the darn things only support a class C subnet mask, instantly rendering it useless because of the class B scheme that we were using.
/me rolls eyes...
The LinkSys box was designed specifically for the home-network situation where there are only a few machines. In its intended environment, class C is more than enough for the internal network.
Now, I have/use one of these, and I wouldn't be without it, but let's all say it together... "You get what you pay for." If you need to connect multiple subnets to a NAT box, you're gonna have to do an ipchains/ipfw/ipmasq box. Or you could talk to Cisco (or similar). I'm sure they've got something they'd be happy to sell you.
Yes, actually, I did read the article. I've also read Adobe's own article, including the spiffy little animated GIFs. In addition, I have been a user of Adobe's products for years. In particular, Photoshop and Illustrator, and am therefore quite familiar with the behaviors that Adobe has managed to patent.
It is my opinion, based on these years of experience, that although the tabbed pallete behavior is useful, and possibly unique, it is a feature that amounts to little more than look and feel. Apple vs. Microsoft quite clearly showed that suits based on look and feel are, in general, doomed to failure. As they should be.
I think that 99% of everyone else got what I was saying from the original post. Whether they agree or not is another story. In any case, it's an easy thing to call someone a shithead whilst posting as an AC... It's another thing altogether to call someone a fuckwit when not posting that way.
Frau. mp3 encoding. its very slow and to encode a whole album takes well over an hour (well over).
An hour?!? I assume that there's some reason that you continue using that encoder? There are faster ones with comparable compression quality. I'm using SoundJamMP (Mac) on a g4/500 that rips and encodes @ the same time, and handles most average length CD's in less than 10 minutes.
That's 10 minutes. Seti@home units complete in a bit under 5 hours.
I'm not trying to gloat, instead I think that the question is still a valid one. Do we really need 1GhZ+ processors? Shitty software is another story.
This just seems a stupid idea. I did manage a peek at the site before the files (or filez, your choice) were deleted, but I knew what was going to happen. Certainly the folks that brought up the site in the first place knew, didn't they?
Seems like a total waste of time and resources to me...
We do not believe that users of Deja.com will view the hyperlinks as being part of your message
Perhaps not, but it has always been understood that wherever a link appears, it was the author's intent to provide the user with more relevent information. There is no assurance that the links will actually point to something useful.
The example showed this quite clearly in that it pointed to shopping links for modems in the midst of a conversations about ethernet hubs (!!).
We know that users love to discuss and debate their favorite products and services on Usenet...
But that's not what Usenet is about!!!! It really irritates the hell out of me for a commercial interest to say something like this. I wonder what kind of links they might put in a message posted to alt.support.warez.recovery.
But what I REALLY want to know is what kind of barriers are put up between their choice of links and their advertisers. Or, to put it another way, what influence do the product manufacturers have over what links get created. Could this ever happen: "Wow, I can hardly wait to get my new Playstation2. That think is going to kick some serious ass!!"
Or how about: "My life's a mess. I just want to shoot myself. Nobody would really care..."
Another point of argument is that some people claim that a lot of downloads are just people getting copies of music they already own because they can't rip the music themselves.
I really doubt it. I'd like to see numbers that support that, but given the number of ways that downloads can happen, I'll probably not see them. Now, if it read "...just people who didn't care to take the time to rip the music themselves," it'd be a bit more plausable. Still, I think the truth is "...just people who don't have a copy of the CD, don't intend to pay for a copy of the CD (for whatever reason), but still want the music."
CD's would be distributed with an extra data track containing pre-ripped and encoded MP3s of the music on the album. The artists would be free to decide the quality of the encoding at a level they felt comfortable would present their music well without making the full-quality versions on the CD tracks unnecessary.
Nope. The record company would be the one making this decision, I'm sure. That being the case, the included MP3s would be 64kbps/22K/Mono with embedded ads. That is, if the mp3's were included at all.
I think that they'd probably use the inclusion of mp3s to justify (in their minds) the further increase in the price of a cd. Thanks, but no.
Users would be free to trade the premade MP3s that came with the album with their friends, etc.
Let's try this one:
Users are free to trade the the homemade MP3s that came from the album with their freinds, etc.
If being illegal was going to stop anyone it would have done so long before this.
Just two IRQs for four serial ports, can't imagine why...
For one, backward compatibility with the existing software. When the modems went 16bit, the manufacturers knew that most of the software out there wouldn't know how to deal with a modem on, say, IRQ10, and so didn't bother with the logic neccessary to put the modem on that IRQ (or others). They'd also have had to work out a way to assign I/O ranges without banging into something else.
Also, increased complexity == increased cost. Hardware was already running on pretty thin margins by then, and, most (but not all) manufacturers couldn't justify the cost.
However, would you pay twice as much for a Mac just to get rid of this inconvenience? Most people don't.
Some do. I did. I got sick of having to deal with the limitations that the original design of the XT were still forcing on me with my P233 machine (yes, it has been a few years). I also got sick of Win95's BSOD if I even looked at the machine the wrong way.
Funny thing is, the machine that replaced it (Beige G3/300) is still in daily use as a MacOS box. I would not have been able to continue running Windows on the P233 box and get acceptable performance (it's now running Linux as the house server).
Before anyone even considers making digital signatures legally binding, how about requiring this binding to only take effect if the document was signed by an approved smart card? Make it a parameter of the signature, and make it illegal to write software or create unapproved smart cards that set that parameter.
Nope. This kind of thing strays into the concept of trusted clients, and that's just not going to fly. We'd end up in the same situation that led to DeCSS and the like.
Almost certainly, the only clients that will set that parameter will be Win32 clients (and maybe Mac). Then some brilliant individual decides that he wants to be able to set the parameter through Linux/*BSD/whatever, and we know how the story goes from there. Unfortunately.
Re:Question: Non OEM machines
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
No, I meant far more economic, less onerous, alternatives to Windows and the licencing that it imposes.
I totally agree on your points regarding building your own machine. I do it too. Except that I've got RedHat on mine right now. Planning to move to Debian "when I get time"...:)
Re:Question: Non OEM machines
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
This is only legal if you "own" (whatever that means now) a copy of a previous, legal, copy. So, if you have machine A, that came with Win95 (OEM version), you cannot use that Win95 CD to do the upgrade on machine B. If you still have machine A, it's not legal because it's only licenced for use on that machine. If you no longer have machine A, then you're not supposed to have the Win95 CD anyway. And borrowing someone else's CD is certainly not legal.
The only way to do the upgrade version is to own a legal copy of the full retail version of a "qualifying" previous version of the OS.
This whole thing just bugs the hell out of me, and I'll probably never buy another copy of Windows again. But there are 2 little things that really make me think:
1. Once this sort of plan goes into effect, what's next? Right now, upgrades can be performed at a much-reduced price, provided you have a "qualifying" previous version. I'll bet that it won't be very long until there's no such thing ("gotta prevent the pirates from sharing the upgrade CDs, so from now on, there is no upgrade version. And, the only way to get the current version is to buy a new machine.") I know that there are those who might think this overly paranoid, but given the right timeframe, and worst-case scenarios (MS wins on appeal, Media-less distribution challenged, MS wins again, etc), it could happen. Probably less than 3 years is all it'll take.
2. Although a lot of folks want to slag on MS and Adobe for playing the piracy card, the sad fact is that they're partially right. When talk of sharing copies of the CDs and burning copies are as causal as saying "I'm going to the store, you want anything?" - Of course they're going to be looking at ways to preserve the revenue stream. Again, I don't like the fact that the "honest" users have to bear the burden of the consequences of this kind of licencing scheme, and I personally will not subject myself to that, but just because it sucks doesn't make it right to break the law.
And it really makes everyone look bad when there are folks here (and elsewhere, to be fair) that, through words and deeds, say "Fuck that-I'll just borrow a copy from a friend, and make my own copy to use!"
I'll say it again - There are alternatives out there. Legal ones at that.
Re:Question: Non OEM machines
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
Absolutely, you'd be able to do that. The real question is "Would you want to?" There are far more economic, not to mention far less onerous, alternatives out there.
I'm on DSL. If this kind of thing happened to me, I'd not only have to get a new account with a different provider, but I'd have to find some other connectivity method? I don't think so. This would be one of those "cold dead hands" kind of fights.
My inner voice of reason though, reminds me that the stated case is purely anecdotal, with no citations at all. For what it's worth.
You will never see a Dell XBox or a Gateway XBox. Console hardware is sold at a loss. Profits come from sales of software and royalties from sales of 3rd party software. Unless you're giving a cut of the software profits to the manufacturer, why would they want to make the hardware?
No, I think the manufacturers of the boxen will be more like Panasonic or Phillips and their ilk. I agree that it's unlikely that Dell or GW or any other "traditional" PC builder will be involved with XBox, but not necessarliy for the same reasons you cite.
Fact is, the manufacturer(s) of the hardware typically do get subsidies from the software vendor to make the hardware. So, although hardware is a loss-leader, it can still be profitable for the manufacturer to get involved. The revenue stream just comes from somewhere other than the sales of the boxen.
There are plenty of examples for this: iOpener, WebTV, TiVo, etc. Often, you have to consider a service as software, but the business model is the same.
Think you'll see a Playstation 2 equipped TV?
No more than I see VCR-equipped TVs today - they exist, but not widely enough to really matter. Likewise with PSX2. There may be a model or two, but it won't be a big deal.
Not really. Doing so would simply raise the price and complexity of TV sets, and although there could be limited success in doing so, it won't be universal. Witness the integration of VCRs into TVs. It's been happening for years, but standalone VCRs are far from "disappearing".
If this is a preemptive strike against Microsoft's XBox. I'd guess the XBox would be licenced to multiple manufacturers, much like WebTV is.
PSX2 should already have a natural head-start, and anything Sony can do to build the network effect for the platform would go a long way to maintaining ground against XBox.
Another thing I wonder is... is this the first time that a games console has been licenced like this? I don't recall any others doing this; Nintendo boxes have always been Nintendo. Likewise with Sega, Atari, et al, including, until now, Sony.
One of the major (IMO) problems for GPL'ed software still exist under this dreamy picture of the UCITA. That is the problem of who's going to do the suing?
For instance, you put together a neat little GPL'ed widget, and put it out there every one to use. Six months later you get an email from a friend of yours commenting that the latest Windows beta (or to be fair MacOS X DR) has a suspiciously similar widget in it. What are you going to do? Take on the hords of corporate lawyers?
Even with UCITA to back up your claim, you still have to be able to afford the expense of the lawyers and the time necessary to pursue your claim.
Besides the UCITA places so many other unfair restrictions on the user as to be unacceptable on it's own anyway. We should not even begin to accept the bad to get the good. Bad Software has the info on why UCITA is a bad idea.
Nonsense. First, as others have mentioned, Amazon has been quite clear in their intentions regarding the enforcement of their patents WRT B&N. The fact that they refuse to comment on the motives here is enough to make this latest move smell bad.
IANAPL but...
Patents are not intended to quash competitors from implementing a new technology, but instead to ensure monopoly rights on that tech. for a period of time. With "real-world" tech (for example, an engine that runs on water), this makes sense because it takes time and money (lots) to bring it to reality. Such is not the case with purely software inventions.
In the case of software patents, all one needs to defend one's self against a johnny-come-lately patenting the tech. is to be able to show prior art, IIRC. Using patents to serve as a defense is short-sighted, anticompetitive, stupid, and yes, evil (although in a pathetic Dr. Evil kind of way).
BTW, I have a patent pending on a barter system that uses pieces of paper, and bits of plastic and metal as a means of "currency". Oh, wait. Amazon beat me to that one too...
It is a cheap little player (I got mine for $169), and so the build quality isn't quite what you'd demand from a Sony (or whatever). The UI is minimal (that's being nice) at best. It has also been noted that while it supports playback of MP3's, it's treatment of long filenames is a bit wierd.
Is it worth it? Yes! Oddly enough, the picture quality is very good, and it actually has component outputs (!!) for the video, and digital (coax only) outputs for AC3 and DTS. Strange. Oh, and the picture quality seemed to improve (very slightly) when I turned off the Macrovision encoding.
Very feature-packed for a sub-$200 player, and it's pretty sweet to be able to watch whatever DVD's I want (regardless of where they come from).
I don't get it. If there's no less than 3 different Linux distros that run on G3 Macs, why can't Be get BeOS on 'em? They're still pointing fingers at Apple about not sharing information as the reason, but there's got to be more to the story that I don't understand.
Can anyone shed any light on this?? I feel like Be is just whining about Apple as an excuse to not have to support the current Macintosh hardware.
with the list of cd's that I own? From the terms of service:
8. By accepting these Terms and Conditions, you expressly consent to certain disclosures of your personally identifiable and other personal information to third parties, and to our use of your information, as enumerated in our then-current privacy policy, which is available at http://www.mp3.com/privacy.html.
I especially don't like the fact that the privacy policy is mutable to the point that the terms of service even allow for it with the "then-current" phrasing. The entire terms of service are at http://www.mp3.com/my/terms/index.html.
I'll admit, it's a bit paranoid, but I'll stick with my CD-R's for portable MP3's.
Of course, this has the potential for working in the other direction as well. One of the things that doesn't seem to be terribly well-addressed is how much the employer can mandate what the conditions at home are.
For instance, can they (my employer) say that they don't want me to use my Aeron chair (for whatever reason). Or that I have to have the same glaring overhead flourescent lighting that I have at work? Do I have install anti-static carpet over my hardwood floor?
The whole thing just strikes me as being more than just a bit silly. How many telecommuter injuries have been reported, anyway?
Already done... it's called a Personal Television Reciever. Most of the references I've seen refer to it simply as a PTV - dropping the reference to reciever. Gotta love those marketing types.
Slashdot Mirror
/me rolls eyes...
The LinkSys box was designed specifically for the home-network situation where there are only a few machines. In its intended environment, class C is more than enough for the internal network.
Now, I have/use one of these, and I wouldn't be without it, but let's all say it together... "You get what you pay for." If you need to connect multiple subnets to a NAT box, you're gonna have to do an ipchains/ipfw/ipmasq box. Or you could talk to Cisco (or similar). I'm sure they've got something they'd be happy to sell you.
It is my opinion, based on these years of experience, that although the tabbed pallete behavior is useful, and possibly unique, it is a feature that amounts to little more than look and feel. Apple vs. Microsoft quite clearly showed that suits based on look and feel are, in general, doomed to failure. As they should be.
I think that 99% of everyone else got what I was saying from the original post. Whether they agree or not is another story. In any case, it's an easy thing to call someone a shithead whilst posting as an AC... It's another thing altogether to call someone a fuckwit when not posting that way.
Tabbed widgets? Adobe should ask Apple how far they're gonna get suing over look and feel. Patented or no.
An hour?!? I assume that there's some reason that you continue using that encoder? There are faster ones with comparable compression quality. I'm using SoundJamMP (Mac) on a g4/500 that rips and encodes @ the same time, and handles most average length CD's in less than 10 minutes.
That's 10 minutes. Seti@home units complete in a bit under 5 hours.
I'm not trying to gloat, instead I think that the question is still a valid one. Do we really need 1GhZ+ processors? Shitty software is another story.
Seems like a total waste of time and resources to me...
Perhaps not, but it has always been understood that wherever a link appears, it was the author's intent to provide the user with more relevent information. There is no assurance that the links will actually point to something useful.
The example showed this quite clearly in that it pointed to shopping links for modems in the midst of a conversations about ethernet hubs (!!).
But that's not what Usenet is about!!!! It really irritates the hell out of me for a commercial interest to say something like this. I wonder what kind of links they might put in a message posted to alt.support.warez.recovery.
But what I REALLY want to know is what kind of barriers are put up between their choice of links and their advertisers. Or, to put it another way, what influence do the product manufacturers have over what links get created. Could this ever happen: "Wow, I can hardly wait to get my new Playstation2. That think is going to kick some serious ass!!"
Or how about: "My life's a mess. I just want to shoot myself. Nobody would really care..."
Who's paying for link placement???
I really doubt it. I'd like to see numbers that support that, but given the number of ways that downloads can happen, I'll probably not see them. Now, if it read "...just people who didn't care to take the time to rip the music themselves," it'd be a bit more plausable. Still, I think the truth is "...just people who don't have a copy of the CD, don't intend to pay for a copy of the CD (for whatever reason), but still want the music."
Nope. The record company would be the one making this decision, I'm sure. That being the case, the included MP3s would be 64kbps/22K/Mono with embedded ads. That is, if the mp3's were included at all.
I think that they'd probably use the inclusion of mp3s to justify (in their minds) the further increase in the price of a cd. Thanks, but no.
Let's try this one:
If being illegal was going to stop anyone it would have done so long before this.
For one, backward compatibility with the existing software. When the modems went 16bit, the manufacturers knew that most of the software out there wouldn't know how to deal with a modem on, say, IRQ10, and so didn't bother with the logic neccessary to put the modem on that IRQ (or others). They'd also have had to work out a way to assign I/O ranges without banging into something else.
Also, increased complexity == increased cost. Hardware was already running on pretty thin margins by then, and, most (but not all) manufacturers couldn't justify the cost.
Some do. I did. I got sick of having to deal with the limitations that the original design of the XT were still forcing on me with my P233 machine (yes, it has been a few years). I also got sick of Win95's BSOD if I even looked at the machine the wrong way.
Funny thing is, the machine that replaced it (Beige G3/300) is still in daily use as a MacOS box. I would not have been able to continue running Windows on the P233 box and get acceptable performance (it's now running Linux as the house server).
Nope. This kind of thing strays into the concept of trusted clients, and that's just not going to fly. We'd end up in the same situation that led to DeCSS and the like.
Almost certainly, the only clients that will set that parameter will be Win32 clients (and maybe Mac). Then some brilliant individual decides that he wants to be able to set the parameter through Linux/*BSD/whatever, and we know how the story goes from there. Unfortunately.
I totally agree on your points regarding building your own machine. I do it too. Except that I've got RedHat on mine right now. Planning to move to Debian "when I get time"... :)
The only way to do the upgrade version is to own a legal copy of the full retail version of a "qualifying" previous version of the OS.
This whole thing just bugs the hell out of me, and I'll probably never buy another copy of Windows again. But there are 2 little things that really make me think:
1. Once this sort of plan goes into effect, what's next? Right now, upgrades can be performed at a much-reduced price, provided you have a "qualifying" previous version. I'll bet that it won't be very long until there's no such thing ("gotta prevent the pirates from sharing the upgrade CDs, so from now on, there is no upgrade version. And, the only way to get the current version is to buy a new machine.") I know that there are those who might think this overly paranoid, but given the right timeframe, and worst-case scenarios (MS wins on appeal, Media-less distribution challenged, MS wins again, etc), it could happen. Probably less than 3 years is all it'll take.
2. Although a lot of folks want to slag on MS and Adobe for playing the piracy card, the sad fact is that they're partially right. When talk of sharing copies of the CDs and burning copies are as causal as saying "I'm going to the store, you want anything?" - Of course they're going to be looking at ways to preserve the revenue stream. Again, I don't like the fact that the "honest" users have to bear the burden of the consequences of this kind of licencing scheme, and I personally will not subject myself to that, but just because it sucks doesn't make it right to break the law.
And it really makes everyone look bad when there are folks here (and elsewhere, to be fair) that, through words and deeds, say "Fuck that-I'll just borrow a copy from a friend, and make my own copy to use!"
I'll say it again - There are alternatives out there. Legal ones at that.
Absolutely, you'd be able to do that. The real question is "Would you want to?" There are far more economic, not to mention far less onerous, alternatives out there.
I'm on DSL. If this kind of thing happened to me, I'd not only have to get a new account with a different provider, but I'd have to find some other connectivity method? I don't think so. This would be one of those "cold dead hands" kind of fights.
My inner voice of reason though, reminds me that the stated case is purely anecdotal, with no citations at all. For what it's worth.
No, I think the manufacturers of the boxen will be more like Panasonic or Phillips and their ilk. I agree that it's unlikely that Dell or GW or any other "traditional" PC builder will be involved with XBox, but not necessarliy for the same reasons you cite.
Fact is, the manufacturer(s) of the hardware typically do get subsidies from the software vendor to make the hardware. So, although hardware is a loss-leader, it can still be profitable for the manufacturer to get involved. The revenue stream just comes from somewhere other than the sales of the boxen.
There are plenty of examples for this: iOpener, WebTV, TiVo, etc. Often, you have to consider a service as software, but the business model is the same.
No more than I see VCR-equipped TVs today - they exist, but not widely enough to really matter. Likewise with PSX2. There may be a model or two, but it won't be a big deal.
Not really. Doing so would simply raise the price and complexity of TV sets, and although there could be limited success in doing so, it won't be universal. Witness the integration of VCRs into TVs. It's been happening for years, but standalone VCRs are far from "disappearing".
PSX2 should already have a natural head-start, and anything Sony can do to build the network effect for the platform would go a long way to maintaining ground against XBox.
Another thing I wonder is... is this the first time that a games console has been licenced like this? I don't recall any others doing this; Nintendo boxes have always been Nintendo. Likewise with Sega, Atari, et al, including, until now, Sony.
This has gotten way too silly. Postings in binary, otoh...
Please be careful about the use of the word free in this context.
OSS is largely free, as in free speech (or better, freedom). What Microsoft and Sun are doing with IE and StarOffice are gratis, like free beer.
For a refresher on what "free software" means, see RMS's essay on the subject.
One of the major (IMO) problems for GPL'ed software still exist under this dreamy picture of the UCITA. That is the problem of who's going to do the suing?
For instance, you put together a neat little GPL'ed widget, and put it out there every one to use. Six months later you get an email from a friend of yours commenting that the latest Windows beta (or to be fair MacOS X DR) has a suspiciously similar widget in it. What are you going to do? Take on the hords of corporate lawyers?
Even with UCITA to back up your claim, you still have to be able to afford the expense of the lawyers and the time necessary to pursue your claim.
Besides the UCITA places so many other unfair restrictions on the user as to be unacceptable on it's own anyway. We should not even begin to accept the bad to get the good. Bad Software has the info on why UCITA is a bad idea.
Nonsense. First, as others have mentioned, Amazon has been quite clear in their intentions regarding the enforcement of their patents WRT B&N. The fact that they refuse to comment on the motives here is enough to make this latest move smell bad.
IANAPL but...
Patents are not intended to quash competitors from implementing a new technology, but instead to ensure monopoly rights on that tech. for a period of time. With "real-world" tech (for example, an engine that runs on water), this makes sense because it takes time and money (lots) to bring it to reality. Such is not the case with purely software inventions.
In the case of software patents, all one needs to defend one's self against a johnny-come-lately patenting the tech. is to be able to show prior art, IIRC. Using patents to serve as a defense is short-sighted, anticompetitive, stupid, and yes, evil (although in a pathetic Dr. Evil kind of way).
BTW, I have a patent pending on a barter system that uses pieces of paper, and bits of plastic and metal as a means of "currency". Oh, wait. Amazon beat me to that one too...
It is a cheap little player (I got mine for $169), and so the build quality isn't quite what you'd demand from a Sony (or whatever). The UI is minimal (that's being nice) at best. It has also been noted that while it supports playback of MP3's, it's treatment of long filenames is a bit wierd.
Is it worth it? Yes! Oddly enough, the picture quality is very good, and it actually has component outputs (!!) for the video, and digital (coax only) outputs for AC3 and DTS. Strange. Oh, and the picture quality seemed to improve (very slightly) when I turned off the Macrovision encoding.
Very feature-packed for a sub-$200 player, and it's pretty sweet to be able to watch whatever DVD's I want (regardless of where they come from).
I don't get it. If there's no less than 3 different Linux distros that run on G3 Macs, why can't Be get BeOS on 'em? They're still pointing fingers at Apple about not sharing information as the reason, but there's got to be more to the story that I don't understand.
Can anyone shed any light on this?? I feel like Be is just whining about Apple as an excuse to not have to support the current Macintosh hardware.
with the list of cd's that I own? From the terms of service:
I especially don't like the fact that the privacy policy is mutable to the point that the terms of service even allow for it with the "then-current" phrasing. The entire terms of service are at http://www.mp3.com/my/terms/index.html.
I'll admit, it's a bit paranoid, but I'll stick with my CD-R's for portable MP3's.
Of course, this has the potential for working in the other direction as well. One of the things that doesn't seem to be terribly well-addressed is how much the employer can mandate what the conditions at home are.
For instance, can they (my employer) say that they don't want me to use my Aeron chair (for whatever reason). Or that I have to have the same glaring overhead flourescent lighting that I have at work? Do I have install anti-static carpet over my hardwood floor?
The whole thing just strikes me as being more than just a bit silly. How many telecommuter injuries have been reported, anyway?
Already done... it's called a Personal Television Reciever. Most of the references I've seen refer to it simply as a PTV - dropping the reference to reciever. Gotta love those marketing types.
Although, I think CFT fits just as well.