Well, no, it actually isn't, at least if you accept general relativity. "Gravitational acceleration" is as illusory as centrifugal force. Acceleration is what's happening when you follow a non-geodesic path (i.e., a world line that does not represent ballistic motion), so when you stand on the ground, you are accelerating upward, but when you're falling freely, you're not accelerating at all.
Who knows why they don't teach it that way in elementary school?
RedHat contains plenty of non-GPL software (e.g., BSD games), GPL-incompatible software (e.g., Qt, until recently), and even some non-free software (e.g., Netscape).
There are distributions which contain only free software, like Debian (Debian also distributes a non-free archive, but keeps it separate from the free software).
There are other operating systems that are entirely free (e.g., NetBSD). I'm not sure that there is any OS that is entirely GPL; even a true GNU system would probably still include some things that are LGPL-(or even are BSD- or X11-)licensed.
For practical purposes, you're right, but it's MIME base64 encoding that bloats mail files,
not SMTP. People generally send files in base64
as an institutionalized workaround for SMTP
servers that aren't 8-bit clean. This probably
isn't necessary anymore in most cases.
There's nothing inherently wrong with sending big
files via SMTP. In fact, no other widely used
protocol lets you "send and forget" (rather than
putting up a file and having to remember to take it down later and maybe secure it), so SMTP is arguably the best choice when you want to cause particular people to get a file and deal with it at their convenience.
When you ask, "Where is this freedom [of movement]
outlayed in the us constitution?", you display
a common misunderstanding of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not lay out a set of rights
or privileges that are granted to the people by
the government; rather, it describes what powers
the people choose to give up to the government.
If the Constitution does not grant the government
the power to do something, it does not have that
power. The government does not have the right to search, detain, or question you without due process.
No, no, no. "Who's your daddy, Luke?"
"You are, Darth, you are!"
Re:XP? Wouldn't Linux be just as easy?
on
al Qaeda Hacks XP?
·
· Score: 1
"Anyone can hack it", yes, but no line of code gets into the kernel without being seen by Linus or the stable tree maintainer, whose name escapes me. If you want a version of Linux with all kinds of random shit, you can have it, but you can't distribute it from ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel, which is where people are looking.
The contrast with Microsoft is sort of the reverse of the usual perspective: there are many people within Microsoft who have direct access to the XP source code, whereas only very few people have access to the standard version of Linux.
It's not impossible to sneak a back door into Linux, of course, but it would have to be much more subtle than 'if (strcmp(passwd,"alyourqaedaarebelongtous")) return GOOD_TO_GO'.
Heh. Did it occur to you that perhaps the guy with five years of experience has five years of experience rather than one year ten times? There's a good chance that places would rather blame "affirmative action" than tell you that they thought you were a loser, or too old, or whatever. FWIW, I've never been rejected from a job I tried to get (the interview with Microsoft doesn't count; that was a free vacation is Seattle and an entertaining philosophical discussion with moderately high management), and I'm a white male...
and for that matter, I don't know any white males who claim that affirmative action has dissed them, even though about half my friends are white males. The only common factor I can see is that we're all pretty smart, young, and good at our jobs.
I don't know what planet you live on, but cops on planet Boston make more than teachers and sysadmins. I personally know a cop who, through a combination of highly-paid details and the automatic pay raise for having a Master's degree, makes $80k/year for a job that is almost entirely walking a beat. Cops with actual high rank almost certainly make much more; I recall a recent scandal over certain high-ranking cops being paid more than, say, the President.
Not to mention the squeeze, stolen evidence, and such that is available to unethical cops with very little risk of being caught; the fact that they can get away with murder, quite literally, if they plan it reasonably carefully; and so on.
A permanent separate police force is as much of a danger to democracy as a permanent separate military.
There are two classes of Internet sites, for mail and for everything else: those that are run by clueful and caring people and those that aren't. Hotmail, Collegeclub, and NetForward all fairly recently pulled this crap on me, and what little tech support I could reach was provided by utter morons who don't know what "Connection Refused" means and refused to escalate.
I'm not paid to make mail work. Dealing with idiots and assholes is Not My Problem. Just this morning I issued a full-scale rant on this subject to my users, and then chopped all the broken email addresses from all my mailing lists. I simply no longer give a damn about sites that are not run by people I know and respect in person or by reputation, and that's that. I give mailboxes on my machines away freely to friends and acquaintances, and I talk to other mail admins and try to make things work, but if a site gives me the big fuck-you, it stops being my problem immediately and forever.
I encourage everyone to adopt this solution. There will then effectively be two mail networks: one that's run by people who suck, and the other that's not, and I will be totally happy not getting mail from the former.
No, at age 45 he will most likely have been retired for 15 years and be doing whatever he wants. As a 21-year-old in the same position, I can assure you that I have no intention of adminning sys for the rest of my life; fortunately, because it pays reasonably well, I won't have to.
In fact, I'll most likely spend my time teaching people like me: those who can benefit from good teachers, but not from homogeneous, slow-paced classrooms.
Also, at least one hospital I know uses "Code 99" for cardiac arrest. Regardless, medical weenies know what you mean when you say "$patient is coding".
Right. Slashdot makes mistakes. We all know it. We know it because they admit it very openly -- like a few stories up on the same page. The average NY Times reader does *not* know that their front-page story about Wen Ho Lee was almost entirely fabrication and hearsay, even though they admitted it (grudgingly, incoherently, months later) on the editoral page. Why? NYT doesn't like being embarrassed, and it thinks it can get away indefinitely with hiding and minimizing its errors.
The idea that "adminning" one's own box is a major task is silly: PC users have been doing that quite happily for a good 20 years now -- I know, I've been one for around 16 of those years. The real work of IT is in making it easy for these disparate boxes to communicate, by creating networks, file servers, and so forth. Part of that work is using the proper open tools to make it work with anything your users choose to use.
The idea that homogeneity is a good thing ("better than optimal", even) is laughable; you obviously confuse it for cooperation, which *is* essential, and which has nothing to do with what tools you use. Homogeneity leads to crushing virus epidemics, getting locked into a specific vendor's tools, less productive workers (Emacs alone saves me hours a week), and all sorts of other nastiness. Taking the time to maintain a properly open environment -- and yes, in the short run, it does take a little more effort, though less cash -- will save you all that trouble.
The value in an employee lies in the work done and contributions to other employees knowledge.
I couldn't agree more. That's why I want my co-workers to get their work done in the most efficient way *for them*, with one of the criteria by which the work is judged being that it is easily shared with other people. Code edited in Emacs is still readable in Visual Studio, no matter what M$ wishes were true; files served up with Samba are just as accessible as those served up on a Windows box.
As for timesheets: here, they're a requirement for reporting to the government. A necessary evil. The managers know what work I've done, and that's what I get my bonuses for, not for how many hours I happened to be hanging around and thinking about a particular project. I guess you live in a magical corporate fairyland where (hours worked) = (benefit to the company).
Paper publications generally aren't nearly as good a Slashdot about printing retractions -- Slashdot's are *always* on the front page, as visible as any other story. Newspapers seem to feel that they have to uphold an image of respectability by pretending they never fuck up. Rob et al. are refreshingly free of that particular flaw.
If you're not willing to treat your programmers like adults and, well, competent programmers, then you ought to either fire them or resign. And if you're not willing to let them use the tools that they (not some random IT guy) think they need to do their jobs, that's precisely what's going on. It's IT's job to support the people who are doing the actual work of the company.
Hell, this doesn't just apply to programmers. I'm the sysadmin. My users use a variety of operating systems, both because of personal preference (the animator loves SGIs, the programmers love NetBSD and Linux, the engineers have settled pragmatically for Windows, and the managers are, well, managers -- except for the CEO, who's a Unix weenie just for the sake of Emacs) and because we write software for a variety of platforms. It's not hard to maintain a diverse system like this, and it's certainly not insecure -- it's easier to break physically into our office than it is to steal the appropriate passwords or keys to SSH/PPTP past the firewall, and we trust each other.
So I think that the problem you think you're solving with a fascist policy of "The Company [i.e., the managers or their IT toadies] decides what you get, and you'll damn well use it, even if it's like hammering in a screw with a fish" is actually a problem of either management's misplaced distrust of the programmers, or of actual incompetent programmers and accurately placed mistrust. Either way, the people are the problem; with the right people, fascism can only make things harder.
As for this crap about "It's not yours. It's the company's. They can make you use it however you like.": yes, it's literally true. If my company were run by idiots, I could be ordered to use the wrong tool for a job, and to fuck it up in whatever they please. But you know what? I'm better than that, and I've got a no-notice contract and a year's rent set aside in savings, so I can damn well tell them to fuck off and find a company that will treat me with respect. And you know what else? They know that, and they're good and smart people themselves, and they're not going to do that. They don't consider it worthwhile to hire people they don't trust and respect, and I don't consider it worthwhile to work for people who don't trust and respect me.
<flame>
I'm glad I don't work with you. I hope that some day you will grow up and go to work for a company with a future. Do you get off on timesheets, too?
I especially love that comment about how you wish the poster luck finding a job that fits this "skewed outlook". It sounds like you've found your way into an unsatisfying job, and rather than being sensible and getting another job, or being considerate and committing suicide, you're lashing out at others who have some self-respect and have spent the minimal effort to get jobs at places that treat them as the valued assets that they are. Remember: down, not across.
</flame>
It seems that you are lumping together everything that you need to read the manual to use into the class of "hard to use". No doubt that's true for illiterates, but the rest of us really ought to be comfortable with the idea of learning (from a book, a class, or a friend) to do something before doing it.
It happens that there are a lot of tasks that people do that are intrinsically simple, in that their entire effect can be effectively summarized by a button-sized icon or other simple visual widget: starting up a program, following a link, turning some text bold, and so on. For these tasks, "geeks" often use the same tools that others use. But there are other tasks that simply requie a more complex user interface: for example, the broad task of "getting the computer to do absolutely any specified task it can possibly do", for which you need that most powerful of interfaces, the programming language. And really, there isn't much range in between: either there's a simple and easy interface to do a very limited and specialized task (like the B button in a word processor) or there's a complex and powerful interface to accomplish a very general task -- simply because it's easier for human beings (all human beings -- geeks just happen to do it most often) to learn one powerful language that does everything than a bunch of less powerful languages that do a few things. Hence the fact that I speak English everywhere, rather than Storese for buying stuff, Bussish for asking about fares on public transit, and so on; and yet, to get the elevator to do what I want, I push a button.
You called Emacs hard to use -- I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you just want to use it to do what Windows Notepad does, you certainly *can* manipulate it with just a mouse like you can NOTEPAD.EXE. The difference is that Emacs is capable of doing lots of other stuff if you learn the (very simple, unless you are extending it) language to speak to it. Emacs is in fact a beautiful example of a multilayered user interface: easy to start on (these days, anyway) and as powerful as you're willing to learn to make it.
In general, when something has a GUI that J. Random Luser thinks is easy to use, that thing does a very simple and limited task. If that's all JRL needs, that's fine -- but I've written quite a lot of text with Emacs, and I know for sure that writers and editors would benefit enormously from things like i-search and regexp query-replace -- but Microsoft Word will never have them, because they can't be used effectively through a GUI. The relevant distincton in user interfaces is not between "normal people" and "those freaks who get off on programming" -- it's between people who use the computer a lot, and people who don't. People who use it only occasionally are happy with a simple but limited interface; people who use it for daily work need more power.
So basically what I'm saying is that you're an idiot, and your mother wears combat boots.;)
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Exactly: if the Constitution is not set up to do what you want, you can make an amendment to it. It's been done before, and it will be again. Simply ignoring the Constitution and passing and enforcing whatever laws we please is dishonest and sets a dangerous precedent.
No, it's capitalism. The company *sells* its work on the software to you, instead of "renting" it like software licensing normal works. Don't be a twit.
But the idea that you can never sue someone for making open-source software is nonsense. The ability to sue comes not from the closed source, but from the contract one has with the authors. In the case of an open source ATC system, one would hire a company to write it and maintain it with appropriate penalty clauses in the contract just as you would with closed source -- the difference would be that if, ten years later, the company that was maintaining it turns incompetent or goes bankrupt, you can take the code to someone else and contract *them* to maintain it; and, of course, like all open-source software, you get the benefit of peer review from all over. Just make the company with the maintenance contract responsible for reviewing the patches submitted before accepting them, and there you go.
Imagine the benefit you would gain from a few dozen air traffic controllers hacking on the code they depend on every day in their spare time, with professional programmers working under bloodthirsty contract standing by to filter out their mistakes. It's a veritable Open Source Utopia.;)
Ah. You're right about the MIS stuff, I misunderstood. (That seems to happen a lot with this paper.)
Yeah, really, the general obfuscation of the whole thing is pretty gross. I do wonder if anyone's exchanged email with him about it. I'm still toying with the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no, it actually isn't, at least if you accept general relativity. "Gravitational acceleration" is as illusory as centrifugal force. Acceleration is what's happening when you follow a non-geodesic path (i.e., a world line that does not represent ballistic motion), so when you stand on the ground, you are accelerating upward, but when you're falling freely, you're not accelerating at all.
Who knows why they don't teach it that way in elementary school?
RedHat contains plenty of non-GPL software (e.g., BSD games), GPL-incompatible software (e.g., Qt, until recently), and even some non-free software (e.g., Netscape). There are distributions which contain only free software, like Debian (Debian also distributes a non-free archive, but keeps it separate from the free software). There are other operating systems that are entirely free (e.g., NetBSD). I'm not sure that there is any OS that is entirely GPL; even a true GNU system would probably still include some things that are LGPL-(or even are BSD- or X11-)licensed.
There's nothing inherently wrong with sending big files via SMTP. In fact, no other widely used protocol lets you "send and forget" (rather than putting up a file and having to remember to take it down later and maybe secure it), so SMTP is arguably the best choice when you want to cause particular people to get a file and deal with it at their convenience.
When you ask, "Where is this freedom [of movement] outlayed in the us constitution?", you display a common misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution does not lay out a set of rights or privileges that are granted to the people by the government; rather, it describes what powers the people choose to give up to the government. If the Constitution does not grant the government the power to do something, it does not have that power. The government does not have the right to search, detain, or question you without due process.
No, no, no. "Who's your daddy, Luke?"
"You are, Darth, you are!"
"Anyone can hack it", yes, but no line of code gets into the kernel without being seen by Linus or the stable tree maintainer, whose name escapes me. If you want a version of Linux with all kinds of random shit, you can have it, but you can't distribute it from ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel, which is where people are looking.
The contrast with Microsoft is sort of the reverse of the usual perspective: there are many people within Microsoft who have direct access to the XP source code, whereas only very few people have access to the standard version of Linux.
It's not impossible to sneak a back door into Linux, of course, but it would have to be much more subtle than 'if (strcmp(passwd,"alyourqaedaarebelongtous")) return GOOD_TO_GO'.
Heh. Did it occur to you that perhaps the guy with five years of experience has five years of experience rather than one year ten times? There's a good chance that places would rather blame "affirmative action" than tell you that they thought you were a loser, or too old, or whatever. FWIW, I've never been rejected from a job I tried to get (the interview with Microsoft doesn't count; that was a free vacation is Seattle and an entertaining philosophical discussion with moderately high management), and I'm a white male...
and for that matter, I don't know any white males who claim that affirmative action has dissed them, even though about half my friends are white males. The only common factor I can see is that we're all pretty smart, young, and good at our jobs.
I don't know what planet you live on, but cops on planet Boston make more than teachers and sysadmins. I personally know a cop who, through a combination of highly-paid details and the automatic pay raise for having a Master's degree, makes $80k/year for a job that is almost entirely walking a beat. Cops with actual high rank almost certainly make much more; I recall a recent scandal over certain high-ranking cops being paid more than, say, the President.
Not to mention the squeeze, stolen evidence, and such that is available to unethical cops with very little risk of being caught; the fact that they can get away with murder, quite literally, if they plan it reasonably carefully; and so on.
A permanent separate police force is as much of a danger to democracy as a permanent separate military.
For shame, young man. Quality, Comfort, and Price know no boundaries.
There are two classes of Internet sites, for mail and for everything else: those that are run by clueful and caring people and those that aren't. Hotmail, Collegeclub, and NetForward all fairly recently pulled this crap on me, and what little tech support I could reach was provided by utter morons who don't know what "Connection Refused" means and refused to escalate.
I'm not paid to make mail work. Dealing with idiots and assholes is Not My Problem. Just this morning I issued a full-scale rant on this subject to my users, and then chopped all the broken email addresses from all my mailing lists. I simply no longer give a damn about sites that are not run by people I know and respect in person or by reputation, and that's that. I give mailboxes on my machines away freely to friends and acquaintances, and I talk to other mail admins and try to make things work, but if a site gives me the big fuck-you, it stops being my problem immediately and forever.
I encourage everyone to adopt this solution. There will then effectively be two mail networks: one that's run by people who suck, and the other that's not, and I will be totally happy not getting mail from the former.
No, at age 45 he will most likely have been retired for 15 years and be doing whatever he wants. As a 21-year-old in the same position, I can assure you that I have no intention of adminning sys for the rest of my life; fortunately, because it pays reasonably well, I won't have to.
In fact, I'll most likely spend my time teaching people like me: those who can benefit from good teachers, but not from homogeneous, slow-paced classrooms.
In other words, your mother.
I'd like the editors to be afraid of having to do that, so that they either check their facts properly for everything, or just don't bother.
Of course, when the patients watch "ER"...
Also, at least one hospital I know uses "Code 99" for cardiac arrest. Regardless, medical weenies know what you mean when you say "$patient is coding".
Unfortunately, they probably can't -- thanks to patents.
Right. Slashdot makes mistakes. We all know it. We know it because they admit it very openly -- like a few stories up on the same page. The average NY Times reader does *not* know that their front-page story about Wen Ho Lee was almost entirely fabrication and hearsay, even though they admitted it (grudgingly, incoherently, months later) on the editoral page. Why? NYT doesn't like being embarrassed, and it thinks it can get away indefinitely with hiding and minimizing its errors.
Yay, Slashdot.
The idea that homogeneity is a good thing ("better than optimal", even) is laughable; you obviously confuse it for cooperation, which *is* essential, and which has nothing to do with what tools you use. Homogeneity leads to crushing virus epidemics, getting locked into a specific vendor's tools, less productive workers (Emacs alone saves me hours a week), and all sorts of other nastiness. Taking the time to maintain a properly open environment -- and yes, in the short run, it does take a little more effort, though less cash -- will save you all that trouble.
I couldn't agree more. That's why I want my co-workers to get their work done in the most efficient way *for them*, with one of the criteria by which the work is judged being that it is easily shared with other people. Code edited in Emacs is still readable in Visual Studio, no matter what M$ wishes were true; files served up with Samba are just as accessible as those served up on a Windows box.
As for timesheets: here, they're a requirement for reporting to the government. A necessary evil. The managers know what work I've done, and that's what I get my bonuses for, not for how many hours I happened to be hanging around and thinking about a particular project. I guess you live in a magical corporate fairyland where (hours worked) = (benefit to the company).
I meant there to be an/> up there, but apparently Plain Old Text is not all that Plain. *sigh*
Paper publications generally aren't nearly as good a Slashdot about printing retractions -- Slashdot's are *always* on the front page, as visible as any other story. Newspapers seem to feel that they have to uphold an image of respectability by pretending they never fuck up. Rob et al. are refreshingly free of that particular flaw.
Hell, this doesn't just apply to programmers. I'm the sysadmin. My users use a variety of operating systems, both because of personal preference (the animator loves SGIs, the programmers love NetBSD and Linux, the engineers have settled pragmatically for Windows, and the managers are, well, managers -- except for the CEO, who's a Unix weenie just for the sake of Emacs) and because we write software for a variety of platforms. It's not hard to maintain a diverse system like this, and it's certainly not insecure -- it's easier to break physically into our office than it is to steal the appropriate passwords or keys to SSH/PPTP past the firewall, and we trust each other.
So I think that the problem you think you're solving with a fascist policy of "The Company [i.e., the managers or their IT toadies] decides what you get, and you'll damn well use it, even if it's like hammering in a screw with a fish" is actually a problem of either management's misplaced distrust of the programmers, or of actual incompetent programmers and accurately placed mistrust. Either way, the people are the problem; with the right people, fascism can only make things harder.
As for this crap about "It's not yours. It's the company's. They can make you use it however you like.": yes, it's literally true. If my company were run by idiots, I could be ordered to use the wrong tool for a job, and to fuck it up in whatever they please. But you know what? I'm better than that, and I've got a no-notice contract and a year's rent set aside in savings, so I can damn well tell them to fuck off and find a company that will treat me with respect. And you know what else? They know that, and they're good and smart people themselves, and they're not going to do that. They don't consider it worthwhile to hire people they don't trust and respect, and I don't consider it worthwhile to work for people who don't trust and respect me.
<flame> I'm glad I don't work with you. I hope that some day you will grow up and go to work for a company with a future. Do you get off on timesheets, too?
I especially love that comment about how you wish the poster luck finding a job that fits this "skewed outlook". It sounds like you've found your way into an unsatisfying job, and rather than being sensible and getting another job, or being considerate and committing suicide, you're lashing out at others who have some self-respect and have spent the minimal effort to get jobs at places that treat them as the valued assets that they are. Remember: down, not across. </flame>
It happens that there are a lot of tasks that people do that are intrinsically simple, in that their entire effect can be effectively summarized by a button-sized icon or other simple visual widget: starting up a program, following a link, turning some text bold, and so on. For these tasks, "geeks" often use the same tools that others use. But there are other tasks that simply requie a more complex user interface: for example, the broad task of "getting the computer to do absolutely any specified task it can possibly do", for which you need that most powerful of interfaces, the programming language. And really, there isn't much range in between: either there's a simple and easy interface to do a very limited and specialized task (like the B button in a word processor) or there's a complex and powerful interface to accomplish a very general task -- simply because it's easier for human beings (all human beings -- geeks just happen to do it most often) to learn one powerful language that does everything than a bunch of less powerful languages that do a few things. Hence the fact that I speak English everywhere, rather than Storese for buying stuff, Bussish for asking about fares on public transit, and so on; and yet, to get the elevator to do what I want, I push a button.
You called Emacs hard to use -- I don't think you know what you're talking about. If you just want to use it to do what Windows Notepad does, you certainly *can* manipulate it with just a mouse like you can NOTEPAD.EXE. The difference is that Emacs is capable of doing lots of other stuff if you learn the (very simple, unless you are extending it) language to speak to it. Emacs is in fact a beautiful example of a multilayered user interface: easy to start on (these days, anyway) and as powerful as you're willing to learn to make it.
In general, when something has a GUI that J. Random Luser thinks is easy to use, that thing does a very simple and limited task. If that's all JRL needs, that's fine -- but I've written quite a lot of text with Emacs, and I know for sure that writers and editors would benefit enormously from things like i-search and regexp query-replace -- but Microsoft Word will never have them, because they can't be used effectively through a GUI. The relevant distincton in user interfaces is not between "normal people" and "those freaks who get off on programming" -- it's between people who use the computer a lot, and people who don't. People who use it only occasionally are happy with a simple but limited interface; people who use it for daily work need more power.
So basically what I'm saying is that you're an idiot, and your mother wears combat boots. ;)
Exactly: if the Constitution is not set up to do what you want, you can make an amendment to it. It's been done before, and it will be again. Simply ignoring the Constitution and passing and enforcing whatever laws we please is dishonest and sets a dangerous precedent.
No, it's capitalism. The company *sells* its work on the software to you, instead of "renting" it like software licensing normal works. Don't be a twit.
Well, the Athlon's multiprocessor architecture uses leet Alpha-style point-to-point communication, so that's not really far off.
But the idea that you can never sue someone for making open-source software is nonsense. The ability to sue comes not from the closed source, but from the contract one has with the authors. In the case of an open source ATC system, one would hire a company to write it and maintain it with appropriate penalty clauses in the contract just as you would with closed source -- the difference would be that if, ten years later, the company that was maintaining it turns incompetent or goes bankrupt, you can take the code to someone else and contract *them* to maintain it; and, of course, like all open-source software, you get the benefit of peer review from all over. Just make the company with the maintenance contract responsible for reviewing the patches submitted before accepting them, and there you go.
;)
Imagine the benefit you would gain from a few dozen air traffic controllers hacking on the code they depend on every day in their spare time, with professional programmers working under bloodthirsty contract standing by to filter out their mistakes. It's a veritable Open Source Utopia.
Ah. You're right about the MIS stuff, I misunderstood. (That seems to happen a lot with this paper.)
Yeah, really, the general obfuscation of the whole thing is pretty gross. I do wonder if anyone's exchanged email with him about it. I'm still toying with the idea.