I don't think it's clear at all from the text of the license that this is the case. The only relevant clause is: The music is not used for any form of advertising or promotion. You certainly can't use the music in an advertisement, but that's something else. I don't think a court would consider playing a song for free on an ad-supported station "use in advertising or promotion."
Regardless, it's a little ambiguous, and it's a pretty lamely worded license in general. This sort of confusion is why I'm excited about the CC's license generator project. Like it or not, there is a reason they have actual lawyers write this crap up.
Note that the original question was "which artists support file-swapping" -- which this license explicitly does. The question was not "which artists use licenses that would make Richard Stallman happy".
Although, with the really lame license I have, I'm desperately wishing for the Creative Commons to get the heck on with it and put their license generator online!
Although there are no builds available for macosX I know it can be done, a colleague of mine had it running on his ibook a few months ago.
I've heard several rumors about Eclipse running on OS X, but indeed, there seem not to be any builds of it generally available. I know that the major obstacle is porting SWT, and I know that the effort was supposedly going pretty well.
What's the current status of Eclipse on OS X? If it works, why aren't there any binaries out there? What gives?
Eclipse is pretty nice. I'd love to be able to use it.
...you really start to get an idea that sun wants to beat MS like a red headed step child...
I beg your pardon!! As a redhead, I strongly object to this insensitive, derogatory, almost bigoted verbal abuse of people with red hair, who frequently bear the brunt of tasteless remarks such as this one. I will not tolerate being compared to Microsoft!
Heck, come to think of it, I should have filed this one:
A patent for the use of patent law to claim ownership of broadly applicable and largely obvious and unoriginal ideas, thereby allowing the user of this patent to file frivolous suits against major corporations for personal monetary gain.
Judging from recent news, that patent would make a killing on eBay these days!
Alas, there's too much prior art now to file it -- unless, of course, the patent office were to start approving patents with no regard whatsoever for their validity....
the amount of mass we would have to move to be detectable at a significant distance would be prohibitive
Well, perhaps a very finely-tuned vibration of a specific type could show up in a Fourier spread, even if the power were incredibly low. But even so.....
Probably more practical for a science fiction story than reality.
Note that Java Web Start downloads JNLPs, and appletviewer download applets, both of which are third-party code that executes on your machine. Clause 6, at least, seems simply to be a CYA applying to these:
6. Notice of Automatic Downloads. You acknowledge that, by your use of the Software and/or by requesting services that require use of the Software, the Software may automatically download, install, and execute software applications from sources other than Sun ("Other Software"). Sun makes no representations of a relationship of any kind to licensors of Other Software. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN NO EVENT WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE OTHER SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
In other words, "The JVM can download and execute Java code off the net. Just because our JVM downloaded it doesn't mean we endorse it."
Clause 5 seems a bit more troublesome. But they're not trying to pull any wool over anybody's eyes:
If additional terms and conditions are not presented on installation, the Software Updates will be considered part of the Software and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement.
In other words, "If you run an installer and it doesn't present new conditions, the old ones still apply." That at least seems pretty reasonable.
If anything is troublesome, it's the implication that they think they can download stuff to your machine without your permission.
If you are looking for technical, factual, resume-building experience, go for it.
However, in my experience, one of the most important aspects -- perhaps the most important -- of education is peer interaction. Whatever you learn from a textbook and a lecture, you'll learn ten times as much hearing your fellow students' questions, struggling with them over the assignments, and just chatting and exchanging ideas. Education is deeply social.
An online setting can accomplish some of this (as we are now!), but it's no substitute. If you do go the distance route, make sure that you're doing lots of work on the interpersonal side to make up for that missing piece. Be aggressive about getting online with your classmates. Find other people at a similar level or with similar interests in your area. Don't get isolated. Interact.
Escher knew what he was doing -- and so did the people who did this research. I don't think they were trying to improve on the drawing; they just entered into the intellectually playful spirit of Escher's art, and started asking questions and making cool pictures.
As the NYT article points out, Escher himself was always thrilled when people found his artwork to be a springboard into new research and new ideas. He was always very derisive of highbrow artistic purism, and I imagine he would have been delighted with these new images.
The original print is great, and so is this research.
Most people expect the version number to be (Arabic numerals) 10.2 -- thus the awkward Roman-Arabic hybrid "X.2".
It makes sense, given Apple's current marketing investment in the letter "X", that it will remain "Mac OS X" for quite some time. This poses any number of obvious numbering problems. Darn you, Apple!
Remember, open source just means the source is open for you to see and use, examples being the Microsoft Shared Source license
Wrong.
The definition of "open source" includes several important points beyond simpy allowing people to see the code. Microsoft's insulting "Shared Source" license fails several of these points.
Most notable is free redistribution. As the OSI puts it:
The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications.
Other notable trouble points with MS "shared source" include the OSI conditions of no discrimination against persons or groups and non-restriction of other software.
although right now an O/R problem has me pulling my hair out
You should definitely look at CMP2, which doesn't suck nearly as much as CMP1.
Even more, you should look at JDO, which IMO is several miles beyond CMP in terms of flexibility, simplicity, and general usefulness. Instead of trying to solve all the EJB problems at once in the same object, as CMP does, it focuses on one problem -- object persistence -- and it's up to you to layer up your remote invocation, security, transaction boundaries, etc. Put your JDOs behind session beans, and you have a pretty comfortable alternative to messy ol' CMP.
OK, fair enough. Here is MPR's 2001 financial audit. In case your PDF reader is acting up, I'll pull out the relevant numbers:
TOTAL SUPPORT FROM PUBLIC: $30,070k TOTAL SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES: $4,384k
Here are the top separate sources of funding:
Membership (individual contributions): $8,406k National underwriting (e.g. PHC sponsorship): $4,999 Grants from endowments: $4,836k Regional underwriting (local ads): $4,062k Corporation for Public Broadcasting: $3,523k
Individual contributions are not as large as I remembered, but are still by far the largest. The top-ranking government source is fifth on the list.
a broadcast network pushing an editorial line which is pretty far out of touch with the majority of Americans.
Oh really? Ask any politician who's ever cut public broadcasting funding what kind of response they've received from their constituents.
Or just ask Land's End how much they pay for product placement on Prairie Home Companion. (Hint: you are not going to be a sponsor.)
Sure, you may personally not like NPR, and may have trouble finding people among your friends who do. If you had it your way, you'd cut their budget. Fair enough. If I had it my way, I'd cut the military's budget by about 70%, and eliminate farm subsidies entirely. But neither of us is going to get our way. Welcome to Democracy, kid!
Government funding from many places
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 2
Yes, you are correct: government funding affects public radio in many ways, and comes from many places.
Like, as I said before, the computer industry... or just about anything else. Do you think that Microsoft isn't benefitting from tax dollars from Seattle and the State of Washington? What about government grants which fund university research which leads to new commercial ventures? Are these necessarily bad things? Sometimes; not always. The government intermingles with business in many ways, some good, some bad, some wasteful, some productive.
The point is this: "public" radio is not wholly governmental; it is an industry, like any other, which involves both governmental and non-governmental organizations, and which receives both government and private money. It is not a simple picture.
As for the tax-deductible argument, that's a half-valid point. Public broadcasting isn't getting a particularly special exemption on this -- it's not uncommon for non-profits to be categorized as charitable organizations. The question is really: should we encourage philanthropy at the expense of potential tax revenue? I tend to think so.
Donations from individual listeners are HUGE
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 2
OK, I don't know what planet you're on, but here in Minnesota, listener donations are the largest single source of funding for Minnesota Public Radio, and account for a very significant chunk (about half, IIRC) of the overall budget. By contrast, state funding accounts for a small amount, which they spend exclusively on captial expenditures (new antennas in rural areas, etc.). MPR is not a government entity, and they don't like to rely too much on government funding.
Bottom line: listener dollars pay for most of programming, at least around here.
A lot of libertarian-leaning Slashdotters seem to presume that because it's called "public" broadcasting, it must be a government entity and therefore wasteful. In fact, the truth is much more complicated, and much more varied. Ask about NPR, MPR, PRI, the CPB... and for each, you'll get a totally different answer.
Public broadcasting is a nebulous collection of hundreds of separate organizations, some governmental, some private, some associated with colleges and universities, some non-governmental but relying on government subsidies and/or grants...
...kind of like the computer industry, come to think of it.
Well, part of the reason...
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I used to work for a regional public radio network's web shop, and we had some contact with NPR. They are a fairly slow-moving, bureaucratic organization -- partly because they are controversial and always under attack, and partly because their board of directors is made up of their several hundred member stations. For both these reasons, they tend to be a bit overprotective.
However, they're not completely backwards or out of touch with the web -- not by a long shot. They were online before most companies realized it was important, and were one of the first major media outlets to start giving all their content away -- free! -- online.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the stupid policy in question was penned by some lawyer in the early days of the web, when the answers to these questions were a lot less clear.
Hopefully this exposure will wake them up, and get their policy re-grounded in reality.
Yeah, all of the above I agree with wholeheartedly. I'm of the opinion that CS education should de-emphasize individual languages -- and to that end, an intro course should use a language which facilitates de-emphasizing.
C++ is certainly not such a language!
Pascal is a decent choice. I'm personally a fan of Schemefor the first semester (worked marvelously at Macalester), but not religious about that. Java could work OK, if students use a very limited subset -- it's not a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot language -- but it's very hard with Java not to get into high-level structure questions inappropriate for the first semester. It's probably better for the second semester, when you start talking ADTs.
Perhaps you'd quibble with some of the previous paragraph, but I think we've basically found consensus. On Slashdot!! And without any Microsoft-bashing, even....
I just use bash, ant, and the free simple-but-decent developers' text editor that comes with the OS (in Project Builder).
I've tried JBuilder and IntelliJ IDEA, and they ran pretty well. They didn't impress me enough that I wanted to fork over the bucks. One developer friend is running emacs and another is running vim on their Powerbooks, and they both seem pleased. To my knowledge, Eclipse doesn't run on OS X, but I heard rumbles of plans to support it. If you're willing to spend some money but don't want to spring for a full IDE, BBEdit is awesome.
So I think the answer is that the majority of UNIXish and Java-based dev tools will work, and there are a few nice OS-X-only options as well.
And, in case you're wondering what I've been doing with Java, here's a dump of the Java libs I have installed (yes, some are out of date):
While we use C++, the language isn't really the issue.
You'd better believe it's the issue. "Language determines design" is a Bell Labs aphorism.
It's not the issue in a computer science class. Yes, language definitely affects design -- but this is not a real-world engineering problem. If the assignments illustrate theory, and it's theory that drives the curriculum, then the language is only an issue to the extent that it illuminates the theory.
Please note that Bell Labs is not a teaching facility.
In real-world engineering, however, your point totally holds. The end result of an undergraduate CS education should be adability, and the facility to think in whatever language the situation demands.
I develop software for a living. Without exception, my clients use PC's and Sun's. The tools I use in developing Oracle stuff just aren't available. If I don't have the software to do what I want, I won't use the system. Period.
I work for a company that develops apps which run against Oracle. Our clients use Windows and a variety of non-Apple Unices on the big iron. I am not aware of a single client who uses Macs in any large scale.
But, because I develop in Java, that's not a big deal. A Powerbook G4 is my primary machine at work, and I love it. It works wonderfully for me. (I do use the windows box for reading my Outlook mail. That's just about it.)
I realize that probably doesn't address whatever it is that you do, but the point is that Macs interoperate reasonably well in many circumstances. For many developers today -- myself included -- "my clients don't use Macs" is not a real showstopper.
[E]very Mac user I've encountered has preached at me with the furvor of a Deep-South Bible Thumper.
Ah, too true.
But it is hard holding the line against a world which is irrationally hostile to the plaform you happen to like. (Not everyone is as reasonable about this as you are.) Mac users, like Linux users, are always a little bit on the defensive because we just have to put up with so much crap. It's natural to get a bit zealous in this position!
This study apparently takes as its presumption that the developers listed in Sourceforge projects are the developers who have actually contributed. Most projects take code from a much wider base than those listed on SF, taking bug fixes from emails.
So a SF project with two developers listed might only have two dedicated people working on it all the time, but might include tidbits of code from 30 different people.
The study's basic conclusion is probably sound: OSS is usually developed by very small core groups. But they need better data before they try to quantify that.
Seems to me that the Air Force should have bid on the item like everyone else.
I know things are tight at the defense defense department these days, what with only billions of dollars to waste instead of billions and billions and billions... but I'm sure they could have scrounged up the money for a winning bid.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's clear at all from the text of the license that this is the case. The only relevant clause is: The music is not used for any form of advertising or promotion. You certainly can't use the music in an advertisement, but that's something else. I don't think a court would consider playing a song for free on an ad-supported station "use in advertising or promotion."
Regardless, it's a little ambiguous, and it's a pretty lamely worded license in general. This sort of confusion is why I'm excited about the CC's license generator project. Like it or not, there is a reason they have actual lawyers write this crap up.
Note that the original question was "which artists support file-swapping" -- which this license explicitly does. The question was not "which artists use licenses that would make Richard Stallman happy".
What artists are you aware of (popular or not) who have come out in favor of music-swapping?
Me!!
Although, with the really lame license I have, I'm desperately wishing for the Creative Commons to get the heck on with it and put their license generator online!
I was going to attempt to write something like this ... but you said it much better than I would have! Pay attention to this philosophyandrew fellow.
Although there are no builds available for macosX I know it can be done, a colleague of mine had it running on his ibook a few months ago.
I've heard several rumors about Eclipse running on OS X, but indeed, there seem not to be any builds of it generally available. I know that the major obstacle is porting SWT, and I know that the effort was supposedly going pretty well.
What's the current status of Eclipse on OS X? If it works, why aren't there any binaries out there? What gives?
Eclipse is pretty nice. I'd love to be able to use it.
Alas, there's too much prior art now to file it -- unless, of course, the patent office were to start approving patents with no regard whatsoever for their validity....
the amount of mass we would have to move to be detectable at a significant distance would be prohibitive
Well, perhaps a very finely-tuned vibration of a specific type could show up in a Fourier spread, even if the power were incredibly low. But even so.....
Probably more practical for a science fiction story than reality.
Undoubtedly! But fun to speculate.
Clause 5 seems a bit more troublesome. But they're not trying to pull any wool over anybody's eyes:
In other words, "If you run an installer and it doesn't present new conditions, the old ones still apply." That at least seems pretty reasonable.
If anything is troublesome, it's the implication that they think they can download stuff to your machine without your permission.
If you are looking for technical, factual, resume-building experience, go for it.
However, in my experience, one of the most important aspects -- perhaps the most important -- of education is peer interaction. Whatever you learn from a textbook and a lecture, you'll learn ten times as much hearing your fellow students' questions, struggling with them over the assignments, and just chatting and exchanging ideas. Education is deeply social.
An online setting can accomplish some of this (as we are now!), but it's no substitute. If you do go the distance route, make sure that you're doing lots of work on the interpersonal side to make up for that missing piece. Be aggressive about getting online with your classmates. Find other people at a similar level or with similar interests in your area. Don't get isolated. Interact.
Escher knew what he was doing -- and so did the people who did this research. I don't think they were trying to improve on the drawing; they just entered into the intellectually playful spirit of Escher's art, and started asking questions and making cool pictures.
As the NYT article points out, Escher himself was always thrilled when people found his artwork to be a springboard into new research and new ideas. He was always very derisive of highbrow artistic purism, and I imagine he would have been delighted with these new images.
The original print is great, and so is this research.
Most people expect the version number to be (Arabic numerals) 10.2 -- thus the awkward Roman-Arabic hybrid "X.2".
It makes sense, given Apple's current marketing investment in the letter "X", that it will remain "Mac OS X" for quite some time. This poses any number of obvious numbering problems. Darn you, Apple!
Wrong.
The definition of "open source" includes several important points beyond simpy allowing people to see the code. Microsoft's insulting "Shared Source" license fails several of these points.
Most notable is free redistribution. As the OSI puts it:
Other notable trouble points with MS "shared source" include the OSI conditions of no discrimination against persons or groups and non-restriction of other software.
although right now an O/R problem has me pulling my hair out
You should definitely look at CMP2, which doesn't suck nearly as much as CMP1.
Even more, you should look at JDO, which IMO is several miles beyond CMP in terms of flexibility, simplicity, and general usefulness. Instead of trying to solve all the EJB problems at once in the same object, as CMP does, it focuses on one problem -- object persistence -- and it's up to you to layer up your remote invocation, security, transaction boundaries, etc. Put your JDOs behind session beans, and you have a pretty comfortable alternative to messy ol' CMP.
OK, fair enough. Here is MPR's 2001 financial audit. In case your PDF reader is acting up, I'll pull out the relevant numbers:
TOTAL SUPPORT FROM PUBLIC: $30,070k
TOTAL SUPPORT FROM GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES: $4,384k
Here are the top separate sources of funding:
Membership (individual contributions): $8,406k
National underwriting (e.g. PHC sponsorship): $4,999
Grants from endowments: $4,836k
Regional underwriting (local ads): $4,062k
Corporation for Public Broadcasting: $3,523k
Individual contributions are not as large as I remembered, but are still by far the largest. The top-ranking government source is fifth on the list.
a broadcast network pushing an editorial line which is pretty far out of touch with the majority of Americans.
Oh really? Ask any politician who's ever cut public broadcasting funding what kind of response they've received from their constituents.
Or just ask Land's End how much they pay for product placement on Prairie Home Companion. (Hint: you are not going to be a sponsor.)
Sure, you may personally not like NPR, and may have trouble finding people among your friends who do. If you had it your way, you'd cut their budget. Fair enough. If I had it my way, I'd cut the military's budget by about 70%, and eliminate farm subsidies entirely. But neither of us is going to get our way. Welcome to Democracy, kid!
Yes, you are correct: government funding affects public radio in many ways, and comes from many places.
... or just about anything else. Do you think that Microsoft isn't benefitting from tax dollars from Seattle and the State of Washington? What about government grants which fund university research which leads to new commercial ventures? Are these necessarily bad things? Sometimes; not always. The government intermingles with business in many ways, some good, some bad, some wasteful, some productive.
Like, as I said before, the computer industry
The point is this: "public" radio is not wholly governmental; it is an industry, like any other, which involves both governmental and non-governmental organizations, and which receives both government and private money. It is not a simple picture.
As for the tax-deductible argument, that's a half-valid point. Public broadcasting isn't getting a particularly special exemption on this -- it's not uncommon for non-profits to be categorized as charitable organizations. The question is really: should we encourage philanthropy at the expense of potential tax revenue? I tend to think so.
OK, I don't know what planet you're on, but here in Minnesota, listener donations are the largest single source of funding for Minnesota Public Radio, and account for a very significant chunk (about half, IIRC) of the overall budget. By contrast, state funding accounts for a small amount, which they spend exclusively on captial expenditures (new antennas in rural areas, etc.). MPR is not a government entity, and they don't like to rely too much on government funding.
... and for each, you'll get a totally different answer.
Bottom line: listener dollars pay for most of programming, at least around here.
A lot of libertarian-leaning Slashdotters seem to presume that because it's called "public" broadcasting, it must be a government entity and therefore wasteful. In fact, the truth is much more complicated, and much more varied. Ask about NPR, MPR, PRI, the CPB
Public broadcasting is a nebulous collection of hundreds of separate organizations, some governmental, some private, some associated with colleges and universities, some non-governmental but relying on government subsidies and/or grants...
...kind of like the computer industry, come to think of it.
I used to work for a regional public radio network's web shop, and we had some contact with NPR. They are a fairly slow-moving, bureaucratic organization -- partly because they are controversial and always under attack, and partly because their board of directors is made up of their several hundred member stations. For both these reasons, they tend to be a bit overprotective.
However, they're not completely backwards or out of touch with the web -- not by a long shot. They were online before most companies realized it was important, and were one of the first major media outlets to start giving all their content away -- free! -- online.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the stupid policy in question was penned by some lawyer in the early days of the web, when the answers to these questions were a lot less clear.
Hopefully this exposure will wake them up, and get their policy re-grounded in reality.
Yeah, all of the above I agree with wholeheartedly. I'm of the opinion that CS education should de-emphasize individual languages -- and to that end, an intro course should use a language which facilitates de-emphasizing.
C++ is certainly not such a language!
Pascal is a decent choice. I'm personally a fan of Schemefor the first semester (worked marvelously at Macalester), but not religious about that. Java could work OK, if students use a very limited subset -- it's not a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot language -- but it's very hard with Java not to get into high-level structure questions inappropriate for the first semester. It's probably better for the second semester, when you start talking ADTs.
Perhaps you'd quibble with some of the previous paragraph, but I think we've basically found consensus. On Slashdot!! And without any Microsoft-bashing, even....
They...um...made sure that it was a quality worm that went out the door.
Well, have there been any security holes discovered in Nimda? Sounds to me like Microsoft is living up to their promises.
I've tried JBuilder and IntelliJ IDEA, and they ran pretty well. They didn't impress me enough that I wanted to fork over the bucks. One developer friend is running emacs and another is running vim on their Powerbooks, and they both seem pleased. To my knowledge, Eclipse doesn't run on OS X, but I heard rumbles of plans to support it. If you're willing to spend some money but don't want to spring for a full IDE, BBEdit is awesome.
So I think the answer is that the majority of UNIXish and Java-based dev tools will work, and there are a few nice OS-X-only options as well.
And, in case you're wondering what I've been doing with Java, here's a dump of the Java libs I have installed (yes, some are out of date):
While we use C++, the language isn't really the issue.
You'd better believe it's the issue. "Language determines design" is a Bell Labs aphorism.
It's not the issue in a computer science class. Yes, language definitely affects design -- but this is not a real-world engineering problem. If the assignments illustrate theory, and it's theory that drives the curriculum, then the language is only an issue to the extent that it illuminates the theory.
Please note that Bell Labs is not a teaching facility.
In real-world engineering, however, your point totally holds. The end result of an undergraduate CS education should be adability, and the facility to think in whatever language the situation demands.
I develop software for a living. Without exception, my clients use PC's and Sun's. The tools I use in developing Oracle stuff just aren't available. If I don't have the software to do what I want, I won't use the system. Period.
I work for a company that develops apps which run against Oracle. Our clients use Windows and a variety of non-Apple Unices on the big iron. I am not aware of a single client who uses Macs in any large scale.
But, because I develop in Java, that's not a big deal. A Powerbook G4 is my primary machine at work, and I love it. It works wonderfully for me. (I do use the windows box for reading my Outlook mail. That's just about it.)
I realize that probably doesn't address whatever it is that you do, but the point is that Macs interoperate reasonably well in many circumstances. For many developers today -- myself included -- "my clients don't use Macs" is not a real showstopper.
[E]very Mac user I've encountered has preached at me with the furvor of a Deep-South Bible Thumper.
Ah, too true.
But it is hard holding the line against a world which is irrationally hostile to the plaform you happen to like. (Not everyone is as reasonable about this as you are.) Mac users, like Linux users, are always a little bit on the defensive because we just have to put up with so much crap. It's natural to get a bit zealous in this position!
I would sell my soul for a Powerbook though.
:)
Really? Hmmm....
No, I think I'll keep my Powerbook. Thanks for the offer, though.
This study apparently takes as its presumption that the developers listed in Sourceforge projects are the developers who have actually contributed. Most projects take code from a much wider base than those listed on SF, taking bug fixes from emails.
So a SF project with two developers listed might only have two dedicated people working on it all the time, but might include tidbits of code from 30 different people.
The study's basic conclusion is probably sound: OSS is usually developed by very small core groups. But they need better data before they try to quantify that.
Seems to me that the Air Force should have bid on the item like everyone else.
... but I'm sure they could have scrounged up the money for a winning bid. :)
I know things are tight at the defense defense department these days, what with only billions of dollars to waste instead of billions and billions and billions
Actually, I wonder if the reason the DoD can't seem to pass an independent audit, and in fact can only account for about a third of their budget, is that they're already blowing all their dough buying antique lamp shades on eBay.