Re:Cisco's "last mile technology" makes this moot?
on
Broadband Obstacles
·
· Score: 2
You're missing a fat, expensive pipe to hook them all up to (or, up to which them all to hook, for the non-terminal-preposition crowd). You're missing a help desk. You're missing a staff of engineers. You're missing a billing department.
Graft. An order can be obtained from a judge if he is properly lubricated first. But this is usually not necessary, since there are plenty of judges who are simply derelict, and will sign any order presented to them.
Uhh, no. Freedom of speech is a right. Copyright is a privilege, a bargain to try and balance the right to free speech with a publisher's need to make a profit to stay in business and produce more content.
"There would be a potential for an AOL usage [of multimedia instant messaging] to either swamp out the rest of the Internet or to require major engineering to stop what we call a congestion collapse, where you cannot send new traffic into the network," says Allison Mankin, co-chair of the IETF's transport area. "This is a big enough problem to need urgent attention."
Why not? Technology has advanced a lot since it was made, why are the editors the only ones who get to have fun? Re-render the whole thing, and replace that old tech with new stuff. I mean, for pity's sake, we have texture-mapping now!
I don't believe one word of the meaningless drivel you just spewed. You are trying to convince a technically-oriented audience that it costs the registry too much resources (read: money) to delete records? Look, it was Versigin that paid everybody off to be in the middle of things, now that the dot-com boom has busted, they want to plead "losing money" on a losing proposition, namely domain name speculation. Yes, VERISIGN is the biggest speculator of them all.
My response is TOO BAD FOR VERISIGN. Boo-fucking-hoo. The sooner Versign goes the way of Enron, the better. They made their bed, now they should sleep in it.
You've never had to maintain an email system in your life, nor understand the constraints of maintaining an email system.
Sez who? That is one of my primary job duties. Another one is answering mail sent to abuse@ and postmaster@. Yet another one is implementing spam control measures. I am intimately familiar with the ins and outs of this issue. It is my job and I have been doing it for the past decade. I was using Internet email before there was any spam, when UUCP was still widely used. All I lack is a pot-belly and greying beard, and I am the stereotypical Unix guru they keep in the back room and don't let customers talk to.
But I don't share your opinion about what to do, what will work, and what won't, when it comes to spam.
Do you realize what Microsoft-based mail systems actually DO when you hit that delete key? THEY PLACE THE EMAIL INTO A DELETED ITEMS FOLDER BUT (by default) DOES NOT EMPTY THE FOLDER - EVER.
And whose fault is this? That Microsoft's software exacerbates the spam problem is an argument against using Microsoft software, not an argument in favor of vigilantism or tossing "suspect" messages without notice to anyone.
When you're putting a couple hundred people onto a mail system, that breaks down to less than 80MB of email per user.
Couple hundred? My company has close to 5000 employees, contractors and partners on our mail system.
Cram all that mail alongside the several megabytes of spam the average worker receives every month, and you've got a very bad situation.
Hasn't been much of a problem for us, but we have competent NT admins and help desk people who know how to keep the Exchange side of the mail system working smoothly, and users' desktops configured properly to not keep stuff in the Trashbin forever. Of course, it was a struggle to get to this point, since Exchange isn't exactly the easiest piece of software to deal with. Myself, I never let my email touch the Microsoft side of things. I intercept it and deliver it to the IMAP/POP server where the Unixheads and other clueful souls have their mail delivered.
...the typical corporate mail system can only contain 16 GIGABYTES of email - period.
Huh? Ours is at 3 or 4 hundred gigabytes. The Netapp filer on which the Exchange mailstore is kept can be expanded to 2Tb eventually. I guess your budget is a bit smaller than ours. Or you didn't buy the BigMailStore License, or whatever.
Cram all that mail alongside the several megabytes of spam the average worker receives every month, and you've got a very bad situation.
Your numbers are so tiny, it's laughable that you're having problems already. I shouldn't laugh though, you probably can't help it.
Unless, of course, you honestly, actually, seriously think that having all the CEOs email go away when the database overflows and crashes is a tenable situation. Really? Do you?
No, that's why I argued against Exchange, but they really wanted the shared calendar and stuff, and at the time, I couldn't provide an open source alternative. In any event, they worked out the kinks and got it all working, with more than 16Gb capacity, over a CIFS share from a Netapp filer. The CEO has not lost any mail.
Gosh, Mr. Spam King,...
Snicker. That's pretty funny.
... you certainly have ALL the damn answers...
I never said that. I expressed my opinion, and attempted to engage in a discussion, but all you zealots only want to shout me down because I am not spouting the party line.
A million people think that Miss Cleo knows something they don't (actually, she does, but I digress). Just because everyone is on the bandwagon doesn't mean the driver knows where he is going.
And I hate it when zealots quote scripture at me. You are trying to prove that god exists using the bible. Just as I do with bible-quoting zealots, I will address the CAUCE scripture's flawed arguments one-by-one.
There's Too Much. The amount of spam is growing day by day, with no signs of an abatement in volume.
This proves only that
all anti-spam measures have been largely ineffective, including the ones you advocate. That is exactly what I have been saying all along. This proves my point, not yours. Spam volume is growing because there are more email senders, more messages and more recipients overall. How dumb do you have to be not to see this? (don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question)
You Still Get Spam. In order for this to work, you have to receive the spam in the first place. Your time, money and energy, not to mention huge amounts of bandwidth...
Prove it. There is no evidence that spam is more a bandwidth hog than other email, Usenet, P2P, HTTP, and so on. If we implore them to discriminate against this traffic, they will feel free to discriminate against other traffic. It's already happening. Ask anyone who has tried to send or receive (non-spam) email through AOL, only to have it mysteriously disappear for no apparent reason, with no way to determine what happened. This cure is worse than the disease, especially when the disease is as easily avoided as brushing away a fly.
It Doesn't Work. Period. Most spam is forged in some fashion, making it impossible to determine the origin.
Then why does Spamcop exist to assist with reporting the spam to the originating ISP? How can DNS blacklists do what they claim, if it is impossible to determine the origin of the spam?
No matter what filtering mechanism is built, spammers will find a way around it.
Again, this only proves my point. The existing mail system is too friendly to spammers. That is a problem that can be addressed with technology. But no one wants to do that. You'd much rather go around making laws telling everyone who may speak to whom, or enacting some vigilante ideal of who may talk to whom. Enough already!
How Much is Too Much? What does it take before your email inbox is useless to you? 5 spams a day? 50? How about 500? If spam manages to become legitimized, then 500 messages a day will be small potatoes. Spam is amazingly cheap to send, and spammers will take advantage of this to turn your email box into a billboard for their advertisements, making it totally useless for regular (wanted) email.
Again, CAUCE supports my position. Spam exists because the SMTP protocol makes it possible to get away with it. We need a new mail system, not new laws. Blacklists, filters, LARTs, these things are useful only in the short term, as CAUCE rightly points out. The SMTP and POP mail system places a large part of the burden of receiving mail on the recipient, by design. A
new mail system that reverses the order of things will stop almost all spam, at least from the small-potatoes schmuck. It addresses exactly the problem spam-complainers object to most, that spam costs them money. It will not, however, stop mass-marketers who can afford paper spam in addition to electronic spam.
This is a solveable problem, only we're all too collectively lazy to implement a working solution. We'd much rather go around making laws to punish people's behavior rather than having to re-invent the system to make the undesireable behavior unappealing or unrewarding so as to make it not worth the bother. That sounds an awful lot like your friends over at the RIAA and MPAA. One day, maybe both of you will get a clue.
The book based on the Lord of the Rings movie is really good. If you haven't read it yet, you really should, there is a lot more stuff in it than the movie, and most of it is pretty exciting (except this dude called Tom Bombadil who is a real fruit, almost as annoying as Jar-Jar). Some guy named Tokin wrote it, and and I think it should be nominated, even though it's based on a movie.
Didn't I just explain how this isn't true? Lost productivity, abuse desks, bandwidth.. these are real costs!
BSA dues, RIAA dues, legal fees, campaign contributions, hiring large surly men to participate in raids - these are just some of the real costs of piracy!!
If the RIAA can buzz off (and yes, they can), then so can the anti-spam zealots. Both are trying to control behavior they have no business trying to control.
The most cost-effective way to control spam is liberal use of the delete key (or its automated proxy, the mail filter). No help desk, abuse desk, DNS blacklist, Spamcop, or any such thing is required to use it. If people stopped complaining about spam to their ISP - or the spammer's ISP - the ISPs would not incur increased support costs due to spam. I guarantee you that bandwidth and storage costs are a pittance compared to staffing a help desk.
So the "real costs" of spam are largely incurred voluntarily by those who decry its costs the loudest.
That is the irony. You want to have all these abuse and help desk people to complain to, which increases the fees I pay for my ISP, even though I am happy with the delete-key solution.
Now whose little crusade is costing whom?
...it's CYBERCREEK.
Whatever. I am no anti-spam zealot so I didn't recall the name correctly when I tried to think of one off the top of my head. So sue me. But that doesn't detract from my point, which you entirely missed.
You hate it because you are doing it at the wrong time. Write your documentation before you write one line of code. Then proceed to write your code to implement the documented features, instead of later trying to document poorly documented source code.;)
I think you need to look at your irony detector, it may be malfunctioning.
The amount lost due to unauthorized copying (and I strongly object to the use of the word 'piracy') is negligible. CD sales went up during the year Napster became popular.
The amount lost due to unsolicited emailing (and I strongly object to the use of the word 'spamming') is negligible. Spamming has increased in past years because email is more and more popular.
Don't believe me? The record companies only want you to be able to use APPROVED hardware and software (search for SSSCA), which would prevent unauthorized copying.
Don't believe me? The anti-spammers only want you to be able to use APPROVED hardware and software (search for CanyonCreek), which would prevent unsolicited bulk emailing.
For many it's no hobby. Some are sysadmins, network admins, abuse staff. This is their job, and their systems are being abused by thieves. By organizing against spammers they are doing a service to the entire Internet community and they should be commended, not called 'vigilantes.'
For many it's no hobby. Some are lyricists, composers, studio staff. This is their job, and their works are being abused by thieves. By organizing against pirates they are doing a service to the entire Music community and they should be commended, not called 'vigilantes.'
...one of my users that ranted and raved at me until I used Sendmail's SPAMFRIEND declaration to let mail destined to that user bypass all my spam checks. Of course he now gets around 200 pieces of spam per week but who's counting.
Your user was. He was counting all the mail he didn't receive. He was counting on his ISP not to intercept his mail. He was probably counting on his ISP to have a reaction other than incredulity at his request. Frankly, I'm incredulous that you made him "rant and rave" before you believed he was serious about not wanting you blocking his email anymore.
Spamfriend, by the way, is not part of sendmail. It is part of the anti-spam rulesets you're using.
What we really need is a new mail system that is inherently spam-unfriendly, where the sender bears the burden of storing the message until the recipient chooses to come pick it up. Dan Bernstein is working on such a system, which he calls Internet Mail 2000. Check it out.
According to RandomOnlineLawTextFoundInGoogleSearchResults, defamation of business is merely a specific form of libel or slander.
I found this interesting:
12. Commercial Disparagement: When tortfeasor makes false or misleading statements
about a business's goods, services, or business enterprise. Consists of disparagement of
goods, disparagement of services, disparagement of business.
And this is even more interesting, but somehow seems a like wishful thinking.
13 Defamation by Computer: When personal information about someone that is kept in a
computer database is misused or incorrect and injures the victim's reputation or ability to
obtain credit.
The messages accused managers of being homophobic and of discriminating against pregnant women, officials say.
Lesson One: If you say something libelous, you may be liable to receive notice of a libel suit, mm-kay?
"Companies have a free hand to tout their organizations," says defendant Michelangelo Delfino. "A little guy like me comes along and says 'I disagree' or 'the CEO is ignorant,' and I'm squished. It's a free-speech issue."
Lesson Two: Disgruntled former employees seldom have nice things to say about their former employers, mm-kay?
He had sent e-mails to as many as 35,000 workers airing grievances; Intel officials say they took legal action only after asking him to stop.
Lesson Three: If you are doing something so obnoxious as spamming your former employer, stop when they ask you to, mm-kay? This is just like the rule not to pee in the pool, mm-kay, and it has nothing to do with you personally, or your grievance against your employer, mm-kay?
Saying the ruling stifled free speech, some civil libertarians predict the decision will be used by other companies that want to bar former workers from e-mailing staffers.
Lesson Four: Civil libertarians always say that, but that's a good thing, mm-kay, even when they're wrong, mm-kay? Whatever you think of their views, start worrying when you don't hear from them at all anymore on things like this, mm-kay?
"It could prevent organizing between former and current employees," says Ann Beeson, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "They allow hundreds of non-work-related e-mail to reach employees, but they singled out this one guy."
Lesson Four: If you're a spammer, and you really want to get noticed, include libelous statements about specific individuals or organizations in your spam. Not only will your name get mentioned in the news, but your marketing message might even get shown on TV! MMMMMM-KAY!!
I thought Top Ten Lists were OUT in the wake of Sept. 11. No wait, that was In or Out lists. That were out. My bad. I'm outta here.
Re:This is a sign of some sort of cultural deficie
on
Goodbye, "Majestic"
·
· Score: 2
When this type of product becomes ubiquitous, we will be watching the news wondering whether we are really at war or whether it is a part of the latest game.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do we call them "buildings" anyway, after we're done building them? Shouldn't they be called "builts"?
Karma whoring: Remembering "Beatrice".
You're missing a fat, expensive pipe to hook them all up to (or, up to which them all to hook, for the non-terminal-preposition crowd). You're missing a help desk. You're missing a staff of engineers. You're missing a billing department.
Graft. An order can be obtained from a judge if he is properly lubricated first. But this is usually not necessary, since there are plenty of judges who are simply derelict, and will sign any order presented to them.
...while copyright is a legitimate right...
Uhh, no. Freedom of speech is a right. Copyright is a privilege, a bargain to try and balance the right to free speech with a publisher's need to make a profit to stay in business and produce more content.
"There would be a potential for an AOL usage [of multimedia instant messaging] to either swamp out the rest of the Internet or to require major engineering to stop what we call a congestion collapse, where you cannot send new traffic into the network," says Allison Mankin, co-chair of the IETF's transport area. "This is a big enough problem to need urgent attention."
Then the IETF should definitely not get involved.
Why not? Technology has advanced a lot since it was made, why are the editors the only ones who get to have fun? Re-render the whole thing, and replace that old tech with new stuff. I mean, for pity's sake, we have texture-mapping now!
I don't believe one word of the meaningless drivel you just spewed. You are trying to convince a technically-oriented audience that it costs the registry too much resources (read: money) to delete records? Look, it was Versigin that paid everybody off to be in the middle of things, now that the dot-com boom has busted, they want to plead "losing money" on a losing proposition, namely domain name speculation. Yes, VERISIGN is the biggest speculator of them all.
My response is TOO BAD FOR VERISIGN. Boo-fucking-hoo. The sooner Versign goes the way of Enron, the better. They made their bed, now they should sleep in it.
Oh dear god.
...the typical corporate mail system can only contain 16 GIGABYTES of email - period.
... you certainly have ALL the damn answers...
...
Kindbud will do, thanks.
You've never had to maintain an email system in your life, nor understand the constraints of maintaining an email system.
Sez who? That is one of my primary job duties. Another one is answering mail sent to abuse@ and postmaster@. Yet another one is implementing spam control measures. I am intimately familiar with the ins and outs of this issue. It is my job and I have been doing it for the past decade. I was using Internet email before there was any spam, when UUCP was still widely used. All I lack is a pot-belly and greying beard, and I am the stereotypical Unix guru they keep in the back room and don't let customers talk to.
But I don't share your opinion about what to do, what will work, and what won't, when it comes to spam.
Do you realize what Microsoft-based mail systems actually DO when you hit that delete key? THEY PLACE THE EMAIL INTO A DELETED ITEMS FOLDER BUT (by default) DOES NOT EMPTY THE FOLDER - EVER.
And whose fault is this? That Microsoft's software exacerbates the spam problem is an argument against using Microsoft software, not an argument in favor of vigilantism or tossing "suspect" messages without notice to anyone.
When you're putting a couple hundred people onto a mail system, that breaks down to less than 80MB of email per user.
Couple hundred? My company has close to 5000 employees, contractors and partners on our mail system.
Cram all that mail alongside the several megabytes of spam the average worker receives every month, and you've got a very bad situation.
Hasn't been much of a problem for us, but we have competent NT admins and help desk people who know how to keep the Exchange side of the mail system working smoothly, and users' desktops configured properly to not keep stuff in the Trashbin forever. Of course, it was a struggle to get to this point, since Exchange isn't exactly the easiest piece of software to deal with. Myself, I never let my email touch the Microsoft side of things. I intercept it and deliver it to the IMAP/POP server where the Unixheads and other clueful souls have their mail delivered.
Huh? Ours is at 3 or 4 hundred gigabytes. The Netapp filer on which the Exchange mailstore is kept can be expanded to 2Tb eventually. I guess your budget is a bit smaller than ours. Or you didn't buy the BigMailStore License, or whatever.
Cram all that mail alongside the several megabytes of spam the average worker receives every month, and you've got a very bad situation.
Your numbers are so tiny, it's laughable that you're having problems already. I shouldn't laugh though, you probably can't help it.
Unless, of course, you honestly, actually, seriously think that having all the CEOs email go away when the database overflows and crashes is a tenable situation. Really? Do you?
No, that's why I argued against Exchange, but they really wanted the shared calendar and stuff, and at the time, I couldn't provide an open source alternative. In any event, they worked out the kinks and got it all working, with more than 16Gb capacity, over a CIFS share from a Netapp filer. The CEO has not lost any mail.
Gosh, Mr. Spam King,...
Snicker. That's pretty funny.
I never said that. I expressed my opinion, and attempted to engage in a discussion, but all you zealots only want to shout me down because I am not spouting the party line.
Stop being a detriment to the human race
Oooo, you gonna compare me to OBL now? Please?
There are no lawmakers in the executive branch (yet).
And I hate it when zealots quote scripture at me. You are trying to prove that god exists using the bible. Just as I do with bible-quoting zealots, I will address the CAUCE scripture's flawed arguments one-by-one.
- There's Too Much. The amount of spam is growing day by day, with no signs of an abatement in volume.
- You Still Get Spam. In order for this to work, you have to receive the spam in the first place. Your time, money and energy, not to mention huge amounts of bandwidth...
- It Doesn't Work. Period. Most spam is forged in some fashion, making it impossible to determine the origin. No matter what filtering mechanism is built, spammers will find a way around it.
- How Much is Too Much? What does it take before your email inbox is useless to you? 5 spams a day? 50? How about 500? If spam manages to become legitimized, then 500 messages a day will be small potatoes. Spam is amazingly cheap to send, and spammers will take advantage of this to turn your email box into a billboard for their advertisements, making it totally useless for regular (wanted) email.
This is a solveable problem, only we're all too collectively lazy to implement a working solution. We'd much rather go around making laws to punish people's behavior rather than having to re-invent the system to make the undesireable behavior unappealing or unrewarding so as to make it not worth the bother. That sounds an awful lot like your friends over at the RIAA and MPAA. One day, maybe both of you will get a clue.The book based on the Lord of the Rings movie is really good. If you haven't read it yet, you really should, there is a lot more stuff in it than the movie, and most of it is pretty exciting (except this dude called Tom Bombadil who is a real fruit, almost as annoying as Jar-Jar). Some guy named Tokin wrote it, and and I think it should be nominated, even though it's based on a movie.
Didn't I just explain how this isn't true? Lost productivity, abuse desks, bandwidth.. these are real costs!
...it's CYBERCREEK.
BSA dues, RIAA dues, legal fees, campaign contributions, hiring large surly men to participate in raids - these are just some of the real costs of piracy!!
If the RIAA can buzz off (and yes, they can), then so can the anti-spam zealots. Both are trying to control behavior they have no business trying to control.
The most cost-effective way to control spam is liberal use of the delete key (or its automated proxy, the mail filter). No help desk, abuse desk, DNS blacklist, Spamcop, or any such thing is required to use it. If people stopped complaining about spam to their ISP - or the spammer's ISP - the ISPs would not incur increased support costs due to spam. I guarantee you that bandwidth and storage costs are a pittance compared to staffing a help desk.
So the "real costs" of spam are largely incurred voluntarily by those who decry its costs the loudest.
That is the irony. You want to have all these abuse and help desk people to complain to, which increases the fees I pay for my ISP, even though I am happy with the delete-key solution.
Now whose little crusade is costing whom?
Whatever. I am no anti-spam zealot so I didn't recall the name correctly when I tried to think of one off the top of my head. So sue me. But that doesn't detract from my point, which you entirely missed.
You hate it because you are doing it at the wrong time. Write your documentation before you write one line of code. Then proceed to write your code to implement the documented features, instead of later trying to document poorly documented source code. ;)
Viola. Cello. Whatever.
I think you need to look at your irony detector, it may be malfunctioning.
The amount lost due to unauthorized copying (and I strongly object to the use of the word 'piracy') is negligible. CD sales went up during the year Napster became popular.
The amount lost due to unsolicited emailing (and I strongly object to the use of the word 'spamming') is negligible. Spamming has increased in past years because email is more and more popular.
Don't believe me? The record companies only want you to be able to use APPROVED hardware and software (search for SSSCA), which would prevent unauthorized copying.
Don't believe me? The anti-spammers only want you to be able to use APPROVED hardware and software (search for CanyonCreek), which would prevent unsolicited bulk emailing.
Do the ends really justify the means?
For many it's no hobby. Some are sysadmins, network admins, abuse staff. This is their job, and their systems are being abused by thieves. By organizing against spammers they are doing a service to the entire Internet community and they should be commended, not called 'vigilantes.'
For many it's no hobby. Some are lyricists, composers, studio staff. This is their job, and their works are being abused by thieves. By organizing against pirates they are doing a service to the entire Music community and they should be commended, not called 'vigilantes.'
...one of my users that ranted and raved at me until I used Sendmail's SPAMFRIEND declaration to let mail destined to that user bypass all my spam checks. Of course he now gets around 200 pieces of spam per week but who's counting.
Your user was. He was counting all the mail he didn't receive. He was counting on his ISP not to intercept his mail. He was probably counting on his ISP to have a reaction other than incredulity at his request. Frankly, I'm incredulous that you made him "rant and rave" before you believed he was serious about not wanting you blocking his email anymore.
Spamfriend, by the way, is not part of sendmail. It is part of the anti-spam rulesets you're using.
DJB has many faults, but being a good marketer is not one of them.
What we really need is a new mail system that is inherently spam-unfriendly, where the sender bears the burden of storing the message until the recipient chooses to come pick it up. Dan Bernstein is working on such a system, which he calls Internet Mail 2000. Check it out.
IANAL but I play one on Slashdot.
According to RandomOnlineLawTextFoundInGoogleSearchResults, defamation of business is merely a specific form of libel or slander.
I found this interesting:
12. Commercial Disparagement: When tortfeasor makes false or misleading statements
about a business's goods, services, or business enterprise. Consists of disparagement of
goods, disparagement of services, disparagement of business.
And this is even more interesting, but somehow seems a like wishful thinking.
13 Defamation by Computer: When personal information about someone that is kept in a
computer database is misused or incorrect and injures the victim's reputation or ability to
obtain credit.
The messages accused managers of being homophobic and of discriminating against pregnant women, officials say.
Lesson One: If you say something libelous, you may be liable to receive notice of a libel suit, mm-kay?
"Companies have a free hand to tout their organizations," says defendant Michelangelo Delfino. "A little guy like me comes along and says 'I disagree' or 'the CEO is ignorant,' and I'm squished. It's a free-speech issue."
Lesson Two: Disgruntled former employees seldom have nice things to say about their former employers, mm-kay?
He had sent e-mails to as many as 35,000 workers airing grievances; Intel officials say they took legal action only after asking him to stop.
Lesson Three: If you are doing something so obnoxious as spamming your former employer, stop when they ask you to, mm-kay? This is just like the rule not to pee in the pool, mm-kay, and it has nothing to do with you personally, or your grievance against your employer, mm-kay?
Saying the ruling stifled free speech, some civil libertarians predict the decision will be used by other companies that want to bar former workers from e-mailing staffers.
Lesson Four: Civil libertarians always say that, but that's a good thing, mm-kay, even when they're wrong, mm-kay? Whatever you think of their views, start worrying when you don't hear from them at all anymore on things like this, mm-kay?
"It could prevent organizing between former and current employees," says Ann Beeson, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. "They allow hundreds of non-work-related e-mail to reach employees, but they singled out this one guy."
Lesson Four: If you're a spammer, and you really want to get noticed, include libelous statements about specific individuals or organizations in your spam. Not only will your name get mentioned in the news, but your marketing message might even get shown on TV! MMMMMM-KAY!!
I thought Top Ten Lists were OUT in the wake of Sept. 11. No wait, that was In or Out lists. That were out. My bad. I'm outta here.
When this type of product becomes ubiquitous, we will be watching the news wondering whether we are really at war or whether it is a part of the latest game.
We've already been wondering this.
There is no 'e' in metaphor.
"Wipe" of course, is a euphemism for "pick".