The effect of tidal generators on this system is nothing.
It can't be nothing -- energy is coming out of the system. Negligible, perhaps, but not "nothing." And I agree, the potential impact on marine ecosystems is a far more pressing issue than the moon's orbit.
Oh, it is quite explicitly stated: perCM is described as a "percentage" (as in "per hundred"), so it ranges from 0 to 100, not 0 to 1.
The etymology of the word is irrelevant. In practice, people use the term "percentage" to mean parts-in-100 OR a fraction. Look at the second definition listed in the dictionary. It's a "part of a whole." I've used it both ways many times. So has every engineer I've ever worked with. It's usually obvious from the context, as it was in this case.
Well, what you illustrate again is that the MI is a seat-of-the-pants kind of measure that was thrown together because it looks nice, not because anybody thought about statistical validity.
Do you even know what the term "index" MEANS? It's a magical number used to quantify the unquantifiable! It's dimensionless! What, do you think the Consumer Price Index is any less black magic? Nobody ever implied that the number has any statistical validity, it is just a number which happens to do a fairly good job at helping people compare things.
It's just my opinion, but I think if people stopped using older languages like C and moved to more self-documenting languanges, things would be a lot easier. For instance, Objective-C self-documents its own methods (i.e. "[object doThis:that forThis:that];").
I don't follow. How is that any more or less clear than:
object->doThis(that);
object->forThis(that);
Are you trying to say that the former is better because it looks more like English? Weird argument to make, considering the majority of the world's population doesn't speak English as their first language, so it's irrelevant that it happens to look like English.
Any language (except maybe assembler) can be written in a readable way. You just have to learn the idioms.
Erosion has a negative effect on diversity. Habitats are destroyed which may take many years to develop
Wow, imagine that. For 4 billion years there were no humans around to prevent the Nasty Waves from hitting the beaches! How on Earth did Earth survive?!
Dude, the natural world does not "destroy" anything. It changes things. We may like those changes or we may not, but we fool with nature at our peril.
A message to coders: People, if your function is more than 10 lines long, you should start to consider splitting it. If it's more than 100 lines long, you're probably doing something wrong. If you have the same code written with slight modifications two or more different ways, you're probably doing something wrong.
All sound advice, but it must be said that there ARE situations where you probably shouldn't follow it.
For example, in one of the products I work on, there is a source file which contains about 10 functions, each almost identical to the rest. They are special cases for doing fast drawing operations. Using a more generic structure for this (e.g., writing just one function and using a function pointer to control the inner-loop behavior) is almost 5 times slower.
In another source module, there is a function which is hundreds of lines long. It is a hand-unrolled implementation of a bit-oriented run-length encoder. It runs 7 times faster than the equivalent "readable" version.
I don't want to give a bunch of gratuitous examples. My point is that there are cases where you need to break away from typical ideas of "maintainability" for the sake of speed. In this case the speed isn't a luxury -- users will have a hard time being productive with the product if it runs slow.
It takes experience to know when it's appropriate to do things like that. I admit I haven't got it totally figured out myself yet:-)
Particularly amusing is a term of 50 * sin (sqrt(2.4 * perCM)) in the maintainability index
It's only amusing to people who don't bother to think about why it's there. It's actually a very insightful part of the metric.
First of all, perCM ranges from 0 to 1, not 0 to 100. Yes, that isn't explicitly stated, but it would be ridiculous otherwise. Second, try looking at the damn graph.
As I told somebody else, do it now. Don't pretend to do it, GRAPH the damn thing and look at it: sin(sqrt(2.4*x)) for x=0..1.
That graph makes it completely transparent what they're trying to accomplish with that part of the formula. First off, if comments are 0, the value is 0. Having no comments does not positively impact maintainability! Second, the function PEAKS at around 0.43. This represents an avgCM of 0.03, or 3%. Then, the function begins to go down again, but not as drastically as it rose.
What this is saying is that the benefit of comments has a maximum at around 3%. Having more comments than this tends to DECREASE the maintainability (and this is borne out by experience). However, having too many comments is better than having too few comments, so the function is skewed to the left side by the sqrt() function.
You see, every part of that expression makes total sense if you spend more than 2 nanoseconds thinking about it. Sheesh.
Now, I'm all for emperical data, but that is just bistromatics and totally insane.
Metrics are already "black magic." This one is no worse or better than any other dimensionless metric I've seen.
Obviously the input is in radians. The argument to a trig function is always assumed to be radians unless otherwise specified. Now, the sqrt(mumble percent) can only range from 0 to 1, so what we're looking at here is the graph of the sin function from 0 to 2.4 radians.
Do it now. Graph it. Graph the function sin(sqrt(2.4*x)) from x=0..1
Notice that this function (you might call it a transfer function) ramps up and peaks at 0.43 radians. That corresponds to a comment percentage of 3%. Then it begins to go down again.
What does this mean? It means that there is a point beyond which more comments are not useful. If more than 3% of your code is comments, there's something wrong. That's all that part of the equation means!
You only classify it as "bistromatics" because you're too lazy to do the thinking and figure out what it's for.
Warranties and other such contracts will also be allowed since they benefit the customer.
You keep using these extremely vague terms. Things which are "reasonable" and "possible." Stuff that "benefits the customer." I think you'll have a very hard time making those concepts precise.
Weasels will find a way to package the most ridiculous bullshit and make it look like it "benefits the customer." You're going to need very specific laws which clearly spell out what is and is not allowed. Even then, it isn't going to change anything.
Corporations are made up of people. The suckitude doesn't just arise spontaneously. If you outlaw corporations people will just find different ways to be assholes. At least a corporation is a legal entity which can be targetted by a lawsuit.
I'm sure you could pick 5 random closed source commercial projects and find (nearly) the same thing.
The difference, though, is that commercial products can't exist (or at least by all economic rights SHOULDN'T exist) without a userbase. SourceForge is littered with stuff that's so bad it's completely unusable. You can't get away with that with a commercial product, although that doesn't necessarily mean the project is MAINTAINABLE;-)
And I didn't think you were blaming OSS, just picking up your thread and running with it.
I don't see how copyright applies in this case. I can take a book, mark it up, cut pages out and paste new content into it. It's my book. I would be in trouble if I wanted to then sell that book, but I'm not trying to. Why should a piece of software be different?
One need only peruse the source code of 5 randomly picked source forge projects to figure this one out.
Yeah, but don't blame it on OSS. This is simply another embodiment of the long-tailed distribution of human stupidity. In any human endeavor there are a large number of people who are Unskilled and Unaware of it. These people will try their hand at whatever catches their attention, and the results usually range from mediocre to terrible.
There's a lot of really bad fan fiction out there, too. And terrible amateur cartoons. And naive, uninformed political opinions.
What we witness on SourceForge is merely a demonstration of the inability of most people to accomplish anything of any importance. Nothing specific to OSS.
At least with Open Source Software you CAN maintain it if necessary. With closed source, there is no way to make any changes to old software
Sure you can. It's easy to forget, but there are people who are fluent in assembly language and can figure out a defunct, proprietary piece of software if necessary.
I agree that it barely meets the definition of "maintainable," but it can be done with some effort. I've done it myself, while trying to find a problem in one of our distribution binaries -- the bug I was trying to squish went away when we did a recompile for some obscure reasons, so I was forced to hack the binary itself in order to insert some debugging hooks. It can be done.
Their was just some guy who broke his employment contract and released trade secrets to an online news site, that either did not know or care that publishing them was a violation of trade secrets law. In this case I don't think the source deserves protection from prosecution or retribution from his employer for acting in the public good. He deserves to be fired for being a blabbermouth.
How would you propose to word a law to implement what you just described? And how would that law treat people who are simultaneously whistleblowers AND criminals?
I'm imagining the case of a person who previously participated in something illegal, but eventually decides to come forward out of a guilty conscience. How should those people be treated legally?
I don't in principle object to what you're saying, but I think this needs to be very carefully spelled out so as to not discourage people from reporting things that need to be reported.
As a result, I conclude that Apple not only doesn't deserve rights, it doesn't deserve anything at all. This does not meet up with many existing laws, I believe these laws should be abolished.
But this leads to unintended consequences. You are basically saying that any contract between a person and a non-person should be null and void. But that means warrantees, service agreements, basically all contractual instruments which are designed to protect the consumer are also null and void.
You can't have it both ways. Either corporations may enter into legally binding contracts, or they may not. I personally prefer a system where I can legally force a company to do something by contract, but hey, if you want the Wild West, good for you... I guess.
Yea wonderful...the gov't needs roadblocks to prevent punishing people who knowingly break the law. Thats a wonderful piece of insight.
It is indeed. Suppose the cops know you're guilty but can't prove it, so they plant evidence. Are you saying that's okay? The guy's guilty, he has to be busted! Or what if a suspect is tortured until he confesses? What if the cops illegally search a house and find a joint? The owner is clearly a lawbreaker, so damn those technical restrictions, convict at all costs!
For most people it's far more important to maintain the ideals of the system than it is to catch absolutely every single last crook.
I guess you would impede a gov't investigation into catching a murderer if you could right?
Don't be obtuse. I'm not a journalist who promised somebody to maintain his confidentiality.
What if that person killed (god forbid) was your mother - would you think so highly of a journalist preventing the capture of the killer?
Probably not. This argument is also used against people who are anti death penalty. It goes like this: "If it happened to you you'd suddenly see things our way." But it's not relevant. If it happened to me, I'd no longer be unbiased.
So I admit it, if somebody killed my mother and a journalist was keeping it a secret, I'd be plenty pissed. I'd probably want him to reveal the source. And I would be 100% wrong.
I think journalistic sources should be protected except when the sources are committing a crime (civil or criminal). Why do we have to make blanket laws - why can't things be handled on a case by case basis.
Because of how it LOOKS. If sources don't know for certain, I mean 100% certain, that they will be protected, they will not come forward. What if a source is not sure whether he's done something wrong or not? If he might end up in trouble, he'll probably decide to err on the side of not coming forward.
For most people it just isn't good enough to say, "I'll try to keep this secret, but I'm not absolutely sure I can, it depends on many factors, really, it's very complicated, but will you please give me the story?"
Except the journalists are impeding a legal investigation. They are knowingly preventing the enforcement of a legal document.
Good. The government NEEDS roadblocks. It stops them from doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want, unless they're willing to put in some real effort. In this case, it means they'll have to find some other way to nail the guy.
What way would you like for Apple to bust this guy? Do you think a corporate memo will get him to fess up?
In reality, there's probably no way to get him without the journalist's help. That's unfortunate, but I think the priority here should go to the protection of journalistic sources. It's like letting somebody off on a technicality. It's unfortunate we have to do that, but those technicalities are there for a reason and they continue to exist because people believe, in general, that it's worth losing a few cases here and there.
Days will get longer, coastal ecosystems will be disrupted, and the moon will always be above the same point on earth. We should clearly stick to burning all the complex organics we can dig up to make energy...
1. Don't be stupid. Fossil fuel is not the only alternative here.
2. You think reducing tidal energy flux by 25% will have little or no impact? You're insane. Here, let me turn down the sun by 25% (hey, it's only 25%), I'm sure nothing will be affected...
At the risk of sounding like one of those envirowhackos for whom nothing is good enough...
They're talking about extracting up to 25% of the available wave energy along the entire coastline. Now, I'm no marine biologist, but I'm fairly sure that the ecosystems of coastal areas (both beaches and continental shelfs) are heavily dependent on wave and tidal action. The impacts of reducing the incoming energy by 25% along the entire coastline probably can't be predicted. Needless to say they would probably not be positive effects.
I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to refer to this as "green" energy, in that sense.
The only really green energy I can think of is nuclear.
Protecting the unethical person who leaked information that was expected and agreed upon to remain private is a chicken shit excuse for selling gossip and calling it journalism.
For the 1882364th frickin' time, this is NOT ABOUT PROTECTING THE PERSON WHO BROKE THE NDA. This is about protecting journalism. It's about protecting society.
A world where witnesses feel safe telling their stories to journalists in private is a better world than where whistleblowers are unwilling to come forward, because the journalists can be forced to reveal their sources. A world where important information cannot freely flow because the people who possess that information are too scared to come forward is a shitty world.
The person who leaked the information broke a contract. It is 100% correct that he needs to be held accountable. But risking the very foundations of journalism just to bust one guy is an inversion of priorities.
Once this is a criminal matter then there is no question about "rights" of journalists since the right to free speech doesn't include the right to stealing trade secrets and violating contracts.
Where the hell do people dig up this crap? It's obviously UNTRUE that journalists become "accessories" by failing to report the sources. If that were the case, why isn't the guy who interviewed Osama bin Laden in prison?
Criminals are interviewed secretly all the time. You know -- these are the guys who sit in shady corners and have their voices modified to maintain their secrecy. And guess what? The journalists who do those interviews don't get arrested.
So if the source broke his contract (revealing trade secrets), then his right to privacy with the free press is not valid as they are protecting someone who broke the contract - which is a legal document.
This has never, ever been the case. First of all, it's not the source's rights we're talking about here. It's the journalist's rights. The journalist should have the right to keep his sources secret. Sometimes the only way to get a story is to promise the source you won't reveal his/her identity. If journalists were forced to reveal everything, they'd suddenly have much less to report. That hurts everyone.
I also think it would make sense. He signed NDA's (probably) and as such should have honored those instead of selling-out.
No, it makes absolutely no sense. Forcing journalists to reveal their sources would cripple reporting and make the entire world suck. And for what? Just to enforce a single NDA?
Don't get me wrong, the guy broke the law and he ought to be busted, but not THIS way.
Slashdot Mirror
It can't be nothing -- energy is coming out of the system. Negligible, perhaps, but not "nothing." And I agree, the potential impact on marine ecosystems is a far more pressing issue than the moon's orbit.
The etymology of the word is irrelevant. In practice, people use the term "percentage" to mean parts-in-100 OR a fraction. Look at the second definition listed in the dictionary. It's a "part of a whole." I've used it both ways many times. So has every engineer I've ever worked with. It's usually obvious from the context, as it was in this case.
Well, what you illustrate again is that the MI is a seat-of-the-pants kind of measure that was thrown together because it looks nice, not because anybody thought about statistical validity.
Do you even know what the term "index" MEANS? It's a magical number used to quantify the unquantifiable! It's dimensionless! What, do you think the Consumer Price Index is any less black magic? Nobody ever implied that the number has any statistical validity, it is just a number which happens to do a fairly good job at helping people compare things.
If it's useful to you, use it. If not, don't.
I don't follow. How is that any more or less clear than:
object->doThis(that);
object->forThis(that);
Are you trying to say that the former is better because it looks more like English? Weird argument to make, considering the majority of the world's population doesn't speak English as their first language, so it's irrelevant that it happens to look like English.
Any language (except maybe assembler) can be written in a readable way. You just have to learn the idioms.
Wow, imagine that. For 4 billion years there were no humans around to prevent the Nasty Waves from hitting the beaches! How on Earth did Earth survive?!
Dude, the natural world does not "destroy" anything. It changes things. We may like those changes or we may not, but we fool with nature at our peril.
All sound advice, but it must be said that there ARE situations where you probably shouldn't follow it.
For example, in one of the products I work on, there is a source file which contains about 10 functions, each almost identical to the rest. They are special cases for doing fast drawing operations. Using a more generic structure for this (e.g., writing just one function and using a function pointer to control the inner-loop behavior) is almost 5 times slower.
In another source module, there is a function which is hundreds of lines long. It is a hand-unrolled implementation of a bit-oriented run-length encoder. It runs 7 times faster than the equivalent "readable" version.
I don't want to give a bunch of gratuitous examples. My point is that there are cases where you need to break away from typical ideas of "maintainability" for the sake of speed. In this case the speed isn't a luxury -- users will have a hard time being productive with the product if it runs slow.
It takes experience to know when it's appropriate to do things like that. I admit I haven't got it totally figured out myself yet :-)
It's only amusing to people who don't bother to think about why it's there. It's actually a very insightful part of the metric.
First of all, perCM ranges from 0 to 1, not 0 to 100. Yes, that isn't explicitly stated, but it would be ridiculous otherwise. Second, try looking at the damn graph.
As I told somebody else, do it now. Don't pretend to do it, GRAPH the damn thing and look at it: sin(sqrt(2.4*x)) for x=0..1.
That graph makes it completely transparent what they're trying to accomplish with that part of the formula. First off, if comments are 0, the value is 0. Having no comments does not positively impact maintainability! Second, the function PEAKS at around 0.43. This represents an avgCM of 0.03, or 3%. Then, the function begins to go down again, but not as drastically as it rose.
What this is saying is that the benefit of comments has a maximum at around 3%. Having more comments than this tends to DECREASE the maintainability (and this is borne out by experience). However, having too many comments is better than having too few comments, so the function is skewed to the left side by the sqrt() function.
You see, every part of that expression makes total sense if you spend more than 2 nanoseconds thinking about it. Sheesh.
Now, I'm all for emperical data, but that is just bistromatics and totally insane.
Metrics are already "black magic." This one is no worse or better than any other dimensionless metric I've seen.
Obviously the input is in radians. The argument to a trig function is always assumed to be radians unless otherwise specified. Now, the sqrt(mumble percent) can only range from 0 to 1, so what we're looking at here is the graph of the sin function from 0 to 2.4 radians.
Do it now. Graph it. Graph the function sin(sqrt(2.4*x)) from x=0..1
Notice that this function (you might call it a transfer function) ramps up and peaks at 0.43 radians. That corresponds to a comment percentage of 3%. Then it begins to go down again. What does this mean? It means that there is a point beyond which more comments are not useful. If more than 3% of your code is comments, there's something wrong. That's all that part of the equation means!
You only classify it as "bistromatics" because you're too lazy to do the thinking and figure out what it's for.
You keep using these extremely vague terms. Things which are "reasonable" and "possible." Stuff that "benefits the customer." I think you'll have a very hard time making those concepts precise.
Weasels will find a way to package the most ridiculous bullshit and make it look like it "benefits the customer." You're going to need very specific laws which clearly spell out what is and is not allowed. Even then, it isn't going to change anything.
Corporations are made up of people. The suckitude doesn't just arise spontaneously. If you outlaw corporations people will just find different ways to be assholes. At least a corporation is a legal entity which can be targetted by a lawsuit.
This solution won't work in the future with the BPL psychotics actively trying to make the ham bands useless.
Aren't NORMAL call transmitted via satellite already? Or do I hallucinate...
The difference, though, is that commercial products can't exist (or at least by all economic rights SHOULDN'T exist) without a userbase. SourceForge is littered with stuff that's so bad it's completely unusable. You can't get away with that with a commercial product, although that doesn't necessarily mean the project is MAINTAINABLE ;-)
And I didn't think you were blaming OSS, just picking up your thread and running with it.
I don't see how copyright applies in this case. I can take a book, mark it up, cut pages out and paste new content into it. It's my book. I would be in trouble if I wanted to then sell that book, but I'm not trying to. Why should a piece of software be different?
Yeah, but don't blame it on OSS. This is simply another embodiment of the long-tailed distribution of human stupidity. In any human endeavor there are a large number of people who are Unskilled and Unaware of it. These people will try their hand at whatever catches their attention, and the results usually range from mediocre to terrible.
There's a lot of really bad fan fiction out there, too. And terrible amateur cartoons. And naive, uninformed political opinions.
What we witness on SourceForge is merely a demonstration of the inability of most people to accomplish anything of any importance. Nothing specific to OSS.
Sure you can. It's easy to forget, but there are people who are fluent in assembly language and can figure out a defunct, proprietary piece of software if necessary.
I agree that it barely meets the definition of "maintainable," but it can be done with some effort. I've done it myself, while trying to find a problem in one of our distribution binaries -- the bug I was trying to squish went away when we did a recompile for some obscure reasons, so I was forced to hack the binary itself in order to insert some debugging hooks. It can be done.
So you're willing to trash the environment to make a political point? Nice priorities.
How would you propose to word a law to implement what you just described? And how would that law treat people who are simultaneously whistleblowers AND criminals?
I'm imagining the case of a person who previously participated in something illegal, but eventually decides to come forward out of a guilty conscience. How should those people be treated legally?
I don't in principle object to what you're saying, but I think this needs to be very carefully spelled out so as to not discourage people from reporting things that need to be reported.
But this leads to unintended consequences. You are basically saying that any contract between a person and a non-person should be null and void. But that means warrantees, service agreements, basically all contractual instruments which are designed to protect the consumer are also null and void.
You can't have it both ways. Either corporations may enter into legally binding contracts, or they may not. I personally prefer a system where I can legally force a company to do something by contract, but hey, if you want the Wild West, good for you... I guess.
It is indeed. Suppose the cops know you're guilty but can't prove it, so they plant evidence. Are you saying that's okay? The guy's guilty, he has to be busted! Or what if a suspect is tortured until he confesses? What if the cops illegally search a house and find a joint? The owner is clearly a lawbreaker, so damn those technical restrictions, convict at all costs!
For most people it's far more important to maintain the ideals of the system than it is to catch absolutely every single last crook.
I guess you would impede a gov't investigation into catching a murderer if you could right?
Don't be obtuse. I'm not a journalist who promised somebody to maintain his confidentiality.
What if that person killed (god forbid) was your mother - would you think so highly of a journalist preventing the capture of the killer?
Probably not. This argument is also used against people who are anti death penalty. It goes like this: "If it happened to you you'd suddenly see things our way." But it's not relevant. If it happened to me, I'd no longer be unbiased.
So I admit it, if somebody killed my mother and a journalist was keeping it a secret, I'd be plenty pissed. I'd probably want him to reveal the source. And I would be 100% wrong.
I think journalistic sources should be protected except when the sources are committing a crime (civil or criminal). Why do we have to make blanket laws - why can't things be handled on a case by case basis.Because of how it LOOKS. If sources don't know for certain, I mean 100% certain, that they will be protected, they will not come forward. What if a source is not sure whether he's done something wrong or not? If he might end up in trouble, he'll probably decide to err on the side of not coming forward.
For most people it just isn't good enough to say, "I'll try to keep this secret, but I'm not absolutely sure I can, it depends on many factors, really, it's very complicated, but will you please give me the story?"
Good. The government NEEDS roadblocks. It stops them from doing whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want, unless they're willing to put in some real effort. In this case, it means they'll have to find some other way to nail the guy.
What way would you like for Apple to bust this guy? Do you think a corporate memo will get him to fess up?
In reality, there's probably no way to get him without the journalist's help. That's unfortunate, but I think the priority here should go to the protection of journalistic sources. It's like letting somebody off on a technicality. It's unfortunate we have to do that, but those technicalities are there for a reason and they continue to exist because people believe, in general, that it's worth losing a few cases here and there.
1. Don't be stupid. Fossil fuel is not the only alternative here.
2. You think reducing tidal energy flux by 25% will have little or no impact? You're insane. Here, let me turn down the sun by 25% (hey, it's only 25%), I'm sure nothing will be affected...
They're talking about extracting up to 25% of the available wave energy along the entire coastline. Now, I'm no marine biologist, but I'm fairly sure that the ecosystems of coastal areas (both beaches and continental shelfs) are heavily dependent on wave and tidal action. The impacts of reducing the incoming energy by 25% along the entire coastline probably can't be predicted. Needless to say they would probably not be positive effects.
I don't think it's necessarily appropriate to refer to this as "green" energy, in that sense.
The only really green energy I can think of is nuclear.
For the 1882364th frickin' time, this is NOT ABOUT PROTECTING THE PERSON WHO BROKE THE NDA. This is about protecting journalism. It's about protecting society.
A world where witnesses feel safe telling their stories to journalists in private is a better world than where whistleblowers are unwilling to come forward, because the journalists can be forced to reveal their sources. A world where important information cannot freely flow because the people who possess that information are too scared to come forward is a shitty world.
The person who leaked the information broke a contract. It is 100% correct that he needs to be held accountable. But risking the very foundations of journalism just to bust one guy is an inversion of priorities.
Where the hell do people dig up this crap? It's obviously UNTRUE that journalists become "accessories" by failing to report the sources. If that were the case, why isn't the guy who interviewed Osama bin Laden in prison?
Criminals are interviewed secretly all the time. You know -- these are the guys who sit in shady corners and have their voices modified to maintain their secrecy. And guess what? The journalists who do those interviews don't get arrested.
This has never, ever been the case. First of all, it's not the source's rights we're talking about here. It's the journalist's rights. The journalist should have the right to keep his sources secret. Sometimes the only way to get a story is to promise the source you won't reveal his/her identity. If journalists were forced to reveal everything, they'd suddenly have much less to report. That hurts everyone.
I also think it would make sense. He signed NDA's (probably) and as such should have honored those instead of selling-out.
No, it makes absolutely no sense. Forcing journalists to reveal their sources would cripple reporting and make the entire world suck. And for what? Just to enforce a single NDA?
Don't get me wrong, the guy broke the law and he ought to be busted, but not THIS way.
Uh, he didn't say he did. Are you too lazy to read his entire post? It's only two lines long, geez:
OTOH if they got the information from another source who has singed an NDA. Well to bad, the journalist should not be required to reveal sources.