The current SC decision is awful in light of the fact that the majority ruled that because a student-elected speaker might choose to use the platform to do something even remotely religious. Of course, the speaker could also simply read a poem, talk about the environment, or make an impassioned speech about homosexual rights. In none of the other cases would the school have been held culpable for the words spoken by an individual. The school had no control over what the stuent would say, and could therefore not even be held to tacitly endorsing the student's viewpoint.
The speaker could also make an impassioned speech about religion. No one's regulating what viewpoints can be expressed.
However, leading in the practice of religion is entirely another matter.
A brief excerpt: Mozart was never poor. He and his wife moved in an expensive set in an expensive city. The loans that he asked from Puchberg in 1788 were so that he could maintain his standard of living, certainly not so that he could keep starvation at bay.
Congratulations, you've joined the ranks of people who are so obsessed with going against the social grain that you are just as conformist as the people you criticise.
Nobody here wants the government getting involved in the Internet. Yet everybody wants the government involved in the software industry. (That makes sense. Since obviously the Internet doesn't use software.)
I think a better way to put it is that no one wants a big, powerful entity to control the internet OR software. If it's the government, then I oppose the government. If it's Microsoft and the government can help, than I would side with the lesser of two evils.
Everybody here values this forum's free speech, yet you take any well reasoned and factual comment which disagrees with/. mainstream and moderate it down to 0 as Overrated or Flamebait. But a posting of "Linus kicks Bills sorry ass yadda yadda yadda" gets a 5, for being Informative.
You know, it's become fashionable to claim this, as if people who do are more enlightened than the rest of us. But frankly I can't see examples of it. Dissenting opinions are moderated up ALL THE TIME, and thoughtless Linux advocacy is almost always modded down. I challenge you to cite some specific wrongly moderated messages if you're going to get on your high horse and claim that we're all guilty of tunnel vision.
Fuck moderation points, I'm just getting warmed up!
I love this reverse psychology game, where you try and make the moderators believe that if they don't mod you up that they're bigoted or something.
OPEN SOURCE! OPEN SOURCE! I won't run Windows because it's not open source! But let me haul ass to CompUSA to buy my closed-source copy of Diablo II and WordPerfect 2000.
Few people claim that there's no place for commercial, closed-source software. It's just preferable when there's an open-source alternative.
There's no fragmentation in the Linux world!! Nooo!!! But don't run that program, because it requires Xfree 32.2353, but it only comes standard with Red Hat 8.3. [....]
Show me who claims Linux is perfect. I'll show you who doesn't get taken seriously.
But in the meantime, I sit here on my debian box and apt-get almost ANY open source software package and watch it download and install all deps and everything. Show me an equivalent in the windows world.
Hey assholes, how about fixing the damn bug that crashes Netscape every ten minutes?
That's not realy possible. Because Netscape isn't open source. Oh, the irony...
Who else can I piss off? A big FUCK YOU goes out to all of you penguin fuckers who cum when you see Linux ported to fucking digital watches.
I think you're missing the point. When you get together with your buddies and write an full operating system complete with thousands of software packages, which only by virtue of its merit (there sure as hell isn't any marketing) manages to rival the market share and mind share that Linux has, then you can sit around and criticize the open source community. But until then, you're full of hot air. A rebel without a cause, I think they say...
You are not allowed to vary the spelling, add or delete hyphens (even for normal hyphenation at the end of a line of text), make one word two, or use a possessive or plural form of the Marks.
Apogeee.
Apo gee.
Apogees.
Apogee's.
Apo-gee.
:-)
Waiting for the e-mail from the big, bad lawyers...
Re:Cool... is this the modernized Amiga?
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
Personally, I love the PHP documentation. It's concise and to the point--I rarely spend more than 15 seconds finding exactly the information I'm looking for, because it's so logically laid out, and if it takes any longer than that, I just grep for it.
It's not a tutorial, it's not an introduction, it's not a style guide or a talking paper clip. It tells you exactly as much as you need to know if you understand the basic idea of what server-side scripting is but never heard of PHP.
And if you've ever programmed in C, you'll find that you rarely have to look at the syntax portion of the manual at all. One read through should do the trick, once you've finished ooh-ing and aah-ing at all the high-level things you're allowed to do...:-)
In that case, what's the point of the liability releases you sign when you do anything dangerous? And the permission slips parents have to sign for kids to go on field trips?
What interesting tidbits the previously linked page presents!
As a general rule for CD-Rs, if the CD-R recorder is a stand-alone machine designed to copy primarily audio, rather than data or video, then the copying is allowed. If the CD-R recorder is a computer component, or a computer peripheral device designed to be a multi-purpose recorder (in other words, if it will record data and video as well as audio), then copying is not allowed.
This is remarkable. The fact that my CD-R has the capability to record data and video makes it illegal to use it to copy CDs. However, a completely identical copy, created by a CD-R without the ability to record data and video, is illegal.
But of course the RIAA has a perfectly understandable explanation for all this!
Under the Audio Home Recording Act, the manufacturers of some types of digital recorders pay a modest royalty to partially compensate the artists, record companies and music publishers hurt through unauthorized copying.
I see. So every time I buy a component-based CD-R, I'm putting money in the RIAA's pocket. In that case, if I've already paid them royalties because they assume I'll make illegal copies of CD's, I might as well have something to show for the royalties I've paid. Anything less would shatter the RIAA's implicit expectations.
These devices also incorporate technology to prevent what is known as serial copying, that is, second and higher generation copies.
Great, so now if my original is scratched beyond repair, my backup is useless to create further backups.
The RIAA's message is clear: we'll grant you the "privilege" of fair use, but only on our terms. Read it and weep, because there's nothing you can do about it.
It's in that banner, at the top of each page, the one I always ignore...
Everyone has an idea for a cool new gadget. Why should you get free exposure on one of the most popular news sites on the net, when everyone else has to pay for it?
If you'd have read the headline, or even better, the article itself, it's not legitimizing spam, it's condemning spam sent by legitimate (ie. well-known) companies.
Quoting from the article itself:
A growing number of companies are using e-mail for direct marketing. These aren't fly-by-night spammers with get-rich-quick schemes or steaming come-ons to hot sex sites. No, these are legitimate businesses --companies that think they have the right to send me unsolicited mail simply because they have my e-mail address.
I wish that people posting stories would engage in the follow-up dialogue. I'd really appreciate seeing ESR responding to the reasonable accusations that this is innacurate, FUD, etc...
Especially as one who trumpets the virtues of open source, I think ESR should see the value in dialogue between peers, as opposed to a celebrity posting an article on the front page of Slashdot and then retiring back to the 10th floor of the Hilton.
There are many figures who are known for posting comments on stories by or about them. John Carmack, Mandrake, RedHat, Bruce Perens, I'm sure there are more. This is good. I only wish it were more common.
Even if not, every ISP acceptable use policy I have seen, has some clause in it to that effect.
Mainly for Public Image(tm) and legal liability, both issues which would be moot under the Freenet system, mainly because:
I understand Freenet data is encrypted, supposedly to free the sysop from "knowingly" making transmissions.
No quotation marks or playing dumb will be required. If you'd have read the FAQ, you would have read that:
One of the design goals was to make it impossible to locate the exact place where any piece of information is stored. Even a server operator cannot determine what is stored at his own node.
That's right, there's no way to know what you're serving to the world. And that's why you can't (or shouldn't, IANAL) be held liable. Even if the cops bust in and seize your server, they have nothing on you, because they have no way of knowing what's on it.
If all the technology works as planned, of course...
Oh, yes, I think there should be no more tying. IE should be separate, and so should the office stuff.
I was just pondering the implications of that statement... does that mean Be would no longer be able to ship NetPositive (their web browser), sound recorder, CD burner, etc. with the OS? Or would the ruling apply only Microsoft because they were the ones guilty of predatory marketing?
As a side note, something fishy's going on: as of right now, not one moderation has been performed on this story... please say it's not another April Fool's Joke(tm)
Re:More money = better grade at the end?
on
Laptop Exams?
·
· Score: 3
What about the fact that 99% of people out there can't afford laptops, or who could only afford a much less reliable laptop than others?
Surely until such time as everyone could afford a suitable laptop, or the school were prepared to provide the laptops, then this would be an extremely discriminatory practice?
We have a similar situation in my calculus class. 3 or 4 of us have TI-89s that will integrate or differentiate almost anything, which makes taking tests a matter of button pushing. I personally work everything out on pencil and paper and check myself with the calculator, but some don't.
It's unfair, but at the same time, why is it important to know how to do everything by hand if you know how to make a machine do it for you? You don't have to memorize the periodic table because you can look at it, you don't have to draw graphs by plotting (x,y) coordinates because a calculator will do it for you, and you don't have to spend hours memorizing regular expression syntax because you have your "Perl in a Nutshell" book on the desk, and you'll memorize eventually by doing anyway.
I think the ability to find information is going to become much more important than being able to memorize it. There's far too much out there to be able to know it all, and the people who will excel are the people who know where to find information they need in short order.
Unfortunately, I agree that this will widen the rich-poor gap in education. However I think this is an inherent fault of technology and its associated cost; it would be counterproductive to fight it, and turn out students who do everything the old-fashioned way because some people couldn't afford the tools to make it easier. You could hardly voice your support for a woodworking class that used only non-electric tools because not everyone could afford jigsaws and drills.
IMO, you DON'T have to love classical music to enjoy this movie (though it would surely help). The animation itself is very entertaining, with the exception of maybe two of the sequences that lose their appeal several minutes in.
My favorite was the Raphsody in Blue. It's the story of several people in a large city who are, well, blue. The animation is fantastic and entertaining to watch. Another sequence I liked very much depicted a flamingo playing with a yo-yo, getting himself into trouble with the other flamingos. I was laughing through the whole thing.
If you get the chance, I'd really have to recommend seeing this film. It's lighthearted, beautiful to look at, and a great way to show everyone how cultured you are!:-)
It was also interesting to note that James Levine, the conductor for most (all?) of the sequences, was the same James Levine I sang Mahler's 8th for in Philadelphia a few years ago (with the choir I was in at the time). During rehersals he always draped a towel over his shoulder--he was a sweaty one...:-)
I think the big difference is that a remotely controllably agent could be much more covertly used. If some terrorist went and unloaded a biological weapon in a New York subway, people are dead and that's that. But if it can be remotely controlled, and a living person literally has their life on the line, the hypothetical "bad guy" with his finger on the big red button... no one would ever know.
I'm not usually one to cry wolf everytime a new technology is introduced, but this is scary.
The article says "By controlling the chip with a computer, scientists say they can control the activity of the cell." Complete control over a cell's activities. Do you all remember the X-Files where Skinner is "infected" with cells that the bad guy can control remotely? At will, the person in control could cause these foreign cells to clot all his blood vessels.
I'm certainly no biologist, but stuff like this doesn't seem too far off if we can "control a cell's activities."
We've handled possibly dangerous technological advances before. People don't routinely detonate nuclear weapons today, even though they've been around for 50 years. But how will society manage this kind of technology responsibly? How can we protect ourselves against possible bioterrorists?
If I have a personal agenda, it's seeing good discussion.
The way it stands right now, people who include something to the effect of "I'll get moderated down for saying this" almost invariably get moderated up, regardless of the actual quality of the comment. This degrades from the quality of discussion for two reasons:
Comments that aren't neccesarily good get moderated up
People victimize themselves whenever they have an unpopular opinion, trying to evoke sympathy for their cause. Like I said, good opinions should be able to stand on their own two feet.
Also, in case you care, in the past when I've been a moderator I've moderated down EXTREMELY infrequently. The only posts I've EVER moderated down are "first posters" and blatant trolls. I wouldn't moderate a post that actually says something lower than 1. What I WOULD moderate down are posts that have gotten moderated up to 3 or 4 simply because they knew how to manipulate moderators' feelings.
While we're griping, let me tell you about something that I'M sick of: whining about how sure you are you'll get moderated down, as a cheap shot at evoking the sympathy of the moderators.
From now on, whenever I'm a moderator, I'll specifically look for people who think they can buy a few karma points by making themselves look like martyrs for their opinions and I will moderate them down, like they supposedly expect to be anyway.
If you have an insightful comment to make, the least you can do is let it get moderated up by virtue of its thoughtfulness, without having to resort to begging.
Slashdot Mirror
what's to prevent someone from registering massive numbers of likely domain names, and rendering the whole TLD useless?
The current SC decision is awful in light of the fact that the majority ruled that because a student-elected speaker might choose to use the platform to do something even remotely religious. Of course, the speaker could also simply read a poem, talk about the environment, or make an impassioned speech about homosexual rights. In none of the other cases would the school have been held culpable for the words spoken by an individual. The school had no control over what the stuent would say, and could therefore not even be held to tacitly endorsing the student's viewpoint.
The speaker could also make an impassioned speech about religion. No one's regulating what viewpoints can be expressed.
However, leading in the practice of religion is entirely another matter.
Mozart died broke.
Actually, no. Check out The Pauper Myth
A brief excerpt: Mozart was never poor. He and his wife moved in an expensive set in an expensive city. The loans that he asked from Puchberg in 1788 were so that he could maintain his standard of living, certainly not so that he could keep starvation at bay.
Congratulations, you've joined the ranks of people who are so obsessed with going against the social grain that you are just as conformist as the people you criticise.
/. mainstream and moderate it down to 0 as Overrated or Flamebait. But a posting of "Linus kicks Bills sorry ass yadda yadda yadda" gets a 5, for being Informative.
Nobody here wants the government getting involved in the Internet. Yet everybody wants the government involved in the software industry. (That makes sense. Since obviously the Internet doesn't use software.)
I think a better way to put it is that no one wants a big, powerful entity to control the internet OR software. If it's the government, then I oppose the government. If it's Microsoft and the government can help, than I would side with the lesser of two evils.
Everybody here values this forum's free speech, yet you take any well reasoned and factual comment which disagrees with
You know, it's become fashionable to claim this, as if people who do are more enlightened than the rest of us. But frankly I can't see examples of it. Dissenting opinions are moderated up ALL THE TIME, and thoughtless Linux advocacy is almost always modded down. I challenge you to cite some specific wrongly moderated messages if you're going to get on your high horse and claim that we're all guilty of tunnel vision.
Fuck moderation points, I'm just getting warmed up!
I love this reverse psychology game, where you try and make the moderators believe that if they don't mod you up that they're bigoted or something.
OPEN SOURCE! OPEN SOURCE! I won't run Windows because it's not open source! But let me haul ass to CompUSA to buy my closed-source copy of Diablo II and WordPerfect 2000.
Few people claim that there's no place for commercial, closed-source software. It's just preferable when there's an open-source alternative.
There's no fragmentation in the Linux world!! Nooo!!! But don't run that program, because it requires Xfree 32.2353, but it only comes standard with Red Hat 8.3. [....]
Show me who claims Linux is perfect. I'll show you who doesn't get taken seriously.
But in the meantime, I sit here on my debian box and apt-get almost ANY open source software package and watch it download and install all deps and everything. Show me an equivalent in the windows world.
Hey assholes, how about fixing the damn bug that crashes Netscape every ten minutes?
That's not realy possible. Because Netscape isn't open source. Oh, the irony...
Who else can I piss off? A big FUCK YOU goes out to all of you penguin fuckers who cum when you see Linux ported to fucking digital watches.
I think you're missing the point. When you get together with your buddies and write an full operating system complete with thousands of software packages, which only by virtue of its merit (there sure as hell isn't any marketing) manages to rival the market share and mind share that Linux has, then you can sit around and criticize the open source community. But until then, you're full of hot air. A rebel without a cause, I think they say...
I love this one:
You are not allowed to vary the spelling, add or delete hyphens (even for normal hyphenation at the end of a line of text), make one word two, or use a possessive or plural form of the Marks.
Apogeee.
Apo gee.
Apogees.
Apogee's.
Apo-gee.
:-)
Waiting for the e-mail from the big, bad lawyers...
Wouldn't it now?
And since we're proponents of choice...
I'd like to clarify that although we are rather (in)famous for potatoes, let me assure you that all our web servers run on 100% electricity.
:-)
We Idahoans learn quickly that we have to be sure and beat potential antagonists to the inevitable potato crack.
Personally, I love the PHP documentation. It's concise and to the point--I rarely spend more than 15 seconds finding exactly the information I'm looking for, because it's so logically laid out, and if it takes any longer than that, I just grep for it.
:-)
It's not a tutorial, it's not an introduction, it's not a style guide or a talking paper clip. It tells you exactly as much as you need to know if you understand the basic idea of what server-side scripting is but never heard of PHP.
And if you've ever programmed in C, you'll find that you rarely have to look at the syntax portion of the manual at all. One read through should do the trick, once you've finished ooh-ing and aah-ing at all the high-level things you're allowed to do...
In that case, what's the point of the liability releases you sign when you do anything dangerous? And the permission slips parents have to sign for kids to go on field trips?
I've had this problem for quite some time... haven't you noticed how we're continually reminded about Jon Katz's "recent" Hellmouth articles?
What interesting tidbits the previously linked page presents!
As a general rule for CD-Rs, if the CD-R recorder is
a stand-alone machine designed to copy primarily audio, rather than data or video, then the copying is allowed. If the CD-R recorder is a computer component, or a computer peripheral device designed to be a multi-purpose recorder (in other words, if it will record data and video as well as audio), then copying is not allowed.
This is remarkable. The fact that my CD-R has the capability to record data and video makes it illegal to use it to copy CDs. However, a completely identical copy, created by a CD-R without the ability to record data and video, is illegal.
But of course the RIAA has a perfectly understandable explanation for all this!
Under the Audio Home Recording Act, the manufacturers of some types of digital recorders pay a modest royalty to partially compensate the artists, record companies and music publishers hurt through unauthorized copying.
I see. So every time I buy a component-based CD-R, I'm putting money in the RIAA's pocket. In that case, if I've already paid them royalties because they assume I'll make illegal copies of CD's, I might as well have something to show for the royalties I've paid. Anything less would shatter the RIAA's implicit expectations.
These devices also incorporate technology to prevent what is known as serial copying, that is, second and higher generation copies.
Great, so now if my original is scratched beyond repair, my backup is useless to create further backups.
The RIAA's message is clear: we'll grant you the "privilege" of fair use, but only on our terms. Read it and weep, because there's nothing you can do about it.
It's in that banner, at the top of each page, the one I always ignore...
Everyone has an idea for a cool new gadget. Why should you get free exposure on one of the most popular news sites on the net, when everyone else has to pay for it?
If you'd have read the headline, or even better, the article itself, it's not legitimizing spam, it's condemning spam sent by legitimate (ie. well-known) companies.
Quoting from the article itself:
A growing number of companies are using e-mail for direct marketing. These aren't fly-by-night spammers with get-rich-quick schemes or steaming come-ons to hot sex sites. No, these are legitimate businesses --companies that think they have the right to send me unsolicited mail simply because they have my e-mail address.
Mr. Garfinkel agrees with you.
I wish that people posting stories would engage in the follow-up dialogue. I'd really appreciate seeing ESR responding to the reasonable accusations that this is innacurate, FUD, etc...
Especially as one who trumpets the virtues of open source, I think ESR should see the value in dialogue between peers, as opposed to a celebrity posting an article on the front page of Slashdot and then retiring back to the 10th floor of the Hilton.
There are many figures who are known for posting comments on stories by or about them. John Carmack, Mandrake, RedHat, Bruce Perens, I'm sure there are more. This is good. I only wish it were more common.
Even if not, every ISP acceptable use policy I have
seen, has some clause in it to that effect.
Mainly for Public Image(tm) and legal liability, both issues which would be moot under the Freenet system, mainly because:
I understand Freenet data is encrypted, supposedly to free the sysop from "knowingly" making
transmissions.
No quotation marks or playing dumb will be required. If you'd have read the FAQ, you would have read that:
One of the design goals was to make it impossible to locate the exact place where any
piece of information is stored. Even a server operator cannot determine what is stored at his own node.
That's right, there's no way to know what you're serving to the world. And that's why you can't (or shouldn't, IANAL) be held liable. Even if the cops bust in and seize your server, they have nothing on you, because they have no way of knowing what's on it.
If all the technology works as planned, of course...
Oh, yes, I think there should be no more tying. IE should be separate, and so should the office stuff.
I was just pondering the implications of that statement... does that mean Be would no longer be able to ship NetPositive (their web browser), sound recorder, CD burner, etc. with the OS? Or would the ruling apply only Microsoft because they were the ones guilty of predatory marketing?
As a side note, something fishy's going on: as of right now, not one moderation has been performed on this story... please say it's not another April Fool's Joke(tm)
What about the fact that 99% of people out there can't afford laptops, or who could only afford a much less reliable laptop than others?
Surely until such time as everyone could afford a suitable laptop, or the school were prepared to provide the laptops, then this would be an extremely discriminatory practice?
We have a similar situation in my calculus class. 3 or 4 of us have TI-89s that will integrate or differentiate almost anything, which makes taking tests a matter of button pushing. I personally work everything out on pencil and paper and check myself with the calculator, but some don't.
It's unfair, but at the same time, why is it important to know how to do everything by hand if you know how to make a machine do it for you? You don't have to memorize the periodic table because you can look at it, you don't have to draw graphs by plotting (x,y) coordinates because a calculator will do it for you, and you don't have to spend hours memorizing regular expression syntax because you have your "Perl in a Nutshell" book on the desk, and you'll memorize eventually by doing anyway.
I think the ability to find information is going to become much more important than being able to memorize it. There's far too much out there to be able to know it all, and the people who will excel are the people who know where to find information they need in short order.
Unfortunately, I agree that this will widen the rich-poor gap in education. However I think this is an inherent fault of technology and its associated cost; it would be counterproductive to fight it, and turn out students who do everything the old-fashioned way because some people couldn't afford the tools to make it easier. You could hardly voice your support for a woodworking class that used only non-electric tools because not everyone could afford jigsaws and drills.
IMO, you DON'T have to love classical music to enjoy this movie (though it would surely help). The animation itself is very entertaining, with the exception of maybe two of the sequences that lose their appeal several minutes in.
:-)
:-)
My favorite was the Raphsody in Blue. It's the story of several people in a large city who are, well, blue. The animation is fantastic and entertaining to watch. Another sequence I liked very much depicted a flamingo playing with a yo-yo, getting himself into trouble with the other flamingos. I was laughing through the whole thing.
If you get the chance, I'd really have to recommend seeing this film. It's lighthearted, beautiful to look at, and a great way to show everyone how cultured you are!
It was also interesting to note that James Levine, the conductor for most (all?) of the sequences, was the same James Levine I sang Mahler's 8th for in Philadelphia a few years ago (with the choir I was in at the time). During rehersals he always draped a towel over his shoulder--he was a sweaty one...
I think the big difference is that a remotely controllably agent could be much more covertly used. If some terrorist went and unloaded a biological weapon in a New York subway, people are dead and that's that. But if it can be remotely controlled, and a living person literally has their life on the line, the hypothetical "bad guy" with his finger on the big red button... no one would ever know.
I'm not usually one to cry wolf everytime a new technology is introduced, but this is scary.
The article says "By controlling the chip with a computer, scientists say they can control the activity of the cell." Complete control over a cell's activities. Do you all remember the X-Files where Skinner is "infected" with cells that the bad guy can control remotely? At will, the person in control could cause these foreign cells to clot all his blood vessels.
I'm certainly no biologist, but stuff like this doesn't seem too far off if we can "control a cell's activities."
We've handled possibly dangerous technological advances before. People don't routinely detonate nuclear weapons today, even though they've been around for 50 years. But how will society manage this kind of technology responsibly? How can we protect ourselves against possible bioterrorists?
Java, after the hype (Score:6, Interesting)
...
Moderation Totals:Interesting=6, Total=6.
The way it stands right now, people who include something to the effect of "I'll get moderated down for saying this" almost invariably get moderated up, regardless of the actual quality of the comment. This degrades from the quality of discussion for two reasons:
Also, in case you care, in the past when I've been a moderator I've moderated down EXTREMELY infrequently. The only posts I've EVER moderated down are "first posters" and blatant trolls. I wouldn't moderate a post that actually says something lower than 1. What I WOULD moderate down are posts that have gotten moderated up to 3 or 4 simply because they knew how to manipulate moderators' feelings.
LOL I've had that happen before. Just when you think you've outsmarted SLASH, it turns out they were one step ahead of you all along...
While we're griping, let me tell you about something that I'M sick of: whining about how sure you are you'll get moderated down, as a cheap shot at evoking the sympathy of the moderators.
From now on, whenever I'm a moderator, I'll specifically look for people who think they can buy a few karma points by making themselves look like martyrs for their opinions and I will moderate them down, like they supposedly expect to be anyway.
If you have an insightful comment to make, the least you can do is let it get moderated up by virtue of its thoughtfulness, without having to resort to begging.
Pronounciation. I'm finally figuring out how all this stuff is pronounced!
procmail = [prok-mail]
Loki = [low-key]
Slashdot admins = [sur-fur doods]