I've gotten so tired of the Rush Limbaugh drones and their guffaws whenever this distortion is repeated. The Internet, and the technology sector in general, would be in a lot better shape today if we had Al Gore in office rather than the guy that was appointed President.
I'm sure if they passed the strip search they'd be free to go.
Why are you "sure" of that? What evidence do you have to back up that statement -- or was that another unsubstantiated claim? You don't think that the authorities would demand to know where the subject of the search came in contact with nuclear materials? I find that hard to believe.
You made an unsubstantiated claim and I defended against it.
You "defended against it" with an unsubstantiated claim of your own (that there was no federal involvement). But apparently your unsubstantiated claims are to be assumed to be true unless disproven.
But here's some evidence to support my claim that the Bush administration was involved:
The Department[of Homeland Security]--in cooperation with the Department of Transportation, state and local governments, and the private sector--would develop additional inspection procedures and detection systems throughout our national transportation structure to detect the movement of nuclear materials within the United States. It will also initiate and sustain research and development efforts aimed at new and better passive and active detection systems.
From THE NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR HOMELAND SECURITY: OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY which can be found on the White House's own web pages.
You will note that the document bears the Seal of the President of the United States.
So there it is in black and white. The Feds spelled out their intentions in July of this year. There was the green light from Washington for the installation of radiation detectors within our transportation system.
No, I implied that to use radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search. I never said anything about proper, and used the fact that a detector can't force anyone to do anything.
You implied nothing. You stated it outright. And if a search is reasonable, then it is proper. The use of a radiation detector can, effectively, force a cancer patient to admit their illness because, if they do not, they could face being locked up as suspected terrorists. Don't play semantics games.
I'm not the one making the accusations.
Yes you are. You accused the local authorities of being solely responsible.
Quit acting so superior. I made an unsubstantiated claim and so did you. At least mine was based on a logical train of thought in which I considered the money being spent at the federal level on "homeland security" and the high cost of evaluating, purchasing, installing, and using the equipment.
fmaxwell:
Why do you feel that a cancer patient should have to reveal their illness and treatment to anyone other than their doctor?
anthony_dipierro: I didn't say that. I said that radiation detectors which detect the radiation they are emitting are a reasonable search.
From the previous messages:
fmaxwell:
Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?
anthony_dipierro: Yes.
So you stated that it was proper to force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers.
Are you implying that these detectors would not have been installed had it not been for the Homeland Security laws?
Yes
Please back up that statement.
Sure. Get me access to the classified documents related to the purchase and installation of said radiation detectors and I'll be happy to prove that my beliefs are correct.
Try following your own advice. You stated that "Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this." Prove that claim.
Why do you feel that a cancer patient should have to reveal their illness and treatment to anyone other than their doctor? What right does some cop have to know that kind of personal information? Some patients elect not to even tell members of their own families.
Let's extrapolate further. What if the people performing the search and operating the detector are personally known to the cancer patient? What if the patient is a celebrity with tabloids itching to dig up personal information for public display? What if the person is travelling with his children, whom he has chosen not to tell about his illness?
Actually Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It was a search by the local police, not the federal government.
Untrue. The radiation detectors were installed under the auspices of the Homeland Security laws passed in the wake of 9/11. The detectors may even have been funded, partially or fully, with federal funds (I do not know).
I accept that such a thing could happen and it will be tragic if it does. But that does not mean that we, as Americans, should just throw the Constitution aside in order to prevent terrorism.
More than three times as many people are killed with guns every year in the U.S. than lost their lives to terrorism on 9/11. Do you think that the feds should throw away the Second Amendment and ban private gun ownership? I haven't heard Ashcroft and Bush pushing for that, despite the fact that so many more Americans are killed that way than by terrorism.
The ends does not justify the means. We would all be "safer" from terrorism if law enforcement could open anyone's mail, perform warrantless searches whenever they wanted, X-ray passengers taking any form of public transportation, take away all guns and explosives, and control and monitor all online activity. But safety is never a good reason to give up essential liberties.
Don't get me wrong. I know that it is a tragedy that several thousand people lost their lives to terrorism on 9/11. But I don't think that their legacy should be a United States in which the Constitution is thrown out the window and innocent citizens are routinely subjected to humiliating searches. The best way to fight terrorism is to go about our normal lives and not let it cower us into compromising the very principles on which our nation was founded.
You don't. Law enforcement has no right to know whether someone has cancer and the form of treatment that they are receiving.
So we either search everyone or we search no one.
Here's a third option that has worked for over 200 years: Only search people when there is probable cause. Don't point a geiger counter at someone unless you have reason to believe that the specific person may be illegally transporting radioactive materials.
I'd rather be safe than sorry.
I'd rather not give up our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches so that you are safe. It's not worth it.
The homeland security bill gives them the right to protect againt possible terrorism. The radiation detector is there as a result of the homeland security to make sure the terrorists dont do it again. Setting off that detector IS a cause for a constitutional search under the bill
Did they even have classes other than physical education and auto shop at your high school?
No law can give police the "right" to conduct searches without probable cause. That would require the repeal of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
A strip-search cannot be justifed by the results of pointing a radiation detector at someone without probable cause.
In summary, you are attempting to justify an unconstitutional strip search based on evidence gathered through and unconstitutional search with radiation detectors that was authorized by an unconstitutional law.
We had a load of hurt come down on our country and we are watching our backs. Nothing wrong with that, and I am happy we are doing it.
Yes, there is something wrong with that when it involves unreasonable searches:
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That you do not mind giving up your Constitutional rights against unreasonable searches is irrelevent -- but sad.
The person was being strip-searched because they set off a radiation detector. There was no probable cause to use the radiation detector on them in the first place. Law enforcement can't use the results of one unconstitutional search to justify another one.
They fire test kids pajamas, too, as well the ought. Probably few things made E.M. doctors sicker than trying to peel melted pajamas off of screaming children
There's a difference: It's a lot harder to get out of flaming pajamas than it is to drop a Nerf Ball that's on fire. Simple reflex will protect the kid from burning Nerf Balls.
I do not believe that the founding fathers intended for cancer patients to be without any privacy or rights.
S/he just set off a radiation alarm ! What the fuck are they supposed to do, ignore it?
What established probable cause for searching the person with a "radiation alarm" in the first place? You act like the "radiation alarm" is some kind of thing put in place by God Almighty. It's a tool used by the police to search people without probable cause.
The police can't use one unconstitutional search (the radiation detector) to justify another one (the strip search).
enough that you can tell if someone has had it done just by pointing a Giger counter at them.
What right does law enforcement have to point a geiger counter at anyone without probable cause? Trying to ride the subway is not probable cause for a search by law enforcement using a Geiger counter, strip search, body cavity search, or other means.
Well she isn't stupid about it, if she knows she's going through one, she notifies the people that she has metal hips, and they can take the appropriate setps to verify her story.
It's none of their business, or the business of those in line near her, what surgery she has had done. You act like the ubiquity of metal detectors justifies their use. It does not.
People have a right to privacy. A cancer patient has a right to keep their illness private and not discuss it with some dick (slang for "detective") working for the New York subway system. Medical patients, whether fitted with prosthesis or undergoing radiation treatments, should not have to present their "papers" in order to use public facilities.
The subway, your house, my house. but when the bomb goes off and we're all obliterated, well, on second thought, let's search people, in PUBLIC PLACES.
What ever happened to probable cause? What probable is there for measuring the radiation emitted by a cancer patient?
Brave men and women did not fight and die to protect our Constitutional rights so that cowards like you could trade those rights away at the first sign of danger.
"Those who would give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
This is just more fallout (no pun intended) from the Bush/Ashcroft "War On Terrorism", which is really just a thinly veiled way to erode people's Constitutional rights. Do you think that strip searching a cancer patient is a reasonable search as defined by The Constitution? Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?
People need to open their eyes and see what kind of police state the Bush administration is creating -- before it's too late.
I stand corrected. I always saw it referred to as a "metric ton." Love that logical spelling, though.
The metric system has been around for longer than the USA.
The first adoption of the Metric system by any country was in 1795 by France -- 19 years after the U.S.A. was founded. The first record of any type regarding the development of a metric system was in 1670. That was 50 years after the first European settlers arrived at Plymouth Rock and began "development" of the U.S.A.
Many broadband ISPs (such as Cox Communications) have started putting caps on traffic. If you are running close to those limits, the "tonnes[sic]" of spam you get might just put you over the cap for the last time, after which you might see your Internet access yanked.
What about people who pay for Internet access by the amount of traffic that they move? How about people who retrieve e-mail over long-distance phone connections when on travel? What about the ones who use their cell phones to retrieve e-mail, paying a per-minute charge?
That your ISP chooses not to itemize spam as a charge on your bill does not mean that it is free to you.
Spam costs businesses billions of dollars per year. That's money that could have been spent in salary increases, new office equipment, building renovation, R&D, development, production, or even office parties. All of it stolen by spammers.
I am so sick and tired of the short-sighted just-hit-delete response to spam. Why don't you give me your credit card number and let me use it to send you crap that you don't want? Then you can tell everyone that it's no problem because it doesn't take long to throw away the stuff I send.
There's something to be said for learning capacity, or the ability to allow experience to shape your ideas. This seems to deterioriate (for many) with age.
I feel that it is more than balanced by the knowledge, professional skills, and emotional maturity that often come with age. For example, I had one twenty-something working for me. While a genuinely talented and energetic software engineer, he had no comprehension of office politics, chain of command, scheduling, teamwork, etc. He pissed people off, said stupid things in meetings, and failed to deliver when he promised to. No amount of programming talent can make up for that.
unlike that of the 50-year-old lifelong COBOL programmer
It has been my experience that most older software engineers have dealt with a wider variety of languages and platforms than have the "I know C, C++, and Java" twenty-somethings. I've worked with recent CS graduates and was shocked to find out that many of them could not even operate an oscilloscope, logic analyzer, or in-circuit emulator! How are you going to debug software if you can't even use basic tools of the trade? (Hint: most microprocessors are not hooked to a QWERTY keyboard and a CRT.)
The US is actually very interested in fuel economy: Corporate Average Fuel Economy [doc.gov] is very much responsible for pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy.
That used to be the case, however Bush and Cheney are both from the oil industry. Cheney had secret meetings with energy company exectives when drafting the administration's energy policy. Bush/Cheney have resisted raising the CAFE MPG limits, closing the light truck loophole, and have downplayed the importance of fuel efficiency, instead concentrating on oil drilling. They have even gone so far as to push for extensive drilling on public lands, include wildlife refuges -- a giveaway that would allow oil companies to take oil from public lands and then sell it on the world market to the highest bidder. (There is no requirement that the oil be sold in the U.S. or that it be discounted for the benefit of U.S. consumers.)
I agree that the US has interests in keeping oil petroleum prices down, just as every other country in the world, but Europe has chosen to tax their fuel very heavily, making non-gasoline options more attractive.
It is *NOT* in U.S. interests to keep petroleum prices down. Having prices that are so low is why we have people commuting alone to work in 11MPG SUVs. It's why soccer moms are driving Chevy Suburbans rather than station wagons. The best thing that could happen would be for gasoline (and diesel) prices to rise to about $3/gallon over the next few years. We need something to make U.S. consumers pay attention to fuel economy when selecting a vehicle. I'm tired of the U.S. kissing Saudi Arabian ass while the Saudis fund anti-American terrorists. I'm sick of pretending the Iran is our friend and of defending the ungrateful bastards in Kuwait. Drilling in Alaska is no answer -- we will see no significant production from such an effort for about a decade and, even under the most optimistic estimates, it will cut oil imports by only a tiny percentage.
Low prices = higher consumption = reliance on foreign oil = depletion of world oil reserves.
While it was available for x86 since version 2.1, it was not distributed for free. Making a free version probably took hardware sales away from the low-end Blade line.
That said, I agree with your points about its stability and proven track-record. And I will add that the single-company vision behind Solaris means that it has a consistent look, feel, and installation that is so sorely missing from Linux. I wish Sun all the luck in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I've gotten so tired of the Rush Limbaugh drones and their guffaws whenever this distortion is repeated. The Internet, and the technology sector in general, would be in a lot better shape today if we had Al Gore in office rather than the guy that was appointed President.
Why are you "sure" of that? What evidence do you have to back up that statement -- or was that another unsubstantiated claim? You don't think that the authorities would demand to know where the subject of the search came in contact with nuclear materials? I find that hard to believe.
You made an unsubstantiated claim and I defended against it.
You "defended against it" with an unsubstantiated claim of your own (that there was no federal involvement). But apparently your unsubstantiated claims are to be assumed to be true unless disproven.
But here's some evidence to support my claim that the Bush administration was involved:
You will note that the document bears the Seal of the President of the United States.
So there it is in black and white. The Feds spelled out their intentions in July of this year. There was the green light from Washington for the installation of radiation detectors within our transportation system.
No, I implied that to use radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search. I never said anything about proper, and used the fact that a detector can't force anyone to do anything.
You implied nothing. You stated it outright. And if a search is reasonable, then it is proper. The use of a radiation detector can, effectively, force a cancer patient to admit their illness because, if they do not, they could face being locked up as suspected terrorists. Don't play semantics games.
I'm not the one making the accusations.
Yes you are. You accused the local authorities of being solely responsible.
Quit acting so superior. I made an unsubstantiated claim and so did you. At least mine was based on a logical train of thought in which I considered the money being spent at the federal level on "homeland security" and the high cost of evaluating, purchasing, installing, and using the equipment.
You know, I think they also make an ointment for that, maybe Gold Bond?
I thought flaming Nerf Balls were a normal part of puberty.
From the previous messages:
So you stated that it was proper to force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers.
Are you implying that these detectors would not have been installed had it not been for the Homeland Security laws?
Yes
Please back up that statement.
Sure. Get me access to the classified documents related to the purchase and installation of said radiation detectors and I'll be happy to prove that my beliefs are correct.
Try following your own advice. You stated that "Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this." Prove that claim.
Why do you feel that a cancer patient should have to reveal their illness and treatment to anyone other than their doctor? What right does some cop have to know that kind of personal information? Some patients elect not to even tell members of their own families.
Let's extrapolate further. What if the people performing the search and operating the detector are personally known to the cancer patient? What if the patient is a celebrity with tabloids itching to dig up personal information for public display? What if the person is travelling with his children, whom he has chosen not to tell about his illness?
Actually Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It was a search by the local police, not the federal government.
Untrue. The radiation detectors were installed under the auspices of the Homeland Security laws passed in the wake of 9/11. The detectors may even have been funded, partially or fully, with federal funds (I do not know).
I accept that such a thing could happen and it will be tragic if it does. But that does not mean that we, as Americans, should just throw the Constitution aside in order to prevent terrorism.
More than three times as many people are killed with guns every year in the U.S. than lost their lives to terrorism on 9/11. Do you think that the feds should throw away the Second Amendment and ban private gun ownership? I haven't heard Ashcroft and Bush pushing for that, despite the fact that so many more Americans are killed that way than by terrorism.
Good luck when that dirty bomb goes off.
The ends does not justify the means. We would all be "safer" from terrorism if law enforcement could open anyone's mail, perform warrantless searches whenever they wanted, X-ray passengers taking any form of public transportation, take away all guns and explosives, and control and monitor all online activity. But safety is never a good reason to give up essential liberties.
Don't get me wrong. I know that it is a tragedy that several thousand people lost their lives to terrorism on 9/11. But I don't think that their legacy should be a United States in which the Constitution is thrown out the window and innocent citizens are routinely subjected to humiliating searches. The best way to fight terrorism is to go about our normal lives and not let it cower us into compromising the very principles on which our nation was founded.
How do you determine someone is a cancer patient?
You don't. Law enforcement has no right to know whether someone has cancer and the form of treatment that they are receiving.
So we either search everyone or we search no one.
Here's a third option that has worked for over 200 years: Only search people when there is probable cause. Don't point a geiger counter at someone unless you have reason to believe that the specific person may be illegally transporting radioactive materials.
I'd rather be safe than sorry.
I'd rather not give up our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches so that you are safe. It's not worth it.
The homeland security bill gives them the right to protect againt possible terrorism. The radiation detector is there as a result of the homeland security to make sure the terrorists dont do it again. Setting off that detector IS a cause for a constitutional search under the bill
Did they even have classes other than physical education and auto shop at your high school?
No law can give police the "right" to conduct searches without probable cause. That would require the repeal of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
A strip-search cannot be justifed by the results of pointing a radiation detector at someone without probable cause.
In summary, you are attempting to justify an unconstitutional strip search based on evidence gathered through and unconstitutional search with radiation detectors that was authorized by an unconstitutional law.
The new homeland security thing that was just put into effect.
A law does not trump the Constitution. That's why the courts often rule that laws are unconstitutional.
Yes, there is something wrong with that when it involves unreasonable searches:
That you do not mind giving up your Constitutional rights against unreasonable searches is irrelevent -- but sad.
The person was being strip-searched because they set off a radiation detector. There was no probable cause to use the radiation detector on them in the first place. Law enforcement can't use the results of one unconstitutional search to justify another one.
No.
They fire test kids pajamas, too, as well the ought. Probably few things made E.M. doctors sicker than trying to peel melted pajamas off of screaming children
There's a difference: It's a lot harder to get out of flaming pajamas than it is to drop a Nerf Ball that's on fire. Simple reflex will protect the kid from burning Nerf Balls.
Yes and yes.
I do not believe that the founding fathers intended for cancer patients to be without any privacy or rights.
S/he just set off a radiation alarm ! What the fuck are they supposed to do, ignore it?
What established probable cause for searching the person with a "radiation alarm" in the first place? You act like the "radiation alarm" is some kind of thing put in place by God Almighty. It's a tool used by the police to search people without probable cause.
The police can't use one unconstitutional search (the radiation detector) to justify another one (the strip search).
enough that you can tell if someone has had it done just by pointing a Giger counter at them.
What right does law enforcement have to point a geiger counter at anyone without probable cause? Trying to ride the subway is not probable cause for a search by law enforcement using a Geiger counter, strip search, body cavity search, or other means.
Well she isn't stupid about it, if she knows she's going through one, she notifies the people that she has metal hips, and they can take the appropriate setps to verify her story.
It's none of their business, or the business of those in line near her, what surgery she has had done. You act like the ubiquity of metal detectors justifies their use. It does not.
People have a right to privacy. A cancer patient has a right to keep their illness private and not discuss it with some dick (slang for "detective") working for the New York subway system. Medical patients, whether fitted with prosthesis or undergoing radiation treatments, should not have to present their "papers" in order to use public facilities.
The subway, your house, my house. but when the bomb goes off and we're all obliterated, well, on second thought, let's search people, in PUBLIC PLACES.
What ever happened to probable cause? What probable is there for measuring the radiation emitted by a cancer patient?
Brave men and women did not fight and die to protect our Constitutional rights so that cowards like you could trade those rights away at the first sign of danger.
"Those who would give up liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
This is just more fallout (no pun intended) from the Bush/Ashcroft "War On Terrorism", which is really just a thinly veiled way to erode people's Constitutional rights. Do you think that strip searching a cancer patient is a reasonable search as defined by The Constitution? Do you think that radiation detectors that force cancer patients to reveal their illness and treatment to complete strangers is a reasonable form of search?
People need to open their eyes and see what kind of police state the Bush administration is creating -- before it's too late.
Wow! and you're going to magically stay 25 forever??
No, but with his people skills, it's quite likely that he'll never see the far side of 30.
1 tonne=1000Kg=2200lb=0.982tons
I stand corrected. I always saw it referred to as a "metric ton." Love that logical spelling, though.
The metric system has been around for longer than the USA.
The first adoption of the Metric system by any country was in 1795 by France -- 19 years after the U.S.A. was founded. The first record of any type regarding the development of a metric system was in 1670. That was 50 years after the first European settlers arrived at Plymouth Rock and began "development" of the U.S.A.
Many broadband ISPs (such as Cox Communications) have started putting caps on traffic. If you are running close to those limits, the "tonnes[sic]" of spam you get might just put you over the cap for the last time, after which you might see your Internet access yanked.
What about people who pay for Internet access by the amount of traffic that they move? How about people who retrieve e-mail over long-distance phone connections when on travel? What about the ones who use their cell phones to retrieve e-mail, paying a per-minute charge?
That your ISP chooses not to itemize spam as a charge on your bill does not mean that it is free to you.
Spam costs businesses billions of dollars per year. That's money that could have been spent in salary increases, new office equipment, building renovation, R&D, development, production, or even office parties. All of it stolen by spammers.
I am so sick and tired of the short-sighted just-hit-delete response to spam. Why don't you give me your credit card number and let me use it to send you crap that you don't want? Then you can tell everyone that it's no problem because it doesn't take long to throw away the stuff I send.
There's something to be said for learning capacity, or the ability to allow experience to shape your ideas. This seems to deterioriate (for many) with age.
I feel that it is more than balanced by the knowledge, professional skills, and emotional maturity that often come with age. For example, I had one twenty-something working for me. While a genuinely talented and energetic software engineer, he had no comprehension of office politics, chain of command, scheduling, teamwork, etc. He pissed people off, said stupid things in meetings, and failed to deliver when he promised to. No amount of programming talent can make up for that.
unlike that of the 50-year-old lifelong COBOL programmer
It has been my experience that most older software engineers have dealt with a wider variety of languages and platforms than have the "I know C, C++, and Java" twenty-somethings. I've worked with recent CS graduates and was shocked to find out that many of them could not even operate an oscilloscope, logic analyzer, or in-circuit emulator! How are you going to debug software if you can't even use basic tools of the trade? (Hint: most microprocessors are not hooked to a QWERTY keyboard and a CRT.)
The US is actually very interested in fuel economy: Corporate Average Fuel Economy [doc.gov] is very much responsible for pushing manufacturers to increase fuel economy.
That used to be the case, however Bush and Cheney are both from the oil industry. Cheney had secret meetings with energy company exectives when drafting the administration's energy policy. Bush/Cheney have resisted raising the CAFE MPG limits, closing the light truck loophole, and have downplayed the importance of fuel efficiency, instead concentrating on oil drilling. They have even gone so far as to push for extensive drilling on public lands, include wildlife refuges -- a giveaway that would allow oil companies to take oil from public lands and then sell it on the world market to the highest bidder. (There is no requirement that the oil be sold in the U.S. or that it be discounted for the benefit of U.S. consumers.)
I agree that the US has interests in keeping oil petroleum prices down, just as every other country in the world, but Europe has chosen to tax their fuel very heavily, making non-gasoline options more attractive.
It is *NOT* in U.S. interests to keep petroleum prices down. Having prices that are so low is why we have people commuting alone to work in 11MPG SUVs. It's why soccer moms are driving Chevy Suburbans rather than station wagons. The best thing that could happen would be for gasoline (and diesel) prices to rise to about $3/gallon over the next few years. We need something to make U.S. consumers pay attention to fuel economy when selecting a vehicle. I'm tired of the U.S. kissing Saudi Arabian ass while the Saudis fund anti-American terrorists. I'm sick of pretending the Iran is our friend and of defending the ungrateful bastards in Kuwait. Drilling in Alaska is no answer -- we will see no significant production from such an effort for about a decade and, even under the most optimistic estimates, it will cut oil imports by only a tiny percentage.
Low prices = higher consumption = reliance on foreign oil = depletion of world oil reserves.
Wrong, Solaris x86 has been available since 1993.
While it was available for x86 since version 2.1, it was not distributed for free. Making a free version probably took hardware sales away from the low-end Blade line.
That said, I agree with your points about its stability and proven track-record. And I will add that the single-company vision behind Solaris means that it has a consistent look, feel, and installation that is so sorely missing from Linux. I wish Sun all the luck in the world.