Slashdot Mirror

Well, when you don't think enough, everything is retarded. Try to be intelligent, I mean, try really hard. Maybe one day you will be smarter, and then you'll understand why I made a "caricature" of the computer industry.

The screenshots from the two towers bootleg are illegal for two reasons:

a) They are not authorized pictures from the movie and could possibly spoil the movie for someone who hasn't seen it and that can result in lost sales

I guess I have to see a piece of legislation that bans movie spoilers, descriptions, opinions, etc. That piece of legislation doesn't exist in the U.S., nor do I think it exists in Norway. In fact, using parts of copyrighted work for fair use, including speech, opinions, caricatures is perfectly legal and done daily almost everywhere around the world.

b) Showing pictures of a "bootleg" of a movie could potentially promote the art of bootlegging (which already is responsible for millions in lost/stolen sales)

What a ridiculous statement! Also, showing murders, mass killings, drug use, rape, etc. in many AOL/Time Warner movies could potentially promote the art (?) of such actions. So, those movies should be censored and deemed illegal too. Censor everything?

Aol/Time Warner is within their rights and has a duty to protect their copywritten work. Sorry folks.

Sorry man, everyone else is also within their full rights to use copyrighted works within the fair use guidelines. Seems like AOL/Time Warner should go after people who copy and sell their work, rather than consumers.

In a previous letter, I stated that pharisaism is irrelevant here. That will be my position in this letter, as well. But first, let me pose you a question: Is Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" Fag Fucking Cunt Rag Penis Licking Jerkoff actually concerned about any of us, or does he just want to exercise both subtlety and thoroughness in managing both the news and the entertainment that gets presented to us? After reading this letter, you'll decidedly find it's the latter. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, but he is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when brutal mattoids take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of larrikinism. And fear of loathsome braggadocios like Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" who use quislingism as a more destructive form of nepotism.

Consider the issue of supercilious antidisestablishmentarianism. Everyone agrees that it is widely known and beyond dispute that he should shift for himself, but there are still some petty, evil incomprehensible-types out there who doubt that I have come to know his satraps too well not to feel the profoundest disgust for their unprincipled prank phone calls. To them I say: I cannot compromise with him; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him, and with a warning he must honestly take to heart: We can't let mephitic lounge lizards ram his artifices down our throats. We can therefore extrapolate that when I say that he is -- and I say this with no intended disrespect -- destructive, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that pernicious spoilsports make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers. This is a common fallacy held by footling, wishy-washy know-nothings. Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" believes that the sun rises just for him. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself, but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" and his predaceous associates.

There's always been suffering in the world, and wrongs have been and will continue to be committed, as evidenced by the way that he wants us to believe that honor counts for nothing. How stupid does he think we are? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being stuck-up. If we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his testy canards, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so.

It will not be easy to lend support to the thesis that I will not play Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s intemperate games and pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country just like he does. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that if I didn't think Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" would set the wolf to mind the sheep, I wouldn't say that his henchmen contend that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" provides none. It must be pointed out over and over again to Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s expositors and, in a broader sense, to pretentious soi-disant do-gooders that statements like, "Sometimes, what you don't know can hurt you" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Never mind that it is important to realize that even without making an ethical argument against gangsterism, I can show that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s insinuations are intellectually and morally indefensible. What's really important is that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that I'm too grungy to bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth.

Does Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people he made fun of just so others would like him more? Even if he does, I'm sure he doesn't care, because if Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" is victorious in his quest to rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor teetotalism, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. If he thinks that he can make me become increasingly frustrated, humiliated and angry, then he's barking up the wrong tree. Think of Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s tricks as being the sum of two components: a cocky component that consists of Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s desire to consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of anarchism and a disrespectful component that consists of everything else. We are concerned primarily with the former. Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" simply regurgitates the empty arguments that have been fed to him over the years. (Actually, even if Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" is not conscious of the inner reason for his double standards, he is fiddling while Rome burns, but that's not important now.)

His personal attacks are worse than the Black Death of olden times. It's a pity. That's a very important point; his reinterpretations of historic events are like an enormous neocolonialism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must get Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" off our back, because my love for people necessitates that I draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "protocatechualdehyde". Yes, I face opposition from Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead". However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. It's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about him and about hypothetical solutions to our Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that I, for one, want to point out that the emperor has no clothes on. That may seem simple enough, but the baneful nature of his half-measures is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. On a similar note, Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s credos are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? I once asked Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" that question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that I welcome Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s comments. However, Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" needs to realize that my general thesis is that my earnest denunciation of his op-ed pieces must have failed to register with Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" as being legitimate sentiment. Am I aware of how Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I feel that there is, because I'm willing to accept that his whole approach is squalid. I'm even willing to accept that I must protest his use of the most brainless beggars you'll ever see to achieve his bloodthirsty goals. But he is inherently untrustworthy, bumptious, and lewd. Oh, and he also has a lecherous mode of existence. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s shock troops don't really care that he wants nothing less than to incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his dishonest doctrines.

This is equivalent to saying that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" speaks like a true defender of the status quo -- a status quo, we should not forget, that enables him to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of rancorous Neanderthals. Ever since he decided to expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate, his consistent, unvarying line has been that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. This hasn't sat well with stolid nobodies. That proves that when Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" tells us that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, he somehow fails to mention that he should stop playing verbal games and tell us what he really means. He fails to mention that it's ludicrous to believe that law and order can be maintained by letting his cohorts create massive civil unrest. And he fails to mention that his underlings' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be.

Now, why all this fuss about a few truculent press releases? Simply put, it's because the biggest difference between me and Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" is that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" wants to jawbone aimlessly. I, on the other hand, want to reveal the truth about his histrionics. His personal interest in seeing his memoranda shoved down people's throats is laughable, but that's to be expected of Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead". There must be some ascertainable mental block that makes him so grotesque. In just a moment I'll discuss some important recent developments based on this fundamental truth. First, however, I want to add a bit to what I wrote previously. It's our responsibility to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart his eccentric, maladroit schemes. That's the first step in trying to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of authoritarianism, and it's the only way to shine a light on his efforts to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom.

Call me old-fashioned, but he wants to exert more and more control over other individuals. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" is obviously hiding something. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. Yes, you heard me right; in public, he vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, he never fails to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion. Aside from the fact that careful examination of his methods of interpretation have left me no choice but to conclude that we should do what comes naturally, if he makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from his publicity stunts.

I don't care what others say about Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead". He's still muddleheaded, ruthless, and he intends to pour a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm. Even by Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s own account, with his overgeneralizations, simple credos like "check your sources" and "argue the other side of the question" have gone out the window. Of that I am certain, because his dissertations symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. That's our situation today, in very rough outline. Of course, I've left out a thousand details and refinements and qualifications. I've not mentioned that I lost all respect for Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" Fag Fucking Cunt Rag Penis Licking Jerkoff when I heard he plans to interfere with my efforts to speak out against behavior and speech that is intended to produce a large number of utterly inhumane extravagancies, most insipid indecencies, and, above all, the most headlong blasphemies against everything that I hold most sacred and most dear. And I've ignored priggism altogether. I've simply pointed out one key fact: Appeasement is not the answer.

I just want a little editorial balance here. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, the blackguardism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, misinformed attack on progressive ideas. Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" Fag Fucking Cunt Rag Penis Licking Jerkoff, using every conceivable means for his purpose, is determined to fuel inquisitions. Yet the media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. I might be able to forgive him, but only if he promises never again to impose a "glass ceiling" that limits our opportunities for promotions in most jobs. What I want to document now is that he has become increasingly immoral ever since childhood -- and Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" knows it.

If, five years ago, I had described a person like Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" to you and told you that in five years, he'd provide support to backwards banana republics and their vapid dictators, you'd have thought me insidious. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how his subordinates believe that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to examine the social and cultural conditions that dig a grave in which to bury liberty and freedom. Even people who consider themselves asinine present-day robber barons generally agree that he claims that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his slurs. Then again, Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" thinks we want him to rip off everyone and his brother. Excuse me, but maybe classism is dangerous. His useless version of it is doubly so. There are two reasons which induce me to submit Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s inveracities to a special examination: 1) Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s attempts to create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions are just a game to him, and 2) corruption, lying, and hypocrisy are the fundaments of Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s comments. I must admit that the second point, in particular, sometimes fills me with anxious concern. We can't let Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" enrich himself at taxpayer expense. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, if it weren't for foolish, disagreeable popinjays, Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" would have no friends.

Considering that there is every indication that he goes ballistic every time I so much as hint that I regret not writing this letter sooner, I find it almost laughable how Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" remains oblivious to the fact that if he wanted to, he could legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed. He could intensify or perpetuate masochism. And he could shame my name. We must decidedly not allow Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" to do any of these. He exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up his obvious inferiority.

We can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" says that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his contemptible, piteous prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. But then he turns around and says that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. You know, you can't have it both ways, Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead". The police should lock him up and throw away the key. Likewise, he wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because there's always been suffering in the world, and wrongs have been and will continue to be committed. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is misguided, because it leaves no room for compromise. Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s insanity has reached record levels. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that I feel that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none, or he wouldn't convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction. In the past, when I complained that he was attempting to acquire public acceptance of his socially inept morals, I was told that I was just being lethargic. But nowadays, people realize that even if one is opposed to ruthless pauperism (and I am), then surely, he may be reasonably cunning with words. However, he is completely perfidious with everything else.

Let no one say that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. No, this is warped, crass paternalism and must be regarded as an attempt to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events. Although some indecent cutthroats concede that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" exhibits the sensitivity of a bulldozer, they invariably deny that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s biases are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition." Funny, that was the same term that his shock troops once used to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd. We can't stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to put an end to crazy frotteurism. What I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s ruses will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that.

Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" has called innocent children violent weasels to their faces. This was not a momentary aberration or a slip of the tongue, and hence, we can safely say that if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that there are arguments that have made respectable people out of flibbertigibbets like him. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche.

Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s smear tactics deserve to be criticized because they remake the world to suit Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s own nerdy needs. Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s plans for the future have a crippling effect on science and technology. And that's where we are right now. Why is Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" really so intransigent? Is it because onanism represents a homicidal, disreputable form of divide-and-conquer? Or because his ploys are totally lacking in empirical support? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that in addition to communicating an understanding of the terrible danger we face, I need to serve on the side of Truth. But upon further investigation, one will find that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" has commented that he has achieved sainthood. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense.

With all due respect, those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still feel that he has been a bad apple for as long as I can remember, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. We have an obligation to drive off and disperse the deranged liars and cheats who infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media. And we have an obligation to upbraid him for being so incoherent. This may sound like caricature, but if the past is any indication of the future, Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" will once again attempt to appropriate sacred symbols for illiterate purposes.

He likes conclusions that use organized violence to suppress opposition. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that he will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "malignant" or "grotty". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise. I have always assumed that it would be a strategic blunder of epic proportions for Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" to precipitate riots, but the fact of the matter is that I myself predict catastrophe. (Actually, it's time to get beyond lies, dissembling, and propaganda deliberately spread by Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" and act according to the plain truth, but that's not important now.) If you can go more than a minute without hearing him talk about escapism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. For your information, we could opt to sit back and let Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" convince others that the worst kinds of shameless control freaks there are are the "chosen people" of scriptural prophecy. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. I have no idea why he makes such a big fuss over insurrectionism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that when Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" says that violence and prejudice are funny, that's just a load of spucatum tauri.

I frequently talk about how careerism is the modern analogue of slavery. I would drop the subject, except that I need your help if I'm ever to find the inner strength to free people from the fetters of ruffianism's poisonous embrace. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" says that honor counts for nothing. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. Maybe it's just me, but don't you think that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead"'s sophistries are disingenuous, poisonous to young minds, and disrespectful to Western values and achievements? It's precisely because a stubborn mentality and a pushy sense of absolutism create fertile soil for yellow-bellied rubes to rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor colonialism that almost every day, Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's undeniably breathtaking to watch him. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that the quips, pleas, and magic-bullet explanations that Diskiller "The Fucking Peterpulling Faggot Asshole Shithead" Fag Fucking Cunt Rag Penis Licking Jerkoff is trying to tattoo on our minds are not educational, but morally crippled.

*sigh*. Yeah, well, maybe some marketing exec weenie asked why the only girl in the group didn't have any superpowers. (Not noticing that she leads the group.)

I suppose we'll have some other guy put in charge of the group. Mina will be reduced to just another superpowered caricature, and stripped of that "take no shit from anyone, be it an opium-addicted Quartermain or Hyde himself" thing she had going.

We all have to get used to the fact that the fans alone can't support a big-budget production. A TV series, maybe, but a SFX movie, never. The flick must then appeal to anyone who walks into the theater and says "hey, that's got an 'X' in it! I sure hope their mutants are as cool as the 'X-Men'!".

Somehow, knowing that doesn't make me any less disappointed in seeing a clever and original book dumbed down like this.

--grendel drago

However, why does everyone have to be sensitive to everything that might offend anyone?

Because (1) it's not nice to offend people and (2) it's important to understand that offense is in the eye of the offended, not the offender.

If you are not strange, you wouldn't like it if I walked up to your mother and called her a two-dollar whore. It's not censorship to suggest that this is a bad idea, it's common decency.

I imagine you're not part of a culture where flip references to your history can be offensive, but there are people who are and it's just common decency to not be a jerk to those people, especially when a similar phrase would do just fine (Path of pain, tutorial of terror, whatever :)

No one's going to ask you not to use C, there's a clear differentiation between the tool and the motivation of the user in your example. But it wouldn't be out of line to ask a software project to change it's name if it were genuinely offensive.

People who complain about political correctness, in my experience, complain because they say such awful things, for instance, they'll say "this may not be politically correct, but" then tell a mean-spirited N-word joke or the like.

There's the caricature version of political correctness (vertically challenged, etc.), and then there's common decency- too often people engaging in the latter are viciously attacked for engaging in the former.

Sometimes, humorists attempting to comment on tragic events have made serious mis-steps.

Steve Benson's cartoon of a fireman with a baby in his arms after the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma, for instance. (N.B., The former Pulitzer winner was caricaturing a famous photo from the event.) But, as an editorial cartoonist, he often goes looking for trouble and finding it, so his relationship with the edge of taste is rather intimate.

Have you ever had a piece that seemed right go horribly wrong when the public read it?

"his book Refactoring... describes his experience as a consultant refactoring medium sized software projects, and gives a lot of advice on methods for refactoring.

That's not even close to an accurate description. Refactoring describes what R. is, why it's done, what you need in order to do it, and how to do some common types.

At that point [Fowler] joined forces with Beck and formed his second reason for being well known, XP.

Even more wrong. XP was developed from the conventions and experience of a lot of Smalltalk developers over quite some time. Fowler and Beck didn't invent or develop it; they came in after it was initially publicised.

As far as I can tell, the philosophy of XP is, "Software usually ends up sucking and in need of refactoring after it has been extended too far. Why wait for it to be extended too far? Just make it suck in the first place and refactor all the time!"

That's an interesting caricature, actually. There's more truth in it than in anything else you've said. XP does say that software usually ends up sucking because it's been extended too far without refactoring; so why wait for it to be extended too far? Refactor so it won't suck NOW.

The conclusion you imply (that after the refactoring the code will suck worse) is blatantly wrong, of course -- but that's just a troll.

Perhaps a better way of looking at XP is to observe that it tries to pull the software into maintenance mode as soon as possible, and make change as cheap as possible within maintenance mode.

-Billy

Just remember there's much more to Japanese culture than just the parts of it that are infantile, tasteless caricatures of American culture. (like anime)

Because this excellent essay is strong enough to be worth quoting as a whole, I paste The Problem With Music. Apologies for the odd formatting (tables not allowed, even if your data is tabular -- only the staff are allowed to do bad html! :).

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed. Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim again, please. Backstroke". And he does of course.

Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a high-profile point man, an "A & R" rep who can present a comfortable face to any prospective band. The initials stand for "Artist and Repertoire." because historically, the A & R staff would select artists to record music that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case, though not openly. These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock credibility flag they can wave.

Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well. There are several reasons A & R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to is that the scout will be "hip to the current musical "scene." A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll experiences. The A & R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big record company. Hell, he's as naive as the band he's duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it. When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with company X, they're really signing with him and he's on their side. Remember that great gig I saw you at in '85? Didn't we have a blast. By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A & R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all! He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he was hired.

These A & R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on. The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little memo, is that it is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band signs it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign, all the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength. These letters never have any terms of expiration, so the band remain bound by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes. The band cannot sign to another laborer or even put out its own material unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be destroyed.

One of my favorite bands was held hostage for the better part of two years by a slick young "He's not like a label guy at all," A & R rep, on the basis of such a deal memo. He had failed to come through on any of his promises [something he did with similar effect to another well-known band], and so the band wanted out. Another label expressed interest, but when the A & R man was asked to release the band, he said he would need money or points, or possibly both, before he would consider it. The new label was afraid the price would be too dear, and they said no thanks. On the cusp of making their signature album, an excellent band, humiliated, broke up from the stress and the many months of inactivity. There's this band. They're pretty ordinary, but they're also pretty good, so they've attracted some attention. They're signed to a moderate-sized "independent" label owned by a distribution company, and they have another two albums owed to the label. They're a little ambitious. They'd like to get signed by a major label so they can have some security you know, get some good equipment, tour in a proper tour bus -- nothing fancy, just a little reward for all the hard work. To that end, they got a manager. He knows some of the label guys, and he can shop their next project to all the right people. He takes his cut, sure, but it's only 15%, and if he can get them signed then it's money well spent. Anyways, it doesn't cost them anything if it doesn't work. 15% of nothing isn't much! One day an A & R scout calls them, says he's 'been following them for a while now, and when their manager mentioned them to him, it just "clicked." Would they like to meet with him about the possibility of working out a deal with his label? Wow. Big Break time. They meet the guy, and y'know what -- he's not what they expected from a label guy. He's young and dresses pretty much like the band does. He knows all their favorite bands. He's like one of them. He tells them he wants to go to bat for them, to try to get them everything they want. He says anything is possible with the right attitude.

They conclude the evening by taking home a copy of a deal memo they wrote out and signed on the spot. The A & R guy was full of great ideas, even talked about using a name producer. Butch Vig is out of the question-he wants 100 g's and three points, but they can get Don Fleming for $30,000 plus three points. Even that's a little steep, so maybe they'll go with that guy who used to be in David Letterman's band. He only wants three points. Or they can have just anybody record it (like Warton Tiers, maybe-- cost you 5 or 7 grand] and have Andy Wallace remix it for 4 grand a track plus 2 points. It was a lot to think about. Well, they like this guy and they trust him. Besides, they already signed the deal memo. He must have been serious about wanting them to sign. They break the news to their current label, and the label manager says he wants them to succeed, so they have his blessing. He will need to be compensated, of course, for the remaining albums left on their contract, but he'll work it out with the label himself.

Sub Pop made millions from selling off Nirvana, and Twin Tone hasn't done bad either: 50 grand for the Babes and 60 grand for the Poster Children-- without having to sell a single additional record. It'll be something modest. The new label doesn't mind, so long as it's recoupable out of royalties. Well, they get the final contract, and it's not quite what they expected. They figure it's better to be safe than sorry and they turn it over to a lawyer--one who says he's experienced in entertainment law and he hammers out a few bugs. They're still not sure about it, but the lawyer says he's seen a lot of contracts, and theirs is pretty good. They'll be great royalty: 13% [less a 1O% packaging deduction]. Wasn't it Buffalo Tom that were only getting 12% less 10? Whatever. The old label only wants 50 grand, an no points. Hell, Sub Pop got 3 points when they let Nirvana go. They're signed for four years, with options on each year, for a total of over a million dollars! That's a lot of money in any man's English. The first year's advance alone is $250,000. Just think about it, a quarter million, just for being in a rock band! Their manager thinks it's a great deal, especially the large advance. Besides, he knows a publishing company that will take the band on if they get signed, and even give them an advance of 20 grand, so they'll be making that money too. The manager says publishing is pretty mysterious, and nobody really knows where all the money comes from, but the lawyer can look that contract over too. Hell, it's free money. Their booking agent is excited about the band signing to a major. He says they can maybe average $1,000 or $2,000 a night from now on. That's enough to justify a five week tour, and with tour support, they can use a proper crew, buy some good equipment and even get a tour bus! Buses are pretty expensive, but if you figure in the price of a hotel room for everybody In the band and crew, they're actually about the same cost. Some bands like Therapy? and Sloan and Stereolab use buses on their tours even when they're getting paid only a couple hundred bucks a night, and this tour should earn at least a grand or two every night. It'll be worth it. The band will be more comfortable and will play better.

The agent says a band on a major label can get a merchandising company to pay them an advance on T-shirt sales! ridiculous! There's a gold mine here! The lawyer Should look over the merchandising contract, just to be safe. They get drunk at the signing party. Polaroids are taken and everybody looks thrilled. The label picked them up in a limo. They decided to go with the producer who used to be in Letterman's band. He had these technicians come in and tune the drums for them and tweak their amps and guitars. He had a guy bring in a slew of expensive old "vintage" microphones. Boy, were they "warm." He even had a guy come in and check the phase of all the equipment in the control room! Boy, was he professional. He used a bunch of equipment on them and by the end of it, they all agreed that it sounded very "punchy," yet "warm." All that hard work paid off. With the help of a video, the album went like hotcakes! They sold a quarter million copies! Here is the math that will explain just how fucked they are: These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad, since real-life examples more than abound. Income is bold [and italicized], expenses are not.

• Advance: $ 250,000

Manager's cut:

$ 37,500

Legal fees:

$ 10,000

Recording Budget:

$ 150,000

Producer's advance:

$ 50,000

Studio fee:

$ 52,500

Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors":

$ 3,000

Recording tape:

$ 8,000

Equipment rental:

$ 5,000

Cartage and Transportation:

$ 5,000

Lodgings while in studio:

$ 10,000

Catering:

$ 3,000

Mastering:

$ 10,000

Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses:

$ 2,000

Video budget:

$ 30,000

Cameras:

$ 8,000

Crew:

$ 5,000

Processing and transfers:

$ 3,000

Off-line:

$ 2,000

On-line editing:

$ 3,000

Catering:

$ 1,000

Stage and construction:

$ 3,000

Copies, couriers, transportation:

$ 2,000

Director's fee:

$ 3,000

Album Artwork:

$ 5,000

Promotional photo shoot and duplication:

$ 2,000

Band fund:

$ 15,000

New fancy professional drum kit:

$ 5,000

New fancy professional guitars [2]:

$ 3,000

New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]:

$ 4,000

New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar:

$ 1,000

New fancy rack of lights bass amp:

$ 1,000

Rehearsal space rental:

$ 500

Big blowout party for their friends:

$ 500

Tour expense [5 weeks]:

$ 50,875

Bus:

$ 25,000

Crew [3]:

$ 7,500

Food and per diems:

$ 7,875

Fuel:

$ 3,000

Consumable supplies:

$ 3,500

Wardrobe:

$ 1,000

Promotion:

$ 3,000

Tour gross income:

$ 50,000

Agent's cut:

$ 7,500

Manager's cut:

$ 7,500

Merchandising advance:

$ 20,000

Manager's cut:

$ 3,000

Lawyer's fee:

$ 1,000

Publishing advance:

$ 20,000

Manager's cut:

$ 3,000

Lawyer's fee:

$ 1,000

Record sales:

250,000 @ $12 =
$3,000,000

Gross retail revenue Royalty:

[13% of 90% of retail]:
$ 351,000

Less advance:

$ 250,000

Producer's points:

[3% less $50,000 advance]:
$ 40,000

Promotional budget:

$ 25,000

Recoupable buyout from previous label:

$ 50,000

Net royalty:

$ -14,000

+++++++++

Record company income:

• Record wholesale price:

  $6.50 x 250,000 =
  $1,625,000 gross income

• Artist Royalties:

  $ 351,000

• Deficit from royalties:

  $ 14,000

• Manufacturing, packaging and distribution:

  @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000

• Gross profit:

  $ 7l0,000

+++++++++

The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

• Record company:

  $ 710,000

• Producer:

  $ 90,000

• Manager:

  $ 51,000

• Studio:

  $ 52,500

• Previous label:

  $ 50,000

• Agent:

  $ 7,500

• Lawyer:

  $ 12,000

• Band member net income each:

  $ 4,031.25

The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never "recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige. The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys. Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.

Steve Albini is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana's "In Utero".

I love that essay. A cousin of mine is a fairly successful rock musician in various bands here in Boston, and as much as I'd love to see his bands really take off, reading this essay makes me very glad that that hasn't happened yet. Sad, really, but it seems like the only way to really "make it" is to go the Fugazi styled DIY route so that the industry can't fuck you over...

Since the individual concerned was working for OMG I very much doubt it. I have had ten years experience of UML and its antecedents such as OMT.

I saw the proposals OMG made, they simply do not understand the data model of XML Schema.

Even if they did UML has become a grotesque caricature. It is even more of a committee spec than XML Schema. You have a bit of object orientedyness and a bit of entiry relationalness and a hodge podge of finite state theories and then the use cases stuff thrown in on top. Thats hardly suprising since its just the earlier work of Booch, Rumbaugh and co smashed together for the benefit of the company selling the graphical design tool.

I put together a graphical notation for XML Schema I used in some of the SAML meetings that seemed to help discussions. But that notation was very carefully chose to illustrate a few carefully chosen aspects of the schema.

The big mistake with graphical languages is attempting to use them as substitutes for code. By the time the notation has enough decorations for that it has become so complext that it is unreadable.

The involvement of OMG group does not impress me in the least. Those are the same turkeys who gave us CORBA and took more than ten years to realise that maybe it might not be taking on as fast because the idea people would rip out their legacy systems and migrate them all to an ORB was fundamentally clueless.

The theme of this letter is not "Appeasement is not the answer." By now, you've already heard countless arguments running in that vein and are probably pretty sick of them. The theme of this letter is "It is hardly surprising that this makes the issue an even greater tragedy." To begin at the beginning, the Canadian media really struck a nerve with me when it said that it's okay for it to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. That lie is a painful reminder that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of brainless, incomprehensible shirkers, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but the Canadian media exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority. The Canadian media's expostulations are so smarmy that if allowed to go unanswered, their final cost would be incalculable. The Canadian media's imprecations may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that the Canadian media proclaims at every opportunity that it'd never oppress, segregate, and punish others. The organization doth protest too much, methinks. At no time in the past did the most jaded purveyors of malice and hatred you'll ever see shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them.

Are you beginning to get the picture here? Certainly, the Canadian media's grunts all look like the Canadian media, think like the Canadian media, act like the Canadian media, and display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, just like the Canadian media does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha!

If I recall correctly, the only weapons the Canadian media has in its intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all it has, and it knows it. If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less surly than the Canadian media. It's possible that the Canadian media doesn't realize this because it has been ingrained with so much of sectarianism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. The most perceptive members of our society respond positively to my message that anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this letter will at once understand that the Canadian media's wisecracks reinforce the point that we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving true tolerance in our society. Sure, it sounds irrational. Blame that on quixotic dopeheads.

The Canadian media is utterly insolent. We all are, to some extent, but it sets the curve. Make special note of that point, because whenever anyone states the obvious -- that the Canadian media owes us an apology -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that the Canadian media needs to stop living in a fool's paradise?" This is not a question that we should run away from. Rather, it is something that needs to be addressed quickly and directly, because the Canadian media will censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses the worst types of deceitful hermits I've ever seen with intransigent and uncontrollable rage. The Canadian media's judgmental long-term goals can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having an organization consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance. The next time someone says that the Universe belongs to the Canadian media by right, look that person right in the eye and reply, "A deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not sadistic energizes the Canadian media to dominate or intimidate others." Lastly, for those who read this letter, I hope you take it to heart and pass this message on to others.

You couldn't be more of a caricature if you tried. Every single thing you post is wrong by default because your sig automatically invokes Godwin's Law.

Agreed !!
But the point was that the media ignores the contribution made by Indians and portrays them as characters that are basically a caricature. The end result being that the American public always has only that image in their minds.
As far as Apu goes, India is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural society and people from southern India do have a funny accent which is a subject of constant ridicule even from people (and media) in North India.

Baloney Detection Kit

Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan "The Demon Haunted World". The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

1) his english (sic) is damn near perfect

3) the pictures could have easily be taken somewhere in california (sic)...

4) his domain is registered in the U.S.

How do you know which "specific" information you are allowed to look at? I'm at my home, why did their server send that information to me at my own home if I'm not allowed to see it? OK, let's bring the analogy back to the "real" world. Suppose I fill a coupon I clip from a magazine. Imagine that, due to some clerical error at their company, I get sent some confidential information. For instance, a director at that company might have the same name and my address is entered in his file. Did I commit a crime? If they voluntarily sent me something I wasn't allowed to get, they must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that I acted with the intention to commit a crime.

I do not want to condone illegal acts, but I think one must be careful or we will soon live in a police state, governed by a lynch mob. We should respect people's rights, even if we believe they are criminals. It may even look like a caricature, like the "Miranda rights", where the police must inform the criminals of their Fifth Ammendment rights, but even the most hardened criminals have the same rights as any of us.

Well, I think that like any other medium there is the potential for art. In the written word, there are tabloids and there are novels like War and Peace. On the screen there is Lawrence of Arabia or there is Dude, Where's My Car? Some is trashy, or just designed for entertainment but some is art. As a relatively new medium video games don't have many axamples of "art" yet, but there are some exceptions. ICO for instance, on the Playstation2 was a mind blowing experiance, not because of snazzy visuals or any particular aspect of the game, but the overall love that was put into the game was above and beyond what one normally sees. Other contenders could be the Myst series, some role playing games like the better Final Fantasies or Bungie's Marathon series. Of course the last 2 examples are mentioned mainly, but not entirely because of their storytelling. Thing is, Games can tell stories but as a medium they're capable of a lot more, and it's a great opportunity for us to watch it evolve. Anyway, back on the topic at hand, I love GTA but it's hard to say it's art. Then again, it is a very satirical work and even the visuals are intentionally caricatured. It's content is questionable, but it is something more than trash. I'm against censoring, but I do think they need an adequate ratings system that really explains itself on the package, so that parents buying things for their kids will not just see "M" but the reasons for the rating. I think this is one of the main issues here, parents buying games for kids. They control the pocketbook, they are usually above any age limit set by ratings, so really the only option is to inform them.

"In fact, had a novelist like Anthony Trollope, the 19th-century chronicler of English society at its best and worst, invented these characters, his readers would have rejected them as caricatures. Too improbable. Too grasping. Too contemptible.

But genuine they were, as investors found out to their dismay this year. Although their struts across the stage were spectacles, they were not alone as standouts. Others earned a part in this year's unforgettable bear market pageant.

In honor of their performances, it is again time to hand out the Augustus Melmotte Memorial Prizes, named for the swindler and schemer central to Mr. Trollope's novel "The Way We Live Now." Mr. Melmotte rose to the heights of London society on wealth he had raised ostensibly to build a railroad in North America but which instead went into his own pockets. He was found out, of course. But by that time, much of the money was gone.

Investors can be forgiven for feeling that much of their money has vanished in this, the third year of free-falling stock prices.

Following are the prizes and the winners.

THE SOMEBODY ELSE'S FAULT AWARD To Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who is busily ducking any blame for failing to prevent the stock market bubble and its awful aftermath. His latest attempt came this month during a speech at the Economic Club of New York. In his inimitable prose, Mr. Greenspan said: "Whether incipient bubbles can be detected in real time and whether, once detected, they can be defused without inadvertently precipitating still greater adverse consequences for the economy remain in doubt."

Translation: Don't blame me for watching blithely as the bubble grew and grew. It was so very pretty, and how was I to know it would blow investors away when it popped?

Clearly, Mr. Greenspan is worried about his legacy and how history will view his inaction in the face of an obvious stock market mania. But he seems to have forgotten that when he points his finger elsewhere in blame, three fingers remain pointed at himself.


THE THREE IS A CHARM AWARD To Irwin L. Jacobs, the Minneapolis financier, who came to the plate with a swagger in 2001 to bat against the short-sellers who had placed negatives bets on three stocks he owned. In newspaper advertisements and on his own Web site, Mr. Jacobs cheered on the shares of AremisSoft, a software company; Clarent, a telecommunications concern; and Conseco, the financial services giant. When Gary C. Wendt arrived to rescue Conseco, for example, Mr. Jacobs exulted: "We know God can't come down here and do this. But the next best thing to God is Gary Wendt."

Not quite. Unlike Conseco, heaven has yet to file for Chapter 11 protection.

Alas for Mr. Jacobs, in 2002, his trio tripped up. AremisSoft filed a Chapter 11 petition in March, and during one week in December, Conseco and Clarent both announced bankruptcy filings. Hockey fans would call that a hat trick for Mr. Jacobs; racing fans, a trifecta. In any case, going three for three is hard to do.

THE TIMING IS EVERYTHING AWARD To Jack Welch and Lou Gerstner, who left their chief-executive posts just before the bottom fell out of their companies' stocks. When Mr. Welch retired from General Electric in early September 2001, its shares traded at $39.66; on Friday, they closed at $24.75. Mr. Gerstner stepped down as chief of I.B.M. on March 1. Since then, its stock has lost 25 percent.

To quote Shakespeare, "Exit, pursued by a bear." ("The Winter's Tale, Act III, Scene 3, stage direction to Antigonus.)

THE DID I REALLY SAY THAT? AWARD To Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chief executive of G.E., who in an interview last Jan. 15, was asked which chief executives he admired. No. 2 in his pantheon, after Steven A. Ballmer of Microsoft, was Jean-Marie Messier, the disgraced and lately dismissed Vivendi Universal chief. Since then, Vivendi's stock has dropped 68 percent. Let's hope Mr. Immelt's favorites inside G.E. fare better.

THE THAT'S MORE LIKE IT AWARD To Mr. Messier, who ran off to start a hedge fund in October after wreaking havoc on shareholders of Vivendi Universal. Come to think of it, this is actually Mr. Messier's second attempt at a hedge fund, because wasn't that what Vivendi turned out to be, under his direction?

THE EXPANDING LANGUAGE AWARD To Gary Winnick, whose actions as top executive of Global Crossing leave him in danger of earning the title looter in chief, and have given a new word to the lexicon. Recalling that he sold stock worth $734 million in the telecommunications concern before it filed for bankruptcy, investors who think they've been cheated now say they've been "winnicked." The new word has also been heard on golf courses, especially in the Los Angeles area, where Mr. Winnick lives. Golfers caught cheating on their score cards are told by their partners: "Don't you winnick me."

THE TRUTH IN ADVERTISING AWARD To the Charles Schwab Corporation, for showing investors how stocks are really sold in the famous cinéma vérité television commercial entitled "Pep Talk." Talking up a stock to a roomful of brokers, a Wall Street executive says, "Don't mention the fundamentals; they stink." After promising courtside playoff tickets for the broker who sells the most stock, the executive says, "Now let's put some lipstick on this pig."

Bull's-eye.

THE DENIAL IS POTENT AWARD Bernard J. Ebbers, founder and former chief executive of WorldCom, whose creation crashed to earth in the nation's largest bankruptcy filing last July. Although his shareholders lost everything and thousands of his workers lost their jobs, Mr. Ebbers told Congress last summer that he was proud of his work at WorldCom.

Mr. Ebbers still owes WorldCom $408 million, which he borrowed to meet margin calls at his brokerage firm when WorldCom shares started their slide. For those WorldCom creditors worried that Mr. Ebbers will never be able to repay his loan, look on the bright side. The man has all kinds of experience in other industries. After all, before he built WorldCom he had been a milkman, a bouncer and a car salesman. But it might take a while to get the money back.

THE WHAT SCANDALS? AWARD To Hardwick Simmons, the chief executive of the Nasdaq stock market, which has lost 31 percent of its value this year, kept asking throughout 2002 what all the scandal talk was about. Mr. Simmons, who is against accounting for stock options as an employee cost, told a reporter at The Globe and Mail of Toronto that chief executives had recently grown too preoccupied with director independence. "All the academic literature I've ever seen -- and I mean there is none on the other side -- shows there is absolutely no correlation between the independence of one's board and the performance of one's company," he was quoted as saying. "In fact it works exactly the opposite."

And finally, a tip of the hat this year to Colin Devine, the Salomon Smith Barney analyst who warned investors away from Conseco stock in January 1999 and took a lot of heat from the company for it. His focus on the company's numbers kept Mr. Devine from buying into the company's spin. Even as investors cheered the arrival of Mr. Wendt -- a savior to some -- Mr. Devine kept his feet on the ground, proving that top-flight, skeptical analysis can indeed come out of a big Wall Street ?firm?...."

I work in the medical industry, and my father has been a family practitioner for over 30 years. I have no doubt I've met and interacted with more doctors than the average person, and probably more than the average resident. With that disclaimer out of the way...

In my experience, there are two rather large things wrong with physicians that could be improved. Both of these would have a positive effect on outcomes. Neither are discussed much. It sounds like neither of these are touched on in the book.

First is a lack of scientific background. Now, I don't mean that some doc didn't have a BS in biology or whatever. They don't think like scientists. Far too often, physicians build up a mental table of symptoms. When a new patient presents with a condition, the table is consulted. This works fine in general, but falls apart miserably in corner cases. To solve those corner cases, some deductive (and inductive:) reasoning is called for. It is staggering the number of physicians who lack these skills. In some ways, newly minted MD's are better in this respect. They haven't had the time to develop a catalog, so they are reasoning through EVERYTHING. Sure, it makes them slower, but everything will be reasoned through. Docs with 5, 10, 20 years of experience have built a corpus of knowledge that they refuse to look beyond.

But all is not well with new docs. All physicians suffer from hubris. No kidding that this is one of the seven deadly sins. Most doctors are convinced of their own godhood. Check out Alec Baldwin's character in "Malice". Yes, it is a caricature. But there is also a grain of truth in his portrayal. For most doctors, questioning a diagnosis or treatment plan is a surefire way to piss them off. Being correct when they are wrong will drive them to either apoplepsy or catatonia. Is this something they come out of med school with? I think so. Older physicians seem to be better in this regard. There are two possible explanations that immediately come to mind. First is that they have experience to show their human failings. The other explanation is the makeup of the teachers and instructors in most universities today. Thirty years ago, they were staffed by former physicians, those who had had private practices, large patient caseloads, etc. Today, like much of academia, they are staffed by professional instructors. If you can't see the problem with this, I can't help you.

What's the solution? I really have no idea. Once the hubris disappears or is mitigated, it should be possible to learn the thought processes necessary to do good medicine. But how do you convince someone that they have too much pride? This is a real world problem for me, as my practice has several new doctors. They have potential. They can be great. But can they get past their own thoughts of superiority to recognize their weaknesses in certain areas?

I don't suppose there's any reason why you wouldn't be able to produce an OS CMYK system but that's not the same thing as the Pantone system and if you think a bunch of OS geeks are going to bury it, you're either trolling or sadly mistaken.

Jesus wept. Yes, it was a grotesquely heavy-handed caricature of "come along and share the software" neo-post-capitalist screed. You're clearly one of the smarter ones and even so, you don't realize when you're being mocked. Could Linux HAVE a sharper stake through its heart, could it BE more irrelevant. I'd cry if I gave a shit anymore.