As Linus says, Theo is difficult. This is well known, and I salute Mr. Torvalds for saying it so succinctly. Linus leads by gentle methods, and he's apparently damn good at it.
Theo does not take that path. He's a zealot... but he's not just a zealot. He's a clear-eyed, effective zealot who manages a solid project that produces the result he intends: a highly secure OS. If you'll recall from that other interview:
Christos Zoulas: I think it goes both ways, especially when it comes to porting Linux to architectures where NetBSD is already ported to or vice versa. Due to the relative size of both projects and the wealth of drivers on Linux, I would say that it is more common that NetBSD developers refer to code in the Linux device drivers to find about specific device quirks and undocumented device programming information. This is necessary because hardware manufacturers do not always publish proper documentation for their products (with all the errata) and the only way to get functional device drivers is by trial and error, reverse engineering, or getting the necessary information informally from the vendors. The situation is getting worse because all open source products (with the exception of OpenBSD) tolerate the status quo of supporting products that provide no documentation, using vendor-provided -- sometimes binary-only -- drivers. I don't think that OpenBSD's abrasive campaign is the way to go, although it appears to be producing results. I believe that the hardware vendors can be convinced that it is advantageous to them to publish proper documentation, but all open source products need to work together for that to work. If a vendor cannot be convinced, we need to vote with our feet and exclude support from our products.
Here we have a NetBSD guy saying, essentially, "I don't agree with Theo's approach, but it does work better than ours and we may all need to adopt it one day."
CZ is saying that Theo may be forging the path that many will need to follow before long. Theo was a security fanatic a long time ago, and I think events have proven that he made a good call on that. Events have yet to say if his abrasive approach to documentation will turn out to be a good call. CZ clearly recognizes that Theo may be ahead of the curve again, although it's too soon to say.
It seems to me that there exists a diversity of approaches to driving open-source and free software forward. At one extreme is Good Cop Linus, at the other is Bad Cop Theo, and everyone else is arrayed somewhere in the middle. A company being asked to provide documentation hears "It's in your best interest to get broad support from Linux" and on the other "Give me the goods or support for this device will be dropped." This is an effective combination, and the two together work better than either alone.
Theo is abrasive, yes... but the collective endeavor of free and open software needs someone abrasive, just as much as it needs a benevolent dictator.
1) Have a portion of the test allow calculator use, and a portion of the test not allow calculator use. 2) Make sure the fraction stage was in correct part of the test. 3) Ummm... Privatize?
Diplomat butts into hot disputes, presuming that the combatants will welcome and appreciate his even-handed and eminently reasonable mediation. Frankly, he gets what he deserves.
You're telling me that if I install Netscape on my users' machines, they can't use IE?
Right on.
PS: Anyone know where to get a download-once-install-many package for Netscape 8.01? A corporate installer doesn't seem to be available at the Netscape website.
That's what I assumed at first, too. But according to TFA it allegedly sustains itself like a siphon. It's mostly a one-time problem to get the flow started, I guess... then the siphon does most of the work. (Presumably with some level of ongoing pump assistance.)
He said something impolitic, or maybe unwise. Possibly even wrong. So what? Engineers have been known to do that occasionally. (Theo de Raadt says impolitic things fairly often, yet OpenBSD is still a great product.)
This is a tempest in a teapot. Nothing to see here.
The engine switcher is a critical feature for me. I've been unable to roll out Firefox to my site, desperate though I have been to do so, because a site our business depends on only works in IE. (I've asked them to change and they refuse.) I just tested Netscape 8.01 and the render switcher solves this problem seamlessly.
I'm sure it'd stick in the MoFo's craw, but they should consider pulling this feature back into Firefox. Ideologically this feature sucks, but pragmatically it rules.
Ah, if only that were so. My lock-in to Office is mainly through Outlook, and I don't have an Exchange server. OOo is perfectly adequate for every general-office need we have, except for one person who needs Excel.
The problem is that our Oracle-based electronic medical records application will only support Outlook for sending secure e-mails. I would love to put Mozilla everywhere, but instead I had to buy Outlook licenses. It's downright painful.
Anything that makes Mozilla easier for the EMR app's developers to support is a good idea in my book. If Oracle likes Moz, that'll help me convince the EMR vendor that it's worthy of their support too.
You know, oddly enough my main objection to this post is that the post presents three possible addresses instead of just one correct one. If turnabout is fair play, one still needs to avoid involving innocent bystanders. As it is, presumably this post places at least two innocent bystanders at risk of some bad result.
In this case, it's the antennas for the survey instrument that aren't out yet. While the engineers seem very optimistic that the antenna deployment will go well and allow the survey to begin, there also seems to be some trepidation that the deployment could seriously damage the spacecraft.
Wait another two weeks, then celebrate the start of the search.
It really depends on the scenario. My default position is that I don't really care. Exceptions to that include:
Epidemic control - I want people to use more secure software on network connected machines for the same reason that I support mass immunization programs. Such steps reduce the number of vectors and, therefore, the rate at which harmful data can spread.
Support - I'm a geek, and my friends know it. they call me for help. I urge them to use free software (or Macs) to cut down on the number of support calls I get. (Or at least to make the support calls a bit more interesting.)
Politics of Open Societies - I want all information produced by my tax dollars to be made publically available. (I'm willing to accept some reasonalble limits on militarily and diplomatically sensitive data, but eventually everything should come into the public domain... even if it's 100 years later.) When it does, that data should be in formats that are not proprietary.
An old PC and a copy of DBAN works just fine for me. But while I do decommission drives with HIPAA in mind, I don't do more than a few every year.
But I like that USB-IDE idea... in combination with the GPL'd Eraser it should make wiping old drives a lot easier for me, and let me get rid of that dusty dinosaur I keep around for wiping drives.
"I don't know what "facts" you claim to have looked at [...]"
I presume that the link on the final standings pdf on the official contest website (which is itself the second link in the Slashdot article) is authoritative. All scores I mentioned are transcribed from the official score pdf, although I generated the rankings myself. Of course I could have made errors in transcription or ranking. You are welcome to check my work.
"Point to the subjective scores and try to claim they are "facts" then get laughed out of the building by people who know better."
The scores themselves are factual. Their generation may have been subjective, but the official results are now facts in themselves.
"The rest is VERY open to the judges bias."
Sure it is open to judge's bias. I have no problem admitting that. Two things, though. These judges were themselves engineers, and engineers make a carreer of sticking to the technical issues; bias may be a factor, but it's not like the contest was judged by Al Sharpton. Second, perhaps you can explain to me how the judges' alleged bias in favor of Carl Hayden caused MIT to place no higher than eighth of eleven in three of the four judged categories?
What you are failing to get here is that this was not a product performance contest. This was an educational engineering contest. The scoring in any such educational contest must include not only the raw performance of the engineering product, but also must include an evaluation of the students' understanding of their work and their ability to communicate that understanding to the judges. This evaluation was worth fully half the possible points. Anyone who entered the contest would have known this if they had read the rules.
You can see that TFA talks about this, when the Carl Hayden teachers wait outside the room whilst the kids are grilled on their product by the judges. Grilling the students without their mentors present ensures that it is the students themselves, not just their mentors, who understand the engineering principles behind their work.
If you actually look at the scores with an open mind, you'd see that MIT did very poorly on this aspect, placing ninth in that half of the contest. In fact the team which scored the lowest in the Mission Task (Palm Beach Lakes High School) beat MIT in every other category. That high school team evidently was better able to communicate their product's engineering to the judges than MIT, even though their vehicle wasn't nearly as capable.
If anything, the raw scores indicate to me that the MIT either blew off the judged parts of the contest, got lucky on the Mission Task, or had too much help from their mentors. The most charitable explanation is that they blew it off.
"I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe their backgroud didn't even moderately change the outcome."
Sure, it may have had a moderate effect. But that's a far cry from saying the contest got handed to Carl Hayden out of sympathy. No matter how you slice it, these kids did very well. Only five teams scored over 10 on the Mission Task; Carl Hayden placed third among these. Even by your narrow standard, they won third place outright. That's nothing to sneer at.
Why are you trying so hard to avoid admitting that?:-)
I've seen a couple comments suggesting that Carl Hayden was "handed the competition" in part "because they were underprivileged kids who weren't expected to do anything." Looking at the scores, I don't think that theory is well supported by the facts.
Yes, MIT scored the best in the Mission Task category, and Carl Hayden scored third. But in the so-called "subjective" categories, MIT really stank up the joint. They placed ninth (of 11) in Engineering Evaluation, tied for eighth in Technical Report, and were ninth again in Team Display. MIT placed behind several community colleges and at least two high schools in every category but Mission Task.
In contrast, Carl Hayden's third place in Mission Task was their worst showing in any category. They won outright the Technical Report category, and placed second to two different teams in the other "subjective" categories.
I suspect that every team knew the scoring rules and weighting, and every team had the opportunity to choose their strategy.
The final point spread between Carl Hayden and MIT was 118.92 to 117.67. Had the MIT team bothered to put even a little more effort into any one of the other three categories, they would have won outright. They only needed 1.25 more points to tie. With their staff, budget and education, you'd think the MIT team could have managed to out-document some ESL highschoolers... but they didn't. They weren't even close.
These kids from Carl Hayden paid attention to all the categories, and it won them an honest victory.
Its not just price-point, but social value as well.
I don't disagree at all. However, I focused on the argument I did to show that no factors outside the dollar marketplace are necessary for FOSS to defeat commercial software in this context. Those who argue for the merits of the free market will be hard pressed to find a rational win for Microsoft here. Live by market rhetoric, die by market rhetoric.:-)
The existance of additional benefit in social terms is wonderful, of course. Go Brazil.
We're talking about a million machines, here, that are going to jumpstart the consumer PC economy in a pretty large developing market. If Microsoft really wants to capture this market in the long term, they should offer a really big loss-leader play. Maybe the biggest loss-leader ever.
They could offer Win XP Pro to this program gratis (but not open) for a loss in potential gross retail sales of about US$200 million. Their actual net cost would be much less. (Although how much less is probably known only to them.) They were reputed to have about US$50 billion in the bank last July, so I'm thinking they could manage it.
It'd be a great ploy... they'd get to look charitable, call out the Brazillian government on the ideology question, and potentially genereate a huge installed base in a developing market. If they win the contract, they win a huge market share. If they don't win, they get to blame the loss on ideology.
Of course, next China and India would want the same deal. But that's the marketplace for ya.
I suppose they're trying to exhaust their political options first, before dropping that much cash on the problem. But if they don't get in there soon, they're going to miss the boat altogether.
"'The government shouldn't be the one who decides what hardware and software will go into these computers,' said Júlio Semeghini, a member of Congress from the opposition Social Democratic Party. 'That's undemocratic.'"
It may be handpicked by the government, but (unless there's something very important left out of the article) it's not mandatory software. Someone could buy one of these machines, and then install a different operating system on it once they get it home.
(This is really only slightly different than what US PC suppliers do now. Suppliers choose an OS to preinstall, and if you don't like it you can change it once you own the hardware. Of course, the way it works here is that you pay for the MS OS, whether or not you intend to use it. In this proposed program, the customer will never pay for software they don't use, because the included software is gratis.)
Again, from TFA:
"But the preference for open-source software has been controversial, with critics inside and outside the government saying Mr. da Silva's administration is letting leftist ideology trump the laws of supply and demand."
It seems to me this is a very demand-driven product. Or rather, it's an attempt to get a dormant market to bloom, and the success of the attempt is heavily dependent on the price point. At the price point they're looking to hit, they are required to make tradeoffs on cost.
At this point, there's no denying that free software is completely adequate for a cheap, preconfigured internet PC. Ideology aside, the program's directors have to ask themselves if the targeted market would be better served by spending money on a commercial OS instead of using free software and spending that money on better hardware. Given the price of regular Win XP Home, the price and capabilities of the stripped Windows that Microsoft offers for third-world customers, and the amount of RAM that same money would buy, it's hard to see how that cost tradeoff could possibly come out in favor of Microsoft's commercial software as a baseline for the entire program.
If XP Home cost $20 instead of $100, maybe Microsoft could win here. As it is, though, I don't see how they possibly could win a fair contest in this context.
Mr. Incredible: "You mean you killed off real comedians so that you could pretend to be one?"
Syndrome: "Oh, I'm real all right. Real enough to make you laugh! And I did it without your precious writers. Your oh-so-special timing. I'll give them jokes. I'll give them the most spectacular jokes the world has ever heard! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that everyone can be funny. Everyone can be a comedian! And when everyone's a comedian... no one will be."
Slashdot Mirror
Theo does not take that path. He's a zealot... but he's not just a zealot. He's a clear-eyed, effective zealot who manages a solid project that produces the result he intends: a highly secure OS. If you'll recall from that other interview:Here we have a NetBSD guy saying, essentially, "I don't agree with Theo's approach, but it does work better than ours and we may all need to adopt it one day."
CZ is saying that Theo may be forging the path that many will need to follow before long. Theo was a security fanatic a long time ago, and I think events have proven that he made a good call on that. Events have yet to say if his abrasive approach to documentation will turn out to be a good call. CZ clearly recognizes that Theo may be ahead of the curve again, although it's too soon to say.
It seems to me that there exists a diversity of approaches to driving open-source and free software forward. At one extreme is Good Cop Linus, at the other is Bad Cop Theo, and everyone else is arrayed somewhere in the middle. A company being asked to provide documentation hears "It's in your best interest to get broad support from Linux" and on the other "Give me the goods or support for this device will be dropped." This is an effective combination, and the two together work better than either alone.
Theo is abrasive, yes... but the collective endeavor of free and open software needs someone abrasive, just as much as it needs a benevolent dictator.
1) Have a portion of the test allow calculator use, and a portion of the test not allow calculator use.
2) Make sure the fraction stage was in correct part of the test.
3) Ummm... Privatize?
(By the way, TFA says TI, not HP.)
Sigh. I have had that exact conversation. (Reading the role of "Helpdesk", of course!)
I suppose it's more evidence that history repeats itself. It's the same old joke, but with a new subject.
From the Flame Warriors:
Diplomat butts into hot disputes, presuming that the combatants will welcome and appreciate his even-handed and eminently reasonable mediation. Frankly, he gets what he deserves.
"... now IE needs Netscape uninstalled to work."
You're telling me that if I install Netscape on my users' machines, they can't use IE?
Right on.
PS: Anyone know where to get a download-once-install-many package for Netscape 8.01? A corporate installer doesn't seem to be available at the Netscape website.
That's what I assumed at first, too. But according to TFA it allegedly sustains itself like a siphon. It's mostly a one-time problem to get the flow started, I guess... then the siphon does most of the work. (Presumably with some level of ongoing pump assistance.)
If true, that is a truly neat hack.
"Right, so if Hitler had gotten good at his drawings, you'd have one hanging up in your den, is that what you're saying?"
Ever read any Robert E. Howard? His views on race seem to have been pretty similar to Hitler's, yet the Conan tales are still awfully good yarns.
He said something impolitic, or maybe unwise. Possibly even wrong. So what? Engineers have been known to do that occasionally. (Theo de Raadt says impolitic things fairly often, yet OpenBSD is still a great product.)
This is a tempest in a teapot. Nothing to see here.
Hmm. Maybe the_mad_poster (or someone else reading that JE) dropped the big one.
I can't imagine what they hope to accomplish, but I guess it got noticed. [shrug]
The engine switcher is a critical feature for me. I've been unable to roll out Firefox to my site, desperate though I have been to do so, because a site our business depends on only works in IE. (I've asked them to change and they refuse.) I just tested Netscape 8.01 and the render switcher solves this problem seamlessly.
I'm sure it'd stick in the MoFo's craw, but they should consider pulling this feature back into Firefox. Ideologically this feature sucks, but pragmatically it rules.
Ah, if only that were so. My lock-in to Office is mainly through Outlook, and I don't have an Exchange server. OOo is perfectly adequate for every general-office need we have, except for one person who needs Excel.
The problem is that our Oracle-based electronic medical records application will only support Outlook for sending secure e-mails. I would love to put Mozilla everywhere, but instead I had to buy Outlook licenses. It's downright painful.
Anything that makes Mozilla easier for the EMR app's developers to support is a good idea in my book. If Oracle likes Moz, that'll help me convince the EMR vendor that it's worthy of their support too.
You know, oddly enough my main objection to this post is that the post presents three possible addresses instead of just one correct one. If turnabout is fair play, one still needs to avoid involving innocent bystanders. As it is, presumably this post places at least two innocent bystanders at risk of some bad result.
"A Matrix quote?
How lame."
It would have been lame, but I wrote it with a sense of post-modernist irony!
To quote Agent Smith, "They're not out yet."
In this case, it's the antennas for the survey instrument that aren't out yet. While the engineers seem very optimistic that the antenna deployment will go well and allow the survey to begin, there also seems to be some trepidation that the deployment could seriously damage the spacecraft.
Wait another two weeks, then celebrate the start of the search.
I think you might want one of these.
It really depends on the scenario. My default position is that I don't really care. Exceptions to that include:
Epidemic control - I want people to use more secure software on network connected machines for the same reason that I support mass immunization programs. Such steps reduce the number of vectors and, therefore, the rate at which harmful data can spread.
Support - I'm a geek, and my friends know it. they call me for help. I urge them to use free software (or Macs) to cut down on the number of support calls I get. (Or at least to make the support calls a bit more interesting.)
Politics of Open Societies - I want all information produced by my tax dollars to be made publically available. (I'm willing to accept some reasonalble limits on militarily and diplomatically sensitive data, but eventually everything should come into the public domain... even if it's 100 years later.) When it does, that data should be in formats that are not proprietary.
When they say "up to" 28mpg, do they say how much of the 28mpg flight is ballistic?
An old PC and a copy of DBAN works just fine for me. But while I do decommission drives with HIPAA in mind, I don't do more than a few every year.
But I like that USB-IDE idea... in combination with the GPL'd Eraser it should make wiping old drives a lot easier for me, and let me get rid of that dusty dinosaur I keep around for wiping drives.
... that the BSD-license paranoids might have been right?
Ooops.
Bad idea, Eben. It might make a good optional license (the Greater GPL?) but that's not something for the core GPL.
"I don't know what "facts" you claim to have looked at [...]"
:-)
I presume that the link on the final standings pdf on the official contest website (which is itself the second link in the Slashdot article) is authoritative. All scores I mentioned are transcribed from the official score pdf, although I generated the rankings myself. Of course I could have made errors in transcription or ranking. You are welcome to check my work.
"Point to the subjective scores and try to claim they are "facts" then get laughed out of the building by people who know better."
The scores themselves are factual. Their generation may have been subjective, but the official results are now facts in themselves.
"The rest is VERY open to the judges bias."
Sure it is open to judge's bias. I have no problem admitting that. Two things, though. These judges were themselves engineers, and engineers make a carreer of sticking to the technical issues; bias may be a factor, but it's not like the contest was judged by Al Sharpton. Second, perhaps you can explain to me how the judges' alleged bias in favor of Carl Hayden caused MIT to place no higher than eighth of eleven in three of the four judged categories?
What you are failing to get here is that this was not a product performance contest. This was an educational engineering contest. The scoring in any such educational contest must include not only the raw performance of the engineering product, but also must include an evaluation of the students' understanding of their work and their ability to communicate that understanding to the judges. This evaluation was worth fully half the possible points. Anyone who entered the contest would have known this if they had read the rules.
You can see that TFA talks about this, when the Carl Hayden teachers wait outside the room whilst the kids are grilled on their product by the judges. Grilling the students without their mentors present ensures that it is the students themselves, not just their mentors, who understand the engineering principles behind their work.
If you actually look at the scores with an open mind, you'd see that MIT did very poorly on this aspect, placing ninth in that half of the contest. In fact the team which scored the lowest in the Mission Task (Palm Beach Lakes High School) beat MIT in every other category. That high school team evidently was better able to communicate their product's engineering to the judges than MIT, even though their vehicle wasn't nearly as capable.
If anything, the raw scores indicate to me that the MIT either blew off the judged parts of the contest, got lucky on the Mission Task, or had too much help from their mentors. The most charitable explanation is that they blew it off.
"I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe their backgroud didn't even moderately change the outcome."
Sure, it may have had a moderate effect. But that's a far cry from saying the contest got handed to Carl Hayden out of sympathy. No matter how you slice it, these kids did very well. Only five teams scored over 10 on the Mission Task; Carl Hayden placed third among these. Even by your narrow standard, they won third place outright. That's nothing to sneer at.
Why are you trying so hard to avoid admitting that?
I've seen a couple comments suggesting that Carl Hayden was "handed the competition" in part "because they were underprivileged kids who weren't expected to do anything." Looking at the scores, I don't think that theory is well supported by the facts.
Yes, MIT scored the best in the Mission Task category, and Carl Hayden scored third. But in the so-called "subjective" categories, MIT really stank up the joint. They placed ninth (of 11) in Engineering Evaluation, tied for eighth in Technical Report, and were ninth again in Team Display. MIT placed behind several community colleges and at least two high schools in every category but Mission Task.
In contrast, Carl Hayden's third place in Mission Task was their worst showing in any category. They won outright the Technical Report category, and placed second to two different teams in the other "subjective" categories.
I suspect that every team knew the scoring rules and weighting, and every team had the opportunity to choose their strategy.
The final point spread between Carl Hayden and MIT was 118.92 to 117.67. Had the MIT team bothered to put even a little more effort into any one of the other three categories, they would have won outright. They only needed 1.25 more points to tie. With their staff, budget and education, you'd think the MIT team could have managed to out-document some ESL highschoolers... but they didn't. They weren't even close.
These kids from Carl Hayden paid attention to all the categories, and it won them an honest victory.
(Now let's hope it wins them some scholarships.)
Its not just price-point, but social value as well.
:-)
I don't disagree at all. However, I focused on the argument I did to show that no factors outside the dollar marketplace are necessary for FOSS to defeat commercial software in this context. Those who argue for the merits of the free market will be hard pressed to find a rational win for Microsoft here. Live by market rhetoric, die by market rhetoric.
The existance of additional benefit in social terms is wonderful, of course. Go Brazil.
We're talking about a million machines, here, that are going to jumpstart the consumer PC economy in a pretty large developing market. If Microsoft really wants to capture this market in the long term, they should offer a really big loss-leader play. Maybe the biggest loss-leader ever.
They could offer Win XP Pro to this program gratis (but not open) for a loss in potential gross retail sales of about US$200 million. Their actual net cost would be much less. (Although how much less is probably known only to them.) They were reputed to have about US$50 billion in the bank last July, so I'm thinking they could manage it.
It'd be a great ploy... they'd get to look charitable, call out the Brazillian government on the ideology question, and potentially genereate a huge installed base in a developing market. If they win the contract, they win a huge market share. If they don't win, they get to blame the loss on ideology.
Of course, next China and India would want the same deal. But that's the marketplace for ya.
I suppose they're trying to exhaust their political options first, before dropping that much cash on the problem. But if they don't get in there soon, they're going to miss the boat altogether.
(And wouldn't that be such a shame?)
You're echoing an argument from TFA:
"'The government shouldn't be the one who decides what hardware and software will go into these computers,' said Júlio Semeghini, a member of Congress from the opposition Social Democratic Party. 'That's undemocratic.'"
It may be handpicked by the government, but (unless there's something very important left out of the article) it's not mandatory software. Someone could buy one of these machines, and then install a different operating system on it once they get it home.
(This is really only slightly different than what US PC suppliers do now. Suppliers choose an OS to preinstall, and if you don't like it you can change it once you own the hardware. Of course, the way it works here is that you pay for the MS OS, whether or not you intend to use it. In this proposed program, the customer will never pay for software they don't use, because the included software is gratis.)
Again, from TFA:
"But the preference for open-source software has been controversial, with critics inside and outside the government saying Mr. da Silva's administration is letting leftist ideology trump the laws of supply and demand."
It seems to me this is a very demand-driven product. Or rather, it's an attempt to get a dormant market to bloom, and the success of the attempt is heavily dependent on the price point. At the price point they're looking to hit, they are required to make tradeoffs on cost.
At this point, there's no denying that free software is completely adequate for a cheap, preconfigured internet PC. Ideology aside, the program's directors have to ask themselves if the targeted market would be better served by spending money on a commercial OS instead of using free software and spending that money on better hardware. Given the price of regular Win XP Home, the price and capabilities of the stripped Windows that Microsoft offers for third-world customers, and the amount of RAM that same money would buy, it's hard to see how that cost tradeoff could possibly come out in favor of Microsoft's commercial software as a baseline for the entire program.
If XP Home cost $20 instead of $100, maybe Microsoft could win here. As it is, though, I don't see how they possibly could win a fair contest in this context.
Mr. Incredible: "You mean you killed off real comedians so that you could pretend to be one?"
Syndrome: "Oh, I'm real all right. Real enough to make you laugh! And I did it without your precious writers. Your oh-so-special timing. I'll give them jokes. I'll give them the most spectacular jokes the world has ever heard! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that everyone can be funny. Everyone can be a comedian! And when everyone's a comedian... no one will be."