Re:in their business section...
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 2
Others have pointed out that this is indeed a PR/business strategy, not a technology one. MS is not arguing technology, code quality or any of such, they are pushing that the GPL is bad for business.
Yup. And guess what they think is bad for their business? They may as well have come out and said it...oh wait...they did:
Yeah, I'm aware of OpenBSD. And -- I'll say it again -- any security expert will tell you right off the bat that you *must* tweak *any* system for your security needs.
For example, suppose you're running a Samba file server. In most cases, you want to to turn password encryption ON because it is inherently more secure than sending plaintext passwords.
However, some versions of Windows 95 do not support encrypted passwords. Whether or not Samba can negotiate this on a client-by-client basis (it can't) is actually irrelevant: if you have such clients on your network, you will need to make sure that such clients are isolated from any parts of the network where packet sniffing could be in use. This might involve hiding the Windows 95 clients behind a router, for instance.
You have to know this. If you just install the default installation of Samba, or even a Windows NT server, without this piece of knowledge, you might be assuming that your setup is secure "out of the box." But obviously, it is not.
Linux is making strides but the average user does not know what a partition is and why you just can't simply resize it.
The average user shouldn't be installing servers! This is why companies who hire to people to install and maintain servers look for people with certifications, especially for Microsoft servers.
Contrary to popular belief, Joe Consumer cannot just walk down to CompUSA buy the nt software, stick it in a box and setup in a weekend any easier than he could do with a Linux distro. Using either operating system, Joe Consumer *might* be able to fumble his way through it, but it certainly wouldn't be the most secure or reliable thing on the planet.
You average linux distro out of the box will have just about every known service running (ftp http telnet, etc etc).
Uhh...what's your "average" Linux distro? Mandrake 8.0 will warn you that it installs every service by default, but will allow you to opt out of this. 'Sides, if you don't want the service running, then just don't install the service to begin with.
*Nothing* is secure out of the box. This deserves repeating. *Nothing* is secure out of the box. Really. Good security requires tweaking the system -- any system -- for your particular situation. Being Open Source, Linux is definitely the most tweakable of the two choices. And if you want a truly secure system from a networking standpoint, heck, just unplug it from any unsecure networks. (this would include the Internet).
And Microsoft operating systems are very secure. Provided you follow instructions and leave the power switch on the machine in the "off" position.:)
27. Cars burning denatured alchohol as their primary fuel
It's not denatured alchohol, but Ford Motor Company sells flexible fuel vehicles that run on E85, which is a mixture of 85% ethanol (an alchohol-based fuel made from corn) and 15% gasoline. So if it wasn't in exact hit, he was pretty darn close.:)
The memory requirements are a bit exaggerated for one. 128M is a practical amount of RAM for *any* Linux system where you plan on using KDE or GNOME. 64M just won't cut it. If you want a browser that takes little RAM, try Lynx. But just don't expect things like Netscape plugins (Flash, etc.) or even graphics.
I used to be able to say Opera had low memory requirements, but Opera on Linux is a pig.
In the X-Files, for instance, they love to have clocks pointing to 10:13 because Chris Carter's production company is named Ten Thirteen. They'll also name minor characters after regular posters on the X-Files newsgroup. That kind of thing is actually comparatively common, a kind of insider's joke.
The Star Trek series' do this too. For instance, on the TNG Enterprise's bridge, the names of the writers and directors and so forth are on the dedication plaque.
Or in a Deep Space Nine episode, there were two agents from Starfleet who were investigating a time travel incident. Their names were Dulmer and Lucsley. (Anagrams for Mulder and Sculley, of X-Files fame of couse;-).
in any case, NT should be able to address 64GB of ram, but only map 2GB into any one app.
We're talking about 1 app here...Unigraphics. While it's possible to run multiple instances of UG, it's often not desirable because it's a copy protected application (yes, even in this day and age) with a electronic licensing arrangment.
There is actually standards test put forth by the Open Group. It tells you what is Unix and what isn't.
Many commercial Unixes that weren't in fact derived from the *original* AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX (the original determination for what is UNIX and what is not) haven't even passed this test. (Neither has Linux, I'm not sure about the *BSDs, but I'd be willing to bet not all of them have passed either).
So there's your answer: if it passes the Open Group's test, you can call it Unix.
Aha! But they know this is possible, so they've built in a method to get the system to check for known leaked secret keysets and KSV's.
Is it just me or does it seem like at *some* point this database of known leaked secret keysets and KSV's would take *large* amounts of space? Possibly terabytes? Where would they store all this? On the CD/DVD? On a server on the Net (this would imply working Net access would have to be a given...imagine you can't play your copy of "The Matrix" because your Net connection is down or broken)?
Well, I work for another Fortune 50 company, General Motors (my opinions are not those of GM, yadda yadda...they don't even LIKE my opinions:)
I would have to say that GM is more firmly in the Microsoft camp now than before.
Sure, Windows and Office XP aren't in the pipeline at GM. We ran Windows 3.1 on our desktops until 1999. (!)
They moved to GM OnLine in that year (no, there's no popup ads:), which is a combination of Win95 and WinNT 4 desktops. We're just now making the move to GM OnLine 2000, which is all Windows 2000-based desktops.
Furthermore, GM IS&S has big plans to migrate its CAD desktops, running Unigraphics, from Solaris and HP-UX to Windows 2000.
XP is not on the pipeline because it takes them so long to implment a platform...it took something like 3 years to implement Windows 95 and NT 4. They promised that half of the desktops by 4Q 2000 would be Windows 2000-based, I have yet to see one single Windows 2000 desktop, other than the 4 CAD workstations we have as part of a pilot to use Windows 2000 in the CAD environment.
And I have heard rumors of a possible migration to XP at some point. The problem is that the leadership GM IS&S (the CIO's and such) are a bunch of clueless morons who seem to be getting major kickbacks from M$.
They know that Windows 2000 is an inadequate platform for high-end Unigraphics work. Several of us that work with UG have told them that. The engineers even know that. There are problems with Win2k's 2 GB memory limitation, for example. (A model of car, complete with weld points can easily take 2 GB of memory by itself, for instance). But none of this is stopping the lemmings from jumping on the M$ platform.
*sigh*
As long as there are clueless droids and suits in charge, the old motto "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" becomes "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft." and the cycle continues.
Perhaps the memo is faked and perhaps it isn't. But you have to admit this is a reasonable stance for AOL to take.
If the memo is true to the attitude of AOL/TW, faked or not, it seems like a good opportunity for somebody like Red Hat to step in and talk to AOL about moving things along for a "Linux XP" or something on that order where an AOL-focused Linux distribution is created.
There are tons of users who use their computers only to access America Online. They don't know what the other pretty icons on their computer are for. If you launch something else, like even a spreadsheet program, they will insist that you "hacked" something on their computer. I'm deadly serious, this is no joke.
Those users could be the key to bringing in people to the Linux desktop. Make it easy for those users and they will flock...and this will seriously burn into Microsoft's share of the home desktop market.
Microsoft does not develop custom projects. They develop general use products for the public.
Not entirely true. They have a consulting arm that writes custom Visual Basic for Applications code and stuff like that to implement M$ prodcts in businesses.
if somebody wrote handwriting recognition software with the knowledge that it had a high probability of being used to launch missiles, then they've got responsibility for the results.
Really? So General Motors has responsibility for all those bank robberies where someone used a Chevy (or a Pontiac or a Buick, etc.) as a getaway vehicle? I mean, really, you can't say GM doesn't know that people are going to use their cars to commit crimes.
I know, maybe GM should design in an anti-crook system, so that the car can SENSE when its being used by a bank robber and will refuse to start for the bank robber.Yeah, that's the ticket.
Human architects designed the concentration camps and gas chambers. Do they share the responsibility for the Holocaust? Clearly yes.
Common argument...to which I always respond: do you blame the guy who designed the door knobs on the gas chambers? No, clearly door knobs serve a much larger purpose and like all technology, door knobs can be abused.
Human scientists contributed to the development of the atomic bomb. Do they share responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Clearly yes.
Really? If you live in the United States, chances are you are using technology -- right now -- that came as a result of that research. Nuclear power plants. Even if you don't live near a nuclear power plant, if you live in just about any developed country, your government is using the threat of their nuclear weapons to keep your ass alive and allowing you to say stupid stuff like that.
A major salient point from Toffler is the so-called demassification of the media, meaning that many more people can disseminate information than in the past.
I love Alvin and Heidi... I'm one of their biggest fans. But I'm not sure that what we're seeing here is the demassification of the media just yet, as is the case with the Internet.. We're definitely seeing that with the Internet. But maybe this selling off of airwaves is a first step. Or maybe what will happen is that, increasingly, traditional media, such as radio and TV, won't matter anymore. We're seeing a move towards digital TV and digital radio. Yes, digital radio...the Big Three (and I work for one of them, so I should know::) are putting in these new "AM/FM/XM" radios into cars...XM is a digital, commercial free (currently) subscription radio service where you get a larger variety of stations and music than ever possible before.
I see a convergence of all these technolgies, Internet, digital radio, digital TV happening...with initiatives like Internet2, we'll all have the massive amounts of bandwidth to make traditional analog broadcasting a thing of the past anyway. Wireless broadcasting will continue, but it will be all digital and satellite-based meaning far fewer frequencies will be necessary. There won't need to be a difference between your radio and TV and Internet signals...they'll all come on the same carrier!
Do you guys get that over there occasionally? Can you get rid of judges who are clueless? Do you have any frigging say in the way your country is run at all?
The purpose of a judge in the U.S. is to interpret existing law. It's entirely possible that amateur tablature falls in the category of "fair use." (I think it would), but a judge might very rule that it is copyright infringement. It depends on how you interpret the law. At least in this case we're not likely to have the situation, as in the Napster suit, where the judge has no frigging clue...online tablature is basically the same as writing it down on a piece of paper.
The real question is is writing it (the tablature...the music if you will) down a piece of paper and then distributing it to the masses copyright infringement? If I just write it down and give it to a few friends, may. But if I write it down take it to a print shop, have a million copies made and even if I don't sell them for $10 a pop, well, maybe that IS copyright infringement. Translating a work is considered to be one of the protected rights under copyright. That's what you have to consider.
I do that to my friends...show up at their house and phone them from their driveway, telling them I'm on my way over to visit and then five seconds later, while I'm still on the phone, I'll hit the doorbell...freaks 'em right out! >:-)
The hard drive platters were free. The coffee can lids might have worked better though because they are lighter in weight, although they wouldn't have been as rigid, so I'm not sure how well they would have supported the weight of the vehicle...
The 218 files would have taken no additional space on the FAT, as it's fixed size.
Further, you can format tracks down to 128 bytes per sector, leaving an average of 64 bytes of dead space per file. That's 13,592 bytes of dead space, if we store the files "conventionally".
I never said that it would take additional FAT space, I'm talking slack space...if you knew anything about the FAT filesystem (which you obviously don't), you would know that its not sectors you have to worry about, it's clusters (GROUPS of sectors). there are only so many clusters because of FAT's fixed size... I was being QUITE generous in saying that 512 bytes is a practical average. On a 1.2 GB MS-DOS formatted drive (not FAT32, mind you, we're talking DOS here, not Windows), the cluster size ends up being something like 16K, leaving the average slack space to be 8K. so I was being VERY generous there.
Again, that depends on what you mean by "paper airplane." Admittedly, I won a similar contest involving rubber-band driven cars. The contest rules said that CDs or DVDs could not be used for tires due to the fact that they make for very narrow tires, thus having reduced friction. So I used hard drive platters.:-)
No way...the guy didn't compress shit. All he did was some data shifting. If the guy had read the FAQ, he would know that such tricks are not compression...you mention an MSDOS FAT filesystem. Even on a FAT filesystem, the 218 (or whatever) files and the decompressor would have taken up more space than the original file due to slack space...although the amount would vary from hard drive to hard drive, if you figure an average of 512 bytes of slack space per file thats 111,616 bytes of slack space, far more space than Patrick claims to have "saved."
And anyways, the guy basically admits that he cheated by exploiting the vague wording of the challenge.
I've got to hand it to Patrick, though, because if you do take the challenge out of context, he basically won...it depends on what the meaning of the words "compressor" and "decompressor" mean.
Slashdot Mirror
Others have pointed out that this is indeed a PR/business strategy, not a technology one. MS is not arguing technology, code quality or any of such, they are pushing that the GPL is bad for business.
:-)
Yup. And guess what they think is bad for their business? They may as well have come out and said it...oh wait...they did:
Linux is one of Microsoft's many competitors
Need I say more?
Yeah, I'm aware of OpenBSD. And -- I'll say it again -- any security expert will tell you right off the bat that you *must* tweak *any* system for your security needs.
For example, suppose you're running a Samba file server. In most cases, you want to to turn password encryption ON because it is inherently more secure than sending plaintext passwords.
However, some versions of Windows 95 do not support encrypted passwords. Whether or not Samba can negotiate this on a client-by-client basis (it can't) is actually irrelevant: if you have such clients on your network, you will need to make sure that such clients are isolated from any parts of the network where packet sniffing could be in use. This might involve hiding the Windows 95 clients behind a router, for instance.
You have to know this. If you just install the default installation of Samba, or even a Windows NT server, without this piece of knowledge, you might be assuming that your setup is secure "out of the box." But obviously, it is not.
Linux is making strides but the average user does not know what a partition is and why you just can't simply resize it.
The average user shouldn't be installing servers! This is why companies who hire to people to install and maintain servers look for people with certifications, especially for Microsoft servers.
Contrary to popular belief, Joe Consumer cannot just walk down to CompUSA buy the nt software, stick it in a box and setup in a weekend any easier than he could do with a Linux distro. Using either operating system, Joe Consumer *might* be able to fumble his way through it, but it certainly wouldn't be the most secure or reliable thing on the planet.
You average linux distro out of the box will have just about every known service running (ftp http telnet, etc etc).
:)
Uhh...what's your "average" Linux distro? Mandrake 8.0 will warn you that it installs every service by default, but will allow you to opt out of this. 'Sides, if you don't want the service running, then just don't install the service to begin with.
*Nothing* is secure out of the box. This deserves repeating. *Nothing* is secure out of the box. Really. Good security requires tweaking the system -- any system -- for your particular situation. Being Open Source, Linux is definitely the most tweakable of the two choices. And if you want a truly secure system from a networking standpoint, heck, just unplug it from any unsecure networks. (this would include the Internet).
And Microsoft operating systems are very secure. Provided you follow instructions and leave the power switch on the machine in the "off" position.
27. Cars burning denatured alchohol as their primary fuel
:)
It's not denatured alchohol, but Ford Motor Company sells flexible fuel vehicles that run on E85, which is a mixture of 85% ethanol (an alchohol-based fuel made from corn) and 15% gasoline. So if it wasn't in exact hit, he was pretty darn close.
Nah...he missed yet another deadline... :)
"The thing I love most about deadlines is the wonderful WHOOSHing sound they make as they go past." - Douglas Adams.
The memory requirements are a bit exaggerated for one. 128M is a practical amount of RAM for *any* Linux system where you plan on using KDE or GNOME. 64M just won't cut it. If you want a browser that takes little RAM, try Lynx. But just don't expect things like Netscape plugins (Flash, etc.) or even graphics.
I used to be able to say Opera had low memory requirements, but Opera on Linux is a pig.
In the X-Files, for instance, they love to have clocks pointing to 10:13 because Chris Carter's production company is named Ten Thirteen. They'll also name minor characters after regular posters on the X-Files newsgroup. That kind of thing is actually comparatively common, a kind of insider's joke.
;-).
The Star Trek series' do this too. For instance, on the TNG Enterprise's bridge, the names of the writers and directors and so forth are on the dedication plaque.
Or in a Deep Space Nine episode, there were two agents from Starfleet who were investigating a time travel incident. Their names were Dulmer and Lucsley. (Anagrams for Mulder and Sculley, of X-Files fame of couse
in any case, NT should be able to address 64GB of ram, but only map 2GB into any one app.
We're talking about 1 app here...Unigraphics. While it's possible to run multiple instances of UG, it's often not desirable because it's a copy protected application (yes, even in this day and age) with a electronic licensing arrangment.
There is actually standards test put forth by the Open Group. It tells you what is Unix and what isn't.
Many commercial Unixes that weren't in fact derived from the *original* AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX (the original determination for what is UNIX and what is not) haven't even passed this test. (Neither has Linux, I'm not sure about the *BSDs, but I'd be willing to bet not all of them have passed either).
So there's your answer: if it passes the Open Group's test, you can call it Unix.
No, it's 2GB for the kernel and other ring 0 stuff and 2 GB for applications.
And Solaris can address gobs more memory than 4 GB.
Aha! But they know this is possible, so they've built in a method to get the system to check for known leaked secret keysets and KSV's.
Is it just me or does it seem like at *some* point this database of known leaked secret keysets and KSV's would take *large* amounts of space? Possibly terabytes? Where would they store all this? On the CD/DVD? On a server on the Net (this would imply working Net access would have to be a given...imagine you can't play your copy of "The Matrix" because your Net connection is down or broken)?
Well, I work for another Fortune 50 company, General Motors (my opinions are not those of GM, yadda yadda...they don't even LIKE my opinions :)
:), which is a combination of Win95 and WinNT 4 desktops. We're just now making the move to GM OnLine 2000, which is all Windows 2000-based desktops.
I would have to say that GM is more firmly in the Microsoft camp now than before.
Sure, Windows and Office XP aren't in the pipeline at GM. We ran Windows 3.1 on our desktops until 1999. (!)
They moved to GM OnLine in that year (no, there's no popup ads
Furthermore, GM IS&S has big plans to migrate its CAD desktops, running Unigraphics, from Solaris and HP-UX to Windows 2000.
XP is not on the pipeline because it takes them so long to implment a platform...it took something like 3 years to implement Windows 95 and NT 4. They promised that half of the desktops by 4Q 2000 would be Windows 2000-based, I have yet to see one single Windows 2000 desktop, other than the 4 CAD workstations we have as part of a pilot to use Windows 2000 in the CAD environment.
And I have heard rumors of a possible migration to XP at some point. The problem is that the leadership GM IS&S (the CIO's and such) are a bunch of clueless morons who seem to be getting major kickbacks from M$.
They know that Windows 2000 is an inadequate platform for high-end Unigraphics work. Several of us that work with UG have told them that. The engineers even know that. There are problems with Win2k's 2 GB memory limitation, for example. (A model of car, complete with weld points can easily take 2 GB of memory by itself, for instance). But none of this is stopping the lemmings from jumping on the M$ platform.
*sigh*
As long as there are clueless droids and suits in charge, the old motto "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" becomes "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft." and the cycle continues.
Perhaps the memo is faked and perhaps it isn't. But you have to admit this is a reasonable stance for AOL to take.
If the memo is true to the attitude of AOL/TW, faked or not, it seems like a good opportunity for somebody like Red Hat to step in and talk to AOL about moving things along for a "Linux XP" or something on that order where an AOL-focused Linux distribution is created.
There are tons of users who use their computers only to access America Online. They don't know what the other pretty icons on their computer are for. If you launch something else, like even a spreadsheet program, they will insist that you "hacked" something on their computer. I'm deadly serious, this is no joke.
Those users could be the key to bringing in people to the Linux desktop. Make it easy for those users and they will flock...and this will seriously burn into Microsoft's share of the home desktop market.
It's something to think about.
Microsoft does not develop custom projects. They develop general use products for the public.
:->
Not entirely true. They have a consulting arm that writes custom Visual Basic for Applications code and stuff like that to implement M$ prodcts in businesses.
Stop laughing!! That's custom development!!
if somebody wrote handwriting recognition software with the knowledge that it had a high probability of being used to launch missiles, then they've got responsibility for the results.
Really? So General Motors has responsibility for all those bank robberies where someone used a Chevy (or a Pontiac or a Buick, etc.) as a getaway vehicle? I mean, really, you can't say GM doesn't know that people are going to use their cars to commit crimes.
I know, maybe GM should design in an anti-crook system, so that the car can SENSE when its being used by a bank robber and will refuse to start for the bank robber.Yeah, that's the ticket.
Human architects designed the concentration camps and gas chambers. Do they share the responsibility for the Holocaust? Clearly yes.
Common argument...to which I always respond: do you blame the guy who designed the door knobs on the gas chambers? No, clearly door knobs serve a much larger purpose and like all technology, door knobs can be abused.
Human scientists contributed to the development of the atomic bomb. Do they share responsibility for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Clearly yes.
Really? If you live in the United States, chances are you are using technology -- right now -- that came as a result of that research. Nuclear power plants. Even if you don't live near a nuclear power plant, if you live in just about any developed country, your government is using the threat of their nuclear weapons to keep your ass alive and allowing you to say stupid stuff like that.
Do you feel any guilt?
I don't.
A major salient point from Toffler is the so-called demassification of the media, meaning that many more people can disseminate information than in the past.
::) are putting in these new "AM/FM/XM" radios into cars...XM is a digital, commercial free (currently) subscription radio service where you get a larger variety of stations and music than ever possible before.
I love Alvin and Heidi... I'm one of their biggest fans. But I'm not sure that what we're seeing here is the demassification of the media just yet, as is the case with the Internet.. We're definitely seeing that with the Internet. But maybe this selling off of airwaves is a first step. Or maybe what will happen is that, increasingly, traditional media, such as radio and TV, won't matter anymore. We're seeing a move towards digital TV and digital radio. Yes, digital radio...the Big Three (and I work for one of them, so I should know
I see a convergence of all these technolgies, Internet, digital radio, digital TV happening...with initiatives like Internet2, we'll all have the massive amounts of bandwidth to make traditional analog broadcasting a thing of the past anyway. Wireless broadcasting will continue, but it will be all digital and satellite-based meaning far fewer frequencies will be necessary. There won't need to be a difference between your radio and TV and Internet signals...they'll all come on the same carrier!
Do you guys get that over there occasionally? Can you get rid of judges who are clueless? Do you have any frigging say in the way your country is run at all?
The purpose of a judge in the U.S. is to interpret existing law. It's entirely possible that amateur tablature falls in the category of "fair use." (I think it would), but a judge might very rule that it is copyright infringement. It depends on how you interpret the law. At least in this case we're not likely to have the situation, as in the Napster suit, where the judge has no frigging clue...online tablature is basically the same as writing it down on a piece of paper.
The real question is is writing it (the tablature...the music if you will) down a piece of paper and then distributing it to the masses copyright infringement? If I just write it down and give it to a few friends, may. But if I write it down take it to a print shop, have a million copies made and even if I don't sell them for $10 a pop, well, maybe that IS copyright infringement. Translating a work is considered to be one of the protected rights under copyright. That's what you have to consider.
I do that to my friends...show up at their house and phone them from their driveway, telling them I'm on my way over to visit and then five seconds later, while I'm still on the phone, I'll hit the doorbell...freaks 'em right out! >:-)
The hard drive platters were free. The coffee can lids might have worked better though because they are lighter in weight, although they wouldn't have been as rigid, so I'm not sure how well they would have supported the weight of the vehicle...
:)
I guess I could try it, though.
The 218 files would have taken no additional space on the FAT, as it's fixed size.
Further, you can format tracks down to 128 bytes per sector, leaving an average of 64 bytes of dead space per file. That's 13,592 bytes of dead space, if we store the files "conventionally".
I never said that it would take additional FAT space, I'm talking slack space...if you knew anything about the FAT filesystem (which you obviously don't), you would know that its not sectors you have to worry about, it's clusters (GROUPS of sectors). there are only so many clusters because of FAT's fixed size... I was being QUITE generous in saying that 512 bytes is a practical average. On a 1.2 GB MS-DOS formatted drive (not FAT32, mind you, we're talking DOS here, not Windows), the cluster size ends up being something like 16K, leaving the average slack space to be 8K. so I was being VERY generous there.
Again, that depends on what you mean by "paper airplane." Admittedly, I won a similar contest involving rubber-band driven cars. The contest rules said that CDs or DVDs could not be used for tires due to the fact that they make for very narrow tires, thus having reduced friction. So I used hard drive platters. :-)
No way...the guy didn't compress shit. All he did was some data shifting. If the guy had read the FAQ, he would know that such tricks are not compression...you mention an MSDOS FAT filesystem. Even on a FAT filesystem, the 218 (or whatever) files and the decompressor would have taken up more space than the original file due to slack space...although the amount would vary from hard drive to hard drive, if you figure an average of 512 bytes of slack space per file thats 111,616 bytes of slack space, far more space than Patrick claims to have "saved."
And anyways, the guy basically admits that he cheated by exploiting the vague wording of the challenge.
I've got to hand it to Patrick, though, because if you do take the challenge out of context, he basically won...it depends on what the meaning of the words "compressor" and "decompressor" mean.
Ok, who are you and how long have you been working for my company?
:-)
That was about the funniest damn thing I've ever read...hey, you're not like Scott Adams by any chance?