So yes, the code is open, the code is visible, the code can and could be audited. But here is the thing, being auditable is not the same as being audited.
Except this is OpenBSD we're talking about, where code audits happen frequently and often.
And personally, I would not be shocked if a full audit was run if something might be found.
A full audit would be run repeatedly over the course of this coming year even if this accusation had not come out. After all, we are talking about OpenBSD.
The articles that were linked to only indicate that he took code... which would be copyright infringement, or trade secret violations. They don't actually offer any better information than I was already able to determine for myself.
Nothing has indicated the ACTUAL charge that he was found guilty of.
I don't quite understand much of it either... as far as I can tell nothing about it should stems to more than a civil matter. The only thing I can think of is either criminal copyright infringement, or theft of trade secrets.
I would definitely enjoy a discussion with someone who understands what happened her better than I do... learning is fun!
My point is that you readily acknowledge easily measured physical differences like how much weight one can bench-press or how rapidly one can push a button, and do not consider these to be biases. Meanwhile, you adamantly maintain that it is misguided bias to state that there are non-physical differences as well.
No, this is an incorrect understanding of what I was saying. I was not claiming that it is "misguided bias" to suggest that there are non-physical differences.
I was saying that such non-physical differences between men and women that do exist are much more difficult to properly examine, and thus care should be taken to ensure that these differences are adequately investigated to be actual innate differences and not simply cultural expectation.
For instance, there is a high correlation between girls and liking red-ish colors, while there is also a high correlation between boys and liking blue-ish colors. Obviously that means that women are more innately likely to choose red-ish favorite colors, right?
I also am not offended by the idea that women are more manipulative than men. This non-physical difference most certainly does exist. This does not however mean that it is innately true, or innately predisposed.
Thus the point of my original statement, which is in fact universally true: it is a weighty assumption to make that correlation is causation.
I mean, unless you have some evidence that women are innately more manipulative. Do you have say... evidence of a "control" culture, where women are the gender of power?
If I said that a randomly selected average man is able to bench-press more weight than a randomly selected average woman, would that be a wild unsubstantiated assumption based on a preconceived bias? The only difference is, that being something that is both physical and easily measured, no one says that this is a prejudice.
I do not deny that actual physical and physiological differences exist. Hormones REALLY DO FUCK WITH FEMALE EMOTIONS... yeah, they really do.
That being said however, many people jump to assumptions about what is innate to each gender and what is not. Extricating what is innate from what is heavily pressured upon us by culture from birth, and our desire to conform to the gender roles we witness around us is far more difficult than just a simple "women are more manipulative than men".
I believe I already pointed to the fact that men are capable of pushing a button more times per second than women... this is a physical attribute that is innate yet few people are even aware of it.
The actual physiological differences between men and women are much more difficult to produce than we are typically brought up to believe.
That's an interesting case of role-reversal. I'd add one thing, however. If you took an average man from that tribe, I don't believe he would stand a chance against an average woman from a Western nation in any sort of contest of manipulation or subversion. That's how I would separate the inborn aptitude from the socialized roles.
Lactose tolerance went from minimally present to nearly universal in Europeans in about 4-6 thousand years. The selective pressures upon those men likely would reconfigure a lot of the "inborn aptitude" that you seem to advance.
You are also making wild unsubstantiated assumptions based on preconceived biases... also known as prejudice.
What a real lady wants is a man with so much love to give that he doesn't need any from her. I think that's why neediness or being "clingy" is so instinctively unsexy to women, generally.
I believe (with a more intimate familiarity with the situation) that women generally find neediness unattractive due to a lot of social conditioning that men should support them. Even though we're getting better at things, men still feel "emasculated" by a more intelligent woman, or a more powerful woman, or a woman that earns more than they do.
As for "clingy"? I don't think either gender particularly prefers such a trait... we wish to be appreciated and desired, but someone who is clingy has gone above and beyond expressing this desirability, and invaded upon our personal/private time. No matter how public we live our lives, we each have our fortress of solitude that we need to return to to recharge, and when we have a person clinging all over us all the time, we cannot enter our fortress, and thus it wears upon us.
...and only have the resources to keep them alive for so long before they have to be euthanized.
One of the stories that first brought this to light was about a family that gave their animal to PETA to have it adopted, and after being assured that it would be adopted not killed, they decided to go ahead with it.
PETA arrived with a van, and took the animal to the van, but the family changed their mind before the van had even left the property, only to find out that the PETA representatives had already killed the animal before even pulling out of their driveway.
At least some PETA reps are not attempting to hold animals at all.
I HATE Conspiracy theories, but this is just a little to ridiculous for even me to fall for.
I think this is yet more evidence--along with Watergate--of the complete ineptitude of a government to handle a proper cover-up. No one has the authority and common sense at the same time to say, "hey, let's sit on this for a month or two, so it actually looks unrelated."
While I was content discussing copyright, I want to tell you that you've provided some interesting discussion here. For a moment I wondered if this would try to degrade into a pissing contest. It's refreshing to see we can do better than that.
Is it weird of me to describe our exchange as "sexy" lol
I'd say it has more to do with the use of cunning and subtlety and maybe even manipulation to get what you want, rather than upbringing.
The problem with such assumptions is that it is difficult to really understand what is truly inborn and what is actually upbringing.
For instance, men click buttons faster than women: actually inborn. Nearly universal preference of women for at least one of pink and purple? Upbringing.
I saw a documentary in a sociology class about a native tribe (describing a level of technology of better than stone age, but still pre-metal) somewhere in Africa, where the women sit around drink alcohol, spit, and play cards, while the men dress up pretty and sexy, and get dumped for the hot new model every 15 years.
In such a tribe the "inferior" gender (referring to the gender subordinate to the gender of power) is actually the men, and they must accomplish things through manipulative, and subversive tacts, rather than the women, who have the power and ability to simply act brashly.
So, it's kind of an interesting question... I'll grant you that there are pressures on women to be tactful and manipulative, however are they selective pressures? There are pressures in our modern world to learn multiple languages, but these pressures are as of yet at least not selective pressures, as they contribute to neither survival until procreation nor sexual selection.
But the one thing I doubt either of us would disagree on is: women in our culture are more tactful, and manipulative.
Actually I found the correction a tad overzealous...
The argument as presented offended my personal beliefs. The argument being ambiguously valid, I decided to see rather how sound it was. Finding that the premise was false allowed me to attack the argument appropriately.
While a true libertarian environment would collect as few taxes as possible, no one ever actually does so, because the people in power like money... so the amount of money collected in taxes has almost nothing to do with the pressure to collect it...
That's also standard geek fare, well except for the skillfully veiled part.
I am after all female, and since we're later on the topic of stereotypes, we are typically raised to have more social tact then men.
While your assumption concerning the character of a complete stranger is noted, no resentment is required to make that point. I used humor instead.
My thanks was genuine, incidentally. It does not benefit me to hang onto wrong notions.
The resentment and thankfulness are not mutually exclusive. Geeks like to be right (I assume you're a geek, because we're on slashdot.) It is disappointing to be found wrong, and we take it somewhat personally.
Of course, I could just be projecting, due to an assumption of similarity between us... I'll give you that.
Acknowledging that his advice has worked in court is a good point towards discrediting my point in application to only this case.
However to address this question: How can it be illegal to tell someone "Hey, to defend yourself against that lawsuit, I think you should try this..."?
It can be illegal because you're purposing a frivolous argument. For instance, you're being threatened with a libel lawsuit and you attempt to argue that you're immune to the lawsuit because you've revoked your US citizenship, and thus are immune to its jurisdiction.
If you made such an argument in court, the judge would dismiss you outright, and rebuke your claim. There is no argument to even be HEARD about the claim, as it is patently false.
Thus, the court may even sanction you for making a frivolous claim (a claim that can be dismissed without argument, because it is based upon a direct contradiction of law.)
So it is possible that this lawyer didn't do something right... however because his motions to dismiss due to lack of personal standing did work, it's a pretty sure fire answer that he wasn't advising frivolous arguments.
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this. Prisons have tried to limit inmate access to court / filing lawsuits and the courts have said they can't do that.
It depends upon if the attorney is providing valid advice. People have already been fined, sanctioned, and even jailed for providing false legal advice to the public, (who then go on to file frivolous lawsuits/defenses).
The prison thing is a bit different, it's kind of hard to sue someone for fines and sanctions for providing legal advice to other inmates...
providing legal advice to people where he's [n]ot licensed
Eh... copyright law is I believe federal, so he can provide advice to anyone within the US...
providing legal advice to people he's never talked to
A possibility, but they have no standing to sue for damages in this case. Although, apparently they are only suing for sanctions against him.... we would really need to look at the actual suit that they're filing to be on the same page as the guy being sued, but it couldn't possibly be for lack of license... (unless they want to get laughed out of court.)
Filing a suit against an attorney who is informing citizens of their Constitutional rights? Absolutely ridiculous.
The attorney who filed this suit should be disbarred.
An assessment of this without reading the facts is kind of a prejudice. There are some people who are providing FALSE information to citizens about their rights, and as a result these people go on to file frivolous lawsuits/arguments.
The US courts have consistently held that such behavior is wrong and the person should be fined and disbarred (although they're usually never at bar in the first place.)
Modern Atheism is a belief system aka. a religion. A personal faith in god is not the same as a belief system/religion/philosophy.
These two statements are at total odds with each other. You are contending here: a) that a lack of a personal faith in god is a belief system and therefore a religion. b) that a having of a personal faith in god is NOT a belief system and therefore a religion.
True, there may be religious like beliefs slathered over and on top of a person's atheism, but the atheism is itself just like your comment about "a personal faith in god" being exempt from being a belief system/religion/philosophy. It is simply a "belief", in the singular.
They do not propose to move to rich text for coding, but to move away from ASCII.
This is a bit of a false dichotomy as well. An ASCII-7 text is identical to the UTF-8 encoding of the same text.
There are a few issues with Unicode, in that CJK characters are lumped together by semantics, while LGC are not. Thus, while simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, and Japanese may all write the same "character" differently, they are all represented by the same codepoint, while "o" despite being pronounced identically from the most common Latin-based written languages to Cyrillic are written with different codepoints, even despite having identical appearances.
Either way, for instance Perl, supports code written in UTF-8, which is awesome, and it's fairly unicode agnostic about everything. So being able to code using variable names written in your own language, vs. transliterating them into Latin characters is a huge benefit... but ultimately only a minor factor in programming.
The matter still remains that programming languages are heavily dependent upon English for keywords and such, and as a result, are heavily dependent upon some representation thereof.
But all of this ignores the matter that ASCII is a subset of Unicode anyways... so why be so dorky about "zomg, get rid of ASCII!!!!" it's retarded...
Why then is T-Mobile having no problems in Germany, where they have exclusivity with the iPhone, but yet, apparently they're having problems here, with just a small number of iPhones?
The beauty of Git is that you don't actually have to switch to Git to use it. It interoperates with many other version control systems, and even if your organization uses one of those rare systems that Git doesn't interoperate with, you can always still let that system handle things like you normally would. What Git buys you is the ability to perform local commits and other version control operations without affecting anyone else (e.g. you won't break the build). It's one of those features that made me think "How did I ever code without that?" You can also make your local commits available to others, have code reviews on them before committing them to the main repository, etc.
The Microsoft policy for the Windows source code does not permit for local commits, etc. The code review bundling into BBPacks is already written into the entire process. BBPacks also allow one to get a copy of what they would commit.
You're going to have to eventually checkin your changes or merge your changes into the main tree, and you risk breaking the build. Even if your branch builds just fine, if you merge it into another tree, you can then break that build.
Slashdot Mirror
Michael C. Hall divorces.
zOMG! You mean I have a chance again?! Sweet! ... ..
.
I mean, I don't care about gossip.
So yes, the code is open, the code is visible, the code can and could be audited. But here is the thing, being auditable is not the same as being audited.
Except this is OpenBSD we're talking about, where code audits happen frequently and often.
And personally, I would not be shocked if a full audit was run if something might be found.
A full audit would be run repeatedly over the course of this coming year even if this accusation had not come out. After all, we are talking about OpenBSD.
The articles that were linked to only indicate that he took code... which would be copyright infringement, or trade secret violations. They don't actually offer any better information than I was already able to determine for myself.
Nothing has indicated the ACTUAL charge that he was found guilty of.
I don't quite understand much of it either... as far as I can tell nothing about it should stems to more than a civil matter. The only thing I can think of is either criminal copyright infringement, or theft of trade secrets.
I would definitely enjoy a discussion with someone who understands what happened her better than I do... learning is fun!
My point is that you readily acknowledge easily measured physical differences like how much weight one can bench-press or how rapidly one can push a button, and do not consider these to be biases. Meanwhile, you adamantly maintain that it is misguided bias to state that there are non-physical differences as well.
No, this is an incorrect understanding of what I was saying. I was not claiming that it is "misguided bias" to suggest that there are non-physical differences.
I was saying that such non-physical differences between men and women that do exist are much more difficult to properly examine, and thus care should be taken to ensure that these differences are adequately investigated to be actual innate differences and not simply cultural expectation.
For instance, there is a high correlation between girls and liking red-ish colors, while there is also a high correlation between boys and liking blue-ish colors. Obviously that means that women are more innately likely to choose red-ish favorite colors, right?
I also am not offended by the idea that women are more manipulative than men. This non-physical difference most certainly does exist. This does not however mean that it is innately true, or innately predisposed.
Thus the point of my original statement, which is in fact universally true: it is a weighty assumption to make that correlation is causation.
I mean, unless you have some evidence that women are innately more manipulative. Do you have say... evidence of a "control" culture, where women are the gender of power?
If I said that a randomly selected average man is able to bench-press more weight than a randomly selected average woman, would that be a wild unsubstantiated assumption based on a preconceived bias? The only difference is, that being something that is both physical and easily measured, no one says that this is a prejudice.
I do not deny that actual physical and physiological differences exist. Hormones REALLY DO FUCK WITH FEMALE EMOTIONS... yeah, they really do.
That being said however, many people jump to assumptions about what is innate to each gender and what is not. Extricating what is innate from what is heavily pressured upon us by culture from birth, and our desire to conform to the gender roles we witness around us is far more difficult than just a simple "women are more manipulative than men".
I believe I already pointed to the fact that men are capable of pushing a button more times per second than women... this is a physical attribute that is innate yet few people are even aware of it.
The actual physiological differences between men and women are much more difficult to produce than we are typically brought up to believe.
That's an interesting case of role-reversal. I'd add one thing, however. If you took an average man from that tribe, I don't believe he would stand a chance against an average woman from a Western nation in any sort of contest of manipulation or subversion. That's how I would separate the inborn aptitude from the socialized roles.
Lactose tolerance went from minimally present to nearly universal in Europeans in about 4-6 thousand years. The selective pressures upon those men likely would reconfigure a lot of the "inborn aptitude" that you seem to advance.
You are also making wild unsubstantiated assumptions based on preconceived biases... also known as prejudice.
What a real lady wants is a man with so much love to give that he doesn't need any from her. I think that's why neediness or being "clingy" is so instinctively unsexy to women, generally.
I believe (with a more intimate familiarity with the situation) that women generally find neediness unattractive due to a lot of social conditioning that men should support them. Even though we're getting better at things, men still feel "emasculated" by a more intelligent woman, or a more powerful woman, or a woman that earns more than they do.
As for "clingy"? I don't think either gender particularly prefers such a trait... we wish to be appreciated and desired, but someone who is clingy has gone above and beyond expressing this desirability, and invaded upon our personal/private time. No matter how public we live our lives, we each have our fortress of solitude that we need to return to to recharge, and when we have a person clinging all over us all the time, we cannot enter our fortress, and thus it wears upon us.
...and only have the resources to keep them alive for so long before they have to be euthanized.
One of the stories that first brought this to light was about a family that gave their animal to PETA to have it adopted, and after being assured that it would be adopted not killed, they decided to go ahead with it.
PETA arrived with a van, and took the animal to the van, but the family changed their mind before the van had even left the property, only to find out that the PETA representatives had already killed the animal before even pulling out of their driveway.
At least some PETA reps are not attempting to hold animals at all.
I HATE Conspiracy theories, but this is just a little to ridiculous for even me to fall for.
I think this is yet more evidence--along with Watergate--of the complete ineptitude of a government to handle a proper cover-up. No one has the authority and common sense at the same time to say, "hey, let's sit on this for a month or two, so it actually looks unrelated."
While I was content discussing copyright, I want to tell you that you've provided some interesting discussion here. For a moment I wondered if this would try to degrade into a pissing contest. It's refreshing to see we can do better than that.
Is it weird of me to describe our exchange as "sexy" lol
I'd say it has more to do with the use of cunning and subtlety and maybe even manipulation to get what you want, rather than upbringing.
The problem with such assumptions is that it is difficult to really understand what is truly inborn and what is actually upbringing.
For instance, men click buttons faster than women: actually inborn. Nearly universal preference of women for at least one of pink and purple? Upbringing.
I saw a documentary in a sociology class about a native tribe (describing a level of technology of better than stone age, but still pre-metal) somewhere in Africa, where the women sit around drink alcohol, spit, and play cards, while the men dress up pretty and sexy, and get dumped for the hot new model every 15 years.
In such a tribe the "inferior" gender (referring to the gender subordinate to the gender of power) is actually the men, and they must accomplish things through manipulative, and subversive tacts, rather than the women, who have the power and ability to simply act brashly.
So, it's kind of an interesting question... I'll grant you that there are pressures on women to be tactful and manipulative, however are they selective pressures? There are pressures in our modern world to learn multiple languages, but these pressures are as of yet at least not selective pressures, as they contribute to neither survival until procreation nor sexual selection.
But the one thing I doubt either of us would disagree on is: women in our culture are more tactful, and manipulative.
Actually I found the correction a tad overzealous...
The argument as presented offended my personal beliefs. The argument being ambiguously valid, I decided to see rather how sound it was. Finding that the premise was false allowed me to attack the argument appropriately.
While a true libertarian environment would collect as few taxes as possible, no one ever actually does so, because the people in power like money... so the amount of money collected in taxes has almost nothing to do with the pressure to collect it...
That's also standard geek fare, well except for the skillfully veiled part.
I am after all female, and since we're later on the topic of stereotypes, we are typically raised to have more social tact then men.
While your assumption concerning the character of a complete stranger is noted, no resentment is required to make that point. I used humor instead.
My thanks was genuine, incidentally. It does not benefit me to hang onto wrong notions.
The resentment and thankfulness are not mutually exclusive. Geeks like to be right (I assume you're a geek, because we're on slashdot.) It is disappointing to be found wrong, and we take it somewhat personally.
Of course, I could just be projecting, due to an assumption of similarity between us... I'll give you that.
IIRC, some states are willing to allow attorneys not barred in that state to engage in a purely federal practice, but others are not.
Huh, I'm not sure about that, but I'm willing to defer... law, especially in America, is crazy like that.
I was simply working off of my knowledge interacting with the SFLC.
Wiktionary: Funny
2. strange or unusual, often implying unpleasant
But then you already knew that, you were just being resentful about the correction. (It's ok, it's standard geek fare)
Funny, About.com disagrees:
Residents and nonresidents that earn income in Arizona will pay state income tax.
Which is also backed up by The Arizona Department of Revenue.
Arizona does actually have an income tax.
Acknowledging that his advice has worked in court is a good point towards discrediting my point in application to only this case.
However to address this question: How can it be illegal to tell someone "Hey, to defend yourself against that lawsuit, I think you should try this..."?
It can be illegal because you're purposing a frivolous argument. For instance, you're being threatened with a libel lawsuit and you attempt to argue that you're immune to the lawsuit because you've revoked your US citizenship, and thus are immune to its jurisdiction.
If you made such an argument in court, the judge would dismiss you outright, and rebuke your claim. There is no argument to even be HEARD about the claim, as it is patently false.
Thus, the court may even sanction you for making a frivolous claim (a claim that can be dismissed without argument, because it is based upon a direct contradiction of law.)
So it is possible that this lawyer didn't do something right... however because his motions to dismiss due to lack of personal standing did work, it's a pretty sure fire answer that he wasn't advising frivolous arguments.
I recall reading at one point that Arizona allows non-lawyers to represent other people in their state.
It's more of a "you get what you pay for", or "buyer beware" state than anywhere else...
Can the USCG attorneys be disbarred over this? I don't think you can shut down a attorney like this. Prisons have tried to limit inmate access to court / filing lawsuits and the courts have said they can't do that.
It depends upon if the attorney is providing valid advice. People have already been fined, sanctioned, and even jailed for providing false legal advice to the public, (who then go on to file frivolous lawsuits/defenses).
The prison thing is a bit different, it's kind of hard to sue someone for fines and sanctions for providing legal advice to other inmates...
providing legal advice to people where he's [n]ot licensed
Eh... copyright law is I believe federal, so he can provide advice to anyone within the US...
providing legal advice to people he's never talked to
A possibility, but they have no standing to sue for damages in this case. Although, apparently they are only suing for sanctions against him. ... we would really need to look at the actual suit that they're filing to be on the same page as the guy being sued, but it couldn't possibly be for lack of license... (unless they want to get laughed out of court.)
Filing a suit against an attorney who is informing citizens of their Constitutional rights? Absolutely ridiculous.
The attorney who filed this suit should be disbarred.
An assessment of this without reading the facts is kind of a prejudice. There are some people who are providing FALSE information to citizens about their rights, and as a result these people go on to file frivolous lawsuits/arguments.
The US courts have consistently held that such behavior is wrong and the person should be fined and disbarred (although they're usually never at bar in the first place.)
Modern Atheism is a belief system aka. a religion. A personal faith in god is not the same as a belief system/religion/philosophy.
These two statements are at total odds with each other. You are contending here:
a) that a lack of a personal faith in god is a belief system and therefore a religion.
b) that a having of a personal faith in god is NOT a belief system and therefore a religion.
True, there may be religious like beliefs slathered over and on top of a person's atheism, but the atheism is itself just like your comment about "a personal faith in god" being exempt from being a belief system/religion/philosophy. It is simply a "belief", in the singular.
Ah, thanks for the info. :)
They do not propose to move to rich text for coding, but to move away from ASCII.
This is a bit of a false dichotomy as well. An ASCII-7 text is identical to the UTF-8 encoding of the same text.
There are a few issues with Unicode, in that CJK characters are lumped together by semantics, while LGC are not. Thus, while simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, and Japanese may all write the same "character" differently, they are all represented by the same codepoint, while "o" despite being pronounced identically from the most common Latin-based written languages to Cyrillic are written with different codepoints, even despite having identical appearances.
Either way, for instance Perl, supports code written in UTF-8, which is awesome, and it's fairly unicode agnostic about everything. So being able to code using variable names written in your own language, vs. transliterating them into Latin characters is a huge benefit... but ultimately only a minor factor in programming.
The matter still remains that programming languages are heavily dependent upon English for keywords and such, and as a result, are heavily dependent upon some representation thereof.
But all of this ignores the matter that ASCII is a subset of Unicode anyways... so why be so dorky about "zomg, get rid of ASCII!!!!" it's retarded...
AT&T was always going to lose their exclusivity with the iPhone as well.
"They will have had iPhone exclusivity."
Why then is T-Mobile having no problems in Germany, where they have exclusivity with the iPhone, but yet, apparently they're having problems here, with just a small number of iPhones?
Sounds hokey to me...
The beauty of Git is that you don't actually have to switch to Git to use it. It interoperates with many other version control systems, and even if your organization uses one of those rare systems that Git doesn't interoperate with, you can always still let that system handle things like you normally would. What Git buys you is the ability to perform local commits and other version control operations without affecting anyone else (e.g. you won't break the build). It's one of those features that made me think "How did I ever code without that?" You can also make your local commits available to others, have code reviews on them before committing them to the main repository, etc.
The Microsoft policy for the Windows source code does not permit for local commits, etc. The code review bundling into BBPacks is already written into the entire process. BBPacks also allow one to get a copy of what they would commit.
You're going to have to eventually checkin your changes or merge your changes into the main tree, and you risk breaking the build. Even if your branch builds just fine, if you merge it into another tree, you can then break that build.