"Stolen" implies that a bunch of masked bandits from Google raided Apple's Cupertino HQ and pilfered the vault of all the valuable iPhone widgets and touch screens.
Spring-boarding off of the iPhone (and doing some things better) is what Android did. Jobs sounded like he didn't want competition from something that might lap his phone. Rather than innovate ("great artists steal"), he decided to throw down the lawsuit hammer (or at least try to), thereby making Apple nothing more than Microsoft or IBM with a hip wardrobe fetish.
Everything these days comes from previous innovations.... there are a few exceptions, but most of the time true progress comes from expanding or improving an existing product or idea. Jobs did that with the iPhone, but it seems he didn't want anyone else to do so... That's what's broken here. (And I do agree that patents need reform just as much as copyright.)
Those amendments merely qualified the position that the Bill of Rights were not subject to State usurpation. It has nothing to do with the breach of Federal power that occurred during and after the Civil war, which spat in the face of the 10th amendment.
Regardless of your position on the role of the Federal government, the 10th Amendment's pretty clear what is and is not Federal power... and yet the federal government continues to grow...
Don't look now, but your Apple is showing. Here's a reality check for you, if you care to open the "scary terminal" in your copy of Lion....
Look at what's buried below that clean, unblemished UI.... BSD. Free Software. Stuff that "has a ways to go" before it reaches Apple's level of "absorption".
I agree, and I'd much rather have old, stable, and not $500 (or whatever Office is priced at now.):)
My needs for office apps at home are light, but LibreOffice/OpenOffice are hefty programs that don't "get in my way" of doing simple, mundane office-like things.
I much prefer it to the microsoft tax anyway (using OpenOffice on my Mac and LibreOffice on my Fedora machine..) The only thing I would say that needs "spit and polish" is, like you said, the ODF format. It's not a deal-breaker for me either. I am glad it is fully open as well... in the days of "planned obsolescence", it's refreshing to see software not try to pigeonhole you. (Or lasso your documents, keeping them from you because you decided it was best not to upgrade when corporation A said to.)
And yet here we are with Windows 8 around the corner and no more info about "WinFS"... well, at least good info.
They need to update their filesystem (so does Apple come to think of it.) And Windows' version of "Desktop search" is pretty dated even compared to Apple's... (which sits on an ancient FS updated and patched together with duck-tape and bailing wire.)
Is there ANY possibility that when WinFS does come out, it'll be retrofitted to 7?
The reason people disagree (mods excluded for the moment) is that Copyright is not a a property right. It is trying to become one these days, but it's only about control over something "for a limited time." Copyright doesn't guarantee revenue, and it never should. The founders realized the lack of a public domain was crushing Europe and miring it in legal entanglements that the budding United States wanted to avoid. But like anything else in the world, the US has become Europe.. and places like China and so forth are the "new frontier" where copyright is treated as a truly limited control for the creator only.
Just because lawyers try to enforce a nonexistent ideal in an EULA doesn't make it legally so. There are lots of unenforceable "wishes" in EULAs. The Economist once had an article describing why copyright was never meant to be a property right... (google, I'm lazy this afternoon. heh.)
It appears to be a comint prop-job.:) The fact that it got hit by what apparently was a UWB signal is interesting, given the Air Force's interest in that area of emissions the last decade or so. Let's not get too hasty in crowing North Korea "electronic warfare kings" just yet, though.:)
I dunno... giving the TSA goons a name like "smurf" certainly doesn't give a hint as to their sinister side... Of course one is a little, invasive, annoyingly-voiced bastard that won't just go away, and the other is a smurf.
Perhaps we should call them "checkpoint trolls" or "checkpoint pervs"?
I think this kid's a distraction. It's rather like a "hey look over here!" while someone else is picking your pocket.
Organized crime isn't advertising. They aren't in it for the "LULZ" or whatever. They are conducting "business" and in the process of conducting that business, they put up distractions like this person who claims responsibility (or allow this person who is totally bogus but in it for the fame) to deflect interest in looking at them as the culprit.
"Virtual sleight of hand".... for lack of a better term, I guess.:)
Learning how to think, being well rounded, and having a solid fundamental base (you know, doing things with a pencil and paper and calculating in one's head), makes learning a spreadsheet or computer research trivial. You're advocating tool use as a higher endeavor, and I don't think you meant to.
Jutland isn't the end-all point of the matter... providing a rounded portfolio of knowledge and the ability to think critically, analyze things and solve problems is. And no fact of history is ever obsolete.:)
Learning a spreadsheet in school is obsolete when the next version of Office comes out anyway.
They may not be a "shill"... but their bias is very clearly marked on their collar.:) I have seen them put out false stories and, upon finding they were fake, taking their own sweet time to post a retraction... dunno if that has gotten better over time or not. To be fair, it's not a normal practice, but it sure did seem a while before they retracted...
It's rather like the decided BeOS bias of osnews.com.:) It's obvious, unhidden, and taken with a grain of salt. Their level of scrutiny for anything not BeOS (or Haiku, I suppose) was legendary. It was pretty heavy biased toward windows with the new editor... I stopped reading when the community became Microsoft Apologists... there's only so much drivel one can take.:) heheh.
Bias is fine, if a publication stops trying to hide it.:)
Not necessarily pay... it's up to the copyright holder. Copyright doesn't guarantee revenue, it guarantees (for a limited time....that's a laugh) control of a work. It's perfectly within the copyright holder's rights to give away or permit unlimited copying of said work. Patents have to be defended or they're lost as well. Patents last for a much shorter time, and are subject to prior art (if the Patent Office could be bothered...) There are similarities though... Both copyright and patent trolls infest our world like that pee smell in the back of city buses.:)
It's clear you don't like the moral tenets Jesus put forth. That's fine. But if you want to learn theology... slashdot isn't the place to learn it.
Why do you persist in trying to justify your lack of belief? Just don't believe and move on. It's not hard. I don't mind if you don't believe what I believe. What I believe isn't mainstream religion anyway, as I've said before, because I am not going to explain why I think allegory is greatest when it is applied abstractly rather than claiming the earth is 6000 years old and God is not an astronaut. It's not a leap of logic to take the abstract concepts of the New Testament and apply them to making life better for yourself and others.
You choose a different path. I get it. There's all sorts of things to find out, see, and learn. Don't get fixated on allegory vs. narrative and try to put God in a box so you feel better about unbelief. That's what bugs me about Richard Dawkins. He is on a crusade to, by hook or by crook, make sure everyone who believes something other than him is either browbeaten into submission or annoyed to the point of giving up. I get he doesn't believe in God. I get that some people who believe in God are nuts. I don't understand why he persists in marginalizing people who aren't a clone of his belief system (he refuses to call it "belief", but far more learned men in the dim past would disagree..) But I digress...
Just feel good about it and move on. Life's too short to try and spend your days "correcting" everyone you meet to fit your view of the universe. That's the beauty of the universe... there's room for everyone.
Context. It's context. Am I Saul? Are you Saul? Is Saul the butcher going to find the Amalekites? If so, he needs help. And if you think that commanding Saul to kill that tribe counts as God condones genocide, you're no better than the morons who claim God (Allah) tells them to kill Americans.
The Lord commands genocide to SAUL. He didn't command "all men who believeth in me go forth and kill all nonbelievers, their asses, their horses, their chickens...."
What would it take for you to differentiate between doctrine and history? You are fixated on what Israel did in the dim past and equating that to God commanding everyone. He didn't. This was a judgement. And if you read into the future (if you believe Revelation is about the future), God will do it again, though he will be his own judge... not using an earthly king. You are itching to make God out to be a monster... and you will succeed because it's what you want to see.
Historical narrative perhaps? I mentioned that within the historical narrative (sometimes a spade is just a spade) there are things to take from the stories that you can apply. What can you apply to genocide? Do something correctly or don't bother doing it at all. Saul didn't kill everything and there were consequences. Not that "genocide is practiced by a loving God..."
And like the feathered God analogy... this is not about going and committing genocide for some voice of God. Since the Amalekites no longer exist, I find it difficult to understand taking this passage literally as a "carte blanche" to commit murder and genocide.
God is (in this story) enacting his judgement on Amalek. Saul fails to do the job properly and there are consequences. Just like if any of us fail to do a job properly, we will suffer the consequences.
Like the Hebrew menu and basic rulesets for a desert nomadic people... They're context... a brief glimpse of life a few thousand years ago. You might say they were OBE.:) Are they open to abuse? Yes. Of course all things are. No matter how simple, someone will find a way to justify something with the Bible, the Koran, etc....
It's called good prose. I guess the concepts and moral tenets you can derive from the Bible are contingent upon believing the Bible as a literal word for word description of things...
So, in that case, God has feathers, because in Psalms, the Psalmist says "God covers us with his wings.." It's beautiful writing... not a set of stereo instructions.
What do you believe? Do you watch TV and believe that the shows are all "historical records", like the aliens in "Galaxy Quest", or are you sufficiently intellectually developed that the concepts behind what you read or see are more important than the directive pieces of information you are watching (or reading)? Do you believe in Santa Claus? I bet you did at one time... does that affect your ability to understand allegory or morality plays? I certainly hope not.
Did you miss the societal concepts (meaning I'm not a Hebrew) of the Old Testament? To me, the old testament consists of historical narratives, morality concepts, and life lessons (the Ark isn't about the flood, it's about doing what you know is right when people are mocking you...)
In your list, you've just laid out things that are in the Bible regarding the history of Israel. Whether or not you take that to mean that we should follow those tenets are another matter. I never said the Bible couldn't be abused... just like science is abused.
What you miss, or seem to, is that the central figure of the New Testament is pretty spot on as to how you should treat others. If you don't think so, that's fine. You don't have to. I am not here to promote religiosity.
I don't blindly follow religion... religion != Bible. There's a ton of great stuff in there and simply because there's stuff in there about early Hebrew culture, doesn't mean we should toss out the awesome stuff (Love God with all your heart, mind, and spirit, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.).... You're missing out.
I would say question it so you can find out the origin of some things. Being skeptical isn't ignorance. Being skeptical while promoting an opposing religious view is, though. You can be skeptical and still support evolution. After all, they're learning new stuff every day.
I am tired of religions making things "off limits" to debate and ridicule. Muslims have been, in the last decade or so, more vocally whiny about their religion, but that doesn't leave the Christians out... they're full of "persecution syndrome" as much as the Muslims.
I am a Christian who accepts the facts about evolution. I know the universe is very old, and I know the earth isn't 6000 years old. I know that creation didn't happen in 7 days (it's just a nice story to provide a "rest on the sabbath" reason...)
Galileo said it best. "The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go." It's not a science book... it's a morality book with some history and societal concepts for Hebrews in it. Does it make me a hypocrite? I suppose in both science and religion's view I am. But it works for me, and that's all that matters.
Science is science. Religion is religion. Free speech is guaranteed. That's what Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson need to figure out. There is no need to abandon science because you believe in God. (Or Allah, or whatever) There is no need to abandon religion because science is provable fact. Blindly following either is short-changing your innate ability to reason and question things (in order to learn, not to marginalize.) And it gives you ulcers if you take it too seriously. Life's short... have fun and be thankful you're not dead yet. (Who you thank is up to you....)
Remember the 8 second call to Rachel when he was at Taffy Lewis' place cost $1.25.. so Ridley was ahead of his time predicting cell phone charges in the future.:)
Better life through plastics... or was it chemistry?
I mentioned satellites because of Sputnik and the "spy hysteria" the western world was caught up in after it launched.:) I personally want a nuclear powered car like the wrecks I find in Fallout 3.:)
Re:Ah, that'd be a list of Big False Lies.
on
The Post-Idea World
·
· Score: 1
Oh, and BY THE WAY, Pedantic Pete... Chemical resistance to DDT by mosquitoes happened in areas where DDT was used in FARMING. There IS no chemical resistance when DDT is used to fight malaria... because it doesn't take a HUGE dose of DDT to protect people FROM malaria (Ecuador, when it increased DDT usage malaria rates went DOWN 60%. And places where DDT was curtailed? MALARIA RATES WENT UP, sparky.)
DDT is STILL the leading help in combating malaria in the REAL world... not fucking mosquito nets. Next time you start ranting about chemicals, Mr. EDF... take some Drano. Do the world a favor.
Re:Ah, that'd be a list of Big False Lies.
on
The Post-Idea World
·
· Score: 1
Tell that to National Geographic... where I read most of what I wrote.
Slashdot Mirror
"Looks like" and "is" an iPhone are VASTLY different things in legal terms. :)
"Stolen" implies that a bunch of masked bandits from Google raided Apple's Cupertino HQ and pilfered the vault of all the valuable iPhone widgets and touch screens.
Spring-boarding off of the iPhone (and doing some things better) is what Android did. Jobs sounded like he didn't want competition from something that might lap his phone. Rather than innovate ("great artists steal"), he decided to throw down the lawsuit hammer (or at least try to), thereby making Apple nothing more than Microsoft or IBM with a hip wardrobe fetish.
Everything these days comes from previous innovations.... there are a few exceptions, but most of the time true progress comes from expanding or improving an existing product or idea. Jobs did that with the iPhone, but it seems he didn't want anyone else to do so... That's what's broken here. (And I do agree that patents need reform just as much as copyright.)
Those amendments merely qualified the position that the Bill of Rights were not subject to State usurpation. It has nothing to do with the breach of Federal power that occurred during and after the Civil war, which spat in the face of the 10th amendment.
Regardless of your position on the role of the Federal government, the 10th Amendment's pretty clear what is and is not Federal power... and yet the federal government continues to grow...
Don't look now, but your Apple is showing. Here's a reality check for you, if you care to open the "scary terminal" in your copy of Lion....
Look at what's buried below that clean, unblemished UI.... BSD. Free Software. Stuff that "has a ways to go" before it reaches Apple's level of "absorption".
I agree, and I'd much rather have old, stable, and not $500 (or whatever Office is priced at now.) :)
My needs for office apps at home are light, but LibreOffice/OpenOffice are hefty programs that don't "get in my way" of doing simple, mundane office-like things.
I much prefer it to the microsoft tax anyway (using OpenOffice on my Mac and LibreOffice on my Fedora machine..) The only thing I would say that needs "spit and polish" is, like you said, the ODF format. It's not a deal-breaker for me either. I am glad it is fully open as well... in the days of "planned obsolescence", it's refreshing to see software not try to pigeonhole you. (Or lasso your documents, keeping them from you because you decided it was best not to upgrade when corporation A said to.)
That requires a premium subscription.
And yet here we are with Windows 8 around the corner and no more info about "WinFS"... well, at least good info.
They need to update their filesystem (so does Apple come to think of it.) And Windows' version of "Desktop search" is pretty dated even compared to Apple's... (which sits on an ancient FS updated and patched together with duck-tape and bailing wire.)
Is there ANY possibility that when WinFS does come out, it'll be retrofitted to 7?
The reason people disagree (mods excluded for the moment) is that Copyright is not a a property right. It is trying to become one these days, but it's only about control over something "for a limited time." Copyright doesn't guarantee revenue, and it never should. The founders realized the lack of a public domain was crushing Europe and miring it in legal entanglements that the budding United States wanted to avoid. But like anything else in the world, the US has become Europe.. and places like China and so forth are the "new frontier" where copyright is treated as a truly limited control for the creator only.
Just because lawyers try to enforce a nonexistent ideal in an EULA doesn't make it legally so. There are lots of unenforceable "wishes" in EULAs. The Economist once had an article describing why copyright was never meant to be a property right... (google, I'm lazy this afternoon. heh.)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/arl.htm
It appears to be a comint prop-job. :) The fact that it got hit by what apparently was a UWB signal is interesting, given the Air Force's interest in that area of emissions the last decade or so. Let's not get too hasty in crowing North Korea "electronic warfare kings" just yet, though. :)
I dunno... giving the TSA goons a name like "smurf" certainly doesn't give a hint as to their sinister side... Of course one is a little, invasive, annoyingly-voiced bastard that won't just go away, and the other is a smurf.
Perhaps we should call them "checkpoint trolls" or "checkpoint pervs"?
I think this kid's a distraction. It's rather like a "hey look over here!" while someone else is picking your pocket.
Organized crime isn't advertising. They aren't in it for the "LULZ" or whatever. They are conducting "business" and in the process of conducting that business, they put up distractions like this person who claims responsibility (or allow this person who is totally bogus but in it for the fame) to deflect interest in looking at them as the culprit.
"Virtual sleight of hand".... for lack of a better term, I guess. :)
Learning how to think, being well rounded, and having a solid fundamental base (you know, doing things with a pencil and paper and calculating in one's head), makes learning a spreadsheet or computer research trivial. You're advocating tool use as a higher endeavor, and I don't think you meant to.
Jutland isn't the end-all point of the matter... providing a rounded portfolio of knowledge and the ability to think critically, analyze things and solve problems is. And no fact of history is ever obsolete. :)
Learning a spreadsheet in school is obsolete when the next version of Office comes out anyway.
My Atari 800 still works (that bastard was a TANK), but sadly, the floppy drive and all the floppies have gone the way of the original Atari.... :)
I can still play Centipede though... (one of the only carts I have left.)
I loved me some Star Raiders though... man, that brings back memories. ;)
They may not be a "shill"... but their bias is very clearly marked on their collar. :) I have seen them put out false stories and, upon finding they were fake, taking their own sweet time to post a retraction... dunno if that has gotten better over time or not. To be fair, it's not a normal practice, but it sure did seem a while before they retracted...
It's rather like the decided BeOS bias of osnews.com. :) It's obvious, unhidden, and taken with a grain of salt. Their level of scrutiny for anything not BeOS (or Haiku, I suppose) was legendary. It was pretty heavy biased toward windows with the new editor... I stopped reading when the community became Microsoft Apologists... there's only so much drivel one can take. :) heheh.
Bias is fine, if a publication stops trying to hide it. :)
Not necessarily pay... it's up to the copyright holder. Copyright doesn't guarantee revenue, it guarantees (for a limited time....that's a laugh) control of a work. It's perfectly within the copyright holder's rights to give away or permit unlimited copying of said work. Patents have to be defended or they're lost as well. Patents last for a much shorter time, and are subject to prior art (if the Patent Office could be bothered...) There are similarities though... Both copyright and patent trolls infest our world like that pee smell in the back of city buses. :)
It's clear you don't like the moral tenets Jesus put forth. That's fine. But if you want to learn theology... slashdot isn't the place to learn it.
Why do you persist in trying to justify your lack of belief? Just don't believe and move on. It's not hard. I don't mind if you don't believe what I believe. What I believe isn't mainstream religion anyway, as I've said before, because I am not going to explain why I think allegory is greatest when it is applied abstractly rather than claiming the earth is 6000 years old and God is not an astronaut. It's not a leap of logic to take the abstract concepts of the New Testament and apply them to making life better for yourself and others.
You choose a different path. I get it. There's all sorts of things to find out, see, and learn. Don't get fixated on allegory vs. narrative and try to put God in a box so you feel better about unbelief. That's what bugs me about Richard Dawkins. He is on a crusade to, by hook or by crook, make sure everyone who believes something other than him is either browbeaten into submission or annoyed to the point of giving up. I get he doesn't believe in God. I get that some people who believe in God are nuts. I don't understand why he persists in marginalizing people who aren't a clone of his belief system (he refuses to call it "belief", but far more learned men in the dim past would disagree..) But I digress...
Just feel good about it and move on. Life's too short to try and spend your days "correcting" everyone you meet to fit your view of the universe. That's the beauty of the universe... there's room for everyone.
Context. It's context. Am I Saul? Are you Saul? Is Saul the butcher going to find the Amalekites? If so, he needs help. And if you think that commanding Saul to kill that tribe counts as God condones genocide, you're no better than the morons who claim God (Allah) tells them to kill Americans.
The Lord commands genocide to SAUL. He didn't command "all men who believeth in me go forth and kill all nonbelievers, their asses, their horses, their chickens...."
What would it take for you to differentiate between doctrine and history? You are fixated on what Israel did in the dim past and equating that to God commanding everyone. He didn't. This was a judgement. And if you read into the future (if you believe Revelation is about the future), God will do it again, though he will be his own judge... not using an earthly king. You are itching to make God out to be a monster... and you will succeed because it's what you want to see.
Historical narrative perhaps? I mentioned that within the historical narrative (sometimes a spade is just a spade) there are things to take from the stories that you can apply. What can you apply to genocide? Do something correctly or don't bother doing it at all. Saul didn't kill everything and there were consequences. Not that "genocide is practiced by a loving God..."
And like the feathered God analogy... this is not about going and committing genocide for some voice of God. Since the Amalekites no longer exist, I find it difficult to understand taking this passage literally as a "carte blanche" to commit murder and genocide.
God is (in this story) enacting his judgement on Amalek. Saul fails to do the job properly and there are consequences. Just like if any of us fail to do a job properly, we will suffer the consequences.
Like the Hebrew menu and basic rulesets for a desert nomadic people... They're context... a brief glimpse of life a few thousand years ago. You might say they were OBE. :) Are they open to abuse? Yes. Of course all things are. No matter how simple, someone will find a way to justify something with the Bible, the Koran, etc....
It's called good prose. I guess the concepts and moral tenets you can derive from the Bible are contingent upon believing the Bible as a literal word for word description of things...
So, in that case, God has feathers, because in Psalms, the Psalmist says "God covers us with his wings.." It's beautiful writing... not a set of stereo instructions.
What do you believe? Do you watch TV and believe that the shows are all "historical records", like the aliens in "Galaxy Quest", or are you sufficiently intellectually developed that the concepts behind what you read or see are more important than the directive pieces of information you are watching (or reading)? Do you believe in Santa Claus? I bet you did at one time... does that affect your ability to understand allegory or morality plays? I certainly hope not.
Did you miss the societal concepts (meaning I'm not a Hebrew) of the Old Testament? To me, the old testament consists of historical narratives, morality concepts, and life lessons (the Ark isn't about the flood, it's about doing what you know is right when people are mocking you...)
In your list, you've just laid out things that are in the Bible regarding the history of Israel. Whether or not you take that to mean that we should follow those tenets are another matter. I never said the Bible couldn't be abused... just like science is abused.
What you miss, or seem to, is that the central figure of the New Testament is pretty spot on as to how you should treat others. If you don't think so, that's fine. You don't have to. I am not here to promote religiosity.
I don't blindly follow religion... religion != Bible. There's a ton of great stuff in there and simply because there's stuff in there about early Hebrew culture, doesn't mean we should toss out the awesome stuff (Love God with all your heart, mind, and spirit, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.).... You're missing out.
I would say question it so you can find out the origin of some things. Being skeptical isn't ignorance. Being skeptical while promoting an opposing religious view is, though. You can be skeptical and still support evolution. After all, they're learning new stuff every day.
I am tired of religions making things "off limits" to debate and ridicule. Muslims have been, in the last decade or so, more vocally whiny about their religion, but that doesn't leave the Christians out... they're full of "persecution syndrome" as much as the Muslims.
I am a Christian who accepts the facts about evolution. I know the universe is very old, and I know the earth isn't 6000 years old. I know that creation didn't happen in 7 days (it's just a nice story to provide a "rest on the sabbath" reason...)
Galileo said it best. "The Bible tells you how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go." It's not a science book... it's a morality book with some history and societal concepts for Hebrews in it. Does it make me a hypocrite? I suppose in both science and religion's view I am. But it works for me, and that's all that matters.
Science is science. Religion is religion. Free speech is guaranteed. That's what Richard Dawkins and Pat Robertson need to figure out. There is no need to abandon science because you believe in God. (Or Allah, or whatever) There is no need to abandon religion because science is provable fact. Blindly following either is short-changing your innate ability to reason and question things (in order to learn, not to marginalize.) And it gives you ulcers if you take it too seriously. Life's short... have fun and be thankful you're not dead yet. (Who you thank is up to you....)
Remember the 8 second call to Rachel when he was at Taffy Lewis' place cost $1.25.. so Ridley was ahead of his time predicting cell phone charges in the future. :)
Better life through plastics... or was it chemistry?
I mentioned satellites because of Sputnik and the "spy hysteria" the western world was caught up in after it launched. :) I personally want a nuclear powered car like the wrecks I find in Fallout 3. :)
Oh, and BY THE WAY, Pedantic Pete... Chemical resistance to DDT by mosquitoes happened in areas where DDT was used in FARMING. There IS no chemical resistance when DDT is used to fight malaria... because it doesn't take a HUGE dose of DDT to protect people FROM malaria (Ecuador, when it increased DDT usage malaria rates went DOWN 60%. And places where DDT was curtailed? MALARIA RATES WENT UP, sparky.)
DDT is STILL the leading help in combating malaria in the REAL world... not fucking mosquito nets. Next time you start ranting about chemicals, Mr. EDF... take some Drano. Do the world a favor.
Tell that to National Geographic... where I read most of what I wrote.
Guess they're the chemical brothers, troll.