How do you figure that AOL was never about making customers happy? The vast majority of their customers are deliriously happy.
We're the weird ones, remember. Our opinions don't count for marketing purposes.
An example; I have Sprint/Earthlink DSL. A while ago, Sprint called my house and asked for me. (I wasn't home.)
My wife asked them what it was about, and they said they were conducting a survey about people's satisfaction with the service. However, they only wanted to hear from people who do *NOT* work in the computer industry! When she told them I do, they thanked her and told her there was no need for me to call them back!
AOL is *ONLY* concerned with making their customers happy; it's just that they target customers with very different needs from the people reading this.
Unhappy customers will go elsewhere; happy customers will stay. AOL just isn't very good at some of the things we think they should be good at.
Time Warner has limited experience with Internet access (RoadRunner), and AOL has absolutely NO wide consumer media experience, except for (you guessed it) ADVERTISING! So when you take a media Giant like Time Warner, and put it underneath an Advertising Monolith, you get so much diverse, wide range CRAP that you didn't have before.
As much as I hate to this, I think you've got it exactly backwards.
You're assuming that AOL's weaknesses will synergize with Time Warner's weaknesses to produce a colossal trainwreck, but I think AOL's history with Time shows that they are well aware of their weaknesses, and are instead going to synergize their strengths, to wit:
The world's largest provider of online services, which is weak on content, acquires the world's largest provider of content, *AND* a huge new customer base, *AND* a huge backbone that's already in the process of being turned into a massive TCP/IP network.
First they were a company that could afford to give away free 14.4k access and floppies. Then they became a company that could afford to give away free 56k access and CD-ROMs. Now there's a very good chance, if they do things the "right" way, that they can become a company that can afford to give away free 10Mbs access and set-top boxes.
Or, to put it another way; they just acquired 67,500 employees who do one thing really well; content. Some of the world's most desirable and profitable content.
They recognized that Time could solve their content problems in 1993, and since that time they've been kicking everybody else's ass.
Whether you hate AOL, love them, or say "AOL who?", the most likely outcome of all of this is that AOL becames more pervasive a part of our field than IBM or Microsoft. Don't be a bit surprised if they buy one of those two companies in a few years.
Me, I hate the bastards; but I'm typing this through Netscape (AOL owns 'em, remember) and keeping up with several industry and personal contacts through AIM while I'm at it. AIM is the only one of the "big four" instant messaging apps that didn't give us a big hassle to use through our firewalls.
If they can put one of those free web terminals they have out at Universal Studios in Orlando on every street corner and in the restaurants I frequent, I'll use the hell out of 'em, and I won't feel bad about it for one second.
If the IE and Windows are split into seperate companies, that probably means that the Windows group will write a new web browser that is truly inextricably locked into the OS.
They'll point to things like KFM for their reasons why. (I know KFM isn't inextricably locked into anything, but they're fighting technical ignorance here.)
Watch and see if I'm right; Explorer will include a browsing component at some point with no way to take it out short of massive surgery on the source code.
Unfortunately, it's still half-ass. They only offer the Pentium III 500Mhz with 15" XGA screen, as if Linux won't run with less and NT will.:-)
Also, they say they offer "Linux V6.1". There's no such animal.:-)
They need to offer one of the Celeron 433 with 12.1" display; that'd give us better battery life, and outperform a PIII 500 running NT.
But, all in all, at least they're trying. It's easier to convince an OEM to do a better job than to convince them to start doing the job in the first place.
Dell, I give you a B-. Offer Linux on all your Inspirons, and stop violating both Linus' and whatever distro you're using (presumably Red Hat)'s trademarks, and I'll raise it.
Offer it on the Latitude's too, all of them, and I'll give you at least an A-.
Firstly, Dell doesn't support Linux on their laptops; they just have a couple of useful files available for download. I haven't found one of their laptops yet that you can order with Linux (somebody please prove me wrong, that'd make me happy.)
Secondly, Dell solves the problem by not building in modems. You buy a PC card. The cheapest one is a Winmodem, but there are other choices.
I guess he wouldn't mind John's input but the statement in the linked article seems to imply that John thinks the Linux IP stack is flawed.
If you think it's not flawed, you have a serious misconception about Linux.
If you think Alan Cox would be perturbed by someone wanting to fix it, you have a serious misconception (or, more probably, a series of them) about Alan.
Now, is it fatally flawed? No, of course not.
BTW, although Alan did the initial work, there's an awful lot of other people's code in there. I don't hang out on the kernel lists, but I don't believe Alan would have a claim on it as "his code", even if he were inclined to make such a claim.
It's moot, however, because the GPL makes it our code.
Every moron who discovers that magnets repel each other seems to be convinced he's discovered the secret to perpetual motion and will not be disuaded.
Nor should he be. By exploring his nonsensical notions, he'll:
1) Learn more about physics.
or
2) Be proved a moron while he's not yet in a position to do any real damage.
or
3) Both.
As for his posts; that's why we invented killfiles. Ignore 'em long enough and they go away. Get 'em to switch to UCE, get 'em kicked off a few ISPs for it, and they'll switch to running conspiracy-oriented websites naming their old ISPs as part of the conspiracy.:-)
Re:Chinese Government doesn't necessarily agree
on
China Banning Win2k
·
· Score: 2
The story is posted by a Chinese newspaper, and we all know how informed our own media is...
I think the best way to describe the Chinese media is the fact that the Weekly World News gets a lot of it's more bizarre articles verbatim from Chinese press.
That, and the world needs a kick-ass laptop with a SrongARM processor or some other RISC chip with high performance and low power/heat requirements, with good Linux support for all the hardware.
Maybe that's the route the Amiga folks should take; instead of reinventing the wheel, make a kick-ass Linux system and add the necessary multimedia stuff to Linux. They'll have all the help they can eat.
Re:The importance (or lack thereof) of uptime
on
Linux Kernel 2.2.14
·
· Score: 2
Let me get this straight; you think somebody will replace your kernel with whatever they want, reboot, and the uptime will be your tipoff?
And you think this hypothetical hacker will be savvy enough to code holes into the kernel (as opposed to into the utilities, such as login, which authenticate users), but won't be savvy enough to fake the uptime?
Uhm, sure, yeah, that'll happen. You'll be warned of it by the monkeys flying out of my butt.
Yes, in that extremely bizarre contrived case, it would be a security hole. However, if we're assuming the attacker can replace the kernel with one of this choosing, *EVERY* Unix-like OS has that hole. They have the hole now.
If your system is that owned, you shouldn't be trusting what any piece of software on it tells you, not even the BIOS if you're flash upgradeable.
Re:The importance (or lack thereof) of uptime
on
Linux Kernel 2.2.14
·
· Score: 3
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; what we need in order to put a stop to this whole stupid argument for all time is a writeable/proc/uptime.
Let people fudge their damn uptime and all the BS will stop.
Re:Functionality Makes It To A Linux GUI
on
The ROX Desktop
·
· Score: 2
It all comes back to two things:
1) By default, do the "least surprising" thing.
2) Gimme a checkbox to make it work the other way if I want.
I would hazard the opinion that new windows that pop up shouldn't have the focus UNLESS the user can't accidently dismiss them with his typing, or accidently cause bad juju.
Both of these bad things happen to me all the time, and not just with Windows; CDE apps do it too. Sometimes it's not trivial to figure out what it was that popped up and vanished while I was typing, and sometimes it can be VERY BAD.
What if what popped up was part of a Unix app with root access?
And don't folks launch into the "setuid" arguments, please; what if you started that app as root on purpose? What if the popup was a confirmation as to whether or not you wanted it to rm -rf/*, or rpm -e `rpm -q -a` ?
It's bad enough when an instant messaging app steals my characters, I'd hate for my network management tools or backup apps to do it. And they have.
All right, granted, I extended your statements in what seemed to be the direction they were headed, without getting confirmation.
So let's deal directly with that statement, "my mind is not for rent", and leave out the baggage.
It's false. Here's why:
You say that you refuse to pay for your ISP by "renting your mind", which you say equates 100% to viewing their banner ads. Let's say, for the sake of this dicussion, that you're right, and it indeed equates. (I don't agree, but what the hell, I can win this by your rules, too.:-) )
You seem to be saying, of necessity, that you instead feel you should pay someone for your ISP connection. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please.)
Well, how do you make your money, Tom? With your mind, that's how. Only you put in a lot of work, thus a lot of mind power, to earn that money.
Then you pay taxes on the money, losing some of that mind power to pay for things like paying farmers not to grow wheat, or invading Panama to arrest minor druglords to pave the way for giving away the canal.
You're probably spending more of your mind on paying for your ISP connection than you would spend on banner ads that you would COMPLETELY IGNORE.
And then there's FreeWWWeb, which uses spam instead of banner ads. Tell me you couldn't justify spending 5 seconds a week to delete half a dozen (double the number they claim to send) spams, or even the short time it would take you to add filtering rules to your existing spam filter.
Heck, even if you *READ* their spam, it's less brainpower spent than you'd spend in the few minutes of coding, or long hours of authoring, you'd spend to earn $19.95 after taxes.
At my income level, a considerable chunk of my time would get spent to earn that dough.
And indeed it does, since I am paying for Sprint ADSL. I'd like to have a freeISP option, however, so I can reach the net from the road with a laptop without having to set up a PPP server at home. I damn sure don't want to spend $19.95, or even $8.95 a month to keep that option open.
There are people out there who can't justify spending that money if they have an option. However, places that can afford to give out free PPP access without recouping their revenue in some fashion are pretty rare.
Of all the ways they could recoup that revenue, I can't think of one LESS intrusive than advertising, which most Americans (and presumably folks in other countries that have lots of TVs) are trained to tune out anyway.
You don't know that because you don't have a TV.:-)
The idea that being exposed to speech automatically converts one to thinking like the speaker is ridiculous. That only works for people who don't have opinions of their own in the first place.
If you don't want to have a television, say "I don't want to have a television". To say "I won't use a television because it'll make me stupid" is well beyond paranoid and verges on psychotic.
If possession of a TV automatically made one stupid, you'd be the only smart person left on the planet.
TV isn't a sickness, it's a symptom. TV doesn't make one stupid; being stupid makes one watch too much TV.
Don't try to extend the cause and affect backwards, it doesn't work, any more than using Visual Basic instead of Perl automatically makes one a bad programmer.
We all know that being a bad programmer makes one use Visual Basic, not the reverse, right?
I for one am glad you're spending your spare time coding instead of watching TV, but it's no worse a waste of time than any other waste of time. If you're sitting on a park bench catching Z's, you're still not coding.
As for the ads; if you can't tune them out, don't assume that means the rest of us can't. I assure you that we can, and do, when we choose. The same is true of stupid free ISP banner ads or spam.
If you want to pay for your internet connection, bully for you. I pay for mine, too.
But don't tell other people that they're somehow mentally defective if they don't want to, or can't afford to. The benefits of Internet access, even to stupid people, far outweigh the inconvenience of ignoring some banner ads, or a handful of occasional spams.
Hell, you of all people ought to be writing a module called freeISP::spamblock.:-)
Re:Conspiracy theorists want no need to believe.
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 2
Show up on their porch and do what? Ask for six months worth of food?
I'm thinking that a guy known for feeding a jillion people with a loaf a bread and a couple fish isn't gonna tell you "well, the good news is I came to take you to heaven, but the bad news is you've only got five months worth of food on you and we don't feed you in heaven for six months, so you're going to starve to death."
Re:Conspiracy theorists want no need to believe.
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 3
I didn't stock up. I figure, I've got a gun, and my neighbors have got food, water, and no guns. Why stock up?
If you don't mind all these problems, and aren't using a Micro$oft OS, at least there's:
FreeWWWeb, which explictly supports Linux and Sega Dreamcast, and should work with any PPP-capable OS.
They send you spam instead of banner ads, and restrict you to 100 hours a month, but they explictly allow you to create multiple accounts and use them to go beyond 100 hours usage.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you figure that AOL was never about making customers happy? The vast majority of their customers are deliriously happy.
We're the weird ones, remember. Our opinions don't count for marketing purposes.
An example; I have Sprint/Earthlink DSL. A while ago, Sprint called my house and asked for me. (I wasn't home.)
My wife asked them what it was about, and they said they were conducting a survey about people's satisfaction with the service. However, they only wanted to hear from people who do *NOT* work in the computer industry! When she told them I do, they thanked her and told her there was no need for me to call them back!
AOL is *ONLY* concerned with making their customers happy; it's just that they target customers with very different needs from the people reading this.
Unhappy customers will go elsewhere; happy customers will stay. AOL just isn't very good at some of the things we think they should be good at.
Time Warner has limited experience with Internet access (RoadRunner), and AOL has absolutely NO wide consumer media experience, except for (you guessed it) ADVERTISING! So when you take a media Giant like Time Warner, and put it underneath an Advertising Monolith, you get so much diverse, wide range CRAP that you didn't have before.
As much as I hate to this, I think you've got it exactly backwards.
You're assuming that AOL's weaknesses will synergize with Time Warner's weaknesses to produce a colossal trainwreck, but I think AOL's history with Time shows that they are well aware of their weaknesses, and are instead going to synergize their strengths, to wit:
The world's largest provider of online services, which is weak on content, acquires the world's largest provider of content, *AND* a huge new customer base, *AND* a huge backbone that's already in the process of being turned into a massive TCP/IP network.
First they were a company that could afford to give away free 14.4k access and floppies. Then they became a company that could afford to give away free 56k access and CD-ROMs. Now there's a very good chance, if they do things the "right" way, that they can become a company that can afford to give away free 10Mbs access and set-top boxes.
Or, to put it another way; they just acquired 67,500 employees who do one thing really well; content. Some of the world's most desirable and profitable content.
They recognized that Time could solve their content problems in 1993, and since that time they've been kicking everybody else's ass.
Whether you hate AOL, love them, or say "AOL who?", the most likely outcome of all of this is that AOL becames more pervasive a part of our field than IBM or Microsoft. Don't be a bit surprised if they buy one of those two companies in a few years.
Me, I hate the bastards; but I'm typing this through Netscape (AOL owns 'em, remember) and keeping up with several industry and personal contacts through AIM while I'm at it. AIM is the only one of the "big four" instant messaging apps that didn't give us a big hassle to use through our firewalls.
If they can put one of those free web terminals they have out at Universal Studios in Orlando on every street corner and in the restaurants I frequent, I'll use the hell out of 'em, and I won't feel bad about it for one second.
If the IE and Windows are split into seperate companies, that probably means that the Windows group will write a new web browser that is truly inextricably locked into the OS.
They'll point to things like KFM for their reasons why. (I know KFM isn't inextricably locked into anything, but they're fighting technical ignorance here.)
Watch and see if I'm right; Explorer will include a browsing component at some point with no way to take it out short of massive surgery on the source code.
All kidding aside, this really overshadows the venture capital they've been getting for their proposed IPO.
Hope they can strike while the iron is hot.
Yep, I see it. Thanks for finding it.
:-)
:-)
Unfortunately, it's still half-ass. They only offer the Pentium III 500Mhz with 15" XGA screen, as if Linux won't run with less and NT will.
Also, they say they offer "Linux V6.1". There's no such animal.
They need to offer one of the Celeron 433 with 12.1" display; that'd give us better battery life, and outperform a PIII 500 running NT.
But, all in all, at least they're trying. It's easier to convince an OEM to do a better job than to convince them to start doing the job in the first place.
Dell, I give you a B-. Offer Linux on all your Inspirons, and stop violating both Linus' and whatever distro you're using (presumably Red Hat)'s trademarks, and I'll raise it.
Offer it on the Latitude's too, all of them, and I'll give you at least an A-.
Firstly, Dell doesn't support Linux on their laptops; they just have a couple of useful files available for download. I haven't found one of their laptops yet that you can order with Linux (somebody please prove me wrong, that'd make me happy.)
:-)
Secondly, Dell solves the problem by not building in modems. You buy a PC card. The cheapest one is a Winmodem, but there are other choices.
And then there's the whole DVD mess.
How ironic is it that we now have an article to which discussion about having sex with statues of Natalie Portman would actually be on-topic?
:-)
Yes, OS/400 has TCP/IP; and it's still buggy, and about two years ago they finally got it to handle 27 whole Mbps over Fast Ethernet.
Their TCP/IP service daemons often suffer from brainlock, in far greater frequency than any decent Unix including Linux.
People don't rewrite their legacy apps to use TCP/IP because SNA is more reliable on OS/400.
I can't speak to OS/390.
I guess he wouldn't mind John's input but the statement in the linked article seems to imply that John thinks the Linux IP stack is flawed.
If you think it's not flawed, you have a serious misconception about Linux.
If you think Alan Cox would be perturbed by someone wanting to fix it, you have a serious misconception (or, more probably, a series of them) about Alan.
Now, is it fatally flawed? No, of course not.
BTW, although Alan did the initial work, there's an awful lot of other people's code in there. I don't hang out on the kernel lists, but I don't believe Alan would have a claim on it as "his code", even if he were inclined to make such a claim.
It's moot, however, because the GPL makes it our code.
Every moron who discovers that magnets repel each other seems to be convinced he's discovered the secret to perpetual motion and will not be disuaded.
:-)
Nor should he be. By exploring his nonsensical notions, he'll:
1) Learn more about physics.
or
2) Be proved a moron while he's not yet in a position to do any real damage.
or
3) Both.
As for his posts; that's why we invented killfiles. Ignore 'em long enough and they go away. Get 'em to switch to UCE, get 'em kicked off a few ISPs for it, and they'll switch to running conspiracy-oriented websites naming their old ISPs as part of the conspiracy.
The story is posted by a Chinese newspaper, and we all know how informed our own media is...
I think the best way to describe the Chinese media is the fact that the Weekly World News gets a lot of it's more bizarre articles verbatim from Chinese press.
Those three software engineers no doubt busily employed building a Perl script to
s/Red Hat/LinuxOne/g throughout Red Hat's Japanese edition.
That, and the world needs a kick-ass laptop with a SrongARM processor or some other RISC chip with high performance and low power/heat requirements, with good Linux support for all the hardware.
Maybe that's the route the Amiga folks should take; instead of reinventing the wheel, make a kick-ass Linux system and add the necessary multimedia stuff to Linux. They'll have all the help they can eat.
Let me get this straight; you think somebody will replace your kernel with whatever they want, reboot, and the uptime will be your tipoff?
And you think this hypothetical hacker will be savvy enough to code holes into the kernel (as opposed to into the utilities, such as login, which authenticate users), but won't be savvy enough to fake the uptime?
Uhm, sure, yeah, that'll happen. You'll be warned of it by the monkeys flying out of my butt.
Yes, in that extremely bizarre contrived case, it would be a security hole. However, if we're assuming the attacker can replace the kernel with one of this choosing, *EVERY* Unix-like OS has that hole. They have the hole now.
If your system is that owned, you shouldn't be trusting what any piece of software on it tells you, not even the BIOS if you're flash upgradeable.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; what we need in order to put a stop to this whole stupid argument for all time is a writeable /proc/uptime.
Let people fudge their damn uptime and all the BS will stop.
It all comes back to two things:
/*, or rpm -e `rpm -q -a` ?
1) By default, do the "least surprising" thing.
2) Gimme a checkbox to make it work the other way if I want.
I would hazard the opinion that new windows that pop up shouldn't have the focus UNLESS the user can't accidently dismiss them with his typing, or accidently cause bad juju.
Both of these bad things happen to me all the time, and not just with Windows; CDE apps do it too. Sometimes it's not trivial to figure out what it was that popped up and vanished while I was typing, and sometimes it can be VERY BAD.
What if what popped up was part of a Unix app with root access?
And don't folks launch into the "setuid" arguments, please; what if you started that app as root on purpose? What if the popup was a confirmation as to whether or not you wanted it to rm -rf
It's bad enough when an instant messaging app steals my characters, I'd hate for my network management tools or backup apps to do it. And they have.
All right, granted, I extended your statements in what seemed to be the direction they were headed, without getting confirmation.
:-) )
:-)
So let's deal directly with that statement, "my mind is not for rent", and leave out the baggage.
It's false. Here's why:
You say that you refuse to pay for your ISP by "renting your mind", which you say equates 100% to viewing their banner ads. Let's say, for the sake of this dicussion, that you're right, and it indeed equates. (I don't agree, but what the hell, I can win this by your rules, too.
You seem to be saying, of necessity, that you instead feel you should pay someone for your ISP connection. (Correct me if I'm wrong, please.)
Well, how do you make your money, Tom? With your mind, that's how. Only you put in a lot of work, thus a lot of mind power, to earn that money.
Then you pay taxes on the money, losing some of that mind power to pay for things like paying farmers not to grow wheat, or invading Panama to arrest minor druglords to pave the way for giving away the canal.
You're probably spending more of your mind on paying for your ISP connection than you would spend on banner ads that you would COMPLETELY IGNORE.
And then there's FreeWWWeb, which uses spam instead of banner ads. Tell me you couldn't justify spending 5 seconds a week to delete half a dozen (double the number they claim to send) spams, or even the short time it would take you to add filtering rules to your existing spam filter.
Heck, even if you *READ* their spam, it's less brainpower spent than you'd spend in the few minutes of coding, or long hours of authoring, you'd spend to earn $19.95 after taxes.
At my income level, a considerable chunk of my time would get spent to earn that dough.
And indeed it does, since I am paying for Sprint ADSL. I'd like to have a freeISP option, however, so I can reach the net from the road with a laptop without having to set up a PPP server at home. I damn sure don't want to spend $19.95, or even $8.95 a month to keep that option open.
There are people out there who can't justify spending that money if they have an option. However, places that can afford to give out free PPP access without recouping their revenue in some fashion are pretty rare.
Of all the ways they could recoup that revenue, I can't think of one LESS intrusive than advertising, which most Americans (and presumably folks in other countries that have lots of TVs) are trained to tune out anyway.
You don't know that because you don't have a TV.
Oh, for ghu's sake, Tom, lighten up.
:-)
The idea that being exposed to speech automatically converts one to thinking like the speaker is ridiculous. That only works for people who don't have opinions of their own in the first place.
If you don't want to have a television, say "I don't want to have a television". To say "I won't use a television because it'll make me stupid" is well beyond paranoid and verges on psychotic.
If possession of a TV automatically made one stupid, you'd be the only smart person left on the planet.
TV isn't a sickness, it's a symptom. TV doesn't make one stupid; being stupid makes one watch too much TV.
Don't try to extend the cause and affect backwards, it doesn't work, any more than using Visual Basic instead of Perl automatically makes one a bad programmer.
We all know that being a bad programmer makes one use Visual Basic, not the reverse, right?
I for one am glad you're spending your spare time coding instead of watching TV, but it's no worse a waste of time than any other waste of time. If you're sitting on a park bench catching Z's, you're still not coding.
As for the ads; if you can't tune them out, don't assume that means the rest of us can't. I assure you that we can, and do, when we choose. The same is true of stupid free ISP banner ads or spam.
If you want to pay for your internet connection, bully for you. I pay for mine, too.
But don't tell other people that they're somehow mentally defective if they don't want to, or can't afford to. The benefits of Internet access, even to stupid people, far outweigh the inconvenience of ignoring some banner ads, or a handful of occasional spams.
Hell, you of all people ought to be writing a module called freeISP::spamblock.
Show up on their porch and do what? Ask for six months worth of food?
I'm thinking that a guy known for feeding a jillion people with a loaf a bread and a couple fish isn't gonna tell you "well, the good news is I came to take you to heaven, but the bad news is you've only got five months worth of food on you and we don't feed you in heaven for six months, so you're going to starve to death."
I didn't stock up. I figure, I've got a gun, and my neighbors have got food, water, and no guns. Why stock up?
If you don't mind all these problems, and aren't using a Micro$oft OS, at least there's:
FreeWWWeb, which explictly supports Linux and Sega Dreamcast, and should work with any PPP-capable OS.
They send you spam instead of banner ads, and restrict you to 100 hours a month, but they explictly allow you to create multiple accounts and use them to go beyond 100 hours usage.
This isn't an article, it's just some kid ranting.
:-)
Whether he's right or wrong about BSD, the fact is he hasn't researched anything, nor has he even formed a coherent thought.
That shouldn't have been an article on OsOpinion; it should have been posted in the talkback forum.
Hell, if it had been posted here it would have been moderated down.
I think the accuracy of this poll is summed up by the fact that I just gave BSD a rating, and it immediately jumped up to #1.
One doofus reloading over and over until Linux comes up, then entering "1" on all categories, can affect a lot of change in the standings. Ignore it.
(did anyone actually debate this a thousand years ago?
/. tablets of the time was a raging debate on whether it should instead have been celebrated in 1029 or something.
The last millenium was celebrated by Western culture in 1033, which was regarded as the millenial anniversary of Christ's death.
I'm sure that scratched on the stone
Hey! You got First Pedantic Correction of Incorrect Millenial Year Assertion of the new millenium!