Amen to that. Michael is always trying way too hard to criticize anything even remotely negative to open source. He is an easy (and consistent) example of the "hypocrite open source developer".
Michael, everytime you purport to be in support of "freedom" in computing you only further reveal that what you really mean is "freedom in computing, as long as it is open source only." Sometimes, in the real world, that just won't work. Don't rag on O'Reilly because he supports real choice, otherwise you are no better then Microsoft. And shame on you for using slashdot as a pulpit for your paranoia. If you want to spout out your opinions, write your own damn article. Everyday your paranoia further resembles arrogant lunacy.
If the textbooks you "downloaded" continued to be available after your class is over. I doubt this personally (but I don't know for sure), since e-books are fairly notorious for being DRM equipped. I use my older books all the time for my current classes in chemical engineering. I would be completely screwed and rather pissed if I opened my old thermodynamics book to see "We're sorry. The book you requested to view is no longer available since you are outside of it's registration period. You must re-register. the cost is only a modest 50.00."
Thanks but no thanks. I would only do this if the book was mine FOREVER.
People on slashdot seem to fall into two lines of thought:
1) That all corporations are eveil and hideous unless they are basically so nice and "genuine" that they go out of business.
2) That all corporations exist to make money regardless of means or methodology
Worst of all, is that neither side seems to fathom that a combination of the two is the answer. Anyhow, for the purpose of clarification, I am cynical to HP in this case because not making their printer's available to Dell does not help their business OR help the consumer. It, like their merger with compaq, is little more than a desperate attempt by the upper exec's to pad their ego and make it look like their doing something. So, to my responder-person, yes a corporation needs to make money as well as please their customers. Neither of which HP is accomplishing here.
RANT OFF
What is truly disheartening is that no one at HP seems to grasp that an ideology of "let's stop selling our products to a group of people, because X distributor is perhaps thinking of producing a competing product." is not good business! Now instead of a possible choice for Dell customer's between HP or Dell printers (I don't know, maybe Dell wouldn't offer them at all?) they are only offered Dell. Well congrats HP. Instead of making a few more sales, you've further demonstrated that your executives don't understand the aformentioned "lesson" of business, that the same executives are egotistical and overpaid (a frightening combination), and that your customer's are again going to feel isolated and confused.
"Dell spokesman Mike Maher said his company would still sell HP branded printers that it purchases through distributors, but expressed dismay at HP's decision. "Frankly we're surprised that a company would make it harder for customers to get their hands on their products," he said. "
I'm not.
Since when have these companies really cared about their customers, rather than their egos?
Sorry to be so cynical, but this is just all too common and pathetic.
Unfortunately, the large majority of people will buy it, since it is just a "new TV". Also, it is extremely probable that the MPAA et. al. will quickly push for HDTV's (with their broadcast flags and encrypted signals etc.) to become the only option available to "consumers" (I hate that word!) interested in new TVs. Luckily I don't watch TV anymore, but the prospect and ideology still makes me sick to my stomach. Go read a book.
'But FCC Chairman Michael Powell defended the decision, saying that "consumers have a reduced expectation of privacy" regarding that data when their carriers use it "to market services customarily offered by telephone companies, such as voicemail and Internet access."'
What a moron. I guess I should have a reduced expectation of privacy in the bathroom if it is in regards to the brand of toilet paper I use, or my preferred bar soap.
I can't believe he thinks anyone will buy this aas anything but a cop out to corporate "donations". Too bad no one gives a damn.
argh. Time to call the phone company and sit on hold for a million years...
Like the first person who replied to this, I too think this is silly. Portability is the only reason to get a laptop. I just recently also got a dell inspiron with the 15 inch screen (it was on a deal!) but now I regret the increased weight (but the screen is pretty!). My girlfriend now wants a laptop and i am recommending the small-screen ibook. I mean, a laptop should be light enough to sit in your lap without losing blood flow to your feet! 16 inch LCDs on laptops kind of strikes me a counterintuitive...
Fill a can with a little bit of water and set it over a flame until the water begins to boil. At this point most of the air has left the can and been replaced with water vapor. The can will not implode yet, since the water vapor exerts about an atm of pressure on the inside of the can. However, if you submerge the can at this point in an ice bath, the vapor rapidly condenses and the can implodes by itself. Quite neat. You can make cans "jump" several feet once placed in the ice bath...
More computers connected means more downloads, means more bandwidth. Just becasue your "speed" is capped, does not mean the amount you can download is (at least not yet in most areas).
Working with some of the geologist's that were sent out to Yucca for some of the 4-billion dollars in studies leads me to agree wholeheartedly. In fact, "under the desert floor is as good as any (and better than most)" is an understatement. Yucca mountain is probably one of the best sites available anywhere in the world, according to the folks who were sent to analyze it. Beleive it or not, but that 4 billion dollars led to some rather in-depth analysis of the location and stability of Yucca mountain...
So very true. I wrote a letter to several congress-types, in which I wrote:
"Furthermore, the advent of Napster in 1999 was followed by an overall increase in record sales by the RIAA for the next two years! The RIAA sold 10.8 percent more CDs that year even after increasing the price on those discs by over 12.3 percent. In 2000 this trend continued with another increase in CD price (from $13.65 to $14.02 on average) and an increase in sales again by over 3,600,000 CDs. It is worth noting also that in the last nine years the RIAA has tripled their annual income during a supposed economic downturn. For the years 1999 and 2000 the total profit made by the RIAA went from 14,584,500,000 dollars to 14,323,000,000 dollars. However, they lost 579,500,000 dollars on vinyls, cassettes and music videos, areas that Napster cannot possibly have an effect upon! In the formats Napster can trade, the RIAA made 318,500,000 more dollars than before!"
The fact is that Napster's popularity appears to have spurred CD sales to new levels. This makes sense, if you think about it: The large majority of people are not on fast broadband connections to the Internet. On a 56K modem, downloading an MP3 can take some time, certainly enough to make downloading an entire album seem like a lot of effort. Then, more time is required to get the songs onto the CD. Common sense says that if people using Napster liked a song enough on MP3, they would probably go out and buy the album, just as if they heard it on the radio. Napster gave people the chance to experience music they otherwise might have been loathe to pay money for, only to find out that the music wasn't something they particularly enjoyed. Need more proof? In 2000, CD sales were up 8 percent, even with Napster usage at an almost all-time high. At the same time in 2001, CD sales were down 8 percent, but the RIAA's lawsuit had all but halted Napster usage. See the correlation?
That nothing will change though. There is simply TOO much money at stake here--but its the same old problem with the RIAA and friends...
Basically, corporations such as Disney and industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cannot seem to fathom the existence of a customer who is both honest enough to not steal, yet smart enough to not let him/herself be ripped off.
The opposing view: A study compiled by the Yankelovich Partners surveyed 16,000 Americans between the ages of 13 and 39 who say they listen to more than 10 hours of music a week and have spent at least $25 on music in the past six months. Among the findings: 59 percent of those who said they heard a certain piece of music for the first time while online ended up purchasing that music as a CD.
What is truly patheitc is how they rant and rave about how they want to "protect the artist", all the while doing just the opposite--and GETTING AWAY WITH IT. What the RIAA does not want you or I to realize is that they most certainly do NOT represent the artists contracted to their labels. They represent nothing more than a coalition of companies milking copyright to its fullest extent.
Copyright is no longer a good thing. It is sad that such a good "idea" has become such a misused and abused facet of corporate ideology and overwhelming greed.
The entire major-label-commercial-radio biz is totally corrupt. You might as well make an effort to support independent bands, stations, and labels because there ain't no way this business is going to get cleaned up any time soon.
This is VERY true. Here in houston, damn near EVERY station is Clear Channel owned and operated. Just recently the old ones were bought out. The music quality and DJs have since REALLY sucked. I mean, I can flip to the alternative station, the rock station, and the top-40 Hits station and hear all the same songs, with only minor variances. It is just gross. I hated radio before Clear Channel, but now I wish for the ol' days when radio only sucked, not really sucked.
As for DJs, Clear Channel did not get along with the old ones and they have slowly been fazed out. Not really surprising since Clear Channel executives basically decide on the play loop anyhow. I don't even know what the point of having a DJ is for Clear Channel , except to look normal.
For the first time in my life, I am honestly getting serious about installing a CD player in my car. I just can't take hearing the "textbook" songs played over and over, very day....
The "art" of music has been completely replaced by the "money" in music. sad.
In a way they are FORCED. If you sell Windows at all, M$ threatens you unless you sell 1 liscence for windows with every computer REGARDLESS. This is why they are currently in court with the DOJ...
I didn't want it, but still got it. Yet again, another person assuming everyone wants windows...
"IBM is looking at Linux as an operating system that belongs on server grade hardware and beyond, not on desktops or laptops"
This is very true, and, IMO, rather pathetic. For a company so willing to spout and trumpet the open source software they are "embracing" and spending "1 billion dollars" on, it seems fairly counterintuituve to drop linux support on any level, expecially a level where they are still forcing people into that damn M$ tax. I refused to buy an IBM laptop because of this about 2 months ago. It makes no sense for a HUGE company like IBM that purports to "embrace linux" and has a rather bitter history with M$ to be so resiliant to employ OSS on anything other than their high-end servers. Sorry, I'd rather buy a laptop with forced (Argh) winXP from Dell then support rampant hypocrisy and buy a laptop from IBM with (again) forced winXP.
They are big enough to tell M$ to "fuck off" and go ahead and sell whatever the hell they want with their machines. Why don't they?
I always appreciated blizzard's solution to this problem. On the realm battle.net servers, the information is kept by blizzards servers, there is no "file" you can manipulate on your machine. (At least for Diablo 2). It is consequently very hard to "hack" in the realms. However, if you desire to cheat or hack the open battle.net servers are there to use in whatever way you want. IMHO, they don't appear to mind people hex-editing their charachter files as long as they are kept away from the people who want to play legit.
The other option (which I use) is to play on closed TCP-IP sessions. Online play for the most part sucks. If the cheating diminishes, the lag exponentially increases (even on my DSL line). Kind of a nasty catch-22.
The simple solution is to sell their damn server code and to stop harassing the open bnet project. However, that would screw them when they (inevitibly) move to a subscription system. Which will suck.
I would argue that the CBDPTA and the DMCA are unfortunate signs of old companies appealing to congress to stifle the decentralized aspect of the web. Case in point, the digital watermarking techniques desired by the MPAA and RIAA would associate a digital signature with playability for music, movies, etc. This in effect crushes the independent artist/film director. Why? Well, the ability to watermark would be a closely guarded secret as it "legalizes" a DRM-designed player to play the associated file. I think it would be way too optimistic to assume that the RIAA or MPAA would allow this "watermark" to be distributed to independent folks not under their wing, and therefore unassociated with their profit margins.
An example of ideological repression would be the PATRIOT act. The definitions implied are too broad. Non-mainstream ideals could be argued illegal strictly based on a politically motivated desire to appear to fight "terrorism". In the same vein, the numerous bills that attacked online pornography represent a dangerous trend in censorship. While not necessarily in the same line of thought as media outlets, it does highlight a thought process all too common. More information on censorship can be found here: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/. Another great resource is Lawrence Lessig's book, "The Future of Ideas", his whole book basically revolves around the current trend to consolidate the Internet much like physical news and media.
sorry, I cannot address this better right now, work is piling up.
To quote Lawrence Lessig, "If the media companies are owned by a handful of companies, each basically holding the very same ideals, how much diversity can we expect in the production of media content? How critical can we believe these media will be? How committed to testing the status quo is this form of organization--itself so dependent on the status quo--likely to be?"
Or if you don't think this happens, even Newt Gingrich appealed to it in a 1997 address to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, when he said that business leaders and advertisers "ought to take more direct command of the newsroom."
Thank you for making this very important point. To put numbers to this argument, note that:
Of all the interesting statistics, the most important is that the number of TV stations, magazines, and media outlets over all has increased tremendously, all the while being more consolidated then ever before. This strikes me as surprising. The illusion of diversity in literature and media is rather frightening. In 1947, 80 percent of daily newspapers were independent; in 1989 that number had shrunk to 20 percent. In 1981, the 11,000 or so magazines were owned by 20 companies, but as of 1988 that number had fallen to three. Books are the same, being controlled by seven major firms. This is not to say that no other sources of information exist, just that the concentration shows no sign of slowing down. Which should strike you as disconcerting.
Likewise, music is controlled by 5 large groups, representing 84 percent of the US market. (yes, the RIAA) Radio has 60 percent of its content controlled by 3 broadcast groups. And again in movies: In 1985, the 12 largest theater owners had 25 percent of the screens, as of 1998, that figure was about 61 percent and rapidly increasing. The 6 top firms by this point accounted for 90 percent of overall theater revenue. Not surprisingly, 132 out of the 148 "widely distributed" movies in 1997 had deals with these 6 vendors. This also explains the drop in foreign films, from 10 percent in the mid 1970s to 0.5 percent in the 90s.
Again, in broadcasting, 6 firms control 80 percent of the nations TV and cable, and 75 percent of its content. To summarize, Professor Ben Bagdikian wrote, "despite more than 25,000 outles in the US, 23 corporations control most of the business in newspapers, magazines, books and movies." The top six, FYI, make more revenue than the next 20 combined.
One hardly needs evidence to notice that such heavy concentration of power, (in this case, information) results inherently in bias. Witness the pro-american rhetoric seething from current media and the "anti-terrorist" news reports that for all we know may be made up.
The most saddening thing is that the Internet was specifically designed to prevent concentration of information. It was built to promote the free-flow of any idea or voice. But its being swept away in a tidal wave of corporate lobbying and associated legislation, as well as patriotic/moralist/ideological campaigns to stomp out "opposing" viewpoints. Criticize china all you want for their "information suppresion". We are no better, we just don't see it. Apathy and hypocrisy go hand in hand....
"Because the filtering software mandated by CIPA will block access to substantial amounts of constitutionally protected speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest, we are persuaded that a public library's use of software filters is not narrowly tailored to further any of these interests. Moreover, less restrictive alternatives exist that further the government's legitimate interest in preventing the dissemination of obscenity, child pornography, and material harmful to minors, and in preventing patrons from being unwillingly exposed to patently offensive, sexually explicit content."
Like busting the assholes making this shit instead of attempting to "filter it away"??
Good grief. I don't understand who up there is under the impression that censoring is a solution. The law already makes it illegal. It is almost promotional to censor it. It's like saying "You are horribly wrong and evil. But as long as I don't see or hear you, do whatever you want."
Slashdot Mirror
Michael, everytime you purport to be in support of "freedom" in computing you only further reveal that what you really mean is "freedom in computing, as long as it is open source only." Sometimes, in the real world, that just won't work. Don't rag on O'Reilly because he supports real choice, otherwise you are no better then Microsoft. And shame on you for using slashdot as a pulpit for your paranoia. If you want to spout out your opinions, write your own damn article. Everyday your paranoia further resembles arrogant lunacy.
In short, shut up.
-------rhad
That damn lameness filter! I don't think its caught a truely "lame" post yet!
-------rhad
Thanks but no thanks. I would only do this if the book was mine FOREVER.
---rhad
RANT ON
People on slashdot seem to fall into two lines of thought:
1) That all corporations are eveil and hideous unless they are basically so nice and "genuine" that they go out of business.
2) That all corporations exist to make money regardless of means or methodology
Worst of all, is that neither side seems to fathom that a combination of the two is the answer. Anyhow, for the purpose of clarification, I am cynical to HP in this case because not making their printer's available to Dell does not help their business OR help the consumer. It, like their merger with compaq, is little more than a desperate attempt by the upper exec's to pad their ego and make it look like their doing something. So, to my responder-person, yes a corporation needs to make money as well as please their customers. Neither of which HP is accomplishing here.
RANT OFF
What is truly disheartening is that no one at HP seems to grasp that an ideology of "let's stop selling our products to a group of people, because X distributor is perhaps thinking of producing a competing product." is not good business! Now instead of a possible choice for Dell customer's between HP or Dell printers (I don't know, maybe Dell wouldn't offer them at all?) they are only offered Dell. Well congrats HP. Instead of making a few more sales, you've further demonstrated that your executives don't understand the aformentioned "lesson" of business, that the same executives are egotistical and overpaid (a frightening combination), and that your customer's are again going to feel isolated and confused.
-----rhad
I'm not.
Since when have these companies really cared about their customers, rather than their egos?
Sorry to be so cynical, but this is just all too common and pathetic.
-----rhad
----rhad
What a moron. I guess I should have a reduced expectation of privacy in the bathroom if it is in regards to the brand of toilet paper I use, or my preferred bar soap.
I can't believe he thinks anyone will buy this aas anything but a cop out to corporate "donations". Too bad no one gives a damn.
argh. Time to call the phone company and sit on hold for a million years...
----rhad
----rhad
Fill a can with a little bit of water and set it over a flame until the water begins to boil. At this point most of the air has left the can and been replaced with water vapor. The can will not implode yet, since the water vapor exerts about an atm of pressure on the inside of the can. However, if you submerge the can at this point in an ice bath, the vapor rapidly condenses and the can implodes by itself. Quite neat. You can make cans "jump" several feet once placed in the ice bath...
-----rhad
-----rhad
----rhad
"Furthermore, the advent of Napster in 1999 was followed by an overall increase in record sales by the RIAA for the next two years! The RIAA sold 10.8 percent more CDs that year even after increasing the price on those discs by over 12.3 percent. In 2000 this trend continued with another increase in CD price (from $13.65 to $14.02 on average) and an increase in sales again by over 3,600,000 CDs. It is worth noting also that in the last nine years the RIAA has tripled their annual income during a supposed economic downturn. For the years 1999 and 2000 the total profit made by the RIAA went from 14,584,500,000 dollars to 14,323,000,000 dollars. However, they lost 579,500,000 dollars on vinyls, cassettes and music videos, areas that Napster cannot possibly have an effect upon! In the formats Napster can trade, the RIAA made 318,500,000 more dollars than before!"
These numbers don't lie....
The fact is that Napster's popularity appears to have spurred CD sales to new levels. This makes sense, if you think about it: The large majority of people are not on fast broadband connections to the Internet. On a 56K modem, downloading an MP3 can take some time, certainly enough to make downloading an entire album seem like a lot of effort. Then, more time is required to get the songs onto the CD. Common sense says that if people using Napster liked a song enough on MP3, they would probably go out and buy the album, just as if they heard it on the radio. Napster gave people the chance to experience music they otherwise might have been loathe to pay money for, only to find out that the music wasn't something they particularly enjoyed. Need more proof? In 2000, CD sales were up 8 percent, even with Napster usage at an almost all-time high. At the same time in 2001, CD sales were down 8 percent, but the RIAA's lawsuit had all but halted Napster usage. See the correlation?
---rhad
Basically, corporations such as Disney and industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cannot seem to fathom the existence of a customer who is both honest enough to not steal, yet smart enough to not let him/herself be ripped off.
The opposing view: A study compiled by the Yankelovich Partners surveyed 16,000 Americans between the ages of 13 and 39 who say they listen to more than 10 hours of music a week and have spent at least $25 on music in the past six months. Among the findings: 59 percent of those who said they heard a certain piece of music for the first time while online ended up purchasing that music as a CD.
What is truly patheitc is how they rant and rave about how they want to "protect the artist", all the while doing just the opposite--and GETTING AWAY WITH IT. What the RIAA does not want you or I to realize is that they most certainly do NOT represent the artists contracted to their labels. They represent nothing more than a coalition of companies milking copyright to its fullest extent.
Copyright is no longer a good thing. It is sad that such a good "idea" has become such a misused and abused facet of corporate ideology and overwhelming greed.
----rhad
----rhad
----rhad
----rhad
This is VERY true. Here in houston, damn near EVERY station is Clear Channel owned and operated. Just recently the old ones were bought out. The music quality and DJs have since REALLY sucked. I mean, I can flip to the alternative station, the rock station, and the top-40 Hits station and hear all the same songs, with only minor variances. It is just gross. I hated radio before Clear Channel, but now I wish for the ol' days when radio only sucked, not really sucked.
As for DJs, Clear Channel did not get along with the old ones and they have slowly been fazed out. Not really surprising since Clear Channel executives basically decide on the play loop anyhow. I don't even know what the point of having a DJ is for Clear Channel , except to look normal.
For the first time in my life, I am honestly getting serious about installing a CD player in my car. I just can't take hearing the "textbook" songs played over and over, very day....
The "art" of music has been completely replaced by the "money" in music. sad.
----------rhad
I didn't want it, but still got it. Yet again, another person assuming everyone wants windows...
---rhad
This is very true, and, IMO, rather pathetic. For a company so willing to spout and trumpet the open source software they are "embracing" and spending "1 billion dollars" on, it seems fairly counterintuituve to drop linux support on any level, expecially a level where they are still forcing people into that damn M$ tax. I refused to buy an IBM laptop because of this about 2 months ago. It makes no sense for a HUGE company like IBM that purports to "embrace linux" and has a rather bitter history with M$ to be so resiliant to employ OSS on anything other than their high-end servers. Sorry, I'd rather buy a laptop with forced (Argh) winXP from Dell then support rampant hypocrisy and buy a laptop from IBM with (again) forced winXP.
They are big enough to tell M$ to "fuck off" and go ahead and sell whatever the hell they want with their machines. Why don't they?
----------rhad
The other option (which I use) is to play on closed TCP-IP sessions. Online play for the most part sucks. If the cheating diminishes, the lag exponentially increases (even on my DSL line). Kind of a nasty catch-22.
The simple solution is to sell their damn server code and to stop harassing the open bnet project. However, that would screw them when they (inevitibly) move to a subscription system. Which will suck.
----rhad
An example of ideological repression would be the PATRIOT act. The definitions implied are too broad. Non-mainstream ideals could be argued illegal strictly based on a politically motivated desire to appear to fight "terrorism". In the same vein, the numerous bills that attacked online pornography represent a dangerous trend in censorship. While not necessarily in the same line of thought as media outlets, it does highlight a thought process all too common. More information on censorship can be found here: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/. Another great resource is Lawrence Lessig's book, "The Future of Ideas", his whole book basically revolves around the current trend to consolidate the Internet much like physical news and media.
sorry, I cannot address this better right now, work is piling up.
-----rhad
----rhad
Or if you don't think this happens, even Newt Gingrich appealed to it in a 1997 address to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, when he said that business leaders and advertisers "ought to take more direct command of the newsroom."
Scary.
-----rhad
Of all the interesting statistics, the most important is that the number of TV stations, magazines, and media outlets over all has increased tremendously, all the while being more consolidated then ever before. This strikes me as surprising. The illusion of diversity in literature and media is rather frightening. In 1947, 80 percent of daily newspapers were independent; in 1989 that number had shrunk to 20 percent. In 1981, the 11,000 or so magazines were owned by 20 companies, but as of 1988 that number had fallen to three. Books are the same, being controlled by seven major firms. This is not to say that no other sources of information exist, just that the concentration shows no sign of slowing down. Which should strike you as disconcerting.
Likewise, music is controlled by 5 large groups, representing 84 percent of the US market. (yes, the RIAA) Radio has 60 percent of its content controlled by 3 broadcast groups. And again in movies: In 1985, the 12 largest theater owners had 25 percent of the screens, as of 1998, that figure was about 61 percent and rapidly increasing. The 6 top firms by this point accounted for 90 percent of overall theater revenue. Not surprisingly, 132 out of the 148 "widely distributed" movies in 1997 had deals with these 6 vendors. This also explains the drop in foreign films, from 10 percent in the mid 1970s to 0.5 percent in the 90s.
Again, in broadcasting, 6 firms control 80 percent of the nations TV and cable, and 75 percent of its content. To summarize, Professor Ben Bagdikian wrote, "despite more than 25,000 outles in the US, 23 corporations control most of the business in newspapers, magazines, books and movies." The top six, FYI, make more revenue than the next 20 combined.
One hardly needs evidence to notice that such heavy concentration of power, (in this case, information) results inherently in bias. Witness the pro-american rhetoric seething from current media and the "anti-terrorist" news reports that for all we know may be made up.
The most saddening thing is that the Internet was specifically designed to prevent concentration of information. It was built to promote the free-flow of any idea or voice. But its being swept away in a tidal wave of corporate lobbying and associated legislation, as well as patriotic/moralist/ideological campaigns to stomp out "opposing" viewpoints. Criticize china all you want for their "information suppresion". We are no better, we just don't see it. Apathy and hypocrisy go hand in hand....
-----------rhad
Like busting the assholes making this shit instead of attempting to "filter it away"??
Good grief. I don't understand who up there is under the impression that censoring is a solution. The law already makes it illegal. It is almost promotional to censor it. It's like saying "You are horribly wrong and evil. But as long as I don't see or hear you, do whatever you want."
those idiots.
-----rhad