The Microsoft case was "pending" during every one of the District Judge's meetings with reporters; the case is "pending" now; and even after our decision issues, it will remain pending for some time....
Conveniently ignoring that those comments were not meant to be public. If there was a violation of ethics is was in the reporters publishing quotes they had been expressly told by the speaker were not meant for publishing. Reporters are supposed to get permission to publish quotes.
His crude characterizations of Microsoft, his frequent denigrations of Bill Gates
It's sad to see comments like this coming from Judges that were claiming Jackson was the biased one. It's not Jackson's fault that stating bare facts amounts to ridcule when talking about Microsoft.
Both the article and the appeals court's opinion state that he made the statements well before they were published, and requested that the reporters not publish them until afterwards. That's quite different from not making the statements until afterwards, and, as the appeals court said, implied that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
Then the appeals court was wrong. I'm not a lawyer. I have no idea if they were LEGALLY wrong, but they were ETHICALLY wrong, and I don't need to be a lawyer to see that. They are stating not simply that it is wrong to PUBLICLY state an opinion on a pending judgement, but that it is simply wrong to HAVE an opinion even if you don't publicise it. The whole point of being a judge is to judge. And that means slowly forming an opinion on the matter as you see the evidence. Asking the judge to have no opinion on the matter, in a jury-less trial is like asking a jury member to never form an opinion during the trial in a jury trial.
Would you be allowed to answer the question *after* a guilty verdict was already decided, and the only thing left to choose was the severity of the sentence? I'm not sure at what point the ban on talking about it gets lifted. Jackson didn't say the things that got him thrown off the case until after the findings of fact were published.
It is not at all clear that this is what you meant by your original post, if it indeed was.
Well, I did come across as arguing against the tool when it's really the misuse of it that frightens me, yes. I'm a bit trigger-happy on that subject because I used to work for a company that used dumb metrics.
The fact is we'll never know who one the popular vote for real. The margin of error is larger than the 0.5% difference in the counts. If anything, I hope that election convinces the powers that be that a sloppy vote counting system with a 1% margin of error is not good enough and needs fixing, because that much margin actually CAN make a difference. (The margin was even closer in the state of Florida alone, where unlike the national popular vote, that small difference really, really mattered.)
Bush did not "win" 30 states and Gore did not "win" 20 states. The margins were very very close in each and every state, but our broken election system awards the entire state's electors to the majority, efectively disenfranchising everyone else in that state. I understand the need for giving a flat overhead of two extra votes per state so rural states still have a say (which is basicly what the electoral college does). But I don't understand why those votes have to be rounded to reflect the lie that the state 100% supports a particular candidate. If a state has, say, 10 electorial votes, and the popular vote in that state comes out 46% for A, 44% for B, and 10% for C, then A should get 5 electors, B should get 4, and C should get 1. Instead the lie that the state is "fully behind" A is what gets recorded, even though less than half the voters voted for A. That's unfair all around. Proportioning the state's electors according to the state's vote should be allowed, and it would still preserve the extra votes for rural states that the electorial college gives.
Let's say that hypothetically you are in attendance at a trial (not this one) and during the questioning a witness swore at the judge, made threats to the jury, and screamed at the top of his lungs. Then afterward you are asked by others waiting outside what the witness was like. Which answer would be the biased one:
Nothing unusual happened. I have nothing to say.
The witness made an ass of himself.
Now, if you are sane, you say the second is unbiased and the first IS biased. If you think like the review court that decided to pull Jackson from the case, you say the opposite.
It is not biased to report the truth about what was said during the trial, and that's all Jackson did.
You cannot separate the two. After all, what kind of profession were the people arguing the case FOR Microsoft? Why - big surprise- they were lawyers too. So it's not a comparasin of Microsoft vs a lawyer. It's a comparasin of Microsoft PLUS a laywer, vs a lawyer.
The image of impartiality is critical for a function legal system. It has nothing to do with putting on a false facade, or deceit, [snip]
Then why praise the ousting of this judge from the case? All he did was have the honesty not to put on that facade. He was impartial, but impariality is not the same as being brain-dead. There is nothing PRE-judgemental about pointing out how badly the Micorosoft side conducted themselves DURING the trial. If he'd said so BEFORE he saw them acting as such, then THAT would have been prejudiced.
I have the opposite opinion - I wouldn't mind using application programs from Microsoft, like Word and Excell, if doing so didn't require me to be booted into the terrible OS known as Windows. Because MS is both an OS and an Application company, and given that linux almost always is used on the same archetecture as Windows, it is not in MS's best interest to produce a port of their application software to Linux. Doing so would hurt the sales of Windows (not much, granted, but a little). Microsoft knows that their application suite is the biggest sticking point that's keeping people who would otherwise want to migrate from Windows to Linux from doing so. In many businesses around the world, sending documents as.doc and.xls files has become a de-facto standard and you can't get by without the ability to do that.
I course it would affect performance... very much so. But since my stance is that this tool isn't a good idea, it's not a problem for me to admit that the only way for it to be effective is for it to be an inefficient cpu time hog.
How does a human tell the difference? By going up to the person and talking, which, incedentally, if such a tool isn't involved is the only way the human would be alerted to the use of the command in the first place.
Granted, the purpose of this tool is to merely let a human know that he should pay attention to the activity in question, but I don't have confidence in the capacity of corporate IT departments to be apply restraint when using such tools, sorry. When a tool is written with manual intervention in mind, eventually this will be forgotten in many large IT departments. The tool will become automated to the point where it no longer has that human hand on the brakes anymore to keep it under wraps.
One thing I do agree with, though, is that my example was not a good one. rm -rf on the shared drive isn't a good idea because Unix doesn't differentiate between "permission to write" and "permission to delete", and so you'd end up deleting files that people left open for collaborative purposes.
That sounds like a user support nightmare. Software would keep dying whever a user did something for the first time with an app that he didn't do before with that app. For your idea to work, during those runs of the app where it is learning "typical behaviour" it's going to have to execute every possible line of code in the program. That means every IF body, every ELSE body, every SWITCH case, every subroutine, etc. No way is that going to work. (For example, the user runs Netscape over and over as a browser. Then for the first time he runs it's e-mail client. The security system sees all sorts of new system calls not normally associated with that app, and so it kills it.
Your idea would have been better without that "kills the process" part. A system that's wrong 6 percent of the time shouldn't be taking that kind of drastic measure. It should be used to alert a human being and nothing more.
But what about making new programs to imitate existing ones, but just in a way that isn't noticed by the snooper? (for example: myFuzzySlipperProgram could be a renamed "rm" program compiled from source.)
Or, just do your malicious cracking using system calls from your own C programs. Don't use the rm command in a script, use a program that calls unlink().
To even have a chance of being effective, the system would have to be watching not the commands you type, but the system calls you make. (In unix terms, any time you do something using one of the functions on man page 2, the system library would have to log that.)
for example: which is the malicious activity? User A types: rm -rf * User B types: rm -rf *
(User A was in the root dir at the time. User B was in a subdirectory of his home directory at the time.)
Okay, that's easy- just remember to track the context of where the user currently is. But then what about this?
User A types: rm -rf/shared_network_drive User B types: rm -rf/shared_network_drive
The difference is that User A was trying to delete everyone's stuff, while User B, knowing how the permissions on the files work, was just trying to find a lazy way to delete those files that he has permissions on because he was trying to clear his own junk out of the/shared_network_drive. He was being sloppy, but not malicious.
The problem with that theory is that sudden changes in activity are NORMAL. Let's say I'm a programmer who never worked on any network code, at least not for the current employer. Then I get an assignment to make a module for some server product. Suddenly BAM I'm making all sorts of new network connections I wasn't before.
The problem with sarcasm is that it has to come from a source you respect to be noticed as such. Otherwise the more likely explanation when something dumb is said is that the person really is dumb, not that they were trying to be funny. Based on the past posts, I assumed you just didn't know any better.
For the most extreme example of this, imagine if there was satire used in a Jack Chick (tm) track. Would you notice?
The fact that I don't enjoy being reliant on government snow plows to deem it's finally time to get around to doing my street doesn't have a damn thing to do with ego.
By assuming that it isn't possible to dislike Microsoft based on reasoned thought (of the same variety that tells you you'd dislike jumping off a bridge), you show your true colors.
Can you tell I'm bitter from being cut-off way too often by cell phone-talking, coffee-drinking, SUV-driving soccer moms?
If someone is an unsafe driver - complain about the fact that they are an unsafe driver. Don't complain about the kind of vehicle they are driving, and don't assume that everyone driving that kind of vehicle is going to be that kind of driver. It's just as incorrect and insulting as assuming everyone with a motorcycle is a Hell's Angel member, or assuming that everyone with a Porsche has a small penis.
Yeah, and Windows should be illegal because the people using it are usually dumb enough to spread viruses. See the problem with this reasoning? It's unfair to those who aren't as dumb as the average.
I think you're giving most drivers WAY too much credit. This kind of stuff happens all the time here.
I never said it doesn't happen. Just that if it does, it's usually the fault of the driver of the car, so I don't care. There shouldn't be laws to protect morons from their own actions.
Living here in Norway, that being about the same latitude as Alaska
For all your pretentiousness, you seem to lack some basic science understanding, like the fact that the gulf stream makes Europe a lot warmer than other places at the same lattitude. Even warm Spain is at the same latitude as Illinois. To imply that because Norway is the same lattitude as Alaska that it has similar weather is false. Granted, Norway DOES have wintery weather, but not to the same degree that other places at the same latitude, such as Siberia, Alaska, and Nunivut have.
Slashdot Mirror
Conveniently ignoring that those comments were not meant to be public. If there was a violation of ethics is was in the reporters publishing quotes they had been expressly told by the speaker were not meant for publishing. Reporters are supposed to get permission to publish quotes.
His crude characterizations of Microsoft, his frequent denigrations of Bill Gates
It's sad to see comments like this coming from Judges that were claiming Jackson was the biased one. It's not Jackson's fault that stating bare facts amounts to ridcule when talking about Microsoft.
Both the article and the appeals court's opinion state that he made the statements well before they were published, and requested that the reporters not publish them until afterwards. That's quite different from not making the statements until afterwards, and, as the appeals court said, implied that he knew what he was doing was wrong.
Then the appeals court was wrong. I'm not a lawyer. I have no idea if they were LEGALLY wrong, but they were ETHICALLY wrong, and I don't need to be a lawyer to see that. They are stating not simply that it is wrong to PUBLICLY state an opinion on a pending judgement, but that it is simply wrong to HAVE an opinion even if you don't publicise it. The whole point of being a judge is to judge. And that means slowly forming an opinion on the matter as you see the evidence. Asking the judge to have no opinion on the matter, in a jury-less trial is like asking a jury member to never form an opinion during the trial in a jury trial.
Would you be allowed to answer the question *after* a guilty verdict was already decided, and the only thing left to choose was the severity of the sentence? I'm not sure at what point the ban on talking about it gets lifted. Jackson didn't say the things that got him thrown off the case until after the findings of fact were published.
What is this "Office X". I'm not familiar with that version.
Well, I did come across as arguing against the tool when it's really the misuse of it that frightens me, yes. I'm a bit trigger-happy on that subject because I used to work for a company that used dumb metrics.
The fact is we'll never know who one the popular vote for real. The margin of error is larger than the 0.5% difference in the counts. If anything, I hope that election convinces the powers that be that a sloppy vote counting system with a 1% margin of error is not good enough and needs fixing, because that much margin actually CAN make a difference. (The margin was even closer in the state of Florida alone, where unlike the national popular vote, that small difference really, really mattered.)
Bush did not "win" 30 states and Gore did not "win" 20 states. The margins were very very close in each and every state, but our broken election system awards the entire state's electors to the majority, efectively disenfranchising everyone else in that state. I understand the need for giving a flat overhead of two extra votes per state so rural states still have a say (which is basicly what the electoral college does). But I don't understand why those votes have to be rounded to reflect the lie that the state 100% supports a particular candidate. If a state has, say, 10 electorial votes, and the popular vote in that state comes out 46% for A, 44% for B, and 10% for C, then A should get 5 electors, B should get 4, and C should get 1. Instead the lie that the state is "fully behind" A is what gets recorded, even though less than half the voters voted for A. That's unfair all around.
Proportioning the state's electors according to the state's vote should be allowed, and it would still preserve the extra votes for rural states that the electorial college gives.
Now, if you are sane, you say the second is unbiased and the first IS biased. If you think like the review court that decided to pull Jackson from the case, you say the opposite.
It is not biased to report the truth about what was said during the trial, and that's all Jackson did.
You cannot separate the two. After all, what kind of profession were the people arguing the case FOR Microsoft? Why - big surprise- they were lawyers too. So it's not a comparasin of Microsoft vs a lawyer. It's a comparasin of Microsoft PLUS a laywer, vs a lawyer.
Then why praise the ousting of this judge from the case? All he did was have the honesty not to put on that facade. He was impartial, but impariality is not the same as being brain-dead. There is nothing PRE-judgemental about pointing out how badly the Micorosoft side conducted themselves DURING the trial. If he'd said so BEFORE he saw them acting as such, then THAT would have been prejudiced.
I have the opposite opinion - I wouldn't mind using application programs from Microsoft, like Word and Excell, if doing so didn't require me to be booted into the terrible OS known as Windows. Because MS is both an OS and an Application company, and given that linux almost always is used on the same archetecture as Windows, it is not in MS's best interest to produce a port of their application software to Linux. Doing so would hurt the sales of Windows (not much, granted, but a little). Microsoft knows that their application suite is the biggest sticking point that's keeping people who would otherwise want to migrate from Windows to Linux from doing so. In many businesses around the world, sending documents as .doc and .xls files has become a de-facto standard and you can't get by without the ability to do that.
I course it would affect performance ... very much so. But since my stance is that this tool isn't a good idea, it's not a problem for me to admit that the only way for it to be effective is for it to be an inefficient cpu time hog.
How does a human tell the difference? By going up to the person and talking, which, incedentally, if such a tool isn't involved is the only way the human would be alerted to the use of the command in the first place.
Granted, the purpose of this tool is to merely let a human know that he should pay attention to the activity in question, but I don't have confidence in the capacity of corporate IT departments to be apply restraint when using such tools, sorry. When a tool is written with manual intervention in mind, eventually this will be forgotten in many large IT departments. The tool will become automated to the point where it no longer has that human hand on the brakes anymore to keep it under wraps.
One thing I do agree with, though, is that my example was not a good one. rm -rf on the shared drive isn't a good idea because Unix doesn't differentiate between "permission to write" and "permission to delete", and so you'd end up deleting files that people left open for collaborative purposes.
That sounds like a user support nightmare. Software would keep dying whever a user did something for the first time with an app that he didn't do before with that app. For your idea to work, during those runs of the app where it is learning "typical behaviour" it's going to have to execute every possible line of code in the program. That means every IF body, every ELSE body, every SWITCH case, every subroutine, etc. No way is that going to work. (For example, the user runs Netscape over and over as a browser. Then for the first time he runs it's e-mail client. The security system sees all sorts of new system calls not normally associated with that app, and so it kills it.
Your idea would have been better without that "kills the process" part. A system that's wrong 6 percent of the time shouldn't be taking that kind of drastic measure. It should be used to alert a human being and nothing more.
But what about making new programs to imitate existing ones, but just in a way that isn't noticed by the snooper? (for example: myFuzzySlipperProgram could be a renamed "rm" program compiled from source.)
Or, just do your malicious cracking using system calls from your own C programs. Don't use the rm command in a script, use a program that calls unlink().
To even have a chance of being effective, the system would have to be watching not the commands you type, but the system calls you make. (In unix terms, any time you do something using one of the functions on man page 2, the system library would have to log that.)
Yes. Yes it is. In chrooted environments.
I have my doubts:
/shared_network_drive /shared_network_drive
/shared_network_drive. He was being sloppy, but not malicious.
for example: which is the malicious activity?
User A types: rm -rf *
User B types: rm -rf *
(User A was in the root dir at the time. User B was in a subdirectory of his home directory at the time.)
Okay, that's easy- just remember to track the context of where the user currently is. But then what about this?
User A types: rm -rf
User B types: rm -rf
The difference is that User A was trying to delete everyone's stuff, while User B, knowing how the permissions on the files work, was just trying to find a lazy way to delete those files that he has permissions on because he was trying to clear his own junk out of the
How does the software know the difference?
The problem with that theory is that sudden changes in activity are NORMAL. Let's say I'm a programmer who never worked on any network code, at least not for the current employer. Then I get an assignment to make a module for some server product. Suddenly BAM I'm making all sorts of new network connections I wasn't before.
The problem with sarcasm is that it has to come from a source you respect to be noticed as such. Otherwise the more likely explanation when something dumb is said is that the person really is dumb, not that they were trying to be funny. Based on the past posts, I assumed you just didn't know any better.
For the most extreme example of this, imagine if there was satire used in a Jack Chick (tm) track. Would you notice?
The fact that I don't enjoy being reliant on government snow plows to deem it's finally time to get around to doing my street doesn't have a damn thing to do with ego.
By assuming that it isn't possible to dislike Microsoft based on reasoned thought (of the same variety that tells you you'd dislike jumping off a bridge), you show your true colors.
If someone is an unsafe driver - complain about the fact that they are an unsafe driver. Don't complain about the kind of vehicle they are driving, and don't assume that everyone driving that kind of vehicle is going to be that kind of driver. It's just as incorrect and insulting as assuming everyone with a motorcycle is a Hell's Angel member, or assuming that everyone with a Porsche has a small penis.
Yeah, and Windows should be illegal because the people using it are usually dumb enough to spread viruses. See the problem with this reasoning? It's unfair to those who aren't as dumb as the average.
Somehow you thought I was talking about Seattle. Odd.
Because owning two cars is more expensive than one, duh.