I think you are missing something... what happens at work isn't decided by policy, it's defined by Title 17 S201 of the law:
(b) Works Made for Hire. — In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
A very important requirement is the work has to have been prepared for them, meaning on their behalf, and intended to be used by them.
And, btw, there is no payment required. Otherwise unpaid interns and volunteers would keep their copyrights, etc. when they do work that is *uncommissioned and unpaid* for any entity (commercial or otherwise).
Well, there is no such thing as an 'unpaid intern'.. the practice of hiring someone but not paying is not legal under the labor laws.
Volunteers might or might not be considered employees for purposes of the copyright act, it depends on the circumstances, CCNV v. Reid 1989.
The volunteer is an employee if the organization has the right to control the manner and the means by which the work is created.
Otherwise, the question of the status of copyright work created by volunteers is unsettled, and would be up to the courts to reach a decision.
Work done by a student does not fit in here.
Because (a) It is not prepared for the purpose of use by the university, and (b) The student is not an employee, since the university doesn't have a right to determine the conditions time/place under which they created the work, and (c) the student is not an employee legally.
And again, they'll simply come back with the statement of "don't like it, go to school elsewhere, your enrollment in the school is agreement to the policy to transfer the work to the school", and it'll _likely_ be upheld in court.
See, it doesn't matter what the school's policy is, there is no automatic transfer of copyright.
This also goes back to Title 17 201 (e):
(e) Involuntary Transfer. — When an individual author's ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, has not previously been transferred voluntarily by that individual author, no action by any governmental body or other official or organization purporting to seize, expropriate, transfer, or exercise rights of ownership with respect to the copyright, or any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, shall be given effect
The college/university may be relying on students not being able to fight it in court, but that doesn't change what is happening now.
If the student does not bother to fight it, then the university wins by default, temporarily, but it's like that with any illegal activity.
Eventually someone will stand up for their rights.
Anytime you write something down, it is less secure than simply memorizing. How on earth do you jump to the thought that memorization is insecure?
That's utter Nonsense.
The process of memorizing is not insecure, it's the fact that human memory is so limited that anything actually secure is incapable of being memorized by the average person.
I suppose this might be true, you might record your password in a page of your favorite book; but to be fair, you shouldn't. The first rule of password security is to pick something that you will remember and to not write it down.
No it's not.
By definition, anything you are capable of remembering is insecure, so you need to record passwords for them to be secure.
If you can remember it, then it's easy for a computer to guess.
Remember? At least 10 characters in length, cannot contain any dictionary words or slang words, cannot contain common numerical progressions such as 1234, at least 1 uppercase, at least 1 lowercase letter, at least one symbol, at least one number, uppercase cannot be at the beginning, symbol cannot be at the end.
Must be changed every 30 days. Cannot be changed more often than once every 5 days.
Cannot contain any of the past 20 passwords used, or be a simple variation.
The expectation of privacy for notes you place in a book only go so far as to how much you control over who reads them.
Usually this would be controlled by keeping it on your bookshelf or not sharing your kindle.
' I have a handwritten note for this'
And give up the Kindle's note recording feature that is supposed to be the electronic version of keeping notes in real books?
To clarify, Amazon does not analyze your data unless you give them permission to do so. There is nothing shocking about this. Calling it wrong speaks to a moral imperiative, but such conclusion is based on facts of which your knowledge is incorrect.
Huh? It's likely in the ToS that Amazon can analyze whatever they want.
We're talking about user expectations, not contracts.
Seriously, you don't post something on your third party hosted blog or twitter or social media site (I dont consider twitter to be social media but rather as a method of millions of idiots shouting 'look at me, I want attention about something useless') and then expect privacy, right?
No, but I annotate PDFs or write text files on my computer all the time, and expect my annotations to remain private, except when I do something explicit to share certain notes.
Well, I could see value in shared notes, as long as the user ELECTS to make certain notes public notes.
For example, someone might make a note that better explains something than the book does.
It could be useful to share, or maybe a useful link with supporting info.
However, i'm concerned that with anything like that, popular works would be quickly inundated with spam links to spam sites or malware distribution points.
How can you trust note submissions from the public, when the people who have the most to gain from sharing 'notes' are people who want to spam readers or plug their own products.
I can imagine notes advertising paid Windows based solutions in Linux / Mac OS administration / programming books:)
If they aggregate, anonymize the info, and discard information about highlight patterns that might be unusual (such as art created on a page with unusual selection of highlights)
However, recording people's notes is indefensible.
That stuff is private information, users have an expectation of being sensitive.
For example, I might record password in a certain page of my favorite book.
I should be able to do this without any fear of it ever being uploaded to or looked at by anyone at Amazon.
Notes should be private unless the user explicitly permissions otherwise.
There is an expectation of privacy regarding notes you place in a book, and Amazon's practice of uploading or analyzing that info without permission is shocking and surprising.
That is a stretch. The copryight in the original code existed before he was hired, and so could not have been a part of a work for hire.
Basically: the derived work is not the same as the original work, the owner of the original work authorized the creation of a derivative, and the owner conveyed all his rights to the derived work through the employment situation. Rights to the derived work include rights to the original work, which are transferred, in the context of the derived work.
It was a specially commissioned work: (1) they paid him to provide modified code.
(2) The entire codebase was within the scope of his normal work for this employer.
(3) He performed the work commissioned, and received payment.
Therefore, we conclude that: (1) It was a work for hire; his derived work was a work for hire.
And, because it was a work for hire, any copyright to the derived work from authorship is conveyed to the employer.
The fact this work was derived from another work,
and he may still own the copyright to the original work it was derived from;
Does not necessarily mean he owns any copyright the derived work, even if it happens to contain the original work.
Ownership of the derived work could have been entirely conferred, due to its work for hire status.
This would be sufficient for the university to do as they please with it in terms of exercising the rights any business would reasonably expect to exercise, in regards to the use of a work they commissioned.
He implicitly gave himself permission to create this derived work under the terms of employment, so he cannot make any claim of copyright infringement against himself for having created the derived work.
And the ownership of the derived work being conferred based on 'work for hire' status, he cannot rightly claim infringement against the university, for any action taken with the derived work due to this situation where ownership of the derived work is assigned due to the 'work for hire' situation...
BTW, you don't need a written employment contract to require that everything you do as an employee belongs to the company you work for either. Same for students - your enrollment is sufficient to say that you agree with the policy, and therefore give up your rights. Don't like it - enroll elsewhere.
It's not the same. By law, when you do work for another company who commissions and pays for the work, if there is not a contract, then 'work for hire' is assumed.
The company who paid for and commissioned the work receives the copyright.
If you are a student, then you are not paid for any work. There is no automatic transfer of IP, regardless of someone else's "policy".
By law a transfer of copyright can only be made with a signed agreement.
There is no such thing as implicit transfer of ownership of copyright exclusive rights, there must be a signed contract.
That's not correct. Unless you did the work as a university employee, or someone compensated by the university for doing the work, there is no transfer of copyright or assignment of any rights, just because you were a student at the time.
Now if you have been granted a scholarship, assistanceship, or employment with the UNI.
There may be some term of the contract that assigns ownership to the university.
There may also be some matters that have special terms -- for example, students conducting a masters or P.h.D. thesis, may be required to assign or sign certain rights to the school, over their final submission (such as the right to publish), before it can be accepted.
Since he personally wrote the original code he adapted and extended while employed, the entire body of his work is potentially considered a part of the work for hire.
In other words, the University could potentially lay copyright claim to all code he wrote, even the code he wrote before employment started.
In that case, they could change the licensing from GPL to something else.
And (at their leisure) change the code to not require any GPL libraries, or even ask their employee to do that.
Only the portion of the software that was actually licensed under the GPL can be redistributed in that way.
That would be the libraries the program links to.
The ownership and licensing of even the code written by the person before being employed is potentially in question.
Also, should he attempt to release any part of it, the employer may not like that -- it could result in disciplinary action if not legal action.
1) the employer cannot deny the coder actually wrote that code (up-front attribution is not required, on-demand confirmation is required
The Employer can say "I have no comment to make on that matter." And refuse to provide a yes or no answer, as to whether the coder wrote that code, without recourse by the employee.
2) the coder gets to show, demonstrate, explain the functionality of the code to anyone he pleases*, **
Not necessarily.
Well, demonstrating functionality is probably 'safe', but only if there is not a NDA involved.
Holders of positions in the high courts are expected to set aside their personal views and opinions, and judge based on the law and the context in which the law was written.
She may have favored expanded fair use as the Dean of a school. But that does not mean that as a judge, she will be ruling in favor of expanded fair use more than she should, or in cases where a judge not in favor of expanded fair use would rule.
The job of a Judge is interpretation of the law, legislation and legislative context, and the constitution, based on legal principles, not based on personal views about what would be better for the public.
A service where your company opens an account with the social networking site, you submit the IP addresses of your DNS servers, or reconfigure your proxy to point to their 'corporate access IP'.
All Employees accessing the site through the enterprise intranet get a special version of the site that archives exactly all activities that are performed from the enterprise.
A flag controls what type of access they have to the medium at work.
For example, you may have a policy that they can only communicate with their coworkers, customers, professional contacts, etc, from the office.
Their tweets may be restricted visibility until the end of the day.
Or they might be permanently visible to only the Enterprise twitter users.
Then the other girl's parents included it in their school lunch, so it was exempt from the restriction.
It was given to them by parents not the school.
All the girl's parents should have to say is that they approved of her having it.
It really doesn't matter whether the parents handed it to her directly or gave it to her indirectly through approving of another person who had decided to give it and hold it on her behalf.
In any case, it belonged to the student. Laws regarding the transfer of property are set by the state, not the school.
The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption.
This is a policy about what Schools are allowed to serve to students.
Not a policy about what foods students are allowed to eat or possess.
Speaking of the internet... civilized society as we know it is pretty fragile too. One volcanic eruption, or one really big earthquake, tsunami, or meteor strike -- pretty minor common events in the cosmic scale, and suddenly we've stopped all travel, everyone's hiding under a table, running, or civilization as we know it is over.
P.S. The internet may be a very large, fragile sculpture, in an area where earthquakes sometimes happen, but if so, there is a large army of trained monkeys, each one watching their own piece very carefully.
If anything should happen, they have bottle of superglue, duct tape, and welding equipment, all in hand, and are willing to help their friends mend their piece, if the big one ever hits.
Yes, but it's only protected against non-sysop Wikipedians. And there is a very massive number of sysops, some who are trustworthy and some who are questionable.
Much like BGP is only protected against non-ISP router operators/networks.
In both cases, there is a big giant morass (lots of organizations speak BGP), but for most users, there is no unfettered access.
And that is a big reason why the Internet exterior gateway protocol is not RIP or any other IGP.
A premise of the RIP and other IGP protocols is routers talking to each other trust each other.
With BGP, the premise is the opposite... routers speaking the protocol implement policies against each other: policies regarding what routes they propagate or originate outbound, policies regarding what routes they accept, and policies regarding what incoming routes they propagate.
So networks that don't trust each other only accept appropriate routes from their peer based on AS-path and Prefix-list filters.
Basically almost all networks should treat their peers as untrusted, and list out prefixes of end users.
It doesn't start to get hairy, until you need to peer with a provider (instead of an end-user) and accept all prefixes from them, because you want their customer prefixes, or you want to buy transit from them.
As for ISPs and providers though... failing to filter downstream announces is the exception to the rule.
Routing reform? The answer is simple. Just fine Cisco $750 for every router until it starts routing correctly (or they go bankrupt and take Federal bailout money in exchange for incorporating federal guidelines in all future router designs; including backdoor, and mandating USGaBGP, US government-authorized BGP, where the government will issue every router operator who pays the fee and follows the rules a digital certificate to use their AS number, and a digital certificate for each IP prefix the router owner obtains, after filling out 100000 reams of paperwork).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are missing something... what happens at work isn't decided by policy, it's defined by Title 17 S201 of the law:
A very important requirement is the work has to have been prepared for them, meaning on their behalf, and intended to be used by them.
And, btw, there is no payment required. Otherwise unpaid interns and volunteers would keep their copyrights, etc. when they do work that is *uncommissioned and unpaid* for any entity (commercial or otherwise).
Well, there is no such thing as an 'unpaid intern'.. the practice of hiring someone but not paying is not legal under the labor laws.
Volunteers might or might not be considered employees for purposes of the copyright act, it depends on the circumstances, CCNV v. Reid 1989. The volunteer is an employee if the organization has the right to control the manner and the means by which the work is created.
Otherwise, the question of the status of copyright work created by volunteers is unsettled, and would be up to the courts to reach a decision.
Work done by a student does not fit in here. Because (a) It is not prepared for the purpose of use by the university, and (b) The student is not an employee, since the university doesn't have a right to determine the conditions time/place under which they created the work, and (c) the student is not an employee legally.
And again, they'll simply come back with the statement of "don't like it, go to school elsewhere, your enrollment in the school is agreement to the policy to transfer the work to the school", and it'll _likely_ be upheld in court.
See, it doesn't matter what the school's policy is, there is no automatic transfer of copyright. This also goes back to Title 17 201 (e):
The college/university may be relying on students not being able to fight it in court, but that doesn't change what is happening now.
If the student does not bother to fight it, then the university wins by default, temporarily, but it's like that with any illegal activity. Eventually someone will stand up for their rights.
Anytime you write something down, it is less secure than simply memorizing. How on earth do you jump to the thought that memorization is insecure?
That's utter Nonsense. The process of memorizing is not insecure, it's the fact that human memory is so limited that anything actually secure is incapable of being memorized by the average person.
I suppose this might be true, you might record your password in a page of your favorite book; but to be fair, you shouldn't. The first rule of password security is to pick something that you will remember and to not write it down.
No it's not. By definition, anything you are capable of remembering is insecure, so you need to record passwords for them to be secure. If you can remember it, then it's easy for a computer to guess.
Remember? At least 10 characters in length, cannot contain any dictionary words or slang words, cannot contain common numerical progressions such as 1234, at least 1 uppercase, at least 1 lowercase letter, at least one symbol, at least one number, uppercase cannot be at the beginning, symbol cannot be at the end.
Must be changed every 30 days. Cannot be changed more often than once every 5 days. Cannot contain any of the past 20 passwords used, or be a simple variation.
The expectation of privacy for notes you place in a book only go so far as to how much you control over who reads them.
Usually this would be controlled by keeping it on your bookshelf or not sharing your kindle.
' I have a handwritten note for this'
And give up the Kindle's note recording feature that is supposed to be the electronic version of keeping notes in real books?
To clarify, Amazon does not analyze your data unless you give them permission to do so. There is nothing shocking about this. Calling it wrong speaks to a moral imperiative, but such conclusion is based on facts of which your knowledge is incorrect.
Huh? It's likely in the ToS that Amazon can analyze whatever they want. We're talking about user expectations, not contracts.
Seriously, you don't post something on your third party hosted blog or twitter or social media site (I dont consider twitter to be social media but rather as a method of millions of idiots shouting 'look at me, I want attention about something useless') and then expect privacy, right?
No, but I annotate PDFs or write text files on my computer all the time, and expect my annotations to remain private, except when I do something explicit to share certain notes.
Well, I could see value in shared notes, as long as the user ELECTS to make certain notes public notes.
For example, someone might make a note that better explains something than the book does. It could be useful to share, or maybe a useful link with supporting info.
However, i'm concerned that with anything like that, popular works would be quickly inundated with spam links to spam sites or malware distribution points.
How can you trust note submissions from the public, when the people who have the most to gain from sharing 'notes' are people who want to spam readers or plug their own products.
I can imagine notes advertising paid Windows based solutions in Linux / Mac OS administration / programming books :)
If they aggregate, anonymize the info, and discard information about highlight patterns that might be unusual (such as art created on a page with unusual selection of highlights)
However, recording people's notes is indefensible. That stuff is private information, users have an expectation of being sensitive.
For example, I might record password in a certain page of my favorite book. I should be able to do this without any fear of it ever being uploaded to or looked at by anyone at Amazon.
Notes should be private unless the user explicitly permissions otherwise. There is an expectation of privacy regarding notes you place in a book, and Amazon's practice of uploading or analyzing that info without permission is shocking and surprising.
And just plain wrong.
That is a stretch. The copryight in the original code existed before he was hired, and so could not have been a part of a work for hire.
Basically: the derived work is not the same as the original work, the owner of the original work authorized the creation of a derivative, and the owner conveyed all his rights to the derived work through the employment situation. Rights to the derived work include rights to the original work, which are transferred, in the context of the derived work.
It was a specially commissioned work: (1) they paid him to provide modified code.
(2) The entire codebase was within the scope of his normal work for this employer.
(3) He performed the work commissioned, and received payment.
Therefore, we conclude that: (1) It was a work for hire; his derived work was a work for hire.
And, because it was a work for hire, any copyright to the derived work from authorship is conveyed to the employer.
The fact this work was derived from another work, and he may still own the copyright to the original work it was derived from;
Does not necessarily mean he owns any copyright the derived work, even if it happens to contain the original work.
Ownership of the derived work could have been entirely conferred, due to its work for hire status.
This would be sufficient for the university to do as they please with it in terms of exercising the rights any business would reasonably expect to exercise, in regards to the use of a work they commissioned.
He implicitly gave himself permission to create this derived work under the terms of employment, so he cannot make any claim of copyright infringement against himself for having created the derived work.
And the ownership of the derived work being conferred based on 'work for hire' status, he cannot rightly claim infringement against the university, for any action taken with the derived work due to this situation where ownership of the derived work is assigned due to the 'work for hire' situation...
BTW, you don't need a written employment contract to require that everything you do as an employee belongs to the company you work for either. Same for students - your enrollment is sufficient to say that you agree with the policy, and therefore give up your rights. Don't like it - enroll elsewhere.
It's not the same. By law, when you do work for another company who commissions and pays for the work, if there is not a contract, then 'work for hire' is assumed. The company who paid for and commissioned the work receives the copyright.
If you are a student, then you are not paid for any work. There is no automatic transfer of IP, regardless of someone else's "policy". By law a transfer of copyright can only be made with a signed agreement. There is no such thing as implicit transfer of ownership of copyright exclusive rights, there must be a signed contract.
Nuke opens up a giant hole into the oil field.
Leak becomes 100000 times worse.
Fallout from the nuke (extreme heat) raises the oil temperature to the boiling point.
Oil rapidly reaches the surface and immediately ignites, setting the surface of the world's oceans on fire.
Since the hole is so big now, and the rate of leakage so massive, the world's oceans are quickly covered with the flaming oil, like a propane torch.
And you thought global warming was an issue with CO2.......
This would be like lighting a propane tank
That's not correct. Unless you did the work as a university employee, or someone compensated by the university for doing the work, there is no transfer of copyright or assignment of any rights, just because you were a student at the time.
Now if you have been granted a scholarship, assistanceship, or employment with the UNI. There may be some term of the contract that assigns ownership to the university.
There may also be some matters that have special terms -- for example, students conducting a masters or P.h.D. thesis, may be required to assign or sign certain rights to the school, over their final submission (such as the right to publish), before it can be accepted.
But that is an exception to the rule.
Since he personally wrote the original code he adapted and extended while employed, the entire body of his work is potentially considered a part of the work for hire.
In other words, the University could potentially lay copyright claim to all code he wrote, even the code he wrote before employment started.
In that case, they could change the licensing from GPL to something else.
And (at their leisure) change the code to not require any GPL libraries, or even ask their employee to do that.
Only the portion of the software that was actually licensed under the GPL can be redistributed in that way.
That would be the libraries the program links to. The ownership and licensing of even the code written by the person before being employed is potentially in question.
Also, should he attempt to release any part of it, the employer may not like that -- it could result in disciplinary action if not legal action.
1) the employer cannot deny the coder actually wrote that code (up-front attribution is not required, on-demand confirmation is required
The Employer can say "I have no comment to make on that matter." And refuse to provide a yes or no answer, as to whether the coder wrote that code, without recourse by the employee.
2) the coder gets to show, demonstrate, explain the functionality of the code to anyone he pleases*, **
Not necessarily. Well, demonstrating functionality is probably 'safe', but only if there is not a NDA involved.
Holders of positions in the high courts are expected to set aside their personal views and opinions, and judge based on the law and the context in which the law was written.
She may have favored expanded fair use as the Dean of a school. But that does not mean that as a judge, she will be ruling in favor of expanded fair use more than she should, or in cases where a judge not in favor of expanded fair use would rule.
The job of a Judge is interpretation of the law, legislation and legislative context, and the constitution, based on legal principles, not based on personal views about what would be better for the public.
Corn is only abundant due to fertilization. Fertilization utilizes petroleum products.
Also, abundancy of petroleum is not the main reason petroleum is used for these things.
Petroleum is the only known material that can be used to create many things, plastics for example cannot be created using corn.
But you need oil to be used in many of the components to build said orbital solar arrays, assuming it is even feasible.
FaceBook Enterprise Edition
Twitter Pro
Slashdot Corp Subscription
A service where your company opens an account with the social networking site, you submit the IP addresses of your DNS servers, or reconfigure your proxy to point to their 'corporate access IP'.
All Employees accessing the site through the enterprise intranet get a special version of the site that archives exactly all activities that are performed from the enterprise.
A flag controls what type of access they have to the medium at work. For example, you may have a policy that they can only communicate with their coworkers, customers, professional contacts, etc, from the office.
Their tweets may be restricted visibility until the end of the day. Or they might be permanently visible to only the Enterprise twitter users.
"The people" (including The Children[TM]) also use the oil. Every day... We can't do anything without it.
It is their fault for providing it.
If the Oil companies did not provide it, ingenious humans would find a better way.
Then the other girl's parents included it in their school lunch, so it was exempt from the restriction. It was given to them by parents not the school.
All the girl's parents should have to say is that they approved of her having it. It really doesn't matter whether the parents handed it to her directly or gave it to her indirectly through approving of another person who had decided to give it and hold it on her behalf.
In any case, it belonged to the student. Laws regarding the transfer of property are set by the state, not the school.
Line 1 of the policy:
The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption.
This is a policy about what Schools are allowed to serve to students. Not a policy about what foods students are allowed to eat or possess.
Speaking of the internet... civilized society as we know it is pretty fragile too. One volcanic eruption, or one really big earthquake, tsunami, or meteor strike -- pretty minor common events in the cosmic scale, and suddenly we've stopped all travel, everyone's hiding under a table, running, or civilization as we know it is over.
P.S. The internet may be a very large, fragile sculpture, in an area where earthquakes sometimes happen, but if so, there is a large army of trained monkeys, each one watching their own piece very carefully.
If anything should happen, they have bottle of superglue, duct tape, and welding equipment, all in hand, and are willing to help their friends mend their piece, if the big one ever hits.
Yes, but it's only protected against non-sysop Wikipedians. And there is a very massive number of sysops, some who are trustworthy and some who are questionable.
Much like BGP is only protected against non-ISP router operators/networks.
In both cases, there is a big giant morass (lots of organizations speak BGP), but for most users, there is no unfettered access.
key can take any IP offline, through revoking it's authorization, without warning and without recourse.
The only solution to that one I see is: all certificates should be irrevokable.
If you want to stop someone announcing something they have ever been authorized to announce, you have to follow the traditional channels.
And that is a big reason why the Internet exterior gateway protocol is not RIP or any other IGP.
A premise of the RIP and other IGP protocols is routers talking to each other trust each other.
With BGP, the premise is the opposite... routers speaking the protocol implement policies against each other: policies regarding what routes they propagate or originate outbound, policies regarding what routes they accept, and policies regarding what incoming routes they propagate.
So networks that don't trust each other only accept appropriate routes from their peer based on AS-path and Prefix-list filters.
Basically almost all networks should treat their peers as untrusted, and list out prefixes of end users.
It doesn't start to get hairy, until you need to peer with a provider (instead of an end-user) and accept all prefixes from them, because you want their customer prefixes, or you want to buy transit from them.
As for ISPs and providers though... failing to filter downstream announces is the exception to the rule.
Routing reform? The answer is simple. Just fine Cisco $750 for every router until it starts routing correctly (or they go bankrupt and take Federal bailout money in exchange for incorporating federal guidelines in all future router designs; including backdoor, and mandating USGaBGP, US government-authorized BGP, where the government will issue every router operator who pays the fee and follows the rules a digital certificate to use their AS number, and a digital certificate for each IP prefix the router owner obtains, after filling out 100000 reams of paperwork).
There, fixed it for you.
What?! Anyone can edit it?! Really???
'It amazes me every day when I get into work and find the Wikipedia front page has not been blanked or filled with goatse porn.'