There are some definite differences. For example, they called 300 people to be in the potential juror pool. The jury was screened for anyone who couldn't understand both official languages (english and french) because this was a *tri-lingual* trial. No french or english interpreters, and jurors were from both language groups, and had to be at ease in both languages.
Also, once the pool was weeded of people who felt they had a cause, a reason to be excused, or otherwise thought they could "talk their way out of it", the 120 who were left were taken, 10 at a time, to another courtroom, where we were told to state our name, age, and occupation (w/o mentioning employer). That is *ALL* the information both the crown and the defense had on which to challenge jurors, and they still ended up booting 2 out of 3 candidates.
Sorry about the "TV" remark - it's just that people believe in "Law and Order" momemts. Jury duty is WORK, not a show.
Nowadays, jurors will hear evidence related not just to DNA, but also blood spatter analysis, cellphone tower coverage and call records, autopsy reports, reports from the cops, EMT and doctors on the scene, other experts and witnesses, as well as the defendant. They get the reports, records, photos, and the actual evidentiary pieces, such as the murder weapon(s), clothing, etc. to take with them into the deliberation room.
They also get careful instructions from the judge.
Then again, we do things differently in Canada. For example, unlike the US, jurors are forbidden, under penalty of going to jail for 2 years, of ever revealing anything that was said or done during deliberations. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I told my employers that I would only hand in the notice for the trial AFTER it was concluded, and I didn't tell anyone who was on trial - I didn't want anyone searching the net or reading newspaper articles and accidently influencing me. Jury duty pays $90/day, plus transportation, parking, and meals; I lost money, and so did other jurors, but obviously some things are more important. People that don't want to make the sacrifices (including, in this case, a whole month off work), aren't the type of people you want on a jury anyway, right?
Think about it - there are no "tell-all" book deals by jurors after a trial in Canada - and I believe it's better that way. We reached a decision. How or why we reached it is just between the 12 of us. We'll never talk about that part of it again, even amongst each other.
There definitely WAS enough evidence. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond all doubt." It is solely up to a jury to decide whether the standard has been met.
Surely, you must be joking. Either that or you haven't seen many real juries.
Jury selection almost invariably results in the removal of anyone who has half a brain and a pinch of skepticism. They want easily persuaded people in the jury so the attorneys can bedazzle them with their big words and penetrating drama.
You've been watching too much TV. You also forget that both sides can challenge potential jurors, either for cause, or for no cause whatsoever. The people who don't want to do their civic duty will lie to get out of jury duty - that leaves a pool of people who are there, for the most part, because they won't concoct BS stories to get out of service, and take their committment to a fair trial seriously. I've not only seen real juries, I've sat as a juror in a murder case.
Besides, the proof is in the pudding - the jury got it right, despite the lack of a body, which SO many slashodotters claimed was a fatal flaw in the case against Reiser.
Neither the defense nor the prosecution want stupid jurors - it makes the job of putting forward their arguments harder, not easier. Each side has a number of peremtory chanllenges, plus unlimited "for cause" challenges. Neither side has more opportunity to "stack" a jury with dummies, even if they wanted to.
Exactly Reiser doesn't have to say he killed his wife...he just needs to argue that IF he killed her, this is where he would have hidden the body.
It's mere coincidence that the actual killer thought the same way.
Problem is, he thought he was so smart that that sort of illogic would bamboozle at least 1 of 12 jurors. Let me be the first to say "I told you so!" All you who said he didn't do it, welcome your new "I told you so" overlords.
He's only doing this because the body will eventually be found anyway, in which case, "In Soviet Amerika, body reveals YOU (to be a killer)."
Don't use plesk. It is absolute garbage. You will just be throwing money away.
Come on, the guys' got to "pay his dues" - better he gives up in frustration than that we have YAFMSMREPD (Yet Another Failed Make Some Money Really Easily Pipe Dream).
A lot of these "Ask Slashdot" questions are from people who would be better off being told to just fucking google it.
It's not "elitist" to say that they should do bit of basic research first; or are slashdot users mostly such low-expectation under-achieving slobs who crave any sort of interaction, even from someone who doesn't care enough about what they want to do to take the time to actually *learn* enough to ask smart questions? If they don't give enough of a shit to do some research first, I don't see why anyone should give enough of a shit to help them.
Really, this ranks right up there with people asking us to do their fucking HOMEWORK for them! "For my class project I want to do blah blah blah... please tell me how to do it..."
Even the slashvertisements are better.
Re:Excuse me while I gouge my eyes out with a spoo
on
I Will Derive
·
· Score: 1
Hey guys, it's the weekend, lighten up!
Mind you, what I want to see is "I Wii Survive" - they're STILL out of stock on a regular basis.
"Lets say that I am too lazy to do any research, or figure out on my own what people want, but I want to start a small business endeavor, namely reselling my server space and offering pre-built websites, because I'm so into the '90s business model.
What resources would I need to start something like this on my own, and please remember, I don't know who my customers are going to be, or why they should deal with me. What hosting service would best suit those ill-defined needs?
What would be the best way to lock people into my subdomain-level service rather than just getting their own domain, so they can tell me to go fuck myself when I boost their rates?
I want to provide a basic forum, registration, a web site and some controlled administrative access for my friends so they couldn't easily terrorize each other, because my friends (both of them) would do that, since they're even bigger asshats than me.
I'm curious to know if I could start something like this on my own, and without much more than just my own server space, time, and total lack of creativity.
I'm not looking to make a living out of this (*cough*), its mostly just a way for me to more efficiently manage having several friends each wanting me to built or run a web site for them, and perhaps make some small residual income if a market exists, since the "residual income" from Amway, the "residual income" from the MLM selling herbal vitamins, and the "residual income" from selling people long distance packages didn't work out.
Now to suck up to you all... The Slashdot community represents such a broad swatch of experience and expertise that I'd like to know how you would approach a project of this nature."
It'll be ready when it's ready.... Trying to alter this basic truth results in death marches, bad, bug-ridden software, disaffected developers, dissatisfied users, and "we'll fix that in the next release" bullsh*t.
If you're landscaping your yard, you can take as long as you want and spend as much money as you want. If someone else is landscaping your yard, you become much more interested in how long it will take and how much it will cost: giving them your credit card and letting them keep a running tab is not an option.
There's a big difference between landscaping a yard and coding. Is this the new "bad car analogy?":-)
Deadlines force you to think about where you want to be by the time the deadline rolls around. They give you a goal. They force you to cut unneeded features and focus on the core strengths/concepts of your product.
Unfortunately, the people who set the deadlines also continually sabotage them by throwing in new feature requests, redefining the projects' goals, mis-allocating resources, not allowing enough planning time because they want to see some code or a prototype ASAP (that last one is a real pitch, because in their minds, it's "almost done" when they see the first crude proto... after all, "now all you have to do is add a few features...: AGGGH!!!)
Everyone wants to cut back on documentation, initial planning, etc., to "get things moving really fast!" Why? Because they have an unrealistic deadline, and want to skip things they think are impeding "getting the code written." Like sitting around with a stack of index cards and blocking out all the entities, attributes, relationships, etc. Like documentation. Like having people write up exactly what they want, then reviewing it with the people who are going to actually write the code. Like prioritization of each feature into "must have," "should have," or "be nice to have" because everything, in SOME person's mind, is a "must have."
Sometimes you need to be a little Hitler, and knife people's individual "must have" babies. Or a Kodos. Nobody wants to triage features, but it has to be done eventually in almost all projects.
When something is "ready" is determined by the distro. They include whatever packages they think are "ready enough." For different distros, there are different values of "ready enough."
Some want "bleeding edge", some want "stable as a rock", some want "stable w. maintenance fixes only", some want "main trunk." The idea of forcing any sort of synchronization, when no 2 distros have the exact same definition of "ready enough" is just plain stupid. I'm glad to see that others are finally giving this idea the shit-canning it deserves.
If you fail to meet a deadline you get fired, your product gets trashed, your company gets sued etcetera.
... but in real life, if you fail to meet a deadline, you get to say "I told you so!", everyone else gets desperate, finally decides to allocate some of the resources you've been asked for, drop the stupid features that should have never been included in the first place, and you get back to the code face with a more doable project. After all, if they need it, they need it. They'll wait.
Why do you think we say "There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it over" and "fast, good, cheap - pick any two"?
Trying to alter this basic truth results in death marches, bad, bug-ridden software, disaffected developers, dissatisfied users, and "we'll fix that in the next release" bullsh*t.
If there were Godwin Awards, parent post would be a contender...
When there is a set release date, responsible developers will keep it in mind and change plans as the freeze approaches: things that are unlikely to be finished are put off to the next release; efforts are concentrated on bullet proofing what can done. Developers that can't or won't take on this kind of responsible change of focus are going to produce crappy software no matter what (irresponsible behavior is a quality of the developer that affects everything he touches; it is not an attribute of blocks of code).
Maybe there should be Godwin Awards...
so rather than make a reasonable spec, and sticking with it, you're proposing we continue the "design-by-the-arse" that's been going on for decades, where we stick in every feature that someone pulls out of their rear end, then, as the release date approaches, start cutting features willy-nilly? Really, pulling out half-baked features isn't just a question of removing a few source files. There ARE interactions.
And I for one welcome our Godwin Awards overlords.
Given the number of "is Linux ready for the desktop?" discussion threads, I'm pretty glad they don't follow your advice on releases.
Depending on who you ask, a project as complicated and large as a Linux distribution release might never be ready. Hence periodic release dates, which seem to be working just fine for Ubuntu.
Last I looked Ubuntu is based on Debian, so your example is actually a counter-example of what you want to prove. Debian has a philosophy of "release it when it's ready" that hasn't, afaict, changed. That's why Ubuntu, ertc., base themselves on Debian. Less of a moving target, etc.
The idea of the schedule is not to encourage a premature release, but to encourage a sufficiently attainable definition of "ready" such that a release eventually happens.
Best definition: "It'll be ready when it's ready."
This is the same truth, whether you're talking about open or closed-source, free/libre or proprietary software.
Trying to alter this basic truth results in death marches, bad, bug-ridden software, disaffected developers, dissatisfied users, and "we'll fix that in the next release" bullsh*t.
Walking around a museum or city park is still walking and you might find a new friend or more.
Yeah, but the only kind of friends you're likely to meet are the ones who like walking around a museum or city park... and I hate those people!
So beg, borrow, or buy a dog. It forces you to get out of the house several times a day, you'll meet people, they're a great conversation-starter, and people who own dogs live longer. Lower blood pressure and cholesterol too...
You are implying changing from one distro to another just because some not-so-frequent bug makes sense.
It doesn't have to be frequent - look at the bug that kept people from booting Ubuntu. What do you think they did - sit around all week with a non-bootable box? You can be sure that some of them switched.
Likewise, I took the opportunity to switch distros when I got bitten by the gcc printf bug. Hard disk space is cheap. Adding a new drive and installing another distro rather than waiting a few days for a fix is a no-brainer, if you need your machine for work.
Releasing after others makes the extremely dubious assumption that the others cannot fix problems.
Releasing after the others makes the logical assumption that there's a chance to fix it BEFORE release.
As for the libraries, I've run into linux-based multiple-cpu frame grabbers that only run properly on specific distros, because those distros have a specific version and compile-time settings. I'm sure others have had similar hardware experiences.
It's not just the source that has to be the same - so does the compile-time and runtime environment, the file layout, etc., and there's variation between the distros on this, as well as what versions each distro decides to include. It's not just the spash screens and wallpaper that are different.
This is not possible even with a honeypot if they can't find a code security hole and the botnet is using public key signed messages that can only originate from the botnet's trusted masters. Botnets are already using public key encryption.
It provides an excellent vector of attack, simply because bots communicate with each other. Even encrypted, this gives you a list of other machines that are already compromised. Many bots are already part of more than one botnet. Just follow the chain, reaping more bots at each link.
Is it? If it hits all distros then
1. it is more likely be promptly fixed. Ditto for security
2. they are less likely (as the same version gets much more testing). Ditto for security.
3. easier to make a workaround as you do not need to make three different ones, just one for all distros. Ditto for security.
4. Development is faster as there is less need to make (urgent) fixes - all distros use the same version.
If it hits all at once, they're all *broken* at once. "Not a good scenario" is putting it mildly. Or would you like everyone to have to switch to Windows because all the major linux distros are b0rken? A distro isn't a homogenous product - how long something takes to get fixed depends on the maintainers of the individual packages in question, not on how many people are using it.
Also, as I keep pointing out, you would still have to make different versions for each distro, seeing as each distro is in fact different - different compile-time options, different defaults (libraries, paths, processes)
This "proposal" was so naive that, if it had been from a member of the general public, I could understand - but for someone who's supposedly clued-in like Shuttleworth, I have to look at other motivations. Either pure apple-polishing, or way to consolidate market share by overshadowing/outshouting other releases if they're all released the same day.
Any smart distro vnedor that wants to compete will do the smart thing - release *after* the "simultaneous release". They'll get more publicity, especially on a slow news day, so my bet is that this proposal of "simultaneous release" is just pure marketing crap. It certainly fails from any technical aspect. It also shields from embarrassment - a typical CYA - "Everyone else suffers from the same bug."
Slashdot Mirror
There are some definite differences. For example, they called 300 people to be in the potential juror pool. The jury was screened for anyone who couldn't understand both official languages (english and french) because this was a *tri-lingual* trial. No french or english interpreters, and jurors were from both language groups, and had to be at ease in both languages.
Also, once the pool was weeded of people who felt they had a cause, a reason to be excused, or otherwise thought they could "talk their way out of it", the 120 who were left were taken, 10 at a time, to another courtroom, where we were told to state our name, age, and occupation (w/o mentioning employer). That is *ALL* the information both the crown and the defense had on which to challenge jurors, and they still ended up booting 2 out of 3 candidates.
Sorry about the "TV" remark - it's just that people believe in "Law and Order" momemts. Jury duty is WORK, not a show.
Nowadays, jurors will hear evidence related not just to DNA, but also blood spatter analysis, cellphone tower coverage and call records, autopsy reports, reports from the cops, EMT and doctors on the scene, other experts and witnesses, as well as the defendant. They get the reports, records, photos, and the actual evidentiary pieces, such as the murder weapon(s), clothing, etc. to take with them into the deliberation room.
They also get careful instructions from the judge.
Then again, we do things differently in Canada. For example, unlike the US, jurors are forbidden, under penalty of going to jail for 2 years, of ever revealing anything that was said or done during deliberations. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I told my employers that I would only hand in the notice for the trial AFTER it was concluded, and I didn't tell anyone who was on trial - I didn't want anyone searching the net or reading newspaper articles and accidently influencing me. Jury duty pays $90/day, plus transportation, parking, and meals; I lost money, and so did other jurors, but obviously some things are more important. People that don't want to make the sacrifices (including, in this case, a whole month off work), aren't the type of people you want on a jury anyway, right?
Think about it - there are no "tell-all" book deals by jurors after a trial in Canada - and I believe it's better that way. We reached a decision. How or why we reached it is just between the 12 of us. We'll never talk about that part of it again, even amongst each other.
There definitely WAS enough evidence. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond all doubt." It is solely up to a jury to decide whether the standard has been met.
You've been watching too much TV. You also forget that both sides can challenge potential jurors, either for cause, or for no cause whatsoever. The people who don't want to do their civic duty will lie to get out of jury duty - that leaves a pool of people who are there, for the most part, because they won't concoct BS stories to get out of service, and take their committment to a fair trial seriously. I've not only seen real juries, I've sat as a juror in a murder case.
Besides, the proof is in the pudding - the jury got it right, despite the lack of a body, which SO many slashodotters claimed was a fatal flaw in the case against Reiser.
Neither the defense nor the prosecution want stupid jurors - it makes the job of putting forward their arguments harder, not easier. Each side has a number of peremtory chanllenges, plus unlimited "for cause" challenges. Neither side has more opportunity to "stack" a jury with dummies, even if they wanted to.
Problem is, he thought he was so smart that that sort of illogic would bamboozle at least 1 of 12 jurors. Let me be the first to say "I told you so!" All you who said he didn't do it, welcome your new "I told you so" overlords.
He's only doing this because the body will eventually be found anyway, in which case, "In Soviet Amerika, body reveals YOU (to be a killer)."
Jurors aren't (usually) stupid.
President Skroobs' director of IT recomends using 2-4-6-8-10 for ssh, since it's obviously double secure over the standard 1-2-3-4-5.
That's what you get for using "12345" as your password, Mr. President!
That's because he thought it was the Genetic Nondiscrimination in America Act, and you know what he got when he searched the web for GNAA ...
Come on, the guys' got to "pay his dues" - better he gives up in frustration than that we have YAFMSMREPD (Yet Another Failed Make Some Money Really Easily Pipe Dream).
A lot of these "Ask Slashdot" questions are from people who would be better off being told to just fucking google it.
It's not "elitist" to say that they should do bit of basic research first; or are slashdot users mostly such low-expectation under-achieving slobs who crave any sort of interaction, even from someone who doesn't care enough about what they want to do to take the time to actually *learn* enough to ask smart questions? If they don't give enough of a shit to do some research first, I don't see why anyone should give enough of a shit to help them.
Really, this ranks right up there with people asking us to do their fucking HOMEWORK for them! "For my class project I want to do blah blah blah ... please tell me how to do it ..."
Even the slashvertisements are better.
Hey guys, it's the weekend, lighten up!
Mind you, what I want to see is "I Wii Survive" - they're STILL out of stock on a regular basis.
Transliterator 0.97:
[ START ]
"Lets say that I am too lazy to do any research, or figure out on my own what people want, but I want to start a small business endeavor, namely reselling my server space and offering pre-built websites, because I'm so into the '90s business model.
What resources would I need to start something like this on my own, and please remember, I don't know who my customers are going to be, or why they should deal with me. What hosting service would best suit those ill-defined needs?
What would be the best way to lock people into my subdomain-level service rather than just getting their own domain, so they can tell me to go fuck myself when I boost their rates?
I want to provide a basic forum, registration, a web site and some controlled administrative access for my friends so they couldn't easily terrorize each other, because my friends (both of them) would do that, since they're even bigger asshats than me.
I'm curious to know if I could start something like this on my own, and without much more than just my own server space, time, and total lack of creativity.
I'm not looking to make a living out of this (*cough*), its mostly just a way for me to more efficiently manage having several friends each wanting me to built or run a web site for them, and perhaps make some small residual income if a market exists, since the "residual income" from Amway, the "residual income" from the MLM selling herbal vitamins, and the "residual income" from selling people long distance packages didn't work out.
Now to suck up to you all ... The Slashdot community represents such a broad swatch of experience and expertise that I'd like to know how you would approach a project of this nature."
[ END ]
There's a big difference between landscaping a yard and coding. Is this the new "bad car analogy?" :-)
Unfortunately, the people who set the deadlines also continually sabotage them by throwing in new feature requests, redefining the projects' goals, mis-allocating resources, not allowing enough planning time because they want to see some code or a prototype ASAP (that last one is a real pitch, because in their minds, it's "almost done" when they see the first crude proto ... after all, "now all you have to do is add a few features ...: AGGGH!!!)
Everyone wants to cut back on documentation, initial planning, etc., to "get things moving really fast!" Why? Because they have an unrealistic deadline, and want to skip things they think are impeding "getting the code written." Like sitting around with a stack of index cards and blocking out all the entities, attributes, relationships, etc. Like documentation. Like having people write up exactly what they want, then reviewing it with the people who are going to actually write the code. Like prioritization of each feature into "must have," "should have," or "be nice to have" because everything, in SOME person's mind, is a "must have."
Sometimes you need to be a little Hitler, and knife people's individual "must have" babies. Or a Kodos. Nobody wants to triage features, but it has to be done eventually in almost all projects.
And yes, I'll accept my Godwin Award.
When something is "ready" is determined by the distro. They include whatever packages they think are "ready enough." For different distros, there are different values of "ready enough."
Some want "bleeding edge", some want "stable as a rock", some want "stable w. maintenance fixes only", some want "main trunk." The idea of forcing any sort of synchronization, when no 2 distros have the exact same definition of "ready enough" is just plain stupid. I'm glad to see that others are finally giving this idea the shit-canning it deserves.
Why do you think we say "There's never enough time to do it right, but there's always enough time to do it over" and "fast, good, cheap - pick any two"?
Now Microsoft has to start paying the "F/OSS Tax" and we STILL bitch and moan.
Novell got them for almost a half billion, thanks to F/OSS.
Microsoft is being forced to support ODF, thanks to F/OSS.
Google is eating Microsofts' lunch in search, thanks to F/OSS.
so rather than make a reasonable spec, and sticking with it, you're proposing we continue the "design-by-the-arse" that's been going on for decades, where we stick in every feature that someone pulls out of their rear end, then, as the release date approaches, start cutting features willy-nilly? Really, pulling out half-baked features isn't just a question of removing a few source files. There ARE interactions.
And I for one welcome our Godwin Awards overlords.
Last I looked Ubuntu is based on Debian, so your example is actually a counter-example of what you want to prove. Debian has a philosophy of "release it when it's ready" that hasn't, afaict, changed. That's why Ubuntu, ertc., base themselves on Debian. Less of a moving target, etc.
Best definition: "It'll be ready when it's ready."
This is the same truth, whether you're talking about open or closed-source, free/libre or proprietary software.
Trying to alter this basic truth results in death marches, bad, bug-ridden software, disaffected developers, dissatisfied users, and "we'll fix that in the next release" bullsh*t.
So beg, borrow, or buy a dog. It forces you to get out of the house several times a day, you'll meet people, they're a great conversation-starter, and people who own dogs live longer. Lower blood pressure and cholesterol too ...
It doesn't have to be frequent - look at the bug that kept people from booting Ubuntu. What do you think they did - sit around all week with a non-bootable box? You can be sure that some of them switched.
Likewise, I took the opportunity to switch distros when I got bitten by the gcc printf bug. Hard disk space is cheap. Adding a new drive and installing another distro rather than waiting a few days for a fix is a no-brainer, if you need your machine for work.
Releasing after the others makes the logical assumption that there's a chance to fix it BEFORE release.
As for the libraries, I've run into linux-based multiple-cpu frame grabbers that only run properly on specific distros, because those distros have a specific version and compile-time settings. I'm sure others have had similar hardware experiences.
It's not just the source that has to be the same - so does the compile-time and runtime environment, the file layout, etc., and there's variation between the distros on this, as well as what versions each distro decides to include. It's not just the spash screens and wallpaper that are different.
It provides an excellent vector of attack, simply because bots communicate with each other. Even encrypted, this gives you a list of other machines that are already compromised. Many bots are already part of more than one botnet. Just follow the chain, reaping more bots at each link.
If it hits all at once, they're all *broken* at once. "Not a good scenario" is putting it mildly. Or would you like everyone to have to switch to Windows because all the major linux distros are b0rken? A distro isn't a homogenous product - how long something takes to get fixed depends on the maintainers of the individual packages in question, not on how many people are using it.
Also, as I keep pointing out, you would still have to make different versions for each distro, seeing as each distro is in fact different - different compile-time options, different defaults (libraries, paths, processes)
This "proposal" was so naive that, if it had been from a member of the general public, I could understand - but for someone who's supposedly clued-in like Shuttleworth, I have to look at other motivations. Either pure apple-polishing, or way to consolidate market share by overshadowing/outshouting other releases if they're all released the same day.
Any smart distro vnedor that wants to compete will do the smart thing - release *after* the "simultaneous release". They'll get more publicity, especially on a slow news day, so my bet is that this proposal of "simultaneous release" is just pure marketing crap. It certainly fails from any technical aspect. It also shields from embarrassment - a typical CYA - "Everyone else suffers from the same bug."