Completely agree. You don't have to be able to bang out an OS, but man, if everybody just knew how to grep through some files or automatically run an SQL query, dump the results into an Excel file and email it to somebody, the world would be a better place.

Pick your poison. Get robbed by your coworkers or get robbed by your boss. You're still getting robbed. But I bet your coworkers will rob you less, given that they're being robbed by the same process.

Resistance was futile!

Oh, sure, I'm just saying it would be funny. Revenge for all the epithets /.ers have hurled at him from this site. Not nearly so many since he retired, but you remember what it was like in the late 90s and early 2000s.

Bill Gates.

Replaces the front page of /. with a picture of him naked, rolling in money, pointing at you and laughing.

Oh, you're absolutely right. I'm definitely not saying it would be impossible to hide a backdoor in an open core design. Absolutely could. Same thing with FOSS...just see the Underhanded C Competition.

But today you could have (and probably do have...) explicit backdoors in silicon, besides debugging interfaces, and you'd never know. With an open core design, you'd have to hide it.

They can if they believe that performer will incite violence, which I believe was their reasoning here as the performer is from one of the gangs involved in the violence. The concert was a fund raiser for a kid killed in the getaway after another gang shot one of Keef's gang members.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

I disagree. Saying "people couldn't understand the hardware" is the same as people saying "open source software is irrelevant because you can't understand the software."

Some people can. I have an electrical engineering degree and specialized in computer architecture in grad school. I could understand it. And just like anything else...it's not that hard when you know what you're looking at.

Eh. When laying out silicon, you generally use libraries of simple parts you chain together. You make a register once, and then you replicate it each place you need a register. A TON of those transistors are cache, which is the same pattern repeating over and over again.

I'm not saying there's anyone who's looked at every transistor, but there's probably somebody who's looked at the layout of a cache cell, a register, an ALU, standard multiplexers, etc.

You check out as the real KGIII. Or a very good KGIII Markov chain text generator.

Skeptical != cynical.

The one publicly available edition of the state laws of Georgia is the unannotated version.

This lawsuit is about the annotations, not the code.

Illegally? How so?

I'm very hopeful this works. It's easy to be cynical, so I won't say "meh it's all bullshit!" Still, I won't be convinced until I see it provide thrust in a vacuum, away from Earth's magnetic field. It's still far, far too likely it's pushing off something terrestrial. So I'll give them a healthy "go, team, go!"

That said, quoth the article:

I don't know about that. He is a real professor at a real university, but he also has filed for a patent on a gravity generator, using a process no one has duplicated. Somebody who thinks they've got a gravity generator, but gosh just can't prove it to everybody else, is definitely somebody who may be "unconsciously influenced by a desire to see it work."

The thing is there would be no reason to ever cite the annotation. The annotation is a summary and select quotes from a judge's decision that involved that law. It's like the summary in a /. article (only good Lord I hope more accurate). The summary quotes the original article. If you wanted to quote something from the summary, you would cite the place it was quoted from, not the summary.

The annotations can't be treated as law because there isn't really new content there. The content is from previous judicial decisions.