We need to petition Sorenson to open the codec, *NOT* Apple!
As I understand it, Apple and Sorenson have an exclusive license agreement regarding the Sorenson codec. If this is the case (which makes sense, otherwise we'd see somebody else with the codec by now) I don't see how petitioning will do anything. Apple and Sorenson are bound by their contracts. And I'm sure Apple will pay any amount to keep that exclusive agreement.
Go into SimpleText, open the movie in SimpleText. Look! No stupid favorites tray! It seems to be picky about what files it will play though... maybe I have a really old version of SimpleText. Or you could probably open movies up inside your browser if you have the QT plugin.
I would assume that now that they're not the most valuable company in America anymore (Cisco now), maybe we'll give them one less. But I think breaking up a company that large has repurcussions nobody can predict, and I'm sure the judge is more than a little wary of undertaking something like that. If the Judge ends up actually ruling against MS, it'll be a testament to MS's arrogance -- surely they wouldn't do that to us... we're Microsoft!
Okay, so going back to the original post, "You can not have anything rotating circularly forever." -- this is incorrect, right? That is the point I was trying to make.
The thing with the car and the acceleration is this: my car, in space, will go on forever (basically) if I push it. Its velocity is a constant. So why is the constant velocity of the edge of a rotating body different? No force is necessary to keep the constant velocity, right?
And is the loss of rotational inertia due to friction from the atmosphere and other debris?
I'm not a physics person, but as I understand it, rotation does not "require" acceleration, but produces it. The edge moves at a velocity v and the acceleration is toward the center, perpendicular to the velocity. If the velocity remains constant (which even you said is true in space) shouldn't it continue spinning forever?
If not, please answer my question: what keeps the earth spinning?
<disclaimer>I have not taken physics since high school, so this may all be wrong.</disclaimer>
Yeah, I read the "plot" summary and it is Enemy Of My Enemy. Weird; it looked much older than 1999, like maybe 1985. Anyway, if you want a laugh, rent this one or catch it on cable.
I was watching TV last night, I think it was E!, and they had a trailer for M2M, and an interview with Jerry O'Conell, and he was talking about how thrilled he was to be working with "A-List" actors like Gary Sinese and Tim Robbins. I just thought this was hilarious, because while those two are respectable, they're no Tom Hanks or post-Matrix Keanu Reeves. This movie is just getting panned everywhere, and the recurring theme seems to be that this is the worst movie ever. "Worse than Waterworld" is a recurring phrase. Sad, because I had wanted to see it. Maybe I will, just to laugh.
This looks like one of those movies where you watch it and say to yourself "How could they actually release this?" Another example was a movie I saw on tv several months ago, the title of which I don't remember. The original robocop was in it, and there was some kind of hostage situation and he was hiding in a secret room and the bad guys had some kind of a heat-sensitive map of the building. So the good guys know that the bad guys can see them and what do they do? Robocop goes to the sink with two towels, wets them, brings them back to the computer guy, puts one on his head and the other on the computer guy's head. Computer guy asks, "what are you doing?" and Robocop replies, "Disappearing!" Then we cut to the bad guys' IR map and we see the two guys' heat signatures fade out. Then the bad guys basically go "huh!"
The movie wasn't a comedy, but I laughed quite hard at it. Ah, IMDb reports that Robocop man was Peter Weller, but I can't find the name of the movie. There was a woman in the movie also, I want to say Meg Ryan, but it wasn't Meg Ryan. She was his love interest (and special agent) and he was a cop or soldier or something. If anybody knows the name of this movie, please let reply let me know, now it's bothering me.
...mp3dotcom.sucks. I think MP3.com is a real joke, and anybody with enough bandwidth and storage space could do it. The only reason mp3.com is famous is because it got the name mp3.com. It is not any kind of damn authority on mp3s. I was laughing at its ipo, at the morons who bought mp3.com stock. If mp3.com MADE or did ANYTHING related to MP3s other than STORING them maybe they would be worth something as a company. As it is, their "services" (ie, providing free Hard Drive space to artists) can be gotten for free almost anywhere else on the web, including sites like idrive and even Xoom. Okay, so they have a fancy search engine and provide a nice centralized location for people who want to find new music, but those are like the only benefits of mp3.com that I can see. Their beam-it service seems to be the first innovative thing they've ever made.
The thing that really aggravates me is when Robertson/MP3.com try to act like some kind of champions of freedom. Like with the beam-it thing, they tried to get people to their site to test it, and promoted beam-it as basically "standing up to the man," which everybody loves to do. They are defending our freedoms in the face of the big bad record companies. Of course, this was just a ploy to get more hits to serve up more banner ads. That is the only thing that matters to them: how to keep people coming back to the site. And this domain squatting thing is just another example of that; it is another way to generate traffic to mp3.com so they can serve up more ads. Everything else is secondary, and it will be until something more profitable than selling ads comes along. For example, when it becomes more profitable to sell their database of email addresses, I'm sure they will do that. Or if somebody will pay them to track what songs you listen to with beam-it, I'm sure they will do that too. They are a business, and the only purpose of a business is the make money, so they cannot be faulted for trying to do that, in fact, I think by law they have to try and make money for the shareholders. But they must (ok, not "must" but "should") also be ethical, and stealing domain names from other people/companies (audiograbber et alii) is not ethical. But, again, the only thing that matters to them is money, and as long as it is more profitable for them to keep the name than to give it up (e.g., people stop visiting mp3.com in protest of their stupidity), they will keep the domains--unless legal action requires them to surrender them.
On the other side of this, why wasn't audiograbber registered by its author while it was still in development? Domains should be registered before the product is announced, and probably two or three alternates wouldn't hurt in case you decide to change the name of the product. If I am about to release a new compression program called EvroZip, I'll make sure I have www.evrozip.com, if for no other reason than to keep anyone else from it.
This is why I registered www.evanhoffman.com. Evan Hoffman is not a very common name, but I've found more than one. And I'm glad I did register it, because I've gotten five or six emails from other Evan Hoffmans who wanted the name. So while MP3.com isn't playing nice, audiograbber should have taken audiograbber.com long ago. As for cd-now.com, I don't know if an upstart (remember when cdnow was an upstart?) can go and register every permutation of their name (unless they have a war chest like Dubya--
I was just about to join icann but I don't see anything on their site that says "we will not use your email address for spamming +/- sell it to spammers." Has anybody seen a message like this, or does anyone know their policy on email addresses? Also, for people who are already members, is there a high volume of mail that gets sent to you?
This scares you (as it should everybody here) because the company in charge of telling us who we can trust and who we can't is going to purchase what is arguably the most corrupt, fucked up, and untrustworthy large player in the Internet world. And if this merger goes they way mergers usually go, higher-ups from NSI will become higher-ups at Verisign. Since the problem with NSI is really its attitude and way of doing things -- things determined by these very higher-ups and not lowly programmers -- this is bad. I wonder how long before Verisign turns to crap.
Of course, the possiblity does exist that Verisign (of whose corporate practices I know very little) will revamp NSI and make it into a company that doesn't suck, I don't think they are doing this to better humanity or anything like that. I'm sure they will make some changes to optimize NSI as a money tree, but few companies acquire others with the hope of making the customers of the acquired corp happy.
On another note, I don't really see why we all think Verisign is so trustworthy that it can tell us who to trust. I don't know how certificates work and whatnot, but can't anybody get a certificate? The purpose of a certificate is just to tell you that information you get is really from where you think it is. If getting a certificate is only a matter of money, who cares?
(note that this is not a troll, but an honest question)
Actually, it does. Why does IBM patent most of the stuff from the research work it publishes?
Well, right there you answered your own question. IBM did research and invested money. Amazon patented the web equivalent of hammers and nails. They said that it's illegal for anybody else to use a cookie to allow someone to purchase something out of an email. That's not research. IBM is an innovator. Amazon is not, at least not technologically.
As for the rest of your argument, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I was trying to put the Netscape vs. IE battle in a world with no MS. Netscape sure had the right to patent a bunch of stuff, but we're all much better off that they didn't. It is this spirit of openness that Amazon is killing in the name of business interests. They are, as O'Reilly said, giving a slap-in-the-face to all those who came before them, on whose shoulders their still-losing-money empire rests.
You can take the "they're a business and their only responsibility is to make money" attitude, but if everyone from this point on takes that attitude, the web will be dead on ten, maybe fifteen years, guaranteed. This is about more than just money. This is the future of the internet, which is the future of the world. If we destroy it, or let others destroy it, we may never be able to take it back.
I don't see Jeff Bezos's "we-have-to-patent-it-to-save-us-from-the-big-bad- megacorp" argument holding any water. While Amazon is an innovator in the ecommerce world, I don't see that fear of being taken over by a huge corporation like walmart justifies what Amazon has done.
He uses Netscape as an example. He says that maybe if Netscape had patented some of its ideas they wouldn't have fallen and been acquired by AOL (the king megacorp on the internet). The problem with this is that if Netscape had patented all its technology it would have hindered the growth of the Internet. If all the web browsing technology was owned by Netscape, Netscape would be the only browser around. This is sort of a bad example because the entity helped most by Netscape's not patenting the technology was Microsoft, for whom none of us have any great love.
But setting aside arguments about IE's incorporation into Windows and all that stuff, and looking at IE as a product, I think in the long run we are much better off with Netscape not having patented its technology. Companies need competition in order to keep making new, better products. In the end, the main benefactor of competition is usually the consumer. Prices are driven down and product quality is driven up.
Now, the death of Netscape was sad, and it was due mostly to the fact that their playing field wasn't level (when the competing product is included on every computer for free it does tend to kill your own product). But imagine that IE was made by a company that wasn't MS, and their only product was IE. I think Netscape would still be alive and kicking, and with each one trying to one-up the other, we would be the ones to reap the benefits of this contest. This is not a new idea, this is what all industries do. The problem here was that MS had such an enormous advantage.
Assuming that if Netscape had "filed a few patents" it would not have been swallowed, I don't think this is any kind of a good goal in itself. Filing for patents as a way to keep out competition is great for the filer of the patents, but it sucks for consumers. IE 3 sucked, I didn't like IE 4 much either, but I sure like IE 5 (and, even better, IE 4.5 on Mac). Before IE, I had only one choice: Netscape. The ability for consumers to choose what product to buy or use is the basis for all the antitrust legislation we have. Filing patents to stifle competition runs directly counter to that idea. And while Amazon should be rewarded for its innovations in ecommerce, this is not one of them, and they have really gone about it in the wrong way. The way to maintain marketshare is to one-up your competitor. If they are afraid of B&N, too bad. They must adapt or die, and not patent frivolous things in an attempt to fence off technology.
I would be sad to see Amazon go, but I think the market should decide who the winner is. Using patents to keep out competitors still seems like a very underhanded and dirty trick to me, and in the end it will most likely be the consumers who lose out.
It's nice to know that at least there is a school somewhere that realizes computers are not just fancy typewriters. When I started HS in 1993, our "computer lab" was all XTs (with no HD and two 5.25 floppy drives) running WordPerfect for DOS. At some point they got new computers (paying wayyyy too much for IBM branded junk -- $2500 for a pentium 100 with no CDROM when the 200s were already out -- despite my objections). Then they installed WP for Win 3.1 (when I graduated in 1997 they were still running 3.1 on all the machines). There were signs all over the place saying that it was against the rules to exit to DOS. If you were "caught in dos" you got kicked out of the "lab."
After I graduated they got a T1 line, so it is possible that things have changed. I know one of my English teachers takes advantage of the Web often in her class, but I think in general the lab is still considered the fancy-typewriter-room.
The guy they have running the room is a complete moron and has apparently managed to piss off every teacher in the school. They asked me to interview all the candidates for the position and give my report. There was one guy who was perfect, but they didn't pick him, they picked mister #3 (out of 4), for reasons I will never know. The guy apparently had no teaching experience and is just anal about the computers. Yay.
They had an independent study computer programming class, where we learned Pascal, but that was sort of a joke. We had to come after school once a week, and we didn't really get taught, we just kind of read a book.
Anyway, it's nice to see a school that doesn't treat its kids like morons -- though I must admit that that's how most of the kids in my HS deserved to be treated. Maybe if there are more schools like this I won't have to send my kid to private school.
Check out their webpage... one huge graphic with an imagemap. Now THAT's what I call good design!!
When your lungs stop working because of the BSOD, you'll get a bad case of BFOD (blue face of death).
Imagine the effect UCITA would have on the software that runs these things? "His heart stopped because we forgot to close a parenthesis? Oh well, according to the EULA we're not responsible! Sorry, chuck! Better luck next time!"
At Dartmouth not much is banned. I met with some of the Network people a few weeks ago for a discussion of what to do regarding Napster. Apparently 20% of our I2 connection (vBNS at the time [moving to Abilene this month], 45mbps max) is being used during the wee hours of the morning, and they think Napster may play a not-insignificant part in that figure. But the 20% is the highest our connection has ever been, according to the network guys, so I don't think bandwidth is really a problem. Paying for the bandwidth may be, however.
I know some students were either suspended or expelled a year or two ago for having an MP3 server (FTP), but I think that was in response to a complaint from the RIAA. I think there is a de facto "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding MP3s. If the school finds any MP3 servers or whatever, of course they take action. But they don't have anybody hunting down the MP3s. Dartmouth is a registered ISP and so is covered under the "ISPs are not responsible for content hosted by their customers, but must act when a complaint is filed" law (the name of which I don't know).
In general, the "administration" is pretty tolerant of the network activity. Then again, it is not their job to sit around and police everyone's computers, nor should it be. There are a few hotline (imho, the worst program ever -- "Go to page blah.com/~pronlinks and your login is the second to last word on the page ALL CAPS, go to bobo.com/~mypr0n and click on the vagina banner, the password is the blinking word ALL CAPS. Password is changed every 5 seconds.") servers operated out of here but unless bandwidth (or mpaa/riaa) becomes a problem, I think we're pretty safe.
Since you asked for it, my guess is that Neve's character wakes up and the whole trilogy was a dream, or a movie-inside-a-movie-inside-a-movie type thing (ie, the entire trilogy was a trilogy inside the characters' world). I haven't seen the movie nor read any of the comments, and I don't plan to. If I ever see this movie, I'll get to see how my predictions pan out.
My Client, Rufus T. FireFly, in a previous article patented mouseOver() shopping. Just run the mouse over the checkout button and you're done. Since you need to put the mouse "over" the button to "half-click" it, your patent is in violation of his patent.
Expect to hear from my client shortly regarding further legal action.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, Apple and Sorenson have an exclusive license agreement regarding the Sorenson codec. If this is the case (which makes sense, otherwise we'd see somebody else with the codec by now) I don't see how petitioning will do anything. Apple and Sorenson are bound by their contracts. And I'm sure Apple will pay any amount to keep that exclusive agreement.
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
btw, haven't you ever heard of curveballs? <g>
_________________
_________________
And is the loss of rotational inertia due to friction from the atmosphere and other debris?
_________________
I'm not a physics person, but as I understand it, rotation does not "require" acceleration, but produces it. The edge moves at a velocity v and the acceleration is toward the center, perpendicular to the velocity. If the velocity remains constant (which even you said is true in space) shouldn't it continue spinning forever?
If not, please answer my question: what keeps the earth spinning?
<disclaimer>I have not taken physics since high school, so this may all be wrong.</disclaimer>
_________________
_________________
_________________
This looks like one of those movies where you watch it and say to yourself "How could they actually release this?" Another example was a movie I saw on tv several months ago, the title of which I don't remember. The original robocop was in it, and there was some kind of hostage situation and he was hiding in a secret room and the bad guys had some kind of a heat-sensitive map of the building. So the good guys know that the bad guys can see them and what do they do? Robocop goes to the sink with two towels, wets them, brings them back to the computer guy, puts one on his head and the other on the computer guy's head. Computer guy asks, "what are you doing?" and Robocop replies, "Disappearing!" Then we cut to the bad guys' IR map and we see the two guys' heat signatures fade out. Then the bad guys basically go "huh!"
The movie wasn't a comedy, but I laughed quite hard at it. Ah, IMDb reports that Robocop man was Peter Weller, but I can't find the name of the movie. There was a woman in the movie also, I want to say Meg Ryan, but it wasn't Meg Ryan. She was his love interest (and special agent) and he was a cop or soldier or something. If anybody knows the name of this movie, please let reply let me know, now it's bothering me.
_________________
The thing that really aggravates me is when Robertson/MP3.com try to act like some kind of champions of freedom. Like with the beam-it thing, they tried to get people to their site to test it, and promoted beam-it as basically "standing up to the man," which everybody loves to do. They are defending our freedoms in the face of the big bad record companies. Of course, this was just a ploy to get more hits to serve up more banner ads. That is the only thing that matters to them: how to keep people coming back to the site. And this domain squatting thing is just another example of that; it is another way to generate traffic to mp3.com so they can serve up more ads. Everything else is secondary, and it will be until something more profitable than selling ads comes along. For example, when it becomes more profitable to sell their database of email addresses, I'm sure they will do that. Or if somebody will pay them to track what songs you listen to with beam-it, I'm sure they will do that too. They are a business, and the only purpose of a business is the make money, so they cannot be faulted for trying to do that, in fact, I think by law they have to try and make money for the shareholders. But they must (ok, not "must" but "should") also be ethical, and stealing domain names from other people/companies (audiograbber et alii) is not ethical. But, again, the only thing that matters to them is money, and as long as it is more profitable for them to keep the name than to give it up (e.g., people stop visiting mp3.com in protest of their stupidity), they will keep the domains--unless legal action requires them to surrender them.
On the other side of this, why wasn't audiograbber registered by its author while it was still in development? Domains should be registered before the product is announced, and probably two or three alternates wouldn't hurt in case you decide to change the name of the product. If I am about to release a new compression program called EvroZip, I'll make sure I have www.evrozip.com, if for no other reason than to keep anyone else from it.
This is why I registered www.evanhoffman.com. Evan Hoffman is not a very common name, but I've found more than one. And I'm glad I did register it, because I've gotten five or six emails from other Evan Hoffmans who wanted the name. So while MP3.com isn't playing nice, audiograbber should have taken audiograbber.com long ago. As for cd-now.com, I don't know if an upstart (remember when cdnow was an upstart?) can go and register every permutation of their name (unless they have a war chest like Dubya--
- http://www.georgebush.com/
- http://www.georgewbush.com/
- http://www.bushsucks.com/
- http://www.bush2000.com
- Click for more
)But now CDNOW is huge, so I'm sure if they wanted cd-now.com their lawyers could get it for them.
PS-Does anybody else remember when mp3.com was all about illegal mp3s? Does anybody remember Blex's Page of Good MP3? The true MP3 vets remember Blex.
_________________
_________________
Of course, the possiblity does exist that Verisign (of whose corporate practices I know very little) will revamp NSI and make it into a company that doesn't suck, I don't think they are doing this to better humanity or anything like that. I'm sure they will make some changes to optimize NSI as a money tree, but few companies acquire others with the hope of making the customers of the acquired corp happy.
On another note, I don't really see why we all think Verisign is so trustworthy that it can tell us who to trust. I don't know how certificates work and whatnot, but can't anybody get a certificate? The purpose of a certificate is just to tell you that information you get is really from where you think it is. If getting a certificate is only a matter of money, who cares?
(note that this is not a troll, but an honest question)
_________________
Well, right there you answered your own question. IBM did research and invested money. Amazon patented the web equivalent of hammers and nails. They said that it's illegal for anybody else to use a cookie to allow someone to purchase something out of an email. That's not research. IBM is an innovator. Amazon is not, at least not technologically.
As for the rest of your argument, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I was trying to put the Netscape vs. IE battle in a world with no MS. Netscape sure had the right to patent a bunch of stuff, but we're all much better off that they didn't. It is this spirit of openness that Amazon is killing in the name of business interests. They are, as O'Reilly said, giving a slap-in-the-face to all those who came before them, on whose shoulders their still-losing-money empire rests.
You can take the "they're a business and their only responsibility is to make money" attitude, but if everyone from this point on takes that attitude, the web will be dead on ten, maybe fifteen years, guaranteed. This is about more than just money. This is the future of the internet, which is the future of the world. If we destroy it, or let others destroy it, we may never be able to take it back.
_________________
He uses Netscape as an example. He says that maybe if Netscape had patented some of its ideas they wouldn't have fallen and been acquired by AOL (the king megacorp on the internet). The problem with this is that if Netscape had patented all its technology it would have hindered the growth of the Internet. If all the web browsing technology was owned by Netscape, Netscape would be the only browser around. This is sort of a bad example because the entity helped most by Netscape's not patenting the technology was Microsoft, for whom none of us have any great love.
But setting aside arguments about IE's incorporation into Windows and all that stuff, and looking at IE as a product, I think in the long run we are much better off with Netscape not having patented its technology. Companies need competition in order to keep making new, better products. In the end, the main benefactor of competition is usually the consumer. Prices are driven down and product quality is driven up.
Now, the death of Netscape was sad, and it was due mostly to the fact that their playing field wasn't level (when the competing product is included on every computer for free it does tend to kill your own product). But imagine that IE was made by a company that wasn't MS, and their only product was IE. I think Netscape would still be alive and kicking, and with each one trying to one-up the other, we would be the ones to reap the benefits of this contest. This is not a new idea, this is what all industries do. The problem here was that MS had such an enormous advantage.
Assuming that if Netscape had "filed a few patents" it would not have been swallowed, I don't think this is any kind of a good goal in itself. Filing for patents as a way to keep out competition is great for the filer of the patents, but it sucks for consumers. IE 3 sucked, I didn't like IE 4 much either, but I sure like IE 5 (and, even better, IE 4.5 on Mac). Before IE, I had only one choice: Netscape. The ability for consumers to choose what product to buy or use is the basis for all the antitrust legislation we have. Filing patents to stifle competition runs directly counter to that idea. And while Amazon should be rewarded for its innovations in ecommerce, this is not one of them, and they have really gone about it in the wrong way. The way to maintain marketshare is to one-up your competitor. If they are afraid of B&N, too bad. They must adapt or die, and not patent frivolous things in an attempt to fence off technology.
I would be sad to see Amazon go, but I think the market should decide who the winner is. Using patents to keep out competitors still seems like a very underhanded and dirty trick to me, and in the end it will most likely be the consumers who lose out.
_________________
Mary Kay Bergman
I guess they didn't want to say "clitoris." It would probably have all of IMDB.com banned by the censorware.
_________________
After I graduated they got a T1 line, so it is possible that things have changed. I know one of my English teachers takes advantage of the Web often in her class, but I think in general the lab is still considered the fancy-typewriter-room.
The guy they have running the room is a complete moron and has apparently managed to piss off every teacher in the school. They asked me to interview all the candidates for the position and give my report. There was one guy who was perfect, but they didn't pick him, they picked mister #3 (out of 4), for reasons I will never know. The guy apparently had no teaching experience and is just anal about the computers. Yay.
They had an independent study computer programming class, where we learned Pascal, but that was sort of a joke. We had to come after school once a week, and we didn't really get taught, we just kind of read a book.
Anyway, it's nice to see a school that doesn't treat its kids like morons -- though I must admit that that's how most of the kids in my HS deserved to be treated. Maybe if there are more schools like this I won't have to send my kid to private school.
Check out their webpage... one huge graphic with an imagemap. Now THAT's what I call good design!!
_________________
While I think the web should be open, if there are applications that only run on certain platforms, why not web services?
_________________
CNN's bit on the South Park school thing.
_________________
Then again, they DO have a point -- Beaver all girls school is just too easy a joke. I don't think I could say it with a straight face.
_________________
Imagine the effect UCITA would have on the software that runs these things? "His heart stopped because we forgot to close a parenthesis? Oh well, according to the EULA we're not responsible! Sorry, chuck! Better luck next time!"
_________________
I know some students were either suspended or expelled a year or two ago for having an MP3 server (FTP), but I think that was in response to a complaint from the RIAA. I think there is a de facto "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding MP3s. If the school finds any MP3 servers or whatever, of course they take action. But they don't have anybody hunting down the MP3s. Dartmouth is a registered ISP and so is covered under the "ISPs are not responsible for content hosted by their customers, but must act when a complaint is filed" law (the name of which I don't know).
In general, the "administration" is pretty tolerant of the network activity. Then again, it is not their job to sit around and police everyone's computers, nor should it be. There are a few hotline (imho, the worst program ever -- "Go to page blah.com/~pronlinks and your login is the second to last word on the page ALL CAPS, go to bobo.com/~mypr0n and click on the vagina banner, the password is the blinking word ALL CAPS. Password is changed every 5 seconds.") servers operated out of here but unless bandwidth (or mpaa/riaa) becomes a problem, I think we're pretty safe.
PS: Dartmouth was the #1 most wired college in America in 1998 (not that I put much stock in Yahoo's opinions)
_________________
_________________
Expect to hear from my client shortly regarding further legal action.
_________________