Your talk of opening the front door to see how much heat escapes reminds me of the library woman at my old school. During the summer time if anyone opened a window she would yell "we're not trying to air-condition all of New South Wales you know!".
I always wanted to know what made her think it should stop on the border... maybe she thought that the entire state was surrounded by another set of windows that she was certain were closed.
Now admittedly, I don't know how much they store and how individualised the records get when you 'opt out', but I like the fact that Google remembers everything I search for.
The number of times I've used the Search History is a lot more than I expected to use it, to be honest. I'm one of those morons that has hundreds of sites bookmarked and they get lost in the crowd. If it wasn't for Google's Search History, I don't know how many times I would lose a site that I found not long before.
Just trying to provide a little reasoning for storing more than just a simple profile and as I said at the beginning, I don't know how much is stored when you have opted not to use the Search History feature...
Fair enough. Then as mentioned further along this thread, you could store known 'acceptable' licences in a database along with a hash of some sort.
If you want to worry about it, then compare the licence against a known acceptable one. My point, I guess, is that even by doing this I have a lot of instances where I will not have to read the licence again (as I do a comparison with one that I've already read and understood).
The thing is this: there's this huge pool of all sorts of applications that all use licences from a relatively small pool. In the closed source world, I could believe that a single company might use the same licence across all applications, but it would definitely differ from a licence from another company.
I believe my point still stands that it is getting easier for me to determine whether or not a licence for a particular piece of software is acceptable without having to actually read it again.
On the other hand, if the situation ever arose where someone released software that had a licence that called itself the GPL but wasn't, I daresay they would soon forget me after the FSF moved in to the argument...
Agreed. However I was thinking not so much in the vein of Eclipse (although it was mentioned above) but moreso things like: * we're writing a program and there's a free library here... what are our requirements in using that instead of writing our own? * we're wanting to use a web app but want to change / add some features... what are our requirements with regards to our end users? * we're writing an app that uses GPL code but only for internal use... do we have to provide source code to anyone?
There's just a few questions that even I've been asked from time to time. Having said all that, I think you almost made my point: you mention 'GPL' and knew that you didn't need a licence to use it. By just knowing the name of the licence, you understood your legal rights and requirements.
Now if I asked you: does the developer licence on Company X's component Y allow you to write a competing product, the only way you could be sure would be to read (or get Legal to read) the actual licence. If it was the LGPL, for example, you would know without even having to read the thing...
It is true that the licence needs to be cleared, but surely that would be generally easier in the F/OSS world than the proprietary one.
In reality, the legal team should just go through the major F/OSS libraries then they would have no need to continually ask people about "what ifs". They could have a checklist of things that the software will be used for and you could probably tell in 15 minutes whether or not that licence is acceptable for that case.
In fact, that's one of the reasons I love F/OSS so much: with normal closed source software I have to read and re-read the licences to know exactly what I can and cannot do. With the free stuff, I just look at the name of the licence. I already know my rights and requirements for a fair few of these licences and I save time just knowing that I won't have to try and understand yet another licence in the closed source world.
I have not been following C# at all, but tell me: is this ability to query objects anything like the Query Object Framework?
I've never used the QOF to be honest, but I'm always trying to find a reason to:) Apparently Gnucash uses it for it's reporting engine. It effectively lets you write SQL-like queries and run them on your objects. For Gnucash at least, this means that an end user can create their entirely own reports by just writing the query for the report.
Be sure to understand that it does not use a SQL database for this. All of the classes inherit from a base QOF class and with a few lines of code, your class 'automatically' becomes queriable.
I think the whole concept is amazing and it astounds me that it seems to be only Gnucash that uses it...
So, back to my original question, I guess: is this C# feature the same concept? I'm assuming that it would probably be a bit tighter, maybe, without having to do those extra few lines of code?
I'm not talking about contracts. I'm talking about the fact that, as far as we ALL know, the situation is really simple: 1) allofmp3.com is required by law to pay a certain amount of money to record companies 2) they have that money aside 3) record companies need to register to have access to that money 4) NONE HAVE
Seriously. If you have any half decent looking proof that either allofmp3.com is not putting money aside, or that any record company has registered for it's share of money but has not received it, then please, show us.
Until then, that's where it stands.
I never even brought up contracts between artists and the record companies. All I'm saying is that if they had an artists interests at heart, why have they not followed the legal procedures and registered for the money?
I said before that I don't buy from allofmp3.com, so go for your life and call me Part Of The Problem. Whatever. The point is that allofmp3.com is not ripping off the artists if they follow their side of the law, it's the record companies that aren't registered for the cash that are.
Again, I look back at my welfare argument: if I don't register for welfare, whose fault is it if the government doesn't give me anything?
This is exactly my point, but we all can't have it both ways.
People complain "but it's taking money away from the artists". I say "no, it's the artists' managers and so on who are taking the money away from the artists, as they're frightened of admitting that it's a legal form of distribution, while still having no way to limit that distribution".
The record companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place in that that is their exact situation: they either take the money and have no control or don't take the money and screw their artists.
I'm sure they'll take the second option, but that doesn't automatically mean that allofmp3.com is the baddie. If you owed me $100, offered it to me and I don't take it, no-one would point at you and say "man, you're an arsehole, not paying back that money". No, they point at me and say "you moron, why didn't you take the money?"
But for some reason when it comes to record companies and allofmp3.com, most people in this whole offtopic debate keep doing the former...
Actually, I do believe that they have the money put aside, as I have not seen any reason why they wouldn't.
Now assuming they have the money put aside, as is required by Russian law, is it my fault that the recording companies haven't registered for the money?
No. In fact, if I were a recording artist, I'd be hounding my manager and anyone else that would listen to get their arses in to gear and sort it out because it's their fault that I wasn't getting my money.
Like I said in another post: if I were able to get government welfare but hadn't registered for it, whose fault is that? Mine, pure and simple. The money's there and the government is willing to give it to me, but I need to register for it to claim it.
I kind of look at it this way: if the money wasn't there, why haven't the record companies applied for it then told EVERYONE that it's not there? I mean, in one fell swoop, that would bring the whole reputation of the site down.
Again, it's no-ones fault but the record companies if they can't either: a) register for the money and get it; or b) register for the money, find out it's not there and yell it from the hilltops that it's a ripoff site.
Like I said: that would once and for all tell the world about the truth of that site.
Instead, they sit there. Why aren't their artists complaining, forcing them to do what allofmp3.com says they need to do, just so that everyone can know the truth?
I think (and will continue to do so until shown otherwise) that they WILL NOT register because they KNOW that it's all above board, and they DO NOT want to legitimise that site. Pure and simple.
Naturally, saying "obviously it's a fake because they don't give any money out" is also pure and simple. But in the end, they've shown their hand: "this is what you need to do to get your money". Why is NO-ONE willing to call their bluff?
It's just not as simple as saying "it's a fraud".
Just for the record, I don't buy from allofmp3.com. I don't buy from iTunes and I don't download music illegally.
My entire music collection was either bought on CD or from independent sites such as eMusic and Magnatune.
I just can't see how anyone can say "it's obvious that it's a scam" when it's so easy for the recording industry to jump through a few hoops and say "yes, it is a scam."
Of course I don't (although, depending on how many artists have failed only because another artist has more money to push their tripe, there may be an argument that it has affected more lives).
My point was that just because you're buying from someone who doesn't have alleged links to the Russian mafia, does not mean that your money won't be put to illegal uses.
I just can't see how this discussion ended up focussing on the mob for some reason.
Let's face it: human trafficking is probably not easy money. Maybe we should actually support allofmp3.com so that the mafia can see that there's way more money to be made, a lot easier, in this kind of work and they may actually reduce the number of human's trafficked.
My other thought on this is actually a little contradictory to my last statement (probably just covering my bases): the mafia won't go out of business if allofmp3.com closes down. Also, it's not like their running human trafficking at a loss! allofmp3.com money does not get used to traffick humans so why should I care that my money goes there?
Again, should I stop going to a restuarant, just because they pay protection money?
That's true, you didn't say that. But then, I didn't mean for my comment to imply you did, though I can see how it could be read that way.
To be honest, though, I don't see what the Russian mafia has to do with this. I was addressing / arguing the bit where you said "Apart from not actually paying the creators".
The fact that the Russian mafia showed up to take a cut afterwards shouldn't affect your judgment, otherwise imagine how many restaurants etc. (for a broad, useless example) you should not frequent and dine in just because they pay protection money to various gangs.
If they were the ones that set it up in the first place, well again, I believe what should happen in that case is outside the realm of this discussion.
Whether the money goes to illegal actions or not, the point is that the site seems legal in itself and that is what's important in this case, I believe.
Just because they're not paying the creators, doesn't mean it's not legal. They say they have the money put aside, ready for when the various publishers register for it (as required by Russian law).
I've never seen a site that says "yep, allofmp3.com is illegal". In fact, I've never seen a music or RIAA rep say that, which is pretty unusual.
Firstly, I would say that the music industry guys WON'T register as required, as they DON'T want to provide legitimacy to the site. With the site running from Russia, and the apparent rules over there that let this site be set up in the first place, you can see that they are unable to force a particular pricing model, right? No, you have to register for the money that is required, without any ability to influence pricing.
Surely they don't want to make this site legitimate, when they legally have no way of controlling it (only benefit from it).
Just to address those people that say "well, they should be sending the money to the companies, instead of waiting for them to ask": when someone goes on government provided welfare (that is, when there is a law that provides financial recourse for your situation), is it the government's job to make sure they know who needs it and just send it directly?
Again, if someone can show me (a half believable) link that says "yep, allofmp3.com is illegal" I'll accept that, but until then, I have to believe that Russian law permits this...
That was my thinking too: in cases like Taiwan, for example, maybe the best case is to not have ANY government control it, and actually leave it to a technical group of some sort...
The beauty of the 'give it to whoever set it up' system is that it's pretty hard to question that kind of thing. What I mean to say is, it's pretty hard to argue that you were the first person to set up a TLD if you weren't. It's a fact of the past.
Borders change, and things can get hairy (like in the Taiwanese example).
While Iraq was without any real form of government, who should have had control?
In fact, I did hear that per capita, we were one of the highest coffee drinking countries in the world and that was why McDonalds started opening McCafes in Australia before they opened anywhere else.
That's an interesting analogy, and I'll tell you why:
For me, depending on exactly what I'm doing at the time, the reverse can also be true: there are some things that are illegal in my home country, might be legal in the country I am visiting and yet I can still be charged with that crime when I get home.
I think that would be a really interesting way to stop some of the things certain companies are doing abroad... I'm not refering to MS at this point, but it was just something that came to mind...
I think if something like this got forced down our throats, I would not have a problem with every warez, porn and illicit site on the web just constantly making little jabs at the user...
Having 'bad' sites constantly reminding you that they KNOW that you are who they think you are, I'm sure people would start to object.
Or are people going to just accept it as the next thing in the line of forever more popups, spyware and trojans??
A little off topic, but regarding wall urinals: I've never seen it anywhere else, but the Home nightclub in Sydney has a wall urinal not of steel, but mirrored glass.
It's a little offputting, and a fair bit harder to avert your eyes:)
OK, so again I could be wrong, be there are pages out there that agree with me (including the first link I got when I searched Google for "significant digits": http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/sig_fig/S IG_dig.htm ) and I daresay there would be more people that support my theory of what constitutes a significant digit than yours.
Because the zero is after the decimal point, it is significant as it shows that the 'hundredths' have been measured and it is zero. "5.1" can be representative of anything between "5.05" and "5.14" when looking at two decimal places.
I don't really care, as all I was doing originally was giving the initial poster something to say if his father mentioned the numbering scheme, but if you're going to correct me (with the confidence implied by words broken up by expletives) then at least understand that you're not entirely correct yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but I was under the impression that the numbers 5.1 and 5.10 are different things as the latter has more significant figures.
I don't know if that equates to TOTALLY different, and I know that this is not really what you were talking about anyway, but at least you have a comeback to your dad...
Slashdot Mirror
Your talk of opening the front door to see how much heat escapes reminds me of the library woman at my old school. During the summer time if anyone opened a window she would yell "we're not trying to air-condition all of New South Wales you know!".
I always wanted to know what made her think it should stop on the border... maybe she thought that the entire state was surrounded by another set of windows that she was certain were closed.
Anyway, totally offtopic, but that's life...
Now admittedly, I don't know how much they store and how individualised the records get when you 'opt out', but I like the fact that Google remembers everything I search for.
The number of times I've used the Search History is a lot more than I expected to use it, to be honest. I'm one of those morons that has hundreds of sites bookmarked and they get lost in the crowd. If it wasn't for Google's Search History, I don't know how many times I would lose a site that I found not long before.
Just trying to provide a little reasoning for storing more than just a simple profile and as I said at the beginning, I don't know how much is stored when you have opted not to use the Search History feature...
Fair enough. Then as mentioned further along this thread, you could store known 'acceptable' licences in a database along with a hash of some sort.
If you want to worry about it, then compare the licence against a known acceptable one. My point, I guess, is that even by doing this I have a lot of instances where I will not have to read the licence again (as I do a comparison with one that I've already read and understood).
The thing is this: there's this huge pool of all sorts of applications that all use licences from a relatively small pool. In the closed source world, I could believe that a single company might use the same licence across all applications, but it would definitely differ from a licence from another company.
I believe my point still stands that it is getting easier for me to determine whether or not a licence for a particular piece of software is acceptable without having to actually read it again.
On the other hand, if the situation ever arose where someone released software that had a licence that called itself the GPL but wasn't, I daresay they would soon forget me after the FSF moved in to the argument...
Agreed. However I was thinking not so much in the vein of Eclipse (although it was mentioned above) but moreso things like:
* we're writing a program and there's a free library here... what are our requirements in using that instead of writing our own?
* we're wanting to use a web app but want to change / add some features... what are our requirements with regards to our end users?
* we're writing an app that uses GPL code but only for internal use... do we have to provide source code to anyone?
There's just a few questions that even I've been asked from time to time. Having said all that, I think you almost made my point: you mention 'GPL' and knew that you didn't need a licence to use it. By just knowing the name of the licence, you understood your legal rights and requirements.
Now if I asked you: does the developer licence on Company X's component Y allow you to write a competing product, the only way you could be sure would be to read (or get Legal to read) the actual licence. If it was the LGPL, for example, you would know without even having to read the thing...
It is true that the licence needs to be cleared, but surely that would be generally easier in the F/OSS world than the proprietary one.
In reality, the legal team should just go through the major F/OSS libraries then they would have no need to continually ask people about "what ifs". They could have a checklist of things that the software will be used for and you could probably tell in 15 minutes whether or not that licence is acceptable for that case.
In fact, that's one of the reasons I love F/OSS so much: with normal closed source software I have to read and re-read the licences to know exactly what I can and cannot do. With the free stuff, I just look at the name of the licence. I already know my rights and requirements for a fair few of these licences and I save time just knowing that I won't have to try and understand yet another licence in the closed source world.
I have not been following C# at all, but tell me: is this ability to query objects anything like the Query Object Framework?
I've never used the QOF to be honest, but I'm always trying to find a reason to :) Apparently Gnucash uses it for it's reporting engine. It effectively lets you write SQL-like queries and run them on your objects. For Gnucash at least, this means that an end user can create their entirely own reports by just writing the query for the report.
Be sure to understand that it does not use a SQL database for this. All of the classes inherit from a base QOF class and with a few lines of code, your class 'automatically' becomes queriable.
I think the whole concept is amazing and it astounds me that it seems to be only Gnucash that uses it...
So, back to my original question, I guess: is this C# feature the same concept? I'm assuming that it would probably be a bit tighter, maybe, without having to do those extra few lines of code?
Can you please read my argument?
I'm not talking about contracts. I'm talking about the fact that, as far as we ALL know, the situation is really simple:
1) allofmp3.com is required by law to pay a certain amount of money to record companies
2) they have that money aside
3) record companies need to register to have access to that money
4) NONE HAVE
Seriously. If you have any half decent looking proof that either allofmp3.com is not putting money aside, or that any record company has registered for it's share of money but has not received it, then please, show us.
Until then, that's where it stands.
I never even brought up contracts between artists and the record companies. All I'm saying is that if they had an artists interests at heart, why have they not followed the legal procedures and registered for the money?
I said before that I don't buy from allofmp3.com, so go for your life and call me Part Of The Problem. Whatever. The point is that allofmp3.com is not ripping off the artists if they follow their side of the law, it's the record companies that aren't registered for the cash that are.
Again, I look back at my welfare argument: if I don't register for welfare, whose fault is it if the government doesn't give me anything?
This is exactly my point, but we all can't have it both ways.
People complain "but it's taking money away from the artists". I say "no, it's the artists' managers and so on who are taking the money away from the artists, as they're frightened of admitting that it's a legal form of distribution, while still having no way to limit that distribution".
The record companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place in that that is their exact situation: they either take the money and have no control or don't take the money and screw their artists.
I'm sure they'll take the second option, but that doesn't automatically mean that allofmp3.com is the baddie. If you owed me $100, offered it to me and I don't take it, no-one would point at you and say "man, you're an arsehole, not paying back that money". No, they point at me and say "you moron, why didn't you take the money?"
But for some reason when it comes to record companies and allofmp3.com, most people in this whole offtopic debate keep doing the former...
Actually, I do believe that they have the money put aside, as I have not seen any reason why they wouldn't.
Now assuming they have the money put aside, as is required by Russian law, is it my fault that the recording companies haven't registered for the money?
No. In fact, if I were a recording artist, I'd be hounding my manager and anyone else that would listen to get their arses in to gear and sort it out because it's their fault that I wasn't getting my money.
Like I said in another post: if I were able to get government welfare but hadn't registered for it, whose fault is that? Mine, pure and simple. The money's there and the government is willing to give it to me, but I need to register for it to claim it.
I kind of look at it this way: if the money wasn't there, why haven't the record companies applied for it then told EVERYONE that it's not there? I mean, in one fell swoop, that would bring the whole reputation of the site down.
Again, it's no-ones fault but the record companies if they can't either:
a) register for the money and get it; or
b) register for the money, find out it's not there and yell it from the hilltops that it's a ripoff site.
Like I said: that would once and for all tell the world about the truth of that site.
Instead, they sit there. Why aren't their artists complaining, forcing them to do what allofmp3.com says they need to do, just so that everyone can know the truth?
I think (and will continue to do so until shown otherwise) that they WILL NOT register because they KNOW that it's all above board, and they DO NOT want to legitimise that site. Pure and simple.
Naturally, saying "obviously it's a fake because they don't give any money out" is also pure and simple. But in the end, they've shown their hand: "this is what you need to do to get your money". Why is NO-ONE willing to call their bluff?
It's just not as simple as saying "it's a fraud".
Just for the record, I don't buy from allofmp3.com. I don't buy from iTunes and I don't download music illegally.
My entire music collection was either bought on CD or from independent sites such as eMusic and Magnatune.
I just can't see how anyone can say "it's obvious that it's a scam" when it's so easy for the recording industry to jump through a few hoops and say "yes, it is a scam."
Why has no-one tried to claim their money?
Of course I don't (although, depending on how many artists have failed only because another artist has more money to push their tripe, there may be an argument that it has affected more lives).
My point was that just because you're buying from someone who doesn't have alleged links to the Russian mafia, does not mean that your money won't be put to illegal uses.
I just can't see how this discussion ended up focussing on the mob for some reason.
Let's face it: human trafficking is probably not easy money. Maybe we should actually support allofmp3.com so that the mafia can see that there's way more money to be made, a lot easier, in this kind of work and they may actually reduce the number of human's trafficked.
My other thought on this is actually a little contradictory to my last statement (probably just covering my bases): the mafia won't go out of business if allofmp3.com closes down. Also, it's not like their running human trafficking at a loss! allofmp3.com money does not get used to traffick humans so why should I care that my money goes there?
Again, should I stop going to a restuarant, just because they pay protection money?
Various RIAA members have been involved in illegal acts, too, though.
Payola, illegally installing software on millions of computers and 'forgetting' to pay royalties.
No doubt they've made more money out of iTunes than any mafia has out of allofmp3.com.
So what should we do with a site that is sending money to help fund illegal operations in this instance?
That's true, you didn't say that. But then, I didn't mean for my comment to imply you did, though I can see how it could be read that way.
To be honest, though, I don't see what the Russian mafia has to do with this. I was addressing / arguing the bit where you said "Apart from not actually paying the creators".
The fact that the Russian mafia showed up to take a cut afterwards shouldn't affect your judgment, otherwise imagine how many restaurants etc. (for a broad, useless example) you should not frequent and dine in just because they pay protection money to various gangs.
If they were the ones that set it up in the first place, well again, I believe what should happen in that case is outside the realm of this discussion.
Whether the money goes to illegal actions or not, the point is that the site seems legal in itself and that is what's important in this case, I believe.
Just because they're not paying the creators, doesn't mean it's not legal. They say they have the money put aside, ready for when the various publishers register for it (as required by Russian law).
I've never seen a site that says "yep, allofmp3.com is illegal". In fact, I've never seen a music or RIAA rep say that, which is pretty unusual.
Firstly, I would say that the music industry guys WON'T register as required, as they DON'T want to provide legitimacy to the site. With the site running from Russia, and the apparent rules over there that let this site be set up in the first place, you can see that they are unable to force a particular pricing model, right? No, you have to register for the money that is required, without any ability to influence pricing.
Surely they don't want to make this site legitimate, when they legally have no way of controlling it (only benefit from it).
Just to address those people that say "well, they should be sending the money to the companies, instead of waiting for them to ask": when someone goes on government provided welfare (that is, when there is a law that provides financial recourse for your situation), is it the government's job to make sure they know who needs it and just send it directly?
Again, if someone can show me (a half believable) link that says "yep, allofmp3.com is illegal" I'll accept that, but until then, I have to believe that Russian law permits this...
That was my thinking too: in cases like Taiwan, for example, maybe the best case is to not have ANY government control it, and actually leave it to a technical group of some sort...
So just out of curiosity...
.tw, for example?
Who should get final control of
The beauty of the 'give it to whoever set it up' system is that it's pretty hard to question that kind of thing. What I mean to say is, it's pretty hard to argue that you were the first person to set up a TLD if you weren't. It's a fact of the past.
Borders change, and things can get hairy (like in the Taiwanese example).
While Iraq was without any real form of government, who should have had control?
I've heard the same sorts of statistics.
In fact, I did hear that per capita, we were one of the highest coffee drinking countries in the world and that was why McDonalds started opening McCafes in Australia before they opened anywhere else.
Well, that's what I heard, anyway...
It's a shame that you couldn't just send it 10% of the chicken...
Then, come end of tax year, there's a huge beer and wings night in Washington!
I reckon December 22nd should be celebrated with lots of booze and women.
:)
Quite irresponsibly, in fact! But hey, we can have different opinions.. I hope you enjoy yours as much as I'll enjoy mine
That's an interesting analogy, and I'll tell you why:
For me, depending on exactly what I'm doing at the time, the reverse can also be true: there are some things that are illegal in my home country, might be legal in the country I am visiting and yet I can still be charged with that crime when I get home.
I think that would be a really interesting way to stop some of the things certain companies are doing abroad... I'm not refering to MS at this point, but it was just something that came to mind...
PGP Phone is an application that now runs over the internet however originally, it used direct modem-to-modem connections via the POTS.
That is basically what you're proposing, and it's been around for quite a while...
Man, I've always had problems with French...
It's so hard to pronounce those asterisks without sounding like a foreigner!
I think if something like this got forced down our throats, I would not have a problem with every warez, porn and illicit site on the web just constantly making little jabs at the user...
Having 'bad' sites constantly reminding you that they KNOW that you are who they think you are, I'm sure people would start to object.
Or are people going to just accept it as the next thing in the line of forever more popups, spyware and trojans??
A little off topic, but regarding wall urinals: I've never seen it anywhere else, but the Home nightclub in Sydney has a wall urinal not of steel, but mirrored glass.
:)
It's a little offputting, and a fair bit harder to avert your eyes
OK, so again I could be wrong, be there are pages out there that agree with me (including the first link I got when I searched Google for "significant digits": http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/sig_fig/S IG_dig.htm ) and I daresay there would be more people that support my theory of what constitutes a significant digit than yours.
Because the zero is after the decimal point, it is significant as it shows that the 'hundredths' have been measured and it is zero. "5.1" can be representative of anything between "5.05" and "5.14" when looking at two decimal places.
I don't really care, as all I was doing originally was giving the initial poster something to say if his father mentioned the numbering scheme, but if you're going to correct me (with the confidence implied by words broken up by expletives) then at least understand that you're not entirely correct yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I see your point, but I was under the impression that the numbers 5.1 and 5.10 are different things as the latter has more significant figures.
I don't know if that equates to TOTALLY different, and I know that this is not really what you were talking about anyway, but at least you have a comeback to your dad...