If I were to develop a program called "GPL'ster" that provide a way to distribute binaries without any source code or GPL mannifesto docs, I would get CRUCIFIED.
Of course you would get crucified... but not by us. As long as the people distributing the binaries also provide the source or offer to provide them for 3 years they are still not breaking the GPL.
Those that would sue you would be the big proprietary software companies that would have their software exchanged by your software's users (whoa, I'm a W4r3Z dude).
Oh, and if your GPL'ster is proprietary you may even have to sue yourself if I follow your logic to the extreme (and with people sharing your other softwares or new versions of GPL'ster).
2. How is this "fair use"? Fair use allows for, as an example, quotes to support a point. It very rarely allows for a wholesale copying of protected material.
This is really fair use you know. The posters only quoted a tiny part of the MS implementation of the Kerberos protocol:D.
Not only does MIT hold the copyright to the name kerberos
You can't have a copyright on a name. MIT can have the copyright on the kerberos specification but if they have something on the name Kerberos itself it can only be a trademark or an unregistered trademark.
Clearly they have a weak legal case, at best.
Sorry but I will have to flamebait. In a free country they would have a weak case but in the US I don't know. With the DMCA and soon the UCITAs it will give them more and more power.
MS has got some ground when it ask slashdot to delete the posts with their extended specification in them but they don't have any ground when they ask/. to delete the other posts that they claim are infringing MS copyright whereas they don't contain any MS material.
In the Consent Decree ruling, the appellate judges essentially concluded that separate demand for two products, and even separate marketing, do not necessarily indicate that those two products cannot be integrated.
But it doesn't indicate either that those two product shouldn't be integrated.
Either I don't understand your sentence (possible, I'm not a native English speaker) or we could follow what you say in it to its extreme and integrate Windows and Office, Outlook, Visual Studio,... up to the point of having MS selling only one box with all their product in it sold under the name Windows.
They remarked upon the DoJ's proposed remedy of "hiding" IE rather than removing it, and suggested that this indicated the DoJ was tacitly admitting IE is an integrated part of Windows
Of course this is an integrated part of Windows. MS did everything in their power to tie Windows and IE together in a way that is next to impossible to undo. The question is whether doing so is an excuse not to punish them? Clearly no, this is not because you break the law in a way that it is impossible even for you to undo it that you should go as if nothing happened.
Of course, if such a thing were true, then the DoJ would have no case. If the word justice really mean something in the USA then it should make their case stronger, not weaker. The Appeals Court further commented that it is not the place of the courts to judge the motives for technological tying in those cases where a reasonable person might determine consumer benefit from the tie, and they additionally suggested that they *did* see a benefit in requiring IE 3.0 to ship with Win95.
I don't really have a problem with having IE coming with Windows 95/98, I have a problem with not being able to get rid of it.
Last time I installed RedHat I had Netscape preinstalled. Did I scream bloody murder, Netscape is a monopolist? No. Am I an hypocrit because I thought and said this kind of things about MS? No. Why? Because Netscape didn't use their monopoly (well, they don't have any but you get the point) to forbid Redhat to ship with other browsers (like the one with KDE or Lynx) nor to forbid them to remove Netscape icon or to place another browser icon.
I think Microsoft should have the right to propose IE with Windows but they should not have the right to force IE with Windows and threaten OEM's and Apple, using their monopoly, if they remove IE's icon to put Netscape one. Integrating IE inside Windows was only one more mean, technical this one, to force them to ship IE.
You say: When determining monopoly power, the law first defines an applicable market.
Then you say: This implies that Netscape was a potential competitor for Windows, because it could serve interchangeably as a platform for running applications, which would remove the "applications barrier to entry" upon which Jackson bases so much of his decision. But Netscape is not a PC Operating System. Therefore, the market cannot have been well defined, within the legal bounds above.
The antitrust practice need NOT be in the same market and the market is well defined. Don't forget that it is illegal to use anti-competitive practices either to maintain a monopoly or to leverage a monopoly to gain market chares in another market.
In this case MS tied IE to Windows, thus leveraging the Windows monopoly to gain market chare in the browser market in order to maintain its monopoly on the PC OS area.
MS has a monopoly in the IBM compatible PC OS area. Netscape is a threat to Windows not directly because it indeed is not an OS but indirectly because by changing the playing field from the desktop to the Internet and by not being Windows-centric it made Windows irrelevant.
The monopoly power confered to MS via Windows would be totally irrelevant if people did not use Windows-centric desktop applications but instead used Netscape-centric Internet/Web/Network applications and this is to prevent that before it was too late that MS did tie IE to Windows.
We all know well how problematic the problem of viruses is under Windows.
Well, generally these aren't technically Viruses but Worms; they need that the user execute the viruses to reproduce themselves.
A potential way of being infected is if somebody sends you an autoextractable file. The problem is that the code executed to autoextract the files can be anything, including a virus.
To avoid taking the risk to execute a virus when opening this kind of files you should ALWAYS use an extraction software (like WinZip www.winzip.com or WinRar). The steps to do so are:
1. Install the software (refer yourself to your software's installation procedure).
2. With most such softwaree, to use them without launching the possibly infected code you can click on the right button of your mouse when the aforementioned device is positioned over the autoextractible file.
3. Select the "extract in folder XXXXX" option, or the similar option depending on your software, XXXXX generally being the name of the file you want to uncompress.
4. The files should now be uncompressed in the XXXXX directory.
Remember, DO NOT OPEN YOUR FILES WITHOUT SUCH A TRUSTED SOFTWARE, THEY MAY CONTAIN NASTY VIRUSES THAT COULD ERASE YOUR DATA.
I hope that no company is against free speech to the point of wanting to censor people trying to help others to protect themselves from that company errors.
Well, I may look dumb because I will describe the French system of TV licensing but I believe it to be close to the UK one.
In France only the public TV gets money from TV licensing, not the private ones.
The problem is that they still have lots of ads, but we get to have ad-free movies on these channels.
I believe in the UK system this is the same, that is the TV licenses pay for BBC1 and BBC2 (which should be almost ad-free) but not for the otherhannels, who thus have ads (hey, they must live), so the channel for which you pay (via TV licensing) are ad-free, but the ones that you don't pay for (the others) are with ads.
The situation with cable is that you pay for the cable connection, not for the channels, so they must make money with ads.
At home I have a satellite connection and we just paid the satellite antenna but the channel are with lots of ads. Other, encrypted, channels may have less ads but I would have to pay for them.
It recently came to our attention that you illegally reverse engineer our unique technology solve-all-the-problem-of-the-world-but-cannot-resp ond-any-question-corectly contained wherein our "search engine" Jeeves.
We ask you, x1r0k3wl, to cease this immediately and to publish a retractation to the article you posted at the address http://www.people.virginia.edu/~msf9c/features/jee ves.html .
You may use our unique technology but you may not put many responses together, this would be breaking our secure encryption scheme that prevent our users from seeing the truth. What truth you may ask, and I, on behalf of Jeeves, respond you "There is no spoond"TM.
It make a long time I wanted to know that and never found out. Not wanting to bother him with this small thing I didn't ask him but thought this was the perfect time to do it. So I checked nobody did it before, and someone did. Please moderate him up, so I can know:)
Re:Why you should boycott this movie, reason two
on
Battlefield Earth
·
· Score: 1
This is a very good reason, another one is that it is made by a member of the MPAA.
When two organisations working against citizens (either by trying to steal my rights or by religious fanatism) team up I don't give a shit whether the movie is good or bad, they still can put it up their ass.
While you might not like the idea that money is abstract and in limited supply
\begin{rant} Whether I like or not is not the matter, it is a fact that money is scarce, in limited supply, not everyone has the same amount,....
Given that a country that justify itself by using free speech to allow corruption by saying that money is speech is just that : a country trying to justify corruption.
I have any amount of speech I want, I can go out in the street and declare that the end is near, that Clinton sucks, or Gore or Bush soon, that strawberry topped beef has an horrible taste,... I don't have any limit to my capacity to generate speech.
Not so with $ (or £ or Euro, or lira,...). They are scarce, so not everybody can have the same amount so saying that it is speech means that you give more speech to the wealthy and make the not as much wealthy unequal in its ability to practice free speech. This is not a democratic system, and making it legal is one of the reasons why I want to laugh when somebody says that the USA are a democratic country.
Keep It Simple, Stupid: the first law of engineering.
The KISS rule (well in fact I think they suck but that's another story) is just the American verison (read : dumbed down for Americans) of what St Exupery was saying more than fifty years ago, which is paraphrased below :
"You know when a design is perfect not when there is nothing to add but when there is nothing to take away."
Of course this is too long and complicated for fellow American engineers to remember, so there was a need to express the same thing more easily, which created "Keep It Simple, Stupid", thus having both the abstract of the rule and the reason of the dumbing down.
I don't know why but I have a mood to flame today.
HOWEVER, I'd be willing to bet that distribution of the SOURCE is now legal.. but compiling it and using it is NOT.
So what? rewrite it in an interpreted language to show the stupidity of the difference. You then can distribute the source and the interpreter given that one is free speech and the other is completely legal.
John Carmack wrote: but my R&D "research" has shifted to "development" faster than I expected, and the past few weekends have been monopolized by new engine work.
John, with all the salivae that went to my keyboard when reading this sentence, it became next to unusable, I would thank you to send me a check of 0.001% of the royalties of Quake 3* to compensate the inestimate loss of one of my best friends in life, one with which I share a lot of time.
Cheers, Julien
;)
*(that I still haven't bought, my 133:( probably wouldn't love it)
Is it possible to deselect every category of censorship in CyberPtrol? And if it is are the different anticensorship sites (peacefire,...) still censored?
I ask it because while I think that it is not possible, and if it is possible they probably are accessible, it would be quite telling if they still weren't accessible, no?
Basically this means that now free web hosting sites are not taken as providing the tubes that make it work like a telco but between this and publishing the content if/I> the site is anonymous.
So they have really banned anonymous posting, because nobody is crazy enough to take the responsability of people they don't even know the name of nor what they wan to put on their website.
Makes sense to me. If child pornography is illegal, and someone posts it up on an anonymous webserver, anonymously, *someone* needs to be held responsible for getting rid of the content. With the old system the guy hosting it would remove it as soon as somebody complained/reported it and as soon as he checked, it's not ideal but at least it keeps anonymity possible.
Fuck my government (yeah, I'm French and I'm pissed off)
It appears that VFS will allow Samba to mount a database and give transparent usage of that database to a regular Windows/Samba client. I thought it would be cool to brainstorm different things that you could do with this option. It sounds so cool, but I don't know why. Anybody have any ideas?
I don't know VFS but given the (short) presentation made in the interview it sounds really COOL.
The only problem I see is that the US are currently screwing everybody that isn't as big as MS or AOL/TW by giving patents on obvious stuff.
So the idea is to put up a web page somewhere with a perl script (or PHP if you prefer or whatever suits the guy making it) that allow people to put ideas on it about all the cool things that could be done with this stuff, and anybody that got a weird idea but don't know what to do with it can put it here instead of keeping it in his head waiting for john shmoe with big$$$ to patent it.
Of course what I propose is not new, many people proposed things like it before, and maybe some already made something like it, but given the coolness factor of this and the broad range of things you can do with it i think it is a good moment to talk about it again.
If you already have done something similar or even better (ideas being sorted for example, or moderated to avoid having fucking trolls) then you could post a link to it below and describe it.
One idea that could be added to this:
This collection of ideas could be organised as a database, you can type in your idea, and add to it a certain number of attributes (genetics, computer science) or maybe even attributes and sub-attributes, either by the author or by the moderator, people could also refer older ideas when they write their own or add an addendum to the idea (for example, a possible design/implementation that is more detailed than the idea).
Hey, such a database could be also useful for finding ideas to implement in our software!
We could even use/. as a base for it, not by clobbering normal threads but by using "hidden" fora like the forum idea or the forum Computer Science...
Well, if I remember correctly a prime number is any number that can only be divided by 1 and himself except 1 itself. At least that is the definition in Europe, don't know in the States.
Why isn't 1 considered prime? My teacher explained that when you factorised a random number into its prime composants you are obtening something like:
Well, but wait a minute, if 1 is prime then I can say that 4 = 2**2 * 1**n, n being (at least) any natural number, we could even say that 4 - 2**2 * 1**INFINI.
Of course this is quite stupid, so 1 isn't considered as prime (I think there was another reason but I can't remember).
So if 1 isn't considered to be prime by convention, then you can't say that 3 = 2 + 1 to obey the theorem, due to 1 non-primeness.
Given that I suppose that the guy that made the theorem was WAY much better than me at math I suppose that either:
1. When he specified that, 1 was considered a prime number.
2. Maybe not all countries recognize 1 as not being prime.
3. Maybe the theorem states that it begins at 5 = 3 + 2?
Can someone tell me which is it or wether I smoked to much pot and am completely wrong on 1 non-primeness (web references would be appreciated), thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
When I first read the title I thought that it was a prank like Jesux and co, only for atheists.
Shouldn't it rather be because they made it possible?
This is just as silly as the (californian?) US court that asked non-US sites to put DeCSS down because of the DMCA.
Of course you would get crucified... but not by us. As long as the people distributing the binaries also provide the source or offer to provide them for 3 years they are still not breaking the GPL.
Those that would sue you would be the big proprietary software companies that would have their software exchanged by your software's users (whoa, I'm a W4r3Z dude).
Oh, and if your GPL'ster is proprietary you may even have to sue yourself if I follow your logic to the extreme (and with people sharing your other softwares or new versions of GPL'ster).
This is really fair use you know. The posters only quoted a tiny part of the MS implementation of the Kerberos protocol :D.
Not only does MIT hold the copyright to the name kerberos
You can't have a copyright on a name. MIT can have the copyright on the kerberos specification but if they have something on the name Kerberos itself it can only be a trademark or an unregistered trademark.
Clearly they have a weak legal case, at best.
Sorry but I will have to flamebait. In a free country they would have a weak case but in the US I don't know. With the DMCA and soon the UCITAs it will give them more and more power.
MS has got some ground when it ask slashdot to delete the posts with their extended specification in them but they don't have any ground when they ask /. to delete the other posts that they claim are infringing MS copyright whereas they don't contain any MS material.
But it doesn't indicate either that those two product shouldn't be integrated.
Either I don't understand your sentence (possible, I'm not a native English speaker) or we could follow what you say in it to its extreme and integrate Windows and Office, Outlook, Visual Studio,... up to the point of having MS selling only one box with all their product in it sold under the name Windows.
They remarked upon the DoJ's proposed remedy of "hiding" IE rather than removing it, and suggested that this indicated the DoJ was tacitly admitting IE is an integrated part of Windows
Of course this is an integrated part of Windows. MS did everything in their power to tie Windows and IE together in a way that is next to impossible to undo. The question is whether doing so is an excuse not to punish them? Clearly no, this is not because you break the law in a way that it is impossible even for you to undo it that you should go as if nothing happened.
Of course, if such a thing were true, then the DoJ would have no case. If the word justice really mean something in the USA then it should make their case stronger, not weaker. The Appeals Court further commented that it is not the place of the courts to judge the motives for technological tying in those cases where a reasonable person might determine consumer benefit from the tie, and they additionally suggested that they *did* see a benefit in requiring IE 3.0 to ship with Win95.
I don't really have a problem with having IE coming with Windows 95/98, I have a problem with not being able to get rid of it.
Last time I installed RedHat I had Netscape preinstalled. Did I scream bloody murder, Netscape is a monopolist? No. Am I an hypocrit because I thought and said this kind of things about MS? No. Why? Because Netscape didn't use their monopoly (well, they don't have any but you get the point) to forbid Redhat to ship with other browsers (like the one with KDE or Lynx) nor to forbid them to remove Netscape icon or to place another browser icon.
I think Microsoft should have the right to propose IE with Windows but they should not have the right to force IE with Windows and threaten OEM's and Apple, using their monopoly, if they remove IE's icon to put Netscape one. Integrating IE inside Windows was only one more mean, technical this one, to force them to ship IE.
You say:
When determining monopoly power, the law first defines an applicable market.
Then you say:
This implies that Netscape was a potential competitor for Windows, because it could serve interchangeably as a platform for running applications, which would remove the "applications barrier to entry" upon which Jackson bases so much of his decision. But Netscape is not a PC Operating System. Therefore, the market cannot have been well defined, within the legal bounds above.
The antitrust practice need NOT be in the same market and the market is well defined. Don't forget that it is illegal to use anti-competitive practices either to maintain a monopoly or to leverage a monopoly to gain market chares in another market.
In this case MS tied IE to Windows, thus leveraging the Windows monopoly to gain market chare in the browser market in order to maintain its monopoly on the PC OS area.
MS has a monopoly in the IBM compatible PC OS area. Netscape is a threat to Windows not directly because it indeed is not an OS but indirectly because by changing the playing field from the desktop to the Internet and by not being Windows-centric it made Windows irrelevant.
The monopoly power confered to MS via Windows would be totally irrelevant if people did not use Windows-centric desktop applications but instead used Netscape-centric Internet/Web/Network applications and this is to prevent that before it was too late that MS did tie IE to Windows.
Yup, I know approximatively 50 000 little applications whose propagation will be hurt by this functionality :D.
We all know well how problematic the problem of viruses is under Windows.
Well, generally these aren't technically Viruses but Worms; they need that the user execute the viruses to reproduce themselves.
A potential way of being infected is if somebody sends you an autoextractable file. The problem is that the code executed to autoextract the files can be anything, including a virus.
To avoid taking the risk to execute a virus when opening this kind of files you should ALWAYS use an extraction software (like WinZip www.winzip.com or WinRar). The steps to do so are:
1. Install the software (refer yourself to your software's installation procedure).
2. With most such softwaree, to use them without launching the possibly infected code you can click on the right button of your mouse when the aforementioned device is positioned over the autoextractible file.
3. Select the "extract in folder XXXXX" option, or the similar option depending on your software, XXXXX generally being the name of the file you want to uncompress.
4. The files should now be uncompressed in the XXXXX directory.
Remember, DO NOT OPEN YOUR FILES WITHOUT SUCH A TRUSTED SOFTWARE, THEY MAY CONTAIN NASTY VIRUSES THAT COULD ERASE YOUR DATA.
I hope that no company is against free speech to the point of wanting to censor people trying to help others to protect themselves from that company errors.
Now, if only they could replace the basic with Scheme or another functional language, THAT would rock.
In France only the public TV gets money from TV licensing, not the private ones.
The problem is that they still have lots of ads, but we get to have ad-free movies on these channels.
I believe in the UK system this is the same, that is the TV licenses pay for BBC1 and BBC2 (which should be almost ad-free) but not for the otherhannels, who thus have ads (hey, they must live), so the channel for which you pay (via TV licensing) are ad-free, but the ones that you don't pay for (the others) are with ads.
The situation with cable is that you pay for the cable connection, not for the channels, so they must make money with ads.
At home I have a satellite connection and we just paid the satellite antenna but the channel are with lots of ads. Other, encrypted, channels may have less ads but I would have to pay for them.
It recently came to our attention that you illegally reverse engineer our unique technology solve-all-the-problem-of-the-world-but-cannot-resp ond-any-question-corectly contained wherein our "search engine" Jeeves.
We ask you, x1r0k3wl, to cease this immediately and to publish a retractation to the article you posted at the address http://www.people.virginia.edu/~msf9c/features/jee ves.html .
You may use our unique technology but you may not put many responses together, this would be breaking our secure encryption scheme that prevent our users from seeing the truth. What truth you may ask, and I, on behalf of Jeeves, respond you "There is no spoond"TM.
It make a long time I wanted to know that and never found out. Not wanting to bother him with this small thing I didn't ask him but thought this was the perfect time to do it. So I checked nobody did it before, and someone did. Please moderate him up, so I can know :)
When two organisations working against citizens (either by trying to steal my rights or by religious fanatism) team up I don't give a shit whether the movie is good or bad, they still can put it up their ass.
\begin{rant} Whether I like or not is not the matter, it is a fact that money is scarce, in limited supply, not everyone has the same amount,....
Given that a country that justify itself by using free speech to allow corruption by saying that money is speech is just that : a country trying to justify corruption.
I have any amount of speech I want, I can go out in the street and declare that the end is near, that Clinton sucks, or Gore or Bush soon, that strawberry topped beef has an horrible taste,... I don't have any limit to my capacity to generate speech.
Not so with $ (or £ or Euro, or lira,...). They are scarce, so not everybody can have the same amount so saying that it is speech means that you give more speech to the wealthy and make the not as much wealthy unequal in its ability to practice free speech. This is not a democratic system, and making it legal is one of the reasons why I want to laugh when somebody says that the USA are a democratic country.
\end{rant}
It's kinda strange to see pictures of parodies of "jesus" beside others to go to sin.
But one of the most fun is the one suggested : Jesus is Lord.
It's strange to see them parodied in a Holier than thou way.
The KISS rule (well in fact I think they suck but that's another story) is just the American verison (read : dumbed down for Americans) of what St Exupery was saying more than fifty years ago, which is paraphrased below :
"You know when a design is perfect not when there is nothing to add but when there is nothing to take away."
Of course this is too long and complicated for fellow American engineers to remember, so there was a need to express the same thing more easily, which created "Keep It Simple, Stupid", thus having both the abstract of the rule and the reason of the dumbing down.
I don't know why but I have a mood to flame today.
"I don't think that Bill Gates is the Devil, I only think that if they were to meet they wouldn't need a translator".
That's why since then you have often been caught singing "I can't have no Satisfaction"
;)
So what? rewrite it in an interpreted language to show the stupidity of the difference. You then can distribute the source and the interpreter given that one is free speech and the other is completely legal.
but my R&D "research" has shifted to "development" faster than I expected, and the past few weekends have been monopolized by new engine work.
John, with all the salivae that went to my keyboard when reading this sentence, it became next to unusable, I would thank you to send me a check of 0.001% of the royalties of Quake 3* to compensate the inestimate loss of one of my best friends in life, one with which I share a lot of time.
Cheers,
Julien
*(that I still haven't bought, my 133 :( probably wouldn't love it)
I ask it because while I think that it is not possible, and if it is possible they probably are accessible, it would be quite telling if they still weren't accessible, no?
So they have really banned anonymous posting, because nobody is crazy enough to take the responsability of people they don't even know the name of nor what they wan to put on their website.
Makes sense to me. If child pornography is illegal, and someone posts it up on an anonymous webserver, anonymously, *someone* needs to be held responsible for getting rid of the content. With the old system the guy hosting it would remove it as soon as somebody complained/reported it and as soon as he checked, it's not ideal but at least it keeps anonymity possible.
Fuck my government (yeah, I'm French and I'm pissed off)
I don't know VFS but given the (short) presentation made in the interview it sounds really COOL.
The only problem I see is that the US are currently screwing everybody that isn't as big as MS or AOL/TW by giving patents on obvious stuff.
So the idea is to put up a web page somewhere with a perl script (or PHP if you prefer or whatever suits the guy making it) that allow people to put ideas on it about all the cool things that could be done with this stuff, and anybody that got a weird idea but don't know what to do with it can put it here instead of keeping it in his head waiting for john shmoe with big$$$ to patent it.
Of course what I propose is not new, many people proposed things like it before, and maybe some already made something like it, but given the coolness factor of this and the broad range of things you can do with it i think it is a good moment to talk about it again.
If you already have done something similar or even better (ideas being sorted for example, or moderated to avoid having fucking trolls) then you could post a link to it below and describe it.
One idea that could be added to this:
This collection of ideas could be organised as a database, you can type in your idea, and add to it a certain number of attributes (genetics, computer science) or maybe even attributes and sub-attributes, either by the author or by the moderator, people could also refer older ideas when they write their own or add an addendum to the idea (for example, a possible design/implementation that is more detailed than the idea).
Hey, such a database could be also useful for finding ideas to implement in our software!
We could even use /. as a base for it, not by clobbering normal threads but by using "hidden" fora like the forum idea or the forum Computer Science...
Why isn't 1 considered prime?
My teacher explained that when you factorised a random number into its prime composants you are obtening something like:
number_to_factorize = prime_componant_1**n1 * prime_componant_2**n2 ...
Well, but wait a minute, if 1 is prime then I can say that 4 = 2**2 * 1**n, n being (at least) any natural number, we could even say that 4 - 2**2 * 1**INFINI.
Of course this is quite stupid, so 1 isn't considered as prime (I think there was another reason but I can't remember).
So if 1 isn't considered to be prime by convention, then you can't say that 3 = 2 + 1 to obey the theorem, due to 1 non-primeness.
Given that I suppose that the guy that made the theorem was WAY much better than me at math I suppose that either:
1. When he specified that, 1 was considered a prime number.
2. Maybe not all countries recognize 1 as not being prime.
3. Maybe the theorem states that it begins at 5 = 3 + 2?
Can someone tell me which is it or wether I smoked to much pot and am completely wrong on 1 non-primeness (web references would be appreciated), thanks.
Maybe we should try to have Microsoft buy the Amiga rights, so they would be affected by the Amiga curse ;).