All LSI really produces nowadays is intellectual property.
Could someone please explain what that term means? Honestly, it get (ab)used all the time, and, for the life of me, I can't see any way of creating a definition that would have a chance in hell of ever being anything but ambiguous and self-contradictory.
Intellectual - Of the mind. That's pretty clear, taken alone.
Property - Something that belongs to one person, entity or group, and to them alone.
How in tarnation, I would like to know, can someone rationalise the use of the first as a modifier for the second? It defies logic, plain and simple.
Please let's stop being so disingenuous about the terms we use. There is nothing in the right to be rewarded for one's work that implies the ownership of ideas. Throughout human history, people have tried and failed to push that concept, and it doesn't work. It doesn't work because it doesn't follow.
You know, we might some day have a constructive discussion on this issue if we didn't constantly have to deal with the childish concept of 'my idea', as if it sprung sui generis from someone's God-like brow. Nobody should have such hubris as to believe that they act alone. Anybody who does deserves ridicule, not enabling legislation.
Imagine trying to eliminate traffic signals and signs in a city like New York City....
Wouldn't work, because it's designed on a grid system, which requires arbitration at each junction as soon as traffic flow rises above a trivial level.
But in my town of about 40,000 people, there are few if any traffic signs, no lights and two stop signs that I know of. Everything is designed with flow in mind, and it works just fine. Traffic slows down at peak times, but it almost never stops flowing. Almost every accident that I've seen here has involved a single vehicle driven badly, rather than multiple vehicles colliding through misunderstanding or aggression.
Re:If they would have kept their original ideas
on
Vista's Limited Symlinks
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Most of the nice features of NT died either because they came with a performance penalty (e.g. user-mode display drivers)
I remember when Microsoft announced that they were moving graphics back to ring 0 with NT 4.0. The rationale was that they would get much improved performance, which is a perfectly fair conclusion. But when asked about the liability created by this, they basically said, 'Well, if your graphics driver is hosed, you can't use the system anyway, so you'd just as well reboot.'
That wasn't the last straw for me, but it demonstrated with perfect clarity that this was not the OS I wanted on my servers. Here was Microsoft telling me with a straight face that they had no plans to ever provide any decent remote control of the server, that multi-user scenarios were off the table for the foreseeable future, and that system performance was going to be compromised in order to draw windows more quickly, rather than optimised over time in userland.
It was clearly a fundamental technical design decision made by the marketing department, who apparently would be happy to put tits on a bull if it increased market share in the hermaphroditic bestiality demographic.
Within two years of that, I was working exclusively with FOSS on my servers, and have never looked back.
There's a lot of mindless partisanship on Slashdot, but I think it's useful to remember from time to time that many posters here have learned to dislike Microsoft the hard way: through bitter experience of watching marketing continually triumph over technology.
Investors do not take a company private, to the tune of $26 Billion, for "politics".
Ah my poor, benighted child. When was politics ever about anything but money?
If you don't see the sense in owning the equity and using it to further one's agenda, then I fear you'll be condemned to never have much of either. (Pace, Ben Franklin.)
I can pay an arm and a leg to be treated like a criminal or...
I can pay less and have freedom...
Tough decision...
Tragically, yes, it is. For some reason people find it easier to remain complacent about their environment right up until the very moment when backing away from their mistakes becomes impossible. Human history is really just a litany of such failures. Santayana was just gilding the lily when he stated that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The ironic and painful truth is that the first lesson of history is that nobody ever learns from history.
People will continue to acquiesce to this charade of 'Rights Management' right up until the point when it becomes too painful to bear, but there's no way to go back to how things were before. I only hope that mavericks like us won't be caught up in their quagmire.
Is there any chance whatsoever that we might somehow convince people to start telling the whole truth?
Levine's assumption is this spike in spam levels is a result of a new generation of viruses and zombies that can infect PCs more quickly and are harder to get rid of. In its October report, messaging security vendor MessageLabs says the spike is largely due to two Trojan programs, Warezov and SpamThru.
This description is almost a lie. This is not malware for PCs. This is malware for Windows. Not Linux, not 'PCs', Not Mac, Not Amiga, BeOS, Wind River, Next, BSD... whatever.
I'm not bashing, creating FUD or anything else. This Is Not A Trap. I'm just sick and tired of being painted with the same brush as Windows. The 'PC Virus' term is misleading; it makes my life a lot more difficult when I have to go to great lengths to explain to people that, actually, almost all of this malware only affects Windows and the software that runs on it.
Try to imagine how Bayer would have responded if the poison Tylenol scare in the late 80s were characterised in the media as 'poison headache remedy'? They would have freaked, and consumers would have, too. Journalists have a duty to report accurately and completely on issues that affect us, and this intellectual laziness is starting to look more and more like dishonesty as time goes on.
The Canadian government changed. And scrapped the previous government's policy. Actions speak louder than words.
The policy changed because the party that took power gets most of its wealth from its Alberta base. This province's economy is entirely driven by resource extraction, especially oil revenues. The leading strategists of the Conservative party come straight from the US neo-con fold. The influence of Straussian thought is remarkably strong, because their lead strategist (who cut his teeth contesting indigenous land rights) actually studied under Levi Strauss at the University of Chicago, then took a professor-ship there for years. The right-wing, corporate industrialist agenda is to debunk climate change data in order to block moves that would affect their hegemony. It's perfectly understandable, but don't for a minute believe that it has anything to do with science, or even common sense.
If you meant to imply that there is consensus in Canada concerning this policy turn-around, perhaps you could explain why the New Democratic Party threatened to topple the minority government unless the Clean Air Act was sent back to committee for readjustment.
The recent policy change has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the political imperatives driving the Conservative party. And that is exactly what the submitter should be considering, too: when it comes to debunking Climate Change, qui bono? Who benefits from this kind of attack?
how many people here bashing Vista have actually used it. Why is everyone so up in arms about upgrading? Its only $450. Vista is much better than XP, by far.
Better than XP? Having a broken bottle jabbed repeatedly into my face is better than XP, and I can get that for free! 8^)
Why is it taking too long? Isn't this information about 2 or 3 years old? I thought they had completed the migration.
Please, please tell me you're joking. I guess I've been around Americans too long or something, but I honestly can't tell whether you're aware that there are, in fact, more than one city in Germany. There are several, actually. And now another city in Germany has decided to move to Linux. That makes two cities. Because, as we learned in the first sentence (you remember the first sentence, don't you?), there are more than one city in Germany.
Now stop eating your glue and go outside and play.
"...as long as google removes any content when requested by the copyright holder, they are safe legally..."
This is the part I don't get. Comedy Central itself links to Daily Show and Colbert Report clips on Youtube. So who, then, issued the DMCA requests, and why didn't they let the webmaster know?
Yes, normaly you can show the problem by just pointing it to any smart person. But you'll never make MS aknowledge the flaw without somebody exploiting it (and lots of times not even then). The situation is almost the same.
Indeed. The very first MS Word macro virus was explicitly designed as a 'proof of concept' - in effect, a shot across the bows of the USS Microsoft. While many of us had already expressed serious concern long before this, MS refused to even acknowledge that there was an issue. Even this tangible evidence wasn't enough to garner a timely reaction from MS. It was months later when the software industry slowly ground its gears and began to accept that integrated scripting languages in one's documents could actually be a problem. To this day, the entire automation model is still a liability.
I'm not singling out Microsoft as the cause of all this - WordPerfect had macros long before MS Office ever existed. I'm simply using this anecdote as one of the biggest, most obvious and most egregious examples of people pooh-poohing security concerns until the barbarians are already inside the gates [sic].
"[I]s this a platform without applications?.... And yes, I know about all the Linux apps, but look at its market share."
Ummm... Not sure how to break it to you, but I'm sure that at least some of the thousands of applications written for Linux might still be able to run on OLPC, which runs on, uh... let me check.... Ah, yes: Linux!
P.S. What the ever-loving heck does market share have to do with the number of apps that run on Linux?
Reading the article I wonder whether this vastly more complex system is really going to work when the river is in full flood and metre sized boulders are scouring out the river bed and banks.
I was watching the Chinese Grand Prix formula one race a few weeks ago, and saw a perfect example of why all the instrumentation in the world can't replace human experience and instinct. The Ferrari (sp?) technicians were all lined up in their booth, dozens of screens of input scrolling past them. But when it started to drizzle, one by one, they all leaned backwards and stuck their hand outside to feel the rain.
I for one would much sooner welcome some old guy sitting on his porch by the river bank than any number of wireless water-sensing overlords.
Although I may not be a fan of M$, I am a fan of anything anti-spam.
I'm not. Not a fan of anything at all, that is. I'm a fan of open systems (preferably officially endorsed standards) that are well understood and secured for use many years into the future. SMTP, for all its baggage, is one standard that has actually aged fairly well over the years.
There are fundamental flaws, of course, and now these flaws are costing us a lot of money, time and effort trying to stop people from preying on the system and on human naïveté.
Microsoft's approach to this can be summarised as, "Hey gang let's all get together and fight spam my way!" This is okay, but in the opinion of this hoary old curmudgeon, I'd rather people said, "Hey gang, let's all get together and figure out how to fight spam!" There's a small but integral difference between those two statements. It lies in the potential for Microsoft to stop in mid-fight, take its ball and go home.
What Microsoft is trying to do with this latest move is to convince the world that it will not do this. I'd like to believe that's true, but their track record gives us every reason to believe the opposite. Even if they're perfectly sincere about this right now, people will still be suspicious that at some time in the future they might try to lock things down again.
It's unfortunate that we have been led to feel this way, and I suppose it's never to late for a leopard to change his spots. I doubt this one will, though.
MSFT can't just disable, drop or change these features, because doing so could break an enter business. So they just pile up more and more code into an already chaotic program.
Sadly, that's true. Even more sadly, they could have listened to us in 1997-8, when we screamed bloody murder at the inclusion of ActiveX in IE and Outlook (Express), and warned them that there was no safe way to use them.
MS ignored the warnings - they were dire, loud and frequent - and went ahead with their broken design. That leaves me in a position today where I have no choice but to follow the Nelson Muntz school of logic, which dictates that the proper response to this is simply to laugh.
Yes, but compared to getting a trojan into a security fix for Windows it's really easy to get one into Ubuntu, are you so blind that you can't admit that?
Not at all. That's perfectly easy to admit, but completely irrelevant. The point is that all software, by default, comes from trusted sources in Ubuntu. All of it. That is not the case with Windows.
A trojan doesn't need root to copy confidential data from a user's home directory. It doesn't need root to open a socket and send that information back home. It doesn't need root to modify or delete important files. It doesn't need root to hijack mail programs and send emails as the targetted user.
The point is that a trojan needs root to install itself, as well as to remain undetected.
This obsession with root by people who think they understand security is troubling.
Not nearly as troubling as a straw-man argument from someone who should know better. It's not a binary equation. Every aspect of security has shortcomings, which is why a clearly defined process for software installation (for example) is necessary. Root is not a magic wand with +10 trojan-blocking capability; it's simply one of the available tools in a full system. Least Privileged Access is a well-known design approach which is applied in almost every system. Versions of Windows prior to Vista are the notable exception.
You're absolutely right that it is easier to get a chump to run an arbitary exe on windows - just fake mail them an attachment and say "this is so funny" and they'll run it. But how much harder is it to get thousands and thousands of people to run a trojan on linux than it is on windows? How much harder is it to get the entire install base to run a trojan?
You're asking the wrong question. It's easy to get people to get people to execute code from a trusted source. It's supposed to be. But how easy is it to infect that trusted source? Much harder than you might think. Compared to Windows, it's incalculably more difficult, because the Ubuntu is explicit about what it trusts and what it doesn't. Until now, Windows has allowed the user to run with full control over the system, and to run un-sandboxed, executable content from virtually anywhere, including untrustworthy sources like email, websites - you name it.
And that, if we can stick to the point, is what some in this thread are trying to gloss over. The point that I was replying to is that, while many of the same attack vectors exist in Ubuntu, they are more difficult to exploit. The GP made a hand-wavy declaration that Windows and Ubuntu are identically insecure when they patently are not.
That said, you're right that people generally are too cavalier about security. But your assertion that "I'm sure I could get a trojan into some "critical security fix" that ubuntu-security is pushing out to every user of ubuntu" again ignores the lengths you would have to go to in order to plant that trojan. I've worked for a company that produced a Linux distro and I can assure you that security patches get very carefully reviewed before they're pushed out the door. You'd have a much easier time trying to get around the process than trying to sneak something through it.
Also the african word for "many packages in our repository lack signatures but people install them anyway". Trojans are just as easy on linux as anywhere else.
Bull:
All Ubuntu.deb packages available by default come from known sources. Adding untrusted repositories requires root privileges and visual warnings.
Installing software through apt-get (or synaptic or any of the other automated software installers) requires admin privileges.
Even a malicious script that surreptitiously runs
dpkg -i nasty-payload
is going to have a very hard time affecting the integrity of the system, let alone hiding from the user.
The default user mode is non-privileged. It's hard (though not impossible) for someone to run Ubuntu as root.
If you wanted to make the point that there are just as many attack vectors in Ubuntu as elsewhere, go ahead. But the mere presence of an avenue of attack doesn't magically make it easy. Implying that Ubuntu is not inherently harder to compromise than Windows is prima facie wrong.
The debian project's extreme politics is what caused this....
Could you please explain to the audience why the goal of creating software that is freely distributable and usable by anyone, anywhere, at any time is considered to be politically extreme? Yes, Debian is uncompromising, even dogmatic in its definition of freedom. It does so for a finite, practical reasons: It wants to keep things Free and legal. These principles are hardly extreme. Debian members have not, to my recollection, bombed any buildings, kidnapped small children or organised any book burnings recently.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're Bill Gates, it sure is.
(My reply is here.)
Could someone please explain what that term means? Honestly, it get (ab)used all the time, and, for the life of me, I can't see any way of creating a definition that would have a chance in hell of ever being anything but ambiguous and self-contradictory.
Intellectual - Of the mind. That's pretty clear, taken alone.
Property - Something that belongs to one person, entity or group, and to them alone.
How in tarnation, I would like to know, can someone rationalise the use of the first as a modifier for the second? It defies logic, plain and simple.
Please let's stop being so disingenuous about the terms we use. There is nothing in the right to be rewarded for one's work that implies the ownership of ideas. Throughout human history, people have tried and failed to push that concept, and it doesn't work. It doesn't work because it doesn't follow.
You know, we might some day have a constructive discussion on this issue if we didn't constantly have to deal with the childish concept of 'my idea', as if it sprung sui generis from someone's God-like brow. Nobody should have such hubris as to believe that they act alone. Anybody who does deserves ridicule, not enabling legislation.
Wouldn't work, because it's designed on a grid system, which requires arbitration at each junction as soon as traffic flow rises above a trivial level.
But in my town of about 40,000 people, there are few if any traffic signs, no lights and two stop signs that I know of. Everything is designed with flow in mind, and it works just fine. Traffic slows down at peak times, but it almost never stops flowing. Almost every accident that I've seen here has involved a single vehicle driven badly, rather than multiple vehicles colliding through misunderstanding or aggression.
I remember when Microsoft announced that they were moving graphics back to ring 0 with NT 4.0. The rationale was that they would get much improved performance, which is a perfectly fair conclusion. But when asked about the liability created by this, they basically said, 'Well, if your graphics driver is hosed, you can't use the system anyway, so you'd just as well reboot.'
That wasn't the last straw for me, but it demonstrated with perfect clarity that this was not the OS I wanted on my servers. Here was Microsoft telling me with a straight face that they had no plans to ever provide any decent remote control of the server, that multi-user scenarios were off the table for the foreseeable future, and that system performance was going to be compromised in order to draw windows more quickly, rather than optimised over time in userland.
It was clearly a fundamental technical design decision made by the marketing department, who apparently would be happy to put tits on a bull if it increased market share in the hermaphroditic bestiality demographic.
Within two years of that, I was working exclusively with FOSS on my servers, and have never looked back.
There's a lot of mindless partisanship on Slashdot, but I think it's useful to remember from time to time that many posters here have learned to dislike Microsoft the hard way: through bitter experience of watching marketing continually triumph over technology.
Philistine. You just don't appreciate abstraction.
8^)
Ah my poor, benighted child. When was politics ever about anything but money?
If you don't see the sense in owning the equity and using it to further one's agenda, then I fear you'll be condemned to never have much of either. (Pace, Ben Franklin.)
Tragically, yes, it is. For some reason people find it easier to remain complacent about their environment right up until the very moment when backing away from their mistakes becomes impossible. Human history is really just a litany of such failures. Santayana was just gilding the lily when he stated that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The ironic and painful truth is that the first lesson of history is that nobody ever learns from history.
People will continue to acquiesce to this charade of 'Rights Management' right up until the point when it becomes too painful to bear, but there's no way to go back to how things were before. I only hope that mavericks like us won't be caught up in their quagmire.
Is there any chance whatsoever that we might somehow convince people to start telling the whole truth?
This description is almost a lie. This is not malware for PCs. This is malware for Windows. Not Linux, not 'PCs', Not Mac, Not Amiga, BeOS, Wind River, Next, BSD... whatever.
I'm not bashing, creating FUD or anything else. This Is Not A Trap. I'm just sick and tired of being painted with the same brush as Windows. The 'PC Virus' term is misleading; it makes my life a lot more difficult when I have to go to great lengths to explain to people that, actually, almost all of this malware only affects Windows and the software that runs on it.
Try to imagine how Bayer would have responded if the poison Tylenol scare in the late 80s were characterised in the media as 'poison headache remedy'? They would have freaked, and consumers would have, too. Journalists have a duty to report accurately and completely on issues that affect us, and this intellectual laziness is starting to look more and more like dishonesty as time goes on.
The policy changed because the party that took power gets most of its wealth from its Alberta base. This province's economy is entirely driven by resource extraction, especially oil revenues. The leading strategists of the Conservative party come straight from the US neo-con fold. The influence of Straussian thought is remarkably strong, because their lead strategist (who cut his teeth contesting indigenous land rights) actually studied under Levi Strauss at the University of Chicago, then took a professor-ship there for years. The right-wing, corporate industrialist agenda is to debunk climate change data in order to block moves that would affect their hegemony. It's perfectly understandable, but don't for a minute believe that it has anything to do with science, or even common sense.
If you meant to imply that there is consensus in Canada concerning this policy turn-around, perhaps you could explain why the New Democratic Party threatened to topple the minority government unless the Clean Air Act was sent back to committee for readjustment.
The recent policy change has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with the political imperatives driving the Conservative party. And that is exactly what the submitter should be considering, too: when it comes to debunking Climate Change, qui bono? Who benefits from this kind of attack?
Better than XP? Having a broken bottle jabbed repeatedly into my face is better than XP, and I can get that for free! 8^)
[On Ubuntu Edgy:]
No muss, no fuss, no trawling through a million websites. No click-through I-own-your-firstborn licenses. No viruses. And no Spyware.
Please, please tell me you're joking. I guess I've been around Americans too long or something, but I honestly can't tell whether you're aware that there are, in fact, more than one city in Germany. There are several, actually. And now another city in Germany has decided to move to Linux. That makes two cities. Because, as we learned in the first sentence (you remember the first sentence, don't you?), there are more than one city in Germany.
Now stop eating your glue and go outside and play.
This is the part I don't get. Comedy Central itself links to Daily Show and Colbert Report clips on Youtube. So who, then, issued the DMCA requests, and why didn't they let the webmaster know?
This makes no sense.
Indeed. The very first MS Word macro virus was explicitly designed as a 'proof of concept' - in effect, a shot across the bows of the USS Microsoft. While many of us had already expressed serious concern long before this, MS refused to even acknowledge that there was an issue. Even this tangible evidence wasn't enough to garner a timely reaction from MS. It was months later when the software industry slowly ground its gears and began to accept that integrated scripting languages in one's documents could actually be a problem. To this day, the entire automation model is still a liability.
I'm not singling out Microsoft as the cause of all this - WordPerfect had macros long before MS Office ever existed. I'm simply using this anecdote as one of the biggest, most obvious and most egregious examples of people pooh-poohing security concerns until the barbarians are already inside the gates [sic].
Ummm... Not sure how to break it to you, but I'm sure that at least some of the thousands of applications written for Linux might still be able to run on OLPC, which runs on, uh... let me check.... Ah, yes: Linux!
P.S. What the ever-loving heck does market share have to do with the number of apps that run on Linux?
I was watching the Chinese Grand Prix formula one race a few weeks ago, and saw a perfect example of why all the instrumentation in the world can't replace human experience and instinct. The Ferrari (sp?) technicians were all lined up in their booth, dozens of screens of input scrolling past them. But when it started to drizzle, one by one, they all leaned backwards and stuck their hand outside to feel the rain.
I for one would much sooner welcome some old guy sitting on his porch by the river bank than any number of wireless water-sensing overlords.
We prefer the term 'The Service Formerly Known as Usenet.'
I'm not. Not a fan of anything at all, that is. I'm a fan of open systems (preferably officially endorsed standards) that are well understood and secured for use many years into the future. SMTP, for all its baggage, is one standard that has actually aged fairly well over the years.
There are fundamental flaws, of course, and now these flaws are costing us a lot of money, time and effort trying to stop people from preying on the system and on human naïveté.
Microsoft's approach to this can be summarised as, "Hey gang let's all get together and fight spam my way!" This is okay, but in the opinion of this hoary old curmudgeon, I'd rather people said, "Hey gang, let's all get together and figure out how to fight spam!" There's a small but integral difference between those two statements. It lies in the potential for Microsoft to stop in mid-fight, take its ball and go home.
What Microsoft is trying to do with this latest move is to convince the world that it will not do this. I'd like to believe that's true, but their track record gives us every reason to believe the opposite. Even if they're perfectly sincere about this right now, people will still be suspicious that at some time in the future they might try to lock things down again.
It's unfortunate that we have been led to feel this way, and I suppose it's never to late for a leopard to change his spots. I doubt this one will, though.
'iPod', huh? Is that what you kids are calling it these days?
Sadly, that's true. Even more sadly, they could have listened to us in 1997-8, when we screamed bloody murder at the inclusion of ActiveX in IE and Outlook (Express), and warned them that there was no safe way to use them.
MS ignored the warnings - they were dire, loud and frequent - and went ahead with their broken design. That leaves me in a position today where I have no choice but to follow the Nelson Muntz school of logic, which dictates that the proper response to this is simply to laugh.
Not at all. That's perfectly easy to admit, but completely irrelevant. The point is that all software, by default, comes from trusted sources in Ubuntu. All of it. That is not the case with Windows.
The point is that a trojan needs root to install itself, as well as to remain undetected.
Not nearly as troubling as a straw-man argument from someone who should know better. It's not a binary equation. Every aspect of security has shortcomings, which is why a clearly defined process for software installation (for example) is necessary. Root is not a magic wand with +10 trojan-blocking capability; it's simply one of the available tools in a full system. Least Privileged Access is a well-known design approach which is applied in almost every system. Versions of Windows prior to Vista are the notable exception.
You're asking the wrong question. It's easy to get people to get people to execute code from a trusted source. It's supposed to be. But how easy is it to infect that trusted source? Much harder than you might think. Compared to Windows, it's incalculably more difficult, because the Ubuntu is explicit about what it trusts and what it doesn't. Until now, Windows has allowed the user to run with full control over the system, and to run un-sandboxed, executable content from virtually anywhere, including untrustworthy sources like email, websites - you name it.
And that, if we can stick to the point, is what some in this thread are trying to gloss over. The point that I was replying to is that, while many of the same attack vectors exist in Ubuntu, they are more difficult to exploit. The GP made a hand-wavy declaration that Windows and Ubuntu are identically insecure when they patently are not.
That said, you're right that people generally are too cavalier about security. But your assertion that "I'm sure I could get a trojan into some "critical security fix" that ubuntu-security is pushing out to every user of ubuntu" again ignores the lengths you would have to go to in order to plant that trojan. I've worked for a company that produced a Linux distro and I can assure you that security patches get very carefully reviewed before they're pushed out the door. You'd have a much easier time trying to get around the process than trying to sneak something through it.
Bull:
If you wanted to make the point that there are just as many attack vectors in Ubuntu as elsewhere, go ahead. But the mere presence of an avenue of attack doesn't magically make it easy. Implying that Ubuntu is not inherently harder to compromise than Windows is prima facie wrong.
Could you please explain to the audience why the goal of creating software that is freely distributable and usable by anyone, anywhere, at any time is considered to be politically extreme? Yes, Debian is uncompromising, even dogmatic in its definition of freedom. It does so for a finite, practical reasons: It wants to keep things Free and legal. These principles are hardly extreme. Debian members have not, to my recollection, bombed any buildings, kidnapped small children or organised any book burnings recently.
If you're in Tokyo right now...
RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!