It's totally unlike the BSD split; for a while, that made for tremendous application-compatibility problems, whereas Linux has never had any major problems along those lines.
What problems Linux has had along those lines have been related to glibc version incompatibilities, and you can have those even within a distribution.
But the main problem, is that this commercial-oriented Debian would now get a big amount of money, that the 100%-pure Debian won't get.
I.E., the market speaks. Instead of berating it, you should be listening to it.
If an arbitrarily-chosen point of principle means you fail, then you have to accept that failure or reexamine the principle.
What's more important to you? If it's more important that Debian remain free, then what do you care how many people are using it? It's of no impact to you, at least not in comparison to your point.
But Toronto, where I live, is the most ethnically diverse city in the world (source: UN). I believe the number of minorities in this area actually exceeds the number of whites now, and if you go out in public here, you certainly won't feel like you're in the majority if you're white.
Wow, are YOU working from an inadequate sample.
Toronto may be the world's most diverse city, but the US has some of the largest minority populations in the world.
For instance, we have the largest Spanish-speaking population in the world, and it's not even our "official" language. (We don't have an official language.) You guys don't even have the largest French-speaking population, and it's one of your languages.
Go to Dallas or Miami and tell me about the US's supposed lack of diversity.
There are 11 million Cubans in the country of Cuba; there are nearly 2 million Cubans in Florida alone.
We have ethnic populations that rival their countries of origin.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP): Today, June 10 2001, local Macintosh consultant Peter Lalor was eaten by penguins. He was seen clinging to a piece of blue fruit, screaming something that witnesses say sounded like "save me, Steve!"
The NASDAQ went up by.0000001 point immediately thereafter.
Except for the mix of things it says it supports, such as USB and DVD, which unfortunately are currently easier to support on Windows.
The last thing you want to do on a webpad is tell people "sorry, you have to be a techie to use that device" or "sorry, you can't play that DVD on there because it's illegal".
As cool as we think these things are, we aren't the market.
I notice that you didn't include statistics of suicide-by-firearms, which by the statistics @ http://www.suicidology.org/suicide_statistics.htm, account for 43,240 deaths in 1997 alone.
I discount that statistic for the simple reason that the CDC says there were only 30,535 total suicides that year, so how could 43,240 of them have been by firearm?
Also, statistics on places that have outlawed firearms shows that the effect is nearly zero; better than 99% of those who want to commit suicide will find a way, whether they have a gun or not.
But I see it as a freedom thing; if you want to commit suicide, who am I to say you aren't allowed to? And how is society worse off if you use a gun to do it than if you use pills or jump off a bridge?
Actually, society is probably better off if we don't have to fish you out of a river or repair the damage you cause to the bus when it hits you.
however the fact that you did not include their deaths in your "statistics" makes your argument considerably less persuasive.
Then what does the fact that the statistics you quote are nonsensical mean for your argument?
This is in fact typical of the anti-gun arguments; they quote easily-disproven numbers that are completely out of whack with reality, and conglomerate them into official-sounding foundations like Suicideology.org so that nobody will look too closely at where they come from. I got most of my numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and the National Safety Council. Some come from the Justice Department. Not only did I not go anywhere near the NRA's web page, but I'm not even a member. (Although I certainly appreciate the central role they've taken in reducing childhood gun accidents this century, and will undoubtedly join soon.)
All of the places I got my numbers from are run by an anti-gun Democrat Executive Branch, so if the numbers are off they're probably off in your favor, and they *STILL* support my argument.
My favorite tactic of the anti-gun folks is that whenever they quote numbers regarding children, they include everyone under 25!
And they count everybody killed in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, etc. in their "total American deaths by firearms" numbers. That one's priceless, because it means that even if civilians couldn't own firearms and criminals didn't own them, the numbers would hardly change.
And that brings us to the bottom line; gun laws only affect people who follow laws. Criminals by definition don't follow laws.
That's why *EVERY* state that has passed "shall-issue" concealed carry laws has seen an immediate drop in violent crime, greater than the national average drop. All of them.
Those statistics are from the Justice Department; check them out yourself.
I guess, then, the question would be - for an "average" gun, how many people is it used to injure (either on purpose or accidentally) during the course of its lifetime?
Rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent?
Zero.
Even if you count military-owned weapons. Even if you just count handguns, or just count miltitary-appearing semi-automatic weapons, or pretty much whatever anybody feels like banning this week.
Hell, even if you just count handguns used by citizens in the actual prevention of an actual attempted crime, it is less than.1%.
America's supposed gun violence problem is a myth, manufactured by the media for the purpose of scaring people; because scared people watch the news.
Tobacco kills over 400,000 people a year. Guns kill about 35,000 Americans a year, and over 2/3 of those are drug traffickers killing each other.
And as for accidental gun deaths; there are about 200 per year. That's less than three times as many as caused by lightning, and it's been going DOWN steadily (as a percentage) for decades.
Hell, more people (302) die of falling down in the state of Colorado than die from gun accidents in the entire country!
There are something like 2,500 deaths by drowning in the US every year. If you want to save lives, outlaw swimming pools.
More people under 24 die in traffic accidents every year than the TOTAL of all ages who are killed by firearms, accidentally or on purpose. Make the legal driving age 24 and you'll save more lives than by outlawing guns, even if you could make all the guns disappear!
If you take out drug-related murders, guns are used to kill about 11,550 people a year, plus another 200 that die by accident.
11,750 people seems like a lot, but it's less than die from falling down in their homes! It's twice the number who die in workplace accidents, and we don't hear about an epidemic in that!
And when you factor that against the number of times guns are used to prevent a crime, whether you accept 500,000 or 2 million for that number, one starts to wonder where exactly the hysteria is coming from?
It's certainly not coming from the tens of thousands of women who protect themselves from rape each year with a handgun.
A media facing declining ratings made the whole thing up. --
I don't think a manufacturer of widgets that resulted in 1 out of 3 people being injured (or say, hypnotized against their will) would be allowed to be sell their products for very long. Exceptions include: tobacco, guns, software... Why?
Uhm, sorry; exceptions just include tobacco.
Guns and software don't injure 1 out of 3 of their customers.
Guns injure something like 1 out of 278,000 of their customers. For software, even Microsoft's crap, it's even lower.
Bicycles have a worse "injures their owner" percentage than guns.
It is not easy being told by your friends, by your enemies, and by the media that you are an evil lawbreaker, even if you don't buy it yourself. It's not easy to wear a smile to work when a large part of your compensation (salary is fairly low) is in the toilet. It is *definitely* not easy to recruit smart people to work for a company that, in their minds, might not exist in a year.
Oh, cry me a river.
You were not unaware of what your company was doing. You chose to continue to work for them.
That's aiding and abetting.
This complaint of yours is like the getaway driver saying "but I didn't rob the convenience store, Bill and Steve did".
Tough; you should have quit and gone to work for a less predatory company. You didn't, and now you get a little of the tar and feathers stuck to you. Bend over and take it like a man.
Quit now; your next employer will completely understand why you didn't give 2 weeks notice.
Be glad Judge Jackson didn't have the option of immediately dissolving the company. His interview makes it clear he would have liked to have done that.
What's the proverb? "NO SECURITY WITHOUT OBSCURITY!". I thought that was what the "Open Source Security Model" was all about?
I believe the industry truism that you're looking for is "security through obscurity is not security at all", and means the exact opposite of what you've taken it to mean.
Hint; OPEN Source. How do you get Open Source as being about security through obscurity? How could one hope to obscure anything for long with the source open?
Answer; they can't. Open Source security relies upon the principle that not all the skilled coders who are looking at the code are nasty criminals looking to hurt somebody. Some of them are professionals like the Sendmail crew, who are interested in making systems more secure by eliminating the bugs.
Unless you want to rewrite everything yourself, you get bugs fixed by publicizing them so that others will be compelled to fix them. Since one man can only put in one man-hour per hour, that's necessary.
As for whomever told you "NO SECURITY WITHOUT OBSCURITY!", you should stop using them as a resource immediately, because they're 30 years behind the state of the art in OS security.
"...going to have a piece of music that will only play on one Walkman. [We're] going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."
Not for us, Mr. Warnock; only for you.
As you more and more work to make enemies of your customers, more and more of us will cease being your paying customers.
You can either find a way to make money in the new paradigm, or you can watch it recede into the distance as you wipe fruitlessly at the tire tracks on your shirt.
This is why we need story moderation; if the poster gets dinged when they do this, and people who put "ftp.us.kernel.org" don't, then it'll stop happening. --
nsn stands for "Native Sovereign Nation". I suppose that those tribes that aren't sovereign by treaty shouldn't qualify; dunno if any have a domain.
Of course, just because they HAVE the domain, doesn't mean anything resolves there. Most email addresses of the Chickasaw tribe, for instance, are @chickasaw.com, which is an ISP previously owned by the tribe. --
"My" Fortune 50 company uses open source and free tools left and right, running on an OS (Unix) that runs the world *BECAUSE* of the vast quantity of free tools involved in it.
Name me one succesful computer platform that has tried to discourage development of free software.
There's not one; they die off if they try that.
Again, you seem to be laboring under some horrible misapprehension that Amiga makes less money if some guy off the street writes a program for their hardware.
By charging a measily 100 bucks for its SDK, it weeds out those that are only interested in developing free software.
Exactly; and that is a horribly stupid thing to do when trying to build a new platform.
I suspect that you are simply a troll spending too much time typing, so I'm going to go let you be an idiot now; the general public has long ago stopped reading this thread.
Oh, one last thing: "my" Fortune 50 company doesn't charge for it's software. The software is free, because it encourages people to use our services more, which means we make more money.
If we charged for the software, fewer people would use it, and we'd make less money.
Actually, we did make a piece of software once upon a time that we charged for. I can see a running count of every single time it's used, anywhere in the world; it's about a dozen total times a day.
Our free offering is used hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of times a day. Our web-based program is used tens of thousands of times a day.
We make more money in an hour than you will in your entire life. I think we're right and you're wrong.
When I am distributing infrastructure software for a platform that runs a free operating system?
You're damn right I do.
The purpose of a development kit for an Amiga is not to be a profit center; it's to get people to write apps. The more apps the better, because they make their money from hardware sales, and who'll buy it if it doesn't have apps?
I am really tired of all the college kids screaming "but its not free".
Sorry, I'm a middle-aged professional systems administrator for a Fortune 50 company.
I've seen your 'work' for a couple days now, and I must say it is constantly in the top 10% of the normal 'Offtopic' and 'Troll' variety.. Let us all know when you hit +1 with a deliberate haiku, eh?
He passed 20 karma with them yesterday. He did that in less than 48 hours of posting.
I'd say his detractors are in the minority; he's posting at +1 now. Check his user info page.
And besides that, what marketing genius came up with the idea of CHARGING for the damn thing?
"Oh, I know; we'll cut our developer base by a few orders of magnitude, but we could make a couple of bucks profit apiece off each of the fifteen people who'll go ahead and buy one!"
That's assuming they're even making a profit; I expect that at $99 they're taking a loss anyway, so why cripple their product before it's even hatched?
At last night's 2600 meeting here, Cheshire Catalyst took us all outside at exactly the right time to see it pass overhead and wave goodbye. The instant when the angle of the solar panels was right to reflect the sun at us was glorious.
Slashdot Mirror
All power plants create thermal waste. The trick is to build them AWAY from water, and build your own lake.
Then you can stock species that will enjoy the warm water, and species that don't won't move in.
This has worked very successfully in Oklahoma, for instance. The fishing at the Konawa plant is awesome.
--
So you're saying that you think Linux would be in more places now, and doing better in general, if there were only one distribution?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You're completely wrong.
It's totally unlike the BSD split; for a while, that made for tremendous application-compatibility problems, whereas Linux has never had any major problems along those lines.
What problems Linux has had along those lines have been related to glibc version incompatibilities, and you can have those even within a distribution.
But the main problem, is that this commercial-oriented Debian would now get a big amount of money, that the 100%-pure Debian won't get.
I.E., the market speaks. Instead of berating it, you should be listening to it.
If an arbitrarily-chosen point of principle means you fail, then you have to accept that failure or reexamine the principle.
What's more important to you? If it's more important that Debian remain free, then what do you care how many people are using it? It's of no impact to you, at least not in comparison to your point.
--
But Toronto, where I live, is the most ethnically diverse city in the world (source: UN). I believe the number of minorities in this area actually exceeds the number of whites now, and if you go out in public here, you certainly won't feel like you're in the majority if you're white.
Wow, are YOU working from an inadequate sample.
Toronto may be the world's most diverse city, but the US has some of the largest minority populations in the world.
For instance, we have the largest Spanish-speaking population in the world, and it's not even our "official" language. (We don't have an official language.) You guys don't even have the largest French-speaking population, and it's one of your languages.
Go to Dallas or Miami and tell me about the US's supposed lack of diversity.
There are 11 million Cubans in the country of Cuba; there are nearly 2 million Cubans in Florida alone.
We have ethnic populations that rival their countries of origin.
--
Pinball is non-sedentary?
Jeez, kid. You know, once upon a time people didn't play pinball to have fun, they played football.
Pinball isn't "the good old days". It's "the beginning of the end".
--
If the GR is approved by vote, we may see a project split. A loss for everybody
I don't agree that it's a loss. Was it a loss for Linux when the Mandrake guys decided Red Hat didn't cut the mustard?
It's a big, expanding market right now. The more people can get into it now, the better position we'll be in when the shakeout eventually comes.
Survival of the fittest; and there's a whole lot of little furry scurriers running around right now, fighting for the Microsoft dinosaur's niche.
Asteroid Jackson just hit, but it'll be months before nuclear winter kills off all the thunder lizards. We have time to keep improving our species.
--
SAN FRANCISCO (AP): Today, June 10 2001, local Macintosh consultant Peter Lalor was eaten by penguins. He was seen clinging to a piece of blue fruit, screaming something that witnesses say sounded like "save me, Steve!"
.0000001 point immediately thereafter.
The NASDAQ went up by
--
Except for the mix of things it says it supports, such as USB and DVD, which unfortunately are currently easier to support on Windows.
The last thing you want to do on a webpad is tell people "sorry, you have to be a techie to use that device" or "sorry, you can't play that DVD on there because it's illegal".
As cool as we think these things are, we aren't the market.
We need to fix the problem, the companies won't.
--
I notice that you didn't include statistics of suicide-by-firearms, which by the statistics @ http://www.suicidology.org/suicide_statistics.htm, account for 43,240 deaths in 1997 alone.
I discount that statistic for the simple reason that the CDC says there were only 30,535 total suicides that year, so how could 43,240 of them have been by firearm?
Also, statistics on places that have outlawed firearms shows that the effect is nearly zero; better than 99% of those who want to commit suicide will find a way, whether they have a gun or not.
But I see it as a freedom thing; if you want to commit suicide, who am I to say you aren't allowed to? And how is society worse off if you use a gun to do it than if you use pills or jump off a bridge?
Actually, society is probably better off if we don't have to fish you out of a river or repair the damage you cause to the bus when it hits you.
however the fact that you did not include their deaths in your "statistics" makes your argument considerably less persuasive.
Then what does the fact that the statistics you quote are nonsensical mean for your argument?
This is in fact typical of the anti-gun arguments; they quote easily-disproven numbers that are completely out of whack with reality, and conglomerate them into official-sounding foundations like Suicideology.org so that nobody will look too closely at where they come from. I got most of my numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and the National Safety Council. Some come from the Justice Department. Not only did I not go anywhere near the NRA's web page, but I'm not even a member. (Although I certainly appreciate the central role they've taken in reducing childhood gun accidents this century, and will undoubtedly join soon.)
All of the places I got my numbers from are run by an anti-gun Democrat Executive Branch, so if the numbers are off they're probably off in your favor, and they *STILL* support my argument.
My favorite tactic of the anti-gun folks is that whenever they quote numbers regarding children, they include everyone under 25!
And they count everybody killed in World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, etc. in their "total American deaths by firearms" numbers. That one's priceless, because it means that even if civilians couldn't own firearms and criminals didn't own them, the numbers would hardly change.
And that brings us to the bottom line; gun laws only affect people who follow laws. Criminals by definition don't follow laws.
That's why *EVERY* state that has passed "shall-issue" concealed carry laws has seen an immediate drop in violent crime, greater than the national average drop. All of them.
Those statistics are from the Justice Department; check them out yourself.
--
I guess, then, the question would be - for an "average" gun, how many people is it used to injure (either on purpose or accidentally) during the course of its lifetime?
.1%.
Rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent?
Zero.
Even if you count military-owned weapons. Even if you just count handguns, or just count miltitary-appearing semi-automatic weapons, or pretty much whatever anybody feels like banning this week.
Hell, even if you just count handguns used by citizens in the actual prevention of an actual attempted crime, it is less than
America's supposed gun violence problem is a myth, manufactured by the media for the purpose of scaring people; because scared people watch the news.
Tobacco kills over 400,000 people a year. Guns kill about 35,000 Americans a year, and over 2/3 of those are drug traffickers killing each other.
And as for accidental gun deaths; there are about 200 per year. That's less than three times as many as caused by lightning, and it's been going DOWN steadily (as a percentage) for decades.
Hell, more people (302) die of falling down in the state of Colorado than die from gun accidents in the entire country!
There are something like 2,500 deaths by drowning in the US every year. If you want to save lives, outlaw swimming pools.
More people under 24 die in traffic accidents every year than the TOTAL of all ages who are killed by firearms, accidentally or on purpose. Make the legal driving age 24 and you'll save more lives than by outlawing guns, even if you could make all the guns disappear!
If you take out drug-related murders, guns are used to kill about 11,550 people a year, plus another 200 that die by accident.
11,750 people seems like a lot, but it's less than die from falling down in their homes! It's twice the number who die in workplace accidents, and we don't hear about an epidemic in that!
And when you factor that against the number of times guns are used to prevent a crime, whether you accept 500,000 or 2 million for that number, one starts to wonder where exactly the hysteria is coming from?
It's certainly not coming from the tens of thousands of women who protect themselves from rape each year with a handgun.
A media facing declining ratings made the whole thing up.
--
I don't think a manufacturer of widgets that resulted in 1 out of 3 people being injured (or say, hypnotized against their will) would be allowed to be sell their products for very long. Exceptions include: tobacco, guns, software... Why?
Uhm, sorry; exceptions just include tobacco.
Guns and software don't injure 1 out of 3 of their customers.
Guns injure something like 1 out of 278,000 of their customers. For software, even Microsoft's crap, it's even lower.
Bicycles have a worse "injures their owner" percentage than guns.
--
Some people use Debian because its better, not because its the most free.
And those people will convert to a Debian-based distribution that includes Netscape etc.
Let Debian do what they want; there's room for all sides here.
--
It is not easy being told by your friends, by your enemies, and by the media that you are an evil lawbreaker, even if you don't buy it yourself. It's not easy to wear a smile to work when a large part of your compensation (salary is fairly low) is in the toilet. It is *definitely* not easy to recruit smart people to work for a company that, in their minds, might not exist in a year.
Oh, cry me a river.
You were not unaware of what your company was doing. You chose to continue to work for them.
That's aiding and abetting.
This complaint of yours is like the getaway driver saying "but I didn't rob the convenience store, Bill and Steve did".
Tough; you should have quit and gone to work for a less predatory company. You didn't, and now you get a little of the tar and feathers stuck to you. Bend over and take it like a man.
Quit now; your next employer will completely understand why you didn't give 2 weeks notice.
Be glad Judge Jackson didn't have the option of immediately dissolving the company. His interview makes it clear he would have liked to have done that.
--
What's the proverb? "NO SECURITY WITHOUT OBSCURITY!". I thought that was what the "Open Source Security Model" was all about?
I believe the industry truism that you're looking for is "security through obscurity is not security at all", and means the exact opposite of what you've taken it to mean.
Hint; OPEN Source. How do you get Open Source as being about security through obscurity? How could one hope to obscure anything for long with the source open?
Answer; they can't. Open Source security relies upon the principle that not all the skilled coders who are looking at the code are nasty criminals looking to hurt somebody. Some of them are professionals like the Sendmail crew, who are interested in making systems more secure by eliminating the bugs.
Unless you want to rewrite everything yourself, you get bugs fixed by publicizing them so that others will be compelled to fix them. Since one man can only put in one man-hour per hour, that's necessary.
As for whomever told you "NO SECURITY WITHOUT OBSCURITY!", you should stop using them as a resource immediately, because they're 30 years behind the state of the art in OS security.
--
"...going to have a piece of music that will only play on one Walkman. [We're] going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."
Not for us, Mr. Warnock; only for you.
As you more and more work to make enemies of your customers, more and more of us will cease being your paying customers.
You can either find a way to make money in the new paradigm, or you can watch it recede into the distance as you wipe fruitlessly at the tire tracks on your shirt.
--
This is why we need story moderation; if the poster gets dinged when they do this, and people who put "ftp.us.kernel.org" don't, then it'll stop happening.
--
The space equivalent of Davy Jones' Locker is:
Klono's gadolinium guts.
Trust me on this.
--
ya, right, now I know you're about as much BS as a stockyard can handle.
Ok, I admit it, it's not double; it's about 9/5th of theirs.
That's Fortune Magazine's figures, not internal figures.
--
The exception to this is .nsn.us.
That is grouped by tribe, such as:
.cheyenne.nsn.us
.sioux.nsn.us
.chickasaw.nsn.us
regardless of what state surrounds them.
nsn stands for "Native Sovereign Nation". I suppose that those tribes that aren't sovereign by treaty shouldn't qualify; dunno if any have a domain.
Of course, just because they HAVE the domain, doesn't mean anything resolves there. Most email addresses of the Chickasaw tribe, for instance, are @chickasaw.com, which is an ISP previously owned by the tribe.
--
"My" Fortune 50 company uses open source and free tools left and right, running on an OS (Unix) that runs the world *BECAUSE* of the vast quantity of free tools involved in it.
Name me one succesful computer platform that has tried to discourage development of free software.
There's not one; they die off if they try that.
Again, you seem to be laboring under some horrible misapprehension that Amiga makes less money if some guy off the street writes a program for their hardware.
By charging a measily 100 bucks for its SDK, it weeds out those that are only interested in developing free software.
Exactly; and that is a horribly stupid thing to do when trying to build a new platform.
I suspect that you are simply a troll spending too much time typing, so I'm going to go let you be an idiot now; the general public has long ago stopped reading this thread.
Oh, one last thing: "my" Fortune 50 company doesn't charge for it's software. The software is free, because it encourages people to use our services more, which means we make more money.
If we charged for the software, fewer people would use it, and we'd make less money.
Actually, we did make a piece of software once upon a time that we charged for. I can see a running count of every single time it's used, anywhere in the world; it's about a dozen total times a day.
Our free offering is used hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of times a day. Our web-based program is used tens of thousands of times a day.
We make more money in an hour than you will in your entire life. I think we're right and you're wrong.
Our revenue is nearly double Microsoft's.
--
And I suppose that you work for free?
When I am distributing infrastructure software for a platform that runs a free operating system?
You're damn right I do.
The purpose of a development kit for an Amiga is not to be a profit center; it's to get people to write apps. The more apps the better, because they make their money from hardware sales, and who'll buy it if it doesn't have apps?
I am really tired of all the college kids screaming "but its not free".
Sorry, I'm a middle-aged professional systems administrator for a Fortune 50 company.
I haven't set foot in a college in over 10 years.
--
I've seen your 'work' for a couple days now, and I must say it is constantly in the top 10% of the normal 'Offtopic' and 'Troll' variety.. Let us all know when you hit +1 with a deliberate haiku, eh?
He passed 20 karma with them yesterday. He did that in less than 48 hours of posting.
I'd say his detractors are in the minority; he's posting at +1 now. Check his user info page.
--
And besides that, what marketing genius came up with the idea of CHARGING for the damn thing?
"Oh, I know; we'll cut our developer base by a few orders of magnitude, but we could make a couple of bucks profit apiece off each of the fifteen people who'll go ahead and buy one!"
That's assuming they're even making a profit; I expect that at $99 they're taking a loss anyway, so why cripple their product before it's even hatched?
Stupid bastards.
--
We'll miss the Compton, it did a good job.
At last night's 2600 meeting here, Cheshire Catalyst took us all outside at exactly the right time to see it pass overhead and wave goodbye. The instant when the angle of the solar panels was right to reflect the sun at us was glorious.
Bye, Compton; good work. You can sleep now.
--
CD audio throws away *ALL* of the information below 20hz and above 22,000hz.
--
He reads his critiques
And responds with an haiku
Japanese Kibo?
--