Sorry to confuse you, she is not a hunter, she does work at a lab. Her lab analyzes the brains that come from animal heads turned in by hunters. Her job is to remove the brains from the skulls, and prepare slides for microscopic examination. And neither the hunters nor the DNR are required to keep the heads "on ice" for her benefit. She says there's just a big pile of green garbage bags filled with severed heads outside.
Not a big hunter, are you? Do you usually keep very large waste parts of animals in your freezer? Waste parts that would occupy space that would otherwise be holding the meat you do plan to eat?
Anyway, we already have such a device. Here in Minnesota, it's called "outside". But our thermostat isn't very well regulated, and the regulator we do have is tied to a 24 hour cycle, causing the temperatures to swing wildly. Carcasses eventually spoil under these conditions.
There are no government-meat-locker-vans, standing by the woods just waiting to take away the freshly decapitated heads of deer. The DNR doesn't have walk-in freezers available to hold the thousands of heads they need to autopsy. And even if they thought about it in these times of budget crises, why would they? Onerous refrigeration requirements, outlandish electrical bills, all just to make my friend's job a little less disgusting?
Actually, a friend had what I thought was the worst job in science. On her first day on the job she was assigned to autopsy the brains of deer, elk, and other large mammals to see if they carried BSE. The hunters and the meat packers who took the animals dutifully put the heads in plastic sacks, and sent them to her lab. The workload was so high that by the time she actually got to them, most had been rotting for weeks.
As you so rightly noted, secret voting does not exist only to protect your right to vote for a dope-smokin' kook without catching flak. It is also there to preserve the integrity of the election.
In a polling place, you are separated from other people, and election judges make sure you are entering the ballot booth alone. Nobody is standing there hovering over your shoulder, making sure you voted for Mr. Big. When you leave the booth, the goons can say "did you vote for Mr. Big like we told you to?" You can say yes or no, there is no proof.
This prevents rigging elections by coercion, and also by bribery. Sure, I'll take Mr. Slick's $10, but I'm still voting for Jane Doe. And he'll never know.
With online voting, Mr. Big's goons can pay me a visit, and make sure that I click "Cast Vote for Mr. Big." If Mr. Slick wants to pay me $10 for my vote, he can stand behind me and hand me the $10 only after I click "Mr. Slick." Hell, Mr. Slick and Mr. Big can now set up shop in the public library, or an internet cafe. And this doesn't even have anything to do with the issues of server security, network security, etc, all of which are other problems with electronic voting.
On line voting would represent our views exactly as well as the Slashdot polls. Certainly no better.
Bad news, dude. You should probably stop reading slashdot and fix your servers. I'm trying to look at these pictures on your site, but I only get "no connection" or "connection timed out" responses.
This is what wget shows me:
wget http://www.rackspace.com/infrastructure/overview.p hp
--08:55:51-- http://www.rackspace.com/infrastructure/overview.p hp
=> `overview.php'
Resolving www.rackspace.com... done.
Connecting to www.rackspace.com[64.39.2.185]:80... failed: Connection timed out.
Retrying.
--08:56:13-- http://www.rackspace.com/infrastructure/overview.p hp
(try: 2) => `overview.php'
Connecting to www.rackspace.com[64.39.2.185]:80... failed: Connection timed out.
Retrying.
--08:56:36-- http://www.rackspace.com/infrastructure/overview.p hp
(try: 3) => `overview.php'
Connecting to www.rackspace.com[64.39.2.185]:80... failed: Connection timed out.
Retrying. ...
Let's just say I'm glad I'm not currently in the market for a hosting company...
You may be almost positive, but that hasn't stopped you from also being completely wrong.
You're thinking of an "easement", a legal right granted by a property owner to another, frequently for right-of-way purposes. They're written into contracts, and if it's not in a contract, there is no right. There are many forms of easements, and an "easement of necessity" may be forced upon a property owner by a legal action. Typically, this is used on landlocked parcels. But that's not dependent upon any specific amount of time of usage; rather, they're decreed by a court out of necessity. There are also easements called "implied easements", which generally are granted due to the existance of previous easements (if a city vacates a roadway, for example, the property owners who previously enjoyed the use of the road may still retain easement rights to operate that road.)
If I had a driveway across my property that allowed my neighbor access to his garage and then chained it off because I wanted to build my own garage on that bit of land, we'd probably end up in court. If my neighbor had other ways to get to his land via public roads, the judge would probably say "tough luck, build your own driveway." However, if that garage were on the back corner, inaccessable to the public roads because of a pond, other neighbors, or because he built it on the wrong side of a cliff, the judge would probably say to me "Please be a nice neighbor and let him use the road for another week, just long enough to move his stuff out of his garage." If I refused, the judge would be within his powers to grant my neighbor a temporary easement anyway. He might even consider a permanent easement, if the situation warranted it. Judges are usually very reasonable people, and they like the claimants to act reasonable as well.
I've gotten involved in this situation once before. I bit on a stupid forfeiture gambit without realizing that I already had a legal right-of-way easement over the property I bought (a cul-de-sac.) I fell for a shady lawyer's letter saying "if you don't hire us, a shady lawyer will buy your cul-de-sac when it comes up for forfeiture and charge you to access your own house." Fearing that the guy who wrote the letter was quite the expert in shady legal tricks (instead of simply recognizing that he specialized in writing shady letters), I went to the county and bought it myself for back taxes owed. I did get reimbursed via my title insurance (yes, that stupid title insurance racket was actually good for something.) But then I ended up with a cul-de-sac which required payment of taxes, snow plowing, accident insurance, etc. The neighbors and I finally formed a homeowners' association to take care of it.
I also fear that the situation is about to come up again: my neighbor parked a junk car next to his garage many years ago, then built a nice fence around it to hide the ugly monster so I wouldn't have to look at it. In the meantime, the tree I planted on my property has grown to pretty much block the path of anything leaving his fence via that gate. I'm not sure what's going to happen when he finally needs to drag that piece of sh!t away, but he may need to tear down his fence to do it. I'm not cutting the tree down. Personally, I hope he takes a torch to the car and cuts it into gate-sized pieces, and solves all the problems that way.
Anyway, the moral of the story is: if you ever type "IANAL but", you should really hit the cancel button and STFU. If not, at least research your topic before spouting off things you think should be right.
Sorry, but your sig, "Remember: The old adage "fight fire with fire" does not apply to non-metaphorical fires." is incorrect. Ever hear of backburning?
It's where you intentionally light a smaller, controlled fire in the path of a wildfire. The idea is to quickly use up the fuel so it won't continue to support the wildfire and by making it wide enough the wildfire hopefully won't be able to jump across it.
It's where the phrase "fight fire with fire" came from!
While I agree with you that most of the professional spamhauses are using custom spamming code, it would not surprise me to see Outlook (or Outlook Express) as the conduit by which much spam is sent.
The reason is simple: I believe the "entry level" spammers (the AOLusers who dimly think "hey, if they can MAKE MONEY FA$T, so can I!") who have gotten into the spam business have done so with stupid Visual BASIC scripts. And on a Windows box when you want to send email from within a program (especially one of the scripting languages,) using MAPI has been the "native" way to send it. MAPI simply sends the mail via your registered mailer, which is Outlook Express by default (or Outlook, if you shelled out for MS Office.)
Outlook may indeed be too slow, inefficient, and/or buggy for a professional. But most spammers are (by definition) not professional ANYTHING, and are indeed probably too stupid to know the difference.
About two or three years ago, IBM was indeed working on a "modifiable" RFID tag that would allow us to edit the data on the tag to reflect a few dozen bytes worth of stuff. Price paid, date, etc. But certainly nothing we wouldn't already store on a database tied to that purchase.
I think when they realized we weren't even close to paying the price they were then asking for "static" tags they dropped the idea altogether.
Better yet kill MS-executable attachments on the mail server -- before the mail client even sees them.
That's our corporate policy. And you know what? IT IS BETTER. Who the hell needs to email executables? "Hey, open this stupid greeting card, it's cute and has dancing puppies n shit!" Better to delete the attachments completely than to actually watch that crap and then have to go off and strangle the moron who sent it to you. Less prison time, anyway.
Our company has one better. They delete ALL executable email attachments. They virus scan them anyway and replace the attachment with a text note that says "No executable attachments via email." (If it was infested, the scanner replaces the note with something like: THE ATTACHMENT SOBIG.PIF CONTAINED A VIRUS AND WAS DELETED.)
At first I thought it was a stupid policy, but now I like it. I don't get crap email greeting cards from well-meaning idiots, or viruses, or any other junk. Much more pleasant. Plus, the idiots in the cubes next to me don't open their viruses either.
And today I found two of sixty machines using "autoupdate" that suffered from corrupted cryptographic services such that they were unable to install the Microsoft patches. They silently failed to protect those machines. (Oh, sure, the users could have gone into event viewer and seen the failures. That's certainly what my coworkers do after every autoupdate.) The corruption appeared to have caused the antivirus auto-updates to fail as well.
I also had another guy whose NT 4.0 box was rendered completely unbootable by the official patch. His only recourse was to upgrade the box to XP (the upgrade process managed to recover his old settings.)
So don't tell me the "wonders" of autoupdate and how perfect your life is because of it. It's Microsoft software. Nowhere in the EULA do they claim it's going to work right. It may reduce your workload, it may keep some bad things from happening, but don't ever make the mistake of trusting it to always do so.
My company has an email policy that I wonder if it wouldn't go a long way in the ISP sector: they remove every executable attachment and replace it with a text file saying "no executable attachments." Period. Ends with a.EXE,.PIF,.COM,.DLL,.OCX,.VBS, whatever, they don't care, they delete it. MIME-type == executable? Delete it. They do at least virus-scan it before tossing it in the bit bucket, and let the text file reflect it with a polite variant of "The file was removed 'cause it had a FREAKIN' VIRUS, you idiot, quit trying to open it!"
At first I thought it was the typical stupid draconian corporate policy, but I've grown to appreciate it more and more. If someone really feels the need to send an.EXE, they'll rename it to something like FOO_EXE.TXT. If a vendor sends us an.EXE that gets stripped, we just ask for it again, renamed. It keeps us from getting stuff that might otherwise have been shipped by accident (or a virus), and it keeps the real lusers from launching stupid viruses behind the firewall on a daily basis. And this latest round of SOBIG is using the old "Returned undeliverable email" trick, which is bound to hit the idiots even harder.
The list of excuses (yes, they are only excuses) for not updating large systems immediately is not short.
The updated system must be tested to make sure it is still functional after the hotfix. This takes time. And if you're talking a critical system, then you need to thoroughly test 100% of the functionality, which can take substantially longer. Our complete regression testing suite runs thousands of pages, and it takes the QA team weeks to get through it all. This is of course the normal schedule during development, when we have weeks of lead time. Worms and viruses give you minutes, not hours, of reaction time.
Sometimes the patch or the patching process causes other problems. The patch implementer frequently has to come up with workarounds to fit their scenarios.
Some very well known and popular virus scanners are buggy pieces of crap that have rained blue screens of death upon their users. And look at the problems with antivirus auto-updating. Sometimes they will misidentify your custom-written applications as matching virus signatures, and quarantine your perfectly safe code, taking your user base down. This is never a happy moment.
Networks are almost never homogenous. The updating process must be tested on a variety of platforms, servers, workstations, etc.
Updating tens of thousands of computers simultaneously is not always safe or wise, either. The update transmission system itself may not be designed to (or even able to) roll out changes to every client simultaneously. In many critical systems, it is not desirable. Think redundancy -- you don't upgrade both computers at the same time, you upgrade the backup system first, then when it's up and running you can upgrade the primary system, and then finally restore the systems to fully operational. But then your update process has some fragility in that it has to synchronize the updates between the systems. And what about the remote locations that have the primary down and are already on backup? Do you take them down completely for a patch?
When you have tens of thousands of distributed clients running on hard drives that have 7000 hour MTBF ratings, your only guarantee of availability is that about a thousand of them will be down, broken, offline, powered off, or otherwise unavailable. You need to develop mechanisms to patch both the online clients as well as the offline clients. Two different mechanisms for each type of machine means two times the risk of screwing it up.
And if you have tens of thousands of distributed clients across thousands of locations, you may not even have the bandwidth at headquarters to update them all simultaneously. Staging rollouts over time is your only option then.
You have the spectre of "rebuilds" -- distributed CDs containing initial installation images that cannot be kept absolutely current with the latest hotfixes. When remotely rebuilt computers are brought back on line, it will take time for the rest of the image to be updated -- time enough to get infected by an aggressive worm.
What makes you so sure this is "The Next Big Threat"? If you are on the info security team and you dilligently follow ntsecurity, securityfocus, bugtraq, windows update, comp.risks and all the rest, you know that there are dozens of problems announced daily. Are all of them immediate threats? How do you choose which ones to "drop everything and patch these machines NOW!" and which ones might give you more time?
Are you even being attacked by a known threat, or did knowledge of the threat hit the news with the arrival of the worm? SQL Slammer distributed itself in hours. Yes, the patches had been available for six months prior, but what about an attack on a previously unknown vulnerability? MSBlaster arrived on a vulnerability that had been announced less than a week earlier. Next time, there may be no notice and no patches waiting in the wings.
And what about rogues? People who have non-official, unman
Don't worry, if there is something useful that cuts into the MPAA's profits they'll quickly find a way to make it illegal. It's the MPAA's raison d'etre! They may even have it as their mission statement.
The news story is kind of tragicomic, McBribe says "We intend to use this capital to continue our intellectual property protection and licensing initiative..."
I wish all their customers would simply stop giving them money. I know my company has; we've ditched using the products that ran on the SCO platform, but that's only about 60-70 licenses. The rest of you need to pony-up!
The exploit is more likely to be implemented in the reverse. Since access to the transmitters is likely to be restricted, but little orange fibers hanging in the ceilings are less likely to be guarded (or changes noticed,) attackers might consider overbending the fibers to cause future failures.
Exploiting bent optical fibers is not new. Many years ago I read of using bends in fibers as a way to "leak" the light and effectively tap fiber optic cables. They were explaining why the NSA pulled their fibers through conduit which was then pressurized with nitrogen and monitored for leaks.
An employee at the photo store told me that since the IBM microdrives use air bearings that they should not be spun up above 10 000 feet (without additional pressure such as an airline cabin.) Have you experienced any problems at altitudes like this, or do you not ever need to take photographers that high?
I like to use a pencil and paper to write down the jumper settings before I start changing things around.
Also, it helps if I can learn the model number of the drive and look up (and print out) the jumper settings from the web. I hate having to remove drive cages, cables and drives just to learn the stupid MASTER / SLAVE settings. Plus, I make the notes about the current jumper settings right on the printout.
I think the Leatherman Wave is much nicer than the older ones.
With the round handles, I can really get a grip with the pliers, and it doesn't hurt my hands. The four main blades are all locking blades, and easy to get to even with one hand.
The only complaint I have is the difficulty in opening the inner screwdrivers (the side with the phillips and large flat blade.) There's so much friction that the thumbnail indents just bend my thumbnails.
Slashdot Mirror
Nasty.
Anyway, we already have such a device. Here in Minnesota, it's called "outside". But our thermostat isn't very well regulated, and the regulator we do have is tied to a 24 hour cycle, causing the temperatures to swing wildly. Carcasses eventually spoil under these conditions.
There are no government-meat-locker-vans, standing by the woods just waiting to take away the freshly decapitated heads of deer. The DNR doesn't have walk-in freezers available to hold the thousands of heads they need to autopsy. And even if they thought about it in these times of budget crises, why would they? Onerous refrigeration requirements, outlandish electrical bills, all just to make my friend's job a little less disgusting?
It was definitely a "make you sick" job.
As you so rightly noted, secret voting does not exist only to protect your right to vote for a dope-smokin' kook without catching flak. It is also there to preserve the integrity of the election.
In a polling place, you are separated from other people, and election judges make sure you are entering the ballot booth alone. Nobody is standing there hovering over your shoulder, making sure you voted for Mr. Big. When you leave the booth, the goons can say "did you vote for Mr. Big like we told you to?" You can say yes or no, there is no proof. This prevents rigging elections by coercion, and also by bribery. Sure, I'll take Mr. Slick's $10, but I'm still voting for Jane Doe. And he'll never know.
With online voting, Mr. Big's goons can pay me a visit, and make sure that I click "Cast Vote for Mr. Big." If Mr. Slick wants to pay me $10 for my vote, he can stand behind me and hand me the $10 only after I click "Mr. Slick." Hell, Mr. Slick and Mr. Big can now set up shop in the public library, or an internet cafe. And this doesn't even have anything to do with the issues of server security, network security, etc, all of which are other problems with electronic voting.
On line voting would represent our views exactly as well as the Slashdot polls. Certainly no better.
This is what wget shows me:
wget http://www.rackspace.com/infrastructure/overview.p hpp hp
=> `overview.php'
p hp
p hp
...
--08:55:51-- http://www.rackspace.com/infrastructure/overview.
Resolving www.rackspace.com... done.
Connecting to www.rackspace.com[64.39.2.185]:80... failed: Connection timed out.
Retrying.
--08:56:13-- http://www.rackspace.com/infrastructure/overview.
(try: 2) => `overview.php'
Connecting to www.rackspace.com[64.39.2.185]:80... failed: Connection timed out.
Retrying.
--08:56:36-- http://www.rackspace.com/infrastructure/overview.
(try: 3) => `overview.php'
Connecting to www.rackspace.com[64.39.2.185]:80... failed: Connection timed out.
Retrying.
Let's just say I'm glad I'm not currently in the market for a hosting company...
You're thinking of an "easement", a legal right granted by a property owner to another, frequently for right-of-way purposes. They're written into contracts, and if it's not in a contract, there is no right. There are many forms of easements, and an "easement of necessity" may be forced upon a property owner by a legal action. Typically, this is used on landlocked parcels. But that's not dependent upon any specific amount of time of usage; rather, they're decreed by a court out of necessity. There are also easements called "implied easements", which generally are granted due to the existance of previous easements (if a city vacates a roadway, for example, the property owners who previously enjoyed the use of the road may still retain easement rights to operate that road.)
If I had a driveway across my property that allowed my neighbor access to his garage and then chained it off because I wanted to build my own garage on that bit of land, we'd probably end up in court. If my neighbor had other ways to get to his land via public roads, the judge would probably say "tough luck, build your own driveway." However, if that garage were on the back corner, inaccessable to the public roads because of a pond, other neighbors, or because he built it on the wrong side of a cliff, the judge would probably say to me "Please be a nice neighbor and let him use the road for another week, just long enough to move his stuff out of his garage." If I refused, the judge would be within his powers to grant my neighbor a temporary easement anyway. He might even consider a permanent easement, if the situation warranted it. Judges are usually very reasonable people, and they like the claimants to act reasonable as well.
I've gotten involved in this situation once before. I bit on a stupid forfeiture gambit without realizing that I already had a legal right-of-way easement over the property I bought (a cul-de-sac.) I fell for a shady lawyer's letter saying "if you don't hire us, a shady lawyer will buy your cul-de-sac when it comes up for forfeiture and charge you to access your own house." Fearing that the guy who wrote the letter was quite the expert in shady legal tricks (instead of simply recognizing that he specialized in writing shady letters), I went to the county and bought it myself for back taxes owed. I did get reimbursed via my title insurance (yes, that stupid title insurance racket was actually good for something.) But then I ended up with a cul-de-sac which required payment of taxes, snow plowing, accident insurance, etc. The neighbors and I finally formed a homeowners' association to take care of it.
I also fear that the situation is about to come up again: my neighbor parked a junk car next to his garage many years ago, then built a nice fence around it to hide the ugly monster so I wouldn't have to look at it. In the meantime, the tree I planted on my property has grown to pretty much block the path of anything leaving his fence via that gate. I'm not sure what's going to happen when he finally needs to drag that piece of sh!t away, but he may need to tear down his fence to do it. I'm not cutting the tree down. Personally, I hope he takes a torch to the car and cuts it into gate-sized pieces, and solves all the problems that way.
Anyway, the moral of the story is: if you ever type "IANAL but", you should really hit the cancel button and STFU. If not, at least research your topic before spouting off things you think should be right.
It's where you intentionally light a smaller, controlled fire in the path of a wildfire. The idea is to quickly use up the fuel so it won't continue to support the wildfire and by making it wide enough the wildfire hopefully won't be able to jump across it.
It's where the phrase "fight fire with fire" came from!
The reason is simple: I believe the "entry level" spammers (the AOLusers who dimly think "hey, if they can MAKE MONEY FA$T, so can I!") who have gotten into the spam business have done so with stupid Visual BASIC scripts. And on a Windows box when you want to send email from within a program (especially one of the scripting languages,) using MAPI has been the "native" way to send it. MAPI simply sends the mail via your registered mailer, which is Outlook Express by default (or Outlook, if you shelled out for MS Office.)
Outlook may indeed be too slow, inefficient, and/or buggy for a professional. But most spammers are (by definition) not professional ANYTHING, and are indeed probably too stupid to know the difference.
I think when they realized we weren't even close to paying the price they were then asking for "static" tags they dropped the idea altogether.
That's our corporate policy. And you know what? IT IS BETTER. Who the hell needs to email executables? "Hey, open this stupid greeting card, it's cute and has dancing puppies n shit!" Better to delete the attachments completely than to actually watch that crap and then have to go off and strangle the moron who sent it to you. Less prison time, anyway.
At first I thought it was a stupid policy, but now I like it. I don't get crap email greeting cards from well-meaning idiots, or viruses, or any other junk. Much more pleasant. Plus, the idiots in the cubes next to me don't open their viruses either.
I also had another guy whose NT 4.0 box was rendered completely unbootable by the official patch. His only recourse was to upgrade the box to XP (the upgrade process managed to recover his old settings.)
So don't tell me the "wonders" of autoupdate and how perfect your life is because of it. It's Microsoft software. Nowhere in the EULA do they claim it's going to work right. It may reduce your workload, it may keep some bad things from happening, but don't ever make the mistake of trusting it to always do so.
My company has an email policy that I wonder if it wouldn't go a long way in the ISP sector: they remove every executable attachment and replace it with a text file saying "no executable attachments." Period. Ends with a .EXE, .PIF, .COM, .DLL, .OCX, .VBS, whatever, they don't care, they delete it. MIME-type == executable? Delete it. They do at least virus-scan it before tossing it in the bit bucket, and let the text file reflect it with a polite variant of "The file was removed 'cause it had a FREAKIN' VIRUS, you idiot, quit trying to open it!"
At first I thought it was the typical stupid draconian corporate policy, but I've grown to appreciate it more and more. If someone really feels the need to send an .EXE, they'll rename it to something like FOO_EXE.TXT. If a vendor sends us an .EXE that gets stripped, we just ask for it again, renamed. It keeps us from getting stuff that might otherwise have been shipped by accident (or a virus), and it keeps the real lusers from launching stupid viruses behind the firewall on a daily basis. And this latest round of SOBIG is using the old "Returned undeliverable email" trick, which is bound to hit the idiots even harder.
My favorite was that Edison adopted the phrase "Westinghousing" when referring to execution via electric chair.
I suppose that was from a rougher era, when professional spin doctors didn't even know about anaesthesia.
0 BULLS 2 COWS
Don't worry, if there is something useful that cuts into the MPAA's profits they'll quickly find a way to make it illegal. It's the MPAA's raison d'etre! They may even have it as their mission statement.
That was a great demo: "Hey, watch it shut itself down when I pull out the plug!"
???
1. Use the Chewbacca defense.
2. ???
3. Report Profit!
The news story is kind of tragicomic, McBribe says "We intend to use this capital to continue our intellectual property protection and licensing initiative..."
I wish all their customers would simply stop giving them money. I know my company has; we've ditched using the products that ran on the SCO platform, but that's only about 60-70 licenses. The rest of you need to pony-up!
And what if he answers "CowboyNeal"?
Exploiting bent optical fibers is not new. Many years ago I read of using bends in fibers as a way to "leak" the light and effectively tap fiber optic cables. They were explaining why the NSA pulled their fibers through conduit which was then pressurized with nitrogen and monitored for leaks.
An employee at the photo store told me that since the IBM microdrives use air bearings that they should not be spun up above 10 000 feet (without additional pressure such as an airline cabin.) Have you experienced any problems at altitudes like this, or do you not ever need to take photographers that high?
I'm pretty sure it's illegal. I think it might be legal if you never ever listen to the cellular frequencies, but then why bother?
That reminds me, some guy named John Ashcroft called. He wants a word with you.
Also, it helps if I can learn the model number of the drive and look up (and print out) the jumper settings from the web. I hate having to remove drive cages, cables and drives just to learn the stupid MASTER / SLAVE settings. Plus, I make the notes about the current jumper settings right on the printout.
With the round handles, I can really get a grip with the pliers, and it doesn't hurt my hands. The four main blades are all locking blades, and easy to get to even with one hand.
The only complaint I have is the difficulty in opening the inner screwdrivers (the side with the phillips and large flat blade.) There's so much friction that the thumbnail indents just bend my thumbnails.