Linux is free to get into business servers licensewise. I have no idea why you would think it does not. Linux is licensed under the GPL and has been widely accepted by the business community.
I have no idea what your problem with Trolltech is. Qt is also under the GPL and has also been widely accepted by the business community.
You are forgetting one particularly pernicious variant of the Young Earth theory. It says that the Earth was created recently and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by some creator or devil. This is not falsifiable and therefore is unscientific and completely outside the realm of science. So this strain of the theory is **not science** and it is **religion**.
The proposed law would create a new _requirement_ for all of those RFP's: the software _must_ use open formats that are transparent for data storage if they are even to be considered!
Most of the proprietary apps I know use proprietary formats for data storage... this would lead to a huge boon of either Open Source software in State government OR require the proprietary developers to use open formats!
To those of you who are posting asking, "Why do they need to write a law to 'consider'"... you are missing the real power of the law which is located in the very last section. This proposed law *mandates* as a requirement of Oregon State that the software (whether Open Source or proprietary) adhere to open and transparent formats for data storage. In other words, Microsoft Office will not be allowed unless Microsoft *chooses* to alter Office to save files in an open/transparent way.
This is entirely upto Microsoft and is completely fair in the sense that the State of Oregon is saying that open formats are a *requirement* of all software purchased for state goverment.
They have not mandated the use of Open Source software, rather they've guaranteed that Open Source will be one of the choices. This is after all Microsoft's position WRT the software ecosystem... right?;)
They should also be happy that Oregon has laid down clear and necessary conditions on the requirements for state purchased software, thereby insuring that Oregon residents always have access and recourse to State owned data. Clearly, both Open Source and proprietary software are *capable* of meeting these conditions... and it is upto the proprietary developers if they *choose* to compete in delivering software to Oregon's government.
I'm writing a letter to my Governor and legislator to see if they might consider introducing a similar law.
Well, he used a bulldozer when a screw driver would do;) He could have just as easily switched to a more reliable version of Windows AND/OR he could have switched the Office suite. I am just saying that what he did was not very 'different' and probably much more expensive than necessary.
I don't think this is a particularly good example to tout Apple when the problem wasn't in need if such a drastic 'fix' and he is still using Microsoft software for everything. If he's happy with it fine. No need for an article though.
This was a very disappointing little article. He is basically saying that his Microsoft Office Suite kept crashing for some unknown reason so he decided to 'switch' to the same office suite only under MacOSX.
"Needless to say, following these tests, I was convinced. I went out and purchased an OS X laptop and have been using it ever since. As of this writing, I am on the road in the UK (I live in San Jose, California) and am using Microsoft Outlook to e-mail this back to corporate headquarters over our Windows VPN. Over the last two weeks I've been presenting to BlueArc customers using PowerPoint with standard corporate presentations templates, without any modifications. So far, there have been no issues and nothing that would lead anybody to think I'm using anything other than a regular PC. No blue screens either."
Yah, real original. If he truly wished to think different he should have looked at alternatives to MS Office. I don't see anything very strong about switching to another platform only to turn around and use all the same application software.
treecc was specifically designed to aid in compiler design and it turns out that this is one of the examples that make for a good AOP solution. This is the relevant blurb from Rhys's article on treecc:
"During the early stages of writing a compiler, the node types change very frequently. This activates the Achilles heel of the Visitor pattern, and creates a maintainence nightmare. The book suggests that we should use the inheritance approach to solve this problem....
The inheritance pattern becomes a problem when new operations are needed. The solution is visitors. Visitors become a problem when new node types are needed. The solution is inheritance. What we have is a situation that the design patterns gurus didn't consider: if the set of nodes and operations are both changing rapidly, then we will have problems no matter what we do.
We need a solution that combines the strengths of both patterns without the drawbacks of either. We want the implementation language to catch us when we forget something, but we also want it to handle large numbers of nodes and operations smoothly. We want to split different operations into different modules, but also keep them closely associated with the node type.
None of the standard patterns provide this combination of functionality, because none of the existing implementation languages support both styles of program design at the same time."
I agree with your assessment of the problem, but not with your conclusion. Minimizing the amount of lives lost (both ours and theres) now and in the future is the aim of any defensive strategy. I simply do not agree with your conclusion, but of course it is impossible to know. It can be debated however. Unfortunately the current administration does not wish to debate this.
Bush has said, 'Some people don't think Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace, I respectfully disagree'. This quote really is representative of Bush and why so many feel he is perhaps the worst president ever. Either he is so simple minded that he believes it is stated in such a black and white way (with us or against us... good VS Axis of Evil... UN relevance??) OR he is willfully saying such things knowing full well they coudln't be more wrong. I personally feel he is just simple minded, but the rest of the administration is willfully lying to themselves and to everyone else.
You are absoletly incredible. That you would imply that the current situation is analogous to Hitler is beyond belief. I suppose you think this war is about liberating the Iraqi people? If it were then I would state that this is a noble cause and should be pursued (not with war, IMO). It isn't. But that is besides the point.
What did you say when Clinton liberated Kosovo? I guess from the tenor of you remarks that you are a blind follower of whatever the conservative sentiment is at the time and you probably opposed our involvement.
I don't have any problem with freeing the Iraqi people just as I have no problem with freeing/liberating the: saudis, north koreans, chinese, tibetans, palestinians, cubans, and all other peoples who live under oppressive regimes and dictatorships, but not at any cost and only for the right reasons.
This is not about freeing a people. It is about eliminating Iraq as a possible future threat to America preemptively without considering the cost and consequences of such an endeavor.
North Korea poses a much more severe *immediate* threat to America, but I don't see you and your fellow war hawks demanding a regime change there or threatening an invasion. North Korea has been a threat for a long time and has long tortured and oppressed it's people. It is in flagrant violation of the UN and international communities will... yet I don't advocate attacking them either. I suppose this also is an embarrasment and shows that I am unpatriotic in your eyes! The potential cost in terms of lives lost on both sides is simply to high the same as it is with Iraq.
My statements about the US does not imply that I do not love this country or I am some how in favor of Saddam Hussein or the terrorists of 9/11. I am not. It does not imply that I am unpatriotic or unamerican. I am not. It is not an insult to the men in women who serve in the armed forces. It is simply a sobering presentation of *facts*. For all your contempt and foaming at the mouth you do not dispute these facts.
I recognize and am fully aware of the threat Saddam Hussein poses and could pose to the US. He is a brutal tyrant and dictator and responsible for killing thousands and thousands of human lives. I do not agree with any dictatorship or any country which holds up dictatorships.
However, none of this in any way refutes the facts of my post.
The US was partnered with the USSR when it was busy arming countries like Iraq.
Who is it 'partnered' (no idea what you mean with this) with now as it continues to spew arms all over the place including Saudi Arabia (another oppressive regime) and the rest of the countries it is bribing with arms into joining the coalition of the coerced?
Also, it is not proven that the US has helped arm any other country with weapons of mass destruction. This claim is pure conjecture on your part.
How about the Anthrax and Botulism that it has given to Iraq in the past? How about all of the F-16's and the attack helicopters and all of the other weapons of mass destruction it has given to all kinds of countries? What exactly do you require as proof?
The US -- only country which has used a nuclear bomb on two civilian targets which killed hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The country who is primarily responsible for arming Iraq as well as the rest of the world in all of the conventional weapons plus biological/chemical. The country who has refused to rule out the use of WMD killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians upon the same country it wishes to 'liberate'. The country who along with Britain backed Iraq and supported Iraq when the tyrant allegedly used chemical weapons against an entire village of innocent civilians, (ad nauseum).
George: "Tony, Tony, hurry, we found one" Tony: "Yes georgie, I have my thumb already on the button" George: "Shouldn't we first ring our friends and allies" Tony: "Sure thing - I'll get on the phone right away to all the countries in the world that we are bullying/bribing into supporting this war by either threatening veto's on attempts to get into NATO and withholding foreign aid or paying out ungodly amounts of bribe money!"
You either can not read or you are being deliberately obtuse. The parent poster stated that the word 'piracy' is ill suited as a description of unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work.
This does not imply that the parent poster or RMS believe that unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work are 'good things'. The historical definition of the word 'piracy' is synonymous with looting, killing and raping. Unathorized copying bears no resemblence to these heinous acts and as such it is unfortunate that many have adopted this word to describe it.
Yes, it is fair to say that the word 'piracy' has come to mean 'unathorized copying/distribution of a copyrighted work', but that does not refute what RMS and the poster were saying. 'piracy' is not a good word because it will always have connotations with it's original meaning when the two definitions are not analogous at all.
If I were to name my child Osama Bin Laden it does not follow that my child would grow up to be a mass murderer, but many people, upon hearing the name of my child would draw the inference in there head. It would lend a bad aura to my child that would not be inherently deserved.
The same is true of the use of the word 'piracy' to describe unauthorized copying of copyrighted works. Sure, people can and do use it, but it is unfortunate. You can be sure the people who started the meme for this word knew what they were doing.
It is for these reasons that RMS and others of like mind do not wish to use the word 'piracy' and would counsel others to refrain from this particular use of the word. The act of unauthorized copying of copyrighted works does not inherently deserve the baggage that the word 'piracy' delivers.
No this just illustrates that the record companies are no longer relevant. Distribution is not a problem in this day and age so recording contracts with distribution rights need to go the way of the dodo. I see no universal right for a company to exist when it's entire reason for being is outdated.
That is not fair. Minsky might have percieved that this was the case, but it doesn't follow that it was. Loebner gave a perfectly good explanation for the clause (See below) and it seems pretty hypocritical that Minsky fumes that Loebner uses his name as co-sponsor in advertising;)
>In article loebner@ACM.ORG writes.... >>17.The names "Loebner Prize" and "Loebner Prize Competition" may be used by >>contestants in advertising only by advance written permissionof the Cambridge >>Center, and their use may be subjecttoapplicableicensingfees. Advertising is >>subjecttoapprovalbyrepresentativesoftheLoebn e r Prize Competition.Improper or >>misleading advertising may result in revocationoftheprizeand/or other actions.
>[Some words concatenated to enforce the 80-character line length >convention.]
>I do hope that someone will volunteer to violate this proscription so >that Mr. Loebner will indeed revoke his stupid prize, save himself >some money, and spare us the horror of this obnoxious and unproductive >annual publicity campaign.
>In fact, I hereby offer the $100.00 Minsky prize to the first person >who gets Loebner to do this. I will explain the details of the rules >for the new prize as soon as it is awarded, except that, in the >meantime, anyone is free to use the name "Minsky Loebner Prize >Revocation Prize" in any advertising they like, without any licensing >fee.
1. Marvin Minsky will pay $100.00 to anyone who gets me to "revoke" the "stupid" Loebner Prize.
2. "Revoke" the prize means "discontinue" the prize.
3. After the Grand Prize is won, the contest will be discontinued.
4. The Grand Prize winner will "get" me to discontinue the Prize.
5. The Grand Prize winner will satisfy The Minsky Prize criterion.
6. Minsky will be morally obligated to pay the Grand Prize Winner $100.00 for getting me to discontinue the contest.
7. Minsky is an honorable man.
8. Minsky will pay the Grand Prize Winner $100.00
9. Def: "Co-sponsor": Anyone who contributes or promises to contribute a monetary prize to the Grand Prize winner.
10. Marvin Minskey is a co-sponsor of the 1995 Loebner Prize Contest. ------------- BTW
The language that Minsky finds so offensive was added by the Prize Committee because of a possible mis-representation regarding the contest made by an annual prize winner.
No fees have been requested of any winner, nor do I anticipate of any fees ever being requested. Rule 17 merely protects the Loebner Prize from misrepresentation in advertising.
"The fact is that anyone who actually uses search engines knows that they don't work the same..."
What on earth do you mean? Generally you enter a string and it returns hyperlinks of 'matching' results. Just because Google uses a different algorithm or has other differences does not mean they don't belong to the same general class of 'internet search engines'.
Google is the best of the bunch hence the new word 'google' -- to search online.
Your analogy to Apple does not hold water. No one will mistake an 'apple -- see fruit' for an 'Apple --computer/business'. You have correctly pointed this out.
However, this is not a good analogy because the word 'google' *means* to search for something online. Precisely what the company/trademark is all about!
So if another internet search engine uses the new word 'google' in marketing or in general usage then it is not a trademark infringement because 'google' is now a general word and they would be using it correctly.
Knoppix / Kiosk mode combined with thin clients
on
Linux in High School Labs
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is free to get into business servers licensewise. I have no idea why you would think it does not. Linux is licensed under the GPL and has been widely accepted by the business community.
I have no idea what your problem with Trolltech is. Qt is also under the GPL and has also been widely accepted by the business community.
You are forgetting one particularly pernicious variant of the Young Earth theory. It says that the Earth was created recently and any evidence to the contrary was placed there by some creator or devil. This is not falsifiable and therefore is unscientific and completely outside the realm of science. So this strain of the theory is **not science** and it is **religion**.
You have failed to read the bill.
The proposed law would create a new _requirement_ for all of those RFP's: the software _must_ use open formats that are transparent for data storage if they are even to be considered!
Most of the proprietary apps I know use proprietary formats for data storage... this would lead to a huge boon of either Open Source software in State government OR require the proprietary developers to use open formats!
READ THE BILL!
To those of you who are posting asking, "Why do they need to write a law to 'consider'" ... you are missing the real power of the law which is located in the very last section. This proposed law *mandates* as a requirement of Oregon State that the software (whether Open Source or proprietary) adhere to open and transparent formats for data storage. In other words, Microsoft Office will not be allowed unless Microsoft *chooses* to alter Office to save files in an open/transparent way.
This is entirely upto Microsoft and is completely fair in the sense that the State of Oregon is saying that open formats are a *requirement* of all software purchased for state goverment.
READ THE BILL!
They have not mandated the use of Open Source software, rather they've guaranteed that Open Source will be one of the choices. This is after all Microsoft's position WRT the software ecosystem ... right? ;)
... and it is upto the proprietary developers if they *choose* to compete in delivering software to Oregon's government.
They should also be happy that Oregon has laid down clear and necessary conditions on the requirements for state purchased software, thereby insuring that Oregon residents always have access and recourse to State owned data. Clearly, both Open Source and proprietary software are *capable* of meeting these conditions
I'm writing a letter to my Governor and legislator to see if they might consider introducing a similar law.
Well, he used a bulldozer when a screw driver would do ;) He could have just as easily switched to a more reliable version of Windows AND/OR he could have switched the Office suite. I am just saying that what he did was not very 'different' and probably much more expensive than necessary.
I don't think this is a particularly good example to tout Apple when the problem wasn't in need if such a drastic 'fix' and he is still using Microsoft software for everything. If he's happy with it fine. No need for an article though.
Yah, real original. If he truly wished to think different he should have looked at alternatives to MS Office. I don't see anything very strong about switching to another platform only to turn around and use all the same application software.
treecc was specifically designed to aid in compiler design and it turns out that this is one of the examples that make for a good AOP solution. This is the relevant blurb from Rhys's article on treecc:
One example of Aspect Oriented Programming for compiler writers:
t ml t tp://www.southern-storm.com.au/treecc_doc/treecc _1.html#SEC1
1 ,00.asp
http://www.southern-storm.com.au/treecc_essay.h
http://www.southern-storm.com.au/treecc.html
h
It is also rumored that Portable.NET will use treecc for the creation of a JIT engine sometime in the future.
From my limited understanding, Aspect Oriented Programming combines the power of the Visitor and Inheritance patterns without the drawbacks of either.
Another interesting link:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,44061
If they can boot from CD then what you need is Knoppix:
E
;)
http://www.knoppix.net/docs/index.php/KnoppixKD
This is one of the coolest ISO's ever to come out of Linux land
I agree with your assessment of the problem, but not with your conclusion. Minimizing the amount of lives lost (both ours and theres) now and in the future is the aim of any defensive strategy. I simply do not agree with your conclusion, but of course it is impossible to know. It can be debated however. Unfortunately the current administration does not wish to debate this.
... good VS Axis of Evil ... UN relevance??) OR he is willfully saying such things knowing full well they coudln't be more wrong. I personally feel he is just simple minded, but the rest of the administration is willfully lying to themselves and to everyone else.
Bush has said, 'Some people don't think Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace, I respectfully disagree'. This quote really is representative of Bush and why so many feel he is perhaps the worst president ever. Either he is so simple minded that he believes it is stated in such a black and white way (with us or against us
You are absoletly incredible. That you would imply that the current situation is analogous to Hitler is beyond belief. I suppose you think this war is about liberating the Iraqi people? If it were then I would state that this is a noble cause and should be pursued (not with war, IMO). It isn't. But that is besides the point.
... yet I don't advocate attacking them either. I suppose this also is an embarrasment and shows that I am unpatriotic in your eyes! The potential cost in terms of lives lost on both sides is simply to high the same as it is with Iraq.
What did you say when Clinton liberated Kosovo? I guess from the tenor of you remarks that you are a blind follower of whatever the conservative sentiment is at the time and you probably opposed our involvement.
I don't have any problem with freeing the Iraqi people just as I have no problem with freeing/liberating the: saudis, north koreans, chinese, tibetans, palestinians, cubans, and all other peoples who live under oppressive regimes and dictatorships, but not at any cost and only for the right reasons.
This is not about freeing a people. It is about eliminating Iraq as a possible future threat to America preemptively without considering the cost and consequences of such an endeavor.
North Korea poses a much more severe *immediate* threat to America, but I don't see you and your fellow war hawks demanding a regime change there or threatening an invasion. North Korea has been a threat for a long time and has long tortured and oppressed it's people. It is in flagrant violation of the UN and international communities will
My statements about the US does not imply that I do not love this country or I am some how in favor of Saddam Hussein or the terrorists of 9/11. I am not. It does not imply that I am unpatriotic or unamerican. I am not. It is not an insult to the men in women who serve in the armed forces. It is simply a sobering presentation of *facts*. For all your contempt and foaming at the mouth you do not dispute these facts.
I recognize and am fully aware of the threat Saddam Hussein poses and could pose to the US. He is a brutal tyrant and dictator and responsible for killing thousands and thousands of human lives. I do not agree with any dictatorship or any country which holds up dictatorships.
However, none of this in any way refutes the facts of my post.
The US was partnered with the USSR when it was busy arming countries like Iraq.
Who is it 'partnered' (no idea what you mean with this) with now as it continues to spew arms all over the place including Saudi Arabia (another oppressive regime) and the rest of the countries it is bribing with arms into joining the coalition of the coerced?
Also, it is not proven that the US has helped arm any other country with weapons of mass destruction. This claim is pure conjecture on your part.
How about the Anthrax and Botulism that it has given to Iraq in the past? How about all of the F-16's and the attack helicopters and all of the other weapons of mass destruction it has given to all kinds of countries? What exactly do you require as proof?
No, no I'm pretty sure he means:
d =6 55&e=1&cid=655&u=/oneworld/20030227/wl_oneworld/10 32_1046349026
George: "Tony, Tony, hurry, we found one"
Tony: "Yes georgie, I have my thumb already on the button"
George: "Shouldn't we first ring our friends and allies"
Tony: "Sure thing - I'll get on the phone right away to all the countries in the world that we are bullying/bribing into supporting this war by either threatening veto's on attempts to get into NATO and withholding foreign aid or paying out ungodly amounts of bribe money!"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&nci
You either can not read or you are being deliberately obtuse. The parent poster stated that the word 'piracy' is ill suited as a description of unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work.
This does not imply that the parent poster or RMS believe that unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work are 'good things'. The historical definition of the word 'piracy' is synonymous with looting, killing and raping. Unathorized copying bears no resemblence to these heinous acts and as such it is unfortunate that many have adopted this word to describe it.
Yes, it is fair to say that the word 'piracy' has come to mean 'unathorized copying/distribution of a copyrighted work', but that does not refute what RMS and the poster were saying. 'piracy' is not a good word because it will always have connotations with it's original meaning when the two definitions are not analogous at all.
If I were to name my child Osama Bin Laden it does not follow that my child would grow up to be a mass murderer, but many people, upon hearing the name of my child would draw the inference in there head. It would lend a bad aura to my child that would not be inherently deserved.
The same is true of the use of the word 'piracy' to describe unauthorized copying of copyrighted works. Sure, people can and do use it, but it is unfortunate. You can be sure the people who started the meme for this word knew what they were doing.
It is for these reasons that RMS and others of like mind do not wish to use the word 'piracy' and would counsel others to refrain from this particular use of the word. The act of unauthorized copying of copyrighted works does not inherently deserve the baggage that the word 'piracy' delivers.
Yes. It's called privacy.q =privacy
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
No this just illustrates that the record companies are no longer relevant. Distribution is not a problem in this day and age so recording contracts with distribution rights need to go the way of the dodo. I see no universal right for a company to exist when it's entire reason for being is outdated.
Or, to put it another way, Intelligence means "I don't understand how you thought that".
;)
Seems a rather unfortunate definition. If humans are to one day completely understand how our own minds work then we cease to be 'intelligent'??
See the problem
That is not fair. Minsky might have percieved that this was the case, but it doesn't follow that it was. Loebner gave a perfectly good explanation for the clause (See below) and it seems pretty hypocritical that Minsky fumes that Loebner uses his name as co-sponsor in advertising ;)
....n e r Prize Competition.Improper or
.
From: loebner@ACM.ORG (Hugh Loebner)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Minsky Co-sponsor of Loebner Prize!
Date: 8 Mar 1995 16:48:36 GMT
Organization: ACM Network Services
Lines: 63
Message-ID:
In Message ID Minsky writes:
>In article loebner@ACM.ORG writes
>>17.The names "Loebner Prize" and "Loebner Prize Competition" may be used by
>>contestants in advertising only by advance written permissionof the Cambridge
>>Center, and their use may be subjecttoapplicableicensingfees. Advertising is
>>subjecttoapprovalbyrepresentativesoftheLoeb
>>misleading advertising may result in revocationoftheprizeand/or other actions.
>[Some words concatenated to enforce the 80-character line length
>convention.]
>I do hope that someone will volunteer to violate this proscription so
>that Mr. Loebner will indeed revoke his stupid prize, save himself
>some money, and spare us the horror of this obnoxious and unproductive
>annual publicity campaign.
>In fact, I hereby offer the $100.00 Minsky prize to the first person
>who gets Loebner to do this. I will explain the details of the rules
>for the new prize as soon as it is awarded, except that, in the
>meantime, anyone is free to use the name "Minsky Loebner Prize
>Revocation Prize" in any advertising they like, without any licensing
>fee.
1. Marvin Minsky will pay $100.00 to anyone who gets me to
"revoke" the "stupid" Loebner Prize.
2. "Revoke" the prize means "discontinue" the prize.
3. After the Grand Prize is won, the contest will be
discontinued.
4. The Grand Prize winner will "get" me to discontinue the
Prize.
5. The Grand Prize winner will satisfy The Minsky Prize criterion.
6. Minsky will be morally obligated to pay the Grand Prize
Winner $100.00 for getting me to discontinue the contest.
7. Minsky is an honorable man.
8. Minsky will pay the Grand Prize Winner $100.00
9. Def: "Co-sponsor": Anyone who contributes or promises to
contribute a monetary prize to the Grand Prize winner
10. Marvin Minskey is a co-sponsor of the 1995 Loebner Prize
Contest.
-------------
BTW
The language that Minsky finds so offensive was added
by the Prize Committee because of a possible mis-representation
regarding the contest made by an annual prize winner.
No fees have been requested of any winner, nor do I anticipate
of any fees ever being requested. Rule 17 merely protects the
Loebner Prize from misrepresentation in advertising.
"The fact is that anyone who actually uses search engines knows that they don't work the same ..."
What on earth do you mean? Generally you enter a string and it returns hyperlinks of 'matching' results. Just because Google uses a different algorithm or has other differences does not mean they don't belong to the same general class of 'internet search engines'.
Google is the best of the bunch hence the new word 'google' -- to search online.
You are making a very bad mistake.
Your analogy to Apple does not hold water. No one will mistake an 'apple -- see fruit' for an 'Apple --computer/business'. You have correctly pointed this out.
However, this is not a good analogy because the word 'google' *means* to search for something online. Precisely what the company/trademark is all about!
So if another internet search engine uses the new word 'google' in marketing or in general usage then it is not a trademark infringement because 'google' is now a general word and they would be using it correctly.
http://www.knoppix.net/o cs/index.php/KnoppixKDE
:)
http://www.knoppix.net/d
Cheers