That's not actually true because you are also restricted from spending money on transportation TO Cuba, and are not legally allowed to accept travel arrangements or expenses gratis contrary to what you are saying. It's pretty airtight, I would suggest reading for yourself the rules on the US Department of State website. The idea that you can travel legally to Cuba extragovernmentally is a fiction put forth by businesses that offer travel to Cuba for Americans. regarding the treasury department license, the number one reason this has been issued in the past has been for educational purposes. But this has been abused to offer essentially mini-vacations, and many of the ones I have seen have propaganda "history" courses on Communism and the history of the USA re. Cuba. Not that there isn't a legitimate argument to be made from the Cuban side, but the classes are still propaganda. The government has correspondingly drastically reduced the issuance of these licenses, to the despaired wailing of, primarily, people who were abusing them.
ID says "God did it". That's what Creationism says. Intelligent Design "says" that scientific evidence suggests a creator as opposed to evolutionary processes but does not make statements as to the nature of the creator. I am an adversary to both philosophies, but I wanted to point out that your statement is incorrect there.
With regards to science I think you are underestimating the role of interpretation. When it comes to theories of Native American migration across the North American continent, accepted linguistic evidence and accepted archaeological evidence actually disagree with each other with regards to timelines of migration. What will eventually happen is that more evidence will be gained, and a new interpretation of the old evidence will replace the last. The interesting difference here is that the interpretive value of whichever field/profession was incorrect will be retained because the methodology will be changed to fit the evidence. I actually question this because one of the requirements of science as you have said is that your methodology is predictive, because if you just adjust your theory in accordance with every time you are wrong but are not actually successful at leveraging that to predict things correctly, I don't really see how that's different from for example astrology. I agree with most people here that Creationism and ID are scams, but while the integrity of science as a concept is pretty solid, there are plenty of people operating in scientific fields that are scammers too. The difference in science is that scammers and fraudsters and the just-plain-wrong only last in the short term, they eventually get exposed or in the worst case get old and die and people without reputations or funding tied to those biases can move forward.
No, because the RIAA doesn't care if filesharing is hard. Everyone I know who is currently in college is taking advantage of the fast college network by running uTorrent perpetually, downloading movies, games and music. Nobody has as many friends as many people as they can download from off the Internet, and most of their friends probably don't have a terabyte of the latest music, either. That's why they don't give a damn about sneakernet. The Internet makes pirated music EASY to get and PLENTIFUL which is why they are after that. If you got it down to isolated networks of people sharing music with their friends, the RIAA would basically be happy. And if it got to be popular for groups of people to pass around a terabyte drive full of music, it would really only take one spy per campus to land a whole bunch of people in court, with frankly a lot more evidence and liability against them than a bittorrent connection to their dorm room.
The Internet and bittorrent is causing a lot of damage to the music industry's business model, and sneakernet does not and will not. If you make network filesharing risky, most people are going to stop and they don't have the resources to "steal" equally to how much they did off bittorrent. So to answer your question, no, as far as the RIAA is concerned, shifting the filesharing to sneakernet is probably not that much of a concern to them at all.
Sorry man, but you're wrong. The difference between junk fax and spam is that you knew the origin of junk fax, which is exactly why the law worked for junk fax and doesn't work for spam. OK many crimes have some sort of precedent in the real world, but the fact is if they become insanely prevalent because of the Internet, then you have to start taking them more seriously. You can't just throw up your hands and say they've been around forever.
Well, I am not agreeing that we need a second Internet, just that his premises are not wholly without merit. A lot of problems with the Internet are a direct result of the architecture not being designed for or suited for untrusted peers. This doesn't address stuff like file sharing, that's more of a case of exploiting the power of the network potentially for crime as opposed to spam or DDoSing being abusing weaknesses of the network for crime. Some businesses are simply disadvantaged by the read-write web, and I don't think we should give their selfish considerations any currency. I have no political opposition to the concept of QoS, but I know from a practical standpoint that it will be abused for profit motive/political reasons if implemented.
Secondly, Windows is a problem, but again if the network didn't just trust peers then even if dirty hosts could combine to form a botnet they would be limited in their abilities to send spam or DDoS. A lot of the incentive to crack machines in the first place would be eliminated.
Societies adjust all the time to deal with different types of emerging crime. The difference here is that the Internet is the equivalent of the Old West and everyone here is resisting any attempt to adjust the Internet to deal with the crime that is a direct result of this fact. And yes the nature of the crime is fundamentally different, not the least of which is because you can commit many of the crimes remotely, and secondly because new classifications of crime have showed up like DDOS blackmailing. Spam and DDOSing are both examples of crime that did not really exist qualitatively before the Internet and are a direct result of the prevalence of use of protocols that allow such abuse. Protocols that worked great when the Internet was 12 machines but no so much when it became hundreds of millions. the Internet is just like the Old West in that if you aren't the guy getting lynched by a mob, if you aren't a business owner who has a lot more at stake upon a working law enforcement system and social stability, you probably just don't care as much. But it does matter.
Or, we could require licensure for using roads and require a unique "license plate" for automobiles so that people are accountable and law enforcement can be more easily accomplished. We might also change laws regarding jurisdiction so that it's possible to pursue criminals now that roads and cars have made crime more easily mobile.
I was agreeing with you up to the point just before you said that Chinese people will deal with this themselves. I wonder how many Chinese people even give a fuck. A while back I was talking to a group of them, and the conversation sort of drifted into what it was like living and growing up in China. One woman talked about how much fun it was growing up, because all the kids got to do what they wanted because all the grownups were too busy dealing with the aftermath of the "Cultural Revolution" to make their kids go to school. Another guy talked about how a few people that worked at some chemical plant he worked at got picked up one day because they had taken part in some sort of protest. Nobody ever saw them again. And it kept going on and on, they kept talking about all these absolutely horrible things that happened to people all around them. And none of them ever got worked up about it all. The most I could get anyone to say about it was "that's just the way it is," with a shrug of the shoulders. I was getting angry just hearing about all these things, and literally in a group of five people, educated and informed, all from different areas and of different ages and backgrounds, nobody expressed any outward emotion about it at all. Then we all dispersed and went back to our jobs.
I am NOT supporting what Limbaugh said in any way, but this accusation did not just come out of left-field:
I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease, and the urgency we as a community were feeling, be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling. --Michael J. Fox. "Little Man" (2003) page 247
If you don't believe me, you can use Amazon's book search to check out the quote and the context.
In his actual testimony, he said that medicine and "hundreds of little tricks" made it possible for him to hide his symptoms. If anything, the "theatrics" were the HIDING of his symptoms, rather than any emphasis of them. I don't disagree with a thing that he did, he wanted to show people what the illness had done to him.
I believe that a US soldier serving in Iraq right now is less worthy of life then these insurgents(And if you are offended, give me one non-racist reason that would say otherwise). Because the majority of people attacking Americans are made up of two groups: disaffected minority ruling-class members that used to enjoy special political status over the majority population and who therefore want to destabilize any attempt at representative democracy; and foreign fighters who don't give a fuck about Iraq or Iraqis but hate the West so much that they cannot tolerate a successful American action in the Middle East.
The Sunnis are the minority, but Sunnis used to dominate the political process. The were benefiting from and working hand in hand with Saddam Hussein. They lost their privilege and are pissed as hell. That's why they keep boycotting shit, because in a representative democracy they don't get their way 100% of the time anymore. It's also why they blow shit up and kill people, because they hate Americans and they always hated Shiites.
So, I mean on a day to day basis, most US soldiers are trying to hold shit together so they can go the fuck home. In the meantime, the insurgents just want to kill people and fuck up infrastructure so that people beg for a return of the old system and the Americans get out of Dodge. I'm not saying that we have any right to be there, but I think if you look at any individual soldier compared to any individual insurgent, as is the criteria you specified, the American soldier's is motivated by basically altruism where the insurgent is the one that is fighting for an unjust system or because of religious hatred or is still holding a grudge about the fucking Crusades.
I don't see how there isn't already some kind of law covering this. The ISP is being deputized as an agent of the Phonographic Industry when it comes to identifying and cutting off file-sharers. While it may be disputable that the ISP is not liable, I definitely don't see how the Phonographic Industry can absolve liability when its them doing the accusation. The ISP at least initially has to take it on face value that their accusation has some merit, which in my mind at least, absolves them of liability. It would seem to me to be a really bad precedent if you can accuse someone of something, legally force a third-party to take action against the accused, and then use that third-party as a shield against liability for your false accusation.
What I am saying is, that is an issue of personal moral imperative and of civil law, not human rights. Rights are supposed to keep people from doing things to me, they are not supposed to force people to do things for me.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
I've not had X successfully autoconfigure on any Macintosh I've ever owned, save for an LC-III running NetBSD. On "normal" PCs, I've had much better success lately, but specifically I was referring to the mystery that is configuring the xorg.conf by hand.
You DO have a human right to health care, the question is whether or not anyone ELSE is somehow obligated through that right to shell out money to pay for YOUR health care. You've taken something that used to be enshrined to an individual to protect their autonomy, and turned it into something that creates a dependent relationship between two people, one subservient to the other's needs. It's in effect an unequal situation, more akin to slavery and not a right at all.
I have a right to free speech, but that does not imply that anyone has an obligation to listen to me. If you want health care, buy it. If you can't afford it, it sounds harsh, but it's not my job to help you exercise your right to be healthy, just to not actively violate it. If you think that a better system would be that everyone pools money together so that everyone can get health care, that's maybe a good idea, but I don't believe that it's a human rights issue. All kinds of good ideas are legally mandated that are not human rights issues.
OK, I concede the point, you are not under legal obligation to comply. Don't let anybody say I don't admit when I'm wrong. But if we're going to use Tu Quoque arguments, keep in mind that a while back the USA was the bad guy for signing but not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
BTW Wikipedia claims the five panel members were a 3-Canada, 2-USA split, but then, it's Wikipedia.
Re:So when do we get its successor?
on
X Power Tools
·
· Score: 1
In 1997 I'd have agreed with you, but today X is working better than ever. Only problems I run into are: configuring it still sucks; and, exporting to a remote machine is still slow as crap compared to Windows Remote Desktop*. There are other things that could make it even better like detaching and reattaching windows to different screens, but personally I'd just be happy if it was as snappy over the network as Windows.
*My experience with NX has not been that great, both from a use and configuration standpoint. And it's not standard with X.
There are some politicians in Canada who don't seem to understand that their country is a signatory to the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty and are under obligation to meet a minimum criteria for copyright law harmonization with other signatories. Maybe they do understand and are simply peeved about it. As a sovereign country they are free to do as they please, but we believe that they can either remain signatories to the treaty or disregard treaty obligations for their own standards, but not both.
You don't necessarily have to do anything wrong at all. I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it myself. I have NEVER had problems with Firefox and memory/CPU usage. But a friend of mine demonstrated to me, on a fresh Windows install on his laptop, installing Firefox 2 and having it drag ass and eat CPU cycles like cookies. For some reason, Firefox 2 goes apeshit on some machines. He runs Opera right now to get around that problem, but I'm going to have him try out the FF3 beta. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with Opera, but there are some nice Firefox extensions that make it worth it to keep both around.
I've seen commercials on television that were more or less "you've fixed cars, look at these guys FIX FIGHTER JETS!!1!!1" so everybody gets their targeted ads I guess.
There are people that are making sure that Haiku compiles and runs using GCC4. You just won't be able to run any legacy BeOS software if you do that. As long as that's not a problem, you can do it. Haiku Release 1 goals are binary and source compatiblity with BeOS 5 for x86. Release 2 is intended to move beyond that, but that's a long way off. There are already people compiling Haiku with limited functionality under GCC4 and on other architectures like Motorola 68K.
God, that was really unclear. OK, first of all if the OS is compiled with GCC v.2.x so that you get binary compatibility with BeOS, that means that ALL software for your system has to be compiled against GCC v2.x. With regards to "legacy modern hardware," what I meant was that BeOS just plain doesn't run on many hardware that came after Be died, because of incompatibilities in the kernel. BeOS Max Edition is an unofficial "distribution" of the free "personal" version of BeOS which includes some binary kernel patches to allow BeOS to run on more modern hardware. Of course Haiku is open source, so it does not suffer from this limitation because it can just be patched and recompiled.
Lack of drivers will be an issue with both platforms, but the intent is that there will be driver compatibility between BeOS and Haiku, of course. AFAIK this mostly works. Additionally, both OSS sound and FreeBSD drivers can be recompiled and used in Haiku, so you get all that hardware support in Haiku that never existed in BeOS.
When you say a ground up rewrite, I worry. This is because the real-time nature of the OS is something that none of the other "big 3" have gotten right The kernel of Haiku is a fork of the open source NewOS kernel. It was written by Travis Geiselbrecht, who was a kernel hacker for Be, Inc. My understanding is that conceptually the kernels are similar.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not actually true because you are also restricted from spending money on transportation TO Cuba, and are not legally allowed to accept travel arrangements or expenses gratis contrary to what you are saying. It's pretty airtight, I would suggest reading for yourself the rules on the US Department of State website. The idea that you can travel legally to Cuba extragovernmentally is a fiction put forth by businesses that offer travel to Cuba for Americans. regarding the treasury department license, the number one reason this has been issued in the past has been for educational purposes. But this has been abused to offer essentially mini-vacations, and many of the ones I have seen have propaganda "history" courses on Communism and the history of the USA re. Cuba. Not that there isn't a legitimate argument to be made from the Cuban side, but the classes are still propaganda. The government has correspondingly drastically reduced the issuance of these licenses, to the despaired wailing of, primarily, people who were abusing them.
With regards to science I think you are underestimating the role of interpretation. When it comes to theories of Native American migration across the North American continent, accepted linguistic evidence and accepted archaeological evidence actually disagree with each other with regards to timelines of migration. What will eventually happen is that more evidence will be gained, and a new interpretation of the old evidence will replace the last. The interesting difference here is that the interpretive value of whichever field/profession was incorrect will be retained because the methodology will be changed to fit the evidence. I actually question this because one of the requirements of science as you have said is that your methodology is predictive, because if you just adjust your theory in accordance with every time you are wrong but are not actually successful at leveraging that to predict things correctly, I don't really see how that's different from for example astrology. I agree with most people here that Creationism and ID are scams, but while the integrity of science as a concept is pretty solid, there are plenty of people operating in scientific fields that are scammers too. The difference in science is that scammers and fraudsters and the just-plain-wrong only last in the short term, they eventually get exposed or in the worst case get old and die and people without reputations or funding tied to those biases can move forward.
No, because the RIAA doesn't care if filesharing is hard. Everyone I know who is currently in college is taking advantage of the fast college network by running uTorrent perpetually, downloading movies, games and music. Nobody has as many friends as many people as they can download from off the Internet, and most of their friends probably don't have a terabyte of the latest music, either. That's why they don't give a damn about sneakernet. The Internet makes pirated music EASY to get and PLENTIFUL which is why they are after that. If you got it down to isolated networks of people sharing music with their friends, the RIAA would basically be happy. And if it got to be popular for groups of people to pass around a terabyte drive full of music, it would really only take one spy per campus to land a whole bunch of people in court, with frankly a lot more evidence and liability against them than a bittorrent connection to their dorm room.
The Internet and bittorrent is causing a lot of damage to the music industry's business model, and sneakernet does not and will not. If you make network filesharing risky, most people are going to stop and they don't have the resources to "steal" equally to how much they did off bittorrent. So to answer your question, no, as far as the RIAA is concerned, shifting the filesharing to sneakernet is probably not that much of a concern to them at all.
Sorry man, but you're wrong. The difference between junk fax and spam is that you knew the origin of junk fax, which is exactly why the law worked for junk fax and doesn't work for spam. OK many crimes have some sort of precedent in the real world, but the fact is if they become insanely prevalent because of the Internet, then you have to start taking them more seriously. You can't just throw up your hands and say they've been around forever.
Well, I am not agreeing that we need a second Internet, just that his premises are not wholly without merit. A lot of problems with the Internet are a direct result of the architecture not being designed for or suited for untrusted peers. This doesn't address stuff like file sharing, that's more of a case of exploiting the power of the network potentially for crime as opposed to spam or DDoSing being abusing weaknesses of the network for crime. Some businesses are simply disadvantaged by the read-write web, and I don't think we should give their selfish considerations any currency. I have no political opposition to the concept of QoS, but I know from a practical standpoint that it will be abused for profit motive/political reasons if implemented.
Secondly, Windows is a problem, but again if the network didn't just trust peers then even if dirty hosts could combine to form a botnet they would be limited in their abilities to send spam or DDoS. A lot of the incentive to crack machines in the first place would be eliminated.
Societies adjust all the time to deal with different types of emerging crime. The difference here is that the Internet is the equivalent of the Old West and everyone here is resisting any attempt to adjust the Internet to deal with the crime that is a direct result of this fact. And yes the nature of the crime is fundamentally different, not the least of which is because you can commit many of the crimes remotely, and secondly because new classifications of crime have showed up like DDOS blackmailing. Spam and DDOSing are both examples of crime that did not really exist qualitatively before the Internet and are a direct result of the prevalence of use of protocols that allow such abuse. Protocols that worked great when the Internet was 12 machines but no so much when it became hundreds of millions. the Internet is just like the Old West in that if you aren't the guy getting lynched by a mob, if you aren't a business owner who has a lot more at stake upon a working law enforcement system and social stability, you probably just don't care as much. But it does matter.
Or, we could require licensure for using roads and require a unique "license plate" for automobiles so that people are accountable and law enforcement can be more easily accomplished. We might also change laws regarding jurisdiction so that it's possible to pursue criminals now that roads and cars have made crime more easily mobile.
I was agreeing with you up to the point just before you said that Chinese people will deal with this themselves. I wonder how many Chinese people even give a fuck. A while back I was talking to a group of them, and the conversation sort of drifted into what it was like living and growing up in China. One woman talked about how much fun it was growing up, because all the kids got to do what they wanted because all the grownups were too busy dealing with the aftermath of the "Cultural Revolution" to make their kids go to school. Another guy talked about how a few people that worked at some chemical plant he worked at got picked up one day because they had taken part in some sort of protest. Nobody ever saw them again. And it kept going on and on, they kept talking about all these absolutely horrible things that happened to people all around them. And none of them ever got worked up about it all. The most I could get anyone to say about it was "that's just the way it is," with a shrug of the shoulders. I was getting angry just hearing about all these things, and literally in a group of five people, educated and informed, all from different areas and of different ages and backgrounds, nobody expressed any outward emotion about it at all. Then we all dispersed and went back to our jobs.
If you don't believe me, you can use Amazon's book search to check out the quote and the context.
In his actual testimony, he said that medicine and "hundreds of little tricks" made it possible for him to hide his symptoms. If anything, the "theatrics" were the HIDING of his symptoms, rather than any emphasis of them. I don't disagree with a thing that he did, he wanted to show people what the illness had done to him.
I thought this sounded familiar, but with classical music and light that makes your acne look worse. It's still socially acceptable to stereotype, mock, fear, hate and discriminate against young people.
The Sunnis are the minority, but Sunnis used to dominate the political process. The were benefiting from and working hand in hand with Saddam Hussein. They lost their privilege and are pissed as hell. That's why they keep boycotting shit, because in a representative democracy they don't get their way 100% of the time anymore. It's also why they blow shit up and kill people, because they hate Americans and they always hated Shiites.
So, I mean on a day to day basis, most US soldiers are trying to hold shit together so they can go the fuck home. In the meantime, the insurgents just want to kill people and fuck up infrastructure so that people beg for a return of the old system and the Americans get out of Dodge. I'm not saying that we have any right to be there, but I think if you look at any individual soldier compared to any individual insurgent, as is the criteria you specified, the American soldier's is motivated by basically altruism where the insurgent is the one that is fighting for an unjust system or because of religious hatred or is still holding a grudge about the fucking Crusades.
This is a great explanation, thank you. It's clear to me that the BPI does want to use the ISPs as a shield, it makes perfect sense.
I don't see how there isn't already some kind of law covering this. The ISP is being deputized as an agent of the Phonographic Industry when it comes to identifying and cutting off file-sharers. While it may be disputable that the ISP is not liable, I definitely don't see how the Phonographic Industry can absolve liability when its them doing the accusation. The ISP at least initially has to take it on face value that their accusation has some merit, which in my mind at least, absolves them of liability. It would seem to me to be a really bad precedent if you can accuse someone of something, legally force a third-party to take action against the accused, and then use that third-party as a shield against liability for your false accusation.
What I am saying is, that is an issue of personal moral imperative and of civil law, not human rights. Rights are supposed to keep people from doing things to me, they are not supposed to force people to do things for me.
I've not had X successfully autoconfigure on any Macintosh I've ever owned, save for an LC-III running NetBSD. On "normal" PCs, I've had much better success lately, but specifically I was referring to the mystery that is configuring the xorg.conf by hand.
You DO have a human right to health care, the question is whether or not anyone ELSE is somehow obligated through that right to shell out money to pay for YOUR health care. You've taken something that used to be enshrined to an individual to protect their autonomy, and turned it into something that creates a dependent relationship between two people, one subservient to the other's needs. It's in effect an unequal situation, more akin to slavery and not a right at all.
I have a right to free speech, but that does not imply that anyone has an obligation to listen to me. If you want health care, buy it. If you can't afford it, it sounds harsh, but it's not my job to help you exercise your right to be healthy, just to not actively violate it. If you think that a better system would be that everyone pools money together so that everyone can get health care, that's maybe a good idea, but I don't believe that it's a human rights issue. All kinds of good ideas are legally mandated that are not human rights issues.
OK, I concede the point, you are not under legal obligation to comply. Don't let anybody say I don't admit when I'm wrong. But if we're going to use Tu Quoque arguments, keep in mind that a while back the USA was the bad guy for signing but not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
BTW Wikipedia claims the five panel members were a 3-Canada, 2-USA split, but then, it's Wikipedia.
In 1997 I'd have agreed with you, but today X is working better than ever. Only problems I run into are: configuring it still sucks; and, exporting to a remote machine is still slow as crap compared to Windows Remote Desktop*. There are other things that could make it even better like detaching and reattaching windows to different screens, but personally I'd just be happy if it was as snappy over the network as Windows.
*My experience with NX has not been that great, both from a use and configuration standpoint. And it's not standard with X.
There are some politicians in Canada who don't seem to understand that their country is a signatory to the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty and are under obligation to meet a minimum criteria for copyright law harmonization with other signatories. Maybe they do understand and are simply peeved about it. As a sovereign country they are free to do as they please, but we believe that they can either remain signatories to the treaty or disregard treaty obligations for their own standards, but not both.
You don't necessarily have to do anything wrong at all. I wouldn't have believed it without seeing it myself. I have NEVER had problems with Firefox and memory/CPU usage. But a friend of mine demonstrated to me, on a fresh Windows install on his laptop, installing Firefox 2 and having it drag ass and eat CPU cycles like cookies. For some reason, Firefox 2 goes apeshit on some machines. He runs Opera right now to get around that problem, but I'm going to have him try out the FF3 beta. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with Opera, but there are some nice Firefox extensions that make it worth it to keep both around.
I've seen commercials on television that were more or less "you've fixed cars, look at these guys FIX FIGHTER JETS!!1!!1" so everybody gets their targeted ads I guess.
There are people that are making sure that Haiku compiles and runs using GCC4. You just won't be able to run any legacy BeOS software if you do that. As long as that's not a problem, you can do it. Haiku Release 1 goals are binary and source compatiblity with BeOS 5 for x86. Release 2 is intended to move beyond that, but that's a long way off. There are already people compiling Haiku with limited functionality under GCC4 and on other architectures like Motorola 68K.
God, that was really unclear. OK, first of all if the OS is compiled with GCC v.2.x so that you get binary compatibility with BeOS, that means that ALL software for your system has to be compiled against GCC v2.x. With regards to "legacy modern hardware," what I meant was that BeOS just plain doesn't run on many hardware that came after Be died, because of incompatibilities in the kernel. BeOS Max Edition is an unofficial "distribution" of the free "personal" version of BeOS which includes some binary kernel patches to allow BeOS to run on more modern hardware. Of course Haiku is open source, so it does not suffer from this limitation because it can just be patched and recompiled.
Lack of drivers will be an issue with both platforms, but the intent is that there will be driver compatibility between BeOS and Haiku, of course. AFAIK this mostly works. Additionally, both OSS sound and FreeBSD drivers can be recompiled and used in Haiku, so you get all that hardware support in Haiku that never existed in BeOS.