Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat, Oracle to get Gov't Certification for Linux
Mark writes "As this news.com article states, 'Red Hat and Oracle plan to announce on Thursday that the companies have teamed to get Linux evaluated under the Common Criteria, a certification that could open doors for the broader use of open-source software by government agencies.' It looks like this will be an important step in getting Linux to be more widely adopted in governments around the world."
It's good to know the US Government is catching up technologically with the Germans...again...
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Having 2 companies presenting a working solution like this. Not only do we know Linux is a good workable system, but this is a way to present it in its best
Having a working solution already in place works for business. You can say "we have system X already go, and can set it up for you". It shows you are on the ball.
Working for a certification like this is similar. Best solutions combine the strengths. What other pre-made solutions do users see as a good thing? perhaps systems such as linux plus apache. That's another well known one
note: slashdot user 'danamania' is a transsexual. guy's watch out if you are talking to him
Thanks for being frank. This should be a wake-up call for all slashdot users.
--sex
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
The companies plan to first push Red Hat Linux Advanced Server for a modest level of certification: Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) 2.
Sheesh... How much pushing does RHAS need? Show me a TCO study where RHAS at $800/server/year beats any free Linux distro. Simply plugging in a $800/server/year cost into most of the TCO studies I've seen makes Windows look like a bargain.
"We are going to use Unix and Linux as the evaluation platforms for our products in the future, and not Windows, because the customer demand for Windows is not there," she said. "Frankly, there is a fair amount of disenchantment with Microsoft products because of security problems." ... said Mary-Ann Davidson, chief security officer for Oracle.
Wow. I knew Larry hated Bill and MS, but I sure wouldn't have expected this! Or is he just conceding the Windows server database market to Bill and trying to grow the Linux market on the low end + the UNIX market at the higher end?
Hmm...
the no
This is what I love about open source, different companies (who are competitors in a sense) working together for the furtherment of the community. Although I would think that after all the lasest internet issues with M$ swiss cheese, the gov. would be looking at open src at least from a security standpoint.
-You may license this sig for only $6.99.
And the world can see what the DoD are using. I'd love to submit patches to the armed forces.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
It is good to see that the requests for the certifications arn't coming from a vendor or the developers but the end users who will be deploying the product. You really can't get a better advertisment than that.
Having Oracle on side will help as well, as the article mentions they have tones of experience getting their product (and thus the OS) certified. It is massivly in Oracle's interest to do so - less $'s on the OS means the purchaser can spend more on the hardware / DB.
here http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/02/12/043227 &mode=thread&tid=110&tid=103&tid=1 72
I think Slashdot just got certified by the Department of Redundancy Department.
Isn't this the same thing we criticised when Microsoft was certified and said that if they made it through, it must be hopelessly inadequate certification process? Now the Linux is involved, it's suddenly a good thing?
A bit of MS bashing is fine, but this is taking it a bit far for me.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
Sometimes it takes something that has a drastic economic impact to for people to seriously look at alternatives. Linux is gather momentum at just the right time, I believe. Everyone has financial problems, and is looking for cheaper alternatives. Linux packages are hitting that point which say "We're professional software." These sort of certifications which add reinforce to that reputation.
Linux has a bright future ahead.
Even Micro$oft is now admitting that open source has a bright future.
They are working together to convince a potential customer that their collective product is worth buying.
Getting the US Government to start buying Linux based solutions gives them more potential customers. I would guess that is a given that if it is certified for government use at the federal level, that it becomes a legitimate product for the state governments as well.
Besides, how is this different from say, IBM and Sun working together to promote Java?
END COMMUNICATION
The story from the other day was that the DoD had certified Red Hat for their purposes. This is Red Hat and Oracle attempting to gain a more general federal certification which would allow many agencies to consider linux for deployment. Federal law currently requires many agencies to only use "certified" software and operating systems.
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
Red Hat Linux Advanced Server
This is not a dupe. Try reading the article before you post.
This is not a dupe. The story from yesterday is about how the DoD has certified RedHat server as a common operating environment. This story talks about how IBM and Oracle are attempting to get Linux certified on a wider federal level so that agencies can be permitted to use it. They are two different certifications and two different issues and hence two different stories.
I'm always amazed by the number of clarivoyant slashdot users we have around here who don't need to read a story before posting...
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
Can someone please post a mirror of this article or a full copy of text. For some reason my employers firewalling software is barfing at news.com.com pages. Thanks!
mv
Think like a marketer, and you'll get the point of all this. Remember, the folks at your local government agency who actually run the IT systems are seldom the folks who determine which systems enter the selection process.
Politics and marketing trump technical merits, as our friends and Microsoft know so well.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
drm is an important technology that will save the world from Communism and crackers. The DOD needs security and according to world software maker Microsoft, drm is needed to provide better multimedia and security.
Someone please think about our children.
Is there any reason why RH needs to be government-certified? If M$ is gov-cert, what does this say about RH and Oracle?
$DEITY bless $NATION
Yesterday's article was about RH 8 AS getting DISA (Defense Information Systems Agency) DII (Defense Information Infrastructure) COE (Common Operating Environment) certification. Todays' certification article-o-the-day is about RH 8 AS getting Common Criteria EAL (Evaluation Assurance Level) 2.
Yeah, to the uninformed, it looks the same. But (A) DII COE is specifically a US DoD certification, whereas CC EAL is an international certification (administered in the US by NIST--National Institute of Standards and Technology); and (B) The article about RH's EAL certification also extensively yatters on about Oracle 9i, whereas the RH COE article doesn't.
So in conclusion, this is an erroneous dupe sighting. Nothing to see here, move along.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Red Hat and Oracle plan to announce on Thursday that the companies have teamed to get Linux evaluated under the Common Criteria, a certification that could open doors for the broader use of open-source software by government agencies.
The effort is expected to take nine to 10 months and cost up to $1 million. But if successful, it could pay off handsomely for Red Hat and Oracle, as well as for Linux.
"The government has been deploying Linux in smaller settings quite broadly, but it's still done by exception, by and large," said Mark De Visser, vice president of marketing for Red Hat. "What happens with these certifications is that they will push Linux into the mainstream."
The United States government is among 14 nations that recognize the Common Criteria evaluation. A certification from one country is recognized in the others. With countries from Germany to Peru considering using open-source software, having a certified version of Linux will help break down barriers.
The companies plan to first push Red Hat Linux Advanced Server for a modest level of certification: Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) 2. In total, there are seven levels of certification attesting to varying grades of security, reliability and developmental process control. The highest level that a commercial software laboratory can certify is EAL 4, which Microsoft received for Windows 2000 last fall.
The EAL level needed by a government customer depends largely on the agency and the application in which the software will be used. On Tuesday, the Department of Defense (DOD) gave Red Hat a Common Operating Environment certification, which attests to a certain level of interoperability with other operating systems.
Oracle 9i has already been certified at EAL 4 on both Windows NT and Solaris, but has to be recertified for each operating system on which it runs. And Oracle thinks that there is a large market among government customers for the company's database running on Linux. In fact, some government clients have been clamoring for Linux, said Mary-Ann Davidson, chief security officer for Oracle.
"One of our large DOD customers asked us if we could foster a Linux evaluation," she said. "The customers truly care about getting Linux evaluated and want Oracle running on it."
There hasn't been much interest in running Oracle on Microsoft's Windows platform because of past security problems with Microsoft products, despite the company's major security push, Davidson said.
"We are going to use Unix and Linux as the evaluation platforms for our products in the future, and not Windows, because the customer demand for Windows is not there," she said. "Frankly, there is a fair amount of disenchantment with Microsoft products because of security problems."
After Red Hat earns the EAL 2 certification, Oracle plans to work toward getting its Oracle 9i Release 2 database running on the evaluated Red Hat Linux Advanced Server certified at the highest commercial rating, EAL 4. Oracle currently ships Oracle 9i Release 2 on Red Hat Linux Advanced Server as part of its Unbreakable campaign.
The final goal for both companies is to have both Red Hat's software and Oracle's software certified under the Common Criteria at EAL 4.
Oracle has tackled the process 15 times on a variety of operating systems.
The Common Criteria, an international standard administered by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the United States, grades products based not only on their security and reliability, but also on the development and support processes that ensure quick responses to problems.
Other nations that have signed the Arrangement on the Mutual Recognition of Common Criteria Certificates in the Field of IT Security are Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Greece and Israel.
The benefits of Common Criteria certification for Red Hat's Linux products should trickled down to the rest of the Linux community as well, said Dave Dargo, vice president of Oracle's Linux program office.
"The benefits of this evaluation extend beyond Red Hat in the long term," Dargo said, adding that the enterprise-level changes Red Hat and Oracle have made to the Linux kernel have made their way into Linux 2.5, the newest version of the kernel under development.
Moreover, the evaluation process, while expensive, should result in a more secure version of Linux being generally available, added Davidson.
"Fixing a major security hole costs a lot," she said. "And while certification won't prevent those holes, it helps to have a stricter development process. Finding one security hole that you otherwise would have missed, easily pays for evaluation."
$DEITY bless $NATION
Windows is certified at EAL4, and that doesn't provide much assurance of security. The article says RH and Oracle are working on EAL2, which is much weaker.
(Why does Common Criteria start to remind me of Dilbert strips about ISO 9000?)
I just read , maybe 4 days ago, that they had it. The army uses it pretty extensively too, and has been for quite some time.
If Outlook, SQL Server, IIS or any other Microsoft product which has been riddled with holes have been certified, I'd say this isn't much of an endorsement. If Microsoft hasn't achieved any such ceritification, for products listed above, than you have a point about it opening doors.
For good and for bad (for Microsoft in particular) they are the benchmark for software as a commodity. Expect some writhing in the vicinity of Redmond.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The article is very short on details, though. Starting small (EAL 2) is probably a good idea - especially since I know of no open source software / Free Software that's gone through a full, normal Common Criteria evaluation (so it would be a first test case). EAL 4 only measures the evaluation effort - it doesn't specify what security functions will be evaluated (nor what threats, assumptions, organizational security policies, configuration, etc. will be used). Hopefully Oracle and Red Hat will include security functions based on a widely-accepted "Protection Profile" (a document that specifies what the users want, including the threats to be countered and the security functions that need to be provided). Currently, the U.S. DoD strongly encourages only purchasing products that have been evaluated to meet not just an EAL level, but meet a "government-approved" PP.
Evaluations are specific to a particular configuration, so this would mean that those who need the evaluated version would need to get the Red Hat distribution named here - not the inexpensive version used by many. That's a side-effect worth noting.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Haven't we seen this about RH already? Haven't you heard of paying your employees? What you think all their (RedHat) money comes from software sales? In order for a company to make it's product succeed "$", it needs to prove that not only is it a great product but also it is a solution for an enterprise environment. That said, you need qualified, certified, and experienced candidates to perform the job. A person who acts like she or he does not need a certification; shows laziness for not going out of their way to represent their company as fully qualified professional. I think this is a great move by Red Hat, Oracle, Apple, etc. to get their product supporters certified for better business representation. Linux is now for the masses, gentlemen time to get those linux certifications and start wearing those three piece suites!
Why complain about the $800/yr/liscense? Do you realize that the government has to spend so much money on businesses to also help the economy out? Besides most of the people making the money/OS decision don't get to involved with computers, and I'm sure they have a stipulation of "free software" not being so secure, besides you can't blame anyone if you use it ;-) . Atop of that I'm sure RH could probably charge less to nothing for this BUT I look at it more as a weeding out process. Think about it, if you streamline your customer base, you narrow down the people you have to build for, because of the price, not too many businesses or people will buy for the heck of it. You should see the type of contracts the government get bought into by some lobbyists or committee members, I'm glad that the money is going to Red Hat!
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
It is a dupe of the story that is going to be posted in about 6 hours.
um, the NSA has already modified linux (the kernel) so that it will meet their standards. redhat is named as a tested distro...see this for details. The biggest problem is that the US government seems to think that they must rely on M$ software (in the unclassified environment at least) for things like exchange and ease of use for the "typical" user.
this is simple posturing at it's finest. of course...the government's high performance systems (read clusters) aren't running windows anyway. this won't change anything.
-frozen
I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
in 1918, and they've hardly bothered us since then. - Tom Lehrer
KFG
and Microsoft software passes these security certifications?...
This is a good thing as the US DoD uses ADA95 for most everything AFAIK and the GNAT compiler works just dandy with Linux. This is what DoD needs, an inexpensive, yet totally robust system which they can put unleash the military programmers on.
A good example is BRL-Cad which is available for free download by US Citizens. This is a nice OpenGL capable solid modeler, somewhat clunky, but probably better than any other free CAD program available for Linux right now.
I'm a veteran of the US Military, and I think that Linux is a great choice for them, since they have the capability to provide cheap, effective, and efficient training about their computer systems to all the members of the armed forces. The US Military could easily train several million service personnel to be effective Linux programmers in a quite short period of time.
And of course, as a taxpaying citizen, I want my armed forces buying the best weaponry, not lining some 2-bit computer software vendor's pockets, especially when those vendors undermine the rights of the citizens by channeling that money back into lobbying for laws like the DMCA.
This is where RedHat shines. I use Debian myself, but Debian is too chaotic to apply for these certifications; however, RedHat could make a killing by supplying the US Government their software, and since Linux is Linux is Linux, this gives my government the state of the art software: it is secure, it is robust, it is inexpensive, and it is the best development environment in the world!
Clickety Click
Didn't Oracle dump Windows as a strategic platform back in '95? Linux is a completely natural development path for Oracle.
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
Wow...so people actually prefer a closed-source, less-secure OS over one that is open-source and significantly more secure? Hmm...something doesn't seem to be working out correctly here...
$DEITY bless $NATION
Many questions, no answers.
Less is more !
"The Common Criteria, ..., grades products based not only on their security and reliability, but also on the development and support processes that ensure quick responses to problems."
Does that mean that the US Gov. will be officially saying that the Kernel development model is OK ?
At Oracle AppWorld, one person asked Larry Ellison if Oracle plans to provide solutions to cutting edge science research such as Molecular Dymics Simulation. His answer was No, though Oracle plans to support science research in some other way (he puts a lot of money in medical research personally).
Hearing this Q&A, I get the impression that Oracle is an enterprise software developer and they continue to be that way, but the stuff that they do is not kind of computing that requires 1024 64bit processors running simultaneously. Linux is good enough; Linux has matured enough so that it can handle enterprise software level computing, though it might not do Molecular Dynamics Simulation (yet).
So, sure, this all makes sense. Linux does what it needs to do to run an enterprise software, and certainly cheaper than Sun UltraSparc+Solaris and IBM mainframes. One thing that Linux supposedly lacks is Label, Certificate, an official Statement that says "Linux is a good OS". Oracle wants it to push Linux to corporate gulf players because these gulf players want to see "Linux Approved" stamp. Once Oracle accomplishes it, they've got all the tools to conquer the world of Enterprise Software.
This has to do with the way the VM is saved. We have tried very hard to get a true CC Linux for our contracts but the "Secure" OS needs the following:
A page of memory when freed must be cleared. This includes Virtual memory saved to disk or even laying around in memory.
Linux current does not have this. Sorry folks.
Because I like you guys, here is Alan Cox's response to an email concerning this very issue:
-------------
> 1. When a process removes itself/crashes: is the memory blocks zeroed out
> and then free'd, or does the data still remain in memory just marked free?
It remains in memory, but it will be cleared before being given to another
process if it was private memory. Much of a process of course is shared
pages in read only format (eg the binary). These pages are simply shared
and reused. If a process wrote to a copy of such a page it got a private
copy which will not be given back to someone else.
> 2. When swapping to disk and you read the block into memory and clean it
> (Zero it out), does the block on disk get immediatly updated or is it just
> marked "free" and still has the data on disk?
Linux like most OS's does a lazy rewrite when swapping. When you
swap something back into memory it is left on disk as if we have to swap
it out again it saves writing it back to disk once more. Again when we
allocate new memory to a process we erase the data so a new task always
sees empty disk blocks and empty memory (subject to there being no bugs
as is always the case).
The disk case is more complex. There are situations that ext2/ext3 like the
BSD UFS may expose data after a crash/restart. The ext3 file system supports
a slightly slower performing mode that guarantees this won't happen.
Alan Cox
---------------
What does this mean? It means Linux needs a lot of work before it has CC.
LordMage - Working to better yourself.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
but which version of RedHat are they trying to get certified?
No version you can get your hands on without spending lots of $$$ to get. redhat Advanced server is the ONLY version.. and it is also the only version that will have support available for anything but a token length of time. (remember Rh8.0 is EOL this year)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is great, if i get some money then I will create a team to secure a slackware based system, make a distribution of it and get it to pass this test. Im sure its possible.
The first announcement was Red Hat Advanced Server being approved as a Common Operating Environment. COE is an evaluation of the functionality and managabillity for use within the DoD.
This article references the Common Criteria certification attempts of Oracle and perhaps IBM, specificly EAL2. Commmon Criteria is a NIAP certification that evaluates the level of access control, user control, and logging for security purposes. It is essiential if you want to use the software in an enviornment for Secret and above material in the US. It is also accepted throughout NATO, NZ, and Austrilia thanks to some reprocity agreements.
The part where this announcement will be huge is systems requiring NIAP evaluation (particularly systems priced under 15K). Up until now SCO and Windows have been living in a protected bubble, after these evaulations come through the CC market will be much more competitive on the low end. This is a large market, I am surprised that it was not done sooner. Up until now there has just been lame announcments at FOSE.
I'm sure you can get better information out there but I'll be damned if I am going to dig it out after I submitted this two days ago with better links and it got rejected.
~~ What's stopping you?
- Oracle says, people are upset at Windows' instability, say they are coming out with Oracle on Linux.
- Linux businesses rub their hands together, tool up, and start selling
- Larry Ellison says in some sort of press conferance that you'd be nuts to run Oracle on Linux (or words to that effect)
- VA Linux, which apparently had been telling customers that it was a good idea, gets miffed
- (Customers panic?)
- VA Linux isn't selling systems any more
- Oracle says, customers are upset at Windows' insecurity, promote running on Linux
What did I miss?First, a few clarifications about the CC itself. The CC lets users pick the requirements that they want, and vendors to state the requirements they happen to meet. The CC by itself doesn't require you to have this particular requirement. Instead, what's happening is that the CC defines a standard set of security requirements, and users are supposed to then identify the requirements they believe they need (using something called a "Protection Profile" (PP)). Then vendors can show whether or not they meet them. Now, it may be true that your customers are imposing this requirement for their needs, but that's different than claiming anything general about the CC.
More specifically, I suspect you're talking about the CC requirements in FDP_RIP (Residual Information Protection). But the CC is like a Chinese Menu; whether or not users want it is determined by users, and whether or not a vendor provides it (and someone is willing to pay to evaluate the function) is another. And in the CC, even if you select FDP_RIP as a requirement, there's a choice about WHEN you erase information (it may be set by the user, or stated by the vendor).
For example, the Controlled Access Protection Profile (CAPP) corresponds more-or-less to the old "Orange Book" C2 level. There are other PPs that apply to operating systems, too. But the CAPP was used to evaluate other operating systems, so it's fair to use it as an example. The CAPP does select the CC function FDP_RIP.2, "Object Residual Information Protection" requirement, so users who are requiring CAPP will require it. But its text simply says that "The TSF shall ensure that any previous information content of a resource is made unavailable upon the allocation of the resource to all objects." There's a clarifying note in the CAPP that "Clearing the information content of resources on deallocation from objects is sufficient to satisfy this requirement, if unallocated resources will not accumulate new information until they are allocated again." It also includes a similar "Subject Residual Information Protection" requirement, stating that "The TSF shall ensure that any previous information content of a resource is made unavailable upon the allocation of the resource to all subjects." See CAPP sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4.
(Oh, a few quick definitions first for those who don't know. Oversimplifying things, think of "subject" as Linux thread/process, and "object" as data such as filesystem objects, network packets, or memory. A "TOE" is the Target of Evaluation (think "this particular version of GNU/Linux configured a particular way"), and a "TSF" is the TOE security functions (it's the subset of the system responsible for security, including the Linux kernel, processes that run as root, and setuid root programs). Go look at the CC for more official definitions; I'm just trying to give the jist.)
In the CC, users can determine if they want to require clearing data when it's deallocated, or when it's allocated. It appears that the CAPP (and probably many other PPs) only require it by the time it's allocated (the clarifying text hopefully makes it clear that you can clear it earlier, as long as you don't seep data back into it later).
Thus, even if you mean CC requirements like FDP_RIP.2, it appears that GNU/Linux may meet it as long as the PP specifies that it's just when it's allocated - a common user choice. There's no requirement in the CAPP that the erasure happen when the object/subject is freed - merely that the erasure happen some time before it's reused.
Alan Cox's response actually sounds like evidence that GNU/Linux might meet this requirement! Pages are cleared before being handed to another process - that handles one issue. Disk blocks are retrieved as empty disk blocks. And, for crashing, there's a slower mode that would probably be required for use in a secured situation - but that's okay, you just specify that for this kind of use, you have to turn on that configuration option.
There is a known bug in older Linux kernels - many network drivers don't clear out their data, so you can get some information leakage via network packets. That's already been patched (I forget when). It's worth noting that many other operating systems over the years have had that problem too, it's a standard thing to look for in an evaluation.
Of course, intentions are great, but the real test is if it really happens. An evaluation would look over the evidence to determine if it's reasonable to believe that all residual information really is getting cleared. How much effort would be expended to do this examination depends on the EAL level.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
Marketing may be a distasteful exercise to you, but I'd be willing to bet that that without the marketing that Linux has received so far, the great explosion of Linux distros, books about Linux, software tools, Linux-optimized hardware, Linux drivers, and so on would simply not exist.
If the "revolution" means Linux as a hobbyist's OS, or as a geeks-only OS, then you're right. The revolution IS over. But isn't the point of a revolution to bring your ideas into the mainstream?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
News for turds, you lovable rogue, you do love your homo-erotic fantasices, don't you? We all do, don't we? Well no, not really really. Most people don't think 'I disagree with you, I must imagine you in a homo-sexual situation'. But that is part of your individual beauty. Yes, News for turds, you are beautiful. Don't listen to your self-loathing, don't indulge in that self pity that covers you like the blanket you where so fond of when you where a minor. Face your feelings, realise your unorthadox but yet still valid sexuality. You sir, are a fighter. You, disguised as it may be, are always willing to bring to the attention of the uninitiated the fundamental yernings of the gay community, of which you are skirting the fringes. Good show. I, of the hetrosexual community, find your insights and awareness a constant and neccessary education to understanding you and yoiur brethren. Be proad, news for turds, and next time you bum your boyfriend, remember, you are not a bad person, you are merly followong the person you are.
It looks like this will be an important step in getting Linux to be more widely adopted in governments around the world.
I guess this certification is a good thing, especially in the home country of Microsoft, where the government seems to protect its own businesses quite a lot. But why would this national certification matter anything to governments around the world? If it did, how come Germany already has Gnu/Linux on their government computers?
I hope I don't offend you after your undoubtably difficult 'coming out', but I'm afraid it just isn't what I'm into. Do not dispair though, I am sure there are plenty of attractive men out there who would appreciate your forward attitute and imaginative sexually inclinations. Above all, don't loss hope! You have made your first important step into the wider world (in more ways than one!) you where always destined for. Good luck!
That certainly is a delighful picture, your obviously no stranger to auto-erotisicm, and that is good that you are so unabashed by it, but my advice to you if you wish to engage in a more meaninful relationship, try to be a little less forward. As for your repeated requests, I'm afriad I will have to turn you down again. It seems that you are getting a little obsessed by me. That is understandable, you wouldn't be the first, but your stringent efforts are, unfortunetly for you, futile. Perhaps you could put your 'unique skills' to a better use, such as displaying yourself in a 'freak show', or perhaps offering yourself to medical science. When you become a more useful member of society, I'm sure that your self-loathing will fade and you will find more fufilling avenues to expend your undoubtably expansive energy reserves.