1) There WAS an embargo against China until the 1970's, when Nixon started opening relations with them. Obviously, it didn't work very well. If the goal was to end an oppressive regime, obviously ending the Chinese embargo hasn't worked well, either. Likewise, I doubt that ending the US embargo will really do much for or to Cuba.
2) > has a very vested interest in China. This comes in two forms. Actually three forms, and the one not in your list was the most important, when we started trading with Red China. They were an untapped market of around a billion people, and everyone involved dreamed of hitting the brass ring in Chinese trade, just as did the USA's first millionaire, back during the British embargo against American goods, right after the Revolution.
OTOH, we gain nothing from ending the Cuban Embargo but killing the US domestic sugar industry, and some cigars that, if you REALLY want them, you can get by making a day trip to Canada, just as my cousin in Michigan does about once every month or so. Oh, and we get another Puerto Rico at best, if all the glowing tales of Cuba's "real" prosperity are to be believed, except one where no one can invest without a moral certainty that it will be stolen again (i.e., not even to buying a single beachfront cottage).
Since the Cuban-American community still wants the Embargo, it continues from inertia.
> The best way for him to see justice is to let him > get himself into the slammer for slander and/or libel,
Sorry, but neither are criminal matters, so unless he shows comtempt of court during the supposed trial, he cannot go to jail; he can only be ordered to pay most of his net worth.
> or be caught violating an obscenity law he helps pass.
Right-wing lawyer Andrew Schlafly felt that freely-editable wikipedia was far too liberal, so he created his own, "Conservapedia" as an alternative.
And you find this evil, why? Freely editable does not mean it is "the truth", just that anyone with an agenda may write or rewrite articles with HIS own biases. The hope was that with enough authors, biases will, on average, decay, but there has been little evidence of that for certain disputed topics.
Furthermore, Wikipedia publishes its own software with switches so that anyone can create their own, and enforce their own biases, or tighten the rulss on who can create or edit content, so they don't seem to mind a conservative view, anymore than they would mind someone else setting up a site with a firmly Marxist view (so long as the authors of the new wiki didn't propose repeating Stalin's Liquidations today).
> I do not know what the EU can do against a company that flaunts its laws.
The EU is already flaunting its own laws. The word that you (probably) want is flouted.
Sorry, but along with impactful, that mistake is one of my pet hates. And yes, I realize that flouted sounds like it means that MS is playing a musical instrument, but that is the right word, nonetheless.
A more interesting concept would be to have a major portion of the fines go to Microsoft's competetors. It was they who were harmed by Microsoft's actions.
But they are dead, or died in the womb. Would you pay AOL/Time-Warner for MS killing Netscape with IE? Or whoever bought the IP rights from Digital Research? Or IBM, for OS/2? How do you identify someone who MIGHT have written a better MS Office component, but never bothered, seeing what other would-be competitors experienced?
Just think how a few hundred million would benefit FOSS projects in Europe.
But clearly, they haven't been hurt. How can you reduce the monetary value of code given away for nothing?
I am sorry, but it looks like the EU budget is as good a place as any.
Wrongo! A number of USA state and local governments do. A few years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sent out notices that everyone had to compute the value of their personal property, and send that in. I had to estimate the value of my FRPG collection from college (about $1000, at the time!), my car (fortunately, it was a 1980 Chevy Citation, and so worth only a couple $100), and my stock portfolio (which is none of *your* damned business, but was more than the other two). What is worse, is that next year, the value of the stock portfolio fell faster than the value of the car (despite having a deer commit suicide on it, jumping in front while I was jamming on the brakes to avoid it) or the collection.
Fortunately, the outcry of more important people (almost every farmer in the state, for instance) led the legislature to repeal that tax. But supposed that they had excluded agricultural land, machines, and animals?
> no one is going to TAX me on the fact that I own some chair (personal property).
An authentic golden 17th Century chair once owned by Louis XIVth, and worth millions of dollars? They certainly can.
There was never an "industry" for things like books and recorded music for most of history, yet music and writing have existed for thousands of years. Cavemen painted on the walls of their caves. Nobody paid them, but it was still done.
Frankly, I think music in general would be a lot better if there weren't a bunch of corporations making widgets out of it.
Yeah, let's go back to the old system. If sucking up to a nobleman was good enough for J.S.Bach, it should be good enough for the rest of the music industry. Hell, maybe it will force Brian Wilson (Beach Boys) and Bernie Taupin (Elton John's lyricist) to get real jobs, rather than just living off the value of what they created years ago.
Let's see, the modern equivalent to a nobleman is...hmm...
Yeah, that's the ticket! We have to force artists to suck up to Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or the owners of the big record companies to get a chance to live on their work. That will fix things.
> if I had one piece of fashion advice to give to fellow geeks its: DON'T WHERE A BLACK SUIT!
Black with a subtle pinstipe is OK (no herringbone, though). It might be perceived as too high status, but using correct grammar spoken at a normal speed, and faking some manners, will ameliorate the impression of claiming excessive status.
Just remember, black suits with black shirts are only worn by mobsters. Or Johnny Cash, but you're not him.
BTW, if your black suit is making you sweat, it is too heavy for the weather, not the wrong color. A seersucker suit that heavy will make you sweat almost as much.
> These will last you the next 30 years easy if you don't get fat.
Or ten years, even if you do (unless you get fat really fast, as opposed to via normal aging and not increasing your exercizing to compensate). A good suit (even if not custom-tailored) has other uses, of course, unless you have no relatives who ever get married (except in Vegas) or die. If you are in the USA, though, most places selling suits off the rack still have tailors available to fix them up for the individual buyer. The last time that I checked, this was still true even at Penneys, let alone The Men's Warehouse, or the really fancy places.
> Normal, mild depression from events (death, divorce, etc)
Isn't depression, from the clinical PoV. It is just "the blues". Admittedly, sometimes severe blues (e.g., Queen Victoria, after Prince Albert died), but it is NOT what medical anti-depressants are supposed to be treating.
Here, Scientology has blind-squirreled into a valid point -- overuse of psychotropics is contra-indicated (true, by definition), and using drugs to correct normal variations in mood or behavior is usually overuse. They then screw up by assuming that since it isn't necessary when they are having a bad few days, it isn't necessary when someone is about to kill her children because of post-partum depression, or seeing college roommates who never existed, let alone all the other Nash hallucinations (although, he says that they were actually just auditory, not visual as in the movie). This is the same sort of overreaction to something working that generated Christian Science, or some chiropracters believing that they can treat cancer by spinal adjustments.
> No one wants to hear "go talk to someone and get over it,"
Because psychoanalysis is notorious for treating the patient for decades without any effect. Not all, of course, but enough that drugs producing real measurable changes in weeks or less looks MUCH better. It is certainly almost useless in psychosis or schizophrenia, except perhaps as treatment for the habit of crazy thinking after the chemical imbalances are cleared up, and only if there is a clear intention to get the person off any treatment within a few months or a year.
> or is that the total cost of R&D and manufacturing divided by the number of planes sold
That is the correct answer.
> How much would it have cost to buy 40 instead of 20?
Dear LORD, next thing you will be asking is if it would be cheaper to have guaranteed fixed-price contracts, but with no redesign from Congressional action (Proxmiring) or Air Force brass brass-plating allowed. Why, that's just crazy talk!
and the fact that their wing sweep angle in relation to the tip of the nose is way too low to even approach supersonic speeds.
No, that is a consequence of the decision to not even try to have supersonic capabilities in the B-2. If they had wanted supersonic capabilities anywhere (supersonic across the Atlantic, Pacific, or North America before going over the Pole would all be fairly safe from Soviet or Chinese detection, frex) they would have built a more stealthy B-1, or a bombing-capable SR-71 (well, an A-12 with more payload). In this case, the design wing angle would have been such that supersonic flight was possible.
In short, the wing angle did not dictate subsonic-only flight; the subsonic-only mission profile allowed wings more efficient in the subsonic regime which supersonic-capability would have made impractical. Assuming that you are right, of course (I think so, but IANAAE).
> These disposable balloons, while a cute idea, are simply too hobby/garage level.
Perhaps Google is buying them for some other reason. For example, it sounds like the original company was expecting to produce either very cheap, or very rugged, small cell sites to go up on the balloons for just one day. Either could be useful beyond the announced business model.
Names aren't numbers. The IPv4 numbers are running low, not the set of possible names using [A-Z0-9\-_] strings separated by as many periods as needed.
Ok, the really short names in.com or.org are largely gone, but 8 char names are still findable, especially if you get them from "odd" domains, like Tonga and Tuvalu, aka.to and.tv, who sell domain names to sites outside their nominal geographic area.
> So how to fix this? How about some good old government regulation?
Which government, pray tell? Will China bow to the USA government mandate to abandon their IPv4 ranges (although it would make great sense, given the desire to keep their people behind the Great Firewall)?
Anyway, the Internet isn't really under government control on a day-to-day basis, it is a feudal system under loose control by the great monarchs (i.e., the owners of the backbone services and links), advised by the various organizations (IETF, IANA, IAB, etc.), to which they sometimes have ambassadors or servants.
> If you want to provide a "Internet service", you have to provide IPv6 or you can't call it "Internet".
So the Not-legally-allowed-to-call-itself-an-ISP sells not-allowed-to-be-called-internet-service which happens to be perfectly compatible with "internet service" -- not a solution.
Furthermore, IPv4 fits into a small area of IPv6. The problem will continue until some major player decides to jump into the non-IPv4 addresses in IPv6 and reduce their old footprint to one or two (or 100 or 200) "public" addresses, AND TELLS EVERYONE ABOUT IT. I would be amazed if MIT, Stanford, IBM, or any of the other major computer research sites are not already internally IPv6-ready (for the most part; cell phones and coke machines, probably not), but no one knows because they are still in their IPv4-compatible address range.
All those embedded 8 bit processors with 4K of storage for the program are not going to be programmed in C#, C++, Java or some other bloated language. It's going to be programmed in assembly language. and tight code at that.
Even if you only program them in C (guilty, on 80552 microprocessors) or C++, you will still want to read the emitted assembly code to make sure that you wrote something that the compiler doesn't generalize to the point that it takes forever to process the inner loops or interrupt service routines.
They didn't agree to host them, they requested that the missiles be moved there.
Uh huh, says Pravda. Probably had nothing to do with massive Soviet assistance that drove the Cuban economy for decades.
Except that there had been no massive assistance at the time, since the Castro regime was only a few years old, then, and still doing well from confiscation of existing wealth.
1) The Ag-lobby isn't particularly strong (certainly not, when compared to, say, the French Ag lobby).
It's pretty strong in the US compared to the pro-Cuba lobby, which is the only comparison that matters.
If you mean, the pro-Communist Cuba lobby, well, yes. They are more powerful than the NAMBLA lobby, but just barely.
Under treaty, so long as we have trade relations with them, they get subidized access into the US market.
What treaty would that be? Right now, they get NO access into the US market. I'm sure that any agreement resulting in renormalization of trade would make any trade agreement dating from the early 1900s null.
I do not know which treaty it was, but the point was that only banning all importation from Cuba prevents them from insisting on their subsidies. When it was signed, we got cheaper sugar from buying a large part of their crop; now, since there is a US sugar industry (two industries, actually, sugar cane and sugar beets have entirely separate areas, owners, etc.) that has grown up since the start of the Embargo, we would be stuck with the cheap sugar, killing most of our domestic production. As to an agreement renormalizing trade, our embargo is entirely unilateral. The Cuban government can just sit back and wait (technically, they have offered to sell to us for years) for us to change our policy, then send in their lawyers to get their trade subsidies back.
> (Corn is a very poor source of ethanol, for instance.)
I agree. I very much prefer barley, aged in used sherry casks, for my ethanol needs.:-)
Re:If you want to see the real Cuba, go now...
on
Fidel Castro Resigns
·
· Score: 1
> Freeing the country will do wonders to bring the truth to light,
What are you talking (well, writing) about? Raul Castro is taking over from Fidel. That is, the brother who was a communist before Che, let alone Fidel, and has been quietly competant at his job, rather than a noisy failure (like Che) is taking over, now.
The best analogy that I can think up is that in this case, Felix Dzerzhinsky will take over from Stalin.
Well, agreeing to host Soviet missiles around 1960 would qualify as a seriously shitball stunt.
They didn't agree to host them, they requested that the missiles be moved there.
as well as the exceptionally strong agriculture lobby in the US which really doesn't want to see a flood of cheap rice on the US market
1) The Ag-lobby isn't particularly strong (certainly not, when compared to, say, the French Ag lobby).
2) The problem is cheap sugar, not cheap rice. Under treaty, so long as we have trade relations with them, they get subidized access into the US market. This is one of those treaties, like the one that gives us basing rights in Gitmo, that both sides must agree to drop for either to escape.
We have a do nothing photo op governor who is a democrat, both houses of legislature are controlled by democrats, and nothing gets done despite all of that.
*Despite* that? Or because of that? After all, the Democrats cannot gain if your government DOES start doing something (other than vocally suggesting that people NOT move there) because they already run everything (the only reason that the Daley Machine in Chicago still works well is that the rest of the state has a Republican Machine that would love to move in and sway the most regular Chicago voters (i.e., the graveyards) like they do in downstate Illinois.
We are the laughing stock of states in the union.
Well, you should be, and would be, if anyone gave a moment's thought about you.
Slashdot Mirror
1) There WAS an embargo against China until the 1970's, when Nixon started opening relations with them. Obviously, it didn't work very well. If the goal was to end an oppressive regime, obviously ending the Chinese embargo hasn't worked well, either. Likewise, I doubt that ending the US embargo will really do much for or to Cuba.
2) > has a very vested interest in China. This comes in two forms.
Actually three forms, and the one not in your list was the most important, when we started trading with Red China. They were an untapped market of around a billion people, and everyone involved dreamed of hitting the brass ring in Chinese trade, just as did the USA's first millionaire, back during the British embargo against American goods, right after the Revolution.
OTOH, we gain nothing from ending the Cuban Embargo but killing the US domestic sugar industry, and some cigars that, if you REALLY want them, you can get by making a day trip to Canada, just as my cousin in Michigan does about once every month or so. Oh, and we get another Puerto Rico at best, if all the glowing tales of Cuba's "real" prosperity are to be believed, except one where no one can invest without a moral certainty that it will be stolen again (i.e., not even to buying a single beachfront cottage).
Since the Cuban-American community still wants the Embargo, it continues from inertia.
> The best way for him to see justice is to let him
> get himself into the slammer for slander and/or libel,
Sorry, but neither are criminal matters, so unless he shows comtempt of court during the supposed trial, he cannot go to jail; he can only be ordered to pay most of his net worth.
> or be caught violating an obscenity law he helps pass.
That will work.
And you find this evil, why? Freely editable does not mean it is "the truth", just that anyone with an agenda may write or rewrite articles with HIS own biases. The hope was that with enough authors, biases will, on average, decay, but there has been little evidence of that for certain disputed topics.
Furthermore, Wikipedia publishes its own software with switches so that anyone can create their own, and enforce their own biases, or tighten the rulss on who can create or edit content, so they don't seem to mind a conservative view, anymore than they would mind someone else setting up a site with a firmly Marxist view (so long as the authors of the new wiki didn't propose repeating Stalin's Liquidations today).
The EU is already flaunting its own laws. The word that you (probably) want is flouted.
Sorry, but along with impactful, that mistake is one of my pet hates. And yes, I realize that flouted sounds like it means that MS is playing a musical instrument, but that is the right word, nonetheless.
But they are dead, or died in the womb. Would you pay AOL/Time-Warner for MS killing Netscape with IE? Or whoever bought the IP rights from Digital Research? Or IBM, for OS/2? How do you identify someone who MIGHT have written a better MS Office component, but never bothered, seeing what other would-be competitors experienced?
But clearly, they haven't been hurt. How can you reduce the monetary value of code given away for nothing?
I am sorry, but it looks like the EU budget is as good a place as any.
> but no one taxes you for personal property.
Wrongo! A number of USA state and local governments do. A few years ago, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sent out notices that everyone had to compute the value of their personal property, and send that in. I had to estimate the value of my FRPG collection from college (about $1000, at the time!), my car (fortunately, it was a 1980 Chevy Citation, and so worth only a couple $100), and my stock portfolio (which is none of *your* damned business, but was more than the other two). What is worse, is that next year, the value of the stock portfolio fell faster than the value of the car (despite having a deer commit suicide on it, jumping in front while I was jamming on the brakes to avoid it) or the collection.
Fortunately, the outcry of more important people (almost every farmer in the state, for instance) led the legislature to repeal that tax. But supposed that they had excluded agricultural land, machines, and animals?
> no one is going to TAX me on the fact that I own some chair (personal property).
An authentic golden 17th Century chair once owned by Louis XIVth, and worth millions of dollars? They certainly can.
> Weak argument.
Bad counter-argument.
Yeah, let's go back to the old system. If sucking up to a nobleman was good enough for J.S.Bach, it should be good enough for the rest of the music industry. Hell, maybe it will force Brian Wilson (Beach Boys) and Bernie Taupin (Elton John's lyricist) to get real jobs, rather than just living off the value of what they created years ago.
Let's see, the modern equivalent to a nobleman is...hmm...
Yeah, that's the ticket! We have to force artists to suck up to Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or the owners of the big record companies to get a chance to live on their work. That will fix things.
Black with a subtle pinstipe is OK (no herringbone, though). It might be perceived as too high status, but using correct grammar spoken at a normal speed, and faking some manners, will ameliorate the impression of claiming excessive status.
Just remember, black suits with black shirts are only worn by mobsters. Or Johnny Cash, but you're not him.
BTW, if your black suit is making you sweat, it is too heavy for the weather, not the wrong color. A seersucker suit that heavy will make you sweat almost as much.
Or ten years, even if you do (unless you get fat really fast, as opposed to via normal aging and not increasing your exercizing to compensate). A good suit (even if not custom-tailored) has other uses, of course, unless you have no relatives who ever get married (except in Vegas) or die. If you are in the USA, though, most places selling suits off the rack still have tailors available to fix them up for the individual buyer. The last time that I checked, this was still true even at Penneys, let alone The Men's Warehouse, or the really fancy places.
> Normal, mild depression from events (death, divorce, etc)
Isn't depression, from the clinical PoV. It is just "the blues". Admittedly, sometimes severe blues (e.g., Queen Victoria, after Prince Albert died), but it is NOT what medical anti-depressants are supposed to be treating.
Here, Scientology has blind-squirreled into a valid point -- overuse of psychotropics is contra-indicated (true, by definition), and using drugs to correct normal variations in mood or behavior is usually overuse. They then screw up by assuming that since it isn't necessary when they are having a bad few days, it isn't necessary when someone is about to kill her children because of post-partum depression, or seeing college roommates who never existed, let alone all the other Nash hallucinations (although, he says that they were actually just auditory, not visual as in the movie). This is the same sort of overreaction to something working that generated Christian Science, or some chiropracters believing that they can treat cancer by spinal adjustments.
> No one wants to hear "go talk to someone and get over it,"
Because psychoanalysis is notorious for treating the patient for decades without any effect. Not all, of course, but enough that drugs producing real measurable changes in weeks or less looks MUCH better. It is certainly almost useless in psychosis or schizophrenia, except perhaps as treatment for the habit of crazy thinking after the chemical imbalances are cleared up, and only if there is a clear intention to get the person off any treatment within a few months or a year.
> or is that the total cost of R&D and manufacturing divided by the number of planes sold
That is the correct answer.
> How much would it have cost to buy 40 instead of 20?
Dear LORD, next thing you will be asking is if it would be cheaper to have guaranteed fixed-price contracts, but with no redesign from Congressional action (Proxmiring) or Air Force brass brass-plating allowed. Why, that's just crazy talk!
No, that is a consequence of the decision to not even try to have supersonic capabilities in the B-2. If they had wanted supersonic capabilities anywhere (supersonic across the Atlantic, Pacific, or North America before going over the Pole would all be fairly safe from Soviet or Chinese detection, frex) they would have built a more stealthy B-1, or a bombing-capable SR-71 (well, an A-12 with more payload). In this case, the design wing angle would have been such that supersonic flight was possible.
In short, the wing angle did not dictate subsonic-only flight; the subsonic-only mission profile allowed wings more efficient in the subsonic regime which supersonic-capability would have made impractical. Assuming that you are right, of course (I think so, but IANAAE).
> Where's Pat Paulson when you need him.
Alas, he is now with Harold Stassen.
Well, now in the same grave site, but...
Perhaps Google is buying them for some other reason. For example, it sounds like the original company was expecting to produce either very cheap, or very rugged, small cell sites to go up on the balloons for just one day. Either could be useful beyond the announced business model.
Names aren't numbers. The IPv4 numbers are running low, not the set of possible names using [A-Z0-9\-_] strings separated by as many periods as needed.
Ok, the really short names in .com or .org are largely gone, but 8 char names are still findable, especially if you get them from "odd" domains, like Tonga and Tuvalu, aka .to and .tv, who sell domain names to sites outside their nominal geographic area.
> So how to fix this? How about some good old government regulation?
Which government, pray tell? Will China bow to the USA government mandate to abandon their IPv4 ranges (although it would make great sense, given the desire to keep their people behind the Great Firewall)?
Anyway, the Internet isn't really under government control on a day-to-day basis, it is a feudal system under loose control by the great monarchs (i.e., the owners of the backbone services and links), advised by the various organizations (IETF, IANA, IAB, etc.), to which they sometimes have ambassadors or servants.
> If you want to provide a "Internet service", you have to provide IPv6 or you can't call it "Internet".
So the Not-legally-allowed-to-call-itself-an-ISP sells not-allowed-to-be-called-internet-service which happens to be perfectly compatible with "internet service" -- not a solution.
Furthermore, IPv4 fits into a small area of IPv6. The problem will continue until some major player decides to jump into the non-IPv4 addresses in IPv6 and reduce their old footprint to one or two (or 100 or 200) "public" addresses, AND TELLS EVERYONE ABOUT IT. I would be amazed if MIT, Stanford, IBM, or any of the other major computer research sites are not already internally IPv6-ready (for the most part; cell phones and coke machines, probably not), but no one knows because they are still in their IPv4-compatible address range.
Even if you only program them in C (guilty, on 80552 microprocessors) or C++, you will still want to read the emitted assembly code to make sure that you wrote something that the compiler doesn't generalize to the point that it takes forever to process the inner loops or interrupt service routines.
> You'll be much happier for it; really, you will.
Just like Joey Pants' character, in the Matrix.
Oh, God, I just wrote approvingly of something from the Matrix Trilogy! Early Onset Alzheimer's, for certain.
Except that there had been no massive assistance at the time, since the Castro regime was only a few years old, then, and still doing well from confiscation of existing wealth.
If you mean, the pro-Communist Cuba lobby, well, yes. They are more powerful than the NAMBLA lobby, but just barely.
I do not know which treaty it was, but the point was that only banning all importation from Cuba prevents them from insisting on their subsidies. When it was signed, we got cheaper sugar from buying a large part of their crop; now, since there is a US sugar industry (two industries, actually, sugar cane and sugar beets have entirely separate areas, owners, etc.) that has grown up since the start of the Embargo, we would be stuck with the cheap sugar, killing most of our domestic production. As to an agreement renormalizing trade, our embargo is entirely unilateral. The Cuban government can just sit back and wait (technically, they have offered to sell to us for years) for us to change our policy, then send in their lawyers to get their trade subsidies back.
> (Corn is a very poor source of ethanol, for instance.)
:-)
I agree. I very much prefer barley, aged in used sherry casks, for my ethanol needs.
> Freeing the country will do wonders to bring the truth to light,
What are you talking (well, writing) about? Raul Castro is taking over from Fidel. That is, the brother who was a communist before Che, let alone Fidel, and has been quietly competant at his job, rather than a noisy failure (like Che) is taking over, now.
The best analogy that I can think up is that in this case, Felix Dzerzhinsky will take over from Stalin.
> when can we expect to see /. posts about Brad and Angelina?
Don't be obstuse.
Obviously, when Fight Club II and/or Laura Croft III are announced.
They didn't agree to host them, they requested that the missiles be moved there.
1) The Ag-lobby isn't particularly strong (certainly not, when compared to, say, the French Ag lobby).
2) The problem is cheap sugar, not cheap rice. Under treaty, so long as we have trade relations with them, they get subidized access into the US market. This is one of those treaties, like the one that gives us basing rights in Gitmo, that both sides must agree to drop for either to escape.
*Despite* that? Or because of that? After all, the Democrats cannot gain if your government DOES start doing something (other than vocally suggesting that people NOT move there) because they already run everything (the only reason that the Daley Machine in Chicago still works well is that the rest of the state has a Republican Machine that would love to move in and sway the most regular Chicago voters (i.e., the graveyards) like they do in downstate Illinois.
Well, you should be, and would be, if anyone gave a moment's thought about you.
Too much work. Better suggestion: use one of the local Kinko's, rotating between them. The printer equivalent of the street corner payphone.