ok, agreed, currently the US is not at War. I take then that you feel that the Congress has to 'Officially' declare War on somebody/something/the air we breath, before there can be any limiting of rights at sensitive/vital government institutions? How do you feel about the institutions that even before Sept 11th 'vilolated' the employee's rights by searching them? Do you think that the janitors for the whitehouse should go unsearched unless Congress declares WAR?
I hope you find an answer to refuse those searches and still keep your job. I am in the same boat as well. I work for the Red Cross, where I am in charge of maintaining the blood supply for the city of Los Angeles. Again, since sept 11th my work life has been hell with searches. And when an Al-Qaida operative was captured with plans to our building, the searches have been espicially harsh. It takes over 15-30 minutes of my day to go through these searches, I could be catching up on Slashdot, or the Onion during those periods!
Well I could continue on, but hey, you work for the national Institute of Health in Bethesda MA, which currently has quite a bit of anthrax going on. You are probably getting quite a few samples from the Congress, embassy's and such being in that are area. I suspect the searches will only intensify. Why? Becasue you are at a target. If I wanted to shock the world, what if I smuggled in some Ebola and contaminated a few senator's samples with it?
If we are going to comment about 'unreasonable' searches, I want to talk about the guy at PetsMart getting searched because his paranoid manager fears Al-Quida antraxing petfood etc etc. The 'I work at Pantex (they build the Hbomb warheads) and have to put up with cavety searches on the way in AND out', doesn't get much sympathy. Even if all your doing is maintaining the email. All jobs have pros and cons, one of the cons about jobs that affect everyone in general is that when there is a WAR your personal freedoms get a little squashed. This, i don't believe, in epedemic, yet. I work on some government projects myself, mainly ecommerce, and there has been NO change in my freedoms. Why? Because until Osama's plan is to make every car pass emission controls, (or maybe not pass... geez the US would grind to a halt) I don't think he's gonna be contacting me. But if he did, I'm sure the security would tighten around here, after the FBI, CIA and the rest of the world stops laughing.
In summary, either start to lube up in the morning 'AFTER' the shower and learn to enjoy it, or find another job. The war will be over before you know it. We just have to wait for the new OJ roadrage trial to start.
BTW--- THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IS A JOKE. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY PLANS FOR THE RED CROSS, I MADE IT UP.
I agree with you that structures can have IP inside of them, but I think you have drawn up a straw man with your example. If perhaps the other code looked like
boolean notReadOnly;
boolean extraNotUsed;
boolean working;
struct mirror_info {
int number;
int raid_disk;
kdev_t dev;
int head_position;
/*
* State bits:
*/
int operational;
int write_only;
int spare;
Now you ask, did I copy your IP or did I reverse engineer this?
If I just finished reverse engineering this and found that a very simular operating system, with code already developed and working, had been published I think it would be irresponsible for me to continue with my naming convention. Why? Because it would only make it more dificult for drivers to be writen if for every simular device we had vastly different names for it. I would just use the other guys naming style and be done with it.
If I just copied you spec and renamed everything, then how are you going to prove it? Because since there is only one structure that could be derived from the device that would work (as it is the original device author's) you would assume an indepenant attempt to reverse engineer would come up with nearly and idential structure, save for the names of the variables. So if you just change the variable names, your free from the IP claim.
Going back to the first case, it now seems obvious that if you want to get credit for your work, you have to create vastly different naming conventions and interject your personal style to the point that it supercedes any usablility or perfomance issues otherwise claims of 'copying' will be made.
So remember when you create your next program, scan all the available code that is simular and make sure your naming conventions and coding style are uniquely identifiable. You can do this by obfusticating your variables and write at least wrappers for libararies so that your calls will be different. Of course you will have to do this AFTER you have coded, because you shouldn't be looking at other peoples code before you start or else your work would just be a copy of theirs.
I am very shocked and surprised by this. Looking through the header files it is disapointing that the linux developers, supposedly people more open and original than their counterpoints would lower themselves to define variables in the same way BSD did.
I mean when it came to defining the variables for the cylinders for the drive they just used the name 'cylinders'! EXACTLY what BSD used!!! and for the number of disks on the raid0 they used raid0_disks!!!
I mean they should have defined it as num_of_boxed_platters_of_magneticly_coated_disks_c ontained_in_metal_boxes_configured_on_raid_0, perhaps my_aunt_Marlene0 (naming things after family is cool), perhaps in light of Sept11, osamin_shall_die_with_this_variable_0, fhlaehoiu23987y would have been better as well, R41D_RU37LZZZ_d15K5_0 or maybe an ascii art pictorial discription of the item, (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to picture this).
The only benifit of naming this the exact same way BSD did would be that it would be clearer and more easily understood for people who program many different unix based disk interfaces.
But who really benifits from that? Escpecially when someone doesn't get credit for making the second variable in a struct, 'disk_number'.
I second l-ascorbic's response, Linux is a brand, and point out that GNU is a brand too.
And to fit my analogy to your GNU/Redhat point, If I as a consulting company was hired to a corporation to create some software. Then I recomended Dell and the XPS 830 configuration as the ideal mass marketed platform for the corporation to deploy on and installed my software on it. I don't think there would be any problems in my putting my logo next to Dells on the machines, as long as I agreed to support my software running on the machines I recomended. But I still don't think I would have to mention Intel or Sony in the brand even tho without those brands my software would be useless etc etc.
Basic point, the brand is who, at the end, is staking their reputations on the product working. If RMS wants the 'credit' for linux, why doesn't he start a GNU distro and then call it GNU/Linux?
Hmmm, lets look at my Dell machine that is running linux...
Sony CDR,
Intel processor
Rambus memory
IBM harddrive
Sony monitor
Dell motherboard
You can't very well run a computer without a processor, memory or a harddrive? What arogance of Micheal Dell to call his computers just 'Dell' when he depends on other company's to create THE MOST ecential(sp?) parts of his computers? Shouldn't he give credit to Sony for the CDR and monitor by calling the computer the SonyDell XPS 830? Why Sony even makes a competing product, should they be pissed that Dell just came and USED their CDR and monitor without making his own to sell? What about Intel? A processor 'defines' the computer as to what it can or can't run. I won't be looking at OS/X now that I've got an Intel processor, so shouldn't my comptuer be called a InDell XPS 830?
Of cousre not, Dell gets to name it Dell because they packaged up the off the shelf parts and put them together and most inportant, they TAKE RESPONSIBLITY for it working. If linux was a POS then RMS would proabaly SUE Linus for naming his OS GNU/Linux. Linux is named linux be cause you look to Linus, the kenrel developers and the distributers of LINUX to insure that Linux works as an operating system. RMS takes NO responsibility that GNU stuff will work with any new version of the kernel, therefore he gets no mention except as Dell might mention Sony. As a feature of the Computer. Not as the computer itself.
When the V chip idea first came out a few conservative critics noted, that since all TV's will come with automagic blocking functionalities that protect children from excesive sex and gore, tv stations will now be in a rush to include as much gore and sex as they can. The reason being, that in the past they were limited because there was no control over what level of sex and violence you were to able to watch since you were broadcasting to everyone. Pay TV can broadcast 'uncensored' sex and violence because the viewers are explicatly saying they wish to receive this by entering into the contract with the Pay TV providers to recieve this. As well Pay TV providers go through reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized viewing so parents again have the choice. The Vchip gives parents the ability to set such limits.
What I see is that with a near universal acceptance of the V-chip, bariers to what could be broadcast will be dropped, movies can be aired at prime time uncensored because the VAST majority of people will have their tv's set to view all and they won't be blocked from viewing. Another note would be that TV stations fearing a high rating for already censored content (traditional edited for tv ratings) will show the content uncut to attract people and not worry about getting a higher rating. This would also probably be do beacuse most people will probably either set their tolerances to 2 out of 5 for children or not set it at all.
Critics of sex and violence on tv will now be shown that people WANT sex and violence on TV and are alowing their kids the ability to watch by not setting the chip to block. How many kids get taken to the movies to see R rated content? I remeber as a kid seeing plenty of boobs and ass kicking at the movies. I remember seing that panther get spooked by the lightning and turn into the restricted sign. If it got too bad, my parents told me not to watch.
Now we're going to have that on broadcast tv, all the prudes can set their vchips to 1/5 and we can all watch what they don't.
A side note: In Canada its fairly common to show on broadcast tv movies uncut after 11pm. And on basic cable, I remember Showtime used to play uncut very explicit movies (Last Tango in Paris, Emanuelle etc.).
Shouldn't Moore's Law be take in the same vein as Murphy's?
Its more of a truism as it is a mathematical law, as it's only based on an observation of the way things seem to be.
An example,
If in finishing a messy project nothing went wrong, when something very well should have. I don't think this has proved Murphy's law as invalid, or that we should absolutly think that something went wrong because the result wildy violated it. Perhaps the best answer is that we should be skeptical of the result (nothing went wrong), beacause it goes against the 'wisdom' of the law.
To take this to the case at hand, we should only be skeptical of claims, because it seems to go against the guidelines stated in Moore's Law.
Slashdot Mirror
ok, agreed, currently the US is not at War. I take then that you feel that the Congress has to 'Officially' declare War on somebody/something/the air we breath, before there can be any limiting of rights at sensitive/vital government institutions? How do you feel about the institutions that even before Sept 11th 'vilolated' the employee's rights by searching them? Do you think that the janitors for the whitehouse should go unsearched unless Congress declares WAR?
I hope you find an answer to refuse those searches and still keep your job. I am in the same boat as well. I work for the Red Cross, where I am in charge of maintaining the blood supply for the city of Los Angeles. Again, since sept 11th my work life has been hell with searches. And when an Al-Qaida operative was captured with plans to our building, the searches have been espicially harsh. It takes over 15-30 minutes of my day to go through these searches, I could be catching up on Slashdot, or the Onion during those periods!
... geez the US would grind to a halt) I don't think he's gonna be contacting me. But if he did, I'm sure the security would tighten around here, after the FBI, CIA and the rest of the world stops laughing.
Well I could continue on, but hey, you work for the national Institute of Health in Bethesda MA, which currently has quite a bit of anthrax going on. You are probably getting quite a few samples from the Congress, embassy's and such being in that are area. I suspect the searches will only intensify. Why? Becasue you are at a target. If I wanted to shock the world, what if I smuggled in some Ebola and contaminated a few senator's samples with it?
If we are going to comment about 'unreasonable' searches, I want to talk about the guy at PetsMart getting searched because his paranoid manager fears Al-Quida antraxing petfood etc etc. The 'I work at Pantex (they build the Hbomb warheads) and have to put up with cavety searches on the way in AND out', doesn't get much sympathy. Even if all your doing is maintaining the email. All jobs have pros and cons, one of the cons about jobs that affect everyone in general is that when there is a WAR your personal freedoms get a little squashed. This, i don't believe, in epedemic, yet. I work on some government projects myself, mainly ecommerce, and there has been NO change in my freedoms. Why? Because until Osama's plan is to make every car pass emission controls, (or maybe not pass
In summary, either start to lube up in the morning 'AFTER' the shower and learn to enjoy it, or find another job. The war will be over before you know it. We just have to wait for the new OJ roadrage trial to start.
BTW--- THE FIRST PARAGRAPH IS A JOKE. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY PLANS FOR THE RED CROSS, I MADE IT UP.
I agree with you that structures can have IP inside of them, but I think you have drawn up a straw man with your example. If perhaps the other code looked like
/* boolean bits */
/*
struct cloneDriveData {
kdev_t typeD;
int16 positionOfReader;
int16 sysId;
int16 controllerId;
boolean notReadOnly;
boolean extraNotUsed;
boolean working;
struct mirror_info {
int number;
int raid_disk;
kdev_t dev;
int head_position;
* State bits:
*/
int operational;
int write_only;
int spare;
Now you ask, did I copy your IP or did I reverse engineer this?
If I just finished reverse engineering this and found that a very simular operating system, with code already developed and working, had been published I think it would be irresponsible for me to continue with my naming convention. Why? Because it would only make it more dificult for drivers to be writen if for every simular device we had vastly different names for it. I would just use the other guys naming style and be done with it.
If I just copied you spec and renamed everything, then how are you going to prove it? Because since there is only one structure that could be derived from the device that would work (as it is the original device author's) you would assume an indepenant attempt to reverse engineer would come up with nearly and idential structure, save for the names of the variables. So if you just change the variable names, your free from the IP claim.
Going back to the first case, it now seems obvious that if you want to get credit for your work, you have to create vastly different naming conventions and interject your personal style to the point that it supercedes any usablility or perfomance issues otherwise claims of 'copying' will be made.
So remember when you create your next program, scan all the available code that is simular and make sure your naming conventions and coding style are uniquely identifiable. You can do this by obfusticating your variables and write at least wrappers for libararies so that your calls will be different. Of course you will have to do this AFTER you have coded, because you shouldn't be looking at other peoples code before you start or else your work would just be a copy of theirs.
I am very shocked and surprised by this. Looking through the header files it is disapointing that the linux developers, supposedly people more open and original than their counterpoints would lower themselves to define variables in the same way BSD did.
c ontained_in_metal_boxes_configured_on_raid_0, perhaps my_aunt_Marlene0 (naming things after family is cool), perhaps in light of Sept11, osamin_shall_die_with_this_variable_0, fhlaehoiu23987y would have been better as well, R41D_RU37LZZZ_d15K5_0 or maybe an ascii art pictorial discription of the item, (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to picture this).
I mean when it came to defining the variables for the cylinders for the drive they just used the name 'cylinders'! EXACTLY what BSD used!!! and for the number of disks on the raid0 they used raid0_disks!!!
I mean they should have defined it as num_of_boxed_platters_of_magneticly_coated_disks_
The only benifit of naming this the exact same way BSD did would be that it would be clearer and more easily understood for people who program many different unix based disk interfaces.
But who really benifits from that? Escpecially when someone doesn't get credit for making the second variable in a struct, 'disk_number'.
I second l-ascorbic's response, Linux is a brand, and point out that GNU is a brand too.
And to fit my analogy to your GNU/Redhat point, If I as a consulting company was hired to a corporation to create some software. Then I recomended Dell and the XPS 830 configuration as the ideal mass marketed platform for the corporation to deploy on and installed my software on it. I don't think there would be any problems in my putting my logo next to Dells on the machines, as long as I agreed to support my software running on the machines I recomended. But I still don't think I would have to mention Intel or Sony in the brand even tho without those brands my software would be useless etc etc.
Basic point, the brand is who, at the end, is staking their reputations on the product working. If RMS wants the 'credit' for linux, why doesn't he start a GNU distro and then call it GNU/Linux?
Hmmm, lets look at my Dell machine that is running linux...
Sony CDR,
Intel processor
Rambus memory
IBM harddrive
Sony monitor
Dell motherboard
You can't very well run a computer without a processor, memory or a harddrive? What arogance of Micheal Dell to call his computers just 'Dell' when he depends on other company's to create THE MOST ecential(sp?) parts of his computers? Shouldn't he give credit to Sony for the CDR and monitor by calling the computer the SonyDell XPS 830? Why Sony even makes a competing product, should they be pissed that Dell just came and USED their CDR and monitor without making his own to sell? What about Intel? A processor 'defines' the computer as to what it can or can't run. I won't be looking at OS/X now that I've got an Intel processor, so shouldn't my comptuer be called a InDell XPS 830?
Of cousre not, Dell gets to name it Dell because they packaged up the off the shelf parts and put them together and most inportant, they TAKE RESPONSIBLITY for it working. If linux was a POS then RMS would proabaly SUE Linus for naming his OS GNU/Linux. Linux is named linux be cause you look to Linus, the kenrel developers and the distributers of LINUX to insure that Linux works as an operating system. RMS takes NO responsibility that GNU stuff will work with any new version of the kernel, therefore he gets no mention except as Dell might mention Sony. As a feature of the Computer. Not as the computer itself.
What I see is that with a near universal acceptance of the V-chip, bariers to what could be broadcast will be dropped, movies can be aired at prime time uncensored because the VAST majority of people will have their tv's set to view all and they won't be blocked from viewing. Another note would be that TV stations fearing a high rating for already censored content (traditional edited for tv ratings) will show the content uncut to attract people and not worry about getting a higher rating. This would also probably be do beacuse most people will probably either set their tolerances to 2 out of 5 for children or not set it at all.
Critics of sex and violence on tv will now be shown that people WANT sex and violence on TV and are alowing their kids the ability to watch by not setting the chip to block. How many kids get taken to the movies to see R rated content? I remeber as a kid seeing plenty of boobs and ass kicking at the movies. I remember seing that panther get spooked by the lightning and turn into the restricted sign. If it got too bad, my parents told me not to watch.
Now we're going to have that on broadcast tv, all the prudes can set their vchips to 1/5 and we can all watch what they don't.
A side note: In Canada its fairly common to show on broadcast tv movies uncut after 11pm. And on basic cable, I remember Showtime used to play uncut very explicit movies (Last Tango in Paris, Emanuelle etc.).
Shouldn't Moore's Law be take in the same vein as Murphy's?
Its more of a truism as it is a mathematical law, as it's only based on an observation of the way things seem to be.
An example,
If in finishing a messy project nothing went wrong, when something very well should have. I don't think this has proved Murphy's law as invalid, or that we should absolutly think that something went wrong because the result wildy violated it. Perhaps the best answer is that we should be skeptical of the result (nothing went wrong), beacause it goes against the 'wisdom' of the law.
To take this to the case at hand, we should only be skeptical of claims, because it seems to go against the guidelines stated in Moore's Law.