As far as I recall (IANAL), you are only required to show your identification to law enforcement when pulled over while operating a motor vehicle, or entering the country from another country.
Show of the same name featured person after person who claimed they had nothing worth stealing. Moreover, that the loss of their worthless material possessions would mean nothing to them.
Once they saw their homes being ransacked, they very quickly changed their tunes. Many felt nausea, revulsion, and commonly, fury.
So, for those who claim you have nothing to hide, you could take a lesson from these people, but, I acknowledge that YMMV.
As far as food goes, This guy already turned India (and Pakistan) around. They went from being short on food to having a food surplus.
He also prevented a second "Dust Bowl" (same weather conditions) in the Midwest.
If China (and any other nation for that matter) did what he outlined, they would no longer have a food shortage.
Your observation on production per capita is dead on correct though.
I agree with the analogy, but let me add something.
If you have taken reasonable steps to prevent the gun from being stolen, e.g. locked the doors, kept it in a place of concealment, etc, you would generally not be held accountable if a burglar steals it and commits a crime with it.
On the other hand, if your doors and windows are wide open, with large neon signs saying "Unprotected firearms in the hall closet!" and other (non-reasonable) things, you will be held somewhat accountable.
Since the actual thing we are speaking of are zombie pc's on the internet, we have a situation that is usually between the two.
We will have some people who use a very secure OS, keep it patched, have it tuned for security, specifically intrusion protection. These people are akin to firearms owners who have locked doors, windows, an alarm system, dogs inside, and a roving flock of geese outside (to warn of intruders).
We will also have some people with a not-very-secure OS, who keep it patched as best is available, and thusly, will absolve themselves of allegations of wrongdoing, since they will have done the best that is reasonably possible.
We will also have some people with a not-very-secure OS, who do not patch and have no eye to security. These people, since they are (sorta) using balsa wood doors on a straw house, may find themselves bearing legal resposibility for attacks and will have little legal recourse since they did nothing to even attempt to mitigate potential damage.
Of course, I am not a lawyer (ianal) but that's my take on it.
Despite the fact that I own a Sony Playstation/2, every time I see some release about the PS/2, my first thought is of those old IBM Personal System/2 (also abbreviates PS/2) nightmares I learned on.
So I have a whole cycle of "Why did they bother to develop on such and old and proprietary.... Oh yeah, wrong PS/2" every few weeks or so.
Analysis of SCO's Las Vegas Slide Show Bruce Perens, Perens LLC With help from Linus Torvalds and the Open Source community.
You may re-publish this material. You may excerpt it, reformat it and translate it as necessary for your presentation. You may not edit it to deliberately misrepresent my opinion.
An SCO presentation shown in Las Vegas on August 18th alleged infringement by the Linux developers. The presentation, in Microsoft PowerPoint format is here, and an conversion of the presentation that can be viewed using a web browser is here.
SCO released the presentation to Bob McMillan, a reporter for IDG News Service, without any non-disclosure terms. Bob asked me to comment upon it. here's his story. I will start with SCO's demonstrations regarding "copied" software. It is likely that SCO would present the very best examples that they have of "copied" code in their slide show. But I was easily able to determine that of the two examples, one isn't SCO's property at all, and the other is used in Linux under a valid license. If this is the best SCO has to offer, they will lose.
Slide 15 shows purports to show "Obfuscated Copying" from Unix System V into Linux. SCO further obfuscated the code on this slide by switching it to a Greek font, but that was easily undone. It's entertaining that the SCO folks had no clue that the font-change could be so easily reversed. I'm glad they don't work on my computer security:-)
The code shown in this slide implements the Berkeley Packet Filter, internet firewall software often abbreviated as "BPF". SCO doesn't own BPF. It was created at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory with funding from the U.S. Government, and is itself derived from an older version called "enet", developed by Stanford and Carnegie-Mellon Universities. BPF was first deployed on the 4.3 BSD system produced by the University of California at Berkeley. SCO later copied the software into Unix System V.
The BPF source code is here on the Lab's web site. A paper on its design, published in 1993, is here
BPF is under the BSD license. That license allowed SCO to legally copy the code into Unix System V in 1996, but since SCO doesn't own the code, they have no right to prevent others from using it.
So, in this case the SCO "pattern-recognition" team correctly deduced that the Linux and SCO implementations of BPF were similar. But I was able to determine the origin of BPF after a few minutes of web searches on google.com . Why couldn't a "pattern-recognition team" do the same? It's difficult to believe they simply didn't bother to check. It's also likely that SCO dropped attribution of the Lab's copyright from the System V copy of the BPF source code, or the team would have known.
The Linux version of BPF is not an obfuscation of the BPF code. It is a clean-room re-implementation of BPF by Jay Schulist of the Linux developers, sharing none of the original source code, but carefully following the documentation of the Lab's product. The System V and Linux BPF versions shown in slide 15 implement the same virtual machine instruction set, which is used to filter (allow, reject, change, or reroute) internet packets. And the documentation for that VM even specifies field names. Thus Schulist's and the Lab's implementations appear similar. Had Schulist chosen to directly use the Lab's code, it still would have been legal. But the version in Linux is entirely original to the Linux developers. There is no legal theory that would give SCO any claim upon it.
Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and their correspondence to very similar material in Linux. Some of this material was deliberately obfuscated by SCO, by the use of a Greek font. I've switched that text back to a normal font.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to
I think a nice quote about this was when Ronald Reagan complained that he had put George H. Bush in charge of counter-terrorism yet the McLaughlin group was still on the air (News roundtable on PBS).
Bah. I had fake (mindless angry flame) tags around that last sentence. I really ought to sue my own schools for failing to teach me to use the preview button.
I'm told the US budget deficit (sp?) represents a smaller percentage of our GDP than pretty much any other major industialized power. And since that bond debt is almost exclusively held by taxpayers, how does this, in any possible way, lead your beloved country to her death?
You need to sue your high school for failing to give you a decent history, and economic education
One of the most useful ones, now with all the scrutiny in the business world will be the translation from any kind of management speak/weaselease into english.
Corp officer: We are commited to stringent compliance with accounting rules and will not tolerate anything less than the pure truth.
Translation: We're covering our rears as fast as we can.
Or to steal one from Dilbert...
Management: Employees are our most valuable resource.
When Fly-by-wire software was first under consideration, one crucial aspect was made abundantly clear: "It must be at least as reliable as the wing spar(the part that holds the wings to the airplane)"
With that in mind, the USAF (I think) got some code from NASA that had been developed and used it to control aircraft.
I am unaware, until the Osprey crash, of a fly-by-wire software system that had production errors.
I may not be a doctor, but a quick review of everything he has posted leads to a quick diagnosis -> Anhedonia (sp?).
He seems to suffer from an inability to experience joy/happyness/pleasure.
Using the XFL as an example, the games were fun! That's what they needed to be.
Instead of writing a thinly veiled article about technology and the media, he harps on things that are sorta fun.
I hope you get the help you need Jon!
Once a new president is sworn in, it looks to be Bush at this time, I would hope that the phrase "You see? This is the proof that YOU ARE FINISHED!" would be tossed around
I'm certain you're right.
The candidate who "took initiative in creating the internet" and thought he could get away with the credit (one in an ever growing list of lies^H^H^H^Hembellishments).
The candidate who thinks medicine ought to be prices according to the size of the pill.
The candidate who apparently has no grasp of the ramifications of government subsidies in a market economy.
The candidate who burned up nearly a half a million pounds of fuel to speak on the evils of global warming.
The candidate who slumlords his rental property, lies about repairs, and expects nobody will care (he may be right about this one).
The candidate who has openly attacked the first amendment. And who's VP candidate and spouse have done so with more enthusiasm.
The candidate who has openly attacked the second amendment. By the way, since GWB allowed Texans legal concealed carry, homicide in Texas is at a 40 year low. If only it was as safe as Washington D.C. where the 2nd amendment is history.
For those that think GWB is not the brightest candidate, you can check out this opinion piece that gives a slightly different view of the second debate than the _one_ line this story refers to.
Slashdot Mirror
What would actually get me to buy it is an SDK along with acceptance and even encouragement of 3rd party applications.
Changing the UI (among other things) would also be a requirement if they want my cash.
As far as I recall (IANAL), you are only required to show your identification to law enforcement when pulled over while operating a motor vehicle, or entering the country from another country.
You mean, former Enron adviser Krugman?
(got nothing)
I agree that most people in the show were as you described. There were several (albeit, a minority) who were more like what I was saying.
Show of the same name featured person after person who claimed they had nothing worth stealing. Moreover, that the loss of their worthless material possessions would mean nothing to them.
Once they saw their homes being ransacked, they very quickly changed their tunes. Many felt nausea, revulsion, and commonly, fury.
So, for those who claim you have nothing to hide, you could take a lesson from these people, but, I acknowledge that YMMV.
(oh noes! I should've posted as an AC)
Parent is obviously a Naz^H^H^H fine person deserving of being modded up.
Remeber the scariest nine words in English: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
As far as food goes, This guy already turned India (and Pakistan) around. They went from being short on food to having a food surplus. He also prevented a second "Dust Bowl" (same weather conditions) in the Midwest. If China (and any other nation for that matter) did what he outlined, they would no longer have a food shortage. Your observation on production per capita is dead on correct though.
I agree with the analogy, but let me add something.
If you have taken reasonable steps to prevent the gun from being stolen, e.g. locked the doors, kept it in a place of concealment, etc, you would generally not be held accountable if a burglar steals it and commits a crime with it.
On the other hand, if your doors and windows are wide open, with large neon signs saying "Unprotected firearms in the hall closet!" and other (non-reasonable) things, you will be held somewhat accountable.
Since the actual thing we are speaking of are zombie pc's on the internet, we have a situation that is usually between the two.
We will have some people who use a very secure OS, keep it patched, have it tuned for security, specifically intrusion protection. These people are akin to firearms owners who have locked doors, windows, an alarm system, dogs inside, and a roving flock of geese outside (to warn of intruders).
We will also have some people with a not-very-secure OS, who keep it patched as best is available, and thusly, will absolve themselves of allegations of wrongdoing, since they will have done the best that is reasonably possible.
We will also have some people with a not-very-secure OS, who do not patch and have no eye to security. These people, since they are (sorta) using balsa wood doors on a straw house, may find themselves bearing legal resposibility for attacks and will have little legal recourse since they did nothing to even attempt to mitigate potential damage.
Of course, I am not a lawyer (ianal) but that's my take on it.
Despite the fact that I own a Sony Playstation/2, every time I see some release about the PS/2, my first thought is of those old IBM Personal System/2 (also abbreviates PS/2) nightmares I learned on.
So I have a whole cycle of "Why did they bother to develop on such and old and proprietary.... Oh yeah, wrong PS/2" every few weeks or so.
I copied/pasted.
.
:-)
Analysis of SCO's Las Vegas Slide Show
Bruce Perens, Perens LLC
With help from Linus Torvalds and the Open Source community.
You may re-publish this material. You may excerpt it, reformat it and translate it as necessary for your presentation. You may not edit it to deliberately misrepresent my opinion.
An SCO presentation shown in Las Vegas on August 18th alleged infringement by the Linux developers. The presentation, in Microsoft PowerPoint format is here, and an conversion of the presentation that can be viewed using a web browser is here
SCO released the presentation to Bob McMillan, a reporter for IDG News Service, without any non-disclosure terms. Bob asked me to comment upon it. here's his story.
I will start with SCO's demonstrations regarding "copied" software. It is likely that SCO would present the very best examples that they have of "copied" code in their slide show. But I was easily able to determine that of the two examples, one isn't SCO's property at all, and the other is used in Linux under a valid license. If this is the best SCO has to offer, they will lose.
Slide 15 shows purports to show "Obfuscated Copying" from Unix System V into Linux. SCO further obfuscated the code on this slide by switching it to a Greek font, but that was easily undone. It's entertaining that the SCO folks had no clue that the font-change could be so easily reversed. I'm glad they don't work on my computer security
The code shown in this slide implements the Berkeley Packet Filter, internet firewall software often abbreviated as "BPF". SCO doesn't own BPF. It was created at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory with funding from the U.S. Government, and is itself derived from an older version called "enet", developed by Stanford and Carnegie-Mellon Universities. BPF was first deployed on the 4.3 BSD system produced by the University of California at Berkeley. SCO later copied the software into Unix System V.
The BPF source code is here on the Lab's web site. A paper on its design, published in 1993, is here
BPF is under the BSD license. That license allowed SCO to legally copy the code into Unix System V in 1996, but since SCO doesn't own the code, they have no right to prevent others from using it.
So, in this case the SCO "pattern-recognition" team correctly deduced that the Linux and SCO implementations of BPF were similar. But I was able to determine the origin of BPF after a few minutes of web searches on google.com . Why couldn't a "pattern-recognition team" do the same? It's difficult to believe they simply didn't bother to check. It's also likely that SCO dropped attribution of the Lab's copyright from the System V copy of the BPF source code, or the team would have known.
The Linux version of BPF is not an obfuscation of the BPF code. It is a clean-room re-implementation of BPF by Jay Schulist of the Linux developers, sharing none of the original source code, but carefully following the documentation of the Lab's product. The System V and Linux BPF versions shown in slide 15 implement the same virtual machine instruction set, which is used to filter (allow, reject, change, or reroute) internet packets. And the documentation for that VM even specifies field names. Thus Schulist's and the Lab's implementations appear similar. Had Schulist chosen to directly use the Lab's code, it still would have been legal. But the version in Linux is entirely original to the Linux developers. There is no legal theory that would give SCO any claim upon it.
Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and their correspondence to very similar material in Linux. Some of this material was deliberately obfuscated by SCO, by the use of a Greek font. I've switched that text back to a normal font.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've found the code they refer to
That, and we can openly compain about this.
I think a nice quote about this was when Ronald Reagan complained that he had put George H. Bush in charge of counter-terrorism yet the McLaughlin group was still on the air (News roundtable on PBS).
Bah. I had fake (mindless angry flame) tags around that last sentence. I really ought to sue my own schools for failing to teach me to use the preview button.
I'm told the US budget deficit (sp?) represents a smaller percentage of our GDP than pretty much any other major industialized power. And since that bond debt is almost exclusively held by taxpayers, how does this, in any possible way, lead your beloved country to her death?
You need to sue your high school for failing to give you a decent history, and economic education
From CNN here.
One of the most useful ones, now with all the scrutiny in the business world will be the translation from any kind of management speak/weaselease into english.
Corp officer: We are commited to stringent compliance with accounting rules and will not tolerate anything less than the pure truth.
Translation: We're covering our rears as fast as we can.
Or to steal one from Dilbert...
Management: Employees are our most valuable resource.
Translation: (nothing)
Yeah, most are just so profitable now.
I bet most were wondering what to do with all that extra cash just lying around.
When Fly-by-wire software was first under consideration, one crucial aspect was made abundantly clear: "It must be at least as reliable as the wing spar(the part that holds the wings to the airplane)" With that in mind, the USAF (I think) got some code from NASA that had been developed and used it to control aircraft. I am unaware, until the Osprey crash, of a fly-by-wire software system that had production errors.
I may not be a doctor, but a quick review of everything he has posted leads to a quick diagnosis -> Anhedonia (sp?). He seems to suffer from an inability to experience joy/happyness/pleasure. Using the XFL as an example, the games were fun! That's what they needed to be. Instead of writing a thinly veiled article about technology and the media, he harps on things that are sorta fun. I hope you get the help you need Jon!
Once a new president is sworn in, it looks to be Bush at this time, I would hope that the phrase "You see? This is the proof that YOU ARE FINISHED!" would be tossed around
I'm certain you're right.
n /?id=65000413
The candidate who "took initiative in creating the internet" and thought he could get away with the credit (one in an ever growing list of lies^H^H^H^Hembellishments).
The candidate who thinks medicine ought to be prices according to the size of the pill.
The candidate who apparently has no grasp of the ramifications of government subsidies in a market economy.
The candidate who burned up nearly a half a million pounds of fuel to speak on the evils of global warming.
The candidate who slumlords his rental property, lies about repairs, and expects nobody will care (he may be right about this one).
The candidate who has openly attacked the first amendment. And who's VP candidate and spouse have done so with more enthusiasm.
The candidate who has openly attacked the second amendment. By the way, since GWB allowed Texans legal concealed carry, homicide in Texas is at a 40 year low. If only it was as safe as Washington D.C. where the 2nd amendment is history.
For those that think GWB is not the brightest candidate, you can check out this opinion piece that gives a slightly different view of the second debate than the _one_ line this story refers to.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoona