Thanks for your note. The explanation is a simple one. Yes, the page was
updated today. As you may have noticed, we redesigned our site a few weeks
ago. The new look allows us to link to more stories and is easier to read.
When I heard this morning that Michelle Cottle's article was in the news, I
decided to drop the text of her article into one of our new page templates.
The actual content of the article was not changed. You could check the
online version against the printed version if you care to verify this
further.
Ok. That's another consistant position. "A fetus becomes a human being when it is viable outside the womb, Using this logic, a woman might have the right to have a fetus removed, but not to destroy it before removing it, as is done during abortions.
If you take this position, then how do you implement it? Cutoff dates? Here's two hypothetical women, one of which has a fetus one day over your cutoff date, the other has a fetus one day under your cutoff date. Why should one be recognized as a human being and the other not?
Or you could go the "try and see" approach. You could require that instead of abortion, all unwanted pregnancies must be terminated by the live removal of the fetus, and doctors must make every effort to save the resulting premature infant. Thus, the final decision is pushed by science, but made by nature -- the viable fetuses live, the inviable ones die.
As a matter of public policy, this is pretty close to a worst-case scenario though. Instead of millions of abortions, or millions of unwanted full-term healthy babies, you have millions of unwanted premature babies in need of overwhelmingly expensive medical care.
But yes, the viability position is consistant, but I don't think that it's implementable.
The flip side of the viability criteria is showing itself in the latest twist in the drug war. Women are being arrested after childbirth and charged with the crime of "delivering drugs to their child", because they had used, for instance, cocaine, and the cocaine passed through the placenta. If you can say this for drugs, then why not other unhealthy habits? Smoking? Not eating enough? The logical conclusion of this policy -- the bottom of the slippery slope -- is the idea that once a fetus becomes viable, a woman loses all rights over her own body, which I'm not comfortable with.
Here is the URL for the Google cache entry for the article. I don't know when the google cache was made:
The only difference I saw between the two was a minor spelling correction:
ughes's aura helps her control a media beast
-->
Hughes's aura helps her control a media beast
But you are right. This file was modified shortly after the citation on slashdot. Anyone notice any other differences between the two?
Both copies read:
Other times Hughes simply shuts down the conversation. Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. "He said, `After 1968? No.' I said, `What about before 1968?'
Did you save a copy of the allegedly modified page?
Slashdot citation: 1:10PM CST
Timestamp on the TNR file: 2:01PM CST
Your posting: 2:37 CST
This is an odd situation where only the extremists can claim the moral high ground.
The answer "Yes, a fetus is a human being, and I oppose any and all abortions whatsoever" is consistant. It defines a fetus as a human being, and proceeds to the conclusion that human beings have the same rights before birth as after birth.
The answer "No, a fetus becomes a human being when it is born; until then it is a part of the woman's body" is also consistant. You can then proceed to claim the absolute right of a woman to have an abortion, because a fetus, not being a human, has no rights, whereas the mother, being a human being, has full control and rights over her body.
Here's the evil answer: "I oppose abortion, except in cases of rape or incest." Every time I hear that, I wish I could throw back two question:
1) If you do not consider a fetus to be a human being, then on what authority can the government assume control over a woman's body?
2) If you do consider a fetus to be a human being, then how can you sanction the killing of human beings on the sole basis of parental lineage?
Wasn't gay marriage the one thing that Gore and Bush agreed on during the debates?
What are you kidding?
Here's my favorite example. From the 2nd debate, I believe.
When asked about the death penalty, Bush replied that he favors executions, because he thinks that killing murderers prevents them from killing more people.
Gore, on the other hand, had an entirely different view. He favors executions because killing murderers serves as a deterrent.
So there. You decide which candidate best fits your beliefs. I mean, what other choices could there possibly be?
John Hagelin writes:
However, it is also true that intellectual property is a key motivator in the creation of new material and therefore must be given protection.
That is why I believe that the entertainment industry should make an all-out effort to find new ways to utilize Napster and similar services on a "pay per view" basis. This approach will serve all concerned and turn what appears now--at least to many in the entertainment industry--to be a disaster into a boon for both the industry and the consumer.
Hagelin doesn't get it. Pay per view is the problem, not the solution.
The problem with pay per view is that it doesn't establish a public domain. I don't mean "public domain" in the sense of expired copyrights, but "public domain" in the sense of "things that the public have access to." Things you can make fair use of. Things you can quote from. Things you can preserve.
For instance, if I wanted to review all of the books published on a certain topic from, say, 1900-1920, there is a very strong likelihood that I would be able to find most of them. They were published, sold to libraries and individuals, and still exist in the hands of libraries, used book dealers, collectors, and second-hand stores.
However, if I wanted to review all of the films on a certain topic from 1900-1920, I would be out of luck. The problem is that motion pictures at that time were pay-per-view only. The only way to see a movie was at the theatre. The films were never sold to the public, and in fact, over 90% of them no longer exist in any form -- all the negatives, and every last copy were all destroyed by the studios when they were deemed worthless by their owners.
Now back to the present. The copyright industries want pay-per-view. They don't like the idea of first sale -- the entire purpose of the DMCA is to allow copyright holders to control the use -- or lack of use -- of works even after they have been sold to the public. Under the DMCA, a publisher has the "right" to "recall" an electronic book after publication, and anyone who reads that book -- even if they are the rightful owner of the copy -- is committing a felony. This is so directly against the purpose of copyright that it is hard to know where to begin. The purpose of copyright is to incite publication. To create copies that are then owned by the public. Pay per view is not publication. It does not promote progress.
That's the problem with the DMCA, and the current direction of copyright law.
Hmm... how about this. Ride the shuttle up, park the shuttle in a geosynchronous orbit, and make your "dive" by jumping out of the cargo bay towards the earth.
This really does push the notion of "extreme sports" to a new level!
I was at a computer conference a few years ago. Every evening at the conference, there was an open bar, and most of the conference attendees would gather to argue shop and get hammered. This particular evening, I was talking with a small group of people about this very subject -- falling crime rates. A fairly drunk fellow turned around and said to me, "That's partly my fault."
"What are you talking about", I asked. He explained.
The FBI has a national crime-reporting system. Local police departments are supposed to enter information about crimes in their jurisdiction into a computer. This information is then collected nationally, and crime statistics are generated.
His last job had been as a computer programmer -- designing the software -- called NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System) that the local police departments have to use. The project had turned into a bureaucratic nightmare -- change orders were coming down furiously from the top, and there wasn't enough manpower and time to do the job right -- the software had become extremely difficult to use, and was growing in complexity every day. The project was turning into a disaster. But it couldn't be stopped or overhauled. It had too much momentum, and was too important and political.
One of the characteristics of the new crime reporting software is that the more serious the crime, the more information is required to be entered in. Logging a murder case into the crime reporting database requires several times more effort then logging a manslaughter case. Likewise for property crimes. Entering a residential burglary into the computer system is much more difficult and time consuming then entering a report on simple theft. The feds want to know every last detail about serious crimes, but not so much about less serious crimes.
Using the software is extremely difficult, he told me. You can't submit a half-completed form. You have to completely fill out each page on the computer before you can move on to the next page. And sometimes you don't have the answer in front of you, and are stuck.
Then he described who was using the software.
Who do you think is filling out these reports? It isn't the police officers who responded to the crimes. They have other crimes to respond to. It isn't the detectives who investigate the crimes. They have crimes to investigate. Instead, police departments hire data entry clerks. These data entry clerks sit down with files of closed cases, and try and enter the data into the database.
This programmer had worked with some of the police departments who were beta-testing the software, and realized that the software was having completely unexpected effects.
First off, these overworked data entry clerks often didn't really understand what they were doing. It's very difficult to take a file of often hand-written police paperwork and, not being familiar with the case, translate the information into the forms required by the crime reporting software. This requires analysis, and the job was being given to people who may well be qualified to perform data entry, but were not qualified to perform crime analysis.
A typical help-desk call would be of the nature, "I can't figure out what's going on, just tell what to click to get through this page. I have an incredible backlog, and I don't have the time for this."
This is bad.
Then he realized that something else was going on.
The clerks, and then the supervisors and police departments learned that answering certain questions one way would result in more screens of data to be filled out. For instance, if you told the software that the crime involved a weapon, then you would be presented with more pages of questions then had you not checked the weapon box. From this came the observation that the less seriously a crime could be catagorized, the less effort was required to log it in the national crime database.
The police departments who were beta-testing the software were deliberately downgrading crimes, in order to clear the backlog caused by the difficult to use, inefficient, poorly written crime reporting software!
This unnamed programmer told us that he knew that as soon as this software went online nationally, that violent and serious crime statistics would take a nose dive, because the software created enormous incentives to understate the seriousness of crimes. If there's an unsolved crime, and it might be a murder, or it might be homicide, in the past the judgement call would be made objectively, while now unsolved crimes are almost uniformly downgraded as much as possible, to ease the burden on the departments, so that they don't have to hire as many data entry clerks, and so that their work isn't as difficult.
The programmer told me that finally he had had enough of the project, resigned, and went on to do other database programming work for a corporation. Then, he excused himself, and went off for another drink, and that was the last I saw of him. I wish I had gotten his name. It was right on his badge, along with his email address. But I didn't, and never saw him again.
So if you really want to discover the true meaning of the drop in violent and serious crime statistics, you might look for a positive correlation between a drop in crime rates, and the national implementation of the FBI NIBRS crime reporting software.
Again, take this for what it's worth. This guy could have been bullshitting me like crazy. But then...
Speaking of clue-trains not leaving the station, someone has moderated my self-correction down as "overrated" from 1 to 0. Great. I even went through the trouble of checking the "No Score +1 Bonus" button. Increasing confusion through insane moderation. I suppose this will be moderated down also.:-)
This discussion leads to the question, how best to defend a domain name against hijack attempts.
I have a domain name in mind. It is currently unregistered. It's a coined word, and I don't think anyone else is going to think of it anytime soon. My proposed course of action is:
1) Register the domain name.
2) Register a service mark on the domain name, listing the service as "providing information, products, and services via the internet." (cribbed from the slashdot trademark entry) That should cover just about anything I can imagine doing on a web site. "Using the trademark in commerce" would involve putting up the site and maybe a banner ad.
Registering a trademark is fairly expensive -- there is a $325.00 filing fee and a ten year renewal fee of $400.00.
I can't decide if this is overkill, or if extraordinary measures are now required to protect a web site against WIPO-based attack. I know that one must take measures to defend trademarks, which I doubt I could afford to do.
Of course, the fact that he never even bothered to reply to ICANN might have had something to do with this. Generally, if you want to preserve your rights, you should make a minimal effort to do so.
Right, you can't get back-and-forth motion that fast, so instead you use the same technique that is used in laser printers -- a rotating drum covered with six or eight flat mirrors.
The laser is reflected off of the mirrors on the drum. As the drum rotates, the angle of the laser with respect to the mirror changes, causing the laser to scan in one direction. When the drum rotates far enough, the laser beam drops off the end of the mirror and strikes the next mirror on the drum. This instantly returns the beam to the starting scan position. No back-and-forth mechanical motion is required, only extremely stable and precise rotational motion.
Here is a web page with a drawing of how this works in a laser printer.
Vertical scanning is done the same way. The trick is in keeping both mirror drums rotating at exactly the correct speed and in perfect synchronization with each other.
As a matter of fact, you could probably use the scanning guts of two laser printer to build a laser-projection TV.
Just because the Nazis brought about the holocaust does not mean that every thing they did has been tainted by evil. It might be my imagination, but I do believe that German streets are safer than American streets. Both before and after the war
You conspicuously left out during the war. The streets may have been safe, but not if you were a Jew.
The difference is that each version of Windows breaks the previous generation of application software, while each generation of Linux supports the previous generation of application software.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the reply from the New Republic:
Mr. Schulien,
Thanks for your note. The explanation is a simple one. Yes, the page was
updated today. As you may have noticed, we redesigned our site a few weeks
ago. The new look allows us to link to more stories and is easier to read.
When I heard this morning that Michelle Cottle's article was in the news, I
decided to drop the text of her article into one of our new page templates.
The actual content of the article was not changed. You could check the
online version against the printed version if you care to verify this
further.
Best,
Jeremy McCarter
Editor, TNR Online
Case closed?
Ok. That's another consistant position. "A fetus becomes a human being when it is viable outside the womb, Using this logic, a woman might have the right to have a fetus removed, but not to destroy it before removing it, as is done during abortions.
If you take this position, then how do you implement it? Cutoff dates? Here's two hypothetical women, one of which has a fetus one day over your cutoff date, the other has a fetus one day under your cutoff date. Why should one be recognized as a human being and the other not?
Or you could go the "try and see" approach. You could require that instead of abortion, all unwanted pregnancies must be terminated by the live removal of the fetus, and doctors must make every effort to save the resulting premature infant. Thus, the final decision is pushed by science, but made by nature -- the viable fetuses live, the inviable ones die.
As a matter of public policy, this is pretty close to a worst-case scenario though. Instead of millions of abortions, or millions of unwanted full-term healthy babies, you have millions of unwanted premature babies in need of overwhelmingly expensive medical care.
But yes, the viability position is consistant, but I don't think that it's implementable.
The flip side of the viability criteria is showing itself in the latest twist in the drug war. Women are being arrested after childbirth and charged with the crime of "delivering drugs to their child", because they had used, for instance, cocaine, and the cocaine passed through the placenta. If you can say this for drugs, then why not other unhealthy habits? Smoking? Not eating enough? The logical conclusion of this policy -- the bottom of the slippery slope -- is the idea that once a fetus becomes viable, a woman loses all rights over her own body, which I'm not comfortable with.
I checked, and the cited words appear to be there.
/11 2999/cottle112999.html
...
First off, here is the correct url:
http://www.tnr.com/magazines
Here is the URL for the Google cache entry for the article. I don't know when the google cache was made:
The only difference I saw between the two was a minor spelling correction:
ughes's aura helps her control a media beast
-->
Hughes's aura helps her control a media beast
But you are right. This file was modified shortly after the citation on slashdot. Anyone notice any other differences between the two?
Both copies read:
Other times Hughes simply shuts down the conversation. Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. "He said, `After 1968? No.' I said, `What about before 1968?'
Did you save a copy of the allegedly modified page?
Slashdot citation: 1:10PM CST
Timestamp on the TNR file: 2:01PM CST
Your posting: 2:37 CST
Very irregular
This is an odd situation where only the extremists can claim the moral high ground.
The answer "Yes, a fetus is a human being, and I oppose any and all abortions whatsoever" is consistant. It defines a fetus as a human being, and proceeds to the conclusion that human beings have the same rights before birth as after birth.
The answer "No, a fetus becomes a human being when it is born; until then it is a part of the woman's body" is also consistant. You can then proceed to claim the absolute right of a woman to have an abortion, because a fetus, not being a human, has no rights, whereas the mother, being a human being, has full control and rights over her body.
Here's the evil answer: "I oppose abortion, except in cases of rape or incest." Every time I hear that, I wish I could throw back two question:
1) If you do not consider a fetus to be a human being, then on what authority can the government assume control over a woman's body?
2) If you do consider a fetus to be a human being, then how can you sanction the killing of human beings on the sole basis of parental lineage?
Heck, it's up to 12 mod points now. This may be some sort of record.
Wasn't gay marriage the one thing that Gore and Bush agreed on during the debates?
What are you kidding?
Here's my favorite example. From the 2nd debate, I believe.
When asked about the death penalty, Bush replied that he favors executions, because he thinks that killing murderers prevents them from killing more people.
Gore, on the other hand, had an entirely different view. He favors executions because killing murderers serves as a deterrent.
So there. You decide which candidate best fits your beliefs. I mean, what other choices could there possibly be?
John Hagelin writes:
However, it is also true that intellectual property is a key motivator in the creation of new material and therefore must be given protection.
That is why I believe that the entertainment industry should make an all-out effort to find new ways to utilize Napster and similar services on a "pay per view" basis. This approach will serve all concerned and turn what appears now--at least to many in the entertainment industry--to be a disaster into a boon for both the industry and the consumer.
Hagelin doesn't get it. Pay per view is the problem, not the solution.
The problem with pay per view is that it doesn't establish a public domain. I don't mean "public domain" in the sense of expired copyrights, but "public domain" in the sense of "things that the public have access to." Things you can make fair use of. Things you can quote from. Things you can preserve.
For instance, if I wanted to review all of the books published on a certain topic from, say, 1900-1920, there is a very strong likelihood that I would be able to find most of them. They were published, sold to libraries and individuals, and still exist in the hands of libraries, used book dealers, collectors, and second-hand stores.
However, if I wanted to review all of the films on a certain topic from 1900-1920, I would be out of luck. The problem is that motion pictures at that time were pay-per-view only. The only way to see a movie was at the theatre. The films were never sold to the public, and in fact, over 90% of them no longer exist in any form -- all the negatives, and every last copy were all destroyed by the studios when they were deemed worthless by their owners.
Now back to the present. The copyright industries want pay-per-view. They don't like the idea of first sale -- the entire purpose of the DMCA is to allow copyright holders to control the use -- or lack of use -- of works even after they have been sold to the public. Under the DMCA, a publisher has the "right" to "recall" an electronic book after publication, and anyone who reads that book -- even if they are the rightful owner of the copy -- is committing a felony. This is so directly against the purpose of copyright that it is hard to know where to begin. The purpose of copyright is to incite publication. To create copies that are then owned by the public. Pay per view is not publication. It does not promote progress.
That's the problem with the DMCA, and the current direction of copyright law.
Also, geosynchronous orbit is incredibly high (don't know the exact figure, but it dwarfs 31 miles.)
:-P
Yep, it's 22,241 miles.
Oops! Well, that's a good thing to know in advance. Wouldn't want to set the "longest freefall by a skeleton" record.
I loved that ride! Nothing like staring up at a little round movie screen while your butt is pinched as the rocket "blasts off!"
I don't remember the part you're talking about though.
Yes, but a "skydiver" who doesn't turn into a "parachutist" becomes a "crater" instead.
Hmm ... how about this. Ride the shuttle up, park the shuttle in a geosynchronous orbit, and make your "dive" by jumping out of the cargo bay towards the earth.
This really does push the notion of "extreme sports" to a new level!
The problem with the USPTO is that it doesn't understand the effect of patents. I've heard over and over again how patents "create wealth."
Patents don't create wealth. They concentrate power. Very different.
Take this for what it's worth.
...
I was at a computer conference a few years ago. Every evening at the conference, there was an open bar, and most of the conference attendees would gather to argue shop and get hammered. This particular evening, I was talking with a small group of people about this very subject -- falling crime rates. A fairly drunk fellow turned around and said to me, "That's partly my fault."
"What are you talking about", I asked. He explained.
The FBI has a national crime-reporting system. Local police departments are supposed to enter information about crimes in their jurisdiction into a computer. This information is then collected nationally, and crime statistics are generated.
His last job had been as a computer programmer -- designing the software -- called NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System) that the local police departments have to use. The project had turned into a bureaucratic nightmare -- change orders were coming down furiously from the top, and there wasn't enough manpower and time to do the job right -- the software had become extremely difficult to use, and was growing in complexity every day. The project was turning into a disaster. But it couldn't be stopped or overhauled. It had too much momentum, and was too important and political.
One of the characteristics of the new crime reporting software is that the more serious the crime, the more information is required to be entered in. Logging a murder case into the crime reporting database requires several times more effort then logging a manslaughter case. Likewise for property crimes. Entering a residential burglary into the computer system is much more difficult and time consuming then entering a report on simple theft. The feds want to know every last detail about serious crimes, but not so much about less serious crimes.
Using the software is extremely difficult, he told me. You can't submit a half-completed form. You have to completely fill out each page on the computer before you can move on to the next page. And sometimes you don't have the answer in front of you, and are stuck.
Then he described who was using the software.
Who do you think is filling out these reports? It isn't the police officers who responded to the crimes. They have other crimes to respond to. It isn't the detectives who investigate the crimes. They have crimes to investigate. Instead, police departments hire data entry clerks. These data entry clerks sit down with files of closed cases, and try and enter the data into the database.
This programmer had worked with some of the police departments who were beta-testing the software, and realized that the software was having completely unexpected effects.
First off, these overworked data entry clerks often didn't really understand what they were doing. It's very difficult to take a file of often hand-written police paperwork and, not being familiar with the case, translate the information into the forms required by the crime reporting software. This requires analysis, and the job was being given to people who may well be qualified to perform data entry, but were not qualified to perform crime analysis.
A typical help-desk call would be of the nature, "I can't figure out what's going on, just tell what to click to get through this page. I have an incredible backlog, and I don't have the time for this."
This is bad.
Then he realized that something else was going on.
The clerks, and then the supervisors and police departments learned that answering certain questions one way would result in more screens of data to be filled out. For instance, if you told the software that the crime involved a weapon, then you would be presented with more pages of questions then had you not checked the weapon box. From this came the observation that the less seriously a crime could be catagorized, the less effort was required to log it in the national crime database.
The police departments who were beta-testing the software were deliberately downgrading crimes, in order to clear the backlog caused by the difficult to use, inefficient, poorly written crime reporting software!
This unnamed programmer told us that he knew that as soon as this software went online nationally, that violent and serious crime statistics would take a nose dive, because the software created enormous incentives to understate the seriousness of crimes. If there's an unsolved crime, and it might be a murder, or it might be homicide, in the past the judgement call would be made objectively, while now unsolved crimes are almost uniformly downgraded as much as possible, to ease the burden on the departments, so that they don't have to hire as many data entry clerks, and so that their work isn't as difficult.
The programmer told me that finally he had had enough of the project, resigned, and went on to do other database programming work for a corporation. Then, he excused himself, and went off for another drink, and that was the last I saw of him. I wish I had gotten his name. It was right on his badge, along with his email address. But I didn't, and never saw him again.
So if you really want to discover the true meaning of the drop in violent and serious crime statistics, you might look for a positive correlation between a drop in crime rates, and the national implementation of the FBI NIBRS crime reporting software.
Again, take this for what it's worth. This guy could have been bullshitting me like crazy. But then
(Score: 0, moderator on crack)
:-)
Speaking of clue-trains not leaving the station, someone has moderated my self-correction down as "overrated" from 1 to 0. Great. I even went through the trouble of checking the "No Score +1 Bonus" button. Increasing confusion through insane moderation. I suppose this will be moderated down also.
This discussion leads to the question, how best to defend a domain name against hijack attempts.
I have a domain name in mind. It is currently unregistered. It's a coined word, and I don't think anyone else is going to think of it anytime soon. My proposed course of action is:
1) Register the domain name.
2) Register a service mark on the domain name, listing the service as "providing information, products, and services via the internet." (cribbed from the slashdot trademark entry) That should cover just about anything I can imagine doing on a web site. "Using the trademark in commerce" would involve putting up the site and maybe a banner ad.
Registering a trademark is fairly expensive -- there is a $325.00 filing fee and a ten year renewal fee of $400.00.
I can't decide if this is overkill, or if extraordinary measures are now required to protect a web site against WIPO-based attack. I know that one must take measures to defend trademarks, which I doubt I could afford to do.
Has anyone gone this route?
Ok, I'm an idiot. WIPO, not ICANN.
Of course, the fact that he never even bothered to reply to ICANN might have had something to do with this. Generally, if you want to preserve your rights, you should make a minimal effort to do so.
Sounds like the makings of a baaaad science fiction movie.
Of course there is a provision that exempts law enforcement. Laws are to control the citizens, not the government, silly!
Finally, the human race will have an off-site backup facility.
Not exactly a shining example of well-adjusted religious folk.
Right, you can't get back-and-forth motion that fast, so instead you use the same technique that is used in laser printers -- a rotating drum covered with six or eight flat mirrors.
The laser is reflected off of the mirrors on the drum. As the drum rotates, the angle of the laser with respect to the mirror changes, causing the laser to scan in one direction. When the drum rotates far enough, the laser beam drops off the end of the mirror and strikes the next mirror on the drum. This instantly returns the beam to the starting scan position. No back-and-forth mechanical motion is required, only extremely stable and precise rotational motion.
Here is a web page with a drawing of how this works in a laser printer.
Vertical scanning is done the same way. The trick is in keeping both mirror drums rotating at exactly the correct speed and in perfect synchronization with each other.
As a matter of fact, you could probably use the scanning guts of two laser printer to build a laser-projection TV.
Now THAT would be a rockin' hack
Look here for more information about this important, divisive issue.
Just because the Nazis brought about the holocaust does not mean that every thing they did has been tainted by evil. It might be my imagination, but I do believe that German streets are safer than American streets. Both before and after the war
You conspicuously left out during the war. The streets may have been safe, but not if you were a Jew.
The difference is that each version of Windows breaks the previous generation of application software, while each generation of Linux supports the previous generation of application software.
Put THAT in the ad!