Who supplied your statistics? The NRA? Looking at this countrywise the equation is simple. Countries with less guns, have less people killed by guns. Countries with more guns, move more people killed by guns. The USA, has a gun problem. 1 + 1 = 2 and the letter after A and B is C.
For more info start here. http://www.ia64linux.org/
To download preleases of Linux for ia64 (but it won't do you any good if you can't get ahold of a machine, which you probably can't unless you work for a company that has an agreement with Intel.) you can use either Turbo Linux http://www.turbolinux.com/devzone/ or RedHat ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/ia64 Suse and Caldera should have distributions soon.
But the emulator is a way to start porting software before the hardware is generally available.
As a Linux user, I'm always glad I can look at the source code. So, when discussing something like a license, I think it would be a good idea to read the actual license. The http://www.opensource.org has the text of all the licenses we are discussing here, specifically at this page. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
I rather doubt that this violates intellectual property but it sure is annoying. Some of you who play yahoo chess may know me as sedandawk. I was playing chess there the other day, when someone was using the chat portion of this program to try and recruit students to do something similar to this. Aparently they could make money by supplying their notes, and the person recruiting them to do so would also get money. (sounds a bit like a pyramid scheme) It was an annoying waste of bandwidth to people who were there to play chess, if nothing else.
To me, the idea of owning an algorithm is ridiculous. Image if Newton upon inventing Calculus, had patented it, so any calculations involving his methods would require a payment to him. An algorithm is a mathematical reality, it belongs to the laws of how the Universe operates, not to a person.
There is an excellent FAQ on the LZW at: http://www.cpe.surrey.ac.uk/support/faq/gif_lzw. htm They explain how Unisys got the patent in the first place. Terry Welch (the W in LZW) extended the research of Lempel and Zev while working for Sperry Corporation. Sperry obtained the patent in 1985, before merging with Burroughs to form Unisys. My question, what do Lempel and Zev think of this?
Hmmn, I'm a bit surprised at the complaints from the people in this forum. Where's the spirit of free software? Instead of saying things like, "this is just a front end to gdb", or it lacks "X widget" and "Y widget", we should be saying to ourselves, "Wow, this is a great idea, I wish it had this feature, so I'm going to try and code it and submit a patch!" Then someone else contributes another patch, and soon we've got a super IDE.
I mean, isn't that how Linux happened? Isn't that the spirit of free software. If you're going to post something like, "Why doesn't Jessie have this feature" replace the word Jessie with "Linux Kernel" and you probably won't be wanting to post that message, but you'll want to get coding!
Thanks for the free software gift SGI, much appreciated. Looking forward to the release of XFS
Assuming that you are sincere in what you say, you do realize that any real support you get will be above and beyond the price of the software, and if you really think you can sue Microsoft, trying reading the disclaimer's all over your NT cd's.
Furthermore, excuse me for stating the obvious, but companies like Red Hat and Linux Care offer "traditional" support, but the informal support of the highly intelligent Linux community is unbeatible. Oh yeah, if you find any really bugs in your NT software and Microsoft pays attention, you can pay for the bug fix in the next "upgrade".
I noticed in the comments on the Linux Today site, people were discussing ext3 development. Can anybody point out where to find more information about his, ie web sites or usenet groups?
He did change election laws. For example, he reduced the minimum numbers of days required for a campaign. So the campaign was only 28 days, but for at least half a year before the election, we saw television commercials telling us all the great things his government did, and these commercials were paid for with your tax dollars. (although after some complaints the PC's did pay for some of the commercials) Did you notice that the commercials whose "purpose" was to inform us have disappeared now that the election was over.
He also changed the shapes of the ridings. For example, my old region voted against the PC's this round, but we were amalgamated with a conservative region.
Anwyay, if you like Harris and the PC's, that's fine. You have the right to like whatever political party you want to. But the most important point of my message still stands, and that is, you can't take something like the right to encryption for granted, regardless of whether a government you like or not is in power.
I have the feeling that you would like Harris even if his government was against encryption. The issue in this particular slashdot forum is encryption, not politics.
I thought this would be a discussion on why cryptography is a good thing, not an political endorsement.
I think its a little dubious to give credit to Mike Harris for some good policies that Ann Cavoukian - Ontario's privacy commissioner made.
And the moderators gave you a "informative" rating, I assume because your pro-Harris rant was "tied in" to cryptography at the end by claiming that "if you elect libertarians . . . the free crypto just comes with the rest of the goodies."
Patented nonsense.
I'm trying to avoid the temptation to enter a political debate with you, because I passionately hate Mike Harris as much as you like him. I can't think of a politician who has created more strife in society than he.
In fact, I can't think of a more undemocratic politican in Canada them him, and I believe that allowing citizens the right to use cryptography is extremly democratic.
Yes, but back to the cryptography. When it comes to governments, regardless of whether it happens to be one that you like or dislike, the price of democracy (to paraphrase someone) is constant vigilance.
Mike Harris has consistently shown a willingness to bend the rules of democracy (for example when he changed the rules of debate in parliament to limit the time the opposition had on the floor) to ram his policies through, and believe me, if for some reason cryptography was inconsistent with his economic policies (like for example if using it threatened trade with the U.S.), then we would lose it in a day, and any amount of protesting would conveniently be written off as "special interest"
Finally, to answer your question, "So what the hell does this have to do with crypto?"
I taught English in Europe for two years and Canadians were actively sought after. We were considered to have neutral accents, highly intelligible by Americans or British people.
That said, I'm from Ontario, and I do pronounce "milk" as "melk", something which my friends in Nova Scotia teased me endlessly about. Oh, and some of the people in Nova Scotia said "aboot", but mostly as a joke.
Of course free speech allows you to express opinions anonymously. I think this is more about the right of the accused person to face his accuser. You can't be brought up on charges by an anonymous accusation, otherwise, it's too easy to lodge complaints about your enemies without a good foundation. However, an anonymous accuser could trigger an investigation, and the investigator could bring the charges, but the evidence of an anonymous accuser should not be considered legal evidence. (This is my understanding of the law, people with law degrees, feel free to correct me!)
Don't forget those prices are in Canadian dollars. if you go to their registration page, they estimate what the equivalent in American dollars is. Look at this page. http://www.ottawalinuxsymposium.org/registration .html So, the $125.00 Canadian student price is $85.00 American. Seems like a deal to me. Alan Cox speaking there clinches it for me. (besides I am Canadian, and Ottawa's not too far away) Hope to see a lot of you there.
It worries me to read in the Salon article than Linus and Alan Cox are trying to give advice to Mindcraft for a second test, but Mindcraft isn't giving them any real access.
It worries me because I think the Linux community did a very good job of refuting the ridiculous results of the test, but if they redo them and can claim that Linux lost even with the help of Linus and Alan Cox . . .
Allowing Mindcraft to do another test gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve. I would much rather see VA research do a test, they would do an excellent job of tuning Linux, and in fact I would even trust them to be fair to Microsoft.
I realize its not up to us to say whether they repeat the test, but it should just be ignored.
Summary: we already debunked the Mindcraft benchmark, lets not play back into their hands by taking them seriously and giving them a renewed credibility. Please, VA research or someone of that ilk, come out with your own more legitimate tests.
It worries me to read in the Salon article than Linus and Alan Cox are trying to give advice to Mindcraft for a second test, but Mindcraft isn't giving them any real access.
It worries me because I think the Linux community did a very good job of refuting the ridiculous results of the test, but if they redo them and can claim that Linux lost even with the help of Linus and Alan Cox . . .
Allowing Mindcraft to do another test gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve. I would much rather see VA research do a test, they would do an excellent job of tuning Linux, and in fact I would trust even trust them to be fair to Microsoft.
Summary: we debunked the Mindcraft benchmark, lets not play back into their hands by taking them seriously and giving them a renewed credibility. Please, VA research or someone of that ilk, come out with your own more legitimate tests.
Good article Eric, and I'm proud of the Linux community for the way we've reacted to the Mindcraft "benchmarks". I think the Linux community fought back, but in a mature balanced way. I think it is important that we continue to do so, and try not to appear too much like reactionary fanatics which somtimes happens too.
Also, I must say I really learned a lot by following the debates. Next time I need to install Apache and Samba you can bet I'll be referencing the responses to Mindcraft to see the proper way to optimize this stuff.
http://linuxtoday.com also provides a link to an article about a similar incident Novell had with Mindcraft. http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4937.html http://www.novell.com/advantage/nw5/nw5-mindcraf tcheck.html
The one on the novell website is epecially informative. It is the exact same situation in which results published by Ziff-Davis show NT at a disadvantage, but when Mindcraft does the test, NT comes out ahead!
I think it is important that the Linux community contests these results, as they certainely seem skewed, but I hope we can do it calmly and with dignity.
With the amount of equipment involved, I believe it would take VA Research or a company of that ilk to try a similar test. (Could we do a test on a less expensive set of equipment?)
If the results of the original report are not reproducible, then what they did is bad science. I think that trying to reproduce the results, but with people who know how to optimize the Linux set-up (and be fair and optimize the Windows set-up too) would do much more for how Linux is preceived than by us doing a lot of name calling and questioning the motives of Mindcraft.
The point is, if everybody else who does the test gets completely different results, that will be all we ever need to say. (publish the results of course)
Let's respond in a way befitting the wonderful operating system that Linux is.
I think it is important that the Linux community contests these results, as they certainely seem skewed, but I hope we can do it calmly and with dignity.
With the amount of equipment involved, I believe it would take VA Research or a company of that ilk to try a similar test. (Could we do a test on a less expensive set of equipment?)
If the results of the original report are not reproducible, then what they did is bad science. I think that trying to reproduce the results, but with people who know how to optimize the Linux set-up (and be fair and optimize the Windows set-up too) would do much more for how Linux is preceived than by us doing a lot of name calling and questioning the motives of Mindcraft.
The point is, if everybody else who does the test gets completely different results, that will be all we ever need to say.
Let's respond in a way befitting the wonderful operating system that Linux is.
I'm not an expert in how these languages are implemented, so I could be wrong, but anyway, here is a quote from the O'Reilly Book "Advanced Perl Programming" chapter 14 "User Interfaces with Tk", "Nick Ing-Simmons tried a more ambitious approach: he purged Tk of all embedded Tcl code and gave it a generic porting layer to make it easy to add other scripting languages; this effort is called pTk (portable Tk). To this, he added a Perl5 wrapper (with the intention of adding other language wrappers in the future)."
Actually a lot of people like Tk and don't like Tcl, and that's why you can do neat things like using Perl/Tk instead of Tcl/Tk. Check out the O'Reilly books for more info, ie "Advanced Perl Programming"
I read in a lot of posts that people think using software concepts other people created is unique to the freesoftware community. I think this is also the normal practice with commercial software, and is in fact legal. For example, nobody was allowed to own the idea of building a browser after the concept existed. Anybody could take that idea and make their own browser. Hopefully a company would do so in a manner that was innovative and added something new to the product, instead of relying on marketing to sell it:) (ha ha) If I remember correctly, only actual code and trademarks are copyrighted, so you can actually recreate almost verbatim interfaces of a product if you use your own code to make it work. Because of that, if you come up with an original idea, the only advantage you will have, is that you will be the first to develop it and market the idea, but as soon as it is out there, there is nothing to stop other companies or the free software community from emmulating it. (which explains why source code is so jealously guarded, so competiters can't catch up to you) What I find scarier than someone taking your idea (which I believe is the norm) is the new trend to patent ideas which should not be patentable. ie. somebody tries to patent the idea of selling on the Internet, so anybody who sells anything on the Internet owes him some money. I think there have even been some cases of large software companies putting patents on ideas that have been around for twenty years, that they didn't have anything to do with, but they have a money to pay for the patent and the lawyers to protect it. That is a resource that smaller companies and the free software community doesn't have. So to sum up, reverse engineering is the norm in both the commercial and free software world, and as long as you don't steal actually implementation details (like source code) or trade marked names. (my new product built by Kacur Company (fictional) is called Microsoft Word super plus) then everything else is fair game. I would be interested though to hear posts agreeing or disagreeing with what I said, especially from people more knowledgeable about the law. (lawyers, law students for example).
Slashdot Mirror
Who supplied your statistics? The NRA?
Looking at this countrywise the equation is simple.
Countries with less guns, have less people killed by guns. Countries with more guns, move more people killed by guns. The USA, has a gun problem.
1 + 1 = 2
and the letter after A and B is C.
The article says that the product and price are not yet available, but actually some computer stores in Toronto are already selling it.
Eg. http://www.pccanada.com
for $574.99 Canadian dollars.
... anything else for that matter, good for things like GENTOO
For more info start here.
http://www.ia64linux.org/
To download preleases of Linux for ia64 (but it won't do you any good if you can't get ahold of a machine, which you probably can't unless you work for a company that has an agreement with Intel.) you can use either Turbo Linux
http://www.turbolinux.com/devzone/
or RedHat
ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/ia64
Suse and Caldera should have distributions soon.
But the emulator is a way to start porting software before the hardware is generally available.
As a Linux user, I'm always glad I can look at the source code. So, when discussing something like a license, I think it would be a good idea to read the actual license. The http://www.opensource.org has the text of all the licenses we are discussing here, specifically at this page.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
I rather doubt that this violates intellectual property but it sure is annoying. Some of you who play yahoo chess may know me as sedandawk. I was playing chess there the other day, when someone was using the chat portion of this program to try and recruit students to do something similar to this. Aparently they could make money by supplying their notes, and the person recruiting them to do so would also get money. (sounds a bit like a pyramid scheme) It was an annoying waste of bandwidth to people who were there to play chess, if nothing else.
To me, the idea of owning an algorithm is ridiculous. Image if Newton upon inventing Calculus, had patented it, so any calculations involving his methods would require a payment to him. An algorithm is a mathematical reality, it belongs to the laws of how the Universe operates, not to a person.
. htm
There is an excellent FAQ on the LZW at:
http://www.cpe.surrey.ac.uk/support/faq/gif_lzw
They explain how Unisys got the patent in the first place. Terry Welch (the W in LZW) extended the research of Lempel and Zev while working for Sperry Corporation. Sperry obtained the patent in 1985, before merging with Burroughs to form Unisys. My question, what do Lempel and Zev think of this?
Hmmn, I'm a bit surprised at the complaints from the people in this forum. Where's the spirit of free software? Instead of saying things like, "this is just a front end to gdb", or it lacks "X widget" and "Y widget", we should be saying to ourselves, "Wow, this is a great idea, I wish it had this feature, so I'm going to try and code it and submit a patch!" Then someone else contributes another patch, and soon we've got a super IDE.
I mean, isn't that how Linux happened? Isn't that the spirit of free software. If you're going to post something like, "Why doesn't Jessie have this feature" replace the word Jessie with "Linux Kernel" and you probably won't be wanting to post that message, but you'll want to get coding!
Thanks for the free software gift SGI, much appreciated. Looking forward to the release of XFS
Assuming that you are sincere in what you say, you do realize that any real support you get will be above and beyond the price of the software, and if you really think you can sue Microsoft, trying reading the disclaimer's all over your NT cd's.
Furthermore, excuse me for stating the obvious, but companies like Red Hat and Linux Care offer "traditional" support, but the informal support of the highly intelligent Linux community is unbeatible. Oh yeah, if you find any really bugs in your NT software and Microsoft pays attention, you can pay for the bug fix in the next "upgrade".
Linux Rules!
I noticed in the comments on the Linux Today site, people were discussing ext3 development. Can anybody point out where to find more information about his, ie web sites or usenet groups?
He did change election laws. For example, he reduced the minimum numbers of days required for a campaign. So the campaign was only 28 days, but for at least half a year before the election, we saw television commercials telling us all the great things his government did, and these commercials were paid for with your tax dollars. (although after some complaints the PC's did pay for some of the commercials) Did you notice that the commercials whose "purpose" was to inform us have disappeared now that the election was over.
He also changed the shapes of the ridings. For example, my old region voted against the PC's this round, but we were amalgamated with a conservative region.
Anwyay, if you like Harris and the PC's, that's fine. You have the right to like whatever political party you want to. But the most important point of my message still stands, and that is, you can't take something like the right to encryption for granted, regardless of whether a government you like or not is in power.
I have the feeling that you would like Harris even if his government was against encryption. The issue in this particular slashdot forum is encryption, not politics.
I thought this would be a discussion on why cryptography is a good thing, not an political endorsement.
I think its a little dubious to give credit to Mike Harris for some good policies that Ann Cavoukian - Ontario's privacy commissioner made.
And the moderators gave you a "informative" rating, I assume because your pro-Harris rant was "tied in" to cryptography at the end by claiming that "if you elect libertarians . . . the free crypto just comes with the rest of the goodies."
Patented nonsense.
I'm trying to avoid the temptation to enter a political debate with you, because I passionately hate Mike Harris as much as you like him. I can't think of a politician who has created more strife in society than he.
In fact, I can't think of a more undemocratic politican in Canada them him, and I believe that allowing citizens the right to use cryptography is extremly democratic.
Yes, but back to the cryptography. When it comes to governments, regardless of whether it happens to be one that you like or dislike, the price of democracy (to paraphrase someone) is constant vigilance.
Mike Harris has consistently shown a willingness to bend the rules of democracy (for example when he changed the rules of debate in parliament to limit the time the opposition had on the floor) to ram his policies through, and believe me, if for some reason cryptography was inconsistent with his economic policies (like for example if using it threatened trade with the U.S.), then we would lose it in a day, and any amount of protesting would conveniently be written off as "special interest"
Finally, to answer your question, "So what the hell does this have to do with crypto?"
Nothing as far as I'm concerned.
I taught English in Europe for two years and Canadians were actively sought after. We were considered to have neutral accents, highly intelligible by Americans or British people.
That said, I'm from Ontario, and I do pronounce "milk" as "melk", something which my friends in Nova Scotia teased me endlessly about. Oh, and some of the people in Nova Scotia said "aboot", but mostly as a joke.
Of course free speech allows you to express opinions anonymously. I think this is more about the right of the accused person to face his accuser. You can't be brought up on charges by an anonymous accusation, otherwise, it's too easy to lodge complaints about your enemies without a good foundation. However, an anonymous accuser could trigger an investigation, and the investigator could bring the charges, but the evidence of an anonymous accuser should not be considered legal evidence. (This is my understanding of the law, people with law degrees, feel free to correct me!)
Don't forget those prices are in Canadian dollars. if you go to their registration page, they estimate what the equivalent in American dollars is. Look at this page.n .html
http://www.ottawalinuxsymposium.org/registratio
So, the $125.00 Canadian student price is $85.00 American. Seems like a deal to me.
Alan Cox speaking there clinches it for me. (besides I am Canadian, and Ottawa's not too far away)
Hope to see a lot of you there.
Hey, what about all the other UNIXes that use free software tools. Maybe they ought to be called
GNU/Solaris
GNU/SGI
ad nauseum
despite my little joke, I think Maddog came up with an inventive compromise. Heck, you could even have Microsoft Windows with GNU tools inside.
It worries me to read in the Salon article than Linus and Alan Cox are trying to give advice to Mindcraft for a second test, but Mindcraft isn't giving them any real access.
It worries me because I think the Linux community did a very good job of refuting the ridiculous results of the test, but if they redo them and can claim that Linux lost even with the help of Linus and Alan Cox . . .
Allowing Mindcraft to do another test gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve. I would much rather see VA research do a test, they would do an excellent job of tuning Linux, and in fact I would even trust them to be fair to Microsoft.
I realize its not up to us to say whether they repeat the test, but it should just be ignored.
Summary: we already debunked the Mindcraft benchmark, lets not play back into their hands by taking them seriously and giving them a renewed credibility. Please, VA research or someone of that ilk, come out with your own more legitimate tests.
It worries me to read in the Salon article than Linus and Alan Cox are trying to give advice to Mindcraft for a second test, but Mindcraft isn't giving them any real access.
It worries me because I think the Linux community did a very good job of refuting the ridiculous results of the test, but if they redo them and can claim that Linux lost even with the help of Linus and Alan Cox . . .
Allowing Mindcraft to do another test gives them a legitimacy that they don't deserve. I would much rather see VA research do a test, they would do an excellent job of tuning Linux, and in fact I would trust even trust them to be fair to Microsoft.
Summary: we debunked the Mindcraft benchmark, lets not play back into their hands by taking them seriously and giving them a renewed credibility. Please, VA research or someone of that ilk, come out with your own more legitimate tests.
Good article Eric, and I'm proud of the Linux community for the way we've reacted to the Mindcraft "benchmarks". I think the Linux community fought back, but in a mature balanced way. I think it is important that we continue to do so, and try not to appear too much like reactionary fanatics which somtimes happens too.
Also, I must say I really learned a lot by following the debates. Next time I need to install Apache and Samba you can bet I'll be referencing the responses to Mindcraft to see the proper way to optimize this stuff.
Kudos and thanks to the Linux Community!
http://linuxtoday.comf tcheck.html
also provides a link to an article about a similar incident Novell had with Mindcraft.
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4937.html
http://www.novell.com/advantage/nw5/nw5-mindcra
The one on the novell website is epecially informative. It is the exact same situation in which results published by Ziff-Davis show NT at a disadvantage, but when Mindcraft does the test, NT comes out ahead!
I think it is important that the Linux community contests these results, as they certainely seem skewed, but I hope we can do it calmly and with dignity.
With the amount of equipment involved, I believe it would take VA Research or a company of that ilk to try a similar test.
(Could we do a test on a less expensive set of equipment?)
If the results of the original report are not reproducible, then what they did is bad science. I think that trying to reproduce the results, but with people who know how to optimize the Linux set-up (and be fair and optimize the Windows set-up too) would do much more for how Linux is preceived than by us doing a lot of name calling and questioning the motives of Mindcraft.
The point is, if everybody else who does the test gets completely different results, that will be all we ever need to say. (publish the results of course)
Let's respond in a way befitting the wonderful operating system that Linux is.
I think it is important that the Linux community contests these results, as they certainely seem skewed, but I hope we can do it calmly and with dignity.
With the amount of equipment involved, I believe it would take VA Research or a company of that ilk to try a similar test.
(Could we do a test on a less expensive set of equipment?)
If the results of the original report are not reproducible, then what they did is bad science. I think that trying to reproduce the results, but with people who know how to optimize the Linux set-up (and be fair and optimize the Windows set-up too) would do much more for how Linux is preceived than by us doing a lot of name calling and questioning the motives of Mindcraft.
The point is, if everybody else who does the test gets completely different results, that will be all we ever need to say.
Let's respond in a way befitting the wonderful operating system that Linux is.
I'm not an expert in how these languages are implemented, so I could be wrong, but anyway, here is a quote from the O'Reilly Book "Advanced Perl Programming" chapter 14 "User Interfaces with Tk", "Nick Ing-Simmons tried a more ambitious approach: he purged Tk of all embedded Tcl code and gave it a generic porting layer to make it easy to add other scripting languages; this effort is called pTk (portable Tk). To this, he added a Perl5 wrapper (with the intention of adding other language wrappers in the future)."
Actually a lot of people like Tk and don't like Tcl, and that's why you can do neat things like using Perl/Tk instead of Tcl/Tk. Check out the O'Reilly books for more info, ie "Advanced Perl Programming"
I read in a lot of posts that people think using software concepts other people created is unique to the freesoftware community. :) (ha ha)
I think this is also the normal practice with commercial software, and is in fact legal. For example, nobody was allowed to own the idea of building a browser after the concept existed. Anybody could take that idea and make their own browser. Hopefully a company would do so in a manner that was innovative and added something new to the product, instead of relying on marketing to sell it
If I remember correctly, only actual code and trademarks are copyrighted, so you can actually recreate almost verbatim interfaces of a product if you use your own code to make it work.
Because of that, if you come up with an original idea, the only advantage you will have, is that you will be the first to develop it and market the idea, but as soon as it is out there, there is nothing to stop other companies or the free software community from emmulating it. (which explains why source code is so jealously guarded, so competiters can't catch up to you)
What I find scarier than someone taking your idea (which I believe is the norm) is the new trend to patent ideas which should not be patentable. ie. somebody tries to patent the idea of selling on the Internet, so anybody who sells anything on the Internet owes him some money. I think there have even been some cases of large software companies putting patents on ideas that have been around for twenty years, that they didn't have anything to do with, but they have a money to pay for the patent and the lawyers to protect it. That is a resource that smaller companies and the free software community doesn't have.
So to sum up, reverse engineering is the norm in both the commercial and free software world, and as long as you don't steal actually implementation details (like source code) or trade marked names. (my new product built by Kacur Company (fictional) is called Microsoft Word super plus) then everything else is fair game. I would be interested though to hear posts agreeing or disagreeing with what I said, especially from people more knowledgeable about the law. (lawyers, law students for example).