It's very simple: 90% of working effectively with people is communication. If you understand each other, you will at least know why the boss wants to do things a certain way.
And the flip side of that: 90% of communication is LISTENING. No, seriously. Shut up. Listen. And when you listen, don't just parse the words -- try to shift your point of view to understand not what he's actually saying, but what he's trying to say. Then, when you respond, don't respond to the words he used; instead, respond to the ideas he was trying to communicate. If you don't quite know what he was trying to communicate, there's no shame in saying, "I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. Do you mean we should do X or do you mean Y? Keep in mind that there are A, B, and C that would affect X" or something to that effect.
If you can learn how to really listen, listen and grok, then you will quickly become a skilled communicator. If you are a skilled communicator, if you can learn to speak bureaucrat-eese, then you will have no problems explaining to your boss why his idea is wrong, without offending him or making him look stupid.
A good way to do that is to say "Do you mean we should replace our entire infrastructure and lose our existing technology investments [exaggerate his bad idea ad absurdam and make it obvious by your tone of voice that that would be a bad idea], or do you just mean that we should look into using Sun servers in new deployments [come up a good idea based loosely on his idea]." Now, you're not insulting his idea, you're presenting options.
Use "look into" as much as possible. If he later asks you about it, just say, "Oh, I looked into it, but I found that [cost/benefit didn't justify it; it's impossible or impractical from a technological standpoint; the amount of time needed to implement the solution would cost us more than what we could hope to save]." Then, suggest a good idea to do instead.
Can anyone, anywhere, explain why most people pronounce Linux as 'Linnix'? Either pronounce it the way Linus does, or take the anglicized version of Linus (Lie-Niss) and change the 's' to 'x'. That would leave us with Lee-noox, or Lie-Nix.
I'll admit I have on occasion used the pronunciation "Lin-nix", but I generally pronounce it "Lihn-n*ks", where * is the schwa (often represented by an upside down e in dictionaries), the clipped-sounding multipurpose vowel (uh) in American pronunciation.
When I first heard about Linux, I would say "Lie-nuks", but then someone played for me the famous Linus clip "When I say it, I say it Lee-nooks". From henceforth I have always used a short i for the first syllable ("ih", a clipped rendition of the "ee" sound Linus uses, I guess), but the second syllable is often clipped and telescoped beyond recognition -- if you telescope a schwa, you get a sound not unlike a very clipped short i, producing an overall effect that sounds something like "Lin'-niks", with the emphasis on the first syllable.
I have a California accent, which means that I often clip all the syllables after the emphasised one, often telescoping the rest of the word into a single syllable. At least for me, that means "Lin'-niks" is a clipped attempt to pronounce it the way Linus does. When I'm speaking quickly, my articulation often suffers greatly, and I imagine the same is true for others.
Hmm... I have never needed to look up the definition of that word, so I was unaware of that deficiency in the glossary. I primarily use the Google Glossary to look up technical terms, much as I would use Whatis.com or the Webopedia (as the grandparent post points out.)
For the sake of argument, however, I would like to note that I don't think Whatis.com or the Webopedia contain that word either.
Re:Sneak preview of upcoming Googlage
on
Google Does the News
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I second this... even though it's still technially in beta, the Google Glossary has long since replaced both Whatis.com and the Webopedia in my bookmarks.
Google Labs... another reason why I think Google is probably the best technology company on the face of the planet right now...
Well, I can see two links to Slashdot from the Sci/Tech page: one is a headline story about Spirited Away, which is a Slashdot feature, so it's got real content.
The other is a secondary link about AMD Opteron supporting Palladium, which links to the/. yro discussion, which I figure is a legitimate source of information about the subject. The main link, though, goes to a story at The Inquirer.
This problem was determined to be a design defect, and for quite a while HP was providing free or at-cost repairs as mandated by an HP Service Note. (I think, though, that this may have expired by now.) The fix is just to replace the separator pad at the bottom of the paper chute... but I'm not sure if you can buy that part if you're not a tech.
AFAIK, any good tech at an authorized service center should be able to do it in about 30-45 minutes (which is harder than it sounds, since you have to tear down half the printer to get to the feed assembly... another reason not to try it at home. Pretty much any printer that's designed for the "home" market is built so that the hardest part of working on it is figuring out how to get the cover off.. and LaserJet 5L/6L/1100 is no exception.
If God's rules are arbitrary, then we simply have the case of "might makes right", the biggest bully on the block gets to make the rules.
On the other hand, if there's something about the rules that are inherently good, then that's something that's not under God's control.
I think you miss the point. By definition, God's rules would be good, not arbitrary. There are two reasons: First, since he made the universe, he clearly knows the best way for it to work. Second, since God is an all-wise being (okay, some may diagree, but that's pretty much a given if you believe in a God with the ability to create the universe as we know it) then any rule he makes would be the epitome of wisdom.
To put it another way: God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
why not create beings that share the same perfect recognition of, and apparently approval for, good? Why wouldn't that be the best course of action?
Two reasons: first, see above. God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him, and this means that we could never have as complete a grasp of the complex interrelationships that make up the universe. Second (in a way this is a corollary of the first point), to know completely what choice is best in all instances would imply a way to foreknow the future. God can do this, since he created the space-time fabric of the universe and is therefore obviously not bound by it; we cannot.
Your question then becomes: why did God create the universe in such a way that his creations within it could never be able to make perfect decisions without him? I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why.
In a rather roundabout way, that brings us back again to the subject of faith. At some point, you will always reach a gap between the two mountains of evidence, and you will have to jump. In some cases the gap is small, and you can stand with one foot on either side, but such vantages are unstable and often in time collapse either to one side or the other. In the end, it simply comes down to choice... and as someone once said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
But that's the whole point! Why didn't God create more beings whose 'very nature' was good, who didn't want to do evil? Why not make an Adam and Eve that didn't want to break rules?
They didn't want to break the rules; they wanted to make their own rules.
This is a subtle point that I think most (professed) Christians don't grasp... the original sin was not eating the apple (or whatever fruit it was... the Bible doesn't actually say) or sex (as some people try to claim) but rebellion.
Perhaps I can explain this a little clearer:
God created humans with free will. That means that we can make our own choices as to whether we want to do good or do evil. Adam and Eve were created perfect, meaning that their inclination was toward good and, if they chose, they could have lived their entire lives without ever doing anything evil.
Eve was deceived. The devil told her that, if she did what God had prohibited, she could "become like God, knowing good and bad" -- in essence, this meant that she could either accept the morality and ethics she had been given by God, or she could reject them and choose for herself what was good and what was evil. She made the decision to reject God and make her own choices. Adam was not deceived, but he made the conscious choice to join Eve's side and decide for himself, rather than depending on God for answers.
This left an interesting dilemma: How could anyone know, anyway, what was good and what was evil? Sure, God said this was right and that wasn't, but how could it be proven? This is the most important question in the universe, something we call the issue of universal soverignty: the question of whether God has the right to be soverign, to make the rules, or whether we have the right to make our own rules.
The only way to prove which set of beliefs (or rules) was correct would be to allow each to be tested, and then to compare the results. So God set up an experiment (in which he already knew the outcome, but the purpose is to convince Satan, all the other spirit beings, and us):
He set a limit of time in which we could all make our own decisions. He would make sure that, at any given time, there would always be at least some small group of people who would be doing things according to His will (the control group, if you would), but he did not mandate which ones; everyone would be free to either decide for themselves or else align themselves with God. By the end of the set period of time, the evidence would be clear as to which choice was correct.
This is the only way that the issue could be settled once and for all, and this explains why God does not prevent bad things from happening, even to good people: if he were to prevent people from experiencing the consequences of their (and even others') mistakes, the experiment would be void.
After the experiment is complete, God has the power to restore everything that was lost: renew the earth and the physical universe, heal the physical, emotional, and mental damage among humans, and even bring back to life those that died innocent.
Now, I understand that not everyone will agree with me. You have the right to make your own choice, and I won't (and can't!) abridge that. But I didn't just make this up off the top of my head: this is the result of a lot of deep and careful Bible study. If you want to know why I believe what I do, or want to know how I can reconcile these beliefs with science, history, etc. (and I can, quite to my satisfaction) I'd be happy to explain, to the best of my ability.
Also, the time frame during which one holds a patent needs consideration. Our technology is advancing at an accelerating rate yet, big companies want to hold patents longer.
Agreed. I don't think I'd have a problem with, for instance, Amazon patenting One-Click, as long as that patent expired after only, say, 12 months. In today's tech industry, that's still plenty of time to exploit a patent (and even to establish a sizable market share) without unduly injuring the creative work of others.
Yeah, people would argue that they have an unfair advantage, but I disagree. If you invent something legitimately new (okay, maybe Amazon was a bad example here...), I don't see a problem with you being able to patent it. A patent on a new programming tool, protocol, algorithm, etc. would only cripple the industry if:
It was the best or only way to accomplish a certain task; or,
It was similar enough to other fields of technology that true innovation in those sectors would be restricted.
In the first case, shorter patent lengths would resolve much of the issue. It usually takes some time for other researchers to duplicate a protocol, algorithm, etc. and I don't think 12 months would be too long. In the second case, the only real solution is for patent holders to give some consideration to the industry and patent only the specific applications that they plan to use. Shorter patent lengths, though, would seem to be the next best thing.
Of course, I think that the situation is very different in Microsoft's case -- here we have a convicted monopolist, and I don't think they deserve to have any additional monopolistic power, even if it is "temporary."
Re:I wonder what slashdot's percentages are....
on
Netscape 7.0 is Out
·
· Score: 2
Um... Galeon does that too.
And it has a tabbed mode. (Well, Konq has tabs now, too, so I guess that's not as big a point as it used to be.)
I never use bookmarks. If I'll need a page again soon, I just leave the tab open. If I may need it again sometime in the more distant future, there's always Google.
You're right: Konqueror kicks the socks off a lot of other browsers. But from what I've seen of both, though, I like Galeon's interface and the Gecko engine just a tad bit better.
I disagree. Google is providing a service, and my suggestion would be to simply use that service as it is intended. Take a look: they actually encouage linking to cached versions of files.
Certainly, if bandwidth became prohibitive, OSDN and Google could participate in some kind of joint-marketing project, with branded links ("click here for OpenSSL -- Powered by Google!") and/or advertising. I'd gladly put up with unobtrusive advertising in the google cache if it meant that I could get what I need to secure my system.
I'd love to wait six hours to read a cool breaking story if it means I get to read the linked content or the mirrors have time to update.
Agreed. In fact, I seem to remember an offhand remark by one of the editors to the effect that they often queue stories to run at certain times of the day anyway (to give the community some time to discuss the current big story before the next one hits). If they're already delaying some stories for several hours or more, I see no reason why they couldn't also at least send a heads-up to the site admin.
Of course, the flip side is this: the grandparent post suggested slashdot "pull a google". Why reinvent the wheel? Why not just force editors to include links to the google cache whenever possible. Keep in mind that the cached page will have a link to see the uncached version, so people who want to get up-to-date information can. If the focus of the story is images rather than text, include some links to the google cache of the images (maybe below the fold if there's a lot of them, so they don't clutter up the main page).
Taco & the gang have this attitude that there's nothing they can do about it. I disagree. It wouldn't even have to be that hard.
You know, that honestly makes me wonder if a couple of years ago some MS exec had the great idea to name the next generation of COM (the component object model) "dot-COM" to capitalize on the buzzword.
Then, when the bubble burst and it all collapsed, I can imagine a hurried meeting in Gates's or Ballmer's office, and someone shouting out, "I know! Let's just change the name to dot NET!"
I haven't actually used either of them yet, so I don't know all the specifics, but I'm not aware of any feature that Debian has that Gentoo doesn't match or exceed.
Off the top of my head:
Non-commercial: check.
Suit-free: I believe so.
Social contract: check.
Standards-based: check.
Stable: AFAIK, Gentoo is just as stable as Debian, if not more so.
apt: As much as I think apt is a great idea, Portage is better, IMHO.
2 a (1) : up to now : so far <hasn't done much yet> -- often used to imply the negative of a following infinitive <have yet to win a game> ...
Note that, although this construction may imply the negative of the following infinitive (in this case, "to volunteer"), it is technically correct to use it in a construction with an explicit negative (eg. "haven't done much yet").
In other words, by the definition above, the phrase could be reconstructed "No one has [so far] volunteer[ed]" or (by flipping the clause) "So far, no one has volunteered."
I just realized that there is no other simple construction that uses the infinitive; every alternative I can find changes the infinitive to a past tense. Actually, I think that's exactly what the sentence needs. My preference would be the construction "No one has yet volunteered" -- a simple change, but one that makes the phrase substantially less ambiguous.
I just checked the Associated Press Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, and couldn't find a definitive reference in either for this construction. (How I wish I had a copy of Strunk & White by my desk...) If anyone can find a reference to support (or to refute, I'd be interested), please post it. Thanks!
1.5 Mbps from DSL? Most are 256/512kbps or 1 Mbps.
You're very correct. For the sake of argument, I was using very generous estimates. (For the record, DSL technically has a maximum bandwidth of about 8Mbps, but I've never heard of anyone actually getting that much.)
I think I'll take my cable over your DSL anyday.
So would I. Oh, wait, you don't have DSL... I don't have DSL... the @#$%&* telco can't even provide DSL in my area... who are we talking about trading with here?
Slashdot Mirror
It's very simple: 90% of working effectively with people is communication. If you understand each other, you will at least know why the boss wants to do things a certain way.
And the flip side of that: 90% of communication is LISTENING. No, seriously. Shut up. Listen. And when you listen, don't just parse the words -- try to shift your point of view to understand not what he's actually saying, but what he's trying to say. Then, when you respond, don't respond to the words he used; instead, respond to the ideas he was trying to communicate. If you don't quite know what he was trying to communicate, there's no shame in saying, "I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting. Do you mean we should do X or do you mean Y? Keep in mind that there are A, B, and C that would affect X" or something to that effect.
If you can learn how to really listen, listen and grok, then you will quickly become a skilled communicator. If you are a skilled communicator, if you can learn to speak bureaucrat-eese, then you will have no problems explaining to your boss why his idea is wrong, without offending him or making him look stupid.
A good way to do that is to say "Do you mean we should replace our entire infrastructure and lose our existing technology investments [exaggerate his bad idea ad absurdam and make it obvious by your tone of voice that that would be a bad idea], or do you just mean that we should look into using Sun servers in new deployments [come up a good idea based loosely on his idea]." Now, you're not insulting his idea, you're presenting options.
Use "look into" as much as possible. If he later asks you about it, just say, "Oh, I looked into it, but I found that [cost/benefit didn't justify it; it's impossible or impractical from a technological standpoint; the amount of time needed to implement the solution would cost us more than what we could hope to save]." Then, suggest a good idea to do instead.
See? It's easy... :-)
When I first heard about Linux, I would say "Lie-nuks", but then someone played for me the famous Linus clip "When I say it, I say it Lee-nooks". From henceforth I have always used a short i for the first syllable ("ih", a clipped rendition of the "ee" sound Linus uses, I guess), but the second syllable is often clipped and telescoped beyond recognition -- if you telescope a schwa, you get a sound not unlike a very clipped short i, producing an overall effect that sounds something like "Lin'-niks", with the emphasis on the first syllable.
I have a California accent, which means that I often clip all the syllables after the emphasised one, often telescoping the rest of the word into a single syllable. At least for me, that means "Lin'-niks" is a clipped attempt to pronounce it the way Linus does. When I'm speaking quickly, my articulation often suffers greatly, and I imagine the same is true for others.
Anyone else care to comment?
For the sake of argument, however, I would like to note that I don't think Whatis.com or the Webopedia contain that word either.
Google Labs... another reason why I think Google is probably the best technology company on the face of the planet right now...
The other is a secondary link about AMD Opteron supporting Palladium, which links to the /. yro discussion, which I figure is a legitimate source of information about the subject. The main link, though, goes to a story at The Inquirer.
I don't see a problem with this.
(IMHO)
AFAIK, any good tech at an authorized service center should be able to do it in about 30-45 minutes (which is harder than it sounds, since you have to tear down half the printer to get to the feed assembly... another reason not to try it at home. Pretty much any printer that's designed for the "home" market is built so that the hardest part of working on it is figuring out how to get the cover off.. and LaserJet 5L/6L/1100 is no exception.
To put it another way: God recognizes what's good because he created the underlying structure of everything in the universe -- and the rules are a function of that.
Two reasons: first, see above. God is the creator; by definition, his creations could not be equal to him, and this means that we could never have as complete a grasp of the complex interrelationships that make up the universe. Second (in a way this is a corollary of the first point), to know completely what choice is best in all instances would imply a way to foreknow the future. God can do this, since he created the space-time fabric of the universe and is therefore obviously not bound by it; we cannot.Your question then becomes: why did God create the universe in such a way that his creations within it could never be able to make perfect decisions without him? I would argue that the answer is that there was no other way. At this point, however, we have reached a level of such hypothetical esotericism that I don't there's any way we can, as humans, completely understand why.
In a rather roundabout way, that brings us back again to the subject of faith. At some point, you will always reach a gap between the two mountains of evidence, and you will have to jump. In some cases the gap is small, and you can stand with one foot on either side, but such vantages are unstable and often in time collapse either to one side or the other. In the end, it simply comes down to choice... and as someone once said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
This is a subtle point that I think most (professed) Christians don't grasp... the original sin was not eating the apple (or whatever fruit it was... the Bible doesn't actually say) or sex (as some people try to claim) but rebellion.
Perhaps I can explain this a little clearer:
God created humans with free will. That means that we can make our own choices as to whether we want to do good or do evil. Adam and Eve were created perfect, meaning that their inclination was toward good and, if they chose, they could have lived their entire lives without ever doing anything evil.
Eve was deceived. The devil told her that, if she did what God had prohibited, she could "become like God, knowing good and bad" -- in essence, this meant that she could either accept the morality and ethics she had been given by God, or she could reject them and choose for herself what was good and what was evil. She made the decision to reject God and make her own choices. Adam was not deceived, but he made the conscious choice to join Eve's side and decide for himself, rather than depending on God for answers.
This left an interesting dilemma: How could anyone know, anyway, what was good and what was evil? Sure, God said this was right and that wasn't, but how could it be proven? This is the most important question in the universe, something we call the issue of universal soverignty: the question of whether God has the right to be soverign, to make the rules, or whether we have the right to make our own rules.
The only way to prove which set of beliefs (or rules) was correct would be to allow each to be tested, and then to compare the results. So God set up an experiment (in which he already knew the outcome, but the purpose is to convince Satan, all the other spirit beings, and us):
He set a limit of time in which we could all make our own decisions. He would make sure that, at any given time, there would always be at least some small group of people who would be doing things according to His will (the control group, if you would), but he did not mandate which ones; everyone would be free to either decide for themselves or else align themselves with God. By the end of the set period of time, the evidence would be clear as to which choice was correct.
This is the only way that the issue could be settled once and for all, and this explains why God does not prevent bad things from happening, even to good people: if he were to prevent people from experiencing the consequences of their (and even others') mistakes, the experiment would be void.
After the experiment is complete, God has the power to restore everything that was lost: renew the earth and the physical universe, heal the physical, emotional, and mental damage among humans, and even bring back to life those that died innocent.
Now, I understand that not everyone will agree with me. You have the right to make your own choice, and I won't (and can't!) abridge that. But I didn't just make this up off the top of my head: this is the result of a lot of deep and careful Bible study. If you want to know why I believe what I do, or want to know how I can reconcile these beliefs with science, history, etc. (and I can, quite to my satisfaction) I'd be happy to explain, to the best of my ability.
Agreed. I don't think I'd have a problem with, for instance, Amazon patenting One-Click, as long as that patent expired after only, say, 12 months. In today's tech industry, that's still plenty of time to exploit a patent (and even to establish a sizable market share) without unduly injuring the creative work of others.
Yeah, people would argue that they have an unfair advantage, but I disagree. If you invent something legitimately new (okay, maybe Amazon was a bad example here...), I don't see a problem with you being able to patent it. A patent on a new programming tool, protocol, algorithm, etc. would only cripple the industry if:
In the first case, shorter patent lengths would resolve much of the issue. It usually takes some time for other researchers to duplicate a protocol, algorithm, etc. and I don't think 12 months would be too long. In the second case, the only real solution is for patent holders to give some consideration to the industry and patent only the specific applications that they plan to use. Shorter patent lengths, though, would seem to be the next best thing.
Of course, I think that the situation is very different in Microsoft's case -- here we have a convicted monopolist, and I don't think they deserve to have any additional monopolistic power, even if it is "temporary."
And it has a tabbed mode. (Well, Konq has tabs now, too, so I guess that's not as big a point as it used to be.)
I never use bookmarks. If I'll need a page again soon, I just leave the tab open. If I may need it again sometime in the more distant future, there's always Google.
You're right: Konqueror kicks the socks off a lot of other browsers. But from what I've seen of both, though, I like Galeon's interface and the Gecko engine just a tad bit better.
Of course, this is IMHO; YMMV.
Or, perhaps, +1 Scary...
...And here I am having just spent my last mod point.
You do realize, don't you, that there is a word for that kind of activity?
For a while, the fonts were still available here, but I just checked it and it looks like they were taken down from there too.
Dr. Scratchansniff: I'll have a small popcorn.
Mitch: We don't have small.
Dr. Scratchansniff: Then give me a medium.
Mitch: We don't have medium.
Dr. Scratchansniff: Well, what _do_ you have?
Mitch: Large, Super-Chubby, and Double-Super-Chubby.
Dr. Scratchansniff: Then isn't a "Large", a "Small"?
Mitch: Uh, I'll have to ask my manager.
Mitch: You want fries with that?
Dr. Scratchansniff: Why would I want fries with popcorn?
Mitch: Uh, I'll have to ask my manager.
-- Drive Insane
(Reformatted stupidly to get past the lameness filter.)
The doctor goes to the concession stand for popcorn...
Dr. SnS: I'd like a small popcorn.
Pimply Employee: Uh... we don't have small.
Dr. SnS: Then I'd like a medium popcorn.
Employee: Uh... we don't have medium...
Dr. SnS: (exasperated) What do you have?
Employee: Large, Extra Large, and Double Super Chunky.
Dr. SnS: (gesturing with hands) Then isn't a Large a Small?
Employee: (clearly confused) Uhhh... Let me go ask my manager about that.
Comic Book Guy wannabees, feel free to correct me for where I got it worng.
Certainly, if bandwidth became prohibitive, OSDN and Google could participate in some kind of joint-marketing project, with branded links ("click here for OpenSSL -- Powered by Google!") and/or advertising. I'd gladly put up with unobtrusive advertising in the google cache if it meant that I could get what I need to secure my system.
Of course, the flip side is this: the grandparent post suggested slashdot "pull a google". Why reinvent the wheel? Why not just force editors to include links to the google cache whenever possible. Keep in mind that the cached page will have a link to see the uncached version, so people who want to get up-to-date information can. If the focus of the story is images rather than text, include some links to the google cache of the images (maybe below the fold if there's a lot of them, so they don't clutter up the main page).
Taco & the gang have this attitude that there's nothing they can do about it. I disagree. It wouldn't even have to be that hard.
Just my two and a half cents.
Then, when the bubble burst and it all collapsed, I can imagine a hurried meeting in Gates's or Ballmer's office, and someone shouting out, "I know! Let's just change the name to dot NET!"
And the rest, as they say, is history.
Oh, and it has to be said: It runs Linux! They officially support Red Hat and SuSE, but the driver is a kernel module for Linux 2.2 and better.
Check out the faq.
Off the top of my head:
- Non-commercial: check.
- Suit-free: I believe so.
- Social contract: check.
- Standards-based: check.
- Stable: AFAIK, Gentoo is just as stable as Debian, if not more so.
- apt: As much as I think apt is a great idea, Portage is better, IMHO.
Did I miss anything?In other words, by the definition above, the phrase could be reconstructed "No one has [so far] volunteer[ed]" or (by flipping the clause) "So far, no one has volunteered."
I just realized that there is no other simple construction that uses the infinitive; every alternative I can find changes the infinitive to a past tense. Actually, I think that's exactly what the sentence needs. My preference would be the construction "No one has yet volunteered" -- a simple change, but one that makes the phrase substantially less ambiguous.
I just checked the Associated Press Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style, and couldn't find a definitive reference in either for this construction. (How I wish I had a copy of Strunk & White by my desk...) If anyone can find a reference to support (or to refute, I'd be interested), please post it. Thanks!