Watched and enjoyed the "undecided voter" segment myself.
Still find the show very biased. As an example, when talking with guests, they didn't "attack" Clark in the same ways as Guliani.. However, I will grant you, Bush does give a lot of ammunition to work with though.
Regarding the pull outs, you're right, Kerry said (from the transcript) "if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months." That's putting a lot of faith that he can accomplish any better on the ground what has already been attempted since the turn over of power.
The Iraqi forces are being trained. How is that any different then what what is being done now? Does Kerry have some new magical abilty to train troops better then is being done by the military right now?
Bush has been trying to press that America is not an occupier but an enabler...although I believe his terms are more like, "we are bringing freedom and liberty to the Iraqi people" and that we are not occupier just as Kerry suggests. That being said though it's easy to say that and then have to perform actions to regain security in the reason and not be viewed as an occupier.
I hate to say it, but the "no real substance" comes from the Kerry camp as well as the Bush camp. They are not saying anything that hasn't already being said or attempted right now.
I think many ways the one thing that I hope to stress is that hind sight is 20-20. Bush pushed for going to Iraqi based on intelligence which was believed (by not only Bush, Kerry, all of congress, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, Europe, etc) true has since been shown false. Kerry voted to go to Iraqi. it can't be said it's alright for Kerry to say he was mislead and not give the president the same creedance.
I found that there were a number of mixed message by Kerry. An example of mixed messages is that they indicate they want to build a coalition to handle these matters in Iraq ( although there is some coalition already ) and then when it comes to Korea, he feels we should do it unilaterally and not include the coalition of the regional powers included in talks.
But then Korea is a sticky situation which basically involves North Korea (more specifically Kim Chong-il) trying to hold the international and Korea penisula hostage, seeking the international community (in this context this equals America) to provide ransom in the form of monitary relief put simple. Bush, in keeping with the "don't negotiate with terrorist" belief, does not agree with these methods. I beleive this type of tactic by North Korea is now starting to be formed in Iran as well...but that's a whole other issue. Does negotiating in such ways solve the problem or promote more such actions?
It's easy to say you can provide additional funding and difficult to do so with out taking from other areas. It's easy to take money from the public in the form of taxes and not expect the public as a whole to be able to continue to improving the economy without help. It's simple to say something...it's difficult to implement it.
If we don't have these types of measures...how do you do?
I respect a persons right to privacy but..
When all is said and done...when someone does something against the law...how is the legal system suppose to prevent illegal acts from happening or gain proof of a wrong doing in the high tech world?
Do you pick up the pieces after the crime (and hope no one was killed or all the money was taken) or do you try and prevent it?
If you pick up after the crime then it seems to me normal legal procedures(getting warrents, etc) are in place which requires the law enforcement to have oversite by the juducial side.
If you take the method of trying to prevent the crime ("pre-crime" anyone?) things get a little tricker as I see it.
You can probably stil have to have probable cause and or get a warrent to tap a given communications, but when a communication is encrypted and unable to be monitored how do you detect something that is considered suspicious...how can you get probably cause?
I still don't understand the whole monolithic vs microkernel of linux-ness.
As linux has become more developed, it seems in my eyes to becoming more and more microkernel like. It is becoming more modular (with architectures and kernel subsystems such as file systems, memory management, scheduling, etc). With the clustering functionality being developed is seems more message/microkernel like. The VM tries to isolate memory between processes/threads which seems more microkernel like.
The case could be made that linux does share memory and not do the whole message passing, but couldn't the whole method of using sysctrl and related interfaces be another form of message passing with another name?
Since when does a computer oriented group have anything to do with politics...I think he is letting his personal opinions hinder his Linux User Group leadership role.
I think the Iraqi Governing Council, the UN, and the EU could benefit some from reading these types of documents to understand the thinking behind the electoriate, etc.
Hey guys...I've seen several of the articles talking about the Beagle 2 being shown in images indicating a "string of pearls"...but in none of the articles I've seen has images of this "string of pearls" been shown. Anyone have a link on this?
It's in the pay section of the site so I wasn't able to look at it, but I read somewhere on the Star Wars site that they are filming the last episode with new holographic technologies. Anyone have any info on this? It would be cool if they could display it on this technology.
Not wanting to get on a SCO vs IBM argument, but is this action all a side effect of the SCO vs IBM issue in that they view this as a mean by which a trail for derrivate works for a given product can be obtained?
Maybe I misread it but doesn't this basically focuse on the binary versions, not the source? It seems the intent is that if someone includes a binary version of a product, then their needs to be some credit somewhere. If you look at code, you can see the credit; if you have a binary, how do you see the credit? You can either have an ad message when usage of the binary product, or update the documentation to give the credit.
Let's face...he is a good producer, writer, and visionary but as a director...he leaves a little to be desired...he did only direct the first Star Wars (New Hope)
Okay...For an article about going to the moon/mars there sure is too much political discussion on this one..
But I think a more realistic view is that going to Mars and the Moon will not only drive innovation, but should also put to work a lot of out of work skilled dot-com job seekers. This may quiet many of the folks concerned about all the jobs in the US leaving for other countries.
Besides that...even though technologies discovered during this could be used for miltary purposes, it finally puts some of our money towards techlogical efforts towards a peaceful use instead of making military technology.
When we try and do productive things to help mankind on earth (genetically engineered foods, AIDS research funding, etc) it always gets twisted by opponents as being some hidden agenda for the US. The case could be made that there is money behind it, but it cost money to do these types of things.
And here I was complaining about being too political...sorry guys.
I am fearful of his words, because many uninformed people will believe what he says.
I also find it terrible that in his eyes the "rights of private" seem to outweigh those "rights of the public".
He makes a case regarding Copyright under the US consititution and I accept that to a degree there is a broad generalization that all fall under, but in addition to those rights, there are rights provided by the GPL.
If he fails to accept this, then every single user agreement out today would be null and void. For that matter, the case could be made that this invalidates any user agreement that was placed on the existing sysV code. Can't have it both ways.
So am I correct in saying that the innovation present in Linux towards the public good (and even if there was bits of pre/post SysV code) is superceeded by the financial private good of SCO?
Has any code that may or may not have been included been used against the public good?
What is the public good or the promotion of innovation when development and innovation of Linux is hindered by this case.
I believe ultimately the US Consitition put items in to protect the rights of the individual when promoting the public good from being taken and abused by others whom they view as not using it towards the public good.
In SCO's case, they are using for their own good not for the public good.
Now a days all the patents, copyrights, etc are all held by big companies which have only the private/companies interests in mind...that seems counter to the intent of the Constitution.
I was wondering if anyone can confirm what I read previously over at Groklaw that IBM received hard copies of the information requested about source code items but not soft copies which they could use to do some computer based comparisons. (See "All SCO has turned over so far, IBM says, is that paper printout" )
If IBM supposedly has the source, based on past agreements made (surely they can find that tape, CD, or archived file somewhere) that they "stole" the information from, can't they use this source to compare against existing linux source to compare for similarities, similar to what SGI did? If IBM doesn't have these, then it seems like SCO is in violation for not providing this information, but I'm sure this is not the case.
I know doing comparisons does SCO's work for them, but this is the only way they will likely identify any possible similarities, especially since SCO is so reluctant to provide details. Once they are identified, then do a check on these files for all those who have made changes to this file and figured out whom he worked for at the time. And also once found we can compare against existing openly available versions of source to ensure that this information was not freely available by some other means in an earlier version.
Well...in recent years I have started to appreciate the idea, design well and include good details consideration early on and you avoid bugs. Avoiding bugs means less need to hack/patch a fix for the bug, which means less chance of having to add layer upon layer of patches. A good design also means less time spent searching thoughout your code for those hard to find bugs like a buffer overrun and the likes.
Although I will give, he made it sound as though in this new version of development tools, that they had an audit tool useful in analyzing and preventing many ikely security risks in code...but this is probably the old, search for buffer overruns, looking for uncatch execptions/errors, etc.
Compliments not Competes with 802.11
on
Is Bluetooth Dead?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I think he misses the point. He indicates that one of the reasons its dying is because 802.11x related products out doing the bluetooth products.
One thing he fails to mention is that bluetooth is intended for short distances not long distances like 802.11. Because of this, the power requirements are much less, which means you can use the bluetooth products without replacing batteries or recharging for much longer periods of time.
I will admit, I have no bluetooth, but I look forward to a new phone with bluetooth capabilities possible.
I know this one will likely go into the ether since this is an old thread, but...
Okay...so you work as a coder...are you working on Linux code for a living?
If not, are you working on Linux code at work when you are suppose to be working on something else? If so, make sure your boss doesn't catch you not working on what he pays you for.
If you are working on Linux code for a living, then their is your business model for you...someone is paying you to do this..
Check the bills to host kernel.org and you will see all the bandwidth used does cost money. All the disk space to store all those versions of the kernel cost money.
How are you going to make money for your own software company if you aren't selling software or services?
I play with Linux code at home too..but I don't make a living from it.
Slashdot Mirror
Watched and enjoyed the "undecided voter" segment myself.
Still find the show very biased. As an example, when talking with guests, they didn't "attack" Clark in the same ways as Guliani.. However, I will grant you, Bush does give a lot of ammunition to work with though.
Regarding the pull outs, you're right, Kerry said (from the transcript) "if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months." That's putting a lot of faith that he can accomplish any better on the ground what has already been attempted since the turn over of power.
The Iraqi forces are being trained. How is that any different then what what is being done now? Does Kerry have some new magical abilty to train troops better then is being done by the military right now?
Bush has been trying to press that America is not an occupier but an enabler...although I believe his terms are more like, "we are bringing freedom and liberty to the Iraqi people" and that we are not occupier just as Kerry suggests. That being said though it's easy to say that and then have to perform actions to regain security in the reason and not be viewed as an occupier.
I hate to say it, but the "no real substance" comes from the Kerry camp as well as the Bush camp. They are not saying anything that hasn't already being said or attempted right now.
I think many ways the one thing that I hope to stress is that hind sight is 20-20. Bush pushed for going to Iraqi based on intelligence which was believed (by not only Bush, Kerry, all of congress, British Intelligence, Russian Intelligence, Europe, etc) true has since been shown false. Kerry voted to go to Iraqi. it can't be said it's alright for Kerry to say he was mislead and not give the president the same creedance.
I found that there were a number of mixed message by Kerry. An example of mixed messages is that they indicate they want to build a coalition to handle these matters in Iraq ( although there is some coalition already ) and then when it comes to Korea, he feels we should do it unilaterally and not include the coalition of the regional powers included in talks.
But then Korea is a sticky situation which basically involves North Korea (more specifically Kim Chong-il) trying to hold the international and Korea penisula hostage, seeking the international community (in this context this equals America) to provide ransom in the form of monitary relief put simple. Bush, in keeping with the "don't negotiate with terrorist" belief, does not agree with these methods. I beleive this type of tactic by North Korea is now starting to be formed in Iran as well...but that's a whole other issue. Does negotiating in such ways solve the problem or promote more such actions?
It's easy to say you can provide additional funding and difficult to do so with out taking from other areas. It's easy to take money from the public in the form of taxes and not expect the public as a whole to be able to continue to improving the economy without help. It's simple to say something...it's difficult to implement it.
If we don't have these types of measures...how do you do?
I respect a persons right to privacy but..
When all is said and done...when someone does something against the law...how is the legal system suppose to prevent illegal acts from happening or gain proof of a wrong doing in the high tech world?
Do you pick up the pieces after the crime (and hope no one was killed or all the money was taken) or do you try and prevent it?
If you pick up after the crime then it seems to me normal legal procedures(getting warrents, etc) are in place which requires the law enforcement to have oversite by the juducial side.
If you take the method of trying to prevent the crime ("pre-crime" anyone?) things get a little tricker as I see it.
You can probably stil have to have probable cause and or get a warrent to tap a given communications, but when a communication is encrypted and unable to be monitored how do you detect something that is considered suspicious...how can you get probably cause?
IANAL
I guess this is a matter of how much you trust them and what is being done by the companies and their customers.
We know how willing corporations are to follow regulations...that's why we have no problems with corporate corruption.
Looks like I picked a bad time to go on a business trip in Savannah, GA.
Anyone remember the The Iraq Liberation Act or the president that signed it
Does nuclear material count?
I still don't understand the whole monolithic vs microkernel of linux-ness.
As linux has become more developed, it seems in my eyes to becoming more and more microkernel like. It is becoming more modular (with architectures and kernel subsystems such as file systems, memory management, scheduling, etc). With the clustering functionality being developed is seems more message/microkernel like. The VM tries to isolate memory between processes/threads which seems more microkernel like.
The case could be made that linux does share memory and not do the whole message passing, but couldn't the whole method of using sysctrl and related interfaces be another form of message passing with another name?
Seems like a tOmato / tomAto type of argument.
Was looking around and found MyXaML which is an opensource implementation. Is this a possible product worth looking into?
Since when does a computer oriented group have anything to do with politics...I think he is letting his personal opinions hinder his Linux User Group leadership role.
I wonder if anyone reads the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers like the one regarding elections of the president for reasons why things are done the way they are.
I think the Iraqi Governing Council, the UN, and the EU could benefit some from reading these types of documents to understand the thinking behind the electoriate, etc.
Hey guys...I've seen several of the articles talking about the Beagle 2 being shown in images indicating a "string of pearls"...but in none of the articles I've seen has images of this "string of pearls" been shown. Anyone have a link on this?
So this is like, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make noise?
It's in the pay section of the site so I wasn't able to look at it, but I read somewhere on the Star Wars site that they are filming the last episode with new holographic technologies. Anyone have any info on this? It would be cool if they could display it on this technology.
Since some of the concern is based on xlib, etc usage..can we just make the libraries LGPL and be done with this?
Not wanting to get on a SCO vs IBM argument, but is this action all a side effect of the SCO vs IBM issue in that they view this as a mean by which a trail for derrivate works for a given product can be obtained?
Maybe I misread it but doesn't this basically focuse on the binary versions, not the source? It seems the intent is that if someone includes a binary version of a product, then their needs to be some credit somewhere. If you look at code, you can see the credit; if you have a binary, how do you see the credit? You can either have an ad message when usage of the binary product, or update the documentation to give the credit.
Let's face...he is a good producer, writer, and visionary but as a director...he leaves a little to be desired...he did only direct the first Star Wars (New Hope)
But I will keep watching no matter what.
Okay...For an article about going to the moon/mars there sure is too much political discussion on this one..
But I think a more realistic view is that going to Mars and the Moon will not only drive innovation, but should also put to work a lot of out of work skilled dot-com job seekers. This may quiet many of the folks concerned about all the jobs in the US leaving for other countries.
Besides that...even though technologies discovered during this could be used for miltary purposes, it finally puts some of our money towards techlogical efforts towards a peaceful use instead of making military technology.
When we try and do productive things to help mankind on earth (genetically engineered foods, AIDS research funding, etc) it always gets twisted by opponents as being some hidden agenda for the US. The case could be made that there is money behind it, but it cost money to do these types of things.
And here I was complaining about being too political...sorry guys.
I don't suppose these listening sensors combined can be used to do some invasive listening or snooping on the public at large can they?
It's things like his comments which does make me asshamed to be an American.
I think he was saying the idea of the law not actually falling under US law.
Kind of like the "approach to prevent people from killing people" is an idea found in many laws around the world.
I am fearful of his words, because many uninformed people will believe what he says.
I also find it terrible that in his eyes the "rights of private" seem to outweigh those "rights of the public".
He makes a case regarding Copyright under the US consititution and I accept that to a degree there is a broad generalization that all fall under, but in addition to those rights, there are rights provided by the GPL.
If he fails to accept this, then every single user agreement out today would be null and void. For that matter, the case could be made that this invalidates any user agreement that was placed on the existing sysV code. Can't have it both ways.
So am I correct in saying that the innovation present in Linux towards the public good (and even if there was bits of pre/post SysV code) is superceeded by the financial private good of SCO?
Has any code that may or may not have been included been used against the public good?
What is the public good or the promotion of innovation when development and innovation of Linux is hindered by this case.
I believe ultimately the US Consitition put items in to protect the rights of the individual when promoting the public good from being taken and abused by others whom they view as not using it towards the public good.
In SCO's case, they are using for their own good not for the public good.
Now a days all the patents, copyrights, etc are all held by big companies which have only the private/companies interests in mind...that seems counter to the intent of the Constitution.
Well...although it doesn't go that fast, there was an item in Popular Science about a similar train by the Chinese called the Shanghai Transrapid.
I was wondering if anyone can confirm what I read previously over at Groklaw that IBM received hard copies of the information requested about source code items but not soft copies which they could use to do some computer based comparisons. (See "All SCO has turned over so far, IBM says, is that paper printout" )
If IBM supposedly has the source, based on past agreements made (surely they can find that tape, CD, or archived file somewhere) that they "stole" the information from, can't they use this source to compare against existing linux source to compare for similarities, similar to what SGI did? If IBM doesn't have these, then it seems like SCO is in violation for not providing this information, but I'm sure this is not the case.
I know doing comparisons does SCO's work for them, but this is the only way they will likely identify any possible similarities, especially since SCO is so reluctant to provide details. Once they are identified, then do a check on these files for all those who have made changes to this file and figured out whom he worked for at the time. And also once found we can compare against existing openly available versions of source to ensure that this information was not freely available by some other means in an earlier version.
Well...in recent years I have started to appreciate the idea, design well and include good details consideration early on and you avoid bugs. Avoiding bugs means less need to hack/patch a fix for the bug, which means less chance of having to add layer upon layer of patches. A good design also means less time spent searching thoughout your code for those hard to find bugs like a buffer overrun and the likes.
Although I will give, he made it sound as though in this new version of development tools, that they had an audit tool useful in analyzing and preventing many ikely security risks in code...but this is probably the old, search for buffer overruns, looking for uncatch execptions/errors, etc.
I think he misses the point. He indicates that one of the reasons its dying is because 802.11x related products out doing the bluetooth products.
One thing he fails to mention is that bluetooth is intended for short distances not long distances like 802.11. Because of this, the power requirements are much less, which means you can use the bluetooth products without replacing batteries or recharging for much longer periods of time.
I will admit, I have no bluetooth, but I look forward to a new phone with bluetooth capabilities possible.
I know this one will likely go into the ether since this is an old thread, but...
Okay...so you work as a coder...are you working on Linux code for a living?
If not, are you working on Linux code at work when you are suppose to be working on something else? If so, make sure your boss doesn't catch you not working on what he pays you for.
If you are working on Linux code for a living, then their is your business model for you...someone is paying you to do this..
Check the bills to host kernel.org and you will see all the bandwidth used does cost money. All the disk space to store all those versions of the kernel cost money.
How are you going to make money for your own software company if you aren't selling software or services?
I play with Linux code at home too..but I don't make a living from it.