this sounds like a great product and all, but I had to laugh at the fact that they had called in Lexicon to name it. Crusoe - what a brilliant associaton! It conjures up the image of a hungry, lonely semi-naked guy wandering around desperate for someone else to talk to, yet scared of them because they're all savages, cowering in fear when he sees evidence of other humans, a reluctant fugitive isolated on an island against his will, talking to himself. Hope they didn't pay Lexicon too much!
20% less power consumption than Intel in best case scenarios. Seem to be concentrating on small DVD players - claim less frame dropping, looking at comparable portable DVD players (those only run for 2 hours on battery).
So, this would appear to be it - real portables at last.
Mobile internet devices WITHOUT hard-drives! Demoing platforms $500-$1000 !
20% less power consumption than Intel in best case scenarios. Seem to be concentrating on small DVD players - claim less frame dropping, looking at comparable portable DVD players (those only run for 2 hours on battery).
So, this would appear to be it - real portables at last.
How about combining this with the virtual newscaster of the previous posts? - a live feed to CNN. Would he learn to filter out all the trivial background stuff the way we learn to ignore so many details? Think about it, you could build up the capacity to ignore newscasts, advertisements, political broadcasts.
Anyone want to donate their kid to research?
Lets not restrict ourselves! How about several kids? They could have IR communication between them from chips embedded in their amygdalae - Distributed Smelling ! Sorry, time for sleep I think.
why do they want to replace the tools in question?
Cynical answer: Licensing? make and autoconf being the backbone of a lot of what we do and also being GPL'ed. Their license is not going to be GPL, its going to be MIT-X style.
why not just extend them as appropriate?
Agreed, a good GUI would do the trick for a lot of people. If the intent of this really is to improve functionality though, I am suspicious that radio-buttons would really achieve this.
I read the link pretty quickly...is this the DOE funding it? It looks like it. Does anyone know of any govt issues with GPL'ed software?
Of course evolution happens when selective pressures are significant enough to kill off most of the viral types that aren't specifically resistant
Evolution will happen even without selection pressure. In fact most evolution is neutral evolution, just the accumulation of random mutations and the stochastic fixation of alleles due to random drift. But that's besides the point - just a nit.
I'm in agreement with the rest of your point though - it would be damned hard to get people to co-operate in following whatever public health measures one tried to impose. Hence, as you very probably aware MDR TB in inner-cities of the U.S. There have been a lot of very ineffective programs and it's been damned hard to try and figure out the psychological reasons why people won't take their drugs (prophylactics I mean;) ).
OK, I think we're in closer agreement than was suggested to me by your previous post - it's generous of you to assume that it was your post at fault and not my stupidity - but I have a nagging feeling still that you consider that wide application of prophylactics to alleviate minor ills (a couple of days in bed) are worth death:
Many treatments are going to have beneficiaries and victims. How much non-fatal misery is one death worth? Sadly, that question probably does not matter.
The best response that I ever heard to one of these "utilitarian calculus" arguments was reputedly by a student in a friend's lecture where the old death-of-one-to-save-many question was being hashed over. After much debate among others he stuck up his hand and said "Speaking as the one, I'm against it....".
I guess the impression I got from your post when you were talking about "driving to extinction" and "another one taking its place" was that you seemed to be advocating mass vaccination against even non-lethal version of the viruses. This was further confirmed in my mind by the only other post I had seen from you that talked about how you'd got a flu shot because you were worried about flu killing people on a scale similar to the 1918 epidemic.
Sorry if I misunderstood you, I'm going to go look for your other posts to see if I can clarify.
There are limits to adaptation, though; it's not magic.
Agreed, and those limits are determined by the amount of variation in the population.
No matter how strong a selective pressure you excert against non-flying house cats, you'll never get one that flies
Are you sure about that? Given a large enough cat population and a suitably increasing selection pressure I bet you could get something similar to a flying fox
put down that cat! It's a gedanken experiment!
Now, there's probably some possible mutation that would cause resistance, but there's a reason why it's not common in the population.
I didn't see that data that showed it wasn't common in the population?
Also, and more importantly, it doesn't have to be common, there just has to be one (with a suitable dispersal and reproduction rate naturally - the whole thing is meaningless without a consideration of the parameters of population structure)
Good biologists laugh, cry and bang their heads in frustration when people worry about whether resistance against some deadly substance will happen
The point is that there is no need to provide a "cure" for the common cold except in extreme cases: for people that are immune compromised due to being old,young or HIV+. As things stand there is a population of very rapidly mutating viruses providing a huge amount of variation for selection to act upon. The result of this is that there will be a rapid response to any new pharmaceutical
The result of handing out cold cures to those who don't need them is that there will - as the poster at the top of this thread suggested - be a suite of resistant forms. These will then be a threat to those that need something to cure them. The emergency, critical treatment for those people will be much less effective then it might be.
The promise of carefully designed drugs is that we can keep pace with evolution better.
Not if we don't use them intelligently. Would you for example favour the idea of spraying plane-loads of anti-virals over major urban centers before the start of each flu season?
Viruses are not living according to the biologists I know. They probably would not call them organisms.
This is really an old and pointless debate and it is a non-sequitur as far as this argument (should we use new drugs indiscriminately without considering epidemiology?) goes. The point is that viruses form a population, they reproduce with variation, thus selection takes place as with what might be unambiguously defined as "life" and with "non-life" like memes or teddy-bears (Journal of Systematic Zoology (I think it was) had a great article on teddy-bear morphology and how aesthetic selection affected the population!). As viruses have the highest rate of mutation known, they are going to adapt much more quickly even than bacteria have to antibiotics (and that has been pretty damn quick).
You seem to think that ther e is little or no problem with Multiple Drug Resistant bacteria - well, talk to any health-care professional to hear about the appalingly needless problems caused by MDR.
All of this comes about from a careless attitude to population genetics and epidemiology.
I'm not disputing that we should try and understand the mechanisms involved, I want more than that, I want us to understand and use evolution against these problems. Careful application, restricted use would see us controlling a lot of these problems. The alternative is a race between us and evolution, needless and benefiting no-one except drug companies who always have a new miracle drug available at only $50.
I'd agree that there are problems with Netscape under Linux. One of them seems to be to do with font display.
A concrete example of what I'm talking about is trying to display classical Greek fonts. There do indeed exist Adobe-encoded classical Greek fonts and I can install them, use them, good example being Ismnin.pfa. I can go to edit->pref->fonts and select the installed font which I've preview with xfontsel. Now, I go to a nice online database of classical greek texts with morphological analyses and links, the Perseus Project and look at some work by Aeschinus . They have the option of displaying actual, greek text using the Ismini font if one uses the "Change Greek display" button at the top of the page and select the Ismini font. Does it work on Linux? No.
It works on Macintosh damn well though.
These worthy people (it's a great project) point out that they can't support everything, and indeed they do support several different Netscape versions on WinXX and Mac and several different IE versions.
They claim in their Font Help section that there are fundamental problems with Netscape displaying different fonts.
Anyone have any take on this? At the very least it would discourage anyone trying to use current tools used in Classics from using Linux and Netscape. A damn shame.
It sounds appallingly difficult, also something absolutely essential. I read an article a while ago about a blind sysadmin which I assumed was a hoax - have you observed her using it? Hats off to the developers!
I'm going to give it a shot right now. I've always been put off running Lynx to be honest just because I like the pretty pictures - is that a new planetary science icon? Also, for other sites do you find that you lose much contextual information...picture equivalent to a 1000 words blah blah etc?
ugh. Takes over entire desktop, crashes more than Netscape. ugly. It's an example of one of the horrible multi-functional applications that do many things imperfectly. Sort of like the way Netscape has developed actually.
OK, I take your point. I have to admit that I haven't used Netscape under WinXX for several years and don't use it in a very sophisticated way anyway, so I don't really appreciate the difference that you're talking about there.
all the cool software is for Windows. Sure, their are a couple of games
I don't want to fight too much over the definition of "cool" and I'll readily concede the games part of your statement. I don't underestimate the importance of that at all in terms of getting people involved with a particular platform at a superficial level. However, Linux certainly has it's share of cool software at the academic level - one of it's strong points, to my mind, is the availability of TeX and simple interfaces to it like LyX. Anyone preparing even semi-academic documents has something to gain from this system. As regards other things it might be used for in a class room environment, Netscape works OK, (I'll admit I hate it, but still it does the job), it's obviously a useful platform to learn programming on, and it's free! Lets not underestimate that last point!
anyone can download their distro... Then they can burn it to CD
Not quite anyone, but really the UK government should do this! RedHat always was about "support" really, at least that was the impression I had when I started using it.
Turned out that I was quite turned off by their support. I'm thinking of switching to Debian from what I hear and see.
This could work out well. It's obvious that early exposure will leave a lasting impression on people - with RedHat will this be a positive one?
Personally I'm running 6.1 at the moment and was disconcerted at the quality of the manuals in the Standard Edition. I'm sure that there will be plenty of teachers that know how to set up Linux, but it's safe to say that there will be a lot more that are slightly frustrated.
I wasn't all that happy with RedHat's email support when I used 5.2 either. It took a while to get answers - menawhile my problems were solved by local gurus. So, if there are plenty of UK LUGs that are going to be on hand it might work out. Sure, there are lots of people that will do it out of the goodness of their hearts - but when it's tied to a specific distro like RH and they're effectively doing free support they might be less enthusiastic. And that's what we're dealing with mostly - enthusiasts, people who do it for the sheer joy of it.
Does anyone feel that other distro's might be more appropriate to a "mass" installation of this kind? Still, kudos to RH for taking the step, just because it makes sense from a future marketing perspective doesn't mean that it's bad.
take a hard look at what it is they sell. Does the RIAA promote the sale of plastic discs in colourful cases, or do they sell music?
Lets see....I'm guessing...the plastic discs in the colorful cases? Imagine if you had a company that had huge amounts of capital invested in the production of a physical thing, money invested in the transportation of that thing, money invested in the Point Of Sale outlets, you had a stranglehold over the primary producers who needed your vast infrastructure to distribute. Then, some punks come along and make all of that non-necessary. The mode of production has changed and no longer needs your business. You can no longer milk the primary producers as effectively.
I'm betting that you'd try and stop it happening. I'm also betting that one of the companies is going to either invest quickly in the new technology and betray the others or that some upstart firm is going to make a killing here.
The issue of honesty in reporting [...] is a total non sequitor as far as I'm concerned.
Fair enough, but seeing as you've talked about it here what you say is questionable. There is a huge difference between choosing to report only certain facts, selecting from among pictures and reporting limited viewpoints and creating pictures, making up facts and falsely ascribing viewpoints.
I am assuming that it is these categories that you place the unreality of
Raise your hand if you didn't know that what you see on TV isn't always real
If not then I'm afraid my hand is down. I'm aware that I'm subject to propaganda, staged-media events etc., but I don't believe that Dan Rather is a cyberspace construct, I don't believe that the footage of Kosovar Albanians is all made up. I do take these things with a grain of salt - I ask "why are they telling me this?" and try to fit it into a larger picture of the world.
I'm assuming that you feel the same way too, so, and this brings me to the nub of my posting, won't the effect of your posting be to discourage/.ers from listening to any media and trying to make educated guesses? Why bother listening to anything? Why not just hid in our own cynical, solipsistic holes, never coming out to see the light of day?
The fictional view of the world that this portrays reminds me of the worst excesses of po-mo "truth is the outcome of the veridiction operations".
The big news is that this is like altering a photo in a newspaper or faking a source. It's a step further, and just because things are bad now doesn't mean that we give up.
I really think that that is the central issue, not the two giant media corporations go sue each other.
I'll vote for that. There should also be an explicit statement that the tv is produce/owned/manipulated by huge companies that push their own interests and slant everything. So, perhaps a [P]ropaganda tag would be added too?
Indeed, that was my point. You said it, not me. Note that I said:
"[evolutionists] are the visible opposition"
I didn't say that they had defined themselves.
Science isn't going around opposing anything as such, just uncovering facts
Science, as such doesn't do anything. The practicioners of Science do things. Among them they discover facts and... create theories. Debate centers around (1)what exactly the facts are and (2) how they cohere with differing theories.
You're thinking too much like a sports fan and not enough like a scientist.
If anything the Biblical literalists of the fundamentalist churches have defined themselves in opposition to science, not the reverse.
If A is in opposition to B, does that not imply that B is in opposition to A?
W.r.t. it being "The" visible opposition I take your correction - there are of course the various political movements. However, I'm willing to bet as a reasonable person, that you, as a reasonable person, would upon a free-association test link creation/evolution pretty quickly. No?
It would appear that evolution makes more than a few people uncomfortable, there are whole states that dislike it. There are a shockingly high number of people that believe in creation. Part of the reason for this is that "evolutionists", whoever they are, have _not_ been careful in the examples that they used to try and convince people that "evolution is a fact". Another part of the reason is that there is socio-cultural opposition to the idea of scientific materialism. See R.Lewontin in the NYRB for an excellent essay
Aside from any of these points I admit that you're correct;-)
Slashdot Mirror
this sounds like a great product and all, but I had to laugh at the fact that they had called in Lexicon to name it. Crusoe - what a brilliant associaton! It conjures up the image of a hungry, lonely semi-naked guy wandering around desperate for someone else to talk to, yet scared of them because they're all savages, cowering in fear when he sees evidence of other humans, a reluctant fugitive isolated on an island against his will, talking to himself. Hope they didn't pay Lexicon too much!
So, this would appear to be it - real portables at last.
Mobile internet devices WITHOUT hard-drives! Demoing platforms $500-$1000 !
So, this would appear to be it - real portables at last.
Operating System:
Windows 95, Windows 98
Internet Connection (Modem or LAN-based) using standard Microsoft TCP/IP
Obtained from freedom.net webpage.
Anyone want to donate their kid to research?
Lets not restrict ourselves! How about several kids? They could have IR communication between them from chips embedded in their amygdalae - Distributed Smelling ! Sorry, time for sleep I think.
why do they want to replace the tools in question?
Cynical answer: Licensing? make and autoconf being the backbone of a lot of what we do and also being GPL'ed. Their license is not going to be GPL, its going to be MIT-X style.
why not just extend them as appropriate?
Agreed, a good GUI would do the trick for a lot of people. If the intent of this really is to improve functionality though, I am suspicious that radio-buttons would really achieve this.
I read the link pretty quickly...is this the DOE funding it? It looks like it. Does anyone know of any govt issues with GPL'ed software?
Of course evolution happens when selective pressures are significant enough to kill off most of the viral types that aren't specifically resistant
Evolution will happen even without selection pressure. In fact most evolution is neutral evolution, just the accumulation of random mutations and the stochastic fixation of alleles due to random drift. But that's besides the point - just a nit.
I'm in agreement with the rest of your point though - it would be damned hard to get people to co-operate in following whatever public health measures one tried to impose. Hence, as you very probably aware MDR TB in inner-cities of the U.S. There have been a lot of very ineffective programs and it's been damned hard to try and figure out the psychological reasons why people won't take their drugs (prophylactics I mean ;) ).
Many treatments are going to have beneficiaries and victims. How much non-fatal misery is one death worth? Sadly, that question probably does not matter.
The best response that I ever heard to one of these "utilitarian calculus" arguments was reputedly by a student in a friend's lecture where the old death-of-one-to-save-many question was being hashed over. After much debate among others he stuck up his hand and said "Speaking as the one, I'm against it....".
I guess the impression I got from your post when you were talking about "driving to extinction" and "another one taking its place" was that you seemed to be advocating mass vaccination against even non-lethal version of the viruses. This was further confirmed in my mind by the only other post I had seen from you that talked about how you'd got a flu shot because you were worried about flu killing people on a scale similar to the 1918 epidemic.
Sorry if I misunderstood you, I'm going to go look for your other posts to see if I can clarify.
Agreed, and those limits are determined by the amount of variation in the population.
No matter how strong a selective pressure you excert against non-flying house cats, you'll never get one that flies
Are you sure about that? Given a large enough cat population and a suitably increasing selection pressure I bet you could get something similar to a flying fox
put down that cat! It's a gedanken experiment!
Now, there's probably some possible mutation that would cause resistance, but there's a reason why it's not common in the population.
I didn't see that data that showed it wasn't common in the population?
Also, and more importantly, it doesn't have to be common, there just has to be one (with a suitable dispersal and reproduction rate naturally - the whole thing is meaningless without a consideration of the parameters of population structure)
Disclaimer IAAEB too!
The point is that there is no need to provide a "cure" for the common cold except in extreme cases: for people that are immune compromised due to being old,young or HIV+. As things stand there is a population of very rapidly mutating viruses providing a huge amount of variation for selection to act upon. The result of this is that there will be a rapid response to any new pharmaceutical
The result of handing out cold cures to those who don't need them is that there will - as the poster at the top of this thread suggested - be a suite of resistant forms. These will then be a threat to those that need something to cure them. The emergency, critical treatment for those people will be much less effective then it might be.
The promise of carefully designed drugs is that we can keep pace with evolution better.
Not if we don't use them intelligently. Would you for example favour the idea of spraying plane-loads of anti-virals over major urban centers before the start of each flu season?
Viruses are not living according to the biologists I know. They probably would not call them organisms.
This is really an old and pointless debate and it is a non-sequitur as far as this argument (should we use new drugs indiscriminately without considering epidemiology?) goes. The point is that viruses form a population, they reproduce with variation, thus selection takes place as with what might be unambiguously defined as "life" and with "non-life" like memes or teddy-bears (Journal of Systematic Zoology (I think it was) had a great article on teddy-bear morphology and how aesthetic selection affected the population!). As viruses have the highest rate of mutation known, they are going to adapt much more quickly even than bacteria have to antibiotics (and that has been pretty damn quick).
You seem to think that ther e is little or no problem with Multiple Drug Resistant bacteria - well, talk to any health-care professional to hear about the appalingly needless problems caused by MDR.
All of this comes about from a careless attitude to population genetics and epidemiology.
I'm not disputing that we should try and understand the mechanisms involved, I want more than that, I want us to understand and use evolution against these problems. Careful application, restricted use would see us controlling a lot of these problems. The alternative is a race between us and evolution, needless and benefiting no-one except drug companies who always have a new miracle drug available at only $50.
A concrete example of what I'm talking about is trying to display classical Greek fonts. There do indeed exist Adobe-encoded classical Greek fonts and I can install them, use them, good example being Ismnin.pfa. I can go to edit->pref->fonts and select the installed font which I've preview with xfontsel. Now, I go to a nice online database of classical greek texts with morphological analyses and links, the Perseus Project and look at some work by Aeschinus . They have the option of displaying actual, greek text using the Ismini font if one uses the "Change Greek display" button at the top of the page and select the Ismini font. Does it work on Linux? No.
It works on Macintosh damn well though.
These worthy people (it's a great project) point out that they can't support everything, and indeed they do support several different Netscape versions on WinXX and Mac and several different IE versions.
They claim in their Font Help section that there are fundamental problems with Netscape displaying different fonts.
Anyone have any take on this? At the very least it would discourage anyone trying to use current tools used in Classics from using Linux and Netscape. A damn shame.
It sounds appallingly difficult, also something absolutely essential. I read an article a while ago about a blind sysadmin which I assumed was a hoax - have you observed her using it? Hats off to the developers!
Well, I'm trying /. in Lynx now and it seems OK. It's a little less intuitive than the graphical version, but still fine.
I'm going to give it a shot right now. I've always been put off running Lynx to be honest just because I like the pretty pictures - is that a new planetary science icon? Also, for other sites do you find that you lose much contextual information...picture equivalent to a 1000 words blah blah etc?
ugh. Takes over entire desktop, crashes more than Netscape. ugly. It's an example of one of the horrible multi-functional applications that do many things imperfectly. Sort of like the way Netscape has developed actually.
OK, I take your point. I have to admit that I haven't used Netscape under WinXX for several years and don't use it in a very sophisticated way anyway, so I don't really appreciate the difference that you're talking about there.
all the cool software is for Windows. Sure, their are a couple of games
I don't want to fight too much over the definition of "cool" and I'll readily concede the games part of your statement. I don't underestimate the importance of that at all in terms of getting people involved with a particular platform at a superficial level. However, Linux certainly has it's share of cool software at the academic level - one of it's strong points, to my mind, is the availability of TeX and simple interfaces to it like LyX. Anyone preparing even semi-academic documents has something to gain from this system. As regards other things it might be used for in a class room environment, Netscape works OK, (I'll admit I hate it, but still it does the job), it's obviously a useful platform to learn programming on, and it's free! Lets not underestimate that last point!
Not quite anyone, but really the UK government should do this! RedHat always was about "support" really, at least that was the impression I had when I started using it.
Turned out that I was quite turned off by their support. I'm thinking of switching to Debian from what I hear and see.
Personally I'm running 6.1 at the moment and was disconcerted at the quality of the manuals in the Standard Edition. I'm sure that there will be plenty of teachers that know how to set up Linux, but it's safe to say that there will be a lot more that are slightly frustrated.
I wasn't all that happy with RedHat's email support when I used 5.2 either. It took a while to get answers - menawhile my problems were solved by local gurus. So, if there are plenty of UK LUGs that are going to be on hand it might work out. Sure, there are lots of people that will do it out of the goodness of their hearts - but when it's tied to a specific distro like RH and they're effectively doing free support they might be less enthusiastic. And that's what we're dealing with mostly - enthusiasts, people who do it for the sheer joy of it.
Does anyone feel that other distro's might be more appropriate to a "mass" installation of this kind? Still, kudos to RH for taking the step, just because it makes sense from a future marketing perspective doesn't mean that it's bad.
take a hard look at what it is they sell. Does the RIAA promote the sale of plastic discs in colourful cases, or do they sell music?
Lets see....I'm guessing...the plastic discs in the colorful cases? Imagine if you had a company that had huge amounts of capital invested in the production of a physical thing, money invested in the transportation of that thing, money invested in the Point Of Sale outlets, you had a stranglehold over the primary producers who needed your vast infrastructure to distribute. Then, some punks come along and make all of that non-necessary. The mode of production has changed and no longer needs your business. You can no longer milk the primary producers as effectively.
I'm betting that you'd try and stop it happening. I'm also betting that one of the companies is going to either invest quickly in the new technology and betray the others or that some upstart firm is going to make a killing here.
The issue of honesty in reporting [...] is a total non sequitor as far as I'm concerned.
Fair enough, but seeing as you've talked about it here what you say is questionable. There is a huge difference between choosing to report only certain facts, selecting from among pictures and reporting limited viewpoints and creating pictures, making up facts and falsely ascribing viewpoints.
I am assuming that it is these categories that you place the unreality of
Raise your hand if you didn't know that what you see on TV isn't always real
If not then I'm afraid my hand is down. I'm aware that I'm subject to propaganda, staged-media events etc., but I don't believe that Dan Rather is a cyberspace construct, I don't believe that the footage of Kosovar Albanians is all made up. I do take these things with a grain of salt - I ask "why are they telling me this?" and try to fit it into a larger picture of the world.
I'm assuming that you feel the same way too, so, and this brings me to the nub of my posting, won't the effect of your posting be to discourage /.ers from listening to any media and trying to make educated guesses? Why bother listening to anything? Why not just hid in our own cynical, solipsistic holes, never coming out to see the light of day?
The fictional view of the world that this portrays reminds me of the worst excesses of po-mo "truth is the outcome of the veridiction operations".
The big news is that this is like altering a photo in a newspaper or faking a source. It's a step further, and just because things are bad now doesn't mean that we give up.
I really think that that is the central issue, not the two giant media corporations go sue each other.
I'll vote for that. There should also be an explicit statement that the tv is produce/owned/manipulated by huge companies that push their own interests and slant everything. So, perhaps a [P]ropaganda tag would be added too?
Note, I said "defined themselves".
Indeed, that was my point. You said it, not me. Note that I said:
"[evolutionists] are the visible opposition"
I didn't say that they had defined themselves.
Science isn't going around opposing anything as such, just uncovering facts
Science, as such doesn't do anything. The practicioners of Science do things. Among them they discover facts and ... create theories. Debate centers around (1)what exactly the facts are and (2) how they cohere with differing theories.
You're thinking too much like a sports fan and not enough like a scientist.
If anything the Biblical literalists of the fundamentalist churches have defined themselves in opposition to science, not the reverse.
If A is in opposition to B, does that not imply that B is in opposition to A?
W.r.t. it being "The" visible opposition I take your correction - there are of course the various political movements. However, I'm willing to bet as a reasonable person, that you, as a reasonable person, would upon a free-association test link creation/evolution pretty quickly. No?
It would appear that evolution makes more than a few people uncomfortable, there are whole states that dislike it. There are a shockingly high number of people that believe in creation. Part of the reason for this is that "evolutionists", whoever they are, have _not_ been careful in the examples that they used to try and convince people that "evolution is a fact". Another part of the reason is that there is socio-cultural opposition to the idea of scientific materialism. See R.Lewontin in the NYRB for an excellent essay
Aside from any of these points I admit that you're correct ;-)
this is a very informative link. If I had any moderation points you'd be getting them.