You can never ever, EVER fully prove that an e-vote was fair. Even if you release the source and have auditors and the whole bit.
I think it was Kernigan that proved that even if you compiled the source yourself, you can't prove that the binary does what you think it does. What if the compiler is bogus and fraudulent? Even if you recompile the compiler, what if THAT compiler is bogus?
There are too many theoretical holes, that even if not true, will keep the conspiracy theorists busy. This is the one single area of human life I would NOT trust to a computer. Instead I would suggest a mechanical counting machine. That way there can be spot-checks by humans while still saving most of the money.
Even giving SCO the best case argument. Even arguing that their distribution of of Linux didn't put their IP into the GPL domain.... Neither did their distribution of Linux absolve them from obeying the GPL surely?
What I mean is, even if they didn't put their IP into the public sphere automatically by distributing Linux, surely they are now contractually obliged to do so by the GPL, at risk of being sued by 10,000 angry kernel developers?
i.e. They distributed under the GPL, mustn't they now follow the entire GPL at risk of severe IP violation to kernel rights holders? Surely their agreement to the GPL by their act of distribution is a stronger case than whatever they've got against IBM and their contract?
Ok, it's a while since I used eclipse as well as IBM's Websphere developer, but both seemed to suck big time compared to JBuilder. Sure, they were better than Visual Age (blech!). But JBuilder, at least to me, seems super-well designed. It always seems to "just work", and do what I want. And when I want to do something new, it always seems intuitive. And the features are great, always seeming to get better in each new release.
Don't get me wrong, if Eclipse is free, I can envisage one day switching. But as long as someone is willing to pay for JBuilder, forget it. I'll stick with JB.
(No, I don't work for Borland! Just a big fan of this product!)
You should build GPL stuff either to scratch your own itch or for the pure fun of it. You release it as GPL in the hope that others will improve your work and in THAT way you get something back.
Sure, would be nice if companies gave more back. On the other hand, if Redhat gave out jobs to everybody who wrote something included in their distribution, they would have hundreds of thousands on the payroll.
There are tons of things I'd like to write and get paid to give it away. If I want to do that, I'll have to find a company who'll do it.
Also looks like this guy bit off more than he could chew. A new shell? To do right, that's a tough job. A new packaging system? It's hard for one guy to change the world. Linus was lucky. Not everyone will be.
Micron will gain market share in the US, but it will lose market share in the rest of the world as the Korean firm moves all their output to other places. As Micron loses world share they have to dump all their production in the US, depressing prices. Net effect on prices in the US? Nil. Net effect on prices in the rest of the world? Nil.
And don't forget that pre-built computers can still get in the US with Korean DRAM with no tariff. This only applies to DRAM not in a computer already.
Well, duh. The plagarist removed the copyright notice. They're not THAT silly!
But shame on you for revealing all of SCO's intellectual property! Don't you realise what this will do to their stock price? You've got a trade secret law suit on the way buddy.
In Unix, a zero length file is a valid shell script, that has an exit value of true. Thus, here is the whole program copied --/bin/true!! A zero length file!! All comments identical!!
Why slam object databases? It's good that the book is promoting them, we need more people doing so and raising awareness. Anybody using an RDBMS probably is aware of all those issues. Bringing up a better alternative is a good thing, and several ODBMSes are definitely enterprise capable if anybody cares to take the plunge.
How much for ticket in an asbestos lined capsule, so we can go on a "Journey to the Centre of the Earth"? I want to go down and pick me up some diamonds.
I know what I'd do. I'd go down the shop and buy a new one. Then I'd return the old one with the receipt and explain that it's defective - full of ink but not working.
The easier way is that MS just says "Sorry folks, we have a patent on XXXX, and you can't use MONO any more. Oh by the way, since it is now so ingrained into Gnome, you can't use it either. Oh, and since all those Linux disks have Gnome on them, you'll have to destroy them all too."
Don't believe this nonsense. For example Microsoft would NEVER, screw over Miguel de Icaza and the MONO effort. Trust them. If Microsoft says they support the MONO effort, we can take them at their word. They are people of high integrity and whatever they say, they mean. They would never lead others along the garden path, with every intention of crushing them later on.
How can it be you need an NDA to get the specs? Wouldn't the cat be out of the bag as soon as someone released source code based on the specs? The best doco for hardware after all is source code that implements the spec.
I looked deeply into Python once, and realised that they were trying to emulate lisp. But like most people who try and emulate lisp, they were doomed to re-implement it badly. Python pretends that it can do functional style programming, but when you look closely it can't really. Why does everyone want to re-invent the wheel (badly)?
Bigger fees means nothing to corporations but is very hurtful to individuals. This is not a step forward for the rights of individuals, just another leg up for corporations that will do little for the quality of patents. It might stop the 1% most absurd, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
You can never ever, EVER fully prove that an e-vote was fair. Even if you release the source and have auditors and the whole bit.
I think it was Kernigan that proved that even if you compiled the source yourself, you can't prove that the binary does what you think it does. What if the compiler is bogus and fraudulent? Even if you recompile the compiler, what if THAT compiler is bogus?
There are too many theoretical holes, that even if not true, will keep the conspiracy theorists busy. This is the one single area of human life I would NOT trust to a computer. Instead I would suggest a mechanical counting machine. That way there can be spot-checks by humans while still saving most of the money.
Even giving SCO the best case argument. Even arguing that their distribution of of Linux didn't put their IP into the GPL domain.... Neither did their distribution of Linux absolve them from obeying the GPL surely?
What I mean is, even if they didn't put their IP into the public sphere automatically by distributing Linux, surely they are now contractually obliged to do so by the GPL, at risk of being sued by 10,000 angry kernel developers?
i.e. They distributed under the GPL, mustn't they now follow the entire GPL at risk of severe IP violation to kernel rights holders? Surely their agreement to the GPL by their act of distribution is a stronger case than whatever they've got against IBM and their contract?
Ok, it's a while since I used eclipse as well as IBM's Websphere developer, but both seemed to suck big time compared to JBuilder. Sure, they were better than Visual Age (blech!). But JBuilder, at least to me, seems super-well designed. It always seems to "just work", and do what I want. And when I want to do something new, it always seems intuitive. And the features are great, always seeming to get better in each new release.
Don't get me wrong, if Eclipse is free, I can envisage one day switching. But as long as someone is willing to pay for JBuilder, forget it. I'll stick with JB.
(No, I don't work for Borland! Just a big fan of this product!)
But does the hack interfere with the Evil Bit(tm)?
And when the system becomes mainstream, and the spammers start sending you messages, will they set the Evil Bit?
Ok, sure I feel sorry for him, BUT...
You should build GPL stuff either to scratch your own itch or for the pure fun of it. You release it as GPL in the hope that others will improve your work and in THAT way you get something back.
Sure, would be nice if companies gave more back. On the other hand, if Redhat gave out jobs to everybody who wrote something included in their distribution, they would have hundreds of thousands on the payroll.
There are tons of things I'd like to write and get paid to give it away. If I want to do that, I'll have to find a company who'll do it.
Also looks like this guy bit off more than he could chew. A new shell? To do right, that's a tough job. A new packaging system? It's hard for one guy to change the world. Linus was lucky. Not everyone will be.
Micron will gain market share in the US, but it will lose market share in the rest of the world as the Korean firm moves all their output to other places. As Micron loses world share they have to dump all their production in the US, depressing prices. Net effect on prices in the US? Nil. Net effect on prices in the rest of the world? Nil.
And don't forget that pre-built computers can still get in the US with Korean DRAM with no tariff. This only applies to DRAM not in a computer already.
Well, duh. The plagarist removed the copyright notice. They're not THAT silly!
But shame on you for revealing all of SCO's intellectual property! Don't you realise what this will do to their stock price? You've got a trade secret law suit on the way buddy.
In Unix, a zero length file is a valid shell script, that has an exit value of true. Thus, here is the whole program copied --
Actually, a zero length file is a valid shell script that returns true - 0. Therefore, I reckon the program in question is a zero length file.
Why slam object databases? It's good that the book is promoting them, we need more people doing so and raising awareness. Anybody using an RDBMS probably is aware of all those issues. Bringing up a better alternative is a good thing, and several ODBMSes are definitely enterprise capable if anybody cares to take the plunge.
How much for ticket in an asbestos lined capsule, so we can go on a "Journey to the Centre of the Earth"? I want to go down and pick me up some diamonds.
I know what I'd do. I'd go down the shop and buy a new one. Then I'd return the old one with the receipt and explain that it's defective - full of ink but not working.
Give him a Darwin award now, while he's still alive to enjoy it!
The easier way is that MS just says "Sorry folks, we have a patent on XXXX, and you can't use MONO any more. Oh by the way, since it is now so ingrained into Gnome, you can't use it either. Oh, and since all those Linux disks have Gnome on them, you'll have to destroy them all too."
Don't believe this nonsense. For example Microsoft would NEVER, screw over Miguel de Icaza and the MONO effort. Trust them. If Microsoft says they support the MONO effort, we can take them at their word. They are people of high integrity and whatever they say, they mean. They would never lead others along the garden path, with every intention of crushing them later on.
+5 Sarcasm.
In theory, object file systems, an object component environment and so forth CAN be a simplification of things.
In practice, I agree that Microsoft doesn't know how to do it right, and in practice they are not simplifications at all, but rather complications.
Who cares what dot-matrix printers did? Using two characters just wastes space and complicates parsing.
How can it be you need an NDA to get the specs? Wouldn't the cat be out of the bag as soon as someone released source code based on the specs? The best doco for hardware after all is source code that implements the spec.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sun's real Java/Gtk plan is to make a Gtk theme for swing. The article was ambigous, but that's my take.
folks that you make a backup copy as soon as you buy it.
At first they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Sounds like you are still at the laughing stage. That by no means says that you will stay there.
I looked deeply into Python once, and realised that they were trying to emulate lisp. But like most people who try and emulate lisp, they were doomed to re-implement it badly. Python pretends that it can do functional style programming, but when you look closely it can't really. Why does everyone want to re-invent the wheel (badly)?
Mercury in pure form tends to go straight through your system with little harm. Anyway, too late now right?
Bigger fees means nothing to corporations but is very hurtful to individuals. This is not a step forward for the rights of individuals, just another leg up for corporations that will do little for the quality of patents. It might stop the 1% most absurd, that's all.
I knew slashdot was behind the times, but Mr Polaroid invented the LAN camera decades ago.