RMS's tools made Linux possible, not the other way around. Linux uses the GNU C compiler, GNU C library, and GNU make, together with the GNU assembler and linker.
RMS's tools made Linux more convenient to develop. Anybody who had taken a compiler construction course, or even messed about a bit with Tiny-C way back when, would have been able to bootstrap themselves in very short order.
Would it have been as rich a programming environment right off the bat? No way. But to say it was only possible because of GNU tools is just catagorically wrong.
And from reading the GNU/Linux naming "FAQ" on the gnu website, for RMS to call Linux a "relativly small addition" to the GNU operating system is just simply a crock of shit.
To have to refer to Linux as Linux/GNU is like being required to call a ford a Craftsman/Ford because they made the tools used to build it.
Not true. The issue is not whether the citizens can stop the government in its tracks, but how much effort is required to enforce unpopular laws - at some point they become impractical to enforce if enough of the population would kill to resist them, and are capable of doing so.
Actually, I believe that WAS the point. But that's a whole other argument.
I would not totally discount the possibility of laws that bad from the Bush administration or its successors
There is nothing more intollerant than one who preaches tollerance and freedom for all.
You live in a democracy - celebrate it. Having a president that you don't agree with doesn't mean the world as we know it is about to end. That last statement of yours just illustrates my point about the paranoia pefectly.
The ability to send anonymous and pseudonymous messages is freedom - it's one of the most fundamental freedoms there is, dating back to "Common Sense" and the "Federalist Papers".
Your ability to ignore or to require payment accompanying anonymous messages is also freedom. I know it's hard when your email system has difficulty recognizing anonymous messages or accepting micropayments (what, you think I don't get spam too?), but those are problems which require technical solutions, not the abandonment of the right to anonymity.
That's disengenuous as hell _ can only assume that you don't realise it. And contrary to what you seem to think, there are freedomes that predate the the federalist papers. I know this will be a shock to you, but americans didn't invent freedome - they invented THEIR flavour of freedom.
And on very basic very fundamental freedom that existed when the founding fathers were still is diapers was the notion that YOUR freedom ends where it interfeers with MY freedom.
Awaiting technical solutions? Yes, your absolutly right - but to advocate something like that when you're very well aware of the fact that those "technical solutions" either don't exist or haven't been adopted widly enough to make them usefull is a cop out.
Like I said - you're trying to make your "freedom" as absolute as possible at the expence of the freedom of others.
I stand by what I said earlier - it's self-centeredness and arrogance masquerading as a political statement.
Whether it's an remailer gateway, a web proxy, whatever - the idea is to make it impossible for censors to ban or monitor network access by IP
So it's YOU I have to thank for the 5,000 #@($&*#@*$ emails I get every day offering both breast enlargement and penis enlargement creams?
That one, simple suggestion of yours is probably responsible for half the freaking spam out there. And even though I only host a half dozen domains, it's cost me thousands over the years - and that's not counting the time spent trying to deal with it.
That's not freedom - that's irresponsible, self-centered bullshit masqurading as a political stance.
In the USSR, the government had all the guns & tanks AND controlled the flow of information, whereas the people had nothing
Speaking of practical measures..... I don't care how many AK-47s or bazookas you have, or how many cell phones/anonomisers/whatever at your disposal
What the hell makes you think that what few guns and faxes you have is going to protect you against a government with M1 tanks and nukes, if it really wants to get you badly enough?
That's the fallacy of the american gun culture and government paranoia. Having guns and printing presses only helped when your guns were as big as the governments, and you had just as many.
Is that the brand new,shiny piece of crap he's using to host his blog that insists that IT knows how wide the article shold be instead of adjusting itself to the size of my browser window?
Until the pontificating wanker can show even basic web design competence, I don't think I'm going to bother reading the article.
I am sure all the rats are realy happy we humans do all this reasearch to cure them of all these diseases and injuries.
In a related story, the next edition of Nature will contain the results of a new longditudinal study released by NIST.
The most important parts of the study is it's conclusion that scientists are the leading cause of cancer in lab rats. There is also some speculation as to wether or not this would also apply to humans.
This demonstrates how stupid most people are about DNS.
What happens when the kid resolves.xxx, and types in the IP address? IP addresses don't end in.xxx. He's just sidestepped the filter.
This demonstrates how stupid most people are about webservers.
Yes, I know that this isn't the *only* way to do it, but it's the *common* way to do it - for apache, anyway, which is by far and away the most common webserver. And in practical terms, if you serve more than one domain (which is probably 99.9% of the porn servers), it IS pretty well the only way.
When you connect to a web server, it examines the domain name that you are trying to connect to, so it knows which pages to server you.
172.16.12.87 is NOT the same as www.chunkiechicks.com, so juniour would have to find his pork elsewhere.
Bad choice for example - lawyers, excepting the smaller / individuals, are notorious for sticking with what they know: I've seen a majority of 'top tier' law firms as recently as 2 years ago who were still using Word 6.0 or even WP5.1.
And I don't have a problem with that, either. The 1st rule of computing: If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT
Let's be serious. Never mind the features in Word 6.0/7.3/whatever. How many memos & letters really need any more features than were present in WordStar? I say nuke windows and bring back CP/M.........
No I am not talking about the heat output. I am talking about that effect when you do something mundane but cpu intensive like opening a large slow folder and your entire desktop just crashes to a halt only to resume a few secs later often stopping your music as well.
I assume you're talking about windows. In which case the problem still isn't CPU utilisation, but a function of the way windows multi-tasks.
I did this test myself, just yesterday. I have an application that runs under linux and windows. The source is located on my server, and mounted remotely for compilation on both my linux and windows machines.
Compilation time under Linux: 35 seconds.
Compilation time under win2000: 2:40 seconds.
Both machines have the same motherboard, the same CPU, the same amount of memory. And yeah, MY music froze when windows was compiling, too.
I think it's more accurate to say that wikki has 1/3 more errors that they're aware of
THe thing I think you should be taking from this article is that a) from what little britanica DOES have to go on (what with nature not releasing the data - pretty well unheard of in the peer-reviewed world), and b) the discovery that Nature was editing the britannica articles themselves, that any and all conclusions reached by the survey are invalid..... or more corectly, cannot be *considered* to be valid.
Is 1/3 more errors than.003 errors per hundred articles (numbers pulled from out of a hat) significant? I doubt it.
but with THAT little detail forthcoming from Nature, I'm willing to be there was a fair bit of cherry picking, and the entire exercise was simply a publiciy ploy.
We'll ignore how counter-intuitive it is that an unreviewed publication, that anybody can edit, is more accurate than a publication that has been reviewed, refined, re-edited, and published by acknowledged experts over the course of many, many years.
One of these days, I'm gonna go and look up Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein et al and see just how slanted those articles are, one way or another... and I'd fully expect them to be fully slanted the other way the next week:-)
they would see the humor in advertizing that they have
Mod Parent down:
an on-topic Grammar Nazi that can't spell advertise:
v. advertised, advertising, advertises
v. tr.
1. To make public announcement of, especially to proclaim the qualities or advantages of (a product or business) so as to increase sales. See Synonyms at announce.
Long story short a vocal student can get what he wants just as easily if not easier than a professor. The whole point of the university system (beyond generating papers and research for more funding) is to educate. If I can't optimally absorb knowlege then there is a problem, and I will make sure damn sure that problem is resolved. Quite honestly, the students don't need your self-centered, self-absorbed pompous self either.
Let's play "what-if" for a second here.
Let's pretend I own a pizza shop
Let's further pretend that you come into my shop with the attitude you've been displaying throughout this thread.
If you copped that attitude with me while you were ordering, guess what would happen?
I'd throw your ass out the door, regardless if you were paying my rent or not.
Wanna get vocal?
Fine - I'll call the cops. That's what "disturbing the peace" is all about
Nobody is saying that people can't be accomodated.
Nobody is saying that all rules are right, or justified
What the speaker *is* saying, though, is that if they do have a rule, and you break it, your arse is gone
Suck it up and deal.
You calling me a control freak, egomaniac, or anything else won't change the fact that you ain't getting any pizza.
The Army does that.
A University turns you into a refined person however.
Funny.... as somebody who went to university after having served 6 1/2 years in the navy, I can tell you I met a lot more immature, inconsiderate, rude, obnoxious, self-centered, "me me me", spoiled little kiddies in university than I ever did in the Navy.
And in case you think that it might just have been that I was older when I went to university..... I think one of the most enlightening and interesting conversations I *ever* had was with (against?) my ecurity officer in the Navy after he hauled me into his office after finding copies of Mao's Little Red Book, Das Capital, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf on my desk when he did the morning room inspections. (I was awaiting a security clearance for the intelligence trade I was in at the time.)
I don't think I ran into anybody as well-spoken and knowledgeable as him untill my 4th year poli sci course where, as it turned out, my prof had been in the american naval equivalent of the trade I had been in.
The only difference between north american indians - those "noble savages" - and europeans is that there wasn't enough of them to effectivly fuck things up on big enough a scale to make a difference.
Ever heard of Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump?
It's in Alberta. Look it up - see what happened there. Keep it in mind the next time you hear somebody decry the horrors of the seal hunt.
Not true..... think of the sony root kit as an example.
Yes, I'm logged in as administrator
Yes, I clicked OK - install when asked
There's *still* no valid reason why the O/s Can't pop up a window and say "Hey! Something's trying to replace my CD-ROM driver! Are you sure you want to do this?"
Which, btw, is also the major flaw in unix type systems - the "I'm root and I can do anything" system of security. But microsoft has a very long way to go before that's their only flaw.
Short form: when doing the design, they failed to take into account the harmonics caused by winds at a certain speed, from a certain direction. You can see the results in the clip.
The bottom line is that there's no technical reason that Spyware is more prevalent on any platform other than Windows. It's just a bigger target.
Is it a bigger target? HELL, yes.
Are there no technical reasons for it? bull*cough*shit
Some things are just easier to break than others, and a lot of it has to do with design. Ford Pinto, anybody? They didn't blow up when rear ended just because there were more of them out there - they were more *likely* to blow up because of their design.
Winwows in all it's incarnations are the Tacoma Narrows bridges of operating systems.
They're not taking a bloody thing away. All microsoft is doing with their "new" operating system's security measures is patching around the edges - they're still not adressing the central, root problem, which is flaws in the system archetecture.
There are ways to do things that are safe, and ways to do things that arn't..... microsoft still hasn't figured that out, and untill they do, nothing is going to change.
How does denying the holocaust *in the abstract* infringe on anyone's right to personal safety? If someone says "I think the Nazis faked the holocaust when it became clear that they were going to lose as a scorched earth policy" how does that endanger anyone's safety?
I don't see that it does. And truth be told, I'm confused about that point myself.
I seem to vaugly remember something about a lobby effort to make holocost denial illegal around the time of the Ernst Zundel trials, but I'm not sure that it ever made the books.... and if it did, it was a stupid thing to do.
1) Can the legislature forbid, say, blasphemy or degrading another religion? What about the Danish Cartoons?
Nope. Holding a religion or group up for ridicule - regardless of how tastless you may consider it, or how personally insulting - is not promoting hatred, or inciting to violence.
2) Is the limitation on hate speech really demonstrabl justified in a free and democratic society? If so where exactly is that line drawn?
In Canada, it's drawn at the point where it will infringe on *other* people's right to personal safety... i.e., when it becomes incitement to violence. Your right to swing your arm freely ends at the tip of my nose, where my right to safety takes precidence.
3) Could the Parliament ban a political party on the grounds that they teach in the abstract a moral duty to the violent overthrow of the government even if no preparations are being made for said insurrection? And was the Communist Party ever so banned?
We currently have a minority parliament - the party holding the balance of power is the Parti Quebecois, who's raison d'etre is to cede from Canada. Didn't you guys down there fight a war over something like that, some time ago?
Also, in our last federal election, there were candidates running from the Marxist-Leninist, Communist Party, and People's Worker's Union parties running in my riding.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS's tools made Linux possible, not the other way around. Linux uses the GNU C compiler, GNU C library, and GNU make, together with the GNU assembler and linker.
RMS's tools made Linux more convenient to develop. Anybody who had taken a compiler construction course, or even messed about a bit with Tiny-C way back when, would have been able to bootstrap themselves in very short order.
Would it have been as rich a programming environment right off the bat? No way. But to say it was only possible because of GNU tools is just catagorically wrong.
And from reading the GNU/Linux naming "FAQ" on the gnu website, for RMS to call Linux a "relativly small addition" to the GNU operating system is just simply a crock of shit.
To have to refer to Linux as Linux/GNU is like being required to call a ford a Craftsman/Ford because they made the tools used to build it.
Not true. The issue is not whether the citizens can stop the government in its tracks, but how much effort is required to enforce unpopular laws - at some point they become impractical to enforce if enough of the population would kill to resist them, and are capable of doing so.
Actually, I believe that WAS the point. But that's a whole other argument.
I would not totally discount the possibility of laws that bad from the Bush administration or its successors
There is nothing more intollerant than one who preaches tollerance and freedom for all.
You live in a democracy - celebrate it.
Having a president that you don't agree with doesn't mean the world as we know it is about to end. That last statement of yours just illustrates my point about the paranoia pefectly.
The ability to send anonymous and pseudonymous messages is freedom - it's one of the most fundamental freedoms there is, dating back to "Common Sense" and the "Federalist Papers".
Your ability to ignore or to require payment accompanying anonymous messages is also freedom. I know it's hard when your email system has difficulty recognizing anonymous messages or accepting micropayments (what, you think I don't get spam too?), but those are problems which require technical solutions, not the abandonment of the right to anonymity.
That's disengenuous as hell _ can only assume that you don't realise it. And contrary to what you seem to think, there are freedomes that predate the the federalist papers. I know this will be a shock to you, but americans didn't invent freedome - they invented THEIR flavour of freedom.
And on very basic very fundamental freedom that existed when the founding fathers were still is diapers was the notion that YOUR freedom ends where it interfeers with MY freedom.
Awaiting technical solutions? Yes, your absolutly right - but to advocate something like that when you're very well aware of the fact that those "technical solutions" either don't exist or haven't been adopted widly enough to make them usefull is a cop out.
Like I said - you're trying to make your "freedom" as absolute as possible at the expence of the freedom of others.
I stand by what I said earlier - it's self-centeredness and arrogance masquerading as a political statement.
Whether it's an remailer gateway, a web proxy, whatever - the idea is to make it impossible for censors to ban or monitor network access by IP
So it's YOU I have to thank for the 5,000 #@($&*#@*$ emails I get every day offering both breast enlargement and penis enlargement creams?
That one, simple suggestion of yours is probably responsible for half the freaking spam out there. And even though I only host a half dozen domains, it's cost me thousands over the years - and that's not counting the time spent trying to deal with it.
That's not freedom - that's irresponsible, self-centered bullshit masqurading as a political stance.
In the USSR, the government had all the guns & tanks AND controlled the flow of information, whereas the people had nothing
..... I don't care how many AK-47s or bazookas you have, or how many cell phones/anonomisers/whatever at your disposal
Speaking of practical measures
What the hell makes you think that what few guns and faxes you have is going to protect you against a government with M1 tanks and nukes, if it really wants to get you badly enough?
That's the fallacy of the american gun culture and government paranoia. Having guns and printing presses only helped when your guns were as big as the governments, and you had just as many.
"Web 2.0" ..... hmmmmm ......
Is that the brand new,shiny piece of crap he's using to host his blog that insists that IT knows how wide the article shold be instead of adjusting itself to the size of my browser window?
Until the pontificating wanker can show even basic web design competence, I don't think I'm going to bother reading the article.
There's just one thing I'm wondering that seems to be missed by every discussion and DRM scheme I've ever come across ...
Copyright has a finite life - it eventually expires
Does the DRM scheme remove or disable itself when the copyright has run out?
I am sure all the rats are realy happy we humans do all this reasearch to cure them of all these diseases and injuries.
In a related story, the next edition of Nature will contain the results of a new longditudinal study released by NIST.
The most important parts of the study is it's conclusion that scientists are the leading cause of cancer in lab rats. There is also some speculation as to wether or not this would also apply to humans.
This demonstrates how stupid most people are about DNS. .xxx, and types in the IP address? IP addresses don't end in .xxx. He's just sidestepped the filter.
What happens when the kid resolves
This demonstrates how stupid most people are about webservers.
Yes, I know that this isn't the *only* way to do it, but it's the *common* way to do it - for apache, anyway, which is by far and away the most common webserver. And in practical terms, if you serve more than one domain (which is probably 99.9% of the porn servers), it IS pretty well the only way.
When you connect to a web server, it examines the domain name that you are trying to connect to, so it knows which pages to server you.
172.16.12.87 is NOT the same as www.chunkiechicks.com, so juniour would have to find his pork elsewhere.
Bad choice for example - lawyers, excepting the smaller / individuals, are notorious for sticking with what they know: I've seen a majority of 'top tier' law firms as recently as 2 years ago who were still using Word 6.0 or even WP5.1.
.........
And I don't have a problem with that, either. The 1st rule of computing: If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT
Let's be serious. Never mind the features in Word 6.0/7.3/whatever. How many memos & letters really need any more features than were present in WordStar? I say nuke windows and bring back CP/M
No I am not talking about the heat output. I am talking about that effect when you do something mundane but cpu intensive like opening a large slow folder and your entire desktop just crashes to a halt only to resume a few secs later often stopping your music as well.
I assume you're talking about windows. In which case the problem still isn't CPU utilisation, but a function of the way windows multi-tasks.
I did this test myself, just yesterday. I have an application that runs under linux and windows. The source is located on my server, and mounted remotely for compilation on both my linux and windows machines.
Compilation time under Linux: 35 seconds.
Compilation time under win2000: 2:40 seconds.
Both machines have the same motherboard, the same CPU, the same amount of memory. And yeah, MY music froze when windows was compiling, too.
oh, come now .... let's not forget the single biggest (almost overwhelming by size) group of business users.
How much bloody horsepower does a secretary need to write a frigging memo?
I think it's more accurate to say that wikki has 1/3 more errors that they're aware of
..... or more corectly, cannot be *considered* to be valid.
.003 errors per hundred articles (numbers pulled from out of a hat) significant? I doubt it.
... and I'd fully expect them to be fully slanted the other way the next week :-)
THe thing I think you should be taking from this article is that a) from what little britanica DOES have to go on (what with nature not releasing the data - pretty well unheard of in the peer-reviewed world), and b) the discovery that Nature was editing the britannica articles themselves, that any and all conclusions reached by the survey are invalid
Is 1/3 more errors than
but with THAT little detail forthcoming from Nature, I'm willing to be there was a fair bit of cherry picking, and the entire exercise was simply a publiciy ploy.
We'll ignore how counter-intuitive it is that an unreviewed publication, that anybody can edit, is more accurate than a publication that has been reviewed, refined, re-edited, and published by acknowledged experts over the course of many, many years.
One of these days, I'm gonna go and look up Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein et al and see just how slanted those articles are, one way or another
they would see the humor in advertizing that they have
:-)
Mod Parent down: an on-topic Grammar Nazi that can't spell
advertise:
v. advertised, advertising, advertises
v. tr.
1. To make public announcement of, especially to proclaim the qualities or advantages of (a product or business) so as to increase sales. See Synonyms at announce.
Sorry - couldn't resist
Long story short a vocal student can get what he wants just as easily if not easier than a professor. The whole point of the university system (beyond generating papers and research for more funding) is to educate. If I can't optimally absorb knowlege then there is a problem, and I will make sure damn sure that problem is resolved. Quite honestly, the students don't need your self-centered, self-absorbed pompous self either.
Let's play "what-if" for a second here.
Let's pretend I own a pizza shop
Let's further pretend that you come into my shop with the attitude you've been displaying throughout this thread.
If you copped that attitude with me while you were ordering, guess what would happen?
I'd throw your ass out the door, regardless if you were paying my rent or not.
Wanna get vocal?
Fine - I'll call the cops. That's what "disturbing the peace" is all about
Nobody is saying that people can't be accomodated.
Nobody is saying that all rules are right, or justified
What the speaker *is* saying, though, is that if they do have a rule, and you break it, your arse is gone
Suck it up and deal.
You calling me a control freak, egomaniac, or anything else won't change the fact that you ain't getting any pizza.
The Army does that.
.... as somebody who went to university after having served 6 1/2 years in the navy, I can tell you I met a lot more immature, inconsiderate, rude, obnoxious, self-centered, "me me me", spoiled little kiddies in university than I ever did in the Navy.
..... I think one of the most enlightening and interesting conversations I *ever* had was with (against?) my ecurity officer in the Navy after he hauled me into his office after finding copies of Mao's Little Red Book, Das Capital, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf on my desk when he did the morning room inspections. (I was awaiting a security clearance for the intelligence trade I was in at the time.)
A University turns you into a refined person however.
Funny
And in case you think that it might just have been that I was older when I went to university
I don't think I ran into anybody as well-spoken and knowledgeable as him untill my 4th year poli sci course where, as it turned out, my prof had been in the american naval equivalent of the trade I had been in.
The only difference between north american indians - those "noble savages" - and europeans is that there wasn't enough of them to effectivly fuck things up on big enough a scale to make a difference.
Ever heard of Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump?
It's in Alberta. Look it up - see what happened there. Keep it in mind the next time you hear somebody decry the horrors of the seal hunt.
Rootkits are a specific exception though -- most systems (that are around now) don't use them.
... and where security is involved, it's simply a matter of time.
You are totall, utterly, and completly missing the point.
It doesn't *matter* if most systems are using them - that's not what makes it a security hole.
What makes it a security hole is that most systems *can* use them
Not true ..... think of the sony root kit as an example.
Yes, I'm logged in as administrator
Yes, I clicked OK - install when asked
There's *still* no valid reason why the O/s Can't pop up a window and say "Hey! Something's trying to replace my CD-ROM driver! Are you sure you want to do this?"
Which, btw, is also the major flaw in unix type systems - the "I'm root and I can do anything" system of security. But microsoft has a very long way to go before that's their only flaw.
sorry - I guess I should have included this link http://www.civeng.carleton.ca/Exhibits/Tacoma_Narr ows/TacomaNarrowsBridge.mpg
to a video for those of you who are unaware of the Tacoma Narrows bridge incident.
Short form: when doing the design, they failed to take into account the harmonics caused by winds at a certain speed, from a certain direction. You can see the results in the clip.
The bottom line is that there's no technical reason that Spyware is more prevalent on any platform other than Windows. It's just a bigger target.
Is it a bigger target? HELL, yes.
Are there no technical reasons for it? bull*cough*shit
Some things are just easier to break than others, and a lot of it has to do with design. Ford Pinto, anybody? They didn't blow up when rear ended just because there were more of them out there - they were more *likely* to blow up because of their design.
Winwows in all it's incarnations are the Tacoma Narrows bridges of operating systems.
msft giveth, msft taketh away
..... microsoft still hasn't figured that out, and untill they do, nothing is going to change.
They're not taking a bloody thing away. All microsoft is doing with their "new" operating system's security measures is patching around the edges - they're still not adressing the central, root problem, which is flaws in the system archetecture.
There are ways to do things that are safe, and ways to do things that arn't
No, it's not hate speech, but it's still forbidden under the offence of "blasphemous libel" -- look it up under the Criminal Code.
..... or every editorial cartoon writer in the country would be in jail
I doubt it
How does denying the holocaust *in the abstract* infringe on anyone's right to personal safety? If someone says "I think the Nazis faked the holocaust when it became clear that they were going to lose as a scorched earth policy" how does that endanger anyone's safety?
.... and if it did, it was a stupid thing to do.
I don't see that it does. And truth be told, I'm confused about that point myself.
I seem to vaugly remember something about a lobby effort to make holocost denial illegal around the time of the Ernst Zundel trials, but I'm not sure that it ever made the books
1) Can the legislature forbid, say, blasphemy or degrading another religion? What about the Danish Cartoons?
... i.e., when it becomes incitement to violence. Your right to swing your arm freely ends at the tip of my nose, where my right to safety takes precidence.
Nope. Holding a religion or group up for ridicule - regardless of how tastless you may consider it, or how personally insulting - is not promoting hatred, or inciting to violence.
2) Is the limitation on hate speech really demonstrabl justified in a free and democratic society? If so where exactly is that line drawn?
In Canada, it's drawn at the point where it will infringe on *other* people's right to personal safety
3) Could the Parliament ban a political party on the grounds that they teach in the abstract a moral duty to the violent overthrow of the government even if no preparations are being made for said insurrection? And was the Communist Party ever so banned?
We currently have a minority parliament - the party holding the balance of power is the Parti Quebecois, who's raison d'etre is to cede from Canada. Didn't you guys down there fight a war over something like that, some time ago?
Also, in our last federal election, there were candidates running from the Marxist-Leninist, Communist Party, and People's Worker's Union parties running in my riding.