Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea. As a internet connected "appliance" for people like my grandparents (who are vaguely interested in this "newfangled internet thing") or those who have no real need or desire for a PC, but wish to get email and browse the web.
On that note, where's the ability to read email? You'd only be able to use web based email as far as I can tell with this. That seems like a mistake. How much more difficult would it have been to add the ability to use NS Communicator and have one piece of functionality added? It wouldn't have added much overhead, space, or difficulty, so far as I can tell.
Any ideas why they didn't include something of that nature?
You don't call DOS a CLI? Let's break this down...CLI == Command Line Interface. There's no doubt, I'm sure, that DOS is Command Line. If you wish to argue that point, you've obviously not used it. It is also most DEFINATELY and interface, by its very definition. If you put it all together, DOS is a Command Line Interface, or CLI. Now, as to whether or not it's a good one, that's a whole new topic; although, for the system it ran on, it was exceptionally well done.
It makes sense. I don't LIKE it, but it makes sense. MS has been promising to make DOS a thing of the past since 3.1, they've just finally delivered. No more legacy 8 and 16 bit processes should mean more stability. Would you be the one to say that Windows doesn't need all the stability it can get?
As I said, I don't like it, I prefer to do half my work CLI style, but I've seen it coming for 6 years now.
Slashdot is not a news source. Slashdot compiles a bunch of links to stories that are of interest to the community that visits here. It doesn't, as a rule, have more than a few sentences about what the link points to. How is that reporting?
The entire point of this place is discussion. A huge ball of geeks spouting their opinions and having some level of intelligent discussion. Why should CT be exempt from that? He created the damn thing, I'd think he could lob his opinion out with the rest of you, eh?
For a group of "geeks" or "elite linux gurus" and generally "smart guys", you are either a load of hypocrites or lack any form of common sense. If you were told to withold your opinion in these discussions from now on, you'd rant and rave for days. When CT volunteers his, you cry like children. This place has never professed to be a geek-inhabited bastion of journalism. It's a crew of opinionated nerds...get used to it.
Interestingly enough, the above is my opinion and doesn't reflect those of/. staff in general. Of course, since I'm NOT/. staff, I'm allowed my opinion, lucky me.
On a vaguely on-topic note, I run Zone Alarm on my Windows laptop, and I just test this. Zone Alarm halts it immediately, and it's free for individual use. When I tried to contact my "Netscape Server" after I exploited my box, a window popped up asking if I wanted to allow Netscape to run as a server. I said no, and the connection failed.
As hard as it might be to believe, the vast majority of people I deal with don't really care either way. They don't see how it affects them. They just assume it's the same people that steal software (possibly true) and that they'll get into trouble for it and it will end.
We're unlikely to get favorable public opinion in the near future. Big business will win this battle, stigmatize the whole process of "free music" downloading, and it'll continue essentially as it is now. I don't think it's comparable to smoking...it's comparable to smoking pot. It's illegal, that doesn't slow down anyone that wants to do it.
Oh, I'd definately prefer that people outside the company that violated their NDA get sued. I'd prefer that people inside the company that violate their NDA get sued. My concern, were I an employee of Apple, is the fact that this is a John Doe suit. How comfortable would you be at work if a co-worker or two is being sued simply because they WORKED on a project that was leaked, without evidence that they leaked anything? The article doesn't seem to indicate that there is much evidence as to whom they are specifically looking for.
I don't know. As a rule, if my employer sued a bunch of my employees, I might feel the need to find a new job. This could be a Bad Thing (tm) for Apple.
That's not to say I don't think they should do this. I think they should try to protect their "trade secrets" as much as is feasible...I just don't think suing employees is feasible.
It almost makes me want to host my company's web site from home, in case I decide one day that their health insurance policy just isn't comprehensive enough.
Seriously, though, if his company allowed their site to be hosted by/on his personal equipment, they've earned whatever happened.
I'll be the first to admit that the ability to search for unknown bands is weak, at best. I would personally love to see the ability to search by genre, a block of years, a "similar to" or a host of other things.
You missed my point, though. He's saying you can't find unknown music on Napster, I'm saying I do, as do many of my online friends. We frequently fire messages back and forth of the "try this" or "listen to this" variety..mostly unknown/unsigned bands.
Actually, this isn't a bad idea. A little un-refined maybe, but not a bad plan. Civil Disobedience. If a large group of people strongly oppose a law, and just refuse to follow it, they in effect force the law to be re-evaluated.
The only thing is, in what form should the Civil Disobedience take. Starting up servers isn't bad, the boycott is a good idea, but what will really make an impact? Anyone?
You're right, security through obscurity has worked so well for Windows products.
But seriously, lets take a step back and look at this logically...how secure is..say, an average well installed Debian Linux install versus Windows NT 4.0 SP 6a
1. No one knows the name of your unknown garage band. Therefore, no one will search for your songs on Napster.
That's odd. I found Chris's music by accident while searching for random artists that I'd not heard of on Napster. Did a search for "fire techno" and found one of his songs. I have since paid for a good number of songs on MP3.com by Chris (I highly recommend that you check out his tunes). Think about how a search works for god's sake.
2. The lawsuit against Napster does not prevent you from publishing your band's songs on your own web site. Your band's web site is arguably a better way to publish your mp3s than Napster.
A very arguable point. The best way to get people interested in your music is by getting them to listen to the music. This is one thing Napster was great at. No jerking around with ugly web pages or FTP sites, odd formats, pay for play schemes, etc. You find a song, you know you can listen to it (frequently minus the first and last 10 seconds, but close enough).
A web page is great after a person knows of your band, but not a way to gain new fans, unless you want the easily impressed superficial "KEWL T-SHIRT" people. No, Napster will be a great loss to those of us musicians who used it to disseminate our music.
It's nice that they decreased the price, but aside from making an already too small screen smaller, I don't see what innovation this brings? I mean, it'd be nice that new versions meant new stuff...new stuff that doesn't include the "iMac-ification" of every piece of electronics on the market.
Pretty see-through colors don't increase useability. I'd prefer a better res. screen, a larger screen, or a 25 dollar lower price tag over pretty colors; but that's just me. -Jer
I'm not sure how this will work? I mean, I'd assume that for speed's sake, the card would store essential 360 degrees of "line-of-sight" and possibly a little bit beyond. You wouldn't think that it would have enough more stored to make it worthwhile to cheat, would you?
On a different note, if this does work, how long do you think it will be before it's "patched" and how would they (game manufacturers) do it? -Jer
They did do something that's been pissing me off more and more lately. They check what version of browser you're using, and THEY determine if you have the right browser for the job.
I run my home connection through a proxy server, and I strip all of that information on the way out, so a great many site won't let me at their content AT ALL, because it says I have an insufficient browser (I'm running Netscape 4.73).
It's simple, I just refuse to visit a site that does this...and IAM.com does this (not that I'd visit anyways).
Well, you may be right. It may not be censorship by the strictest definition
That's hardly a defense of the absolutely wrong word.
CENSOR to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
If you loosen the definition enough, you can ALMOST stretch it to fit, but not quite. Most certainly, you'd have to introduce the negative connotation yourself. The point is, segmenting the TLDs properly would prevent a great deal of hassle. First, it keeps companies from buying your last name in the.per TLD, so that it can be used for what it's supposed to be. It prevents a suit against mcdonald.per owner, John McDonald, because McDonald's couldn't buy their name in the.per TLD. It makes it so when you're looking for, for example, fan sites for a band, you don't have to hit 50 pay porn sites first before you find one vaguely on-topic site. If you're searching for "Eric Clapton" and you see a list of.xxx sites, ignore them, they're probably nothing you're looking for.
...but please, continue with the anti-establishment, libertarian whining. It's topical, really. -Jer
This is nothing like censorship. I don't think censorship means what you think it means. Visit www.m-w.com
In the above example, you buy a domain name in the.com domain. It's commercial. Right now, we have a mess because everyone buys EVERYTHING. The above would fix the currently broken system -Jer
I no longer do drugs. I just don't enjoy them anymore (assuming you don't count cigarettes or alcohol); and it doesn't matter.
Even if you think that drugs are completely evil, you still need to stand up against governmental censorship. One of the responsibilites of HAVING freedom of speech is the need to defend even the things we disagree with, on principal.
Today, they'll censor drug-related sites "for the children". Tomorrow, cracking-related sites? Maybe sites that include obscenity? Maybe sites that include bestiality? Maybe sites that include depictions of sex? Maybe sites that include nudity? If we allow this to happen, the net could be a very different place. For a picture of what it might look like, try surfing for 2 weeks using Cybersitter or another content filtering software set to maximum. Don't turn it off for two weeks. See how you like the "net of the future". After the two weeks are up, fire a letter and an email to your representatives.
I personally think we should take the time to completely rethink the whole system before we add more TLDs.
Why not a system like:
server.domain.countrycode.TLD
i.e. www.slashdot.us.com
Add to this a more involved and enforced structure for TLDs, and we'll be in business. How about this:
.com - Commercial entities.org - Non-profit entities.xxx - For porn sites.net - For ISPs and Internet infrastructure.edu - Educational facilities.gov - Government entities.per - Personal web sites
This should be goverend overall by an international body (to determine TLDs) and a body in each country to determine proper assignment of the TLDs. Each entity should be able to take only one TLD per domain name (i.e. slashdot.org couldn't also get slashdot.com). Existing trademark holders should get first crack at a domain name in the appropriate TLD, and if they opt not to get it, they relinquish the right to try to get it if someone else grabs it later. Domain name reselling should be made illegal (to prevent squatting).
It's not a perfect system yet, I'm still mentally working it out. Please email me at pheonixx@bigfoot.com if you have input as to how this could be improved (or have good ideas for TLDs). I'd also like ideas as to whom ideas should be presented of this nature.
The "All work and no play makes xxx a dull boy" is a reference from an amusing scene in a movie. Infer from it what you will.
The web site was added to my profile about a year and a half ago, give or take some. I've since changed ISPs to one that provides DSL, and frankly forgot that I had the site listed here. Thanks for the heads-up. I don't understand how that indicates age, but, I suppose we can't all be Sherlock Holmes.
I have visited and read through much of your site. I find it amusing. If you read my original post, I personally think the site is a must-read for Linux developers. I don't take myself (or computers for that matter) all that seriously.
The "hypocrite" remark was a sarcastic attempt at humor. Whether it was vague, beyond your comprehension, or just plain not funny I couldn't tell ya', but if you'd take the time, my guess is you'd see it.
Hint: He could actually be simply someone like me; someone who uses Linux/BSD but still sees that there is a great deal that is NOT good about it and a great deal that Windows/MacOS still have over linux (ouch, that's going to hurt my Karma). He might just be using a humorous "linux sucks" forum to get his point across. Sound like a defense of your position at all?
Your indication that "you've seen it all" is unfounded and currently unbacked. Just for fun, lemme point out the hypocracy in your latest post:
don't take yourself or computers so seriously in the future.
This statement, spoken by someone who made a flying LEAP to defend his "honor" and that of his web site. You certainly haven't impressed anyone on THIS side of the fence with your worldly ways and maturity.
I'd tend to doubt it. At any rate, rather than your above worthless post, perhaps you could clarify? Thus far, all you've done is indicate that you're immature (regardless of age), a braggart, likely full of shit, and still prolly a hypocrite. *shrug* -Jer
I work a LOT of hours (although, I've recently cut back to spend time with my kids). Why do I do this? Have I been suckered by my employers? Have I been tempted by technology? Am I some mindless sheep that can't make decisions on my own?
The answer is no. I work the long hours for three reasons. One, job satisfaction. I feel like I'm doing the best job I can when I put in the hours needed to hit a deadline under budget. I feel good about myself when I'm early on a project, exceed expectations, and can report I spent less than predicted. That's just me.
Second, I don't want my wife to have to work. I feel better about the idea that my wife is home raising our children well, not letting some daycare do it. She can enjoy her life (which inevitably makes my life easier) and our kids will be brought up with the values WE want them to have.
The final reason is I want to stop working someday. I watched my grandfather work until he died. I am watching my father do the same. My other grandfather is still working at 70+. They're doing this because they can NOT comfortably retire. That won't be happening to me. I'm busting my ass to put away enough money that, after putting two children through college, I can retire and spend time with my wife living reasonably well. I'm willing to forgoe leisure time now and endure some stress to retire early and enjoy it.
No, I don't think we've been somehow "tricked" into killing ourselves for our job. Many of us conciously make the decision to do so for a variety of reasons. It IS our life to spend.
Call me stupid, but I don't get it. It seems like Rambus has a pretty straightforward patent on a bit of technology, and competitors don't like it.
This isn't a troll, I'm hoping someone can either explain this to me or point me to where I can find more information, but why shouldn't Rambus be able to get royalties for this patent. Sure, it's pretty crappy of them to sorta screw consumers by driving up competing prices, but that isn't using monopolistic powers badly. If companies want to compete, shouldn't they have to make a better product with different technology?
Like I said, I don't get it, but it makes no sense to me. -Jer
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think this is a brilliant idea. As a internet connected "appliance" for people like my grandparents (who are vaguely interested in this "newfangled internet thing") or those who have no real need or desire for a PC, but wish to get email and browse the web.
On that note, where's the ability to read email? You'd only be able to use web based email as far as I can tell with this. That seems like a mistake. How much more difficult would it have been to add the ability to use NS Communicator and have one piece of functionality added? It wouldn't have added much overhead, space, or difficulty, so far as I can tell.
Any ideas why they didn't include something of that nature?
D) You call the DOS prompt a CLI?
You don't call DOS a CLI? Let's break this down...CLI == Command Line Interface. There's no doubt, I'm sure, that DOS is Command Line. If you wish to argue that point, you've obviously not used it. It is also most DEFINATELY and interface, by its very definition. If you put it all together, DOS is a Command Line Interface, or CLI. Now, as to whether or not it's a good one, that's a whole new topic; although, for the system it ran on, it was exceptionally well done.
It makes sense. I don't LIKE it, but it makes sense. MS has been promising to make DOS a thing of the past since 3.1, they've just finally delivered. No more legacy 8 and 16 bit processes should mean more stability. Would you be the one to say that Windows doesn't need all the stability it can get?
As I said, I don't like it, I prefer to do half my work CLI style, but I've seen it coming for 6 years now.
It appears that some of you just don't get it.
/. staff in general. Of course, since I'm NOT /. staff, I'm allowed my opinion, lucky me.
Slashdot is not a news source. Slashdot compiles a bunch of links to stories that are of interest to the community that visits here. It doesn't, as a rule, have more than a few sentences about what the link points to. How is that reporting?
The entire point of this place is discussion. A huge ball of geeks spouting their opinions and having some level of intelligent discussion. Why should CT be exempt from that? He created the damn thing, I'd think he could lob his opinion out with the rest of you, eh?
For a group of "geeks" or "elite linux gurus" and generally "smart guys", you are either a load of hypocrites or lack any form of common sense. If you were told to withold your opinion in these discussions from now on, you'd rant and rave for days. When CT volunteers his, you cry like children. This place has never professed to be a geek-inhabited bastion of journalism. It's a crew of opinionated nerds...get used to it.
Interestingly enough, the above is my opinion and doesn't reflect those of
On a vaguely on-topic note, I run Zone Alarm on my Windows laptop, and I just test this. Zone Alarm halts it immediately, and it's free for individual use. When I tried to contact my "Netscape Server" after I exploited my box, a window popped up asking if I wanted to allow Netscape to run as a server. I said no, and the connection failed.
As hard as it might be to believe, the vast majority of people I deal with don't really care either way. They don't see how it affects them. They just assume it's the same people that steal software (possibly true) and that they'll get into trouble for it and it will end.
We're unlikely to get favorable public opinion in the near future. Big business will win this battle, stigmatize the whole process of "free music" downloading, and it'll continue essentially as it is now. I don't think it's comparable to smoking...it's comparable to smoking pot. It's illegal, that doesn't slow down anyone that wants to do it.
My two cents at least...
Oh, I'd definately prefer that people outside the company that violated their NDA get sued. I'd prefer that people inside the company that violate their NDA get sued. My concern, were I an employee of Apple, is the fact that this is a John Doe suit. How comfortable would you be at work if a co-worker or two is being sued simply because they WORKED on a project that was leaked, without evidence that they leaked anything? The article doesn't seem to indicate that there is much evidence as to whom they are specifically looking for.
I don't know. As a rule, if my employer sued a bunch of my employees, I might feel the need to find a new job. This could be a Bad Thing (tm) for Apple.
That's not to say I don't think they should do this. I think they should try to protect their "trade secrets" as much as is feasible...I just don't think suing employees is feasible.
It almost makes me want to host my company's web site from home, in case I decide one day that their health insurance policy just isn't comprehensive enough.
Seriously, though, if his company allowed their site to be hosted by/on his personal equipment, they've earned whatever happened.
I'll be the first to admit that the ability to search for unknown bands is weak, at best. I would personally love to see the ability to search by genre, a block of years, a "similar to" or a host of other things.
You missed my point, though. He's saying you can't find unknown music on Napster, I'm saying I do, as do many of my online friends. We frequently fire messages back and forth of the "try this" or "listen to this" variety..mostly unknown/unsigned bands.
Actually, this isn't a bad idea. A little un-refined maybe, but not a bad plan. Civil Disobedience. If a large group of people strongly oppose a law, and just refuse to follow it, they in effect force the law to be re-evaluated.
The only thing is, in what form should the Civil Disobedience take. Starting up servers isn't bad, the boycott is a good idea, but what will really make an impact? Anyone?
You're right, security through obscurity has worked so well for Windows products.
But seriously, lets take a step back and look at this logically...how secure is..say, an average well installed Debian Linux install versus Windows NT 4.0 SP 6a
Seems open source is doing some good.
1. No one knows the name of your unknown garage band. Therefore, no one will search for your songs on Napster.
That's odd. I found Chris's music by accident while searching for random artists that I'd not heard of on Napster. Did a search for "fire techno" and found one of his songs. I have since paid for a good number of songs on MP3.com by Chris (I highly recommend that you check out his tunes). Think about how a search works for god's sake.
2. The lawsuit against Napster does not prevent you from publishing your band's songs on your own web site. Your band's web site is arguably a better way to publish your mp3s than Napster.
A very arguable point. The best way to get people interested in your music is by getting them to listen to the music. This is one thing Napster was great at. No jerking around with ugly web pages or FTP sites, odd formats, pay for play schemes, etc. You find a song, you know you can listen to it (frequently minus the first and last 10 seconds, but close enough).
A web page is great after a person knows of your band, but not a way to gain new fans, unless you want the easily impressed superficial "KEWL T-SHIRT" people. No, Napster will be a great loss to those of us musicians who used it to disseminate our music.
It's nice that they decreased the price, but aside from making an already too small screen smaller, I don't see what innovation this brings? I mean, it'd be nice that new versions meant new stuff...new stuff that doesn't include the "iMac-ification" of every piece of electronics on the market.
Pretty see-through colors don't increase useability. I'd prefer a better res. screen, a larger screen, or a 25 dollar lower price tag over pretty colors; but that's just me.
-Jer
I'm not sure how this will work? I mean, I'd assume that for speed's sake, the card would store essential 360 degrees of "line-of-sight" and possibly a little bit beyond. You wouldn't think that it would have enough more stored to make it worthwhile to cheat, would you?
On a different note, if this does work, how long do you think it will be before it's "patched" and how would they (game manufacturers) do it?
-Jer
They did do something that's been pissing me off more and more lately. They check what version of browser you're using, and THEY determine if you have the right browser for the job.
I run my home connection through a proxy server, and I strip all of that information on the way out, so a great many site won't let me at their content AT ALL, because it says I have an insufficient browser (I'm running Netscape 4.73).
It's simple, I just refuse to visit a site that does this...and IAM.com does this (not that I'd visit anyways).
-Jer
It's organization. The web needs it greatly atm.
Well, you may be right. It may not be censorship by the strictest definition
That's hardly a defense of the absolutely wrong word.
If you loosen the definition enough, you can ALMOST stretch it to fit, but not quite. Most certainly, you'd have to introduce the negative connotation yourself. The point is, segmenting the TLDs properly would prevent a great deal of hassle. First, it keeps companies from buying your last name in the
-Jer
This is nothing like censorship. I don't think censorship means what you think it means. Visit www.m-w.com
.com domain. It's commercial. Right now, we have a mess because everyone buys EVERYTHING. The above would fix the currently broken system
In the above example, you buy a domain name in the
-Jer
I no longer do drugs. I just don't enjoy them anymore (assuming you don't count cigarettes or alcohol); and it doesn't matter.
Even if you think that drugs are completely evil, you still need to stand up against governmental censorship. One of the responsibilites of HAVING freedom of speech is the need to defend even the things we disagree with, on principal.
Today, they'll censor drug-related sites "for the children". Tomorrow, cracking-related sites? Maybe sites that include obscenity? Maybe sites that include bestiality? Maybe sites that include depictions of sex? Maybe sites that include nudity? If we allow this to happen, the net could be a very different place. For a picture of what it might look like, try surfing for 2 weeks using Cybersitter or another content filtering software set to maximum. Don't turn it off for two weeks. See how you like the "net of the future". After the two weeks are up, fire a letter and an email to your representatives.
-Jer
I personally think we should take the time to completely rethink the whole system before we add more TLDs.
Why not a system like:
Add to this a more involved and enforced structure for TLDs, and we'll be in business. How about this:
This should be goverend overall by an international body (to determine TLDs) and a body in each country to determine proper assignment of the TLDs. Each entity should be able to take only one TLD per domain name (i.e. slashdot.org couldn't also get slashdot.com). Existing trademark holders should get first crack at a domain name in the appropriate TLD, and if they opt not to get it, they relinquish the right to try to get it if someone else grabs it later. Domain name reselling should be made illegal (to prevent squatting).
It's not a perfect system yet, I'm still mentally working it out. Please email me at pheonixx@bigfoot.com if you have input as to how this could be improved (or have good ideas for TLDs). I'd also like ideas as to whom ideas should be presented of this nature.
-Jer
Lesse, where to start:
The "hypocrite" remark was a sarcastic attempt at humor. Whether it was vague, beyond your comprehension, or just plain not funny I couldn't tell ya', but if you'd take the time, my guess is you'd see it.
Hint: He could actually be simply someone like me; someone who uses Linux/BSD but still sees that there is a great deal that is NOT good about it and a great deal that Windows/MacOS still have over linux (ouch, that's going to hurt my Karma). He might just be using a humorous "linux sucks" forum to get his point across. Sound like a defense of your position at all?
Your indication that "you've seen it all" is unfounded and currently unbacked. Just for fun, lemme point out the hypocracy in your latest post:
This statement, spoken by someone who made a flying LEAP to defend his "honor" and that of his web site. You certainly haven't impressed anyone on THIS side of the fence with your worldly ways and maturity.-Jer
I'd tend to doubt it. At any rate, rather than your above worthless post, perhaps you could clarify? Thus far, all you've done is indicate that you're immature (regardless of age), a braggart, likely full of shit, and still prolly a hypocrite. *shrug*
-Jer
And your stupid to run a server on cable or dsl. Thats why I have a colocation box.
And why, pray tell oh holder of little-to-no wisdom, is that? This should be precious.
-Jer
C'mon, give us some credit.
I work a LOT of hours (although, I've recently cut back to spend time with my kids). Why do I do this? Have I been suckered by my employers? Have I been tempted by technology? Am I some mindless sheep that can't make decisions on my own?
The answer is no. I work the long hours for three reasons. One, job satisfaction. I feel like I'm doing the best job I can when I put in the hours needed to hit a deadline under budget. I feel good about myself when I'm early on a project, exceed expectations, and can report I spent less than predicted. That's just me.
Second, I don't want my wife to have to work. I feel better about the idea that my wife is home raising our children well, not letting some daycare do it. She can enjoy her life (which inevitably makes my life easier) and our kids will be brought up with the values WE want them to have.
The final reason is I want to stop working someday. I watched my grandfather work until he died. I am watching my father do the same. My other grandfather is still working at 70+. They're doing this because they can NOT comfortably retire. That won't be happening to me. I'm busting my ass to put away enough money that, after putting two children through college, I can retire and spend time with my wife living reasonably well. I'm willing to forgoe leisure time now and endure some stress to retire early and enjoy it.
No, I don't think we've been somehow "tricked" into killing ourselves for our job. Many of us conciously make the decision to do so for a variety of reasons. It IS our life to spend.
-Jer
Call me stupid, but I don't get it. It seems like Rambus has a pretty straightforward patent on a bit of technology, and competitors don't like it.
This isn't a troll, I'm hoping someone can either explain this to me or point me to where I can find more information, but why shouldn't Rambus be able to get royalties for this patent. Sure, it's pretty crappy of them to sorta screw consumers by driving up competing prices, but that isn't using monopolistic powers badly. If companies want to compete, shouldn't they have to make a better product with different technology?
Like I said, I don't get it, but it makes no sense to me.
-Jer