I use Linux at home and at work. The few times I have to boot to Windows95 (to check my Exchange mail, fill out my Excel time sheet, etc) I find I have a constricted feeling. No virtual desktops? No "send to back" for windows? Poor multi-tasking?
You may argue that these aren't "ease of use" items. On the contrary, anything computing environment where I am relaxed and productive is by definition "easy to use". If I am tense (any minute this could crash), angry (it just crashed) and unproductive (I'm waiting for a reboot) then it must not be easy. --
I guess they didn't base the award on how original the idea is. I saw this same idea in a Star Trek (tNG) episode at least 6 years ago. Surely someone here remembers the one that explains why all the humanoid races of the galaxy are so similar? Because some alien race passed through "seeding" planets with message-bearing DNA... --
This poor guy is still mentally trapped under Microsoft's thumb. If you don't want to use Linux, then don't. That's the point here. Free your mind.
Microsoft has (had?) a monopoly on OS's--therefore they have a monopoly on OS certs. If you need an OS cert, then you have no choice. However, if you find it bothersome to fly to NC and spend $5000 for Linux training it doesn't matter--you don't need to. That's the difference between RedHat and Microsoft. There have always been (and always will be) alternatives to RedHat--but until recently there were no alternatives to Microsoft. --
My company is about to release a (beta) product for Linux. According to Marketing this is for "RedHat 6.0/6.1". However, I did the entire port myself and I can tell you that there are no RedHat specific things in there. (there are library version issues, though)
Why do this? Because (according to Marketing) RedHat is the "clear leader" on i386. Plus they are the only ones "Certified on Alpha" (the port will eventually cover Alpha). Of course, you and I know that there's no real appreciable difference among distros (from a server perspective), but these people come from the Tru64 vs AIX vs HP-UX vs Solaris mindset of "If it has a different name, it must be a whole new paradigm."
On the plus side, since we are a small company I was able to badger the CEO (aka Marketing) into releasing the beta (and maybe the product) as a tarball instead of (maybe in addition to) an rpm. Since I also wrote the first draft of the release notes (gosh we're small!) I mentioned it was for RedHat 6.0/6.1 but then noted that ANY kernel 2.2/glibc 2.1 distro should work. --
"In many ways, people communicating via E-mail have the same issues that were addressed back in the BBS days."
This sentence is just deliciously indicative of the REAL problem: education, particularly reading/writing skills.
"...back in the BBS days"? How about back in the pre-computer days. Back in the days where, not only did you have to express yourself fully and clearly but ALSO concisely (paper's expensive) AND with a large message latency (several weeks for the Trans-Atlantic mail service).
Managing a large, far-flung project via written communication is not an unsolved problem, although it is clearly a forgotten one. What's the first step? Learn to read. Second? Learn to write. --
First of all, this doesn't work at all if you have a POP3 account--only if your local machine is getting mail via SMTP. Spammers don't connect right to YOUR machine when they spam you (unless you run a mail server).
Secondly, it doesn't work if the spammer has a dynamic IP address (since you are denying the address he used the first time but he gets a new one the second time).
Third, if you do this despite the above, make sur e you know how to read a mail header. For instance, if the spam has the From header "hotgrits@portman.com", don't block `nslookup portman.com`--that domain may not even exist. And if it does, the spam may not be from there. And don't necessarily block the SMTP server that handed the mail off to you, because it could be an innocent routing machine (although it could also be a clueless promiscuous relaying machine).
In short, don't run out and implement this idea without knowing what it does. --
Why hasn't Real (or WMP) even been reverse engineered? Is it really all that secure or is it just that the guru-level hackers aren't interested in "streaming media"?
If the second, look for sm to go the way of "push"... --
I've been sending off subscribe messages every day or two for the last 3 weeks and I STILL haven't gotten a respone back from vger. What's going on? --
I didn't memorize the discussion, so I could be way off here, but I don't think the stink was over having thread specific *data* but having a thread specific "context". So they'd be floating somewhere between threads and processes....?
I s'pose I could go check the archives (or Kernel Traffic, which is where I read it the first time), but I'm too lazy.
BTW, I haven't been able to resubscribe to l-k since I moved. Do you know anything about that? --
This is something I didn't understand about that whole IRIX/thread flamefest: pthreads (POSIX threads) provide for (and the LinuxThreads implementation supplies) pthread_getspecific--which gets/sets thread specific data. So....what's the big fuss? --
First, what IBM found wasn't exactly a threading problem--it was a scheduler "optimization".
Secondly as you point out, this doesn't apply at low loads so it can't be what Scott was talking about. Sure Civ:CTP doesn't use more than 100 or so threads. IBM was using thousands (if not more). --
I think we need a Meet The/. Editors Day. emmett is coming in to focus as a person, but who the h*ll are "nik", "timothy" and all the others? -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Intuition is acquired. That's why people feel that M$ Windows is intuitive -- it's been the primary OS for PCs for quite some time now -- everyone's familiar with it.
AAARRRHGHGHGHGH!!! Intuition != Familiarity. A baby has never seen a nipple, yet knows what to do: intuition. I know how to change my video driver in windows because I've done it millions of times: familiarity. These two things are not the same.
And my objection is more than the pedantic "You're using that word wrong" (although that's fun too). You are saying that Windows is easy to use because people are used to it. So then logically, the best UI for Linux is not GNOME or KDE but time. That's exactly what I'M saying to: training training training is the key key key.
Some of the things that computer do are fundamentally different than everything else humans have ever dealt with. So why would asking computers to do these things be any different? (most) Humans have no intuition for dealing with computers--what is needed is assistance. -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
I'm a little disappointed that we are still using the word "intuitive" for user interfaces. There's no such thing. Making a computer act like a desk (or a file cabinet, or whatever) doesn't give me more power for the amount of effort expended--it just makes it more familiar. And if the cost of that familiarity is decreased functionality, then the user actually loses out.
People need to be aware that computers are POWERFUL. You can do a LOT of work very quickly and accurately when you have access to a computer AND you know how to use it. What other powerful devices does the "everyday Joe" use? Cars, power tools, phone, etc. How many of these devices have "intuitive" user interfaces? None. How many of them have "metaphor-based" UIs? None. In fact, cars are so hard to use we don't let anyone under 16 operate one and we require a license to do so.
I'm not blaming the user. I'm saying that, instead of investing thousands of man-hours (not to mention dollars) in shortening the learning curve, why not spend the same amount of time just helping people over it? ,br> A learning curve is a one-time event (per person). Once you know a UI (however arcance) you know it. It doesn't make sense (from an engineering or accounting perspective) to optimize a device for the first use, especially if that optimization degrades performance for the rest of the life of the product. And yet, Windows and Macs (and a lot of Linux "UI of the Future" projects) do that very thing. It's easy to jump in and learn, but once you master the little morsels of functionality you've been given you hit a dead end. I'd much rather flounder for a few hours/days/weeks but end up being able to exploit the full power of that marvelous invention: the computer.
Granted, Linux could be made easier and still retain functionality. But the efforts I see in place (KDE and GNOME in particular) aren't doing that. Both of those projects are constructing GUI versions of all the CLI tools. Great, except that the GUI tools can't be piped together, etc. "gless" is fundamentally less powerful than "less". And the GUI and CLI tools are so different that if the user wanted to go to the CLI (assuming they knew it existed) they'd have to relearn everything anyway.
No, the right way to do this is to first layout the level of power/flexibility the current UI has. Then examine the weaknesses (hidden options, incompatible parameter usage, etc). Then propose solutions to the weaknesses keeping in mind that the power/flexibility cannot decrease for even the most advanced user.
I could rant a little more about how some peoples idea of a good interface is one that has transparent xterms, but I'm getting all worked up and I need to stop. -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
I'm assuming that your (current) modus operandi is to call up a company and say "Hey, can we port your game to Linux?" Given that assumption:
1) How many companies have you talked to? 2) What percentage of them rejected the request? 3) Of those that rejected, what were their reasons? (fear of "open source", lack of demand, etc) -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
There are still a few shreds of intelligible meaning left in this "FAQ", let Hemos edit it up a little.
Seriously, I read the whole thing about three times and I can't figure out what "Helic Code" is. Here are some quotes: "Helix GNOME is a service..." "Helix GNOME is an add-on..." "Helix GNOME will be available on CD..."
As far as I can tell, it's an automatic package updater for GNOME only...? Yeah, that sounds useful. -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
I'm sure glad I didn't wait for a self-proclaimed expert to declare Linux "safe" for the desktop before I installed it. I would have been trapped in 3+ more years of Windows Hell. -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
First, you contend that continued use of/. is a matter of monopoly position *only*, not usability.
Bzzzt, wrong. Not only do I not contend this, I explicitly leave the door open for the view that Slashdot is used because of it's usability. Note this sentence from my post: Slashdot may or may not have a good UI, but it certainly enjoys a monopoly position.
Hence, if people are coming to/., it is because it offers them the news they want at a price (in terms of usability) that they are willing to pay.
Again, the same argument applies to Windows. We all agree (even many avid MS fans) that Windows is frustrating to use. Yet millions "pay that price". Usability or monopoly, you make the call.
Your second paragraph (starting "Even if...") is confused at best. On the one hand/. doesn't have a monopoly. On the other hand, yes it does. But that monopoly makes Slashdot more usable (how?). All of this to counter my actual claim that Slashdot is a monopoly (which you concede) that may or may not be usable (you say yes, others [not including me, btw] say no).
If you like/., stay. If not, go. But this sort of stupid argument is a waste of time.
I could respond by saying "if you like my argument then respond, if not then don't", but instead I'll point out that my point was not to dis/.. It was to note that usability should not be defined as "what people use", because they may just be making the best of a bad situation. -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Windows gets this wrong by (correctly) hiding the advanced stuff, but then failing to reveal it later. "Raw" Linux gets this wrong by failing to hide in the first place. GNOME/KDE get this wrong by failing to provide a transition from "beginner" to "advanced".
I should note by way of addendum that of the three, I think Linux's is the less egregious error. You can't exploit the power of your computer without the "advanced" stuff, so Windows is clearly out of the running (by not providing, or at least not revealing) the advanced stuff.
Similarly, GNOME/KDE lull the user into thinking that Linux is easy and the sudden jump into a cold pool of hard-to-remember CLI tools gives them hypothermia.
"Raw" Linux, as hard to learn/use as it may be (and I don't necessarily agree that it is, just that it "may be") at least affords power on the one hand and has no pretentions of ease-of-use on the other. -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
"Interesting, possibly even essential reading for anyone involved in software or Web site design."
Wow, Rob, that "overhype just like a real local newscaster" class is really paying off. What's up for next week? "What THEY Don't Want You To Know About HTML"?
"...so if people use it, it must be because it is good."
Let's not confuse "good UI" from "monopoly stranglehold". Macs and Win95 perform essentially the same function, so the only real difference is the UI. Which has the better UI and which has the marketshare? Slashdot may or may not have a good UI, but it certainly enjoys a monopoly position. I'm sure I'm going to hear a bunch of whining about this claim. Tell me, which 3 "Geek news" sites have print ads in glossy mags? 1) Slashdot 2) Nobody 3) Nobody else
"Not seeing something during initial use of the system would result in better use of the hidden features later.
I agree 100% with this statement, but I implore everyone to read it carefully. Note the phrase "initial use". That means that you SHOULD be able to use advanced features LATER. Windows gets this wrong by (correctly) hiding the advanced stuff, but then failing to reveal it later. "Raw" Linux gets this wrong by failing to hide in the first place. GNOME/KDE get this wrong by failing to provide a transition from "beginner" to "advanced". -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Has no one here read "Permutation City", "Lord of the Rings", or the Foundation Series? All of these (and many many more) juxtapose two cultures/mileus/scopes some in alternating chapter format, some in slightly different formats. For crying out loud, the fscking X-FILES has done this. Fact, not troll: THIS IS NOTHING NEW. -- Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Linux at home and at work. The few times I have to boot to Windows95 (to check my Exchange mail, fill out my Excel time sheet, etc) I find I have a constricted feeling. No virtual desktops? No "send to back" for windows? Poor multi-tasking?
You may argue that these aren't "ease of use" items. On the contrary, anything computing environment where I am relaxed and productive is by definition "easy to use". If I am tense (any minute this could crash), angry (it just crashed) and unproductive (I'm waiting for a reboot) then it must not be easy.
--
I guess they didn't base the award on how original the idea is. I saw this same idea in a Star Trek (tNG) episode at least 6 years ago. Surely someone here remembers the one that explains why all the humanoid races of the galaxy are so similar? Because some alien race passed through "seeding" planets with message-bearing DNA...
--
This poor guy is still mentally trapped under Microsoft's thumb. If you don't want to use Linux, then don't. That's the point here. Free your mind.
Microsoft has (had?) a monopoly on OS's--therefore they have a monopoly on OS certs. If you need an OS cert, then you have no choice. However, if you find it bothersome to fly to NC and spend $5000 for Linux training it doesn't matter--you don't need to. That's the difference between RedHat and Microsoft. There have always been (and always will be) alternatives to RedHat--but until recently there were no alternatives to Microsoft.
--
My company is about to release a (beta) product for Linux. According to Marketing this is for "RedHat 6.0/6.1". However, I did the entire port myself and I can tell you that there are no RedHat specific things in there. (there are library version issues, though)
Why do this? Because (according to Marketing) RedHat is the "clear leader" on i386. Plus they are the only ones "Certified on Alpha" (the port will eventually cover Alpha). Of course, you and I know that there's no real appreciable difference among distros (from a server perspective), but these people come from the Tru64 vs AIX vs HP-UX vs Solaris mindset of "If it has a different name, it must be a whole new paradigm."
On the plus side, since we are a small company I was able to badger the CEO (aka Marketing) into releasing the beta (and maybe the product) as a tarball instead of (maybe in addition to) an rpm. Since I also wrote the first draft of the release notes (gosh we're small!) I mentioned it was for RedHat 6.0/6.1 but then noted that ANY kernel 2.2/glibc 2.1 distro should work.
--
"In many ways, people communicating via E-mail have the same issues that were addressed back in the BBS days."
This sentence is just deliciously indicative of the REAL problem: education, particularly reading/writing skills.
"...back in the BBS days"? How about back in the pre-computer days. Back in the days where, not only did you have to express yourself fully and clearly but ALSO concisely (paper's expensive) AND with a large message latency (several weeks for the Trans-Atlantic mail service).
Managing a large, far-flung project via written communication is not an unsolved problem, although it is clearly a forgotten one. What's the first step? Learn to read. Second? Learn to write.
--
First of all, this doesn't work at all if you have a POP3 account--only if your local machine is getting mail via SMTP. Spammers don't connect right to YOUR machine when they spam you (unless you run a mail server).
Secondly, it doesn't work if the spammer has a dynamic IP address (since you are denying the address he used the first time but he gets a new one the second time).
Third, if you do this despite the above, make sur e you know how to read a mail header. For instance, if the spam has the From header "hotgrits@portman.com", don't block `nslookup portman.com`--that domain may not even exist. And if it does, the spam may not be from there. And don't necessarily block the SMTP server that handed the mail off to you, because it could be an innocent routing machine (although it could also be a clueless promiscuous relaying machine).
In short, don't run out and implement this idea without knowing what it does.
--
Why hasn't Real (or WMP) even been reverse engineered? Is it really all that secure or is it just that the guru-level hackers aren't interested in "streaming media"?
If the second, look for sm to go the way of "push"...
--
Nope, that's not it. I even went so far as to check ALL the MX records for my ISP's domain and none of them are in ORBS. Any other ideas?
--
I've been sending off subscribe messages every day or two for the last 3 weeks and I STILL haven't gotten a respone back from vger. What's going on?
--
I didn't memorize the discussion, so I could be way off here, but I don't think the stink was over having thread specific *data* but having a thread specific "context". So they'd be floating somewhere between threads and processes....?
I s'pose I could go check the archives (or Kernel Traffic, which is where I read it the first time), but I'm too lazy.
BTW, I haven't been able to resubscribe to l-k since I moved. Do you know anything about that?
--
This is something I didn't understand about that whole IRIX/thread flamefest: pthreads (POSIX threads) provide for (and the LinuxThreads implementation supplies) pthread_getspecific--which gets/sets thread specific data. So....what's the big fuss?
--
Your claim: Linux pthreads are not implemented correctly.
Your examples: None.
Your proof: None.
Until you fill in the blanks, I have no reason to believe you. In fact, I have reason to believe you are a troll.
--
Specifically, what is it about Solaris's threads that "rock" and make Linux "look like a joke"?
--
First, what IBM found wasn't exactly a threading problem--it was a scheduler "optimization".
Secondly as you point out, this doesn't apply at low loads so it can't be what Scott was talking about. Sure Civ:CTP doesn't use more than 100 or so threads. IBM was using thousands (if not more).
--
"...better thread handling..."
What's wrong with Linux threading? No really, I'm interested.
--
Posted by nik on 09-03-00 8:34
/. Editors Day. emmett is coming in to focus as a person, but who the h*ll are "nik", "timothy" and all the others?
I think we need a Meet The
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Intuition is acquired. That's why people feel that M$ Windows is intuitive -- it's been the primary OS for PCs for quite some time now -- everyone's familiar with it.
AAARRRHGHGHGHGH!!! Intuition != Familiarity. A baby has never seen a nipple, yet knows what to do: intuition. I know how to change my video driver in windows because I've done it millions of times: familiarity. These two things are not the same.
And my objection is more than the pedantic "You're using that word wrong" (although that's fun too). You are saying that Windows is easy to use because people are used to it. So then logically, the best UI for Linux is not GNOME or KDE but time. That's exactly what I'M saying to: training training training is the key key key.
Some of the things that computer do are fundamentally different than everything else humans have ever dealt with. So why would asking computers to do these things be any different? (most) Humans have no intuition for dealing with computers--what is needed is assistance.
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
"The only intuitive user interface is the nipple"
I'm a little disappointed that we are still using the word "intuitive" for user interfaces. There's no such thing. Making a computer act like a desk (or a file cabinet, or whatever) doesn't give me more power for the amount of effort expended--it just makes it more familiar. And if the cost of that familiarity is decreased functionality, then the user actually loses out.
People need to be aware that computers are POWERFUL. You can do a LOT of work very quickly and accurately when you have access to a computer AND you know how to use it. What other powerful devices does the "everyday Joe" use? Cars, power tools, phone, etc. How many of these devices have "intuitive" user interfaces? None. How many of them have "metaphor-based" UIs? None. In fact, cars are so hard to use we don't let anyone under 16 operate one and we require a license to do so.
I'm not blaming the user. I'm saying that, instead of investing thousands of man-hours (not to mention dollars) in shortening the learning curve, why not spend the same amount of time just helping people over it?
,br> A learning curve is a one-time event (per person). Once you know a UI (however arcance) you know it. It doesn't make sense (from an engineering or accounting perspective) to optimize a device for the first use, especially if that optimization degrades performance for the rest of the life of the product. And yet, Windows and Macs (and a lot of Linux "UI of the Future" projects) do that very thing. It's easy to jump in and learn, but once you master the little morsels of functionality you've been given you hit a dead end. I'd much rather flounder for a few hours/days/weeks but end up being able to exploit the full power of that marvelous invention: the computer.
Granted, Linux could be made easier and still retain functionality. But the efforts I see in place (KDE and GNOME in particular) aren't doing that. Both of those projects are constructing GUI versions of all the CLI tools. Great, except that the GUI tools can't be piped together, etc. "gless" is fundamentally less powerful than "less". And the GUI and CLI tools are so different that if the user wanted to go to the CLI (assuming they knew it existed) they'd have to relearn everything anyway.
No, the right way to do this is to first layout the level of power/flexibility the current UI has. Then examine the weaknesses (hidden options, incompatible parameter usage, etc). Then propose solutions to the weaknesses keeping in mind that the power/flexibility cannot decrease for even the most advanced user.
I could rant a little more about how some peoples idea of a good interface is one that has transparent xterms, but I'm getting all worked up and I need to stop.
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
I'm assuming that your (current) modus operandi is to call up a company and say "Hey, can we port your game to Linux?" Given that assumption:
1) How many companies have you talked to?
2) What percentage of them rejected the request?
3) Of those that rejected, what were their reasons? (fear of "open source", lack of demand, etc)
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
There are still a few shreds of intelligible meaning left in this "FAQ", let Hemos edit it up a little.
Seriously, I read the whole thing about three times and I can't figure out what "Helic Code" is. Here are some quotes:
"Helix GNOME is a service..."
"Helix GNOME is an add-on..."
"Helix GNOME will be available on CD..."
As far as I can tell, it's an automatic package updater for GNOME only...? Yeah, that sounds useful.
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
I'm sure glad I didn't wait for a self-proclaimed expert to declare Linux "safe" for the desktop before I installed it. I would have been trapped in 3+ more years of Windows Hell.
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
First, you contend that continued use of /. is a matter of monopoly position *only*, not usability.
/., it is because it offers them the news they want at a price (in terms of usability) that they are willing to pay.
/. doesn't have a monopoly. On the other hand, yes it does. But that monopoly makes Slashdot more usable (how?). All of this to counter my actual claim that Slashdot is a monopoly (which you concede) that may or may not be usable (you say yes, others [not including me, btw] say no).
/., stay. If not, go. But this sort of stupid argument is a waste of time.
/.. It was to note that usability should not be defined as "what people use", because they may just be making the best of a bad situation.
Bzzzt, wrong. Not only do I not contend this, I explicitly leave the door open for the view that Slashdot is used because of it's usability. Note this sentence from my post: Slashdot may or may not have a good UI, but it certainly enjoys a monopoly position.
Hence, if people are coming to
Again, the same argument applies to Windows. We all agree (even many avid MS fans) that Windows is frustrating to use. Yet millions "pay that price". Usability or monopoly, you make the call.
Your second paragraph (starting "Even if...") is confused at best. On the one hand
If you like
I could respond by saying "if you like my argument then respond, if not then don't", but instead I'll point out that my point was not to dis
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Windows gets this wrong by (correctly) hiding the advanced stuff, but then failing to reveal it later. "Raw" Linux gets this wrong by failing to hide in the first place. GNOME/KDE get this wrong by failing to provide a transition from "beginner" to "advanced".
I should note by way of addendum that of the three, I think Linux's is the less egregious error. You can't exploit the power of your computer without the "advanced" stuff, so Windows is clearly out of the running (by not providing, or at least not revealing) the advanced stuff.
Similarly, GNOME/KDE lull the user into thinking that Linux is easy and the sudden jump into a cold pool of hard-to-remember CLI tools gives them hypothermia.
"Raw" Linux, as hard to learn/use as it may be (and I don't necessarily agree that it is, just that it "may be") at least affords power on the one hand and has no pretentions of ease-of-use on the other.
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
"Interesting, possibly even essential reading for anyone involved in software or Web site design."
Wow, Rob, that "overhype just like a real local newscaster" class is really paying off. What's up for next week? "What THEY Don't Want You To Know About HTML"?
"...so if people use it, it must be because it is good."
Let's not confuse "good UI" from "monopoly stranglehold". Macs and Win95 perform essentially the same function, so the only real difference is the UI. Which has the better UI and which has the marketshare? Slashdot may or may not have a good UI, but it certainly enjoys a monopoly position. I'm sure I'm going to hear a bunch of whining about this claim. Tell me, which 3 "Geek news" sites have print ads in glossy mags? 1) Slashdot 2) Nobody 3) Nobody else
"Not seeing something during initial use of the system would result in better use of the hidden features later.
I agree 100% with this statement, but I implore everyone to read it carefully. Note the phrase "initial use". That means that you SHOULD be able to use advanced features LATER. Windows gets this wrong by (correctly) hiding the advanced stuff, but then failing to reveal it later. "Raw" Linux gets this wrong by failing to hide in the first place. GNOME/KDE get this wrong by failing to provide a transition from "beginner" to "advanced".
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
WTF?
Has no one here read "Permutation City", "Lord of the Rings", or the Foundation Series? All of these (and many many more) juxtapose two cultures/mileus/scopes some in alternating chapter format, some in slightly different formats. For crying out loud, the fscking X-FILES has done this. Fact, not troll: THIS IS NOTHING NEW.
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.