I stated twice, and you missed it twice: the importance of a bug must consider the impact.
Based on the statistics from Secunia, which you link to, I would say Apple is doing better than "okay." In 2006 there have been 21 advisories for OS X, 39 for Windows XP Pro, and 40 for Linux. When you say "okay" you imply average. However the statistics linked to indicate better than average.The raw numbers mean very little... if you think 21 advisories makes a better OS, you are unintentionally spreading FUD yourself.
If you look at the impact, you'll see that 25% of those Apple advisories result in system access whereas 0% of the 40 advisories for Linux result in system access. I'll take the 40 Linux bugs over the 21 OS-X bugs any day. Apple is doing "okay" as I stated, and I stand by that. They've had 5 system access flaws, therefore they are not outstanding. Linux has had zero system access flaws found this year, if you can believe Secunia.
However I absolutely disagree with the mindset that something must have more bugs simply because it's newer. Consumers don't have to settle for mediocrity in software.I'm saying that, over time, bugs are found. But a large majority of the serious flaws are usually found within a year or two after release. It might have fewer bugs overall, but simply because it's newer, those bugs will be coming out sooner.
Also, it looks to me that they cannot leverage their previous OS knowledge to any serious degree. Nextstep, which was based on Mach, cannot apply - it was both based on a microkernel, and on completely different hardware. When faced with things like device driver buffer overflows (Airport bug, e.g.) there's no comparison whatsoever... different CPU, different hardware, different kernel. And since Nextstep is so old, I'd bet only a small percent of the Next programmers are even working on OSX. They also wrote the 13-sector DOS3.2 for the apple ][ and that doesn't matter either.
You have one point that is not lost on me: a default OSX system is probably tougher to crack than a default WinXP pro system. Unfortunately, I don't have statistics for that but I'd love to see a credible comparison. However, IIRC, there have been a couple recent challenges to break into a default, fully-patched apple system, and all have been cracked within a day or two.
Apple is not new in the marketplace, but I wouldn't call NeXtstep (Job's baby) an apple product. They are relatively new, as I said, in relation to WinXP and Linux 2.x. OSX was not merely an incremental upgrade from their previous OS's.
To say they have "a lot of bugs to shake out," does them a disservice and only furthers the FUD. Define "a lot" and compare it to the bugs on all the other platforms.
Gladly, and your argument will partially stand up. Remember, though, bugs are often found by users. Virtually ALL OS's go through a phase where huge numbers of security issues are found. I say they have a lot of bugs to shake out because of this newness, and I admit that's my conjecture. I would put a lot of cash that says several more serious bugs will be filtering in over the next year.
Here are some statistics. I wasn't meaning to further the FUD, either. You'll see that, so far, Apple is doing merely "okay". And this is exactly why I was saying you have to judge the bugs by the impact, not just the sheer number of them.
The philosophical differences are that the Linux user base can both find and fix the problems, but closed source can only find and report problems.
Although you multiply poison by the user base, the more people that use Linux the more secure it becomes. The more people that use an OS where the users cannot find and fix problems, the less secure it becomes as an overall platform.
A large part of the problem is finding it, and when a security flaw is found in Linux it is pretty much always fixed So, userbase for Linux is good because they can fix the problems themselves, or report it directly to someone who can.
But when you are sourceless, a large userbase can report a problem and they must depend on someone else to fix it. So, the more people that use it, the more people using it with a particular bug. Usually, the fix timeframe is based on Impact * number of reports, and although Microsoft has gotten pretty good about turnaround time for patches, they used to be horrible and if there's a lack of reports I suspect bugs will go unpatched for quite some time. However, you still have the issue that all closed source has: the user can't fix things for himself and that includes bugs.
Lastly, comparing OSX to Linux and WinXP isn't really fair to Apple... they're still relatively new to the scene and have a lot of bugs to shake out. And when comparing, you can't just say "N bugs in X OS over K days", you have to also multiply this by the impact. 31 local DoS security fixes is not as scary as 1 remote execution fix.
Common sense is not. You might agree with the result of the judge's decision, but that's immaterial. Laws are written to be unabiguous, and when distant interpretation is allowed, especially by someone that doesn't understand the technology, you get a bad law enforced poorly. That compounds the problem.
For example, you claim it's time to rewrite the law from "e-mail" to "electronic correspondence". wtf does that mean? Virtually all telephone conversations are electronic correspondence. Walkie-talkies are electronic correspondence. Watching cable-TV is electronic correspondence. Hopefully that is sufficient to demonstrate how dangerous it is to allow random interpretation.
The judge was wrong in this case. You agree with the end result, but anyone that can see the slippery slope should be terrified to agree with the judge.
Removing at the same rate it comes in is perfectly fine, and responsible for the media provider.
Over any period of time, N contested copyrighted works will come in, and -N will account for the removal. Net total: 0. If you'd like, I can draw a numberline for you.
Now, there's some latency between the time it's loaded, and the time it's taken down. But that will not account for your conjecture "YouTube is full of [contested/illegal]* copyrighted material". Based on your argument, YouTube only has as much copyrighted material as is uploaded during this latency period. And that might be very low. You cannot draw conclusions from your argument, only conjecture.
Maybe you could produce some actual numbers of how many things have been challenged, and the amount of time to take it down, but I kind of doubt it. That might give an idea of how many contested copyrighted works are available at any particular time.
* Other copyrighted material, the stuff the copyright holders don't care about, is immaterial for this argument of "being full of copyrighted material". Technically, everything is copyrighted the moment it's put into a fixed medium, but uploading it isn't necessarily a violation. I'm making the correct assumption that you're talking about copyrighted material that the copyright holder would object to.
supporting an individual's lawsuit, not because of the principal involved, but because you don't like them and think they're stupid, that's... well, childish. This is a billionaire and his interests are not "principles", they are "principle".
There is money involved, and like any entrepreneur, he wants what doesn't belong to him. If he can make a gamble and win, he can tap gootube for a lot of cash.
As someone else stated, he needs a real hobby. Litigation is not a good one. He's worse than the ambulance-chaser... instead he is an ambulance-chaser-chaser.
I don't recall ever getting a mail advertisement or seeing a billboard that was blind-accessible. I suspect the direct marketer's association might have something to say about this, because a poor ruling could significantly affect us all.
What they should do is play in 10 languages "if you are handicapped and unable to read this site, please call 1-800-foo-barz for assistance on ordering" and leave it at that.
Would you defend the person that releases a worm that affects windows?
Would you defend the person that publishes any remote exploit without notifying the company about the bug?
That is what he did. And to prove he has no interest in the actual security on it, he included a political message.
As I stated, he did security irresponsibly by not notifying TSA in a responsible manner, as any REAL security researcher would have done. The government also moves much, much slower than any private company, so the time it would take must be considered. He's looking for notoriety, not actual security.
(... and to the AC below that doesn't know "your an idiot" is intentional irony, learn to recognize sarcasm.)
You've always been able to do this. You can change the A/B/C boarding for southwest flights. You can save things to print them out later. You can make your own spoofs, and even make a real barcode if you want. You can remove the "search my luggage" checkerboard pattern, too. You can do a lot of things when you have the html and images.
But what Christopher Soghoian is doing is rubbing the government's nose in it, while they're actually trying to prevent people from being asshats.
Maybe the government is doing it the wrong way. But like any responsible security researcher, you do not release a malicious tool before giving some ability to correct the problem first. You especially don't do it to make a political statement on the tool webpage. And sometimes there's not a good solution.
Christopher Soghoian is an asshat, and not what I'd call any sort of responsible security researcher.
Go back to defacing websites with political messages with the other script kiddies, and blaming microsoft for all the evils in the world.
haha, that was exactly my thought.... what unit will they use?
And if it's goods, how is it packaged? I would like my 1,000,000,000 photons to go please. With fries.
And what if you use a form of compression? Do you pay less, because you're getting fewer units of product?
And what if I sue, claiming I never received my photons? Can they prove I did? Can they prove they're missing any?
The whole idea of redefining things, e.g. internet service as delivery of photons, is clearly corrupt. But it's certainly not limited to India. For instance, Heather Wilson (R-NM) recently sponsored a bill that would redefine "electronic evesdropping" to exclude many forms of electronic eavesdropping, to allow the NSA to spy on Americans.
If they get rich and starving children get food, I'm not going to shed a single tear.
Ah, yes, the "think of the children" argument to justify any action, especially particularly ill-thought-out evils. Nothing like child welfare to short-circuit those knee-jerk, short-sighted brains.
God for you to come up with that all by yourself. Pun intended.
>>Alergic to fish? Guess what? Damn good chance your alergic to said food contaminated with such genes >Now that's just silly.
Aye, that is silly although there's certainly a chance depending on the gene.
But how about if your religious philosophy disallows fish? What if you're a vegetarian and really want to eat that tomato, but want to know if it's actually a vegetable? Normally, if it's labelled that's not an issue, but the FDA rarely requires labelling of such (and might even forbid it!) except for animal feed products. There are other issues about this type of thing, where splicing genes (note: not crossbreeding or using markers to extract a desired trait) can contaminate foods without either the desire nor the ability to clean it up. This can be an environmental nightmare, and this contamination could lead to many people unwillingly needing to give up foods because of an irresponsible company. Let's just splice in lots of cloven-hoofed critters, dogs, cats, and genes from human fetuses into everyday foods and let that contaminate rice, too, and see how people like that. It's not going to kill you, but there are strong philosophical reasons against it.
Never kid yourself... Bayer and Monsanto are not doing GM crops to feed people. They're doing it for money. And if they can spend a small amount of cash to make it so they don't have to clean up their messes (quite conceivably an impossible task), there's no incentive to be careful about it. Already rice has been contaminated. Whether or not that contamination will kill people or whatever is not the question, but that they allowed it and frankly don't care. The obvious answer to them is to try to avoid the entire issue. These companies are littering on a global scale.
Sorry, I've actually played the game since closed beta and run one of the oldest and largest casual guilds. As such, we do all the quests for fun.
Blizzard put these quests in the game to relay a story but also to provide a distraction from the leveling process
The latter part of this has been acknowledged by Bliz. When constructing the "level grind" they were correct that actually levelling your character felt empty without tons of quests. And they set about adding literally thousands of quests to the game at all levels and factions, to make it feel fuller. And guess what? Most of these quests looked just like "Bring me [N] [unit]s of [resource/animal part] and I'll reward you with some cash and a [item]" Generally, these are entertaining the first time or two, but have nothing to do with warcraft story except for a few good quest arcs.
Now, entertaining gameplay aside, please tell the story writers to take those &%!$* Draenei, stick them back in their dimensional spaceships and edit their large asses off of Azeroth. As far as story goes, that's a travesty. But I'll admit that as far as fun gameplay goes, they'll be a blast and of course I'll be creating one.
That is, unless you consider the story while levelling to be:
"Greeting [Playername], we have been expecting you for a while now. We of the [Foo] Brotherhood have been trying to drive back the [Enemy] from the [Place] and are in dire need of some [Animal Anatomy]. Please collect [1..20] [Animal Anatomy] and return to us when you're done!"
700 defects sounds like a lot, but most were probably not done by manually examining the code. More likely, it was a codebase scanner that checked for problems, such as memory leaks, double frees, stack issues, etc.
The real question is, was the scanner likewise scanned for problems?:-)
Dr Lanza said: 'Well, as you know, the President objects to the fact that you would be sacrificing one life to save another, and in this instance there is no harm to the embryo.'
If this was indeed a fact, I too would object to it.
But referring to destroying an embryo as factually "sacrificing a life" is really scary to hear coming from a stem-cell researcher. Clearly it was not intending to get into the right-to-life arguments, but that's how it could be taken out of context.
Dr Lanza probably meant to say "The President objects to the belief that destroying an embryo is destroying a life, and in this instance there is no harm to the embryo."
Despite this advancement and satisfying certain ethical quandaries, this will not satisfy the anti-science anti-stemcell nitwits any more than anything short of prohibition will satisfy certain members of, e.g., MADD. Mark my words, the people who are celebrating the Earth's 7000th birthday don't give a crap about ethics.
I hope our fine president doesn't eat eggs for breakfast.
Slashdot Mirror
I stated twice, and you missed it twice: the importance of a bug must consider the impact. Based on the statistics from Secunia, which you link to, I would say Apple is doing better than "okay." In 2006 there have been 21 advisories for OS X, 39 for Windows XP Pro, and 40 for Linux. When you say "okay" you imply average. However the statistics linked to indicate better than average.The raw numbers mean very little ... if you think 21 advisories makes a better OS, you are unintentionally spreading FUD yourself.
... different CPU, different hardware, different kernel. And since Nextstep is so old, I'd bet only a small percent of the Next programmers are even working on OSX. They also wrote the 13-sector DOS3.2 for the apple ][ and that doesn't matter either.
If you look at the impact, you'll see that 25% of those Apple advisories result in system access whereas 0% of the 40 advisories for Linux result in system access. I'll take the 40 Linux bugs over the 21 OS-X bugs any day. Apple is doing "okay" as I stated, and I stand by that. They've had 5 system access flaws, therefore they are not outstanding. Linux has had zero system access flaws found this year, if you can believe Secunia. However I absolutely disagree with the mindset that something must have more bugs simply because it's newer. Consumers don't have to settle for mediocrity in software.I'm saying that, over time, bugs are found. But a large majority of the serious flaws are usually found within a year or two after release. It might have fewer bugs overall, but simply because it's newer, those bugs will be coming out sooner.
Also, it looks to me that they cannot leverage their previous OS knowledge to any serious degree. Nextstep, which was based on Mach, cannot apply - it was both based on a microkernel, and on completely different hardware. When faced with things like device driver buffer overflows (Airport bug, e.g.) there's no comparison whatsoever
You have one point that is not lost on me: a default OSX system is probably tougher to crack than a default WinXP pro system. Unfortunately, I don't have statistics for that but I'd love to see a credible comparison. However, IIRC, there have been a couple recent challenges to break into a default, fully-patched apple system, and all have been cracked within a day or two.
Apple is not new in the marketplace, but I wouldn't call NeXtstep (Job's baby) an apple product. They are relatively new, as I said, in relation to WinXP and Linux 2.x. OSX was not merely an incremental upgrade from their previous OS's.
To say they have "a lot of bugs to shake out," does them a disservice and only furthers the FUD. Define "a lot" and compare it to the bugs on all the other platforms.
Gladly, and your argument will partially stand up. Remember, though, bugs are often found by users. Virtually ALL OS's go through a phase where huge numbers of security issues are found. I say they have a lot of bugs to shake out because of this newness, and I admit that's my conjecture. I would put a lot of cash that says several more serious bugs will be filtering in over the next year.
Here are some statistics. I wasn't meaning to further the FUD, either. You'll see that, so far, Apple is doing merely "okay". And this is exactly why I was saying you have to judge the bugs by the impact, not just the sheer number of them.
Scroll to the bottom for impact graphs
OSX graphs
winXP pro graphs
linux 2.6 graphs
Note these are not "out of the box" configurations, but merely reports of security holes. So I couldn't provide "default" security status.
The philosophical differences are that the Linux user base can both find and fix the problems, but closed source can only find and report problems.
Although you multiply poison by the user base, the more people that use Linux the more secure it becomes. The more people that use an OS where the users cannot find and fix problems, the less secure it becomes as an overall platform.
A large part of the problem is finding it, and when a security flaw is found in Linux it is pretty much always fixed So, userbase for Linux is good because they can fix the problems themselves, or report it directly to someone who can.
But when you are sourceless, a large userbase can report a problem and they must depend on someone else to fix it. So, the more people that use it, the more people using it with a particular bug. Usually, the fix timeframe is based on Impact * number of reports, and although Microsoft has gotten pretty good about turnaround time for patches, they used to be horrible and if there's a lack of reports I suspect bugs will go unpatched for quite some time. However, you still have the issue that all closed source has: the user can't fix things for himself and that includes bugs.
Lastly, comparing OSX to Linux and WinXP isn't really fair to Apple... they're still relatively new to the scene and have a lot of bugs to shake out. And when comparing, you can't just say "N bugs in X OS over K days", you have to also multiply this by the impact. 31 local DoS security fixes is not as scary as 1 remote execution fix.
but ... if the parents are dummies, what will the kids who play videogames be?
:-)
Oh, I know: smarter than the both of them
From TFA (and google):
World of Warcraft Gold
Cheap gold and All servers in stock 24/7 instant delivery & Live Chat
WoW Secrets Revealed
Level 60 Players Tell All Master your Server in Days!
World of Warcraft Gold
$9.57/100 gold on most of servers, Powerleveling 1-60 only 13 days
Common sense is not. You might agree with the result of the judge's decision, but that's immaterial. Laws are written to be unabiguous, and when distant interpretation is allowed, especially by someone that doesn't understand the technology, you get a bad law enforced poorly. That compounds the problem.
For example, you claim it's time to rewrite the law from "e-mail" to "electronic correspondence". wtf does that mean?
Virtually all telephone conversations are electronic correspondence. Walkie-talkies are electronic correspondence. Watching cable-TV is electronic correspondence. Hopefully that is sufficient to demonstrate how dangerous it is to allow random interpretation.
The judge was wrong in this case. You agree with the end result, but anyone that can see the slippery slope should be terrified to agree with the judge.
Tht ìs thê £äst thïñg wë ñèêd
Dibs on ©óm
Removing at the same rate it comes in is perfectly fine, and responsible for the media provider.
Over any period of time, N contested copyrighted works will come in, and -N will account for the removal. Net total: 0.
If you'd like, I can draw a numberline for you.
Now, there's some latency between the time it's loaded, and the time it's taken down. But that will not account for your conjecture "YouTube is full of [contested/illegal]* copyrighted material". Based on your argument, YouTube only has as much copyrighted material as is uploaded during this latency period. And that might be very low. You cannot draw conclusions from your argument, only conjecture.
Maybe you could produce some actual numbers of how many things have been challenged, and the amount of time to take it down, but I kind of doubt it. That might give an idea of how many contested copyrighted works are available at any particular time.
* Other copyrighted material, the stuff the copyright holders don't care about, is immaterial for this argument of "being full of copyrighted material". Technically, everything is copyrighted the moment it's put into a fixed medium, but uploading it isn't necessarily a violation. I'm making the correct assumption that you're talking about copyrighted material that the copyright holder would object to.
supporting an individual's lawsuit, not because of the principal involved, but because you don't like them and think they're stupid, that's... well, childish.
... instead he is an ambulance-chaser-chaser.
This is a billionaire and his interests are not "principles", they are "principle".
There is money involved, and like any entrepreneur, he wants what doesn't belong to him. If he can make a gamble and win, he can tap gootube for a lot of cash.
As someone else stated, he needs a real hobby. Litigation is not a good one. He's worse than the ambulance-chaser
Oh wait, there ARE no parents.
I don't recall ever getting a mail advertisement or seeing a billboard that was blind-accessible. I suspect the direct marketer's association might have something to say about this, because a poor ruling could significantly affect us all.
What they should do is play in 10 languages "if you are handicapped and unable to read this site, please call 1-800-foo-barz for assistance on ordering" and leave it at that.
Would you defend the person that publishes any remote exploit without notifying the company about the bug?
That is what he did. And to prove he has no interest in the actual security on it, he included a political message.
As I stated, he did security irresponsibly by not notifying TSA in a responsible manner, as any REAL security researcher would have done. The government also moves much, much slower than any private company, so the time it would take must be considered. He's looking for notoriety, not actual security.
(... and to the AC below that doesn't know "your an idiot" is intentional irony, learn to recognize sarcasm.)
You've always been able to do this. You can change the A/B/C boarding for southwest flights. You can save things to print them out later. You can make your own spoofs, and even make a real barcode if you want. You can remove the "search my luggage" checkerboard pattern, too. You can do a lot of things when you have the html and images.
But what Christopher Soghoian is doing is rubbing the government's nose in it, while they're actually trying to prevent people from being asshats.
Maybe the government is doing it the wrong way. But like any responsible security researcher, you do not release a malicious tool before giving some ability to correct the problem first. You especially don't do it to make a political statement on the tool webpage. And sometimes there's not a good solution.
Christopher Soghoian is an asshat, and not what I'd call any sort of responsible security researcher.
Go back to defacing websites with political messages with the other script kiddies, and blaming microsoft for all the evils in the world.
from tfa: This document has been accessed 87820 times since 09 October 2006
Gentle website, prepare to evolve or perish.
And pretty soon, RIAA will start suing p2p indexing sites for caving and shutting down the index servers, claiming it cost RIAA advertising revenue.
... must... read ... from... work...
ahhh, that's better.
haha, that was exactly my thought.... what unit will they use?
And if it's goods, how is it packaged? I would like my 1,000,000,000 photons to go please. With fries.
And what if you use a form of compression? Do you pay less, because you're getting fewer units of product?
And what if I sue, claiming I never received my photons? Can they prove I did? Can they prove they're missing any?
The whole idea of redefining things, e.g. internet service as delivery of photons, is clearly corrupt. But it's certainly not limited to India. For instance, Heather Wilson (R-NM) recently sponsored a bill that would redefine "electronic evesdropping" to exclude many forms of electronic eavesdropping, to allow the NSA to spy on Americans.
If they get rich and starving children get food, I'm not going to shed a single tear.
Ah, yes, the "think of the children" argument to justify any action, especially particularly ill-thought-out evils. Nothing like child welfare to short-circuit those knee-jerk, short-sighted brains.
God for you to come up with that all by yourself. Pun intended.
>>Alergic to fish? Guess what? Damn good chance your alergic to said food contaminated with such genes
>Now that's just silly.
Aye, that is silly although there's certainly a chance depending on the gene.
But how about if your religious philosophy disallows fish? What if you're a vegetarian and really want to eat that tomato, but want to know if it's actually a vegetable? Normally, if it's labelled that's not an issue, but the FDA rarely requires labelling of such (and might even forbid it!) except for animal feed products. There are other issues about this type of thing, where splicing genes (note: not crossbreeding or using markers to extract a desired trait) can contaminate foods without either the desire nor the ability to clean it up. This can be an environmental nightmare, and this contamination could lead to many people unwillingly needing to give up foods because of an irresponsible company. Let's just splice in lots of cloven-hoofed critters, dogs, cats, and genes from human fetuses into everyday foods and let that contaminate rice, too, and see how people like that. It's not going to kill you, but there are strong philosophical reasons against it.
Never kid yourself... Bayer and Monsanto are not doing GM crops to feed people. They're doing it for money. And if they can spend a small amount of cash to make it so they don't have to clean up their messes (quite conceivably an impossible task), there's no incentive to be careful about it. Already rice has been contaminated. Whether or not that contamination will kill people or whatever is not the question, but that they allowed it and frankly don't care. The obvious answer to them is to try to avoid the entire issue. These companies are littering on a global scale.
Sorry, I've actually played the game since closed beta and run one of the oldest and largest casual guilds. As such, we do all the quests for fun.
Blizzard put these quests in the game to relay a story but also to provide a distraction from the leveling process
The latter part of this has been acknowledged by Bliz. When constructing the "level grind" they were correct that actually levelling your character felt empty without tons of quests. And they set about adding literally thousands of quests to the game at all levels and factions, to make it feel fuller. And guess what? Most of these quests looked just like "Bring me [N] [unit]s of [resource/animal part] and I'll reward you with some cash and a [item]" Generally, these are entertaining the first time or two, but have nothing to do with warcraft story except for a few good quest arcs.
Now, entertaining gameplay aside, please tell the story writers to take those &%!$* Draenei, stick them back in their dimensional spaceships and edit their large asses off of Azeroth. As far as story goes, that's a travesty. But I'll admit that as far as fun gameplay goes, they'll be a blast and of course I'll be creating one.
Unfortunately, this isn't true with WoW.
That is, unless you consider the story while levelling to be:
"Greeting [Playername], we have been expecting you for a while now. We of the [Foo] Brotherhood have been trying to drive back the [Enemy] from the [Place] and are in dire need of some [Animal Anatomy]. Please collect [1..20] [Animal Anatomy] and return to us when you're done!"
[Animal Anatomy] Collected 0/[1..20]
700 defects sounds like a lot, but most were probably not done by manually examining the code.
:-)
More likely, it was a codebase scanner that checked for problems, such as memory leaks, double frees, stack issues, etc.
The real question is, was the scanner likewise scanned for problems?
Dr Lanza said: 'Well, as you know, the President objects to the fact that you would be sacrificing one life to save another, and in this instance there is no harm to the embryo.'
If this was indeed a fact, I too would object to it.
But referring to destroying an embryo as factually "sacrificing a life" is really scary to hear coming from a stem-cell researcher. Clearly it was not intending to get into the right-to-life arguments, but that's how it could be taken out of context.
Dr Lanza probably meant to say "The President objects to the belief that destroying an embryo is destroying a life, and in this instance there is no harm to the embryo."
Despite this advancement and satisfying certain ethical quandaries, this will not satisfy the anti-science anti-stemcell nitwits any more than anything short of prohibition will satisfy certain members of, e.g., MADD. Mark my words, the people who are celebrating the Earth's 7000th birthday don't give a crap about ethics.
I hope our fine president doesn't eat eggs for breakfast.
I heard the amount of "irony" and "satire" have tripled on television in the past 6 months.
Let's check wikipedia and see if it's true.
(It isn't)
Are you going to put a huge fireproof red sticker on the car warning firefighters not to douse the flames with water
Yes, right after we do the same for gasoline cars.