Fast and Furious FEUD: The Rock slams ‘CLOWN’ Tyrese Gibson after Hobbs and Shaw success?

A few years ago, the "hig h-speed and fate of fate", where hostility broke out between mountains and other stars. Dwane Johnson, one of the messages in public networks, called "Candy Fifth Points or Chicken Sit", and became Vin Diesel. In late 2017, Tilis Gibson deleted the spi n-off "Hobbs and Show", and the possibility of being canceled by "Wild Speed ​​9" collapsed due to the criticism of the mountain. And the latest Gibson release crashed him in a remote post on Instagram.

Related articles

The post describes the fact that Hobs and the Show only collects less money than other franchises.

Remote post is "I have to respect one small thing. He worked hard. People called me to dislike me. They attacked me who actually made a remark. It does not include its usual meaning.

"Hobbs and Show" is the shortest box office revenue. This movie has the ability as an element.

"Rocks and teams will come back with us again for # Fast10, we will hug them all and return to the real fans who have supported this franchise for 20 years, then the basics. "What they want" is rarely hated. #FastFamily contains a lot of importance as #fastFamily, which is normal.

Greek's feud: Tiris Gibson's "Hobbus and Show" after Tilis Gibson's "clown" is blamed? (Image: above)

Thank you to everyone who arranged our small spi n-off work @hobbsandShaw's first week. #Film No. 1, $ 333 million. And I really remember me that the best way is a shadow ... -it is to be close to victory and grinning. Sevenbucks pic. twitter. com/RXYTNZMFL7

-Dwayne Johnson (@therock) August 13, 2019

Similarly, Cliffe casually answered Gibson in a majestic feature that Hobs and the Show was actually the No. 1 movie world.

Johnson is on his own channel in the public network, "Thank you to everyone who arranged our small spi n-off @hobbsandShaw's first week of this attractive showcase. #Film #1, 33330 around the world. I recorded the dollar.

"And keep in mind that the best way to eat Eacking (emoji clown) is to lean out of victory and laugh."

Register the wrong email address

We will use your subscription to provide the content you agree and improve our awareness. This has a function to connect the three aspects of our ads based on our awareness. You can always abandon your subscription. Read the secrets of our politicians

Related articles

Rock and Tyris Gibson in the movie "Fasting 8" (image: above)

Speaking to Metro ahead of FuelFest UK on Sunday, Cody said: "There's been a lot of talk and rumors flying around about this franchise. I believe everything is a possibility and I'm interested to see what the future has in store. There's a lot being said." "For example, there are rumors that the franchise could go to space. Hobbs & Shaw: Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham in Fast & Furious 9? Fast & Furious: Why the Tokyo Drift Shock Between Fast & Furious 6 and Fast & Furious 7? Hobbs & Shaw movie review: Here's what critics really think OSDL has released a position paper that raises serious questions about SCO Group's impending lawsuit against Linux end users. SCO The author of this paper, which will destroy the contract with SCO, is Dr. Eben Moglen of Columbia Institute, the world's leading authority on software copyright law.

This review is archived. You cannot leave new comments.

Short story: Attribution to the poster for appropriate comments. We take no responsibility for anything actually.

by TopShelf ( 92521 ) * reports: Friday, August 1, 2003 at 11:39 AM (#6588555 )

Related articles

• Home Journal
• ODSL has published a position paper.
• I'm very happy that the Old Dominion Soccer League (ODSL) [odsl. org] has taken up the cause. They have the guts to take on SCO and beat all the Linux fans!

3 Clown Monty big win video reviews

Anonymous Coward reports: Friday, August 1, 2003 at 12:12 PM (#6588896 )

You may like to read:

Frozen Embryos Are 'Children,' According To Alabama's Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling Kneecaps Federal Regulators

US Government Asks 3D Printing Industry to Help Stop the Printing of Machine Gun Conversion Devices

California Bans All Plastic Bags

Creator of Kamala Harris Parody Video Sues California Over Election 'Deepfake' Ban

Why would you put a soccer mom and her kid on Slashdot?

OSDL Position Paper on SCO and Linux More Login

OSDL Position Paper on SCO and Linux

Maybe it's because they did something to you when you were in school?

ODSL? ( Score: 5, Funny)

Forgive and forget. Apologize and walk away.Wouldn't it be more effective to make SCO a rugby league?

By the way, does anyone know if anyone has hacked SCO since it was announced?

I'm pretty sure you're talking about "hacking" and not "hacked")

You evil, evil, little man ( Score: 5, Funny)

Hacked is the correct word, unless they hacked the copy protection system.

As for the house, I'm talking about Old Dominion. It's southeast of Paradise, on the waves and hills. She's the best of 13 sisters and 37 boys. Vibrant, likeable Virginia leaves the door open every time.

Revise and compile thousands of descriptions into pdfs. What exactly are their business projects, for example? 1: Loading comments 2: Inserting grammar and spelling 3: Merge them 4: Release as pdf 5: . 6: Advantages.

You've missed step 2.

Re:ODSL? ( Score: 2)

By Adam Rightmann (609216) Writes: on Friday, August 01, 2003 @11: 42 AM ( #6588579)

Re:ODSL? ( Score: 2)

I am lying about the essence of the lawsuit, they have already released all Linux distributions, and their top executive, for example, promoting off as soon as there is a chance. I believe that geeks, which are important for their salt, actually see what they are doing. In this way, I basically see that at least two commandments are being committed here: "Do not display the wrong" and "do not steal". I don't think the court will take punishment, including if the SCO loses. I believe that if SCO and voice top chapters are publicly pushed in a Washington mall, ethics will return in the conference room.

Re:ODSL? ( Score: 2)

We basically know what they are lying about. Will you get the MS position? Does it suggest that IBM will be acquired? Are you simply encouraged to raise the cost of promotion for a while? Are all above? I only have time to reveal the story.

I doubt it ( Score: 3)

by Topshelf (92521) * Report: October 01, 2003 (Friday) 11:55 am ( #6588732)

Re:ODSL? ( Score: 2)

Main page of magazine

So basically. ( Score: 2, Funny)

Really interesting. The insider did it

Re:So basically. ( Score: 3, Funny)

• 125. 000 Promotion [yahoo. com] Since the end of June (without purchase), promotion has exceeded $ 10 for the first time in two years. Considering the future of SCO that is not very colorful, its personal leadership!

SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 4, Insightful)

URKKI (668283) Report: August 1, 2003 @12:13 ( #6588902)

What I find attractive is, for example, who is a fool who gets SC O-promotions. Or a speculation game that "SCO is likely to win 0, 1%, and the cost of promotion increases in the meantime"? Or is it possible to "invest" in the promotion of SCOs and help the SCO's pHB and this family pension fund or something? Complot! (Well, that would be more reasonable than other explanations).

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 3, Interesting)

There is a "judicial risk". Based on statistics, I heard from a lawyer):

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 5, Interesting)

Under the cloudless blue sky, if all precedents work in an advantageous manner and the possibility of losing business is virtually zero, the appeal to court means that there is about 20 % of the possibility of losing.Wouldn't it be more effective to make SCO a rugby league?

Of course, this will not happen. This is because at the moment it is given, IBM will deliver it from court to SCO because IBM has not complied with 2, 000 patents that IBM is holding only for SU.~EastCoaastSurfer (310758) Report: Friday, August 1, 2003@01:16.

Conspiracy theory! ( Score: 5, Interesting)

Isn't the person who has been trained by SCO short selling really lead to price increase?

The cost rises when people begin to cover their shorts (that is, pay shorts). Usually, bounce (often called "dead cat bounce") happens just before the promotion falls, for example, when people buy a promotion to cover their shorts. It is extremely unlikely that people are still covering their shorts, as they do not need to own a short promotion, and know that promotions will grow.

Re:Conspiracy theory! ( Score: 3, Interesting)

Perhaps people are assuming that someone (MS, IBM, anyone) will come to buy.

by Topshelf (92521) * Report: August 1, 2003 1:50 (#6589865)

Home journal

Baz. It is a mistake.

Re:Conspiracy theory! ( Score: 4, Informative)

The shor t-term resale mechanism is as follows.

First, the shortsellers do the promotion of the problem without putting them in their backpack. Usually, the position is displayed a s-x promotion in the investment account. The actual promotion of the problem has been "borrowed" from other accounts so far. This resale activity initially puts pressure on the prices of promotion, which can be important when air selling is saturated. For example, if you look at [yahoo. com] here, you can see that within 5 or 5 % of SCOX's promotion is being carried out by ai r-selling promotion. This is more important than the characteristics of MSFT, IBM, and Sunw, within 1 %.

After the prices of the promotion have fallen, the shortsellers buy back at a lower cost. Their profits are the difference between the first resale and the final purchase, which deducted the position commission. In principle, shortsellers determine the timing of purchasing promotion, but rarely his position is likely to become popular, or in principle, the price of promotion may increase due to sudden changes in corporate abilities. In order to keep their costs as low as possible, short traders rush to hedge their position, but this actually applies further rise in promotion and perform "short squeeze".

by ELVESRGAY (685389) WROTES: August 1, 2003 12:19 (#6588958)

Re:Conspiracy theory! ( Score: 5, Informative)

In fact, I read that almost all of the SCOs were given the opportunity to be promoted in exchange for working at the company. Some of them may have received their salary. Regarding the vice president of the engineering person who quit yesterday, if the promotion has reached its peak, there is no doubt that almost everyone has received money. But if you, a (shabby) CEO, agree to receive money from stock options in January, you will already be ready to receive money.Wouldn't it be more effective to make SCO a rugby league?

US courts no longer follow the 10 commandments.

This precedent is perfectly illustrated in the note. Retelling or re-editing?

This note contains a compelling argument, but the Anglophone leader would have a chance to tell it twice.

In fact, I hope not. If not, they will probably make an error in the Anglophone.

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 5, Insightful)

By Ansaku (80421) wrote: on Friday, August 01, 2003 @12:28pm ( #6589017)

Home Magazine

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 2, Funny)

Adam Lightman wrote: & amp; gt; I believe that any Gik who is important to his own salt has a chance to see that they are in fact lying about the nature of the argument for grief, and no Geek will ever tell you the conclusion about this lesson, e. g., SCO's loss cannot be considered pre-determined. The best option for IBM, as I know, to add something to Unix without making it a "derivative work", could be to buy them rudimentary due to the fact that IBM's alleged rights did not have the opportunity to apply the baggage created by other people (DyNix) and then brought in as IP. What will the court actually decide? Perhaps Vopner would agree with the nerd: SCO is clearly lying. But in all circumstances where this case is considered, will the adjudicator who hears this case have the insight of Penfield Jackson? For the time being, it's too early to expect it.

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 2)

The mob says I don't think the court will actually use punitive measures, even if SCO loses.

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 2)

The plaintiff is SCO, and it will not be threatened by the use of punitive measures.

I believe there is a real possibility that IBM could file a sensible claim that SCO would have to defend. In fact, I am waiting for them to remove all the patents they introduced in the criteria that require GPL distribution in Linux and fill them with SCO. But one of them is the RCU patent. I would not be surprised if they start suing on the pretext of business backstabbing, negligent competition, misleading trade practices.

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 2)

Of course, people do not have every chance to chat with elementary, for example, untruths that seriously damage their business? I mean, if McDonald's has the opportunity to file in court for hippies for distributing fliers criticizing their address, why should the Linux community put in a form that does not have the opportunity to settle the same thing with SCO?

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 5, Insightful)

It all depends on the kind of purpose you are thinking of for your engineering work. In fact, basically everyone is obligated to own the opportunity to release a competing product, and no worries about any monotony causing big lawsuits or patent problems. If you kidnap their secrets, that's another matter, but competing products are not obligated to mechanically make them illegal.Wouldn't it be more effective to make SCO a rugby league?

It's about developing a fresh product that is considered a paid secret owned by SCO. For example, JFS is owned by SCO and is paid for.

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 2)

Yes, I definitely consider that SCO is definitely JFS, and as a result, it is not a secret.

JFS is considered to be a hidden paid owned by SCO, and is not considered. [Slashdot. org].

Re:SCO is plainly lying ( Score: 3, Interesting)

By autopr0n (534291) WROTE: on Friday, August 01, 2003 @11: 59 AM ( #6588765)

They must be breaking some kind of law ( Score: 3, Interesting)

Homepage Diary

This whole thing is ridiculous ( Score: 5, Insightful)

There is a fact that at & amp; amp; amp; t has a "standard" UNIX license agreement and has signed IBM and Sequent. Sun Microsystems did not sign it, gained a solution directly, and as a result, they did not have a contract (or something in this family is not very basic, but what Sun actually wants I have the ability to create).

Re:This whole thing is ridiculous ( Score: 3, Funny)

The standard contract was basically stated as at & amp; amp; Ex. However, Sequent did not do this, but it was not IBM but Sequent, inventing the technology that SCO (NUMA, RCU, etc.) would complain. IBM, SCO, and SEQUENT performed a joint work in the Montey plan, which is obliged to freeze the UNIX industry standard, but IBM faded out of MONTEREY and left SCO for the universality of fate. (Now, not the/Caldera sco, but not the canopy, but the "old" SCO).

In any case, the SCO believes that the contract belongs to the SCO due to the fact that it has an extraordinary IP-UNIX (at least not a patent due to copyright certificates).

In fact, the person who wrote the RCU code of Dynix (or not, although I don't know what the*NIX system was called there) is the person of Sequent and the Linux RCU code for IBM.

Re:This whole thing is ridiculous ( Score: 2, Redundant)

However, this continues, but the sequent has developed its own technology independently of UNIX. Everything, including RCU, works from that core in any advanced operating system. They released their work and issued a patent when introducing their version of UNIX.

No, this has *nothing* to do with that ( Score: 4, Insightful)

So the question is as follows:Wouldn't it be more effective to make SCO a rugby league?

Does the "naked" contract signed by Sequenty actually belong to SCO? Does a "naked" contract mean that all developments that you actually develop and introduce in UNIX clones are mechanically performed by SCO ownership?

Will IBM purchased from other UNIX vendors apply any specific contract?

The answer to these questions is absolutely not clear, but in my eyes, they need to be a host for IBM. On the other hand, the explanation actually has a rudimentary fun of all UNIX. It may be after the power to declare files that are most likely to be composed of copyrights and forced them to rewrite them. Similarly, SCO now has the cord of the person who touched the UNIX license code, or the person who touched the UNIX license code, realizes his own soul, the tricks of the element. He says.

An unnamed coward reports:

Who arranged this MOD? You are using your ass. The person who thinks about Dynix's RCU code is not the one who worked on Linux. The implementation of the RCU on Linux was created by three engineers. I take into account that I worked at Sequent at the time. Bret

IBM has a special correction to a contract that is said to belong to all the configurations of AIX.

I have never heard of this. You are definitely, what is it actually? Absolutely abilities, this raises the question you missed. If IBM really makes a unique change (but not sequence) to UNIX, how does SCO have the ability to activate the JFS violation?

Some of the RCU and NUMA work came from Sequent, but JFS is a failed code created by IBM (AFAIK), which is in 1991 or the first release of AIX. She was a pioneer

In this case, the copyright of the code in the question probably belongs to IBM. In fact, it is almost impossible that the real System V code is in the Linux code base. As a result, it is a major problem whether the IBM program such as RCU and NUMA is derived from the System V code.

This statement is not clear, even if you say it. These technologies did not exist in System V when they were licensed by IBM. SCO's claim should be like this.

Re:No, this has *nothing* to do with that ( Score: 3, Interesting)

Other contributors have also expressed some doubts about the accuracy of your precedent, but if you imagine that your sentence is fair, you are also confusing patents and copyright. It will be.

However, this is a continuation, but the sequent has come from UNIX autonomously with its own technology. It is the core of all advanced operating systems, including RCUs. They released their work and issued a patent when introducing their version of UNIX.

Re:No, this has *nothing* to do with that ( Score: 2)

If you do not read the documentation, you will not be able to recognize it with unconditional confidence, but at & amp; amp; AMP is highly recognized;

By CPT Kangaroski (3773) WROTE: on Friday, August 01, 2003 @12: 47pm ( #6589203)

Homepage

You are getting close to the primary issue. ( Score: 2, Insightful)

Most of the paid secrets are negligence competition law. In other words, it is unreasonable to recognize a collective spy, and we are not the secret itself, but the behavior. There is no problem if you realize the secret of paid autonomously. Depending on your country's law, you can approach it or use inappropriate methods. Also, if a secret is found, there is no opportunity to claim that it is actually considered a secret, including whether it includes a small company.

That's why IS is a terrible word as well. It reduces the jurisdiction area that is quite diverse, essentially common to the common base or theory. And own another company with another area.

Re:No, this has *nothing* to do with that ( Score: 3, Interesting)

By Jessleah (625838) Writes: On Friday, August 01, 2003 @11: 42 AM ( #6588583)

Who arranged this MOD? You are using your ass. The person who thinks about Dynix's RCU code is not the one who worked on Linux. The implementation of the RCU on Linux was created by three engineers. I take into account that I worked at Sequent at the time. Bret

By chefbb (691732) Writes: on Friday, August 01, 2003 @11: 43am ( #6588598)

Re:This whole thing is ridiculous ( Score: 4, Insightful)

What I was worried about in the first paragraph: Why do they do not benefit from their patents, but mainly pursue the last user? This really sounds like a FUD strategy for Linux. I'm starting. Why are they still trying to keep people away from the application in return for getting the money they would have been (that is, complaints about the legitimate copyright)?The creator of this document shakes from SCO transactions and is once considered one of the world's leading experts in the field of copyright. He is really fluctuating the SCO statement! This should be a legal genius! Yes, all the botanists on/ above. I couldn't do this!

We are all Ianal. That means that a real legal advisor was really needed to deal with this.

No, this is a contradiction in our society. No one expects if we don't have a document that proves an expert. Most of the people quoted here have a master's degree, but this may be a baby. I don't see the boy's consideration as a sublime problem, and how to see how to consider adults, such as Bush, as a sublime, and lack of intelligence. When then, the reason is not directly known.

Read the paper yesterday. ( Score: 5, Insightful)

In fact, it's the same way.

Anonymous Coward Reports: on Friday, August 01, 2003 @11: 44 AM ( #6588614)

End Users? ( Score: 5, Insightful)

I think it's a troll, but something like a SCO case was really necessary for the Linux society. Meanwhile, the game was "only for entertainment", and no one focused on license issues. However, in real time, Linu x-based systems are responsible for important distributions in the business field, and the top of companies generally learns intellectual property rights and obligations.

If Linux wants to be a player in the business area, he is obliged to act according to the rules, which should be clarified by SCO. If SCOs are blamed, you will be able to touch Linux more seriously than the elementary hobby OS.

Wow! ( Score: 2, Funny)

Now, it is possible to refer to the question "How is Linux related to copyright and license tasks?" As a condition, the facts are usually the fact that the United States is pretty good.

That's because. ( Score: 2)

This latest FU D-attack by SCO will take almost all FUDs with Linu x-circle in the business world.

Re:Wow! ( Score: 2)

& amp; amp; gt; I'm now facing the question, "How does Linux relate to copyright and licensing tasks?" SCO & amp; amp; g t-can be mentioned in the business (condition that the trial is advantageous to IBM) & amp; amp; gt; and in principle, the United States is actually the United States I quote the fact that it is very good.

The trial may not be so (and IMHO, the fastest will not be the case).

Why Linux needed SCO ( Score: 4, Insightful)

There is no fact if SCO and IBM conclude a no n-court agreement.

Even if the contract states that SCO is obliged to pay IBM, this may be a secret agreement, and it will not be the case that everything can be eradicated.

by Freeuser (11483) Writes: on Friday, August 01, 2003 @12: 40pm ( #6589150)

I can't trust it. In fact, it was very inappropriate for modern people to blame it. Probably

I'm vandalized, but something like SC O-the company really needed Linux.

Don't assume that a trial will take place ( Score: 2)

I believe you are not a vandalism, but an elemental eerie (perhaps intentional? It's ignorant of the initial code situation discovered a while ago. I am, I, You will have the opportunity to imagine a task that pursues false statements, but it's stupid to create it because you're anonymous. Modernists who adapt to this +5 are regarded as a conscientious game, and Microsoft/ Sun in district clothes is probably probably probably possible.

Meanwhile, the game was "exclusively for entertainment", no one focused on the license question.

That's not. Linus has released an extraordinary core written under the GPL. During this time, he was already concerned about the license and the impact of his personal planning (although he did not dream of this effect).

There are concerns about RMS licensing tasks every time. Remember that KDE/QT has difficulty with GPL, which led to the creation of the plan (Gnome). In the end, TrollTech has made a decision on this issue, and now KDE is legally and strongly licensed under the GPL, but before the business problem becomes BUOYANCY, a lon g-term license is a license problem. The whole process was a sweaty case because it was solved.

Linux Needs SCO Like a Hole in the Head ( Score: 5, Insightful)

But in real time, we take care of important distributions of Linu x-based systems in the business area, and the top of the company generally learns about IP rights and obligations.

In fact, this happens from time to time. The head of a company buys (or doesn't buy) permission. So far, illegal Windows installations have been seen here and there, and the BSA is happy to take advantage of it. Literally every customer I've worked for, except my employer today, thanks to the meticulous internal audit you did. He launched a ton of unlicensed programs on top of Windows) and all sorts of issues with certificates and copyright patents rub off on someone else's difficulties.

And this is an almost significant offset of a three-pronged argument that neither Microsoft nor anyone else pays attention to what tempts end users (despite comments from Redmond's PR service).

It's just that if Linux wants to be a player in the business world, it has an obligation to play by the rules, and the SCO case needs to be made clear.

Linux plays by the rules, carefully and appropriately, not in a closed-off way. The SCO-case is a lazy contract between IBM and SCO, so we're not going to 'make this clear'. SCO's FUD and SCO-misinformation are contradicting themselves day by day, in fact, they have to make every chance to press every day, just the matter of the number of this misinformation is doing something.

This latest FUD-attack by SCO will really take all the FUD and dogma of Linux circles in business.

In the long run, you may be right. But in the future, this will have an antipodean effect, since the US legal system has flaws that allow companies to spread misinformation and FUD without legal consequences (they can "explain" anything, including not having access to evidence). Compare that to the laws governing more meaningful states, like Germany and Australia.

To make matters worse, court arguments that drag on for years are generally received as a piece of news ("SCO lost, IBM was vindicated") and are no longer considered news. This is unlikely to result in putting off years of repeated mistruths and FUD that Linux and free software now need to try to fight.

As a result, this is an unfinished business for free software and Linux, and it's clearly a strategy our owners use to divide and subjugate us to their cooperation, keeping a friend from being separated.