|
|
| Ibiblio Humor: Duke Buys Public Domain |
 |
|
Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:35 PM EST
|
Ibiblio has some funny joke stories today on their home page, including the "news" that Duke University has bought the public domain, prompting WIPO to ask, "Who did they pay?" "Duke University, of Durham, North Carolina, purchased the entirety of the public domain late last evening for a fee of 2.2 trillion dollars. Sources familiar with the negotiation report that Duke's reclamation of the public domain is unprecedented. As a result of the purchase, Duke University is the sole rights-holder to a huge collection of materials, including the Bible, the works of Shakespeare and Dante, and Francis Scott Key's The Star Spangled Banner.. . . "ibiblio, a champion of the public domain for 12 years, will undergo major changes as a result of the purchase. Over the next few weeks, we'll begin relocating our staff and hardware to the Duke campus. We're also excited about the introduction of ibiblio Premium Services, and the ibiblio GoldPlus Access Pass. These subscription services will allow you access to the content you love, without annoying pop-under ads. " "News" of a SCO-MS-Disney merger, too. Pop-under ads for access to public domain works. Love the concept, guys. Let's do lunch.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST |
With an April Fool's article like that, it would be an excessive task to correct
the errors.
Put anything here that you think is RIGHT. ;)
P.S. Guess you can expect anything out of a church-sponsored university whose
mascot is the "Blue Devil".
---
IANBAHD--I Ain't Nothin' But A Hound Dog (A Smart One, Tho).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:55 PM EST |
| Please post your updates and corrections here, so we may promptly bury them... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fxbushman on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 07:57 PM EST |
These end-of-day spikes in SCOX are becoming a regular
thing. Can anyone tell me if there is a natural explanation
for this, or (putting on my tin-foil hat) is someone
gaming it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:05 PM EST |
From the eff.org "Effector" newsletter:
* SCO to Sue Over Unauthorized Use of Earth's Resources
Lindon, UT - On the heels of its campaign against users of the Free Software
program Linux, the SCO Group today announced that it will begin a new round of
lawsuits against users of other free resources, including fire, water, air and
land.
"People think they can just use free things without paying for them,"
said SCO CEO Daryl McBribe. "This kind of 'socialism' is anti-American and
a violation of the Constitution. It's up to corporations like SCO to crush that
kind of idealism."
Added Daryl's other brother Daryl, "Yeah, what he said."
SCO plans to offer a generous and reasonable licensing program for Earth's
remaining natural resources with prices as low as $700 per carbon-based life
form.
"We think once people realize how much money it takes to fund
lawsuits...er...um. I mean, innovation, they will happily sign up," said
McBribe.
NYT article on SCO lawsuits: <http://www.eff.org/cgi/tiny?urlID=168>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmichel on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST |
Disney should buy SCO. Then they could move SCO headquarters in to Fantasyland
and make Mickey Mouse the mascot for SCO Unix.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:10 PM EST |
| Here's one from The Register:
Intel's Itanium
rockets to 64-bit shipment lead
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: heretic on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 08:26 PM EST |
Another fun one from DistroWatch : Operating Systems
on a Collision Course
heretic[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vroomfondel on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 09:00 PM EST |
I recall once seeing an ad for some Apollo networking software, presumably a
variant of their Domain networking, called Public Domain. I chuckled about it,
but it was many years ago, so I can't give a reference. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chaz_paw on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 09:02 PM EST |
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/33212.html
Charles
---
United we stand.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: zcat on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 09:05 PM EST |
And yet no major announcements from SCO? If there was ever a more appropriate
date for them .. :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 09:10 PM EST |
How about, the people who where payed the 2.2 trillion $ get rid of much of the
national debt - once and for all and completly! That would really be
Shakesperean - Ghost writers eliminate debt of the living - now all can live it
up and live/die going into debt again.... Problem is, Shakespear was a Brit[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dick Gingras on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 09:14 PM EST |
And
here's another spoof from Infoworld's Ed Foster making fun of
Lexmark.
Hopefully, the increasing number of articles exposing and
ridiculing corporate IP "land grabs" will reach the general public and foster a
ground swell of opposition to Congress' largesse towards corporations and their
abuse of the DMCA.
---
SCO Caro Mortuum Erit! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 09:23 PM EST |
| By Phaedrus Senior Researcher Alex Roston
Many years ago, before
postmodernism lost all credibilty, the founder of this school of thought,
Jacques Derrida, had an interesting idea. Our society, Derrida claimed, grants
some types of people, notably philosophers, the right of "privileged speech."
What Derrida meant by this is that our society assumes that certain classes of
people use language in a manner which is absolutely concrete and totally
uncluttered by those ambiguities of speech and writing with which the rest of us
struggle daily. These "privileged" speakers say what they mean, they mean what
they say, and their words are not subject to interpretation with ordinary
literary tools. If you're critiquing Kant, for example, you're not allowed to
bring up this great philosopher's psychology, his own personal experiences, or
his motivations. As a philosopher, Kant has been granted "privileged speech," so
you can only discuss Kant's ideas through a filter of "pure reason."
Derrida
also argued that this grant of "privileged speech" to some individuals but not
others is essentially unjust. He claimed that every text we interpret should be
approached with the same set of rules, no matter who wrote it or what their
profession might be.
Here at Groklaw we have lots of experience with the
problem of "privileged speech." Some members of the computing community, such as
analysts, speak with much more privilege than others, such as Linux advocates.
Analysts are assumed to know more than Linux advocates even when the analyst,
Laura Didio of Yankee group for example, was a French Major in college, the
Linux Advocate is an expert paralegal, and the issue at hand is a legal case. To
make the example even more concrete, let's look at Didio's comments in the last
four paragraphs of a January 15th article from NewsFactorNetwork:
Is much
of the SCO posturing for show? "SCO is being very aggressive about protecting
what it perceives as its legal rights to the copyright," Yankee Group senior
analyst Laura DiDio told NewsFactor. With this announcement, "certainly SCO is
raising the noise level and trying to raise the ante."
Will the demand for
licensing fees have an impact overseas? "Linux has had a lot of appeal for
government agencies abroad," commented DiDio. "I think that many of the
Europeans are going to do what their American counterparts have done and try to
ignore it for as long as possible," she said.
"SCO is not going away," DiDio
continued. "They are in this for the long haul. They have a long uphill climb to
win this lawsuit, and it's going to take months, even years. We'll see a lot of
legal maneuvering on both sides. However, if they do prevail, it is a huge
payday for SCO," she pointed out.
"Last year, SCO may have been thought of
as a gnat. Today, it's more like a couple of bees buzzing around," said DiDio.
Didio didn't say anything new here. The same quote would have been
relevant six months ago and unless SCO's case gets thrown out of court, her
statement will be relevant six months from now.
Compare that with the the paralegal's
point of view. PJ from Groklaw prints an entire legal document, analyses
it, and provides a forum where others can comment on both the document and
her analysis. The paralegal's work is incredibly useful while the analyst's
work contains no new information. But by the time you read my little rant, the
analyst's work will have been quoted on a dozen important websites, and the
paralegal's work... sometimes she gets a quote or two, but not nearly as often
as "heavy hitters" like Enderle
Now that we've compared these two documents,
let's take a little quiz. Who should have privileged speech? Who does
have privileged speech? Can you explain the apparent dichotomy?
That's
right. White is black, wrong is right, war is peace and freedom is - let's not
go there. The problem for us here at Groklaw is as follows: How can we make
society give us privileged speech? How can we get quoted as often as Rob Enderle
or Laura Didio?
Obviously having a totally open process where anyone can
comment and we all help each other make sure our conclusions are based in solid,
fact based research isn't working. People like Daniel Lyons, Laura Didio, and
Rob Enderle can make dozens of factual mistakes, do poor research, and provide
clueless commentary, but they're still taken very seriously. With this in mind,
I'd like to propose that we here at Groklaw should make a major change in the
way we handle our affairs.
I think we should become
analysts.
First of all, we need to change Groklaw's name to something
that sounds very serious and important. I'd like to suggest that we call
ourselves the "American Phaedrus Group." Phaedrus is the title of a work
by Plato which contains some of the dialogues of Socrates. This word has a
powerful Greco-Latin sound, and the use of a Greek work implies that our
thoughts are very important. More importantly, the word "American" has a
deep resonance to US citizens, so everyone who comes to the site will think
we're patriotic, deep thinkers who know Greek and Latin. I think that will play
very well and substantially improve the chances of a Groklaw/Phaedrus Group
researcher being quoted in the trade press.
(Given France's unwillingness to
help us remove the dangerous criminal Saddam Hussein from power, I think that
The Yankee Group's strategy of hiring Laura Didio, a French Major, has pretty
much played out as a value proposition. Besides, Latin and Greek trump French as
classical languages so I think this will work really well, particularly if we
can hire someone who actually speaks Greek or Latin.)
Second, I think
we need to change the look of the website. While the pretty green leaves of the
default look imply a pleasant femininity, I believe we'd have more credibility
if we had a more aggressive image. I think we should go with a blue/gold/red
color scheme and the opening page of the site should feature a photograph of an
older male and younger female model, both dressed in power suits, gazing at a
computer with decisive looks on their faces. Ordinarily, I'd recommend that they
be looking at a PowerPoint presentation, but since we will still nominally be a
Linux site, I suppose we should use StarOffice Impress instead. Most people
won't notice the difference.
Third, we need to adopt a corporate structure.
That means we'll all need titles. PJ, of course, will be our CEO and Mathfox
will be the Senior Vice President in Charge of Site Design. People who have
contributed substantial amounts of research to one or more articles will receive
the title of "Senior Researcher." Those who frequently contribute useful URLS
will be titled "Researcher," and those who hang out in the forums and discuss
the SCO vs. IBM case will be called "Associates." Everyone who wishes to stay on
as a member of Groklaw/Phaedrus will need to supply a professional picture of
themselves in appropriate business garb. The redesigned website software will
put pictures of us next to our posts, so that each of our utterances is attached
to the image of a business suit.
Given the Greco-Latin theme of the new
company, I also think we should use the word "dialogue" instead of "forum" or
"comments." That would play very nicely. (Maybe we can work a doric column into
the new site design or something?)
Fourth, we need to stop providing free
information. In particular, the legal filings and rulings should be considered
"classified" despite the fact that they are publicly available, and no
discussion of actual code should ever take place before the public, which is ill
equipped to understand the real issues. By the same logic, no off-site links
should be provided. The public doesn't have the patience to follow every URL
that might lead to some kind of cite or footnote. Instead, we will sell our
information to the managers of interested technology companies and brokerages
houses. The sole exception to this policy will be the posting of one "teaser"
story every week, which we will discuss as if we were still an open site, and we
will not let the story stay up for more than a few days. After that it will be
"archived" and a fee will be required to view the "old" story.
Fifth, we
need to develop a web-based system for selling reports. There should be a very
general report available for less than a hundred dollars, and the more research
intensive reports should be priced upward accordingly. The simple fact is that
no-one thinks free information is worth looking at, much less acting upon, so we
simply shouldn't provide it. The very act of providing free information is more
destructive of our credibility than anything else I can imagine, and we need to
stop doing it right away.
I know that some of you feel that the what I'm
suggesting is unethical, but we must face these simple facts: Cites, footnotes,
quotes, and other evidences of good research are completely meaningless in the
postmodern era. Giving solid, well researched information away to the public is
a completely futile strategy for gaining credibility. We can only be taken
seriously if we hoard information and force the people we want to convince of
our pro-Linux position to buy that information from us for at the highest
possible price. Once we adopt this strategy, we too will be granted "privileged
speech." Our opinions will become correspondingly more valuable and we will be
quoted as frequently as Enderle or DiDio. With luck (and the hiring of a good
agent,) it's even possible that one of us will be asked to do a column for
Forbes or some similar publication.
Eventually, we'll offer an IPO, get
rich, sue the Gartner group for violating our "business patents" on consulting,
and retire en-masse to some country without an extradition treaty. I vote for
Paraguay.
---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your
chart?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- POMO, PRIVILEGED SPEECH, AND THE SEARCH FOR CREDIBILITY - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST
- POMO, PRIVILEGED SPEECH, AND THE SEARCH FOR CREDIBILITY - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 10:18 PM EST
- POMO, PRIVILEGED SPEECH, AND THE SEARCH FOR CREDIBILITY - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 10:53 PM EST
- This is the most brilliant damned... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 11:09 PM EST
- POMO, PRIVILEGED SPEECH, AND THE SEARCH FOR CREDIBILITY - Authored by: tomw on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 02:51 AM EST
- POMO, PRIVILEGED SPEECH, AND THE SEARCH FOR CREDIBILITY - Authored by: grouch on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 03:53 AM EST
- Good one ....very good one - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 05:08 AM EST
- Bravo! - Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST
- And Next Year, We Will Celebrate Our 100 Year Anniversary! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 10:03 PM EST |
Here's
a link to a
very troublesome development. I hope those who understand this stuff can help
us learn what it means.
(New York, April 1, 2004) Software
vendor the SCO Group (NASDAQ:SCOX) has reached an agreement with its preferred
shareholders to register its Series A-1 preferred shares and offer them for sale
to the public. In doing so, it would join other widely held companies with
preffered share issues such as General Motors, First Union, several airlines,
and more. Under the agreement, the company will file a prospectus for the
preferred shares and seek to have them listed on a public exchange after an
initial public offering. The company's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ, but
discussions with the exchange have so far failed to secure approval to list the
preferred stock.
The preferred stock pays an attractive dividend rate of 8%
starting in October, and the rate increases 2% yearly up to a cap of 12%. Each
share of preferred stock has a face value of $1000 and is convertible at the
option of the holder to a quantity of common stock determined by a variable
converstion rate with a floor of 13.50. Conversion is mandatory if the common
stock trades above 24.50. The company's stock closed yesterday at 8.59. Only
50,000 preferred shares are currently outstanding and the quantity to be offered
to the public has not been determined. The shares are connected to a deal with
private investors in 2003 that added $50 million to the company's
coffers.
Larry Goldfarb, whose Larkspur, California based firm currently
holds 20,000 shares of the new issue said, "We are pleased to bring this
investment opportunity to the wider public who can now benefit from the momentum
SCO has achieved in its business. We felt the company's common stock could trade
at multiples of its valuation, and this development should renew interest in its
potential."
SCO's CFO Bob Bench commented, "This deal will preserve our war
chest and permit SCO to continue its endeavors to bring legitimacy and
accountability to the software sector. This opportunity for the public to join
us in innovation in the face of exciting challenges may not appear
again."
The IPO for the preferred shares will be conducted by the investment
banking divisions of Deutsche Bank Securites and the Royal Bank of Canada. The
banks may own or make a market in SCO Group securities and may seek future
invesment banking business with the company. Their fees for the offering will be
capped at $1.6 million.
The SCO Group is the owner of the UNIX(R)
operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions. It earned 43
cents per share in fiscal 2003 on revenue of $80 million. The company has a
worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers and is
celebrating its 25th year of operation in 2004.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2004 @ 11:57 PM EST |
Find them at:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/aprilfool2.html
I especially enjoyed the Internet clean up day one!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 12:46 AM EST |
"Who did they pay?" I'm sure that they paid the same people you always
pay to buy works from the public domain: members of congress.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 02 2004 @ 01:41 AM EST |
| I must confess I did not much like this years April Fool's day. The reason is
that given the totally absurd directions the battles over software, Internet and
"intellectual property" are going, I now find it genuinely difficult to see what
is a joke article, what isn't.
I mean, most of this and the last year's real
news about SCO, software patents, copyright legislation etc. would have been
considered April Fool's day jokes of very questionable taste even as recently as
about 5 years ago.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
