So I'm curious: After reading about this stuff on Wikipedia, it says:
"Borax can be hydrogenated back into borohydride fuel by several different techniques, some of which require nothing more than water and electricity or heat. These techniques are still in active development."
It seems that when the Borohydride fuel is used up, you are left with Borax, which you can buy at the grocery store.
So how exactly does one hyrdogenate Borax to turn it back into Borohydride fuel? Because it would be way cool if my car just had a tank full of borax, and every night I got home I filled up a separate water tank and plugged it into the house current to convert the Borax back into Borohydride for the next day's commute.
>It seems that your lifestyle is only sustainable given extremely cheap energy. Maybe you should think about moving closer to where you work >and useful services (or telecommuting) rather than waiting for technology to maintain your outrageous transportation demands. > >It is terrible that governments and councils allow this kind of development where people need to use so much energy to perform daily functions. >Energy won't always be this cheap.
We live where we could find a home that gave us the best balance of good house, good neighborhood, and good schools within our budget. My biggest concern as far as the commute goes was nothing longer than 30 minutes. My commute normally takes 30-45 minutes. The extra 15 minutes was the tradeoff for having a home where we could have horses.
If and when the/economics/ of the commute impact where we chose to live, then what you suggest will certainly come to be. However, I would prefer to have/more/ freedoms to choose where to live, not less, and so I would prefer a technological solution. I would prefer not to live stacked on top of my neighbors like cordwood because we all, out of necessity, have to live within easy reach of where we work. Most Americans feel the same way, which is why we have "Urban Sprawl" - people want to get away from the cities and each other.
Economics may well mean that people no longer have a choice. But I'd prefer to still have the choice.
>That's not a problem, that's a feature. "Turning them loose" to deal with Iraq would >lead directly to the elimination of practically all life on Earth once the first nuclear >weapon was used. I'd rather have us "lose" than throw 4.5 billion years of evolution down the drain.
You are correct - it was poor wording on my part. Indeed, it is this feature that gives me hope for humanity.
Really, Korea was probably one of the last wars the US was involved in without a non-propaganda-based media portrayal. Since Vietnam, warmaking has been under intense scrutiny, and people don't like what they see. Today, reporting on war is virtually instantaneous.
During the American Civil War and before, you could lose tens of thousands of people in a single day of fighting. Today such losses would never be tolerated by the home front - we get upset over a thousand over a few years.
Perhaps when faced with the instantaneous reality of war humanity in general can't stomach it. Unless it immobilizes us when war is actually required, maybe that is a good thing.
>If the Segway was introduced at $500 instead of $5000, it would have changed the world.
I dunno. Scooters, bicycles, all are pretty much useless to me. Where I live, except for a gas station about 5 minutes away by car, everything is 30 minutes away - by car. I commute about 30 miles each way to work, at highway and interstate speeds.
Any and every time I leave the house, it needs to be in a vehicle that can travel at least 70 MPH and has a range of 100 miles, and keeps me comfortable in any kind of weather.
No scooter can do that.
My next car will likely be a Smart Car http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/ . Have THOSE made in China so that they retail for $5000 a pop and THAT will change the world.
>If you think that Russia and China would allow you to "deal" with the situation >in the way you are implying, you have nno understanding of geopolitical issues.
I was not attempting to debate the geopolitical realities that may or may not come into play. The issue I was debating is whether the physical ability exists or not.
My situation is this: We use CAD software to design mechanical things. On slow computers, after every command input the computer has to process the command. Obviously some commands take longer than others. When this happens, the cursor turns to an hourglass and the software will not respond to user input. If you check the Perf Monitor the program will frequently list as "Not Responding".
I don't think CPU utilization will do the trick because I believe the CPU could be 100% utilized (or nearly so) but the program not stop responding or accepting user input.
The question I'm really trying to answer is: "How long to I spend waiting on this program to respond every day". I can ask this question on two different hardware platforms and then quantitatively be able to say how much time savings ($) the new computer will provide.
>Could also be used to justify a switch to a proper desktop OS that doesn't spend >much time at all giving the user an hour glass (or similar). Sure, OS X has a beachball, >but even on a G4 I hardly see it. Question is, what are your using doing that they get an >hour glass at all?
Unfortunately, the application in question only runs under Windows, and changing applications is not an option.
Of course the first thing I did was fire up the Performance Monitor, but I'm not really interested in CPU utilization as a metric. If the user is using 100% of the CPU but is not waiting on the computer, it's not a problem. What I really need to know is how frequently does the program "hang" while processing.
>And turning the American military loose in Iraq would accomplish what exactly?
I didn't advocate that course of action. Perhaps you missed the parent I was responding to. The parent post said:
>The whole "fuck what everybody thinks, we'll keep ourselves secure through military >force alone" mentality is based on the assumption that we have the physical ability to do so. >The hard truth, however, is that that simply isn't the case...
The issue I was disputing was that we lack the physical ability to secure ourselves through military force alone. I believe we certainly do have the physical ability to do so. We just choose not to use it.
I believe we are entering the end of the "Age of Anonymity".
It has always been known, at least among the geeks, that we never really/were/ anonymous on the 'net - anyone with sufficient interest and motiviation can eventually track someone down.
But for the last 10 or more years it really hasn't been an issue. Online users have been largely "under the radar" in terms of society, commerce, and justice, unless you really went out of your way to draw attention to yourself.
But now that the Internet has become "mainstream", it has attracted the eye of government, businesses, everyone. The Internet, long a tool to "find out information about "stuff", has now become an excellent tool to "find out stuff about _people_".
I think we are on the cusp of a global realization that just taking out a "handle" to use on the internet does not constitute anonymity. It doesn't matter anymore how "careful" you are about what you choose to reveal about yourself online anymore - the very act of being online is going to become like a billion-watt beam of light shooting out of the roof of your house, or wherever you happen to be when you are connected.
Oh, there will continue to be lots of attempts to obscure where you are connecting from, Tor, etc., but ultimately, you have to have an address on the 'net. That address is where you are. And that address can be found, otherwise you couldn't receive any data there.
But here's why all those attempts will fail: All the people who control the data don't care about you. The people who's web sites you visit, the people who own the pipes that the data flows over, they don't care about you. And they will give up the information about you just as fast as they think their's a buck in it for them to do so, or penalties if they do not.
These few early cases of Google, Yahoo, etc. handing over data being used to try people in court are just the first few drops of rain in what is going to become a downpour. Soon it will be obvious to all that anything and everything you do on a computer will, though accident or intent, be visible to anyone.
Is there a way to determine how long a process has been "busy" (hourglass icon) for a given amount of time?
I would like to be able to justify hardware upgrades by saying, "On PC #1 over a typical workday the user sees the hourglass icon X amount of time, but on new PC #2 he only sees it Y amount of time".
>The hard truth, however, is that that simply isn't the case -- our military can barely keep the lid on Iraq, let alone any of the other 3-4 dozen countries where terrorism is a concern.
Make no mistake: Our military is quite capable of dealing with Iraq, or just about any other nation on earth.
The problem lies in that no one has the stomach for really turning them loose to do just that, and thanks to the speed of modern news networks, no one can get away with Dresdens or Hiroshimas anymore.
>To start with your analogy with WalMart, yes, getting a persona treatment from the greeter still says something. It says that WalMart realizes that they need customers.
No, what it says is they need somone to watch the front door to make sure people don't try shoplifting by going out the entrance.
Oh and it also says there are people in the world who get warm fuzzies from meaningless gestures.
>Is it any wonder then that stuff gets outsourced to destinations like India? >And that more and more workers are coming from America to work in India?
Don't sweat it - very soon the same mentality will be there, too.
After reading the posting calling you a sociopath, I figured I'd chime in to say I agree with you.
Working for corporations means you/are/ largely an anonymous cog in an impersonal machine. All of the lip-service paid to the "we're all one big family" idea is just that - lip service - and all but the dolts know it.
I've been laid off once before, and if I had to choose between an email and having it done in person I'd take the email.
Feeling like you got special, personal treatment being laid off in person is like feeling you got special, personal treatment from the greeter at WalMart. It's meaningless fluff.
>You like free software and use it, but you: 1. Are uncomfortable with people getting anything out of making free software,
I guess I'm uncomfortable with giving something away for free, but with strings attached. I've always thought that something given away freely is just that, and never considered that people might be giving software away with the real motive of recognition. It's jarring and somehow distasteful.
>2. Feel that Free Software one created isn't worth including in a resume.
Oh no, I think any software you wrote would be GREAT resume fodder, under whatever circumstances.
>Conclusion: You think Free software has no value, but use it anyway.
I think free software has lots of value. I just thought the motives of the writers was a lot more altruistic that, apearantly, it really is.
>You feel that people shouldn't get recognition for writing free software, but feel that they >should get recognition (and money) for writing commercial software.
Again, I just feel like if you are doing something "for free", recognition shouldn't really matter one way or the other, if your true motivation was to give something away for free.
>As far as I can tell, you seem to think that because it's free, it has no value. Yet you >apparently use and appreciate free software? How does one reconcile these two things?
Understand, this discussion we are having is not about the perceived value of the software; it's about the disillusionment of the motivation of the authors of the software. All along I've always thought of the free software movement as a sort of hippy-dippy, free-love kind of activity. Instead, it seems like it was just another "all about me" activity. It's disappointing somehow.
>Also, Stop complaining that free software writers are 'getting something from their work'
I don't mind people getting something for their work. I guess what annoys me is all this time I thought this stuff was written by people who enjoyed writing free software, when in fact it was just people out to make a name for themselves. I can't precisely put a finger on what it is about this that annoys me. I guess it's because whenever/I/ give something away for free it's with no strings attached and no expectations of recognition or reward for it.
>For another example, take an artist who decides to beautify his city with murals, and do this for >free. If he signed his name at the bottom right corner of the murals, does that mean that the >artist is just doing it for recognition, and that his generous donation fo time and supplies >is just self-seeking?
That depends - would he do it even if he couldn't put his name on it? If yes, that certainly the artist is driven by generosity and/or pleasure. If not, it's self-serving. Not I'm not saying it's not OK to sign or otherwise be recognized for free work. It just shouldn't be part of your motivation for doing something. Everyone loves "attaboys". But the true artist is one who does what he does out of passion for the act, regardless of who recognizes who did it.
>Look, why should you care why people write free software?
I don't. I'm just annoyed by people who complain because they can't get recognition for writing it and giving it away annonymously, which is the easy way to avoid getting sued or otherwise harrassed for writing it.
>Besides, building up a reputation as a programmer is very important to a lot of >people for more than just ego. Having software out there with your name on it lets >employers know what you can do and have done. I'm sure you keep track of what you've >done on your resume somewhere, right?
Everything on my resume reflects what I did for pay. I didn't have to do charity work to break into my field of work. If that's the state of software writing today, that's sad, but is somewhat understandable, I guess.
>Also, people should have the right to distribute their own works in whatever way they want.
I agree. But the reality is, people giving sofware away for free are going to lose to people with money every time. If you are truly a champion of "free as in beer software" writing, the obvious answer is continue to do so, but anonymously.
>Don't start acting self-righteous about people who just want to put their own name on their >work, Mr. "I sign my name to the end of all my comments."
Oh Puleeze. I sign all of my emails, postings, and letters, as a courtesy to the reader and out of habit, not for recognition. Besides not signing it would not make any difference as the author is still clearly listed at the head of the email.
>There is no reason to begrudge people their due credit for their contributions to the common weath of knowlege.
I am annoyed by people who do things for recognition's sake. Especially since for a long time I thought people wrote free software just for the philanthropic aspect of it. When people, like you, raise a stink when you take the recognition aspect out of it, it makes me think it wasn't about "contributions to the common weath of knowlege" - but rather it was about recognition.
Well, you want recognition, you got it. Enjoy your lawsuits.
I've finally been able to put a finger on what it was that annoyed me about doing something for recognition:
"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out." -- Baron Thomas Babington Macauley, English historian and statesman (1800-1859)
>Who is the user going to report bugs to then? How can the programmer improve the program if there's no way users can contact them?
There's nothing to stop someone from anonymously creating, say, a Yahoo Group, Usenet Forum or other anonymous internet forum where people can post bugs where the author could monitor them.
Steve
Slashdot Mirror
So I'm curious: After reading about this stuff on Wikipedia, it says:
"Borax can be hydrogenated back into borohydride fuel by several different techniques, some of which require nothing more than water and electricity or heat. These techniques are still in active development."
It seems that when the Borohydride fuel is used up, you are left with Borax, which you can buy at the grocery store.
So how exactly does one hyrdogenate Borax to turn it back into Borohydride fuel? Because it would be way cool if my car just had a tank full of borax, and every night I got home I filled up a separate water tank and plugged it into the house current to convert the Borax back into Borohydride for the next day's commute.
How do you convert Borax into Borohydride?
Steve
>It seems that your lifestyle is only sustainable given extremely cheap energy. Maybe you should think about moving closer to where you work
/economics/ of the commute impact where we chose to live, then what you suggest will certainly come to be. However, I would prefer to have /more/ freedoms to choose where to live, not less, and so I would prefer a technological solution. I would prefer not to live stacked on top of my neighbors like cordwood because we all, out of necessity, have to live within easy reach of where we work. Most Americans feel the same way, which is why we have "Urban Sprawl" - people want to get away from the cities and each other.
>and useful services (or telecommuting) rather than waiting for technology to maintain your outrageous transportation demands.
>
>It is terrible that governments and councils allow this kind of development where people need to use so much energy to perform daily functions.
>Energy won't always be this cheap.
We live where we could find a home that gave us the best balance of good house, good neighborhood, and good schools within our budget. My biggest concern as far as the commute goes was nothing longer than 30 minutes. My commute normally takes 30-45 minutes. The extra 15 minutes was the tradeoff for having a home where we could have horses.
If and when the
Economics may well mean that people no longer have a choice. But I'd prefer to still have the choice.
Steve
...to them being the last one. :)
J/K
Steve
If I had mod points I would mod you up.
Nothing will be done until the people in power are suffering from the environment along with the poor.
Steve
>But now, with all theses numbers, what should I do ?.. What should we do ?..
Until the rich are gasping for air alongside the poor, nothing will be done.
Steve
Exactly. Thanks.
Steve
>That's not a problem, that's a feature. "Turning them loose" to deal with Iraq would
>lead directly to the elimination of practically all life on Earth once the first nuclear
>weapon was used. I'd rather have us "lose" than throw 4.5 billion years of evolution down the drain.
You are correct - it was poor wording on my part. Indeed, it is this feature that gives me hope for humanity.
Really, Korea was probably one of the last wars the US was involved in without a non-propaganda-based media portrayal. Since Vietnam, warmaking has been under intense scrutiny, and people don't like what they see. Today, reporting on war is virtually instantaneous.
During the American Civil War and before, you could lose tens of thousands of people in a single day of fighting. Today such losses would never be tolerated by the home front - we get upset over a thousand over a few years.
Perhaps when faced with the instantaneous reality of war humanity in general can't stomach it. Unless it immobilizes us when war is actually required, maybe that is a good thing.
Steve
>If the Segway was introduced at $500 instead of $5000, it would have changed the world.
I dunno. Scooters, bicycles, all are pretty much useless to me. Where I live, except for a gas station about 5 minutes away by car, everything is 30 minutes away - by car. I commute about 30 miles each way to work, at highway and interstate speeds.
Any and every time I leave the house, it needs to be in a vehicle that can travel at least 70 MPH and has a range of 100 miles, and keeps me comfortable in any kind of weather.
No scooter can do that.
My next car will likely be a Smart Car http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/ . Have THOSE made in China so that they retail for $5000 a pop and THAT will change the world.
Steve
>If you think that Russia and China would allow you to "deal" with the situation
>in the way you are implying, you have nno understanding of geopolitical issues.
I was not attempting to debate the geopolitical realities that may or may not come into play. The issue I was debating is whether the physical ability exists or not.
Steve
Thanks for the well-written response.
My situation is this: We use CAD software to design mechanical things. On slow computers, after every command input the computer has to process the command. Obviously some commands take longer than others. When this happens, the cursor turns to an hourglass and the software will not respond to user input. If you check the Perf Monitor the program will frequently list as "Not Responding".
I don't think CPU utilization will do the trick because I believe the CPU could be 100% utilized (or nearly so) but the program not stop responding or accepting user input.
The question I'm really trying to answer is: "How long to I spend waiting on this program to respond every day". I can ask this question on two different hardware platforms and then quantitatively be able to say how much time savings ($) the new computer will provide.
Steve
>Could also be used to justify a switch to a proper desktop OS that doesn't spend
>much time at all giving the user an hour glass (or similar). Sure, OS X has a beachball,
>but even on a G4 I hardly see it. Question is, what are your using doing that they get an
>hour glass at all?
Unfortunately, the application in question only runs under Windows, and changing applications is not an option.
Steve
Of course the first thing I did was fire up the Performance Monitor, but I'm not really interested in CPU utilization as a metric. If the user is using 100% of the CPU but is not waiting on the computer, it's not a problem. What I really need to know is how frequently does the program "hang" while processing.
Steve
>And turning the American military loose in Iraq would accomplish what exactly?
I didn't advocate that course of action. Perhaps you missed the parent I was responding to. The parent post said:
>The whole "fuck what everybody thinks, we'll keep ourselves secure through military
>force alone" mentality is based on the assumption that we have the physical ability to do so.
>The hard truth, however, is that that simply isn't the case...
The issue I was disputing was that we lack the physical ability to secure ourselves through military force alone. I believe we certainly do have the physical ability to do so. We just choose not to use it.
Steve
I believe we are entering the end of the "Age of Anonymity".
/were/ anonymous on the 'net - anyone with sufficient interest and motiviation can eventually track someone down.
It has always been known, at least among the geeks, that we never really
But for the last 10 or more years it really hasn't been an issue. Online users have been largely "under the radar" in terms of society, commerce, and justice, unless you really went out of your way to draw attention to yourself.
But now that the Internet has become "mainstream", it has attracted the eye of government, businesses, everyone. The Internet, long a tool to "find out information about "stuff", has now become an excellent tool to "find out stuff about _people_".
I think we are on the cusp of a global realization that just taking out a "handle" to use on the internet does not constitute anonymity. It doesn't matter anymore how "careful" you are about what you choose to reveal about yourself online anymore - the very act of being online is going to become like a billion-watt beam of light shooting out of the roof of your house, or wherever you happen to be when you are connected.
Oh, there will continue to be lots of attempts to obscure where you are connecting from, Tor, etc., but ultimately, you have to have an address on the 'net. That address is where you are. And that address can be found, otherwise you couldn't receive any data there.
But here's why all those attempts will fail: All the people who control the data don't care about you. The people who's web sites you visit, the people who own the pipes that the data flows over, they don't care about you. And they will give up the information about you just as fast as they think their's a buck in it for them to do so, or penalties if they do not.
These few early cases of Google, Yahoo, etc. handing over data being used to try people in court are just the first few drops of rain in what is going to become a downpour. Soon it will be obvious to all that anything and everything you do on a computer will, though accident or intent, be visible to anyone.
The age of anonymity is over.
Steve
Is there a way to determine how long a process has been "busy" (hourglass icon) for a given amount of time?
I would like to be able to justify hardware upgrades by saying, "On PC #1 over a typical workday the user sees the hourglass icon X amount of time, but on new PC #2 he only sees it Y amount of time".
Thanks,
Steve
>The hard truth, however, is that that simply isn't the case -- our military can barely keep the lid on Iraq, let alone any of the other 3-4 dozen countries where terrorism is a concern.
Make no mistake: Our military is quite capable of dealing with Iraq, or just about any other nation on earth.
The problem lies in that no one has the stomach for really turning them loose to do just that, and thanks to the speed of modern news networks, no one can get away with Dresdens or Hiroshimas anymore.
Steve
>To start with your analogy with WalMart, yes, getting a persona treatment from the greeter still says something. It says that WalMart realizes that they need customers.
No, what it says is they need somone to watch the front door to make sure people don't try shoplifting by going out the entrance.
Oh and it also says there are people in the world who get warm fuzzies from meaningless gestures.
>Is it any wonder then that stuff gets outsourced to destinations like India?
>And that more and more workers are coming from America to work in India?
Don't sweat it - very soon the same mentality will be there, too.
Steve
After reading the posting calling you a sociopath, I figured I'd chime in to say I agree with you.
/are/ largely an anonymous cog in an impersonal machine. All of the lip-service paid to the "we're all one big family" idea is just that - lip service - and all but the dolts know it.
Working for corporations means you
I've been laid off once before, and if I had to choose between an email and having it done in person I'd take the email.
Feeling like you got special, personal treatment being laid off in person is like feeling you got special, personal treatment from the greeter at WalMart. It's meaningless fluff.
Steve
>You like free software and use it, but you:
1. Are uncomfortable with people getting anything out of making free software,
I guess I'm uncomfortable with giving something away for free, but with strings attached. I've always thought that something given away freely is just that, and never considered that people might be giving software away with the real motive of recognition. It's jarring and somehow distasteful.
>2. Feel that Free Software one created isn't worth including in a resume.
Oh no, I think any software you wrote would be GREAT resume fodder, under whatever circumstances.
>Conclusion: You think Free software has no value, but use it anyway.
I think free software has lots of value. I just thought the motives of the writers was a lot more altruistic that, apearantly, it really is.
>You feel that people shouldn't get recognition for writing free software, but feel that they
>should get recognition (and money) for writing commercial software.
Again, I just feel like if you are doing something "for free", recognition shouldn't really matter one way or the other, if your true motivation was to give something away for free.
>As far as I can tell, you seem to think that because it's free, it has no value. Yet you
>apparently use and appreciate free software? How does one reconcile these two things?
Understand, this discussion we are having is not about the perceived value of the software; it's about the disillusionment of the motivation of the authors of the software. All along I've always thought of the free software movement as a sort of hippy-dippy, free-love kind of activity. Instead, it seems like it was just another "all about me" activity. It's disappointing somehow.
Steve
>Also, Stop complaining that free software writers are 'getting something from their work'
/I/ give something away for free it's with no strings attached and no expectations of recognition or reward for it.
I don't mind people getting something for their work. I guess what annoys me is all this time I thought this stuff was written by people who enjoyed writing free software, when in fact it was just people out to make a name for themselves. I can't precisely put a finger on what it is about this that annoys me. I guess it's because whenever
>For another example, take an artist who decides to beautify his city with murals, and do this for
>free. If he signed his name at the bottom right corner of the murals, does that mean that the
>artist is just doing it for recognition, and that his generous donation fo time and supplies
>is just self-seeking?
That depends - would he do it even if he couldn't put his name on it? If yes, that certainly the artist is driven by generosity and/or pleasure. If not, it's self-serving. Not I'm not saying it's not OK to sign or otherwise be recognized for free work. It just shouldn't be part of your motivation for doing something. Everyone loves "attaboys". But the true artist is one who does what he does out of passion for the act, regardless of who recognizes who did it.
Steve
>Look, why should you care why people write free software?
I don't. I'm just annoyed by people who complain because they can't get recognition for writing it and giving it away annonymously, which is the easy way to avoid getting sued or otherwise harrassed for writing it.
>Besides, building up a reputation as a programmer is very important to a lot of
>people for more than just ego. Having software out there with your name on it lets
>employers know what you can do and have done. I'm sure you keep track of what you've
>done on your resume somewhere, right?
Everything on my resume reflects what I did for pay. I didn't have to do charity work to break into my field of work. If that's the state of software writing today, that's sad, but is somewhat understandable, I guess.
>Also, people should have the right to distribute their own works in whatever way they want.
I agree. But the reality is, people giving sofware away for free are going to lose to people with money every time. If you are truly a champion of "free as in beer software" writing, the obvious answer is continue to do so, but anonymously.
>Don't start acting self-righteous about people who just want to put their own name on their
>work, Mr. "I sign my name to the end of all my comments."
Oh Puleeze. I sign all of my emails, postings, and letters, as a courtesy to the reader and out of habit, not for recognition. Besides not signing it would not make any difference as the author is still clearly listed at the head of the email.
unsigned just for you
>There is no reason to begrudge people their due credit for their contributions to the common weath of knowlege.
I am annoyed by people who do things for recognition's sake. Especially since for a long time I thought people wrote free software just for the philanthropic aspect of it. When people, like you, raise a stink when you take the recognition aspect out of it, it makes me think it wasn't about "contributions to the common weath of knowlege" - but rather it was about recognition.
Well, you want recognition, you got it. Enjoy your lawsuits.
Steve
I've finally been able to put a finger on what it was that annoyed me about doing something for recognition:
"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out."
-- Baron Thomas Babington Macauley, English historian and statesman (1800-1859)
Steve, dying in a fire
>Who is the user going to report bugs to then? How can the programmer improve the program if there's no way users can contact them? There's nothing to stop someone from anonymously creating, say, a Yahoo Group, Usenet Forum or other anonymous internet forum where people can post bugs where the author could monitor them. Steve