So if I get this straight, it's against the law to save someone else the whole 2 seconds it takes to cut & paste a link?
Is that some obscure plan to make people think instead of being lazy or something?
Unfortunately, Touretzky is wrong: Kaplan's decision is a significant win for the MPAA. Here's why:
Convenience is a big deal. The MPAA doesn't actually care about preventing people from getting the DeCSS source code. What they really care about is ensuring that the code doesn't get compiled into binaries that are readily usable by the general public, or at least that such binaries are not easily available to the general public. If the only people who can use DeCSS (or some other implementation of the same algorithm) to duplicate CSS-protected DVDs are those with the patience and ability to convert the code from one of the forms in Touretzky's gallery and build the program, the MPAA has gotten what they really want: CSS will effectively prevent 99+% of the population from copying DVDs. And Kaplan's decision is clearly strong enough to prevent distribution of binaries in a form that is useful to most people.
Not like the MacOS way of obscruring everything about the system it can so as not to scare the poor users[...]
If you really believe this, you haven't spent much time using Macs. Macs are designed such that the average user doesn't need to dig around with low level stuff, but not to make such digging impossible. X only appears more configurable than other systems because it usually requires you to learn so much just to do the most basic tasks that you learn how to deeply reconfigure the system along the way. The Mac GUI is, in truth, only marginally less configurable.
That's something I'm curious about - Apple got rid of X and replaced it with Display PostScript, right?
I can't live without my xemacs, and yet with it, MacOX X would be my dream OS - enough applications to use in the real world, but stable enough for me to use for Unix/Linux web site development.
MacOS X won't run X apps out of the box. However, I've read that at least one third-party company has announced an X server that will allow one to run X apps under Aqua. Presumably, this would work rather like eXceed and other X servers for Windows. Note that this software will probably be fairly expensive.
But even if you don't want to spend money on the third-party X server, there's a fair chance of a decent emacs port to MacOS X. The port of emacs I use on Windows is just as good as the version I use under Linux. I'm not so sure about xemacs, though.
You've obviously not been watching it then! Cassius and Chaos2 both had wicked air rams which would flip another robot over - it's now quite a popular design.
Not surprising. Sawblades in general seem like a bad idea - it would take too long for them to cut deep enough to do any damage. And the lighter robots wouldn't be able to put enough pressure behind the blade to dig in, anyways. But a ram could inflict massive damage in a single stroke, and could easily flip over lighter or less stable robots.
But it seems like the design goal behind a lot of the robots is "Make it look scary to humans", rather than "Make it able to absorb and deal out heavy damage from/to other robots". The sawblade bots, for example. And what about Mechadon? I admit, it looks cool as hell. But I'd imagine that it's quite unstable on those legs, compared to something with a lower center of gravity. And it's effectively unarmed.
There's some interesting research into this subject going on at Herman Miller, which has led to things like Resolve and Aeron.
I don't know what I think of Resolve - it's just another cubicle, from what I can see.
But the Aeron is every bit as cool as the marketing literature says. We have Aerons where I work, and it's the best work chair I've ever had, by far - nothing else comes close. Apparently they've gotten a lot of awards for the design - every one of them is deserved, as far as I'm concerned.
The thing is amazingly adjustable: When I sit down in someone else's Aeron, I immediately know it isn't mine. It's rather like trying to use someone else's heavily-customized desktop.
I'm starting to seriously toy with the idea of dropping $750 on my own Aeron for home.
The happy hacking keyboard is a great way to reclaim needed desk space. I can't believe how much space traditional keyboards waste.
Are you kidding? The keyboard is the single most crucial part of my workspace. Minimizing size to make space for other stuff is about the last on my list of priorities when picking a keyboard.
My favorite keyboard: The MS Natural. Say what you will about their software, the keyboard kicks ass - I find it far faster and more comfortable than a standard keyboard, but the adjustment took minimal time.
AAAH! Why is everybody so obsessed with living in cubicleville? One of the most important things I need in my workspace is a door I can CLOSE.
I'm starting to feel more and more this way, myself. For a while I toyed with the idea of getting up early, showing up at the office by 8, working until 1, then splitting for lunch and taking the afternoon off, and finally coming back in to work from 7-10. There's just a lot of noise and activity around me in the afternoons, which makes it rather hard to concentrate.
Personally, I would hate working in an environment like this "IBM group". I love to innovate. I live for implementing ideas, no matter how late into the night it takes me. And as for myself not having a life, balony.
Almost invariably, what I find when I push into these late-night sessions, is that I'm not innovating: I'm single-mindedly working to implent a solution that I settled on back at a more reasonable hour. And frequently what I find is that when I wake up the next day, I've got a different solution in mind that is easier to implement and a better way to accomplish whatever it is I want to do.
You just described ABAP/4 (the programming language built into SAP) perfectly. Most of the tables in SAP have column names that are only 5 character abbreviations. Of German words. The comments in the source code that ships with SAP are mostly in German, too.
Also: All the standard tables in SAP have names of the form T###L, where the T is a literal, #'s are digits, and the L is a letter. This annoyed me a great deal until I realized that had they actually given the tables descriptive names, those names would have been in German, and thus less friendly to non-German-speakers than the terse numeric names used now.
There's another missing feature that one expects from a real database: stored procedures. Yes, postgreSQL has user-defined functions, but those are intended only to return a single value. Yes, they can return an ``aggregate'', so you can effectively return a single row, but if you need to return a table, forget it.
If you can tell me how to get Oracle functions to return a 'table', or variable number of rows (or even a single row, as opposed to a single value), I'd be delighted. Or is Oracle not a real database, either?
I haven't done much with Postgres, but my suspicion is that if you want what amounts to a user-defined 'function' to return a variable number of rows, you would use a view to do so in Postgres, just as you would in Oracle.
I've read many comments in which people say they refuse to consider PostgreSQL until it shows up on tpc.org.
I think that this is a load of crap. From the TPC home page The TPC offers a full membership for a yearly fee of $9500 and an associate membership for a yearly fee of $1500.
$1500 is a lot of money for a free sofware project to shell out every year.
Are you crazy? What are the developers on those OSS projects using to do their development? C-64s? I'd be surprised if any one member spent less than $500/year on computer equipment. Between this and the financial benefits that a developer could see if Postgres began to be taken seriously and adopted by corporations, $1500 split among a few developers is nothing.
If you do not want to be confined by ansient constraints like 2K for a varchar.
Oracle permits varchar lengths up to 4000. And with CLOBs up to 2 GB available, it's not like you need more in your varchars, anyways. Sure, there are some things you can't do with [CB]LOBs (i.e. no normal indices or unique/primary key constraints), but mostly those are things you wouldn't want to do with the kind of data you put into a CLOB, anyways. Well, not if you care about performance, anyways...
If you look past your preconceptions and prejudices, you might be surprised. William F. Buckley, an extremely influential conservative, said that The War on Drugs is Lost, and that we need to take a different approach to the problem.
So does this mean that GWB's presidential platform will include substantial reform of the 'War On Drugs'? No? Then the point stands.
Why is it we don't like ads? Is it because they are intrusive? Like blaring used car commericals and telemarketers or because we don't like to feel like we're being manipulated.
If ads can be smuggled in with legitimate programming, is that a bad thing because it is even more subliminal or is it a good thing because it removes interruptions?
Good question. I think the main reason I personally dislike ads is the intrusiveness. Last year I spent a fair amount of time living in an apartment where someone else was paying for HBO. I got to really like all of their original shows, and a big part of the reason was the fact that I could sit down and be absorbed for an hour, without being smacked in the face with noisy flashy ads for deodorant every 5-10 minutes. After a while, I found that I couldn't really enjoy conventional ad-interrupted television any longer.
So I have mixed feelings about the product placement type of advertising. One one hand, I like the fact that there's no overt interruption of my experience. On the other hand, I worry that what starts out as superficial product placement could develop into advertisers having increasing clout over deeper aspects, like the plot of a narrative. Actually, I'd say that we already see this sort of influence on current ad-supported television - ad supported programming will want to try to make the watcher more receptive to advertising, and that can't help but influence its creative content. But without explicit commercials, the needs of advertisers will probably come to play a much more overt role in all aspects of production.
how is this the same as music, where you _pay_ for the music you get, unless you download it for free?
Or listen to it on the radio...
Anyways, it sounds like you didn't read the article. The point is that Tivo and ReplayTV are new developments that have the potential to seriously screw with the business models of older, established media companies. That's how they're similar to Napster. But unlike the RIAA, the TV industry wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if they tried to go after these companies in court.
Why do so few free services appear these days? What happened to, "I'm doing it for fun, and if I make a few bucks, then that's icing on the cake"? Like Slashdot, for instance, and photo.net, for another. Everything now has to make millions of bucks, or else it's not worth doing, apparently.
What if Remarq had a form where you could enter a credit card number and give a donation in whatever amount you deemed appropriate? Or how about Slashdot? Would you donate? Do you think an appreciable number of people would donate?
If I have a piece of your work, and I give a copy to a friend, you've lost nothing unless that gift prevents a potential sell. But in the case of abandonware, there is no potential of a sell.
Not true. When you give away an old game that is no longer being sold, you may be preventing a sale of a more current game - maybe your friend will go replay the original Legend of Zelda instead of buying Zelda 64.
But while I think you can't look at individual programs in isolation when trying to understand the copyright holders' motivations, my suspicion is that you're right: Nostalgia gaming (which I sometimes participate in) doesn't interfere much with purchases of current games. There are significant differences in the psychology behind the two. I recently downloaded an NES emulator and a number of ROMs. I wanted to try out some games I'd wanted as a kid, but had never actually played. Had the emulator and ROMs not been available, I wouldn't have gone out and bought a more recent game, instead.
But realistically, 95% of all 'user-friendly' interfaces just present 'One True Way' to do something.
Not really. X seems more flexible to you, because you have to learn so much about it just to do the most basic things that you are forced to acquire the knowledge to customize it.
MacOS (which you didn't explicitly name, but which I suspect you would accuse of being a 'One True Way' interface), in contrast, is much more comprehensible out of the box, and thus you don't *need* to figure out how to customize it. This doesn't mean that it isn't customizable. MacOS is about as customizable as X, but since users aren't forced to learn a lot of details in order to use the system, most users will never make the effort to figure out what is required.
The worst point I've seen, by far, is the apparent inability to work on multiple virtual screens.
...
Apple really did have something like this working back in 1986 (I believe) with Andy Hertzfield's "Switcher" when you could "virtualize" your Mac 512K (or above) into 4 (or more) 128K Macs with their own screens. Most people thought this was all about running multiple programs, but it was *really* about eliminating screen clutter. But then the idea got sucked up into the vortex of history, and what got spat out in the end is the lame cooperative multi-tasking set-up that MacOS has been stuck with ever since.
Like many things that power users unfamiliar with the Mac complain about, the virtual desktops you desire *are* available on MacOS - just not provided by default or as part of the OS. There are a few 3rd party programs that provided one with multiple virtual desktops. I was using one of these programs on my old SE/30 at least 5 years ago, and the particular program I was using had been around for a few years when I found it.
The limits of their abilities are that of the tools in which they use. If you stop flow of or take away the tools the Script Kiddies use, then they will actually have to learn how TCP/IP works and how to right a superior line of code.
Most script kiddies, if faced with the need to learn to write 'a superior line of code' in order to break into a system, will go off to play a game of Quake instead. And most of those who do learn to write good code will probably find themselves more interested by constructive applications of their newfound abilities.
Without the contributions of these people, none of that fast modern technological development would have happened. Now tell me which of the below were more important to the people listed above:
Modern IP Law: 1709(Statute of Anne) Printing Press: ~1450
Actually, I think you may be generally right, but IP law and the printing press are so closely intertwined that it's hard to speak of one without the other: Sure IP law appears to vastly expand the number of people who can hope to make a living by thinking up new ideas (whether they be technology, science, or art).
But is that really the case? A lot of other things have changed in the last several centuries - the development of the middle class, for example. Today, instead of drawing on a few wealthy patrons for support, artists and inventors can draw on the much larger (in total) resources of the middle class. IP law seems to be the mechanism by which this can happen, but are we certain that it's necessary? IP law and the middle class both appear to have grown out of the same event (the invention of the printing press), so we really don't have a clear idea of what a society with a middle class but no IP law (or IP law but no middle class!) would look like.
I love playing Half-life, and I figure if I break even (Kill/Deaths) it's pretty good. You have to figure if there's 12 others trying to kill you, then that's REALLY good actually.
No, it's slightly better than average: For each death, there is a killer (with the exception of 'accidental' or 'self-inflicted' deaths (i.e. falling from a great height or shooting a rocket at your own feet)). This means that unless you're on a server full of klutzes that keep killing themselves, there will usually be about as many kills as deaths. So the average player's performance will be to break even.
Here's a more concrete example: On a server with 10 players, player 1 kills 2, 2 kills 3, and so on, with 10 killing 1. Then each player has 1 kill and 1 death, despite the fact that each seems to be facing 9:1 odds.
Of course all this assumes that it's a free-for-all situation. If those 12 others trying to kill you aren't also trying to kill each other then, yes, 'breaking even' is pretty impressive.
Oh please god, no. The Simpsons is perfect in 22 minute bites. I just can't see it scaling up to a full-length movie. I think you'd end up with something like one of the SNL movie disasters.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I get this straight, it's against the law to save someone else the whole 2 seconds it takes to cut & paste a link?
Is that some obscure plan to make people think instead of being lazy or something?
Unfortunately, Touretzky is wrong: Kaplan's decision is a significant win for the MPAA. Here's why:
Convenience is a big deal. The MPAA doesn't actually care about preventing people from getting the DeCSS source code. What they really care about is ensuring that the code doesn't get compiled into binaries that are readily usable by the general public, or at least that such binaries are not easily available to the general public. If the only people who can use DeCSS (or some other implementation of the same algorithm) to duplicate CSS-protected DVDs are those with the patience and ability to convert the code from one of the forms in Touretzky's gallery and build the program, the MPAA has gotten what they really want: CSS will effectively prevent 99+% of the population from copying DVDs. And Kaplan's decision is clearly strong enough to prevent distribution of binaries in a form that is useful to most people.
If you really believe this, you haven't spent much time using Macs. Macs are designed such that the average user doesn't need to dig around with low level stuff, but not to make such digging impossible. X only appears more configurable than other systems because it usually requires you to learn so much just to do the most basic tasks that you learn how to deeply reconfigure the system along the way. The Mac GUI is, in truth, only marginally less configurable.
That's something I'm curious about - Apple got rid of X and replaced it with Display PostScript, right?
I can't live without my xemacs, and yet with it, MacOX X would be my dream OS - enough applications to use in the real world, but stable enough for me to use for Unix/Linux web site development.
MacOS X won't run X apps out of the box. However, I've read that at least one third-party company has announced an X server that will allow one to run X apps under Aqua. Presumably, this would work rather like eXceed and other X servers for Windows. Note that this software will probably be fairly expensive.
But even if you don't want to spend money on the third-party X server, there's a fair chance of a decent emacs port to MacOS X. The port of emacs I use on Windows is just as good as the version I use under Linux. I'm not so sure about xemacs, though.
Not surprising. Sawblades in general seem like a bad idea - it would take too long for them to cut deep enough to do any damage. And the lighter robots wouldn't be able to put enough pressure behind the blade to dig in, anyways. But a ram could inflict massive damage in a single stroke, and could easily flip over lighter or less stable robots.
But it seems like the design goal behind a lot of the robots is "Make it look scary to humans", rather than "Make it able to absorb and deal out heavy damage from/to other robots". The sawblade bots, for example. And what about Mechadon? I admit, it looks cool as hell. But I'd imagine that it's quite unstable on those legs, compared to something with a lower center of gravity. And it's effectively unarmed.
I don't know what I think of Resolve - it's just another cubicle, from what I can see.
But the Aeron is every bit as cool as the marketing literature says. We have Aerons where I work, and it's the best work chair I've ever had, by far - nothing else comes close. Apparently they've gotten a lot of awards for the design - every one of them is deserved, as far as I'm concerned.
The thing is amazingly adjustable: When I sit down in someone else's Aeron, I immediately know it isn't mine. It's rather like trying to use someone else's heavily-customized desktop.
I'm starting to seriously toy with the idea of dropping $750 on my own Aeron for home.
Are you kidding? The keyboard is the single most crucial part of my workspace. Minimizing size to make space for other stuff is about the last on my list of priorities when picking a keyboard.
My favorite keyboard: The MS Natural. Say what you will about their software, the keyboard kicks ass - I find it far faster and more comfortable than a standard keyboard, but the adjustment took minimal time.
I'm starting to feel more and more this way, myself. For a while I toyed with the idea of getting up early, showing up at the office by 8, working until 1, then splitting for lunch and taking the afternoon off, and finally coming back in to work from 7-10. There's just a lot of noise and activity around me in the afternoons, which makes it rather hard to concentrate.
Almost invariably, what I find when I push into these late-night sessions, is that I'm not innovating: I'm single-mindedly working to implent a solution that I settled on back at a more reasonable hour. And frequently what I find is that when I wake up the next day, I've got a different solution in mind that is easier to implement and a better way to accomplish whatever it is I want to do.
You just described ABAP/4 (the programming language built into SAP) perfectly. Most of the tables in SAP have column names that are only 5 character abbreviations. Of German words. The comments in the source code that ships with SAP are mostly in German, too.
Also: All the standard tables in SAP have names of the form T###L, where the T is a literal, #'s are digits, and the L is a letter. This annoyed me a great deal until I realized that had they actually given the tables descriptive names, those names would have been in German, and thus less friendly to non-German-speakers than the terse numeric names used now.
If you can tell me how to get Oracle functions to return a 'table', or variable number of rows (or even a single row, as opposed to a single value), I'd be delighted. Or is Oracle not a real database, either?
I haven't done much with Postgres, but my suspicion is that if you want what amounts to a user-defined 'function' to return a variable number of rows, you would use a view to do so in Postgres, just as you would in Oracle.
I've read many comments in which people say they refuse to consider PostgreSQL until it shows up on tpc.org.
I think that this is a load of crap. From the TPC home page The TPC offers a full membership for a yearly fee of $9500 and an associate membership for a yearly fee of $1500.
$1500 is a lot of money for a free sofware project to shell out every year.
Are you crazy? What are the developers on those OSS projects using to do their development? C-64s? I'd be surprised if any one member spent less than $500/year on computer equipment. Between this and the financial benefits that a developer could see if Postgres began to be taken seriously and adopted by corporations, $1500 split among a few developers is nothing.
Oracle permits varchar lengths up to 4000. And with CLOBs up to 2 GB available, it's not like you need more in your varchars, anyways. Sure, there are some things you can't do with [CB]LOBs (i.e. no normal indices or unique/primary key constraints), but mostly those are things you wouldn't want to do with the kind of data you put into a CLOB, anyways. Well, not if you care about performance, anyways...
If you look past your preconceptions and prejudices, you might be surprised. William F. Buckley, an extremely influential conservative, said that The War on Drugs is Lost, and that we need to take a different approach to the problem.
So does this mean that GWB's presidential platform will include substantial reform of the 'War On Drugs'? No? Then the point stands.
Why is it we don't like ads? Is it because they are intrusive? Like blaring used car commericals and telemarketers or because we don't like to feel like we're being manipulated.
If ads can be smuggled in with legitimate programming, is that a bad thing because it is even more subliminal or is it a good thing because it removes interruptions?
Good question. I think the main reason I personally dislike ads is the intrusiveness. Last year I spent a fair amount of time living in an apartment where someone else was paying for HBO. I got to really like all of their original shows, and a big part of the reason was the fact that I could sit down and be absorbed for an hour, without being smacked in the face with noisy flashy ads for deodorant every 5-10 minutes. After a while, I found that I couldn't really enjoy conventional ad-interrupted television any longer.
So I have mixed feelings about the product placement type of advertising. One one hand, I like the fact that there's no overt interruption of my experience. On the other hand, I worry that what starts out as superficial product placement could develop into advertisers having increasing clout over deeper aspects, like the plot of a narrative. Actually, I'd say that we already see this sort of influence on current ad-supported television - ad supported programming will want to try to make the watcher more receptive to advertising, and that can't help but influence its creative content. But without explicit commercials, the needs of advertisers will probably come to play a much more overt role in all aspects of production.
Or listen to it on the radio...
Anyways, it sounds like you didn't read the article. The point is that Tivo and ReplayTV are new developments that have the potential to seriously screw with the business models of older, established media companies. That's how they're similar to Napster. But unlike the RIAA, the TV industry wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on if they tried to go after these companies in court.
What if Remarq had a form where you could enter a credit card number and give a donation in whatever amount you deemed appropriate? Or how about Slashdot? Would you donate? Do you think an appreciable number of people would donate?
No?
Well, that's what happened to generosity.
I suspect that most scholars would prefer not to be defended by someone who can't spell "perfect".
Not true. When you give away an old game that is no longer being sold, you may be preventing a sale of a more current game - maybe your friend will go replay the original Legend of Zelda instead of buying Zelda 64.
But while I think you can't look at individual programs in isolation when trying to understand the copyright holders' motivations, my suspicion is that you're right: Nostalgia gaming (which I sometimes participate in) doesn't interfere much with purchases of current games. There are significant differences in the psychology behind the two. I recently downloaded an NES emulator and a number of ROMs. I wanted to try out some games I'd wanted as a kid, but had never actually played. Had the emulator and ROMs not been available, I wouldn't have gone out and bought a more recent game, instead.
Not really. X seems more flexible to you, because you have to learn so much about it just to do the most basic things that you are forced to acquire the knowledge to customize it.
MacOS (which you didn't explicitly name, but which I suspect you would accuse of being a 'One True Way' interface), in contrast, is much more comprehensible out of the box, and thus you don't *need* to figure out how to customize it. This doesn't mean that it isn't customizable. MacOS is about as customizable as X, but since users aren't forced to learn a lot of details in order to use the system, most users will never make the effort to figure out what is required.
The worst point I've seen, by far, is the apparent inability to work on multiple virtual screens.
...
Apple really did have something like this working back in 1986 (I believe) with Andy Hertzfield's "Switcher" when you could "virtualize" your Mac 512K (or above) into 4 (or more) 128K Macs with their own screens. Most people thought this was all about running multiple programs, but it was *really* about eliminating screen clutter. But then the idea got sucked up into the vortex of history, and what got spat out in the end is the lame cooperative multi-tasking set-up that MacOS has been stuck with ever since.
Like many things that power users unfamiliar with the Mac complain about, the virtual desktops you desire *are* available on MacOS - just not provided by default or as part of the OS. There are a few 3rd party programs that provided one with multiple virtual desktops. I was using one of these programs on my old SE/30 at least 5 years ago, and the particular program I was using had been around for a few years when I found it.
Most script kiddies, if faced with the need to learn to write 'a superior line of code' in order to break into a system, will go off to play a game of Quake instead. And most of those who do learn to write good code will probably find themselves more interested by constructive applications of their newfound abilities.
So does the incredible rate of technological development.
Da Vinci: 1452-1519
Kepler: 1571-1630
Galileo: 1564-1642
Leeuwenhoek: 1632-1723
Newton: 1642-1727
Without the contributions of these people, none of that fast modern technological development would have happened. Now tell me which of the below were more important to the people listed above:
Modern IP Law: 1709(Statute of Anne)
Printing Press: ~1450
Actually, I think you may be generally right, but IP law and the printing press are so closely intertwined that it's hard to speak of one without the other: Sure IP law appears to vastly expand the number of people who can hope to make a living by thinking up new ideas (whether they be technology, science, or art).
But is that really the case? A lot of other things have changed in the last several centuries - the development of the middle class, for example. Today, instead of drawing on a few wealthy patrons for support, artists and inventors can draw on the much larger (in total) resources of the middle class. IP law seems to be the mechanism by which this can happen, but are we certain that it's necessary? IP law and the middle class both appear to have grown out of the same event (the invention of the printing press), so we really don't have a clear idea of what a society with a middle class but no IP law (or IP law but no middle class!) would look like.
No, it's slightly better than average: For each death, there is a killer (with the exception of 'accidental' or 'self-inflicted' deaths (i.e. falling from a great height or shooting a rocket at your own feet)). This means that unless you're on a server full of klutzes that keep killing themselves, there will usually be about as many kills as deaths. So the average player's performance will be to break even.
Here's a more concrete example: On a server with 10 players, player 1 kills 2, 2 kills 3, and so on, with 10 killing 1. Then each player has 1 kill and 1 death, despite the fact that each seems to be facing 9:1 odds.
Of course all this assumes that it's a free-for-all situation. If those 12 others trying to kill you aren't also trying to kill each other then, yes, 'breaking even' is pretty impressive.
Oh please god, no. The Simpsons is perfect in 22 minute bites. I just can't see it scaling up to a full-length movie. I think you'd end up with something like one of the SNL movie disasters.
Who's Jon Katz?
Oh, wait: do you mean that guy that I filtered out?