Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

@AC ... Re: This isn't a kudos moment.

You contradict yourself.

FB revokes your rights to use the code if you are 'involved' in a patent lawsuit. This means that the rights FB is granting in their code are conditional rights. This is a risk which Apache does not want to accept.

Essentially FB's poison pill would put Apache at risk.

As to Hadoop. remember that Hive was donated from FB and its FB's code at its core. Same for Presto.

Re: Bravo for apache - you're either fully open source

This isn't "fully open sourced" or not...

GPL is fully open sourced however because of how it protects the rights of the authors, its non-compliant for Apache.

You really need to have a solid understanding of IP rights to understand that under Apache, you relinquish your rights to Apache and agree to indemnify them if they get sued because you claimed rights you didn't have.

FB's anti-patent wording means that you can't transfer the complete rights to Apache such that they are on the hook, as well as you if there is any question or claims to a patent infringement lawsuit.

Its Apache protecting themselves and allowing anyone to suck up and license the works as their own and sell support around it. (e.g. Cloudscape / JavaDB) [actually cloudscape is the original code that was donated by IBM...]

@Khaptain

Next weeks news ( Fake or not) When the mosquitos we released into the wild the interaction with "X" provided a completely unexpected result...and as such the human population of Fresno was suddenly rendered sterile....

No real loss there.

@LDS ... Re: "It's a statistical thing."

Its not the quantity but the quality of the eyes...

Many moons ago, I wrote some code for a client. I was pulled off the project to work on another client's systems. A couple of months later, I got called back in to the office because the rest of the team had 'fixed' my code and in fact broke it.

Why? Because they didn't read the comments and understand what I did and why I did it.

BTW, the original code worked as designed and was sound. (Someone wanted an enhancement.)

And it wasn't just one guy, but half a dozen people looking over the code. I then had to go back to the original code. Spend a long day walking them through the code, showing them why it works and then showing them how to make the mode for the new feature request.

The point is that unless you have a set of eyes attached to a brain of someone who knows what they are doing... you will end up with a mess.

@ One who crashes in flames...

And you've missed the point.

I've had several clients in the past say that they want to use FOSS and shunned the use of proprietary systems. I asked why and I got the same blathering that it was more secure and better code because you can see the code...

The fallacy is the following:

1) It assumes that you or your staff are skilled enough to actually read the code to understand what is going on.

2) It assumes that if there is a problem, you could fix it. Meaning that you actually have the skills to understand the problem and fix it. (95% of those who use the software don't.)

3) It assumes that you can fix it... meaning that if there is a problem that you could fix the code which would then violate your support contract because you're using a modified version and the company that is selling support has no way to support you or your code.

One of the reasons some companies looked to FOSS and supported FOSS is that it reduced their cost of development and support because the cost of supporting those developers is split among several companies that used the tools but did not get revenue from the tools. (e.g. Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc ...) It also lowered their overall IT budget for staffing.

@John Smith,,, Re: What an interesting set of comments.

Whoa!

You have a lot of misconceptions on software is developed. Especially these days...

Altman believes that the longevity of this particular vulnerability challenges the notion that open source code is magically more secure than closed source code. "The fact that this has been around for as long as it has been in open source, I think, is just one more case that should debunk the theory that open source programming is in some way more secure than closed source programming."

This is a very telling and very significant statement because the myth of superiority of FOSS has been promoted with no counter example. Now you have one.

You seem to think that anyone can just open up and look at some goop (you call code) and immediately understand what is going on and what the author's intentions are? There are two fallacies here. One that the person attempting to debug the code knows what to look for in the code and is familiar with the underlying problem that he or she is trying to solve. The second... That the coder actually took the time to write clean code that is easy to read, understand and debug.

Back in the 90's I stopped taking on projects written in C++. Not because of the language, but that I got sick and tired trying to figure out and fix poorly written and documented code that was full of bugs.

Many concepts of software engineering are not being taught properly or if taught at all.

Seriously, I doubt you've ever really worked with Kerberos and could walk through the code. Or have the free time to do so.

@Velv Re: @ Ian Michael Gumby

Again, I suggest that you get a handle on property law.

Your First Amendment right to free speech is that you have the right to speak your mind as long as it isn't hate speech and/or qualifies as protected speech. Note that not all speech is protected under the first amendment.

If Trump or the WH block you from their account, does that mean that you can't post using your own twitter account? The answer is no. Unless you violate the rules of Twitter which is a private company, you can set up your own account and tweet whatever you want as long as its not a violation of Twitter.

So your argument falls flat.

There's more, but that alone kills the lawsuit.

You say " But they are being used to make official government statements, and therefore fall under the laws that control official government communications which must be available to all citizens equally."

Again, I suggest you actually learn the law before making such a silly statement.

<boom mic drop>

@handleoclast ... Re: As I understand it

Whoa!

You want to play Perry Mason, first go to law school and learn something of the law.

Trump tweets.

You do not have a first amendment right to retweet. That doesn't mean you don't have the right to make a new tweet on the same topic.

Seriously.... you really need to think about the law and what it covers and doesn't cover.

Look at it this way... Trump is in a crowded stadium. You and your best buds decide to go to the event and then unroll a banner that is anti-Trump. While you have your rights to the first amendment, that doesn't mean that security can't tear down your banner and physically eject you from the event, or you getting arrested for trespassing.

@Big D ... Re: ID 10 T alert

Dude, you're so wrong its laughable.

1) The official records act does not cover tweets, snap chats, or whatever... it would have to be updated to include these forms of communication. (It would also imply that all phone conversations should be transcribed and stored.... Same for videos of Trump's speeches and all photo ops. )

2) You're confusing property rights and the Official records act. Assume that the Official records act did require the tweets to be saved. That can be done without claiming that this is now property of the US.

3) The Obama administration set up the POTUS account. So were all of those tweets saved? Did Obama's Admin eject people from the stream?

4) Property rights. Twitter owns the servers and provides a server. By your logic because Trump uses a phone, then the government owns the phone companies.

Bottom line. The case should be dismissed with prejudice.

@John Brown... Re: ID 10 T alert

Trump has two accounts. His own personal account and now the WH account that was created by Obama. While they may have rights to control the account, Twitter owns the system so you can't say that the twitter account is an extension of the government. You are essentially rewriting the laws on property ownership and rights.

Having said that...

If you look at Clinton's server, which is her own property, set up at her house... with the sole user being her and her staff and was her sole form of communication... you would have a better case making your statement that it was in fact a defacto work system and hence she ceded the property to the government.

(I'm sure that there exists case law that would support that.)

If you get bounced, what's to stop you from creating another account and then following Trump?

Or having multiple Twitter accounts?

@ Steve 124 Re: ID 10 T alert

Within the US, even illegal aliens have rights.

But here's the thing...

1) Twitter is not the US Government.

2) The burden is on the plaintiff to show that their first amendment rights were in fact violated.

Trump has his personal account and the WH account. In both he and his staff have the right to control or block whom they wish. Its a feature of Twitter.

So if Trump blocks George Stephanopulos for being a weenie, that doesn't stop George Stephanopulos from creating another account to listen to Trump's tweets. Note: I do know George from way back when and yes, he's a weenie. ;-)

The case is noise and should be dismissed outright.

@Rocket Rabbit ... Re: With maths and syntax like that

The flame is because as you say you're nearing 40 you still have issues with reading comprehension.

The story is a bit self explanatory with the sources of the numbers.

I would say that the inability to pay attention to details is a major cause of failure, however this is probably under reported or grouped in with one of the other categories like staffing.

Seriously... all of the reasons provided are valid reasons for project failure in some cases all of the above.

Re: Eh?

Neu - ral Net-work Li-bra-ies

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

N Na-bla

1 2 3

Does that help?

@John Smith ... Re: Even old curmudgeons knows nothing of any use about subject they are posting on.

John,

Elon Musk's wet dream: Launching a rocket, recovering and relaunching within 24 hours.

(Not going to happen for a long time. )

That said, launching from two different sites within 44 hours? NASA hasn't done that, have they?

And both landing and able to be recovered... also impressive. Even the reuse of boosters is impressive.

Now if someone could invent a rail launcher that can safely launch satellites and other non human payloads in to space... even better.

Re: Doesn't compare.

This is why some smart SOB invented the pee-pee tee-pee.

@Number6

There is spoofing the Caller ID which has some legitimate reasons although technically its not spoofing.

That said, the phone company knows the correct number from the call.

They know where the call originated.

The problem is if the call comes from a SIP provider. (E.g. Vonage) They don't know the IP address of the originating caller, just the number which would be registered to the SIP provider. Once you know this.. you can shut down those robodialers and call centers in India running the scam. (Or some other country where its harder to track down the caller. )

If you made the SIP provider liable... you can bet they will be much more cooperative.

Re: Good luck with collecting that fine.

The problem is that most don't fill out the form of the offender.

While you may have the fake phone number, you don't know the company that they represent.

So what do you put in the form?

The other issue is that the scammer will do two things. First live off the proceeds knowing that he's going to get caught. Second keep a set of dodgy books to hide money and also not report all of the income.

So if the guy made millions, he'll end up saying he can't afford to pay even though he lives in a 30 million dollar mansion in Florida and his 'divorced' er separated wife lives in another 30 million dollar mansion which by law, can't be repossessed or forced to be sold in order to make restitution. (Primary residence only.)

They'll make some token restitution and 6 months later, open up shop with someone else as the corporate officer and continue the scam.

The only way to nail them is to make it a felony with mandatory jail time.

@BillG you may not want to block those numbers.

The problem with the 'neighbor spoofing' which I've been getting on my home phone and cell, is that the numbers being used may be a legitimate number to a real person.

I've had one of the spoofed calls and I called it back just to see if it was real.

There was someone on the other end and I asked why they just called me. They said that they didn't.

Most of the spoofs are from numbers that are not currently in service.

The truth is that if the FCC wanted to, and if they made this a priority, there are a couple of things that they could do to help shut these guys down. One of them includes mandatory jail time for repeat offenders.

Re: "no opt-out for patients who do not wish to share their data."

I have to question the legality of this.

Here in the states, it would be a direct violation of HIPPA.

If anyone knows of Google doing this or anyone doing this without the direct consent of any and all patients involved... its a lawsuit.

The combination of this data with any other data set that further violates or erodes the protections granted by HIPPA or any other privacy statute would also be an actionable offense.