Slashdot Mirror
EU Deadline Approaching for Microsoft
doga writes "As reported by various publications, Microsoft is facing its deadline tonight at midnight central European time. The commissioner has then to decide whether it implemented correctly the measures (windows without media player and interop documentation) or if it should be fined up to 5% of its daily sales." From the article: "European antitrust regulators, who have been at odds with Microsoft over its efforts to comply with its order, hope to make a decision by July 20 as to whether Microsoft has submitted an acceptable proposal for compliance, said Jonathan Todd, a spokesman for the European Union. That date is the last meeting of the European Commission before its summer recess."
sweet
As I type, it is approx. 14:35 PST. Add 9 hours and one gets to 23:35.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
This again? I feel like this is a new years count down, where's dick clark?
Bill Gates: "Ooh, the Germans are mad at me? I'm so scared! Oooh, the Germans!"
(ok, shamelessly stolen from The Simpsons)
The owls are not what they seem
Looking forward to it!!!!
I don't get it, if you don't like Microsoft, then use something else; why do people have to have the Government step in and tell them bad for what they are doing.
Last I check Microsoft was not pointing a gun at your head, and telling you to buy their crap.
If anything the Government should not have any, and I mean ANY say in any of it, either way. They should not be allowed to give Microsoft anything special, nor should they hold them for being a crappy business. Let the free-market decide.
You've got Apple as well, go buy a Mac; or install Linux.
Otherwise, grow up and get a life, and start hating things that mattered; like Commies, go hate them.
Yes, there have been other Slashdot stories about this. Please do not rain in a bunch of "Dupe!" posts. The difference ostensibly is that the deadline is tonight.
And no, Microsoft can't just pay the fine indefinitely because shareholders would revolt. Please none of that either. Save yourself the calculations.
bbiab I have to poo
Expect France to vote "Yes" on this one !
The deadline expires tonight.
Then, it will take a few weeks to decide on a punishment (if any).
Then a few more weeks to decide if the decision is the right one.
Then another month to decide if the decision of the decision was a good one.
Then submit it for a committee vote.
Wait - who had the decision?
I thought you had it? Where did it go?
What were we deciding upon?
I don't know. Let's hold a meeting and see if we can decide on it.
What's for lunch?
I don't know you - you decide.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Owned animation goes here.
obey or obey not , there is a large fine
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Saw this image earlier and got a good laugh.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Why don't collectivists accept the notion that individuals have a right to what they produce? A right to ownership? Maybe because they know they cannot produce.
What if the EU declared that you have to donate your second pair of Pradas to some homeless person?
Or declare that you have to give up half your dentures to someone who's lost theirs?
Or force (read: VIOLENCE) you to give up an organ?
Or force you to give up something that you have produced?
This is blatently unfair to Microsoft; an obvious exploitation of a wealthy corporation by governments. This is made obvious by the EU's 5% daily sales fine.
Is that 5% of the gross or 5% of the net?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Every distro I've tried had tones of stuff bundled with it. How should this be considered? Same as IE/WMP in Windows? Hopefully not... here are my two reasons:
1. Any other OS does not have a monopoly - different rules apply (or, to be precise - antimonopolistic rules don't apply).
2. All that extra stuff in Linux is not integrated with OS (for example AFAIR you can't uninstall IE).
What do you think? Has this problem been mentioned/discussed somewhere?
I've heard the whole spiel on the EU thing from Microsoft's point of view, as can only be gotten off the record by a personal friend (he works on Longhorn). To put it simply, Microsoft will comply with the EU's demands as they have to, and they will adapt as necessary - but there are some things on which they simply will not budge, and most of those relate to how they engineer their software.
Microsoft's internal opinion of the EU is that it is acting entirely for economical reasons, that is, selfish ones. Fining Microsoft millions means lots of needed cash for some of the EU members whose economies aren't doing too hot. It also means the apprecation of Microsoft's competitors in the region (Real, Apple, etc.) who would, to use my friend's phrase, "line their (the EU's) coffers with cash."
Incidentally, Microsoft is perfectly capable of pulling its business completely out of EU nations, though that is of course an absolute last option. Note that such a move would be disastrous for consumers there (and don't think for a second that it wouldn't be), but Microsoft would continue as ever.
The coolest voice ever.
00:00! Time's up!
Go fuck yourself and your felonious President-Vice Richard B. Cheney. You both should be impeached, tried, and sentenced for your http://www.whitehouse.org/">Culture of Life.
My ass.
Thanks for nothing,
Kilgore Trout, CEO
... but the realy question is, when will we know what or if MS submitted a new proposal?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
People brushing these things off always seem to ignore or forget the fact that trustbuilding is illegal. You don't think the government should be limiting abuse of markets, or taking steps to halt anticompetitive behavior, or busting trusts? Fine. The proper thing to do then would be complain to the lawmakers, and try to get the law changed. The proper thing to do would not be to whine about the poor abused multibillion dollar monopolies when people decide, hey, we're going to start actually considering enforcing the laws on the books now.
Microsoft was been unfairly treated? How so? How were they "treated" at all? In the Netscape case the government found them guilty and then walked away without doing one damn thing to them. How often does that happen? Looks to me like they got the treatment of royalty.
Though I prefer Netscape/Mozilla to IE, I thought the arguments about a browser monopoly were quite foolish.
And the fact that the browser with 90%ish market share has been able to effectively halt work on and adoption spread of open standards such as CSS2 or SVG is just a coincidence? As is the way that the messy derailing of Java as an application platform immediately followed that same browser/os company all but by their own hand preventing the widespread adoption of versions past the very primitive 1.1 or so?
This is blatently unfair to Microsoft; an obvious exploitation of a wealthy corporation by governments. This is made obvious by the EU's 5% daily sales fine.
If that was what the EU was after, they'd have implemented the fine at violation, rather than as an absolute absolute last resort after over a year of deliberation, delay, pussyfooting, and giving Microsoft chance after chance to comply with the law.
Considering Microsoft tried to destroy the Web.
IE would have stopped talking to Apache and slowly broke the web. This was their strategy.
IE talking to IIS servers on WinOS only, think of the insane liscensing costs of even a small server farm.
The Web is worth nillions, 5% of M$ daily sales is chump change considering the loss to Commerce Worldwide.
Now of course Governments shouldn't stick their noses in, but the courts should and did when a monopoly behaves illegally just like for any other crime - it is a legal matter and was pursued as such.
This is why Netscape went Open Source, because Microsoft was buying the web and Netscape realised its server business, where the money was, would be over when IE had blanket coverage and Netscape couldn't afford the developers to fight back.
Microsoft commited a crime, they broke the law and they still are, they should be punished and the punishment should fit the crime - it is pretty small ion fact, as evidenced by Microsoft completely ignoring it.
If only America had the balls to follow suit they might be brought to heel, if not break 'em up, just like Ma Bell.
Massive monopolies do not a healthy market economy make.
if the 5% would be destinated for the 3rd world or for cancer research, or...
but apparently it's just another case of business warfare
What would all you microsoft-bashers say if it was linux instead of Windows? Let's not bash the company, let's bash their business practices.
Microsoft's business model depends entirely on the idea of denying its potential competitors funding in order to prevent their future viability. If the EU became a "No MS zone" by Microsoft's own choice, that would be more than enough funding to support a viable competitor, hell, to support any number of viable competitors. Those viable competitors would then inevitably wind up selling in the U.S., and unable to deny them a market-- because it would no longer be able to impact the market in which they are rooted, in the EU, in any way-- Microsoft would have to compete on the merits of their own product, something they can't and don't do.
Microsoft wouldn't pull out of the EU. The money they'd lose by pulling out of the EU would of course be effectively irrelivant; Microsoft has money to burn. But the control they'd lose by pulling out of the EU would be, to Microsoft, unacceptable.
I do not apologize for the amount of space in this letter I intend to devote to telling you about Microsoft. In the text that follows, when I quote from Microsoft, I will use the word "excrement" in place of another word which is now apparently permitted in general circulation publications, and which I have edited out. It saddens me that I have to laugh when Microsoft says that it is its moral imperative to create division in the name of diversity. Where in the world did it get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but if it wants to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis, let it wear the opprobrium of that decision. It is important to differentiate between unregenerate, untrustworthy ruffians and filthy dorks who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Microsoft's bleeding-heart teachings, or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Microsoft's bootlickers, or who maintain contact with Microsoft as part of serious and legitimate research.
Microsoft insists that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. If I am correct that Microsoft throws the word "proconstitutionalism" around as if it had the same meaning to everyone, then its insults are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth.
Microsoft has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever it thinks that means) to prove that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that it would be nugatory to discuss Microsoft's opinions without first mentioning that Microsoft's newsgroup postings are colored by a sycophantic adoration of nepotism. But there's the rub; if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. Microsoft's reports emphasize the formation of small units of xenophobic cronies that can avoid detection by authorities, strike quickly and disperse, and, to some extent, subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria. We can therefore extrapolate that if Microsoft wanted to, it could parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. It could exert more and more control over other individuals. And it could advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively batty. We must not allow Microsoft to do any of these. I feel no more personal hatred for Microsoft than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. What's more, if everyone does his own, small part, together we can resolve a number of lingering problems.
It would be wrong to imply that Microsoft is involved in some kind of conspiracy to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. It would be wrong because its plans for the future are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but several things it has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of its that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how distasteful paper-pushers and the worst classes of backwards bourgeoisie I've ever seen should rule this country. There are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent Microsoft has tried to brand me as featherbrained. The other is whether or not the parasitism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, disorganized attack on progressive ideas. Quite frankly, when I'm through with Microsoft, it'll think twice before attempting to supplant national heroes with what I call brain-damaged-to-the-core, deplorable proponents of phallocentrism.
Judging by the
Microsoft's business model depends entirely on the idea of denying its potential competitors funding in order to prevent their future viability.
If you seriously believe that this is all that Microsoft's business model consists of, you are a fool.
Why can microsoft not go 'Oh yes, you may have ruled against us as an EU court, but your laws do not apply where we are located. Ask GW.'
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
OK so MS are a monopolist. This position would have caused them to become lazy, complacent, expensive and they would have driven customers away. The government forcing them to change their ways will simply prolong the time they hold the monopoly for.
Commies don't matter BTW, don't you understand your own liberal free market argument?
Deleted
All the while Linux and Mac users enjoy all the bundled software that comes for free with their OSs.
All I have to do on an OS.X boxen to get rid of Safari is to move the app to the trash can. Internet Exporer for Windows is wired into the OS in such a way as to make it very hard to remove. The same apparently applies to Media Player 10. Some of the bundled software on a Mac is provided by other companies than Apple. You do have a point in that Apple provides programs like iDVD, iMovie and iPhoto but at least none of them is hard wired into the OS.
Linux and Apple do not hold monopolies on their markets, so even if they wanted to, they can't break the relevant laws. The findings in the US and Europe were that M$ has broken those laws, and even a casual familiarity with their business practices would hardly leave anyone in doubt!
If M$ won't respect the law, they should be penalised. Of course, I'd rather see them penalised by a total market boycott, but that probably assumes an unrealistic level of common sense from their customers and potential customers...
you had me at #!
WTF is this, elementary school?? Why can't my job have a summer recess?? Milk and cookies before nap time would be great too. Oh, and I'd like to meet the cutie from accounting out on the shipping and receiving dock after hours so we can share cooties.
This *is* funny!
Yankees do never get euro-jokes...
You mean: MS Proposal service pack 1 ?
Is this the deadline for compliance or for submitting a proposal that would hopefully eventually result in compliance?
Wasn't the old Euro-socialist arguement that competition was bad for consumers and employees, and therefore it was natural that industry be nationalized, and monopolies be created?
When did the Euro love affair with monopolies end? Or is this anti-Americanism disguised as free-marketism? Seems to me a 100% monopoly on health care services, or airline travel, is a lot more disturbing, dangerous, and anti-democratic than bundling an audio player in an OS with maybe a 70% market share.
For me, it comes down to deceptive practices.
I'm a big advocate of the free market. I really don't care if a company is a monopoly, or forms trusts, or price-fixes, or anything else like that. They can charge what they want for whatever they want. People can make all the deals they want with each other as long as it's honest and out in the open.
But microsoft doesn't play that way. They're behavior can be manipulative and dishonest and for me, that means it's open-season on them.
Consider what happened with DR-DOS. Microsoft basically deceived people into believing the DR-DOS was fundamentally incompatible with Windows 3.1.
Now it would have been different if they had been honest and said that they simply refuse to let Windows run on DR-DOS. But they weren't.
Here is what was in an email concerning how they would handle competing DOSes:
Microsoft's David Cole emailed Phil Barrett on September 30 1991: "It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS DOS or an OEM version of it," and "The approach we will take is to detect DR DOS 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be something like 'Invalid device driver interface."
That's deception.
And what about "upgrades" to Media Player that refused to handle the Real Player format after earlier versions supported it? How is that an upgrade? And why doesn't an "upgrade" that stops supporting Real Player format not restore file associations so that people can at least continue to use the format with Real's own player?
All of a sudden, after an "upgrade" people can't play the format anymore and most don't know how to restore the file associations.
How is that an "upgrade"? It's not. It's more deception.
And what about their handling of Java? Again, they lied. When you say you implement Java, then you had better implement it, damn it. You don't claim to support some special Microsoft only version of it.
There are so many other examples.
So, yes, the free market is great and it's the best system in the world, but it only works when you come down hard on fraud and deception.
Which, in this case means coming down hard on Microsoft.
Sorry but your friend working on Longhorn is hardly unbiased isn't he? So there are things that MS won't budge on heh? Well they are about to get the lesson in sovereign nations. I doubt very much that MS will take their ball and go home and right off a market of 400 million people.
Additionally, it is within the scope for them, should MSFT refuse to comply, to take those fines and use them to replace all software and OS on all computers in schools, universities, and government with open source competitors.
After all, what's fair for the gander is fair for the fois gras.
[caveat - I own shares of MSFT, Nokia, and RHAT and thus can't make up my mind if this is good or bad]
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
try posting again....
Or are you just mentally challenged and we should send you a brownie?
"What would be fair is if microsoft just let the vendor decide which OS they want to ship for which proportion of their PCs. Microsoft is pointing a gun at the PC vendors heads and telling them what to sell."
No, Microsoft is offereing them terms in a free market. It has nothing to do with physical coercion. Either party is free to walk away from the table.
"Microsoft is a bully to everyone it deals with, and it's time that the bully is dealt with by those who have the power to do it."
Now these people you speak of have real guns, and are using them to deprive MS executives of real liberties. Who is the real bully?
Vote for Pedro
Where is this '5% of its daily sales' fine figure coming from? Every previous article I've seen on this topic, including the one pointed to by this story, says a flat $5 million a day fine.
And $5 million a day is chump change for Microsoft. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to start looking at Microsoft's financial statements.
I bet they spend more than that on toilet paper for company restrooms.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I acknowledge your input and reiterate that Microsoft is clearly an enemy to the computing world. But how does requiring a "Reduced Media Edition" help with the above-stated problem? It just scales back what they offer with the OS, when as far as I can tell, most of the trust/monopoly complaints are about the operating system itself (integration of IE with the OS, breaking competitors software).
In order to level the playing field for software development, the Windows OS must be standardized somehow (that is, Microsoft cannot intentionally make changes for the purpose of squashing to competition). How does the action of the EU actually reduce Microsoft's monolithic stature?
Furthermore, is such a steep monetary fine justified for the damage that Microsoft actually causes to its competitors? Notice that many of the apps which challenge MS products (Mozilla, Opera, Winamp, VLC) are available free of charge. Furthermore, the implicit goal of many of these (especially the Open Source projects - think Firefox) is to destroy Microsoft's market share in each respective category. So Microsoft's damage to the computing community cannot be measured so easily in pounds and pence. So why is the EU charging them so much money? Use your imagination.
Yes, Microsoft is involved in "unfair" business practices. But nailing them for IE and Windows Media Player is sort of like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion.
What changes reducing the use of Microsoft products would make in them is another question altogether, and there are better reasons for controlling MS' behaviour than to gain the income from fines.
Disclaimer: I'm typing this from Firefox on Windows 2K (I have a few apps specific to work that won't run under WINE, and I don't have the skill to get them running...yet), while VNCing into my linux (Gentoo..yay) development server and SSHing into my MacOS X server, all just trying to do my job as best I can. So I'm running an MS product, but I'm running Win2K because I find XP ridiculous.
I hate MS as much as the next guy. I'm also a US citizen (just FYI). Quite frankly, I don't see any good coming from this. MS can easily afford the fine. 5% of daily sales may as well be a Euro to MS. And if there's one thing I've learned, its that corporations don't pay these fines. Their customers do. MS won't blink at increasing their costs to cover the fine and maintain profit margins. They can do this because they are a MONOPOLY! For the fine to be meaningful, I think it has to be on the order of 90%. I'm sure they'd find a way to unbundle real quickly then. Look at tobacco companies in the US. They didn't even consider changing their practices until the lawsuits started costing them billions per fiscal quarter.
I could be wrong. But I truly believe those rat bastards will find a way to pass the costs onto the consumer.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll wipe out the species.
..start firing EU workers and moving jobs elsewhere until the EU relents.
I have to eat your poo
Microsoft Shall Die!!! (We wish)
Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
A browser monopoly is not foolish at all. It means that if Microsoft has the top browser, they also control the internet. I don't want MS to control the internet... it is commercialized enough already. Look at how many bad/annoying/non-comforming web sites came about because of using IE-only quirky programming. Might be unfair to MS, if you look at it that way. I say it's completely fair to the end user, and in my book, that's all that counts.
Meh.
Europe has no right to levy a fine of that magnitude on an American company.
Don't pay any fines.
Dump the software on Europe for free as in beer to continue to lock the market in.
Europe is hell bent on starting a trade war. The Bush administration should intervene on Microsoft's behalf and place sanctions all European technology companies in retaliation.
Ban SAP and Business Objects in the United States.
This is my sig.
Business practices is what defines a company.
Bash the company.
Bash it's partners
Bash Dell, HP, and Gateway that support Microsoft's monopoly.
"...if [Microsoft] should be fined up to 5% of its daily sales."
In other news, Microsoft's European software prices are expected to increase by 5-7% this week...
I can't speak for macs but at least on the linux side of things from what I have seen is that I have a choice of what apps I want to use.. I can uninstall things I don't like and use what ever I do.
Also there is that little bit about all that bundeled software actually being developed by others beside those putting out the GNU/linux distro. Bundeling Firefox or Openoffice does not interfere with say gnome office or opera as they are all seperate entities then the particular linux distributor.
In the end I have a choice with GNU/linux.. MSFT effectivly removes that choice from me with windows, as the browser is part of the OS and can not be removed etc, etc.. I won't rehash everything that is already out about the problems with windows and the misdeeds of MSFT.
gives a damn?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
full of toilet paper, that comes out to 17 Libraries of Congress of toilet paper per day.
The constitution vote went 'No' in France, and it will do the same in the Netherlands.
We can hope this now means the dried husk of 'EU' bureaucrats will blow away in the next high wind.
Microsoft could rise product prices by 5% -:).
In this case, MS has been trying to use its desktop monopoly to break into multimedia and kickstart a monopoly using the WMV and WMA formats by bundling vector (WMP) on Windows. MS was told to stop that illegal, anti-freemarket activity and ship a version of Windows not locked into WMV or WMA.
That version is called now XP Home Edition N (MS tried to call it Reduced Media Edition) and it is broken. Of course, Windows Media Player, the vector to spread WMA and WMV, is absent as required by the court. But MS has also removed the rest of the libraries needed for other media players to use Windows. That in itself is contempt.
The 5% fine is too small. MS has dragged on this case for years, each day hurts competition and the free market. Now MS is dragging on the punishment. The strategy is if it is able to wait long enough the problem goes away on its own.Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
> Where is this '5% of its daily sales' fine figure coming from? Every previous article I've seen on this topic, including the one pointed to by this story, says a flat $5 million a day fine.
? reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN &guiLanguage=en
The ruling states "The Commission has the power to force changes in company behaviour and to impose financial penalties for antitrust violations of up to 10% of their annual turnover worldwide."
http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do
This fine is the most ridiculus claim I have heard in a while. If "Windows" media player can no longer be given for FREE when you buy/install windows, then why should they stop there? Why not get rid of windows taskbar, because there are alternative task bars available. Then you'll need to get rid of your wallpaper and desktop so companies can compete in that sector.
The US economy and currency is dropping like a rock, the US is hated wordwide, and Microsoft software is poorly coded bloatware to start with.
Microsoft are criminals that have abused their monopoly for far too long, but a company that rich needs to charged money and maybe put some people of the high council in jail.
I dont see why they make a big deal out of WMP and IE. The real problem is fud campaigns, lieing/deciving, abuse of patents and copyright, property file formats, intentionally breaking standards, refusing open standards, etc and doing everything in their power to lockout possible competition. Holding companies that build and sell PC's by a iron fist, forcing them to either ship all computers with Windows or to get put out of bussiness.
It is organisated crime like a mafia disguised in a corporate business company/structure.
I would love to see the EU take out huge fines from Microsoft and banning their products from EU.
Sure would be difficult times at the begining but wouldnt take long for people to realize Linux has been sitting there waiting for them all the time.
It would evolve at rapid pace with all new users and contributers and it would spread like wild fire.
Wouldnt take long before Asia, Africa, etc see what is going on and jumps on the train.
At that point, Microsoft wouldnt even last in the US, since american developers would start developing more and more for the Linux platform while more and more starts migrating to Linux.
I remember that I downloaded versions of IE for myself just because I thought that it was the best browser in the market at the time that I could get for free.
Whether IE would have as big marketshare if it hadn't bundled it with windows is doubtful, but then again, Microsoft wouldn't have put their browser team into cryosleep or whatever it was if it hadn't kept it's marketshare as long as it did.
The same's true for MS' media players - They were free (as in beer), fast and reliable compared to the two main competitors at the time - Quicktime and RealPlayer.
Even now, I don't see much reason to use either non-MS software with Real alternative and quick alternative (or whatever their names were) codec packs. Unless of course, I want to pay a lot of money or watch a lot of happy ads.
Though currently I don't use either IE or WMP but that's because open source software got past them in quality.
I'd like to remind you that Microsoft actually was found guilty in the USA, too. But then what happened? The judge was removed, and Microsoft had a deal with USA government.
Another point: the company that sued Microsoft here in EU is American.
So please stop anti-EU flames.
Pitchforks? Come on, Redmond is in the USA where you can get flamethrowers from vending machines! We'll just fly there and stock up on the way to Redmond.
Does anyone know whether any supermarket chain currently has subtactical nukes on sale?
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Stop off in Seattle and you can pick up a certified organic implosion-type bomb with Pu derived only from ecologically sound mining practices, and explosive lenses with low VOC content and no environmental oestrogens!
walmart
I am Spartacus