Australian Firm Asks SCO To Detail Evidence 488
An anonymous reader submits A Perth, Western Australian company called CyberKnights has told SCO ANZ's MD to detail its IP claims or face legal action for fraud. SCO has just released licenses for Australasia and claims enquiries by several companies already."
about time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:about time (Score:5, Interesting)
I have not yet found, statistics on how many registered voters are fighting back, what state does these voters come from, etc etc. I think it would be interesting if EFF had that to show what kind of support against SCO exists. Anyone know if this exists? (Please tell me I am blind and cant read
PLEASE DON'T CLICK ON THE CYBERKNIGHTS LINK! (Score:3, Informative)
Please lay off that link for a few days!
SCO: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO: (Score:2)
SCO: American for fraud
??
Re:SCO: (Score:2)
Re:SCO: (Score:2, Informative)
It's a satire on (U.S.) Fosters commercials that carry the tagline "Fosters: Australian for Beer".
Which is actually pretty funny all by itself.
Re:SCO: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason it's exported is because nobody's silly enough to drink it here.
Kind of like Corona... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OT: Tourists (Score:3, Funny)
Heeding my advice, they all immediately switched to Heineken and I gave up trying.
Re:OT: Tourists (Score:3, Insightful)
australian fraud? (Score:2)
criminals (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:criminals (Score:5, Funny)
We could only hope.
Re:criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
But for the vast majority of wealthy offenders, they will never see the inside of a courthouse, much less a prison. Ken Lay's Enron stole billions from California, with the White House providing political cover ("it's all the environmentalists' fault! Black Helicopters! Conspiracy theorists! And by the way, here's Arnold!") and will never even see the NEWS about his crimes, if he chooses not to, much less do a perp walk.
Steal $20 from a cash register, go to jail and get raped. With the People cheering and demanding pay per view.
I just noodled the reason why people don't care about wealthy people getting away with major crime: they want to BE the guys getting away with the crimes. They think it's cool! Moore might actually have nailed it: the Horatio Algier syndrome (YOU can be the rich guy who gets away with it -- it's the American Dream!) So people want, in a perverse way, a stratum of people who get all the cash and can't get convicted. In America, it's barely possible to join the elite -- although stats show most such people are just born to their status.
I have perspective born of experience. I grew up in a poor neighborhood, where just walking the street could get you arrested if you didn't look right to a cop. I've had cops break into my house right in front of me.
Contrast it to my later experience in the Chicago northern suburbs, where drugs were sold openly around school. The young scions of the suburbs openly assaulted and battered people of different colors, shapes, and religions. Car theft was common. You'd see kids you know driving around and smashing people's cars with rocks.
And there was NO CRIME RATE among these kids, officially. They never "committed" crimes -- it was invisible to the local cops, unless it was committed right in front of them.
Rich and/or connected people don't commit crimes, and they certainly don't go to jail. Well, there are exceptions, but you get the drift.
PMITAP is for the poor.
Re:criminals (Score:3, Funny)
Besides, it's a fricking joke.
Re:criminals (Score:3, Informative)
Re:criminals (Score:2, Informative)
Re:criminals (Score:2, Informative)
Re:criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, our high standards of evidence are something we should be proud of. I just think that the stupidity/ignorance defense should be done away with at a corporate executive/director level. We need the equivalent of Sarbannes-Oxley for ALL corporate behavior, not just the financials, since there are other kinds of corporate fraud damaging the economy and the public trust in America, beyond misleading 10K submissions.
Think (Score:2)
This is one of the things that is wrong with American business: The sole (soul?) and primary duty and goal of and corporate board of a publicly traded company, is to increase the value of that company's stock. Many people do not realize this.
Re:Think (Score:2, Informative)
Why do you think that is wrong? That is saying that it is not the management's responsibility to fatten their wallet
Re:Think (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a catch-22. In the 70s, there was the belief that the board and corporate executives weren't really doing all they could to maximize shareholder value, so they started paying them heavily in stock options and incentives. The result has been many executive who will do whatever it takes, including breaking the law, if it makes the shareholders happy. And if they do manange to increase stock price enough, they can afford enough lawyers that their misdeeds go unpunished, and you might even make enough money and enough campaign contributions that the feds could change their mind about prosecuting you.
Basically the problem is that companies are run by humans; usually very clever and creative people. They found they can get rich by a little bend here, a loophole there, and a tiny little bit of fraud over here. Since everyone is happy when shares go up, a whistleblower is ostracized since they might hurt the value of the stock!
Re:Think (Score:2)
FWIW, there are good corporations around, but many of them aren't publicly traded. It's unfortunate that people like Michael Moore make the word "corporation" a four-letter word. Some of us choose a different way, and care about overall health instead of stock price.
But that doesn't get reported on the omnipresent stock r
Re:Think (Score:5, Interesting)
In any case, the duty is not limited to the boards of publicly traded companies. The boards of ALL companies that have stock (i.e., corporations) have this duty. It's just that publicly traded stock has an obvious apparent value; the stock of privately held companies is more difficult to value, if only because you have to guess.
Re:criminals (Score:5, Funny)
Otherwise, our prez would be in jail [duck]
Re:criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong? Well that's subjective, although I agree with you.
Stupid? Hardly. He's managed to steal the Presidency, enrich himself and his wealthy friends, illegally invade two countries (whilst fooling most of the US population), get away with changing a $200Billion budget excess into a $500billion defecit and he's managed to do away with a lot of the civil rights US citizens used to have. And there hasn't been an armed revolt and he's still a serious contender to be re-elected.
So no I don't think he's stupid, I think he is fucking smart. The stupid people are the ones who are putting up with it and paying the price. (US national debt no stands at around $24,000 for each and every man, woman and child in the country - that's how much El Presidente has borrowed in your name). Not sure how you put a price on the civil rights you guys have lost recently but it must be greater.
Re:criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
The Executives get to pick *ONE*
A) I'm a total idiot. I had no idea what my company was doing - I'm not liable for the companies misdeeds.
B) I knew exactly what was going on. That's what I'm paid for. I'm personally responsible for the acts of my company.
However, if they pick A, the shareholders, companies and entities owed funds by the company, and anyone who can show damages can sue the execs personally for fraud and deception. Clearly they got everyone to believe they had the skill to perform their jobs, but didn't. Thus, their pay and all assets resulting from that pay go directly to the company, and all who suffered from it's demise. (This should equally apply to the board positions, as they are the ones who are *supposed* to make sure the company in under good management and run properly.)
Cheers,
Greg
See, look what a swimsuit photo shoot can do... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:See, look what a swimsuit photo shoot can do... (Score:2)
Do we really want to see that?
Re:See, look what a swimsuit photo shoot can do... (Score:2)
Re:See, look what a swimsuit photo shoot can do... (Score:3, Funny)
Do we really want to see that?
Depends.. how long would they hold him under?
But.. (Score:4, Interesting)
After Hours (Score:2)
1) Threaten Your Customers
2) Fight Lawsuit
3) ????
4) Profit!!!!
obvious, see?
Re:But.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But.. (Score:2)
Re:But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stocks go up because lots of people think it's going to go up. Stocks go down because lots of people think the stocks going to go down.
It's as simple as that and there is nothing more to it. It's a mass psycosis.
Re:But.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Economics/Finance 101:
The stock market exists as part of the giant asset allocation machine that is modern capitalism. People with savings (retirement plans, mutual funds) buy shares in companies. These companies have "floated" on the stock exchange because they either need capital (i.e. they sold shares to raise money from the public), or because their founders or early investors wish to realise gains or to
ACCC (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAK (Kangaroo), but I've talked to Aussies, and they say the ACCC can really sink its teeth into companies that stir it up.
I think SCO is misunderestimating the tolerance for stupid circus antics from big business overseas. It seems like we'll pander to them for awhile and play along with their stupid games, then frequently let them scurry away, but other countries' governments and court systems aren't so forgiving. Push them, they'll push back. Fortunately, it looks like SCO is the little dorky kid and now he's trying to shove the bullies that are twice as big.
Re:ACCC (Score:3, Funny)
I think you'll find they're misunderestimafying. Yes I'm being a smart-ass. [reference.com]
Re:ACCC (Score:5, Informative)
Who is the ACCC and where are they mentioned in this article? I know. I am a ethnocentric American but ACCC sounds like the Atlantic City Civic Center to me.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [accc.gov.au].
Basically an independent watch dog organisation set up through legislation to try to ensure the consumer doesn't get too screwed over in the course of business.
They recently prevented a merger between Qantas and Air New Zealand which would have removed pretty much all competition in the airline industry for flights between the two countries.
They certainly have teeth - which is remarkable for such a body.
They are mentioned in the article as being the first step in the legal process should SCO Australia not respond.
Re:ACCC (Score:2)
Re:ACCC (Score:2, Informative)
Since we're all happily being pedantic, it should be remembered that both the ACCC and NZCC had to be convinced before the merger could go ahead. From their media releases, the ACCC published a negative finding on September 9, 2003 whilst the NZCC followed with a similar finding on October 23, 2003.
Given the demise of Ansett (thanks, Air New Zealand!) and the parlous state of United
Re:ACCC (Score:2, Informative)
No mystery, he earned it (Score:4, Informative)
Academic Staff Profile - Allan Fels [anzsog.edu.au]
Professor Fels was appointed as Professor of Administration at Monash University in 1984 and was the Director of the Graduate School of Management, Monash University from 1985 until 1990 and is now an Honorary Professor in the Faculty of Business and Economics at Monash University.
Professor Fels has degrees in economics and law from the University of Western Australia, and a Ph.D in Economics from Duke University. After leaving Duke he was appointed as a Research Fellow in the Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge, where his Duke Ph.D thesis was published as The British Prices and Incomes Board by Cambridge University Press.
What gave you the impression that he made it up, and then convinced everybody in the media and the government ? Academic fraud like that at his level, and in his (former) role, would be career suicide for him, and extremely very embarresing for the government.
Inquires? ya right (Score:4, Funny)
Sure something like
"You do know where you can shove that license - don't you?" (Said with australian accent of course)
It's like this (Score:5, Funny)
SCO: "The one where you pay us loads, and carry on as usual?"
Caller: "We have a better idea."
SCO: "Yes..."
Caller: "We give you the finger, and you go back to Utah."
A Kiwi.
Re:Inquires? ya right (Score:2)
Chances of SCO screwing Aussie companies for "linux licenses"? Two
For all you furry-ners it means pretty much the same as "Sweet FA" / "A SnowBall in Hell" / "Hell Freezes Over".Buckley's Chance [anu.edu.au] William Buckley [williambuckley.org]
Re:Inquires? ya right (Score:2)
"OK, what am I purchasing a license for?"
"When you purchase a license, you are compensating SCO for the UNIX source code, derivative UNIX code and other UNIX-related intellectual property and copyrights owned by SCO as it is currently found in Linux"
"Oh OK, now I have a copy of the Linux kernel source code here, where exactly can it be found?"
"I'm sorry I don't have that information"
"I didn't think you did, when
What does... (Score:2)
Re:What does... (Score:3, Funny)
As originally designed and flown (they may have changed it since), in the Shuttle toilet the, ah, excrement is supposed to hit the, um, rotary impeller blades.
(Yes, really. Actually called slinger blades -- slings the stuff against the walls of the waste compartment which is then (well, after the user is done) vented to vacuum to dry the stuff. Problem is/was, the dried stuff has zero structural integrity and a couple days into the mission you end up with a fine brown powder floa
The lessor of two evils, again. (Score:3, Interesting)
Well then, great (Score:2)
So that's what now, Germany and tentatively Australia? Well, maybe not a long list, but at least it's two countries longer than the list of countries in which SCO has successfully prosecuted a UNIX IP case...
How many does it take? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How many does it take? (Score:2)
Yeah, I think it should take no more than 1 (but possibly less).
Their PR engine is about to die due to lack of fuel. That alone will kill them.
One has to wonder what exactly they were thinking to begin with.
It's not just the ACCC - section 202 may apply (Score:5, Informative)
"(1) Where a person, by means of circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens a person with an action or proceeding in respect of an infringement of copyright, then, whether the person making the threats is or is not the owner of the copyright or an exclusive licensee, a person aggrieved may bring an action against the first-mentioned person and may obtain a declaration to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable, and an injunction against the continuance of the threats, and may recover such damages (if any) as he or she has sustained, unless the first-mentioned person satisfies the court that the acts in respect of which the action or proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of copyright."
I wonder whether SCO has fallen foul of it...
Re:It's not just the ACCC - section 202 may apply (Score:5, Informative)
The Australian Copyright Council [copyright.org.au] advises people to be very careful when alleging copyright infringement, as it is easy to fall foul of defamation laws or section 202 of the copyright act.
Consequently, SCO's press release would probably have been vetted by a lawyer.Unfortunately Mr O'Shaughnessy may have blown it with his unvetted response to the SMH journalist (continuation of the first quote)
So there you go, straight from the mouth of the boss of SCO Australia. Pay up or we sue you. Does this make him personably liable for defamation or prosecution under section 202? Does anyone who actually knows what they are talking about want to comment?Re:It's not just the ACCC - section 202 may apply (Score:5, Informative)
The way it works is that a person who receives a groundless threat can bring an action for a declaration that the threats are unjustified, and the burden of proof in that action is on the threatening party to show that the threat was justified--ie that "the acts in respect of which the action or proceeding was threatened constituted, or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of copyright".
However, you can't evaluate whether SCO could be in trouble under the section without knowing exactly what they said to the person who would bring the action under it. I'm not sure that the SMH article taken alone would be enough (or at least, I wouldn't rely on it, as it is sufficiently vague on whether legal action is threatened against a particular person).
Hence why I was wondering out loud if (being ignorant of this provision of Australian law, or just gung-ho) SCO might have tripped up over the section--I couldn't say for sure unless anyone can supply a copy of everything sent or said to Cyber Knights (or anyone else for that matter).
As for defamation, it varies a great deal by state, but generally you have to say/imply things to lower a natural person's reputation in the eyes of others. Nothing in the article suggested that to me. Ditto a claim for common law fraud--it's hard to prove at the best of times. No chance here.
Me, I'd be looking hard at section 52 of the Trade Practices Act [austlii.edu.au], which prohibits corporations engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. Based on the "evidence" I've seen so far, an assertion that SCO has the entitlement to require anyone to take a licence from them would have to be questionable at best, or outright false at worst. Best part is for this context, even innocent deception (eg maker honestly mistaken about what they say) is caught, let alone reckless indifference to the truth. A section 52 action would probably stand or fall depending on whether SCO loses or wins in the USA.
No copyright claim (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking about this (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I know everyone's more interested in Dean making an ass out of himself in that speech after the Iowa caucus, but the longterm health of the American economy is much more fundamentally important than some passing gasbag.
The story is about Australia, but since Oz is perhaps the most culturally similar count
Re:I was thinking about this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I was thinking about this (Score:2)
A dozen enquiries? (Score:5, Funny)
A dozen enquiries, the article says. I'd like to know who's asking about this IP "licensing" plan, since I'm thinking of selling the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which I inherited via my uncle, and was looking for someone in Australia to buy it.
Give Darl a call (Score:5, Funny)
"...we are currently exploring workable methods for becoming big while remaining small...
Well, you could always dredge up some code you wrote years ago, grep through an OSS source tree until you find a partial match and then issue ridiculous demands for outrageously expensive licenses...
Conservative legal system (Score:5, Interesting)
unimaginable (Score:2, Interesting)
Argh, booby-trapped web page (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Argh, booby-trapped web page (Score:2)
And if you can remember when Metallica opened for Stryper, you qualify as an official old fart.
Re:Yeah, but at least you'll have the last laugh.. (Score:4, Funny)
Odds on a win (Score:2)
First off... does anyone know where this stat comes from? Second... and perhaps more relevant to this article - Is that just an effect of a somewhat broken legal system in the US or is that a global stat? Do they have the same odds in Aus? Up here in Canada? Europe? Just curi
Re:Odds on a win (Score:2)
Think about that for a moment. These are the people of whom 48% or so voted for the Shrub, and another 48% voted for Algore. That means you're dealing with a jury pool that's about 96% completely fucking stupid.
Proof of lawerying industry weighing america down (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't Roe v. Wade, it's a simple verification of the code, no ethical delimas to deal with here.
Humour: SCO & Kiwis (Score:4, Funny)
They can both shove their bills up their arse.
Vik
The bills are on the way (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote from Brooks, SMH author (Score:5, Informative)
"Basically, we're asking SCO to put up or shut up..."
Sounds to me like someone who reads Slashdot/Groklaw/some other community site. Also the following quote:
"As a director of CyberKnights, I personally know and trust several contributors to the Linux kernel, including the original author, Linus Torvalds. As of three days ago, Linus told me that he knows of no substantial code in his Linux kernel source code tree which could possibly be subject to ownership claims by The SCO Group."
These give me an image of someone that is heavily involved in the community and has simply had enough of this crap. Cheers to someone in my home city that is taking some action, I hope that you get the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) sunk right into SCO.
I'd like to say a big thank you to Sam Varghese of the Sydney Morning Herald who wrote this story. He's covered a lot (if not all) of the SCO story and he's given voice to the anti-SCO FUD side, such as Brooks and Groklaw. Sam is Definitely one of the good guys, thanks for all of your help mate.
Re:Quote from Brooks, SMH author (Score:3, Informative)
A good bloke, but hardly just a guy off the street getting angry at SCO.
Tune In Tomorrow... (Score:2, Funny)
Brought to you by a cheap, self-loving plug... [temperededge.com]
Electric Company, anyone? (Score:2)
SCO inquiries (Score:3, Funny)
I'll bet SCO has had some inquiries. But more along the lines of: "Where in the fsck do you get off?"
Cyberknights make a business move? (Score:2, Interesting)
sig: [insert something clever here]
For anyone wondering who Leon Brooks is (Score:2, Informative)
Basically, people listen to what Leon has to say here... in fact we pretty much hang on every word. He's also a very formidable geek.
SCO won't last long in Australia - the ACCC will be being hounded as we speak, and will have to act soon. Its pretty cut and dry when referencing Australian copyright law, and Id expect the ACCC to pounce on SCO within weeks.
We'd laugh at SCO if they tried it here. (Score:5, Interesting)
If SCO started lawsuits in Australia based on their unsubstantiated claims and yet to be revealed evidence, Aussie judges would dismiss them and tell them to come back with a clue.
Re:We'd laugh at SCO if they tried it here. (Score:5, Informative)
with the most frivolous claims over in the states (warning: coffee is hot).
Actually, the facts of that case are more often that not misrepresented. The truth is, however, that McDonalds served their coffee at a temperature unfit for human consumption (185F or 85C) and the woman in question had third degree burns and required skin grafts. This is the first link I could find from a quick google for it: http://thespleen.com/thelaw/whoscrewsubaby/index.p hp?artID=223 [thespleen.com]
Mind you, the more commonly reported version (woman sued because coffee was hot - how silly!) is very much in McDonald's interests. Conspiracy theory anyone?
That all said, we still get some pretty frivolous cases here in Aust as well - maybe not as many as in the US, but that's possibly just a matter of proportion given our respective populations.
Giv'im tha BOOT! (Score:3, Funny)
Does this mean that, when Darl and co. are found guilty of being lying bastards, that someone gets to kick him in the ass with a boot? [snpp.com]
Now thats something i'd pay $699 for!
Yet More "queries" for SCO (Score:5, Funny)
- Why on earth would I buy a license for Linux when all you've offered me is unsubstantiated claims?
- What part of the legal terms fraud [wikipedia.org] and barratry [wikipedia.org] do your lawyers not understand?
- What makes you so sure you're going to get away with this?
- Exactly what kind of a game do you think you're playing, mister?
- Last week you were trying to sell me some bridge. This week you want to sell me a license for Linux. Is there no end to this madness?
- What! No Lube?
- Et Tu, Brute?
And, of course, the ever popular:This is your cue, Australians ... (Score:5, Informative)
This is our war cry guys. Just pick up the phone. The ACCC wants to act - they're straining at the leash - but they need to show some community support for their actions before they can rip SCO's throat out!
So ring, ring now!!!!
http://www.accc.gov.au/
1300 302 502
Do it! Do it now!
Re:This is your cue, Australians ... (Score:4, Informative)
Very insightful comment by Novell (Score:5, Informative)
"We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently, you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected. Finally, we find it telling that SCO failed to assert a claim for copyright or patent infringement against IBM."
Oh that must of hurt! The fact that SCO attempted to get Novell to transfer the copyrights is proof enough that the copyright ownership is in question even in the mind of SCO.
When this is all over McBride will only be able to get job acting as the villian in a melodrama since it is truly the only talent he has shown to date.
ACCC Complaint form: (Score:3, Informative)
Complaint form here [accc.gov.au]
Trying it on in NZ too (Score:3, Interesting)
They're trying it on in NZ, too.
The NZOSS [nzoss.org.nz] has put together this summary of the issues [nzoss.org.nz] and is requesting a copy of the license, but not telegraphing its plans so blatantly (ya gotta love Kiwis).
Check out http://WWW.SCO.CO.NZ [sco.co.nz] for a larf.
They're already getting the bird... (Score:3, Interesting)
Massey University has deployed a 132 CPU Helix supercomputer running RedHat Linux 7.3 at its Albany campus in Auckland and would be expected to pay $NZ171,192.61 for the right to continue using its operating system. The director of parallel computing, Chris Messon, says that's not going to happen. "We have no plans to pay off SCO."
And Weta Digital...
Operations manager Milton Ngan says any move to pay the licence would be seen as capitulation and Weta isn't about to start down that road. "We won't make any moves till we see what the rest of the industry does. We're a small company a long way from SCO so we'll try to stay here out of sight."
My thoughts (Score:3, Funny)
That being said, I await the day that I get an invoice from them to submit to my attorney.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Remember (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Conspiracy (Score:5, Informative)
I've read so many comments about shorting stock from people who obviously havn't a clue what it means that its not funny.
FYI shorting means to sell stock that you DON'T OWN then borrow it to make delivery and buy it back later to return to the lender (hopefully at a lower price). Stock can also be shorted by the purchase of a put option giving the entitlment (but not obligation) to sell the stock in question at a future date at a price agreed today (you exercise the option only if the actual price on the exercise date is low enough to allow you to simultaneously buy the stock in the market to cover the delivery.
Re:Conspiracy (Score:4, Informative)
Now, what happens if SCO wins the lawsuit?
More than likely the stock price will begin to climb. If the stock price climbs above 15.75 you're screwed.
If it skyrockets (very unlikely with a company like SCO, but possible), you're really screwed.
The shares you shorted were not your own and you now have to "Buy to Cover" your short. If you shorted at 15.75 and sco is now at 40 you're just a little more than screwed. You've now got a purchase price of $800,000, leaving you $485,000 in the hole.
During the tech bubble, there were a number of persons that shorted stock only to see it rocket from the teens to the hundreds in a day. What if that happens with sco? Lets put sco at $150.00 per. now you're out $2,685,000.00
Shorting can be extremely dangerous, which is why most reputable brokerage firms have very specific criteria that one must meet to be approved for shorting and option trading.
(and yes, I am a stockbroker.)
(nothing in this statement constitues an offer to sell or buy anything. What you do with this information is up to you.)
next week, on Animal Planet... (Score:5, Funny)
*whispering* Now, we're about to see the rare American FUD-monkey! It seldom shows its face down under, but it's very dangerous when unprovoked and somehow convinced that it owns, well...everything.
*DARL hops out from behind a bush* Crikey! That'll take your arm clean off!! *he shoots a tranquilizer dart at the DARL*
*high pitched shrieking ensues. the call of the DARL sounds remarkably like the words "pump-and-dump" repeated over and over*
Re:next week, on Animal Planet... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's get all the one-liners out at once... (Score:5, Funny)
It figures that it'd finally get tried in Austraila...
...because Darl knows his only chance is a kangaroo court!
Ba dump bump! I'll be here all week, be sure to try the buffet.
Weaselmancer
Yes, coincidence (Score:3)
But yes, Linus did say that on the previous Friday, and not just to me, to a bunch of people standing outside Elder Hall discussing the OCG miniconf's outcome. No press release, Linus is like that.