There is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO TECHNICALLY PROTECT DATA FROM BEING COPIED
Don't be an asshole. Public hysterics on Slashdot went out of style a long time ago (Katz nonwithstanding).
First of all, proving a negative is notoriously difficult. I suspect your ability to actually argue your position instead of waving hands is quite limited.
Second, watermarks have nothing to do with protecting the data from copying.
Third, given that protection from copying goes hand in hand with encryption these days, of course it is possible to protect the data from being copied (in the useful form). The very first thing that jumps into my mind is to make it tied to the individual physical characteristics of the device which stores it. I am sure I can think up more ways, and I am also sure that people smarter than me already thought of them already. The sticking point is that all these ways make the *use* of data very inconvenient. Thus they are not very well suited to, say, selling the latest Britney Spears song over the 'net.
nowadays, it's almost impossible to have a really nice gallery of images
Yes, but not for the reasons that you think.
If we are talking utilitarian images (e.g. the picture of the toaster that the guys want to sell you), then a high-res 1800x1600 image *is* overkill. Even leaving aside the poor modem users, not many people like to scroll around to see the complete image and I doubt that there are ten people in the world who are buying toasters from a machine with a better-than-1800x1600 desktop resolution.
If we are talking art (including photos, etc.) then the major problem is color rendition on the user's monitor (mostly a gamma problem, but more than that). The rude reality is that you cannot put an image on the web and make sure it appears on the people's monitors the way you want it to. Talk to professional photographers who use digital, e.g. to submit proofs to clients. They've been banging their head on this particular wall for some time now.
I guess, as usual, the intended use should determine the quality/size of the image.
So for dissidents such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn (whose name I'm grossly misspelling), according to American legal thought, he didn't commit a crime because the law he was accused of breaking was enacted in violation of his human rights, and thus, null and void.
Why should American legal thought have any influence on what is and what is not a crime in the Soviet Union? What's so special about the US?
The Soviet dissidents broke legally adopted laws of their country, usually with premeditation. They certainly had mens rea. The fact that certain people in the US and other places consider these laws unjust is neither here nor there. It certainly doesn't make breaking these laws not a crime.
To get back to the original topic, there are a lot of people who consider the drug laws unjust. So?
Unless, of course, you are prepared to argue that the current set of US laws is the absolute truth and thus should govern the conduct of everybody on Earth forever...
Whether or not they should be legalized is irrelevant; they are illegal, it is legal for them to be illegal (in that the courts have not overturned those statutes as unconstitutional), and that means if you break those laws without damn good cause, you're committing a crime
Whether the morality of these laws is irrelevant greatly depends on the context in which they are being discussed. Technically you are quite correct, by e.g. buying an ounce of pot I am committing a crime. That may not mean much, though. In some cases committing a crime is the right thing to do. To give a very simple example, consider the Soviet dissidents. They were, most certainly, committing crimes -- they were breaking Russian laws, which were quite legally adopted. Yet, for some strange reason, most of the Western world admired the dissidents and extended to them whatever help it could.
So I don't see much point in your "technically" argument.
Sunstein writes: "Public.Net would provide an icon, visible on your home computer. You would be under no obligation to click on it; indeed in a free society perhaps you should be permitted to remove the icon if you really do not like it."
perhaps?? permitted to remove???
This guy wants to force me (for my own good, of course) to read government propaganda and with visible reluctance concedes that it might not be feasible in a free society.
In the classic issue of balance of power between an individual and society/government, Sunstein greatly favors the society. That is really a value decision, hard to rationally argue about. However a look at history should prove useful. Societies that suppressed individuals in favor of society/government? Russia, China, Nazi Germany,... Societies that were individualistic? England, US,...
We certainly don't know if radioactive decay is truly random. It could well be governed by something else. Pick your FTL hidden-variable of the day...
Remember, we are talking about FBI/CIA/NSA reading people's mail. If FBI knows that radioactive decay isn't truly random, but is not telling anyone... Oh, I see. The aliens must have told them.
Does anyone here really think that the FBI will let you have unbreakable encryption?
FBI may not have a choice. Besides, one-time pads are provably unbreakable, have been around for ages and are not illegal.
Simply put, if everyone is using unbreakable encryption, then Government agencies will be forced to use other methods to get the information that they want
So? This is a well-known problem, the so-called "rubberhose" method of decryption. Do you want to say that we should just roll over and die?
expect the FBI and the NSA to seek Government legislation allowing them to install "security features" in every computing device
They would want this anyway, encryption or not. However I see major problems with this idea, both technologically and politically. Kaa
Theoretically the system is just a huge continuously generated one-time pad, so it probably is mathematically-proven-to-be-unbreakable. However most of its claims rest on the assumption that nobody would be capable of storing that OTP. In practice that is not necessarily true.
Consider traffic analysis. Mallory watches Bob and Alice exchange coded messages. Let's say Alice sends a message to Bob and Bob replies in five minutes. All Mallory needs to do is to store five minutes worth of the OTP stream and then he can spend as much time as he wants working on cracking the message.
Attempts to deal with this problem by increasing the rate of OTP generation (the NYT article mentioned millions of digits per second) will run into practical difficulties again, as Bob and Alice have to synchronize their reading of the OTP stream and the faster it goes, the harder it is to do.
So, yeah, OTPs are nice but the TLAgencies need not to lose (any more) sleep just yet.
For now, the solution is focusing more on well trained admissions boards who take a real look at a student. This is just what the workplace has been doing for years with great success. When a company hires a programmer, they take the applicant's GPA, certifications and school into account, but also the interview, references, maybe a code sample, etc. Paper resumes aren't everything.
Be realistic. A medium-large university evaluates submissions from what? [guesstimate] 10,000+ applicants each year. There is no way they can take a "real look" at each. The situation in the workplace is completely different.
Don't talk to you about security? Er... Oh well, never mind. I do hope that you keep full, staggered backups and that your place can stop working for a couple of days to figure out where the last uncorrupted backup is and to install it back.
The poor guy who had to figure out what to do with the moldy and stinky cheese deserves a medal
He does? You are kinda free with the medals, aren't you?
The person who was forced to break the brick into little pieces to check for drug content probably had better things to do.
Better things to do? Probably not, if his job involves breaking bricks to check for drug content. Besides, I am not a big fan of War on Drugs and if USPS does break brick apart to check for cocaine inside (which I doubt very much), it would be my pleasure to send somebody a brick once in a while.
And the person who had to lug the snow ski to a mailbox probably does not get enough medical coverage by the USPS to make up for the dent in his back
A ski weights what? A couple of pounds? If that will make a dent in his back, he has bigger problems than weird customers.
Give 'em a bit of respect
I don't see how sending a brick, or a rose, or a ski, or a.... through the mail consitutes disrespect for people working there. Or are you arguing that all pranks and that kind of humor in general is evil and should be strictly verboten?
And a really bad example it was. "Piracy" in this context is usually meant to refer to making unauthorized copies. Perhaps I missed something, but how did tearing off a cover and reporting the book as destroyed became equivalent to making unauthorized copies?
And what does this have to do with copy-protection?
There was a physical object -- a book -- which was reported as destroyed by actually wasn't. I doubt very much these books are actually stolen (as in, with malicious intent) -- probably the distributor just wanted to get rid of them and giving them to charity is better than making a big bonfire.
Yep, in a thrift store, for about 10 cents a book. Are you telling me this is book piracy? As in people tearing off book covers and selling books for 5 cents to a store which then sells them to me for 10 cents? Must be a great threat to publishing business...
Linux is no threat to MS on the desktop, Linux zealots nonwithstanding. MS is (correctly) not afraid that the public will switch en masse from Win9x/ME to Linux.
On the server front, it's another matter entirely. Here Linux is a direct competitor to Microsoft and so, a threat. It's a competitor that can't be bought out or underpriced (like Netscape was by IE) and thus is more of a threat.
Whether we see MicrograssSoftroot-movements spring up, I doubt. Server software is bought by either techies or management and neither particularly cares about grass roots. We are likely to see more money thrown at sales and marketing, now that is nearly certain.
When was the last time you bought a MPAA hard drive?
Read the story. This abomination is pushed by IBM, Toshiba, Matsushita, and Intel. They (maybe not Intel, but it makes the chips) actually do make drives.
Besides, the way to market it will be: "Our new drives do all old drives could, *plus* they allow you to buy songs/videos/etc. off the Internet!"
The real point he was getting at is that user-friendly systems often discourage people from exploring the depths of their computers, in the same way that modern high school boys don't tinker with cars the way boys did in the 50s.
Well, there is a good reason for this, a reason which Moglen ignores completely. It is called complexity.
Do I know how Linux works? Kinda. I can get around and even sysadmin a small network. But do I have a clue about the internal workings of the kernel? No. And why? Because it's big and complicated. I cannot dedicate my life to studying it -- there are other interesting things in life to do.
Moglen comes from time when you had 4K of memory and everything had to fit in there. Operating systems were small and simple. You could learn them and know them very, very well without spending months and years studying them.
Look at cars. In the 50s (hell, in the 70s as well) cars were simple mechanical devices. I could (and did) take much of the engine apart with a bunch of wrenches, fix it, and put it back together. It even worked after that. Cars were simple and easy to understand.
Now, there are electronic black boxes all over my car. To adjust ignition I don't turn a screw any more -- I have to plug some electronic thingie into another electronic thingie in my car and adjust something on screen. If a black box breaks, I cannot fix it -- I throw it out and buy a new one.
So, my point is that it's complexity that is the real problem. Complexity discourages people from exploring "the depths of their computers" because it takes too long and you cannot hold the whole thing inside your head like you used to be able to do. Complexity prevent modern high school boys from tinkering with cars because [electronic] tools are expensive, change all the time and you don't really understand the internal workings anyway.
And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with GUIs or user-interface systems.
Moglen is a very smart guy, but like most of programmers he is very linguistically oriented. [Ah? Yes, I know he is a law professor at Columbia, but he used to be a programmer before that and it still shows. Not that it's a bad thing.] He also doesn't understand user interfaces.
Sure, there is a place for language interfaces (aka command line). For example, it's quite hard to get arbitrary information out a database by point-and-click/grunt/drool methods. However, there is also definitely a place for non-language interfaces, as well. You don't drive your car by typing (or even speaking) "turn left", "slow down", "aiiieeeeee!".
Inventing a language to allow humans to think more precisely is not a new idea. The reason Latin was taught in all elite schools a hundred years ago is that people thought that one can think more clearly and coherently in Latin.
Moglen is enamoured with language ("regressing away from language", "infantilized, return to a pre-linguistic condition") and does not understand that it's not necessarily appropriate to all human-computer interaction. Do you want to play Quake by typing "run forward, shoot guy"? Besides, human interaction with systems is quite more complicated than a simple "pre-linguistic" -> "lingustic" ("stupid" -> "smart") line.
People at PARC knew what they were doing. The WIMP (windows-icons-menus-pointer) environment has many well-documented advantages over a command line and Moglen should know better than to air his prejudices in public.
According to theologians, GOD (especially capitalized) can do whatever he wants.
So if everybody is using Windows..you do also?
Yes. There is whole bunch of advantages I get by using the same software as everybody else. The law firms, specifically, have to be able to deal with MS Word documents send to them by clients and counterparties in other law firms. Saying "we only accept files in non-proprietary formats" isn't going to cut it.
MS Office..whats the big deal about that buggy package.
Nothing, except for the fact that it is the standard business desktop software.
The Law industry is using Wordperfect because they want a stable, a not OS bound wordproccesor.
Ahem. The law firms do not care about OS dependencies at all -- they have other things to worry about. And Word is stable enough. Not bugless, but definitely stable enough for real life.
Wordperfect outpreforms MSOffice on every terrain.
I wasn't aware they were both 4WD vehicles. And it's not like you can be bothered to supply any evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY TO TECHNICALLY PROTECT DATA FROM BEING COPIED
Don't be an asshole. Public hysterics on Slashdot went out of style a long time ago (Katz nonwithstanding).
First of all, proving a negative is notoriously difficult. I suspect your ability to actually argue your position instead of waving hands is quite limited.
Second, watermarks have nothing to do with protecting the data from copying.
Third, given that protection from copying goes hand in hand with encryption these days, of course it is possible to protect the data from being copied (in the useful form). The very first thing that jumps into my mind is to make it tied to the individual physical characteristics of the device which stores it. I am sure I can think up more ways, and I am also sure that people smarter than me already thought of them already. The sticking point is that all these ways make the *use* of data very inconvenient. Thus they are not very well suited to, say, selling the latest Britney Spears song over the 'net.
Kaa
nowadays, it's almost impossible to have a really nice gallery of images
Yes, but not for the reasons that you think.
If we are talking utilitarian images (e.g. the picture of the toaster that the guys want to sell you), then a high-res 1800x1600 image *is* overkill. Even leaving aside the poor modem users, not many people like to scroll around to see the complete image and I doubt that there are ten people in the world who are buying toasters from a machine with a better-than-1800x1600 desktop resolution.
If we are talking art (including photos, etc.) then the major problem is color rendition on the user's monitor (mostly a gamma problem, but more than that). The rude reality is that you cannot put an image on the web and make sure it appears on the people's monitors the way you want it to. Talk to professional photographers who use digital, e.g. to submit proofs to clients. They've been banging their head on this particular wall for some time now.
I guess, as usual, the intended use should determine the quality/size of the image.
Kaa
So for dissidents such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn (whose name I'm grossly misspelling), according to American legal thought, he didn't commit a crime because the law he was accused of breaking was enacted in violation of his human rights, and thus, null and void.
Why should American legal thought have any influence on what is and what is not a crime in the Soviet Union? What's so special about the US?
The Soviet dissidents broke legally adopted laws of their country, usually with premeditation. They certainly had mens rea. The fact that certain people in the US and other places consider these laws unjust is neither here nor there. It certainly doesn't make breaking these laws not a crime.
To get back to the original topic, there are a lot of people who consider the drug laws unjust. So?
Unless, of course, you are prepared to argue that the current set of US laws is the absolute truth and thus should govern the conduct of everybody on Earth forever...
Kaa
Whether or not they should be legalized is irrelevant; they are illegal, it is legal for them to be illegal (in that the courts have not overturned those statutes as unconstitutional), and that means if you break those laws without damn good cause, you're committing a crime
Whether the morality of these laws is irrelevant greatly depends on the context in which they are being discussed. Technically you are quite correct, by e.g. buying an ounce of pot I am committing a crime. That may not mean much, though. In some cases committing a crime is the right thing to do. To give a very simple example, consider the Soviet dissidents. They were, most certainly, committing crimes -- they were breaking Russian laws, which were quite legally adopted. Yet, for some strange reason, most of the Western world admired the dissidents and extended to them whatever help it could.
So I don't see much point in your "technically" argument.
Kaa
Sunstein writes: "Public.Net would provide an icon, visible on your home computer. You would be under no obligation to click on it; indeed in a free society perhaps you should be permitted to remove the icon if you really do not like it."
... Societies that were individualistic? England, US, ...
perhaps?? permitted to remove???
This guy wants to force me (for my own good, of course) to read government propaganda and with visible reluctance concedes that it might not be feasible in a free society.
In the classic issue of balance of power between an individual and society/government, Sunstein greatly favors the society. That is really a value decision, hard to rationally argue about. However a look at history should prove useful. Societies that suppressed individuals in favor of society/government? Russia, China, Nazi Germany,
Kaa
We certainly don't know if radioactive decay is truly random. It could well be governed by something else. Pick your FTL hidden-variable of the day...
Remember, we are talking about FBI/CIA/NSA reading people's mail. If FBI knows that radioactive decay isn't truly random, but is not telling anyone... Oh, I see. The aliens must have told them.
Kaa
The mathematical formulaes involved in cryptographic equations rely on pseudo-complex number generation
Not necessarily. You can get true randomness by e.g. observing radioactive decay.
Kaa
AFAIK one-time pads are proven to be impossible to break. I don't think Bruce Schneider contests that.
Kaa
Does anyone here really think that the FBI will let you have unbreakable encryption?
FBI may not have a choice. Besides, one-time pads are provably unbreakable, have been around for ages and are not illegal.
Simply put, if everyone is using unbreakable encryption, then Government agencies will be forced to use other methods to get the information that they want
So? This is a well-known problem, the so-called "rubberhose" method of decryption. Do you want to say that we should just roll over and die?
expect the FBI and the NSA to seek Government legislation allowing them to install "security features" in every computing device
They would want this anyway, encryption or not. However I see major problems with this idea, both technologically and politically.
Kaa
Theoretically the system is just a huge continuously generated one-time pad, so it probably is mathematically-proven-to-be-unbreakable. However most of its claims rest on the assumption that nobody would be capable of storing that OTP. In practice that is not necessarily true.
Consider traffic analysis. Mallory watches Bob and Alice exchange coded messages. Let's say Alice sends a message to Bob and Bob replies in five minutes. All Mallory needs to do is to store five minutes worth of the OTP stream and then he can spend as much time as he wants working on cracking the message.
Attempts to deal with this problem by increasing the rate of OTP generation (the NYT article mentioned millions of digits per second) will run into practical difficulties again, as Bob and Alice have to synchronize their reading of the OTP stream and the faster it goes, the harder it is to do.
So, yeah, OTPs are nice but the TLAgencies need not to lose (any more) sleep just yet.
Kaa
For now, the solution is focusing more on well trained admissions boards who take a real look at a student. This is just what the workplace has been doing for years with great success. When a company hires a programmer, they take the applicant's GPA, certifications and school into account, but also the interview, references, maybe a code sample, etc. Paper resumes aren't everything.
Be realistic. A medium-large university evaluates submissions from what? [guesstimate] 10,000+ applicants each year. There is no way they can take a "real look" at each. The situation in the workplace is completely different.
Kaa
PS. Don't talk to me about security or whatever
Don't talk to you about security? Er... Oh well, never mind. I do hope that you keep full, staggered backups and that your place can stop working for a couple of days to figure out where the last uncorrupted backup is and to install it back.
Kaa
The poor guy who had to figure out what to do with the moldy and stinky cheese deserves a medal
He does? You are kinda free with the medals, aren't you?
The person who was forced to break the brick into little pieces to check for drug content probably had better things to do.
Better things to do? Probably not, if his job involves breaking bricks to check for drug content. Besides, I am not a big fan of War on Drugs and if USPS does break brick apart to check for cocaine inside (which I doubt very much), it would be my pleasure to send somebody a brick once in a while.
And the person who had to lug the snow ski to a mailbox probably does not get enough medical coverage by the USPS to make up for the dent in his back
A ski weights what? A couple of pounds? If that will make a dent in his back, he has bigger problems than weird customers.
Give 'em a bit of respect
I don't see how sending a brick, or a rose, or a ski, or a.... through the mail consitutes disrespect for people working there. Or are you arguing that all pranks and that kind of humor in general is evil and should be strictly verboten?
Kaa
And a really bad example it was. "Piracy" in this context is usually meant to refer to making unauthorized copies. Perhaps I missed something, but how did tearing off a cover and reporting the book as destroyed became equivalent to making unauthorized copies?
Kaa
And what does this have to do with copy-protection?
There was a physical object -- a book -- which was reported as destroyed by actually wasn't. I doubt very much these books are actually stolen (as in, with malicious intent) -- probably the distributor just wanted to get rid of them and giving them to charity is better than making a big bonfire.
Kaa
Ever buy a book with the cover torn off?
Yep, in a thrift store, for about 10 cents a book. Are you telling me this is book piracy? As in people tearing off book covers and selling books for 5 cents to a store which then sells them to me for 10 cents? Must be a great threat to publishing business...
Kaa
I didn't find the nipple to be that bad after a month or so of using it.
I think this quote stands by itself...
Kaa
Linux is no threat to MS on the desktop, Linux zealots nonwithstanding. MS is (correctly) not afraid that the public will switch en masse from Win9x/ME to Linux.
On the server front, it's another matter entirely. Here Linux is a direct competitor to Microsoft and so, a threat. It's a competitor that can't be bought out or underpriced (like Netscape was by IE) and thus is more of a threat.
Whether we see MicrograssSoftroot-movements spring up, I doubt. Server software is bought by either techies or management and neither particularly cares about grass roots. We are likely to see more money thrown at sales and marketing, now that is nearly certain.
Kaa
I recently bought a new SCSI card, and it only cost $75 (AHA-2940W).
Of course, you don't need any cards for IDE...
I also got a couple 4GB 10,000 RPM SCSI-3 hard drives for a little over $100 a piece
Well, half a year ago I got an ATA-100 IDE hard drive for about $150. 45Gb, not 4...
Kaa
When was the last time you bought a MPAA hard drive?
Read the story. This abomination is pushed by IBM, Toshiba, Matsushita, and Intel. They (maybe not Intel, but it makes the chips) actually do make drives.
Besides, the way to market it will be: "Our new drives do all old drives could, *plus* they allow you to buy songs/videos/etc. off the Internet!"
Kaa
What's wrong with SCSI?
Price.
Can this do something that SCSI cannot?
Yes, provide (much) more bang for the buck.
Kaa
there is no law _requiring_ copyright control on harddrives, or anywhere
Currently. Willing to bet we are not going to see one in our lifetimes? After DMCA everything is possible.
And it's not like the government has objections to outlawing hardware: e.g. scanners able to listen to cellphone frequencies.
Kaa
The real point he was getting at is that user-friendly systems often discourage people from exploring the depths of their computers, in the same way that modern high school boys don't tinker with cars the way boys did in the 50s.
Well, there is a good reason for this, a reason which Moglen ignores completely. It is called complexity.
Do I know how Linux works? Kinda. I can get around and even sysadmin a small network. But do I have a clue about the internal workings of the kernel? No. And why? Because it's big and complicated. I cannot dedicate my life to studying it -- there are other interesting things in life to do.
Moglen comes from time when you had 4K of memory and everything had to fit in there. Operating systems were small and simple. You could learn them and know them very, very well without spending months and years studying them.
Look at cars. In the 50s (hell, in the 70s as well) cars were simple mechanical devices. I could (and did) take much of the engine apart with a bunch of wrenches, fix it, and put it back together. It even worked after that. Cars were simple and easy to understand.
Now, there are electronic black boxes all over my car. To adjust ignition I don't turn a screw any more -- I have to plug some electronic thingie into another electronic thingie in my car and adjust something on screen. If a black box breaks, I cannot fix it -- I throw it out and buy a new one.
So, my point is that it's complexity that is the real problem. Complexity discourages people from exploring "the depths of their computers" because it takes too long and you cannot hold the whole thing inside your head like you used to be able to do. Complexity prevent modern high school boys from tinkering with cars because [electronic] tools are expensive, change all the time and you don't really understand the internal workings anyway.
And, no, it doesn't have anything to do with GUIs or user-interface systems.
Kaa
Moglen is a very smart guy, but like most of programmers he is very linguistically oriented. [Ah? Yes, I know he is a law professor at Columbia, but he used to be a programmer before that and it still shows. Not that it's a bad thing.] He also doesn't understand user interfaces.
Sure, there is a place for language interfaces (aka command line). For example, it's quite hard to get arbitrary information out a database by point-and-click/grunt/drool methods. However, there is also definitely a place for non-language interfaces, as well. You don't drive your car by typing (or even speaking) "turn left", "slow down", "aiiieeeeee!".
Inventing a language to allow humans to think more precisely is not a new idea. The reason Latin was taught in all elite schools a hundred years ago is that people thought that one can think more clearly and coherently in Latin.
Moglen is enamoured with language ("regressing away from language", "infantilized, return to a pre-linguistic condition") and does not understand that it's not necessarily appropriate to all human-computer interaction. Do you want to play Quake by typing "run forward, shoot guy"? Besides, human interaction with systems is quite more complicated than a simple "pre-linguistic" -> "lingustic" ("stupid" -> "smart") line.
People at PARC knew what they were doing. The WIMP (windows-icons-menus-pointer) environment has many well-documented advantages over a command line and Moglen should know better than to air his prejudices in public.
Kaa
I'm bored enough to answer ACs...
Jesus, can GOD create more stupid people?
According to theologians, GOD (especially capitalized) can do whatever he wants.
So if everybody is using Windows..you do also?
Yes. There is whole bunch of advantages I get by using the same software as everybody else. The law firms, specifically, have to be able to deal with MS Word documents send to them by clients and counterparties in other law firms. Saying "we only accept files in non-proprietary formats" isn't going to cut it.
MS Office..whats the big deal about that buggy package.
Nothing, except for the fact that it is the standard business desktop software.
The Law industry is using Wordperfect because they want a stable, a not OS bound wordproccesor.
Ahem. The law firms do not care about OS dependencies at all -- they have other things to worry about. And Word is stable enough. Not bugless, but definitely stable enough for real life.
Wordperfect outpreforms MSOffice on every terrain.
I wasn't aware they were both 4WD vehicles. And it's not like you can be bothered to supply any evidence.
read your magazines Bill!
???
Kaa