Americans have offered their lives over and over again to ensure that such a government shall not perish from the earth.
Indeed they did. And then, still flushed from the radioactive ash of the big war for democracy, happily set up a military-industrial-diplomatic classification system which is causing such a government to perish from the earth.
Not sure where we go from here, but it's a bit of a head-scratcher. If Star Wars were a WW2 analogy, the fictional equivalent of real-world Cold War history would have the Rebel Alliance immediately building a bigger Death Star of their own to make sure that Alderaan would never happen again.
And much later, when Bakura refuses to allow Death Star "Han Solo" to be parked in orbit, there'd be bitter complaints in the Galactic Senate about "not pulling yer bloody weight, mate", but then it would turn out that the Prime Minister of Proudly Superweapon Free Bakura was secretly sending Republican Stormtroopers into Afgha - er, Kashyykk to assassinate Chewbacca, and meanwhile R2D2 has gone rogue and is leaking Republic diplomatic holocrons all over the Holonet and is on the run from a cybernetic harrassment suit from C3PO involving inappropriate use of a restraining bolt...
What about secret negotiations with a government who doesn't want to publicly take actions to pressure a rogue state (say, China and North Korea?).
Yes, what about this kind of outright lying to the international commuity? It's not suddenly magically morally better just because it's the USA who's doing it.
If you want to put diplomatic pressure on another sovereign state to take some kind of action that their own citizens don't want them to do - well, good luck with that. Ask them. Let them choose. Don't lie about it.
Or at least, if you want to be the Evil Empire, go ahead and coerce other states and lie about it. But don't pretend that you're spreading freedom and democracy when you're using methods which are the exact definitiona opposites of those.
If you're a dictatorship? Certainly not, since you never made any promises to involve the public in public policymaking.
But if you're a democracy? Yes, I'd say it is very hypocritical to withhold important information about the making of public policy from the public who are supposed to be making that policy, if you withhold it for longer than one electoral cycle (two years in the case of the USA).
If your diplomats have the power either to enter into binding treaties which affect domestic policy, or to conduct offshore military operations undeclared as wars, then it seems like classifying everything they do allows these guys to override open democratic legislation almost at will. And that's a huge problem even if the secrets are revealed almost immediately - for example, if you invaded a foreign nation on false pretenses, you've just burned your nation's international credibility (and directly put, for example, your domestic population in danger if they travel) - even if the people later find out that you lied.
But it's far worse if these documents stay classified for more than an electoral cycle, because then the public are voting and voting again based on incorrect beliefs about what their elected leaders are doing. At this point, they're simply not involved in the policymaking loop at all, and the ritual of voting becomes nothing more than a thin propaganda sham. The diplomats are the ones who now hold the real power and will not offer it back to public judgement until the classification expires.
Yes, states have made wars and treaties in secret for millenia. But the hypocrisy only comes from states who do this claiming they're democratic, when in fact they're nothing of the kind.
His issue has very little to do with "intentionally choosing to stay uninformed", or "subversive literature". It's more a matter of the way the law handles security clearances.
It's probably impolite to say this to the parent poster, but I can't think of a polite way, so:
If working in a job that requires a security clearance forces you to remain uninformed about things you should really know about, don't you have moral qualms about why you are still working in that job? Have you considered that by continuing to hold a clearance and abide by its demands, you might actually be part of the problem, and objectively making the world a worse place by your efforts?
Do you actually need to be helping shore up the National Security State?
There's a time for just sitting down and taking the crap, and there's also a time for saying "sorry, but I can't continue to be part of this program, it's not what I signed on for". If all the geeks in America refused to hold a clearance any more, maybe some actual change toward freedom would occur in your country.
Or you could continue to just let the slide into fascism happen, and get paid to help it happen. Your call really, I guess.
That character was pretty darn awesome. I was cheering for the Colonel when he ran outside without a facemask to shoot our hero.
I didn't feel like he was a villain so much as just a guy who understood what it took to survive on Pandora more than most, and did his best against impossible odds for what he believed in, which just happened to be the losing side, but he still got the kind of heroic death in battle which he deserved.
The protagonists in Avatar are all scientists. They go on to win the day.
By punching people in the face with dinosaurs.
(and carefully observing the results, while previously observing the results of not punching the same person in the face with the same dinosaur, and then forming and publishing a hypothesis to the effect that punching people in the face with dinosaurs is AWESOME).
Or you use Ubuntu One, where the name of the service *is* the advertising. 2GB free, Android and iOS clients, Mac and Windows clients coming soon.
And no encryption, so all your personal data (including Evolution contacts) is neatly there in cleartext on Canonical's servers.
But they'll never do anything bad with that, even if someone gives them a billion dollars to. 'Cause Mark Shuttleworth flew in space, so he can now never lie to anyone or his brain will explode.
MobileMe is "expensive" (by which we mean $99 a year) precisely because it has no ads and doesn't vend your personal information to third parties.
This argument always confuses me.
Is there any particular required logical disjunction between "take money from subscribers, telling them their data is private" and "also take money from unscrupulous third parties in exchange for the subscribers' supposedly private data"?
I mean, other than "nice guys wouldn't do that, and I just have to assume my cloud provider is nice otherwise they wouldn't be still in business"?
Cable TV companies have no problem with both taking money from subscribers AND taking money from advertisers. Now inserting ads into a video stream, that's obvious. But selling data? You can do that secretly and privately and the subscriber need never know. Just a magical extra income stream.
Basically, once I give my data to a cloud provider, if I didn't encrypt it first at my end, who's to know and stop them from doing whatever the heck they feel like with that data? No technological means that I know of, and the whole purpose of Cloud Computing seems to be to obscure the inner workings of my provider so I can only rust, and can't verify.
But it seems to be that in the rest of the business world, all sorts of scungy dealing goes on with outsourced providers, like exploitative labour used to make iPods and melamine in the milk. Are cloud computing providers magically going to be more trustworthy than the rest? Especially when there's a big financial incentive to not keep my data private, and no way for me to know if they haven't?
This is why I fundamentally don't trust the Cloud - yet. No technological guarantees that a contract isn't broken, and a lot of perverse incentives to do so. That seems like a no-brainer "avoid" to me.
Like I said, corner cases. Your examples are one time setups or poor design; but still, good examples for the corner cases.
When the corner cases outnumber the "standard" cases, are they still exceptions?
Hate to break it to you, but most of business computing is about corner cases strung together with Visual Basic, and good luck if you have any of the source code any more. And when any single piece of that icky stringy web breaks, the whole business potentialy grinds to a halt.
It's certainly not the way computing should be, but it's how it is right now.
If I have a guarantee that nobody knows who I am when I say something then it follows that I have a guarantee that nobody can do anything to me because of what I said.
You also have a guarantee that if nobody knows who you are, then nobody will want to listen to you or provide you any support. And in a complex technological society, it's difficult to live entirely alone. Heck, if you completely socially isolate yourself, you go mad - that's why solitary confinement is considered torture.
The only reason we trust people is because they build up a reputation over time. Unfortunately, reputation is a double-edged sword: it means that what you do and say has consequences. That's kind of the point, though - people generally don't like hanging out with people who aren't willing to stand behind their words and actions, because perfect consequence-freedom tends to breed irresponsibility.
tldr: perfect anonymity is what a lot of people think they want, but isn't.
If we went back to airlines handling security, the market would handle any rogue airline that required the security people to make people choose between groping and naked scanners.
Yes, the market would "handle" that situation by creating cheap and unregulated airlines who did no security checking, insufficient maintenance, became the preferred air travel providers of criminals of all kinds, and often fell out of the sky and killed people. You'd get exactly what you paid for, but they'd be cheap, and yay freedom.
And then a perfectly the market would "handle" the resulting fear and anger and grief from the survivors by creating armed "air forces" which would proceed to negotiate aggressively with its competitors using high-velocity projectiles. Eventually a monopoly of force-provider would emerge from the smoking wreckage. Congratulations, the free market has just reinvented the idea of "war", "state" and "government", only about 5,000 years late.
The market metaphor can be stretched to cover any situation, which makes it vacuous in the same sense that "A=A" is. It's trivially "true" to say that "the market will sort it out", because a market is just a slow-scale and discreet war of all against all. The problem is that the most price-efficient means the market chooses to sort things out often are hostile to life, liberty and happiness, things we have actually learned to value higher than the mere existence of trade. And we've learned in the last few millennia that there we can often get better results out of markets if we optimise them centrally, restricting some freedoms in exchange for happiness, than just letting them turn into all-out full-scale wars.
We also have the capability to build security-exploit-free Internet-facing consumer software, and look how that turned out.
I'm not optimistic that the same class of executives who gave us Internet Explorer and Enron will magically become safety focused at the cost of short-term margins when they turn their profit-radar back towards nuclear power.
Re:net zero; +1 MS -1 for MS
on
New IE Zero Day
·
· Score: 1
If the code path is randomized in anyway these developers get all flustered. None of them would invest in writing sanity check and audit methods.
How did the software industry get to the point where it's legal to not have sanity checks in today's hostile Internet environment? If the building industry had a similar standard of construction, millions of people would be dead and there would be lynchings.
I presume the answer has something to do with the secrecy of proprietary software development and that it's impractical to enforce any kind of standards compliance, especially when many software 'standards' only exist as bugs-and-all implementations? But I'm very disappointed in the state of open source development, too. We're still getting monthly security patches in Linux.
The reality of the Internet security environment is, if you have to patch anything after you release, you're doing it so wrong it's criminal. There should be tools that scan code to detect security flaws before release - and if these tools do not currently exist, they must be written. Because the bad guys are already doing it, with fuzzers and such, so how can it possibly be mathematically impossible for the good guys to do it?
One could make the argument that "oh, the Halting Problem and Russell's Paradox show that it's impossible to mathematically prove that any code does what it should without running it". But that seems both lazy and scary to me. Think about the implications of that claim. Do we want a globally linked computer system where it's mathematically possible for undetectable coding errors to exist, if we're going to give this computer system the kind of control over our lives and businesses that it already has? Because if it's mathematically possible for exploits to occur, on the scale of the Internet it is a statistical certainty that they will. We haven't given sufficient thought, as a civilisation, to what that means, in my opinion. We're building and networking software systems under the assumption that either they always work perfectly, or that we can always reliably detect their failure and route around.
If it turns out that that's NOT the case - that it's not just possible to write buggy software, but that it's provably IMPOSSIBLE to write NON-buggy software, and provably IMPOSSIBLE to detect and correct when software components run amok - and that the consequences of even the smallest security-critical bug in financial code could, say, crash the economies of small countries - then wow, maybe we should let's just scale back this Internet thing until we understand just how bad the inevitable disaster is going to be, and stock up on some bottled water and beans.
Re:Okay, here's a question ...
on
New IE Zero Day
·
· Score: 1
We live in a highly specialised society. You can be highly intelligent and still not know squat about something you use in your everyday like.
While that is no doubt true, I'm wondering what happens to an advanced global technological society based on such high specialisation and the resulting relative general ignorance when it is combined with a rising level of cynical anti-social manipulation that leaves anyone not a domain expert in any given domain, wide open to fraud and abuse from 99% of the rest of a 7 billion person planet.
Guess we're going to find out real soon! Won't that be fun!
Re:Okay, here's a question ...
on
New IE Zero Day
·
· Score: 1
prosthelytizing nerd squads going door-to-door
Those would be people who aggressively evangelise the replacement of body parts, right?
"Mom! The Jaime Sommers Witnesses are here again! Do we wanna buy an H+ Magazine?"
I keep hearing people blame this shit on the lawyers, but I just don't buy it. Lawyers don't have 100% say in whether a company sues another company for patent infringement.
Lawyers don't sue people. People with lawyers sue people. You'll take my lawyer when you pry him/her from my cold dead HR department. If laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws.
USA! USA! USA! *
* Void where prohibited. All rights reserved. If symptoms persist lobby a Senator. USA (tm) is a registered trademark of United Suits Association, LLC and its use does not constitute endorsement of product. Do not taunt happy fun lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps it should be rephrased as "no misconduct that surprises anyone who's been paying attention for the last century or two"
What's more surprising to me is how many people haven't been paying attention.
Americans have offered their lives over and over again to ensure that such a government shall not perish from the earth.
Indeed they did. And then, still flushed from the radioactive ash of the big war for democracy, happily set up a military-industrial-diplomatic classification system which is causing such a government to perish from the earth.
Not sure where we go from here, but it's a bit of a head-scratcher. If Star Wars were a WW2 analogy, the fictional equivalent of real-world Cold War history would have the Rebel Alliance immediately building a bigger Death Star of their own to make sure that Alderaan would never happen again.
And much later, when Bakura refuses to allow Death Star "Han Solo" to be parked in orbit, there'd be bitter complaints in the Galactic Senate about "not pulling yer bloody weight, mate", but then it would turn out that the Prime Minister of Proudly Superweapon Free Bakura was secretly sending Republican Stormtroopers into Afgha - er, Kashyykk to assassinate Chewbacca, and meanwhile R2D2 has gone rogue and is leaking Republic diplomatic holocrons all over the Holonet and is on the run from a cybernetic harrassment suit from C3PO involving inappropriate use of a restraining bolt...
Wait, I had a point there somewhere.
What about secret negotiations with a government who doesn't want to publicly take actions to pressure a rogue state (say, China and North Korea?).
Yes, what about this kind of outright lying to the international commuity? It's not suddenly magically morally better just because it's the USA who's doing it.
If you want to put diplomatic pressure on another sovereign state to take some kind of action that their own citizens don't want them to do - well, good luck with that. Ask them. Let them choose. Don't lie about it.
Or at least, if you want to be the Evil Empire, go ahead and coerce other states and lie about it. But don't pretend that you're spreading freedom and democracy when you're using methods which are the exact definitiona opposites of those.
If you're a dictatorship? Certainly not, since you never made any promises to involve the public in public policymaking.
But if you're a democracy? Yes, I'd say it is very hypocritical to withhold important information about the making of public policy from the public who are supposed to be making that policy, if you withhold it for longer than one electoral cycle (two years in the case of the USA).
If your diplomats have the power either to enter into binding treaties which affect domestic policy, or to conduct offshore military operations undeclared as wars, then it seems like classifying everything they do allows these guys to override open democratic legislation almost at will. And that's a huge problem even if the secrets are revealed almost immediately - for example, if you invaded a foreign nation on false pretenses, you've just burned your nation's international credibility (and directly put, for example, your domestic population in danger if they travel) - even if the people later find out that you lied.
But it's far worse if these documents stay classified for more than an electoral cycle, because then the public are voting and voting again based on incorrect beliefs about what their elected leaders are doing. At this point, they're simply not involved in the policymaking loop at all, and the ritual of voting becomes nothing more than a thin propaganda sham. The diplomats are the ones who now hold the real power and will not offer it back to public judgement until the classification expires.
Yes, states have made wars and treaties in secret for millenia. But the hypocrisy only comes from states who do this claiming they're democratic, when in fact they're nothing of the kind.
His issue has very little to do with "intentionally choosing to stay uninformed", or "subversive literature". It's more a matter of the way the law handles security clearances.
It's probably impolite to say this to the parent poster, but I can't think of a polite way, so:
If working in a job that requires a security clearance forces you to remain uninformed about things you should really know about, don't you have moral qualms about why you are still working in that job? Have you considered that by continuing to hold a clearance and abide by its demands, you might actually be part of the problem, and objectively making the world a worse place by your efforts?
Do you actually need to be helping shore up the National Security State?
There's a time for just sitting down and taking the crap, and there's also a time for saying "sorry, but I can't continue to be part of this program, it's not what I signed on for". If all the geeks in America refused to hold a clearance any more, maybe some actual change toward freedom would occur in your country.
Or you could continue to just let the slide into fascism happen, and get paid to help it happen. Your call really, I guess.
After ten years, it shall be done at all real-time text translation software for the engine of the principal as it were a perfect naturally.
(Google Translate, English -> Chinese -> Russian -> Finnish -> Swahili -> Latin -> English. I think it was the Latin which broke it most, actually.)
That character was pretty darn awesome. I was cheering for the Colonel when he ran outside without a facemask to shoot our hero.
I didn't feel like he was a villain so much as just a guy who understood what it took to survive on Pandora more than most, and did his best against impossible odds for what he believed in, which just happened to be the losing side, but he still got the kind of heroic death in battle which he deserved.
The protagonists in Avatar are all scientists. They go on to win the day.
By punching people in the face with dinosaurs.
(and carefully observing the results, while previously observing the results of not punching the same person in the face with the same dinosaur, and then forming and publishing a hypothesis to the effect that punching people in the face with dinosaurs is AWESOME).
Yes, they make $99 per year, per user.
Just like ESPN charges $4 per subscriber per month, and so takes no money from advertisers on top of that, right?
Just because they hurt you doesn't mean they really do love you.
Or you use Ubuntu One, where the name of the service *is* the advertising. 2GB free, Android and iOS clients, Mac and Windows clients coming soon.
And no encryption, so all your personal data (including Evolution contacts) is neatly there in cleartext on Canonical's servers.
But they'll never do anything bad with that, even if someone gives them a billion dollars to. 'Cause Mark Shuttleworth flew in space, so he can now never lie to anyone or his brain will explode.
Well known fact about all astronauts.
Grr typo. "Trust, and can't verify."
Though "Rust... But Verify" would be a good Megadeth album title.
MobileMe is "expensive" (by which we mean $99 a year) precisely because it has no ads and doesn't vend your personal information to third parties.
This argument always confuses me.
Is there any particular required logical disjunction between "take money from subscribers, telling them their data is private" and "also take money from unscrupulous third parties in exchange for the subscribers' supposedly private data"?
I mean, other than "nice guys wouldn't do that, and I just have to assume my cloud provider is nice otherwise they wouldn't be still in business"?
Cable TV companies have no problem with both taking money from subscribers AND taking money from advertisers. Now inserting ads into a video stream, that's obvious. But selling data? You can do that secretly and privately and the subscriber need never know. Just a magical extra income stream.
Basically, once I give my data to a cloud provider, if I didn't encrypt it first at my end, who's to know and stop them from doing whatever the heck they feel like with that data? No technological means that I know of, and the whole purpose of Cloud Computing seems to be to obscure the inner workings of my provider so I can only rust, and can't verify.
But it seems to be that in the rest of the business world, all sorts of scungy dealing goes on with outsourced providers, like exploitative labour used to make iPods and melamine in the milk. Are cloud computing providers magically going to be more trustworthy than the rest? Especially when there's a big financial incentive to not keep my data private, and no way for me to know if they haven't?
This is why I fundamentally don't trust the Cloud - yet. No technological guarantees that a contract isn't broken, and a lot of perverse incentives to do so. That seems like a no-brainer "avoid" to me.
Like I said, corner cases. Your examples are one time setups or poor design; but still, good examples for the corner cases.
When the corner cases outnumber the "standard" cases, are they still exceptions?
Hate to break it to you, but most of business computing is about corner cases strung together with Visual Basic, and good luck if you have any of the source code any more. And when any single piece of that icky stringy web breaks, the whole business potentialy grinds to a halt.
It's certainly not the way computing should be, but it's how it is right now.
I would divide by ten or drop it an order of magnitude, whichever made more sense.
Aren't those the same thing?
Not everyone in the US is a sheeple.
Wouldn't the singular of "sheeple" be "sherson"? Or "peep"?
If I have a guarantee that nobody knows who I am when I say something then it follows that I have a guarantee that nobody can do anything to me because of what I said.
You also have a guarantee that if nobody knows who you are, then nobody will want to listen to you or provide you any support. And in a complex technological society, it's difficult to live entirely alone. Heck, if you completely socially isolate yourself, you go mad - that's why solitary confinement is considered torture.
The only reason we trust people is because they build up a reputation over time. Unfortunately, reputation is a double-edged sword: it means that what you do and say has consequences. That's kind of the point, though - people generally don't like hanging out with people who aren't willing to stand behind their words and actions, because perfect consequence-freedom tends to breed irresponsibility.
tldr: perfect anonymity is what a lot of people think they want, but isn't.
If we went back to airlines handling security, the market would handle any rogue airline that required the security people to make people choose between groping and naked scanners.
Yes, the market would "handle" that situation by creating cheap and unregulated airlines who did no security checking, insufficient maintenance, became the preferred air travel providers of criminals of all kinds, and often fell out of the sky and killed people. You'd get exactly what you paid for, but they'd be cheap, and yay freedom.
And then a perfectly the market would "handle" the resulting fear and anger and grief from the survivors by creating armed "air forces" which would proceed to negotiate aggressively with its competitors using high-velocity projectiles. Eventually a monopoly of force-provider would emerge from the smoking wreckage. Congratulations, the free market has just reinvented the idea of "war", "state" and "government", only about 5,000 years late.
The market metaphor can be stretched to cover any situation, which makes it vacuous in the same sense that "A=A" is. It's trivially "true" to say that "the market will sort it out", because a market is just a slow-scale and discreet war of all against all. The problem is that the most price-efficient means the market chooses to sort things out often are hostile to life, liberty and happiness, things we have actually learned to value higher than the mere existence of trade. And we've learned in the last few millennia that there we can often get better results out of markets if we optimise them centrally, restricting some freedoms in exchange for happiness, than just letting them turn into all-out full-scale wars.
We have the capability to build safe reactors
We also have the capability to build security-exploit-free Internet-facing consumer software, and look how that turned out.
I'm not optimistic that the same class of executives who gave us Internet Explorer and Enron will magically become safety focused at the cost of short-term margins when they turn their profit-radar back towards nuclear power.
If the code path is randomized in anyway these developers get all flustered. None of them would invest in writing sanity check and audit methods.
How did the software industry get to the point where it's legal to not have sanity checks in today's hostile Internet environment? If the building industry had a similar standard of construction, millions of people would be dead and there would be lynchings.
I presume the answer has something to do with the secrecy of proprietary software development and that it's impractical to enforce any kind of standards compliance, especially when many software 'standards' only exist as bugs-and-all implementations? But I'm very disappointed in the state of open source development, too. We're still getting monthly security patches in Linux.
The reality of the Internet security environment is, if you have to patch anything after you release, you're doing it so wrong it's criminal. There should be tools that scan code to detect security flaws before release - and if these tools do not currently exist, they must be written. Because the bad guys are already doing it, with fuzzers and such, so how can it possibly be mathematically impossible for the good guys to do it?
One could make the argument that "oh, the Halting Problem and Russell's Paradox show that it's impossible to mathematically prove that any code does what it should without running it". But that seems both lazy and scary to me. Think about the implications of that claim. Do we want a globally linked computer system where it's mathematically possible for undetectable coding errors to exist, if we're going to give this computer system the kind of control over our lives and businesses that it already has? Because if it's mathematically possible for exploits to occur, on the scale of the Internet it is a statistical certainty that they will. We haven't given sufficient thought, as a civilisation, to what that means, in my opinion. We're building and networking software systems under the assumption that either they always work perfectly, or that we can always reliably detect their failure and route around.
If it turns out that that's NOT the case - that it's not just possible to write buggy software, but that it's provably IMPOSSIBLE to write NON-buggy software, and provably IMPOSSIBLE to detect and correct when software components run amok - and that the consequences of even the smallest security-critical bug in financial code could, say, crash the economies of small countries - then wow, maybe we should let's just scale back this Internet thing until we understand just how bad the inevitable disaster is going to be, and stock up on some bottled water and beans.
We live in a highly specialised society. You can be highly intelligent and still not know squat about something you use in your everyday like.
While that is no doubt true, I'm wondering what happens to an advanced global technological society based on such high specialisation and the resulting relative general ignorance when it is combined with a rising level of cynical anti-social manipulation that leaves anyone not a domain expert in any given domain, wide open to fraud and abuse from 99% of the rest of a 7 billion person planet.
Guess we're going to find out real soon! Won't that be fun!
prosthelytizing nerd squads going door-to-door
Those would be people who aggressively evangelise the replacement of body parts, right?
"Mom! The Jaime Sommers Witnesses are here again! Do we wanna buy an H+ Magazine?"
Windows 98 was fourteen times the operating system that Windows 7 is.
I keep hearing people blame this shit on the lawyers, but I just don't buy it. Lawyers don't have 100% say in whether a company sues another company for patent infringement.
Lawyers don't sue people. People with lawyers sue people.
You'll take my lawyer when you pry him/her from my cold dead HR department.
If laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws.
USA! USA! USA! *
* Void where prohibited. All rights reserved. If symptoms persist lobby a Senator. USA (tm) is a registered trademark of United Suits Association, LLC and its use does not constitute endorsement of product. Do not taunt happy fun lawyer.
the people involved must exist in a state filled with 800 pound gorillas
As a citizen of the state involved (New Zealand), I can testify that this is entirely true, except that they're more like 60 tons.
And you don't even want to know what kind of political muscle the other native wildlife species have.
Rudolph the Rednoosed Reindeer.
he knows when you've been very very naughty...