Pointers - yes. Classes are an f2003 feature - not f95, so no. Gfortran is a full-fledged Fortran 95. But it isn't quite yet ready for production use IMO. Hopefully soon. It doesn't compile my f95 codes, for example. G95 does compile my codes today. See other posts about the Gfortran/g95 split.
On your type-checking question: For f77, look into separate tools like ftnchek. For f90, put all your procedures in modules and all f90/f95 compilers will check thingsg like this. Although the f90 standard doesn't quite mandate such checking, it sure encourages it... and every actual f90/f95 compiler in existance (including gfortran and g95) does it.
Re:g95 to be bundled with duke nukem's next releas
on
GCC 4.0 Preview
·
· Score: 1
Exactly what features of the standard is it that you claim g95 doesn't implement? As editor of the f95 and f2003 standards, I have some interest in the question. I don't claim to have done exhaustive testing, but it looks like a pretty complete implementation to me as far as I have seen. Not 100% bug free, but then neither is anything; I'd say it has advanced into the state of being usable. It runs my f95 code, which heavily uses features new to f90.
Are you confusing g95 with gfortran? Though they forked from the same base, their current status is quite different (gfortran doesn't yet run my codes). Or are you talking about an old version of g95? I'd say that it made some pretty major leaps just a few months ago.
If you really mean the current version of g95, I would seriously like to know specifics of what these allegedly missing features are. I'm not just flaming. It would be useful information that I would actually like to know.
I can't believe that nobody has yet commented on the real reason why cntusr() is not quite the right name for a function that counts the number of active users.... that is unless you happen to be writing code for a profession that isn't generally known for being highly computerized.:-)
It seems to me that the majority of the replies have totally missed the point of the question. The question wasn't "would it be reasonable for Blizzard to prohibit reselling?" The question was whether they were in violation of the contract implied in their own EULA. The EULA specifically said that the game could be sold. Maybe that's not what it should have said, but that's what it said. Since they are the ones who wrote the EULA, my understanding is that any ambiguity gets interpreted in your favor, except that I don't even see any ambiguity here.
I think you have a small claims case.
Of course, if I were a lawyer, I wouldn't be posting free legal advice here. You've already paid me everything that my opinion on the matter is worth.:-)
I suppose it is inevitable that something like this shows uneven treatment of different areas.
For example, it seems to list about every time a vendor released a Java version, showing version numbers with 3 digits as worthy of note. By that kind of accounting, there should probably be several thousand Fortran entries.
I am obviously more talented than you caan imagine, because I regularly do what you claim that there is no way anyone could.:-)
I can't keep track of which of the umpteen modifier keys I'm supposed to use with a cick. Control? Shift? Alt? Option? Flower (or whatever you call it - that's my name for it)? And none of the keys on my keyboard are labelled "command", so even when someone tells me, I have trouble with that one. Right click is so much simpler for me to remember.
And come on... people have to be taught how to multi-click with the right timing so that it registers as a double click instead of a single one. Maybe you have never tried to double click and had it fail because it registered as 2 single clicks. If so, you are obviously superior to me.:-)
I love working with my Mac at work, and my Linux box doesn't seem to get nearly as much of my attention as the poor thing deserves. But when I'm on travel without my Logitech mouse, I feel awkward and disabled.
Yes, there is lots of engineering software out for it. I didn't say I wished I could use it for an engineering workstation. I said that I *DO*, as do many other people.
Let's start with 4 completely independent competing Fortran 90/95 compilers (I'm not counting g95 and gfortran as independent), plus the usual collection of other languages. From that follows lots of engineering applications, including, for example, all of the ones I developed. The Mac is my primary development machine these days - anything else is a port.
Matlab/simulink, et al. I'm not a heavy user of those, but a lot of enginees here are. Speaking of simulink, yes there are plenty of simulations running on OS-X.
As I said, Macs *ARE* used as an engineering workstation. This isn't a matter subject to debate. Perhaps they aren't used heavily in all fields of engineering, perhaps including yours. I don't know about schematic software in particular - not my field. See my prior post where I said that "the Macs aren't suddenly taking over it all."
As of OS-X, there is a *LOT* of interest in Apple systems as engineering workstations. That's what I'm using, as are many people I know. This mac replaced my linux box at work.
The big interest in Macs as engineering workstations isn't exactly a big secret.... anyway not to anyone in the engineering field.
Yes, there are also plenty of other platforms used. Still a lot of Sun/Linux/other boxes here as engineering workstations, and that isn't about to change in the near future. The Macs aren't suddenly taking over it all - but they are certainly now a significant player in that market.
I don't know who "this guy" is, so I don't know any particular reason why he might have an axe to grind, but...
The article sure reads like it. Sounds like it was written by a marketting department. Since when is much of anything about open source Solaris "proven". It doesn't even exist yet. And Sun has a decidedly mixed history of changing their mind about what platforms they will support on Solaris. I know people whose systems got orphaned when Sun decided to drop an X86 version of Solaris (along with a Sun-branded X86 box) some time ago.
I one wants to do an impartial analysis, fine. But I'm afraid that I can't regard something as impartial when it spouts marketting material like this. Right now, open source Solaris is very much an unproven thing; if it doesn't "fly", Sun could decide to pull it next year. Maybe it will do well, but it certainly isn't "proven."
I look forward to seeing your... well whatever it is that you plan to actually do. I'm a little unclear on the details of exactly what this plan of your is and how you are going to accomplish it. Anyway, whatever it is, I'm sure impressed. Go get 'em cowboy.
It would be if you did Mach 10 at sea level, which would be...um...exciting.:-)
The speed of sound varies with altitude. Not a huge amount, but some. I didn't bother to check the numbers amd I don't know them in MPH (no, those units aren't really used for technical work) off the top of my head. I'm sure the 7,000 is just a rough number for public consumption anyway.
And if you got your data from the NASA "Fact" Shhet about Mach number that I see was posted on the hyper-X page today, that fact sheet isn't quite so factual as it ought to be. (It says that Mach 2 means twice the speed of sound at sea level, which isn't true - it means twice the local speed of sound.) I emailed in a correction to the web page editor, but haven't heard a reply yet.
"..to separate the real from the imagined, and to make known the overlooked and the unexpected problems"
That's about as good a statement as there is on what real flight research is about. You don't do that in a computer (though you use a lot of computers in the process).
Yes. It is simultaneously a happy day and a sad one. Long time before we'll see a research flight to anywhere near that condition again. Some here wonder whether it is the last worthwhile research flight that will even be flown here.
Please, if you are pretending to supply information, make it at least vaguely close to correct.:-(
The rocket boosted it all the way up to max speed. The scramjet wasn't even lit at quite the max speed, though close (the research vehicle decelerates slightly in the few seconds after separation from the rocket before the scramjet lights).
The scramjet *MAYBE* did as well as stopping the deceleration for a few seconds. One of the researchers, who I was talking to as we watched the B52 flyby and landing, said that he thought perhaps they got just a little positive acceleration (i.e. it sped up slightly), but small enough that he couldn't tell for sure from the quick look he took so far.
I do think that Rutan does some really great work. I know lots of people here (a NASA site) who think similarly.
In fact, I think Rutan's work is perhaps 1/4 as significant as Rutan likes to portray it. That means I think it is pretty darn significant.:-) And more significant than a lot of what NASA is doing today, but that's not nearly as high a bar as it ought to be, and is a different subject.:-(
Rutan is even more a master of hype than he is of aero, which is not a denigration of his aero contributions at all.
You must be reading too many press releases. I have no idea where else one would find such "facts". One can debate the fine print of which cases do and do not count as government funding, but there have been cases that are just undeniably non-governmental.
The SS1 flight wasn't orbital, so we are obviously talking only about the >100 km definition of space flight. I thought I recalled a recent hobby launch that beat this mark...and a quick google on amateur space has no trouble in finding links.
Take a gander at www.civilianspace.com. We aren't even talking commercial here; this is pure hobby stuff.
Note that I didn't say anything about astronauts, my main point being that this was the important qualification that the current claim omitted to mention.
There have been commercial space flights for... gee I don't want to waste the time to go figure out what would count as the first one, but it sure wasn't in this millenium, no matter how you count it. One could pretty easily argue for the 60's.
Of course, one wouldn't expect press releases to worry too much about accuracy.
PS. Perhaps they were referring to manned space flights. Now that would be quite different thing. Those of us that work in technical matters sometimes worry about actually saying what we mean.
No it isn't clear because you appear to be confusing the language and the compilers. Much like the difference between free beer and free speech. The language is open, although current comilers are not open source. This distinction is important, because it is what allows those open source compilers that people are working on.
I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong about its portability. I know because I myself write programs that I have myself ported to probably more different kinds of machines than still exist today, from supercomputers to CPM micros amd everything in between. Not all programs are portable like that, primarily because not all programmers care. But I guarantee you that the language itself is portable and that it is possible to write portable code in it. I do so.
Indeed, you've hit rather a particular peeve of mine. I am very interested in portability, which is why I've spent much of the last decade and a half working on standards.
Oh, and you are also flat wrong in saying that it is only in active use because of legacy codes. There isn't even anything to debate - you are just wrong as long as you include the word "only". I use it for other reasons. So do many other people. If you think that we shouldn't, well you are free to have your opinion, but that's not what you said.
I'm not going to bother to argue points of opinion. Flame wars are boring at best. The points I made above are all corrrections of factual matters. I make no comment on your opinions.
I seriously doubt that Java even existed when some of the code in question was written. And I wouldn't count on it existing when the code in question is still in use. I also wouldn't bet that Java is necessarily even available on the machines that they used. Codes like that tend not to get written in the fad language of the year, because the codes sometimes take longer to develop than the fad language lifetimes.
But I'm still puzzled by your original comments. I'm not interested in arguing about what language that they should or shouldn't have used. I just don't understand the comments about open and scalable.
Particularly the open bit. Java is *NOT* open, but is controlled by a single vendor. When I said that some other languages were as open as Fortran, Java was not one of the ones I had in mind.
As for scalability and reusability, Fortran code has a long history of actual demonstrated reusability... longer than Java has existed. Odds are good that some of the code in question *IS* reused from that long ago.
Object orientation can be a good concept. I was one of the people who helped add some object orientation to the Fortran 2003 standard because I see how object orientation can help in some of my own Fortran codes. But it doesn't solve all the world's problems and automatically make code scalable and reusable. Those people who think that there is *ANY* magic bullet that will guarantee that code is reusable are not, in my experience, the people who succeed in writing code that actually does get reused.
I suppose this kind of comment is typical on slashdot, but exactly what do you think is not scalable and open about Fortran? Not only are the comments about that innacurate, I can't even think what misconception they could be based on; there just isn't even anything close.
Many of the largest applications in the world are written in Fortran, both in the past and continuing today. I'd say that this would be presumptive evidence for scalability.
And there is nothing that is more open than Fortran. There are other languages just as open, but nothing that is more so. Fortran is defined by an international standard, not by any particular vendor. The standard has *NO* restrictions on its use. Some people write codes that ignore the standard and use proprietary extensions, but that isn't Fortran in the strict sense... and that's not the kind of code that tends to be in huge and long-lived systems.
Oh, as editor of that international standard, I just today got word that teh newest version passed the final of the many ballots in the formal approval process... and I really should go back to packaging it up to send to ISO instead of reading slashdot.:-)
As usual, in spite of the headline implying that the FTC took decisive action, this does basically nothing. Look at what was actually agreed to. The perpetrators agree that "We didn't do anything wrong and we promise not to again, either".
This kind of things doesn't discourage the practice; exactly the opposite in that it shows there is no penalty for it.
As others have noticed, the practice is much more discouraged by the fact that so many people are now closing that loophole. But the FTC action achieved nothing.
It seemed somehow oddly appropriate that when I saw this article on/., there at the top of that same page were 3 adds from firms with pitches such as "See how easy it is to file your own patent.".:-(
I did read the article and it says no such thing. The word "broadband" doesn't even appear in it. Nor does any synonym. Now perhaps that's what the MPAA "study" actually said, but if so the article misquoted it. Where did you get this information? The MPAA study? If so, link to it? There isn't one in either the/. note or the Seattle post article.
Come on. I forget the stats on broadband, but I didn't think 1 in 4 even had broadband yet. Could look it up, but don't have time right now. Certainly can't be much more than that, particularly in the U.S.
And I'm not going to believe that *ALL* of the broadband users have downloaded movies. (I haven't:-)).
I'm also not going to believe that a noticable fraction of dialup users have.
Slashdot Mirror
Pointers - yes. Classes are an f2003 feature - not f95, so no. Gfortran is a full-fledged Fortran 95. But it isn't quite yet ready for production use IMO. Hopefully soon. It doesn't compile my f95 codes, for example. G95 does compile my codes today. See other posts about the Gfortran/g95 split.
On your type-checking question: For f77, look into separate tools like ftnchek. For f90, put all your procedures in modules and all f90/f95 compilers will check thingsg like this. Although the f90 standard doesn't quite mandate such checking, it sure encourages it... and every actual f90/f95 compiler in existance (including gfortran and g95) does it.
Exactly what features of the standard is it that you claim g95 doesn't implement? As editor of the f95 and f2003 standards, I have some interest in the question. I don't claim to have done exhaustive testing, but it looks like a pretty complete implementation to me as far as I have seen. Not 100% bug free, but then neither is anything; I'd say it has advanced into the state of being usable. It runs my f95 code, which heavily uses features new to f90.
Are you confusing g95 with gfortran? Though they forked from the same base, their current status is quite different (gfortran doesn't yet run my codes). Or are you talking about an old version of g95? I'd say that it made some pretty major leaps just a few months ago.
If you really mean the current version of g95, I would seriously like to know specifics of what these allegedly missing features are. I'm not just flaming. It would be useful information that I would actually like to know.
I can't believe that nobody has yet commented on the real reason why cntusr() is not quite the right name for a function that counts the number of active users.... that is unless you happen to be writing code for a profession that isn't generally known for being highly computerized. :-)
People should read the F* question. :-)
:-)
It seems to me that the majority of the replies have totally missed the point of the question. The question wasn't "would it be reasonable for Blizzard to prohibit reselling?" The question was whether they were in violation of the contract implied in their own EULA. The EULA specifically said that the game could be sold. Maybe that's not what it should have said, but that's what it said. Since they are the ones who wrote the EULA, my understanding is that any ambiguity gets interpreted in your favor, except that I don't even see any ambiguity here.
I think you have a small claims case.
Of course, if I were a lawyer, I wouldn't be posting free legal advice here. You've already paid me everything that my opinion on the matter is worth.
I suppose it is inevitable that something like this shows uneven treatment of different areas.
For example, it seems to list about every time a vendor released a Java version, showing version numbers with 3 digits as worthy of note. By that kind of accounting, there should probably be several thousand Fortran entries.
I am obviously more talented than you caan imagine, because I regularly do what you claim that there is no way anyone could. :-)
:-)
I can't keep track of which of the umpteen modifier keys I'm supposed to use with a cick. Control? Shift? Alt? Option? Flower (or whatever you call it - that's my name for it)? And none of the keys on my keyboard are labelled "command", so even when someone tells me, I have trouble with that one. Right click is so much simpler for me to remember.
And come on... people have to be taught how to multi-click with the right timing so that it registers as a double click instead of a single one. Maybe you have never tried to double click and had it fail because it registered as 2 single clicks. If so, you are obviously superior to me.
I love working with my Mac at work, and my Linux box doesn't seem to get nearly as much of my attention as the poor thing deserves. But when I'm on travel without my Logitech mouse, I feel awkward and disabled.
Yes, there is lots of engineering software out for it. I didn't say I wished I could use it for an engineering workstation. I said that I *DO*, as do many other people.
Let's start with 4 completely independent competing Fortran 90/95 compilers (I'm not counting g95 and gfortran as independent), plus the usual collection of other languages. From that follows lots of engineering applications, including, for example, all of the ones I developed. The Mac is my primary development machine these days - anything else is a port.
Matlab/simulink, et al. I'm not a heavy user of those, but a lot of enginees here are. Speaking of simulink, yes there are plenty of simulations running on OS-X.
As I said, Macs *ARE* used as an engineering workstation. This isn't a matter subject to debate. Perhaps they aren't used heavily in all fields of engineering, perhaps including yours. I don't know about schematic software in particular - not my field. See my prior post where I said that "the Macs aren't suddenly taking over it all."
You pigeonhole them too much.
As of OS-X, there is a *LOT* of interest in Apple systems as engineering workstations. That's what I'm using, as are many people I know. This mac replaced my linux box at work.
The big interest in Macs as engineering workstations isn't exactly a big secret.... anyway not to anyone in the engineering field.
Yes, there are also plenty of other platforms used. Still a lot of Sun/Linux/other boxes here as engineering workstations, and that isn't about to change in the near future. The Macs aren't suddenly taking over it all - but they are certainly now a significant player in that market.
I don't know who "this guy" is, so I don't know any particular reason why he might have an axe to grind, but...
The article sure reads like it. Sounds like it was written by a marketting department. Since when is much of anything about open source Solaris "proven". It doesn't even exist yet. And Sun has a decidedly mixed history of changing their mind about what platforms they will support on Solaris. I know people whose systems got orphaned when Sun decided to drop an X86 version of Solaris (along with a Sun-branded X86 box) some time ago.
I one wants to do an impartial analysis, fine. But I'm afraid that I can't regard something as impartial when it spouts marketting material like this. Right now, open source Solaris is very much an unproven thing; if it doesn't "fly", Sun could decide to pull it next year. Maybe it will do well, but it certainly isn't "proven."
And your point is?
I look forward to seeing your... well whatever it is that you plan to actually do. I'm a little unclear on the details of exactly what this plan of your is and how you are going to accomplish it. Anyway, whatever it is, I'm sure impressed. Go get 'em cowboy.
It would be if you did Mach 10 at sea level, which would be...um...exciting. :-)
The speed of sound varies with altitude. Not a huge amount, but some. I didn't bother to check the numbers amd I don't know them in MPH (no, those units aren't really used for technical work) off the top of my head. I'm sure the 7,000 is just a rough number for public consumption anyway.
And if you got your data from the NASA "Fact" Shhet about Mach number that I see was posted on the hyper-X page today, that fact sheet isn't quite so factual as it ought to be. (It says that Mach 2 means twice the speed of sound at sea level, which isn't true - it means twice the local speed of sound.) I emailed in a correction to the web page editor, but haven't heard a reply yet.
Yep. Or as our namesake (Dryden) put it:
"..to separate the real from the imagined, and to make known the overlooked and the unexpected problems"
That's about as good a statement as there is on what real flight research is about. You don't do that in a computer (though you use a lot of computers in the process).
Yes. It is simultaneously a happy day and a sad one. Long time before we'll see a research flight to anywhere near that condition again. Some here wonder whether it is the last worthwhile research flight that will even be flown here.
:-(
But I didn't say that. Not in public.
Please, if you are pretending to supply information, make it at least vaguely close to correct. :-(
The rocket boosted it all the way up to max speed. The scramjet wasn't even lit at quite the max speed, though close (the research vehicle decelerates slightly in the few seconds after separation from the rocket before the scramjet lights).
The scramjet *MAYBE* did as well as stopping the deceleration for a few seconds. One of the researchers, who I was talking to as we watched the B52 flyby and landing, said that he thought perhaps they got just a little positive acceleration (i.e. it sped up slightly), but small enough that he couldn't tell for sure from the quick look he took so far.
But then, that is what was being aimed for.
Just to clarify one thing, by the way...
:-) And more significant than a lot of what NASA is doing today, but that's not nearly as high a bar as it ought to be, and is a different subject. :-(
I do think that Rutan does some really great work. I know lots of people here (a NASA site) who think similarly.
In fact, I think Rutan's work is perhaps 1/4 as significant as Rutan likes to portray it. That means I think it is pretty darn significant.
Rutan is even more a master of hype than he is of aero, which is not a denigration of his aero contributions at all.
In a word, bullpuckey.
You must be reading too many press releases. I have no idea where else one would find such "facts". One can debate the fine print of which cases do and do not count as government funding, but there have been cases that are just undeniably non-governmental.
The SS1 flight wasn't orbital, so we are obviously talking only about the >100 km definition of space flight. I thought I recalled a recent hobby launch that beat this mark...and a quick google on amateur space has no trouble in finding links.
Take a gander at www.civilianspace.com. We aren't even talking commercial here; this is pure hobby stuff.
Note that I didn't say anything about astronauts, my main point being that this was the important qualification that the current claim omitted to mention.
There have been commercial space flights for... gee I don't want to waste the time to go figure out what would count as the first one, but it sure wasn't in this millenium, no matter how you count it. One could pretty easily argue for the 60's.
Of course, one wouldn't expect press releases to worry too much about accuracy.
PS. Perhaps they were referring to manned space flights. Now that would be quite different thing. Those of us that work in technical matters sometimes worry about actually saying what we mean.
No it isn't clear because you appear to be confusing the language and the compilers. Much like the difference between free beer and free speech. The language is open, although current comilers are not open source. This distinction is important, because it is what allows those open source compilers that people are working on.
I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong about its portability. I know because I myself write programs that I have myself ported to probably more different kinds of machines than still exist today, from supercomputers to CPM micros amd everything in between. Not all programs are portable like that, primarily because not all programmers care. But I guarantee you that the language itself is portable and that it is possible to write portable code in it. I do so.
Indeed, you've hit rather a particular peeve of mine. I am very interested in portability, which is why I've spent much of the last decade and a half working on standards.
Oh, and you are also flat wrong in saying that it is only in active use because of legacy codes. There isn't even anything to debate - you are just wrong as long as you include the word "only". I use it for other reasons. So do many other people. If you think that we shouldn't, well you are free to have your opinion, but that's not what you said.
I'm not going to bother to argue points of opinion. Flame wars are boring at best. The points I made above are all corrrections of factual matters. I make no comment on your opinions.
I seriously doubt that Java even existed when some of the code in question was written. And I wouldn't count on it existing when the code in question is still in use. I also wouldn't bet that Java is necessarily even available on the machines that they used. Codes like that tend not to get written in the fad language of the year, because the codes sometimes take longer to develop than the fad language lifetimes.
But I'm still puzzled by your original comments. I'm not interested in arguing about what language that they should or shouldn't have used. I just don't understand the comments about open and scalable.
Particularly the open bit. Java is *NOT* open, but is controlled by a single vendor. When I said that some other languages were as open as Fortran, Java was not one of the ones I had in mind.
As for scalability and reusability, Fortran code has a long history of actual demonstrated reusability... longer than Java has existed. Odds are good that some of the code in question *IS* reused from that long ago.
Object orientation can be a good concept. I was one of the people who helped add some object orientation to the Fortran 2003 standard because I see how object orientation can help in some of my own Fortran codes. But it doesn't solve all the world's problems and automatically make code scalable and reusable. Those people who think that there is *ANY* magic bullet that will guarantee that code is reusable are not, in my experience, the people who succeed in writing code that actually does get reused.
I suppose this kind of comment is typical on slashdot, but exactly what do you think is not scalable and open about Fortran? Not only are the comments about that innacurate, I can't even think what misconception they could be based on; there just isn't even anything close.
:-)
Many of the largest applications in the world are written in Fortran, both in the past and continuing today. I'd say that this would be presumptive evidence for scalability.
And there is nothing that is more open than Fortran. There are other languages just as open, but nothing that is more so. Fortran is defined by an international standard, not by any particular vendor. The standard has *NO* restrictions on its use. Some people write codes that ignore the standard and use proprietary extensions, but that isn't Fortran in the strict sense... and that's not the kind of code that tends to be in huge and long-lived systems.
Oh, as editor of that international standard, I just today got word that teh newest version passed the final of the many ballots in the formal approval process... and I really should go back to packaging it up to send to ISO instead of reading slashdot.
As usual, in spite of the headline implying that the FTC took decisive action, this does basically nothing. Look at what was actually agreed to. The perpetrators agree that "We didn't do anything wrong and we promise not to again, either".
This kind of things doesn't discourage the practice; exactly the opposite in that it shows there is no penalty for it.
As others have noticed, the practice is much more discouraged by the fact that so many people are now closing that loophole. But the FTC action achieved nothing.
It seemed somehow oddly appropriate that when I saw this article on /., there at the top of that same page were 3 adds from firms with pitches such as "See how easy it is to file your own patent.". :-(
The first rule of the DHS is that you don't talk about the DHS. :-)
I did read the article and it says no such thing. The word "broadband" doesn't even appear in it. Nor does any synonym. Now perhaps that's what the MPAA "study" actually said, but if so the article misquoted it. Where did you get this information? The MPAA study? If so, link to it? There isn't one in either the /. note or the Seattle post article.
Come on. I forget the stats on broadband, but I didn't think 1 in 4 even had broadband yet. Could look it up, but don't have time right now. Certainly can't be much more than that, particularly in the U.S.
:-)).
And I'm not going to believe that *ALL* of the broadband users have downloaded movies. (I haven't
I'm also not going to believe that a noticable
fraction of dialup users have.