If you, just as an amazingly simple example, installed an alias in that user's.blahrc file for 'su' and a file in their bin directory called 'su' which read in the password typed after the su, printed 'Incorrect password' or whatever, and then erased itself, you'd have the root password.
You think too much like a math geek and not enough like a psych geek.
> USE WHAT YOU WANT FOR TECHNICAL OR AESTHETIC REASONS.
Funny, that's what I do with clothes. Guess clothes aren't a fashion statement either. Nor cars. Nor really stupid, inane postings.
Your computer is what you want it to be, and what you use and how you use it reflects a lot about you, just as does the fact that you have a 15 volt cordless Makita instead of some piece-of-junk black-and-decker that cost 1/3 as much. For example. Or the fact that you choose to drive a Jaguar (costs a lot, amazingly failure-prone, but very, very pretty) or a Honda (mostly not especially pretty, costs a fair bit, amazingly reliable) or a Kia (you figure it out).
Get over yourself, man. You're not the first who had the 'you're not your computer' insight. It's one way of looking at the situation. Be bright enough to figure out that it's not the only way.
See, milk prices in california are regulated. So you can buy a gallon of milk for a minimum price of... oh, I forget... I think it's like $3.50. But they can offer a discount when you buy two... come to think of it, I guess it's two gallons for $4.50.
So if I, for example, strip an electron off of one molecule and it bops onto another one in a reaction, that is affected in no way by the weak nuclear force?
Well, you live and learn, I guess. Here I thought the weak nuclear force was what was keeping that electron in that particular molecule to begin with.
If you ignore the payroll taxes and the social security taxes and so forth, then you get numbers like this. (They aren't right, mind you, they're five years old.) Payroll tax in particular is hideously regressive: you don't pay it at all on capital gains, and you only pay it for the first N dollars of your income per year, I forget how much. But someone who takes home $60k/year pays the same amount in payroll taxes as someone who takes home $60M/year.
And then there are sales taxes... but that's a whole different story.
Anyway, the current estimate of how much the top 1% *owns* in assets (not income) is between 40 and 50% of the total wealth in the country. Interesting?
'It's irritating to me, and I'm not rich, so let's get rid of it!'
Well, fair enough. But just remember, we're running huge deficits, and are going to continue to do so for the forseeable future according to the best projections that weren't actually made by someone being paid DIRECTLY by the Bush team.
This money is going to have to come from somewhere, and when you realize that the Bush team wants to shift taxes down the income distribution curve, well, guess who is going to do the paying?
Hint: it won't be Bush. If you're really lucky and make a million or two in the next couple of years, it probably won't be you, either.
What we have here is 'tinkle-down' economics at its finest.
If you want the economy to move forward, piss on the heads of the poor, and give lots of money to the rich.
We have plenty of investment. We don't have plenty of spending. Your point is invalid. Move along.
-fred
PS: You can't imagine how upset I am that the yacht-builders , makers of things that can only be used as rich peoples' toys, had some economic problems.
The wealthiest 50% of US citizens pay 96% of all income taxes? I should HOPE so.
The wealthiest 10% of US citizens posess 2/3 of the wealth in the US. (Well, actually, these numbers are out of date... the top 1% now owns between 40 and 50 percent of the US's wealth.) If we extrapolate that down, the wealthiest 50% of US citizens OWN more than 90% of the wealth in the country. Quite possibly more than 96%. (Oops, your own site says that they earn 87% of the income, which, if you extrapolate it out from looking at the other site I mentioned, means that they probably own at least 95, maybe 99% of the wealth in the country today.).
Okay. Although that's actually wrong, because of two factors: one, the numbers have changed (skewing more towards the top) since those five-year-old studies, and two, the richest of the rich are way undercounted because there is no accurate way to find out how much money they make/have. Census figures only go up to 300k+, and IRS only goes up to 1M+.)
Perhaps you think that every dollar should be taxed equally, but for those of us who believe in a progressive tax system, your numbers fail to appall. Even if you do believe that, though, you're pretty close to it being true. And it's sure not what I believe is healthy.
In some states, eat-in is taxed but no other food is.
In some states, all food is taxed.
In at least one state, all eat-in food is taxed, as is all take-out restaurant food that has been heated, fried, baked, cooked, or otherwise warmed expressly for the purpose of immediate consumption, but no other food is. So if you buy a meatball sub and a turkey sub at Subway and get them both to go, if you get them on separate checks, one is taxable and the other isn't.
In at least one state, all restaurant and prepared food is taxed, as is any food that is not deemed a *necessity*. It varies depending on whom you ask whether chocolate is in fact a necessity or not.
So that when they discontinue office, they can still sell an Office solution for the Mac: Run the Windows version under VPC.
It's cheaper for them, it makes them almost as much money, and it makes the Mac look really bad (awful, slow, and the same UI as the PC!) What more could you ask?
Given that I don't know anyone who ever actually bothers to look at the 'best when rendered with' lines... nor do I know many people who are willing to download a browser just so they can see one particular site...
He didn't ask 'should I support Mac users at all, or should I just say 'screw 'em'?' Telling them to download a new browser, set it up, and use it JUST FOR YOUR SITE is basically saying 'screw 'em'. You can get away with it if you don't care about the audience, or if you can enforce their browser choices. (As one can at a large company with rigid IT rules, for example.) But don't think that it's an acceptable solution for Mac users in any other situation.
We take our money, our interest, and our page counts elsewhere, and there's almost always someone who is willing and able to test (or develop) on a Mac.
Now, that said, I wish I had a solution to the problem. But the only thing I can think of is the fact that used iMacs are going for $300, and old beige G3s are going for sigificantly less. Add in a copy of MacOS X and some RAM, and, well, it's not free, and it's a mite cumbersome, but it's also a nice thing to have around. And hey -- iTunes Music Store.:-)
> I don't care what the article says, the Tzero website page gives the figures "100 miles" at "60 mph," > which is typical highway driving.
That's for their older model, which used lead-acid batteries. (And consequently weighed a zillion times more and could store less power). The whole POINT of the article was that they had something new.
As for the emissions, if you're concerned enough to buy an electric vehicle, and have $200k sitting around for one, you are probably concerned enough to set up a bunch of solar cells on top of your house. It's really not that hard, and far, far less expensive. And if you live in a reasonably sunny area, you can cover all your home and car power needs for most of the year with it.
The process of burning is the process of changing combinations of atoms (molecules) from a high energy state to a lower energy state. Thus, you're playing with the weak nuclear force, if I understand correctly, at least if you're playing with covalent bonds. Ionic are less clear to me.
BTW, I believe that electromagnetism and weak nuclear forces have been unified into the 'electroweak'. Which sounds really dumb, if you ask me. When they unify the electromagnetic, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, are we going to call it the 'electroweakstrong'?
Actually, I live in the bay area and I buy my milk for $3.50 for two gallons.
Which, if you're counting, is better than $1.99 per gallon.
-fred
Not even true in the way YOU mean it
on
Tech Rich Get Richer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The poorest of the poor, the ones who are still paying taxes but just barely, but who are responsible enough not to have children that they can't afford, got exactly no tax cut at all. So did the ones who aren't paying taxes, of course. (And yes, they could have: there have been ideas on the books for giving credits to people who don't earn a living wage.) But you wouldn't count those, because they're not 'important', right?
And, of course, you're still being disingenuous. The recent tax cuts were enormously disproportionately aimed at the wealthiest 5% of the population, and designed really not to benefit anyone else, like those who would actually spend the money and stimulate the economy. (Large increases in spending/purchasing are a much better economic stimulus than large increases in investment with no increases in spending, which is what these tax cuts give us. Ask any rational economist.)
And given that this tax cut is likely to be made permanent, and that we're likely to be hit with a full-on capital gains tax moratorium if Bush is reelected, you will have the amusing experience of seeing large numbers of the richest five percent in the country (the 'idle rich') paying literally no federal income taxes at all, whle the middle class works to support the infrastructure of the country that they enjoy. Reagan tried to do that several times, and I believe Bush Sr. did as well.
Bush's economic team is on record as saying, and I believe this is an exact quote, that they needed to 'shift the tax burden down the income spectrum'. I.e., the rich should pay less in taxes and the middle class pay more. You may agree with this, and that's your perogative, but if you claim it's not happening you're either being blind or you're deliberately trying to make it easier for the administration.
This guy has a 1 gHz TiBook, and he's sad that he's no longer got the latest and greatest Mac laptop. But he's at least happy he can boot into MacOS 9, whereas the new 15" AlBook can't.
Now, that might be offtopic, but I can't imagine in what way anyone could call it a troll.
Don't think you're the first person to think of this.
In fact, Oracle does this now, with lots of its products.
What does it mean? Well, every time the compiler is updated, their software install breaks. Every time the libraries change, their software install breaks. Every time you blink, their software install breaks.
Why not recommend that software makers ship their software with a big hammer. That way I can just hit myself over the head repeatedly, thus causing the same anguish, while at least letting the users I administrate for still USE the software.
I do software testing and web page testing on my Mac. I test on WinXP, Win2k, Win98, Win95, and will eventually be adding Win2003 Server. Have a load of prestine hard drive images... every time I need to do a test, I copy one, start from it, and see what happens.
> Look, I loathe and distrust Microsoft as much as the next guy, but--what incentive do they have to cripple Virtual PC?
A reasonable question. In fact, they have NO reason, and every reason to make Virtual PC as fast as possible. (Since it's clearly never going to be as fast as running in native mode on a real Intel/AMD processor.)
The reason they bought the Mac emulation technology along with the VPC for Windows (which they wanted for other reasons) was so that in a couple of years they could stop making MS Office for the Mac, and just have the windows versions running in emulation on Macs. Thus, they want the performance to be good enough for people not to switch over to competing products, but bad enough that people will think that their Macs are irritatingly slow and eventually 'upgrade' to a Windows machine.
They aren't anywhere near that speed yet, so they're going to have to significantly improve performance before they can take the step of getting rid of Office/Mac.
> He failed to recognize that it is trival to get make to behave like ant...
Trivial. What a great word. In this case it means 'if you know exactly how everything should happen, and your make allows arbitrarily long command line expansion (which not all of them do, certainly) and you don't mind something that is, frankly, a hideous hack, then yes, it's... 'trivial.'
Thank Charlie Fenton for that. He's the programmer that did the Mac port of Seti@Home. And he really, really knows what he's doing, and has been programming on the Mac since before a fair number of Slashdot readers were out of diapers.
Snip One disadvantage with nationalized health care is that if you get problems because of bad treatment, it's very, very hard to sue the state and win. The gigantic health care system have little motivation to fix problems that are big for you -- but not for them. ("We're larger than the phone compan{y,ies} -- we don't care because we don't have to.") Snip
The dramatic majority of HMOs, at least, now, make you sign a waiver (which has so far been mostly enforcable) that says you'll go into binding arbitration rather than sue the company, and waiving all rights to actual court justice. And you have to pay for the arbitration. Before the case even comes up. And the company gives you a choice of a couple of groups that provide the arbitration, which are generally pretty comfortable around the HMO in question, and less buddy-buddy with the consumers.
Plus there's the six-month wait time, and the complicated means for filing a grievance, and sometimes having to travel to another state or at least a good distance within your state in order to do any of this.
And one of the big items for the Republicans was tort reform, to lower the price of health care. Which would basically make it impossible to actually gain anything other than actual damages in those lawsuits anyway. You might get lost wages, but if their incompetence keeps you in a hospital bed for a year, you won't get any compensation for the fact that you haven't been able to see your kids, go on that trip to Europe that you'd been planning, or indeed move to a new job that you could've been making double your old salary at.
Basically, if you get screwed by the health insurance industry in America, you have less hope than you do in Canada.
>> You assign to IBM all right, title, and interest (including ownership of copyright) in any data, suggestions, and >> written materials that 1) is related to Your use of the Program and 2) You provide to IBM.
>Doesn't that mean that they can demand that you transfer the copyrights of code that you compile with it?
What it says is, if 1) You provide data, suggestions, and/or written materials to IBM, and, 2) They are related to your use of the program, then 3) They become the property of IBM.
So if you send IBM a note saying 'This compiler would be MUCH better with a green splash screen,' and then they implement it with a green splash screen, you can't then sue them for stealing your idea.
Slashdot Mirror
If you, just as an amazingly simple example, installed an alias in that user's .blahrc file for 'su' and a file in their bin directory called 'su' which read in the password typed after the su, printed 'Incorrect password' or whatever, and then erased itself, you'd have the root password.
You think too much like a math geek and not enough like a psych geek.
-fred
> YOUR OS IS NOT A FASHION STATEMENT.
It isn't?
> USE WHAT YOU WANT FOR TECHNICAL OR AESTHETIC REASONS.
Funny, that's what I do with clothes. Guess clothes aren't a fashion statement either. Nor cars. Nor really stupid, inane postings.
Your computer is what you want it to be, and what you use and how you use it reflects a lot about you, just as does the fact that you have a 15 volt cordless Makita instead of some piece-of-junk black-and-decker that cost 1/3 as much. For example. Or the fact that you choose to drive a Jaguar (costs a lot, amazingly failure-prone, but very, very pretty) or a Honda (mostly not especially pretty, costs a fair bit, amazingly reliable) or a Kia (you figure it out).
Get over yourself, man. You're not the first who had the 'you're not your computer' insight. It's one way of looking at the situation. Be bright enough to figure out that it's not the only way.
Sheesh.
-fred
See, milk prices in california are regulated. So you can buy a gallon of milk for a minimum price of... oh, I forget... I think it's like $3.50. But they can offer a discount when you buy two... come to think of it, I guess it's two gallons for $4.50.
But still, not that much of a difference.
-fred
So if I, for example, strip an electron off of one molecule and it bops onto another one in a reaction, that is affected in no way by the weak nuclear force?
Well, you live and learn, I guess. Here I thought the weak nuclear force was what was keeping that electron in that particular molecule to begin with.
-fred
If you ignore the payroll taxes and the social security taxes and so forth, then you get numbers like this. (They aren't right, mind you, they're five years old.) Payroll tax in particular is hideously regressive: you don't pay it at all on capital gains, and you only pay it for the first N dollars of your income per year, I forget how much. But someone who takes home $60k/year pays the same amount in payroll taxes as someone who takes home $60M/year.
And then there are sales taxes... but that's a whole different story.
Anyway, the current estimate of how much the top 1% *owns* in assets (not income) is between 40 and 50% of the total wealth in the country. Interesting?
-fred
'It's irritating to me, and I'm not rich, so let's get rid of it!'
Well, fair enough. But just remember, we're running huge deficits, and are going to continue to do so for the forseeable future according to the best projections that weren't actually made by someone being paid DIRECTLY by the Bush team.
This money is going to have to come from somewhere, and when you realize that the Bush team wants to shift taxes down the income distribution curve, well, guess who is going to do the paying?
Hint: it won't be Bush. If you're really lucky and make a million or two in the next couple of years, it probably won't be you, either.
-fred
What we have here is 'tinkle-down' economics at its finest.
If you want the economy to move forward, piss on the heads of the poor, and give lots of money to the rich.
We have plenty of investment. We don't have plenty of spending. Your point is invalid. Move along.
-fred
PS: You can't imagine how upset I am that the yacht-builders , makers of things that can only be used as rich peoples' toys, had some economic problems.
The wealthiest 50% of US citizens pay 96% of all income taxes? I should HOPE so.
The wealthiest 10% of US citizens posess 2/3 of the wealth in the US. (Well, actually, these numbers are out of date... the top 1% now owns between 40 and 50 percent of the US's wealth.) If we extrapolate that down, the wealthiest 50% of US citizens OWN more than 90% of the wealth in the country. Quite possibly more than 96%. (Oops, your own site says that they earn 87% of the income, which, if you extrapolate it out from looking at the other site I mentioned, means that they probably own at least 95, maybe 99% of the wealth in the country today.).
Okay. Although that's actually wrong, because of two factors: one, the numbers have changed (skewing more towards the top) since those five-year-old studies, and two, the richest of the rich are way undercounted because there is no accurate way to find out how much money they make/have. Census figures only go up to 300k+, and IRS only goes up to 1M+.)
Perhaps you think that every dollar should be taxed equally, but for those of us who believe in a progressive tax system, your numbers fail to appall. Even if you do believe that, though, you're pretty close to it being true. And it's sure not what I believe is healthy.
-fred
In some states, no food is taxed.
In some states, eat-in is taxed but no other food is.
In some states, all food is taxed.
In at least one state, all eat-in food is taxed, as is all take-out restaurant food that has been heated, fried, baked, cooked, or otherwise warmed expressly for the purpose of immediate consumption, but no other food is. So if you buy a meatball sub and a turkey sub at Subway and get them both to go, if you get them on separate checks, one is taxable and the other isn't.
In at least one state, all restaurant and prepared food is taxed, as is any food that is not deemed a *necessity*. It varies depending on whom you ask whether chocolate is in fact a necessity or not.
-fred
So that when they discontinue office, they can still sell an Office solution for the Mac: Run the Windows version under VPC.
It's cheaper for them, it makes them almost as much money, and it makes the Mac look really bad (awful, slow, and the same UI as the PC!) What more could you ask?
-fred
Given that I don't know anyone who ever actually bothers to look at the 'best when rendered with' lines... nor do I know many people who are willing to download a browser just so they can see one particular site...
:-)
He didn't ask 'should I support Mac users at all, or should I just say 'screw 'em'?' Telling them to download a new browser, set it up, and use it JUST FOR YOUR SITE is basically saying 'screw 'em'. You can get away with it if you don't care about the audience, or if you can enforce their browser choices. (As one can at a large company with rigid IT rules, for example.) But don't think that it's an acceptable solution for Mac users in any other situation.
We take our money, our interest, and our page counts elsewhere, and there's almost always someone who is willing and able to test (or develop) on a Mac.
Now, that said, I wish I had a solution to the problem. But the only thing I can think of is the fact that used iMacs are going for $300, and old beige G3s are going for sigificantly less. Add in a copy of MacOS X and some RAM, and, well, it's not free, and it's a mite cumbersome, but it's also a nice thing to have around. And hey -- iTunes Music Store.
-fred
> I don't care what the article says, the Tzero website page gives the figures "100 miles" at "60 mph,"
> which is typical highway driving.
That's for their older model, which used lead-acid batteries. (And consequently weighed a zillion times more and could store less power). The whole POINT of the article was that they had something new.
As for the emissions, if you're concerned enough to buy an electric vehicle, and have $200k sitting around for one, you are probably concerned enough to set up a bunch of solar cells on top of your house. It's really not that hard, and far, far less expensive. And if you live in a reasonably sunny area, you can cover all your home and car power needs for most of the year with it.
And THAT is a true zero-emissions vehicle.
-fred
(the original)
They called 'em 'straight eights', and yes, there were some, shall we say, problems with evenness of cooling.
-fred
The process of burning is the process of changing combinations of atoms (molecules) from a high energy state to a lower energy state. Thus, you're playing with the weak nuclear force, if I understand correctly, at least if you're playing with covalent bonds. Ionic are less clear to me.
BTW, I believe that electromagnetism and weak nuclear forces have been unified into the 'electroweak'. Which sounds really dumb, if you ask me. When they unify the electromagnetic, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, are we going to call it the 'electroweakstrong'?
Actually, I live in the bay area and I buy my milk for $3.50 for two gallons.
Which, if you're counting, is better than $1.99 per gallon.
-fred
The poorest of the poor, the ones who are still paying taxes but just barely, but who are responsible enough not to have children that they can't afford, got exactly no tax cut at all. So did the ones who aren't paying taxes, of course. (And yes, they could have: there have been ideas on the books for giving credits to people who don't earn a living wage.) But you wouldn't count those, because they're not 'important', right?
And, of course, you're still being disingenuous. The recent tax cuts were enormously disproportionately aimed at the wealthiest 5% of the population, and designed really not to benefit anyone else, like those who would actually spend the money and stimulate the economy. (Large increases in spending/purchasing are a much better economic stimulus than large increases in investment with no increases in spending, which is what these tax cuts give us. Ask any rational economist.)
And given that this tax cut is likely to be made permanent, and that we're likely to be hit with a full-on capital gains tax moratorium if Bush is reelected, you will have the amusing experience of seeing large numbers of the richest five percent in the country (the 'idle rich') paying literally no federal income taxes at all, whle the middle class works to support the infrastructure of the country that they enjoy. Reagan tried to do that several times, and I believe Bush Sr. did as well.
Bush's economic team is on record as saying, and I believe this is an exact quote, that they needed to 'shift the tax burden down the income spectrum'. I.e., the rich should pay less in taxes and the middle class pay more. You may agree with this, and that's your perogative, but if you claim it's not happening you're either being blind or you're deliberately trying to make it easier for the administration.
Either way, pretty sad.
-fred
I'm not sure who is smoking what here.
This guy has a 1 gHz TiBook, and he's sad that he's no longer got the latest and greatest Mac laptop. But he's at least happy he can boot into MacOS 9, whereas the new 15" AlBook can't.
Now, that might be offtopic, but I can't imagine in what way anyone could call it a troll.
-fred
Don't think you're the first person to think of this.
In fact, Oracle does this now, with lots of its products.
What does it mean? Well, every time the compiler is updated, their software install breaks. Every time the libraries change, their software install breaks. Every time you blink, their software install breaks.
Why not recommend that software makers ship their software with a big hammer. That way I can just hit myself over the head repeatedly, thus causing the same anguish, while at least letting the users I administrate for still USE the software.
-fred
I do software testing and web page testing on my Mac. I test on WinXP, Win2k, Win98, Win95, and will eventually be adding Win2003 Server. Have a load of prestine hard drive images... every time I need to do a test, I copy one, start from it, and see what happens.
It's oh, so convenient.
-fred
...is that it doesn't even come close to rendering right in Safari.
Who is that program for, again?
-fred
> Look, I loathe and distrust Microsoft as much as the next guy, but--what incentive do they have to cripple Virtual PC?
A reasonable question. In fact, they have NO reason, and every reason to make Virtual PC as fast as possible. (Since it's clearly never going to be as fast as running in native mode on a real Intel/AMD processor.)
The reason they bought the Mac emulation technology along with the VPC for Windows (which they wanted for other reasons) was so that in a couple of years they could stop making MS Office for the Mac, and just have the windows versions running in emulation on Macs. Thus, they want the performance to be good enough for people not to switch over to competing products, but bad enough that people will think that their Macs are irritatingly slow and eventually 'upgrade' to a Windows machine.
They aren't anywhere near that speed yet, so they're going to have to significantly improve performance before they can take the step of getting rid of Office/Mac.
-fred
> He failed to recognize that it is trival to get make to behave like ant...
Trivial. What a great word. In this case it means 'if you know exactly how everything should happen, and your make allows arbitrarily long command line expansion (which not all of them do, certainly) and you don't mind something that is, frankly, a hideous hack, then yes, it's... 'trivial.'
-Fred
Thank Charlie Fenton for that. He's the programmer that did the Mac port of Seti@Home. And he really, really knows what he's doing, and has been programming on the Mac since before a fair number of Slashdot readers were out of diapers.
-Fred
Snip
One disadvantage with nationalized health care is that if you get problems because of bad treatment, it's very, very hard to sue the state and win. The gigantic health care system have little motivation to fix problems that are big for you -- but not for them. ("We're larger than the phone compan{y,ies} -- we don't care because we don't have to.")
Snip
The dramatic majority of HMOs, at least, now, make you sign a waiver (which has so far been mostly enforcable) that says you'll go into binding arbitration rather than sue the company, and waiving all rights to actual court justice. And you have to pay for the arbitration. Before the case even comes up. And the company gives you a choice of a couple of groups that provide the arbitration, which are generally pretty comfortable around the HMO in question, and less buddy-buddy with the consumers.
Plus there's the six-month wait time, and the complicated means for filing a grievance, and sometimes having to travel to another state or at least a good distance within your state in order to do any of this.
And one of the big items for the Republicans was tort reform, to lower the price of health care. Which would basically make it impossible to actually gain anything other than actual damages in those lawsuits anyway. You might get lost wages, but if their incompetence keeps you in a hospital bed for a year, you won't get any compensation for the fact that you haven't been able to see your kids, go on that trip to Europe that you'd been planning, or indeed move to a new job that you could've been making double your old salary at.
Basically, if you get screwed by the health insurance industry in America, you have less hope than you do in Canada.
-Fred
>> You assign to IBM all right, title, and interest (including ownership of copyright) in any data, suggestions, and
>> written materials that 1) is related to Your use of the Program and 2) You provide to IBM.
>Doesn't that mean that they can demand that you transfer the copyrights of code that you compile with it?
What it says is, if
1) You provide data, suggestions, and/or written materials to IBM, and,
2) They are related to your use of the program, then
3) They become the property of IBM.
So if you send IBM a note saying 'This compiler would be MUCH better with a green splash screen,' and then they implement it with a green splash screen, you can't then sue them for stealing your idea.
-Fred