I've been searching for a small shared calendaring option for a while.
I'm not looking for a full-blown groupware suite - our email is done off-site by our ISP. I only need something I can tie everyone's calendar's together with - I want it small and focused on just a single task.
Boss is married to Outhouse, one guy has a Mac, I'm using Sunbird (although I'll adapt if I *have* to), so we have to tie in a bunch of platforms.
My current leanings are to Kolab with the Toltec connector (Note to OS naysayers: I'm not averse to spending money here! I would prefer Open Source.)
I'm reading TFA in the hopes of finding something - but I've seen nothing on a quick scan through it. Any other tips I could be following up on?
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
If they hurry they can find a really good alternative name...
Until someone can point out explicitly which files and processes are IE which are spread out among the various DLL's on my system, I'll reject the argument as arguing separate points because the two cannot be compared on an equal basis.
We can get into a ton of arguments over the semantics of "small and light". I run FF on all my systems and find it equally suitable on my P3-450 as I do on my 1.8 GHz laptop.
Built into the OS I will stand on any time. I followed the debates when khtml was getting integrated into KDE. There is a big difference between integrating them on the basis of techical merit vs. integrating them on the basis of choking Netscape's "air supply" and getting IE to show up at all sorts of wonderfully, irritating ways.
Microsoft was convicted for integrating IE in order to quash competition. It was not done on technical merit, and has repeatedly been a design flaw as someone has escallation rights into the OS itself.
The point I am *not* arguing here is the basis of the article: The same can and does happen with Firefox / Opera / any other browser on the face of the earth.
Microsoft has the ability to fix IE properly, but realistically it's just easier to blow it up and start over.
No it doesn't. The only *major* problem in IE is ActiveX - which in more recent versions has been significant curtailed.
Shall we argue the semantics of "blow up" now?
IE was built on the shaky grounds of taking out Netscape at the knees. It has floundered with design flaws, security holes, and a deservedly iffy reputation from people I trust to know.
Blow up to me means they need a complete code audit, rewriting sections, funnelling out the crap like ActiveX that's causing some of the huge nightmares out there.
And the difference of that from blowing it up and starting over is what?
Your comparison of a Lexus and a Pinto demonstrates a very real link to the very debate at hand.
Lexus is a new vehicle, which has underwent constant development over the past number of years in order to improve the basic design.
The Pinto reached EOL in 1980 with a disasterous reputation. But it was part of the Pony-car line which includes the Mustang, the Escort in all it's incarnations, and I presume the successor to the Escort, the Focus.
If you were willing to put the time and effort into upgrading the Pinto with modern parts, to modern safety standards, and with modern engineering it is *possible* to reach the same standards of quality and safety in a Lexus - I have no doubt at all.
The cost would be astronomically expensive. I'm not sure having a modernized Pinto is worth it. Particularly when you'd essentially have a souped-up Focus.
This is the very crux of what Microsoft must face today. They made some horrifyingly bad engineering decisions with IE based on marketing and choking Netscape out of the marketplace. They achieved a monopoly in the browser market, then sat pat, ignorning development on something which is relied on extensively by most users.
Firefox is small, light, NOT built into the OS, amazingly flexible, and I have no doubts it's safer because of issues like simply not using ActiveX. The default settings are SANE and useful to any average joe I foist Firefox onto.
Microsoft has the ability to fix IE properly, but realistically it's just easier to blow it up and start over.
Now will the get the technical acumen to trump the marketing? Doubt it. Let the rest suffer, I'm strictly Firefox on all my systems, and I plug it relentlessly to all my clients.
Are we talking about hundreds and thousands of acres of crops or are we talking about organic farming? Talking about "hundreds or thousands of pounds of DNA" is a little disingenuous - most of that pollen will drop about the parent plant. How many plants did that pollen come from? A single tree or a million plants?
Most typical farmers buy new seed each year to minimize weed seeds. That means the entire harvest from the previous year goes to market and it not allowed to propagate.
If we're talking organic farmers, they usually farm on a small enough scale to be able to find and cull offtypes. Which most assuredly does NOT apply to something such as Roundup resistance which cannot be visually seen.
If we're talking about granting patent protections on the Roundup resistant gene, I consider such patents spurious and highly questionable.
Given that Monsanto has, in fact, been granted a patent, it has been based on the idea that pollen can be reasonably isolated by distance, using field borders, and by use of best farming practices - here partially defined as not replanting the prior crop.
There's an argument to be made for pollen containment. There's certainly an argument to be made for DNA patents. But the two are not strongly linked. First we must address whether the farmers are using suitable care growing the crops.
For instance, in corn (Zea mais) hybrids, the anthers of all non-pollenating plants are removed so that hybrids can be created. This is done manually and is very labour intensive, which causes a rather large increase in cost to produce the seed. Fortunately the hybrid vigour is well worth the effort.
If you will, they make most of them female.
This isn't even touching on parthenogenesis, where the female egg can create a complete adult without the sperm - an event first noticed in plants, if I remember correctly.
And similar to the movies, it can work or not work in real life.;-)
Surely you understand the significance of a logarithmic curve, right?
Some pollen travels much further than other pollen. It depends on the vector of transfer at the very least. Put a dab of pollen on the shell of Voyager and it will leave the solar system. It doesn't mean that pollen will be viable at the end of it's journey.
The chances of successfully fertilizing another plant decreases along a logarithmic curve. Any organic farmer worth his bread knows very well what best practices are and how to best prevent contamination. It will never be zero risk, but with careful farming the risk can be kept negligable.
Dihydrogen Monoxide -- the most silent of killers...;-)
It specifically means that they cannot apply pesticides for a period of five years. I believe there are also restrictions on the types of fertilizer that are available.
As you kindly pointed out, the definition of "chemical" is pathetically specious.
Truly a matter of marketing over useful definitions.
Mostly because they're such opposite ends of the spectrum but the seeds look so similar.
You'd hate to think you were growing food quality canola and end up with a field of industrial lube by accident.
The two main types grown here are Brassica napus and B. rapa. I'd suspect they constitute "canola" and "rapeseed", but that's a bit of a guess. I've never really needed to find out if a B. rapa could qualify for a canola or not.
If the canola label could span between species, it would be even more justification to have a special product name like that.
Now, if that cow raised for beef production was fed only canola meal during it's entire lifetime, would it deep fry itself? Hmm....
Mr. Schmeiser does allege that it was potentially cross pollenation as well as seed falling from trucks transporting neighbor's grain to market.
The difference is that he found seed that was resistant to roundup growing in his field, harvested and increased it the following year.
The grandparent post is truly indicative of a swath of opinion. (Pun fully intended.) The situation is not nearly as black and white as is portrayed, with both sides bringing baggage to the courthouse.
I wish my post on Mr. Schmeiser being a canola breeder was the one that got modded up today.
He was a canola breeder who had previously developed several varieties of canola on his own. He knew very well about increasing a lot of seeds and specifically chose the border lot for increase.
I guess the point of distinction of what he needed to do with the border seed remains the question of "What seed was being grown in that field?"
If it was a lot of Foundation seed, the border plants should have been destroyed outright before they were allowed to pollenate. Personally, I would likely do the same if it was Certified seed. If it was seed for crushing, you of course are right and the seed could be set as one lot.
Spraying Roundup on the borders makes me think he wanted the borders clear for a field of propagating seed. The center of his field would have been cut into lots where they would have been inspected for purity before they would have been harvested and designated as a seed source.
But to me Mr. Schmeiser's actions seemed to be more about selecting Roundup resistant seed to test this case in court rather than being about best farming practice.
The difference truly comes down to more than just sensitivity over the name "rapeseed." In fact, rapeseed is still commonly used.
The true difference between "canola" and "rapeseed" lies in the amount of erucic acid in the oil from the seed. This makes a very significant difference to the farmer.
Canola, grown as a food oil source, has a very low quantity (less than 2%) of erucic acid. Rapeseed grown for industrial purposes may have up to 45% erucic acid instead.
Organic crops are worth the premium price because it costs significantly more to produce.
I'm not up to date with the regulations in Canada regarding organic farming, but as I understand it a field must remain chemical free for a minimum of five years, the soil will then be tested for contamination, and there are restrictions on what may be grown and how the crop must be treated.
Unlike the UK, we generally have lots of room over here and the organic farmers have tended to congregate. It's exceptionally difficult for a farmer to declare the farm as organic without the cooperation of the surrounding community.
When organic farms first were created, they were generally considered as a curiousity. Most farmers who started organics were given a reasonable amount of support and a reasonable amount of scorn from the neighbors. The good ones who managed to make a go were joined by neighbors. The others were bought out.
Those organic farmers who have managed to make a go of it are exceptionally smart folks, and are generally very aware of the borders they must retain to protect the crops they tend. They discuss farming with their neighbors and they usually know who uses GM material and try very hard to avoid contamination in the first place.
Financial penalties are fine and well, but it's much better to form a strong community with the neighbors and try to avoid the contamination in the first place.
He sprayed Roundup along the field edges where contanimation is most likely to occur.
Clearing the edges of the field is a common practice, to protect the crop within from dangers such as accidental cross-pollination and the like.
Spraying with Roundup is fine, but the canola that survived at the edges should have been destroyed in one way or another. Let me draw that out once more, he sprayed in order to protect the crop in the center of the field from potential invaders or contaminants.
Instead of destroying that canola, he harvested it and replanted it. This was Mr. Schmeiser's most grievous error, and also the source of the canola in question. Had he destroyed the plants, the issue would not have arisen in court. Of course, he would also not have had his seed source in the first place.
Mr. Schmeiser was a canola breeder on his own, and had developed several varieties of his own over some 40 years of farming.
One of the biggest points of contention that Mr. Schmeiser held was that the Roundup Ready variety actually endangered his entire breeding efforts. Whether overt of whispered, it was very much a theme of the case as it progressed of the independent farmer vs. large agri-business.
All things being equal, Mr. Schmeiser may have had a reasonable argument, but it was handled poorly and by his attempts to select seed by spraying with Roundup (regardless or origin), replanting and bringing that seed forward to harvest certainly did not leave him entirely as the innocent victim in this situation.
Should Monsanto have the right to patent the Roundup resistant gene? Personally, I think not. I hope the next person to fight this battle minds his P's and Q's much better than Mr. Schmeiser did.
It's called the Terminator gene and was pulled from the commercial market by Monsanto in 1999, if I recall correctly.
There were several arguments for and against the commercial use of the terminator gene.
Pro: It would prevent the propagation of potentially dangerous or foreign genes in plants from being passed generation to generation. Theoretically it should have formed a method of controlling where genetically modified plants would be spread.
Of course, this was argued as simply a way for Monsanto to sell new seeds to the farmers year after year, creating a reliance of the farmer upon Monsanto seed. (The thought of all future seed carrying the terminator gene is highly improbable.)
"Brown bag" seed (seed from the previous year's crop) can actually be used to very good effect by farmers. The good ones know their land and their micro-environment much better than any Agriculturalist or lab tech in a Monsanto lab.
There were also questions of efficacy of the terminator gene. A spontaneous mutation (let's pull a number out of my ass, 0.00001%) of plants can add up to an awful large number of viable seeds over an entire field of crops.
More importantly, the selection process for those viable seeds remains as easy as leaving the land untouched for the subsequent year and harvesting any crop that re-grows.
Probably for the best that we didn't put our hopes on the terminator gene commercially, although it does remain a very important tool in crop research.
Do I want a solid, trustworthy company like Google holding 20+ years of my email with safe, secure backups and no fear of losing any from a few years back that I really needed to keep?
Or do I want a company like Microsoft to hold my email instead?
C'mon, this is a no-brainer. Microsoft has a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of 'losing' embarassing or potentially dangerous email discussing competitor's products.
(Besides, it's not like it's hard to find all the stupid things I've said over the past 20 years. Hell, I'll even point them out to you if you asked nice. I'm not running for President or anything.)
Slashdot Mirror
I've been searching for a small shared calendaring option for a while.
I'm not looking for a full-blown groupware suite - our email is done off-site by our ISP. I only need something I can tie everyone's calendar's together with - I want it small and focused on just a single task.
Boss is married to Outhouse, one guy has a Mac, I'm using Sunbird (although I'll adapt if I *have* to), so we have to tie in a bunch of platforms.
My current leanings are to Kolab with the Toltec connector (Note to OS naysayers: I'm not averse to spending money here! I would prefer Open Source.)
I'm reading TFA in the hopes of finding something - but I've seen nothing on a quick scan through it. Any other tips I could be following up on?
If they hurry they can find a really good alternative name...
Have they considered "Firebird" yet?
- Zarq
Fascinating...
My initial reaction was, "There's no way in hell I'm going there."
Then I clued in and performed my slashdotting duty. "How's that, Spamhat? A little waste of YOUR bandwidth for a while? HUH?"
I feel dirty. Let's slashdot someone's blog next.
- Zarq
Until someone can point out explicitly which files and processes are IE which are spread out among the various DLL's on my system, I'll reject the argument as arguing separate points because the two cannot be compared on an equal basis.
We can get into a ton of arguments over the semantics of "small and light". I run FF on all my systems and find it equally suitable on my P3-450 as I do on my 1.8 GHz laptop.
Built into the OS I will stand on any time. I followed the debates when khtml was getting integrated into KDE. There is a big difference between integrating them on the basis of techical merit vs. integrating them on the basis of choking Netscape's "air supply" and getting IE to show up at all sorts of wonderfully, irritating ways.
Microsoft was convicted for integrating IE in order to quash competition. It was not done on technical merit, and has repeatedly been a design flaw as someone has escallation rights into the OS itself.
The point I am *not* arguing here is the basis of the article: The same can and does happen with Firefox / Opera / any other browser on the face of the earth.
Microsoft has the ability to fix IE properly, but realistically it's just easier to blow it up and start over.
No it doesn't. The only *major* problem in IE is ActiveX - which in more recent versions has been significant curtailed.
Shall we argue the semantics of "blow up" now?
IE was built on the shaky grounds of taking out Netscape at the knees. It has floundered with design flaws, security holes, and a deservedly iffy reputation from people I trust to know.
Blow up to me means they need a complete code audit, rewriting sections, funnelling out the crap like ActiveX that's causing some of the huge nightmares out there.
And the difference of that from blowing it up and starting over is what?
- Zarq
Your comparison of a Lexus and a Pinto demonstrates a very real link to the very debate at hand.
Lexus is a new vehicle, which has underwent constant development over the past number of years in order to improve the basic design.
The Pinto reached EOL in 1980 with a disasterous reputation. But it was part of the Pony-car line which includes the Mustang, the Escort in all it's incarnations, and I presume the successor to the Escort, the Focus.
If you were willing to put the time and effort into upgrading the Pinto with modern parts, to modern safety standards, and with modern engineering it is *possible* to reach the same standards of quality and safety in a Lexus - I have no doubt at all.
The cost would be astronomically expensive. I'm not sure having a modernized Pinto is worth it. Particularly when you'd essentially have a souped-up Focus.
This is the very crux of what Microsoft must face today. They made some horrifyingly bad engineering decisions with IE based on marketing and choking Netscape out of the marketplace. They achieved a monopoly in the browser market, then sat pat, ignorning development on something which is relied on extensively by most users.
Firefox is small, light, NOT built into the OS, amazingly flexible, and I have no doubts it's safer because of issues like simply not using ActiveX. The default settings are SANE and useful to any average joe I foist Firefox onto.
Microsoft has the ability to fix IE properly, but realistically it's just easier to blow it up and start over.
Now will the get the technical acumen to trump the marketing? Doubt it. Let the rest suffer, I'm strictly Firefox on all my systems, and I plug it relentlessly to all my clients.
- Zarq
Finally, all those years of looking to find six differences between the pictures will pay off!
It's like a dream finally come true!
- Zarq
What do you mean, scam?
And, by the way, when do my concubines show up?
LOOK!
Bob and I apologized. Get a couple more kegs and next time we'll bring a couple girls along with us.
You interface your way, I'll interface my own way.
Now if only there was an non-embarassing way to say, "French kiss my floppy" or "Licking my laptop."
- Zarq (Truly ashamed of myself.)
Are we talking about hundreds and thousands of acres of crops or are we talking about organic farming? Talking about "hundreds or thousands of pounds of DNA" is a little disingenuous - most of that pollen will drop about the parent plant. How many plants did that pollen come from? A single tree or a million plants?
Most typical farmers buy new seed each year to minimize weed seeds. That means the entire harvest from the previous year goes to market and it not allowed to propagate.
If we're talking organic farmers, they usually farm on a small enough scale to be able to find and cull offtypes. Which most assuredly does NOT apply to something such as Roundup resistance which cannot be visually seen.
If we're talking about granting patent protections on the Roundup resistant gene, I consider such patents spurious and highly questionable.
Given that Monsanto has, in fact, been granted a patent, it has been based on the idea that pollen can be reasonably isolated by distance, using field borders, and by use of best farming practices - here partially defined as not replanting the prior crop.
There's an argument to be made for pollen containment. There's certainly an argument to be made for DNA patents. But the two are not strongly linked. First we must address whether the farmers are using suitable care growing the crops.
This is funny on so many levels..
;-)
For instance, in corn (Zea mais) hybrids, the anthers of all non-pollenating plants are removed so that hybrids can be created. This is done manually and is very labour intensive, which causes a rather large increase in cost to produce the seed. Fortunately the hybrid vigour is well worth the effort.
If you will, they make most of them female.
This isn't even touching on parthenogenesis, where the female egg can create a complete adult without the sperm - an event first noticed in plants, if I remember correctly.
And similar to the movies, it can work or not work in real life.
- Zarq
Surely you understand the significance of a logarithmic curve, right?
Some pollen travels much further than other pollen. It depends on the vector of transfer at the very least. Put a dab of pollen on the shell of Voyager and it will leave the solar system. It doesn't mean that pollen will be viable at the end of it's journey.
The chances of successfully fertilizing another plant decreases along a logarithmic curve. Any organic farmer worth his bread knows very well what best practices are and how to best prevent contamination. It will never be zero risk, but with careful farming the risk can be kept negligable.
- Zarq
Dihydrogen Monoxide -- the most silent of killers... ;-)
It specifically means that they cannot apply pesticides for a period of five years. I believe there are also restrictions on the types of fertilizer that are available.
As you kindly pointed out, the definition of "chemical" is pathetically specious.
Truly a matter of marketing over useful definitions.
- Zarq
Mostly because they're such opposite ends of the spectrum but the seeds look so similar.
You'd hate to think you were growing food quality canola and end up with a field of industrial lube by accident.
The two main types grown here are Brassica napus and B. rapa. I'd suspect they constitute "canola" and "rapeseed", but that's a bit of a guess. I've never really needed to find out if a B. rapa could qualify for a canola or not.
If the canola label could span between species, it would be even more justification to have a special product name like that.
Now, if that cow raised for beef production was fed only canola meal during it's entire lifetime, would it deep fry itself? Hmm....
- Zarq
Well... Canola comes in a rather small seed..
Mr. Schmeiser does allege that it was potentially cross pollenation as well as seed falling from trucks transporting neighbor's grain to market.
The difference is that he found seed that was resistant to roundup growing in his field, harvested and increased it the following year.
The grandparent post is truly indicative of a swath of opinion. (Pun fully intended.) The situation is not nearly as black and white as is portrayed, with both sides bringing baggage to the courthouse.
I wish my post on Mr. Schmeiser being a canola breeder was the one that got modded up today.
He was a canola breeder who had previously developed several varieties of canola on his own. He knew very well about increasing a lot of seeds and specifically chose the border lot for increase.
I guess the point of distinction of what he needed to do with the border seed remains the question of "What seed was being grown in that field?"
If it was a lot of Foundation seed, the border plants should have been destroyed outright before they were allowed to pollenate. Personally, I would likely do the same if it was Certified seed. If it was seed for crushing, you of course are right and the seed could be set as one lot.
Spraying Roundup on the borders makes me think he wanted the borders clear for a field of propagating seed. The center of his field would have been cut into lots where they would have been inspected for purity before they would have been harvested and designated as a seed source.
But to me Mr. Schmeiser's actions seemed to be more about selecting Roundup resistant seed to test this case in court rather than being about best farming practice.
- Zarq
The difference truly comes down to more than just sensitivity over the name "rapeseed." In fact, rapeseed is still commonly used.
The true difference between "canola" and "rapeseed" lies in the amount of erucic acid in the oil from the seed. This makes a very significant difference to the farmer.
Canola, grown as a food oil source, has a very low quantity (less than 2%) of erucic acid. Rapeseed grown for industrial purposes may have up to 45% erucic acid instead.
How about a better source than me?
Ag Marketing Resource Center has a good explanation.
Organic crops are worth the premium price because it costs significantly more to produce.
I'm not up to date with the regulations in Canada regarding organic farming, but as I understand it a field must remain chemical free for a minimum of five years, the soil will then be tested for contamination, and there are restrictions on what may be grown and how the crop must be treated.
Unlike the UK, we generally have lots of room over here and the organic farmers have tended to congregate. It's exceptionally difficult for a farmer to declare the farm as organic without the cooperation of the surrounding community.
When organic farms first were created, they were generally considered as a curiousity. Most farmers who started organics were given a reasonable amount of support and a reasonable amount of scorn from the neighbors. The good ones who managed to make a go were joined by neighbors. The others were bought out.
Those organic farmers who have managed to make a go of it are exceptionally smart folks, and are generally very aware of the borders they must retain to protect the crops they tend. They discuss farming with their neighbors and they usually know who uses GM material and try very hard to avoid contamination in the first place.
Financial penalties are fine and well, but it's much better to form a strong community with the neighbors and try to avoid the contamination in the first place.
- Zarq.
Ah. The old fashioned "sterilize the soil" trick. Worked great for the Romans, I hear.
Yes, this is the case.
He sprayed Roundup along the field edges where contanimation is most likely to occur.
Clearing the edges of the field is a common practice, to protect the crop within from dangers such as accidental cross-pollination and the like.
Spraying with Roundup is fine, but the canola that survived at the edges should have been destroyed in one way or another. Let me draw that out once more, he sprayed in order to protect the crop in the center of the field from potential invaders or contaminants.
Instead of destroying that canola, he harvested it and replanted it. This was Mr. Schmeiser's most grievous error, and also the source of the canola in question. Had he destroyed the plants, the issue would not have arisen in court. Of course, he would also not have had his seed source in the first place.
- Zarq
Moreso than just damaging crops.
Mr. Schmeiser was a canola breeder on his own, and had developed several varieties of his own over some 40 years of farming.
One of the biggest points of contention that Mr. Schmeiser held was that the Roundup Ready variety actually endangered his entire breeding efforts. Whether overt of whispered, it was very much a theme of the case as it progressed of the independent farmer vs. large agri-business.
All things being equal, Mr. Schmeiser may have had a reasonable argument, but it was handled poorly and by his attempts to select seed by spraying with Roundup (regardless or origin), replanting and bringing that seed forward to harvest certainly did not leave him entirely as the innocent victim in this situation.
Should Monsanto have the right to patent the Roundup resistant gene? Personally, I think not. I hope the next person to fight this battle minds his P's and Q's much better than Mr. Schmeiser did.
- Zarq
It's called the Terminator gene and was pulled from the commercial market by Monsanto in 1999, if I recall correctly.
There were several arguments for and against the commercial use of the terminator gene.
Pro: It would prevent the propagation of potentially dangerous or foreign genes in plants from being passed generation to generation. Theoretically it should have formed a method of controlling where genetically modified plants would be spread.
Of course, this was argued as simply a way for Monsanto to sell new seeds to the farmers year after year, creating a reliance of the farmer upon Monsanto seed. (The thought of all future seed carrying the terminator gene is highly improbable.)
"Brown bag" seed (seed from the previous year's crop) can actually be used to very good effect by farmers. The good ones know their land and their micro-environment much better than any Agriculturalist or lab tech in a Monsanto lab.
There were also questions of efficacy of the terminator gene. A spontaneous mutation (let's pull a number out of my ass, 0.00001%) of plants can add up to an awful large number of viable seeds over an entire field of crops.
More importantly, the selection process for those viable seeds remains as easy as leaving the land untouched for the subsequent year and harvesting any crop that re-grows.
Probably for the best that we didn't put our hopes on the terminator gene commercially, although it does remain a very important tool in crop research.
- Zarq
What an exceptional tip!
Now I don't have to read Slashdot any more. I've only been coming in to check for the latest Windows exploits anyhow.
- Zarq
Depends on the corporation.
Do I want a solid, trustworthy company like Google holding 20+ years of my email with safe, secure backups and no fear of losing any from a few years back that I really needed to keep?
Or do I want a company like Microsoft to hold my email instead?
C'mon, this is a no-brainer. Microsoft has a PROVEN TRACK RECORD of 'losing' embarassing or potentially dangerous email discussing competitor's products.
(Besides, it's not like it's hard to find all the stupid things I've said over the past 20 years. Hell, I'll even point them out to you if you asked nice. I'm not running for President or anything.)
- Zarq
(sigh)
I must be new here.
#include