All Source Code for 'The Matrix', current version a.k.a. "Neo", and all previous versions, and the Source Code tree for the future version "2.7" a.k.a "post-NEO", and all Developer Documents and unreleased Source Code, including Sandboxes (i.e., "Chicago", "Zion", etc.). Chicago contains millions of lines of our precious IP! (So does Oakland, We saw it in the movie, so it MUST BELONG TO US). We won't tell you where, because it can't be removed- and you'll just have to take our word for that.
And speaking of 'Precioussssss' IP which has been stolen from us, all of new Zealand belongs to us. The current residents must all get expensive licenses.
MS set us up the bomb. All your human thought are belong to us!
First, these so-called RAND ("reasonable and non-discriminatory") licenses have always been offered only to corporations, not individuals. And the "non-sublicensable" means that the rights aren't passed on to people you give (or in MS land, SELL) your software to. So, everyone needs to have separate license if they re-distribute. And everyone has to be a company. Not exactly "Free as in Freedom".
As for the 'metro' document format, it needs "Avalon" Subsystem and Print Drivers to print. Even if MS provides a complete specification, rather than the "wrapped binary sh*t" of WordML, you're gonna be locked into Longhorn for printing those documents.
One reason why Internet Explorer and Lookout Express (tm?) are more prone to being hacked is the easily-guessed location(s) for email storage, cookies, and cached IE/Javascript pages to escalate priviledges and wreak havoc. A Mozilla Profile, in contrast, has all of this stuff hidden within that nice "salt" subdirectory (the one named "#$%^*@#$.slt"), making it significantly more difficult to crack into the cached URLs with scripts, the cookies, and so on.
These Windows users are my customers, I don't want their computers to be cracked and expose my stuff... or theirs.
(This msg brought to you by Mozilla Suite on Linux. I support Windows but I sure don't use for *MY* stuff;)
The main thing is that 2.0 will be based on new toolkits and libraries/languages (new XPCOM, new XUL, and so on) which are allowed to break compatibility with the 1.0 APIs. Once they've built new capabilities into the underlying engine, then mozilla.org Developers can start to implement some of the really HARD things, such as roaming profiles, the RIGHT way.
As a former Cray employee, I can vouch for the relative "comfort" of curling up on the Power Supply bench for a quick nap... the padding was pretty good. Lots of noise in the room, though, and we kept the air air temp really cold.
I'm not an OOo expert, but you happened to ask something which I know:-)
You will need to insert page breaks manually. Insert-->Manual Break and select "Page", but don't let it default to using Style=[None]. Instead, set each of these page breaks to use "Style=First Page". (This style has neither footers nor headers).
If you want to have headers on pages 2,3,4, but no footers, you will need to create a new page style, with headers turned on and footers left off.
On the page break preceeding the page where you want numbers to appear, select "Style = Default" (including both headers and footers) and checkbox "Change Page Number", entering the page number which you want on the next page. (In your case, probably changing the calculated page number "5" to be page number "1".)
In another common situation, where people have divided documents into multiple separate files, you would set your first page # to be much higher than "1". (Although dividing a document into separate files means that you can't generate a TOC automatically, and I don't recommend doing it.)
Modifying, Creating, and Applying Styles is the key to using OOo Writer effectively.
The original Cray-2 design, circa 1982/83, ran within a "fish tank" sized about 3' by 2' by 2'. The immersion fluid was a medical product, originally intended/used to create blood volume for patients suffering critical, massive blood loss.
Nearly everything seems better (I am a Club member, and have been a 'helpful' tester of both beta-2 and the RC on my other PC).
HOWEVER, some users experience problems with CD-RW and DVD Writers using the new IDE/ATAPI driver interface (i.e., running without the old 2.4.x IDE/SCSI emulation). Mr. Torvalds has said that IDE/SCSI is a really bad hack, but Mr. Schilling (author of cdrecord) has said that SCSI emulation is a good way to handle the large number of new commands/responses introduced by this hardware. Mandrake-10 uses a Mandrake-enhanced version of cdrecord to work with IDE/SCSI. (DON'T bother Mr. Schilling about issues with cdrecord in MDK-10!)
Bottom line is,my CD-RW doesn't work under MDK 10.0-RC1, and your Writer (CD-RW or DVD) might have problems under 10.0. Maybe my CD-RW will work under today's released version, but some of the bugs (in Mandrake bugzilla) are in "WorksForMe" and "WaitForInfo", not yet proven to be fixed to the satisfaction of the original bug reporters. Perhaps my problem is related to cdrdao support the IDE/ATAPI interface. I've been trying to write ISO's (which definitely use cdrdao) and to scribble files onto blank CD-RWs, which might need cdrdao to do the formatting.
It seems that most people, including MDK developers, are not having ANY problems with their writers, but a few of us have been having trouble.
WinFS needs Windoz to be running. Linux lock-out !
on
CNet on WinFS
·
· Score: 1
OpenOffice.org suite in the Windows version ( running on Windows) will theoretically be able to get at the data using 'compatibility' features. But, it will appear to be absolutely impossible for a PC running Linux or another non-Longhorn Operating system to manipulate data on a 'WinFS' filesystem, in the ways that I frequently manipulate data on my FAT32 partition from Linux Applications.
I believe that the main purpose for introducing WinFS is to lock data into Windows computers, requiring Windows to be running in order to have any access at all. The benefit this can provide is to further complicate migrations from Microsoft's OS monopoly environment. I think that it would bring almost no visible benefit to customers. I feel that the vaporware 'benefits' being presented in these presentations are largely the responsibility of user-level programs. For example, if photos are going to be indexed by people in the photos, most of the work to implement this feature must occur in an application to accept the definitions of 'people' (e.g., names, recognizable characteristics) then try to 'recognize' them within other graphic documents.
ISVs will have a miserable time, spending huge $$$ to implement support for WinFS (it is definitely not beneficial for them). Anything which increases the costs for competitive ISVs is good for MS. The increased R&D costs, the longer delays to market, and the increased support costs may also allow Microsoft to successfully enter many markets which are currently dominated by ISVs (e.g. tax preparation, photo editing).
And, if we use WordML as an example, Microsoft appears to have no intention of using XML for the purpose of sharing information... a lot of the stuff you want in an MS-Word data file is hidden in BLOGs, totally undefined except for the fact that the elements have names and contain hex-64 data.
Microsoft has usually made excellent financial decisions. Microsoft is spending a great deal of money on this effort, and the additional delay in releasing their new OS will probably cost them a great deal of revenue. I think that Microsoft is doing all of this work to preserve and extend their OS monopoly position.
MDK 8.2 was very good, cleaning up a lot of 8.1 packaging issues (and using a much better version of the kernel).
MDK 9.0 was messy: with the GCC 2.9 --> GCC 3.x incompatibilities not yet addressed at that time, MDK seemed much less stable and much less 'integrated'. IMHO 9.0 sucked, I moved my test machine back down until the 9.1 RCs (my production machine went directly from 8.2 to 9.1).
MDK 9.1 has been very good, and I expect MDK 9.2 to be even better. (Then I expect things to go back downhill for a while, while bugs are driven out of 2.6 and its hardware drivers...).
Mandrake will NOT create a "boxed" retail CD of this Release Candidate. Furthermore, Mandrake strongly prefers to be supported by 'Mandrake Club' memberships (which give them a constant and dependable revenue stream, in contrast to many weeks/months of delay to receive revenue via retail channels for "boxed sets"). Retail Distribution yields only a low percentage of the sales price as revenue back to Mandrake as gross margin on the sale. Membership also helps Mandrake avoid the expenses which result when "boxed set" inventories go out-of-date.
Mr. Duval has expressed that that the best way to support Mandrake is to become a Club member (I personally have done so). Mandrake is also asking for reasonably competent Linux users to test out the Beta and RC versions on non-production machines. If you have such a machine, please test the RC and support Mandrake now. If you want to wait until the Official Release, become a member now and then feel free to buy discount CDs if you only desire the Standard Edition: Don't wait for the 'official' sets to show up on store shelves weeks or months after the Release becomes official.
Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says that Congress has the following power:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
And yes, the American Public has been screwed by Congress and the corporations they work for. A "limited time" has been many times. This is theoretically not "unlimited", according to the Supreme Court, but the Copyright protection period (i.e., the period for which a cultural artifact is withheld from the general public) has been increasing much more quickly than time has been passing. Copyright extensions have been putting many of the cultural treasures of society (printed music by Pokoviev and Shostakovitch, for example) back into the hands of greedy heirs and Corporations after having been public domain for a time. And Disney Corp, having comfortably adapted/extended the creations of the Brothers Grimm ("Snow White", etc.) now give big campaign contributions to make sure that NOTHING they have ever created will ever be in the hands of society at large. They benefited, but we're screwed!
Although many of the classic books we now read are available at reasonable cost, and can be lampooned, emulated, or adapted, it appears increasingly likely that NO MOVIE WILL EVER GO PUBLIC DOMAIN.
If you don't like this Mickey-Mouse (tm) situation, look to yourselves:WRITE TO YOUR FEDERAL LEGISLATORS. MAKE IT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE. DON'T VISIT DISNEYLAND, AND TELL YOUR NEIGHBORS WHY YOU WON'T GO.
First, the leading distributors, including MDK, RH, and SUSE, have scored some LARGE maintenance/support contracts lately (you've read about Munich, right?). And unlike M$, which often seems to charge extra incident $$ first and then NOT fix their bugs, FOSS support vendors tend to be capable and responsive (maybe because you CAN go somewhere else when the software is Open Source).
Second, MDK does give away their software, but also offers a very reasonably-priced 'club' for those users who (a) care to support their distro; and (b) agree that the most important thing is free as in Freedom, not free as in Price. I'm a member, proud to have helped them out of the financial woods during the last year.
Can you please tell me who these "big boys" are, and how FOSS users will be forced to ride in the same car with those M$ billionaire criminal monopolists?
I'm appalled to see the preceeding post scored as a zero. The M$ program requires a reasonsible business "company", which is antithetical to the Open Software Development model; it appears to require an NDA, which is absolutely 100% incompatible with Open Software; and resulting agreements may very well require per-seat licensing, which is also 100% incompatible with Open Software. (Greedy companies have recently been labeling low cost licenses as "RAND", Reasonable And Non-Descriminatory. But if there is *any* cost at all, it *is* discriminatory and unnaceptable.
Anonymous Coward's fear that this could be interpreted as "available" by US Courts is well-founded. We should *HAMMER* the Court with comments that (1) this program must not be used to place *any* restriction upon the rights of any person or group of persons to reverse-engineer Microsoft System Behavior; and perhaps (2) that to assist in re-establishing a competitive marketplace, Microsoft should be required to release all of this information to the general public, on a website, without registration or even cookies of any kind. (After all, they were found GUILTY. Why is the DOJ acting like the plaintiffs lost the case?)
I previously submitted comments regarding discrimination against Open Software developers in this section of the RPFJ, and they didn't change the wording of the relevant section by a single word. Perhaps the unnaceptable wording in this section was inspired by a large campaign contribution from Micrsoft to the failed Senate campaign of Mr. Ashcroft. In any case, it remains a BIG PROBLEM and the plaintiff attorneys need to hear from us now, in large numbers, with careful arguments. After all, they're supposed to be working for us.
I find the statistics which are used to justify the headline of the article to be surprising. Last year (the year of Code Red) this analyst counts only 11,828 attacks?:O And the U.S. government suffered only 254 and 54 attacks in the first halves of these two years?:O These figures seem awfully low.
I'm also confused about WHAT is being measured. Apache runs on MS-Windows (as well as BSD, Solaris, and several other Operating Systems). However, the article seems to equate Apache with Linux. Having assumed this, does it also count exploits of other software (e.g., OpenSSH, bind, perl, rsync, squid) as attacks on "Linux-Apache" web servers? And if so, why doesn't he count the (hideously numerous) Outlook disasters which occur on Outlook Servers?
Microsoft employees, of course, frequently encourages customer to run IIS and Outlook on isolated systems. (Separate from each other, separate from "normal" file servers, and separate from all other software products.) I suspect that M$ software will remain too buggy to trust, even in isolation, for many years to come.
I sent an EMail yesterday, asking whether my Comments were among the few which Mr. Ashcroft's underlings will dare to cross-reference in the DOJ response.
If my Comments are ignored, and if I don't find specific answers for every one of the 14 substantial issues in my Comments, I intend to follow up with the Court.
Many comments regarding this story, including this one, are based on the notion that whoever throws the most snowballs at the DOJ (dead voters from Microsoft versus us) wins the Tunney comment process.
This is not correct (thank goodness). The DOJ must respond to the Specific Objections which your EMail raises. Since this submission raised no issues, the DOJ can merely respond "we appreciate your irony, thankyou".
There are many areas in which the proposal is defective. For example, my personal favorite is the fact that, although end users and OEMs are allowed to remove Microsoft "Middleware", they receive no financial benefit for doing so (i.e., they are forced to continue supportting Microsoft's tactic of destroying competitors by "cutting of their air supply" via "free" middleware. The development, distribution, and advertising of these "free" middleware software Products and Components is subsidized by excess revenue which Microsoft generates from the monopoly Operating System (which, as shown by findings of fact, has become overpriced in ways which cannot be sustained without monopoly power.
How does the DOJ imagine that OEM's will take on the trouble and expense of removing Microsoft "middleware" and "icons" in order to integrate non-Microsoft competing Middleware when the Windows versions are already included for "free"? This "remedy" is appallingly inadequate.
Among other remedies, the Final Judgement MUST require Microsoft to implement a reduced price schedule for reduced-priced versions of Windows which exclude unwanted Microsoft middleware.
The DOJ must respond with reasoned responses, so we need to send reasoned and substantialcomments concerning inadequacies of the proposal. Don't forget to check out the definitions at the end, many of which are equally appalling!
Slashdot Mirror
And speaking of 'Precioussssss' IP which has been stolen from us, all of new Zealand belongs to us. The current residents must all get expensive licenses.
MS set us up the bomb. All your human thought are belong to us!
As for the 'metro' document format, it needs "Avalon" Subsystem and Print Drivers to print. Even if MS provides a complete specification, rather than the "wrapped binary sh*t" of WordML, you're gonna be locked into Longhorn for printing those documents.
One reason why Internet Explorer and Lookout Express (tm?) are more prone to being hacked is the easily-guessed location(s) for email storage, cookies, and cached IE/Javascript pages to escalate priviledges and wreak havoc. A Mozilla Profile, in contrast, has all of this stuff hidden within that nice "salt" subdirectory (the one named "#$%^*@#$.slt"), making it significantly more difficult to crack into the cached URLs with scripts, the cookies, and so on.
;)
These Windows users are my customers, I don't want their computers to be cracked and expose my stuff... or theirs.
(This msg brought to you by Mozilla Suite on Linux. I support Windows but I sure don't use for *MY* stuff
Please see http://www.mozilla.org/roadmap/mozilla-1.0.html for links about this.
As a former Cray employee, I can vouch for the relative "comfort" of curling up on the Power Supply bench for a quick nap... the padding was pretty good. Lots of noise in the room, though, and we kept the air air temp really cold.
In this case, /. missed the train.
You will need to insert page breaks manually. Insert-->Manual Break and select "Page", but don't let it default to using Style=[None]. Instead, set each of these page breaks to use "Style=First Page". (This style has neither footers nor headers).
If you want to have headers on pages 2,3,4, but no footers, you will need to create a new page style, with headers turned on and footers left off.
On the page break preceeding the page where you want numbers to appear, select "Style = Default" (including both headers and footers) and checkbox "Change Page Number", entering the page number which you want on the next page. (In your case, probably changing the calculated page number "5" to be page number "1".)
In another common situation, where people have divided documents into multiple separate files, you would set your first page # to be much higher than "1". (Although dividing a document into separate files means that you can't generate a TOC automatically, and I don't recommend doing it.)
Modifying, Creating, and Applying Styles is the key to using OOo Writer effectively.
The original Cray-2 design, circa 1982/83, ran within a "fish tank" sized about 3' by 2' by 2'. The immersion fluid was a medical product, originally intended/used to create blood volume for patients suffering critical, massive blood loss.
HOWEVER, some users experience problems with CD-RW and DVD Writers using the new IDE/ATAPI driver interface (i.e., running without the old 2.4.x IDE/SCSI emulation). Mr. Torvalds has said that IDE/SCSI is a really bad hack, but Mr. Schilling (author of cdrecord) has said that SCSI emulation is a good way to handle the large number of new commands/responses introduced by this hardware. Mandrake-10 uses a Mandrake-enhanced version of cdrecord to work with IDE/SCSI. (DON'T bother Mr. Schilling about issues with cdrecord in MDK-10!)
Bottom line is,my CD-RW doesn't work under MDK 10.0-RC1, and your Writer (CD-RW or DVD) might have problems under 10.0. Maybe my CD-RW will work under today's released version, but some of the bugs (in Mandrake bugzilla) are in "WorksForMe" and "WaitForInfo", not yet proven to be fixed to the satisfaction of the original bug reporters. Perhaps my problem is related to cdrdao support the IDE/ATAPI interface. I've been trying to write ISO's (which definitely use cdrdao) and to scribble files onto blank CD-RWs, which might need cdrdao to do the formatting.
It seems that most people, including MDK developers, are not having ANY problems with their writers, but a few of us have been having trouble.
I believe that the main purpose for introducing WinFS is to lock data into Windows computers, requiring Windows to be running in order to have any access at all. The benefit this can provide is to further complicate migrations from Microsoft's OS monopoly environment. I think that it would bring almost no visible benefit to customers. I feel that the vaporware 'benefits' being presented in these presentations are largely the responsibility of user-level programs. For example, if photos are going to be indexed by people in the photos, most of the work to implement this feature must occur in an application to accept the definitions of 'people' (e.g., names, recognizable characteristics) then try to 'recognize' them within other graphic documents.
ISVs will have a miserable time, spending huge $$$ to implement support for WinFS (it is definitely not beneficial for them). Anything which increases the costs for competitive ISVs is good for MS. The increased R&D costs, the longer delays to market, and the increased support costs may also allow Microsoft to successfully enter many markets which are currently dominated by ISVs (e.g. tax preparation, photo editing).
And, if we use WordML as an example, Microsoft appears to have no intention of using XML for the purpose of sharing information... a lot of the stuff you want in an MS-Word data file is hidden in BLOGs, totally undefined except for the fact that the elements have names and contain hex-64 data.
Microsoft has usually made excellent financial decisions. Microsoft is spending a great deal of money on this effort, and the additional delay in releasing their new OS will probably cost them a great deal of revenue. I think that Microsoft is doing all of this work to preserve and extend their OS monopoly position.
MDK 8.2 was very good, cleaning up a lot of 8.1 packaging issues (and using a much better version of the kernel).
MDK 9.0 was messy: with the GCC 2.9 --> GCC 3.x incompatibilities not yet addressed at that time, MDK seemed much less stable and much less 'integrated'. IMHO 9.0 sucked, I moved my test machine back down until the 9.1 RCs (my production machine went directly from 8.2 to 9.1).
MDK 9.1 has been very good, and I expect MDK 9.2 to be even better. (Then I expect things to go back downhill for a while, while bugs are driven out of 2.6 and its hardware drivers...).
Mr. Duval has expressed that that the best way to support Mandrake is to become a Club member (I personally have done so). Mandrake is also asking for reasonably competent Linux users to test out the Beta and RC versions on non-production machines. If you have such a machine, please test the RC and support Mandrake now. If you want to wait until the Official Release, become a member now and then feel free to buy discount CDs if you only desire the Standard Edition: Don't wait for the 'official' sets to show up on store shelves weeks or months after the Release becomes official.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
And yes, the American Public has been screwed by Congress and the corporations they work for. A "limited time" has been many times. This is theoretically not "unlimited", according to the Supreme Court, but the Copyright protection period (i.e., the period for which a cultural artifact is withheld from the general public) has been increasing much more quickly than time has been passing. Copyright extensions have been putting many of the cultural treasures of society (printed music by Pokoviev and Shostakovitch, for example) back into the hands of greedy heirs and Corporations after having been public domain for a time. And Disney Corp, having comfortably adapted/extended the creations of the Brothers Grimm ("Snow White", etc.) now give big campaign contributions to make sure that NOTHING they have ever created will ever be in the hands of society at large. They benefited, but we're screwed!
Although many of the classic books we now read are available at reasonable cost, and can be lampooned, emulated, or adapted, it appears increasingly likely that NO MOVIE WILL EVER GO PUBLIC DOMAIN. If you don't like this Mickey-Mouse (tm) situation, look to yourselves:WRITE TO YOUR FEDERAL LEGISLATORS. MAKE IT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE. DON'T VISIT DISNEYLAND, AND TELL YOUR NEIGHBORS WHY YOU WON'T GO.
First, the leading distributors, including MDK, RH, and SUSE, have scored some LARGE maintenance/support contracts lately (you've read about Munich, right?). And unlike M$, which often seems to charge extra incident $$ first and then NOT fix their bugs, FOSS support vendors tend to be capable and responsive (maybe because you CAN go somewhere else when the software is Open Source).
Second, MDK does give away their software, but also offers a very reasonably-priced 'club' for those users who (a) care to support their distro; and (b) agree that the most important thing is free as in Freedom, not free as in Price. I'm a member, proud to have helped them out of the financial woods during the last year.
Can you please tell me who these "big boys" are, and how FOSS users will be forced to ride in the same car with those M$ billionaire criminal monopolists?
Anonymous Coward's fear that this could be interpreted as "available" by US Courts is well-founded. We should *HAMMER* the Court with comments that (1) this program must not be used to place *any* restriction upon the rights of any person or group of persons to reverse-engineer Microsoft System Behavior; and perhaps (2) that to assist in re-establishing a competitive marketplace, Microsoft should be required to release all of this information to the general public, on a website, without registration or even cookies of any kind. (After all, they were found GUILTY. Why is the DOJ acting like the plaintiffs lost the case?)
I previously submitted comments regarding discrimination against Open Software developers in this section of the RPFJ, and they didn't change the wording of the relevant section by a single word. Perhaps the unnaceptable wording in this section was inspired by a large campaign contribution from Micrsoft to the failed Senate campaign of Mr. Ashcroft. In any case, it remains a BIG PROBLEM and the plaintiff attorneys need to hear from us now, in large numbers, with careful arguments. After all, they're supposed to be working for us.
I find the statistics which are used to justify the headline of the article to be surprising. Last year (the year of Code Red) this analyst counts only 11,828 attacks? :O And the U.S. government suffered only 254 and 54 attacks in the first halves of these two years? :O These figures seem awfully low.
I'm also confused about WHAT is being measured. Apache runs on MS-Windows (as well as BSD, Solaris, and several other Operating Systems). However, the article seems to equate Apache with Linux. Having assumed this, does it also count exploits of other software (e.g., OpenSSH, bind, perl, rsync, squid) as attacks on "Linux-Apache" web servers? And if so, why doesn't he count the (hideously numerous) Outlook disasters which occur on Outlook Servers?
Microsoft employees, of course, frequently encourages customer to run IIS and Outlook on isolated systems. (Separate from each other, separate from "normal" file servers, and separate from all other software products.) I suspect that M$ software will remain too buggy to trust, even in isolation, for many years to come.
I sent an EMail yesterday, asking whether my Comments were among the few which Mr. Ashcroft's underlings will dare to cross-reference in the DOJ response.
If my Comments are ignored, and if I don't find specific answers for every one of the 14 substantial issues in my Comments, I intend to follow up with the Court.
This is not correct (thank goodness). The DOJ must respond to the Specific Objections which your EMail raises. Since this submission raised no issues, the DOJ can merely respond "we appreciate your irony, thankyou".
There are many areas in which the proposal is defective. For example, my personal favorite is the fact that, although end users and OEMs are allowed to remove Microsoft "Middleware", they receive no financial benefit for doing so (i.e., they are forced to continue supportting Microsoft's tactic of destroying competitors by "cutting of their air supply" via "free" middleware. The development, distribution, and advertising of these "free" middleware software Products and Components is subsidized by excess revenue which Microsoft generates from the monopoly Operating System (which, as shown by findings of fact, has become overpriced in ways which cannot be sustained without monopoly power.
How does the DOJ imagine that OEM's will take on the trouble and expense of removing Microsoft "middleware" and "icons" in order to integrate non-Microsoft competing Middleware when the Windows versions are already included for "free"? This "remedy" is appallingly inadequate.
Among other remedies, the Final Judgement MUST require Microsoft to implement a reduced price schedule for reduced-priced versions of Windows which exclude unwanted Microsoft middleware.
The DOJ must respond with reasoned responses, so we need to send reasoned and substantialcomments concerning inadequacies of the proposal. Don't forget to check out the definitions at the end, many of which are equally appalling!