1) Both sides file a bunch of pre-trial motions.... 2) SCO loses. Case gets thrown out without prejudice 3) SCO refiles. 4) Wash, rinse, repeat 5) SCO loses key pre-trial motions, files for bankrupcy. 6) SCO puts this case on hold via bankrupcy court. 7) Eventually, six years later, it actually gets before a jury.
Six years was the period of legal struggle. Depending on how you count this case (whether re-filing counts as a new case, for example), this case is not even six years old.... However the whole struggle.....
Furthermore, any expectant mother who discovers her fetus has Downs Syndrome would be LEGALLY REQUIRED to have an abortion or risk being civilly liable later in life.
One should think about this carefully before hoping the courts would side against the parents.
They didn't conceive the child naturally, they selected embryos to ensure deafness.
It still doesn't matter. "She" wasn't intentionally crippled by this action.
If her life is that miserable, I fully support her moral right to suicide. That would not be any worse for her than had her embryo not been selected in the first place....
My moral objection is limited to "curing" children of this "disability."
If an adult wants it, fine. Quite frankly, I don't care if an adult wants gene therapy to be lighter skinned/darker skinned/whatever. People already do a lot of plastic surgery regarding image, and producing darker skin might be better for the health than a tanning salon.
However, let the kid grow to be 18 years old and make up his/her own mind. The slippery slope is limited IMO to the designer baby issue.
But what about children. Should they have the right to wait until they can make consenting decisions?
I wouldn't mind saying "requires the subject to be over 18 years of age and consenting." I get worried about letting parents decide they want their kids to be "normal."
Where does it end? "I want my kid to be light skinned, blue eyed, and blond. Please give him/her a virus for that!"
While I despise being sue-happy, this is one of the cases where I really hope the child sues her parents when she grows up for intentionally crippling her.
"Intentionally crippling" in this case meaning giving birth to?
I would hope no court would entertain a possibility of such a suit.
Do you use what works best today, fully knowing that it will limit your options in the future, or use something less functional that will be better long term?L
I use what works best today in many areas, and focus in the long term. Video drivers are one of those things that I focus on the short term more because it gets replaced in a few years anyway so doesn't really limit me.
Ok, so I was reading the wrong version of the bill.
But here:
Back to the original question in this thread, it seems that FOSS could fall under 2) in my list -- developers are often paid to add specific features (thereby customizing the software) by individual or companies. As nothing is charged for the sale and licensing of FOSS (generally), 1 and 3 woudn't apply.
This seems to me like a legal tarpit. Consider the following scenarios:
1) A customer pays me to implement an improvement to a FOSS package. I ask the community how they want the improvement done and implement it according to consensus between the customer and community. In now way am I "customizing" pre-writing software "to a customer." I am extending it in a sponsored fashion. This seems to fall outside the applicable definitions but I could be wrong. Page 119's exemption of software provided free of charge seems to exempt this sort of service.
2) Now, suppose a customer pays me to do the same thing but they have a small custom requirement. Now, do I have to charge sales tax only on the portion which is specific for the customer? Or is the whole thing taxable? Wouldn't it be better for me to do everything except this part and then assist the in-house staff with specifications?
Now, the other part of this bill (which contains a number of truly aweful provisions including extending B&O Tax to other businesses not located in the state but who merely sell goods or services in the state: Is this Constitutional?) that is worrisome here is the fact that it mandates a study of the tax code when resources permit to determine how businesses are structuring their transactions to minimize tax burdens. Thus I am sure that if FOSS is exempt there will be mechanisms to close that loophole.
Oh well, I guess I might be moving to Indonesia.....
I actually agree with you. However there is a major problem that has to be overcome: folks don't know what they want in advance and the process for getting it all working right later is difficult even if the IT department cooperates fully. Either the IT department is in control of the design of the db needed for some in-house tool or you are stuck back with the idea that folks (with no training in database management, formal or otherwise) are doing their db design in access and then moving the data over to a networked database server like MS SQL or PostgreSQL....
It seems to place a 10% tax on the transfer of ownership or licensing of custom software. I looked through the bill and couldn't determine if FOSS development was included or not, since typically no ownership is licensed for a fee, and merely a service is offered.
My reading if the bill is that FOSS development is still exempt, but I may be missing something since the bill is a bit over 100 pages.
Basically if you pay me to do development you pay me to do the development in-house and release to the public free of charge. This isn't a sale of custom software as it is typically considered. I am sure our elected idiots in Olympia will find some way to close this exception though.
Let's face it, the primary application of a trusted CA is to protect credit card numbers in ecommerce transactions. This is a great technique for that, and is in fact, well designed for that application. BTW, the government wouldn't even have to forge an SSL certificate. The basic premise of SSL assumes the secrecy of certain things. If the government could compel the CA to provide the certificates and keys, they wouldn't even theoretically have to do a man-in-the-middle attack but could circumvent the anti-eavesdropping elements of SSL entirely.
However, if you are trying to protect data which is different, and may be considered sensitive in this context, this constitutes a larger issue. At that point you basically have a few options, but they all involve running your own infrastructure.
was that Mono would have a lot of competition if it wasn't for the implicit patent threats coming from Microsoft. IOW, he was complaining that JVM technology had come a long way due to open policies from Sun and that.Net runtime engines had not enjoyed the same benefits. I think he is probably right there.
What I didn't hear him saying was that Mono was a bad project, risked patent infringement claims, etc. There seemed to be some concession on the patent issue but it seemed overblown.
At the same time this summary, suggesting that the communication was handled "irresponsibly" seems no closer to the mark. I can see why people got the impression they did and I think it was a reasonable one.
Things could use everyone stepping back and taking a few deep breaths:-)
Gotta love consumer calls. They often give one a laugh....
However, nothing beats the call from the clueless senior network admin.
"Anyway, our NT4 PDC was acting funny, so we reformatted the hard drive and reloaded and now nobody can log into our domain" "Do you have a BDC?" "Yes." "Did you try to promote one?" "Yes but it didnt work." "What was the error message?" "It said something about there being a PDC already on the domain." "You know that PDC you reloaded?" "yep" "turn it off first......" "Oh wow! Now it's working!"
A lot of coal deposits show false readings with C14-dating (mistakenly putting the age within the expected area for C14 dating accuracy). The problem isn't just that it's old. The issue is that alpha decay of trace radioactive minerals around the coal can produce C14, so the proportions get all messed up.
Interestingly the exact opposite problem occurs trying to date bones of people who ate a lot of fish. Since C14 is produced in the upper atmosphere and absorbed by land plants, marine life tends to have lower quantities of it. If you eat a lot of fish, and you are murdered, and someone tries to C14 date your bones, they might conclude you had been dead for several hundred years......
Agreed. Users are of course able to vote with feet regardless of what the development team decides to do.
One way I look at this is that open source projects are basically mini-states with perfectly open borders. Many are dictatorships. Some are republics. We definitely shouldn't fully democratize the design process. Design and development teams should be relatively small. However, the ability to vote with feet keeps a lot of problems in check.
The other problem is that C14 dating is only valid for organic matter. It's not valid for coal deposits because trace radioactive elements screw things up and make the rocks appear far younger than they are. This is one thing young earth creationists capitalize on....
Some versions of Xenix used COFF for a filesystem which Linux can also read.
Honestly I would pull the HDD if it is an IDE one, make an image of it (dd if=/dev/[device] of=~/xenixhd.img bs=512) and then put it back. This allows you to play with the disk image, mount it with a loopback adaptor, etc. and read the files from it without disturbing your original for too long.
You are right. BTW, I don't doubt that China is building cyberwarfare capabilities for attacks to disable important pieces of infrastrcture. There is too much evidence at the moment to discount that. Also to an outsider, this sort of thing looks bad.
However, all this being said.... This sort of paper is not a threat. If you want to use an attack, the thing you don't do is alert the target to the vulnerability beforehand so that it can be corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
Basically the way this case went was:
1) Both sides file a bunch of pre-trial motions....
2) SCO loses. Case gets thrown out without prejudice
3) SCO refiles.
4) Wash, rinse, repeat
5) SCO loses key pre-trial motions, files for bankrupcy.
6) SCO puts this case on hold via bankrupcy court.
7) Eventually, six years later, it actually gets before a jury.
Six years was the period of legal struggle. Depending on how you count this case (whether re-filing counts as a new case, for example), this case is not even six years old.... However the whole struggle.....
Furthermore, any expectant mother who discovers her fetus has Downs Syndrome would be LEGALLY REQUIRED to have an abortion or risk being civilly liable later in life.
One should think about this carefully before hoping the courts would side against the parents.
It still doesn't matter. "She" wasn't intentionally crippled by this action.
If her life is that miserable, I fully support her moral right to suicide. That would not be any worse for her than had her embryo not been selected in the first place....
My moral objection is limited to "curing" children of this "disability."
If an adult wants it, fine. Quite frankly, I don't care if an adult wants gene therapy to be lighter skinned/darker skinned/whatever. People already do a lot of plastic surgery regarding image, and producing darker skin might be better for the health than a tanning salon.
However, let the kid grow to be 18 years old and make up his/her own mind. The slippery slope is limited IMO to the designer baby issue.
Sure.
But what about children. Should they have the right to wait until they can make consenting decisions?
I wouldn't mind saying "requires the subject to be over 18 years of age and consenting." I get worried about letting parents decide they want their kids to be "normal."
Where does it end? "I want my kid to be light skinned, blue eyed, and blond. Please give him/her a virus for that!"
"Intentionally crippling" in this case meaning giving birth to?
I would hope no court would entertain a possibility of such a suit.
Do you use what works best today, fully knowing that it will limit your options in the future, or use something less functional that will be better long term?L
I use what works best today in many areas, and focus in the long term. Video drivers are one of those things that I focus on the short term more because it gets replaced in a few years anyway so doesn't really limit me.
Only if it is installed as part of EMACS.....
Ok, so I was reading the wrong version of the bill.
But here:
This seems to me like a legal tarpit. Consider the following scenarios:
1) A customer pays me to implement an improvement to a FOSS package. I ask the community how they want the improvement done and implement it according to consensus between the customer and community. In now way am I "customizing" pre-writing software "to a customer." I am extending it in a sponsored fashion. This seems to fall outside the applicable definitions but I could be wrong. Page 119's exemption of software provided free of charge seems to exempt this sort of service.
2) Now, suppose a customer pays me to do the same thing but they have a small custom requirement. Now, do I have to charge sales tax only on the portion which is specific for the customer? Or is the whole thing taxable? Wouldn't it be better for me to do everything except this part and then assist the in-house staff with specifications?
Now, the other part of this bill (which contains a number of truly aweful provisions including extending B&O Tax to other businesses not located in the state but who merely sell goods or services in the state: Is this Constitutional?) that is worrisome here is the fact that it mandates a study of the tax code when resources permit to determine how businesses are structuring their transactions to minimize tax burdens. Thus I am sure that if FOSS is exempt there will be mechanisms to close that loophole.
Oh well, I guess I might be moving to Indonesia.....
I actually agree with you. However there is a major problem that has to be overcome: folks don't know what they want in advance and the process for getting it all working right later is difficult even if the IT department cooperates fully. Either the IT department is in control of the design of the db needed for some in-house tool or you are stuck back with the idea that folks (with no training in database management, formal or otherwise) are doing their db design in access and then moving the data over to a networked database server like MS SQL or PostgreSQL....
It seems to place a 10% tax on the transfer of ownership or licensing of custom software. I looked through the bill and couldn't determine if FOSS development was included or not, since typically no ownership is licensed for a fee, and merely a service is offered.
My reading if the bill is that FOSS development is still exempt, but I may be missing something since the bill is a bit over 100 pages.
Basically if you pay me to do development you pay me to do the development in-house and release to the public free of charge. This isn't a sale of custom software as it is typically considered. I am sure our elected idiots in Olympia will find some way to close this exception though.
Either way, it seems like a great reason to move my business to India...... Though probably, in my case, I would move to Indonesia....
Really, this tax proposal is a great way for the state to put it's feet together and shoot them repeatedly with a shotgun.
Also, the internet routes around censorship? Ooops....
Let's face it, the primary application of a trusted CA is to protect credit card numbers in ecommerce transactions. This is a great technique for that, and is in fact, well designed for that application. BTW, the government wouldn't even have to forge an SSL certificate. The basic premise of SSL assumes the secrecy of certain things. If the government could compel the CA to provide the certificates and keys, they wouldn't even theoretically have to do a man-in-the-middle attack but could circumvent the anti-eavesdropping elements of SSL entirely.
However, if you are trying to protect data which is different, and may be considered sensitive in this context, this constitutes a larger issue. At that point you basically have a few options, but they all involve running your own infrastructure.
was that Mono would have a lot of competition if it wasn't for the implicit patent threats coming from Microsoft. IOW, he was complaining that JVM technology had come a long way due to open policies from Sun and that .Net runtime engines had not enjoyed the same benefits. I think he is probably right there.
What I didn't hear him saying was that Mono was a bad project, risked patent infringement claims, etc. There seemed to be some concession on the patent issue but it seemed overblown.
At the same time this summary, suggesting that the communication was handled "irresponsibly" seems no closer to the mark. I can see why people got the impression they did and I think it was a reasonable one.
Things could use everyone stepping back and taking a few deep breaths :-)
Gotta love consumer calls. They often give one a laugh....
However, nothing beats the call from the clueless senior network admin.
"Anyway, our NT4 PDC was acting funny, so we reformatted the hard drive and reloaded and now nobody can log into our domain"
"Do you have a BDC?"
"Yes."
"Did you try to promote one?"
"Yes but it didnt work."
"What was the error message?"
"It said something about there being a PDC already on the domain."
"You know that PDC you reloaded?"
"yep"
"turn it off first......"
"Oh wow! Now it's working!"
That would be a great nitpick it if corresponded to what I said :-)
Yeah, well, "Neptune" is linguistically related to "nephew." Sounds like it was anthropomorphized long ago....
A lot of coal deposits show false readings with C14-dating (mistakenly putting the age within the expected area for C14 dating accuracy). The problem isn't just that it's old. The issue is that alpha decay of trace radioactive minerals around the coal can produce C14, so the proportions get all messed up.
Interestingly the exact opposite problem occurs trying to date bones of people who ate a lot of fish. Since C14 is produced in the upper atmosphere and absorbed by land plants, marine life tends to have lower quantities of it. If you eat a lot of fish, and you are murdered, and someone tries to C14 date your bones, they might conclude you had been dead for several hundred years......
It's only valid for a certain subset of organic matter.
Interestingly enough, you can't use it for fish bones, and it is wildly inaccurate to date land animals who eat a lot of fish.
Agreed. Users are of course able to vote with feet regardless of what the development team decides to do.
One way I look at this is that open source projects are basically mini-states with perfectly open borders. Many are dictatorships. Some are republics. We definitely shouldn't fully democratize the design process. Design and development teams should be relatively small. However, the ability to vote with feet keeps a lot of problems in check.
The other problem is that C14 dating is only valid for organic matter. It's not valid for coal deposits because trace radioactive elements screw things up and make the rocks appear far younger than they are. This is one thing young earth creationists capitalize on....
Yep you're right Sorry for the brain fart...
Some versions of Xenix used COFF for a filesystem which Linux can also read.
Honestly I would pull the HDD if it is an IDE one, make an image of it (dd if= /dev/[device] of=~/xenixhd.img bs=512) and then put it back. This allows you to play with the disk image, mount it with a loopback adaptor, etc. and read the files from it without disturbing your original for too long.
You are right. BTW, I don't doubt that China is building cyberwarfare capabilities for attacks to disable important pieces of infrastrcture. There is too much evidence at the moment to discount that. Also to an outsider, this sort of thing looks bad.
However, all this being said.... This sort of paper is not a threat. If you want to use an attack, the thing you don't do is alert the target to the vulnerability beforehand so that it can be corrected.