What was interesting to me was the contrast of the two candidates, in light of the pro-encryption but left leaning Slashdot audience.
Don't start in about most/. readers being anarcho-libertarians, look at the election poll-- Nader (socialist) and Gore (whatever he's chosen to re-invent himself as this week) are walking away with it. Libertarians are trailing Bush.
It's pretty much wrapped up at this point, Bush is going to take the electoral college by a big margin and the popular vote by at least 3-5 points.
"In October 1999, I proposed fundamental reform of the U.S. high technology export system -- including encryption export laws -- to allow companies to export products..."
while Gore still wants to maintain the FBI's right to choose:
"I believe that the best encryption policy is one that balances our commercial and privacy interests with national security and law enforcement concerns"
He also goes on to say that what they've done in the current administration has been the right balance.
I don't see how anyone interested in privacy could waste a vote on Gore, who wants more of the same (Clipper, government key escrow, etc.).
I understand that most people on Slashdot aren't likely to put their vote in the (R) column on November 7th, but at least Nader or Browne would support strong encryption and privacy concerns.
I use neomail, and I like it. It uses local mail spools, so that may or may not be an issue. It does increase the speed of the application. Neomail is plenty fast for our uses.
I used AcmeMail for a while, but it was too slow (Mail::Cclient is a dog).
In reference to your actual question (where to find information to evaluate webmail packages), I haven't the foggiest. I'd have liked to've found that precise resource when I was evaluating packages.
I keep hearing this mantra that we can't allow the news to become less diversified. My question is: where is the diversity at right now? What practical differences do the major news organizations present?
I've found a simple solution to news media. I don't have a television. I don't subscribe to any newspapers. I have no interest in the whitewashed, biased drivel that they wish to peddle. Thanks but no thanks.
I wouldn't worry too much about this. There are competitive checks currently in the market. I got DSL from a provider that had no interest in controlling the content on it.
On another front, I hope this provides some competition to the telcos so that they might dethrone their collective derrieres and actually respond to their customers. The telcos make AOL look like *great* customer service. If you don't believe me, try calling US West about ISDN sometime.
All in all, this deal affects me exactly one whit. I don't use AOL (I don't have to! Imagine that!) and I don't have a television, so I miss out on TW's diverse (after all, the AOL deal is removing diversity, therefore TW must have had diversity) media offerings. Oh well.
I think that the main problem here is that people are irritated that the merger will likely work. A significant part of the population does seem to want the news/Internet/cartoons spoon fed to them. I agree-- this irritates me too. Not because AOL and TW had the wisdom to merge, but because there are seemingly so many people out there that want to be spoon fed.
Simply put, if OSHA goes through with any part of this, telecommuting will never gain widespread acceptance.
Companies operate on one thing (dotcoms seemingly excepted)-- bottom line. If telecommuting does not provide quantifiable cost savings, it won't ever happen in 99% of companies. All of the other issues (worker productivity, turnover, employee happiness, etc) matter precisely one whit in the face of potential expenditures.
Most companies (specifically the old guard in management) are already reticent about telecommuting because of unfamiliarity. What is really needed to get them going is something like a Forrester report showing specific cost savings across the board for companies that allow/promote telecommuting.
Regulation like this has the potential to destroy all the potential positive benefits (less cars on the road, etc.) by preventing companies from ever implementing it. Companies aren't going to do something that costs them money and opens them up to more potential litigation.
Um, I was borrowing phraseology from the founding fathers of the US. I'm sure that will bother you too; probably too paternalistic.
If you really actually wanted to know, read some of their works (the founding fathers), like the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. There is a wealth of their writings all over the internet.
I don't get why everyone keeps talking about Microsoft, Inc's *rights*. They are a corporation. They are an entity that exists because the state allows it to exist.
Corporations are *not* people, and as such *do not* have the inalienable rights granted us by our creator.
> I am not so much twisting Stallman's words but untwisting them. The man really needs to buy a dictionary.
Ya shure, you betcha.
You didn't read the part about "needing to restrict freedom to ensure freedom?" Like, your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose?
The developers of GPLed software are only saying that you are not allowed to make the software un-free. Other than that, have a good time.
But proprietary software says that you can't re-distribute, modify, or really do anything. If you had a lawyer read the EULA from most proprietary software packages, he would probably be able to prove that you aren't even entitled to use the software.
Where are you coming from? Are you a BSD type, or do you believe that the current state of the proprietary software is hunky dory?
RMS bats another one out of the park. This article was very lucid, and a good explanation of what the GNU project is really about.
My favorite snippet from the article:
"'To further confound matters, he promotes free software by constraining the freedom of software developers. '
"If this seems paradoxical, it shouldn't. Protecting essential freedoms is always a matter of restricting the actions that would deny them. Remember, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. "
He clearly states the goal of the GPL: To ensure that software remains free. Sounds like a good goal to me.
Another great quote:
I find the distinction between freedom and power useful for thinking about the ethics of political issues. Freedom is when you control activities that affect you most closely; to control activities that mainly affect other people is power, power to dominate others. When software users can change and share a program, that is exercising freedom. When software developers make a program proprietary, and place restrictions on the users, that is exercising power.
This quote is brilliant! It really draws the distiction of free vs. proprietary, and explains why I don't really care for some of the other licenses (BSD).
RMS bats another one out of the park. This article was very lucid, and a good explanation of what the GNU project is really about.
My favorite snippet from the article:
"'To further confound matters, he promotes free software by constraining the freedom of software developers. '
"If this seems paradoxical, it shouldn't. Protecting essential freedoms is always a matter of restricting the actions that would deny them. Remember, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. "
He clearly states the goal of the GPL: To ensure that software remains free. Sounds like a good goal to me.
It seems to me that this *has* been done before, with much success. I'm referring to the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network.
CPAN enables the Perl programmer to not re-invent the wheel one more time. I'm sure that most of the people here are aware of it (being that there seem to be a lot of Perl bigots here).
I think that something similar could be set up for C/C++ code, but I'm not volunteering! =)
I don't really know if freshmeat is the right location for something like it, but that's purely subjective.
has some really good info about the MIPS port, specifically (seems like most of the devices use MIPS, and it seems to be the furthest along of the ports).
There are working kernels (with shell and networking!), and they are working on getting the GUI running (it seems to be already running on at least one of the developers' machines).
What you should have said was, "If *anything* goes wrong with *the computer*, anything at all, your grandpa will be dead in the water."
I've thought about this for my mom every time she calls to have me fix her Win95 installation.
She can't fix the computer, PERIOD. It does not matter what OS is on it (she couldn't figure out how to put files on a floppy (on a Mac no less)). Therefore, it is to the benefit of the user to have a rock solid OS underlying the few simple applications that need to be run, and basically to lock them into those apps.
Of the applications that I see being necessary (email, web browser, and word processor), Linux is very competitive.
First off, dude seemed like he had some sort of axe to grind. I don't have the time or inclination to refute everything, but it seems like many things were crouched in half-truth and blanket statements that aren't necessarily true.
For example:
>All open source projects are the same and employ the so-called "bazaar model".
I didn't read this in CatB. In fact, Raymond argues that the FSF development model (developed by a tight knit group, no beta before its time) is a cathedral type development style. He says that the release early, release often is the bazaar model.
This statement by the author if *FALSE*, and wrongheaded. He is obviously trying to paint ESR in a bad light.
> This model is inherently good compared to methods developed by commercial software developers.
There are methods that may work better than the bazaar method, but they are fiendishly expensive and time consuming. The above statement is true for the vast majority of all software development organizations (not counting patently internal development, like workflow processing, etc.), even if the author is trying to show ESR to be some sort of fundamentalist bigot.
> All alternative models (considered to be one and called the "Cathedral model") are infidel and doomed.
Yeah, Yeah, haven't we already been over the fundamentalist bigot stuff? Why doesn't the author provide some quotes to show just what an extremist ESR is? The way that the author writes, you'd expect ESR to start sending bombs from his cabin in Montana. Sounds like a real scientific analysis to me.
> Nothing can compete in quality with open source.
I had to do the same thing with Radius. Until I showed that the proprietary software leaked 100 KB/S at our planned peak load.
So I cranked out one based on the Livingston code and hooked to gdbm that could handle 5X the traffic, and didn't have memory leaks.
They couldn't argue the obvious. In general, I'm very hesitant to base architectures on proprietary, closed products. It ends up being much cheaper for the company to go with an open solution.
It is pretty difficult to prove it to most PHBs, though. Even after pointing out the 100 KB/S memory leakage (I'm not kidding), they just wanted to restart the server every hour.
> Like most church-goers, I was taught that there is no way to get > into heaven on your own. God and sin can not co-habitate, > and since we are all sinners, we cannot be with Him. That's > where Jesus came in. He is the intermediary. Accept Him into > your heart and you will be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.
> I was never too sure about that one.
Me neither. After all, "not all those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Since Jesus died as an intermediary, how is it that you take that forgiveness upon yourself? How is the blood applied to your sins?
Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (quoted from memory; may not be 100%)
In short, read the book of Acts. The samaritans in chapter 8 were not referrred to as having received the Holy Ghost until they spoke in tongues. This was a part of the conversion experience for everyone in the book of Acts (the eunuch in chapter 8 is not specifically stated as such, however). The specific chapters to catch are 2, 8, 10, 19.
Read Paul's conversation with the followers of John the Baptist in chap 19. Notice the questions he asks:
Have you recieved the Holy Ghost? (no) How then were you baptized? (unto John's baptism)
Paul then preaches Jesus to them, and they all go down to get baptized in Jesus' name.
The reason that I quit the Lutheran church and wandered in sin for so long was that there was no power there. You have to have the real infilling of the Holy Ghost, not just "only believe." There is an initial evidence of it; speaking in tongues.
I've got URLs to some good bible studies on these subjects if you want. Mail me.
>This requirement was needed since most military at the lower ranks had no high school or dropped out of school. This is not the case so much anymore.
Actually, This is not the case at all. Entrance to the military (even the Marines!) requires a high school diploma or GED (most branches won't even take a GED).
Alfalfa sprouts, the quintessential health food used as garnish on everything from salads to hamburgers, sickened an estimated 20,000 people in the United States in two outbreaks in 1995, researchers say.
Don't be so smug. Vegetarians aren't e.coli free. =)
>most americans are so uneducated, they don't even know that AIDS was manmade and that the cure was right under their noses all along
I'm sure that your "educated" (nice run-on sentence, btw) self would just love to disclose the source of this "manmade" virus. While you're at it, go ahead and let the world know what the cure resting firmly on our upper lip is.
>Personally, I do not think that this many people deserve to live - in fact, I do not think that even 1 billion people deserve to live. That is way to many people - therefore, I have come up with a plan to execute them all.
I sincerely hope that someone locks you up.
> If everything were free in the world - knowledge, material goods, education - then there would not be any problems with humanity actually grasping this sort of technology. If everyone worked together as a team, instead of being in competetion with one another, then we literally demi-gods right now.
You claim this, but with virtually unlimited information available at your fingertips (about grammar), you can't manage anything above the ramblings of a madman.
Please take your medication. It might help with the paranoid delusions.
I'm wondering why the authors of these type of attacks bother with all of the social engineering that they do. They bother to name the file Zip_files.exe, and tell the (l)user that "these are the files you requested", etc.
I'm wondering why they waste all that effort.
Just name the file molest_my_hard_drive.exe and put in the message:
Please open this file. I'm an aspiring virus writing script kiddie and really want this to get spread far and wide so that I can get arrested. It would really help my self esteem, and might even make me feel 31337. Don't forget to let it run for a few hours before calling your MIS department.
I guarantee that it would have the exact same effect.
Slashdot Mirror
What was interesting to me was the contrast of the two candidates, in light of the pro-encryption but left leaning Slashdot audience.
/. readers being anarcho-libertarians, look at the election poll-- Nader (socialist) and Gore (whatever he's chosen to re-invent himself as this week) are walking away with it. Libertarians are trailing Bush.
Don't start in about most
It's pretty much wrapped up at this point, Bush is going to take the electoral college by a big margin and the popular vote by at least 3-5 points.
I find it interesting that Bush supports privacy:
"In October 1999, I proposed fundamental reform of the U.S. high technology export system -- including encryption export laws -- to allow companies to export products..."
while Gore still wants to maintain the FBI's right to choose:
"I believe that the best encryption policy is one that balances our commercial and privacy interests with national security and law enforcement concerns"
He also goes on to say that what they've done in the current administration has been the right balance.
I don't see how anyone interested in privacy could waste a vote on Gore, who wants more of the same (Clipper, government key escrow, etc.).
I understand that most people on Slashdot aren't likely to put their vote in the (R) column on November 7th, but at least Nader or Browne would support strong encryption and privacy concerns.
I use neomail, and I like it. It uses local mail spools, so that may or may not be an issue. It does increase the speed of the application. Neomail is plenty fast for our uses.
I used AcmeMail for a while, but it was too slow (Mail::Cclient is a dog).
In reference to your actual question (where to find information to evaluate webmail packages), I haven't the foggiest. I'd have liked to've found that precise resource when I was evaluating packages.
I keep hearing this mantra that we can't allow the news to become less diversified. My question is: where is the diversity at right now? What practical differences do the major news organizations present?
I've found a simple solution to news media. I don't have a television. I don't subscribe to any newspapers. I have no interest in the whitewashed, biased drivel that they wish to peddle. Thanks but no thanks.
I wouldn't worry too much about this. There are competitive checks currently in the market. I got DSL from a provider that had no interest in controlling the content on it.
On another front, I hope this provides some competition to the telcos so that they might dethrone their collective derrieres and actually respond to their customers. The telcos make AOL look like *great* customer service. If you don't believe me, try calling US West about ISDN sometime.
All in all, this deal affects me exactly one whit. I don't use AOL (I don't have to! Imagine that!) and I don't have a television, so I miss out on TW's diverse (after all, the AOL deal is removing diversity, therefore TW must have had diversity) media offerings. Oh well.
I think that the main problem here is that people are irritated that the merger will likely work. A significant part of the population does seem to want the news/Internet/cartoons spoon fed to them. I agree-- this irritates me too. Not because AOL and TW had the wisdom to merge, but because there are seemingly so many people out there that want to be spoon fed.
Simply put, if OSHA goes through with any part of this, telecommuting will never gain widespread acceptance.
Companies operate on one thing (dotcoms seemingly excepted)-- bottom line. If telecommuting does not provide quantifiable cost savings, it won't ever happen in 99% of companies. All of the other issues (worker productivity, turnover, employee happiness, etc) matter precisely one whit in the face of potential expenditures.
Most companies (specifically the old guard in management) are already reticent about telecommuting because of unfamiliarity. What is really needed to get them going is something like a Forrester report showing specific cost savings across the board for companies that allow/promote telecommuting.
Regulation like this has the potential to destroy all the potential positive benefits (less cars on the road, etc.) by preventing companies from ever implementing it. Companies aren't going to do something that costs them money and opens them up to more potential litigation.
Um, I was borrowing phraseology from the founding fathers of the US. I'm sure that will bother you too; probably too paternalistic.
If you really actually wanted to know, read some of their works (the founding fathers), like the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. There is a wealth of their writings all over the internet.
I don't get why everyone keeps talking about Microsoft, Inc's *rights*. They are a corporation. They are an entity that exists because the state allows it to exist.
Corporations are *not* people, and as such *do not* have the inalienable rights granted us by our creator.
> I am not so much twisting Stallman's words but untwisting them. The man really needs to buy a dictionary.
Ya shure, you betcha.
You didn't read the part about "needing to restrict freedom to ensure freedom?" Like, your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose?
The developers of GPLed software are only saying that you are not allowed to make the software un-free. Other than that, have a good time.
But proprietary software says that you can't re-distribute, modify, or really do anything. If you had a lawyer read the EULA from most proprietary software packages, he would probably be able to prove that you aren't even entitled to use the software.
Where are you coming from? Are you a BSD type, or do you believe that the current state of the proprietary software is hunky dory?
Sure, *his* goal. My goal too.
I'm not sure that I understood the "illegal acts" part. What were you referring to?
Whatever. Use another license. Go re-write gcc under a bsd license. But don't go around casting aspersions.
My favorite snippet from the article:
"'To further confound matters, he promotes free software by constraining the freedom of software developers. '
"If this seems paradoxical, it shouldn't. Protecting essential freedoms is always a matter of restricting the actions that would deny them. Remember, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. "
He clearly states the goal of the GPL: To ensure that software remains free. Sounds like a good goal to me.
Another great quote:
I find the distinction between freedom and power useful for thinking about the ethics of political issues. Freedom is when you control activities that affect you most closely; to control activities that mainly affect other people is power, power to dominate others. When software users can change and share a program, that is exercising freedom. When software developers make a program proprietary, and place restrictions on the users, that is exercising power.
This quote is brilliant! It really draws the distiction of free vs. proprietary, and explains why I don't really care for some of the other licenses (BSD).
My favorite snippet from the article:
"'To further confound matters, he promotes free software by constraining the freedom of software developers. '
"If this seems paradoxical, it shouldn't. Protecting essential freedoms is always a matter of restricting the actions that would deny them. Remember, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. "
He clearly states the goal of the GPL: To ensure that software remains free. Sounds like a good goal to me.
It seems to me that this *has* been done before, with much success. I'm referring to the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network.
CPAN enables the Perl programmer to not re-invent the wheel one more time. I'm sure that most of the people here are aware of it (being that there seem to be a lot of Perl bigots here).
I think that something similar could be set up for C/C++ code, but I'm not volunteering! =)
I don't really know if freshmeat is the right location for something like it, but that's purely subjective.
> I think it would be sooo awesome to have COLOR x on my portable palmtop! any ideas / suggestions?
Well, it won't do you much good if you have a palm pilot, but:
http://www.linuxce.org
has information about porting Linux to CE devices, and
http://www.ltc.com/linux-mips/
has some really good info about the MIPS port, specifically (seems like most of the devices use MIPS, and it seems to be the furthest along of the ports).
There are working kernels (with shell and networking!), and they are working on getting the GUI running (it seems to be already running on at least one of the developers' machines).
Check out:
http://home.utah-inter.net/clalor/linux_ce.html
This covers syncing WinCE from linux.
It wont do all that fancy shtuff like email, etc., but looks a far cry better than the old pointy stick in the eye.
bzzt! wrong answer.
What you should have said was, "If *anything* goes wrong with *the computer*, anything at all, your grandpa will be dead in the water."
I've thought about this for my mom every time she calls to have me fix her Win95 installation.
She can't fix the computer, PERIOD. It does not matter what OS is on it (she couldn't figure out how to put files on a floppy (on a Mac no less)). Therefore, it is to the benefit of the user to have a rock solid OS underlying the few simple applications that need to be run, and basically to lock them into those apps.
Of the applications that I see being necessary (email, web browser, and word processor), Linux is very competitive.
Everything I've read says that the boxed set costs $19.99, and includes the O'Reilly book.
However, the book is listed as costing $32.95, and includes a debian CD.
What is the difference between the two? Is the book bound/packaged differently? Different CDs?
First off, dude seemed like he had some sort of axe to grind. I don't have the time or inclination to refute everything, but it seems like many things were crouched in half-truth and blanket statements that aren't necessarily true.
For example:
>All open source projects are the same and employ the so-called "bazaar model".
I didn't read this in CatB. In fact, Raymond argues that the FSF development model (developed by a tight knit group, no beta before its time) is a cathedral type development style. He says that the release early, release often is the bazaar model.
This statement by the author if *FALSE*, and wrongheaded. He is obviously trying to paint ESR in a bad light.
> This model is inherently good compared to methods developed by commercial software developers.
There are methods that may work better than the bazaar method, but they are fiendishly expensive and time consuming. The above statement is true for the vast majority of all software development organizations (not counting patently internal development, like workflow processing, etc.), even if the author is trying to show ESR to be some sort of fundamentalist bigot.
> All alternative models (considered to be one and called the "Cathedral model") are infidel and doomed.
Yeah, Yeah, haven't we already been over the fundamentalist bigot stuff? Why doesn't the author provide some quotes to show just what an extremist ESR is? The way that the author writes, you'd expect ESR to start sending bombs from his cabin in Montana. Sounds like a real scientific analysis to me.
> Nothing can compete in quality with open source.
I'm going to pretty much agree with that one.
I don't know if it was available at the time, but this was in early '98. There were two options that I knew of at the time, Livingston and Merit.
I had to do the same thing with Radius. Until I showed that the proprietary software leaked 100 KB/S at our planned peak load.
So I cranked out one based on the Livingston code and hooked to gdbm that could handle 5X the traffic, and didn't have memory leaks.
They couldn't argue the obvious. In general, I'm very hesitant to base architectures on proprietary, closed products. It ends up being much cheaper for the company to go with an open solution.
It is pretty difficult to prove it to most PHBs, though. Even after pointing out the 100 KB/S memory leakage (I'm not kidding), they just wanted to restart the server every hour.
> Like most church-goers, I was taught that there is no way to get
> into heaven on your own. God and sin can not co-habitate,
> and since we are all sinners, we cannot be with Him. That's
> where Jesus came in. He is the intermediary. Accept Him into
> your heart and you will be accepted into the Kingdom of Heaven.
> I was never too sure about that one.
Me neither. After all, "not all those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Since Jesus died as an intermediary, how is it that you take that forgiveness upon yourself? How is the blood applied to your sins?
Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (quoted from memory; may not be 100%)
In short, read the book of Acts. The samaritans in chapter 8 were not referrred to as having received the Holy Ghost until they spoke in tongues. This was a part of the conversion experience for everyone in the book of Acts (the eunuch in chapter 8 is not specifically stated as such, however). The specific chapters to catch are 2, 8, 10, 19.
Read Paul's conversation with the followers of John the Baptist in chap 19. Notice the questions he asks:
Have you recieved the Holy Ghost? (no)
How then were you baptized? (unto John's baptism)
Paul then preaches Jesus to them, and they all go down to get baptized in Jesus' name.
The reason that I quit the Lutheran church and wandered in sin for so long was that there was no power there. You have to have the real infilling of the Holy Ghost, not just "only believe." There is an initial evidence of it; speaking in tongues.
I've got URLs to some good bible studies on these subjects if you want. Mail me.
Brad
>This requirement was needed since most military at the lower ranks had no high school or dropped out of school. This is not the case so much anymore.
Actually, This is not the case at all. Entrance to the military (even the Marines!) requires a high school diploma or GED (most branches won't even take a GED).
FWIW, anyways.
So, I guess that you haven't been hearing about all the vegetables that have been getting e.coli as well?
Here's more information.
Relevant quote:
Alfalfa sprouts, the quintessential health food used as garnish on everything from salads to hamburgers, sickened an estimated 20,000 people in the United States in two outbreaks in 1995, researchers say.
Don't be so smug. Vegetarians aren't e.coli free. =)
Bun is neither meat nor cheese.
>most americans are so uneducated, they don't even know that AIDS was manmade and that the cure was right under their noses all along
I'm sure that your "educated" (nice run-on sentence, btw) self would just love to disclose the source of this "manmade" virus. While you're at it, go ahead and let the world know what the cure resting firmly on our upper lip is.
>Personally, I do not think that this many people deserve to live - in fact, I do not think that even 1 billion people deserve to live. That is way to many people - therefore, I have come up with a plan to execute them all.
I sincerely hope that someone locks you up.
> If everything were free in the world - knowledge, material goods, education - then there would not be any problems with humanity actually grasping this sort of technology. If everyone worked together as a team, instead of being in competetion with one another, then we literally demi-gods right now.
You claim this, but with virtually unlimited information available at your fingertips (about grammar), you can't manage anything above the ramblings of a madman.
Please take your medication. It might help with the paranoid delusions.
I hope so. The only reason that I've been supporting the ATT/TCI merger is because it might make US WORST compete.
US WORST. It's bitter here.
I'm wondering why the authors of these type of attacks bother with all of the social engineering that they do. They bother to name the file Zip_files.exe, and tell the (l)user that "these are the files you requested", etc.
I'm wondering why they waste all that effort.
Just name the file molest_my_hard_drive.exe and put in the message:
Please open this file. I'm an aspiring virus writing script kiddie and really want this to get spread far and wide so that I can get arrested. It would really help my self esteem, and might even make me feel 31337. Don't forget to let it run for a few hours before calling your MIS department.
I guarantee that it would have the exact same effect.