Vista has the same kind of so-called "protection". Just so we're clear on that. Thanks.
In other, unrelated news, it should be easy to crack. The ghost of Bruce would also like to say "Software copy protection doesn't work"... and since this is a download... well then. So there you go. Nothing to see here, move along.
> What Microsoft should really have considered was why, even before they released it, customers were ready to say NO to Vista.
I'd mod you "+5, Uncomfortable Truth" if I could for this. The disconnect between management, marketing, and engineering is staggering. They need to address this before they commit to anything again.
society's becoming better at accepting? That's a big leap to make. We still have a long way to go. Anyone who says differently is probably still in college.
> What are the ethical aspects of making scattershot assertions without citations or even replies to people who point out weaknesses in your argument?
I can't comment on that, but judging by this thread I'd say it's a very popular thing to do. I mean, even the "researchers" who did this made some pretty far-reaching assumptions in considering what actions to undertake. And considering this is a discussion on the ethics of something, citations are not strictly required... As to replies, I reply to those who I think make good points -- which as you can see, I've made over a dozen replies so far.
And about your quip ahead of the question... Kindly go to hell, jerk.
The facts do not support the conclusions here! Fundamentally, the argument that people keep siding with is "it's okay to nuke an ISP that harbors spammers." This argument is made on emotion -- the frustration we all share about receiving spam and it's negative impact. Those emotions don't consider the unintended consequences, which is that innocent people can be harmed when this course of action is taken. The legal system in this country is heavily slanted towards keeping the innocents out of the line of fire at whatever cost; An ethical principle I happen to agree with.
The ISPs need to be held legally accountable for harboring spammers, which means using legal methods to make the cost of doing so high enough that they comply. By going through the backdoor and shutting off their connections, this weakens the entire market and the infrastructure of the internet at large -- because we are implying then that our personal ethics are more important than our legal obligations. What we're saying here is that agents in the market of providing internet services are free to excercise their own judgement -- which also means now they are liable for things like copyright infringement, or people passing child porn through their network, etc. It opens the door to accusations of selective enforcement, discrimination, and worse.
And calling me a troll, or saying that I support spammers, or that I am a spammer... Is a cheap way of ducking an uncomfortable truth.
I think you missed the point -- often times, a system can become infected without the user taking any action. It can't be the user's fault 100% of the time unless the technology is perfect, flawless, and that isn't true. Neither of which addresses the issue of whether it's okay for someone to enter my system just because they flashed a "researcher" badge.
> What is unethical about pointing out MASSIVE violation of terms of service by an ISP to their provider?
Nothing at all. The problem comes when the upstream provider violated their contract with the customers that may have been using the service in accordance with the TOS but lost their service due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which, if you want to split hairs, is principally the fault of the provider and possibly to a lesser extent the person reporting the problem because they provided false information. I say possibly because I don't know what information was provided.
> Considering the sheer cost of cleaning up this bullshit, I doubt many share the same opinion. And the intenet was designed to route around holes in it. Theoretically at least.
I am glad, then, that the decision is not theirs to make. Besides, most people think they're above average drivers too...
> No. There are definately quite a few "who"s in this mix. Like the greedy bastards who look the other way while their customers commit felonies. They are accessories to the crimes of their clients if they don't cut them off for their criminal bullshit.
You can't say they shouldn't help RIAA enforce their copyright by booting you off your connection for P2P, then turn around and say they should police people for spam. They're common carriers; It means they're not responsible, nor should they be. If we start down this road, the internet as we know it ends.
> Are you kidding? People have been black-holed for decades on the internet for stuff like this.
Citation needed.
Look, the solution here is laws not vigilantism... Because the simple truth is no matter how good you are sooner or later you're going to fuck it up. The law ensures that when this happens, there's recourse. A vigilante will just disappear into the night with the words "I'm sorry" on his/her lips. And not only that, but the entire tone of your response rather underscores the need to get emotion out of this situation and the justice system is far better suited to this than your "Let's get a posse together and ride" solution.
> Whether they had any legit customers is suspect. If they did, I'm sure they would have come to light very quickly.
You're making an assumption, just like they did.
> No, your ISP will be notified about spam originating from its networks and they'll either deal with the user who is undoubtedly violating their TOS or the ISP's IP range will be entered into mail blackhole lists.
That isn't what happened here, sir.
> Unlikely, and sadly you probably won't get punted off the net like you should. Instead, your computer will continue to be abused for the purposes of these criminals.
> Your efforts to compare this to the drug war are completely irrational, as their causes and symptoms are wildly different. On top of that, there was no government involvement here.
They're both caused by socially disadvantaged people who are desperate for a solution to their problems. The symptoms are a proliferation of product that the majority of people don't want. And the solutions thus far have both been aggressive prosecution, vaguely defined law enforcement actions, public denunciation, etc. It's not irrational to compare them -- they're both unwanted, and they both have unintended consequences.
Right, because the operator should be punished for the manufacturer's failings.
The innocent bystanders with perfect knowledge of the situation defense... I can't believe you got a +5 for trying to tell people they should know better. "My car exploded because of defective fuel lines!" "Well you should have expected that since everybody knows the manufacturer was poor quality."
> Drugs are a demand driven problem; attacking supply centers simply leads to more supply popping up.
But if there wasn't a supply in the first place, there wouldn't be a demand problem... or so goes the logic. Attacking supply centers leads to higher costs as supply has diminished. Because the price is now higher, there's now more incentive for an agent to enter the market who can produce at a lower price. There's a few extra steps in this that make calling it either a supply or a demand problem a meaningless distinction; It's a self-balancing system.
E-mail is cheaper than a millionth of a penny in actual costs, so I don't see any way to resolve the issue. If there's even one person who would reply and buy $40 worth of penis enlargement pills, that one person has just paid for about 20 billion e-mails to try to find the next person. Attacking the suppliers doesn't remove the economic incentive, which was the entire point of my original post!
It's a self-correcting system... At best they'll reduce supply to the point that new players enter the market who might be better prepared and vested in evading detection to protect their profits. This, of course, makes them even more difficult to detect and then turn over to the authorities to face prosecution. Taking away their means of production accomplishes nothing because the cost of re-entering the market is effectively zero.
The only long-term strategy that will have any impact is to use the criminal justice system to tag and bag these people. And at that, it's not a solution but a band-aid, but it will help more than vigilantism.
In this highly hypothetical situation, I'd go to the local TV station with my recording(s) and a statement from the police indicating their lack of interest.
And "to continue the analogy" if that doesn't work I'll just transform into Optimus Prime and destroy anyone who keeps on about hypothetical situations instead of using common sense.
So, how long have you been beating your wife for, Mr. Fulcrum?
My complaint is that the first ISP that this botnet used is now in shambles. Now the backup ISP for this has gone active and transferred control to a third ISP in Russia. I'm just curious to find out how long those other ISPs are going to be around, and whether we as a community are prepared to deal with where this line of thinking ends. What's to prevent them from doing this every few months and leaving a trail of dead service providers in the wake of our new definition of "justice" as the botnet owners simply hop from one provider to the next?
1. I don't have a solution, I'm just considering the ethical aspect.
2. I'd rather deal with spam, malware, and con artists clogging the internet than vigilantes blowing holes in it.
3. As to who's protecting them -- it's not a question of who but what. In this case, economics.
4. It has taken this long because until now people were restrained by ethical considerations prevalent within the community. However, a certain moral flexibility seems to be developing now out of frustration. This can only end badly.
So you're comfortable with your small penis, then? Okay, more seriously though -- if spam wasn't profitable nobody would be doing it. My comparison of the two is based on how people are attacking the problem, not the source of the problem.
To use your analogy, sir... I would get a camcorder and record the activity. I would then turn that over to the police and wait for the wheels of justice to smash the dealer into hamburger. Then, as he could no longer pay rent, my landlord would find a new tenant who would very probably NOT deal drugs. So no, I wouldn't harbor any ill-will towards the landlord, why would I? My money's as good as the next person's, and I can't expect him to know in advance about something like this.
I wonder how all those security researchers feel after destroying a legitimate commercial enterprise and affecting a lot of people who weren't spammers. Must have been pretty righteous. Of course, now it looks like they're going to have to play a game of whack-a-mole. What ISP shall die next at the hands of vigilante justice? Will my internet connection go down because someone uses my ISP for spam? If my computer becomes infected with malware, how long before I have 'researchers' digging through my private data? What will the next press release say -- Russian NAPs taken offline by massive DDoS initiated by "researchers" from the United States? How long until this kind of behavior sparks an international incident?
This is all eerily similar in scope, methods, and results to a real world issue; The war on drugs. You see, there's an economic incentive to do this. As long as that incentive remains, all you're doing is changing the face of the problem. Today it's hackers in Sweden. Tomorrow it's script kiddies in Russia. Next week it'll be unemployed programmers in Romania. And how can people justify this kind of behavior in the name of "research"? It's the same kind of attitude that the DEA has -- which is to use ever-increasing levels of force, and to continually lower the standards they have to adhere to in order to "catch more criminals". At some point it de-evolves to the Judge Dredd scenario... People driving around metting out instant 'justice', with no review or appeals process to speak of.
Here's a thought: Why not ignore the idea of whether I'm a girl or not and focus on what I'm saying, instead of being a condescending dick. It's shit like this that ensures that the only women I can talk to at work are the secretaries. For once, I'd love to sit down next to another woman who did the same work I do. I've seen a few so far, but few of them made it past entry-level.
So let me get this straight -- it's more efficient, has fewer moving parts, has a higher power output, and is cheaper to mass produce? Buy that engineer a beer! This is a real leap forward in a machine class that hasn't made more than incremental improvements for awhile now. The spirit of Nikoli Tesla approves. Next question: Can this technology be adapted for use in the hydroelectric industry? I think it may be possible, and it would reduce maintenance costs somewhat -- maybe we could throw out the sluce gates and make water flow through the dam with fewer electromechanical parts?
Why does everyone insist on treating the internet like it's a public resource?
Must be something about living in a democratic society and not trusting our corporate overlords to do anything but fuck us and charge for the privilege.
Yeah, and vigilantes have a long history of killing the innocents that happen to be near the Big Bad Man(tm) when the big brown slimy hits the fan. There's a reason we have laws, and a police force -- and it's partly to keep our casualties to a minimum. Vigilantism is nothing more than frustration combined with a big ego... And a hero can be properly defined as "someone who gets other people killed". Sure... it's just an internet connection... But the ethics are the same. Security researchers so often have over-inflated egos and think they're doing everyone a favor, but the truth is... Sometimes they screw up and people get hurt and money is wasted.
Shouldn't they be accountable to the same rules they're holding others to? If not, they're hypocrites too.
Why? Because need a distraction! We need something mindless to watch that we don't have to think about because we do enough of that when we're out of the theatres. Thinking today is depressing, and we don't want to be depressed. We want to sit back and dream that the world is beautiful when it's not. We want to believe that we're just a few short technological leaps away from salvation, and we want to imagine ourselves in this "better world" -- a better world that doesn't involve us changing who we are, or sacrificing the things we want.
So we throw a bunch of cast members together, make a bunch of stereotyped caricatures out of them so that we can all find at least one to identify with, and then send them off to wreck bloody vengance on the world because we're so sick of feeling powerless that the idea of fighting some righteous battle is very appealing. And of course they'll reward us in this fantasy world with sex, power, and a grand adventure.
Yeah. They raped our childhood. Yeah, it jumped the shark. It's only because we're too afraid to dream of Utopia. We're too afraid to think that our neighbors aren't our enemies but could be our allies, our friends. We're scared of people who are differently colored than us, who think differently than us, and we know deep down inside that the world is not beautiful anymore and we'd better start picking sides now before everything falls apart.
That was the genius of Roddenberry; He made a futuristic utopia that was still populated by people just as flawed, just as human as we were, but we worked together because there were BIGGER differences out there. Aliens bent on world domination. Space probes gone beserk. A new challenge every week that was so much bigger than something as petty as race and sex differences to unite everyone. And now that he's dead, nobody's got the guts to dream big anymore. So we fall back on what we know... The same old conflicts, the same old prejudices... And it's so much easier to identify with feeling righteous and wanting to be violent than it is to take the high road and endure conflict and tension to create mutually empowering relationships.
Hollywood is a mirror... It shows us at our best, and at our worst. You will be missed, Gene.
Slashdot Mirror
Read about it here.
Vista has the same kind of so-called "protection". Just so we're clear on that. Thanks.
In other, unrelated news, it should be easy to crack. The ghost of Bruce would also like to say "Software copy protection doesn't work"... and since this is a download... well then. So there you go. Nothing to see here, move along.
> What Microsoft should really have considered was why, even before they released it, customers were ready to say NO to Vista.
I'd mod you "+5, Uncomfortable Truth" if I could for this. The disconnect between management, marketing, and engineering is staggering. They need to address this before they commit to anything again.
society's becoming better at accepting? That's a big leap to make. We still have a long way to go. Anyone who says differently is probably still in college.
> What are the ethical aspects of making scattershot assertions without citations or even replies to people who point out weaknesses in your argument?
I can't comment on that, but judging by this thread I'd say it's a very popular thing to do. I mean, even the "researchers" who did this made some pretty far-reaching assumptions in considering what actions to undertake. And considering this is a discussion on the ethics of something, citations are not strictly required... As to replies, I reply to those who I think make good points -- which as you can see, I've made over a dozen replies so far.
And about your quip ahead of the question... Kindly go to hell, jerk.
The facts do not support the conclusions here! Fundamentally, the argument that people keep siding with is "it's okay to nuke an ISP that harbors spammers." This argument is made on emotion -- the frustration we all share about receiving spam and it's negative impact. Those emotions don't consider the unintended consequences, which is that innocent people can be harmed when this course of action is taken. The legal system in this country is heavily slanted towards keeping the innocents out of the line of fire at whatever cost; An ethical principle I happen to agree with.
The ISPs need to be held legally accountable for harboring spammers, which means using legal methods to make the cost of doing so high enough that they comply. By going through the backdoor and shutting off their connections, this weakens the entire market and the infrastructure of the internet at large -- because we are implying then that our personal ethics are more important than our legal obligations. What we're saying here is that agents in the market of providing internet services are free to excercise their own judgement -- which also means now they are liable for things like copyright infringement, or people passing child porn through their network, etc. It opens the door to accusations of selective enforcement, discrimination, and worse.
And calling me a troll, or saying that I support spammers, or that I am a spammer... Is a cheap way of ducking an uncomfortable truth.
I think you missed the point -- often times, a system can become infected without the user taking any action. It can't be the user's fault 100% of the time unless the technology is perfect, flawless, and that isn't true. Neither of which addresses the issue of whether it's okay for someone to enter my system just because they flashed a "researcher" badge.
> What is unethical about pointing out MASSIVE violation of terms of service by an ISP to their provider?
Nothing at all. The problem comes when the upstream provider violated their contract with the customers that may have been using the service in accordance with the TOS but lost their service due to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which, if you want to split hairs, is principally the fault of the provider and possibly to a lesser extent the person reporting the problem because they provided false information. I say possibly because I don't know what information was provided.
> Considering the sheer cost of cleaning up this bullshit, I doubt many share the same opinion. And the intenet was designed to route around holes in it. Theoretically at least.
I am glad, then, that the decision is not theirs to make. Besides, most people think they're above average drivers too...
> No. There are definately quite a few "who"s in this mix. Like the greedy bastards who look the other way while their customers commit felonies. They are accessories to the crimes of their clients if they don't cut them off for their criminal bullshit.
You can't say they shouldn't help RIAA enforce their copyright by booting you off your connection for P2P, then turn around and say they should police people for spam. They're common carriers; It means they're not responsible, nor should they be. If we start down this road, the internet as we know it ends.
> Are you kidding? People have been black-holed for decades on the internet for stuff like this.
Citation needed.
Look, the solution here is laws not vigilantism... Because the simple truth is no matter how good you are sooner or later you're going to fuck it up. The law ensures that when this happens, there's recourse. A vigilante will just disappear into the night with the words "I'm sorry" on his/her lips. And not only that, but the entire tone of your response rather underscores the need to get emotion out of this situation and the justice system is far better suited to this than your "Let's get a posse together and ride" solution.
> Whether they had any legit customers is suspect. If they did, I'm sure they would have come to light very quickly.
You're making an assumption, just like they did.
> No, your ISP will be notified about spam originating from its networks and they'll either deal with the user who is undoubtedly violating their TOS or the ISP's IP range will be entered into mail blackhole lists.
That isn't what happened here, sir.
> Unlikely, and sadly you probably won't get punted off the net like you should. Instead, your computer will continue to be abused for the purposes of these criminals.
> Your efforts to compare this to the drug war are completely irrational, as their causes and symptoms are wildly different. On top of that, there was no government involvement here.
They're both caused by socially disadvantaged people who are desperate for a solution to their problems. The symptoms are a proliferation of product that the majority of people don't want. And the solutions thus far have both been aggressive prosecution, vaguely defined law enforcement actions, public denunciation, etc. It's not irrational to compare them -- they're both unwanted, and they both have unintended consequences.
Right, because the operator should be punished for the manufacturer's failings.
The innocent bystanders with perfect knowledge of the situation defense... I can't believe you got a +5 for trying to tell people they should know better. "My car exploded because of defective fuel lines!" "Well you should have expected that since everybody knows the manufacturer was poor quality."
Yeah, that's really ethical -- since everybody else is robbing the store, I suppose I can help myself too.
> Drugs are a demand driven problem; attacking supply centers simply leads to more supply popping up.
But if there wasn't a supply in the first place, there wouldn't be a demand problem... or so goes the logic. Attacking supply centers leads to higher costs as supply has diminished. Because the price is now higher, there's now more incentive for an agent to enter the market who can produce at a lower price. There's a few extra steps in this that make calling it either a supply or a demand problem a meaningless distinction; It's a self-balancing system.
E-mail is cheaper than a millionth of a penny in actual costs, so I don't see any way to resolve the issue. If there's even one person who would reply and buy $40 worth of penis enlargement pills, that one person has just paid for about 20 billion e-mails to try to find the next person. Attacking the suppliers doesn't remove the economic incentive, which was the entire point of my original post!
It's a self-correcting system... At best they'll reduce supply to the point that new players enter the market who might be better prepared and vested in evading detection to protect their profits. This, of course, makes them even more difficult to detect and then turn over to the authorities to face prosecution. Taking away their means of production accomplishes nothing because the cost of re-entering the market is effectively zero.
The only long-term strategy that will have any impact is to use the criminal justice system to tag and bag these people. And at that, it's not a solution but a band-aid, but it will help more than vigilantism.
In this highly hypothetical situation, I'd go to the local TV station with my recording(s) and a statement from the police indicating their lack of interest.
And "to continue the analogy" if that doesn't work I'll just transform into Optimus Prime and destroy anyone who keeps on about hypothetical situations instead of using common sense.
So, how long have you been beating your wife for, Mr. Fulcrum?
My complaint is that the first ISP that this botnet used is now in shambles. Now the backup ISP for this has gone active and transferred control to a third ISP in Russia. I'm just curious to find out how long those other ISPs are going to be around, and whether we as a community are prepared to deal with where this line of thinking ends. What's to prevent them from doing this every few months and leaving a trail of dead service providers in the wake of our new definition of "justice" as the botnet owners simply hop from one provider to the next?
1. I don't have a solution, I'm just considering the ethical aspect.
2. I'd rather deal with spam, malware, and con artists clogging the internet than vigilantes blowing holes in it.
3. As to who's protecting them -- it's not a question of who but what. In this case, economics.
4. It has taken this long because until now people were restrained by ethical considerations prevalent within the community. However, a certain moral flexibility seems to be developing now out of frustration. This can only end badly.
So you're comfortable with your small penis, then? Okay, more seriously though -- if spam wasn't profitable nobody would be doing it. My comparison of the two is based on how people are attacking the problem, not the source of the problem.
To use your analogy, sir... I would get a camcorder and record the activity. I would then turn that over to the police and wait for the wheels of justice to smash the dealer into hamburger. Then, as he could no longer pay rent, my landlord would find a new tenant who would very probably NOT deal drugs. So no, I wouldn't harbor any ill-will towards the landlord, why would I? My money's as good as the next person's, and I can't expect him to know in advance about something like this.
I wonder how all those security researchers feel after destroying a legitimate commercial enterprise and affecting a lot of people who weren't spammers. Must have been pretty righteous. Of course, now it looks like they're going to have to play a game of whack-a-mole. What ISP shall die next at the hands of vigilante justice? Will my internet connection go down because someone uses my ISP for spam? If my computer becomes infected with malware, how long before I have 'researchers' digging through my private data? What will the next press release say -- Russian NAPs taken offline by massive DDoS initiated by "researchers" from the United States? How long until this kind of behavior sparks an international incident?
This is all eerily similar in scope, methods, and results to a real world issue; The war on drugs. You see, there's an economic incentive to do this. As long as that incentive remains, all you're doing is changing the face of the problem. Today it's hackers in Sweden. Tomorrow it's script kiddies in Russia. Next week it'll be unemployed programmers in Romania. And how can people justify this kind of behavior in the name of "research"? It's the same kind of attitude that the DEA has -- which is to use ever-increasing levels of force, and to continually lower the standards they have to adhere to in order to "catch more criminals". At some point it de-evolves to the Judge Dredd scenario... People driving around metting out instant 'justice', with no review or appeals process to speak of.
Here's a thought: Why not ignore the idea of whether I'm a girl or not and focus on what I'm saying, instead of being a condescending dick. It's shit like this that ensures that the only women I can talk to at work are the secretaries. For once, I'd love to sit down next to another woman who did the same work I do. I've seen a few so far, but few of them made it past entry-level.
So let me get this straight -- it's more efficient, has fewer moving parts, has a higher power output, and is cheaper to mass produce? Buy that engineer a beer! This is a real leap forward in a machine class that hasn't made more than incremental improvements for awhile now. The spirit of Nikoli Tesla approves. Next question: Can this technology be adapted for use in the hydroelectric industry? I think it may be possible, and it would reduce maintenance costs somewhat -- maybe we could throw out the sluce gates and make water flow through the dam with fewer electromechanical parts?
Sorry if I was trying to be funny in a forum of autistics... I'll just shuffle off to google news now, bye.
Why does everyone insist on treating the internet like it's a public resource?
Must be something about living in a democratic society and not trusting our corporate overlords to do anything but fuck us and charge for the privilege.
It might have survived had the marketing department been able to come up with a better name for it in the last twenty years.
"I have AIX on my desktop!"
"Oh, I'm sorry honey. I got some aspirin in my top drawer at my desk. Help yourself."
"No, I mean it's AIX."
"You told me already. Take some aspirin and have a cup of coffee. That works for migranes too."
"Arrrrrgh!"
"Poor guy--I should talk to the boss about seeing if he can get some vacation time in soon..."
Yeah, and vigilantes have a long history of killing the innocents that happen to be near the Big Bad Man(tm) when the big brown slimy hits the fan. There's a reason we have laws, and a police force -- and it's partly to keep our casualties to a minimum. Vigilantism is nothing more than frustration combined with a big ego... And a hero can be properly defined as "someone who gets other people killed". Sure... it's just an internet connection... But the ethics are the same. Security researchers so often have over-inflated egos and think they're doing everyone a favor, but the truth is... Sometimes they screw up and people get hurt and money is wasted.
Shouldn't they be accountable to the same rules they're holding others to? If not, they're hypocrites too.
Why? Because need a distraction! We need something mindless to watch that we don't have to think about because we do enough of that when we're out of the theatres. Thinking today is depressing, and we don't want to be depressed. We want to sit back and dream that the world is beautiful when it's not. We want to believe that we're just a few short technological leaps away from salvation, and we want to imagine ourselves in this "better world" -- a better world that doesn't involve us changing who we are, or sacrificing the things we want.
So we throw a bunch of cast members together, make a bunch of stereotyped caricatures out of them so that we can all find at least one to identify with, and then send them off to wreck bloody vengance on the world because we're so sick of feeling powerless that the idea of fighting some righteous battle is very appealing. And of course they'll reward us in this fantasy world with sex, power, and a grand adventure.
Yeah. They raped our childhood. Yeah, it jumped the shark. It's only because we're too afraid to dream of Utopia. We're too afraid to think that our neighbors aren't our enemies but could be our allies, our friends. We're scared of people who are differently colored than us, who think differently than us, and we know deep down inside that the world is not beautiful anymore and we'd better start picking sides now before everything falls apart.
That was the genius of Roddenberry; He made a futuristic utopia that was still populated by people just as flawed, just as human as we were, but we worked together because there were BIGGER differences out there. Aliens bent on world domination. Space probes gone beserk. A new challenge every week that was so much bigger than something as petty as race and sex differences to unite everyone. And now that he's dead, nobody's got the guts to dream big anymore. So we fall back on what we know... The same old conflicts, the same old prejudices... And it's so much easier to identify with feeling righteous and wanting to be violent than it is to take the high road and endure conflict and tension to create mutually empowering relationships.
Hollywood is a mirror... It shows us at our best, and at our worst. You will be missed, Gene.