>Give me old-fashioned hand crafted efforts any time.
ok Kiss, you're building up quite a career being a neo-luddite. John K would be proud... you never disappoint
Computers don't 'do' the animation any more than your car 'drives' you to work. I'm just boggled that people think this. That's like implying that your computer balances your checkbook. Or the computer 'made' the mp3 that you're listening too. Computers are tools, thats all. Lets quit personifying them and giving them abilities far beyond being really fast abacus'.
Computers don't write the story. Computers don't insert the mindless sidekicks with their anacronistic references, the painful sappy tunes, or the Happy Meal tie-ins. And there my friend lies the tragedy of most modern animation. It isn't the technology, it's the lack of creativity and merchandising and drive for the bucks.
>I remember when I was a child, watching such >classics as Bambi and Dumbo, which were lovingly >handcrafted by teams of patient animators.
Have you worked in a current, feature animation house? I have. Guess what - animation is STILL handcrafted by teams of patient animators. Who do you think does it? Who lays down the poses - does the inbetweening, does the background painting? It's people. Computers have only replaced the mindless background tasks that were dying to be automated.... ink-n-paint, compositing and some special effects that could never have been done by hand anyway.
>I just feel that modern animations, such as Toy
>Story and the like, lack the interest of the
>old, and have a patina of artificiality.
I've been to Pixar. I have several friends who work there. Every frame of their movies is handcrafted with tons of sweat and tears. The story is substantially and thoroughly developed (unlike the cookie-cutter stories coming out of elsewhere). If you don't like the visual look - fine, that is an artistic choice. But it doesn't LESSEN the work that they are doing. Most ANIMATORS that are hired at Pixar have never used a computer before. They are hired because they can ANIMATE, for no other reason. You can teach anybody how to operate a computer, but animation is a SKILL. You don't just buy some boxes from SGI and get the talent. It's the same if you're producing acetate cells or doing stop-motion. But you probably think Chicken Run is modern and evil too.....
By this is Slashdot. Don't let not knowing anything about how animation is really produced stop you from participating...
>Ok, I'm into more power as much as the next
>person, but seriously, who needs a personal
>desktop PC that has clockspeeds of billions of
>cycles per second?
Ummm.... LOTS of people? The current application i'm developing has a build time of over an hour for a full build - thats on the fastest PIII we could buy. Faster it gets, the more productive i can be.
As well, my last job was 3D animation and rendering. When frame render times are measured in hours. People want the fastest machine they can get, irregardless of cost. When you're already paying somebody $150k+ a year, spending 3000 for a computer thats 20% faster pays for itself in a few weeks.....
Of course this doesn't apply to your secretary running Word.... but if you bought her a PIII you have more money than brains anyway.....
C'mon kiss. You usually put some more work into your trolls than that. Since this is really just a cut'n'paste version of your last one, i won't bother shooting it down. It just isn't sporting...
>Code morphing is a great way to transition to
>VLIW, but dynamic translation and
>parallelization will always be slower than
>native processes.
No. you're actually wrong (though it is counter-intuitive). Dynamic translation lets you make optimizations at runtime about the behavior of the code that can't be done statically at compile time (or even as well in the CPU using branch prediction, etc etc) . e.g. check out the 'Dynamo' project at HP - emulate the PA-RISC processor on top of itself in software, and get substantial speed improvements....
>I would lay the blame of much of the problems we >have in society today at the doors of science. >Einsteins Relativity theory and the >uncertainties of Quantum Mechanics have filtered >down into the Moral Relativism and uncertainty >we see around us today
Please site one example of quantum mechanics filtering down into 'moral relativism'. Please cite sources.
Where are we - back in the 16th century - going to lock Galileo in his house because suggesting that the earth went around the sun? It WAS a scary thought. But it was true. The former outweighs the latter in my book EVERYTIME.
Sorry - i don't feel ANY obligations to shelter you from reality if it shatters your illusions, or proves that a belief or truth that you have held to be wrong. Being able to cope with changes like that is what makes a person emotionally strong.
>You cannot monkey about with a society's
>certaintys and worldview without expecting
>consequences. We have seen a lot of that this >century.
what 'certainties'? If something is wrong it's wrong. FACT. The earth is not flat. The sun does not go around the world. We are decended from single celled protazoa. None of these facts make me feel any less at all. That is the world - and I LOVE learning more about it. I can't think of a single scientific discovery that has EVER made me feel less. On the contrary, i find them empowering and a statement to the genuis that is 'man'.
>t that they censor themselves.
No, you want a censor. You want the status quo. Science isn't about that. If you want consistent, dogmatic teachings there are a multititude of applicable religions, cults, socieites, or political parties (grin) suited to you.
Going out at night and staring at the stars doesn't make me want to weep because I'm so 'insignificant'. My jaw hangs open in wonder because the universe is such an incredible place to be - and i'm just happy to be here.
Are you an adult? Presentation-schezentation. Just the *facts* ma'am.
If i gave you a nice big shit sandwich, on a toasty whole wheat bun with cheeze and some nice garnishes i wouldn't expect you to gulp it down.
You don't like the message - don't attack the messenger, no matter how it's presented. In the same vein, don't just swallow any message if it IS presented well.
Science isn't about making you feel good. It may, it may not. Cope with that (or bury your head in the sand). If you want something guaranteed to make you feel nice, give your mom a call.
>When they discover something new, they always
>get some talking head to say 'It just shows how
>insignificant we are'
When i hear somebody telling me how important i am, i usually check to make sure my wallet is still there. Don't confuse somebody kissing your ass with the message. THAT is why civilization is in a decline (in my opinion). Too many people have surrendered their rational thought, instead happy to be placated with platitudes of how 'important' they are.
>But I don't think they will any time soon, as >they seem to labour under the illusion that
>science is about demeaning our cultures status,
>not enhancing it, and have done so for the last >500 years
Oh bullshit. I hope that i'm not in the minority when i feel that the true aim of science is TRUTH.... irregardless of if it gives you a warm fuzzy, or makes you feel cosmically insignificant.
Reality is NOT a zero sum game. The 'gain' of a monkey speaking sign language is not a 'loss' for homo sapiens. If your neighbor gets a better car than you, does that mean you are somehow 'less'? If you answered yes to that, get professional counselling.
>just how important we are
Get over yourself. The purpose of the universe isn't to make you feel important.
You want science to make you feel important? I have a few papal indulgences to sell you too...
>What's increasingly becoming important, though, >is that the people doing this criticism are not
>programmers. They are web developers.
Unless i'm missing the point, the ARE the people that should be criticizing it.
The project is at a stage that it shouldn't be judged on it's code beauty, design, bug burn rate, or social importance. It needs to be judged if it works or not. And i'd think web developers should be pretty high on the list.
Thats like saying drivers aren't allowed to judge cars, only engineers.
>mozillaZine's stance is largely taken because >the people doing the majority of the flaming are
>not people actively involved in bettering the >
>project.
just because you don't like 'who' is flaming, doesn't make them 'wrong'. That a very old (and low in my book) political tactic. If you can't attact the words your opponent uses, attack the opponent.
>model. By comparison (I'm not sure if anyone
>noticed this) Computerworld had a front page
>story a couple of weeks ago about how there were
>problems with Solaris on Sun's Enterprise
>systems, yadda yaddda
I'd have more respect for Bob/RH if he hadn't responded to all this.
Here's a very basic premise of life in general (IMHO) - "Comparing your own stupid, boneheaded move to someone elses MORE stupid boneheaded move doesn't make yours any better."
>Remember that this debate was begun by someone >going to Red Hat's public site and trying to add >up all the registered bugs in Red Hat 7. When
>was the last time Microsoft (or any other legacy
>software vendor for that matter) gave you access
>to their complete bug registration system?
Microsoft giving access to their bug database has NOTHING to do with the # of RedHat bugs.... or does it
Microsoft _may_ be evil (not a silly debate that i let myself get pulled into), but don't try to make yourself look BETTER by comparison. I mean, we could bring Stalin into it and make RH look amazing!
Be careful - better be able to back up your comment, otherwise that's libelous/slanderous (I'm not saying that it isn't *true*, but the second case u better be ready to PROVE it, and have a lawyer handy. Certain types of disparaging remarks will land u in court - and for good reason. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that u don't have to answer for your words).
>. To me, it seems like most of the "X11 is bad!"
>cries are from people who don't understand what
>it is and when benefits it has over the current
>schemes, which is unfortunate because neither
>Microsoft or Macintosh offers some of its
>greatest benefits
Don't get me wrong.... no 'X11 is bad!' cries here. X lets me get a lot done..... BUT at the same time i refuse to agree with the standard./ mantra that if you have X (specifically Xfree86) then life is complete.
Nonsense. X has some huge holes in it, or at least limitations due to the era in which it was conceived. I don't advocate just throwing it away immediately, but the status quo isn't something that interests me.
>And since X is a protocol, it is neither slow,
>buggy or holding anything back any more than
>HTTP is slow, buggy or holding the web back. So
>can we please stop with the "X is bad" rhetoric?
huh? So a protocol in and of itself can't be good or bad? Come on.... (that is why HTTP *has* been improved, persistent connections, etc, because as things scale it *does* hold back the web)
And besides... this isn't 1975 anymore. I think we can do better than blasting bitmaps across the network using a broken security scheme.
(I'm not trying to upsell MacOSX by any means... but lets quit worshipping at the altar of X11. I mean, it gets the job done {mostly}, but it is LONG overdue for a replacement.)
>Personally, I'd rather keep my cell phone
>out of my Pilot and vice-versa.
nah. They problem is that we're reaching the ergonomic limit of cell phones, while manufacturers keep pushing to make them smaller.... Result? i can only dial using my finger nail because the buttons are so @#*&^@#*$ small i can't push normally and not hit 2 or 3. Cell phones can't get much smaller and be useful, so start putting more functionality in the case. I've been wondering how long it would take somebody to combine one with a good PDA....
Personally, I'm waiting for Samsungs one coming out this fall that's an MP3 player too... now THAT's useful.....
Well -not being a geologist myself- if memory serves, C-14 dating is *only* really useful for biological structures. I'd assume they are using isotopes of other elements.
>Hate to break it to you guys, but when you're
>doing "real work" like rendering (or anything >else), the OS is 100% totally and completely
>IRRELIVANT.
In theory, yes. Rendering is just math.
.... BUT. The os does come into play - context switching speed, VM system, general efficiency, etc.
Originally production houses were switching from SGI to NT boxes to save $$$$ - hard to justify the price performance of an Octane when a cheaper dual PIII would whip it in number crunching.
Now people are switching from NT to Linux. Personally I don't give a crap about what OS you use (i use both), but from my own personal benchmarks and graphics companies that i've contracted for, Linux can give 10-30% greater throughput on the same hardware.
Also - most large production houses WERE based on SGI's - so it is easier to move their custom code from IRIX to Linux.
(have you tried to administer NT boxes remotely? )
the other reason PIXAR uses Sparc machines is because they don't pay much for them - they have a rather nice deal with Sun where sun gets bragging rights and PIXAR pays less.....
>Would they? Given the Linus' standing, would
>we care as much about Transmeta if he
>wasn't involved?
try to see past the end of your nose. The 'WE' that you used in your sentence is very important. It shows why the whole 'slashdot world' has whipped themselves in a frenzy over Transmeta. Most of the rest of the world doesn't really care much that Linus is there or not - it's an interesting point on a press release.
Transmeta is interesting tech - and don't forget they have a lot of TOP chip design people there. It's only the incestuous linux community that keeps banging on the Linus drum. The rest of the world is ambivalent.
>we should welcome steps to reduce the costs of
>insurance premiums by the elimination of high >risk, high cost applicants.
So, insurance companies should be allowed to ONLY insure those who won't actually cash in on the coverage huh? Nice racket if you can get it.... give me a freakin break...
Slashdot Mirror
>Give me old-fashioned hand crafted efforts any time.
ok Kiss, you're building up quite a career being a neo-luddite. John K would be proud... you never disappoint
Computers don't 'do' the animation any more than your car 'drives' you to work. I'm just boggled that people think this. That's like implying that your computer balances your checkbook. Or the computer 'made' the mp3 that you're listening too. Computers are tools, thats all. Lets quit personifying them and giving them abilities far beyond being really fast abacus'.
Computers don't write the story. Computers don't insert the mindless sidekicks with their anacronistic references, the painful sappy tunes, or the Happy Meal tie-ins. And there my friend lies the tragedy of most modern animation. It isn't the technology, it's the lack of creativity and merchandising and drive for the bucks.
>I remember when I was a child, watching such >classics as Bambi and Dumbo, which were lovingly >handcrafted by teams of patient animators.
Have you worked in a current, feature animation house? I have. Guess what - animation is STILL handcrafted by teams of patient animators. Who do you think does it? Who lays down the poses - does the inbetweening, does the background painting? It's people. Computers have only replaced the mindless background tasks that were dying to be automated.... ink-n-paint, compositing and some special effects that could never have been done by hand anyway.
>I just feel that modern animations, such as Toy
>Story and the like, lack the interest of the
>old, and have a patina of artificiality.
I've been to Pixar. I have several friends who work there. Every frame of their movies is handcrafted with tons of sweat and tears. The story is substantially and thoroughly developed (unlike the cookie-cutter stories coming out of elsewhere). If you don't like the visual look - fine, that is an artistic choice. But it doesn't LESSEN the work that they are doing. Most ANIMATORS that are hired at Pixar have never used a computer before. They are hired because they can ANIMATE, for no other reason. You can teach anybody how to operate a computer, but animation is a SKILL. You don't just buy some boxes from SGI and get the talent. It's the same if you're producing acetate cells or doing stop-motion. But you probably think Chicken Run is modern and evil too.....
By this is Slashdot. Don't let not knowing anything about how animation is really produced stop you from participating...
j
>Ok, I'm into more power as much as the next
>person, but seriously, who needs a personal
>desktop PC that has clockspeeds of billions of
>cycles per second?
Ummm.... LOTS of people? The current application i'm developing has a build time of over an hour for a full build - thats on the fastest PIII we could buy. Faster it gets, the more productive i can be.
As well, my last job was 3D animation and rendering. When frame render times are measured in hours. People want the fastest machine they can get, irregardless of cost. When you're already paying somebody $150k+ a year, spending 3000 for a computer thats 20% faster pays for itself in a few weeks.....
Of course this doesn't apply to your secretary running Word.... but if you bought her a PIII you have more money than brains anyway.....
j
C'mon kiss. You usually put some more work into your trolls than that. Since this is really just a cut'n'paste version of your last one, i won't bother shooting it down. It just isn't sporting...
>Code morphing is a great way to transition to
m o- 1.html
/
>VLIW, but dynamic translation and
>parallelization will always be slower than
>native processes.
No. you're actually wrong (though it is counter-intuitive). Dynamic translation lets you make optimizations at runtime about the behavior of the code that can't be done statically at compile time (or even as well in the CPU using branch prediction, etc etc) . e.g. check out the 'Dynamo' project at HP - emulate the PA-RISC processor on top of itself in software, and get substantial speed improvements....
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/dynamo/dyna
http://www.hpl.hp.com/cambridge/projects/Dynamo
>I wonder, is the 'geek' community especcially
>prone to overbearing sentimentality?
Have you SEEN what people are willing to pay for beenie babies (and other assorted crap) on EBay?
>If the universe is curved, how do we know we are
>not looking at our own galaxy, from a long ago
>time?
there are a # of experiements being performed now looking at this thesis.
(btw - if the distance for a light round trip is > speed of light * age of universe we wouldn't see ourselves anyway).
>I would lay the blame of much of the problems we >have in society today at the doors of science. >Einsteins Relativity theory and the >uncertainties of Quantum Mechanics have filtered >down into the Moral Relativism and uncertainty >we see around us today
Please site one example of quantum mechanics filtering down into 'moral relativism'. Please cite sources.
Where are we - back in the 16th century - going to lock Galileo in his house because suggesting that the earth went around the sun? It WAS a scary thought. But it was true. The former outweighs the latter in my book EVERYTIME.
Sorry - i don't feel ANY obligations to shelter you from reality if it shatters your illusions, or proves that a belief or truth that you have held to be wrong. Being able to cope with changes like that is what makes a person emotionally strong.
>You cannot monkey about with a society's
>certaintys and worldview without expecting
>consequences. We have seen a lot of that this >century.
what 'certainties'? If something is wrong it's wrong. FACT. The earth is not flat. The sun does not go around the world. We are decended from single celled protazoa. None of these facts make me feel any less at all. That is the world - and I LOVE learning more about it. I can't think of a single scientific discovery that has EVER made me feel less. On the contrary, i find them empowering and a statement to the genuis that is 'man'.
>t that they censor themselves.
No, you want a censor. You want the status quo. Science isn't about that. If you want consistent, dogmatic teachings there are a multititude of applicable religions, cults, socieites, or political parties (grin) suited to you.
Going out at night and staring at the stars doesn't make me want to weep because I'm so 'insignificant'. My jaw hangs open in wonder because the universe is such an incredible place to be - and i'm just happy to be here.
This is left as an exercise to the reader.
j
>Presentation is the key.
Are you an adult? Presentation-schezentation. Just the *facts* ma'am.
If i gave you a nice big shit sandwich, on a toasty whole wheat bun with cheeze and some nice garnishes i wouldn't expect you to gulp it down.
You don't like the message - don't attack the messenger, no matter how it's presented. In the same vein, don't just swallow any message if it IS presented well.
Science isn't about making you feel good. It may, it may not. Cope with that (or bury your head in the sand). If you want something guaranteed to make you feel nice, give your mom a call.
>When they discover something new, they always
>get some talking head to say 'It just shows how
>insignificant we are'
When i hear somebody telling me how important i am, i usually check to make sure my wallet is still there. Don't confuse somebody kissing your ass with the message. THAT is why civilization is in a decline (in my opinion). Too many people have surrendered their rational thought, instead happy to be placated with platitudes of how 'important' they are.
j
Mod this nonsense down.
>But I don't think they will any time soon, as >they seem to labour under the illusion that
>science is about demeaning our cultures status,
>not enhancing it, and have done so for the last >500 years
Oh bullshit. I hope that i'm not in the minority when i feel that the true aim of science is TRUTH.... irregardless of if it gives you a warm fuzzy, or makes you feel cosmically insignificant.
Reality is NOT a zero sum game. The 'gain' of a monkey speaking sign language is not a 'loss' for homo sapiens. If your neighbor gets a better car than you, does that mean you are somehow 'less'? If you answered yes to that, get professional counselling.
>just how important we are
Get over yourself. The purpose of the universe isn't to make you feel important.
You want science to make you feel important? I have a few papal indulgences to sell you too...
>What's increasingly becoming important, though, >is that the people doing this criticism are not
>programmers. They are web developers.
Unless i'm missing the point, the ARE the people that should be criticizing it.
The project is at a stage that it shouldn't be judged on it's code beauty, design, bug burn rate, or social importance. It needs to be judged if it works or not. And i'd think web developers should be pretty high on the list.
Thats like saying drivers aren't allowed to judge cars, only engineers.
>mozillaZine's stance is largely taken because >the people doing the majority of the flaming are
>not people actively involved in bettering the >
>project.
just because you don't like 'who' is flaming, doesn't make them 'wrong'. That a very old (and low in my book) political tactic. If you can't attact the words your opponent uses, attack the opponent.
j
>model. By comparison (I'm not sure if anyone
>noticed this) Computerworld had a front page
>story a couple of weeks ago about how there were
>problems with Solaris on Sun's Enterprise
>systems, yadda yaddda
I'd have more respect for Bob/RH if he hadn't responded to all this.
Here's a very basic premise of life in general (IMHO) - "Comparing your own stupid, boneheaded move to someone elses MORE stupid boneheaded move doesn't make yours any better."
>Remember that this debate was begun by someone >going to Red Hat's public site and trying to add >up all the registered bugs in Red Hat 7. When
>was the last time Microsoft (or any other legacy
>software vendor for that matter) gave you access
>to their complete bug registration system?
Microsoft giving access to their bug database has NOTHING to do with the # of RedHat bugs.... or does it
Microsoft _may_ be evil (not a silly debate that i let myself get pulled into), but don't try to make yourself look BETTER by comparison. I mean, we could bring Stalin into it and make RH look amazing!
j
Be careful - you can say two things:
a)Firestone sucks/is fucked.
No problem there, thats your opinion.
b)Firestone makes dangerous tires.
Be careful - better be able to back up your comment, otherwise that's libelous/slanderous (I'm not saying that it isn't *true*, but the second case u better be ready to PROVE it, and have a lawyer handy. Certain types of disparaging remarks will land u in court - and for good reason. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that u don't have to answer for your words).
IANAL
j
Yesterday this was the splash screen at FC.com, which got idealab all in a tizzy.
>. To me, it seems like most of the "X11 is bad!" >cries are from people who don't understand what >it is and when benefits it has over the current >schemes, which is unfortunate because neither >Microsoft or Macintosh offers some of its >greatest benefits Don't get me wrong.... no 'X11 is bad!' cries here. X lets me get a lot done..... BUT at the same time i refuse to agree with the standard ./ mantra that if you have X (specifically Xfree86) then life is complete.
Nonsense. X has some huge holes in it, or at least limitations due to the era in which it was conceived. I don't advocate just throwing it away immediately, but the status quo isn't something that interests me.
>And since X is a protocol, it is neither slow,
>buggy or holding anything back any more than
>HTTP is slow, buggy or holding the web back. So
>can we please stop with the "X is bad" rhetoric?
huh? So a protocol in and of itself can't be good or bad? Come on.... (that is why HTTP *has* been improved, persistent connections, etc, because as things scale it *does* hold back the web)
And besides... this isn't 1975 anymore. I think we can do better than blasting bitmaps across the network using a broken security scheme.
(I'm not trying to upsell MacOSX by any means... but lets quit worshipping at the altar of X11. I mean, it gets the job done {mostly}, but it is LONG overdue for a replacement.)
j
>Apple did a lot of work to get their X server >working,
/.)
(I'm sorry but i just can't help the flame, but this is
Apple DOESN'T HAVE AND X SERVER!!!! MacOSX has NOTHING TO DO WITH X WINDOWS.
But as always, don't let knowing nothing about the topic stop u from posting.
sweet phone. Too bad WAP is so sucky.
>Personally, I'd rather keep my cell phone
>out of my Pilot and vice-versa.
nah. They problem is that we're reaching the ergonomic limit of cell phones, while manufacturers keep pushing to make them smaller.... Result? i can only dial using my finger nail because the buttons are so @#*&^@#*$ small i can't push normally and not hit 2 or 3. Cell phones can't get much smaller and be useful, so start putting more functionality in the case. I've been wondering how long it would take somebody to combine one with a good PDA....
Personally, I'm waiting for Samsungs one coming out this fall that's an MP3 player too... now THAT's useful.....
j
Well -not being a geologist myself- if memory serves, C-14 dating is *only* really useful for biological structures. I'd assume they are using isotopes of other elements.
j
This is most likely Morris Sr.... Morris Jr is the worm guy....
bad form to follow up on myself
>Linux can give 10-30% greater throughput on the
>same hardware.
I'm speaking about *pure* rendering - number crunching.
Interactive 3D graphics on Linux is still kinda sad and unstable. Getting better, but it ain't there yet.
j
>Hate to break it to you guys, but when you're
>doing "real work" like rendering (or anything >else), the OS is 100% totally and completely
>IRRELIVANT.
In theory, yes. Rendering is just math.
.... BUT. The os does come into play - context switching speed, VM system, general efficiency, etc.
Originally production houses were switching from SGI to NT boxes to save $$$$ - hard to justify the price performance of an Octane when a cheaper dual PIII would whip it in number crunching.
Now people are switching from NT to Linux. Personally I don't give a crap about what OS you use (i use both), but from my own personal benchmarks and graphics companies that i've contracted for, Linux can give 10-30% greater throughput on the same hardware.
Also - most large production houses WERE based on SGI's - so it is easier to move their custom code from IRIX to Linux.
(have you tried to administer NT boxes remotely? )
j
the other reason PIXAR uses Sparc machines is because they don't pay much for them - they have a rather nice deal with Sun where sun gets bragging rights and PIXAR pays less.....
>Would they? Given the Linus' standing, would
>we care as much about Transmeta if he
>wasn't involved?
try to see past the end of your nose. The 'WE' that you used in your sentence is very important. It shows why the whole 'slashdot world' has whipped themselves in a frenzy over Transmeta. Most of the rest of the world doesn't really care much that Linus is there or not - it's an interesting point on a press release.
Transmeta is interesting tech - and don't forget they have a lot of TOP chip design people there. It's only the incestuous linux community that keeps banging on the Linus drum. The rest of the world is ambivalent.
>we should welcome steps to reduce the costs of
>insurance premiums by the elimination of high >risk, high cost applicants.
So, insurance companies should be allowed to ONLY insure those who won't actually cash in on the coverage huh? Nice racket if you can get it.... give me a freakin break...
j