"Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction."
Michael Badnarik is the only national anti-war candidate. Don't waste your vote on one of those two other guys.
I love the fact that the DOJ doesn't just want to keep their arguments secret from the public, they also want to keep them secret from the plaintiff and his attorneys. It's perfect. They'll never be able to beat us if they don't get to hear our arguments. Brilliant!
That's a distortion of Kerry's position. He voted to give the president the authority to use force but only on the condition that (1) we went in with global support (2) it was honestly the only option left, and (3) they posed an immediate threat. Kerry opposed the war because, well, we went in unilaterally, we didn't exhaust diplomatic means, and Iraq posed no immediate threat. Disagree all you want with his position (I know I do) but don't distort it.
According the Washington Post, it's not a distortion:
Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction.
Deficit Spending - A nation's money is its economic lifeblood. Passing on our debt to future generations, or defrauding the people and the government's creditors with inflation, are not options. Those paths lead inevitably to economic collapse; mine leads to long-term prosperity.
Immigration, Borders and National Security - Immigration and borders are two separate issues. When they are mixed, the result is both deadly to peaceful immigrants and subversive of the security of the United States.
Civil Liberties - The erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11 does not represent a new phenomenon. It represents an acceleration of long-existing trends.
Rights of the Accused - Of all the infringements upon our Constitutionally protected rights, the most egregious in living memory may be the post-9/11 "detention" of individuals--American and non-American--in secrecy and without charges or access to counsel.
The Draft - If a free America were ever subjected to attack, most Americans would be more than willing to defend themselves, their homes, and their families against the foreign aggressors.
Free Trade vs. State Corporatism - The twin tenets of peace and free trade are mutually dependent. As French visionary Frederic Bastiat once said, "If goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." When countries rely upon each other in peaceful commerce, the people of those countries have every incentive to avoid violent conflict.
How to Stop Crime Before It Starts -
"Crime rates go down when offenders must compensate their victims and responsible citizens are permitted to carry concealed weapons. Privatizing police gives them incentive to emphasize prevention and focus on violent, rather than victimless, crimes."
Military Policy and the War in Iraq - More and more Americans are coming to oppose the war, the war hawks and high government officials are beginning to distance themselves from the president, and the U.S. seems more willing than ever to pull out of Iraq.
How to Make Health Care Affordable -
"Health care and insurance costs will plummet if excess regulation is eliminated and malpractice awards are made only on the basis of strict liability. Lower costs, along with the savings from downsizing regulatory bureaucracy, will fund tax credits for those who establish Health Savings Accounts for themselves, their families, Medicare/Medicaid recipients, and the needy."
Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target - If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.
How to Empower Minorities Without Reverse Discrimination! -
"Prejudice is fading, yet minorities still lag behind economically. A labyrinth of licensing laws and regulations constitute the hidden roots of modern racial and ethnic discrimination."
Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Marry? - "Marriage partners, not government, should define the terms and spiritual orientation of their union in accordance with our nation's guarantee of religious freedom."
The Campaign for Real Mail is working on a solution to the spam problem based on HashCash and PGP. Once the technique is perfected, the idea is to build the utilities to make it ubiquitous. Details can be found at http://www.camram.org/.
So stop whinging about spam and start stopping it.
Primarily I'd add a hashcash payment system. Where in order for you to send me a message [that I would eventually see] you *must* do some work [e.g. find an N-bit collision].
May I suggest instead of bitching on slashdot you take a second and send an e-mail to the John and let him know how you feel. Practice your first amendment rights. Visit his web page as well. Perhaps the "slashdot affect" can do some good. Take a second and stop being so apathetic and send John Gilmore an e-mail.
Please note that you very well may not get an email back from him, since his server "toad.com" has been blacklisted by a number of ISPs. Hell, he may not even receive your mail in the first place.
I think that's one of the issues he's pissed about. Not to say whether it's right or wrong, but if you look at his site, he does point out that problem as being one of his main beefs with Verio.
Now, you say about outlawing the tools. Is Napster/Gnutella commiting copyright violations? No, they make software that shares files eazily. Any file. Every file. You configure it. It's a *general purpose tool*. It's like a car or a computer. That's ok, we shouldn't outlaw that. We should outlaw *specific purpose tools* -- programs which have only one or two functions which allow the user to break laws. Spamware falls under specific purpose tools. E-mail gatherers/spiders fall under specific purpose tools.
But is an open relay a specific purpose tool? Methinks not. Not that I disagree that everyone's within their rights to block or not block whomever they please, but an open relay has more uses than spamming.
Yours truly, Mr. X
...complicated problems don't have simple solutions...
To actually read the underlying judgment, and the extensive news coverage of the company's attempts at accomodation would take time away from composing witty on-line flames.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...NPR had excellent coverage of this story from the beginning...
Re:Without a 'quo', there's no 'quid pro quo'.
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 1
ost successful business people manipulate their workers with false claims of "loyalty". It makes perfect sense from a business standpoint but it is clearly a lie nevertheless. The only rational loyalty is to the bottom line.
I have to disagree slightly. While it is irrational to ignore the bottom line for loyalty, good business people strive to do right by their employees, especially in IT.
This is important, as the world is small, and the person you screw today may see you again in the future with the roles reversed. Burning bridges is imprudent, and in most cities, eventually leads to a dearth of work, at least in consulting.
There are currently two employees working with me who had all left the company in the past, but are back due to changing circumstances. The company did right by them, and they returned, which is good, since they're very talented.
Employees on the other hand are often not bottom line driven. They have emotional and personal needs their jobs fill which are beyond simply getting a paycheck. Good businessmen take advantage of this emotional weakness and profit from it.
Good businessmen do whatever possible to make sure that their employees have their emotional and personal needs filled, to the extent that they can be filled in a professional capacity. To do otherwise leads to ruin.
Then you may be interested in Americans for the Preservation of Information Security, a group working to keep ill-advised legislation from being passed that would deny us tools to keep our information safe in the hopes of denying them to terrorists as well.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...do something...
Without a 'quo', there's no 'quid pro quo'.
on
Morals and Layoffs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If the employee doesn't feel a sense of loyalty to the company, why should the company be criticized for not having loyalty to the employee?
The 90's were marked by workers hopping from one dot-com to another with remarkable speed, in search of a better deal. Headhunters were ruthless in grabbing workers, sometimes snagging them from the same company they placed them with as soon as the 'no-touch' period was over.
Where were the moralists when the shoe was on the other foot? They were silent, and the overwhelming response was positive towards a culture in which employees were free to pursue the best options available to them without guilt or recrimination.
And yet, Mr. Katz would have us believe that the worker is powerless before the "Corporate Republic". This same worker that drove companies into a frenzy to try to woo him during the boom, is now powerless when we slip into a recession.
Business is cyclical, and at the bottom of a cycle, jobs are hard to find, and companies layoff people as part of cost cutting. That's reality. It's the other side of the coin that gave us massive salaries and stock options, and record low unemployment.
The fact is, most people who are getting laid off are finding other work. The churn is going up, but the overall unemployment figures are staying pretty stable. Yes, if you had an inflated position, and were hired because you knew how to spell 'computer' in the midst of the boom, you're going to have some problems. But if you kept your skills up, the jobs are out there. Hell, my company's hiring people right now.
Loyalty appears to be on the decline, but on both sides of this issue, which would probably make for a more boring, though relevant, story. Way to take the high road Jon.
There are basically two ways that the government could implement crypto backdoors.
Option 1 (think Clipper Chip): The algorithm used to encrypt data has what is, in essence, a universal key. This can be done by not randomizing the full key. If the NSA/FBI/CIA/DoJ has most of the key, it becomes trivial to crack the rest.
To elucidate: Say we have a 25 character key. A random 25 character key would look something like:
jduHF456&#$HOUIMNYY$%#*kh
A quasi-random key would look more like:
SecretNSAPartJ788%$#%':kq
By knowing the first 12 characters, the NSA only has to crack through brute-force the last 13 characters.
Option 2 (escrow):
Whenever one generates a key, a copy or a complementary key is also generated, and held by the FBI/DoJ/CIA/NSA. If warranted, they can pull the key from escrow to decrypt messages you've encrypted.
Key escrow in general can be a good thing, say if one loses a key, or has it stored in a place struck by fire. Then one goes to the escrow agent, and all is well. This of course adds compromise risk, since there are now multiple copies of the key, only one of which is under your direct control.
The point that people are trying to make is that those who are likely to use encryption to do "bad things" are unlikely to use encryption products that are backdoored or have escrow features built into them.
Software is speech. It is a string of symbols that transfer meaning. A computer program - in source or object form - is just as much a legitimate protected expression as is a photograph, a blueprint, a mathematical equation, or a dirty joke written in Linear B.
Not exactly. Speech is protected at different levels depending, among other things, on "usefulness". Since software is a type of functional speech, it's protections are less than those for flag burning or pamphlet writing.
So yes, the speech (actual talking) is protected at the highest level. Software that implements the concepts is somewhat less protected. Software that is sold is a direct violation of the DMCA.
Personally, given the precedents set with dual-deck VCRs, I don't think that provision has a leg to stand on as long as the software has a non-infringing purpose. But that's just my humble opinion, and they've not yet made me a judge.;)
IIRC, there is a clause in the DMCA that protects encryption research specifically. As the presentation was an informational survey of eBook protection claims vs. actual abilities, I don't see how that would be something they could arrest him for.
Now the publication of a tool to circumvent the security of PDF documents, that's another story. Does anywone know which he was arrested for?
I've been following Metricom since the first version of Ricochet was live here in DC, and always thought they were cool. R2, at 128 kbps even when traveling up to 70 mph, beats the pants off of anything out there. Yet I didn't invest. Having been burned by Iridium, I was frightened by their debt. Staying away, I probably saved a couple of grand.
Even so, it's painful to see it finally happening. I believe in Metricom, and think that someone else will buy them out of bankruptcy, a la Iridium. That'll be the company to invest in.
Why is the EU getting a TLD while all of the countries within the EU have TLDs? Will all of the country domains, like.de,.it, etc, be subsumed under the super-entity, so one has *.it.eu? Or, as is more likely the plan, will a business in Italy have to choose between.it and.eu (while still probably going with.com).
I think that a headline proclaiming that the "Dept. of Defense Adopts StarOffice" is a little much. I'm working for the DoD, and we're using MS Office, as is most everyone else within the DoD. Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is a major coup for Sun, but by no means have they taken the whole DoD.
I'm sorry, I guess I must have halucinated all those Nancy Reagan commercials where she had some slogan or other like just "Just say 'no' to drugs. Yeah, It couldn't possibly have started during the Reagan/Bush administration in response to the dramatic increase in Coke traffic during the eighties. The first drug czar couldn't possibly have been appointed before Clinton took office. And a politician must be on drugs, and/or liberal to support the policies in place when they took office if the majority of the public supports them, for good or for ill.
Next time you use a word like Bias, look up the definition first.
The Reagan-era commercials were annoying as hell, but the "War on Drugs" started with Nixon's re?-election campaign. Drugs were actually getting a lot of societal acceptance, but Nixon was able to strike some fear into the soccer Mom set and get elected.
The boondoggle has spiraled out of control under all subsequent administrations, regardless of party.
Is this new for nerds? Stuff that matters? Is it in any way new? If anything I think this article will only illustrate the ENORMOUS divide in techie culture between the pro-drug and strictly businesss geeks. See flaming replies to this for more details . ..
News for nerds may be dubious, but stuff that matters is definite. When free speech is curbed in the name of the Drug War, when privacy is being eroded in the name of the drug war, and when your stuff can be taken, without due process, in the name of the Drug War, it becomes Stuff that Matters.
As mentioned in a previous question, if the Linux community wants to attract great applications, then they need to be willing to compensate developers and that means paying for software.
The willingness of Windows and Mac users to pay for software has led to a much larger pool of production quality desktop applications.
Similarly, back in the early 90's, it was well known that writing shareware for Macs was more lucrative than writing it for Windows/DOS, since Mac users were more likely to register and pay for it.
David Kahn's The Code Breakers is longer (1181 pp), better researched (with 153 pages of endnotes), and more detailed about the actual history of cryptography, though probably not as lurid. That, and it was written about 30 years earlier, though an updated version was released in 1996.
Slashdot Mirror
If you oppose the Iraq war, don't vote for someone who supported and continues to support it.
We know Bush supports it.
We also know that Kerry supports it. In the Washington Post article, In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War, Kerry makes it abundantly clear that he is not an anti-war candidate.
Michael Badnarik is the only national anti-war candidate. Don't waste your vote on one of those two other guys.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...keeping it real...
Michael Badnarik will be on the ballot in all of those states listed (except OK, where the issue is in court).
Badnarik opposes the war in Iraq.
Badnarik opposes the war on drugs.
Badnarik supports gay marriage.
Badnarik opposes the Patriot Act.
Don't waste your vote on Bush or Kerry, vote your hope, not your fear.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...beating the drum...
Where is the Michael Badnarik symbol. Ironic to have a market without a Libertarian, non?
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...curious...
I love the fact that the DOJ doesn't just want to keep their arguments secret from the public, they also want to keep them secret from the plaintiff and his attorneys. It's perfect. They'll never be able to beat us if they don't get to hear our arguments. Brilliant!
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...who is Michael Badnarik...
That's a distortion of Kerry's position. He voted to give the president the authority to use force but only on the condition that (1) we went in with global support (2) it was honestly the only option left, and (3) they posed an immediate threat. Kerry opposed the war because, well, we went in unilaterally, we didn't exhaust diplomatic means, and Iraq posed no immediate threat. Disagree all you want with his position (I know I do) but don't distort it.
According the Washington Post, it's not a distortion:
In Hindsight, Kerry Says He'd Still Vote for War
Michael Badnarik is the only national anti-war candidate.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...keeping it real...
I only listen to Rush when I need a new Vicodin connection.
...gotta get my fix...
Yours truly,
Mr. X
Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik's issue papers:
The Campaign for Real Mail is working on a solution to the spam problem based on HashCash and PGP. Once the technique is perfected, the idea is to build the utilities to make it ubiquitous. Details can be found at http://www.camram.org/.
So stop whinging about spam and start stopping it.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...spiced ham...
Primarily I'd add a hashcash payment system. Where in order for you to send me a message [that I would eventually see] you *must* do some work [e.g. find an N-bit collision].
I agree completely. Dumb network, smart nodes.
For those not familiar with hashcash, see the following: http://www.cypherspace.org/~adam/hashcash/
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...build a better filter...
May I suggest instead of bitching on slashdot you take a second and send an e-mail to the John and let him know how you feel. Practice your first amendment rights. Visit his web page as well. Perhaps the "slashdot affect" can do some good. Take a second and stop being so apathetic and send John Gilmore an e-mail.
Please note that you very well may not get an email back from him, since his server "toad.com" has been blacklisted by a number of ISPs. Hell, he may not even receive your mail in the first place.
I think that's one of the issues he's pissed about. Not to say whether it's right or wrong, but if you look at his site, he does point out that problem as being one of his main beefs with Verio.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...just the facts, ma'am...
Now, you say about outlawing the tools. Is Napster/Gnutella commiting copyright violations? No, they make software that shares files eazily. Any file. Every file. You configure it. It's a *general purpose tool*. It's like a car or a computer. That's ok, we shouldn't outlaw that. We should outlaw *specific purpose tools* -- programs which have only one or two functions which allow the user to break laws. Spamware falls under specific purpose tools. E-mail gatherers/spiders fall under specific purpose tools.
But is an open relay a specific purpose tool? Methinks not. Not that I disagree that everyone's within their rights to block or not block whomever they please, but an open relay has more uses than spamming.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...complicated problems don't have simple solutions...
To actually read the underlying judgment, and the extensive news coverage of the company's attempts at accomodation would take time away from composing witty on-line flames.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...NPR had excellent coverage of this story from the beginning...
ost successful business people manipulate their workers with false claims of "loyalty". It makes perfect sense from a business standpoint but it is clearly a lie nevertheless. The only rational loyalty is to the bottom line.
I have to disagree slightly. While it is irrational to ignore the bottom line for loyalty, good business people strive to do right by their employees, especially in IT.
This is important, as the world is small, and the person you screw today may see you again in the future with the roles reversed. Burning bridges is imprudent, and in most cities, eventually leads to a dearth of work, at least in consulting.
There are currently two employees working with me who had all left the company in the past, but are back due to changing circumstances. The company did right by them, and they returned, which is good, since they're very talented.
Employees on the other hand are often not bottom line driven. They have emotional and personal needs their jobs fill which are beyond simply getting a paycheck. Good businessmen take advantage of this emotional weakness and profit from it.
Good businessmen do whatever possible to make sure that their employees have their emotional and personal needs filled, to the extent that they can be filled in a professional capacity. To do otherwise leads to ruin.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...loyal employer/employee...
Then you may be interested in Americans for the Preservation of Information Security, a group working to keep ill-advised legislation from being passed that would deny us tools to keep our information safe in the hopes of denying them to terrorists as well.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...do something...
If the employee doesn't feel a sense of loyalty to the company, why should the company be criticized for not having loyalty to the employee?
The 90's were marked by workers hopping from one dot-com to another with remarkable speed, in search of a better deal. Headhunters were ruthless in grabbing workers, sometimes snagging them from the same company they placed them with as soon as the 'no-touch' period was over.
Where were the moralists when the shoe was on the other foot? They were silent, and the overwhelming response was positive towards a culture in which employees were free to pursue the best options available to them without guilt or recrimination.
And yet, Mr. Katz would have us believe that the worker is powerless before the "Corporate Republic". This same worker that drove companies into a frenzy to try to woo him during the boom, is now powerless when we slip into a recession.
Business is cyclical, and at the bottom of a cycle, jobs are hard to find, and companies layoff people as part of cost cutting. That's reality. It's the other side of the coin that gave us massive salaries and stock options, and record low unemployment.
The fact is, most people who are getting laid off are finding other work. The churn is going up, but the overall unemployment figures are staying pretty stable. Yes, if you had an inflated position, and were hired because you knew how to spell 'computer' in the midst of the boom, you're going to have some problems. But if you kept your skills up, the jobs are out there. Hell, my company's hiring people right now.
Loyalty appears to be on the decline, but on both sides of this issue, which would probably make for a more boring, though relevant, story. Way to take the high road Jon.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...been on both sides...
There are basically two ways that the government could implement crypto backdoors.
Option 1 (think Clipper Chip): The algorithm used to encrypt data has what is, in essence, a universal key. This can be done by not randomizing the full key. If the NSA/FBI/CIA/DoJ has most of the key, it becomes trivial to crack the rest.
To elucidate: Say we have a 25 character key. A random 25 character key would look something like:
jduHF456&#$HOUIMNYY$%#*kh
A quasi-random key would look more like:
SecretNSAPartJ788%$#%':kq
By knowing the first 12 characters, the NSA only has to crack through brute-force the last 13 characters.
Option 2 (escrow):
Whenever one generates a key, a copy or a complementary key is also generated, and held by the FBI/DoJ/CIA/NSA. If warranted, they can pull the key from escrow to decrypt messages you've encrypted.
Key escrow in general can be a good thing, say if one loses a key, or has it stored in a place struck by fire. Then one goes to the escrow agent, and all is well. This of course adds compromise risk, since there are now multiple copies of the key, only one of which is under your direct control.
The point that people are trying to make is that those who are likely to use encryption to do "bad things" are unlikely to use encryption products that are backdoored or have escrow features built into them.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...hope that helps...
Software is speech. It is a string of symbols that transfer meaning. A computer program - in source or object form - is just as much a legitimate protected expression as is a photograph, a blueprint, a mathematical equation, or a dirty joke written in Linear B.
;)
Not exactly. Speech is protected at different levels depending, among other things, on "usefulness". Since software is a type of functional speech, it's protections are less than those for flag burning or pamphlet writing.
So yes, the speech (actual talking) is protected at the highest level. Software that implements the concepts is somewhat less protected. Software that is sold is a direct violation of the DMCA.
Personally, given the precedents set with dual-deck VCRs, I don't think that provision has a leg to stand on as long as the software has a non-infringing purpose. But that's just my humble opinion, and they've not yet made me a judge.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...clarity is not Katz' strong point...
IIRC, there is a clause in the DMCA that protects encryption research specifically. As the presentation was an informational survey of eBook protection claims vs. actual abilities, I don't see how that would be something they could arrest him for.
Now the publication of a tool to circumvent the security of PDF documents, that's another story. Does anywone know which he was arrested for?
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...stupid stupid FBI...
I've been following Metricom since the first version of Ricochet was live here in DC, and always thought they were cool. R2, at 128 kbps even when traveling up to 70 mph, beats the pants off of anything out there. Yet I didn't invest. Having been burned by Iridium, I was frightened by their debt. Staying away, I probably saved a couple of grand.
Even so, it's painful to see it finally happening. I believe in Metricom, and think that someone else will buy them out of bankruptcy, a la Iridium. That'll be the company to invest in.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...humming Another One Bites the Dust...
Why is the EU getting a TLD while all of the countries within the EU have TLDs? Will all of the country domains, like .de, .it, etc, be subsumed under the super-entity, so one has *.it.eu? Or, as is more likely the plan, will a business in Italy have to choose between .it and .eu (while still probably going with .com).
Poor planning, IMHO.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...unintended consequences...
I think that a headline proclaiming that the "Dept. of Defense Adopts StarOffice" is a little much. I'm working for the DoD, and we're using MS Office, as is most everyone else within the DoD. Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is a major coup for Sun, but by no means have they taken the whole DoD.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...don't buy the hype...
I'm sorry, I guess I must have halucinated all those Nancy Reagan commercials where she had some slogan or other like just "Just say 'no' to drugs. Yeah, It couldn't possibly have started during the Reagan/Bush administration in response to the dramatic increase in Coke traffic during the eighties. The first drug czar couldn't possibly have been appointed before Clinton took office. And a politician must be on drugs, and/or liberal to support the policies in place when they took office if the majority of the public supports them, for good or for ill.
Next time you use a word like Bias, look up the definition first.
The Reagan-era commercials were annoying as hell, but the "War on Drugs" started with Nixon's re?-election campaign. Drugs were actually getting a lot of societal acceptance, but Nixon was able to strike some fear into the soccer Mom set and get elected.
The boondoggle has spiraled out of control under all subsequent administrations, regardless of party.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...and they wonder why I'm a Libertarian...
Is this new for nerds? Stuff that matters? Is it in any way new? If anything I think this article will only illustrate the ENORMOUS divide in techie culture between the pro-drug and strictly businesss geeks. See flaming replies to this for more details . . .
News for nerds may be dubious, but stuff that matters is definite. When free speech is curbed in the name of the Drug War, when privacy is being eroded in the name of the drug war, and when your stuff can be taken, without due process, in the name of the Drug War, it becomes Stuff that Matters.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...bah...
As mentioned in a previous question, if the Linux community wants to attract great applications, then they need to be willing to compensate developers and that means paying for software.
The willingness of Windows and Mac users to pay for software has led to a much larger pool of production quality desktop applications.
Similarly, back in the early 90's, it was well known that writing shareware for Macs was more lucrative than writing it for Windows/DOS, since Mac users were more likely to register and pay for it.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...freedom...
David Kahn's The Code Breakers is longer (1181 pp), better researched (with 153 pages of endnotes), and more detailed about the actual history of cryptography, though probably not as lurid. That, and it was written about 30 years earlier, though an updated version was released in 1996.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...better book...