Why do you think not a single major PC manufacturer testified during the trial?
I believe Dell and Gateway were both heavily in favor of the Government seeking to divide up Microsoft. Then something happened. People stopped buying as many new PCs. It turned out that people were able to run everything they wanted on their current machines.
So, where could they find the next "killer app" to drive the PC upgrade process?
Redmond, WA of course. Windows XP is the only reason that Dell, Gateway and all the other computer makers aren't hurting big time right now. The bloated nature of Windows software is actually as selling point to companies bundling software with new PC's.
Ever wonder why the government suddenly changed its mind about breaking up Microsoft? It had a lot to do with the Dells and Gateways of the world asking them not to (and a bit to do with content companies requesting the same thing).
Microsoft has a lot more than just their short and curlies in its hands.
Now, medications and stuff are a whole different story. And, again IIRC, I do not believe heart transplants have a very long life-extension rate. I am rather sure that folks don't live forever with them.
One would think the sheer fact that it is a child would complicate the situation more since a child obviously could not get an adult's heart. So the hospital would need a child of a similar age's heart that was also compatible with the kid's blood type.
There was recently a story on a local news channel (SF bay area) about a guy who plays goalie on a local college lacross team (IIRC, St Mary's). He had recieved a heart transplant was 5. They did mention that he was not expected to live as long as most people (the medications that he takes to prevent his body from rejecting the transplant have side effects), but he should make it for some time yet.
So, this might be an isolated incident, but it does show that there is hope for such patients to live relatively normal lives.
Also, IIRC, this guy's operation was not covered under his health plan either. However, his surgery was performed free of charge by doctors at Stanford University (against whom he was playing the weekend of the story:). It sounded like heart failure in children is pretty rare, so patients can get quality care from researchers. John Q might have had another avenue to pursue (probably would've been a dull movie tho).
Bingo...If Apple ported OSX to x86, as soon as Microsoft felt there was any danger at all, production on the OSX version of IE would stop. That alone would probably doom the x86 version of OSX and would be a major pain in the ass for the Mac users. If that failed to kill it off, MS would stop producing Office for OSX and that would finish the job.
As long as IE and Office are standard everywhere, no one will ever be able to compete in the x86 desktop market.
No, I understand all too well how spammers operate. I realize that they currently look for vulerable servers to exploit.
However, if the blacklist process were to be made automated like the parent post suggests, then spammers would quickly realize that it is far easier to run their own server than search for open relays to exploit.
This kind of solutions is very Microsoft-esque. It seeks to solve the current problem without thinking about the problems that could be created by the solution.
The second problem is the don't really address the problem of dealing with spam.
That was exactly my point. The point of adding authentication would be to establish a trail of accountability for the email. If a user had to login to be able to send an email, that user's login information could be added to the message's headers. The only time that authentication would not be necessary on the last message hop when the server is accepting mail for local delivery. You would still be able to recieve email from anyone, but each email would have a verified sender who would be accountable for his/her actions. If this "path" could reliably be determined, legislation preventing UCE (with civil penalties for sending it) would be all that's necessary to solve the problem.
The situation is analogous to someone continually calling you on the telephone. If a caller-id system is in place and there is no way to block caller-id then all that's needed to solve the problem is laws banning excessive calling.
The problem with SMTP AUTH is specifically that it *is* compatible with SMTP. What is needed is a protocol that is completely incompatible with SMTP. Then, anyone who gets fed up enough with SPAM can only accept messages by the new protocol. Anyone attempting to send them mail via SMTP would recieve a bounce message telling them they need to send their message through the new service.
Additionally, this would be a good time to sensibly implement some things that have been kludged onto SMTP (mandate PGP, intelligent attachment capability, html formatting etc)
Hmmm... I wonder if it's possible to write a script that scans the header of every email that arrives, does an open relay test on the sending IP, and if it fails, discard the email?
You'll want to be careful doing this as the actions that your script is taking will look suspiciously similar to someone trying to send SPAM. You don't want to get blacklisted yourself.
How long until the SPAM'ers found a way to configure a mail server that blocks your 100 line perl script but still allows open relaying?
However, your 100 line perl script could be useful as a pre-emptive measure to warn admins who have carelessly left their servers open to relaying. So if it finds an open relay, it sends the admin mail saying:
"The Automated Open Relay Detection Service has determined that your server does not sufficiently deny open mail relaying.
The following test was performed:
<test details here>.
If you do not wish to be added to various blacklists services, you should probably fix it. If you need help fixing it, useful resources include:
<useful urls>"
Set that up as a distributed project, and it'd find all the open relays on the internet PDQ.
IMHO, Blacklists are just a small band-aid on the gaping wound that is SMTP. SPAM has proliferated to the point where it needs to be dealt with in a more sane manner than just punishing the offenders.
I'm usually all for privacy, but I think we need to be using an email transport protocol that involves some form of authentication. I'm not sure if some such protocol exists already, but it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to create.
Am I way off base here, or wouldn't this cut way down on SPAM?
I'd like to see a Tim Burton version of it. That man can take a movie with a horrible plot and make it so stylized that it's a joy to watch.
If Tim isn't available, they might try having the Farelly bros. direct it. If the movie is gonna suck anyways, they should have it suck with style. Also, they'd easily keep their target 12-17 demographic happy.
- make using copy protection a Federal felony
...
- ban the RIAA and MPAA
These are the kinds of sentiments that make people think that people who oppose the DMCA are just people who don't want to pay for the movies/music that they watch/listen to. The DMCA is bad for a lot of reasons that have been much more eloquently phrased on/. than I could ever hope to do. However, the MPAA should be allowed to put whatever copy protection on their content that they want. We should be free to either a) comply with it, b) not buy it or c) try to crack it.
Personally, I am totally against the DMCA and all the efforts of the MPAA to curtail people's rights to innovate and create. However, I would never argue that Hollywood should stop making movies. I would characterize myslef as a cinephile...I love watching movies. I think there is an important distinction to be made between supporting the art that comes out of Hollywood (sometimes you have to sift through a lot of shit to find it, but they do produce a lot of quality films) and the business tactics taken by the MPAA. Besides, who do you think the MPAA will listen to...the raving lunatic saying, "I'll never buy your crappy product you f#$@ing capitalist pig." or the person who says, "I've purchased over 100 DVD's in the past year alone. However I strongly disagree with your tactics against piracy."
Personally, I think there is a real message for the MPAA in people like myself. I freely admit to pirating movies. When a movie comes out in the theatres that I really love, I can't afford to see it 10 times in the theatre. I will usually see it 2-3 times in the theatre, then download the VCD. However, as soon as it becomes available on DVD, I buy the DVD and throw away my VCD. I fail to see how I've "stolen" from the MPAA in any way.
If we can make the MPAA realize that they can effectively sell their product without all the oppressive legislation, then maybe they'll stop trying to get it passed.
1 Oscar to rule them all (Best Picture)
3 Elven Oscars (above the line nominations...McKellan, Jackson and whoever wrote the screenplay)
9 Nazghoul Oscars (Not really all that important in their own right, but their presence is definitely felt).
That's 13, right?
(the 7 dwarvish oscar nominations were lost from memory long ago)
So how many will it win? Maybe 9 (one foreach member of the fellowship)?
Like the article said...this is to important to the software industry. They will appeal this, and in the event that they lose in the appeal process, they'll buy some legislation which gets around this.
For this reason, the language I'd suggest is English. It is entirely compliant with every buzz word listed above and is the only language guaranteed to be compatible with every future over hyped technology.
It does have a couple of down sides tho...compilers cannot be purchased, only hired. Also, the compilation process can be time consuming depending on the skill of your compilers.
However the ability to have your product planning team create the.fsd files and pass them directly to the compiler is a big plus.
Oh...and it is also fairly simple for a trained engineer to port English programs to languages such as French, Spanish, Russian or even Japanese!
The target environment for Farsite is an organization in 2006 with 100,000 computers, 10 billion files and 10 petabytes (10,000TB) of data.
Hmmm...my first thought..."ScanDisk is checking harddrive C..."
Farsite is a serverless, distributed system that doesn't assume mutual trust among its client computers. Although there's no central server machine, the system as a whole looks to users like a single file server.
Cool...Microsoft invents the cluster. I'm sure the folks who created Beowulf clusters stole the idea from them...come to think of it, those Gnutella folks blatantly ripped them off too...
...the Farsite project at Microsoft Corp...embodies several characteristics--such as...robust security...
I'd say something mean, but I assume this was meant as a joke...
I think the people who are suffering the most are the (what I like to call) pseudo-techies. The people who, during the boom, had jobs paying $90k/yr coding (d)html/flash/cgi/php.
From what I've seen, those kind of jobs are gone. Businesses have realized that they can hire *real* coders who are used to handling backend implementations and they'll still be able to handle pretty much any front-end stuff that gets tossed their way.
Yeah, its really hip to have that one guy come in at work at 2pm and work until 9 at night, because he's so damn elite, until you realize that he's unable to interact with all of the _adults_ who have children and real-life responsibilities. Its called a team. "Oh, I don't work well in the morning." Oh, i'm so sorry! Gee, because the rest of us automatically wake up at 6:30am chipper and ready to go!
Everywhere I've worked doesn't tend to complain when those of us _non_adults_ pull 80 hour weeks the month before a deadline. None of the married _adults_ were willing to make that time commitment. It's a trade-off a lot of businesses are willing to make.
Ooh, and lets pamper the programmers with soda and candy and teddy bears and futuristic chairs. Until the rest of the company, who work just as hard as the programmers, begin to get a little pissed off. Soda is 30 cents a can. Suck it up.
I guess you've never done much serious coding. Sugar and Caffeine increase productivity. A *lot*. A lot of businesses provide these things because they realize that, considering what they are paying their programmers, they get a huge return on their $0.30 investment.
Lets not forget a dress code. Yeah, lets not enforce that, you don't need to look good to program, man. Until that one programmer wearing the 2 sizes too small phantom menace t-shirt with the body odor turns off a potential client. Is wearing a pair of dockers and a shirt that doesn't have a fucking wookie on it going to kill you?
There's something in between your example and the corporate drone you want us to be. First off, bad hygiene shouldn't be tolerated. However, wearing a t-shirt that reflects someone's interests seems completely reasonable. As for it being two sizes too small, how do you think it got that way...hmmm...we do a job that requires us to sit at a computer 8+ hrs/day. Many coders are fat...deal with it...maybe they'd be less so if businesses gave their employees fruit and healthy drinks instead of jolt and snickers bars.
Oh, here's a bonus tip for other people out there who blame management for everything: When you're only in a few hours of meetings a week, don't use that as an excuse why you can't get shit done. Yeah, it would be nice to work in a crystal castle with cushions and butterflies and nobody to bother you with petty problems that don't concern Mr. L33T Programmer, but that isn't going to fucking happen.
This statement reveals that you've never coded anything serious in your life. Coding requires concentration. Everytime someone interrupts me to have a conversation about something, it takes me 10-15 min to remember everything that I had on my mind at the time I was interrupted. Why do you think we get the most work done between 9-midnight...because everyone who bothers us all day long has gone home.
Bottom line is there is a certain personality type that meshes well with being a programmer (about 90% of us are XNXP on the meyers-briggs). Businesses can either accomodate the quirks that go along with it or not. Sure, it is inconvenient for them to do so, but they get increased productivity. Like many things in life, it's a trade-off, and the right answer is most likely somewhere in between being completely accomodating and not accomodating at all.
That's what product development and product management are for.
Without the nerds to come up with the new ideas, there'd be no new ideas. Saying that "Open source is not the answer" is incomplete. Open source may not be the answer to the question, "How do we make software that works for the masses?" but it is the answer to the question, "How do we come up with new ideas for what software should do?"
Once those ideas have been thought up, someone less creative can digest them and decide what subset of the new ideas will work for the masses.
According to Blank and Kruger, the burden of proof is on the targeted company.
When did I stop living in America?
Not that this makes what they do any less dispicable, but the burden of proof to avoid a lawsuit is on the target company (as it would be in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit). If there is actual litigation, the burden would fall to the BSA.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think not a single major PC manufacturer testified during the trial?
I believe Dell and Gateway were both heavily in favor of the Government seeking to divide up Microsoft. Then something happened. People stopped buying as many new PCs. It turned out that people were able to run everything they wanted on their current machines.
So, where could they find the next "killer app" to drive the PC upgrade process?
Redmond, WA of course. Windows XP is the only reason that Dell, Gateway and all the other computer makers aren't hurting big time right now. The bloated nature of Windows software is actually as selling point to companies bundling software with new PC's.
Ever wonder why the government suddenly changed its mind about breaking up Microsoft? It had a lot to do with the Dells and Gateways of the world asking them not to (and a bit to do with content companies requesting the same thing).
Microsoft has a lot more than just their short and curlies in its hands.
RTFA...$19.95 gets you 75 downloads and 750 streamed songs.
$19.95 / 825 = 2.4 cents / song. You'd be losing 2.17 cents for every download, not including the costs of bandwidth.
Now, medications and stuff are a whole different story. And, again IIRC, I do not believe heart transplants have a very long life-extension rate. I am rather sure that folks don't live forever with them.
:). It sounded like heart failure in children is pretty rare, so patients can get quality care from researchers. John Q might have had another avenue to pursue (probably would've been a dull movie tho).
One would think the sheer fact that it is a child would complicate the situation more since a child obviously could not get an adult's heart. So the hospital would need a child of a similar age's heart that was also compatible with the kid's blood type.
There was recently a story on a local news channel (SF bay area) about a guy who plays goalie on a local college lacross team (IIRC, St Mary's). He had recieved a heart transplant was 5. They did mention that he was not expected to live as long as most people (the medications that he takes to prevent his body from rejecting the transplant have side effects), but he should make it for some time yet.
So, this might be an isolated incident, but it does show that there is hope for such patients to live relatively normal lives.
Also, IIRC, this guy's operation was not covered under his health plan either. However, his surgery was performed free of charge by doctors at Stanford University (against whom he was playing the weekend of the story
Bingo...If Apple ported OSX to x86, as soon as Microsoft felt there was any danger at all, production on the OSX version of IE would stop. That alone would probably doom the x86 version of OSX and would be a major pain in the ass for the Mac users. If that failed to kill it off, MS would stop producing Office for OSX and that would finish the job.
As long as IE and Office are standard everywhere, no one will ever be able to compete in the x86 desktop market.
No, I understand all too well how spammers operate. I realize that they currently look for vulerable servers to exploit.
However, if the blacklist process were to be made automated like the parent post suggests, then spammers would quickly realize that it is far easier to run their own server than search for open relays to exploit.
This kind of solutions is very Microsoft-esque. It seeks to solve the current problem without thinking about the problems that could be created by the solution.
The second problem is the don't really address the problem of dealing with spam.
That was exactly my point. The point of adding authentication would be to establish a trail of accountability for the email. If a user had to login to be able to send an email, that user's login information could be added to the message's headers. The only time that authentication would not be necessary on the last message hop when the server is accepting mail for local delivery. You would still be able to recieve email from anyone, but each email would have a verified sender who would be accountable for his/her actions. If this "path" could reliably be determined, legislation preventing UCE (with civil penalties for sending it) would be all that's necessary to solve the problem.
The situation is analogous to someone continually calling you on the telephone. If a caller-id system is in place and there is no way to block caller-id then all that's needed to solve the problem is laws banning excessive calling.
The problem with SMTP AUTH is specifically that it *is* compatible with SMTP. What is needed is a protocol that is completely incompatible with SMTP. Then, anyone who gets fed up enough with SPAM can only accept messages by the new protocol. Anyone attempting to send them mail via SMTP would recieve a bounce message telling them they need to send their message through the new service.
Additionally, this would be a good time to sensibly implement some things that have been kludged onto SMTP (mandate PGP, intelligent attachment capability, html formatting etc)
Hmmm... I wonder if it's possible to write a script that scans the header of every email that arrives, does an open relay test on the sending IP, and if it fails, discard the email?
You'll want to be careful doing this as the actions that your script is taking will look suspiciously similar to someone trying to send SPAM. You don't want to get blacklisted yourself.
How long until the SPAM'ers found a way to configure a mail server that blocks your 100 line perl script but still allows open relaying?
However, your 100 line perl script could be useful as a pre-emptive measure to warn admins who have carelessly left their servers open to relaying. So if it finds an open relay, it sends the admin mail saying:
"The Automated Open Relay Detection Service has determined that your server does not sufficiently deny open mail relaying.
The following test was performed:
<test details here>.
If you do not wish to be added to various blacklists services, you should probably fix it. If you need help fixing it, useful resources include:
<useful urls>"
Set that up as a distributed project, and it'd find all the open relays on the internet PDQ.
IMHO, Blacklists are just a small band-aid on the gaping wound that is SMTP. SPAM has proliferated to the point where it needs to be dealt with in a more sane manner than just punishing the offenders.
I'm usually all for privacy, but I think we need to be using an email transport protocol that involves some form of authentication. I'm not sure if some such protocol exists already, but it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to create.
Am I way off base here, or wouldn't this cut way down on SPAM?
I'd like to see a Tim Burton version of it. That man can take a movie with a horrible plot and make it so stylized that it's a joy to watch.
If Tim isn't available, they might try having the Farelly bros. direct it. If the movie is gonna suck anyways, they should have it suck with style. Also, they'd easily keep their target 12-17 demographic happy.
The lameness filter would only have kicked in had the answer been 'no'
If it wasn't for the backslash, Microsoft would have picked some other random character just to be different.
imagine if you will:
C:#WinNT#System32 or
C:aWinNTaSystem32
Considering the alternatives, I think the backslash is pretty cool.
maybe not...aren't entries in the obfuscated C contest were supposed to do something useful when run?
Perfect way to convince the FOX execs...
...
TiVo: look how many of our users watch futurama!
FOX: how many of them watch the commercials?
TiVo:
- make using copy protection a Federal felony
/. than I could ever hope to do. However, the MPAA should be allowed to put whatever copy protection on their content that they want. We should be free to either a) comply with it, b) not buy it or c) try to crack it.
...
- ban the RIAA and MPAA
These are the kinds of sentiments that make people think that people who oppose the DMCA are just people who don't want to pay for the movies/music that they watch/listen to. The DMCA is bad for a lot of reasons that have been much more eloquently phrased on
Freedom works both ways.
This doesn't seem hypocritical to me at all.
Personally, I am totally against the DMCA and all the efforts of the MPAA to curtail people's rights to innovate and create. However, I would never argue that Hollywood should stop making movies. I would characterize myslef as a cinephile...I love watching movies. I think there is an important distinction to be made between supporting the art that comes out of Hollywood (sometimes you have to sift through a lot of shit to find it, but they do produce a lot of quality films) and the business tactics taken by the MPAA. Besides, who do you think the MPAA will listen to...the raving lunatic saying, "I'll never buy your crappy product you f#$@ing capitalist pig." or the person who says, "I've purchased over 100 DVD's in the past year alone. However I strongly disagree with your tactics against piracy."
Personally, I think there is a real message for the MPAA in people like myself. I freely admit to pirating movies. When a movie comes out in the theatres that I really love, I can't afford to see it 10 times in the theatre. I will usually see it 2-3 times in the theatre, then download the VCD. However, as soon as it becomes available on DVD, I buy the DVD and throw away my VCD. I fail to see how I've "stolen" from the MPAA in any way.
If we can make the MPAA realize that they can effectively sell their product without all the oppressive legislation, then maybe they'll stop trying to get it passed.
So, let's see.
1 Oscar to rule them all (Best Picture)
3 Elven Oscars (above the line nominations...McKellan, Jackson and whoever wrote the screenplay)
9 Nazghoul Oscars (Not really all that important in their own right, but their presence is definitely felt).
That's 13, right?
(the 7 dwarvish oscar nominations were lost from memory long ago)
So how many will it win? Maybe 9 (one foreach member of the fellowship)?
Like the article said...this is to important to the software industry. They will appeal this, and in the event that they lose in the appeal process, they'll buy some legislation which gets around this.
For this reason, the language I'd suggest is English. It is entirely compliant with every buzz word listed above and is the only language guaranteed to be compatible with every future over hyped technology.
.fsd files and pass them directly to the compiler is a big plus.
It does have a couple of down sides tho...compilers cannot be purchased, only hired. Also, the compilation process can be time consuming depending on the skill of your compilers.
However the ability to have your product planning team create the
Oh...and it is also fairly simple for a trained engineer to port English programs to languages such as French, Spanish, Russian or even Japanese!
The target environment for Farsite is an organization in 2006 with 100,000 computers, 10 billion files and 10 petabytes (10,000TB) of data.
...the Farsite project at Microsoft Corp...embodies several characteristics--such as...robust security...
Hmmm...my first thought..."ScanDisk is checking harddrive C..."
Farsite is a serverless, distributed system that doesn't assume mutual trust among its client computers. Although there's no central server machine, the system as a whole looks to users like a single file server.
Cool...Microsoft invents the cluster. I'm sure the folks who created Beowulf clusters stole the idea from them...come to think of it, those Gnutella folks blatantly ripped them off too...
I'd say something mean, but I assume this was meant as a joke...
I think the people who are suffering the most are the (what I like to call) pseudo-techies. The people who, during the boom, had jobs paying $90k/yr coding (d)html/flash/cgi/php.
From what I've seen, those kind of jobs are gone. Businesses have realized that they can hire *real* coders who are used to handling backend implementations and they'll still be able to handle pretty much any front-end stuff that gets tossed their way.
I'm pretty sure "Columbians" refers to employees of Columbia Pictures.
It's probably just a "studio rival thing" since "Colateral Damage" is a Warner Bros. project...
Yeah, its really hip to have that one guy come in at work at 2pm and work until 9 at night, because he's so damn elite, until you realize that he's unable to interact with all of the _adults_ who have children and real-life responsibilities. Its called a team. "Oh, I don't work well in the morning." Oh, i'm so sorry! Gee, because the rest of us automatically wake up at 6:30am chipper and ready to go!
Everywhere I've worked doesn't tend to complain when those of us _non_adults_ pull 80 hour weeks the month before a deadline. None of the married _adults_ were willing to make that time commitment. It's a trade-off a lot of businesses are willing to make.
Ooh, and lets pamper the programmers with soda and candy and teddy bears and futuristic chairs. Until the rest of the company, who work just as hard as the programmers, begin to get a little pissed off. Soda is 30 cents a can. Suck it up.
I guess you've never done much serious coding. Sugar and Caffeine increase productivity. A *lot*. A lot of businesses provide these things because they realize that, considering what they are paying their programmers, they get a huge return on their $0.30 investment.
Lets not forget a dress code. Yeah, lets not enforce that, you don't need to look good to program, man. Until that one programmer wearing the 2 sizes too small phantom menace t-shirt with the body odor turns off a potential client. Is wearing a pair of dockers and a shirt that doesn't have a fucking wookie on it going to kill you?
There's something in between your example and the corporate drone you want us to be. First off, bad hygiene shouldn't be tolerated. However, wearing a t-shirt that reflects someone's interests seems completely reasonable. As for it being two sizes too small, how do you think it got that way...hmmm...we do a job that requires us to sit at a computer 8+ hrs/day. Many coders are fat...deal with it...maybe they'd be less so if businesses gave their employees fruit and healthy drinks instead of jolt and snickers bars.
Oh, here's a bonus tip for other people out there who blame management for everything: When you're only in a few hours of meetings a week, don't use that as an excuse why you can't get shit done. Yeah, it would be nice to work in a crystal castle with cushions and butterflies and nobody to bother you with petty problems that don't concern Mr. L33T Programmer, but that isn't going to fucking happen.
This statement reveals that you've never coded anything serious in your life. Coding requires concentration. Everytime someone interrupts me to have a conversation about something, it takes me 10-15 min to remember everything that I had on my mind at the time I was interrupted. Why do you think we get the most work done between 9-midnight...because everyone who bothers us all day long has gone home.
Bottom line is there is a certain personality type that meshes well with being a programmer (about 90% of us are XNXP on the meyers-briggs). Businesses can either accomodate the quirks that go along with it or not. Sure, it is inconvenient for them to do so, but they get increased productivity. Like many things in life, it's a trade-off, and the right answer is most likely somewhere in between being completely accomodating and not accomodating at all.
That's what product development and product management are for.
Without the nerds to come up with the new ideas, there'd be no new ideas. Saying that "Open source is not the answer" is incomplete. Open source may not be the answer to the question, "How do we make software that works for the masses?" but it is the answer to the question, "How do we come up with new ideas for what software should do?"
Once those ideas have been thought up, someone less creative can digest them and decide what subset of the new ideas will work for the masses.
According to Blank and Kruger, the burden of proof is on the targeted company.
When did I stop living in America?
Not that this makes what they do any less dispicable, but the burden of proof to avoid a lawsuit is on the target company (as it would be in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit). If there is actual litigation, the burden would fall to the BSA.