you have to remember that the BSD license was designed and written at a time when everyone trusted (because they knew them personally) everyone else in the industry. *everyone* shared source code. then fuckers like apple came along and went "thank you very much. BYE". at one point, microsoft's NT Team took the TCP/IP BSD-licensed stack, and put it directly into MSRPC (because winsock was so shit). it's almost 20 years later that Wine have finally reverse-engineered MSRPC. i really don't understand people who don't understand why the GPL is so necessary, i really don't.
The BSD license was created for the purpose of being compatible with closed source licenses.
Apple also contributes back to pretty much every OSS project they use. Saying they copied and disappeared is a flat out lie on your best day.
BSD's TCP/IP stack being basically the reference implementation for the entire world resulted in... compatible networking. This is a good thing, yet you act like its horrible that everyone could be compatible by using the same code.
GPL isn't necessary. Thats a stupid statement. GPL, just like BSD license is a political statement. GPL is 'all scratch your back but then you have to scratch mine'. BSD code is 'here's a back scratcher, tell people where you got it from!'
End result?
Everyone uses BSD's back scratcher, GPL's back scratcher stays a niche tool for GPL fanboys who continue to be befuddled by the fact that it isn't the year of the Linux desktop.
Right, because knowingly and purposefully setting up a node is the same as when someone else does it to you hidden in the background without your consent.
Its funny, you don't get it, your statement is exactly his point. They didn't kill... on purpose... they took out strategic targets of military interest, not civilians. The solution to prevent 'terror' that you're trying to throw in there is to not allow military targets to exist IN YOUR FUCKING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS and you don't really have to be afraid of Israel dropping a bomb on you. A LASER GUIDED BOMB accurate enough to hit a fucking shoebox.
What would you consider to be a proportional response?
At this stage? Proportional would be wiping Palestine off the face of the Earth. While I understand their complaint, they don't behave in a civilized nor intelligent manner. They lob rockets and Israel, then get all uppity when Israel attacks their launch sites like its not okay to do so.
Palestinian 'traitors' tell the IDF were the rocket sites are so Israel doesn't carpet bomb them... and they behead the 'traitors' in the streets. The 'traitors' that saved countless civilians lives by making military targets known for accurate attacks rather than carpet bombing.
Their citizens are proud of their terrorists and think Israel should pay them because their sons get killed when they do shit like take hostages from the Church of the Nativity.
America isn't the only country that is in Afghanistan, and it wasn't the first in there either. Hell, you can't even spell it.
There are no innocents when they hide murderers in their ranks. Take your proportional response and shove it up your ass. Proportional is what it takes to make it stop.
Last story I was referred to there was about 'Microsoft created web page to convert iOS apps to Windows' except done in such a way that I had 3 different slightly less technical people at my company ask me why I hadn't run our app through this 'automated conversion' page...
They were referring to some MSDN documentation. Actually, it was more like a sales pitch on how awesome Surface is that just happened to be under msdn.microsoft.com
When you have multiple nodes, you aren't any different than Google.
Google uses Map Reduce but it isn't the only way things get done.
You have standards of coding to deal with the issues. MapReduce is only one of those ways of dealing with the issue.
And for reference, what you describe in your first paragraph is EXACTLY a MapReduce problem. First 100 nodes Map, second hundred nodes Reduce the results. Rinse, repeat.
Yes, I have a server sitting on my property. I have a government regulated Internet connection and power connection with HARD SLAs regarding availability. You want to try that one again?
That is entirely besides the point. There is nothing wrong with outsourcing. I also host certain parts of my infrastructure in someone elses data center. What I do not do is depend on someone else to do the job of Windows update when they provide absolutely no advantages of turning on auto-updates and the provide obvious downsides like the very one the submitter submitted.
I evaluate the benefits and risks of outsourcing and then decide where I'll get the better fit for my situation.
I walked into managing a cluster of servers with that outsourced patch crap, worst idea ever. They provide no advantage over just turning on auto-updates. They don't actually test it with 'your software'. They don't generally provide any better way to roll back a patch set other than 'use the system restore'. They do absolutely nothing that turning on auto-updates wouldn't do for you.
Its just another way to blame a problem on someone else rather than being responsible for it yourself. Its like buying support contracts for Linux. Its just an excuse. It doesn't actually solve the problem, it just shows you aren't capable of doing the job yourself.
In this case it shows the submitter didn't bother to even consider what the benefits of having the company do patch management for him were, which are none. That is why I can stay seated on my horse.
Top it off... he couldn't bother to do some Googling for the answer. He isn't qualified for the job.
While I think its rather unacceptable for this to be done, its not all that surprising and you kind of deserve the result.
When you outsource you sacrifice things. Why are you letting them patch for you anyway? Its not like they are going to do anything special. All the do is release patches from their own internal WSUS server (or whatever its called now) rather than you have to do it yourself or letting the machine auto-patch on its own.
Realistically, if you're going to have someone else auto-patch, you might as well just turn automatic updates on fully and be done with it. They only thing they are going to 'save' you from is if a patch happens to interfere with something locally on their network which is going to be pretty damn rare.
And guess what... you can do the same thing on an iPhone. Its not 2007 anymore.
Your departments IT staff sucks ass, if that means you, sorry. You're ignorant and can't be bothered to resolve that issue with a quick couple of Google searches.
A government agency going to a proprietary, single supplier solution where an open, multi-supplier solution is available should not be legal.
You mean going from don't you? Unless BlackBerry is entirely open source and multivendor... but its not, so this is really no different.
Second, there is no 'open source' Android phone. They all have plenty of proprietary technology in them, some have it in a software sense, they all have it in the hardware however.
Third, they're proving they have no problem jumping to another vendor. They can jump to another vendor later just as easy.
The idealogical solution you pretend exists does not in fact exist. Get some perspective and pull your head out of your ass. They had many vendors to choose from and did just that.
'Leak' what? All he has is a public key and a digital signature at most.
The point is that the root key is supposed to sign a new key generated JUST for signing binaries from LF. LF will not see that key either.
The public key and digital signatures are public knowledge (or will be when it gets going fully) as they are required to be public knowledge for the whole thing to work. UEFI machines supporting secure boot will have the public root key embedded in them.
IF they released this boot loader to the world all they would accomplish is being obnoxious and not following protocol, creating more headaches for the infrastructure handlers. They'd just be dicks, like you. Except you're too ignorant to know why it doesn't accomplish your retarded goal of making things LESS secure.
Do you REALLY want to promote the ability of installing root kits on your own PC? Are you really that fucking stupid?
You mean MS wouldn't possibly lean on box makers so that MS Malware is included in every box they shift. There simply isn't any precedence for this, is there?
No, there isn't. None what so ever. You're trying to imply that a particular round of court cases is somehow the same, but it isn't and you're just too ignorant to know it.
So which box maker do you think is going to stand up to MS? The ones that were producing Linux netbooks or whatever those things were called a few years ago?
One day you gays are ranting on about how Linux owns the server market, and the next you seem to think no one uses it. Make up your mind.
MS is a sort of like a heat seeking missile. Wherever the fires of computing hell burn, you can bet they will head directly for them.
No. Why is this marked insightful? Its pure speculation about things the poster doesn't even understand.
Vendors accept 'any key that is signed by the root ms key in the chain of trust'
That means that MS makes sub keys for each organization they sign a boot loader for. This sub key is signed by the root MS key. Boot loaders are signed by the organizations sub key. If one sub key gets compromised, it doesn't take EVERYTHING out with it making the whole thing ineffective. They can simply revoke the one sub key that was compromised. Pull the actual root key out of a vault somewhere and sign a new key for say... Linux Foundation. That key is then used to sign works made by Linux Foundation.
The end result is that only the LF boot loader is using 'known compromised key chain'.
Hardware vendors that don't do this properly will cause themselves issues down the road as MS will also swap out their OWN 'sub key' from time to time to keep it secure, so if they implement for the MS one specifically, it will likely fail in the not too distant future even for MS software.
For those of you that understand PKI, replace sub key with intermediate and shut your yapping. Trying to explain to someone that clearly doesn't understand PKI.
A) Cops weren't asking, people hired to perform the survey will. No one was going to throw them in jail for their response.
B) Volunteers were giving answers without fear of reprisal. There were no drug tests. People were asked and thats how many people felt safe enough to answer that they were intoxicated. The actual number is probably higher.
Someone high on pot can look very much like someone that is just tired...red eyes, slower reaction times, etc.
This study effectively removes that issue from the list of questions. However, being unsafe because you are tired is no different than being unsafe because you are drunk or stoned on pot or percacet.
If thats how ALL police officers acted, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Sadly the problem is not the field sobriety test. The test is perfectly workable.
The problem is the officers who use intoxication as an excuse or the lawyers/defendants who use the 'subjectivity' of the test as an excuse to get out of the crime they committed.
I feel that as you've done the test on camera, if they contest it, they have to do so in front of a jury of their peers. The jury trial would be a quick thing, like traffic court now but not just a judge. See a bunch of trials per day kind of thing.
The jury watches the video of the field test and video leading up to the stop in the first place, the jury can easily decide if it was valid.
If the jury sees you swerving all over the road, they may decide you shouldn't have been driving even if you 'passed' the field test.
That removes the biased/bad officer problem and the lying lawyer problem to a fair extent. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think it would be far more useful.
With that, strengthen the laws regarding these offenses. I don't care if you aren't drunk, if you legitimately get pulled over for bad driving, a fine isn't acceptable. You need to not drive for some period of time. I'm not sorry if this results in you losing your job, thats kind of the point. People need to understand their are consequences to their actions and that some snarky lawyer doesn't make it 'Okay' to put peoples lives at risk.
I would fully support such changes as a former pothead. I quit because I have responsibilities know that don't lend themselves to openly breaking the law in front of... little eyes. I disagree with drug laws as they stand, but I don't want my children to think its perfectly acceptable to pick and choose what laws you follow. At least, not until they get old enough to make intelligent choices in that respect.
The problem is that people will get pulled over because of their skin color or long hair or sporty car or whatever and the excuse will be that they were driving erratically.
I think the solution is to use field sobrity tests and make them all video taped by the cop car cameras. If the defendant wants to argue the test was wrong, then they go to court and have a jury trial where the jury watches the video and decides the matter. Problem solved.
I have flown cross country rather stoned, its actually FAR easier than driving in that respect. Not that driving stoned is all that difficult. I assure you that you would be completely unable to tell if I'm stoned unless you watched me do it and I'd be willing to bet I can 'beat' you at whatever type of test you'd like to throw at me as well.
I am only a private pilot, not an airline pilot, but your fear is misplaced for a several reasons.
You should be less concerned with someone smoking pot and more concerned with someone being unqualified to drive in general. There are plenty of people that shouldn't be drivers even completely sober and if you bothered to do any actual research yourself you'd be aware of the fact that while drunks do get into accidents, 'drugs' in general are RARELY the cause of accidents.
Slashdot Mirror
you have to remember that the BSD license was designed and written at a time when everyone trusted (because they knew them personally) everyone else in the industry. *everyone* shared source code. then fuckers like apple came along and went "thank you very much. BYE". at one point, microsoft's NT Team took the TCP/IP BSD-licensed stack, and put it directly into MSRPC (because winsock was so shit). it's almost 20 years later that Wine have finally reverse-engineered MSRPC. i really don't understand people who don't understand why the GPL is so necessary, i really don't.
The BSD license was created for the purpose of being compatible with closed source licenses.
Apple also contributes back to pretty much every OSS project they use. Saying they copied and disappeared is a flat out lie on your best day.
BSD's TCP/IP stack being basically the reference implementation for the entire world resulted in ... compatible networking. This is a good thing, yet you act like its horrible that everyone could be compatible by using the same code.
GPL isn't necessary. Thats a stupid statement. GPL, just like BSD license is a political statement. GPL is 'all scratch your back but then you have to scratch mine'. BSD code is 'here's a back scratcher, tell people where you got it from!'
End result?
Everyone uses BSD's back scratcher, GPL's back scratcher stays a niche tool for GPL fanboys who continue to be befuddled by the fact that it isn't the year of the Linux desktop.
Contrary to Linux zealots belief, Windows is not the only proprietary software on the planet.
Right, because knowingly and purposefully setting up a node is the same as when someone else does it to you hidden in the background without your consent.
Are you really that fucking stupid?
Please show me who has them in stock and shipping.
I just looked at the web site, the suppliers don't have them in stock.
I would love to be wrong here.
Its funny, you don't get it, your statement is exactly his point. They didn't kill ... on purpose ... they took out strategic targets of military interest, not civilians. The solution to prevent 'terror' that you're trying to throw in there is to not allow military targets to exist IN YOUR FUCKING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS and you don't really have to be afraid of Israel dropping a bomb on you. A LASER GUIDED BOMB accurate enough to hit a fucking shoebox.
What would you consider to be a proportional response?
At this stage? Proportional would be wiping Palestine off the face of the Earth. While I understand their complaint, they don't behave in a civilized nor intelligent manner. They lob rockets and Israel, then get all uppity when Israel attacks their launch sites like its not okay to do so.
Palestinian 'traitors' tell the IDF were the rocket sites are so Israel doesn't carpet bomb them ... and they behead the 'traitors' in the streets. The 'traitors' that saved countless civilians lives by making military targets known for accurate attacks rather than carpet bombing.
Their citizens are proud of their terrorists and think Israel should pay them because their sons get killed when they do shit like take hostages from the Church of the Nativity.
America isn't the only country that is in Afghanistan, and it wasn't the first in there either. Hell, you can't even spell it.
There are no innocents when they hide murderers in their ranks. Take your proportional response and shove it up your ass. Proportional is what it takes to make it stop.
TechWorld is a sham.
Last story I was referred to there was about 'Microsoft created web page to convert iOS apps to Windows' except done in such a way that I had 3 different slightly less technical people at my company ask me why I hadn't run our app through this 'automated conversion' page ...
They were referring to some MSDN documentation. Actually, it was more like a sales pitch on how awesome Surface is that just happened to be under msdn.microsoft.com
Its not that no one cares, its that no one can get their hands on the freaking thing.
The delays have been so horrible someone has to be artificially holding them off at this point.
One of the sources has had my money for 7 months and nothing yet arrives, still backordered.
Foxconn could have built the fucking factory and delivered a half a billion units by now.
The Pi is basically a bunch of hype with little to no devices in anyones hands.
Use an alternative, they don't cost much more and you can actually touch them.
When you have multiple nodes, you aren't any different than Google.
Google uses Map Reduce but it isn't the only way things get done.
You have standards of coding to deal with the issues. MapReduce is only one of those ways of dealing with the issue.
And for reference, what you describe in your first paragraph is EXACTLY a MapReduce problem. First 100 nodes Map, second hundred nodes Reduce the results. Rinse, repeat.
Yes, I have a server sitting on my property. I have a government regulated Internet connection and power connection with HARD SLAs regarding availability. You want to try that one again?
That is entirely besides the point. There is nothing wrong with outsourcing. I also host certain parts of my infrastructure in someone elses data center. What I do not do is depend on someone else to do the job of Windows update when they provide absolutely no advantages of turning on auto-updates and the provide obvious downsides like the very one the submitter submitted.
I evaluate the benefits and risks of outsourcing and then decide where I'll get the better fit for my situation.
I walked into managing a cluster of servers with that outsourced patch crap, worst idea ever. They provide no advantage over just turning on auto-updates. They don't actually test it with 'your software'. They don't generally provide any better way to roll back a patch set other than 'use the system restore'. They do absolutely nothing that turning on auto-updates wouldn't do for you.
Its just another way to blame a problem on someone else rather than being responsible for it yourself. Its like buying support contracts for Linux. Its just an excuse. It doesn't actually solve the problem, it just shows you aren't capable of doing the job yourself.
In this case it shows the submitter didn't bother to even consider what the benefits of having the company do patch management for him were, which are none. That is why I can stay seated on my horse.
Top it off ... he couldn't bother to do some Googling for the answer. He isn't qualified for the job.
While I think its rather unacceptable for this to be done, its not all that surprising and you kind of deserve the result.
When you outsource you sacrifice things. Why are you letting them patch for you anyway? Its not like they are going to do anything special. All the do is release patches from their own internal WSUS server (or whatever its called now) rather than you have to do it yourself or letting the machine auto-patch on its own.
Realistically, if you're going to have someone else auto-patch, you might as well just turn automatic updates on fully and be done with it. They only thing they are going to 'save' you from is if a patch happens to interfere with something locally on their network which is going to be pretty damn rare.
And guess what ... you can do the same thing on an iPhone. Its not 2007 anymore.
Your departments IT staff sucks ass, if that means you, sorry. You're ignorant and can't be bothered to resolve that issue with a quick couple of Google searches.
Even the newest Android devices can't seem to provide a lag free interface, that alone makes your statement silly.
A government agency going to a proprietary, single supplier solution where an open, multi-supplier solution is available should not be legal.
You mean going from don't you? Unless BlackBerry is entirely open source and multivendor ... but its not, so this is really no different.
Second, there is no 'open source' Android phone. They all have plenty of proprietary technology in them, some have it in a software sense, they all have it in the hardware however.
Third, they're proving they have no problem jumping to another vendor. They can jump to another vendor later just as easy.
The idealogical solution you pretend exists does not in fact exist. Get some perspective and pull your head out of your ass. They had many vendors to choose from and did just that.
'Leak' what? All he has is a public key and a digital signature at most.
The point is that the root key is supposed to sign a new key generated JUST for signing binaries from LF. LF will not see that key either.
The public key and digital signatures are public knowledge (or will be when it gets going fully) as they are required to be public knowledge for the whole thing to work. UEFI machines supporting secure boot will have the public root key embedded in them.
IF they released this boot loader to the world all they would accomplish is being obnoxious and not following protocol, creating more headaches for the infrastructure handlers. They'd just be dicks, like you. Except you're too ignorant to know why it doesn't accomplish your retarded goal of making things LESS secure.
Do you REALLY want to promote the ability of installing root kits on your own PC? Are you really that fucking stupid?
You mean MS wouldn't possibly lean on box makers so that MS Malware is included in every box they shift. There simply isn't any precedence for this, is there?
No, there isn't. None what so ever. You're trying to imply that a particular round of court cases is somehow the same, but it isn't and you're just too ignorant to know it.
So which box maker do you think is going to stand up to MS? The ones that were producing Linux netbooks or whatever those things were called a few years ago?
One day you gays are ranting on about how Linux owns the server market, and the next you seem to think no one uses it. Make up your mind.
MS is a sort of like a heat seeking missile. Wherever the fires of computing hell burn, you can bet they will head directly for them.
This doesn't even make sense.
You do realize that with UEFI ... THERE IS NO FUCKING BIOS right?
Every time you people say shit like this you make it clear that you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
Who the fuck lets people run alternate OSes on their computers?
What fantasy world do you live in. I don't need any secure boot shit to know I'm not letting you plugin and boot from a random thumb drive on my PC.
If you 'need to boot' you should have brought your fucking own computer.
No, but if you don't want to have to press the 'is this boot loader OK?' key ONCE when you install a new boot loader, you'll have to ask it.
WTF is your comment marked insightful? You don't have the slightest idea of how any of it works.
No. Why is this marked insightful? Its pure speculation about things the poster doesn't even understand.
Vendors accept 'any key that is signed by the root ms key in the chain of trust'
That means that MS makes sub keys for each organization they sign a boot loader for. This sub key is signed by the root MS key. Boot loaders are signed by the organizations sub key. If one sub key gets compromised, it doesn't take EVERYTHING out with it making the whole thing ineffective. They can simply revoke the one sub key that was compromised. Pull the actual root key out of a vault somewhere and sign a new key for say ... Linux Foundation. That key is then used to sign works made by Linux Foundation.
The end result is that only the LF boot loader is using 'known compromised key chain'.
Hardware vendors that don't do this properly will cause themselves issues down the road as MS will also swap out their OWN 'sub key' from time to time to keep it secure, so if they implement for the MS one specifically, it will likely fail in the not too distant future even for MS software.
For those of you that understand PKI, replace sub key with intermediate and shut your yapping. Trying to explain to someone that clearly doesn't understand PKI.
A) Cops weren't asking, people hired to perform the survey will. No one was going to throw them in jail for their response.
B) Volunteers were giving answers without fear of reprisal. There were no drug tests. People were asked and thats how many people felt safe enough to answer that they were intoxicated. The actual number is probably higher.
Someone high on pot can look very much like someone that is just tired...red eyes, slower reaction times, etc.
This study effectively removes that issue from the list of questions. However, being unsafe because you are tired is no different than being unsafe because you are drunk or stoned on pot or percacet.
If thats how ALL police officers acted, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Sadly the problem is not the field sobriety test. The test is perfectly workable.
The problem is the officers who use intoxication as an excuse or the lawyers/defendants who use the 'subjectivity' of the test as an excuse to get out of the crime they committed.
I feel that as you've done the test on camera, if they contest it, they have to do so in front of a jury of their peers. The jury trial would be a quick thing, like traffic court now but not just a judge. See a bunch of trials per day kind of thing.
The jury watches the video of the field test and video leading up to the stop in the first place, the jury can easily decide if it was valid.
If the jury sees you swerving all over the road, they may decide you shouldn't have been driving even if you 'passed' the field test.
That removes the biased/bad officer problem and the lying lawyer problem to a fair extent. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think it would be far more useful.
With that, strengthen the laws regarding these offenses. I don't care if you aren't drunk, if you legitimately get pulled over for bad driving, a fine isn't acceptable. You need to not drive for some period of time. I'm not sorry if this results in you losing your job, thats kind of the point. People need to understand their are consequences to their actions and that some snarky lawyer doesn't make it 'Okay' to put peoples lives at risk.
I would fully support such changes as a former pothead. I quit because I have responsibilities know that don't lend themselves to openly breaking the law in front of ... little eyes. I disagree with drug laws as they stand, but I don't want my children to think its perfectly acceptable to pick and choose what laws you follow. At least, not until they get old enough to make intelligent choices in that respect.
Agreed.
The problem is that people will get pulled over because of their skin color or long hair or sporty car or whatever and the excuse will be that they were driving erratically.
I think the solution is to use field sobrity tests and make them all video taped by the cop car cameras. If the defendant wants to argue the test was wrong, then they go to court and have a jury trial where the jury watches the video and decides the matter. Problem solved.
I have flown cross country rather stoned, its actually FAR easier than driving in that respect. Not that driving stoned is all that difficult. I assure you that you would be completely unable to tell if I'm stoned unless you watched me do it and I'd be willing to bet I can 'beat' you at whatever type of test you'd like to throw at me as well.
I am only a private pilot, not an airline pilot, but your fear is misplaced for a several reasons.
You should be less concerned with someone smoking pot and more concerned with someone being unqualified to drive in general. There are plenty of people that shouldn't be drivers even completely sober and if you bothered to do any actual research yourself you'd be aware of the fact that while drunks do get into accidents, 'drugs' in general are RARELY the cause of accidents.
Yea it goes something like this ...
Stoned drivers? We have public transportation, why would you drive?