurate claims in a press release? These guys are deliberately trying to sabotage the share values of many large companies that have built products around Linux -- including IBM, Oracle, HP, Sharp and many others. Try lying about these companies in a public forum in a transparent attempt to try to drive their stock down, and see if the SEC doesn't come after you!
Self repairing mechanisms don't deteriorate. You think the molecules of your body now are all the same ones that were in your body when you were born? No, they are constantly getting replaced.
Humanoids have been around for about 6 million years. Even before direct domestication, dogs used to hang out around humans. Why? We tend to leave out lots of tasty leftovers, and dogs are basically scanvengers. So, for millions of years, dogs and humans have been living alongside each other, and the dogs that managed to not piss off the humans survived. So dogs have had _some_ effect on canine evolution for about 6 million years. (The inverse is also true; dogs have been effecting human evolution for the same time period. Even non-domesticated dogs hanging out around your camp can warn you of approaching danger. Effectively, dogs and humans have co-evolved to be compatible with each other.)
I think the problem is that too many of the rich and powerful beleive the rapture/battle of Armegedon is going to end it all in a few years anyway, so why bother doing anything about the environment. (Yes, I know this sounds insane, but I can't think of any other explaination for thier actions.) In that case, telling them they can live to be 600 isn't going to do any good.
As I understand, there IS a human component; usually a temporary employee who clicks "Ok" for every hit the automated system kicks out. Then if someone complains, they fire the temporary employee and have plausible deniability.
What happens when your ISP recieves the letter, though? They HAVE to shut your connection off...
So, what's to stop anybody that receives one of these letters from sending a simular letter to the sender's ISP? Do corporations have legal recourse, bet individuals don't?
Didn't somebody actually try to download the file and see if it was indeed an unauthorized copy of pacman?
Wouldn't they have to actually run the file to see if it was infringing? This sounds like an excellent way of getting virii onto the lawyers' machines, doesn't it?
That page states that 20% of offenders jailed by states are there for drug offenses. this page states that more than 50% of federal prisoners are in jail on drug offenses. Neither one gives percentage of local inmates (county, city, etc.) Not sure where you get "half that number" from. The point is, in an era of budget deficits, we're still spending tens of billions of dollars every year fighting "the war on drugs", and it doesn't appear to have effected the supply of drugs at all. Perhaps we would be better off trying to lessen the demand side of the equation. All the criminal drug sellers could be put out of business tomorrow if legal sellers were undercutting their prices (although yes, drug users would still commit crimes).
That link states "Drug offenders make up more than half of all federal prisoners." It does not say "non-violent", and does not say "all prisoners". It seems intuitive that federal prisons would have a higher percentage of drug offenders. That means about 75,000 drug offenders at $20,000/year per offender, or $1.5 billion per year that the federal government is spending on prisons alone to fight "the drug war". Have these billions spent had any effect on the supply side of the illicit drug market?
There are between 70,000 and 80,000 inmates in CA. Thousands are released early every month to prevent overcrowding. If we assume 30,000 of these are on drug charges (that's below the national average, but the feds probably book a higher percentage of people on drug charges) and that each one cost $30,000/year to incarcerate, that means it costs California $900 million a year for this small part of the war on drugs. So, to answer my own question, no releasing them in and of itself would not balance the budget. But it would save almost $1 billion a year.
Duh! Of course I meant "half the people that are in jail are in jail on drug-related charges". Yes, there really are about 1 million people in jail on drug charges. This is the major reason that our jails are so overcrowded and that we have the highest percentage of our population in jail of any developed nation!
Half the people in the US are in jail on drug-related charges. How much money could California save by releasing all persons convicted of non-violent drug offenses (e.g. possession)? Enough to balance the budget? The governor has the power to pardon any convict; does she also have the power to declare a blanket amnesty?
Slashdot Mirror
... or maybe they're just paranoid?
SATAN?!?
Or maybe just his wholly owned subsidiary in Redmond...
For a boycott to work, you would have to find somebody actually contemplating buying a product from SCO (people that have already paid for it don't count). Seems to me, people that stupid are going to be pretty hard to find!
HP distributes thosands of copies of Linux every day embedded in HP devices. SCO has now put HP on notice that it owes them $32 for every copy of embedded Linux it distributes. Gee, I can't think of any reason HP would be unhappy with SCO... can you?
The only time I've seen an amature lobbyist actually get results was when said lobbyist was a gorgeous blond in Sacramento -- but I guess it does prove that state legislators ARE interested in something besides money!
Even as one of those unemployed consultants, I still suspect you are exagerating.
when legislators in a financially strapped state insist on paying _more_ for something then they need to. Even if they have no intention of using anything but Microsoft software, the minute they present open source as a viable alternative, Microsoft will swoop in offering massive discounts as incentives to stay locked in to their proprietary solutions. Why anybody would intentionally work to block this negotiating tactic can only be explained as corruption. But then, these are the same people trying to introduce a bill to pass a law preventing the city of Portland from buying the local electric utility (PGE) from the now discredited Enron -- despite the fact that Portland had made no attempt yet to do so. Again, they're effective tying their own hands; in the latter case, they are preventing the city of Portland from using the threat of Eminent Domain to extract concessions from Enron. Why anbody would do this, short of being handed a stack of unmarked bills under the table by company executives, is beyond me...
"We want a single platform." == "We want EVERY machine to be effected by any virus or worm that's going around." How 'bout doing some research first to see if supporting multiple platforms really does cost more?
But I'm digressing. Yes, here in the US, you _do_ need to protect yourself from litigation, even if the litigation is totally unjustified and spurious. And countersuing for abuse of process offers little relief when the entity suing you has no assets of values anyway. SCO has nothing to lose, that's what makes it dangerous!
If these 148 files are "direct Sequent UNIX code", then shouldn't they still have the Sequent copyright in them? I've never worked for any company that didn't put a copyright notice in every file as a matter of general principle. Is SCO alleging they copied the files but removed the copyright notices?
We already know they _do_ hold SCOX stock and _are_ selling it. How do you know they haven't sold short on IBM or RedHat?
If I go into a chat room and make false claims about some company in order to make it's stock go up or down, I can be charged with securities fraud. (As at least one person has been.) Why then is it ok to make equally inacurate claims in a press release? These guys are deliberately trying to sabotage the share values of many large companies that have built products around Linux -- including IBM, Oracle, HP, Sharp and many others. Try lying about these companies in a public forum in a transparent attempt to try to drive their stock down, and see if the SEC doesn't come after you!
Is it considered insider trading if you know your claims are full of shit, but don't admit it to anybody else?
Self repairing mechanisms don't deteriorate. You think the molecules of your body now are all the same ones that were in your body when you were born? No, they are constantly getting replaced.
Humanoids have been around for about 6 million years. Even before direct domestication, dogs used to hang out around humans. Why? We tend to leave out lots of tasty leftovers, and dogs are basically scanvengers. So, for millions of years, dogs and humans have been living alongside each other, and the dogs that managed to not piss off the humans survived. So dogs have had _some_ effect on canine evolution for about 6 million years. (The inverse is also true; dogs have been effecting human evolution for the same time period. Even non-domesticated dogs hanging out around your camp can warn you of approaching danger. Effectively, dogs and humans have co-evolved to be compatible with each other.)
I think the problem is that too many of the rich and powerful beleive the rapture/battle of Armegedon is going to end it all in a few years anyway, so why bother doing anything about the environment. (Yes, I know this sounds insane, but I can't think of any other explaination for thier actions.) In that case, telling them they can live to be 600 isn't going to do any good.
As I understand, there IS a human component; usually a temporary employee who clicks "Ok" for every hit the automated system kicks out. Then if someone complains, they fire the temporary employee and have plausible deniability.
So, what's to stop anybody that receives one of these letters from sending a simular letter to the sender's ISP? Do corporations have legal recourse, bet individuals don't?
Wouldn't they have to actually run the file to see if it was infringing? This sounds like an excellent way of getting virii onto the lawyers' machines, doesn't it?
That page states that 20% of offenders jailed by states are there for drug offenses. this page states that more than 50% of federal prisoners are in jail on drug offenses. Neither one gives percentage of local inmates (county, city, etc.) Not sure where you get "half that number" from. The point is, in an era of budget deficits, we're still spending tens of billions of dollars every year fighting "the war on drugs", and it doesn't appear to have effected the supply of drugs at all. Perhaps we would be better off trying to lessen the demand side of the equation. All the criminal drug sellers could be put out of business tomorrow if legal sellers were undercutting their prices (although yes, drug users would still commit crimes).
That link states "Drug offenders make up more than half of all federal prisoners." It does not say "non-violent", and does not say "all prisoners". It seems intuitive that federal prisons would have a higher percentage of drug offenders. That means about 75,000 drug offenders at $20,000/year per offender, or $1.5 billion per year that the federal government is spending on prisons alone to fight "the drug war". Have these billions spent had any effect on the supply side of the illicit drug market?
There are between 70,000 and 80,000 inmates in CA. Thousands are released early every month to prevent overcrowding. If we assume 30,000 of these are on drug charges (that's below the national average, but the feds probably book a higher percentage of people on drug charges) and that each one cost $30,000/year to incarcerate, that means it costs California $900 million a year for this small part of the war on drugs. So, to answer my own question, no releasing them in and of itself would not balance the budget. But it would save almost $1 billion a year.
Duh! Of course I meant "half the people that are in jail are in jail on drug-related charges". Yes, there really are about 1 million people in jail on drug charges. This is the major reason that our jails are so overcrowded and that we have the highest percentage of our population in jail of any developed nation!
... that was before Linux changed the spelling from "flavour" to "flavor"!
Half the people in the US are in jail on drug-related charges. How much money could California save by releasing all persons convicted of non-violent drug offenses (e.g. possession)? Enough to balance the budget? The governor has the power to pardon any convict; does she also have the power to declare a blanket amnesty?