They're not talking about defeating file sharing--just illegal file sharing.
See the difference? No, probably not. Copyright violation only happens when you violate copyright law. There is nothing in the letter or stated intent of this bill that would make P2P illegal per se.
Implied intent may well be another thing (especially with the backing of Berman, the RIAA, and the MPAA) but your statement is just flat out wrong. (and hence, unironic)
I've argued in favour of rational copyrights on/. in the past, and will do so in the future. I'm not sure that I'd put it in the category of a "very very very good thing," but I'd definitely defend it as a Good Thing when used properly. (the Bono act ain't it!)
I think that there are some real objections to be brought up here, though: What I can infer about this bill makes it sound like the FBI is pushing for greater powers to subpoena ISPs and get information out of them. What they currently have is far more than enough power to legally track and prosecute people sharing files illegally. I get the uneasy feeling that this is another board in the structure they call(ed) "Total Information Awareness." If you download one file illegally, they'll already have your number in a database, and won't have to bother with starting an investigation. Instead, charges will be laid the next day, at the convenience of your workplace, with the FBI hardly having to do more than pushing a button or two.
So on the one hand the government is restricting access to information, and on the other hand they're monitoring it. This goes against everything that libraries and free society in general stand for.
Should libraries allow unfettered access to porn? No, I'd just as soon not see it. Should the GOVERNMNENT be the ones to legislate what the libraries do? No.
Agreed, in a general sense. (I'm not a programmer, don't know about C books at all.)
The secret is that people tend to push their opinions to the extreme. If they like something, they love it. If they dislike something, they're offended at the wasted time.
If someone finds a book rotten, you can read about it at the bottom of the reviews at Amazon, or wherever. I always read these reviews, even though many of them are along the lines of, "THIS BOOK SUX0RS!!!" OR "I HATED ITS BAD LANGANGE AND IT WASNT VERY FUNNY AT ALL EVEN THO OTHER PEOPLES SAID IT WAS FUNNY." (For a fiction book, one hopes:-) Similarly, if they find a book good, it often gets glowing reviews. "FANTASTIC book--the best on programming HTML from a braille terminal ever written!!!!!!!"
The key is to read the thoughtful reviews, which are _often_ the 2-4 (out of 5) star reviews. There are very few technical books which actually deserve a five-star rating, and people who critically read a book will usually find some weaknesses. Similarly, it's hard to get published a book that has no useful information whatsoever. Even a one-star review doesn't mean that the book is utterly useless--just that the bad outweighs the good so heavily that you should stay AWAY!
Ultimately I find very little value in average ratings on Amazon or anywhere else. Everything between decent and brilliant averages around 4-4.5 stars, whereas everything from awful to mediocre gets about 3-3.5 stars. Reading the individual reviews is where the information becomes useful.
(As an aside, I only see two technical books in my collection which deserve five stars: "Unix in a Nutshell," and "Unix System Administration Handbook." Even K&R, wonderful as it is, has its faults.)
There _are_ places, true--but not usually where money is at a premium.
From a business sense, the LRP doesn't work anymore. Getting a free PC that consumes 30-100W of power constantly and is more likely to break (not to mention taking up a fair chunk of real estate) is very quickly outstripped by a tiny solid-state box running on 6W. Power costs, reliability, and size considerations all favour the dedicated router.
Now when you start lookng at a larger and more powerful router, using an old PC makes lots of sense--at least two of the three considerations mentioned (power, size) become about equal, and the PC is probably more configurable with the right work.
Then you get into the questions of initial cost (PC wins!) and ease of maintenance/use. The LRP attacked the latter issue very successfully, but also (from what I remember) limited the 'power' of the router to do other tasks. If you want to build a dirt cheap router from a PC that can do all of the whizz-bang extras (DHCP, DNS serving/forwarding, QOS, IPSec authentication, etc. etc.) then the LRP isn't the easiest or most effective way to build it.
PC-based routers? They definitely have their place. The LRP however, is getting squeezed out of its niche.
Heh. I'm a little bit shocked to find that MSNBC has managed to outstrip Fox for most biased coverage.
NPR pushes its own agenda of course (quite heavily), even if I agree with it more. BBC and CBC are both quite good, but they're out of country. For that matter, no one who needs to know about Hatch listens to NPR anyways.
My point was to appeal to the dirt-digging muckraking WORST of the media. Get someone at (insert crappy media outlet here) to really make it a mission to take down the Senator, and then watch the sparks fly. NPR doesn't hold enough sway to do that.
I'm visiting the US for a week, and have realised where the power here comes from: The Media.
CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, ABC/Disney, and ALL of the others seem to be based on pure viceral knee-jerk reporting. If you want to see Sen. Hatch get in trouble, sic the reporters on him.
Seriously. The media is living on exploitation, either their own or others. Exploit them to the best of your abilities, and watch things explode.
As only one (!) poster has already pointed out, this was done decades ago. It used to be that all of our plastic grocery bags around here were made out of biodegradable plastic.
Then we started to ask questions like; "So what happens to the biodegraded bags in landfills?" and, "why do these bags suck so badly?"
Neat idea, but it's not necessarily any better for the environment, and at the time they were a pain in the ass.
Re:Sounds Fantastic -- Now Why Not Hemp
on
Corn-Based Plastic
·
· Score: 1
Heh. Hee, hee. HAH!!!
Brilliant. Same argument, same non-sequitor.
Thanks. Perfect amusing thought to head to bed with.
Yep. And hops too. They grow FAR faster than hemp, at least in terms of height/length. Also like kudzu, it's a perennial vine, so it just doesn't stop. Hemp is an annual crop.
Sun definitely is in danger on the workstation end from the Linux boxes. GeoFrame and Landmark (and others) are all making noise about Linux, and companies are definitely looking at the possibility of Linux/x86 replacing the $40,000 desktops!
But I'm not sure how far it will go. Landmark announced NT support a few years ago. Where is it, or more importantly, who bought it? How many people are running Landmark on SGI desktops (another darling platform)?
The upcoming workstations will be a HUGE boon for Sun, if they ever get them out the door. The V210/240 and the B1600 are fantastic boxes in their respective niches, and priced well; as are the V480/880. If they can keep the prices of the low-end systems down, then the only thing that will stop Sun from locking down the position everyone is so eager to see them fall from, is the price of graphics cards. The price for a pair of XVR-1000/1200 ($3500 USD each) cards just isn't rational, and will probably be the biggest force to drive people to cheaper platforms. (And yes, I know that the cards can drive two monitors simultaneously. Some cases really need two cards)
The amusing truth of the matter...
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 1
Look at us. We're arguing over an article in Wired Magazine?
Journalism has never sunk so low!
(Well maybe Business 2.0. And Newsweek. Gah! I think I just depressed myself)
Very true. Sun can't sit on their laurels much longer. However, they simply can't disappear tomorrow, because there are (a) too many companies who need them to survive, and (b) too many companies willing to buy them out and carry them forward.
Professionalism, always.
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
In the discussion of a mass-resignation last week, one/. poster made the critical comment, "Be professional, always. Carry your reputation like the valuable asset it is."
This can be extended. Always work for and with professionals. Hiring young as a policy is unprofessional, and not someone you want to work for at any age. (Imagine if you get hired at 30, and work for this guy for four years. Do you get fired for being too old?)
The best part of all of this professionalism is thus: If you are highly skilled at your job, polished, and professional, then you may lose out on jobs to less experienced (but cheaper) people, but you will be at the very top of the list for skilled jobs overseen by intelligent managers who recognise that programming speed ain't everything. In other words, you will be first in line for the jobs you actually want.
Ageism? Yeah, it exists but only as a symptom of idiots you don't want to work for.
Apparently not many people here work directly in the Oil and Gas exploration/development sector.
This business is Sun. The servers are Sun, the desktops are Sun, the network infrastructure boxes are Sun. Big (BIG!) O&G companies have decided to standardise on Sun because:
1) The applications were developed on Sun 2) The data resides effortlessly on Sun (via Oracle) 3) The hardware is the same across the board with Sun
This is an enormous industry, and while they're considering Linux on the desktop (sporadically), the back end is still pure Sun hardware, and will be for the forseable future. Furthermore, when you have that much Sun hardware and require Unix workstations on the desktop, how much do you have to save in hardware costs to justify moving to a different platform?
Yeah, the CPUs are slow, but not as slow as you imply.
An USIII at 1.2GHz is probably comparable to a Xeon 1.8GHz or maybe 2.0GHz, for overall aggregate performance. For things that really demand large amounts of on-chip cache, the Xeon won't be able to compete. Ultimately though, the USIII is slower than it needs to be right now--they really need to ramp up.
HOWEVER, how important is that? Not very. The real question is how will a 64 processors Xeon system stack up to a 64 processor Sun? It won't, period. Even if the hardware is available, the multiprocessing pipelines for Intel just ain't there, compared to Sparc architecture. The performance difference would be HUGE, in favour of Sun. Furthermore, there's the question of busses. The CPU/memory backplane in the higher end Sun boxes is FAST. The device busses are FAST. The interconnects are FAST. The whole system is designed around bandwidth from one part of the system to another.
Then there's the OS. How well does Linux stack up on a 64 processor system? Badly. Very badly. Linux is as good as (or POSSIBLY better than) Solaris on the desktop. It is inferior for small servers, but the cost savings make it worthwhile for certain applications. For large servers though, it just doesn't cut it. I don't care what IBM is doing with Linux on their mainframes--in the real world of 8-32 processor servers, Linux/x86 just isn't a competitor yet DESPITE the faster (and much much cheaper) processors.
Sun is in danger here, no doubt. However most shops (and app companies) that use/develop for Solaris LIKE the Sparc architecture running Solaris, and will continue to use it as much as possible. Solaris/x86 may help out Sun immensely, but they _do_ have some breathing room to ramp up the speed of the USIII and the upcoming USIV. I just hope they make it.
Good points, but one has to ask which 'people' were buying CP/M. The answer is businesses--not people. Microsoft didn't invent word processors, nor spreadsheets, nor anything else along those lines. They MAY however (big conditional there!) have been fundamental in the invention of software-as-a-business-model. If anything (again, there's an "if" in there), THAT is why MS was instrumental in creating the current computing industry. Software for the masses, software that was (effectively) platform agnostic, and software that was an effective profit model all on its own.
I was about to say "read the damned post" and then I realised that I was thinking of another post I made on the subject.
I don't give MS any credit at all for the GUI model. Xerox did it, Unix did it, then later Apple did it followed by Atari and Amiga. Then there was IBM, and finally, last out of the gate, was Microsoft.
But before the GUI, it was Bill Gates who pushed the business model of software-as-a-profit-maker. The technology is irrelevant--without the cutthroat business that was built around software, we might never have had anything even remotely as advanced as we do today. Business drives technology, even though morally it should be the other way around.
As for that money being "his," well he exploited the system and the market to the fullest extent possible. In the good ol' capitalist system, it's his. (gag!) More to the point though, is that when anyone gets that kind of money, the best we can do is see if it gets used well. He's doing a hell of a lot more good with it than Jack Welch is with his stack, for instance.
Not trying to turn you into a Bill/MS lover (god knows I'm not!), but it's an interesting thought experiment to think about where we'd be without him and his relentless drive. (which make no mistake--was business and money, not technology)
Hmm. how about a utopian society where software was cheap and there were plenty of completely INteroperable platforms? I remember that the few programs which were available on different platforms had to be rewritten on each one, just like they are now for the most part. Common libraries and development platforms make it easier to port things than it once was.
Personally, I'd like to see Nolan Bushnel or Bill Joy singlehandedly in control of the computer world more than anyone else I can think of.
Note that I didn't say "a few years," I said "NEARLY as far"
Part of me wonders if we would have progressed beyond a command-line text-only interface by now if it weren't for Microsoft. If you work with that postulate, then it becomes a "ends/means" question. Does Bill Gates' destruction of the software industry as a cooperative venture justify his creation of the software industry as a profit-making (and therefore STRONGLY developed) entity? Not an easy question, if you look at it honestly.
Now on a totally tangential note, there's one thing that I respect Bill for fully. He has given a LOT of his own personal money to education and charities, and the only reason it's been made public (in the past) is that as Chairman of MS, he's required to divulge his finances to a greater extent than most.
Slashdot Mirror
Which isn't actually a regex at all.
"Will Linux do to OS X what it already has done to Tru64, Irix, HP/UX, AIX and Solaris..."
heh.
Hee, hee! Ho ho hooo ha ha!!!!!
Damn! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day!
Bah!
They're not talking about defeating file sharing--just illegal file sharing.
See the difference? No, probably not. Copyright violation only happens when you violate copyright law. There is nothing in the letter or stated intent of this bill that would make P2P illegal per se.
Implied intent may well be another thing (especially with the backing of Berman, the RIAA, and the MPAA) but your statement is just flat out wrong. (and hence, unironic)
Hmm.
/. in the past, and will do so in the future. I'm not sure that I'd put it in the category of a "very very very good thing," but I'd definitely defend it as a Good Thing when used properly. (the Bono act ain't it!)
I've argued in favour of rational copyrights on
I think that there are some real objections to be brought up here, though: What I can infer about this bill makes it sound like the FBI is pushing for greater powers to subpoena ISPs and get information out of them. What they currently have is far more than enough power to legally track and prosecute people sharing files illegally. I get the uneasy feeling that this is another board in the structure they call(ed) "Total Information Awareness." If you download one file illegally, they'll already have your number in a database, and won't have to bother with starting an investigation. Instead, charges will be laid the next day, at the convenience of your workplace, with the FBI hardly having to do more than pushing a button or two.
The problem here isn't that the government is infringing on my rights, but the libraries'.
In effect, this states that libraries will ONLY provide access to information that the government deems acceptable. Keep in mind that they also are trying to force libraries to divulge information on readers' habits and information access.
So on the one hand the government is restricting access to information, and on the other hand they're monitoring it. This goes against everything that libraries and free society in general stand for.
Should libraries allow unfettered access to porn? No, I'd just as soon not see it. Should the GOVERNMNENT be the ones to legislate what the libraries do? No.
Agreed, in a general sense. (I'm not a programmer, don't know about C books at all.)
:-) Similarly, if they find a book good, it often gets glowing reviews. "FANTASTIC book--the best on programming HTML from a braille terminal ever written!!!!!!!"
The secret is that people tend to push their opinions to the extreme. If they like something, they love it. If they dislike something, they're offended at the wasted time.
If someone finds a book rotten, you can read about it at the bottom of the reviews at Amazon, or wherever. I always read these reviews, even though many of them are along the lines of, "THIS BOOK SUX0RS!!!" OR "I HATED ITS BAD LANGANGE AND IT WASNT VERY FUNNY AT ALL EVEN THO OTHER PEOPLES SAID IT WAS FUNNY." (For a fiction book, one hopes
The key is to read the thoughtful reviews, which are _often_ the 2-4 (out of 5) star reviews. There are very few technical books which actually deserve a five-star rating, and people who critically read a book will usually find some weaknesses. Similarly, it's hard to get published a book that has no useful information whatsoever. Even a one-star review doesn't mean that the book is utterly useless--just that the bad outweighs the good so heavily that you should stay AWAY!
Ultimately I find very little value in average ratings on Amazon or anywhere else. Everything between decent and brilliant averages around 4-4.5 stars, whereas everything from awful to mediocre gets about 3-3.5 stars. Reading the individual reviews is where the information becomes useful.
(As an aside, I only see two technical books in my collection which deserve five stars: "Unix in a Nutshell," and "Unix System Administration Handbook." Even K&R, wonderful as it is, has its faults.)
There _are_ places, true--but not usually where money is at a premium.
From a business sense, the LRP doesn't work anymore. Getting a free PC that consumes 30-100W of power constantly and is more likely to break (not to mention taking up a fair chunk of real estate) is very quickly outstripped by a tiny solid-state box running on 6W. Power costs, reliability, and size considerations all favour the dedicated router.
Now when you start lookng at a larger and more powerful router, using an old PC makes lots of sense--at least two of the three considerations mentioned (power, size) become about equal, and the PC is probably more configurable with the right work.
Then you get into the questions of initial cost (PC wins!) and ease of maintenance/use. The LRP attacked the latter issue very successfully, but also (from what I remember) limited the 'power' of the router to do other tasks. If you want to build a dirt cheap router from a PC that can do all of the whizz-bang extras (DHCP, DNS serving/forwarding, QOS, IPSec authentication, etc. etc.) then the LRP isn't the easiest or most effective way to build it.
PC-based routers? They definitely have their place. The LRP however, is getting squeezed out of its niche.
Heh. I'm a little bit shocked to find that MSNBC has managed to outstrip Fox for most biased coverage.
NPR pushes its own agenda of course (quite heavily), even if I agree with it more. BBC and CBC are both quite good, but they're out of country. For that matter, no one who needs to know about Hatch listens to NPR anyways.
My point was to appeal to the dirt-digging muckraking WORST of the media. Get someone at (insert crappy media outlet here) to really make it a mission to take down the Senator, and then watch the sparks fly. NPR doesn't hold enough sway to do that.
I'm visiting the US for a week, and have realised where the power here comes from: The Media.
CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, ABC/Disney, and ALL of the others seem to be based on pure viceral knee-jerk reporting. If you want to see Sen. Hatch get in trouble, sic the reporters on him.
Seriously. The media is living on exploitation, either their own or others. Exploit them to the best of your abilities, and watch things explode.
As only one (!) poster has already pointed out, this was done decades ago. It used to be that all of our plastic grocery bags around here were made out of biodegradable plastic.
Then we started to ask questions like; "So what happens to the biodegraded bags in landfills?" and, "why do these bags suck so badly?"
Neat idea, but it's not necessarily any better for the environment, and at the time they were a pain in the ass.
Heh. Hee, hee. HAH!!!
Brilliant. Same argument, same non-sequitor.
Thanks. Perfect amusing thought to head to bed with.
Yep. And hops too. They grow FAR faster than hemp, at least in terms of height/length. Also like kudzu, it's a perennial vine, so it just doesn't stop. Hemp is an annual crop.
Just a random data point.
Sun definitely is in danger on the workstation end from the Linux boxes. GeoFrame and Landmark (and others) are all making noise about Linux, and companies are definitely looking at the possibility of Linux/x86 replacing the $40,000 desktops!
But I'm not sure how far it will go. Landmark announced NT support a few years ago. Where is it, or more importantly, who bought it? How many people are running Landmark on SGI desktops (another darling platform)?
The upcoming workstations will be a HUGE boon for Sun, if they ever get them out the door. The V210/240 and the B1600 are fantastic boxes in their respective niches, and priced well; as are the V480/880. If they can keep the prices of the low-end systems down, then the only thing that will stop Sun from locking down the position everyone is so eager to see them fall from, is the price of graphics cards. The price for a pair of XVR-1000/1200 ($3500 USD each) cards just isn't rational, and will probably be the biggest force to drive people to cheaper platforms.
(And yes, I know that the cards can drive two monitors simultaneously. Some cases really need two cards)
Look at us. We're arguing over an article in Wired Magazine?
Journalism has never sunk so low!
(Well maybe Business 2.0. And Newsweek. Gah! I think I just depressed myself)
Very true. Sun can't sit on their laurels much longer. However, they simply can't disappear tomorrow, because there are (a) too many companies who need them to survive, and (b) too many companies willing to buy them out and carry them forward.
In the discussion of a mass-resignation last week, one /. poster made the critical comment, "Be professional, always. Carry your reputation like the valuable asset it is."
This can be extended. Always work for and with professionals. Hiring young as a policy is unprofessional, and not someone you want to work for at any age. (Imagine if you get hired at 30, and work for this guy for four years. Do you get fired for being too old?)
The best part of all of this professionalism is thus: If you are highly skilled at your job, polished, and professional, then you may lose out on jobs to less experienced (but cheaper) people, but you will be at the very top of the list for skilled jobs overseen by intelligent managers who recognise that programming speed ain't everything. In other words, you will be first in line for the jobs you actually want.
Ageism? Yeah, it exists but only as a symptom of idiots you don't want to work for.
Apparently not many people here work directly in the Oil and Gas exploration/development sector.
This business is Sun. The servers are Sun, the desktops are Sun, the network infrastructure boxes are Sun. Big (BIG!) O&G companies have decided to standardise on Sun because:
1) The applications were developed on Sun
2) The data resides effortlessly on Sun (via Oracle)
3) The hardware is the same across the board with Sun
This is an enormous industry, and while they're considering Linux on the desktop (sporadically), the back end is still pure Sun hardware, and will be for the forseable future. Furthermore, when you have that much Sun hardware and require Unix workstations on the desktop, how much do you have to save in hardware costs to justify moving to a different platform?
Ultrix rocked?
Apparently there were two completely different products both named Ultrix. The one I remember sucked rocks.
Yeah, the CPUs are slow, but not as slow as you imply.
An USIII at 1.2GHz is probably comparable to a Xeon 1.8GHz or maybe 2.0GHz, for overall aggregate performance. For things that really demand large amounts of on-chip cache, the Xeon won't be able to compete. Ultimately though, the USIII is slower than it needs to be right now--they really need to ramp up.
HOWEVER, how important is that? Not very. The real question is how will a 64 processors Xeon system stack up to a 64 processor Sun? It won't, period. Even if the hardware is available, the multiprocessing pipelines for Intel just ain't there, compared to Sparc architecture. The performance difference would be HUGE, in favour of Sun. Furthermore, there's the question of busses. The CPU/memory backplane in the higher end Sun boxes is FAST. The device busses are FAST. The interconnects are FAST. The whole system is designed around bandwidth from one part of the system to another.
Then there's the OS. How well does Linux stack up on a 64 processor system? Badly. Very badly. Linux is as good as (or POSSIBLY better than) Solaris on the desktop. It is inferior for small servers, but the cost savings make it worthwhile for certain applications. For large servers though, it just doesn't cut it. I don't care what IBM is doing with Linux on their mainframes--in the real world of 8-32 processor servers, Linux/x86 just isn't a competitor yet DESPITE the faster (and much much cheaper) processors.
Sun is in danger here, no doubt. However most shops (and app companies) that use/develop for Solaris LIKE the Sparc architecture running Solaris, and will continue to use it as much as possible. Solaris/x86 may help out Sun immensely, but they _do_ have some breathing room to ramp up the speed of the USIII and the upcoming USIV. I just hope they make it.
Good points, but one has to ask which 'people' were buying CP/M. The answer is businesses--not people. Microsoft didn't invent word processors, nor spreadsheets, nor anything else along those lines. They MAY however (big conditional there!) have been fundamental in the invention of software-as-a-business-model. If anything (again, there's an "if" in there), THAT is why MS was instrumental in creating the current computing industry. Software for the masses, software that was (effectively) platform agnostic, and software that was an effective profit model all on its own.
Maybe...
I was about to say "read the damned post" and then I realised that I was thinking of another post I made on the subject.
I don't give MS any credit at all for the GUI model. Xerox did it, Unix did it, then later Apple did it followed by Atari and Amiga. Then there was IBM, and finally, last out of the gate, was Microsoft.
But before the GUI, it was Bill Gates who pushed the business model of software-as-a-profit-maker. The technology is irrelevant--without the cutthroat business that was built around software, we might never have had anything even remotely as advanced as we do today. Business drives technology, even though morally it should be the other way around.
As for that money being "his," well he exploited the system and the market to the fullest extent possible. In the good ol' capitalist system, it's his. (gag!) More to the point though, is that when anyone gets that kind of money, the best we can do is see if it gets used well. He's doing a hell of a lot more good with it than Jack Welch is with his stack, for instance.
Not trying to turn you into a Bill/MS lover (god knows I'm not!), but it's an interesting thought experiment to think about where we'd be without him and his relentless drive. (which make no mistake--was business and money, not technology)
Hmm. how about a utopian society where software was cheap and there were plenty of completely INteroperable platforms? I remember that the few programs which were available on different platforms had to be rewritten on each one, just like they are now for the most part. Common libraries and development platforms make it easier to port things than it once was.
Personally, I'd like to see Nolan Bushnel or Bill Joy singlehandedly in control of the computer world more than anyone else I can think of.
Note that I didn't say "a few years," I said "NEARLY as far"
Part of me wonders if we would have progressed beyond a command-line text-only interface by now if it weren't for Microsoft. If you work with that postulate, then it becomes a "ends/means" question. Does Bill Gates' destruction of the software industry as a cooperative venture justify his creation of the software industry as a profit-making (and therefore STRONGLY developed) entity? Not an easy question, if you look at it honestly.
Now on a totally tangential note, there's one thing that I respect Bill for fully. He has given a LOT of his own personal money to education and charities, and the only reason it's been made public (in the past) is that as Chairman of MS, he's required to divulge his finances to a greater extent than most.
But as a businessman, he's bloodthirsty and evil.
Heh. That would have been my second choice. In retrospect, it might have been my first.
Should I be worried that I recognised all of the musical references in this thread?
Bugger me. I utterly forgot to include the HTML tags.
Guess that's what I get for having that third pint at lunch.