But isn't that like saying, "I like my art the good old fashion way, on the walls of caves"? I understand there is an appeal to web design circa 1994, the focus is placed more on content. Actually, there wasn't much past the content. And that's how I like my webpages.;)
Some people like their webpages simple and content driven and others like pretty animations with their content. I don't know if the latter is throwing the web in a state of decay. But you never know...
IMHO, a web page can be as powerful and moving as a classic novel. Or more like a Danielle Steel book, full of touchy feel crap.
And if they had relicensed the beta this would be a non-issue. But it is under the GPL and the GPL requires the source be made available even with a beta release. And they can't even relicense the code now unless they remove all the GPL'ed parts.
That's an interesting point. I am going to have to re-read the GPL to see how it effects those within the organisation. As far as I had thought, as long as the software was distributed in house and not to the public, they don't have to release the source code. It is only when it is being distributed outside the company does the source code need to be accompanied with the software or at least able to be requested.
Or, the code and intellictual property that went into this project should be protected as they did spend about eight years on the project using taxpayer money. And by GPL'ing the code, all derivative works have the same protection and people aren't merely riding the coat tails of a publicly funded endeavor.
But all derivative works will be based off the time, money, and effort spent by those programmers, and they felt they wanted to protect their works from people stealing from it. I think it is a good choice in this case.
Time will tell, however. In a couple of years, I would be interested to see how the project has progressed.
Why shouldn't your company have to create the whole thing from scratch? Or do you just want to ride the coat tails of taxpayers' money? That got you this far - built the structure - now you want that, add some new features and sell it. It seems rather cheap to me.
Or, you could keep the momentum going seeing how taxpayer money got the ball moving and the GPL will keep the ball rolling by having the code stay out in the open. All derivative works based on this foundation will stay out there for the public to continue to work on. I say the GPL is continuing with the spirit of the program.
Not that I am saying you can't profit. Just get some taxpayer money and work on another project and then put that in the public domain. Then you can do whatever you want with it.
I didn't say there had to be protection. I was outlining the difference between putting something into Public Domain as opposed to GPL'ing. You can do whatever you want with your code.
Why shouldn't there be protection? That is one of the points of the GPL, to protect your work from others taking and profitting from it. Some people want to protect their work from that happening so the GPL makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Nothing wrong with that.
If it is in the Public Domain, people can take code and sell it. That's what is so great about stuff in the Public Domain.
One train of thought is, tax dollars went into creating the software - they started the ball moving - and GPL'ing the code will keep the ball rolling. Taxpayers money created it and the GPL will keep it in the public for everyone to use, with all derivative work being open.
The work that went into it will continue and improve as long as their are dedicated coders for the project.
Whether the GPL was the best choice for this has yet to be seen. It will be interesting to see what this project will be like in a couple of years.
Ah, I understand the problem. It's common for me, I understand exactly what I am thinking and assume others do as well.
When I said "The GPL guarantees the software stays public, but the public domain doesn't", I didn't mean there would ever by a case the original piece of software that entered into the Public Domain would or could somehow be taken out. But rather, I was thinking into the future, where forks of the code and people modifyied and playing around have changed the software.
Putting the original piece in the Public Domain does not guarantee that the adaptations and mutuations to the software stay public. That is how I should have stated it.
But, this has to be weighed against the GPL in which all derivative works stays open and cannot be forked into proprietary software.
Each one has its advantages and disadvantages, just as long as we look at which one fits best for a particular situation all is good and balance is maintained. Or something like that...
With software and code that goes into the public domain, there is no sort of protection on it. Meaning, a company can come by, invest a couple of man-years in a short time improving and upgrading this software, and then sell it for a profit.
To me, I would prefer for the software to stay public rather than having the chance for it to be changed and sold. But, it depends on if and how you want the code to be protected.
The GPL guarantees the software stays public, but the public domain doesn't. Whereas the public domain gives you complete freedom on the software, whether it gets used and passed along or taken and abused.
Either way, both are better than have the taxpayer funded software stay closed up.
If you do that, it would be amazing! I know being an engineer, free software is hard to come by. So, doing any sort of design work has to done either with the tools at work, or through other means. It isn't easy for a hobbyist to play around with complex circuits. (At least as for as I know.)
I would think releasing it as a closed source product would be a step backwards. This is more like a step in the right direction, than anything else. Granted the taxpayer can't take this product, change the code around and sell it without releasing the source code, but the taxpayer still has access to the code. Which compared to other closed software packages of this type, isn't too shabby.
It seems this license is better in the university setting: giving professors and students the ability to do complex anaylsis, then contribute to the software package and give it to others, if they so choose.
Being an engineer I have to say not all engineerings think that way. I wish more tools like this could be released. It opens up the doorway for more innovation, as people do not have to fork out money on software. Of course, you've got to walk through the door. I would be interested to see what, if any, are the results from this being released. How will people react and what will it be used for. That's a good test.
Obviously I am thinking of the wrong thing. Whatever it is, I know no one makes it yet. I had Arrow and Linear reps laughing along with me, because the fastest chips they need that would do what we needed was going to be in the 200 range. Now I am curious as to the specs the systems guys were calling out for. Hmmmmm...
A while back, Altera was pushing a line of FPGA's called Excaliber that you can program with C. I don't know how it worked, but one of the demos was a MP3 player, using some C code running on the FPGA. Of course, this shit is expensive! Which is why I am interesting in the Virtex devices as long as they are fairly cheap (around $100 isn't bad) especially if the software tools are free!
Can't DSPs be field programmable? I don't quite know if the code is stored in flash in a DSPs or if there is a EEPROM or something that contains the code. Speaking of which, where does a DSP keep its instructions?
Re:next week: analog radio to be phased out
on
GNU Radio
·
· Score: 1
I can just see it in the far off future, the SSSCA or whatever its new incarnation is has taken away some of the freedoms we had possessed before. People are less free and have no one to turn to, until...
Enter GNU, with their DIY GNU/DVD players, GNU/CD players and GNU/Palm devices. Freeing the people of the oppressed country. Or something like that.
Hacking is getting to be more dangerous. Where hacking is having the knowledge to do something. And this is hacking your own shit here just to be able to listen to a CD on your computer. That act becomes illegal! *laugh* I find that humorous.
I am going to go out of a limb here, so if I made any false statement let me know, cause this whole area is interesting to me and I want to learn.
The possible frequency range would be half of whatever you could sample at, so the range would be 10MHz. I know you can do something called down converting the frequency, but I don't know how that would help, as the DAC is the bottleneck for larger frequencies.
I know at work, the systems guys - those people that dream up crazy shit and are sometimes out of touch with reality - came up with a design that required a 1GHz ADC. The only problem is the fastest ADC on the market is about 200MHz. I told a vendor the systems guys needed a 1GHz and they just laughed. Now it's a running joke at work...
Re:Cool, but pointless
on
GNU Radio
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't think they are marketing it as a replacement for a DSP. Clearly if you wanted to do something like this as efficient as possible, a DSP is the way to go. You don't slow do your computer with all this additional processing - unless you've got a disgustingly fact computer;).
But at the same time, those who can't afford the $500+ DSP kits to start playing around with, or those who want to see what are the limits they can push with their computer, this sort of stuff it probably right up their alley. I kind of dig it.
As long as everyone understands the differences between the two approaches, everything is cool. This gives more people the opportunity to play and I am all for that.
Maybe I am not understanding the finer details of this discussion, and please help clarify the issue for me, but if someone takes some code that is GPL'ed and doesn't agree with the license, can that person than disregard the license and use the software anyone they seem fit?
It seems like this is what a lot of people are saying.
I am waiting for someone to write a Lawyer HowTo Guide or even Defending Yourself Against Frivolous Lawsuits HowTo Guide. You know, something that I can read on my own without having to go to law school part time. A couple of law memes would be nice. Give people the ability, confidence and resources necessarily to defend themselves, at least decently.
Tee hee. When I saw the parent post I nearly busted a nut. The poster was pointing out the article was talking about permanently embedded in the hardware's controlling chips which is not something that can be flashed. If it can be flashed and is upgradeable then it is not permanent. Funny shit. It's more transient than permanent.
Israeli and Palenstine really friends, been playing the world's longest April Fools joke. Sharon and Arafat said "gotcha" to the world, over a nice lunch in the West Bank. "Now that the prank is finally over, it'll be good to play a round of golf with my old college buddy," Sharon said referring to Arafat.
Sweet! Thanks for the reply. I will try to be as detailed and concise in my response as you were.
Now I understand the issue about companies keeping code a secret. And honestly, I have departed from my balanced theory of thought. The GPL is good because it gives people protection from certain "free riders" - those who would profit from your work - without giving anything back. Many people would feel "wronged" by this.
If not, the BSD license is the way to go. The code gets out there, and people can use it however, more or less. Keeping it a secret is a way to protect the code from prying eyes, assuming no one steals it or designs their own. Patents, while releasing the code to the public, offer protection to the people who own the patent (presumably those who did all the hard work, or made the inventment; but not always.)
Patents and the GPL I see as somewhat stark opposites, using the law for two different purposes. One uses it to protect their ideas from others using it - a reward for thinking of it first - while the other keeps people from stealing the code and using it as theirs. This is all ideally, of course.
I do admit that I have become accustomed to this model of patents and protecting ones work in order to recoup costs and make a profit, so it is difficult for me to see outside of this system. However, I do believe that a good balance can exists, one that rewards innovation, design and the people who do the work. But this system most likely could not be created by "ripping off a Band-Aid", as the shock would be too much for our system. This would be more of a cultural change and cultural changes usually happen slowly over time. (They can happen quickly, but the cataylst is usually a dramatic event.)
And I believe discussions like this are part of the beginning of that change. (Or maybe an understanding of why things should not change.) It would be difficult to go to people and say "Hey, this way is better; despite its drastic change to the current, comfortable way we do things" and expect everyone to come to your side. I like a more gradually change, Stallman, I believe, wants change to happen quicker, much quicker.
And you are right, besides the cost of production (and overhead, such as employees, health care, etc.) there is the cost of research and development. My chair took many years to design. I mean, it's that good. You can't think of these things overnight. Otherwise everyone would be making these chairs.
But then, I think of examples like those pesky Linux kernel developers, who spend a lot of time and effort into developing a kernel that is better, faster and more efficient. And they are not trying to recoup the time and effort they have put into it. (As far as I know anyway.) And there are other examples of groups of programmers getting together to create software and give it away for all to use, not trying to be rewarded monetarily for their effort.
I am not using this to defeat your statements, but rather to point out a duality that exist. The programmers I have just described are on one side of the scale and the situations you described are on the other side. And the rest of us fall either on the edges or somewhere inbetween. (We either want to give away our work, we want to be rewarded greatly, or find some nice place somewhere inbetween.)
I am all in favor of the 14 year system. (Maybe even a little less). You get 14 years after your patent is filed (the time when you are legally recognized as "thinking of this first") to develop, market and profit from your idea. Fourteen years is a long time, after all. After 14 years, it gets thrown into the public domain and everyone gets a chance to bounce on it. Assuming your 14 years want well, you have created a strong force in whatever area and created a good name for yourself, or things didn't go as well as you had planned.
Either way, your 14 year monopoly is up and you have to either stay ahead of the times and keep innovating, or get eaten up. Which seems to keep with the competition model I enjoy so much in America.
Crazy thing is, I don't know how much this would change things (if at all), or even what a removal of software patents all together would do. It is interesting to think about. While some companies would be in trouble, others would experience growth and prosperity. What the ratio is between the two I do not know. But I doubt it would mean complete financial ruin.
Although, I do have nothing to back that up with, other than the belief that if the change in culture is slow enough, new models will replace the old ones without too much pain. However, ripping the Band-Aid off might cause quite a bit of chaos, if for no other reason than too many people would still be used to the old way of doing business and unsure how to move ahead with no new model rushing in to take its place. Or maybe I am just talking out of my butt.
I guess we shall see as the GPL, BSD and similar models gain more momentum and collide more with for-profit/patenting model.
But, I must again call upon an example of the ancients, where the Masters painted, chisled, or whatever, because that was what they enjoyed. I understand many create, like me, nowadays because it gives us (me) money. And Greggie likes money. But, in my spare time, what I make I plan on giving away to people. Granted, I might not think of incredibly great ideas, but I was never one of those incredibly great idea thinkers. Just your average joe with delusions of grandeur.
Thanks for your rebuttal, by the way, I enjoyed it.
Slashdot Mirror
But isn't that like saying, "I like my art the good old fashion way, on the walls of caves"? I understand there is an appeal to web design circa 1994, the focus is placed more on content. Actually, there wasn't much past the content. And that's how I like my webpages. ;)
Some people like their webpages simple and content driven and others like pretty animations with their content. I don't know if the latter is throwing the web in a state of decay. But you never know...
IMHO, a web page can be as powerful and moving as a classic novel. Or more like a Danielle Steel book, full of touchy feel crap.
And if they had relicensed the beta this would be a non-issue. But it is under the GPL and the GPL requires the source be made available even with a beta release. And they can't even relicense the code now unless they remove all the GPL'ed parts.
That's an interesting point. I am going to have to re-read the GPL to see how it effects those within the organisation. As far as I had thought, as long as the software was distributed in house and not to the public, they don't have to release the source code. It is only when it is being distributed outside the company does the source code need to be accompanied with the software or at least able to be requested.
Or, the code and intellictual property that went into this project should be protected as they did spend about eight years on the project using taxpayer money. And by GPL'ing the code, all derivative works have the same protection and people aren't merely riding the coat tails of a publicly funded endeavor.
But all derivative works will be based off the time, money, and effort spent by those programmers, and they felt they wanted to protect their works from people stealing from it. I think it is a good choice in this case.
Time will tell, however. In a couple of years, I would be interested to see how the project has progressed.
Why shouldn't your company have to create the whole thing from scratch? Or do you just want to ride the coat tails of taxpayers' money? That got you this far - built the structure - now you want that, add some new features and sell it. It seems rather cheap to me.
Or, you could keep the momentum going seeing how taxpayer money got the ball moving and the GPL will keep the ball rolling by having the code stay out in the open. All derivative works based on this foundation will stay out there for the public to continue to work on. I say the GPL is continuing with the spirit of the program.
Not that I am saying you can't profit. Just get some taxpayer money and work on another project and then put that in the public domain. Then you can do whatever you want with it.
I didn't say there had to be protection. I was outlining the difference between putting something into Public Domain as opposed to GPL'ing. You can do whatever you want with your code.
Why shouldn't there be protection? That is one of the points of the GPL, to protect your work from others taking and profitting from it. Some people want to protect their work from that happening so the GPL makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Nothing wrong with that.
If it is in the Public Domain, people can take code and sell it. That's what is so great about stuff in the Public Domain.
One train of thought is, tax dollars went into creating the software - they started the ball moving - and GPL'ing the code will keep the ball rolling. Taxpayers money created it and the GPL will keep it in the public for everyone to use, with all derivative work being open.
The work that went into it will continue and improve as long as their are dedicated coders for the project.
Whether the GPL was the best choice for this has yet to be seen. It will be interesting to see what this project will be like in a couple of years.
Tee hee, sorry.
Ah, I understand the problem. It's common for me, I understand exactly what I am thinking and assume others do as well.
When I said "The GPL guarantees the software stays public, but the public domain doesn't", I didn't mean there would ever by a case the original piece of software that entered into the Public Domain would or could somehow be taken out. But rather, I was thinking into the future, where forks of the code and people modifyied and playing around have changed the software.
Putting the original piece in the Public Domain does not guarantee that the adaptations and mutuations to the software stay public. That is how I should have stated it.
But, this has to be weighed against the GPL in which all derivative works stays open and cannot be forked into proprietary software.
Each one has its advantages and disadvantages, just as long as we look at which one fits best for a particular situation all is good and balance is maintained. Or something like that...
With software and code that goes into the public domain, there is no sort of protection on it. Meaning, a company can come by, invest a couple of man-years in a short time improving and upgrading this software, and then sell it for a profit.
To me, I would prefer for the software to stay public rather than having the chance for it to be changed and sold. But, it depends on if and how you want the code to be protected.
The GPL guarantees the software stays public, but the public domain doesn't. Whereas the public domain gives you complete freedom on the software, whether it gets used and passed along or taken and abused.
Either way, both are better than have the taxpayer funded software stay closed up.
If you do that, it would be amazing! I know being an engineer, free software is hard to come by. So, doing any sort of design work has to done either with the tools at work, or through other means. It isn't easy for a hobbyist to play around with complex circuits. (At least as for as I know.)
I would think releasing it as a closed source product would be a step backwards. This is more like a step in the right direction, than anything else. Granted the taxpayer can't take this product, change the code around and sell it without releasing the source code, but the taxpayer still has access to the code. Which compared to other closed software packages of this type, isn't too shabby.
It seems this license is better in the university setting: giving professors and students the ability to do complex anaylsis, then contribute to the software package and give it to others, if they so choose.
Being an engineer I have to say not all engineerings think that way. I wish more tools like this could be released. It opens up the doorway for more innovation, as people do not have to fork out money on software. Of course, you've got to walk through the door. I would be interested to see what, if any, are the results from this being released. How will people react and what will it be used for. That's a good test.
Actually, it would be .mpeg1layer3. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Obviously I am thinking of the wrong thing. Whatever it is, I know no one makes it yet. I had Arrow and Linear reps laughing along with me, because the fastest chips they need that would do what we needed was going to be in the 200 range. Now I am curious as to the specs the systems guys were calling out for. Hmmmmm...
Thanks for the info, though.
A while back, Altera was pushing a line of FPGA's called Excaliber that you can program with C. I don't know how it worked, but one of the demos was a MP3 player, using some C code running on the FPGA. Of course, this shit is expensive! Which is why I am interesting in the Virtex devices as long as they are fairly cheap (around $100 isn't bad) especially if the software tools are free!
Can't DSPs be field programmable? I don't quite know if the code is stored in flash in a DSPs or if there is a EEPROM or something that contains the code. Speaking of which, where does a DSP keep its instructions?
I can just see it in the far off future, the SSSCA or whatever its new incarnation is has taken away some of the freedoms we had possessed before. People are less free and have no one to turn to, until...
Enter GNU, with their DIY GNU/DVD players, GNU/CD players and GNU/Palm devices. Freeing the people of the oppressed country. Or something like that.
Hacking is getting to be more dangerous. Where hacking is having the knowledge to do something. And this is hacking your own shit here just to be able to listen to a CD on your computer. That act becomes illegal! *laugh* I find that humorous.
Send in the clowns!
I am going to go out of a limb here, so if I made any false statement let me know, cause this whole area is interesting to me and I want to learn.
The possible frequency range would be half of whatever you could sample at, so the range would be 10MHz. I know you can do something called down converting the frequency, but I don't know how that would help, as the DAC is the bottleneck for larger frequencies.
I know at work, the systems guys - those people that dream up crazy shit and are sometimes out of touch with reality - came up with a design that required a 1GHz ADC. The only problem is the fastest ADC on the market is about 200MHz. I told a vendor the systems guys needed a 1GHz and they just laughed. Now it's a running joke at work...
I don't think they are marketing it as a replacement for a DSP. Clearly if you wanted to do something like this as efficient as possible, a DSP is the way to go. You don't slow do your computer with all this additional processing - unless you've got a disgustingly fact computer ;).
But at the same time, those who can't afford the $500+ DSP kits to start playing around with, or those who want to see what are the limits they can push with their computer, this sort of stuff it probably right up their alley. I kind of dig it.
As long as everyone understands the differences between the two approaches, everything is cool. This gives more people the opportunity to play and I am all for that.
-Greg
Thanks for the explaination!
-Greg
Maybe I am not understanding the finer details of this discussion, and please help clarify the issue for me, but if someone takes some code that is GPL'ed and doesn't agree with the license, can that person than disregard the license and use the software anyone they seem fit?
It seems like this is what a lot of people are saying.
I am waiting for someone to write a Lawyer HowTo Guide or even Defending Yourself Against Frivolous Lawsuits HowTo Guide. You know, something that I can read on my own without having to go to law school part time. A couple of law memes would be nice. Give people the ability, confidence and resources necessarily to defend themselves, at least decently.
I've already started compiling a list of ReasonsGregShouldBecomeALawyer
Tee hee. When I saw the parent post I nearly busted a nut. The poster was pointing out the article was talking about permanently embedded in the hardware's controlling chips which is not something that can be flashed. If it can be flashed and is upgradeable then it is not permanent. Funny shit. It's more transient than permanent.
Israeli and Palenstine really friends, been playing the world's longest April Fools joke. Sharon and Arafat said "gotcha" to the world, over a nice lunch in the West Bank. "Now that the prank is finally over, it'll be good to play a round of golf with my old college buddy," Sharon said referring to Arafat.
;)
Christ! I don't know what to believe anymore.
Sweet! Thanks for the reply. I will try to be as detailed and concise in my response as you were.
Now I understand the issue about companies keeping code a secret. And honestly, I have departed from my balanced theory of thought. The GPL is good because it gives people protection from certain "free riders" - those who would profit from your work - without giving anything back. Many people would feel "wronged" by this.
If not, the BSD license is the way to go. The code gets out there, and people can use it however, more or less. Keeping it a secret is a way to protect the code from prying eyes, assuming no one steals it or designs their own. Patents, while releasing the code to the public, offer protection to the people who own the patent (presumably those who did all the hard work, or made the inventment; but not always.)
Patents and the GPL I see as somewhat stark opposites, using the law for two different purposes. One uses it to protect their ideas from others using it - a reward for thinking of it first - while the other keeps people from stealing the code and using it as theirs. This is all ideally, of course.
I do admit that I have become accustomed to this model of patents and protecting ones work in order to recoup costs and make a profit, so it is difficult for me to see outside of this system. However, I do believe that a good balance can exists, one that rewards innovation, design and the people who do the work. But this system most likely could not be created by "ripping off a Band-Aid", as the shock would be too much for our system. This would be more of a cultural change and cultural changes usually happen slowly over time. (They can happen quickly, but the cataylst is usually a dramatic event.)
And I believe discussions like this are part of the beginning of that change. (Or maybe an understanding of why things should not change.) It would be difficult to go to people and say "Hey, this way is better; despite its drastic change to the current, comfortable way we do things" and expect everyone to come to your side. I like a more gradually change, Stallman, I believe, wants change to happen quicker, much quicker.
And you are right, besides the cost of production (and overhead, such as employees, health care, etc.) there is the cost of research and development. My chair took many years to design. I mean, it's that good. You can't think of these things overnight. Otherwise everyone would be making these chairs.
But then, I think of examples like those pesky Linux kernel developers, who spend a lot of time and effort into developing a kernel that is better, faster and more efficient. And they are not trying to recoup the time and effort they have put into it. (As far as I know anyway.) And there are other examples of groups of programmers getting together to create software and give it away for all to use, not trying to be rewarded monetarily for their effort.
I am not using this to defeat your statements, but rather to point out a duality that exist. The programmers I have just described are on one side of the scale and the situations you described are on the other side. And the rest of us fall either on the edges or somewhere inbetween. (We either want to give away our work, we want to be rewarded greatly, or find some nice place somewhere inbetween.)
I am all in favor of the 14 year system. (Maybe even a little less). You get 14 years after your patent is filed (the time when you are legally recognized as "thinking of this first") to develop, market and profit from your idea. Fourteen years is a long time, after all. After 14 years, it gets thrown into the public domain and everyone gets a chance to bounce on it. Assuming your 14 years want well, you have created a strong force in whatever area and created a good name for yourself, or things didn't go as well as you had planned.
Either way, your 14 year monopoly is up and you have to either stay ahead of the times and keep innovating, or get eaten up. Which seems to keep with the competition model I enjoy so much in America.
Crazy thing is, I don't know how much this would change things (if at all), or even what a removal of software patents all together would do. It is interesting to think about. While some companies would be in trouble, others would experience growth and prosperity. What the ratio is between the two I do not know. But I doubt it would mean complete financial ruin.
Although, I do have nothing to back that up with, other than the belief that if the change in culture is slow enough, new models will replace the old ones without too much pain. However, ripping the Band-Aid off might cause quite a bit of chaos, if for no other reason than too many people would still be used to the old way of doing business and unsure how to move ahead with no new model rushing in to take its place. Or maybe I am just talking out of my butt.
I guess we shall see as the GPL, BSD and similar models gain more momentum and collide more with for-profit/patenting model.
But, I must again call upon an example of the ancients, where the Masters painted, chisled, or whatever, because that was what they enjoyed. I understand many create, like me, nowadays because it gives us (me) money. And Greggie likes money. But, in my spare time, what I make I plan on giving away to people. Granted, I might not think of incredibly great ideas, but I was never one of those incredibly great idea thinkers. Just your average joe with delusions of grandeur.
Thanks for your rebuttal, by the way, I enjoyed it.
Very interesting. Thanks!
(Some days I am more articulate than others. Today is not one of those days.)