Microsoft has always had this policy. "If You're Going To Steal Software, Steal From Us". They attempt to identify groups who would never pay anyway and get them to get Windows/Office etc. for free, which starts a lock in so that the other people are forced to get Windows/Office etc. to read the documents sent by the people who aren't paying.
MS reacts mainly to threats to it's bottom line. In this case, it was likely that they would end up being sued in the US or elsewhere for the illegal acts of their agents in Russia; they want to distance themselves as much as possible from that. Remember that in China they have been actively handing over information about dissidents and in the recent case where Google pulled out they basically supported over spying on dissidents, they basically supported the Chinese government. None of this change has anything to do with trying to help small political groups.
If you are wondering why the Russian government (and others involved) aren't protesting, you should remember that MS actively collaberates with such groups, e.g. handing over the Windows source code. The Russian government is probably more than happy that the NGOs use Windows which they know more about spying on instead of Linux or something more obscure where they would have greater difficiulties.
I agree that the principle is bad. Apart from the lack of information in the link name, it doubles the number of servers involved and will break the way back machine. However, in the particular case of tinyurl it's worth knowing that if you go to their homepage you can set things so that you see the URL before visiting it.
The key point is that the "execs have been forced to resign" within their existing contracts. They got (most of) their golden parachutes etc. When a company declares bankruptcy such people can, and should, lose everything. Also, many banks, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland managed to get away with complete independence whilst relying on state loans. Making a few visible examples is better than nothing, but it isn't nearly the kind of policy I was talking about.
No it wasn't. They could have simply taken control of the banks instead of bailing them out. There was no need to leave any of the people in control or ownership who were in control or ownership at the time they caused the crisis. Oh, some of them should have been kept on as management, possibly in return for being allowed to keep some of the old pay they stole, but none of them should have been allowed to return to the ownership and control they had.
If this had been done right, the various countries which did the bail outs would soon be in a situation where they could start selling the banks for a profit. .
there are endless variations of limitations on CC licensing
Every commercial track has a different separate license. CC is much simpler since there are only a few main variants with version numbers. You can simply say "CC-SA and CC-BY-SA are allowed CC-NC is not". Your claim is fairly simple FUD.
and it would be a nightmare for the CBC to track down and clarify the status of every single piece of CC music they wanted to use.
Wherever you download it from normally has the status. If it doesn't, that version isn't CC licensed and you don't have anything to track down.
It seems like you are making very weak excuses for some reason. Why?
As for of the claims by some uninformed people that a simple search on the internetz would provide unencumbered music, well, citation needed.
Guess what; there have been lots of cases where it was decided, after long court cases, that proprietary songs were copied from other proprietary songs without license. Would you bet your job on that? No, because you don't have to. If you had a good reason to believe the song was okay, for example the CC license attached to it, then you will not likely have a problem and if you do have a problem, the license the song claims to be under will not make any difference.
Finally, I'm seeing a lot of ant-Harper spam on Slashdot as of late, seems those poor anarchists and jackboot radicals are still smarting from their bad press after the Toronto G20 summit debacle.
Ahh. maybe we have the explanation; American style "two team" politics is creeping into Canada. This is not a "football" thing. You do not have to believe something just because it might be convenient to your team. Most of us on slashdot have barely heard of your "Harper" whatever he/she/it is and we do not form our views according to what might be most likely to damage "Harper".
Mod parent up; There are vast monocultures all over e.g. californian almonds. The bees are basically taken there, pollinate the crops and die of starvation after a few weeks. They probably meet more types of flower in one day in their natural environment than they meet in their lifetime working for agriculture.
"I'm willing to bet that the fungus and the virus were in separate regions at one point."
Would have only prolonged the wait, not prevented the combination. Also- shipping the bees around would expose them to more variety of flowers, not less. Your hypothesis on that part seems incorrect to me.
I'm not sure you're right. Assume that the virus and fungus are in separate but almost connected areas. In the natural environment, if bees with the virus meet bees with the fungus they will die. This will create a dead zone for both the virus and the bacteria between their infection areas where fully healthy hives will have a massive selection advantage. It would also create a long term stable area where bees will survive but be able to evolve against pressure from both.
I think that a natural meeting of the two would give a good opportunity for bees to evolve to deal with both of them.
The problem is that the current way of doing it wipes out all the hives which get infected with no long term survival of those that are doing better at getting rid of either the virus or the vungus.
If this were a legal article I might add INAL at this stage, so instead I'll just say: INAMBE (I'm not a micro-biological expert) but then, nor are any microbiologists I've ever heard of... at least when you look back at the answers they gave ten years ago.
A thing to think about is this; There was a big load of hype about experiments a few years back where NASA / xxx university etc. would build a biosphere with "all the elements to support life"; people would live in there for X months and we would all learn how the ecology of the world. Since that time we hear nothing. Why?
Well, I actually checked up. The results are available on the internet, they just didn't get big publicity. Basically all these experiments "failed" after a few months. The atmosphere lost oxygen, predators died out for unknown reasons and pests took over etc. etc.
In the end, these experiments didn't fail. The told us what we need to know. We do not know what is needed to support life on earth and it's quite possible that some of the species of bacteria which live on blueberry roots are needed for life. Who knows. Certainly killing off all the flowering plants just because we aren't sure they are needed doesn't sound like a good bet.
When you discuss this thinking about CCing the boss, I think you are really moving in the right direction. However, I still don't think you are thinking about dynamics in a big company.
The first part of the dynamic is that the accusation has been made. If something was wrong, someone is probably going to want to cover their ass. If these people were reasonable, they would ask first and suspend later. No decent boss does what they've done, so probably you've had experiences with completely different situations.
The second part is that the company cares more about the people than the domain. Please note from the story that this isn't a domain they are using; this isn't doing them any harm; they would never have noticed if they didn't hire a special service that checked for such domains. The fact that he returns it doesn't matter at all if they believe that he had it maliciously. They want rid of him not because they want his domain, but because they believe he cheated them.
When the domain is updated, his information will be deleted from the record. It is likely that they will interpret this as evidence of an attempted cover up.
He can get several bits of value from a lawyer at this point (an important thing to remember, even with lawyers, is that you are the customer; they will to some extent do what you ask them to do).
A person who can make offers without it being possible to safely accuse him of extortion / blackmail or deception.
An "independent" person where all correspondence goes through, making it more difficult to deny or twist
Some leverage to force the situation to be considered higher up or at least seriously.
He should tell his lawyer he wants to make the offer you have suggested and ask for a quick verification of the letter he's written. This should be possible in a free 1/2 hour advice session. The lawyer will either be able to write it in his own name, in which case it can't be used as evidence of blackmail or alternatively be able to verify the wording to limit the possibility of it being used against him. The reaction to the company from the offer should be sufficient to tell him if he has a chance of working with them; if he should just walk away or, which I think is possible, they may decide to persue him no matter what he does now.
Having said that, the difference between my interpretation and yours rests largely on understanding of facts that are implied rather than stated. What is the domain being used for? If nothing, then they clearly won't care about what he does and the only useful thing is to convince them it's not him. If it holds libelous material against the company then they might like your suggestion more. What exactly matches in the record? He only lists his name and the registrar. Registrars often have millions of customers so if that's the only similarity then it really can be coincidence. He can really get into trouble for trying to steal a domain. If on the other hand it has his home address as well, there's no question of anything other than identity fraud.
So, in the absence of any more comment from the man himself, I'll agree with your other post that this was a troll and leave this at that.
Again, this doesn't really affect people making $200,000 every year,
Actually, the people earning the most are those who mostly cause the most expense. They drive bigger cars, use more fuel (causing pollution which needs to be cleaned up), wearing out more roads (which need to be rebuilt), throwing away more rubbish (which needs to be cleaned out), demanding more policing (which needs to be paid for), having more lawsuits (which needs more judges) etc. etc. etc.
The big pile of garbage is that not only do they think they shouldn't pay for it, but mostly they can afford the politicians and voters to make that true. Yes, that's right, look at who's paying for your local anti-tax nut cases, and you will find that it's typically the people who cost your local administration the most.
The only way that you are right is that the services used by the poor (public transport, free hospitals etc.) are the ones which get cut first. Normally the services for the rich are untouchable (police, roads, courts, invading armies etc.)
If the company are being reasonable, then offering to help is as good as actually solving the problem. If they are not being reasonable, and there's quite a bit of evidence for that, then this is likely not about the domain.
You are assuming that this is simply a matter of solving the problem. That's not the point; they believe he's been cheating them. In their view he's been caught walking out with rolls of cash, just saying "sorry; here you are" is not solving the problem when the problem is him. Writing a letter directly to the ISP is going to increase the difficulty of their investigation. It is likely to be understood as attempting to destroy evidence. This is not a good idea.
I'm sure that's occasionally true, but often you'll find that even in these cases they borrow code from each other (e.g. NetBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. Dragonfly). That means that the progress isn't as slowed as you think. Having said that a bit more general cooperation is always needed.
To some extent I agree with you; However, if we take this as an opportunity for learning lessons, that says that clearly there weren't enough clear good practices in the Linux community which would guide them away from this.
Another lesson is probably that there's lots of space for consulting companies which have experience in rescuing such migrations.
Another lesson is that data migration is a pre-requisite for application migration which is a pre-requisite for OS migration. Big bang conversions are extremely difficult.
The correct way to think about this is that we (F/OSS people) failed to get a customer. That happens; most deals don't come through; but this was close enough that we should take a "lessons learned" session and try to work out how to do better next time.
How is this in Go-OO? I know that Go-OO is from Novell which seems a bit of a suspicious thing, but now that Oracle has OO, it might be that Go-OO is the freer fork and we should all think about moving over to it?
Traditionally, a proprietary fork has always been a bad thing. However, there's not so much evidence for that in open source. Most of the time the two forks take ideas from each other, both advancing faster till the stage where one of them stagnates and hands over it's features to the other.
From the user point of view this is great; you don't get data lock in because the source code always lets you see how the formats work; you do get much faster advancing software and it doesn't even really matter which fork you pick (though going with the community rather than the company has always been a good pick; just beware that often the community is with the company).
Just because forks are bad in proprietary software doesn't mean the same here.
Except as has been pointed out by others below, this can be used as evidence that he had control of the registration. So you'd want to talk to a lawyer before doing it.
I would also add that a legal action against his employer might poorly affect his chances of getting hired onto another company. Employers are reluctant to hire anyone who has shown they are willing to file suit against an employer.
Most such things settle out of court with sealed records. You probably sacrifice part of the settlement for a good reference.
You seem to have missed; his company uses Registrar B. His personal sites use registrar A. This site is also registered on registrar A. Either someone is succeeding in framing him or he's lying. Since he asked us, we offer advice for the first situation. This is not just accidental / random copying of his data. Since he asked us, we offer advice for the first situation.
"We don't like you" is okay because it's true. In this case they've already admitted that the reason they are considering firing him is because they think he stole their domain.
I think you misjudge. The guy denied he was responsible. If the company wanted solutions, what they would do at that stage is say "right, we'd like you to work on fixing this". Instead they suspended him. The people doing this are the legal department in the company. I think that offering to do what you suggest is amost certainly a good idea (though maybe you could end up with this being used to prove you "could have done something if you wanted") but going ahead and actually trying to do the transfer could be a risk. E.g. "he then interfered with our attempt to transfer the name to the company IPR pool by trying to get it transferred to his own division".
Maybe, on the other hand, they really still are in the reasonable stage. I can't judge that without more information, so I'll just say that you could be right, but be careful.
What you are forgetting is the downside. You are assuming that, at this stage, all he has to lose is his job. There have been several suggestions above which could be interpreted as / twisted to sound like he was trying to blackmail his employer. Even non cooperation and disappearance can be used against him. He wants to get a lawyer now so that he knows what his legal duties are and his legal protections. Preferably he wants a lawyer who can show that he's been wronged so that, if it comes to it, he has some bargaining chips. In any case, if he has a legal duty still to his employer, he wants to be very careful to make sure that it is seen clearly to be fulfilled.
Though, it seems like sensible advice for a European situation where you have some chance of justice. If you are in the UK it will be much cheaper to start with your local Citizens advice bureau and then work onto lawyers when you know more.
Indiana, it seems, is an at will state so basically you don't get anything back for being fired as such. The only thing you can sue about is if they did something wrong to you whist firing you. For full details you will, indeed, want to consult an "experienced employment specialist" but a little reading on wikipedia will help you realise that posting to slashdot may not be sufficient to rescue you.
I'd say whooosh, but the sound of an overflying blue tit would probably frighten you too much, let alone a joke on slashdot.
Without your first sentence, you'd have a point. As it is, you're just as bad as me and seriously lacking in sense of humor. At least I try not to be personally nasty about the shit I dump on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has always had this policy. "If You're Going To Steal Software, Steal From Us". They attempt to identify groups who would never pay anyway and get them to get Windows/Office etc. for free, which starts a lock in so that the other people are forced to get Windows/Office etc. to read the documents sent by the people who aren't paying.
MS reacts mainly to threats to it's bottom line. In this case, it was likely that they would end up being sued in the US or elsewhere for the illegal acts of their agents in Russia; they want to distance themselves as much as possible from that. Remember that in China they have been actively handing over information about dissidents and in the recent case where Google pulled out they basically supported over spying on dissidents, they basically supported the Chinese government. None of this change has anything to do with trying to help small political groups.
If you are wondering why the Russian government (and others involved) aren't protesting, you should remember that MS actively collaberates with such groups, e.g. handing over the Windows source code. The Russian government is probably more than happy that the NGOs use Windows which they know more about spying on instead of Linux or something more obscure where they would have greater difficiulties.
I agree that the principle is bad. Apart from the lack of information in the link name, it doubles the number of servers involved and will break the way back machine. However, in the particular case of tinyurl it's worth knowing that if you go to their homepage you can set things so that you see the URL before visiting it.
The key point is that the "execs have been forced to resign" within their existing contracts. They got (most of) their golden parachutes etc. When a company declares bankruptcy such people can, and should, lose everything. Also, many banks, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland managed to get away with complete independence whilst relying on state loans. Making a few visible examples is better than nothing, but it isn't nearly the kind of policy I was talking about.
But it was a NECESSARY evil.
No it wasn't. They could have simply taken control of the banks instead of bailing them out. There was no need to leave any of the people in control or ownership who were in control or ownership at the time they caused the crisis. Oh, some of them should have been kept on as management, possibly in return for being allowed to keep some of the old pay they stole, but none of them should have been allowed to return to the ownership and control they had.
If this had been done right, the various countries which did the bail outs would soon be in a situation where they could start selling the banks for a profit. .
there are endless variations of limitations on CC licensing
Every commercial track has a different separate license. CC is much simpler since there are only a few main variants with version numbers. You can simply say "CC-SA and CC-BY-SA are allowed CC-NC is not". Your claim is fairly simple FUD.
and it would be a nightmare for the CBC to track down and clarify the status of every single piece of CC music they wanted to use.
Wherever you download it from normally has the status. If it doesn't, that version isn't CC licensed and you don't have anything to track down.
It seems like you are making very weak excuses for some reason. Why?
As for of the claims by some uninformed people that a simple search on the internetz would provide unencumbered music, well, citation needed.
Would you bet your job on those results?
Guess what; there have been lots of cases where it was decided, after long court cases, that proprietary songs were copied from other proprietary songs without license. Would you bet your job on that? No, because you don't have to. If you had a good reason to believe the song was okay, for example the CC license attached to it, then you will not likely have a problem and if you do have a problem, the license the song claims to be under will not make any difference.
Finally, I'm seeing a lot of ant-Harper spam on Slashdot as of late, seems those poor anarchists and jackboot radicals are still smarting from their bad press after the Toronto G20 summit debacle.
Ahh. maybe we have the explanation; American style "two team" politics is creeping into Canada. This is not a "football" thing. You do not have to believe something just because it might be convenient to your team. Most of us on slashdot have barely heard of your "Harper" whatever he/she/it is and we do not form our views according to what might be most likely to damage "Harper".
Mod parent up; There are vast monocultures all over e.g. californian almonds. The bees are basically taken there, pollinate the crops and die of starvation after a few weeks. They probably meet more types of flower in one day in their natural environment than they meet in their lifetime working for agriculture.
"I'm willing to bet that the fungus and the virus were in separate regions at one point."
Would have only prolonged the wait, not prevented the combination. Also- shipping the bees around would expose them to more variety of flowers, not less. Your hypothesis on that part seems incorrect to me.
I'm not sure you're right. Assume that the virus and fungus are in separate but almost connected areas. In the natural environment, if bees with the virus meet bees with the fungus they will die. This will create a dead zone for both the virus and the bacteria between their infection areas where fully healthy hives will have a massive selection advantage. It would also create a long term stable area where bees will survive but be able to evolve against pressure from both.
I think that a natural meeting of the two would give a good opportunity for bees to evolve to deal with both of them.
The problem is that the current way of doing it wipes out all the hives which get infected with no long term survival of those that are doing better at getting rid of either the virus or the vungus.
If this were a legal article I might add INAL at this stage, so instead I'll just say: INAMBE (I'm not a micro-biological expert) but then, nor are any microbiologists I've ever heard of... at least when you look back at the answers they gave ten years ago.
A thing to think about is this; There was a big load of hype about experiments a few years back where NASA / xxx university etc. would build a biosphere with "all the elements to support life"; people would live in there for X months and we would all learn how the ecology of the world. Since that time we hear nothing. Why?
Well, I actually checked up. The results are available on the internet, they just didn't get big publicity. Basically all these experiments "failed" after a few months. The atmosphere lost oxygen, predators died out for unknown reasons and pests took over etc. etc.
In the end, these experiments didn't fail. The told us what we need to know. We do not know what is needed to support life on earth and it's quite possible that some of the species of bacteria which live on blueberry roots are needed for life. Who knows. Certainly killing off all the flowering plants just because we aren't sure they are needed doesn't sound like a good bet.
Just trolling; Just trolling... ;-P
The first part of the dynamic is that the accusation has been made. If something was wrong, someone is probably going to want to cover their ass. If these people were reasonable, they would ask first and suspend later. No decent boss does what they've done, so probably you've had experiences with completely different situations.
The second part is that the company cares more about the people than the domain. Please note from the story that this isn't a domain they are using; this isn't doing them any harm; they would never have noticed if they didn't hire a special service that checked for such domains. The fact that he returns it doesn't matter at all if they believe that he had it maliciously. They want rid of him not because they want his domain, but because they believe he cheated them.
When the domain is updated, his information will be deleted from the record. It is likely that they will interpret this as evidence of an attempted cover up.
He can get several bits of value from a lawyer at this point (an important thing to remember, even with lawyers, is that you are the customer; they will to some extent do what you ask them to do).
He should tell his lawyer he wants to make the offer you have suggested and ask for a quick verification of the letter he's written. This should be possible in a free 1/2 hour advice session. The lawyer will either be able to write it in his own name, in which case it can't be used as evidence of blackmail or alternatively be able to verify the wording to limit the possibility of it being used against him. The reaction to the company from the offer should be sufficient to tell him if he has a chance of working with them; if he should just walk away or, which I think is possible, they may decide to persue him no matter what he does now.
Having said that, the difference between my interpretation and yours rests largely on understanding of facts that are implied rather than stated. What is the domain being used for? If nothing, then they clearly won't care about what he does and the only useful thing is to convince them it's not him. If it holds libelous material against the company then they might like your suggestion more. What exactly matches in the record? He only lists his name and the registrar. Registrars often have millions of customers so if that's the only similarity then it really can be coincidence. He can really get into trouble for trying to steal a domain. If on the other hand it has his home address as well, there's no question of anything other than identity fraud.
So, in the absence of any more comment from the man himself, I'll agree with your other post that this was a troll and leave this at that.
Again, this doesn't really affect people making $200,000 every year,
Actually, the people earning the most are those who mostly cause the most expense. They drive bigger cars, use more fuel (causing pollution which needs to be cleaned up), wearing out more roads (which need to be rebuilt), throwing away more rubbish (which needs to be cleaned out), demanding more policing (which needs to be paid for), having more lawsuits (which needs more judges) etc. etc. etc.
The big pile of garbage is that not only do they think they shouldn't pay for it, but mostly they can afford the politicians and voters to make that true. Yes, that's right, look at who's paying for your local anti-tax nut cases, and you will find that it's typically the people who cost your local administration the most.
The only way that you are right is that the services used by the poor (public transport, free hospitals etc.) are the ones which get cut first. Normally the services for the rich are untouchable (police, roads, courts, invading armies etc.)
err. no. I meant "whilst". Funny that it got modded a troll when it was one of my more positive / factual posts...
You are assuming that this is simply a matter of solving the problem. That's not the point; they believe he's been cheating them. In their view he's been caught walking out with rolls of cash, just saying "sorry; here you are" is not solving the problem when the problem is him. Writing a letter directly to the ISP is going to increase the difficulty of their investigation. It is likely to be understood as attempting to destroy evidence. This is not a good idea.
I'm sure that's occasionally true, but often you'll find that even in these cases they borrow code from each other (e.g. NetBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. Dragonfly). That means that the progress isn't as slowed as you think. Having said that a bit more general cooperation is always needed.
To some extent I agree with you; However, if we take this as an opportunity for learning lessons, that says that clearly there weren't enough clear good practices in the Linux community which would guide them away from this.
Another lesson is probably that there's lots of space for consulting companies which have experience in rescuing such migrations.
Another lesson is that data migration is a pre-requisite for application migration which is a pre-requisite for OS migration. Big bang conversions are extremely difficult.
The correct way to think about this is that we (F/OSS people) failed to get a customer. That happens; most deals don't come through; but this was close enough that we should take a "lessons learned" session and try to work out how to do better next time.
How is this in Go-OO? I know that Go-OO is from Novell which seems a bit of a suspicious thing, but now that Oracle has OO, it might be that Go-OO is the freer fork and we should all think about moving over to it?
Traditionally, a proprietary fork has always been a bad thing. However, there's not so much evidence for that in open source. Most of the time the two forks take ideas from each other, both advancing faster till the stage where one of them stagnates and hands over it's features to the other.
From the user point of view this is great; you don't get data lock in because the source code always lets you see how the formats work; you do get much faster advancing software and it doesn't even really matter which fork you pick (though going with the community rather than the company has always been a good pick; just beware that often the community is with the company).
Just because forks are bad in proprietary software doesn't mean the same here.
Right; even if they aren't actually psychos, they came across as if they are which drives logs of other people to think about getting nukes.
Impeccable advice.
Except as has been pointed out by others below, this can be used as evidence that he had control of the registration. So you'd want to talk to a lawyer before doing it.
I would also add that a legal action against his employer might poorly affect his chances of getting hired onto another company. Employers are reluctant to hire anyone who has shown they are willing to file suit against an employer.
Most such things settle out of court with sealed records. You probably sacrifice part of the settlement for a good reference.
You seem to have missed; his company uses Registrar B. His personal sites use registrar A. This site is also registered on registrar A. Either someone is succeeding in framing him or he's lying. Since he asked us, we offer advice for the first situation. This is not just accidental / random copying of his data. Since he asked us, we offer advice for the first situation.
"We don't like you" is okay because it's true. In this case they've already admitted that the reason they are considering firing him is because they think he stole their domain.
I think you misjudge. The guy denied he was responsible. If the company wanted solutions, what they would do at that stage is say "right, we'd like you to work on fixing this". Instead they suspended him. The people doing this are the legal department in the company. I think that offering to do what you suggest is amost certainly a good idea (though maybe you could end up with this being used to prove you "could have done something if you wanted") but going ahead and actually trying to do the transfer could be a risk. E.g. "he then interfered with our attempt to transfer the name to the company IPR pool by trying to get it transferred to his own division".
Maybe, on the other hand, they really still are in the reasonable stage. I can't judge that without more information, so I'll just say that you could be right, but be careful.
What you are forgetting is the downside. You are assuming that, at this stage, all he has to lose is his job. There have been several suggestions above which could be interpreted as / twisted to sound like he was trying to blackmail his employer. Even non cooperation and disappearance can be used against him. He wants to get a lawyer now so that he knows what his legal duties are and his legal protections. Preferably he wants a lawyer who can show that he's been wronged so that, if it comes to it, he has some bargaining chips. In any case, if he has a legal duty still to his employer, he wants to be very careful to make sure that it is seen clearly to be fulfilled.
Mod parent up.
Though, it seems like sensible advice for a European situation where you have some chance of justice. If you are in the UK it will be much cheaper to start with your local Citizens advice bureau and then work onto lawyers when you know more.
Indiana, it seems, is an at will state so basically you don't get anything back for being fired as such. The only thing you can sue about is if they did something wrong to you whist firing you. For full details you will, indeed, want to consult an "experienced employment specialist" but a little reading on wikipedia will help you realise that posting to slashdot may not be sufficient to rescue you.
I'd say whooosh, but the sound of an overflying blue tit would probably frighten you too much, let alone a joke on slashdot.
Without your first sentence, you'd have a point. As it is, you're just as bad as me and seriously lacking in sense of humor. At least I try not to be personally nasty about the shit I dump on the internet.