Thank you... After being batted down by clueless moderators...I'm with Hope.
I'm more interested in the Abstraction and Comparision aspect. Forget the Filtration aspect as they seem only to pertain to non-Copyright (mostly patentable objects).
Now, for Comparision... What are the wiggle room concepts introduced? I know of the most commonly used one such as "Upper-lowercase, multiple whitespaces"
And for the Abstraction, ones I know of are: inverse logic (a gt b) vs. (b lt a) and inverted or flipped loops.
I know in for Abstraction, one can evade the copyright in this manner. But for Comparision....?
I agree, just that I think SCO's next chess move is to start challenging the highly regarded analyst's methodology, if they could only find someone bold (or foolish) enough to risk their reputation to do so.
I admit that the methodology is sound (and I did read thoroughly his CV and article). But no one came forth to seriously challenged him in the past (nor would I dare to), but our jaws would drop if someone would step up to the plate and make the first shot across this $550/hr analyst.
The $550/hr analyst eliminated the following filtration criterias:
1. ideas 2. purposes 3. procedures 4. processes 5. system 6. method of operations 7. facts 8. unoriginal elements
WOW! Okey Doke. So, now the IBM legal team is really looking for "copy-cat" aspect of which we, the community, are certain there aren't any (save for a few comments).
Looks like a (yet another prolonged drawned out) battleground for SCO legal team to reinstate some of the following bullet items above.
The article is a good start but what are the criterias for determining derivatives?
Which method is covered for source code comparisions?
1. two printouts held together and up toward a lighted source? 2. side-by-side subjective eyeball comparision 3. diff (and all derivative comparision tools) 4. diff with some wiggle-room command line options? 5. NSA-grade pattern analysis supercomputer?
I'm slightly guarded here, but these SCO FUD-busting articles seemed very promising...
If Microsoft Made Cars At a recent computer expo, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon." In response to Bill's comments General Motors issued a press release stating the following: "If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. The radio would be computerized, but you'd need to install 64 Meg of RAM, a new sound card, a game card, a new video driver, a CD drive, and type C:\radio\talk\rush*.* to get it to play. 2. The entire engine wouldn't be in the bay at once, and the car would have to keep stopping and starting to load in the relevant parts. 3. The speedometer would read 70 even though you are only doing 50. 4. You would have to have a full service every 500 miles. 5. Your car would refuse to start with a message "Abort, Retry, Fail?" 6. For some reason the engine controller would need a 1G hard disc and would take 5 minutes to boot up. 7. The steering wheel would be replaced with a mouse and you'd need to memorize the keyboard short-cut for "Brake". 8. A particular model year of car wouldn't be available until after that year- instead of before it. 9. They wouldn't build their own engines but form a cartel with their engine supplier. The latest engine would have 16 cylinders, multi-point fuel injection and 4 turbos, but it would be a side-valve design so you could use Model-T Ford parts on it. There would be an "Engium Pro" with bigger turbos, but it would be slower on most existing roads. 10. The air bag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off. 11. New seats would require everyone to have the same butt size. 12. We would all have to switch to Microsoft Gas. 13. The U.S. government would be forced to rebuild all of the roads for Microsoft cars; they will drive on the old roads, but they run very slowly. 14. The oil, alternator, gas and engine warning lights would be replaced by a single 'General Car Fault' warning light. 15. Sun MotorSystems would make a car that was solar-powered, twice as reliable and five times as fast, but would run on only 5% of the roads. 16. You would be constantly pressured to upgrade your car. 17. You could have only one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a Car95 or CarNT -- but then you would have to buy ten more seats and a new engine. 18. Occasionally, your car would die for NO apparent reason and you would have to restart it. Strangely, you would just accept this as normal. 18b. Occasionally, executing a maneuver would cause your car to stop and fail to restart and you'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this, too. 19. Every time the lines of the road were repainted, you would have to buy a new car. 20. People would get excited about the new features of the latest Microsoft cars, forgetting that these same features had been available from other car makers for years.
By picking the hardest distro such as an older Slackware (don't knock the new ones), you've essentially master-micro-managed all aspect of Linux administration in virtually no time.
It's no different than mastering the DOS 3.3 command set and scripting; just [infinitely?] more commands scripting, languages and widgets at your disposal.
Better yet, check out this earlier hamster dance website.
You can get the sound directly from ANY Browsers using this URL.
Used to sleep to this during my finals.
I feel like a Dutch boy plugging his finger in the proverbial leaking dikes.
IE vulnerabilities are dime a dozen, that I could well be a thousandaire (just doesn't ring right, uh?) Latest one is the drag-n-drop exploit. In fact, it becomes a down outright security risk just to have the blue E icon available on your desktop and startup menu.
So, I deleted the blue E icon thereby forcing the end-user to get exposed to Mozilla and Firefox.
They too went home and switched as well.
Looks like the groundswell support is brewing here. I wonder if this is also true elsewhere.
Privilege execution under a privileged level within a operating system context? Bah!
One can name over a dozen OSes that garnered the famed Class B1 Trusted OSes status that provided this feature set since 1983. Most of them will never see the light of days due to their classified status.
Perhaps, the U.S. Patent Office should consider investigating for possible industrial payola to their underpaid $60,000/yr GS-5 rankingcorporate-rejecting $125Krealbad diploma-milled reviewers.
Guns don't kill people. Its the person that aims and/or pulls the trigger.
Automobile don't kill people. Its the person behind the wheel.
Planes don't crash. Its the engineer that designed the plane. (NO, its not the pilot error... it always boils down to the engineer during man-machine interface design stage and stress testing.)
Food don't kill people. Its the food prep person.
Face it... Tools will remain abundance and abound (even, shudder, the H-bomb), its the person behind the tool.
Nothing to do with freedom here. Its personal responsibility toward society that we value here.
1. I do mean Netscape... as I contribute to Mozilla network protocol coding used by Firefox, Galeon, and a few other Gecko-using browsers. Netscape recent and upcoming releases are a disaster waiting to happen.
2. Ok, that is obvious that past vector has been established. Poor programmer, buggy code...vice versa. Same point for demonstrating that vector X is independent of vector Y. No direct correlation of past bugginess to future bugginess. Just a trending data showing that is likely probable.
3. You say DJB-DNS is "not likely" to have many bugs. You're still using past trending data as a form of future projection. Still like the stock market, it is not a foolproof method. Arguably, DJB-DNS is probably the most perfect code I have inspected in a while. Since I have made this inspection, I can state with high certainity that his code will have extremely low probability of being buggy.
Again, we cannot predict the future bugginess unless QA examines the code. And you are right, it all boils down to "crack programmer."
Now, if we can get a team of "crack programmers" not only writing good codes but working as a team, we'd have a killer apps!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm more interested in the Abstraction and Comparision aspect. Forget the Filtration aspect as they seem only to pertain to non-Copyright (mostly patentable objects).
Now, for Comparision... What are the wiggle room concepts introduced? I know of the most commonly used one such as "Upper-lowercase, multiple whitespaces"
And for the Abstraction, ones I know of are: inverse logic (a gt b) vs. (b lt a) and inverted or flipped loops.
I know in for Abstraction, one can evade the copyright in this manner. But for Comparision....?
Out of the AFC (Abstraction-Filtration-Comparision), only two were applied.
If the 3rd, Filtration, was ever evoked, then muddy waters ensures.
What a cool legal concept. Open-n-shut case.
I agree, just that I think SCO's next chess move is to start challenging the highly regarded analyst's methodology, if they could only find someone bold (or foolish) enough to risk their reputation to do so.
I admit that the methodology is sound (and I did read thoroughly his CV and article). But no one came forth to seriously challenged him in the past (nor would I dare to), but our jaws would drop if someone would step up to the plate and make the first shot across this $550/hr analyst.
PS. The analyst was worth every cent.
The $550/hr analyst eliminated the following filtration criterias:
1. ideas
2. purposes
3. procedures
4. processes
5. system
6. method of operations
7. facts
8. unoriginal elements
WOW! Okey Doke. So, now the IBM legal team is really looking for "copy-cat" aspect of which we, the community, are certain there aren't any (save for a few comments).
Looks like a (yet another prolonged drawned out) battleground for SCO legal team to reinstate some of the following bullet items above.
The article is a good start but what are the criterias for determining derivatives?
Which method is covered for source code comparisions?
1. two printouts held together and up toward a lighted source?
2. side-by-side subjective eyeball comparision
3. diff (and all derivative comparision tools)
4. diff with some wiggle-room command line options?
5. NSA-grade pattern analysis supercomputer?
I'm slightly guarded here, but these SCO FUD-busting articles seemed very promising...
This is a retraction of an earlier post... Whiplash II said it best here.
A minute of downloading, reading, assessment then deleting a SPAM times a million people equals 48 lifetime.
Spammers do fall in the same class as a a bon-fide qualified mass-murderer.
Spammer would appear to be categorized as worst community offender than our local serial rapist.
Is this a start of a new legal trend where economic damage has precedence over human life?
Yeah right.... Grandma's computer is getting slower and slower.
When one re-installs Win98SE ontop of Win98SE, it runs faster UNTIL you visit and perform Windows Update.
How come when one puts Windows 98 on a PC where WinXP was, it is SCREAMING and FRIGGIN' FAST?
How come when one puts Gnome 2.8 on a PC where Win2K was, the GUI becomes more responsive even under CD recording and MP3 playing simultaneously?
How come? What did we gain that Win98SE or Gnome/Linux cannot offer? Robustness? Security?
Or is this just a testimony that most of the I&T are sold on the MSFT marketing materials?
Please tell me....
--
Take out a useless industry and something better ALWAYS comes along. -- Unknown but unemployed philosopher/economist.
That would also take care of the Nigeria-mail, unresponsive ISPs, undecisive electorates and ....
upcoming Chad Fiasco (it still amaze me that some counties are still going with punch cards this Nov.).
If Microsoft Made Cars
At a recent computer expo, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon." In response to Bill's comments General Motors issued a press release stating the following: "If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. The radio would be computerized, but you'd need to install 64 Meg of RAM, a new sound card, a game card, a new video driver, a CD drive, and type C:\radio\talk\rush*.* to get it to play.
2. The entire engine wouldn't be in the bay at once, and the car would have to keep stopping and starting to load in the relevant parts.
3. The speedometer would read 70 even though you are only doing 50.
4. You would have to have a full service every 500 miles.
5. Your car would refuse to start with a message "Abort, Retry, Fail?"
6. For some reason the engine controller would need a 1G hard disc and would take 5 minutes to boot up.
7. The steering wheel would be replaced with a mouse and you'd need to memorize the keyboard short-cut for "Brake".
8. A particular model year of car wouldn't be available until after that year- instead of before it.
9. They wouldn't build their own engines but form a cartel with their engine supplier. The latest engine would have 16 cylinders, multi-point fuel injection and 4 turbos, but it would be a side-valve design so you could use Model-T Ford parts on it. There would be an "Engium Pro" with bigger turbos, but it would be slower on most existing roads.
10. The air bag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
11. New seats would require everyone to have the same butt size.
12. We would all have to switch to Microsoft Gas.
13. The U.S. government would be forced to rebuild all of the roads for Microsoft cars; they will drive on the old roads, but they run very slowly.
14. The oil, alternator, gas and engine warning lights would be replaced by a single 'General Car Fault' warning light.
15. Sun MotorSystems would make a car that was solar-powered, twice as reliable and five times as fast, but would run on only 5% of the roads.
16. You would be constantly pressured to upgrade your car.
17. You could have only one person in the car at a time, unless you bought a Car95 or CarNT -- but then you would have to buy ten more seats and a new engine.
18. Occasionally, your car would die for NO apparent reason and you would have to restart it. Strangely, you would just accept this as normal.
18b. Occasionally, executing a maneuver would cause your car to stop and fail to restart and you'd have to re-install the engine. For some strange reason, you'd just accept this, too.
19. Every time the lines of the road were repainted, you would have to buy a new car.
20. People would get excited about the new features of the latest Microsoft cars, forgetting that these same features had been available from other car makers for years.
By picking the hardest distro such as an older Slackware (don't knock the new ones), you've essentially master-micro-managed all aspect of Linux administration in virtually no time.
It's no different than mastering the DOS 3.3 command set and scripting; just [infinitely?] more commands scripting, languages and widgets at your disposal.
Better yet, check out this earlier hamster dance website. You can get the sound directly from ANY Browsers using this URL. Used to sleep to this during my finals.
Here's the original site
So, its kinda like the left-hand doesn't know what the right-hand is doing, uh?
This mother of yours should be running her own business... I suggest you pony up her capital funds to get started.
I feel like a Dutch boy plugging his finger in the proverbial leaking dikes.
IE vulnerabilities are dime a dozen, that I could well be a thousandaire (just doesn't ring right, uh?) Latest one is the drag-n-drop exploit. In fact, it becomes a down outright security risk just to have the blue E icon available on your desktop and startup menu.
So, I deleted the blue E icon thereby forcing the end-user to get exposed to Mozilla and Firefox.
They too went home and switched as well.
Looks like the groundswell support is brewing here. I wonder if this is also true elsewhere.
One can name over a dozen OSes that garnered the famed Class B1 Trusted OSes status that provided this feature set since 1983. Most of them will never see the light of days due to their classified status.
Perhaps, the U.S. Patent Office should consider investigating for possible industrial payola to their underpaid $60,000/yr GS-5 ranking corporate-rejecting $125K real bad diploma-milled reviewers.
That reminds me of the autonomously motion-guided poison dart in the movie, Dune.
Agreed with all of your points.
I'm just wondering how much are the states taking in their profit before it is really profit before we can actually label their economic model.
Economics 455 called and said you failed.
Apparently, China is experimenting a bit right of Communism as they are taking in their usual cuts from the Chinese manufacturers.
Who are we to know that $1 is a token profit for her manufacturers?
This is starting to sound like Communism.
oh, Red China is still a communist, last time I checked the CIA Fact.
I see... Nothing new here, move along.
I thought it was Capitalism (with an 'a').
Capitolism is the study of the main building found in Washington D.C., U.S.A where all the congressmen/women congregate.
But then again, you can be correct if one thinks hard about this.
1. Just add more feature like "-W" and hike the price.
2. Bigger profit.
Adam Smith (clue: economic theory) couldn't have listed it in fewer steps.
Maybe these businessmen needs to take capitalism lessons that made USA the powerhouse of economy.
Blue Sky of Death, anyone?
Guns don't kill people. Its the person that aims and/or pulls the trigger.
Automobile don't kill people. Its the person behind the wheel.
Planes don't crash. Its the engineer that designed the plane. (NO, its not the pilot error... it always boils down to the engineer during man-machine interface design stage and stress testing.)
Food don't kill people. Its the food prep person.
Face it... Tools will remain abundance and abound (even, shudder, the H-bomb), its the person behind the tool.
Nothing to do with freedom here. Its personal responsibility toward society that we value here.
1. I do mean Netscape... as I contribute to Mozilla network protocol coding used by Firefox, Galeon, and a few other Gecko-using browsers. Netscape recent and upcoming releases are a disaster waiting to happen.
2. Ok, that is obvious that past vector has been established. Poor programmer, buggy code...vice versa. Same point for demonstrating that vector X is independent of vector Y. No direct correlation of past bugginess to future bugginess. Just a trending data showing that is likely probable.
3. You say DJB-DNS is "not likely" to have many bugs. You're still using past trending data as a form of future projection. Still like the stock market, it is not a foolproof method. Arguably, DJB-DNS is probably the most perfect code I have inspected in a while. Since I have made this inspection, I can state with high certainity that his code will have extremely low probability of being buggy.
Again, we cannot predict the future bugginess unless QA examines the code. And you are right, it all boils down to "crack programmer."
Now, if we can get a team of "crack programmers" not only writing good codes but working as a team, we'd have a killer apps!