Perhaps I'm less cynical than most (which would be a suprise to me) but I don't believe this is solely a p/r stunt. Of course when discussing possible harm from cel phones the cel phone companies are always going to put their best foot forward; they will always display the research that suggests that there is no correlation between brain cancer and cel phone use (I'm sure if there were a study that suggested a negitive correlation they would use that one.) But the decision makers of the cel phone companies still know the important point that with out a proper long term controlled experiment (not a study) nothing can be proved one way or another and nothing is known. There is still a chance that the cel phone companies are liable for peoples deaths. So what does a good decision maker do? Just what the article suggests they are doing: you hedge your bets. Even on the safest of car rides with the best of drivers a smart decision maker still puts on a seat belt. This is the same situation. They probably aren't responible and the probably aren't liable but just on the off chance that they are they are trying to minimize the damage - and when I say damage I mean liability. They seem like different situations because one is about the chance of future event and the other is the truth about a past event but ultimatly both are the same situation to a decision maker.
So with this possibilty that cel phone usage will lead to the greater possibility of brain cancer would I continue to use a cel phone? (note my use of "possibility" twice is intentional and not redundant; we are talking about a possibility of a possibility.) Well lets assume that all cases of brain cancer among cel phone users are caused by cel phones (we know this is an over estimate) and then consider how many people die from car accidents every year per capita (we won't even exclude non-car users.) The risk is far higher in a car. So if you are willing to risk your life in a car for the convenience of a car ride then you should have no problem taking a much smaller risk for the convenience of a phone call.
This is the first idea I've seen to really solve the actual problem: how do you securely send an email when the receiver does not want to deal with decrypting or having a public key. You could go even further and limit what ip's have permission to see messages. And even if you didn't know the receivers ip you could atleast keep a record of the ip of who viewed the message. Only thing I dislike is if the receiver is paranoid s/he might not like the fact that this gives you the ability to tell when and where he read the email. Of course if the receiver is paranoid as well you can just both use pgp.
Shoot I was a moderator yesterday.
this is an over-reaction to a stock adjustment
on
Palm In Trouble?
·
· Score: 2
When it comes down to it this is a non-story. What probably happened is a reporter lost some money on his PALM investments and thought he saw a story. But when you look at PALM it is not in serious trouble and it is certainly not TDFX; palm still has a 0 debt to equity ratio unlike tdfx which had huge debt when it finally died. Also some people have said that this is all due to the competition of handspring. Another misunderstanding of the situation. If you look at this graph you can see that palm and hand have shared interests not competing interests. What this has everything to do with is palm share prices are intimitly related to the strength of the retail economy. Why is palm more affected than other retail companies like RSH? Because palm is one of the closest watched stocks for tech stock analysts: cnnfn reports 21 analysts reporting on PALM - the same number that reports for MSFT. Maybe because they own palms and it is at mind. But more likely because it had a highly publicized ipo. So when the retail economy reports rough waters analysts will downgrade PALM... but most analysts are still reporting PALM as a buy (like CIBC) or neutral. Only a few analysts a suggesting that investors reduce. This does not sound like a company in serious trouble.
since its obvious little sites like this are going to slashdotted as soon as they are posted couldn't/. create its own mirror since we know/. can handle the load and the site probably isn't very big. Plus it would only have to be for a couple hours.
And also interesting is there are some suspicions that some viruses not only help in digestion but also combat other viruses independantly of the immune system. Ofcourse it is just a hypothesis but it's a cool idea because it means you can catch health. Say I have good virus 'a' and you have super bad virus 'b' and virus 'a' attacks virus 'b.' If we meet and we both catch each others virus I will stay healthy (my virus 'a' will take care of me) but you will catch my health. Ofcourse this is an oftopic message 4 tiers down on an old story so probably the only person who will read this is Pogue Mahone checking to see if he got any replies... hope you found this a little bit interesting Pogue.
from what I remember when I was working retail at the time the government got cold feet at the last minute and pushed back the implentation of the tax. Fortunatly I don't work retail anymore so I can't tell you if they ever got around to implementing the tax but most people I know haven't reported a hike in the price... which doesn't mean that their was no tax... if there is one thing that I remember from retail it is that pricing is based completely on what the highest people will pay and has very little to do with the actual cost to the store. I imagine manufactures do the same thing.
Maybe I'm the only one who's bothered by this but I'm starting to get a little anoyed by the implication that linux and transmeta are related. Ofcourse linux will run on a Crusoe chip but that is the extent of there real world relation. Sure it is possible that Casio decided to put linux on this machine independant of the fact that it has a chip that linus worked on. But it sounds more like casio is trying to market to those who think of themselves as elite. Is this laptop actually usable in their default linux setup or is this kind of like throwing in an authentic harley davidson jacket when someone buys a suzuki... sure they feel hard core but they still end up wearing the blue leather jump suit most of the time.
I don't think the article is saying that all you tech support cronies better start changing your ways and fly straight. It's complaining about a system that thinks it is acceptable to treat tech support guys this way. Obviously if the job paid substantially more there would be a higher quality of product; both because the employees would be happier and the company would be able to hire a higher quality of employee. No offence intended.
How many loved ones died or were injured in accidents in the '60s. Could the damage of these accidents been lessened if someone had a cel phone available? Well get a lawyer and sue the government because obviously their red tape prevented that life from being saved. I wonder if anyone could actually get away with this.
But, if you are free to select your algorithm after seeing the data file, chances are you can always compress the data
The point is that this file is skew corrected so you can't find such an algorithm. Besides most of the time you can't find such an algorithm with random data (and this can be proved.) Think about it like this, compression depends on some repition or pattern. For every set of data that has such a pattern there are multiple adjustments to this data that will destroy this pattern. So in a stricktly random sence more sets of data are uncompessable than compressable. Obviously this isn't how the proof would be outlined but you can see how it would fall from there.
The painted ads don't mention IBM or its eServer family,
That's a problem for IBM I guess. If only ibm could get some mainstream media giant to associate them with linux... what article was this quote from again? Oh, gee; now I get it.
If we forget about "quality" for a second the present profit model for tv is probably the best; at least for democrasy. Since tv is still the best way to spread infomation (probably better than internet still) then if you don't allow some people to see it you're limiting their ability to be informed. So that rules out pay to play (and don't whine about your cable bill because broadcast tv is still free.) The asking for donation method is nice but it really doesn't raise enough money. And as far as I'm concerned putting all TV in the hands of the government is intolerable. Media has an important role in democrasy and that is to police those in power. And as far a being corrupted by corporate america to make sure they get funding? Well the beauty part about those in corporate america is their only interest is to make as much money as possible. And to make money you advertise on shows that are popular. So those shows that are watched are supported. A money loving corporation doesn't want a show to alter itself it altering itself will lose popularity. I know it would be nice to see more quality being made but any system that would favour quality has greater flaws to it. And even if only 40% of the public like the shows that are being put out now it is still the way to go cause the 60% that don't like the present shows can't agree on what they do like. It's better to produce shows that satisfy 40% than 30%.
I don't think that actually is what he's saying. I think it is obvious that most people will avoid commercials if it is convenient for them (and this is obvious to Dvorak as well.) And ofcourse this is their option. The catch is that most people find it more convenient to simply watch the commercials. But TIVO changes that. The article doesn't get angry at the viewing public for simply acting in their nature. He is getting angry at TIVO for giving people the option (and yes the option was there before TIVO; but TIVO puts its thumb on the decision scale to make it easier to take that option.) Now I don't agree with Dvorak that TIVO has done anything wrong but there certainly is some weight to his arguement. He certainly isn't a flippin moron; and calling him one doesn't change or weaken his arguement. Imagine you're running a dollar store and someone buys the property next to you and opens a 50 cent store. You don't get angry at the customers for going to the 50 cent store. After all they are only doing whats logical. No you get angry at the new store for being a jerk. And you'ld be even angrier if you found out that he was selling out of your stock room. Cause then he is a criminal. So the question is, is TIVO a jerk or a criminal. I'm inclined to say that TIVO is not a criminal but how can you say that TIVO is not a jerk. Or you could just mute the argument because it doesn't say what you want it to say.
I've become a jabber fanatic for one reason and that's the server side address book. It is such a dream to be able to sign in from any computer (either with a client or with the java client or if all else fails the new telnet client) and my addresses just appear. It really is one less headache that I'm glad to be rid of when I'm setting up an OS (or reinstall win2k for the 3rd time on the same computer.) There now I've done my evangalizing for the day.
I was a little disapointed with it as well when I first used it but the new release has brought it to the point where it is by far my favorite jabber client (except that it lacks xml-debug of winjab.) And the beuty part of jabber is the address storing thing. It may be a little bit harder to find someone's jabber address but once you have you never need to find it again since virtually everything is server side with jabber. If you find yourself logging in from different systems this is a god send. Log in on any computer and your address book magically appears.
I'm suprised you refer to the developers this way. I haven't tried to do any jabber developing yet but my friends who have frequently chat to the guy who wrote WinJab (who's name escapes me) and Julian of Gabber. I don't think anyone knows more about jabber than these guys
This doesn't seem to me to be the fault of the lawyers or the judicial system. If you want to blame someone blame anyone who accepts the rebate because only then are they accepting the class action judgement. If you take away all the legalese basicly you have a scenario where Iomega has made an offer (we will give you this rebate if you release us of any further liability.) If people don't accept this offer (by opting out of the Class) then the deal is pointless. Ofcourse this is all intellectual because most people will take the rebate. But this isn't the fault of judges or lawyers or our even the system. If you have to blame something blame the short sitedness of the public.
Is this a real/. frontpager or are you just ensuring that you guys are in blizzard's good graces. Seriously do companies actually treat you editor types like you're tv celebs; if you mention jolt cola in an article do they send you a free case to your door?
So what if it is biased
on
Republic.Com
·
· Score: 1
It's too easy to dismiss the other guy as stupid or evil. Keep in mind that in every demographic in the US both the republicans and the democrats got atleast 10% of the vote. In other words no matter what you believe there is always someone smarter out who believes the opposite.
Rush Limbaugh said, about 5 years ago, that Republicans tend to think that democrats are stupid and democrats tend to think republicans are mean (whether you like him or not we should be all able to agree that he is one of the most biased men in america.) And I think 5 years ago he was right about this point. But rescently I think opposite is true. So I would rephrase his statement as those in power tend to paint their opponents as mean (those bastards don't want you to have tax cuts) and those with out power cast their opponents as stupid (those republicans just don't understand that we can't aford this tax cut.)
So why am I bothering to say all this? I'm just pointing out that when you submit comments like law student you are simply falling into the trap rather than... well I don't know what he was trying to accomplish. But the same goes for this review. Sure the author is biased; but atleast it is visable. But aside from his biase do the arguments presented in the book offer logical structures? Does he supply evidence? If the main theory of the book is rooted in strong logical arguments what does it matter if laces it with pinko bs (I just love using the term pink bs.) Those who agree with his left wing agenda probably won't have a problem with his examples... but if they are clear minded may or may not agree with the fundemental hypothesis. And those who disagree with the liberal comments should just dismiss those comments and critique the main theory.
It is human nature to catagorize everybody into US or THEM boxes. It's up to you where and how you draw the line. I do tend to fall slightly on the rightwing side of politics (pro-life, pro death penelty) but I try to draw my US/THEM line between openminded and closeminded. I consider a creative liberal that questions, a lot closer to me than a conservative who inhales everything he is fed.
I've noticed a lot of messages in this thread complaining/defending trademark law. It seems to me in this particular case trademark law isn't really an active player. All that's happened is SGI has sent an email to a student with a threat of litigation if the student doesn't comply. Like most people (and like he probably should) he's backed down rather than seeing if there is any truth in the lawyer's claim. This seems like a pretty efficient tactic to me. If I owned a large company I would probably send out hundreds of similar emails demanding people do things that are in my best interest; there is a very small cost in sending out these letters and absolutly no risk. If someone calls my bluff well all I'm out is the cost of the message and if they go along with what I tell them I get something for basicly nothing.
So is this completely legal? Or is this similar to a police officer saying you better confess or I'm gonna shoot you in the head. Even if the police officer has no intention in shooting this person in the head this tactic is still illegal. Are corporate lawyers bound to any similar guidlines.
I opened up this story not because it affects me but because I wanted to read some good microsoft bashing by those who do it best. But rescently I'm finding more and more articles that are defending microsoft that I have to filter out. Ofcourse there are more than one point of view on microsoft but 1 or 2 pro microsoft comments per article is enough... not 5 or 6.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps I'm less cynical than most (which would be a suprise to me) but I don't believe this is solely a p/r stunt. Of course when discussing possible harm from cel phones the cel phone companies are always going to put their best foot forward; they will always display the research that suggests that there is no correlation between brain cancer and cel phone use (I'm sure if there were a study that suggested a negitive correlation they would use that one.) But the decision makers of the cel phone companies still know the important point that with out a proper long term controlled experiment (not a study) nothing can be proved one way or another and nothing is known. There is still a chance that the cel phone companies are liable for peoples deaths. So what does a good decision maker do? Just what the article suggests they are doing: you hedge your bets. Even on the safest of car rides with the best of drivers a smart decision maker still puts on a seat belt. This is the same situation. They probably aren't responible and the probably aren't liable but just on the off chance that they are they are trying to minimize the damage - and when I say damage I mean liability. They seem like different situations because one is about the chance of future event and the other is the truth about a past event but ultimatly both are the same situation to a decision maker.
So with this possibilty that cel phone usage will lead to the greater possibility of brain cancer would I continue to use a cel phone? (note my use of "possibility" twice is intentional and not redundant; we are talking about a possibility of a possibility.) Well lets assume that all cases of brain cancer among cel phone users are caused by cel phones (we know this is an over estimate) and then consider how many people die from car accidents every year per capita (we won't even exclude non-car users.) The risk is far higher in a car. So if you are willing to risk your life in a car for the convenience of a car ride then you should have no problem taking a much smaller risk for the convenience of a phone call.
XPI support no longer seems automatic in 0.9.1. Does anyone know if this was done intentionally. Then again this could just be my own incompitance.
This is the first idea I've seen to really solve the actual problem: how do you securely send an email when the receiver does not want to deal with decrypting or having a public key. You could go even further and limit what ip's have permission to see messages. And even if you didn't know the receivers ip you could atleast keep a record of the ip of who viewed the message. Only thing I dislike is if the receiver is paranoid s/he might not like the fact that this gives you the ability to tell when and where he read the email. Of course if the receiver is paranoid as well you can just both use pgp.
Shoot I was a moderator yesterday.
When it comes down to it this is a non-story. What probably happened is a reporter lost some money on his PALM investments and thought he saw a story. But when you look at PALM it is not in serious trouble and it is certainly not TDFX; palm still has a 0 debt to equity ratio unlike tdfx which had huge debt when it finally died. Also some people have said that this is all due to the competition of handspring. Another misunderstanding of the situation. If you look at this graph you can see that palm and hand have shared interests not competing interests. What this has everything to do with is palm share prices are intimitly related to the strength of the retail economy. Why is palm more affected than other retail companies like RSH? Because palm is one of the closest watched stocks for tech stock analysts: cnnfn reports 21 analysts reporting on PALM - the same number that reports for MSFT. Maybe because they own palms and it is at mind. But more likely because it had a highly publicized ipo. So when the retail economy reports rough waters analysts will downgrade PALM... but most analysts are still reporting PALM as a buy (like CIBC) or neutral. Only a few analysts a suggesting that investors reduce. This does not sound like a company in serious trouble.
hey I was just letting of some steam. I agree it should be a minus 1... its not my fault the moderators are who they are today.
since its obvious little sites like this are going to slashdotted as soon as they are posted couldn't /. create its own mirror since we know /. can handle the load and the site probably isn't very big. Plus it would only have to be for a couple hours.
Is the sorensen codec actually a part of the quicktime plugin or will the quicktime plugin only work like regular linux quicktime.
And also interesting is there are some suspicions that some viruses not only help in digestion but also combat other viruses independantly of the immune system. Ofcourse it is just a hypothesis but it's a cool idea because it means you can catch health. Say I have good virus 'a' and you have super bad virus 'b' and virus 'a' attacks virus 'b.' If we meet and we both catch each others virus I will stay healthy (my virus 'a' will take care of me) but you will catch my health. Ofcourse this is an oftopic message 4 tiers down on an old story so probably the only person who will read this is Pogue Mahone checking to see if he got any replies... hope you found this a little bit interesting Pogue.
from what I remember when I was working retail at the time the government got cold feet at the last minute and pushed back the implentation of the tax. Fortunatly I don't work retail anymore so I can't tell you if they ever got around to implementing the tax but most people I know haven't reported a hike in the price... which doesn't mean that their was no tax... if there is one thing that I remember from retail it is that pricing is based completely on what the highest people will pay and has very little to do with the actual cost to the store. I imagine manufactures do the same thing.
Maybe I'm the only one who's bothered by this but I'm starting to get a little anoyed by the implication that linux and transmeta are related. Ofcourse linux will run on a Crusoe chip but that is the extent of there real world relation. Sure it is possible that Casio decided to put linux on this machine independant of the fact that it has a chip that linus worked on. But it sounds more like casio is trying to market to those who think of themselves as elite. Is this laptop actually usable in their default linux setup or is this kind of like throwing in an authentic harley davidson jacket when someone buys a suzuki... sure they feel hard core but they still end up wearing the blue leather jump suit most of the time.
I don't think the article is saying that all you tech support cronies better start changing your ways and fly straight. It's complaining about a system that thinks it is acceptable to treat tech support guys this way. Obviously if the job paid substantially more there would be a higher quality of product; both because the employees would be happier and the company would be able to hire a higher quality of employee. No offence intended.
How many loved ones died or were injured in accidents in the '60s. Could the damage of these accidents been lessened if someone had a cel phone available? Well get a lawyer and sue the government because obviously their red tape prevented that life from being saved. I wonder if anyone could actually get away with this.
But, if you are free to select your algorithm after seeing the data file, chances are you can always compress the data The point is that this file is skew corrected so you can't find such an algorithm. Besides most of the time you can't find such an algorithm with random data (and this can be proved.) Think about it like this, compression depends on some repition or pattern. For every set of data that has such a pattern there are multiple adjustments to this data that will destroy this pattern. So in a stricktly random sence more sets of data are uncompessable than compressable. Obviously this isn't how the proof would be outlined but you can see how it would fall from there.
maybe now palm stocks will finally go somewhere useful
The painted ads don't mention IBM or its eServer family,
That's a problem for IBM I guess. If only ibm could get some mainstream media giant to associate them with linux... what article was this quote from again? Oh, gee; now I get it.
If we forget about "quality" for a second the present profit model for tv is probably the best; at least for democrasy. Since tv is still the best way to spread infomation (probably better than internet still) then if you don't allow some people to see it you're limiting their ability to be informed. So that rules out pay to play (and don't whine about your cable bill because broadcast tv is still free.) The asking for donation method is nice but it really doesn't raise enough money. And as far as I'm concerned putting all TV in the hands of the government is intolerable. Media has an important role in democrasy and that is to police those in power. And as far a being corrupted by corporate america to make sure they get funding? Well the beauty part about those in corporate america is their only interest is to make as much money as possible. And to make money you advertise on shows that are popular. So those shows that are watched are supported. A money loving corporation doesn't want a show to alter itself it altering itself will lose popularity. I know it would be nice to see more quality being made but any system that would favour quality has greater flaws to it. And even if only 40% of the public like the shows that are being put out now it is still the way to go cause the 60% that don't like the present shows can't agree on what they do like. It's better to produce shows that satisfy 40% than 30%.
I don't think that actually is what he's saying. I think it is obvious that most people will avoid commercials if it is convenient for them (and this is obvious to Dvorak as well.) And ofcourse this is their option. The catch is that most people find it more convenient to simply watch the commercials. But TIVO changes that. The article doesn't get angry at the viewing public for simply acting in their nature. He is getting angry at TIVO for giving people the option (and yes the option was there before TIVO; but TIVO puts its thumb on the decision scale to make it easier to take that option.) Now I don't agree with Dvorak that TIVO has done anything wrong but there certainly is some weight to his arguement. He certainly isn't a flippin moron; and calling him one doesn't change or weaken his arguement. Imagine you're running a dollar store and someone buys the property next to you and opens a 50 cent store. You don't get angry at the customers for going to the 50 cent store. After all they are only doing whats logical. No you get angry at the new store for being a jerk. And you'ld be even angrier if you found out that he was selling out of your stock room. Cause then he is a criminal. So the question is, is TIVO a jerk or a criminal. I'm inclined to say that TIVO is not a criminal but how can you say that TIVO is not a jerk. Or you could just mute the argument because it doesn't say what you want it to say.
I've become a jabber fanatic for one reason and that's the server side address book. It is such a dream to be able to sign in from any computer (either with a client or with the java client or if all else fails the new telnet client) and my addresses just appear. It really is one less headache that I'm glad to be rid of when I'm setting up an OS (or reinstall win2k for the 3rd time on the same computer.) There now I've done my evangalizing for the day.
I was a little disapointed with it as well when I first used it but the new release has brought it to the point where it is by far my favorite jabber client (except that it lacks xml-debug of winjab.) And the beuty part of jabber is the address storing thing. It may be a little bit harder to find someone's jabber address but once you have you never need to find it again since virtually everything is server side with jabber. If you find yourself logging in from different systems this is a god send. Log in on any computer and your address book magically appears.
I'm suprised you refer to the developers this way. I haven't tried to do any jabber developing yet but my friends who have frequently chat to the guy who wrote WinJab (who's name escapes me) and Julian of Gabber. I don't think anyone knows more about jabber than these guys
This doesn't seem to me to be the fault of the lawyers or the judicial system. If you want to blame someone blame anyone who accepts the rebate because only then are they accepting the class action judgement. If you take away all the legalese basicly you have a scenario where Iomega has made an offer (we will give you this rebate if you release us of any further liability.) If people don't accept this offer (by opting out of the Class) then the deal is pointless. Ofcourse this is all intellectual because most people will take the rebate. But this isn't the fault of judges or lawyers or our even the system. If you have to blame something blame the short sitedness of the public.
Is this a real /. frontpager or are you just ensuring that you guys are in blizzard's good graces. Seriously do companies actually treat you editor types like you're tv celebs; if you mention jolt cola in an article do they send you a free case to your door?
It's too easy to dismiss the other guy as stupid or evil. Keep in mind that in every demographic in the US both the republicans and the democrats got atleast 10% of the vote. In other words no matter what you believe there is always someone smarter out who believes the opposite.
Rush Limbaugh said, about 5 years ago, that Republicans tend to think that democrats are stupid and democrats tend to think republicans are mean (whether you like him or not we should be all able to agree that he is one of the most biased men in america.) And I think 5 years ago he was right about this point. But rescently I think opposite is true. So I would rephrase his statement as those in power tend to paint their opponents as mean (those bastards don't want you to have tax cuts) and those with out power cast their opponents as stupid (those republicans just don't understand that we can't aford this tax cut.)
So why am I bothering to say all this? I'm just pointing out that when you submit comments like law student you are simply falling into the trap rather than... well I don't know what he was trying to accomplish. But the same goes for this review. Sure the author is biased; but atleast it is visable. But aside from his biase do the arguments presented in the book offer logical structures? Does he supply evidence? If the main theory of the book is rooted in strong logical arguments what does it matter if laces it with pinko bs (I just love using the term pink bs.) Those who agree with his left wing agenda probably won't have a problem with his examples... but if they are clear minded may or may not agree with the fundemental hypothesis. And those who disagree with the liberal comments should just dismiss those comments and critique the main theory.
It is human nature to catagorize everybody into US or THEM boxes. It's up to you where and how you draw the line. I do tend to fall slightly on the rightwing side of politics (pro-life, pro death penelty) but I try to draw my US/THEM line between openminded and closeminded. I consider a creative liberal that questions, a lot closer to me than a conservative who inhales everything he is fed.
I've noticed a lot of messages in this thread complaining/defending trademark law. It seems to me in this particular case trademark law isn't really an active player. All that's happened is SGI has sent an email to a student with a threat of litigation if the student doesn't comply. Like most people (and like he probably should) he's backed down rather than seeing if there is any truth in the lawyer's claim. This seems like a pretty efficient tactic to me. If I owned a large company I would probably send out hundreds of similar emails demanding people do things that are in my best interest; there is a very small cost in sending out these letters and absolutly no risk. If someone calls my bluff well all I'm out is the cost of the message and if they go along with what I tell them I get something for basicly nothing.
So is this completely legal? Or is this similar to a police officer saying you better confess or I'm gonna shoot you in the head. Even if the police officer has no intention in shooting this person in the head this tactic is still illegal. Are corporate lawyers bound to any similar guidlines.
I opened up this story not because it affects me but because I wanted to read some good microsoft bashing by those who do it best. But rescently I'm finding more and more articles that are defending microsoft that I have to filter out. Ofcourse there are more than one point of view on microsoft but 1 or 2 pro microsoft comments per article is enough... not 5 or 6.