Have you looked around lately? Every single (public) entity on the planet seems to be doing this or that for climate change. There's a huge storm of attention for environmental issues and Al Gore deserves credit for a large part of it. (Although as usual with this sort of thing, he may just have been the guy riding the wave) I'm not saying it's all beautiful and perfect and we should all join in. To be honest, the whole thing feels superficial to me, and pushing past some very important and subtle points in all its momentum, however, there is a major surge in environmentalism, and Al Gore is the name that's associated with it.
As for the other point; no, Al Gore has done nothing for peace. In recent years, the Nobel peace price was has been extended to include other activism, such as environmentalism, fighting poverty, human rights, etc. Last year,
Mohammed Yunus won it for the principle of micro-credit, which has greatly helped to reduce poverty. One of the possible winners this year, who was up for actual peace-related activities was Bono. I'll take Al Gore over that any day of the week. They even balanced it out nicely by giving to Al Gore for the public side of things, and the UN panel for the political side of things.
I agree that Lucene is a great choice specifically for java shops, it does have ports for pretty much all major languages. The java implementation is the 'mothership' but you can use lucene with php, python,.NET or C++ or whatever.
Secondly, I'd like to point out Lemur. It's an indexing engine similar to Lucene, but geared much more toward the language modeling approach of information retrieval. All IR approaches will use either a vector space based approach or a language model approach. Lucene does vector space very well, but it's difficult to get it to do language model based retrieval (although extensions are available), Lemur can do both. Lemur also has Indri, a search engine written on top of Lemur, which can parse html, PDF and xml. And like Lucene, Lemur has multiple language ports of the API.
A final point I would like to make is that IR is a very actively researched field. If you're going to do your own coding (specifically the retrieval model), I suggest you buy a book and get reading. Most of the basic problems (and there are many) have been figured out and it'll save you a lot of trouble if you just read up on how to update an index or find spelling suggestions, instead of figuring it out for yourself. It's possible to index your documents with Lucene and run searches on them in half an afternoon, but it takes some basic knowledge to get it right, and make the app useful. (Look at wikipedia's search for an example of what you get when you don't follow through, and stop after it seems to work ok).
I know that postfix runs chroot (in a lot of distro's anyway). I figured they had some solid technical reason for this, but it turns out they actually use this as asecurity mechanism (see here). They know that chroot jails can be broken out of, but they claim that 'every little bit helps'. My intuition says that 'every little bit helps' is not an effective way to think about security, though.
So is the point of chroot safety rather than security? Ie. used to circumvent the "don't do stuff as root, because mistakes can have bad consequences" thing? I'm not intimately familiar with chroot, but this is how I understand it. It's possible to break out of a chroot jail (therefore don't use it for security), but it's unlikely that you'll do so accidentally (therefore feel free to use it for safety).
I agree, if some FOSS project had accidentally used copyrighted code, all we would expect is for them to remove the code and apologize. If the copyright holder started suing for cash on day one, we'd scream bloody murder. This is the exact same thing, they found out about the violation, and took the necessary steps. (Of course, it did get to court, so I expect they put up some resistance, but that's just the way businesses work I guess; prove that you're serious, and we'll get off our asses.
I would be very surprised (and a little annoyed) if they don't use this as the basic mechanism behind their validation scheme. This preserves the freedom of editing, and greatly decreases the probability that somebody reading Wikipedia will see a vandalized/substandard version of an article. Rather than merging changes from one branch to the other, like in software development, however, I think WP would be better off tagging a version of an article as stable, and keeping the latest version as unstable.
The main problem is who decides when an article or section should go stable? This is where the complicated algorithms come in. One of the most important principles of wikipedia is that authority counts for absolutely nothing. People complain that wikipedia makes no use of experts, but that's not true. It simply will not view additions by experts just because they are experts. Everybody is equal. This should be reflected in the validation scheme. So many proposals have teams of fact checkers and domain experts, which is very much unlike Wikipedia. An automated trust network (like the one described in the article) should be used to assign contributors a trust rating, and then let people vote on the validity of an article or section.
It's almost degrading to women that people keep bringing this stuff up. Condescending might be the right word. Like when someone feels the need to comment about how well Colin Powell speaks. There's an unspoken 'and he's black' that is left hanging for the listener to fill in by themselves.
I always fill that in with 'and he was in the Bush administration.'
It can hardly be called a Linux clone if it uses a different kernel.
Actually, it can. If it used the Linux kernel, it would be a distribution.
I find such valuable ways to use my time...
Re:Doesn't work with Firefox 1.5.x.x
on
Firefox Quickies
·
· Score: 1
So you're saying that running an unsupported version is better than risking this minor exploit which only affects ie users that have firefox installed (so pretty much noone) and will probably be fixed in a couple of days by Mozilla, even if it isn't their bug. Yeah, sticking with 1.5 is the way to go.
You're right, at this point Office is the market leader not just by virtue of vendor lock-in, but also because they're way ahead of anything. OpenOffice is OK, but Office these days is actually good software, and developing rapidly. It's also expensive, and it's the one product that Microsoft can't drop their prices on. Pretty much all of Microsoft's loss-leading products are funded by their Office earnings. So if you're just opening a one-man webdesign shop, OpenOffice is plenty for the average spreadsheet or word doc that someone sends you, as long as you're sure you'll be able to open them. And a userbase builds a product. The more OpenOffice (or any other competitor) gets used, the faster it grows.
Another advantage of opening up the market is that people will at least consider taking on Office. Two years ago, a startup creating anything remotely related to an Office product would never get funded. Companies providing support for OpenOffice of KOffice would never get out of their niches. Now, the market is opening up, and we can at least try. It will be hugely difficult to beat Office, considering the amount of capital and power behind it, but can be done. And with an open market, if Microsoft manages to stay in the lead, then good for them. That it probably means they have a good product for a good price. But this time they will have earned their position.
And a final note. Microsoft may have all the money and power in the world to throw at Office, and be maniacally paranoid about keeping their lead, but the great thing about software is that it's very easy for the Davids to defeat the Goliaths. Nine women can't make a baby in one month. Throwing money and developers at a project usually helps only very little. A team of twenty very good programmers, that work together well, communicate well, and believe in the project could probably come up with a competitive basic Office suite in a couple of years. And Microsoft can throw all the money they want at their team, it won't replicate that force. The only thing that will match that is good management and a good team. Of course, that's pretty much what Office has, but certain development power can't be manufactured. So it'll be difficult to beat Office (Firefox vs. IE is a walk in the park compared to this one), but it can be done.
Because this is the first crack in the dam of Microsoft's vendor lock-in. If Massachusetts stores and releases all government material in an open format, then Microsoft must support that format, or lose a lot of business. Remember that Massachusetts is the home of MIT, lots of businesses there that care about government regulation. And once a couple businesses in Massachusetts stop using office, it can spread. They email some document to another company across the globe, in ODF, then that company comes into contact with ODF, and it will have to either install separate software for it, or even switch away from office, if Microsoft still refuses to support ODF.
Of course, if they do support ODF, then they lose their vendor lock-in outright. No problem switching to OpenOffice if all your clients have Office, just send your stuff in ODF, and they can open it. Microsoft chose the one way out that would let them have some control, develop their own open standard, and lobby like mad to get everyone to use that instead of ODF. That way, at least they own the standard, and that's what Microsoft's always been after.
I looked at them both (and many others), but Joomla still uses table based layouts. You can hack stuff together to get around this, and it'll disappear in future releases, but that's not good enough for me. I simply couldn't bear it if people looked at the source for my websites and saw td's and tr's all over the place. I know what my conclusion is when I see a website like that. So I use Drupal, which has perfect div-based html out of the box.
Exec 1: But what if people try to steal our valuable pictures of processor cooling equipment? Exec 2: Think of the revenue we'll lose! Exec 1: We'd better paste our logo full size into the middle of the images, over their content. Exec 2: FANTASTIC! This internet stuff is easy.
Seems to me like they don't claim causation. They propose a solution based on a third factor being the cause behind both effects (hormone level during prenatal development). I don't see any problem with that. In fact, this 'third cause' is quite often the actual situation when cause/correlation fallacies are made.
Programmer: We've finished your face recognition system. We estimate its error to be about 0.5 percent. Politician: Can the technobabble, nerd. Roll it out. We need to catch us some t'rists. Leftist Media: "Middle-Eastern man unfairly jailed, tortured" Politician: Sue the programmers! Damn geeks. Technology is evil!
"State approved" doesn't make much sense in this context, but the sentiment still holds. What if the content holder produces a horrible translation? Case in point, the movie Ghost in the Shell: Innocence. A movie, ten years in the making, highly anticipated by fans of the original, clearly extreme attention to detail. Go Fish, a Dreamworks distributor gets the American distribution rights, and includes only English subtitles for people that are hard of hearing. That means that while you're looking at a chopper flying over a majestic, surreal city scape, and hearing perfect 5.1 sound effects, a subtitle "[HELICOPTER SOUNDS]" fills the bottom third of your screen, ruining the whole thing. Every part of the ten year production process handled with extreme amounts of care, and the final experience gets fucked up, because some distributor wants to save a couple of bucks (or is just plain incompetent, I can't really tell).
So what if you've waited anxiously for this release for ten years, and this is the result? You want to see the movie, but you want to get the best possible experience. Luckily, I waited for the European release (not by Dreamworks) which more than made up for it, but if I had bought the American DVD, I would've ripped the DVD and downloaded a proper sub. I realize that that has to be illegal because it is inherently incompatible with the idea of copyright, but I can't exactly say I would feel guilty about it.
The important thing to note here is that BSG was never intended to have more than five seasons. Ronald D. Moore wrote a story with an end, and he was never going to go beyond that. After season 3, he said that he would prefer to tell the remainder of the story over 2 seasons, but he would rather compress it into one season, than risk BSG getting canceled before its time. This is not a case of the evil network executives killing of the poor misunderstood artist's life work. I expect they took the above into consideration, talked with Moore, and figured out a way for him to tell his story (probably in combination with the announced dvd movie) without them having to pay too much.
So this is not like Enterprise, or Futurama, or Firefly, it's simply a story coming to an end as it should.
The reason that voyager got seven seasons, and so many infinitely better series didn't was, I think because Voyager refrained from playing too much to the loyal viewers. Great shows use the tv show medium to tell one great story that becomes a part of your life, because you see the characters every week. Mediocre tv shows use the medium simply to tell 22 small stories a year. Voyager may have looked at times like it had character development (two characters that dislike each other crash land on a planet and are only rescued at the last minute, how refreshing!), but it never actually affected the main story in any meaningful way. That made the show extremely boring and annoying to watch loyally every week for years, but it made it a nice bit of entertainment to tune into every now and then when you're in the mood for it. That means it's never going to be great, but you will get the (apathetic) viewers you need. This is the way tv has worked since it started. Only recently has it been used to tell one proper story over several years.
But that's the whole point. You can't talk about the importance of freedom and then not allow people to dismiss it. It's like how democracy is the only political system that can be legally ended, if someone who opposes democracy gets elected and changes the system. Some people say this is a weakness of democracy and there should be laws to defend against such cases. The truth is that it's not a weakness of democracy, but a strength. Everything about societies based on the ideals of the French revolution is designed to maintain the sovereignty of the people. If the system doesn't work, we are free to change it. This freedom is a fundamental quality of our society.
The same thing goes for freedom of thought. There may be people that don't believe in it, and they should be free to believe that. Freedom is ultimately about discovering new things about the world and about ourselves. Freedom means not closing off any avenues. That also means allowing people to not believe in absolute freedom. So, when an Islamic fundamentalist comes to a western country, it's important that he understands the ideals behind its society, but I think that a lot of western people could do with some more education in that respect too. What we cannot do, is tell someone how thought is free in our country, and he should believe that too, or we won't let him. How much is he going to respect those ideals then?
And when it comes to actual changes to the core values of western societies, it's not the immigrants that I'm worried about. I'm worried about the non-immigrant conservatives. If I see what conservative Christians, combined with the corporate world are doing to the values that America is always preaching about, the fundamentalist immigrants are not our biggest concern when it comes to freedom.
The concept of 'learning values' doesn't scare you? I know this can be interpreted as wanting people to be aware of a certain set of values and being able to understand them, which is probably a good thing. Unfortunately in my experience, even when this is the original intention, the steps to forcing people to adopt western values, to forcing people to adopt a very specific subset of western values to a full blown prescribed ideology are very small, and quickly taken.
Who's to say what 'western values' means? Do I get to pick or do you? The only one that I really value above anything else is the freedom of thought. That's also the one that really doesn't mix well with learning values before you get to live somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you looked around lately? Every single (public) entity on the planet seems to be doing this or that for climate change. There's a huge storm of attention for environmental issues and Al Gore deserves credit for a large part of it. (Although as usual with this sort of thing, he may just have been the guy riding the wave) I'm not saying it's all beautiful and perfect and we should all join in. To be honest, the whole thing feels superficial to me, and pushing past some very important and subtle points in all its momentum, however, there is a major surge in environmentalism, and Al Gore is the name that's associated with it.
As for the other point; no, Al Gore has done nothing for peace. In recent years, the Nobel peace price was has been extended to include other activism, such as environmentalism, fighting poverty, human rights, etc. Last year, Mohammed Yunus won it for the principle of micro-credit, which has greatly helped to reduce poverty. One of the possible winners this year, who was up for actual peace-related activities was Bono. I'll take Al Gore over that any day of the week. They even balanced it out nicely by giving to Al Gore for the public side of things, and the UN panel for the political side of things.
I agree that Lucene is a great choice specifically for java shops, it does have ports for pretty much all major languages. The java implementation is the 'mothership' but you can use lucene with php, python, .NET or C++ or whatever.
Secondly, I'd like to point out Lemur. It's an indexing engine similar to Lucene, but geared much more toward the language modeling approach of information retrieval. All IR approaches will use either a vector space based approach or a language model approach. Lucene does vector space very well, but it's difficult to get it to do language model based retrieval (although extensions are available), Lemur can do both. Lemur also has Indri, a search engine written on top of Lemur, which can parse html, PDF and xml. And like Lucene, Lemur has multiple language ports of the API.
A final point I would like to make is that IR is a very actively researched field. If you're going to do your own coding (specifically the retrieval model), I suggest you buy a book and get reading. Most of the basic problems (and there are many) have been figured out and it'll save you a lot of trouble if you just read up on how to update an index or find spelling suggestions, instead of figuring it out for yourself. It's possible to index your documents with Lucene and run searches on them in half an afternoon, but it takes some basic knowledge to get it right, and make the app useful. (Look at wikipedia's search for an example of what you get when you don't follow through, and stop after it seems to work ok).
I know that postfix runs chroot (in a lot of distro's anyway). I figured they had some solid technical reason for this, but it turns out they actually use this as asecurity mechanism (see here). They know that chroot jails can be broken out of, but they claim that 'every little bit helps'. My intuition says that 'every little bit helps' is not an effective way to think about security, though.
So is the point of chroot safety rather than security? Ie. used to circumvent the "don't do stuff as root, because mistakes can have bad consequences" thing? I'm not intimately familiar with chroot, but this is how I understand it. It's possible to break out of a chroot jail (therefore don't use it for security), but it's unlikely that you'll do so accidentally (therefore feel free to use it for safety).
Is that about right?
I agree, if some FOSS project had accidentally used copyrighted code, all we would expect is for them to remove the code and apologize. If the copyright holder started suing for cash on day one, we'd scream bloody murder. This is the exact same thing, they found out about the violation, and took the necessary steps. (Of course, it did get to court, so I expect they put up some resistance, but that's just the way businesses work I guess; prove that you're serious, and we'll get off our asses.
I would be very surprised (and a little annoyed) if they don't use this as the basic mechanism behind their validation scheme. This preserves the freedom of editing, and greatly decreases the probability that somebody reading Wikipedia will see a vandalized/substandard version of an article. Rather than merging changes from one branch to the other, like in software development, however, I think WP would be better off tagging a version of an article as stable, and keeping the latest version as unstable.
The main problem is who decides when an article or section should go stable? This is where the complicated algorithms come in. One of the most important principles of wikipedia is that authority counts for absolutely nothing. People complain that wikipedia makes no use of experts, but that's not true. It simply will not view additions by experts just because they are experts. Everybody is equal. This should be reflected in the validation scheme. So many proposals have teams of fact checkers and domain experts, which is very much unlike Wikipedia. An automated trust network (like the one described in the article) should be used to assign contributors a trust rating, and then let people vote on the validity of an article or section.
I should also point out that none of this is new. Most of these ideas have been in the pipeline for years. Check out http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_validation_proposals#Automated_Trust_Networks for a list of proposed validation schemes.
I always fill that in with 'and he was in the Bush administration.'
Actually, it can. If it used the Linux kernel, it would be a distribution.
I find such valuable ways to use my time...
So you're saying that running an unsupported version is better than risking this minor exploit which only affects ie users that have firefox installed (so pretty much noone) and will probably be fixed in a couple of days by Mozilla, even if it isn't their bug. Yeah, sticking with 1.5 is the way to go.
You're right, at this point Office is the market leader not just by virtue of vendor lock-in, but also because they're way ahead of anything. OpenOffice is OK, but Office these days is actually good software, and developing rapidly. It's also expensive, and it's the one product that Microsoft can't drop their prices on. Pretty much all of Microsoft's loss-leading products are funded by their Office earnings. So if you're just opening a one-man webdesign shop, OpenOffice is plenty for the average spreadsheet or word doc that someone sends you, as long as you're sure you'll be able to open them. And a userbase builds a product. The more OpenOffice (or any other competitor) gets used, the faster it grows.
Another advantage of opening up the market is that people will at least consider taking on Office. Two years ago, a startup creating anything remotely related to an Office product would never get funded. Companies providing support for OpenOffice of KOffice would never get out of their niches. Now, the market is opening up, and we can at least try. It will be hugely difficult to beat Office, considering the amount of capital and power behind it, but can be done. And with an open market, if Microsoft manages to stay in the lead, then good for them. That it probably means they have a good product for a good price. But this time they will have earned their position.
And a final note. Microsoft may have all the money and power in the world to throw at Office, and be maniacally paranoid about keeping their lead, but the great thing about software is that it's very easy for the Davids to defeat the Goliaths. Nine women can't make a baby in one month. Throwing money and developers at a project usually helps only very little. A team of twenty very good programmers, that work together well, communicate well, and believe in the project could probably come up with a competitive basic Office suite in a couple of years. And Microsoft can throw all the money they want at their team, it won't replicate that force. The only thing that will match that is good management and a good team. Of course, that's pretty much what Office has, but certain development power can't be manufactured. So it'll be difficult to beat Office (Firefox vs. IE is a walk in the park compared to this one), but it can be done.
Because this is the first crack in the dam of Microsoft's vendor lock-in. If Massachusetts stores and releases all government material in an open format, then Microsoft must support that format, or lose a lot of business. Remember that Massachusetts is the home of MIT, lots of businesses there that care about government regulation. And once a couple businesses in Massachusetts stop using office, it can spread. They email some document to another company across the globe, in ODF, then that company comes into contact with ODF, and it will have to either install separate software for it, or even switch away from office, if Microsoft still refuses to support ODF.
Of course, if they do support ODF, then they lose their vendor lock-in outright. No problem switching to OpenOffice if all your clients have Office, just send your stuff in ODF, and they can open it. Microsoft chose the one way out that would let them have some control, develop their own open standard, and lobby like mad to get everyone to use that instead of ODF. That way, at least they own the standard, and that's what Microsoft's always been after.
Well that's no good. They'll get out as soon as somebody throws a double.
I looked at them both (and many others), but Joomla still uses table based layouts. You can hack stuff together to get around this, and it'll disappear in future releases, but that's not good enough for me. I simply couldn't bear it if people looked at the source for my websites and saw td's and tr's all over the place. I know what my conclusion is when I see a website like that. So I use Drupal, which has perfect div-based html out of the box.
Exec 1: But what if people try to steal our valuable pictures of processor cooling equipment?
Exec 2: Think of the revenue we'll lose!
Exec 1: We'd better paste our logo full size into the middle of the images, over their content.
Exec 2: FANTASTIC! This internet stuff is easy.
Seems to me like they don't claim causation. They propose a solution based on a third factor being the cause behind both effects (hormone level during prenatal development). I don't see any problem with that. In fact, this 'third cause' is quite often the actual situation when cause/correlation fallacies are made.
Programmer: We've finished your face recognition system. We estimate its error to be about 0.5 percent.
Politician: Can the technobabble, nerd. Roll it out. We need to catch us some t'rists.
Leftist Media: "Middle-Eastern man unfairly jailed, tortured"
Politician: Sue the programmers! Damn geeks. Technology is evil!
Trust me, this will become product. Walking through downtown London, you will get recognized. They already have your passport photo.
I hope I've been able to put your mind at ease.
It sounds like a Japanese sex toy.
"State approved" doesn't make much sense in this context, but the sentiment still holds. What if the content holder produces a horrible translation? Case in point, the movie Ghost in the Shell: Innocence. A movie, ten years in the making, highly anticipated by fans of the original, clearly extreme attention to detail. Go Fish, a Dreamworks distributor gets the American distribution rights, and includes only English subtitles for people that are hard of hearing. That means that while you're looking at a chopper flying over a majestic, surreal city scape, and hearing perfect 5.1 sound effects, a subtitle "[HELICOPTER SOUNDS]" fills the bottom third of your screen, ruining the whole thing. Every part of the ten year production process handled with extreme amounts of care, and the final experience gets fucked up, because some distributor wants to save a couple of bucks (or is just plain incompetent, I can't really tell).
So what if you've waited anxiously for this release for ten years, and this is the result? You want to see the movie, but you want to get the best possible experience. Luckily, I waited for the European release (not by Dreamworks) which more than made up for it, but if I had bought the American DVD, I would've ripped the DVD and downloaded a proper sub. I realize that that has to be illegal because it is inherently incompatible with the idea of copyright, but I can't exactly say
I would feel guilty about it.
The important thing to note here is that BSG was never intended to have more than five seasons. Ronald D. Moore wrote a story with an end, and he was never going to go beyond that. After season 3, he said that he would prefer to tell the remainder of the story over 2 seasons, but he would rather compress it into one season, than risk BSG getting canceled before its time. This is not a case of the evil network executives killing of the poor misunderstood artist's life work. I expect they took the above into consideration, talked with Moore, and figured out a way for him to tell his story (probably in combination with the announced dvd movie) without them having to pay too much. So this is not like Enterprise, or Futurama, or Firefly, it's simply a story coming to an end as it should. The reason that voyager got seven seasons, and so many infinitely better series didn't was, I think because Voyager refrained from playing too much to the loyal viewers. Great shows use the tv show medium to tell one great story that becomes a part of your life, because you see the characters every week. Mediocre tv shows use the medium simply to tell 22 small stories a year. Voyager may have looked at times like it had character development (two characters that dislike each other crash land on a planet and are only rescued at the last minute, how refreshing!), but it never actually affected the main story in any meaningful way. That made the show extremely boring and annoying to watch loyally every week for years, but it made it a nice bit of entertainment to tune into every now and then when you're in the mood for it. That means it's never going to be great, but you will get the (apathetic) viewers you need. This is the way tv has worked since it started. Only recently has it been used to tell one proper story over several years.
But that's the whole point. You can't talk about the importance of freedom and then not allow people to dismiss it. It's like how democracy is the only political system that can be legally ended, if someone who opposes democracy gets elected and changes the system. Some people say this is a weakness of democracy and there should be laws to defend against such cases. The truth is that it's not a weakness of democracy, but a strength. Everything about societies based on the ideals of the French revolution is designed to maintain the sovereignty of the people. If the system doesn't work, we are free to change it. This freedom is a fundamental quality of our society.
The same thing goes for freedom of thought. There may be people that don't believe in it, and they should be free to believe that. Freedom is ultimately about discovering new things about the world and about ourselves. Freedom means not closing off any avenues. That also means allowing people to not believe in absolute freedom. So, when an Islamic fundamentalist comes to a western country, it's important that he understands the ideals behind its society, but I think that a lot of western people could do with some more education in that respect too. What we cannot do, is tell someone how thought is free in our country, and he should believe that too, or we won't let him. How much is he going to respect those ideals then?
And when it comes to actual changes to the core values of western societies, it's not the immigrants that I'm worried about. I'm worried about the non-immigrant conservatives. If I see what conservative Christians, combined with the corporate world are doing to the values that America is always preaching about, the fundamentalist immigrants are not our biggest concern when it comes to freedom.
The concept of 'learning values' doesn't scare you? I know this can be interpreted as wanting people to be aware of a certain set of values and being able to understand them, which is probably a good thing. Unfortunately in my experience, even when this is the original intention, the steps to forcing people to adopt western values, to forcing people to adopt a very specific subset of western values to a full blown prescribed ideology are very small, and quickly taken.
Who's to say what 'western values' means? Do I get to pick or do you? The only one that I really value above anything else is the freedom of thought. That's also the one that really doesn't mix well with learning values before you get to live somewhere.
Great idea! So what's the key? Seriously, I've looked everywhere....
"A crazy thought now occurred to Billy. The truth of it startled him. It would make a good epitaph for Billy Pilgrim - and for me, too."
On the opposing page, a drawing of a tombstone with the epitaph:
EVERYTHING WAS BEAUTIFUL AND NOTHING HURT