Perhaps a picture of Alf, wearing sunglasses and hefting a rifle...?
Okay, that would still be damn funny, but one could argue that Alf so equipped would be "serious."
Rougly 16,000 mp3's by my count. At an average of 3 MB / song (assuming a decent bitrate), that's well over 45 gigabytes of hard disk space consumed by your highly valuable music collection. Taking this a step further, we can say that each gigabyte (since that is the actual data), is worth $54,110,000. Judging from pricewatch, the average sale value of a gigabyte (IDE 7200 rpm drive) is about $1.10.
Simply by putting music on your drive, you've increased its value 49190909 times! Damn, there's money to be had here...
Now, if the universities aren't liabe for the actions of their students, are they still obligated to provide information about the actions of said students? I don't know if the article covered that or not.
Anybody else hear that? That's the sound of millions of users preparing to find themselves a new p2p hookup. They may not even realize it yet, but there it it.
Bingo. Besides, shoving this into the gaping maw of the FBI, which has better things to do, might help guarantee that less is done about the matter. So long as this doesn't become part of the War on Terror (TM), of course...
However, suppose the value in movies that he acquired without paying for and value in music he listened to without paying for equaled his life savings.
Say we have two students. I'll name them John and Dave. John rents movies from the local video store. If he really likes the movie he might buy it. Dave downloads movies from the internet. If he really likes the movie he'll keep it on his hard drive instead of just burning it to CD.
There's a significant difference between John and Dave. I'll leave it to the give-me-what-I-want-for-free-crowd to determine what that is.
Re:Hypocrisy or Censorship - take your pick...
on
SMS, SARS, And Censorship
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If you actually read the article about Schnazzle, you'd know that the conflict arose because the creators of Schazzle are ex-Microsoft developers, and that their product had a likeness to aspects of Longhorn that made Microsoft accuse them of breaching the no-compete clauses in their contracts (which expire after a year anyway).
Is the silence deafening in the US with regards to SCO? Not from IBM or the tech community in general. Novell has spoken up as well.
You rant strikes me as illogical, at best. People are free to be informed, yes. Does Sally Housecook give a flying fuck over Unix copyright disputes? Does she want to be informed? No more than I would care about a copyright dispute in the sewing machine industry. The information exists if people want it. What you should really be worried about are people too apathetic or ignorant to exercise this right.
A free society does not gurantee fairness.
A (seemingly) unfair society does have benefits.
Well, if you'd like a fair society with benefits, I recommend a Stalinist/Leninist regime, where everyone is guaranteed the impoverished welfare-state hellhole. Capitalist democracies provide equal opportunity, they do not guarantee fairness and I don't know where that idea got started.
Hey Mike, here I am again!
And don't forget, I have past messages you can mod down!!!
Hillarious...
Carry out your vendetta against Michael elsewhere. Excuse me, but this is a free site. And yes, it does ask for donations, in part to compensate for the massive server load generated by trolls like you.
As for the quality of the articles, I assume you mean the articles from Wired, News.com, theRegister, and other sites, all contributed by fellow users. Michael's write up, linking these stories together in a semi-coherent fashion, doesn't constitute an article, nor is it intended to. You're supposed to RTFA, and then comment on them. I really don't see that happening here. If you feel Michael is trolling that's fine, personally I was amused by the tongue-in-cheek jab at the readers. It's not often an editor can return the mountain of abuse he accumulates on a daily basis, and he usually gets flamed pretty bad when he does.
FK's main point is absolutely valid and correct, IMO. Michael is truely a cancer on this site. Just think, if a reader writes what he did as a comment, he would be modded to -1 in no time. But time and time again, he is allowed to get away with trolling, baiting, distorting, lying
Proof? Who needs proof? Slander away. If a reader wrote what Michael did he'd likely be modded +5, Funny. I see no real distortion here. If there is distortion in the posting, let's see it quoted and referenced.
Thing is, Michael is the ultimate/. troll and it really bothers me that he gets to be an editor and force his opinion on everyone from high up there. Finally, let me say that I enjoy/. a lot and that I long for the day this site has responsible editors who treat us respectfully rather than the likes of mike. No, I won't block the idiot either, I'm kind of interested in what/. reports despite his idiotic comments.
First of all, in the four years that I've been reading Slashdot I've encountered trolls far more entertaining and creative than Michael could ever hope to be. Secondly, he's an editor. The role of an editor in a publication is to present his opinion through editorials (feel free to look up the definition, I'll wait). There's a reason editor text appears different from submission text. You can tell what the editor has written, and can feel free to ignore it if you so choose. As for treating the readers respectfully, I would kindly suggest that's a two-way street, and I really don't feel offended by his post.
What's more pathetic? An obviously overworked Slashdot editor with a chip on his shoulder or a bunch of malcontents who can't take a joke? The Bord-implanted Bill Gates has been the Microsoft icon for years...to call Microsoft the Borg and crack an assimilation joke seems logical enough.
You position, assuming that he's attacking Microsoft and that therefore he's making Linux users look bad, speaks of the worst sort of arrogance. The articles have not been misrepresented. When he says "although that hasn't stopped you from submitting stories about it, oh no," that strikes me as a jab at all those who grumble about dupes. Sure, an editor posted it, but someone submitted it in the first place. That someone probably has more time to check for a dupe than the editor. Personally, I always do.
I see references to Seth Finkelstein appearing already. With any Michael thread this is no surprise. I don't know who was right or who was wrong, but I do know that it has no bearing on Digital Rights Management. It's a private spat, let it stay that way. Taco clearly feels confident in Michael Sims and frankly, it's Taco's call.
Finally, I'd mod you down too. Why? Because I've seen this rant far to often. It's the ultimate meta-dupe, and a troll to boot. Given the responses you've provoked, I'd say it's a fair bet to call it flamebait. Finally, you've added nothing useful to the discussion. If your post were exorcised from the site nothing would have been lost.
If you don't like what the editors do, vote with your browser and go somewhere else. You aren't locked in to Slashdot. I'm sure Kuro5hin would welcome another Slashdot hater...
I'm such a fanboy. Why I bother defending Lucas I have no idea. Probably because it's ten in the morning in Berlin on a Sunday and I've nothing better to do.
First, we've no idea how large Chewie's role is in Episode III. Personally, I imagine that it's hardly above a cameo, something to make us grin.
Second, even if it is a large role, so what? I hear a lot of people grumbling about this being a small galaxy, how the same people keep showing up and all that. Well, frankly, I see it more as our story follows the same group of people, who naturally bump into the people they know from time to time.
A previous poster questioned why Lando was a general. Why not? He's charismatic, a good pilot, and has administrative experience (Cloud City). Sure the alliance has a command structure, but they'll also take what they can get. Look at the high command: Ackbar (former civlian city administator on Calamari), Madine (Imperial defector), Rieekan (Alderaanian technician), Solo (smuggler), Drayson (customs officer), Bel Iblis (senator). Lando fits in this group.
This is Lucas's story, whether we like it or not. We must judge something by the standards of the existing universe. We cannot apply our own standards to a galaxy far far away. I mean, you all sound like pedantic whiners. If you don't like it don't go. I didn't care for Ep I very much and I thought that Ep II lacked in the writing. But the effects rocked, and I'll gladly trade five bucks for two hours of being stunned by something I'll never see in real life. For that very reason I'll go see Ep III. Lucas will show me something I can't see anywhere else.
End rant. Why did I bother again?
So, he's evil because he's trying to protect the interests of his constituency? Which would include any companies doing business there? Conspiracy theories aside, he'd hardly be representing his district if he sold them out to foreign companies. Get real people.
I've always been intrigued by Salon's output, but I cannot honestly take this article seriously. The author has a very clear pro-Loebner bias that he doesn't even try to conceal. His hostility towards Minsky, Dennett, and the rest of the established academic community is so blatant (and unfounded) that it's embarrassing to read. Take this quote:
Decision sciences, by the simplest possible definition, refers to computerized assistance in resource allocation. An example provided by a press release from MIT announcing the creation of a decision sciences program was "complex computer-based 'passenger yield management' systems and models that the airlines use to adjust pricing of each flight's seats in order to maximize revenue and profitability to the airline."
That's a far cry from the bold claims made by A.I. visionaries in decades past. But focusing on such systems has a signal advantage for scientists who have been failing miserably at the Turing test. It gets them off the hook.
And later: In other words, if you read between the lines what you come up with is that one reason "serious" A.I. scientists don't try to mimic human speech anymore is that they discovered they can't do it.
Okay, so he's holding up the academics to ridicule because they abandoned the Turing Test. Why did they abandon the Turing Test. Will, according to the filty academic, it's because: ""The Turing test is not very useful for many A.I. scientists today because they work on projects that have nothing to do with human linguistic performance."
So, the respectable AI people aren't working with the Turing Test because they aren't working with linguistics. Gosh, that seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean, I suppose it's possible that the entire AI academic community, en masse, chose to boycott a hack contest run by an East Coast elite who started the contest because "He's a hedonist who thinks work is an abomination and sloth is our greatest virtue. He got interested in A.I. because he hoped the day would come when robots and A.I.'s could do all the work and people could play all the time." The rich kid wants to play so those damn academics better make me a robot who can bake me a pie. But I digress....
The contest focuses on a field that has been abandoned by current AI research. Why? Because we can't make it work yet. The hardware isn't there yet. So we're doing other stuff. Look at the progress of chess programs, mission-critical systems, UT bots. AI is getting better. A souped-up ELIZA isn't going to confirm that. They attack the AI people for not producing better entries for a contest the AI people don't find valid. Loebner and the author, who are obviously in the same camp, are trying to have it both ways. Bullshit. If Salon wants my money to stay afloat, they'll have to do better than this.
From the perspective of college system administrators everywhere, yes. I'm with network support at a small liberal arts college and let me tell you, our connection slowed to a crawl when the students discovered p2p. We don't have enough bandwidth to support that kind of thing, and with the RIAA and MPAA sending out cease-and-desist notices, we really don't have the legal wherewithal either...
No, I'm referring to the stereotype. I'm the sort the article (or at least the editors) was referring to. By their logic, I ought to have been shoved into a locker.
Let me start by openly admitting that I didn't read the entire article. Why not? Because it's very long and I have papers of my own to write. I'd rather take issue with this stereotype of nerds being pushed into lockers, and offer a different perspective.
I graduated from high school three years ago. I was, in many ways, the quintessential nerd and academic. Egotistical, into computers, lots of geeky friends, bookish...(my great love was, and is, military history). I cared not for my appearance. I ought to have been shoved into a locker. However, I also played football my freshman year. I'm no athelete, believe me. I'm not scrawny (5'11, 185 lbs), but I wasn't nearly as big as a defensive lineman needed to be. However, I did it anyway. And you know what, if you just toned down the geekishness and grunted a bit, those jocks were okay. They grew to respect the geek running alongside them, huffing and puffing his way through conditioning. I later worked with some of these guys in the same summer job or had the same classes, and we got along fine.
My point is this: we criticize the jocks for being in their own little world, but what the hell are we doing? Get out, mix a bit! Did I suck at football? Sure, probably as much as the quarterback would suck at network topology. Life's too short to be defined by a clique...
it's another thing to justify HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead over two bombs 50 years after the fact...
Speaking as a historian, it is generally accepted that neither of the weapons needed to be dropped to end the war, or certainly no more than one. However, and I think other posters have mentioned this, it is generally believed that the resultant loss of life from an American invasion of the Japanese mainland and/or an all-out war between the Soviet Union and Japan would have resulted in horrendous casaulties for all involved. Bottom line, war is a shitty business, especially when there are militant fundamentalists (Japanese hard-liners, Islamic radicals, Christian right-wingers) on any side...
So I take then, good Sir, that the computer you are using, a computer far more advanced (you think) than anything those fradulent men at NASA claim to have used to land on the "moon" (the existence of which is an open question), exists, and that you have no doubt that your computer works...
I mean, really, we accept all the works ever published being stored on magnetic tape that fits into the palm of your hand and we can't see shooting rockets at the moon? Really big fucking rockets? Conspiracy theorists are barking up the wrong tree...
(Note to tired moderators, I recognize that all above posts are humor, as is this one.)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps a picture of Alf, wearing sunglasses and hefting a rifle...? Okay, that would still be damn funny, but one could argue that Alf so equipped would be "serious."
Rougly 16,000 mp3's by my count. At an average of 3 MB / song (assuming a decent bitrate), that's well over 45 gigabytes of hard disk space consumed by your highly valuable music collection. Taking this a step further, we can say that each gigabyte (since that is the actual data), is worth $54,110,000. Judging from pricewatch, the average sale value of a gigabyte (IDE 7200 rpm drive) is about $1.10.
Simply by putting music on your drive, you've increased its value 49190909 times! Damn, there's money to be had here...
Do you hear that really loud grinding? That's Cecil Rhodes spinning in his grave.
No, wait, that's the new diamond-based cd copy protection shredding my drive. Damn...
Never claimed it was, just quoting Zeno, an ancient Stoic philosopher...
Great god man, don't give them ideas!
Now, if the universities aren't liabe for the actions of their students, are they still obligated to provide information about the actions of said students? I don't know if the article covered that or not.
Anybody else hear that? That's the sound of millions of users preparing to find themselves a new p2p hookup. They may not even realize it yet, but there it it.
But don't you realize that File Sharing is a gateway crime?
I see filesharing as more of a proxy crime myself...
There's no need for this. The ultimate fantasy boardgame, Titan, fills any such niche admirably.
Bingo. Besides, shoving this into the gaping maw of the FBI, which has better things to do, might help guarantee that less is done about the matter. So long as this doesn't become part of the War on Terror (TM), of course...
However, suppose the value in movies that he acquired without paying for and value in music he listened to without paying for equaled his life savings. Say we have two students. I'll name them John and Dave. John rents movies from the local video store. If he really likes the movie he might buy it. Dave downloads movies from the internet. If he really likes the movie he'll keep it on his hard drive instead of just burning it to CD. There's a significant difference between John and Dave. I'll leave it to the give-me-what-I-want-for-free-crowd to determine what that is.
If you actually read the article about Schnazzle, you'd know that the conflict arose because the creators of Schazzle are ex-Microsoft developers, and that their product had a likeness to aspects of Longhorn that made Microsoft accuse them of breaching the no-compete clauses in their contracts (which expire after a year anyway).
Is the silence deafening in the US with regards to SCO? Not from IBM or the tech community in general. Novell has spoken up as well.
You rant strikes me as illogical, at best. People are free to be informed, yes. Does Sally Housecook give a flying fuck over Unix copyright disputes? Does she want to be informed? No more than I would care about a copyright dispute in the sewing machine industry. The information exists if people want it. What you should really be worried about are people too apathetic or ignorant to exercise this right.
A free society does not gurantee fairness. A (seemingly) unfair society does have benefits.
Well, if you'd like a fair society with benefits, I recommend a Stalinist/Leninist regime, where everyone is guaranteed the impoverished welfare-state hellhole. Capitalist democracies provide equal opportunity, they do not guarantee fairness and I don't know where that idea got started.
Hey Mike, here I am again! And don't forget, I have past messages you can mod down!!! Hillarious...
/. troll and it really bothers me that he gets to be an editor and force his opinion on everyone from high up there. Finally, let me say that I enjoy /. a lot and that I long for the day this site has responsible editors who treat us respectfully rather than the likes of mike. No, I won't block the idiot either, I'm kind of interested in what /. reports despite his idiotic comments.
Carry out your vendetta against Michael elsewhere. Excuse me, but this is a free site. And yes, it does ask for donations, in part to compensate for the massive server load generated by trolls like you.
As for the quality of the articles, I assume you mean the articles from Wired, News.com, theRegister, and other sites, all contributed by fellow users. Michael's write up, linking these stories together in a semi-coherent fashion, doesn't constitute an article, nor is it intended to. You're supposed to RTFA, and then comment on them. I really don't see that happening here. If you feel Michael is trolling that's fine, personally I was amused by the tongue-in-cheek jab at the readers. It's not often an editor can return the mountain of abuse he accumulates on a daily basis, and he usually gets flamed pretty bad when he does.
FK's main point is absolutely valid and correct, IMO. Michael is truely a cancer on this site. Just think, if a reader writes what he did as a comment, he would be modded to -1 in no time. But time and time again, he is allowed to get away with trolling, baiting, distorting, lying
Proof? Who needs proof? Slander away. If a reader wrote what Michael did he'd likely be modded +5, Funny. I see no real distortion here. If there is distortion in the posting, let's see it quoted and referenced.
Thing is, Michael is the ultimate
First of all, in the four years that I've been reading Slashdot I've encountered trolls far more entertaining and creative than Michael could ever hope to be. Secondly, he's an editor. The role of an editor in a publication is to present his opinion through editorials (feel free to look up the definition, I'll wait). There's a reason editor text appears different from submission text. You can tell what the editor has written, and can feel free to ignore it if you so choose. As for treating the readers respectfully, I would kindly suggest that's a two-way street, and I really don't feel offended by his post.
~Chazzf
What's more pathetic? An obviously overworked Slashdot editor with a chip on his shoulder or a bunch of malcontents who can't take a joke? The Bord-implanted Bill Gates has been the Microsoft icon for years...to call Microsoft the Borg and crack an assimilation joke seems logical enough.
You position, assuming that he's attacking Microsoft and that therefore he's making Linux users look bad, speaks of the worst sort of arrogance. The articles have not been misrepresented. When he says "although that hasn't stopped you from submitting stories about it, oh no," that strikes me as a jab at all those who grumble about dupes. Sure, an editor posted it, but someone submitted it in the first place. That someone probably has more time to check for a dupe than the editor. Personally, I always do.
I see references to Seth Finkelstein appearing already. With any Michael thread this is no surprise. I don't know who was right or who was wrong, but I do know that it has no bearing on Digital Rights Management. It's a private spat, let it stay that way. Taco clearly feels confident in Michael Sims and frankly, it's Taco's call.
Finally, I'd mod you down too. Why? Because I've seen this rant far to often. It's the ultimate meta-dupe, and a troll to boot. Given the responses you've provoked, I'd say it's a fair bet to call it flamebait. Finally, you've added nothing useful to the discussion. If your post were exorcised from the site nothing would have been lost.
If you don't like what the editors do, vote with your browser and go somewhere else. You aren't locked in to Slashdot. I'm sure Kuro5hin would welcome another Slashdot hater...
~Chazzf
Of course, Panama did go to war with the US back in 1989, but they didn't do so well...
Alyxsandra Sachs
112 Catamaran St
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292-5769
(310)578-1728
Sue me. I'm a poor college student with plenty of free time and malicious friends. Make my day.
I'm such a fanboy. Why I bother defending Lucas I have no idea. Probably because it's ten in the morning in Berlin on a Sunday and I've nothing better to do. First, we've no idea how large Chewie's role is in Episode III. Personally, I imagine that it's hardly above a cameo, something to make us grin. Second, even if it is a large role, so what? I hear a lot of people grumbling about this being a small galaxy, how the same people keep showing up and all that. Well, frankly, I see it more as our story follows the same group of people, who naturally bump into the people they know from time to time. A previous poster questioned why Lando was a general. Why not? He's charismatic, a good pilot, and has administrative experience (Cloud City). Sure the alliance has a command structure, but they'll also take what they can get. Look at the high command: Ackbar (former civlian city administator on Calamari), Madine (Imperial defector), Rieekan (Alderaanian technician), Solo (smuggler), Drayson (customs officer), Bel Iblis (senator). Lando fits in this group. This is Lucas's story, whether we like it or not. We must judge something by the standards of the existing universe. We cannot apply our own standards to a galaxy far far away. I mean, you all sound like pedantic whiners. If you don't like it don't go. I didn't care for Ep I very much and I thought that Ep II lacked in the writing. But the effects rocked, and I'll gladly trade five bucks for two hours of being stunned by something I'll never see in real life. For that very reason I'll go see Ep III. Lucas will show me something I can't see anywhere else. End rant. Why did I bother again?
So, he's evil because he's trying to protect the interests of his constituency? Which would include any companies doing business there? Conspiracy theories aside, he'd hardly be representing his district if he sold them out to foreign companies. Get real people.
There, there, old-timer...
/me brings up a rocking chair and some single-malt scotch.
I've always been intrigued by Salon's output, but I cannot honestly take this article seriously. The author has a very clear pro-Loebner bias that he doesn't even try to conceal. His hostility towards Minsky, Dennett, and the rest of the established academic community is so blatant (and unfounded) that it's embarrassing to read. Take this quote:
Decision sciences, by the simplest possible definition, refers to computerized assistance in resource allocation. An example provided by a press release from MIT announcing the creation of a decision sciences program was "complex computer-based 'passenger yield management' systems and models that the airlines use to adjust pricing of each flight's seats in order to maximize revenue and profitability to the airline." That's a far cry from the bold claims made by A.I. visionaries in decades past. But focusing on such systems has a signal advantage for scientists who have been failing miserably at the Turing test. It gets them off the hook.
And later: In other words, if you read between the lines what you come up with is that one reason "serious" A.I. scientists don't try to mimic human speech anymore is that they discovered they can't do it.
Okay, so he's holding up the academics to ridicule because they abandoned the Turing Test. Why did they abandon the Turing Test. Will, according to the filty academic, it's because: ""The Turing test is not very useful for many A.I. scientists today because they work on projects that have nothing to do with human linguistic performance."
So, the respectable AI people aren't working with the Turing Test because they aren't working with linguistics. Gosh, that seems fairly reasonable to me. I mean, I suppose it's possible that the entire AI academic community, en masse, chose to boycott a hack contest run by an East Coast elite who started the contest because "He's a hedonist who thinks work is an abomination and sloth is our greatest virtue. He got interested in A.I. because he hoped the day would come when robots and A.I.'s could do all the work and people could play all the time." The rich kid wants to play so those damn academics better make me a robot who can bake me a pie. But I digress....
The contest focuses on a field that has been abandoned by current AI research. Why? Because we can't make it work yet. The hardware isn't there yet. So we're doing other stuff. Look at the progress of chess programs, mission-critical systems, UT bots. AI is getting better. A souped-up ELIZA isn't going to confirm that. They attack the AI people for not producing better entries for a contest the AI people don't find valid. Loebner and the author, who are obviously in the same camp, are trying to have it both ways. Bullshit. If Salon wants my money to stay afloat, they'll have to do better than this.
~Chazzf
From the perspective of college system administrators everywhere, yes. I'm with network support at a small liberal arts college and let me tell you, our connection slowed to a crawl when the students discovered p2p. We don't have enough bandwidth to support that kind of thing, and with the RIAA and MPAA sending out cease-and-desist notices, we really don't have the legal wherewithal either...
No, I'm referring to the stereotype. I'm the sort the article (or at least the editors) was referring to. By their logic, I ought to have been shoved into a locker.
Let me start by openly admitting that I didn't read the entire article. Why not? Because it's very long and I have papers of my own to write. I'd rather take issue with this stereotype of nerds being pushed into lockers, and offer a different perspective.
I graduated from high school three years ago. I was, in many ways, the quintessential nerd and academic. Egotistical, into computers, lots of geeky friends, bookish...(my great love was, and is, military history). I cared not for my appearance. I ought to have been shoved into a locker. However, I also played football my freshman year. I'm no athelete, believe me. I'm not scrawny (5'11, 185 lbs), but I wasn't nearly as big as a defensive lineman needed to be. However, I did it anyway. And you know what, if you just toned down the geekishness and grunted a bit, those jocks were okay. They grew to respect the geek running alongside them, huffing and puffing his way through conditioning. I later worked with some of these guys in the same summer job or had the same classes, and we got along fine.
My point is this: we criticize the jocks for being in their own little world, but what the hell are we doing? Get out, mix a bit! Did I suck at football? Sure, probably as much as the quarterback would suck at network topology. Life's too short to be defined by a clique...
it's another thing to justify HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead over two bombs 50 years after the fact...
Speaking as a historian, it is generally accepted that neither of the weapons needed to be dropped to end the war, or certainly no more than one. However, and I think other posters have mentioned this, it is generally believed that the resultant loss of life from an American invasion of the Japanese mainland and/or an all-out war between the Soviet Union and Japan would have resulted in horrendous casaulties for all involved. Bottom line, war is a shitty business, especially when there are militant fundamentalists (Japanese hard-liners, Islamic radicals, Christian right-wingers) on any side...
So I take then, good Sir, that the computer you are using, a computer far more advanced (you think) than anything those fradulent men at NASA claim to have used to land on the "moon" (the existence of which is an open question), exists, and that you have no doubt that your computer works...
I mean, really, we accept all the works ever published being stored on magnetic tape that fits into the palm of your hand and we can't see shooting rockets at the moon? Really big fucking rockets? Conspiracy theorists are barking up the wrong tree...
(Note to tired moderators, I recognize that all above posts are humor, as is this one.)
~Chazzf