Have you been approached to play Batman? (Or Robin?)
Hmmm. Given that this isn't going to be Dark Knight Returns or Kingdom Come, they might as well start over with a new (or a Next, ahem) generation of actors. Superman requires a wholesome, All-American actor.
Honestly, can you imagine anyone better than Wil? You could just see him on a Young Republican recruitment poster, and most people will remember him as the too good to be true "I'll-save-the-day!" Wesley Crusher.
Kick the campaign off, it'll get my name on it. Or maybe I just want to see him in a skintight unitard again.
Wonder how the world will look like in 20 years? 50? 100?
A parched post-apocalyptic wasteland, where the only things not in short supply are ammo, cosmetics, and very revealing clothes made primarily out of leather and bits of tyres, of course.
True, but that doesn't invalidate the parent's supposition. eBay's total equity is "only" $1,527,605,000, which is well within Microsoft's purchasing capability. Especially for, as you say, a profitable business.
Their argument, whether you agree with it or not, was that artists should have final say on what is shared and what is not. On this point I would have to agree with them. It shouldn't be the fan's or the label's decision. The decision should be the artists that created the work. If they want to selectively allow some works to be shared and others not, it should be their perogative.
This is absolutely correct. It's the letter and spirit of copyright law.
Unfortunately, it's also largely irrelevant, because the vast majority of artists don't own the rights to their own work. They have chosen to sell them to big labels, and have no legal or moral rights to comment on how that work is used.
The only people that can comment on the work are the weasels in suits at the labels. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the law, and I suggest that it's also what's right, because artists are persuaded to sign away all rights not by being beaten with a stick, but by being shown a huge carrot.
You can argue that artists don't have a choice, that the only way to get wide distribution is to sign in blood to a label. Bullshit. If you want wide distribution, put your music on gnutella. Signing with a label is about greed, it's about gambling that you'll be in the 1% that actually makes money, and makes it big. Oh, delicious irony, that 99% of artists are wrong, and get screwed. Dumb, greedy fucks.
I was one of the few people that actually agreed with the substance of what Metallica were saying. But the trouble was that they should have stuck to just talking about themselves, rather than appearing on a platform with repulsive label weasels, and dribbling on about other artists' rights (most of whom have none). If they were being honest, they should have said "Screw everyone else. Just don't pirate our stuff, because we've been good to you in the past, you selfish fuckers." But they didn't, they toed the corporate line and tried to imply that the respect that they'd earned also applied to the hordes of talentless meat puppets that infest the airwaves and MTV-a-like channels. Bzzt, wrong, both legally and morally.
There is no law against a citezen giving a campaign donation
Uhhh, head hurts. I'm. Not. A. US. Citizen. It's technically illegal for US politicians to accept campaign contributions from non-US sources. But it's perfectly legal fo them to accept unlimited bribes from corporations with any sort of US arm, even if the company is international or based outside the US.
[blah blah blah, egotistical fans will pan Ep3 whatever, so there's no point in trying to do a good one, blah blah blah]
Are you honestly saying that there's no point in making a decent episode 3 simply because Comic Book Guys will shred it on first release?
That is the most appalling attitude that I have seen espoused about films in a long time. Should we all just send letters to the MPAA saying "Make any old crap you want. It really doesn't matter, you don't need us to like it, just to pay to see how much we hate it."
The sad part is that this attitude already seems endemic. Personally, I'm going to sit it out until Ang Lee and James Shamus bring us the Hulk in 2003. If that falls flat, then that about wraps it up for Hollywood as far as I'm concerned.:(
I love him, and I want to have his babies. I want to be his meat puppet of love.
And the scary bit? I am not joking. This is the one elected representative who gets it, who's prepared to stand up and say so, and is not buying the line that what's good for big shareholders isn't necessary good for us.
The worst part? I'm not a US citizen, and so I'm not supposed to be allowed to donate campaign contributions. And yet, strangely, Hollings can take money from any US business that he likes. I despair.
Don't take it too seriously. [...] if you sit there being all critical about it the whole time, you're ruining it for yourself. Blame the movie if you want, but remember that's your $7.50 you're burning up.
So, you're basically saying that nobody should post bad reviews of movies, because they've missed the point?
Excuse me, but if I want happy-joy-joy reviews, I'll get them from shills like Harry Knowles or one of the crowd of newspaper reviewers climbing over each other to give a rave review that gets their name on the poster.
But if I want to read honest reviews by viewers, I'll go to forums like this, where I can read a spectrum of viewpoints, and check up on the history of the commentators. Preferably without small minded attempts at censorship from preachy cocksuckers like you. We clear?
I suppose that in your imaginary world everyone who uses MS products is stupid, lazy, corrupt, or incompetent.
I was very careful to say "buying Microsoft today"
.
Windows 2000/XP are damn good server and desktop environments
Win2K is, I use it myself. I didn't pay for it, but I'll do that when I get the refund for the Win98SE installation that I was forced to buy on my laptop. WinXP Pro is Win2K with a respun GUI, a vile licensing scheme, and an auto-update mechanism that's more of a liability than a benefit in a business context.
most companies that use them have most likely reviewed the alternatives and found them wanting.
As we're just talking probabilities, I'll conjecture that most companies that use them have also ignored the mid term licensing and ownership issues, and the long term costs of being locked in to a proprietary solution, with every increasing costs to leave.
Grow up. Insulting, patronizing responses like this one
Which one? Mine or yours?
Take a flying leap into a bath of bat shit. I'm sick and tired of explaining to morons why the product isn't the same as the executable. The reason why I said "Microsoft today" is because anyone in a business context who doesn't have an exit strategy planned now is going to be pushed for time to get out before Palladium bites. And when that happens, they'll be paying to rent access to their own hardware and data.
As I said, I pity you, but I won't shed a tear when you have to make the decision to pay to stay with Microsoft or pay more to leave. I suspect you'll just keep smiling and telling your employer to hand over the cash, because to do otherwise would demonstrate what a chump you were.
The amount of wheat that I consume is a virtually irrelevent point, because that amount of wheat can be grown again
Sure, virtually irrelevant. If you discount the space needed to grow that wheat, the pesticides (and byproducts of pesticide manufacture) entering the water system because of it, the biomass of fertilizer used, and the energy requirements (mostly from fossil fuels) of getting water to the wheat, and the wheat to your mouth. Unless you grow your own organic wheat locally? Do you?
Resources can be recycled, re-used, and re-allocated. We may not be doing the best job of this... or are we doing such a horrid job? The true answer is difficult to ascertain and cannot be done with such a limited analysis.
Gee, let's just make vague statements, because there isn't anything like a global information repository for us to draw on. No, wait... OK, let's see what the EPA has to say about recycling (which is "is an essential part of EPA's overall plan for reducing the amount of waste we generate", despite not being one of their Key Topics). Key quote "Today, this country recycles 28 percent of its waste, a rate that has almost doubled during the past 15 years." Draw your own inference from that. Will it keep on increasing, or have we already got all the easy stuff? Bear in mind that "recycling" in a US context can just mean "shift the problem offshore", which is hardly a global solution.
Improved extraction and refining techniques effectively increase the amount of any given resource that can be extracted from the Earth. [...] It may not be reasonable to suppose an infinite supply exists
Strangely, this is the only point on which I agree with you. It's just a shame that you slipped that whacko supposition in at the end. Or do you really believe that maybe if we just keep sucking harder and harder then the oil will just keep flowing?
As a consequence of much of the above, resources are created, not found.
You haven't shown that at all. You've demonstrated that access to available limited resources can be extended, and that the efficiency of use can be increased. None of that "creates" new resources, it just shifts the inflection point.
Your supposition about space exploitation is just that, and actually agrees with the WWF conclusion, that we're running out of things to dig out of the ground.
And your obsession with linear analysis is just that: a petty obsession, which ignores the qualitative substance of the issue. OK, let's talk non-linear. Human biomass growth is non-linear, as are the minimum resource requirements of that biomass. You've asserted (sight unseen) that the WWF report must be wrong on the assumption that it must be using linear prediction. Fine, then use your superior skills to predict the inflection point. What's your guess? Any idea? Any idea at all?
But worst of all, you are actually supporting everything that the WWF is saying. You just choose to dismiss it by proposing that the future will take care of itself, because "we have woken up". And yet you provide no evidence - none - that this has happened.
To me, 28% recycling - and a withdrawal from Kyoto - doesn't show that we've woken up. It just shows that we've realised that we're in a nightmare, but we don't know what to do about it. And every time that we (the people) shrug and say "Ah, whatcha gonna do?" it just gives our elected representatives a mandate do likewise on the basis that the solution will come from another source, like maybe some super-stable multinationals with long term (50+ year) strategies, or maybe something more believable, like the Tooth Fairy.
Dozens of posts saying "This will be the straw that finally makes Linux on the desktop a reality!"
Angry anecdotes from a few IT guys saying that they are pushing their employers to consider ditching Microsoft.
In the real world, the guys who actually make the decisions are suffering from fear, incompetence, laziness, tardiness or just good old fashioned inertia.
Absolutely nothing changes other than that Microsoft gets a tighter choke hold on their customers.
Seriously. Anyone still buying Microsoft today is doing so because they have to, because they're counting down the years until retirement and don't want to take a risk (nobody ever got sacked for buying Microsoft), or because they really are just too dumb to see that if they don't bail out before Palladium arrives, they'll never get out. I pity those people, but I don't expect any of them to suffer an attack of clue in the near future.
Given the popularity of the "Reality TV" shows these days that depend on home video and security camera footage, this could be a problem for the TV networks looking for shows to broadcast.
Is this rhetorical? They'll just watermark a copy of your footage. But that just validates your point that this is about all controlling who can create content.
I hear you though. I am seriously considering downsizing my life and finding a job where I can actually do something worthwhile (park ranger?). The only problem is that at the moment, making $40K before tax, I can barely afford a small 2 bedroom suburban house in a quiet kid-friendly residential area, a car that starts reliably, worthwhile healthcare, pension provision and a college fund for my (single) kid. I can cut back on a lot of things, but I don't want to (quite literally) gamble my family's life and future on an HMO, community college and ultimately social security.
Something for angry young men to to bear in mind is that a mortgage, a college fund and dental bills put a real crimp on high ideals.
does anyone actually believe the Russian promise to fund 30% (6 billion +) of the mission? Given their record with the ISS and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.
Enough with the petty bitterness. Instead of casting stones at Russia for doing what we won't, why not spend some energy exhorting your elected representative to support, or if you prefer, to compete with them. If you're looking for suggestions as to where we could get the money from, how about a reform of tort law that cost $82 billion a year. Back in 1990, that is. Want to bet that it isn't $100 billion a year now? We could fund a Mars mission easily if we just stopped parasiting off of ourselves and start looking outwards instead of inwards.
If you care about story quality, why even bother submitting here rather than K5? If you have a quality report on this, pop it in the edit queue there and revel in the feel of actually being appreciated rather than reviled for daring to submit.
Get other nerds to draw nice graphics and find neat sounds.
Dribble on about concepts and visions while yet more nerds put all the content together.
Get very rich.
Blow it all on a customised Ferrari.
Live the rest of your life in a desparate spiral of "nerds are the new rock starts" publicity, hyperbole, overselling, underperforming, and parasiting off of the occasional successes of people in your general vicinity.
Honestly, what has Romero got to teach anybody? How to be a success in the early 1990's and then live off of it for the rest of your life? What does he know about creating games in 2002, other than how not to do it?
He deserves a little respect for Doom, but that doesn't mean that it's sensible to listen to anything that he has to say now.
If you want to switch, just do it, don't advertise it.
Good points, but as a developer, I'd appreciate a short factual note saying that a user had switched, and the reasons why. Heck, if half of my users said that they'd switched to open source solution X, I'd have to give serious thought to acknowledging that it might be a better solution, and that my time would be better spent improving it rather than pushing my solution. Sourceforge is absolutely littered with completely obsoleted projects that stagger on through ego and inertia. I'd like to see a see more project pages that say "We're all working on Project X now, and we suggest that you switch too."
Use it responsibly to get faster downloads of the data that you actually want.
Get your snout in the trough and suck down everything you can before they admit that it's unsustainable and cut it, cap it, or start charging sensible money for it.
Incidentally, I'm in the first category, but I'm beginning to feel like I've been pretty stupid. Sure, I understand that "all you can eat" is just marketing blurb, and that the fees charged for retail flat rate services don't cover the ISP costs of using them to their full capacity. But why would the majority of customers understand or accept that? They're sold as always on, flat rate, all you can eat. A typical user (i.e. Joe Windows) would expect to be able to use them as such, which is why all of these schemes are doomed from the get go, and are just short term marketing schemes to attract customers (1. Burn money to attract customers away from other company's profitable schemes, 2...., 3. Profit!).
And so I'm inclined to say go for it, and leech like you've never leeched before. I know that's unsustainable, but the first sin is being committed by ISP's allowing their marketing droids to sell services as being all-you-can-eat, when that's just not true. Perhaps when they offer services based on an actual sustainable model them then we could consider supporting them. But as long as they're selling services that we know aren't going to work, purely to attract customers in the short term, then there's little point in being the only guy on the block trying to play by the spirit of the rules, because the letter of rules are going to change in the mid term anyway.
I am afraid unless Hacktivismo is really careful and knows what they're doing, their program may get some human rights workers tortured and killed.
I suspect that it'll actually be repressive regimes that do that, not Hacktivismo. Incidentally, where can we find the steganography tools that you've made publically available?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. Given that this isn't going to be Dark Knight Returns or Kingdom Come, they might as well start over with a new (or a Next, ahem) generation of actors. Superman requires a wholesome, All-American actor.
Honestly, can you imagine anyone better than Wil? You could just see him on a Young Republican recruitment poster, and most people will remember him as the too good to be true "I'll-save-the-day!" Wesley Crusher.
Kick the campaign off, it'll get my name on it. Or maybe I just want to see him in a skintight unitard again.
A parched post-apocalyptic wasteland, where the only things not in short supply are ammo, cosmetics, and very revealing clothes made primarily out of leather and bits of tyres, of course.
True, but that doesn't invalidate the parent's supposition. eBay's total equity is "only" $1,527,605,000, which is well within Microsoft's purchasing capability. Especially for, as you say, a profitable business.
This is absolutely correct. It's the letter and spirit of copyright law.
Unfortunately, it's also largely irrelevant, because the vast majority of artists don't own the rights to their own work. They have chosen to sell them to big labels, and have no legal or moral rights to comment on how that work is used.
The only people that can comment on the work are the weasels in suits at the labels. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the law, and I suggest that it's also what's right, because artists are persuaded to sign away all rights not by being beaten with a stick, but by being shown a huge carrot.
You can argue that artists don't have a choice, that the only way to get wide distribution is to sign in blood to a label. Bullshit. If you want wide distribution, put your music on gnutella. Signing with a label is about greed, it's about gambling that you'll be in the 1% that actually makes money, and makes it big. Oh, delicious irony, that 99% of artists are wrong, and get screwed. Dumb, greedy fucks.
I was one of the few people that actually agreed with the substance of what Metallica were saying. But the trouble was that they should have stuck to just talking about themselves, rather than appearing on a platform with repulsive label weasels, and dribbling on about other artists' rights (most of whom have none). If they were being honest, they should have said "Screw everyone else. Just don't pirate our stuff, because we've been good to you in the past, you selfish fuckers." But they didn't, they toed the corporate line and tried to imply that the respect that they'd earned also applied to the hordes of talentless meat puppets that infest the airwaves and MTV-a-like channels. Bzzt, wrong, both legally and morally.
Uhhh, head hurts. I'm. Not. A. US. Citizen. It's technically illegal for US politicians to accept campaign contributions from non-US sources. But it's perfectly legal fo them to accept unlimited bribes from corporations with any sort of US arm, even if the company is international or based outside the US.
Are you honestly saying that there's no point in making a decent episode 3 simply because Comic Book Guys will shred it on first release?
That is the most appalling attitude that I have seen espoused about films in a long time. Should we all just send letters to the MPAA saying "Make any old crap you want. It really doesn't matter, you don't need us to like it, just to pay to see how much we hate it."
The sad part is that this attitude already seems endemic. Personally, I'm going to sit it out until Ang Lee and James Shamus bring us the Hulk in 2003. If that falls flat, then that about wraps it up for Hollywood as far as I'm concerned. :(
I love him, and I want to have his babies. I want to be his meat puppet of love.
And the scary bit? I am not joking. This is the one elected representative who gets it, who's prepared to stand up and say so, and is not buying the line that what's good for big shareholders isn't necessary good for us.
The worst part? I'm not a US citizen, and so I'm not supposed to be allowed to donate campaign contributions. And yet, strangely, Hollings can take money from any US business that he likes. I despair.
Yeah, and my new car broke down after five miles, but hell, I got a whole five miles out of it, right?
Go. Fuck. Yo. Momma.
So, you're basically saying that nobody should post bad reviews of movies, because they've missed the point?
Excuse me, but if I want happy-joy-joy reviews, I'll get them from shills like Harry Knowles or one of the crowd of newspaper reviewers climbing over each other to give a rave review that gets their name on the poster.
But if I want to read honest reviews by viewers, I'll go to forums like this, where I can read a spectrum of viewpoints, and check up on the history of the commentators. Preferably without small minded attempts at censorship from preachy cocksuckers like you. We clear?
I was very careful to say "buying Microsoft today"
.Win2K is, I use it myself. I didn't pay for it, but I'll do that when I get the refund for the Win98SE installation that I was forced to buy on my laptop. WinXP Pro is Win2K with a respun GUI, a vile licensing scheme, and an auto-update mechanism that's more of a liability than a benefit in a business context.
As we're just talking probabilities, I'll conjecture that most companies that use them have also ignored the mid term licensing and ownership issues, and the long term costs of being locked in to a proprietary solution, with every increasing costs to leave.
Which one? Mine or yours?
Take a flying leap into a bath of bat shit. I'm sick and tired of explaining to morons why the product isn't the same as the executable. The reason why I said "Microsoft today" is because anyone in a business context who doesn't have an exit strategy planned now is going to be pushed for time to get out before Palladium bites. And when that happens, they'll be paying to rent access to their own hardware and data.
As I said, I pity you, but I won't shed a tear when you have to make the decision to pay to stay with Microsoft or pay more to leave. I suspect you'll just keep smiling and telling your employer to hand over the cash, because to do otherwise would demonstrate what a chump you were.
Sure, virtually irrelevant. If you discount the space needed to grow that wheat, the pesticides (and byproducts of pesticide manufacture) entering the water system because of it, the biomass of fertilizer used, and the energy requirements (mostly from fossil fuels) of getting water to the wheat, and the wheat to your mouth. Unless you grow your own organic wheat locally? Do you?
Gee, let's just make vague statements, because there isn't anything like a global information repository for us to draw on. No, wait... OK, let's see what the EPA has to say about recycling (which is "is an essential part of EPA's overall plan for reducing the amount of waste we generate", despite not being one of their Key Topics). Key quote "Today, this country recycles 28 percent of its waste, a rate that has almost doubled during the past 15 years." Draw your own inference from that. Will it keep on increasing, or have we already got all the easy stuff? Bear in mind that "recycling" in a US context can just mean "shift the problem offshore", which is hardly a global solution.
Strangely, this is the only point on which I agree with you. It's just a shame that you slipped that whacko supposition in at the end. Or do you really believe that maybe if we just keep sucking harder and harder then the oil will just keep flowing?
You haven't shown that at all. You've demonstrated that access to available limited resources can be extended, and that the efficiency of use can be increased. None of that "creates" new resources, it just shifts the inflection point.
Your supposition about space exploitation is just that, and actually agrees with the WWF conclusion, that we're running out of things to dig out of the ground.
And your obsession with linear analysis is just that: a petty obsession, which ignores the qualitative substance of the issue. OK, let's talk non-linear. Human biomass growth is non-linear, as are the minimum resource requirements of that biomass. You've asserted (sight unseen) that the WWF report must be wrong on the assumption that it must be using linear prediction. Fine, then use your superior skills to predict the inflection point. What's your guess? Any idea? Any idea at all?
But worst of all, you are actually supporting everything that the WWF is saying. You just choose to dismiss it by proposing that the future will take care of itself, because "we have woken up". And yet you provide no evidence - none - that this has happened.
To me, 28% recycling - and a withdrawal from Kyoto - doesn't show that we've woken up. It just shows that we've realised that we're in a nightmare, but we don't know what to do about it. And every time that we (the people) shrug and say "Ah, whatcha gonna do?" it just gives our elected representatives a mandate do likewise on the basis that the solution will come from another source, like maybe some super-stable multinationals with long term (50+ year) strategies, or maybe something more believable, like the Tooth Fairy.
Seriously. Anyone still buying Microsoft today is doing so because they have to, because they're counting down the years until retirement and don't want to take a risk (nobody ever got sacked for buying Microsoft), or because they really are just too dumb to see that if they don't bail out before Palladium arrives, they'll never get out. I pity those people, but I don't expect any of them to suffer an attack of clue in the near future.
No, you don't. Care to re-phrase that a little?
- MS has asked OEMs to stop immediately the shipment dual-boot systems running Win2k/WinXP
--What you say?All your customer base are belong to us.
Is this rhetorical? They'll just watermark a copy of your footage. But that just validates your point that this is about all controlling who can create content.
IP Lawyer. Lots of work for them coming up.
I hear you though. I am seriously considering downsizing my life and finding a job where I can actually do something worthwhile (park ranger?). The only problem is that at the moment, making $40K before tax, I can barely afford a small 2 bedroom suburban house in a quiet kid-friendly residential area, a car that starts reliably, worthwhile healthcare, pension provision and a college fund for my (single) kid. I can cut back on a lot of things, but I don't want to (quite literally) gamble my family's life and future on an HMO, community college and ultimately social security.
Something for angry young men to to bear in mind is that a mortgage, a college fund and dental bills put a real crimp on high ideals.
Jeez, what are you, the accuracy police? The guy said "Fe", so he must have a black belt in psuedoscience. Don't interject with actual facts!
Does anyone believe the US promise to fund $14.5 billion of the ISS? Given their record with the UN and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.
Oh, plus Bush has already reneged. Perhaps if we renamed it the "US Anti Terrorist Orbitting Death Platform" it could get funding under the current climate.
Enough with the petty bitterness. Instead of casting stones at Russia for doing what we won't, why not spend some energy exhorting your elected representative to support, or if you prefer, to compete with them. If you're looking for suggestions as to where we could get the money from, how about a reform of tort law that cost $82 billion a year. Back in 1990, that is. Want to bet that it isn't $100 billion a year now? We could fund a Mars mission easily if we just stopped parasiting off of ourselves and start looking outwards instead of inwards.
If you care about story quality, why even bother submitting here rather than K5? If you have a quality report on this, pop it in the edit queue there and revel in the feel of actually being appreciated rather than reviled for daring to submit.
Honestly, what has Romero got to teach anybody? How to be a success in the early 1990's and then live off of it for the rest of your life? What does he know about creating games in 2002, other than how not to do it?
He deserves a little respect for Doom, but that doesn't mean that it's sensible to listen to anything that he has to say now.
Good points, but as a developer, I'd appreciate a short factual note saying that a user had switched, and the reasons why. Heck, if half of my users said that they'd switched to open source solution X, I'd have to give serious thought to acknowledging that it might be a better solution, and that my time would be better spent improving it rather than pushing my solution. Sourceforge is absolutely littered with completely obsoleted projects that stagger on through ego and inertia. I'd like to see a see more project pages that say "We're all working on Project X now, and we suggest that you switch too."
But it leaves you with a tough choice:
Incidentally, I'm in the first category, but I'm beginning to feel like I've been pretty stupid. Sure, I understand that "all you can eat" is just marketing blurb, and that the fees charged for retail flat rate services don't cover the ISP costs of using them to their full capacity. But why would the majority of customers understand or accept that? They're sold as always on, flat rate, all you can eat. A typical user (i.e. Joe Windows) would expect to be able to use them as such, which is why all of these schemes are doomed from the get go, and are just short term marketing schemes to attract customers (1. Burn money to attract customers away from other company's profitable schemes, 2. ..., 3. Profit!).
And so I'm inclined to say go for it, and leech like you've never leeched before. I know that's unsustainable, but the first sin is being committed by ISP's allowing their marketing droids to sell services as being all-you-can-eat, when that's just not true. Perhaps when they offer services based on an actual sustainable model them then we could consider supporting them. But as long as they're selling services that we know aren't going to work, purely to attract customers in the short term, then there's little point in being the only guy on the block trying to play by the spirit of the rules, because the letter of rules are going to change in the mid term anyway.
I suspect that it'll actually be repressive regimes that do that, not Hacktivismo. Incidentally, where can we find the steganography tools that you've made publically available?
Damn. Oh well, I guess I'll just use the tool you released. Where can I get it?