I don't know what the implementation is, exactly, but "tivoization" prevents modified binaries from running on a given set of hardware. The Pioneer box is changing the hardware behavior (disabling analog output) in response to the type of input it is getting, with no apparent reason for doing so except the rights-management paranoia of content producers....who in this case have no interest or stake in the specific content being transmitted.
I believe the content producers would like us to all have speakers with amplifiers built in, which take digital signals with copy-protection. That way nobody can hear anything unless Sony et al approve.
I just bought a Pioneer plasma TV this weekend. Some things of note in relation to this story: - the TV picture is kick-ass. Great! - the TV runs Linux. Great, though it is not hackable. - the manual has a long section reprinting the various GPL and other OSS licenses from their embedded OS. Great! - the TV has a Home Media Gallery which can connect to a media server and stream audio and video. Great! - The TV's tuner has audio and video MONITOR OUT jacks. Great! - However, the audio and video MONITOR OUT jacks are disabled when the TV plays networked audio or video, or when the HDMI input is used for video.
Why? Well, you might be streaming copyrighted material from your media server, and they don't want you to be able to create an analog recording. Never mind that you own the media (as I almost always do), or even own a DRM license (which in other cases I do), or that you yourself may be the copyright holder, or that you can create an analog copy straight off a regular player. No, instead Pioneer is in bed with Sony and Microsoft to lock up my system and prevent me from doing legitimate activities.
So, whether or not any sharks have been jumped, OSS-licensed works are now completely separable from the ethos and community that generated them, and large companies can create Frankenstein-ian combinations of technologies that enforce restrictions that are the antithesis of what OSS licenses are (supposedly) all about---freedom.
Is this new? No. And there is no license violation that I see. But it is mighty irritating.
People from the South who blather on about states' rights usually set off my bigot alarm, but recently I have been reflecting on my luck in living in a liberal western state that can do things like this.
Ever notice how many acts start on smaller labels, prove their value, then get snapped up by the majors? This deal will undoubtedly result in the big companies adopting independent labels as de facto "minor league" holding areas. The focus for Sony et al will be on how to manipulate the allocation of the time reserved for independent labels to favor the "independent" labels that feed Sony.
I wouldn't be surprised to see artist contracts for the independent labels that designate a favored path for contract buyout---"sign with Sony Junior (an independent label) and if your contract is bought out by Sony, you'll get an additional 5% of T-shirt sales!"
Same here, teachers in the family and they bitch and moan as though the world owed them a CEO's salary and it was only the "warped values" of society that led to teacher/humanities professor salaries being so 'incredibly low' --- well above the median after a few years in the position, and with very plush benefits. Don't dare point it out, though, or you will be labeled a philistine or ignoramus.
Clearly the photons are defective and are falling on to the floor soon after they leave the fixture. Have you tried greasing the air? They would slide farther.
I don't buy it. Zero-day exploit value goes up with installed base. What is the installed base of Vista? If anything, the release of a zero-day exploit at this point would be foolish, it would not benefit the buyer, so it wouldn't be worth spending much on.
If anything, my guess is that any zero-day exploits are being held in various back pockets, in escrow so to speak, to be sold in early spring when the OEMs have shipped lots of Vista-preloaded boxes.
If you show your victim that you are in a violent rage, and perhaps you have a past history of violence, your victim may fear for their life even if you have nothing in your hands. By your logic, boxing is not violent, nor is a street fistfight.
So you're right, an empty gun is as dangerous as a stapler.
Wha??? It's still a deadly threat unless the victim has certain knowledge that there are no bullets in it. I was on a jury last year and the laws that the defendant was charged under emphasized the state of mind of the victim and the intent of the defendant. I can't see how brandishing a gun, empty or not, means anything other than "I intend to use violence."
This thread began with a plea to differentiate Christians from "stupid" people. But the problem is that the anti-science agenda pushed by these "stupid" people is self-identified as a Christian agenda. And when politicians look at demographics and decide not to piss off Christians, they conflate all Christians together. And that includes moderates who don't support that agenda.
Absolutely, when I am overseas, if someone says "Americans do this or that", I point out that the government is different than the people, and that not all the people support everything that the government or individuals do. But I understand that to the rest of the world I am part of a monolithic group. Luckily for me, the founding principles of the country (Constitution, rule of law, etc) are ones I can embrace without a ton of exegetical effort to figure out what they mean. If I had a problem with that stuff (like the cranks who insist that the federal tax system is unconstitutional), I suppose I would move to a different country.
The Bible is obviously huge, and has plenty of examples of archaic cultural practices that are not emulated by Christians today, even when they use it as "an example of how to be a good person". Christianity as practiced by non-fundamentalists generally seems to be filtered through a modern moral philosophy viewpoint---Jesus' teachings on one subject are elevated because they seem relevant today, but on another are virtually ignored.
As to the law analogy---laws evolve to fit the society that they govern. Founding principles generally don't change, but the specific laws do, and they should, and disagreement is healthy---because the debate can move things forward. But the Bible doesn't change, exegesis does.
Honestly, I empathize with the struggle to make sense of it, and if that's someone's route to understanding themselves as a moral actor with free will, so be it. But it does seem to function more as a Rorschach test than anything else.
Whatever---I don't expect anyone to change their mind on this subject based on anything I have to say. But I'd put to you that if you don't want to be on the side of bad people, you should distinguish yourself from them in a way that adds up to more than a "big tent"/each-to-their-own approach to Christianity.
Can you point to the relevant sections of the Bible that give latitude for non-literal interpretations of the content? How much something is or isn't "really" Christian shouldn't have much to do with the breadth of historical interpretations of the Bible. If many people do many things based on the same premise, does that mean they are all right? Or that none of them is more right than any other? Or that they are all wrong? I don't know, I have no idea---do you?
"Fundamentalism doesn't exist before the 1800's"---an ironic post to make on Thanksgiving. Fundamentalism as we know it is a natural outgrowth of the Protestant Revolution, which began a few years before that, as I recall. Biblical literalism (not strictly fundamentalism, granted) was embraced by the Catholic Church before and after Martin Luther whenever it suited their purposes.
I certainly agree that the rise of science has forced a binary choice that has led to more extreme fundamentalism...but that is only due to the conflict of domains that the Bible created. If the Bible had stuck to strictly metaphysical content, I doubt modern Christians would have such widely divergent reactions to science. T'wasn't exactly "futureproof."
But as to whether or not moderate Christians are dangerous---I don't think they are, and I know plenty. However, I think a sensible, well-meaning tolerance for people who seem reasonable can open the door to tolerance for those who are not at all reasonable. And a secular, science-oriented person such as myself can't see a rational reason to see a difference between the two groups that doesn't just devolve into personal preference for open-minded people rather than jerks.
And if I sound intolerant, I suppose I am less blindly tolerant than I used to be. I grew up thinking Christians were generally nice folks, and now I live in a country where a third of people identify themselves as evangelical Christians, and "vote their values," with the attendant catastrophic results. Saying "but that's not me---I'm a *nice* Christian" doesn't quite do it for me, as I can't tell the sheep from the wolves anymore.
To extend your analogy, the Au content is exactly why one should practice it---not a 2,000 year old label that says "Contains gold-ish content---really, trust me! Or else!" in Aramaic.
Christians who don't oppose science are trying to split the difference between what the Bible says and what the scientific method discovers by contriving a kinder, gentler, less literal version of Christianity that represents what they think the Bible "means" instead of what it says.
As far as I can tell, the more fundamentalist a Christian is, the more Christian they are, by the measures provided in the Bible. What is a moderate Christian doing when they say that, for instance, the creation stories in Genesis aren't "literally" true? Why believe in the Bible at all if you're going to "interpret" all the meaning out what the actual text says?
Fundamentalist Christianity is incompatible with modern Western culture and thought, including science. You have to choose a side. If you seek a different form of theology that is more tolerant, great---don't call it Christianity and don't appeal to the Bible as an authority.
So why would Dawkins address fence-straddlers? They are obviously easy enough to convince since they have chosen the path of least resistance by trying to please two masters.
That's hilarious---very similar to my story. Except my MA is in History. I'm 38 and wonder how I got here sometimes.
Wound up in computer security development, then doing software architecture for 4 years, now back to development on a large distributed peer-to-peer grid-type project. I work around some freshly minted PhD's in CS---mostly very smart, but green---and I keep my mouth shut when they say "my professor said" or "my survey of the academic literature in the field indicates..." I don't need a CS degree to understand the limits of reasoning in a distributed system, or why idempotence is such a critical issue in remote services. And it's funny---nobody has ever asked me for a mathematical proof for my designs. Maybe Google is different (ha).
I totally respect CS as a discipline, but in the workplace I think CS concepts are often thrown around as handwaving when people haven't really understood what problem they are trying to solve.
At the end of the day, a candidate can be as liberal as anyone, but if they run as a Republican, they will add one to the number required for a majority...and the majority defines the agenda. Same goes for a "family values" pro-business Democrat.
So it does matter, probably more than anything else.
I checked their questionnaire and noticed a definite conservative slant to their questions and to the options provided in response. I also noticed that many politicians (of all stripes) were unwilling to fill these out.
Seems odd that many interest groups (NRA, AARP, etc.) can examine positions and votes of candidates well enough to rate them, yet this site tries to put candidates on the spot, fails, and then claims that the candidates are hiding something. I don't really see why this thing is interesting beyond enabling one to bitch about what looks like out-of-touch politicians---which after all doesn't need a questionnaire.
In many cases, pairing basic data structures can give you the behaviors you want, without introducing a complex and obscure structure. For instance, if you need a structure with stack push/pop, enforced uniqueness, and that you can search in constant time, pairing a stack and a map gives you those behaviors with constant insert time. The insert/remove time may be double what it would be if you were to use a single structure, but as it is constant it will be efficient over large data sets.
As far as structures that don't seem to be "standard", the ones I have found useful lately are tries and Bloom filters. My vote for least-utilized standard structure would be "set", which can be amazingly useful if you pick the right backing implementation.
Don't get me started. Just because you can put a short name on "it"---MOM or messaging or whatever---doesn't make the "product" solutions any good, and certainly not the no-brainer why-doesn't-everyone-do-this-they-must-be-stupid panacea you suggest.
Local stdio is not the same as distributed systems programming. Managers might want it to be so, but it is not. If they want to pretend that it is, they go find some toolkit or framework that will allow them to keep pretending. And then the resulting app sucks.
This is an area where the generalizations of the problem are not yet useful. Transaction enqueue? Delivery exactly once? Guaranteed message ordering? Compensating messages? Every "framework" implementation compromises some critical function, or provides an implementation that will kill your performance if you use it.
Me: Ooog, this must be a troll. Don't feed the trolls! Other me: But...but...they're wrong.... Me: Well, look how aggressively wrong this person is! and how blatant the clues to their ignorance are! This is a poorly crafted troll, which is a lame attempt to multiply the trollishness! Other me: I have to, I just can't stand it! Maybe they just don't know how stupid they are.... Me: Well, if you must, but don't say I didn't tell you. Other me: Okay, here goes:
If you knew that "amperage" wasn't the correct term, and not even really a word, you might be on your way to understanding why your post makes no sense. Here's a hint: Physics 101.
This is just one of those non-functional "-ility" type problems.
If you know that deals are getting done that don't meet your domain standards, whether it is security, usability, scalability, disaster recovery, etc.---you need to educate decision makers as to why your issue matters to them. If you feel they have heard your message and continue to make bad decisions, and defend the decisions to you on grounds that 'we need the business' or some such, then you have two choices: - try to work with what you are given, understanding that it will never even rise to the level of "adequate" in your eyes. Meanwhile continue to educate those dealmakers until they stop listening to you. - quit
I chose option 1 in my last position (related to IT security) and tried to convince myself it was working---when I finally opened my eyes I moved on to option 2.
What you have to very careful about is feeling that within your domain you are 100% right, and the world would beat a path to your door if only they knew. Sometimes that's true, but sometimes they know and they JUST DON'T CARE at which point you have to recognize that you are working under a completely different value system, and ask what you are doing for your paycheck aside from filling in a bubble on an org chart. "yes, we have a ___ expert on staff!"
Funny thing is that for whatever reason many of the worker bees love to have domain authorities around, and constantly talk them up. However that is very different from actually influencing the worker bees' bosses.
Well, it was repeated at least 5 times in that article...so yes, it is automatically now a word. Luckily, you quickly moved it straight to the sneered-at so-stoopid category with your post. It should be completely gone in 2 hours or so.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what the implementation is, exactly, but "tivoization" prevents modified binaries from running on a given set of hardware. The Pioneer box is changing the hardware behavior (disabling analog output) in response to the type of input it is getting, with no apparent reason for doing so except the rights-management paranoia of content producers....who in this case have no interest or stake in the specific content being transmitted.
I believe the content producers would like us to all have speakers with amplifiers built in, which take digital signals with copy-protection. That way nobody can hear anything unless Sony et al approve.
I just bought a Pioneer plasma TV this weekend. Some things of note in relation to this story:
- the TV picture is kick-ass. Great!
- the TV runs Linux. Great, though it is not hackable.
- the manual has a long section reprinting the various GPL and other OSS licenses from their embedded OS. Great!
- the TV has a Home Media Gallery which can connect to a media server and stream audio and video. Great!
- The TV's tuner has audio and video MONITOR OUT jacks. Great!
- However, the audio and video MONITOR OUT jacks are disabled when the TV plays networked audio or video, or when the HDMI input is used for video.
Why? Well, you might be streaming copyrighted material from your media server, and they don't want you to be able to create an analog recording. Never mind that you own the media (as I almost always do), or even own a DRM license (which in other cases I do), or that you yourself may be the copyright holder, or that you can create an analog copy straight off a regular player. No, instead Pioneer is in bed with Sony and Microsoft to lock up my system and prevent me from doing legitimate activities.
So, whether or not any sharks have been jumped, OSS-licensed works are now completely separable from the ethos and community that generated them, and large companies can create Frankenstein-ian combinations of technologies that enforce restrictions that are the antithesis of what OSS licenses are (supposedly) all about---freedom.
Is this new? No. And there is no license violation that I see. But it is mighty irritating.
People from the South who blather on about states' rights usually set off my bigot alarm, but recently I have been reflecting on my luck in living in a liberal western state that can do things like this.
Ever notice how many acts start on smaller labels, prove their value, then get snapped up by the majors? This deal will undoubtedly result in the big companies adopting independent labels as de facto "minor league" holding areas. The focus for Sony et al will be on how to manipulate the allocation of the time reserved for independent labels to favor the "independent" labels that feed Sony.
I wouldn't be surprised to see artist contracts for the independent labels that designate a favored path for contract buyout---"sign with Sony Junior (an independent label) and if your contract is bought out by Sony, you'll get an additional 5% of T-shirt sales!"
Same here, teachers in the family and they bitch and moan as though the world owed them a CEO's salary and it was only the "warped values" of society that led to teacher/humanities professor salaries being so 'incredibly low' --- well above the median after a few years in the position, and with very plush benefits. Don't dare point it out, though, or you will be labeled a philistine or ignoramus.
Does your nephew like the taste of the lead that is in many house keys? Older ones especially are quite rich in lead-y goodness.
Clearly the photons are defective and are falling on to the floor soon after they leave the fixture. Have you tried greasing the air? They would slide farther.
Yeah, but what about Mr. Paradiso's grandmother?
I don't buy it. Zero-day exploit value goes up with installed base. What is the installed base of Vista? If anything, the release of a zero-day exploit at this point would be foolish, it would not benefit the buyer, so it wouldn't be worth spending much on.
If anything, my guess is that any zero-day exploits are being held in various back pockets, in escrow so to speak, to be sold in early spring when the OEMs have shipped lots of Vista-preloaded boxes.
If you show your victim that you are in a violent rage, and perhaps you have a past history of violence, your victim may fear for their life even if you have nothing in your hands. By your logic, boxing is not violent, nor is a street fistfight.
So you're right, an empty gun is as dangerous as a stapler.
Wha??? It's still a deadly threat unless the victim has certain knowledge that there are no bullets in it. I was on a jury last year and the laws that the defendant was charged under emphasized the state of mind of the victim and the intent of the defendant. I can't see how brandishing a gun, empty or not, means anything other than "I intend to use violence."
This thread began with a plea to differentiate Christians from "stupid" people. But the problem is that the anti-science agenda pushed by these "stupid" people is self-identified as a Christian agenda. And when politicians look at demographics and decide not to piss off Christians, they conflate all Christians together. And that includes moderates who don't support that agenda.
Absolutely, when I am overseas, if someone says "Americans do this or that", I point out that the government is different than the people, and that not all the people support everything that the government or individuals do. But I understand that to the rest of the world I am part of a monolithic group. Luckily for me, the founding principles of the country (Constitution, rule of law, etc) are ones I can embrace without a ton of exegetical effort to figure out what they mean. If I had a problem with that stuff (like the cranks who insist that the federal tax system is unconstitutional), I suppose I would move to a different country.
The Bible is obviously huge, and has plenty of examples of archaic cultural practices that are not emulated by Christians today, even when they use it as "an example of how to be a good person". Christianity as practiced by non-fundamentalists generally seems to be filtered through a modern moral philosophy viewpoint---Jesus' teachings on one subject are elevated because they seem relevant today, but on another are virtually ignored.
As to the law analogy---laws evolve to fit the society that they govern. Founding principles generally don't change, but the specific laws do, and they should, and disagreement is healthy---because the debate can move things forward. But the Bible doesn't change, exegesis does.
Honestly, I empathize with the struggle to make sense of it, and if that's someone's route to understanding themselves as a moral actor with free will, so be it. But it does seem to function more as a Rorschach test than anything else.
Whatever---I don't expect anyone to change their mind on this subject based on anything I have to say. But I'd put to you that if you don't want to be on the side of bad people, you should distinguish yourself from them in a way that adds up to more than a "big tent"/each-to-their-own approach to Christianity.
Can you point to the relevant sections of the Bible that give latitude for non-literal interpretations of the content? How much something is or isn't "really" Christian shouldn't have much to do with the breadth of historical interpretations of the Bible. If many people do many things based on the same premise, does that mean they are all right? Or that none of them is more right than any other? Or that they are all wrong? I don't know, I have no idea---do you?
"Fundamentalism doesn't exist before the 1800's"---an ironic post to make on Thanksgiving. Fundamentalism as we know it is a natural outgrowth of the Protestant Revolution, which began a few years before that, as I recall. Biblical literalism (not strictly fundamentalism, granted) was embraced by the Catholic Church before and after Martin Luther whenever it suited their purposes.
I certainly agree that the rise of science has forced a binary choice that has led to more extreme fundamentalism...but that is only due to the conflict of domains that the Bible created. If the Bible had stuck to strictly metaphysical content, I doubt modern Christians would have such widely divergent reactions to science. T'wasn't exactly "futureproof."
But as to whether or not moderate Christians are dangerous---I don't think they are, and I know plenty. However, I think a sensible, well-meaning tolerance for people who seem reasonable can open the door to tolerance for those who are not at all reasonable. And a secular, science-oriented person such as myself can't see a rational reason to see a difference between the two groups that doesn't just devolve into personal preference for open-minded people rather than jerks.
And if I sound intolerant, I suppose I am less blindly tolerant than I used to be. I grew up thinking Christians were generally nice folks, and now I live in a country where a third of people identify themselves as evangelical Christians, and "vote their values," with the attendant catastrophic results. Saying "but that's not me---I'm a *nice* Christian" doesn't quite do it for me, as I can't tell the sheep from the wolves anymore.
To extend your analogy, the Au content is exactly why one should practice it---not a 2,000 year old label that says "Contains gold-ish content---really, trust me! Or else!" in Aramaic.
Christians who don't oppose science are trying to split the difference between what the Bible says and what the scientific method discovers by contriving a kinder, gentler, less literal version of Christianity that represents what they think the Bible "means" instead of what it says.
As far as I can tell, the more fundamentalist a Christian is, the more Christian they are, by the measures provided in the Bible. What is a moderate Christian doing when they say that, for instance, the creation stories in Genesis aren't "literally" true? Why believe in the Bible at all if you're going to "interpret" all the meaning out what the actual text says?
Fundamentalist Christianity is incompatible with modern Western culture and thought, including science. You have to choose a side. If you seek a different form of theology that is more tolerant, great---don't call it Christianity and don't appeal to the Bible as an authority.
So why would Dawkins address fence-straddlers? They are obviously easy enough to convince since they have chosen the path of least resistance by trying to please two masters.
That's hilarious---very similar to my story. Except my MA is in History. I'm 38 and wonder how I got here sometimes.
Wound up in computer security development, then doing software architecture for 4 years, now back to development on a large distributed peer-to-peer grid-type project. I work around some freshly minted PhD's in CS---mostly very smart, but green---and I keep my mouth shut when they say "my professor said" or "my survey of the academic literature in the field indicates..." I don't need a CS degree to understand the limits of reasoning in a distributed system, or why idempotence is such a critical issue in remote services. And it's funny---nobody has ever asked me for a mathematical proof for my designs. Maybe Google is different (ha).
I totally respect CS as a discipline, but in the workplace I think CS concepts are often thrown around as handwaving when people haven't really understood what problem they are trying to solve.
At the end of the day, a candidate can be as liberal as anyone, but if they run as a Republican, they will add one to the number required for a majority...and the majority defines the agenda. Same goes for a "family values" pro-business Democrat.
So it does matter, probably more than anything else.
I checked their questionnaire and noticed a definite conservative slant to their questions and to the options provided in response. I also noticed that many politicians (of all stripes) were unwilling to fill these out.
Seems odd that many interest groups (NRA, AARP, etc.) can examine positions and votes of candidates well enough to rate them, yet this site tries to put candidates on the spot, fails, and then claims that the candidates are hiding something. I don't really see why this thing is interesting beyond enabling one to bitch about what looks like out-of-touch politicians---which after all doesn't need a questionnaire.
In many cases, pairing basic data structures can give you the behaviors you want, without introducing a complex and obscure structure. For instance, if you need a structure with stack push/pop, enforced uniqueness, and that you can search in constant time, pairing a stack and a map gives you those behaviors with constant insert time. The insert/remove time may be double what it would be if you were to use a single structure, but as it is constant it will be efficient over large data sets.
As far as structures that don't seem to be "standard", the ones I have found useful lately are tries and Bloom filters. My vote for least-utilized standard structure would be "set", which can be amazingly useful if you pick the right backing implementation.
Don't get me started. Just because you can put a short name on "it"---MOM or messaging or whatever---doesn't make the "product" solutions any good, and certainly not the no-brainer why-doesn't-everyone-do-this-they-must-be-stupid panacea you suggest.
Local stdio is not the same as distributed systems programming. Managers might want it to be so, but it is not. If they want to pretend that it is, they go find some toolkit or framework that will allow them to keep pretending. And then the resulting app sucks.
This is an area where the generalizations of the problem are not yet useful. Transaction enqueue? Delivery exactly once? Guaranteed message ordering? Compensating messages? Every "framework" implementation compromises some critical function, or provides an implementation that will kill your performance if you use it.
Me: Ooog, this must be a troll. Don't feed the trolls!
Other me: But...but...they're wrong....
Me: Well, look how aggressively wrong this person is! and how blatant the clues to their ignorance are! This is a poorly crafted troll, which is a lame attempt to multiply the trollishness!
Other me: I have to, I just can't stand it! Maybe they just don't know how stupid they are....
Me: Well, if you must, but don't say I didn't tell you.
Other me: Okay, here goes:
If you knew that "amperage" wasn't the correct term, and not even really a word, you might be on your way to understanding why your post makes no sense. Here's a hint: Physics 101.
You got a *bonus*? And a rubber band *gun*? I just got a rubber band...
This is just one of those non-functional "-ility" type problems.
If you know that deals are getting done that don't meet your domain standards, whether it is security, usability, scalability, disaster recovery, etc.---you need to educate decision makers as to why your issue matters to them. If you feel they have heard your message and continue to make bad decisions, and defend the decisions to you on grounds that 'we need the business' or some such, then you have two choices:
- try to work with what you are given, understanding that it will never even rise to the level of "adequate" in your eyes. Meanwhile continue to educate those dealmakers until they stop listening to you.
- quit
I chose option 1 in my last position (related to IT security) and tried to convince myself it was working---when I finally opened my eyes I moved on to option 2.
What you have to very careful about is feeling that within your domain you are 100% right, and the world would beat a path to your door if only they knew. Sometimes that's true, but sometimes they know and they JUST DON'T CARE at which point you have to recognize that you are working under a completely different value system, and ask what you are doing for your paycheck aside from filling in a bubble on an org chart. "yes, we have a ___ expert on staff!"
Funny thing is that for whatever reason many of the worker bees love to have domain authorities around, and constantly talk them up. However that is very different from actually influencing the worker bees' bosses.
Well, it was repeated at least 5 times in that article...so yes, it is automatically now a word. Luckily, you quickly moved it straight to the sneered-at so-stoopid category with your post. It should be completely gone in 2 hours or so.