> If there's "no question" that your IP is being used in open source software, tell us where. If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, the world should rightfully assume that your attacks are baseless and without merit.
Don't pick on him; he's just having a friendly rivalry with McBride to see who can pick up the Golden Coprolite award for being the best Slashdot troll ever.
> Besides, using the term "clone" is so vague as to be meaningless. There's a big difference between copying something directly and achieving the same results through reverse engineering.
And what the heck would we copy anyway? If I am going to clone a MS product would it be any easier to hack their code to change it from using the Windows API to use Qt or GTK+, than it would be to write the whole thing from scratch? Or to use code from the Windows morphodite bastard spinoff of the VMS architecture as part of a UNIX clone?
> To put it simply: geeks and nerds are soon to be marginalised in the tech industry. In their place will be MBAs and accountants who will be fully trained in technology. Technology, after all, is not that hard to learn - any businessman with a bit of nous can handle what techies do every day.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. Fifteen years ago the trade rags were full of bullshit about how fourth generation programming languages were going to let the MBAs cut all those unnessary programmers out of the loop.
IMO the chief value of the techies isn't their programming skills, but their tendancy to think logically. You can't imagine the kind of stuff I've seen fuckwit managers ask programmers to do, e.g. generate reports that total up quantities measured in incompatible units. Most of the tech groups I've been in spent more time finding out what the boss wanted, then finding out what he really wanted, and then coercing that into the mold of reality, than they spent on the easy stuff like programming.
> I always thought that the evil greed was with Worldcom, not MCI. From reading the article, it sounds like this started with MCI long before the merger. I was hopeing it was one of the other companies Worldcom of Borg assimilated. Wiltel or MFS or someone else.
Unfortunately I think evil greed is probably the norm rather than the exception. I used to work for a small Pa&Ma shop where the Pa was president of the local Association of Christian Businessmen, and whenever he was doing work for cost + contracted markup he would habitually inflate the timesheets by 50%, excusing it on the grounds the he couldn't turn a profit if he didn't do it.
The big guys do it, the little guys do it; I would guess that it's endemic.
> Supposing SETI finds something, will the government let out the news to the general public?
Why would governments keep it secret when they could instead use it as a long-distance boogieman to justify increasing defense spending and cracking down on civil liberties?
I wonder whether we could start a grassroots movement to vote Havoc off the board next time they have electons? I've never payed much attention to that rot before, but it may be only way to save GNOME.
> I'm also curious how you think that privatizing education would change anything... (except reduce the "leveling" of education). Private schools look better overall because they can just decide not to take or drop problem students, unlike public schools.
This is what bothers me about the push to privatize education, even more than the obvious exploit of using tax money to fund private schools to brainwash kids with creationism and other such nonsense.
The need for profit means that privatized schools will only be interested in accepting those students that produce the most bang for the buck. That means the students that require more attention will be left in the husk of the public school system. But since funding for public schools will be drained off by the privatization, public schools will - if they are lucky - be stuck with the same $/student they have now, but they'll also be stuck with all the students that need the most attention, so their chances of succeeding will be even worse than they are now. (And of course, that will be taken by the advocates of privatization as "proof" that privatization is a better solution to the challenge of educating the public.)
Basically, a broad swath of our population - and their descendents - is going to be even more screwed than they are now, all for the purpose of funnelling public money into private coffers and giving the upper and middle classes even more of an educational (=economic) leg-up than they're already getting.
> I was just thinking, what happened to the space program is a classic example of why it's better for things to be privatized. I mean, one of the worst possible things that can happen to a government program is..... that is becomes successfull. At that point it becomes an entrenched bureauocracy that sucks the air out ofanything else that might have been a viable or healthy alternative. The moon race isn't the only example, SSI, public education, medicade/medicare are all drastic and sorry failures. I really feel sorry for the prople who truely believe in them.
I find myself wondering whether you've every had a job. Surely even the most casual observation reveals that private enterprise doesn't have all the magical properties commonly attributed to it. Failed or discontinued projects in the private sector are a dime a dozen, as are pet projects that get funded on the basis of which manager is the best suck-up rather than on the basis of which best satisfies some other requirement (even if that requirement has no higher social goals than raking more gold into corporate coffers). Waste and "dumbsizing" of good projects seem to be the rule in the private sector as much as in the public sector; you're just less likely to see them in the news or hear them harped on for political exploitation by radio talkjox.
I don't know exactly how much of my tax money goes toward funding Hubble, but even apart from the science I get a pretty good entertainment value from the the pictures it has produced, such as the wonderful picture of NGC 7742 on the APOD page for today.
> I had almost daily crashes with early 1.3 releases. At least since 1.3.5 things are shaping up, I only get an occasional crash now and then, about once a week or so. Version 1.2.x was rocksolid here, I could keep the same window on my desktop for weeks without having it crash.
I think there's a very slow memory leak in 1.2, since it gradually eats memory and crashes on me very predictably every 2-3 weeks or so.
Of course my usage habits may be somewhat out of spec. Once they introduced tabs I almost completely quit using bookmarks. Right now I have 1-5 Galeon windows open on each of 12 virtual desktops, and 1-50 tabs open in each window. I may be asking for trouble.
Of course that makes it a big pain when I have to restart Galeon and let it reload a few hundred pages over an unreliable telephone link.
> No, the other way around. If you open a link in new tab, without automatically jumping to it, it still gives focus to the new tab. It should keep the current tab in focus, which for example will give you a PageDown on hitting the spacebar (very usefull when reading/. and skimming the comments in a story).
I'm not quite sure what you're describing, but it sounds similar to the one thing that I find most annoying other than the crashes. I like to read a story, opening interesting links in other tabs as I go, and then read the tabs when I've finished the story. But apparently the scrolling focus is lost whenever another tab finishes loading. I use the arrow keys to scroll down a story, but something happening in another tab will make it lose focus and I have to click the page or the scollbar to make the scrolling work again.
> I wish that the developers of Galeon will find strength in this slashdot debate to keep up the good work.
Meetoo, but they need to go back to 1.2 and start improving from there, rather than redesigning it to take away all the features and customizability. The upgrade from GTK1 to GTK2 needn't have involved anywhere near so many changes as it has.
> It used to be my favourite browser, but fore some reason or other the developers have decided to destroy it. While Galeon 1.2.x was superb, version 1.3 is just slightly better than IE. IMHO they got exactly what they worked so hard for - rejection from everyone. A far-from-complete list of features they broke [...]
Are those deliberate breaks, or just signs that 1.3 is still transitional?
I agree that 1.3 sux; I've built a couple of releases, found a massive lack of functionality, and returned to 1.2 every time, but I always thought it was because they were in the middle of a major rewrite rather than deliberately crippling it. I'll be disappointed if that's wrong.
> > By referring to people who believe one thing as "real scientists" you have just excomunicated them, yourself. This is precisely what he means. Papers referring to intelligent design are mocked in peer review because they do not think of such as "real science." You have just given an excellent case in point.
> I'm a scientist. The reason I have a problem with the idea of "Intelligent Design" is that it doesn't have predictive power. Science is all about explaining what's going on in the universe - and the main way we test whether we understand something or not is to use a theory we've developed based one one set of evidence to make predictions about experiments we haven't tried yet.
Another useful way of understanding "Intelligent Design" is to look at what real scientists do, look at what traditional creationists do, and then look to see which pattern the IDers follow most closely.
As you say, science is all about explaining what we see in the universe. That's why we have all those theories that creationists are so fond of dismissing as "just theories".
Creationism OTOH explains nothing. The only "science" creationists try to do is try to poke holes in the theory of evolution (or geology, or cosmology) in order to make the universe safe for their god.
And that's exactly what the ID "researchers" do as well. They spend their time looking for arguments that "evolution couldn't have done that, therefore an intelligent designer was involved". Ignore the gross non sequitur for now, and concentrate on the fact that once they have launched such an argument they are done with it. There is absolutely no attempt to explain this amazing discovery; in fact they take care to innoculate it against further investigation by claiming that the nature of the designer and the mechanism of design are neither knowable nor interesting. This is the very antithesis of science; you don't have be expert enough to spot the flaws in their arguments in order to be able to recognize that they aren't "real scientists", because they simply aren't doing real science.
> > I believe the sun will rise tomorrow just about the same time it rose today; is that also a religion?
> No, that is one belief that is assumed based on experience. It does not break a scientific law whereas evolution breaks the scientific law that each produces its own kind.
That's not a scientific law; that's the Neolithic belief enshrined in Genesis. The actual science pertaining to reproduction is - you guessed it! - evolution.
BTW, it's really funny to see evolution deniers try to reject science on the basis of scientific law. Are you unaware that all those "laws of nature" come from the same place that evolution does, namely from observing how nature actually operates?
No scientist things evolution violates any natural laws, but even if they did it would not be a foregone conclusion that evolution would be the one that got thrown out. When two parts of the scientific model of the universe are found to be in conflict we simply have to see which one has the best empirical support.
> > Actually, if you put imperfect replicators in a rich environment evolution is almost a certainty.
> Yes, but is this microevolution which is proven and easily demonstrated, or macroevolution, which is what the debate is over?
Macroevolution is just the end result of lots of microevolution. Evolution deniers are fond of claiming that there's some sort of glass ceiling that limits how far from home base you can get with iterative microevolution, but for some reason they're completely incapable of supporting that arbitrary claim. (Which, BTW, has no motivation and serves no purpose except for denying evolution.) On the contrary, huge piles of genetic and morphological evidence suggest that iterative microevolution explains the tree of life.
> > That's not excommunication, that's "bullshit walks". Creationists are welcome to submit their articles to the same peer review process that real scientists are. How many do you know of that do so, and what were the reviewers' comments on the rejection notices?
> By referring to people who believe one thing as "real scientists" you have just excomunicated them, yourself. This is precisely what he means.
I'm not excluding them; they're excluding themselves by not doing real science.
(Actually there are lots of creationists who do do real science, but for some reason they only do it in fields other than creation.)
> Papers referring to intelligent design are mocked in peer review because they do not think of such as "real science."
I rather suspect you don't have the faintest idea what feedback the authors of ID papers get from peer reviewers, because as far as I know none have ever been submitted to a scientific journal. (If you can name one that has and quote exactly what the reviewers wrote about it, it would help your credibility immensely.)
I take that back; I think Nature let the leading ID "researchers" have their say in an issue a year or so back, for the sole purpose of refuting their claims of persecution. But notice that that wasn't the result of passing any kind of peer review.
> > Conspiracy theories are the last refuge of kooks.
> By saying this, I am assuming you would be referring to people who believe in any sort of intelligent design as conspiracy theorists and kooks as well.
No, just those like the earlier poster who attribute the rejection of their ideas to a conspiracy rather than to the glaring shortcomings of the ideas.
> Interesting. This again, shows why the creationists or even scientists with any belief in intelligent design find it hard to publish papers: their ideas are shoved aside or pre-conceived as as kooky before even being looked at.
Again, except for what I mentioned above I'm not aware that any ID papers have even been submitted for publication. It's kind of hard to reject something due to biases
> Evolution is a religion. It is a set of beliefs.
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow just about the same time it rose today; is that also a religion?
> Most evolutionists say things like "we have reason to believe", or "we believe that foo is x years old". It is still called a "theory", not a proven fact or scientific Law.Actually it is mathematically improbable even.
Actually, if you put imperfect replicators in a rich environment evolution is almost a certainty.
> Just like the early church, the evolution religion changes its views on matters of "fact" and change the timeline and tree of life to fit in with their new findings.
That's a Prime Directive for science: if your model doesn't fit the facts, you have to keep the facts and change the model. That's how science makes progress.
> Those who don't adhere to the beliefs are excommunications and sometimes attacked and discredited. Just ask any creationist with a Ph.D.
That's not excommunication, that's "bullshit walks". Creationists are welcome to submit their articles to the same peer review process that real scientists are. How many do you know of that do so, and what were the reviewers' comments on the rejection notices?
Slashdot Mirror
Quit reading Slashdot.
> If there's "no question" that your IP is being used in open source software, tell us where. If you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, the world should rightfully assume that your attacks are baseless and without merit.
Don't pick on him; he's just having a friendly rivalry with McBride to see who can pick up the Golden Coprolite award for being the best Slashdot troll ever.
> Besides, using the term "clone" is so vague as to be meaningless. There's a big difference between copying something directly and achieving the same results through reverse engineering.
And what the heck would we copy anyway? If I am going to clone a MS product would it be any easier to hack their code to change it from using the Windows API to use Qt or GTK+, than it would be to write the whole thing from scratch? Or to use code from the Windows morphodite bastard spinoff of the VMS architecture as part of a UNIX clone?
Get re-al, Bi-ill.
Gates has been a "me too!" entrepreneur in everything else that came by the IT industry; no reason he shouldn't clone SCO's major product as well.
> To put it simply: geeks and nerds are soon to be marginalised in the tech industry. In their place will be MBAs and accountants who will be fully trained in technology. Technology, after all, is not that hard to learn - any businessman with a bit of nous can handle what techies do every day.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard it all before. Fifteen years ago the trade rags were full of bullshit about how fourth generation programming languages were going to let the MBAs cut all those unnessary programmers out of the loop.
IMO the chief value of the techies isn't their programming skills, but their tendancy to think logically. You can't imagine the kind of stuff I've seen fuckwit managers ask programmers to do, e.g. generate reports that total up quantities measured in incompatible units. Most of the tech groups I've been in spent more time finding out what the boss wanted, then finding out what he really wanted, and then coercing that into the mold of reality, than they spent on the easy stuff like programming.
> I always thought that the evil greed was with Worldcom, not MCI. From reading the article, it sounds like this started with MCI long before the merger. I was hopeing it was one of the other companies Worldcom of Borg assimilated. Wiltel or MFS or someone else.
Unfortunately I think evil greed is probably the norm rather than the exception. I used to work for a small Pa&Ma shop where the Pa was president of the local Association of Christian Businessmen, and whenever he was doing work for cost + contracted markup he would habitually inflate the timesheets by 50%, excusing it on the grounds the he couldn't turn a profit if he didn't do it.
The big guys do it, the little guys do it; I would guess that it's endemic.
> Supposing SETI finds something, will the government let out the news to the general public?
Why would governments keep it secret when they could instead use it as a long-distance boogieman to justify increasing defense spending and cracking down on civil liberties?
> > > his extremist "no features" jihad
> > This is about to drive me away from GNOME
> Where else could I go, though?
I wonder whether we could start a grassroots movement to vote Havoc off the board next time they have electons? I've never payed much attention to that rot before, but it may be only way to save GNOME.
> I was always fond of this hubble image: Hubble Heritage Project: Keyhole Nebula
That is nice.
I just hope that isn't God who's giving us the finger, at the upper left of the image.
> I'm also curious how you think that privatizing education would change anything
This is what bothers me about the push to privatize education, even more than the obvious exploit of using tax money to fund private schools to brainwash kids with creationism and other such nonsense.
The need for profit means that privatized schools will only be interested in accepting those students that produce the most bang for the buck. That means the students that require more attention will be left in the husk of the public school system. But since funding for public schools will be drained off by the privatization, public schools will - if they are lucky - be stuck with the same $/student they have now, but they'll also be stuck with all the students that need the most attention, so their chances of succeeding will be even worse than they are now. (And of course, that will be taken by the advocates of privatization as "proof" that privatization is a better solution to the challenge of educating the public.)
Basically, a broad swath of our population - and their descendents - is going to be even more screwed than they are now, all for the purpose of funnelling public money into private coffers and giving the upper and middle classes even more of an educational (=economic) leg-up than they're already getting.
> I was just thinking, what happened to the space program is a classic example of why it's better for things to be privatized. I mean, one of the worst possible things that can happen to a government program is
I find myself wondering whether you've every had a job. Surely even the most casual observation reveals that private enterprise doesn't have all the magical properties commonly attributed to it. Failed or discontinued projects in the private sector are a dime a dozen, as are pet projects that get funded on the basis of which manager is the best suck-up rather than on the basis of which best satisfies some other requirement (even if that requirement has no higher social goals than raking more gold into corporate coffers). Waste and "dumbsizing" of good projects seem to be the rule in the private sector as much as in the public sector; you're just less likely to see them in the news or hear them harped on for political exploitation by radio talkjox.
I don't know exactly how much of my tax money goes toward funding Hubble, but even apart from the science I get a pretty good entertainment value from the the pictures it has produced, such as the wonderful picture of NGC 7742 on the APOD page for today.
> I had almost daily crashes with early 1.3 releases. At least since 1.3.5 things are shaping up, I only get an occasional crash now and then, about once a week or so. Version 1.2.x was rocksolid here, I could keep the same window on my desktop for weeks without having it crash.
I think there's a very slow memory leak in 1.2, since it gradually eats memory and crashes on me very predictably every 2-3 weeks or so.
Of course my usage habits may be somewhat out of spec. Once they introduced tabs I almost completely quit using bookmarks. Right now I have 1-5 Galeon windows open on each of 12 virtual desktops, and 1-50 tabs open in each window. I may be asking for trouble.
Of course that makes it a big pain when I have to restart Galeon and let it reload a few hundred pages over an unreliable telephone link.
> No, the other way around. If you open a link in new tab, without automatically jumping to it, it still gives focus to the new tab. It should keep the current tab in focus, which for example will give you a PageDown on hitting the spacebar (very usefull when reading
I'm not quite sure what you're describing, but it sounds similar to the one thing that I find most annoying other than the crashes. I like to read a story, opening interesting links in other tabs as I go, and then read the tabs when I've finished the story. But apparently the scrolling focus is lost whenever another tab finishes loading. I use the arrow keys to scroll down a story, but something happening in another tab will make it lose focus and I have to click the page or the scollbar to make the scrolling work again.
> the Galeon developers do not seem to be 100% behind GNOME's goals
The same can be said for the newsreader Pan: the author ripped all the GNOME stuff out a while back.
I wonder whether this might be the beginning of a trend, and kind of hope it is. IMO GNOME 2 has been a major step in the wrong direction.
> I wish that the developers of Galeon will find strength in this slashdot debate to keep up the good work.
Meetoo, but they need to go back to 1.2 and start improving from there, rather than redesigning it to take away all the features and customizability. The upgrade from GTK1 to GTK2 needn't have involved anywhere near so many changes as it has.
> his extremist "no features" jihad
This is about to drive me away from GNOME, which I've used since pre-1.0 days (0.4, IIRC).
Too bad I don't have time to fork a Havoc-free version for power users; I keep hoping someone else will.
> It used to be my favourite browser, but fore some reason or other the developers have decided to destroy it. While Galeon 1.2.x was superb, version 1.3 is just slightly better than IE. IMHO they got exactly what they worked so hard for - rejection from everyone. A far-from-complete list of features they broke [...]
Are those deliberate breaks, or just signs that 1.3 is still transitional?
I agree that 1.3 sux; I've built a couple of releases, found a massive lack of functionality, and returned to 1.2 every time, but I always thought it was because they were in the middle of a major rewrite rather than deliberately crippling it. I'll be disappointed if that's wrong.
[Posting from Galeon 1.2.7 - nice browser.]
Theogermal activity would be a lot more interesting to everyone but the geologists.
Maybe the RIAA is monitoring Web access to those databases to find out who they should be suing!
> Not a troll, just say no to zealotry.
Yes, mod it up so everyone can see the entrenched idiocy of Microsoft apologetics.
Other operating systems run applications too, you know.
> One thing is for sure. There would be a person identical to you except they would have a goatee and no sleeves on their uniform.
That's how everyone looks here. Where the heck are you posting from?
> > By referring to people who believe one thing as "real scientists" you have just excomunicated them, yourself. This is precisely what he means. Papers referring to intelligent design are mocked in peer review because they do not think of such as "real science." You have just given an excellent case in point.
> I'm a scientist. The reason I have a problem with the idea of "Intelligent Design" is that it doesn't have predictive power. Science is all about explaining what's going on in the universe - and the main way we test whether we understand something or not is to use a theory we've developed based one one set of evidence to make predictions about experiments we haven't tried yet.
Another useful way of understanding "Intelligent Design" is to look at what real scientists do, look at what traditional creationists do, and then look to see which pattern the IDers follow most closely.
As you say, science is all about explaining what we see in the universe. That's why we have all those theories that creationists are so fond of dismissing as "just theories".
Creationism OTOH explains nothing. The only "science" creationists try to do is try to poke holes in the theory of evolution (or geology, or cosmology) in order to make the universe safe for their god.
And that's exactly what the ID "researchers" do as well. They spend their time looking for arguments that "evolution couldn't have done that, therefore an intelligent designer was involved". Ignore the gross non sequitur for now, and concentrate on the fact that once they have launched such an argument they are done with it. There is absolutely no attempt to explain this amazing discovery; in fact they take care to innoculate it against further investigation by claiming that the nature of the designer and the mechanism of design are neither knowable nor interesting. This is the very antithesis of science; you don't have be expert enough to spot the flaws in their arguments in order to be able to recognize that they aren't "real scientists", because they simply aren't doing real science.
> > I believe the sun will rise tomorrow just about the same time it rose today; is that also a religion?
> No, that is one belief that is assumed based on experience. It does not break a scientific law whereas evolution breaks the scientific law that each produces its own kind.
That's not a scientific law; that's the Neolithic belief enshrined in Genesis. The actual science pertaining to reproduction is - you guessed it! - evolution.
BTW, it's really funny to see evolution deniers try to reject science on the basis of scientific law. Are you unaware that all those "laws of nature" come from the same place that evolution does, namely from observing how nature actually operates?
No scientist things evolution violates any natural laws, but even if they did it would not be a foregone conclusion that evolution would be the one that got thrown out. When two parts of the scientific model of the universe are found to be in conflict we simply have to see which one has the best empirical support.
> > Actually, if you put imperfect replicators in a rich environment evolution is almost a certainty.
> Yes, but is this microevolution which is proven and easily demonstrated, or macroevolution, which is what the debate is over?
Macroevolution is just the end result of lots of microevolution. Evolution deniers are fond of claiming that there's some sort of glass ceiling that limits how far from home base you can get with iterative microevolution, but for some reason they're completely incapable of supporting that arbitrary claim. (Which, BTW, has no motivation and serves no purpose except for denying evolution.) On the contrary, huge piles of genetic and morphological evidence suggest that iterative microevolution explains the tree of life.
> > That's not excommunication, that's "bullshit walks". Creationists are welcome to submit their articles to the same peer review process that real scientists are. How many do you know of that do so, and what were the reviewers' comments on the rejection notices?
> By referring to people who believe one thing as "real scientists" you have just excomunicated them, yourself. This is precisely what he means.
I'm not excluding them; they're excluding themselves by not doing real science.
(Actually there are lots of creationists who do do real science, but for some reason they only do it in fields other than creation.)
> Papers referring to intelligent design are mocked in peer review because they do not think of such as "real science."
I rather suspect you don't have the faintest idea what feedback the authors of ID papers get from peer reviewers, because as far as I know none have ever been submitted to a scientific journal. (If you can name one that has and quote exactly what the reviewers wrote about it, it would help your credibility immensely.)
I take that back; I think Nature let the leading ID "researchers" have their say in an issue a year or so back, for the sole purpose of refuting their claims of persecution. But notice that that wasn't the result of passing any kind of peer review.
> > Conspiracy theories are the last refuge of kooks.
> By saying this, I am assuming you would be referring to people who believe in any sort of intelligent design as conspiracy theorists and kooks as well.
No, just those like the earlier poster who attribute the rejection of their ideas to a conspiracy rather than to the glaring shortcomings of the ideas.
> Interesting. This again, shows why the creationists or even scientists with any belief in intelligent design find it hard to publish papers: their ideas are shoved aside or pre-conceived as as kooky before even being looked at.
Again, except for what I mentioned above I'm not aware that any ID papers have even been submitted for publication. It's kind of hard to reject something due to biases
> Evolution is a religion. It is a set of beliefs.
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow just about the same time it rose today; is that also a religion?
> Most evolutionists say things like "we have reason to believe", or "we believe that foo is x years old". It is still called a "theory", not a proven fact or scientific Law. Actually it is mathematically improbable even.
Actually, if you put imperfect replicators in a rich environment evolution is almost a certainty.
> Just like the early church, the evolution religion changes its views on matters of "fact" and change the timeline and tree of life to fit in with their new findings.
That's a Prime Directive for science: if your model doesn't fit the facts, you have to keep the facts and change the model. That's how science makes progress.
> Those who don't adhere to the beliefs are excommunications and sometimes attacked and discredited. Just ask any creationist with a Ph.D.
That's not excommunication, that's "bullshit walks". Creationists are welcome to submit their articles to the same peer review process that real scientists are. How many do you know of that do so, and what were the reviewers' comments on the rejection notices?
Conspiracy theories are the last refuge of kooks.
> The front page is still functioning, but the applet is down for the count.
Sadly, the poetry evolved to the point where it attracted a predator's attention, and now it's gone extinct.
This is why I'm against broadcasting our presence to the stars.