And maybe cops plant all the guns involved in all violent crime everywhere, but the scientific mind looks for the simpler explanation.
As for carbon dating, we can carbon-date things which *did* have a known time of creation (wooden things that date back hundreds of years can be carbon-dated), so unless you claim that written records dating hundreds of years ago are also false, I don't think that you have much foundation for your argument. If you want to claim that, I'll just point out that the Bible could be far more easily falsified than all this *other* stuff...
You've just demonstrated that a God with advanced science, in comparison to a fruit fly at least, might have guided evolution and speciation using radiation.
I didn't say that I proved that there wasn't a god. What I just demonstrated was speciation. You can claim that some invisible gay-hating guy in the sky or a flying spaghetti monster is "really" the guiding force if you want. You can also claim that said invisible guy in the sky causes gravity, but it doesn't make a theory of gravity any less scientific.
There's no difference between the role of the "demonstrator" and a god in this case.
Execept that I just sped up the process a bit. Mutations always happen, at a lower rate. When you're out in the Sun, you're getting irradiated. Unless your argument is that such a mutation *could* happen only if a sentient being was involved, which is a pretty weak argument.
So once again, you've created a possible logical model, but haven't actually proved anything about what happened in the case of human beings (and in fact, you can't prove anything one way or the other because no human observers existed before human beings were created).
Calm down. I didn't say that Christianity was a load of superstitious nonsense in the post (actually, I do I believe that this is the case, now that you bring it up, but it wasn't a part of the earlier post). Nothing in there said anything about what happens with humans. You claimed that speciation and evolution were non-testable and non-scientific. I demonstrated that you were wrong, at least WRT speciation, by giving an example of such a test. That's all.
Okay, so I'm just curious. Exactly how many people have been exposed to legal loss from violating an open source license? I'm sure somewhat at some point in time must have, but I vaguely remember seeing once somewhere that nobody had ever shelled out any money over a GPL violation (and the GPL is at least the most widely used license).
But you can infringe the copyrights on on commercial closed-source software just as well as open source software, and I'm willing to bet that BSA audits and fines create much more loss and hassle than open source software *ever* has.
Come on. Your business might get in trouble for having unlicensed copies of WinXP or Office floating around, but it's damned unlikely that it will get in trouble for violating the GPL internally (not that I think you should, just trying to inject some reality into the conversation) -- plus, the GPL is a *hell* of a lot more lenient that just about any closed-source license that I can think of. The average user has little interested in violating the GPL, but the average user can *easily* infringe on closed-source software and has incentive to do so.
Consider how many unlicensed shareware products get used on a typical Windows desktop, then consider how much illegal software is on a typical Linux desktop (probably not much).
I mean, warning about the risks of OSS, when the risks of closed source software are far greater, is just silly.
Yes, everything was very cool indeed, until Darth McBride took over. "Congratulations. In a few short months you've dethroned Bill Gates as the most hated man in the industry."
You know, Wikipedia *still* lacks a picture of Darl on their Darl McBride article. That's kind of depressing, for someone with the name recognition he has. There has to be one freely available from somewhere.
You know, that was the feeling I got the *first* time SCO started this. What? They own Linux? What, they're suing their own customers? What, they're selling licenses to Linux for $800 a pop? What, now they're threatening to go after the US government? And the claims just started getting more extreme and weirder from there.
And now I'm just getting kind of numb. It's like shock rockers -- after a point, nothing they do can surprise you any more. Next I expect they'll try trademarking "Mother Teresa" or something.
The only thing I can think of is that *maybe* they simply have some value as a publically traded tech company that has some (however dubious) claims to fame from a long time ago that absolutely does not care at all about reputation. Sort of a "We'll do *anything*! We're that crazy!" type thing.
The problem with this is that Evolution and Speciation aren't science. They're just more faith based explainations for things that human beings can't possibly ever know with certainty.
Uh, no. If I grab some fruit flies, irradiate 'em, and wait until I mutate something important in the DNA of one that prevent its offspring from breeding with earlier fruit flies but allows these to interbreed, then I've clearly performed such a demonstration.
I think he may have been reading from the christianity playbook, which also seems to target my kids,
It's not just Christianity. The way to influence people is to keep giving people regular doses of doctrine, whether it's through constant ads on TV (as many vendors in the US do) or whether it's parentally-mandated weekly trips to a church plus encouragement to "study our marketing material in your free time". Then it encourages blocking out any competing material ("Watch what your kids see on TV and the Internet...there is 'occult' material on the Internet") and so forth.
If Scientology did this, people would pick up on the fact that a creepy bunch of people are trying to influence people. But Christianity is so ingrained in tradition that it seems to get a pass..
I think that evolution should also be kept out, because it is also metaphysical and non-scientific (neither testable nor observable).
That is ridiculous. I see no reason why evolution is non-observable. We get mutations in things like fruit flies all the time. The only thing you need is to mutate something particularly important in the DNA that prevents the offspring of such mutated DNA from breeding with non-mutated offspring. That's certainly something that you could see. "Nontestable" means "cannot ever be tested", not just "there is no five minute test".
For the same reason, evolution is certainly not metaphysical. Because it is a hypothesis to explain observed physical phenomena, it is scientific.
And I'm sorry, but if Christianity *really* is incompatible with evolution, then I think that Christianity is going to see some falling membership numbers.
Christianity had to be beaten about the head with the facts before it finally gave up and admitted to the heliocentric theory. It lost a lot of power and influence in the process. Do you really want Christianity to look stupid again when it tries to claim that evolution is just some nonsense conspiracy from scientists?
Science is *not* about pursuing truth, and confusion over this is why people get cranky about philosophy/science/religion getting all mucked up together.
Science is about using a formal system for trying to produce models that *provide useful predictive power about the world*. That is very different from pursuing truth, and is why the term "metaphysics" even exists.
Philosophers, I would say, would be the ones who actually look for *truth*.
Religion is a big mish-mash of various social influences, but I think I'd say that it's more about trying to resolve cognitive dissonance in people by giving them a simple (not necessarily accurate) explanation.
Where I get really irritable is when people proceed to trust religion over science or rational thought, or simple regard for the society that they live in today ("But *God* said that he hates homosexuals!") and make complete assholes of themselves. When religion tries to trump science or reason, then we have a problem.
I'd like to think the latter is the case. Spirituality is important, whether based in divinity or in something less etheric, and if it can exist side by side with practical knowledge, I think it bodes very well for the future of our species.
You mean it's a sociologically useful tool for societies?
What happened to the golden days of shipping the development tools to all? Apple IIs came with a debugger and a BASIC implementation in ROMs. Early Macs had HyperCard. There was a lull, and then AppleScript started floating around. (Apple seems to have recently figured out that improving application support for their platform was a Good Thing and shipped Xcode, and has had Cocoa out for a while.) When QuickBasic was a little more up-to-date (DOS days) it was pretty useful.
Now, sure, I can go use gcc on a Linux box. But there aren't really currently any useful development tools on a stock Windows box. If you use QuickBasic, you have a very crummy little IDE to use. Microsoft really should ship some kind of remotely decent and up-to-date development environment *with* Windows that the average Joe can learn to use to some degree. It doesn't have to be high-end, but it should be something that people can whip up quick little apps with to solve small problems.
Charging for your development environments never made sense to me. It's like charging people to make a mod for your game. It only improves the value of your platform -- why would you ever discourage them from doing so? What about DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS?
Unix is the king of this. The command shell itself has a (useful for very limited tasks) programming environment, and most Unix folk have a collection of perl one-liners. Perl probably isn't the greatest choice for a beginner to learn -- the huge array of syntax makes it difficult to learn, IMHO -- but the idea of having a handly little language that lets you accomplish useful scripting and programming for free and bundled with the OS is, I think, quite valuable.
And it doesn't stop with heaps. Lots of relatively little, commonly-used functions have been improved, like procedure calls.
Okay, I admit that I'm at a loss here, and the article's lack of technical information really doesn't help. How does Vista improve procedure calls? A new calling convention? Or are they talking about something completely different?
I'm glad that MS improved their VM algorithms -- it had to be one of the *worst* things about earlier versions of Windows. WINE's biggest performance benefit over Windows was usually in loading programs or files -- and this was because Linux's caching and VM simply worked much better. I'll be interested in seeing how significant the improvements are and how Windows' new VM system stacks up to Linux's current one.
Well, see, we've got two big parties in the US, and a handful of large states with a lot of electoral college votes. California and New York will go Democrat and Texas Republican. Florida is the only really big state that might go either way. So the opinion of Florida matters a *lot*.
When Castro took over, a lot of people that opposed him wound up in Florida, and have a lot of votes there. So anyone who raises the embargo on Cuba does little more than guarantee losing votes in a crucial swing state. Yes, the embargo has no national security justification any more, but it makes some Cuban expatriates happy.
MMORPG gold farming is a service export to the US. One much in demand. It costs China little to produce the service, and ensures that they can purchase more worthwhile US goods in exchange.
I think he meant Chinese-language TLDs..cn probably isn't very satisfying -- it means using a foreign language to access every website, which doesn't exactly stoke nationalism. What if you had to type a couple of Chinese characters to go anywhere on the Internet?
Verisign has been a twat for too long (.com wildcard, bogus "registration is expiring" notices to people other than their own subscribers, etc). Having the looming threat of really killing the goose that lays their golden eggs over their head might be sufficient to make them straighten up their act.
There are already RFCs for stuffing UTF-8 into DNS. Microsoft's own DNS server does it.
You know, if anyone is really saying "yes, I think we're going to blow up X" over phones/email/whatever, they're probably pretty aware of the possible risk.
I'm with the NYT on the grounds that the warrantless wiretaps are illegal. However, I'm sure that the NYT is going to lose. We've seen enough stuff that's *completely* unrelated to terrorism being pushed through while playing off fears of terrorism that I'd say that FOIA demands are going to get about as much traction as a demand to see McCarthy's list of communists during the height of his power.
Some certain-to-be-controversial thoughts extending these...
Fast forward to today. It's quite common for young teens and late preteens to play "taunt the pedophile" with naughty, often slutty, pictures.
Err...how do you know that teens didn't tease people (including those of their own age -- I don't see why it need be someone older) before the Internet?
I mean, people do not suddenly say "Gosh, sexuality! Never noticed that before!" on their eighteenth birthday.
It's not their fault that junior is living a completely parent-free life the moment he goes online. Oh no. Parents can't be expected to be the boss in their own homes!
What I don't understand is why it's not possible to talk things over with them. The problem is that sex is a hidden-yet-fun thing, you know? I don't think that blocking what they are doing or spying on them (and this is not Internet-specific) is nearly as important as being in touch with them. I mean, you trust yourself to use the Internet, yes? What do you have that they don't? Knowledge? Fine, impart it to them. My parents were always honest with me and I never felt a hesitation about discussing anything at all with them, and I valued that incredibly highly. Instead of simply forbidding me to do something, they explained *why* they felt that I shouldn't and let me come to the same conclusion. That respect meant that I never hit a rebellious stage.
If you don't think that your kids should be using MySpace, explain *why* you feel that way to them. If you really have a good reason, then you should be able to convince them. Don't just say "If I ever catch you on MySpace, I'll ground you." That just says "If you want to expand out of swaddling clothes, you need to learn to go behind my back", which is not, IMHO, a good thing.
I frequently see articles about how censorship of videogames is a bad thing, and how "parents are the problem" -- but that usually seems to take the form of "parents aren't personally blocking what their kids watch". I don't think that censorship is a good approach. If your kid wants to read a book containing a description of people having sex, they are going to do so. The question is whether it's going to be in your sight, with guidance or behind your back and pissed off at you. I'd be more concerned that you encourage them to do what you consider right and explain why.
Same thing with drugs, and so forth. You must have a good reason for not doing drugs, so instead of just threatening them, just explain why, you know?
I know that a number of people work on doing translation work for various languages -- as a whole, what is the state of Arabic-translated open source software? Is it possible for someone to work on a Linux desktop fully within Arabic, or is it necessary to use English?
How does this support compare with that under Windows?
Hmm...someone suing Random House to cash in on a successful author. And the wave of IP lawsuits just gets bigger and bigger.
I hope that sooner or later, if you can pull off these sorts of claims, someone's going to try for something a little bit more solid, Disney will get screwed, and we'll see a reverse Bono copyright extension.
Slashdot Mirror
And maybe cops plant all the guns involved in all violent crime everywhere, but the scientific mind looks for the simpler explanation.
As for carbon dating, we can carbon-date things which *did* have a known time of creation (wooden things that date back hundreds of years can be carbon-dated), so unless you claim that written records dating hundreds of years ago are also false, I don't think that you have much foundation for your argument. If you want to claim that, I'll just point out that the Bible could be far more easily falsified than all this *other* stuff...
You've just demonstrated that a God with advanced science, in comparison to a fruit fly at least, might have guided evolution and speciation using radiation.
I didn't say that I proved that there wasn't a god. What I just demonstrated was speciation. You can claim that some invisible gay-hating guy in the sky or a flying spaghetti monster is "really" the guiding force if you want. You can also claim that said invisible guy in the sky causes gravity, but it doesn't make a theory of gravity any less scientific.
There's no difference between the role of the "demonstrator" and a god in this case.
Execept that I just sped up the process a bit. Mutations always happen, at a lower rate. When you're out in the Sun, you're getting irradiated. Unless your argument is that such a mutation *could* happen only if a sentient being was involved, which is a pretty weak argument.
So once again, you've created a possible logical model, but haven't actually proved anything about what happened in the case of human beings (and in fact, you can't prove anything one way or the other because no human observers existed before human beings were created).
Calm down. I didn't say that Christianity was a load of superstitious nonsense in the post (actually, I do I believe that this is the case, now that you bring it up, but it wasn't a part of the earlier post). Nothing in there said anything about what happens with humans. You claimed that speciation and evolution were non-testable and non-scientific. I demonstrated that you were wrong, at least WRT speciation, by giving an example of such a test. That's all.
The market has never been that bad for people with plenty of experience.
The market has never been that bad for people who know what they are doing. There exists a corrolation, but it is not absolute.
Okay, so I'm just curious. Exactly how many people have been exposed to legal loss from violating an open source license? I'm sure somewhat at some point in time must have, but I vaguely remember seeing once somewhere that nobody had ever shelled out any money over a GPL violation (and the GPL is at least the most widely used license).
But you can infringe the copyrights on on commercial closed-source software just as well as open source software, and I'm willing to bet that BSA audits and fines create much more loss and hassle than open source software *ever* has.
Come on. Your business might get in trouble for having unlicensed copies of WinXP or Office floating around, but it's damned unlikely that it will get in trouble for violating the GPL internally (not that I think you should, just trying to inject some reality into the conversation) -- plus, the GPL is a *hell* of a lot more lenient that just about any closed-source license that I can think of. The average user has little interested in violating the GPL, but the average user can *easily* infringe on closed-source software and has incentive to do so.
Consider how many unlicensed shareware products get used on a typical Windows desktop, then consider how much illegal software is on a typical Linux desktop (probably not much).
I mean, warning about the risks of OSS, when the risks of closed source software are far greater, is just silly.
Yes, everything was very cool indeed, until Darth McBride took over. "Congratulations. In a few short months you've dethroned Bill Gates as the most hated man in the industry."
You know, Wikipedia *still* lacks a picture of Darl on their Darl McBride article. That's kind of depressing, for someone with the name recognition he has. There has to be one freely available from somewhere.
You know, that was the feeling I got the *first* time SCO started this. What? They own Linux? What, they're suing their own customers? What, they're selling licenses to Linux for $800 a pop? What, now they're threatening to go after the US government? And the claims just started getting more extreme and weirder from there.
And now I'm just getting kind of numb. It's like shock rockers -- after a point, nothing they do can surprise you any more. Next I expect they'll try trademarking "Mother Teresa" or something.
The only thing I can think of is that *maybe* they simply have some value as a publically traded tech company that has some (however dubious) claims to fame from a long time ago that absolutely does not care at all about reputation. Sort of a "We'll do *anything*! We're that crazy!" type thing.
Kur5hin may be worth a look as well...
I'd settle for him reading the Evolution WP article.
The problem with this is that Evolution and Speciation aren't science. They're just more faith based explainations for things that human beings can't possibly ever know with certainty.
Uh, no. If I grab some fruit flies, irradiate 'em, and wait until I mutate something important in the DNA of one that prevent its offspring from breeding with earlier fruit flies but allows these to interbreed, then I've clearly performed such a demonstration.
I think he may have been reading from the christianity playbook, which also seems to target my kids,
It's not just Christianity. The way to influence people is to keep giving people regular doses of doctrine, whether it's through constant ads on TV (as many vendors in the US do) or whether it's parentally-mandated weekly trips to a church plus encouragement to "study our marketing material in your free time". Then it encourages blocking out any competing material ("Watch what your kids see on TV and the Internet...there is 'occult' material on the Internet") and so forth.
If Scientology did this, people would pick up on the fact that a creepy bunch of people are trying to influence people. But Christianity is so ingrained in tradition that it seems to get a pass..
I think that evolution should also be kept out, because it is also metaphysical and non-scientific (neither testable nor observable).
That is ridiculous. I see no reason why evolution is non-observable. We get mutations in things like fruit flies all the time. The only thing you need is to mutate something particularly important in the DNA that prevents the offspring of such mutated DNA from breeding with non-mutated offspring. That's certainly something that you could see. "Nontestable" means "cannot ever be tested", not just "there is no five minute test".
For the same reason, evolution is certainly not metaphysical. Because it is a hypothesis to explain observed physical phenomena, it is scientific.
And I'm sorry, but if Christianity *really* is incompatible with evolution, then I think that Christianity is going to see some falling membership numbers.
Christianity had to be beaten about the head with the facts before it finally gave up and admitted to the heliocentric theory. It lost a lot of power and influence in the process. Do you really want Christianity to look stupid again when it tries to claim that evolution is just some nonsense conspiracy from scientists?
You are not correct on either count, IMHO.
Science is *not* about pursuing truth, and confusion over this is why people get cranky about philosophy/science/religion getting all mucked up together.
Science is about using a formal system for trying to produce models that *provide useful predictive power about the world*. That is very different from pursuing truth, and is why the term "metaphysics" even exists.
Philosophers, I would say, would be the ones who actually look for *truth*.
Religion is a big mish-mash of various social influences, but I think I'd say that it's more about trying to resolve cognitive dissonance in people by giving them a simple (not necessarily accurate) explanation.
Where I get really irritable is when people proceed to trust religion over science or rational thought, or simple regard for the society that they live in today ("But *God* said that he hates homosexuals!") and make complete assholes of themselves. When religion tries to trump science or reason, then we have a problem.
I'd like to think the latter is the case. Spirituality is important, whether based in divinity or in something less etheric, and if it can exist side by side with practical knowledge, I think it bodes very well for the future of our species.
You mean it's a sociologically useful tool for societies?
What happened to the golden days of shipping the development tools to all? Apple IIs came with a debugger and a BASIC implementation in ROMs. Early Macs had HyperCard. There was a lull, and then AppleScript started floating around. (Apple seems to have recently figured out that improving application support for their platform was a Good Thing and shipped Xcode, and has had Cocoa out for a while.) When QuickBasic was a little more up-to-date (DOS days) it was pretty useful.
Now, sure, I can go use gcc on a Linux box. But there aren't really currently any useful development tools on a stock Windows box. If you use QuickBasic, you have a very crummy little IDE to use. Microsoft really should ship some kind of remotely decent and up-to-date development environment *with* Windows that the average Joe can learn to use to some degree. It doesn't have to be high-end, but it should be something that people can whip up quick little apps with to solve small problems.
Charging for your development environments never made sense to me. It's like charging people to make a mod for your game. It only improves the value of your platform -- why would you ever discourage them from doing so? What about DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS?
Unix is the king of this. The command shell itself has a (useful for very limited tasks) programming environment, and most Unix folk have a collection of perl one-liners. Perl probably isn't the greatest choice for a beginner to learn -- the huge array of syntax makes it difficult to learn, IMHO -- but the idea of having a handly little language that lets you accomplish useful scripting and programming for free and bundled with the OS is, I think, quite valuable.
state both their business problem
When did "application logic" transmute into "business logic"? Not all the code I write is to solve a problem relating to business.
And it doesn't stop with heaps. Lots of relatively little, commonly-used functions have been improved, like procedure calls.
Okay, I admit that I'm at a loss here, and the article's lack of technical information really doesn't help. How does Vista improve procedure calls? A new calling convention? Or are they talking about something completely different?
I'm glad that MS improved their VM algorithms -- it had to be one of the *worst* things about earlier versions of Windows. WINE's biggest performance benefit over Windows was usually in loading programs or files -- and this was because Linux's caching and VM simply worked much better. I'll be interested in seeing how significant the improvements are and how Windows' new VM system stacks up to Linux's current one.
Well, see, we've got two big parties in the US, and a handful of large states with a lot of electoral college votes. California and New York will go Democrat and Texas Republican. Florida is the only really big state that might go either way. So the opinion of Florida matters a *lot*.
When Castro took over, a lot of people that opposed him wound up in Florida, and have a lot of votes there. So anyone who raises the embargo on Cuba does little more than guarantee losing votes in a crucial swing state. Yes, the embargo has no national security justification any more, but it makes some Cuban expatriates happy.
MMORPG gold farming is a service export to the US. One much in demand. It costs China little to produce the service, and ensures that they can purchase more worthwhile US goods in exchange.
I think he meant Chinese-language TLDs. .cn probably isn't very satisfying -- it means using a foreign language to access every website, which doesn't exactly stoke nationalism. What if you had to type a couple of Chinese characters to go anywhere on the Internet?
Verisign has been a twat for too long (.com wildcard, bogus "registration is expiring" notices to people other than their own subscribers, etc). Having the looming threat of really killing the goose that lays their golden eggs over their head might be sufficient to make them straighten up their act.
There are already RFCs for stuffing UTF-8 into DNS. Microsoft's own DNS server does it.
You know, if anyone is really saying "yes, I think we're going to blow up X" over phones/email/whatever, they're probably pretty aware of the possible risk.
I'm with the NYT on the grounds that the warrantless wiretaps are illegal. However, I'm sure that the NYT is going to lose. We've seen enough stuff that's *completely* unrelated to terrorism being pushed through while playing off fears of terrorism that I'd say that FOIA demands are going to get about as much traction as a demand to see McCarthy's list of communists during the height of his power.
It isn't like reading "kill all n*****" will make you racist. Having low moral standing will allow that to happen.
I don't even think that morality is necessary. You can rationally say "racism generally doesn't make much sense".
Some certain-to-be-controversial thoughts extending these...
Fast forward to today. It's quite common for young teens and late preteens to play "taunt the pedophile" with naughty, often slutty, pictures.
Err...how do you know that teens didn't tease people (including those of their own age -- I don't see why it need be someone older) before the Internet?
I mean, people do not suddenly say "Gosh, sexuality! Never noticed that before!" on their eighteenth birthday.
It's not their fault that junior is living a completely parent-free life the moment he goes online. Oh no. Parents can't be expected to be the boss in their own homes!
What I don't understand is why it's not possible to talk things over with them. The problem is that sex is a hidden-yet-fun thing, you know? I don't think that blocking what they are doing or spying on them (and this is not Internet-specific) is nearly as important as being in touch with them. I mean, you trust yourself to use the Internet, yes? What do you have that they don't? Knowledge? Fine, impart it to them. My parents were always honest with me and I never felt a hesitation about discussing anything at all with them, and I valued that incredibly highly. Instead of simply forbidding me to do something, they explained *why* they felt that I shouldn't and let me come to the same conclusion. That respect meant that I never hit a rebellious stage.
If you don't think that your kids should be using MySpace, explain *why* you feel that way to them. If you really have a good reason, then you should be able to convince them. Don't just say "If I ever catch you on MySpace, I'll ground you." That just says "If you want to expand out of swaddling clothes, you need to learn to go behind my back", which is not, IMHO, a good thing.
I frequently see articles about how censorship of videogames is a bad thing, and how "parents are the problem" -- but that usually seems to take the form of "parents aren't personally blocking what their kids watch". I don't think that censorship is a good approach. If your kid wants to read a book containing a description of people having sex, they are going to do so. The question is whether it's going to be in your sight, with guidance or behind your back and pissed off at you. I'd be more concerned that you encourage them to do what you consider right and explain why.
Same thing with drugs, and so forth. You must have a good reason for not doing drugs, so instead of just threatening them, just explain why, you know?
I know that a number of people work on doing translation work for various languages -- as a whole, what is the state of Arabic-translated open source software? Is it possible for someone to work on a Linux desktop fully within Arabic, or is it necessary to use English?
How does this support compare with that under Windows?
Hmm...someone suing Random House to cash in on a successful author. And the wave of IP lawsuits just gets bigger and bigger.
I hope that sooner or later, if you can pull off these sorts of claims, someone's going to try for something a little bit more solid, Disney will get screwed, and we'll see a reverse Bono copyright extension.
Maybe.