Have you also noticed that it's easier to pick up other major skills by finding the ways in which their learning is similar to learning a new language? Strange, but true. Explains quite a bit about the Americans, too.
This is exactly how it goes in any government-type organization. Competence in matters related in any way to IT is little and far between, since all competent people got hired away for bigger salaries at private companies. So what you get are consultants who'll push microsoft this, microsoft that, because Microsoft gives them a cut of any and all expensive software and hardware installations they manage to have set up. Or the decision-maker's cousin's dog, but it's the same thing really.
Funniest thing is, the guys who drafted your constitution were very much like anarchists and other all-or-nothing types, including the suicide bombers of today. Don't be dissin' now, even though the royals of today would very much like you to shut the fuck up and toe the line or get a security gorilla's beefy arm up your arse, just like they did in the late seventeen hundreds.
Oh boo hoo. If you want to hear about the "positive aspects of a product", just read the fucking marketing material. That's what it's there for, right? It's a bloody stupid marketing department that leaves a good point out of the brochures. Conversely, real, honest information on the faults, flaws and fuckups in a product are something that you're hard pressed to come across anymore. Every reviewer thinks that he's being somehow "unprofessional" if he doesn't suck a manufacturer's cock even a little in a review article.
If I had to improve anything in the article, I'd have put in a hyperlink to Microsoft's anuS ads, but that's generally not something that "old media" does very often. Hell, even The Register doesn't do that much, and they've never been printed.
As another Finn, I find your suggestion rather ridiculous. It's not as if you hadn't noticed that in Finland, this method has merely resulted in a three-party hegemony with a couple of tiny parties (the swedes and the christians) siding with whoever gives them a seat in the government. And the left alliance, who seem to have been castrated by their last chairm... chairperson's kissing up to the soc-dems.
Then there's state sponsorship of parties which received more than a certain percentage of votes in the last parliament elections, the centre party using tax money to fund citizens' initiatives which, no surprise, turn into centre party election marketing machines a few months before E-day, you get my point. This system has been used for so long that if the yanks are going to switch election methods, they ought to at least use something that is pointed at addressing the problems associated with the D'Hondt method (i.e. party voting, also known as tactical voting -- "would you rather that the right-wing boneheads were in power? your vote is wasted on the radicals, they'll never get anyone in.").
There are better election methods. It's too bad that none of them can be realistically installed without a revolution, being as the ones in power right now would never ever accept a new method that would reduce their power. A revolution in the US is something that while a part of me would like to see (this part is also the one that likes to watch F1 races for the accidents), another is terrified of the country with enough ICBMs to wipe out the population of the earth ten times over becoming unglued.
People generally die of untreated AIDS in more than three years. Counting from the HIV infection, of course, since the anti-viral cocktails treatment entails these days are aimed at keeping AIDS from actually coming up.
Still, I think I'd rather get infected with the AIDS Saint strain, rather than the real deal. (That's a Bridge Trilogy reference, yes.)
Not to mention sloppy reading on your part. Or sloppy understanding of the patent issue and how it differs from the copyright non-issue, likewise on your part.
There's an expression in my native language which translates roughly as "person who thinks in isolation" (yksinajattelija). I think that applies to you rather well.
Yeah, I'll admit straight away that I was responding as much to other people's misunderstanding-based arguments than I was to your particular comment. It needs to be pointed out though that the third version of the GNU GPL doesn't exist yet, since the drafting process is still underway. I'll leave out 4chan-style aggressive criticism of anything that you said that relies on GPLv3 having been actually released and sprinkled with wildebeest urine.
Anyway, I'd think that your first point is simple to solve: simply mention the U.S. DMCA as an example of the kind of law that is intended. If the DMCA gets overturned at some point, replaced with something either saner or stricter so that the DMCA falls into distant history, well, it'll still be available. Can't hurt to point to something that exists right now; pointing to e.g. the EUCD (which isn't a law as such, but a directive for member countries to enact certain kinds of laws) would be even sillier. The point is a good one though, since it's imperative to properly describe what is meant. Somehow I don't think the FSF is going to screw this one up, given that the point has been raised by people who have the time to be in the draft process and because it's still a draft instead of a real, solid license.
Your second point, well. The third version would seem to make explicit the bit where, if the copyrighted work licensed under the GPL-v3-to-be would require special preparations in order to run on the platform on, or for, which binaries of it were distributed, then the tools and their required data (i.e. signing keys, firmware loader programs if these perform some sort of a trusted handshake with the target hardware) must be distributed alongside the source. Same as with Makefiles, really.
And yeah, I know, you could just blow Linux into a ROM like the LinuxBIOS people do. However, software these days is so complex that skipping upgradeability just to do an end-run around the GPL would likely result in a mediocre, nay totally crap-ass, product the moment that the first bug appears that cannot be repaired through a simple firmware update due to presence of no re-writable nonvolatile memory. I don't think that the method you'd be proposing would be more than a variation on either this theme, the one with signed binaries, or the "authenticated firmware upload path" I proposed above. If you do, please point it out to one of the FSF people; I'd think they'd be veeeeeery interested. (I doubt you'd come up with anything they hadn't thought of, or heard about, however.)
Also, the GPL version 2, the one that is most recent right now, hasn't aged that badly when you consider the kind of bulletproofing the FSF has been able to do with regard to the third version drafts. Perhaps holes will appear. So far, with the exception of signed binaries (and that's debatable) a.k.a. tivoization, very few companies have been brazen enough to go forward with such a thing. The FSF does have quite a bit of specifically experienced legal muscle after all. And that's with a fifteen year old license. There's very little weaseling you can do in an actual court of law, and licenses do get interpreted through the licensor's intent in some countries of the world. In any case, again, if you can think of specific holes in the license text I'm sure the FSF would like to hear from it, but I'm getting the "meh, imma gloss mah lazors over this" vibe from your arguments and thus am not going to expect miracles. No offense, of course.
It already says that. Even the GNU GPL, version 2, says that. You cannot impose additional restrictions on software distributed under the GNU GPL version 2 unless you are the sole copyright holder. It's known as a license that forbids relicensing, because GNU GPL v2 + additional restrictions would no longer be the GNU GPL version 2. Unlike the BSD license, for example, which practically invites the creation of proprietary forks and de facto slave labour and surprise buttsex0ring. In fact, many interpret the current GNU GPL's wording as including any keys, firmware compilers etc that are required to run the GPLed code on the platform for which binaries were distributed; this verbiage is in the section that deals with the preferred format for making source code available (i.e. no stripping the semicolons, butthole!) with build system inputs (Makefiles, signing keys if such are required, etc) and such.
The so-called "DRM bits" aren't actually just one set of bits, but at least two. There's the part where the draft of GNU GPL version 3 declares that software distributed using the license is not a technical protection measure, and thus documents read or written (in the technical sense) with that software are not considered "protected by a strong technical measure". The FSF has made very very detailed, very to the point documentation available on this topic on their site, and on why the license is written in this way. They've spent tens of person-years drafting the new license, after all -- don't think you can out-maneuver them with a single "meh, I'm gonna gloss this over" reading.
And then there's the other kind of bits that are mistakenly taken as having something to do with DRM. They don't. Instead, these bits deal with so-called treacherous computing (also known as "trusted computing", doublespeak as can be for the warm trusty fuzzies it tends to invoke in J. Random Wanker) and the ways in which it could be, and is, used to do an end-run around the GNU GPL's spirit of share and share alike. See tivoization for the canonical example.
Many DRM architectures are based on the same kind of ideas as treacherous computing, but the two cannot be equated. The californian white plastic manufacturer's audio and video DRM, for instance, does not rely on a strictly controlled audio path, or on a chain of verification from the computer's motherboard up. Likewise, the idea of a corporation's computer network being hardened against e.g. infiltration by viruses using a similar chain of verification is not that far-fetched; indeed, it's one of the selling points of treacherous computing.
With the history that Forbes has on predicting matters related to Free Software, I think we've just had two things that aren't going to happen identified for us. Relax everyone, the sirens have become quiet again.
If it is, well, goddammit, I want no fucking part of it. Let them cyber-yiff one another freely over there but PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF BOB THE DIVINE DRILLING EQUIPMENT SALESMAN keep this marketing garbage OUT OF MY EYES!
Great going Jim. Way to mention exactly why expediency was so important. Far as I can tell, this whole mess could've been avoided (or, if you're being dishonest after all, delayed) by your being more forthcoming as to the exact reasons of your dodgy PR.
Still, this doesn't explain why you've been infusing all your emissions with "the children, oh the children". That's a major red handkerchief to the raging bulls, so to say. I'd like to think it's all part of a PR gear that's stuck, to a degree, inside your head, but Red Hat isn't exactly well-known for its fidelity with regard to the Free Software cause.
Furthermore, I expect I'm just one among hundreds of people to wonder exactly how you think you can get the proper docs out of Marvell and the other vendors of the proprietary chips. If the contracts stipulated that, well, I expect you'd have told us as much already, right? Spilling the beans, all of them, would go a long way toward restoring your reputation and that of the OLPC project in the eyes of much of the European side of the Free Software world, if not the sandbox anarcho-capitalists of Slarshdot (but they're just about beating off to any and all preceived "pragmatism" anyhow).
Your talk about "disappearing knowledge" is an effect of your being in the US, or another country that is culturally similar. (Canada, the UK, or other commonwealth countries come to mind here.) For your information, there are countries that haven't followed the current USanian trend of anti-intellectualism.
Anyway, what the fuck do you expect of Make and Autoconf? Are they desperately lacking any particular features these days? GNU Make is a reimplementation of BSD Make (albeit a runaway, also known as superior, to the point where BSD systems include it as "gmake") which, far as I can tell from the last time I took a look at it, is feature-complete. Two people are quite sufficient to maintain a feature-complete reimplementation of a fundamental tool, and it's not like things such as security problems turn up in Make all that often is it? Likewise for Autoconf. I don't have any idea how long 2.60 has been the most recent version; it and Automake seem to be moving onward on an as-needed basis and I quite think that's good enough.
Or would you rather that someone Strode Forth on a White Horse and Shining Armour, performed a Glorious, Golden Revamp of the entire GNU toolchain in a corporate-like effort to get a New, Shiny Product out on the Market in order to bring in the Cashflow? Dude, that's not how Free Software works. That's how non-free software works, always racing for the next big thing, never content with remaining in its proper position and doing its job damn well.
I mean that apparently Free Software is going to be taking a refuge from the so-called "new world" and be driven back home to Europe, for a time anyway. Take a look at the blather in the comments to this post if you don't believe me. "GPL restrictions" and "DRM freedom" and "resurgence of the BSD license". There's even one precious little Randroid trying to convince everyone that having opinions and acting in accordance with them somehow limits his freedom. Pishposh! None of you seem to remember why exactly it is that the GNU GPL came to be in the first place, do you?
Well. Put your foot into the devil's maw if that's what you want. Tivoization for everyone! Just try running a GNU/Linux system with a custom (as in one that you built) kernel in a few years' time. Or try opening a document in That Proprietary Format that someone sent you in OpenOffice, if you do manage to boot a custom kernel -- or did you just break the attestation chain, you dirty little boy? Tut tut, no next-generation planned popstars for you.
In a nutshell, my point is this: Richard Stallman is doing the right thing here. The third version of the GNU GPL is not only simpler than the previous one, but also clearer, with fewer passages that are readily misinterpretable than version 2, and in addition serves to not only further license compatibility to things like the Apache license, but incorporates countermeasures against recent threats to software freedom, threats that are either not adequately defended against in version 2, or for which defence would depend on interpretation of the licensor's intent (which, if done in a court of law virtually anywhere, is iffy and expensive). If your RMS-bashing reflex is getting in your way of understanding the license outside your knee-jerk "COMMUNISM! KILL KILL KILL! FOR OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!" reaction, then please just shut the fuck up and let people who can actually up and read the document have the goddamn podium.
No, no, no. Think bigger. Three biggest mistakes. Or five. Or ten! It's the US for crying out loud, there's got to be a total assload of mistakes you can make besides the #1 largest!
And they shouldn't be general lawsuit mistakes either, like playing by the other side's rules or terminology.
Seriously, how many times did the submitter have to rewrite that until he got "Large Hadron Collider" to come out? Also, google for "hardon particle". It's puerile, yes, but amusing enough before lunch hour.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you also noticed that it's easier to pick up other major skills by finding the ways in which their learning is similar to learning a new language? Strange, but true. Explains quite a bit about the Americans, too.
This is exactly how it goes in any government-type organization. Competence in matters related in any way to IT is little and far between, since all competent people got hired away for bigger salaries at private companies. So what you get are consultants who'll push microsoft this, microsoft that, because Microsoft gives them a cut of any and all expensive software and hardware installations they manage to have set up. Or the decision-maker's cousin's dog, but it's the same thing really.
It's corruption, Jim, but not as we know it.
Funniest thing is, the guys who drafted your constitution were very much like anarchists and other all-or-nothing types, including the suicide bombers of today. Don't be dissin' now, even though the royals of today would very much like you to shut the fuck up and toe the line or get a security gorilla's beefy arm up your arse, just like they did in the late seventeen hundreds.
Oh boo hoo. If you want to hear about the "positive aspects of a product", just read the fucking marketing material. That's what it's there for, right? It's a bloody stupid marketing department that leaves a good point out of the brochures. Conversely, real, honest information on the faults, flaws and fuckups in a product are something that you're hard pressed to come across anymore. Every reviewer thinks that he's being somehow "unprofessional" if he doesn't suck a manufacturer's cock even a little in a review article.
If I had to improve anything in the article, I'd have put in a hyperlink to Microsoft's anuS ads, but that's generally not something that "old media" does very often. Hell, even The Register doesn't do that much, and they've never been printed.
As another Finn, I find your suggestion rather ridiculous. It's not as if you hadn't noticed that in Finland, this method has merely resulted in a three-party hegemony with a couple of tiny parties (the swedes and the christians) siding with whoever gives them a seat in the government. And the left alliance, who seem to have been castrated by their last chairm... chairperson's kissing up to the soc-dems.
Then there's state sponsorship of parties which received more than a certain percentage of votes in the last parliament elections, the centre party using tax money to fund citizens' initiatives which, no surprise, turn into centre party election marketing machines a few months before E-day, you get my point. This system has been used for so long that if the yanks are going to switch election methods, they ought to at least use something that is pointed at addressing the problems associated with the D'Hondt method (i.e. party voting, also known as tactical voting -- "would you rather that the right-wing boneheads were in power? your vote is wasted on the radicals, they'll never get anyone in.").
There are better election methods. It's too bad that none of them can be realistically installed without a revolution, being as the ones in power right now would never ever accept a new method that would reduce their power. A revolution in the US is something that while a part of me would like to see (this part is also the one that likes to watch F1 races for the accidents), another is terrified of the country with enough ICBMs to wipe out the population of the earth ten times over becoming unglued.
A softcore man, I see. Here in Europe, we skip the "n"s and go straight (pun intended) to
&@&
Those are incubuses, of course.
People generally die of untreated AIDS in more than three years. Counting from the HIV infection, of course, since the anti-viral cocktails treatment entails these days are aimed at keeping AIDS from actually coming up.
Still, I think I'd rather get infected with the AIDS Saint strain, rather than the real deal. (That's a Bridge Trilogy reference, yes.)
Algeria is in the Middle East now? Holy freaking crap! That means all of Europe, except maybe Portugal and Iceland, are in the Middle East too!
Not to mention sloppy reading on your part. Or sloppy understanding of the patent issue and how it differs from the copyright non-issue, likewise on your part.
There's an expression in my native language which translates roughly as "person who thinks in isolation" (yksinajattelija). I think that applies to you rather well.
Terrorist.
Man, I was hoping it'd be Simian Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome. You know, monkey AIDS. Progress on that front would totally kick ass.
Yeah, I'll admit straight away that I was responding as much to other people's misunderstanding-based arguments than I was to your particular comment. It needs to be pointed out though that the third version of the GNU GPL doesn't exist yet, since the drafting process is still underway. I'll leave out 4chan-style aggressive criticism of anything that you said that relies on GPLv3 having been actually released and sprinkled with wildebeest urine.
Anyway, I'd think that your first point is simple to solve: simply mention the U.S. DMCA as an example of the kind of law that is intended. If the DMCA gets overturned at some point, replaced with something either saner or stricter so that the DMCA falls into distant history, well, it'll still be available. Can't hurt to point to something that exists right now; pointing to e.g. the EUCD (which isn't a law as such, but a directive for member countries to enact certain kinds of laws) would be even sillier. The point is a good one though, since it's imperative to properly describe what is meant. Somehow I don't think the FSF is going to screw this one up, given that the point has been raised by people who have the time to be in the draft process and because it's still a draft instead of a real, solid license.
Your second point, well. The third version would seem to make explicit the bit where, if the copyrighted work licensed under the GPL-v3-to-be would require special preparations in order to run on the platform on, or for, which binaries of it were distributed, then the tools and their required data (i.e. signing keys, firmware loader programs if these perform some sort of a trusted handshake with the target hardware) must be distributed alongside the source. Same as with Makefiles, really.
And yeah, I know, you could just blow Linux into a ROM like the LinuxBIOS people do. However, software these days is so complex that skipping upgradeability just to do an end-run around the GPL would likely result in a mediocre, nay totally crap-ass, product the moment that the first bug appears that cannot be repaired through a simple firmware update due to presence of no re-writable nonvolatile memory. I don't think that the method you'd be proposing would be more than a variation on either this theme, the one with signed binaries, or the "authenticated firmware upload path" I proposed above. If you do, please point it out to one of the FSF people; I'd think they'd be veeeeeery interested. (I doubt you'd come up with anything they hadn't thought of, or heard about, however.)
Also, the GPL version 2, the one that is most recent right now, hasn't aged that badly when you consider the kind of bulletproofing the FSF has been able to do with regard to the third version drafts. Perhaps holes will appear. So far, with the exception of signed binaries (and that's debatable) a.k.a. tivoization, very few companies have been brazen enough to go forward with such a thing. The FSF does have quite a bit of specifically experienced legal muscle after all. And that's with a fifteen year old license. There's very little weaseling you can do in an actual court of law, and licenses do get interpreted through the licensor's intent in some countries of the world. In any case, again, if you can think of specific holes in the license text I'm sure the FSF would like to hear from it, but I'm getting the "meh, imma gloss mah lazors over this" vibe from your arguments and thus am not going to expect miracles. No offense, of course.
Thank you for making that explicit. This slashdot crowd, they're bound to get things wrong otherwise.
I think you'll find that the correct expression is that North Korea called, they want to point nukes at us. They're also EVIL. EVIL like Venezuela.
It already says that. Even the GNU GPL, version 2, says that. You cannot impose additional restrictions on software distributed under the GNU GPL version 2 unless you are the sole copyright holder. It's known as a license that forbids relicensing, because GNU GPL v2 + additional restrictions would no longer be the GNU GPL version 2. Unlike the BSD license, for example, which practically invites the creation of proprietary forks and de facto slave labour and surprise buttsex0ring. In fact, many interpret the current GNU GPL's wording as including any keys, firmware compilers etc that are required to run the GPLed code on the platform for which binaries were distributed; this verbiage is in the section that deals with the preferred format for making source code available (i.e. no stripping the semicolons, butthole!) with build system inputs (Makefiles, signing keys if such are required, etc) and such.
The so-called "DRM bits" aren't actually just one set of bits, but at least two. There's the part where the draft of GNU GPL version 3 declares that software distributed using the license is not a technical protection measure, and thus documents read or written (in the technical sense) with that software are not considered "protected by a strong technical measure". The FSF has made very very detailed, very to the point documentation available on this topic on their site, and on why the license is written in this way. They've spent tens of person-years drafting the new license, after all -- don't think you can out-maneuver them with a single "meh, I'm gonna gloss this over" reading.
And then there's the other kind of bits that are mistakenly taken as having something to do with DRM. They don't. Instead, these bits deal with so-called treacherous computing (also known as "trusted computing", doublespeak as can be for the warm trusty fuzzies it tends to invoke in J. Random Wanker) and the ways in which it could be, and is, used to do an end-run around the GNU GPL's spirit of share and share alike. See tivoization for the canonical example.
Many DRM architectures are based on the same kind of ideas as treacherous computing, but the two cannot be equated. The californian white plastic manufacturer's audio and video DRM, for instance, does not rely on a strictly controlled audio path, or on a chain of verification from the computer's motherboard up. Likewise, the idea of a corporation's computer network being hardened against e.g. infiltration by viruses using a similar chain of verification is not that far-fetched; indeed, it's one of the selling points of treacherous computing.
With the history that Forbes has on predicting matters related to Free Software, I think we've just had two things that aren't going to happen identified for us. Relax everyone, the sirens have become quiet again.
If it is, well, goddammit, I want no fucking part of it. Let them cyber-yiff one another freely over there but PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF BOB THE DIVINE DRILLING EQUIPMENT SALESMAN keep this marketing garbage OUT OF MY EYES!
kthxubye.
Great going Jim. Way to mention exactly why expediency was so important. Far as I can tell, this whole mess could've been avoided (or, if you're being dishonest after all, delayed) by your being more forthcoming as to the exact reasons of your dodgy PR.
Still, this doesn't explain why you've been infusing all your emissions with "the children, oh the children". That's a major red handkerchief to the raging bulls, so to say. I'd like to think it's all part of a PR gear that's stuck, to a degree, inside your head, but Red Hat isn't exactly well-known for its fidelity with regard to the Free Software cause.
Furthermore, I expect I'm just one among hundreds of people to wonder exactly how you think you can get the proper docs out of Marvell and the other vendors of the proprietary chips. If the contracts stipulated that, well, I expect you'd have told us as much already, right? Spilling the beans, all of them, would go a long way toward restoring your reputation and that of the OLPC project in the eyes of much of the European side of the Free Software world, if not the sandbox anarcho-capitalists of Slarshdot (but they're just about beating off to any and all preceived "pragmatism" anyhow).
If it's a Dutch blackbox, does that imply that in order to vote, you have to stick your penis into it?
"monarch of meat" EVER.
Especially given some rather... off-colour memes on certain imageboard sites of late. George Zimmer would be proud, nay, envious.
Your talk about "disappearing knowledge" is an effect of your being in the US, or another country that is culturally similar. (Canada, the UK, or other commonwealth countries come to mind here.) For your information, there are countries that haven't followed the current USanian trend of anti-intellectualism.
Anyway, what the fuck do you expect of Make and Autoconf? Are they desperately lacking any particular features these days? GNU Make is a reimplementation of BSD Make (albeit a runaway, also known as superior, to the point where BSD systems include it as "gmake") which, far as I can tell from the last time I took a look at it, is feature-complete. Two people are quite sufficient to maintain a feature-complete reimplementation of a fundamental tool, and it's not like things such as security problems turn up in Make all that often is it? Likewise for Autoconf. I don't have any idea how long 2.60 has been the most recent version; it and Automake seem to be moving onward on an as-needed basis and I quite think that's good enough.
Or would you rather that someone Strode Forth on a White Horse and Shining Armour, performed a Glorious, Golden Revamp of the entire GNU toolchain in a corporate-like effort to get a New, Shiny Product out on the Market in order to bring in the Cashflow? Dude, that's not how Free Software works. That's how non-free software works, always racing for the next big thing, never content with remaining in its proper position and doing its job damn well.
Well. Put your foot into the devil's maw if that's what you want. Tivoization for everyone! Just try running a GNU/Linux system with a custom (as in one that you built) kernel in a few years' time. Or try opening a document in That Proprietary Format that someone sent you in OpenOffice, if you do manage to boot a custom kernel -- or did you just break the attestation chain, you dirty little boy? Tut tut, no next-generation planned popstars for you.
In a nutshell, my point is this: Richard Stallman is doing the right thing here. The third version of the GNU GPL is not only simpler than the previous one, but also clearer, with fewer passages that are readily misinterpretable than version 2, and in addition serves to not only further license compatibility to things like the Apache license, but incorporates countermeasures against recent threats to software freedom, threats that are either not adequately defended against in version 2, or for which defence would depend on interpretation of the licensor's intent (which, if done in a court of law virtually anywhere, is iffy and expensive). If your RMS-bashing reflex is getting in your way of understanding the license outside your knee-jerk "COMMUNISM! KILL KILL KILL! FOR OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!" reaction, then please just shut the fuck up and let people who can actually up and read the document have the goddamn podium.
No, no, no. Think bigger. Three biggest mistakes. Or five. Or ten! It's the US for crying out loud, there's got to be a total assload of mistakes you can make besides the #1 largest!
And they shouldn't be general lawsuit mistakes either, like playing by the other side's rules or terminology.
Seriously, how many times did the submitter have to rewrite that until he got "Large Hadron Collider" to come out? Also, google for "hardon particle". It's puerile, yes, but amusing enough before lunch hour.
It's an IGN article after all.