an article by Paul Murphy entitled, SCO, IBM and Outcomes-Based Circular Reasoning. Murphy claims to be 'a 20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry, specializing in Unix and Unix-related management issues'
Mr. Murphy starts with saying reverse engineering is good. Then he mentions about Linux came from Minix, mimicing "personality" of Unix. Later leading to point saying IBM is in contract with terms of UNIX license, and claims SCO could argue that IBM violated that contract by porting Linux on 390. Lastly he goes on saying about due diligence, unfounded, blah blah blah, outcome-based circular reasoning by Linux community blah blah blah
So pretty much his point is that Linux is illegitimate kernel and nothing more than Unix spinoff, a Unix knockoff at best, if not by source, but by merit of origin and supposely "unknown" shady activity by IBM.
I can't write as good as Mr. Murphy, but it seems his entire article is nothing more than rhetoric and drawing irrelevant conclusion.
Look below and tell me if this Mr. Murphy, the Unix expert guy, should be writing articles with fancy title, "outcome-based circular reasonning".
Reasoning Crib Sheet Break arguments down into easy-to-understand steps of the A=B, B=C variety. If arguments seem too complex to be broken down, treat them with caution.
Be careful about drawing firm conclusions when the premises include words like "some", "many" or "most." These words signal the use of inductive reasoning, which means that conclusions are based upon probabilities, and are not certain.
Be sure that premises using the word "All" are true and not merely hyperbole. Also, clarify statements that lead you to assume the word "All", such as "Trees need lots of light." It's possible that some trees can grow well in the dark, making airtight conclusions impossible.
Avoid other overly conceptual generalizations, such as "science has discovered that..." or "from history, we have learned that..." No one person can speak for all of science, history, medicine, etc.
Appeals based upon emotion, not facts, are cause for skepticism. The lack of hard data or evidence indicates that the presenter is on shaky ground.
Make sure that authorities are speaking within their areas of expertise. An economist is not an expert on ecology any more than an ecologist is an expert on the economy.
Make sure that authorities truly are authorities. Like the rest of us, actors, musicians, politicians and sports figures cannot usually be counted upon to truly understand fields outside of their own. Unless talking about their particular expertise, their opinions are worth no more or less than yours.
Be wary of claims stating that if a little of something is good, than a lot will be great; or if a lot of something is bad, a little of it also will be bad. There are very few linear relationships in the real world. Complex interactions are characterized by thresholds of change and not by ongoing, straight-line projections.
Trust your instincts. If the presented case doesn't seem to make sense, or defies common sense, get more information or ask to have the argument restated.
Ask for help. Very few people can effectively think through complex issues by themselves. Don't be afraid to get additional help or advice!
120 km/h to send single photon in order to establish a secure channel?
Hmm.. let me get this straight. So if I burn a DVD and send it to California from New York using FedEx 2Day service for $14.59, could I name this post as "Unhackable Transmission Medium for only $14.59"?
It's typical MTA way of doing things, slow and retarded.
Automating L line may make a lot of sense to some people (since it's not really that crucial line to many commuters), it's the one of the most dumbest things MTA is known to do for the past 4 to 5 years.
MTA is known to do things ass backward in my opinion.
NYC pressuring commuters to take public transportation, so allows MTA to increase bridge toll rate, then MTA raises public transportation cost to commuters taking public transportation.
NYC offers tax break for commuters using and business owners offering TransitCheck, but MTA does not allow TransitCheck to be used on buses, then later city forced MTA to take the pass on buses except bridge connection.
MTA first automates annoucement service on 4,5 and 6 line along with new shiny trains, yet 4,5 and 6 line stations are one of the most crummiest and oldest track in NYC. Often the most undermaintained stations in my opinion. Especially Wall Street station is the most stupidist and narrowest station anyone can imagine. The most logical thing to do would be making the freaking station big enough for people to stand on first for the most heavily used by commuters in Manhattan.
Chambers St. switchbox fire shuts down C line entirely for the next DECADE and crippling A line until god knows when. MTA hires one of two only contractors in US able to do the job to fix the electrical wiring damaged by fire. Then later comes back and announces to people that "Hey, great news! we estimated it wrong! Instead of 10 years, it will only take 5 years and save billions of dollar! Horray!" This is while claiming old electrical system is very complicated and hard to replace and cost too much money for those poor commuters. Then this shit hits the fan... instead of replacing old electrical wiring and establishing better communication points in tunnel, MTA likes to make automated trains and raise fare once again.
Next thing, I'll just buy a car. Maybe I'll save more money and time that way.
Until someone come up with a way to streamline this as building a power plant in millions of grassy acre out in middle of nowhere with controlled environment which can maintain persistant output of grass, I doubt it's practical.
any dumb knucklehead can walk by your parked car and write down license plate, inspection info, the date, model, make and id of your car registered with just a pen and paper.
So what's stopping anyone from accessing your information now?
Hence it can enhance privacy by ten fold , I don't see this as a bad thing. If not, it may surely make easier and automated way to enforce the law and save few bucks for the state along the way.
you have dwarf sense of how artists and recording industry make money.
Performance and endorcement through recording companies/concert promotion groups contracts bring most of artists "quick" cash, not recording sales. Depending on waiver of rights to the songs (if artists composed or inserted creative work), artists do not see the cash generated by the sales for a long time, if at all, since artists get paid contractually based on the "projected" sales/distribution, not actual sales.
Sales of your recorded art can't be measured the same as sales of performing art because the recorded art is mostly used by recording labels to endorce live performing art. With that in mind, its actually responsibility and obligation of recording companies to effectively market artists music to the audience in order to generate revenue through loyalty and performance/endorcement.
By increasing the price of CD and penalizing P2P with bad marketing decisions made by recording industry is the direct cause of the loss of profit, not P2P file sharing. Exception would be of course, if artist is spliting financial cost in distribution and manufacturing.
However the recording companies are looking (I think) way past after the popularity of the artists decipates. Logic maybe that by increasing the value of the work (music), somehow it will retain/increase the value of the work in the future. Therefore after artists dies or gone fishing for 20 years in some deserted island, his/her/their works will continually generate revenues for the companies by sales or resales of the works and its right.
Therefore I propose sending those crackers to Antartica to secure the network and maintain the security for the next remainder of their sentence for their crime.
If that doesn't teach those knucklyheads, I don't know what will. Not to mention, jail break in Antartica would be equally entertaining thought.
As soon as they come up with a better way to communicate with those stations I think they will be the first to secure there data.
Ah, not so fast! I think we can sleep safe at night knowing those crackers don't know what the heck they are looking at.
Security through obliviously long scientific data!
Next, Polar Bear's yawning patern data collected in 10 years of observation just to throw those crackers off!
I don't believe getting rid of passwords (biometric) or standalone or in combination with frequency in password change cycle will solve or improve security greater by ration. Human DNA is varied and unique by only less than ~5% or ~25,000 genes by expressed sequence (correct me at will), and only 0.1% or ~3 million base pair is unique among Human. However it's highly unlikely that someone (identical twin exception) will have identical matching DNA with you. Also it should be noted that DNA fingerprinting is already in use by military to id remains of soliders.
Obviously our DNA sequence mapping technology isn't here to process DNA fingerprinting on the fly (within reasonable time, cost and implementation), but perhaps within 5 years of increasing computing power and complete map of human genome, an ID tag with PGP encrypted key from DNA unique sequence tag imprinted with long lasting invisible die (rub on the skin like fake tattoo for instance) could be one way to decrease the cost of personal id, registration, administration, security, nonstandard identification process and implementation, lost & stolen ID card or password.
Same question if the animal protein is from pork. Will that increase/decrease muslims fundamentalist cyber terrorist attack/attempt? or even flat out rejecting development and usage of such device from Islamic countries?
Possibly the answer may lie within how far tolerance or limitation will be bared by one's culture.
While it's hard to believe someone who should know better will actually state something like "reverse firewall"; an idiosyncrasy common to denial-state bureaucrats who's been long resistant to giving control to the users and to applying better method of security policy and measure, it's a sign that finally industry is making step toward breaking that set-it-and-forget-it NAT'd mask as the only line of defense, an old odium among many security and control freaks.
Perhaps VeriSign can convince enough cable and dsl providers that setting security policy on the both side of the fence instead of simple NATing is a common practice.
Slashdot Mirror
joke aside, the keyword here is "rumor" as he explicitly stated.
rumor
1. A piece of unverified information of uncertain origin usually spread by word of mouth.
2. Unverified information received from another; hearsay.
the anonymous poster's guilty of being "off-topic" at best, not troll.
an article by Paul Murphy entitled, SCO, IBM and Outcomes-Based Circular Reasoning. Murphy claims to be 'a 20-year veteran of the I.T. consulting industry, specializing in Unix and Unix-related management issues'
Mr. Murphy starts with saying reverse engineering is good.
Then he mentions about Linux came from Minix, mimicing "personality" of Unix.
Later leading to point saying IBM is in contract with terms of UNIX license, and claims SCO could argue that IBM violated that contract by porting Linux on 390.
Lastly he goes on saying about due diligence, unfounded, blah blah blah, outcome-based circular reasoning by Linux community blah blah blah
So pretty much his point is that Linux is illegitimate kernel and nothing more than Unix spinoff, a Unix knockoff at best, if not by source, but by merit of origin and supposely "unknown" shady activity by IBM.
I can't write as good as Mr. Murphy, but it seems his entire article is nothing more than rhetoric and drawing irrelevant conclusion.
Look below and tell me if this Mr. Murphy, the Unix expert guy, should be writing articles with fancy title, "outcome-based circular reasonning".
(curtesy of Cygnus Group)
http://www.cygnus-group.com/CIDM/reason.html
Reasoning Crib Sheet
Break arguments down into easy-to-understand steps of the A=B, B=C variety. If arguments seem too complex to be broken down, treat them with caution.
Be careful about drawing firm conclusions when the premises include words like "some", "many" or "most." These words signal the use of inductive reasoning, which means that conclusions are based upon probabilities, and are not certain.
Be sure that premises using the word "All" are true and not merely hyperbole. Also, clarify statements that lead you to assume the word "All", such as "Trees need lots of light." It's possible that some trees can grow well in the dark, making airtight conclusions impossible.
Avoid other overly conceptual generalizations, such as "science has discovered that..." or "from history, we have learned that..." No one person can speak for all of science, history, medicine, etc.
Appeals based upon emotion, not facts, are cause for skepticism. The lack of hard data or evidence indicates that the presenter is on shaky ground.
Make sure that authorities are speaking within their areas of expertise. An economist is not an expert on ecology any more than an ecologist is an expert on the economy.
Make sure that authorities truly are authorities. Like the rest of us, actors, musicians, politicians and sports figures cannot usually be counted upon to truly understand fields outside of their own. Unless talking about their particular expertise, their opinions are worth no more or less than yours.
Be wary of claims stating that if a little of something is good, than a lot will be great; or if a lot of something is bad, a little of it also will be bad. There are very few linear relationships in the real world. Complex interactions are characterized by thresholds of change and not by ongoing, straight-line projections.
Trust your instincts. If the presented case doesn't seem to make sense, or defies common sense, get more information or ask to have the argument restated.
Ask for help. Very few people can effectively think through complex issues by themselves. Don't be afraid to get additional help or advice!
120 km/h to send single photon in order to establish a secure channel?
Hmm.. let me get this straight. So if I burn a DVD and send it to California from New York using FedEx 2Day service for $14.59, could I name this post as "Unhackable Transmission Medium for only $14.59"?
"...an almost perfect liquid."
Well, that just clearly rules out any possibility about the beginning of universe being two liquids.
It's typical MTA way of doing things, slow and retarded.
Automating L line may make a lot of sense to some people (since it's not really that crucial line to many commuters), it's the one of the most dumbest things MTA is known to do for the past 4 to 5 years.
MTA is known to do things ass backward in my opinion.
NYC pressuring commuters to take public transportation, so allows MTA to increase bridge toll rate, then MTA raises public transportation cost to commuters taking public transportation.
NYC offers tax break for commuters using and business owners offering TransitCheck, but MTA does not allow TransitCheck to be used on buses, then later city forced MTA to take the pass on buses except bridge connection.
MTA first automates annoucement service on 4,5 and 6 line along with new shiny trains, yet 4,5 and 6 line stations are one of the most crummiest and oldest track in NYC. Often the most undermaintained stations in my opinion. Especially Wall Street station is the most stupidist and narrowest station anyone can imagine. The most logical thing to do would be making the freaking station big enough for people to stand on first for the most heavily used by commuters in Manhattan.
Chambers St. switchbox fire shuts down C line entirely for the next DECADE and crippling A line until god knows when. MTA hires one of two only contractors in US able to do the job to fix the electrical wiring damaged by fire. Then later comes back and announces to people that "Hey, great news! we estimated it wrong! Instead of 10 years, it will only take 5 years and save billions of dollar! Horray!" This is while claiming old electrical system is very complicated and hard to replace and cost too much money for those poor commuters. Then this shit hits the fan... instead of replacing old electrical wiring and establishing better communication points in tunnel, MTA likes to make automated trains and raise fare once again.
Next thing, I'll just buy a car. Maybe I'll save more money and time that way.
Until someone come up with a way to streamline this as building a power plant in millions of grassy acre out in middle of nowhere with controlled environment which can maintain persistant output of grass, I doubt it's practical.
any dumb knucklehead can walk by your parked car and write down license plate, inspection info, the date, model, make and id of your car registered with just a pen and paper.
So what's stopping anyone from accessing your information now?
Hence it can enhance privacy by ten fold , I don't see this as a bad thing. If not, it may surely make easier and automated way to enforce the law and save few bucks for the state along the way.
back to National Geography mag and Victoria Secret's catalog for me...
you have dwarf sense of how artists and recording industry make money.
Performance and endorcement through recording companies/concert promotion groups contracts bring most of artists "quick" cash, not recording sales. Depending on waiver of rights to the songs (if artists composed or inserted creative work), artists do not see the cash generated by the sales for a long time, if at all, since artists get paid contractually based on the "projected" sales/distribution, not actual sales.
Sales of your recorded art can't be measured the same as sales of performing art because the recorded art is mostly used by recording labels to endorce live performing art. With that in mind, its actually responsibility and obligation of recording companies to effectively market artists music to the audience in order to generate revenue through loyalty and performance/endorcement.
By increasing the price of CD and penalizing P2P with bad marketing decisions made by recording industry is the direct cause of the loss of profit, not P2P file sharing. Exception would be of course, if artist is spliting financial cost in distribution and manufacturing.
However the recording companies are looking (I think) way past after the popularity of the artists decipates. Logic maybe that by increasing the value of the work (music), somehow it will retain/increase the value of the work in the future. Therefore after artists dies or gone fishing for 20 years in some deserted island, his/her/their works will continually generate revenues for the companies by sales or resales of the works and its right.
Strongest chain is only strong as its weakest link.
JVM may be stable, but it's only stable as underlying native OS and servlets.
Java is like a trophy wife. It was a good idea to marry her back 10 years ago, but you won't do it again if you had a do-over.
Surely he'd make Martha Stewart proud.
Martha before prison: It's a good thing.
Martha after prison: Son, it's all~ good, you dig?
Martha after hd wind chime: Shizo, eezo, w00t! Aigh~t?
Crap! You just breached my first level security protocol.
Now I must look for other geologically ambiguous animals' behavioral patern data...
I'm pretty sure Larry Page and Sergey Brin googled for an appropriate IPO pricing and came up "Dutch Auction".
Broadband was most prevalent among people ages 18 to 20.
So much bandwidth, so much porn! Eureka!
I'm sure college kids between 18 and 20 downloading through P2P has nothing to do with this trend...
Therefore I propose sending those crackers to Antartica to secure the network and maintain the security for the next remainder of their sentence for their crime.
If that doesn't teach those knucklyheads, I don't know what will. Not to mention, jail break in Antartica would be equally entertaining thought.
As soon as they come up with a better way to communicate with those stations I think they will be the first to secure there data.
Ah, not so fast! I think we can sleep safe at night knowing those crackers don't know what the heck they are looking at.
Security through obliviously long scientific data!
Next, Polar Bear's yawning patern data collected in 10 years of observation just to throw those crackers off!
I guess, there goes my next security device project named, "icewall". I've just lost credibility.
Next project, "building cheap disposable X Plane". It's so cheap, if it crashes, I can build more! BRILLIANT!
Oh my bad, i thought someone said, MILF.
That's some big ass!
oh, I can feel some mother jokes coming up...
The human body constantly generates an approximate 200 watts
You mean the average human...
Nah, I think the typo was "generates". It should have been "wastes".
I don't believe getting rid of passwords (biometric) or standalone or in combination with frequency in password change cycle will solve or improve security greater by ration. Human DNA is varied and unique by only less than ~5% or ~25,000 genes by expressed sequence (correct me at will), and only 0.1% or ~3 million base pair is unique among Human. However it's highly unlikely that someone (identical twin exception) will have identical matching DNA with you. Also it should be noted that DNA fingerprinting is already in use by military to id remains of soliders.
Obviously our DNA sequence mapping technology isn't here to process DNA fingerprinting on the fly (within reasonable time, cost and implementation), but perhaps within 5 years of increasing computing power and complete map of human genome, an ID tag with PGP encrypted key from DNA unique sequence tag imprinted with long lasting invisible die (rub on the skin like fake tattoo for instance) could be one way to decrease the cost of personal id, registration, administration, security, nonstandard identification process and implementation, lost & stolen ID card or password.
Yes! It's abooot time, ay?!
Christ, where did all that years of playing DOOM 2 go? Did Gore win the election?
Same question if the animal protein is from pork. Will that increase/decrease muslims fundamentalist cyber terrorist attack/attempt? or even flat out rejecting development and usage of such device from Islamic countries?
Possibly the answer may lie within how far tolerance or limitation will be bared by one's culture.
While it's hard to believe someone who should know better will actually state something like "reverse firewall"; an idiosyncrasy common to denial-state bureaucrats who's been long resistant to giving control to the users and to applying better method of security policy and measure, it's a sign that finally industry is making step toward breaking that set-it-and-forget-it NAT'd mask as the only line of defense, an old odium among many security and control freaks.
Perhaps VeriSign can convince enough cable and dsl providers that setting security policy on the both side of the fence instead of simple NATing is a common practice.