Posts by Turtle 1888 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2010
"The owner of the work has told the museum to leave the newly denuded piece in place while loss adjusters calculate the value of the damage."
The loss should be calculated as "zero". That the collector who loaned it to the museum will not, perhaps, be able to find the "bigger fool" to enable him (i.e. the current owner) to turn a profit, should not be a factor.
As I read in the comments section of a physics blog, "Michio Kaku is not a physicist, he just plays one on tv."
He forfeited his scientific credentials years ago, when he decided that the primary purpose of science - or anything that unknowlegeable people could be persuaded to accept as science - was to get him on television.
What you and some other ignorant people on this thread do not seem to understand, is that a police officer is *always* a police officer, on duty or off, and is required to *always* act like a police officer, and *always* has those powers that are vested in him by virtue of his being a police officer. Or else why else do you think clubs such as this hire police officers in the first place?
The problem here is that you, like the Arabs, don't seem to understand that Israel exists *right now* and questions over whether the land was stolen are relevant only insofar as they serve as a pretext to justify Arab attacks on Jews in the Middle East that predate the establishment of Israel by decades. But if they want the land back, they will have to take it by force, and Israel is going to answer in kind.
So it turns out that your attitude is exactly what is going to assure a continuation of the violence.
Could it maybe have something to do with the fact that the Arabs have been committing large-scale attacks on Jews at least since the end of World War I? And could it maybe have something to do with the fact that the only "solution" that the Arabs have ever devised for the problems in the Middle East call for the destruction (or, farcically, the "disestablishment") of Israel? And could it just possibly have something to do with the fact that Hamas is also quite vocal about its desire to destroy Israel? And wouldn't it seem maybe a bit logical that, if the Arabs want Israel to recognize the right of a Palestinian state to exist, that perhaps they themselves should recognize the right of Israel to exist?
And I guess that you are not asking why the Arabs hate Israel so much is that you don't think that it's important. Or you feel that it is justified. Would that guess be pretty nearly correct?
One wonders if all this stuff might as well be de-criminalized, if that is how judges are going to treat it.
This guy needed to do some time. And his "immature mental age" really should have told the judge that he perhaps needed a particularly *harsh* lesson in order to make him "get the point" - especially, as we read in a previous story here, that he had already violated the judge's orders while awaiting sentencing, and then posted about it on Facebook.
All good points, although it was quite a while ago that I reached the conclusion that, as a heuristic device, when faced with competing stories claiming to be true, the story whose veracity is to be immediately dismissed - and with profound contumely - is Assange's.
Well that is an interesting post because *I* was beginning to think that perhaps all Argentinians were assholes. But then again, considering how many people there were perfectly willing to reconcile themselves to the junta and for the sake of a small rock with some sheep and few people on it, it is not really easy to believe that that attitude towards the Falklands has really died away to any great degree.
(Note that I am an American.)
"But we have neither the ambition nor the know-how to actually produce content on a large scale."
While he was, as usual, lying when he said that Google doesn't have the ambition to actually produce content on a large scale, even he will be astounded by how true his statement that Google "doesn't have the know-how to produce content" actually is.
He needs to have Google stick to what Google knows and does best: lying and stealing.
Anyone who finds the post-mortem attention that Jobs is getting to be distasteful, needs to blame... Jobs himself, for all the ante-mortem attention he courted. Once someone is a celebrity, he remains a celebrity, even - and sometimes especially - in death. And once the wheels of the machine start turning, they are impossible to turn off.
". . . Google had made up its mind some time ago that patents weren't important to it,. . . "
I would love to see the rationale for this kind of decision. Because a company, making billions of dollars from one single patent (the PageRank patent), must have had a good idea of what a patent can be worth. And knowing that, they had to understand that other companies would defend their patents in the same way that Google would defend its own patents. And they just decided that other people's patents "weren't important".
I just can not imagine the thinking behind that.
Scorchio, thank you for the encouraging words. I have of course no hope that people like Wilson above will change their views - once someone resorts to conspiracy theories, the matter is usually hopeless. (Speaking of which, I wonder if he will take Assange's lead and start blaming the Jews - even if Assange now denies doing so.)
I simply could not leave such a post unchallenged, containing, as it did, no facts at all, and quite a few falsehoods. And, to be honest, I think it was worthwhile to take the time to assemble all those quotes and links in one place.
Thanks again!
You seem to rely on what Assange has said being the final and indeed only test of truth. Go right ahead. Such a stance speaks for itself. However, Assange says a lot of things and some are rather more believable - and unflattering - than others.
But let's look at some particulars:
WikiLeaks as an impoverished organization running on shoestring, being financed via the Assange Piggy Bank::
Look at:
http://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html: "The attack has blocked over 90% of the non-profit organization’s donations, costing some $15M in lost revenue." Translating from math to words, if $15m is 90% then their donations would typically amount to $16.6million.
That's quite a "begging bowl".
And look at this article here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/wikileaks_nda_leaked/ and note the link to a copy of the NDA that WIkipedia staff must sign. Let me quote a few lines from it: ".. loss and damage to WikiLeaks including without limitation loss and damage in the nature of A) Loss of opportunity to sell the information to other news broadcasters and publishers . . . D) Loss of value of the information F)Possible legal proceedings against WikiLeaks for loss of value to parties of other agreements. (Further on:) The parties agree that a genuine and reasonable pre-estimate of the loss to WikiLeaks from a breach of this agreement based on a typical open market valuation for this information for a significant breach of this agreement is in the region of twelve million pounds sterling.)"
Read this too:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/02/the-guardian-201102?currentPage=1 and note the following line:"Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released." Oh wait, Vanity Fair must *also* be involved in an anti-WikiLeaks conspiracy.
And just in case you don't get the message, let me quote this from WikiLeaks NDA: "All information. . . provided by WikiLeaks, is confidential remains the property of WikiLeaks."
In short: WIkiLeaks has millions of dollars flowing through it hands form both donations and sale of documents given to it, is indeed in the business of selling information and documents, is zealous about guarding what it considers its property, and, most importantly, is certainly *not* being financed out of Assange's piggy bank. The only pig here is Assange himself, and if he taken anything out of his piggy bank, the only way it could have gotten into that piggy bank was via money sent to WikiLeaks and put in his piggy bank.
(We have not even touched the fact that John Young of Cryptome considers that WikiLeaks is a criminal organization and that their ultimate backer is George Soros:
First, is the original Cryptome posting here:
http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-1012/msg00020.html
:
"Wikileaks has always been a commercial enterprise hiding behind a narcissistic "public interest" PR, says Cryptome operator John Young in a scathing critique of the site."
"They have been selling restricted information from the beginning of their enterprises. Some do it as employees and off-the-books agents of governments and business and individuals, some do it as rogue entrepreneurs like Wikileaks"
"Assange stated at the beginning of Wikileaks it expected to make big bucks, $5M the first year he wrote on a private mail list -- among other pimping messages later published on Cryptome."
"Soros and the Kochs have their lesser-known Internet promoters backing Wikileaks generously. And they expect good return on their investment, not just the freebies used to attract attention."
There is also this Register article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/ which contains links not only to the Cryptome post, but also to a page with an article and an audio file of an interview with Young:
I will quote the article:
"I think it is a money-making operation, no doubt," Young said of WikiLeaks.
"It follows the model of a number of other business intelligence operations. Selling intelligence information is a very lucrative field, and so they are following that model, usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit,"
Asked specifically whether he was charging WikiLeaks with selling classified information and documents, Young replied, "Yes."
******
Re: Your statements concerning the legal implications of WikiLeaks and any donations from them to Bradley Manning's defense:
Read this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/14/bradley_manning_wikileaks/
Here's some quotes: "Wikileaks has donated $15,000 to the Bradley Manning Support Network. . . .It's taken Wikileaks seven months to honour its pledge to pay Manning's legal fees - and the gift still leaves the support group a few dollars short of its $115,000 target. . .Assange, meanwhile, has signed lucrative book deals worth $1.7m (£1.1m)."
So let's re-read your statement: "As for Manning's finances Wikileaks could never publicly give him one single penny. To do that in public would be the link that the FBI needed to confirm his guilt and connection to Wikileaks. Manning would be found guilty before the trial had started. Public financial help from Wikileaks would crucify the man."
Now, note that WikiLeaks *has* given money to Manning, Manning *has* accepted it, and that the FBI was investigating a WikiLeaks-Manning connection before this. Also note that the FBI, and even moderately educated people know that such a donation has no legal bearing on the matter in *any* court of law.
****************
You seem to have already investigated the sex charges against Assange and found them to be fraudulent. I am curious to know when you were able to depose the women involved.
"It was the publicly rigged charge along with the rigged deportation hearing that made him money." Are they "rigged" because they are contrary to law and the evidence presents, or are they "rigged" simply because you like Assange?
Well, seeing as how you were wrong about everything else that you wrote, the overwhelming probability is that you are wrong about this too. Just based on your, you know, track record.
It is pretty typical that these people would be attacking websites is support of WikiLeaks. One would think that a more important target, from their point of view, would be to attack *WikiLeaks* itself as a gesture of support for Bradley Manning, since WikiLeaks actually leaks nothing; the actual leaking is done by people like Bradley Manning. WikiLeaks merely sells the material after someone like Manning has done the leaking. To encourage these kinds of leaks, the leakers themselves need to be supported, not the profiteers at WikiLeaks. It is not surprising that these idiots don't realize this.
And it would not matter if WikiLeaks has not collected a single penny specifically in support of Manning; if it were not for the data the Manning gave them, would Assange have gotten $1.5 million for his autobiography? And how much has the publicity that WikiLeaks has received because of Manning's criminal actions been worth to them? Statements from Assange itself have indicated that he receives donations in the millions of dollars. And Manning gets a $15k kiss-off. Serves him right, too.
(I still want to see both Assange and Manning get the death penalty. But these politically-motivated hackers are just so damn stupid...)
"The argument that Microsoft (and Apple to a lesser but significant degree, and likely a good number of other less prominent software companies) have held the computational technology sector back to be about 10-15 years behind where it would it could be today."
Let me try a different argument: the fact that Microsoft managed to unify the market for both hardware and software and impose a common standard was the single most important factor of the rise of computer technology, and has been of immense value to the world.
Here's why:
01) By creating a standard platform, "Wintel", a huge market was created for a specific kind of hardware.
Microsoft, by forcing the *concentration of resources* on a single platform (Wintel), is the single biggest reason and pretty much the only reason why there are many hundreds of millions of computer users today: the dominance of the Wintel platform lead to constantly expanding markets which enabled a technological and economic bootstrapping process in which each technological innovation could generate enough income to generate a succeeding technological innovation along with the economies of scale needed to make that innovation affordable - which further expanded the market. (I.e. we buy progressively more capability for progressively less money, in a continuing process).
Beyond the amortization of physical capital, economies of scale also include the intellectual efforts invested on a single platform, as opposed to being scattered over a variety of platforms. It should be clear to anyone that if the engineering talent invested in x86 were scattered over a large variety of incompatible cpus, then that talent would have been less effective and would have accomplished far less, expressing itself in a large number of more primitive but higher-priced processors. Computers would be far less capable, and far more expensive, than they are today.
(This process eventually effected all computer components and lead to the creation of new components; as the size of the existing market increased, investment become more economically sound, and invention and innovation increased as the probability of returns on the effort invested in invention and innovation increased.)
Bear in mind that the process and fabrication technology needed to actually manufacture the cpu also benefited from the increased market for computers, another extremely important factor in the commoditization of personal computing. When you buy, let's say, a new graphics card, you don't buy "photolithography" but it still needed to invented and sold at an affordable price, or that graphics card could not be fabricated in the first place.
Or, to put it another way, you wouldn't be able to run any FOSS on modern hardware if Wintel hadn't created the economic incentives that enabled modern hardware to exist in the first place.
02) Wintel's dominance enabled economies of scale in programming too! In much the same was as with hardware, it did so by concentrating immense intellectual investment on a specific platform, thereby making for more rapid progress than would have been the case with only a small number of people investing their effort. Had this same quantity of intellectual investment been scattered of many platforms, none of them would have progressed as far as they have.
****************
All of this should be familiar to anyone with a moderate degree of economic literacy, or who is familiar with the career of Cornelius Vanderbilt (a group of people probably to a large degree co-extensive with the first, now that I think about it.)
Other results:
03) The fact that computers were so affordable created a mass market for them, which encouraged the adaption of the technology to a mass market - what I have in mind here are GUI's, without which we would still be using the command line. The development of GUI's made computing far more accessible to a mass market .
04) The ubiquity of Windows enables computer skills learned at one enterprise to be transferred easily to another enterprise, if they both run Windows. (And most do.) This creates a more capable workforce, allowing for increased productivity. It also allows for greater employee mobility, from enterprise to enterprise, although such mobility is greatly effected by other factors too, of course.
(Of course, if you think that all of the foregoing is "evil", no one will stop you. But please pay careful attention to the following statement:)
What anyone thinks of Microsoft's business ethics is irrelevant. It is easy to moralistically examine anyone's behaviour in the real world and find it unacceptable. The actual outcome of Microsoft's behaviour has been immensely beneficial to the progress of personal computing, IT, and everything based on it, including all forms of consumer electronics such as smart phones, dvd players, mp3 players, digital cameras and so.
"To fix this sort of thing you need to look beyond the façade of what is all most people usually see. Think big, see the whole system, be a cynical biologist or something, and dare let things be if that's really the best." I guess you mean that one has to buy into the whole "religion is the root of all evil" propaganda, like you have, right?
By the way, the reason for the birthrates being so high was the simple fact that so few children survived childhood. In many traditional societies, children are an economic necessity, as they provide a source of labour which is invested in the family's household economy. The fact that they have so many children is a result of intention, *not* as you seem think, ignorance of how to limit family size. The birthrate drops of its own accord when more children survive childhood, irrespective of what the Pope says about condoms, because people do no longer need the extra children, once they have had the "economically required" children. But there is a lag between the actual transition from high-mortality to low-mortality conditions, and people's realization that such a transition has occurred: it is this lag that is the prime cause of increasing population. That is to say, the mortality transition occurs first, and then people realize it, and adapt to it after the fact by limiting the number of childbirths. They can not, after all, be expected to adapt their birth practices to low-mortality conditions *before* those conditions exist and are easily observable. So it is while the adaptation to low-mortality conditions is taking place that the population undergoes a period of rapid growth.
In other words, people who live there calculate according to the situation in which they find themselves, and they are not nearly as stupid as you think.
And by the way, don't you think that it is at least possible that that dimwit "investor famous for his 30 year view" has a better view of things than you?
If "free software" were really "free" it would be in the public domain. But it isn't so it's not. "Free software" is encumbered with restrictions in just the same way as proprietary software is encumbered. That you might approve of those restrictions does not mean that it's free: the FOSS idea of freedom seems to be that "freedom" consists of being legally required to do what Richard Stallman thinks you should do.
As for "North Carolina pastor Don Parris [arguing] that 'proprietary software limits my ability to help my neighbor, one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith'", well, he can either spend his own, effort, money, and time learning how to program and *then* give it away for free, or let him spend his own money and buy the software that his neighbor needs. Whining that his desire to be "altruistic" is hindered by someone else's desire to "get paid for their work" is not moral, it is profoundly immoral. There is a verse in the Bible commanding that "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn". (Deut 25:4). And more verses admonishing that "The workman is worthy of his hire". But then again, the Bible was written in a world in which slavery was common; I suppose that Parris thinks that slavery is still acceptable.
To me, there is nothing "moral" about forcing people to do what is "moral". And personally, I have only contempt for any ideology which is against people getting paid for their work.
How much would a copy of Windows cost if it came with the same kind of tech support that IBM gives its mainframes? And I am pretty sure that you can get support from Microsoft if you are willing to pay for it. Now it is the case that the IBM price is built into the mainframe's purchase price, whereas Microsoft allows you to opt of having to pay for expensive tech support by allowing you to purchase it if you want to.
I think that all in all, Microsoft chose the correct path for an OS meant for home users. (Considering that businesses can either have an IT worker on staff, or call someone who works on an hourly etc retainer.)
Notice that in neither case is does having support available mean that the system is reliable, since reliability would seem to mean that the system does not need servicing in the first place.
Actually, if you think about it, Microsoft comes out ahead, because, as you say, "90+ percent of the time IBM will at a later time help you diagnose the problem and most of the time supply either a fix so it won't happen again or with at least enough information that you can figure out why it happened (and it great detail)." Meaning that you can either wait on IBM to get around to it (and you say 10% of the time even IBM can't work out the problem), or hire someone *right now* - thereby paying a third party for support that you already bought from IBM when you bought the mainframe. With Microsoft, you can just call a tech immediately and if one can't make it over soon enough, call another. You are not paying twice for help with the same problem.
To me your criticism has no validity.
Yes indeed! they got that from a Beatles' record. Fact. It had something to do with the "Paul is a Blue Screen of Death" hoax, where we heard John saying "Please turn me off then on again, dead man". I know some people who have never heard the original think that he says "Turn me on, dead man" but the whole quote is as I've cited it here, "Please turn me off then on again, dead man".
I wonder if they needed to get permission from Paul's estate to use it.
Considering Google's position in online search, and that the combined market share of all its competitors is just of fraction of Google's share, for them to decide which sites are acceptable and which are not, gives them the ability to consign anything that they do not like to the Memory Hole. It is not much different than if the phone company left out of the phone book the numbers of organizations whose politics it doesn't like. This is exacerbated by the fact that no one visiting Google's page would have any idea that the results are being censored: have you ever seen any disclaimers on www.google.com informing users that they reserve the right to censor search results that they find objectionable?
If Google were not far-and-away the most popular search engine, I (and I would think many other people) would not have any objections. For example, if there was a niche company running a "Leftist Search Engine - The Only Search Engine With A Social Conscience" then who could possibly object if they censored their results - as censored results would pretty much be what a user of such a search engine would both want and expect. If Google put such a disclaimer on their webpage, it might perhaps be a different matter, to some people.
But in my opinion, having the biggest search engine, effectively a monopoly, surreptitiously censoring results according political and ideological criteria, is an unacceptable and intolerable situation.
And all of this has no points of comparison with Apple and Flash, which is a dispute over barring certain technology whereas the Google seems to be barring certain content. The difference is fundamental.
"The UK, by contrast, has a defiantly "can't do" spirit. Environmentalists are the political establishment, and the UK's planning and regulatory regime are designed to make cheap fossil fuel innovation much much more expensive than it need be."
Even before I had read the article, the first thought that crossed my mind was, "Sounds like a good thing. Too bad it won't be allowed."
Don't you people there have *any* political parties or politicians who are against the "Impoverish The UK At All Costs, And Make The Rich Richer By Making The Poor Poorer" program? if I were living in the UK I would absolutely be a one-issue voter at this point. . .
"This is clearly illegal -- the concept alone is enough to have it declared as an assault. Yes, it would be a physical assault. This really *is* the thin end of the wedge!"
So "tying" is treated as "physical assault" in Europe? Somehow I doubt that. It is *certainly not* treated as "physical assault" under the Sherman Act, so it would interesting to know why you have even brought it up, unless, of course, you did so out of sheer ignorance and stupidity.
I, as a someone who considers Google to be a borderline criminal enterprise - and over the border, too, in certain cases - am *very* pleased to see that Schmidt is making exactly the kind of impression on Capital Hill that I (as someone who considers Google guilty of criminal behavior and who would like to see Schmidt et al pay with some time in the pen) would want Schmidt to make.
Good work! Keep it up, please!
"If killing is wrong, then it applies to all killing, the state killing a human being is not justice, it's just revenge"
Some people think that killing in self-defense is acceptable (and even at time praiseworthy). You don't? Or is your statement that "all killing is wrong" not something in which you actually believe? And as for killing a human being not being "justice", is that an objective fact, or is that just you, as a bourgeois moralist, assuming that your blather represents some sort of eternal truth to which you have access?
Further, since there are no prison sentence that can cause a crime to be "uncommitted", it turns out that *all* prison sentences can be categorized as "revenge".
So what's your point?
"Given microsoft are raping the shit out of all that is good,..."
When was the last time your mom let you out of the basement? She needs to take you out for an airing way more often - even if you don't want to go, because you have constructed a fantasy world which is a veritable paradise except for the presence of Microsoft. Meanwhile, back in the actually-existing world, on the list of all things that are evil, we find Microsoft far, far down the list.
I have thought about this issue quite a bit and I have come to the conclusion that there is no reason why copyrights should *ever* expire, simply because I can see no valid reason for anyone to be *entitled* to access to anyone else's work. And certainly there is no reason why tech companies such as Google should be the inheritors of the cultural wealth of the entire human race, to be put on the web, for the sake of plastering it with advertising. I would not be surprised it it was the case that anyone able to contemplate such a situation without a feeling of profound contempt and disgust for these parasitic tech companies, is not be capable of benefiting from any cultural works in any meaningful way - except in the case that they are able to use them for their monetary advantage.
Well, it works out like this:
"14 billion in the Asia Pacific by 2016 with revenues of $US2.2 billion"
That's roughly 15.7 cents each.
"The Asia Pac app market will hit 5 billion downloads by the end of the year with revenues from mobile phone apps poised to reach $US871 million. "
That's about 17 cents each.
"1.6 billion apps downloaded in 2010 and revenues of $US 302 million."
That's about 18.8 cents each.
Just sayin'. . .
(If we notice that this time series shows declining revenue generation per app as time progresses, can we extrapolate to a point in the future where each download earns "nothing"? I wonder. . . )
That any government would even *pretend* that e-petitions have any value at all, or merit any attention whatsoever, is a sick joke. People whose political engagement consists of visiting a website and clicking a button are people who do not really care about the matter at hand. The mere fact that signing an e-petition is so easy is exactly what makes it so worthless. (And this does not even touch the question of how easy it is to game an e-petition.)
"that since 9/11 we may all be headed to a time why we don't understand anymore why privacy matters"
Except the basic point of this article seems pretty weak when you see the hundreds of millions of people using Facebook and caring nothing about their privacy, or the people who use Gmail, Chrome, or other Google products. To those people, privacy does not matter, has never mattered, and will never matter. Are "cloud" users really all that concerned about their privacy? It would seem not. You can not impose privacy on people who do not want or care about it.
But the article is very tendentious. "What 9/11 has done to take away the idea that we should have the power to control what happens next" is the last sentence but is not supported by anything actually *in* the article. That most people do not care about this surveillance, or share your concerns, or that some people possibly even support these measures, doesn't really mean that they can't be controlled. It simply means that things are not going the way that *you* want them to go.
The DJSI is "highly respected investors' guide"? By whom, exactly?
Nextly, your headline reads: "HP, Microsoft dumped from Dow Jones 'green' list, $8 billion at risk"
However, neither HP nor MIcrosoft, separately or together, seems to be in danger of losing anywhere near that amount, as that $8bn seems to be the *total* amount invested based on the DJSI. So the headline and subtitle seem to have little to do with reality. Could ya fix it please?
Do you have any evidence that being on or being booted off of that list has any actual significant consequences, by the way?
(I am not even going to broach the question of whether "SAM Group's" ideas of "sustainability" (quite the buzzword, you know!) has any grounding in reality. Or whether their "sustainability"is meant to be good for the planet, or the people living on the planet, or just for the *wealthy* people living on the planet, at the expense of the poor people. These are all worthwhile questions, by the way.)
PS: In comparison to the amount of money invested in stocks and in businesses in general, $8bn seems like a pittance, don't you think?
"Google is in a position to contribute much, much more to the debate: it has both the money and data to vastly improve everyone’s understanding of the pros and cons of the energy poured into data centres. That would be interesting. "
Yes it would be interesting, but *highly* improbable. Google, like nearly every other corporation, corporate body, or real or juridical entity, is mostly interested in "improving everyone's understanding of the pro's and cons" solely from Google's particular point of view. And considering the hefty publicly funded discounts they get on (at least some of) their electricity, they probably would just as soon not have any such discussions in the first place: it is a question that they do not even want raised, as it can have exactly *no* benefits for them, but could conceivably work to their (Google's) detriment.
"But the presentation – first noticed by blogger Florian Muller – merely confirms the obvious." And yet some will continue to deny it.
Reading further, we see the name of Andy Rubin, yet again - as if being spotlighted in the Oracle and Apple lawsuits were not enough! One could easily imagine his bosses at Google nominating him for a corporate role not unlike that played by Elisha Cook Jr in "The Maltese Falcon".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
