I'll agree that you have a valid argument if you concede several things:
1) The Constitution, as a guiding document, is utterly meaningless as its content has been superseded by court precedent--the motivation for which is only arguably in line with the morals and values of personal freedom, liberty, and the attainment of a universally beneficial society.
2) We do not live in a Constitutional Republic.
3) "Leader of the Free World" and "Democracy" are meaningless PR slogans.
4) Our current government, as characterized by the authorities and powers it exercises, most closely resembles a Communist and Socialist state.
If you agree to those things then I'll agree with what you're saying. If you choose to argue that the Constitution still has any real legitimate meaning in today's world then we must default back to the strictest interpretation of the original document. That is to strive for the smallest and most limited Federal government possible.
You jumped in on a debate when you had no idea what the original assertion was. Allow me to fill you in on the statement that was under debate:
The GNU General Public License is a document that depends on copyright
That's was the debate topic--and it's wrong.
in your perfect political system with no copyright, how will you compel an uncooperative party to share modified code?
Because you jumped in late you're missing the point.
There is _NO_ license and _NO_ system which will force an uncooperative party with a superior social and political position to share modified code. I don't care if you have the most proprietary license in the world. If the opposition is bigger than you then you will be better off keeping your mouth shut and doing a better job safeguarding your next piece of work.
Again, copyright law does not empower the GPL. The GPL is inherently empowered. Copyright law empowers the legal system, and that legal system is equally empowered by availability of funds. No funds means no empowerment means no enforcement. It makes no difference what license you choose.
That's why they are the Supreme Court and you are not.
Another jab. Equally laughable.
I might read the Tenth Amendment
You might, and you'd be wrong. It's very clear: Anything not mentioned specifically in the Constitution is not the business of the Federal Government (the 10th Amendment), and you can't enumerate the Constitution to expand the role of the Federal Government (the 9th Amendment). That's all there is to it.
If you look at the situation in Britain that the Revolutionaries were trying to divest themselves of, you will see that it's the same situation which you're advocating. The British authorities were overinterpreting their powers based upon word games with their laws. What makes you think that the Constitutional Authors were writing the 9th and 10th Amendments to allow that to happen again?
Amendment 9 refers to the Bill of Rights being a subset of the rights that the government offers the people
Amendment 9 is not about a subset of rights that the Government offers to the People. The rights of the Government is a subset of all rights that the people naturally have. Amendment 9 is about limiting the set of rights which the Government has to be only those rights and powers specifically stated in the Constitution.
But it is misguided to talk about the fantasy land where we don't have the commerce clause
We have a commerce clause. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what regulation of commerce commonly meant in 1776. I guarantee it wasn't equated with micromanaging industrial sectors.
Even Scalia thinks that growing and consuming pot in one state, pot that never makes it into interstate commerce, should be governed by the commerce clause.
His authority should obviously be revoked as his allegiance was obviously influenced by external political forces.
The debate is so far removed from your original assertion that it's worth it to refresh your memory. You're quite good at picking and choosing sub-points to argue without preserving any relevency to your original declaration.
Your original assertion was that, without copyright, there would be no GPL. You're wrong. The GPL will always exist in any system. It is the enforcement which is subjective. This is true for any license under any system.
you still have just given an example of good old fashioned clan rule
Considering the same major families, social circles, and institutions have been in charge of education, banking, industry, and politics for decades... just what exactly is different other than the cost of administration borne by the people?
Not only that, the reprisal you insinuate is violent!
If violence is the first thing that comes to your mind with the use of the word "special" then the fault is with you, not me.
What is going on in your head has probably been tried before... what exactly do you propose to replace representative democracy?
I propose a Constitutional Republic where the politicians must actually obey the rules which bind them. We can even use the same set of rules that we already have (the Constitution and the Amendments). The only requirement is that the politicians actually start honoring the rules.
If not, then my recourse is to sue for it
This only works if you assume that you have unlimited resources to pursue a lawsuit. In reality it doesn't matter what license you've used. If a bigger player with better social and political connections steals your code then you have no recourse. Your choice of license is irrelevent. In this sense the BSD license is really the only true license. I prefer the GPL because it makes a conscious effort to advocate fair play.
Face reality. Then come back and talk.
you can't tell me how copyright does not enable the GPL
The GPL doesn't need enabling. It is the legal system which needs enabling. The legal system is enabled by money. Please don't ignore that any further.
Whether or not it "really" applies is a question you would have to ask an originalist mystic
Well, it's certainly obvious which side of the fence you sit on.
If the commerce clause were meant to be a trojan for the federal government to do anything under the sun, why would the 9th and 10th Amendments have even been written?
Amendment 9 specifically prohibits the enumeration of any part of the Constitution to apply more broadly than bare minimum face value.
Nice use of the jab "originalist mystic". I suppose you think yourself rather clever.
It is not the federal government's role to be in charge of everything. Really. It's not.
Why isn't it the federal government's role to be in charge of everything? Because a top-heavy government with an all-encompassing federal overseer is called communism or socialism. We do not want that?
Why don't we want that? If you don't know then you need to go back through the social studies and history courses from 1-12th grades.
There were some very intelligent men who recognized that the absolute worst thing possible is to have a federal government which thinks that it is more sovereign than the collection of states beneath it. Those intelligent men wrote a Constitution, and in that Constitution they sealed it with 2 Amendments. Those Amendments are the 9th and the 10th, and they're supposed to be limiting the Federal Government.
Keep the hodge-podge of state laws about privacy. If you hand it over to the feds it will become a single point of failure and will cost 10x as much.
Likely Microsoft wants the Feds to preempt the whole system so they don't have so many state politicians to buy off.
Don't feel bad. Everyone gets this wrong. The legal system allows you to sue. The GPL allows you to publicly acknowledge that they're not playing fair and being a selfish jerk.
thus the goals of the GPL cannot be met without copyrights
Please. Listen to what I've said. Without copyright, the GPL would be called "the fair and honest way of collaborating on software development."
Spend some time thinking about a society which isn't encapsulated by the rules and processes of lawyers and courts. You're not alone in being trapped inside the box.
Let's see... there is a kingdom like Saudi Arabia, or you can have anarchy, or if you prefer there is just a plain old dictatorship
Those aren't the only options. I know where you're coming from, though. You're ridiculing a concept because you don't understand it. Please grow up.
is there a better non-violent system of conflict resolution that you would reccommend?
We could use the same system we use on the soccer field. In our league there is no slide tackling allowed. It's not a formal rule so the refs don't call it. If someone does it, though, you can be sure their teammates will take care of them in their own special way.
If society weren't so hopelessly dependent upon the refs (courts/lawyers/politicians) then we would have the authority, the systems, and the resources to handle offenders on our own. Think of the days before Wall Street got involved with the internet. If someone was being a complete USENET troll, or if they were abusing their pipe or domain, or sending out lots of spam, then the people in charge of the systems took care of them quietly and effectively. The current problem isn't so much that that we have too many idiot users (though that's certainly a contributing factor). The problem is, mainly, that in order to roll the WWW into every home in America Wall Street lobbied the politicians to force the people who were in charge of things to share their control with a million half-assed registrars. It's like having 100 refs on the field, and 98 of them are just there to collect the referee fee.
Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem. Wall Street lobbies politicians to dilute the referee pool in the interest of profit--in every industry they touch.
If there were no copyright, couldn't I just copy any open-source project and then compile the application with my changes?
There is no license which can prevent you from doing this. Some may have stronger wording but, in the end, it all comes down to how much money you have to pay a lawyer. That's one of the reasons why the GPL doesn't bother with all the legal crap that's in all the other licenses.
Why would I be compelled to give anything back to the project?
Even under the GPL you're not compelled to give anything back. I think we've identified the source of your confusion.
but GPL seems dependent
Only if you're so hopelessly trapped inside the box that the only world you can possibly envision is one ruled by lawyers.
The neuraminidase that tamiflu and relenza inhibit is a VIRAL neuraminidase, not a neuraminidase from the host.
And it's still a neuraminidase which is specific to a mouse strain.
You quoted random sentences from the abstract
Actually, if you would read the abstract, I was quoting them in the order in which they occurred.
"In 1997, an H5N1 avian influenza A/Hong Kong/156/97 virus transmitted directly to humans and killed six of the 18 people infected. In 1999, another avian A/Hong/1074/99 (H9N2) virus caused influenza in two children."
Historical data without any sort of references to back it up. None of which actually relates to the study which they conducted other than the commonality of the naming assignment placed on the flu strain. Do they cite any sequencing data to support that their strain of H9N2 is the same as the one which killed those people? The assignment of the particular flu strain is completely subjective. How many times, when people have the flu, do their doctors take a blood sample large enough to isolate the viral strain and sequence its genetic code? Let me offer the closest approximation (without going over): NEVER. As I pointed out earlier, search for Hep C NS5b in any protein databank. You'll find at least six different sequences and all six of them have distinctly different active sites.
No, the current hype is about the possibility that a bird strain that has already adapted to humans
Conjecture.
Once again, this has already happened, in 1918, and 50-100 million people died.
Hype and conjecture. I believe that lots of people got sick and died in 1918 but there's very little evidence to show that they all actually died of the same viral infection. 1918... WW-I era... there are a thousand factors affecting food supply and people traveling around the world, not to mention chemical and biological weapons experiments, which weigh in heavily on any incident which may have occurred that year. Heck, for all you know, the war casualties are being included in that 1918 figure.
Politicians may listen to you. The uneducated masses may listen to you. I design pharmaceuticals to treat diseases as an occupation and as a scientific pursuit. What you're citing doesn't hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.
Fitting. The quote at the bottom of the page is: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." The fact, in this case, is that you're citing an experiment on mice to support a benefit to humans when every biochemist will tell you that there are significant differences between the geospatial configurations of enzymatic active sites which are species specific. That's the whole basis for the interspecies barrier. It's why your pets don't die when you get the flu.
The GNU General Public License is a document that depends on copyright
Will you quit propagating that bunk? The GPL exposes the ridiculous nature of the current legal implementation of copyright. In a world without copyright the GPL wouldn't be necessary. We'd all just call it "the normal honest way of cooperation".
It is a license that documents the terms under which the software developer grants a license to use, copy, and modify the copyrighted work
There's very little in the GPL about using, copying, or modifying other than to say,"Sure. That's allowed.". It's mostly about distribution of a derivative work. But you can continue to demonstrate that you've never read it critically.
The structures in the human eye are somuch more complex and intermingled with each other that it is impossible for it to have evolved on its own SO STOP TRYING
Photosynthesis and the function of the human eye are, at the core, more or less the same phenomenon. Why is that so impossible? Light of a certain wavelength encourages a particular chemical transition. Molecules which depend upon a statistically common transition are more likely to happen than molecules which depend upon a statistically less probable transition.
I see no problem with vision being a product of random evolution. Environmental perception is a core necessity of life.
Scientifically I can't see how anyone can deny the existence of a higher power with an intelligent design.
Q: "What made the sun?" A: <insert some stuff about physics here>
Q: "What made that?" A: <insert some theoretical stuff about the Big Bang here>
Q: "What made that?" A: <insert some stuff from Hawkings Brief History of Time here>
Q: "What made that?" A: <insert some philosophical conjecture about particle physics here>
Q: "What made that?" A: <insert some more philosophical physics conjecture here, note the exasperation in the speaker's voice, watch for the reddening around the ears>
Q: "What made that?"
Eventually anyone denying a higher power must admit that there's a level that they don't know about. At that level, that's where the higher power exists. Intelligent design by a higher power is a logical conclusion. Once at the level beyond theoretical philosophical particle physics random chance IS an intelligent and logical design.
I feel pretty safe when the best you can do is cite 3 year old material relevant only to 2.4.x kernels. I still use 2.4.31 but I'm betting that the cited LKM rootkit won't run on it anymore.
If you search protein databanks there are dozens of different neuraminidases. You've shown nothing to support that a mouse neuraminidase has an active site even close to that of the overly hyped mutated bird flu neuraminidase. It's likely that bird neuraminidases and human neuraminidases differ significantly. As an example, even the human strain of Hepatitis C has 6 different NS5b RNAases distributed across the world's population.
GS4104 prevented death of mice infected with A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1), mouse-adapted A/Quail/Hong Kong/G1/97 (H9N2), or human A/Hong Kong/1074/99 (H9N2) viruses
Funny. No mention of a bird strain anywhere.
and prevented the spread of virus to the brain of mice infected with A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1) and mouse-adapted A/Quail/Hong Kong/G1/97 (H9N2) viruses
Mouse adapted, huh? Can we get some human adapted bird strains so that this is actually relevent?
in combination with rimantadine (1 mg/kg per day) reduced the number of deaths of mice
The current hype is about the possibility of a bird strain adapting to humans. I'm not sure that inhibiting the deaths of mice using a product proven to inhibit a mouse neuraminidase makes any difference.
Thus, GS4104 is efficacious in treating infections caused by H5N1 and H9N2 influenza viruses in mice.
Oh look. It says MICE.
Sit down already. You obviously can't fly. You don't even have a leg to stand on.
On the same line of thought I'm always amused by the freaks who rant and rave that GNU/Linux can't be secure because there's no accountability for the programmers on all the various core components. Yet MS employes programmers worldwide. So what's the difference? Who's certified that some malicious coder inside MS hasn't inserted a tiny little backdoor gateway in some little-known.dll someplace?
And all of this has approximately nothing to do with any bird strains of the flu. Perhaps next time you'll come up with a paper where they did use bird strains... but not this time.
SELinux is, for the most part, little more than another layer of ACLs. BFD. I don't know anyone who's willing to jump through all the hoops and hurdles of fully configuring SELinux ACLs for their entire system. In all reality the current implementations are more than adequate in all but the most fringe cases. SELinux puts another layer of tin foil shielding around a locked, sealed, time and date controlled, 12 foot concrete shrouded bomb shelter.
Honestly, after seeing some of the stuff that makes it to TS, I think we can all safely say that the world would be a better place if all of it were just outright declassified.
1) There'd be no more BS TS classification of useless inanities which does nothing more for national security than create busywork for people pushing pencils.
2) We'd quit wasting taxpayer money safeguarding 20-year old military secrets that other nations discovered independently 10 years ago.
For cripes sakes... won't somebody think of reality sooner or later? Just because something is made TS doesn't safeguard it one bit. More than likely, if it's worthwhile and important, the other nations will figure it out on their own. No level of classification will ever secure the minds of people halfway around the world.
The defining factor has always been, still is, and always will be: COST.
Open source projects aren't taking your money and trying to convince you that they're shipping a fully developed professional product. Every piece of OSS that I use is understood to be in active development.
it does demonstrate that Tamiflu is effective against the virus itself
Does it? Did you see anywhere in that article the mechanism of action of Tamiflu? Even if Tamiflu is effective against the virus, it's effective against a mouse strain of the virus. There's no indication that the inhibited viral enzyme is the same in the mouse strain and the human strain.
the difference between humans and mice is smaller than the difference between mice and birds
That's relevent only if the concern were that a mouse strain of the virus were expected to mutate into humans. The hype is currently about a bird strain mutating to move into humans. Necessarily, the bird strain of the virus is significantly different from the mouse strain. Therefore, if a medicine works against the mouse strain, there's little evidence to say that the same medication will work against a mutated human strain.
Where do you come up with these completely baseless suppositions?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll agree that you have a valid argument if you concede several things:
1) The Constitution, as a guiding document, is utterly meaningless as its content has been superseded by court precedent--the motivation for which is only arguably in line with the morals and values of personal freedom, liberty, and the attainment of a universally beneficial society.
2) We do not live in a Constitutional Republic.
3) "Leader of the Free World" and "Democracy" are meaningless PR slogans.
4) Our current government, as characterized by the authorities and powers it exercises, most closely resembles a Communist and Socialist state.
If you agree to those things then I'll agree with what you're saying. If you choose to argue that the Constitution still has any real legitimate meaning in today's world then we must default back to the strictest interpretation of the original document. That is to strive for the smallest and most limited Federal government possible.
That's was the debate topic--and it's wrong.
Because you jumped in late you're missing the point.
There is _NO_ license and _NO_ system which will force an uncooperative party with a superior social and political position to share modified code. I don't care if you have the most proprietary license in the world. If the opposition is bigger than you then you will be better off keeping your mouth shut and doing a better job safeguarding your next piece of work.
Again, copyright law does not empower the GPL. The GPL is inherently empowered. Copyright law empowers the legal system, and that legal system is equally empowered by availability of funds. No funds means no empowerment means no enforcement. It makes no difference what license you choose.
You might, and you'd be wrong. It's very clear: Anything not mentioned specifically in the Constitution is not the business of the Federal Government (the 10th Amendment), and you can't enumerate the Constitution to expand the role of the Federal Government (the 9th Amendment). That's all there is to it.
If you look at the situation in Britain that the Revolutionaries were trying to divest themselves of, you will see that it's the same situation which you're advocating. The British authorities were overinterpreting their powers based upon word games with their laws. What makes you think that the Constitutional Authors were writing the 9th and 10th Amendments to allow that to happen again?
Amendment 9 is not about a subset of rights that the Government offers to the People. The rights of the Government is a subset of all rights that the people naturally have. Amendment 9 is about limiting the set of rights which the Government has to be only those rights and powers specifically stated in the Constitution.
We have a commerce clause. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what regulation of commerce commonly meant in 1776. I guarantee it wasn't equated with micromanaging industrial sectors.
His authority should obviously be revoked as his allegiance was obviously influenced by external political forces.
The debate is so far removed from your original assertion that it's worth it to refresh your memory. You're quite good at picking and choosing sub-points to argue without preserving any relevency to your original declaration.
Your original assertion was that, without copyright, there would be no GPL. You're wrong. The GPL will always exist in any system. It is the enforcement which is subjective. This is true for any license under any system.
If violence is the first thing that comes to your mind with the use of the word "special" then the fault is with you, not me.
I propose a Constitutional Republic where the politicians must actually obey the rules which bind them. We can even use the same set of rules that we already have (the Constitution and the Amendments). The only requirement is that the politicians actually start honoring the rules.
This only works if you assume that you have unlimited resources to pursue a lawsuit. In reality it doesn't matter what license you've used. If a bigger player with better social and political connections steals your code then you have no recourse. Your choice of license is irrelevent. In this sense the BSD license is really the only true license. I prefer the GPL because it makes a conscious effort to advocate fair play.
Face reality. Then come back and talk.
The GPL doesn't need enabling. It is the legal system which needs enabling. The legal system is enabled by money. Please don't ignore that any further.
If the commerce clause were meant to be a trojan for the federal government to do anything under the sun, why would the 9th and 10th Amendments have even been written?
Amendment 9 specifically prohibits the enumeration of any part of the Constitution to apply more broadly than bare minimum face value.
Nice use of the jab "originalist mystic". I suppose you think yourself rather clever.
It is not the federal government's role to be in charge of everything. Really. It's not.
Why isn't it the federal government's role to be in charge of everything? Because a top-heavy government with an all-encompassing federal overseer is called communism or socialism. We do not want that?
Why don't we want that? If you don't know then you need to go back through the social studies and history courses from 1-12th grades.
There were some very intelligent men who recognized that the absolute worst thing possible is to have a federal government which thinks that it is more sovereign than the collection of states beneath it. Those intelligent men wrote a Constitution, and in that Constitution they sealed it with 2 Amendments. Those Amendments are the 9th and the 10th, and they're supposed to be limiting the Federal Government.
Keep the hodge-podge of state laws about privacy. If you hand it over to the feds it will become a single point of failure and will cost 10x as much.
Likely Microsoft wants the Feds to preempt the whole system so they don't have so many state politicians to buy off.
Please. Listen to what I've said. Without copyright, the GPL would be called "the fair and honest way of collaborating on software development."
Spend some time thinking about a society which isn't encapsulated by the rules and processes of lawyers and courts. You're not alone in being trapped inside the box.
Those aren't the only options. I know where you're coming from, though. You're ridiculing a concept because you don't understand it. Please grow up.
We could use the same system we use on the soccer field. In our league there is no slide tackling allowed. It's not a formal rule so the refs don't call it. If someone does it, though, you can be sure their teammates will take care of them in their own special way.
If society weren't so hopelessly dependent upon the refs (courts/lawyers/politicians) then we would have the authority, the systems, and the resources to handle offenders on our own. Think of the days before Wall Street got involved with the internet. If someone was being a complete USENET troll, or if they were abusing their pipe or domain, or sending out lots of spam, then the people in charge of the systems took care of them quietly and effectively. The current problem isn't so much that that we have too many idiot users (though that's certainly a contributing factor). The problem is, mainly, that in order to roll the WWW into every home in America Wall Street lobbied the politicians to force the people who were in charge of things to share their control with a million half-assed registrars. It's like having 100 refs on the field, and 98 of them are just there to collect the referee fee.
Government is not the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem. Wall Street lobbies politicians to dilute the referee pool in the interest of profit--in every industry they touch.
Even under the GPL you're not compelled to give anything back. I think we've identified the source of your confusion.
Only if you're so hopelessly trapped inside the box that the only world you can possibly envision is one ruled by lawyers.
Okay. *chuckle* Whatever.
The only thing factually incorrect here is you trying to pass of a mouse study as having anything to do with birds and humans.
The other intelligent designer...
And what made that?
The other intelligent designer...
And what made that?
The other intelligent designer...
It seems pretty obvious that there's an intelligent designer here somewhere.
Actually, if you would read the abstract, I was quoting them in the order in which they occurred.
Historical data without any sort of references to back it up. None of which actually relates to the study which they conducted other than the commonality of the naming assignment placed on the flu strain. Do they cite any sequencing data to support that their strain of H9N2 is the same as the one which killed those people? The assignment of the particular flu strain is completely subjective. How many times, when people have the flu, do their doctors take a blood sample large enough to isolate the viral strain and sequence its genetic code? Let me offer the closest approximation (without going over): NEVER. As I pointed out earlier, search for Hep C NS5b in any protein databank. You'll find at least six different sequences and all six of them have distinctly different active sites.
Conjecture.
Hype and conjecture. I believe that lots of people got sick and died in 1918 but there's very little evidence to show that they all actually died of the same viral infection. 1918... WW-I era... there are a thousand factors affecting food supply and people traveling around the world, not to mention chemical and biological weapons experiments, which weigh in heavily on any incident which may have occurred that year. Heck, for all you know, the war casualties are being included in that 1918 figure.
Politicians may listen to you. The uneducated masses may listen to you. I design pharmaceuticals to treat diseases as an occupation and as a scientific pursuit. What you're citing doesn't hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny.
Fitting. The quote at the bottom of the page is: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." The fact, in this case, is that you're citing an experiment on mice to support a benefit to humans when every biochemist will tell you that there are significant differences between the geospatial configurations of enzymatic active sites which are species specific. That's the whole basis for the interspecies barrier. It's why your pets don't die when you get the flu.
Keep trying. I'll be here to debunk you.
There's very little in the GPL about using, copying, or modifying other than to say,"Sure. That's allowed.". It's mostly about distribution of a derivative work. But you can continue to demonstrate that you've never read it critically.
I see no problem with vision being a product of random evolution. Environmental perception is a core necessity of life.
Scientifically I can't see how anyone can deny the existence of a higher power with an intelligent design.
Q: "What made the sun?"
A: <insert some stuff about physics here>
Q: "What made that?"
A: <insert some theoretical stuff about the Big Bang here>
Q: "What made that?"
A: <insert some stuff from Hawkings Brief History of Time here>
Q: "What made that?"
A: <insert some philosophical conjecture about particle physics here>
Q: "What made that?"
A: <insert some more philosophical physics conjecture here, note the exasperation in the speaker's voice, watch for the reddening around the ears>
Q: "What made that?"
Eventually anyone denying a higher power must admit that there's a level that they don't know about. At that level, that's where the higher power exists. Intelligent design by a higher power is a logical conclusion. Once at the level beyond theoretical philosophical particle physics random chance IS an intelligent and logical design.
I feel pretty safe when the best you can do is cite 3 year old material relevant only to 2.4.x kernels. I still use 2.4.31 but I'm betting that the cited LKM rootkit won't run on it anymore.
MDCK cells are canine kidney cells.
If you search protein databanks there are dozens of different neuraminidases. You've shown nothing to support that a mouse neuraminidase has an active site even close to that of the overly hyped mutated bird flu neuraminidase. It's likely that bird neuraminidases and human neuraminidases differ significantly. As an example, even the human strain of Hepatitis C has 6 different NS5b RNAases distributed across the world's population.
Funny. No mention of a bird strain anywhere.
Mouse adapted, huh? Can we get some human adapted bird strains so that this is actually relevent?
The current hype is about the possibility of a bird strain adapting to humans. I'm not sure that inhibiting the deaths of mice using a product proven to inhibit a mouse neuraminidase makes any difference.
Oh look. It says MICE.
Sit down already. You obviously can't fly. You don't even have a leg to stand on.
On the same line of thought I'm always amused by the freaks who rant and rave that GNU/Linux can't be secure because there's no accountability for the programmers on all the various core components. Yet MS employes programmers worldwide. So what's the difference? Who's certified that some malicious coder inside MS hasn't inserted a tiny little backdoor gateway in some little-known .dll someplace?
And all of this has approximately nothing to do with any bird strains of the flu. Perhaps next time you'll come up with a paper where they did use bird strains... but not this time.
SELinux is, for the most part, little more than another layer of ACLs. BFD. I don't know anyone who's willing to jump through all the hoops and hurdles of fully configuring SELinux ACLs for their entire system. In all reality the current implementations are more than adequate in all but the most fringe cases. SELinux puts another layer of tin foil shielding around a locked, sealed, time and date controlled, 12 foot concrete shrouded bomb shelter.
As others have said... let the flames commence.
Honestly, after seeing some of the stuff that makes it to TS, I think we can all safely say that the world would be a better place if all of it were just outright declassified.
1) There'd be no more BS TS classification of useless inanities which does nothing more for national security than create busywork for people pushing pencils.
2) We'd quit wasting taxpayer money safeguarding 20-year old military secrets that other nations discovered independently 10 years ago.
For cripes sakes... won't somebody think of reality sooner or later? Just because something is made TS doesn't safeguard it one bit. More than likely, if it's worthwhile and important, the other nations will figure it out on their own. No level of classification will ever secure the minds of people halfway around the world.
The defining factor has always been, still is, and always will be: COST.
Open source projects aren't taking your money and trying to convince you that they're shipping a fully developed professional product. Every piece of OSS that I use is understood to be in active development.
That's relevent only if the concern were that a mouse strain of the virus were expected to mutate into humans. The hype is currently about a bird strain mutating to move into humans. Necessarily, the bird strain of the virus is significantly different from the mouse strain. Therefore, if a medicine works against the mouse strain, there's little evidence to say that the same medication will work against a mutated human strain.
Where do you come up with these completely baseless suppositions?