For most peoples purposes a 1-2ghz machine is plenty, more than enough really
I understand your point, but I believe you are mistaken. "Feature saturation" will never occur. Ever. Hardware, software, and whatever comes next will relentlessly get bigger, more complex, more versatile, and encompass ever greater scope of activity. Today's laptops/desktops/software/etc may superficially resemble their ilk 5, 10, maybe even 20 years down the road, but the activities they are used for will not. Does a brand-new laptop and people's use of it resemble the use of a 1981 IBM PC? What will be the analogous device in 2030 or 2040?
That is why we should be enormously worried about intelligently dealing with the vast wave of e-waste that comes from the inevitable obsolescence of all kinds of computing devices.
When you get down to it, the learning curve for CMSs like Joomla is close to that required to just sit down and code a site in your favorite scripting language. At least it feels that way.
I do not agree that non-geeks have a happy and easy time setting up, running, maintaining, and extending their sites with CMSs. They end up hiring coders or other geeky types to take care of it just as they would hire someone to write the site from scratch. If I am wrong, how far off the mark do experienced Joomla users think I am?
You've got to be kidding. A couple of Wikipedia pages on standard economic theory. No particular supporting facts, just a few charts showing what the respective models assert and their reported rough approximation of US data in the second half of the 20th century. Great.
It is your glibness that is most annoying, even more so than your disdain for actually looking at what is going on both in the US and the rest of the world. Your remark "I'll take it as a sign that the theory actually works, since we haven't had the boom and crash cycles any more, that plagued the 19'th and early 20'th century" is particularly telling, given the severity of the past two economic cycles both in the US and abroad.
What do _you_ base your beliefs on? No, I'm curious. You enlighten me
Cute sarcasm, but evidently you didn't bother to read the entire posts. I suggested Collapse by Jared Diamond. Much lower on theory than your Wikipedia pages, more insightful, and much more diverse in scope. Plenty of cited references if you wish to dig deeper.
So, there we go. That's what I base that extrapolation on: real historical data, and real economics.
This is an absurd and archaic belief. Who owns the machines and why should they support you? Are you proposing some neo-communist workers' paradise? I think they tried that already.
Wake up, Dude. We're not on TV or in some utopic Hollywood sci-fi flick. Read Collapse by Jared Diamond and the references he cites.
Nothing you say is factual, it is mere pretentious opinion. Check out Collapse by Jared Diamond and references therein. It should open your eyes quite a bit. You evidently have no idea of what's in store over the next 10 or 20 years.
Your remark "someone else should be poor (and for no other fault or merit than being born in China) so you can be rich?" is completely off. The point was not that anyone should suffer so that we might prosper, but to point out that our way of life is not scalable even to China, let alone to the almost equally large populations of India and the rest of the Third World in addition to China.
Your remark that petroleum "simply was cheaper to buy them from third world countries than to pay someone to extract them at home" is also ludicrous. We did extract it at home, and it is not cheaper to import. Let's not even get into the fact that our oil companies have equity interests in foreign oil fields and its many consequences.
Your similarly shallow remark:...Just "creating jobs" for the sake of keeping people occupied doing things inefficiently, isn't really improving anyone's lot" is also shows an inability to think beyond the literal text. Job creation for its own sake is fruitless. Even automation for its own sake is of no use. Both serve ulterior purposes in a political and economic context. Automation is used to lower production costs and raise profits, not necessarily in that order. Job creation must also be economically attractive in order to occur and sustain itself. By overemphasizing automation for its short-term advantages, we make employment creation an unattractive proposition. The curve collapses when economic contraction and large scale social unrest occur.
You seem cocky and self-assured about your unsubstantiated beliefs. This is not only depressing, but frightening. You are helping push us all off a cliff rather than helping find a better path. God help us all.
You can't see much further than your immediate surroundings. Forget the 19th century or the pre-industrial era. They're gone. Think of all the happy-cool things you mention in your post and who actually creates them, not the executives who run the companies but the workers who do the actual labor. They compete not against each other but against ever more powerful and low-cost automated systems.
I agree with the notion that much work needs to be automated, some things arguably must be automated. However, people must work. Carrying the practice of automation to its complete ultimate conclusion is foolish and self-destructive. We are not in a resource-abundant era like the one you describe, we are in a resource-scarce era. There are not enough resources on the planet for there to be a middle-class in China proportionately as large and as consumerist as in the US. Not enough metals, fuel, plastic feedstocks, lumber, wheat, etc. More automation will not magically reverse this, and would slow down the creation of acceptable jobs. It would probably be better to create human-operated machines that maximize human employment, not minimize it.
Your comparison with Luddites is certainly obvious, not to mention cliche, but is inapt due to the vastly different historical circumstances between then and now.
Oh come now. Surely you can see the value of spending billions of dollars to have people float around with clipboards turning things on and off?
What? You think computers can do that? Who would read the dials? Do computers have fingers that can flip switches? Who would use the space toilet? The ISS would be totally empty! Only useful work would get done! All that space food, wasted...
The problem is right in front of you: manned space flight is a colossal waste of money. It serves no useful purpose for there to be a human being physically present on a space flight to turn things on and off. This isn't the 17th century, it is the age of computers and robots. Vastly more space science and exploration can be achieved if humans are removed from the equation, and at a fantastically lower cost.
Of course, people will have to abandon their religious beliefs and superstitions regarding the imminent colonization of space by humans, or escaping from earth in significant numbers to escape an asteroid impact or whatnot.
Manned space exploration is government pork for military aerospace companies. Nothing more.
You can't bash Apple! They are holy! They are beyond good and evil! You can't compare them to petty ruffians such as the RIAA. Why, these damned Europeans don't seem to be able to distinguish between the criminal scum of the RIAA and the sacred institution of Apple, Inc. They are by no means the same, nor even comparable. If Steve Jobs backdated his stock option purchases it is just reward for having saved the world, transformed it in revolutionary ways, changed the very way we work, play, live, and envision ourselves. The world is nothing like it was before the Mac or the iPod, when demons roamed the earth and giant savage beasts preyed upon mankind. And those scurrilous lice at PARC and Creative Labs preemptively stole the technologies from Apple before the Jobsian gods were able to invent them, patenting some of them in a wholly immoral manner before Apple brought them forth upon our barbaric world in the form of blessed consumer electronics.
Nay! Apple must not be restricted! If they maintain a microsoftian monopoly it is for the good of mankind, and we must not question their mysterious and infinite wisdom. All will become clear when the iPhone is brought down from the heavens and placed in the pockets of iPod-earplugged yuppies striding along the streets of the Financial District. They will show us the way. They will understand the word made silicon and plastic, and convey it to the rest of us mere cheapskate mortals who are unable or unwilling to invest in the meager cost of an iPod, iPhone, MacBook, or other godly Apple instrument. Then we shall see, then we shall hear, then we shall know. The clouds will part, warriors will lay down their arms and embrace each other, weeping with joy and brotherly love. The hungry shall find nourishment, the thirsty will quench themselves with pure crystalline water. The poor shall know prosperity for the first time and forever. The barren shall bear fruit, and the downtrodden shall find dignity.
It is the unbelievers, the infidels who challenge the sacred rule of the Jobsian iSacraments. They must be stopped!
I agree, I was just countering the argument that "blah blah blah ought to be enough for everyone."
My last two purchases were dual-core, my next one will be quad-core (in my dreams it will be dual quad-core), and I wrote to AMD a year ago asking them to please put a lot more onboard cache on their CPUs. Most of the heavy software I use has already been made multithreaded, or is in the process of being converted.
Nevertheless, I know it won't be enough. It will never be enough. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
Overclocking is cool and all, but this extends beyond what some would perhaps call useful.
For the proverbial Aunt Tilly, this may be true. However, "too much CPU capacity" is a non-existent concept for those of us who chronically peg the CPU at 95%+ doing raytracing or other kinds of graphics rendering including but not limited to video editing, large-scale database querying, molecular modeling (or pretty much any non-trivial simulation), automated generation of static reports for instant-access web pages, large-scale text analysis, machine learning of all kinds, and no doubt many other tasks.
There is no such thing as "too much CPU capacity." There never will be. The more we have available, the more we things can do. The more things we can do, the more CPU capacity we need. Same goes for RAM, disk storage, net bandwidth, and pretty much any other finite resource.
If you don't believe it, or if this is a new concept for you, you're not trying hard enough.
I understand what you mean, but MS Office is not directed at people like you. MS Office is supposed to be a mass-market product for people who may never acquire significant skills, or whose skills will likely be narrow and deep, such as someone who creates big complex Excel spreadsheets, or someone who prepares large numbers of not very complex Word documents. These users do not need the fineness and versatility of the software you mention, nor would they benefit greatly from the sophisticated commercial publishing or number crunching products out there.
There is definitely a market for MS Office-like software, and I count myself among those who believe OpenOffice fills the bill for the vast majority of MS Office users, regardless of their context. There are people who expect more, however, and neither MS Office nor OpenOffice will satisfy them.
Like any other software decision, this depends on what you want to do. Not everyone does complex Excel spreadsheets, and it can be argued that those are more of a liability than an advantage. Most users could use either MS Office or OpenOffice and not really care one way or the other once they are up to speed. With a modest amount of training and the presence of a competent sysadmin, most users would do fine with Ubuntu linux and OpenOffice.
That you can point out numerous specialized niches that would have problems, perhaps even serious ones is a minor issue. MS Winodows and MS Office have nothing critical that would preclude most users from just walking away, be they corporate, academic, small-business, and even home users. It is all in your head, and in whether you are either reasonably competent or have access to someone who is.
This is a non-issue. All OSs and office suites require a lot of initial training and a non-zero amount of ongoing support and training. There is no magic bullet, and no platform that is magically easy to use for everyone.
Stop drinking the kool-aid. There seems to be something in it.
Wow! An enzyme destroys bird flu viruses under carefully controlled lab conditions in saline buffer, therefore it will also kill them in a greasy and presumably protein-denaturing cosmetic preparation! Not only is this horrible non-disease that has so far been a miniscule threat to humans now defeated, albeit only in principle and under conditions completely different than those being proposed, but it can be done by simply wearing makeup! Don't fear the bird flu, get all decadent and wear lots of makeup! While you're at it, drink! Do drugs! Have sex with abandon! Buy lots of cool stuff! Get totally wild! Buy an iPhone! Run around in the street screaming and singing while flailing your arms around and lolling your tongue! Take cell phone videos of yourself and friends doing it all! We are saved!
Yet another example of shameless self-promotion by a scientist who should know better. Much better.
No doubt many of you are now bow-legged and tech-drooly over this wacky piece of hardware, so futuristic, such cool words (megajoule! railgun! kinetic energy!), and so SciFi-like. Read between the lines. This is a worthless pork-barrel project that will rarely, more likely never, make a significant difference on the battlefield. Its enormous impracticality is obvious, if you decide to see it. We should not waste huge amounts of money on such junk. It is corporate welfare for companies that refuse to remove their hands from the government till. Funny how so many people defend giving billions away to defense contractors in exchange for essentially nothing, but will adamantly resist spending the same money on infrastrucure for the rest of us.
And yet, I know that many, many people will be so enamored with the sexy-sounding hype that they will be pleased to have their hard-earned taxes spent on it. It fits in so well with The War on Terror and other sucker-stories that our Hypnotoad representatives have been feeding us.
You may not be aware of it, but whether the work was done "on his own time" or not is irrelevant. If it was work related to his day job, he is on very thin ice and it can be considered work done for hire. If he used any resource from his job, such as a laptop, an internal network, documents, even specialized knowledge derived from the job, he's pretty much fucked.
A good rule of thumb would be: If you work in field/industry X, never write code for X unless you want your employer to have rights to it. He should have open-sourced it while still an employee. To do that he would have had to find a superior with the paper authority to authorize such a move, at least on paper and however tenuous, then placed it on SF.net, and then promoted it among peers who could have made use of it and helped evolve the code. This might have encumbered the code enough to avoid having it reverted to closed source, but the situation would start getting murky. Also, if people in another state or another country would have participated, or if the SF.net server where the code resides is in another state, I suspect there would be the risk of angry lawyers pinning him with felonies along the lines of wire fraud and suchlike. Permission from a superior would be useful there.
It is sad to see some poor schmuck who was trying to help his peers get screwed like this. The point of FOSS is to share useful tools with all who need them, but authoritarian organizations can't get beyond the idea that they are losing valuable IP. We need to be more aware and more informed of what our rights and obligations are, and of lawyer-approved techniques to free software developed on the job in a legal and defensible manner. This is an object lesson for all of us.
I tend to agree. The poor bastard doesn't seem to stand a chance. He should have RTF-Contract, and consulted the many "Contracting for Dummies"-type books and web resources. Had he quietly open-sourced it while still an employee and placed it on SF.net or somesuch, the disclosure might have saved the software, but even that is iffy (i.e. lawyers need to make their solemn pronouncements in that regard).
it's obvious that IE will continue to hook into the advanced functionality that Vista offers.
Like what? A shitty version for people who don't want to pay up? One that turns itself off if you go to unapproved websites? One that takes 5 min to boot? One that you will need to buy a whole lot of additional software to use productively? One that uses a supercharged, re-designed, re-written, and vastly more efficient worm and adware propagator? One that requires a 3 MHz quad-core cpu qith 256 Mb cache, 4 Gb of RAM, and 1 Tb of HD space?
I've looked and not found it. Yes, I do use their help system, as well as systematically examining the options dialogs. If out of ignorance or stupidity I have overlooked it, please enlighten me.
BTW, installing OpenOffice is hardly a technical challenge, which is but one of its charms.
While I have always respected Mossberg's essays and opinions, my own experience with "enhancements" to Office is that they are little more than cosmetic irritants that degrade usability. Instead of helping users refine their techniques, Redmond's hubris leads them to dictate technique from on high. "No" they shout, "We have a new and better way to do things," and bam! everything gets gratuitously shuffled around, defaults are changed, paragraph styles must be repaired. For it to be imposed by force is intolerable. I still haven't figured out to stop the irritating abbreviation of menus in which I always have to click on the small arrowhead at the lower edge to see the entire menu.
And for this we have to pay hundreds of dollars every two years? Bah. I'd rather get it free
I wouldn't mind having a president that knows something about computers.
Yow! A brand new mindless hot-button issue! Stop the presses! A guy who actually knows how to operate a computer should be president! Not some pen-wielding dipshit, not some bozo who can't tell the backtick from an apostrophe, but a guy who can actually bring up a certain word processing program, type something in it, and successfully print it and save it to disk! Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant!
Where can we find such a strange and noble leader? Elect him at once, I say! I for one welcome our new mouse-button-pressing overlord!
Of course, he did gratuitously use a backslash instead of a forward slash in pathnames. And, not to be picky, but the space in the "Program Files" directory name was not a good idea, nor was the two-character sequence in DOS file carriage returns. And that whole monopoly thing, are we over that yet?
Slashdot Mirror
I understand your point, but I believe you are mistaken. "Feature saturation" will never occur. Ever. Hardware, software, and whatever comes next will relentlessly get bigger, more complex, more versatile, and encompass ever greater scope of activity. Today's laptops/desktops/software/etc may superficially resemble their ilk 5, 10, maybe even 20 years down the road, but the activities they are used for will not. Does a brand-new laptop and people's use of it resemble the use of a 1981 IBM PC? What will be the analogous device in 2030 or 2040?
That is why we should be enormously worried about intelligently dealing with the vast wave of e-waste that comes from the inevitable obsolescence of all kinds of computing devices.
I do not agree that non-geeks have a happy and easy time setting up, running, maintaining, and extending their sites with CMSs. They end up hiring coders or other geeky types to take care of it just as they would hire someone to write the site from scratch. If I am wrong, how far off the mark do experienced Joomla users think I am?
It is your glibness that is most annoying, even more so than your disdain for actually looking at what is going on both in the US and the rest of the world. Your remark "I'll take it as a sign that the theory actually works, since we haven't had the boom and crash cycles any more, that plagued the 19'th and early 20'th century" is particularly telling, given the severity of the past two economic cycles both in the US and abroad.
What do _you_ base your beliefs on? No, I'm curious. You enlighten me
Cute sarcasm, but evidently you didn't bother to read the entire posts. I suggested Collapse by Jared Diamond. Much lower on theory than your Wikipedia pages, more insightful, and much more diverse in scope. Plenty of cited references if you wish to dig deeper.
So, there we go. That's what I base that extrapolation on: real historical data, and real economics.
Unbelievable. Truly unbelievable.
Wake up, Dude. We're not on TV or in some utopic Hollywood sci-fi flick. Read Collapse by Jared Diamond and the references he cites.
Your remark "someone else should be poor (and for no other fault or merit than being born in China) so you can be rich?" is completely off. The point was not that anyone should suffer so that we might prosper, but to point out that our way of life is not scalable even to China, let alone to the almost equally large populations of India and the rest of the Third World in addition to China.
Your remark that petroleum "simply was cheaper to buy them from third world countries than to pay someone to extract them at home" is also ludicrous. We did extract it at home, and it is not cheaper to import. Let's not even get into the fact that our oil companies have equity interests in foreign oil fields and its many consequences.
Your similarly shallow remark :...Just "creating jobs" for the sake of keeping people occupied doing things inefficiently, isn't really improving anyone's lot" is also shows an inability to think beyond the literal text. Job creation for its own sake is fruitless. Even automation for its own sake is of no use. Both serve ulterior purposes in a political and economic context. Automation is used to lower production costs and raise profits, not necessarily in that order. Job creation must also be economically attractive in order to occur and sustain itself. By overemphasizing automation for its short-term advantages, we make employment creation an unattractive proposition. The curve collapses when economic contraction and large scale social unrest occur.
You seem cocky and self-assured about your unsubstantiated beliefs. This is not only depressing, but frightening. You are helping push us all off a cliff rather than helping find a better path. God help us all.
I agree with the notion that much work needs to be automated, some things arguably must be automated. However, people must work. Carrying the practice of automation to its complete ultimate conclusion is foolish and self-destructive. We are not in a resource-abundant era like the one you describe, we are in a resource-scarce era. There are not enough resources on the planet for there to be a middle-class in China proportionately as large and as consumerist as in the US. Not enough metals, fuel, plastic feedstocks, lumber, wheat, etc. More automation will not magically reverse this, and would slow down the creation of acceptable jobs. It would probably be better to create human-operated machines that maximize human employment, not minimize it.
Your comparison with Luddites is certainly obvious, not to mention cliche, but is inapt due to the vastly different historical circumstances between then and now.
The race to the bottom, like so much else we do.
What? You think computers can do that? Who would read the dials? Do computers have fingers that can flip switches? Who would use the space toilet? The ISS would be totally empty! Only useful work would get done! All that space food, wasted...
Of course, people will have to abandon their religious beliefs and superstitions regarding the imminent colonization of space by humans, or escaping from earth in significant numbers to escape an asteroid impact or whatnot.
Manned space exploration is government pork for military aerospace companies. Nothing more.
Nay! Apple must not be restricted! If they maintain a microsoftian monopoly it is for the good of mankind, and we must not question their mysterious and infinite wisdom. All will become clear when the iPhone is brought down from the heavens and placed in the pockets of iPod-earplugged yuppies striding along the streets of the Financial District. They will show us the way. They will understand the word made silicon and plastic, and convey it to the rest of us mere cheapskate mortals who are unable or unwilling to invest in the meager cost of an iPod, iPhone, MacBook, or other godly Apple instrument. Then we shall see, then we shall hear, then we shall know. The clouds will part, warriors will lay down their arms and embrace each other, weeping with joy and brotherly love. The hungry shall find nourishment, the thirsty will quench themselves with pure crystalline water. The poor shall know prosperity for the first time and forever. The barren shall bear fruit, and the downtrodden shall find dignity.
It is the unbelievers, the infidels who challenge the sacred rule of the Jobsian iSacraments. They must be stopped!
My last two purchases were dual-core, my next one will be quad-core (in my dreams it will be dual quad-core), and I wrote to AMD a year ago asking them to please put a lot more onboard cache on their CPUs. Most of the heavy software I use has already been made multithreaded, or is in the process of being converted.
Nevertheless, I know it won't be enough. It will never be enough. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
Overclocking is cool and all, but this extends beyond what some would perhaps call useful.
For the proverbial Aunt Tilly, this may be true. However, "too much CPU capacity" is a non-existent concept for those of us who chronically peg the CPU at 95%+ doing raytracing or other kinds of graphics rendering including but not limited to video editing, large-scale database querying, molecular modeling (or pretty much any non-trivial simulation), automated generation of static reports for instant-access web pages, large-scale text analysis, machine learning of all kinds, and no doubt many other tasks.There is no such thing as "too much CPU capacity." There never will be. The more we have available, the more we things can do. The more things we can do, the more CPU capacity we need. Same goes for RAM, disk storage, net bandwidth, and pretty much any other finite resource.
If you don't believe it, or if this is a new concept for you, you're not trying hard enough.
There is definitely a market for MS Office-like software, and I count myself among those who believe OpenOffice fills the bill for the vast majority of MS Office users, regardless of their context. There are people who expect more, however, and neither MS Office nor OpenOffice will satisfy them.
That you can point out numerous specialized niches that would have problems, perhaps even serious ones is a minor issue. MS Winodows and MS Office have nothing critical that would preclude most users from just walking away, be they corporate, academic, small-business, and even home users. It is all in your head, and in whether you are either reasonably competent or have access to someone who is.
This is a non-issue. All OSs and office suites require a lot of initial training and a non-zero amount of ongoing support and training. There is no magic bullet, and no platform that is magically easy to use for everyone.
Stop drinking the kool-aid. There seems to be something in it.
Yet another example of shameless self-promotion by a scientist who should know better. Much better.
And yet, I know that many, many people will be so enamored with the sexy-sounding hype that they will be pleased to have their hard-earned taxes spent on it. It fits in so well with The War on Terror and other sucker-stories that our Hypnotoad representatives have been feeding us.
You may not be aware of it, but whether the work was done "on his own time" or not is irrelevant. If it was work related to his day job, he is on very thin ice and it can be considered work done for hire. If he used any resource from his job, such as a laptop, an internal network, documents, even specialized knowledge derived from the job, he's pretty much fucked.
A good rule of thumb would be: If you work in field/industry X, never write code for X unless you want your employer to have rights to it. He should have open-sourced it while still an employee. To do that he would have had to find a superior with the paper authority to authorize such a move, at least on paper and however tenuous, then placed it on SF.net, and then promoted it among peers who could have made use of it and helped evolve the code. This might have encumbered the code enough to avoid having it reverted to closed source, but the situation would start getting murky. Also, if people in another state or another country would have participated, or if the SF.net server where the code resides is in another state, I suspect there would be the risk of angry lawyers pinning him with felonies along the lines of wire fraud and suchlike. Permission from a superior would be useful there.
It is sad to see some poor schmuck who was trying to help his peers get screwed like this. The point of FOSS is to share useful tools with all who need them, but authoritarian organizations can't get beyond the idea that they are losing valuable IP. We need to be more aware and more informed of what our rights and obligations are, and of lawyer-approved techniques to free software developed on the job in a legal and defensible manner. This is an object lesson for all of us.
Work for hire, dumbass. The cop will lose.
I tend to agree. The poor bastard doesn't seem to stand a chance. He should have RTF-Contract, and consulted the many "Contracting for Dummies"-type books and web resources. Had he quietly open-sourced it while still an employee and placed it on SF.net or somesuch, the disclosure might have saved the software, but even that is iffy (i.e. lawyers need to make their solemn pronouncements in that regard).
Let the developer beware.
Like what? A shitty version for people who don't want to pay up? One that turns itself off if you go to unapproved websites? One that takes 5 min to boot? One that you will need to buy a whole lot of additional software to use productively? One that uses a supercharged, re-designed, re-written, and vastly more efficient worm and adware propagator? One that requires a 3 MHz quad-core cpu qith 256 Mb cache, 4 Gb of RAM, and 1 Tb of HD space?
I'll stick with Ubuntu and Firefox.
BTW, installing OpenOffice is hardly a technical challenge, which is but one of its charms.
And for this we have to pay hundreds of dollars every two years? Bah. I'd rather get it free
Did you ever wonder why we had to run for shelter when the promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath a clear blue sky?
in the sense that the promise so many gullible people will see in electing Gates will very quickly turn sour.
It was probably a dumb and obscure post.
Dude, he is one big, nefarious, and well-funded special interest.
Yow! A brand new mindless hot-button issue! Stop the presses! A guy who actually knows how to operate a computer should be president! Not some pen-wielding dipshit, not some bozo who can't tell the backtick from an apostrophe, but a guy who can actually bring up a certain word processing program, type something in it, and successfully print it and save it to disk! Brilliant, Holmes, brilliant!
Where can we find such a strange and noble leader? Elect him at once, I say! I for one welcome our new mouse-button-pressing overlord!
Of course, he did gratuitously use a backslash instead of a forward slash in pathnames. And, not to be picky, but the space in the "Program Files" directory name was not a good idea, nor was the two-character sequence in DOS file carriage returns. And that whole monopoly thing, are we over that yet?
Did you hear the falling bombs?
Did you ever wonder why we had to run for shelter when the promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath a clear blue sky?
Did you see the frightened ones?
Did you hear the falling bombs?
The flames are all gone, but the pain lingers on.
Goodbye, blue sky
Goodbye, blue sky.
Goodbye.
Goodbye.
Goodbye.