The forms themselves aren't hard, but the rules governing stuff certainly can be, and the IRS docs aren't always helpful. On more than one occasion I've found myself tossing a coin over something, since the IRS documentation isn't always clear.
Presumably the electronic forms and the "choices" they make have been analyzed by someone who really understands the tax code, but for all we know the coin tossed was a Rupee in India by someone who has never filled out American tax forms! No offense to Indian programmers, but I'm sure my guesses of Indian tax law would be just as bad.
I also kind of like the neo-luddite feel of mailing in my taxes on paper. It feels subversive for some odd reason.
Is this phenomenon true for other suggestion-based systems, such as IMDB, Amazon, et al?
I'm always skeptical of suggestion based systems that make simple inferences (eg, if you like X you'll like Y) because they never suggest anything I like.
But I can buy into *complex* suggestion based systems that do a more in-depth job of matching preferences. For example, knowing that I like Tangering Dream, a simple system may suggest Brian Eno or Kraftwerk. But my personal playlist may go from Tangerine Dream, to the Replacements, to Miles Davis, to Richard Thompson, to the Velvet Underground.
Someone who also listens to those same artists might also have suggestions that appeal to me since it better reflects the complexity of my taste versus simple comparisons.
It's sad because its self-justifying. If you're not willing to see that, at least acknowledge that the guy is stealing signals/service/etc as most people would define it.
We as a society have collectively decided its OK for parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to be used to conduct business. Satellite TV is one of those businesses. To protect their product, they encrypt it to prevent eavesdropping. If you pay them, they will sell you a decryption key which will enable you to watch it.
All of those things are well known and generally accepted, both in practice and in law. If you decide that they're "bouncing around noise in your dish" you're somehow entitled to take, you're either a sociopath or morally incompetant.
It's about as idiotic and nonsensical as deciding that because a store has put items on a table on the sidewalk that you should be able to take them because they're not in the store.
I'm just tired of this attitude, and the people who embrace it should know that it probably sounds really good to yourself, but to everyone else its just pathetic.
If they don't want me to pirate their signal, why did they send it to me?
Because they want to catch you doing it so they can hear you repeat your sad, self-justifying argument with your faced pressed into a pillow as some 800 pound gorilla enjoys your smooth, tight anus in a Federal prison someplace.
You may save yourself a lot of bandwidth by using HTTP, especially if you set it up as a preferred method for the clients, since those downloads may get cached at various places.
Be sure to implement proper expires for your stuff, though, so people don't get frustrated with cached content.
I'm familiar with the copy protection schemes that futz with the layout and how they don't work with CDROM drives.
It was also my understanding that it was possible for CD ROM vendors to upgrade the drive firmware to not be fooled by these schemes (DMCA, yadda yadda).
I thought you might have meant that some of new cheapies cdrws out of asia had newer firmware that wasn't as fooled by these schemes.
There's tons of stories about call centers being set up in India to handle customer service or technical support issues. Some of the focus of the articles is the training to "sound American" (dialects, lounges with American cable TV programming, etc) so people don't think their calls are being routed to Bangalore.
When will this be used for telemarketing? It sounds perfect, a large workforce that will work for 10% of even an American telemarketer's wage, trained to "sound American", and call centers that are outside the reach of the American government..
Why does the DMA fight do-not-call lists, anyway? By my logic it indicates a group of people that don't want to buy anything on the phone, and those people are the ones that I wouldn't want to waste my time calling.
The denial of this simple logic by the DMA indicates that they're not interested in finding people who want to buy over the phone, they're interested in something shadier: hard sells, trick questions (I love when telemarketers hit you with the non-stop spiel that ends in "Shall I sign you up now?"), or even fraudulent sales (make phone call, talk to mark, charge mark's card regardless of what mark says).
Is there any other explanation other than the DMA members are more interested in fraud than legitimate sales to interested people?
We started doing that when we moved into our house four years ago. We just politely said "I am not interested in your product. Please remove our name and number from your list." Over time the calls have dropped off to nearly zero in the evening or on weekends. I can't think of the last time we got a sales call in the evening or on the weekend when we were home.
Strangely, we do get 1-2 hangup calls per day and maybe 2-3 times per month there's a pre-recorded sales pitch message on the answering machine (it's amazing how often someone installing Dish Network is in MY NEIGHBORHOOD INSTALLING FREE ALL-DIGITAL DISH NETWORK SYSTEMS.).
I'd be totally in favor of a blanket ban on recorded telemarketing, it's really obnoxious.
During political season we get called by the parties & candidates about one per each, but apparently all political speech is protected, so there's no list to get on or off.
I don't mind the built-in back/forward setup, but what I would like to see is a map history that would display a 'map' of my N most recently visited pages.
It'd give me a way to jump back/ahead arbitrarily, and see what I've been doing visuaully. The history list of most browsers provides the basis for this information, but displays it in a manner that doensn't provide for good navigation.
I wouldn't recommend this kind of solution as the ideal raid solution, but one that could be retrofitted to an existing disk solution.
At $1500 for many of even the cheap RAID cabinets without disks, it's easy to see this as an entry-level RAID solution for someone that already has a few firewire disks and wants a redundancy or even for people that would make their own setup ($70 firewire enclosure + $85 80 GB IDE disk) and don't want the expense or need the performance of a full-blown ultra3 SCSI setup.
The other problem with #1 is that it would trivial to argue premeditation; ie, you knew about the shrinkwrap but you deliberately set up a situation ahead of time in attempt to get around it.
I wonder how it would be if the video tape was just some guy videotaping a party. Someone unexpectedly shows up with a box of software and the drinker installs it while drunk. It would at least appear there was no premeditation, but it wouldn't excape unlawful intoxication.
Here's how I interpreted the parent poster's idea:
Attached to the firewire bus is a RAID controller, but just a controller -- no disks or cabinet. The controller is configured to read/write to N drives also connected to the firewire bus. Writes to the card would be buffered and parceled out to the individual drives as the bus becomes available.
The beauty would be you could connect generic firewire drives to the bus, and wouldn't need an expensive cabinet or dedicated drives. With enough buffer and courage to do cached writes, you could get good throughput since the real disk writes could wait for the bus to be free.
I'm sorry, you must have not been keeping up. The United States has had manditory, universal, free education for at least the past 100 years and the problem of uneducated voters is still a problem.
Please do pay attention more. You'll follow the arguments better and not make suggestions that have been implemented already.
Democracy doesn't work. The average person doesn't have the intellectual maturity and education to wield the political power that is the vote.
Bill Buckley and others have made this claim for years, and it has some merit -- how can illiterates and the uneducated gather enough information to make reasoned choices? It's a prima faciae fact that they can't, they vote based upon criteria that are unconnected or illogical.
The problem with voting prerequisites (literacy, sufficient education, etc) is that they're almost always used by those in power to disenfranchise their opponents, or only enforced selectively to disenfranchise undesirables (blacks, hispanics, italians, irish, laborers, etc). It can even be used over time to further disenfranchise groups that meet the franchise standard -- such as, lets vote to disband public schools. Suddenly blue-collar workers can't afford private education and while they may have the franchise, their children will not since they won't have an education. It becomes a fast track to an aristocracy.
Even if you have a system that screens out the illiterates and the uneducated, how do you know that I, a college graduate, am going to base my vote on something logical? Maybe I base my vote on what my family wants, or I vote for the most attractive candidate or I just plan toss a coin -- even then you're not eliminating people who are educated, literate but just flippant.
The other problem, and its a pretty large one for a fan of Locke, Friedman, et al is the problem of legitimacy. If I'm withheld from selecting those that make the laws I'm expected to obey, why should I accept that government as have ANY power over me? I wouldn't. It would be an illegitimate government.
Which is part of the social contract that allows us to be governed -- the government has to have UNIVERSAL democratic participation to have UNIVERSAL democratic legitimacy.
Unfortunately I think money is undermining our sense of universal legitimacy. Everyone votes, but the financial contributors almost get to vote a second time, after the general election is over, to determine policies, ignoring the voices of those without a lot of money, which has the practical effect of disenfranchising us.
They need to display a dozen pictures of animals and have a dozen radio buttons that have the name of the animal as a picture. The names of the pictures, the placement of them and the placement of the radio buttons needs to be randomized.
You might OCR the animal names, but OCRing the animal pictures would be harder, especially if you generated all the pictures on the fly from a base picture plus some noise to defeat byte-size matchers and md5 summers.
Difference Engine was stupid. Glad I bought it on the "pay if you're honest" shoplifting table outside the bookstore.
Neuromancer, Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive were all good, some of the best contemporary SciFi. I agree with a parent poster that Idoru was just plain stupid.
I don't get the cult of Stephenson. I thought Snow Crash was a bunch of idiotic, cartoon-like deus ex machinas rolled together. I finally sold my copy of Cryptonomicon as it kept putting me to sleep.
Maybe I'm not a scifi person, but I need character development and social environments in my books. BS about gadgets that save the day kind of loses me.
We had an enclosure in our Avid suite that was "sealed". It had some small vent holes in the front and a low-speed fan exhausting in the rear.
It was pretty quiet, considering it had 6-8 HDDs with fan-equipped enclosures in addition to the Mac inside.
I'd imagine something like this would work even with a pretty noisy server. I've put 100 lpi continuous-form line printers that have insulated enclosures in really quiet places and they make less noise than a laserjet, you'd think the same could apply to a rack enclosure. Ventilation would be tricky, but not impossible.
Main equipment room? Why not just rack it with the decks and other sundry equipment in the edit suites? Less cabling, nicer look and probably a damnsight easier to work on than some of the kludgy tower setups I've seen, which usually result in a ton of recabling to do minor tweaks in the box.
I also tend to question the usefulness of such a system. It's worthwhile for long-term road capacity planning, but its value for short-term usage is very limited.
As the parent poster indicated, you're going from A to B no matter what, checking the traffic for the most part won't change that. I've also found that traffic patterns are pretty predictable, and plannable trips are planned around this information. It's also pretty limited in that for the most part, there aren't that many routes one can take from A to B. So you find that the primary, most-direct route is crowded -- I've found that taking alternative routes (longer freeway routes or same-distance street routes) results in less stop-n-go sometimes, but generally is never faster time-wise and sometimes ends up being longer. I often do this just to avoid the freeway, but its purely a psychological tactic -- I use more gas and generally spend more time on the road, but it feels better because I'm not at a dead stop.
The map data would be more useful as a general route planning tool if you could see congestion data over a years time for given dayparts. Eg, show me the congestion averages, congestion variances over the past year so that I can plan my routes or timing. If a given road is highly variant in its congestion or always congested during a period of time I can learn to avoid it.
But telling me X is crowded right now isn't that valuable.
Also, what kind of equipment will have to be used to produce these so fast? Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?
Since you're recording a live event, I'd guess it doesn't take a whole lot of extra production or engineering to make a recording of the live event. Presumably these will be loops of whatever was fed to the PA with maybe a little audience miking to add ambiance.
I wonder how they plan on duplicating these so fast in the field and giving them some reasonable packaging (song lists? photos?). Even the most down-to-earth artist probably cares a little about his/her "brand image" and doesn't want to sell a CD with a photocopied insert and magic marker on the cd!
The issue you're most likely referring to is with newer housing developments where the telco has put in a small fiber-copper mux in the development, and the fiber serves to connect the development to the CO.
In this particular situation, it renders DSL unusable since the mux doesn't handle DSL signaling, only voice signaling, and there is no copper loop to the CO to connect to the DSLAM.
They did this because rapid development meant either building a lot of COs and pulling long copper runs to accomodate the geographic distances was too expensive. This way they could consolidate COs and switching equipment and minimize the number of uplinks to regional COs as well.
Supposedly this fiber/DSL conflict will be getting mitigated in the near future by newer, environmentally hardened DSLAMs that can be slab/pole/vault mounted and integrated into these suburban muxes or placed in areas served by copper but outside DSL's distance limitations.
However, if you have fiber to your house (not just to the big green boxes with bell logos behind the 7-11) it would be highly likely that "can't get DSL" wouldn't be an issue, since fiber to the house would imply digital delivery of services (voice, video), which should mean availability of internet service far better than DSL.
Also, DSL cannot run over fiber, so the most common low-cost solution is eliminated by fiber to the home.
DSL isn't a layer 2 encoding, its a layer 1 transmission technology. Saying it doesn't work on fiber is like saying I can't use a boat in the desert. It's true, but the boat isn't needed in the desert.
Slashdot Mirror
The forms themselves aren't hard, but the rules governing stuff certainly can be, and the IRS docs aren't always helpful. On more than one occasion I've found myself tossing a coin over something, since the IRS documentation isn't always clear.
Presumably the electronic forms and the "choices" they make have been analyzed by someone who really understands the tax code, but for all we know the coin tossed was a Rupee in India by someone who has never filled out American tax forms! No offense to Indian programmers, but I'm sure my guesses of Indian tax law would be just as bad.
I also kind of like the neo-luddite feel of mailing in my taxes on paper. It feels subversive for some odd reason.
Is this phenomenon true for other suggestion-based systems, such as IMDB, Amazon, et al?
I'm always skeptical of suggestion based systems that make simple inferences (eg, if you like X you'll like Y) because they never suggest anything I like.
But I can buy into *complex* suggestion based systems that do a more in-depth job of matching preferences. For example, knowing that I like Tangering Dream, a simple system may suggest Brian Eno or Kraftwerk. But my personal playlist may go from Tangerine Dream, to the Replacements, to Miles Davis, to Richard Thompson, to the Velvet Underground.
Someone who also listens to those same artists might also have suggestions that appeal to me since it better reflects the complexity of my taste versus simple comparisons.
It's sad because its self-justifying. If you're not willing to see that, at least acknowledge that the guy is stealing signals/service/etc as most people would define it.
We as a society have collectively decided its OK for parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to be used to conduct business. Satellite TV is one of those businesses. To protect their product, they encrypt it to prevent eavesdropping. If you pay them, they will sell you a decryption key which will enable you to watch it.
All of those things are well known and generally accepted, both in practice and in law. If you decide that they're "bouncing around noise in your dish" you're somehow entitled to take, you're either a sociopath or morally incompetant.
It's about as idiotic and nonsensical as deciding that because a store has put items on a table on the sidewalk that you should be able to take them because they're not in the store.
I'm just tired of this attitude, and the people who embrace it should know that it probably sounds really good to yourself, but to everyone else its just pathetic.
If they don't want me to pirate their signal, why did they send it to me?
Because they want to catch you doing it so they can hear you repeat your sad, self-justifying argument with your faced pressed into a pillow as some 800 pound gorilla enjoys your smooth, tight anus in a Federal prison someplace.
You may save yourself a lot of bandwidth by using HTTP, especially if you set it up as a preferred method for the clients, since those downloads may get cached at various places.
Be sure to implement proper expires for your stuff, though, so people don't get frustrated with cached content.
I'm familiar with the copy protection schemes that futz with the layout and how they don't work with CDROM drives.
It was also my understanding that it was possible for CD ROM vendors to upgrade the drive firmware to not be fooled by these schemes (DMCA, yadda yadda).
I thought you might have meant that some of new cheapies cdrws out of asia had newer firmware that wasn't as fooled by these schemes.
Do you mean that it can automatically not be fooled by copy-protected audio CDs?
There's tons of stories about call centers being set up in India to handle customer service or technical support issues. Some of the focus of the articles is the training to "sound American" (dialects, lounges with American cable TV programming, etc) so people don't think their calls are being routed to Bangalore.
When will this be used for telemarketing? It sounds perfect, a large workforce that will work for 10% of even an American telemarketer's wage, trained to "sound American", and call centers that are outside the reach of the American government..
Why does the DMA fight do-not-call lists, anyway? By my logic it indicates a group of people that don't want to buy anything on the phone, and those people are the ones that I wouldn't want to waste my time calling.
The denial of this simple logic by the DMA indicates that they're not interested in finding people who want to buy over the phone, they're interested in something shadier: hard sells, trick questions (I love when telemarketers hit you with the non-stop spiel that ends in "Shall I sign you up now?"), or even fraudulent sales (make phone call, talk to mark, charge mark's card regardless of what mark says).
Is there any other explanation other than the DMA members are more interested in fraud than legitimate sales to interested people?
We started doing that when we moved into our house four years ago. We just politely said "I am not interested in your product. Please remove our name and number from your list." Over time the calls have dropped off to nearly zero in the evening or on weekends. I can't think of the last time we got a sales call in the evening or on the weekend when we were home.
Strangely, we do get 1-2 hangup calls per day and maybe 2-3 times per month there's a pre-recorded sales pitch message on the answering machine (it's amazing how often someone installing Dish Network is in MY NEIGHBORHOOD INSTALLING FREE ALL-DIGITAL DISH NETWORK SYSTEMS.).
I'd be totally in favor of a blanket ban on recorded telemarketing, it's really obnoxious.
During political season we get called by the parties & candidates about one per each, but apparently all political speech is protected, so there's no list to get on or off.
I don't mind the built-in back/forward setup, but what I would like to see is a map history that would display a 'map' of my N most recently visited pages.
It'd give me a way to jump back/ahead arbitrarily, and see what I've been doing visuaully. The history list of most browsers provides the basis for this information, but displays it in a manner that doensn't provide for good navigation.
I wouldn't recommend this kind of solution as the ideal raid solution, but one that could be retrofitted to an existing disk solution.
At $1500 for many of even the cheap RAID cabinets without disks, it's easy to see this as an entry-level RAID solution for someone that already has a few firewire disks and wants a redundancy or even for people that would make their own setup ($70 firewire enclosure + $85 80 GB IDE disk) and don't want the expense or need the performance of a full-blown ultra3 SCSI setup.
The other problem with #1 is that it would trivial to argue premeditation; ie, you knew about the shrinkwrap but you deliberately set up a situation ahead of time in attempt to get around it.
I wonder how it would be if the video tape was just some guy videotaping a party. Someone unexpectedly shows up with a box of software and the drinker installs it while drunk. It would at least appear there was no premeditation, but it wouldn't excape unlawful intoxication.
Here's how I interpreted the parent poster's idea:
Attached to the firewire bus is a RAID controller, but just a controller -- no disks or cabinet. The controller is configured to read/write to N drives also connected to the firewire bus. Writes to the card would be buffered and parceled out to the individual drives as the bus becomes available.
The beauty would be you could connect generic firewire drives to the bus, and wouldn't need an expensive cabinet or dedicated drives. With enough buffer and courage to do cached writes, you could get good throughput since the real disk writes could wait for the bus to be free.
I'm sorry, you must have not been keeping up. The United States has had manditory, universal, free education for at least the past 100 years and the problem of uneducated voters is still a problem.
Please do pay attention more. You'll follow the arguments better and not make suggestions that have been implemented already.
Democracy doesn't work. The average person doesn't have the intellectual maturity and education to wield the political power that is the vote.
Bill Buckley and others have made this claim for years, and it has some merit -- how can illiterates and the uneducated gather enough information to make reasoned choices? It's a prima faciae fact that they can't, they vote based upon criteria that are unconnected or illogical.
The problem with voting prerequisites (literacy, sufficient education, etc) is that they're almost always used by those in power to disenfranchise their opponents, or only enforced selectively to disenfranchise undesirables (blacks, hispanics, italians, irish, laborers, etc). It can even be used over time to further disenfranchise groups that meet the franchise standard -- such as, lets vote to disband public schools. Suddenly blue-collar workers can't afford private education and while they may have the franchise, their children will not since they won't have an education. It becomes a fast track to an aristocracy.
Even if you have a system that screens out the illiterates and the uneducated, how do you know that I, a college graduate, am going to base my vote on something logical? Maybe I base my vote on what my family wants, or I vote for the most attractive candidate or I just plan toss a coin -- even then you're not eliminating people who are educated, literate but just flippant.
The other problem, and its a pretty large one for a fan of Locke, Friedman, et al is the problem of legitimacy. If I'm withheld from selecting those that make the laws I'm expected to obey, why should I accept that government as have ANY power over me? I wouldn't. It would be an illegitimate government.
Which is part of the social contract that allows us to be governed -- the government has to have UNIVERSAL democratic participation to have UNIVERSAL democratic legitimacy.
Unfortunately I think money is undermining our sense of universal legitimacy. Everyone votes, but the financial contributors almost get to vote a second time, after the general election is over, to determine policies, ignoring the voices of those without a lot of money, which has the practical effect of disenfranchising us.
I heard about this, but have never seen any pictures of what it looked like.
It'd be interesting to see if it was at all like they said it would. It must have been pretty revealing, or Sony wouldn't have deleted the feature.
They need to display a dozen pictures of animals and have a dozen radio buttons that have the name of the animal as a picture. The names of the pictures, the placement of them and the placement of the radio buttons needs to be randomized.
You might OCR the animal names, but OCRing the animal pictures would be harder, especially if you generated all the pictures on the fly from a base picture plus some noise to defeat byte-size matchers and md5 summers.
Difference Engine was stupid. Glad I bought it on the "pay if you're honest" shoplifting table outside the bookstore.
Neuromancer, Count Zero and Mona Lisa Overdrive were all good, some of the best contemporary SciFi. I agree with a parent poster that Idoru was just plain stupid.
I don't get the cult of Stephenson. I thought Snow Crash was a bunch of idiotic, cartoon-like deus ex machinas rolled together. I finally sold my copy of Cryptonomicon as it kept putting me to sleep.
Maybe I'm not a scifi person, but I need character development and social environments in my books. BS about gadgets that save the day kind of loses me.
We had an enclosure in our Avid suite that was "sealed". It had some small vent holes in the front and a low-speed fan exhausting in the rear.
It was pretty quiet, considering it had 6-8 HDDs with fan-equipped enclosures in addition to the Mac inside.
I'd imagine something like this would work even with a pretty noisy server. I've put 100 lpi continuous-form line printers that have insulated enclosures in really quiet places and they make less noise than a laserjet, you'd think the same could apply to a rack enclosure. Ventilation would be tricky, but not impossible.
Main equipment room? Why not just rack it with the decks and other sundry equipment in the edit suites? Less cabling, nicer look and probably a damnsight easier to work on than some of the kludgy tower setups I've seen, which usually result in a ton of recabling to do minor tweaks in the box.
I also tend to question the usefulness of such a system. It's worthwhile for long-term road capacity planning, but its value for short-term usage is very limited.
As the parent poster indicated, you're going from A to B no matter what, checking the traffic for the most part won't change that. I've also found that traffic patterns are pretty predictable, and plannable trips are planned around this information. It's also pretty limited in that for the most part, there aren't that many routes one can take from A to B. So you find that the primary, most-direct route is crowded -- I've found that taking alternative routes (longer freeway routes or same-distance street routes) results in less stop-n-go sometimes, but generally is never faster time-wise and sometimes ends up being longer. I often do this just to avoid the freeway, but its purely a psychological tactic -- I use more gas and generally spend more time on the road, but it feels better because I'm not at a dead stop.
The map data would be more useful as a general route planning tool if you could see congestion data over a years time for given dayparts. Eg, show me the congestion averages, congestion variances over the past year so that I can plan my routes or timing. If a given road is highly variant in its congestion or always congested during a period of time I can learn to avoid it.
But telling me X is crowded right now isn't that valuable.
Also, what kind of equipment will have to be used to produce these so fast? Will the recording process suffer due to the hurry?
Since you're recording a live event, I'd guess it doesn't take a whole lot of extra production or engineering to make a recording of the live event. Presumably these will be loops of whatever was fed to the PA with maybe a little audience miking to add ambiance.
I wonder how they plan on duplicating these so fast in the field and giving them some reasonable packaging (song lists? photos?). Even the most down-to-earth artist probably cares a little about his/her "brand image" and doesn't want to sell a CD with a photocopied insert and magic marker on the cd!
The issue you're most likely referring to is with newer housing developments where the telco has put in a small fiber-copper mux in the development, and the fiber serves to connect the development to the CO.
In this particular situation, it renders DSL unusable since the mux doesn't handle DSL signaling, only voice signaling, and there is no copper loop to the CO to connect to the DSLAM.
They did this because rapid development meant either building a lot of COs and pulling long copper runs to accomodate the geographic distances was too expensive. This way they could consolidate COs and switching equipment and minimize the number of uplinks to regional COs as well.
Supposedly this fiber/DSL conflict will be getting mitigated in the near future by newer, environmentally hardened DSLAMs that can be slab/pole/vault mounted and integrated into these suburban muxes or placed in areas served by copper but outside DSL's distance limitations.
However, if you have fiber to your house (not just to the big green boxes with bell logos behind the 7-11) it would be highly likely that "can't get DSL" wouldn't be an issue, since fiber to the house would imply digital delivery of services (voice, video), which should mean availability of internet service far better than DSL.
Also, DSL cannot run over fiber, so the most common low-cost solution is eliminated by fiber to the home.
DSL isn't a layer 2 encoding, its a layer 1 transmission technology. Saying it doesn't work on fiber is like saying I can't use a boat in the desert. It's true, but the boat isn't needed in the desert.