Come on, you don't really think he hired all those people because of some personal RIAA fetish, do you?
I'd bet on a front organization with a vague but nice-sounding name. It could be named something like "People for Democratic Change in America" or the "American Change 2008 Committee". This is the norm for fake grassroots fundraising and PR.
I don't recall news stories of him doing that sort of thing to the bigoted fucks he was now in control of.
Of course not. He became almost like them. South Africa is back to classifying people by skin color according to the apartheid scheme, and back to discriminating against people based on skin color. There are now plenty of white susistence farmers who lack proper nutrition and are unable to get the jobs reserved for black people.
This should remind you of Animal Farm or perhaps Lord of the Flies.
A new method of capital punishment had better surpass ancient and medieval imperial practices; it would be truly better if it also surpassed current methods.
How shall we judge this?
I'm torn between the desire to be cheap, and the desire for maximum deterrant value. Either way, current methods fall short of traditional methods.
Being cheap, we probably should strap them down and harvest organs. We let first-year surgical students practice. We test experimental drugs, surgery, and medical devices. Never purposely cause death; sooner or later it'll happen. The remains get used for biodiesel and fertilizer production. Call it "giving back to society". I think I like this option best, but...
For maximum deterrant value, we choose something painful and degrading that everybody finds to be horrifying and embarassing. Pay particular attention to religeous and sexual fears. You could inject pig blood, feed a person his own balls, convince vultures to start on him early, drown him in bodily waste, etc.
Did you have something else in mind? Would you prefer something expensive that lacks deterrent value? If so, why, and why even bother with punishment in that case?
I suppose if the shredder was really really slow, and you put a guy in feet first, it could be kind of bad. A decently fast shredder is no big deal.
Compare with burning at the stake. Compare with crucifixion. Compare with stoning. Compare with dunking. Compare with the necklace, which FYI was a burning gasoline-filled tire around the neck (hands tied or hacked off) that Nelson Mandela liked to use. Compare with what Vlad the Impaler used to do, driving greased poles into the torso via the anus. Compare with pressing.
Heck, compare with how most of us die in modern hospitals. We end up with chemotherapy, choking on fluid, with tubes rammed into every natural oriface and a few unnatural orifaces. We often suffer in agony for months.
Getting dropped into a shredder looks downright peaceful and kind by comparison, no?
Okay, so list the systems which are "B" Posix compliant. ie. ps ax shows all processes, while ps -ax only shows processes from user "x"
Huh?
It's "ps -aux" (identical to "ps -a -u x") that brings user "x" into the picture. Plain "ps -ax" (identical to "ps -a -x") has a "-x" option that POSIX does not define. POSIX allows "ps -ax" to be a usage error, but requires "ps -aux" to print processes for user "x".
OpenBSD's ps man page even admits to being non-POSIX, oddly right after claiming to be compliant. (WTF?)
Other problems are incorrect long ("-l") format, lack of support for multiple users with the -U option or multiple tty with the -t option, missing "etime" keyword... and I think I've abused the pitiful thing enough today.
Every single system that fails your expectations is POSIX-compliant. It goes together generally:
A. support "ps -ax", fail "ps -e", not POSIX compliant
B. fail "ps -ax", support "ps -e", POSIX compliant
Strictly speaking, a POSIX system need not support "ps -e" (for every process), but they all do anyway. Likewise, a POSIX system could support "ps -ax", but none actually do.
The bigger trouble is BSD's failure to interpret "ps -uwax" as asking for ps to print processes belonging to a user named "wax". FAIL.
Name more than one Unix system that follows that particular POSIX standard then.
OK, how about all of them? You can't use "ps -ax" on any real UNIX system. You fail on all these UNIX systems: IRIX, UnixWare, Solaris, HP-UX, Unicos, PowerMAXX. You also fail on OSF systems: Tru64, AIX. Finally, you fail on numerous other POSIX and UNIX-standard systems: Interix, Dynix/ptx, S/390 Open Edition. You're 100% FAIL.
And you've not bothered to list a single reason why gmake is supposedly superior, at all.
I'll list a few: working VPATH, eval, double dollar sign variables, pattern substitution, automatic restart when the makefile pulls in fresh generated makefile code, etc.
How about "ps -ax" bitching at you not to type the dash (which every other Unix system requires)
You're lucky that Linux accepts that standards violation at all. Try it on any real UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX, UnixWare, IRIX, etc.), and you won't get what you want.
The proper UNIX syntax to print every process is "ps -e". Woah, that doesn't even work on FreeBSD! Linux accepts it. Clearly, BSD is even less of a UNIX than Linux is.
IRIX and Solaris will simply reject "ps -ax". (the "-x" is not valid)
HP-UX will interpret "-x" as a request to extend the command line. It seems to be a sort of width option, or for showing command args.
UnixWare will interpret "-x" the same as "-y". This is a format modifier commonly used with "-l". It drops the useless FLAGS field and replaces the useless ADDR field with RSS.
AIX and Tru64 will reject your command too, though they are at least nice enough to accept it without the "-". Try "ps ax" and it'll work, but "ps -e" is really the proper way to issue your command.
Linux of course fully supports POSIX and UNIX behavior, unlike FreeBSD. If you leave off the "-" though, you can get BSD behavior too. You can even mix the options. What you're complaining about is a friendly reminder that Linux is making a DWIM-style guess to deal with unknown options that have POSIX/UNIX-style syntax but no POSIX/UNIX meaning.
Linux has been getting rid of old syscall emulation features. They are places where security holes can hide. (Got any? Sure?) A few years ago, the call gate (which handles the "far call" instruction) needed for full ibcs2 support got dropped from Linux. For a while though, syscall emulation support was extensive and growing. FreeBSD support almost made it in. Linux could do Solaris x86, SCO, Xenix, Solaris SPARC, OSF/1 for DEC Alpha, and many I've forgotten. System call emulation became much less interesting when all the database vendors suddenly ported to Linux and, for non-x86, when Netscape Navigator became Open Source.
BTW, the idea that FreeBSD has faster networking has been proven false many times. It's no different from the "insecure" reputation that Linux got back in the bad old days when Red Hat shipped with every possible obscure server enabled.
Excuses, excuses. It's not about ethics/ideology (and, BTW, I'm mostly in the Stallman camp on the freedom issue) but about ego. "GNU" is a name chosen by Stallman.
BTW, since I know you're thinking it, Linus did not name the OS after himself. Some FTP site admin in Finland did that, via the creation of a directory to hold the OS. In typical hacker fashion, Linus had chosen the truly dreadful name Freax for his OS.
Fact is, a group of people clustered around the kernel developers put the system together. Theodore T'so, a kernel developer who doesn't care for the "GNU/Linux" thing, is the person who made the mistake of building the first Linux install disk with GNU odds and ends rather than BSD odds and ends. He certainly couldn't predict that this would result in an aggressive and hostile campaign to rename the OS.
Unfortunately, the name is damn important. You can be sure that Microsoft and Apple put lots of effort into choosing marketable names. Linux is marketable. GNU is not very marketable; in English it is unpronouncable or bad-sounding. (sounding like guh-noo, noo, jee en yoo, etc.) The three-letter acronym looks technical and complicated before you even mention the recursion.
If Stallman's selfish renaming efforts have done anything related to software freedom, the result has been negative. Making the OS sound less friendly and approachable ensures that fewer people will end up running free software.
Yeah, we all know the excuses. Stallman even tries to excuse his lack of desire to credit X11 and so on, saying that X11 is part of his GNU system and thus credited by "GNU"!!!
Truth is, nothing irreplacable was provided by the GNU project. At the time when Linus was writing his kernel, the legal cloud hanging over BSD (AT+T lawsuit) only concerned the kernel. The BSD tools were perfectly suitable and ego-free.
Remember that even glibc and gcc were nothing special in 1991. The modern versions were built via the efforts of Linux hackers, including major funding from Red Hat. The FSF did not create what you see today. It is unjust for "them" (Stallman really) to be claiming much credit.
As for "fundamental" stuff like "cp" and "ls", well that's just trivial.
Flash keeps running in your browser after the first time it gets used, forever burning CPU time.
I've no doubt it keeps the sound device open, which is bad behavior. Flash may even be playing silence.
A big improvement would be to provide a user interface to let people see which device has claimed the audio. Users could then complain to the right place. Better yet, provide a way for users to disconnect bad software.
My hardware, just some plain USB speakers, hasn't been reliable since the first day people started fucking around with audio. Plain old OSS worked very well.
Right now I can't even get audio at all. It has something to do with idiotic ALSA developers who explicitly prevent USB audio from being device 0, on the erroneous assumption that every computer MUST have non-USB audio and NOBODY would EVER want to use USB as a primary audio device.
So I guess that means software mixing doesn't work. Problem is, unmixed audio doesn't work either. ALSA sucks ass.
It really sucked when most of the users could never have more than one application using audio simultaneously.
I love that. Audio apps should not be stomping all over each other. If everything gets mixed together, it becomes a mess. I curse the fucking thing, and probably unplug the speakers.
BTW, two ways to do it: traditional (first app wins) and stack-based (second app wins, first app goes to/dev/null until the second app quits)
Thus my bug report: "audio from different apps gets jumbled together -- MAKE IT STOP!!!"
They damn well should be illegal, for safety reasons. I'm less likely to crash into you if I can see the brake lights of the car in front of you. Your eyes adjust to the light level of the windshield; all your other windows should match.
This also helps me to be more fuel efficient, because I can take my foot off the accelerator pedal earlier.
If you want to keep the heat out, you can do that with an invisible coating that only reflects IR and UV. A very thin layer of iridium-tin-oxide does nicely AFAIK, and also prevents you from stupidly yacking on your cell phone while trying to operate a vehicle.
People make heat-related excuses for tinted windows, but the real motivation is more related to aggression. It goes along with tall vehicles. People want to look into other cars, but not allow other people to look into their own. This primative urge is a safety hazard.
I'm fairly certain that would even be covered under animal cruelty laws.
Probably so, which is an injustice. If a cow is my property, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. (well, not being a public health nuisance spreading disease, but hacksawing is not a problem)
It's surely a sign of mental illness if you actually enjoy hacksawing the leg off a cow. One should be indifferent to the "suffering" of an animal, neither enjoying it nor being bothered by it. Hacksawing a cow is nothing like attacking a member of your own species. A cow is not human, just like a rose bush is not human. If you think a little pruning is called for, why not?
Likewise, getting angry at an animal makes about as much sense as getting angry at a rose bush. You're nuts if you get all emotional about a non-human life form.
Well, by extension, you endorse cruel and unusual punishment. Someone could do this to another vertebrate, say a dog, cat, or even a human just because no one is being forced to watch or listen.
Yes to "dog" and "cat", no to the rest.
Humans are special to other humans. Cows care about other cows (maybe), not humans. The same goes for any random species. Humans aren't special to lions; we're just dangerous food to them. Humans should matter to other humans because we are the same species.
The "cruel and unusual punishment" comment is just strange. You seem to personify these animals, giving them human-like value, but their lives are insignificant. It's creepy that you fail to value humans in a wholly different way.
Not that I agree with the current ideas regarding cruel and unusual punishment. If a pot grower goes to prison for a decade, he looses everything. (job, employability, wife, house, best years of life, etc.) It's much less cruel to give him a few weekends of waterboarding and electric shocks. At least that way he can keep his life in order.
Consider the guinea worm. It lives in your leg. It causes a festering wound that lets eggs drop out of you while you cool your sore in the water.
Consider that horrid thing (fluke?) that makes millions of Africans go blind.
Consider the botfly. It glues eggs to mosquitos. When those mosquitos land on you, the larvae immediately burrow into your skin. You get a giant maggot living in you. If it's near your ear, you can even hear it chewing.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, you don't really think he hired all those people because of some personal RIAA fetish, do you?
I'd bet on a front organization with a vague but nice-sounding name. It could be named something like "People for Democratic Change in America" or the "American Change 2008 Committee". This is the norm for fake grassroots fundraising and PR.
I don't recall news stories of him doing that sort of thing to the bigoted fucks he was now in control of.
Of course not. He became almost like them. South Africa is back to classifying people by skin color according to the apartheid scheme, and back to discriminating against people based on skin color. There are now plenty of white susistence farmers who lack proper nutrition and are unable to get the jobs reserved for black people.
This should remind you of Animal Farm or perhaps Lord of the Flies.
A new method of capital punishment had better surpass ancient and medieval imperial practices; it would be truly better if it also surpassed current methods.
How shall we judge this?
I'm torn between the desire to be cheap, and the desire for maximum deterrant value. Either way, current methods fall short of traditional methods.
Being cheap, we probably should strap them down and harvest organs. We let first-year surgical students practice. We test experimental drugs, surgery, and medical devices. Never purposely cause death; sooner or later it'll happen. The remains get used for biodiesel and fertilizer production. Call it "giving back to society". I think I like this option best, but...
For maximum deterrant value, we choose something painful and degrading that everybody finds to be horrifying and embarassing. Pay particular attention to religeous and sexual fears. You could inject pig blood, feed a person his own balls, convince vultures to start on him early, drown him in bodily waste, etc.
Did you have something else in mind? Would you prefer something expensive that lacks deterrent value? If so, why, and why even bother with punishment in that case?
So you agree about the wife, yet figure he had no influence over her?
Lots of people run things from prison. Leaders certainly don't have to personally do the dirty work. That's what goons are for.
I suppose if the shredder was really really slow, and you put a guy in feet first, it could be kind of bad. A decently fast shredder is no big deal.
Compare with burning at the stake. Compare with crucifixion. Compare with stoning. Compare with dunking. Compare with the necklace, which FYI was a burning gasoline-filled tire around the neck (hands tied or hacked off) that Nelson Mandela liked to use. Compare with what Vlad the Impaler used to do, driving greased poles into the torso via the anus. Compare with pressing.
Heck, compare with how most of us die in modern hospitals. We end up with chemotherapy, choking on fluid, with tubes rammed into every natural oriface and a few unnatural orifaces. We often suffer in agony for months.
Getting dropped into a shredder looks downright peaceful and kind by comparison, no?
Okay, so list the systems which are "B" Posix compliant. ie. ps ax shows all processes, while ps -ax only shows processes from user "x"
Huh?
It's "ps -aux" (identical to "ps -a -u x") that brings user "x" into the picture. Plain "ps -ax" (identical to "ps -a -x") has a "-x" option that POSIX does not define. POSIX allows "ps -ax" to be a usage error, but requires "ps -aux" to print processes for user "x".
OpenBSD's ps man page even admits to being non-POSIX, oddly right after claiming to be compliant. (WTF?)
Compare yourself:
Completely incompatible options include: -e -u
Missing options include: -A -d -f -G -g -n
Other problems are incorrect long ("-l") format, lack of support for multiple users with the -U option or multiple tty with the -t option, missing "etime" keyword... and I think I've abused the pitiful thing enough today.
Every single system that fails your expectations is POSIX-compliant. It goes together generally:
A. support "ps -ax", fail "ps -e", not POSIX compliant
B. fail "ps -ax", support "ps -e", POSIX compliant
Strictly speaking, a POSIX system need not support "ps -e" (for every process), but they all do anyway. Likewise, a POSIX system could support "ps -ax", but none actually do.
The bigger trouble is BSD's failure to interpret "ps -uwax" as asking for ps to print processes belonging to a user named "wax". FAIL.
The people who got the warning removed should pay for the earthquake damage.
Since people died, they should also be charged with homocide.
firstpost - posted first
troll - moderation ended with a max troll mod
flamebait - moderation ended with a max flamebait mod
goatse - posted a goatse link
blind - followed a goatse link
gone1week - survived 1 week w/o slashdot
gone1month - survived 1 month w/o slashdot
gone1year - survived 1 year w/o slashdot
storypassion - posted the most comments in a story
netcraft - explained why BSD is dying
Name more than one Unix system that follows that particular POSIX standard then.
OK, how about all of them? You can't use "ps -ax" on any real UNIX system. You fail on all these UNIX systems: IRIX, UnixWare, Solaris, HP-UX, Unicos, PowerMAXX. You also fail on OSF systems: Tru64, AIX. Finally, you fail on numerous other POSIX and UNIX-standard systems: Interix, Dynix/ptx, S/390 Open Edition. You're 100% FAIL.
And you've not bothered to list a single reason why gmake is supposedly superior, at all.
I'll list a few: working VPATH, eval, double dollar sign variables, pattern substitution, automatic restart when the makefile pulls in fresh generated makefile code, etc.
How about "ps -ax" bitching at you not to type the dash (which every other Unix system requires)
You're lucky that Linux accepts that standards violation at all. Try it on any real UNIX (Solaris, HP-UX, UnixWare, IRIX, etc.), and you won't get what you want.
The proper UNIX syntax to print every process is "ps -e". Woah, that doesn't even work on FreeBSD! Linux accepts it. Clearly, BSD is even less of a UNIX than Linux is.
IRIX and Solaris will simply reject "ps -ax". (the "-x" is not valid)
HP-UX will interpret "-x" as a request to extend the command line. It seems to be a sort of width option, or for showing command args.
UnixWare will interpret "-x" the same as "-y". This is a format modifier commonly used with "-l". It drops the useless FLAGS field and replaces the useless ADDR field with RSS.
AIX and Tru64 will reject your command too, though they are at least nice enough to accept it without the "-". Try "ps ax" and it'll work, but "ps -e" is really the proper way to issue your command.
Linux of course fully supports POSIX and UNIX behavior, unlike FreeBSD. If you leave off the "-" though, you can get BSD behavior too. You can even mix the options. What you're complaining about is a friendly reminder that Linux is making a DWIM-style guess to deal with unknown options that have POSIX/UNIX-style syntax but no POSIX/UNIX meaning.
Linux has been getting rid of old syscall emulation features. They are places where security holes can hide. (Got any? Sure?) A few years ago, the call gate (which handles the "far call" instruction) needed for full ibcs2 support got dropped from Linux. For a while though, syscall emulation support was extensive and growing. FreeBSD support almost made it in. Linux could do Solaris x86, SCO, Xenix, Solaris SPARC, OSF/1 for DEC Alpha, and many I've forgotten. System call emulation became much less interesting when all the database vendors suddenly ported to Linux and, for non-x86, when Netscape Navigator became Open Source.
BTW, the idea that FreeBSD has faster networking has been proven false many times. It's no different from the "insecure" reputation that Linux got back in the bad old days when Red Hat shipped with every possible obscure server enabled.
Excuses, excuses. It's not about ethics/ideology (and, BTW, I'm mostly in the Stallman camp on the freedom issue) but about ego. "GNU" is a name chosen by Stallman.
BTW, since I know you're thinking it, Linus did not name the OS after himself. Some FTP site admin in Finland did that, via the creation of a directory to hold the OS. In typical hacker fashion, Linus had chosen the truly dreadful name Freax for his OS.
Fact is, a group of people clustered around the kernel developers put the system together. Theodore T'so, a kernel developer who doesn't care for the "GNU/Linux" thing, is the person who made the mistake of building the first Linux install disk with GNU odds and ends rather than BSD odds and ends. He certainly couldn't predict that this would result in an aggressive and hostile campaign to rename the OS.
Unfortunately, the name is damn important. You can be sure that Microsoft and Apple put lots of effort into choosing marketable names. Linux is marketable. GNU is not very marketable; in English it is unpronouncable or bad-sounding. (sounding like guh-noo, noo, jee en yoo, etc.) The three-letter acronym looks technical and complicated before you even mention the recursion.
If Stallman's selfish renaming efforts have done anything related to software freedom, the result has been negative. Making the OS sound less friendly and approachable ensures that fewer people will end up running free software.
Yeah, we all know the excuses. Stallman even tries to excuse his lack of desire to credit X11 and so on, saying that X11 is part of his GNU system and thus credited by "GNU"!!!
Truth is, nothing irreplacable was provided by the GNU project. At the time when Linus was writing his kernel, the legal cloud hanging over BSD (AT+T lawsuit) only concerned the kernel. The BSD tools were perfectly suitable and ego-free.
Remember that even glibc and gcc were nothing special in 1991. The modern versions were built via the efforts of Linux hackers, including major funding from Red Hat. The FSF did not create what you see today. It is unjust for "them" (Stallman really) to be claiming much credit.
As for "fundamental" stuff like "cp" and "ls", well that's just trivial.
Flash keeps running in your browser after the first time it gets used, forever burning CPU time.
I've no doubt it keeps the sound device open, which is bad behavior. Flash may even be playing silence.
A big improvement would be to provide a user interface to let people see which device has claimed the audio. Users could then complain to the right place. Better yet, provide a way for users to disconnect bad software.
finally you linux fags will have something to chatter on about.
Excuse me? You have that backwards. Linux does not appear to have given consent:
http://www.cryptohax.com/humor%5Ctux.jpg
FreeBSD however...
FreeBSD fans created that image, but...
1. It shows that FreeBSD is gay.
2. It leaves no doubt why FreeBSD is represented by Satan.
Clearly, this is why we must stay away from FreeBSD.
So what is the part of the gnu userland that makes it important enough to use in the title of the OS?
Linux people have been asking that for years. Join the party!
It all comes down to a jealous man with an ego. At this point, I no longer even want to give him credit where he actually earned it.
My hardware, just some plain USB speakers, hasn't been reliable since the first day people started fucking around with audio. Plain old OSS worked very well.
Right now I can't even get audio at all. It has something to do with idiotic ALSA developers who explicitly prevent USB audio from being device 0, on the erroneous assumption that every computer MUST have non-USB audio and NOBODY would EVER want to use USB as a primary audio device.
So I guess that means software mixing doesn't work. Problem is, unmixed audio doesn't work either. ALSA sucks ass.
So I suffer in silence... literally.
Because you want to pause your music player and watch a youtube video someone linked you to?
Hey, I think that's great. The music player gets muted until the youtube video is done playing.
That's not what PulseAudio does. PulseAudio mixes, which is just retarded. It's adding latency and burning CPU time to make a hideous cacophony.
Even when not mixing, you suffer resampling error.
No thanks.
It really sucked when most of the users could never have more than one application using audio simultaneously.
I love that. Audio apps should not be stomping all over each other. If everything gets mixed together, it becomes a mess. I curse the fucking thing, and probably unplug the speakers.
BTW, two ways to do it: traditional (first app wins) and stack-based (second app wins, first app goes to /dev/null until the second app quits)
Thus my bug report: "audio from different apps gets jumbled together -- MAKE IT STOP!!!"
They damn well should be illegal, for safety reasons. I'm less likely to crash into you if I can see the brake lights of the car in front of you. Your eyes adjust to the light level of the windshield; all your other windows should match.
This also helps me to be more fuel efficient, because I can take my foot off the accelerator pedal earlier.
If you want to keep the heat out, you can do that with an invisible coating that only reflects IR and UV. A very thin layer of iridium-tin-oxide does nicely AFAIK, and also prevents you from stupidly yacking on your cell phone while trying to operate a vehicle.
People make heat-related excuses for tinted windows, but the real motivation is more related to aggression. It goes along with tall vehicles. People want to look into other cars, but not allow other people to look into their own. This primative urge is a safety hazard.
I'm fairly certain that would even be covered under animal cruelty laws.
Probably so, which is an injustice. If a cow is my property, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. (well, not being a public health nuisance spreading disease, but hacksawing is not a problem)
It's surely a sign of mental illness if you actually enjoy hacksawing the leg off a cow. One should be indifferent to the "suffering" of an animal, neither enjoying it nor being bothered by it. Hacksawing a cow is nothing like attacking a member of your own species. A cow is not human, just like a rose bush is not human. If you think a little pruning is called for, why not?
Likewise, getting angry at an animal makes about as much sense as getting angry at a rose bush. You're nuts if you get all emotional about a non-human life form.
Well, by extension, you endorse cruel and unusual punishment. Someone could do this to another vertebrate, say a dog, cat, or even a human just because no one is being forced to watch or listen.
Yes to "dog" and "cat", no to the rest.
Humans are special to other humans. Cows care about other cows (maybe), not humans. The same goes for any random species. Humans aren't special to lions; we're just dangerous food to them. Humans should matter to other humans because we are the same species.
The "cruel and unusual punishment" comment is just strange. You seem to personify these animals, giving them human-like value, but their lives are insignificant. It's creepy that you fail to value humans in a wholly different way.
Not that I agree with the current ideas regarding cruel and unusual punishment. If a pot grower goes to prison for a decade, he looses everything. (job, employability, wife, house, best years of life, etc.) It's much less cruel to give him a few weekends of waterboarding and electric shocks. At least that way he can keep his life in order.
Consider the guinea worm. It lives in your leg. It causes a festering wound that lets eggs drop out of you while you cool your sore in the water.
Consider that horrid thing (fluke?) that makes millions of Africans go blind.
Consider the botfly. It glues eggs to mosquitos. When those mosquitos land on you, the larvae immediately burrow into your skin. You get a giant maggot living in you. If it's near your ear, you can even hear it chewing.
Should researchers be able to take a hacksaw to the leg of a cow for whatever reason?
Provided that:
1. They own the cow, or have permission from the owner.
2. They aren't forcing other people to watch or listen.
Sure, why not? It's a cow.