Health insurance has always been a huge game of numbers and betting on the odds. . . . So, if you offer them a large customer base, 80,000 people, then that's a big enough market you start to drop your prices signifigantely. . ..
Whose going to manage these benefits? Will eBay have a new department for assisting their people with benefit claims?
What an insurer needs in order to spread risk is a large pool of people selected for some criteria not related to their health/propensity to make claims. The healthy group members pay and don't claim, while the unhealthy members claim a lot more than they pay, and the system works. Traditionally, such groups have been {all employees of a given company}. EBay is a good candidate for a new type of group. What will not work is any internet community that is self-selecting on the basis of wanting health insurance. Such groups will contain too high a percentage of unhealthy people.
EBay will be pretty limited as a precedent, I think. EBay's members have to really commit to EBay (be high volume sellers) to get covered. It's not as easy as saying, "I think I'll switch ISPs to Earthlink because I like the health plan."
On another note, it's not trivial to offer health insurance to a national group. Most health insurers have regional networks of physicians and services. (This is partly because insurance is licensed on a state by state basis.) Some few have enough regional networks to be effectively national, but you can bet that people outside population centers are going to find they have somewhat limited choices when it comes to selecting physicians near them. EBay sellers have got to be just about the most geographically diverse insurance group ever attempted. Many, many employers have one or a few locations, e.g. a plant. EBay users don't have any locations/concentrations other than the fact that more of them will be found in cities because that's where the people are.
By finding evidence of a huge body of water on Mars, we now know that all the theories of Martian geohistory (is that a word?) that rely on a small volume of past surface water are less likely to be true.
Hmm.. there's a lot to be said for consistency... and a lot to be said for a generator as you've described it. BUT... I won't let a computer near my game... there is something amazingly skewiff about computer-generated randomness... And of course, the essence of a good game lies in the ideas. The generation of data - well, you could go to the Bureau of Statistics for that - but it won't lead to a good game of D&D.
Heck, you can get a land form, major population centers, and a military history from the playback function of Civilization I! That's a plenty-good basis before applying personal creativity.
To capture the imagination, the world needs a hook. For instance, the dragon battles of the Dragonlance world of Krynn, DarkSun, the earth power of C.S.Freidman's ColdFire Trilogy, the Rings of Middle Earth, the One Power of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. Admittedly, some realms are rather similar to our own, e.g. the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Kalamar. But good conception usually starts from (1) a major point of difference or (2) one exquisitely imagined locale. A perfectly accurate map is a secondary or tertiary consideration in generating an exciting, intriguing world.
Go with the maxim: create only what you must. Spend your time on the interesting parts and leave the boring parts to be filled in later, if at all. Blank areas on the map are a good thing. That way you or others can put something interesting there later -- after you dream it up.
Still, if you want to write a highly detailed world generator, by all means, knock yourself out. Just make sure it can generate its map in one of the readily available terrain editor formats. The output will, of course, have to be edited to better fit the storyline. Better yet, give some thought to how the generator might be seeded with a few predetermined features to build around a preconceived hook, e.g. Olympus Mons, Devil's Tower, a Grand Canyon, an inland sea, five equidistant island city states that hate each other, races that cannon/will not interbreed and thus always attempt to exterminate the other, cannibalism, advanced technology in possession of only one group, a plague, etc.
Sure, it's great that Verizon and other wireless companies know the true extent and strength of their coverage, but I'd like to know, too. -- Before I buy.
Where can I find the map of their results posted? Answer: I the best of my knowledge, no cellular company posts this information publically. That whole Verizon ad campaign puts a bad taste in my mouth.
...If you watch US television for long, you will start to understand the obesity levels. . . . For instance, the advertising for PizzaHut leads to increased obesity, the additional burden on medicaid and welfare which increases my taxes. . . .
For a purely capitalist solution, we need to somehow calculate the true costs of advertising. So, by all means: persuade people to buy that new BMW or pizza, that is perfectly fair - just make sure the cost of the extra death, pollution, congestion, road accidents, etc is paid by the advertiser.
Turn up the gain on your cynicism filter, friends. There is little likelihood that these 'costs of obesity' and other behaviors will be charged to a company. Instead, they will be charged to us.
Consider the enormously high "sin" taxes on cigarettes. Consider health insurance premiums that are calculated based on the claims history in the insured group. Consider the driving behavior monitoring boxes offered by some car insurance companies.
Surely any properly quilified cynic (i.e. Slashdot reader) can see that we are already paying these costs. And if by some leap of an infinite improbability engine some of these costs are ever charged to a company or an industry, it goes without saying that they will immediately be charged through to the consumers: us.
Not "below the belt", so much as "above the covers" -- four feet above the covers.
And I'll be surprised if many people here don't get a GB ref. I admit: it's not quite a cult-status flick, but it's close. The rising 15 year olds don't rule/.
I think the money paid by those applying for patents more than recoups any costs associated with putting a patent database on-line.
Um, Yeah. It would if Congress would stop diverting that revenue stream to fund other things. (But the primary use of the patent fees is to pay for the cost of examining the applications. That takes actual personnel. Personanel whose resources and training we/.ers complain about on a daily basis.)
Since the point of the patent system is to encourage inventors to reveal the workings of their inventions instead of keeping them locked up, it only makes sense that the folks responsible for the running the patent office would make the information readily available.
That would be a neat trick. To have patents be enforceable, but impossible to find. Well, the USPTO not only has facilities in D.C., but also has fiche copies in so called Depository Libraries in major cities all scattered around the country.
As many have mentioned, the USPTO has also had a searchable database of HTML versions of the patents for a few years now. And that database has huge, high definition TIFFs of every page of every patent available -- better than anything IBM/Delphion ever had. The USPTOs coverage extends from the present back past the earliest patents still in force, and they are working on taking it back to the beginning.
I did pay too much for it, but not that much. The key is the tinkering. In the last 10 years, the box has received, in addition to the original components: 4 hard disk drives, 1 math coprocessor, 1 cpu, 4 modems, 1 sound card (now fried), 2 ram upgrades, 1 motherboard, 1 video card, 2 power supplies, 1 cd-rom, 5 nics, (not counting outside-the-box peripherals and OS upgrades).
It started life as an AMD 386-40MHz, 4MB ram, 100 MD HDD. In fact, the only surviving original component is the 1.44MB floppy. Good solid case, though.:-)
D'ya think maybe it's time for an upgrade? Even as a full time Eudora client, this thing is nearly unusable. Maybe I'll finally shell out for a constant connection at home and turn it into a firewall. Or maybe I'll get some potting soil and plant some petunias.
"I carefully phrased that . . . I never called the NRA idiots . ..I never called Christian Whites nazis"
After reading the original comment about four times, I have come to the conclusion that you probably didn't call the NRA or the Christian Whites these names. (Of course, you certainly did call the "single-cause zealots" a name, but I think it was meant to be descriptive.)
"Not that the NRA isn't an idiot, but that it is too thickheaded and stubborn. Not that Christians aren't the new Nazis, but that calling them names doesn't allow them to trust America enough to open a dialog."
At any rate, let me try a little translation of your original post.
"[I do not say here]
that the NRA [is or] isn't an idiot, but [I do say] that it is [being] too thickheaded and stubborn. [I do not say here] that Christians [are or] aren't the new Nazis, but [I do say] that calling them names doesn't allow them to trust America enough to open a dialog. [Some or all of these things may be true, but there are some useful things I'd like to talk about and if we start with the name calling, we'll never get to talk about the useful stuff.]
Is that anything similar to what you had in mind? If so, I will (i) grant that your original was more artfully phrased than my translation, but (ii) suggest that it also still pretty hard to read and understand.
". . . treat every person as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end. . . why isn't it followed? Why does it seem like the worst offenders come from moral philosophies that stress this more?"
It may be no more than that the failures are so spectacular. For instance, death is sad, but death of a child is a tragedy. Surely, this is because the child is seen to have so much unrealized potential. The death of an elder is, eventually, expected.
Similarly, a "worst offender" may often be considered "worst" because, in addition to murder (or suicide or bullying or whatever the act in question), this offender has also committed betrayal and, perhaps, hypocrisy. It may be that we call such offenders "worst" because of the unrealized potential for good that has turned to evil.
Of course, other explanations exist. Perhaps the adherents of such philosophies decry the fallen offender all the louder to prove that they are not like him. Perhaps the opponents of such philosophies decry the offender to score political points. Or, perhaps, the person who falls from the greatest height falls not merely furthest, but also to the deepest abyss.
"People that need to feel like they belong. People that need to feel valued by others."
There it is. I'm going to suggest (without citable evidence) that people who feel their own value, who know their own worth, aren't the ones who are taking lives (theirs or others). Because they know the worth of others, as they know their own.
Fear. Doubt. Loneliness. These really do lead to the dark side. They lead to despair, anger, and hatred. Violence is only a short step away. The means of violence are ubiquitous.
Where do we learn our worth? First and foremost, from our parents (or parent surrogates). Why? Because they have the first opportunity. If they fail, we may later learn our worth from a friend, mentor, pastor, or lover, but the odds of success drop off very fast.
So what can we do to fix this gaping hole in our society and culture? Love somebody. Love a kid. Love somebody who has a kid. Love somebody who wasn't loved enough as a kid. Do at least one nice thing, one random act of kindness, for someone today.
Then do another one tomorrow. We can debate the long term sociologic strategies at our leisure. Meanwhile, let's start right now doing something no one opposes and that we know will help.
"Just because they lack the resources doesn't mean anything."
Oh, quite right! That opt-in is impractical only means it is a bad idea (that the RIAA doesn't honestly believe can be made to work by Napster or anyone). If it were theoretically sound, the court might indeed have no choice but to impose an impossible opt-in requirement on Napster and thus kill the service.
It's the fact that opt-in would be an injunction against a lot of legal conduct, as well as the illegal conduct that does need to cease that makes opt-in unacceptable even in theory. Pick your own metaphor, but such a rule paints with too broad a brush. Shall we enjoin all encryption to prevent the planning of crime unless users opt-in to key escrow? Shall we outlaw grocery shopping unless users opt-in to purchase-tracking club cards? (OK, i know these aren't exactly analogous.)
"But the copyright owner has asked for songs to be removed and their not being removed."
A wise collective once said "DON'T PANIC." At least not yet. The filtering may yet become (mostly) effective. Good technology doesn't always spring into being fully-grown overnight. The RIAA should calm down and start being helpful by supplying common misspellings. We can bet they know what those are, since they have every incentive to police their works. Napster should try harder. It's obvious to everyone that a name filter must cover the full names, parts of the names, rot13, backwards, pig latin, 31337, all real world non-english languages, nick names. Some of this stuff is best handled by algorithm and some must be handled by hand. It takes some time.
No, name filtering will never be 100% effective and, yes, it will have to evolve constantly. But, it probably can be made good enough to get Napster off the hook on facilitating infringement and put the users back on the hook.
Does anyone else smell a scandal when the RIAA's list gets published and people start finding out they've claimed copyright to a bunch of things they don't really own? C'mon, 500K titles without a mistake? If that list were published, some one, probably an artist, would find a few errors and try to give RIAA a black eye with them. Anyone know if it has been published? Or has RIAA coated the list itself under copyright and court-ordered confidentiality?
Please explain to me where in that article it said that the RIAA was the sole keeper/maintainer of the list? I'm assuming that the copyright holder of the music is to contact napster and then opt in themselves. . . . Doesn't sound like that bad of a deal to me.
And we all thought the UDRP was bad!
(1) Napster lacks the resources to administer this. Trying to make them do so is just another attempt to drive them out of business.
(2) This is a legal 'hard problem'. Even if the RIAA were paying for it and CmdrTaco were running it, with Linus Torvalds as technical advisor, it still couldn't be done efficiently to most people's satisfaction. Let alone everyone's satisfaction. This would indeed work about as well as "Opt in TCP"!
(3) As many people have already said, this would be guilty until proven innocent. Copyright infringement must be proved by a rights-holder, not assumed. Can you say "chilling effect"?
The RIAA represents five music publishers. They may sell the majority of all music recordings, but there are many other smaller publishers and self publishers
He who controls the language controls the debate. While it's convenient short hand, "They may sell the majority of all music recordings" is conceding too much. At most, we might allow that "Of recorded music that is sold for money, RIAA members control a majority as measured by number of copies sold." (And we don't even have a stat in front of us that proves that.)
The RIAA is concerned only with music that is sold for money. And rightly so, as they represent companies whose only goal is to make money. The RIAA is not concerned with variety -- they would rather have 10 top songs that sell 1,000,000+ copies per year than have 1,000 songs that sell only 500 copies per year. The RIAA is not concerned with artistic innovation -- the middle of the bell curve pays more. The RIAA is not concerned with promoting widespread or good musicianship -- they know that if the only music available anywhere is theirs, we'll buy it even if it's bad.
The glorious revolution is that today smaller publishers and self publishers exist and can cheaply distribute their creations to the public. (And maybe even get paid a little by us, while avoiding corporate overhead.) This is why Napster, or some free song sharing service, must survive.
Recorded music has had a detrimental effect on professional musicians and amatuer musicianship over the last century or so, decreasing the numbers of both. Why pay a live player when you can buy a stereo cheaper? (Yes, yes, I acknowledge that recorded music has also had beneficial effects on collaboration, mass accessibility, etc. Flame if you must, but one post can only cover so many topics.) My point is that free, or at least zero-overhead, song sharing has the potential to make small-scale artists and bands into viable business ventures and careers again.
The situation 'on the ground' was considerably different when the following was written:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or . .." (U.S. Const. Amend. I)
In that age, freedom of the press amounted to "he who owns a printing press may print whatever truth he feels like (and can afford to print)." Well guess what? Today, we all have a press of our own. I've got a 600MHz press on my desk and a 75MHz press in my closet that I've been tinkering on for a decade now.
I wonder what I'll print today. . . . I wonder what you'll print tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Whose going to manage these benefits? Will eBay have a new department for assisting their people with benefit claims?
What an insurer needs in order to spread risk is a large pool of people selected for some criteria not related to their health/propensity to make claims. The healthy group members pay and don't claim, while the unhealthy members claim a lot more than they pay, and the system works. Traditionally, such groups have been {all employees of a given company}. EBay is a good candidate for a new type of group. What will not work is any internet community that is self-selecting on the basis of wanting health insurance. Such groups will contain too high a percentage of unhealthy people.
EBay will be pretty limited as a precedent, I think. EBay's members have to really commit to EBay (be high volume sellers) to get covered. It's not as easy as saying, "I think I'll switch ISPs to Earthlink because I like the health plan."
On another note, it's not trivial to offer health insurance to a national group. Most health insurers have regional networks of physicians and services. (This is partly because insurance is licensed on a state by state basis.) Some few have enough regional networks to be effectively national, but you can bet that people outside population centers are going to find they have somewhat limited choices when it comes to selecting physicians near them. EBay sellers have got to be just about the most geographically diverse insurance group ever attempted. Many, many employers have one or a few locations, e.g. a plant. EBay users don't have any locations/concentrations other than the fact that more of them will be found in cities because that's where the people are.
Still and all, more power to 'em, I say.
By finding evidence of a huge body of water on Mars, we now know that all the theories of Martian geohistory (is that a word?) that rely on a small volume of past surface water are less likely to be true.
The words you're looking for may be areohistory and areology. See Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.
And of course, the essence of a good game lies in the ideas. The generation of data - well, you could go to the Bureau of Statistics for that - but it won't lead to a good game of D&D.
Heck, you can get a land form, major population centers, and a military history from the playback function of Civilization I! That's a plenty-good basis before applying personal creativity.
To capture the imagination, the world needs a hook. For instance, the dragon battles of the Dragonlance world of Krynn, DarkSun, the earth power of C.S.Freidman's ColdFire Trilogy, the Rings of Middle Earth, the One Power of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. Admittedly, some realms are rather similar to our own, e.g. the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Kalamar. But good conception usually starts from (1) a major point of difference or (2) one exquisitely imagined locale. A perfectly accurate map is a secondary or tertiary consideration in generating an exciting, intriguing world.
Go with the maxim: create only what you must. Spend your time on the interesting parts and leave the boring parts to be filled in later, if at all. Blank areas on the map are a good thing. That way you or others can put something interesting there later -- after you dream it up.
Still, if you want to write a highly detailed world generator, by all means, knock yourself out. Just make sure it can generate its map in one of the readily available terrain editor formats. The output will, of course, have to be edited to better fit the storyline. Better yet, give some thought to how the generator might be seeded with a few predetermined features to build around a preconceived hook, e.g. Olympus Mons, Devil's Tower, a Grand Canyon, an inland sea, five equidistant island city states that hate each other, races that cannon/will not interbreed and thus always attempt to exterminate the other, cannibalism, advanced technology in possession of only one group, a plague, etc.
Precision never hurts, but concept is key.
Where can I find the map of their results posted? Answer: I the best of my knowledge, no cellular company posts this information publically. That whole Verizon ad campaign puts a bad taste in my mouth.
For a purely capitalist solution, we need to somehow calculate the true costs of advertising. So, by all means: persuade people to buy that new BMW or pizza, that is perfectly fair - just make sure the cost of the extra death, pollution, congestion, road accidents, etc is paid by the advertiser.
Turn up the gain on your cynicism filter, friends. There is little likelihood that these 'costs of obesity' and other behaviors will be charged to a company. Instead, they will be charged to us.
Consider the enormously high "sin" taxes on cigarettes. Consider health insurance premiums that are calculated based on the claims history in the insured group. Consider the driving behavior monitoring boxes offered by some car insurance companies.
Surely any properly quilified cynic (i.e. Slashdot reader) can see that we are already paying these costs. And if by some leap of an infinite improbability engine some of these costs are ever charged to a company or an industry, it goes without saying that they will immediately be charged through to the consumers: us.
Not "below the belt", so much as "above the covers" -- four feet above the covers.
And I'll be surprised if many people here don't get a GB ref. I admit: it's not quite a cult-status flick, but it's close. The rising 15 year olds don't rule /.
Yet.
Um, Yeah. It would if Congress would stop diverting that revenue stream to fund other things. (But the primary use of the patent fees is to pay for the cost of examining the applications. That takes actual personnel. Personanel whose resources and training we /.ers complain about on a daily basis.)
That would be a neat trick. To have patents be enforceable, but impossible to find. Well, the USPTO not only has facilities in D.C., but also has fiche copies in so called Depository Libraries in major cities all scattered around the country.
As many have mentioned, the USPTO has also had a searchable database of HTML versions of the patents for a few years now. And that database has huge, high definition TIFFs of every page of every patent available -- better than anything IBM/Delphion ever had. The USPTOs coverage extends from the present back past the earliest patents still in force, and they are working on taking it back to the beginning.
http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/search-bool.html
It started life as an AMD 386-40MHz, 4MB ram, 100 MD HDD. In fact, the only surviving original component is the 1.44MB floppy. Good solid case, though. :-)
D'ya think maybe it's time for an upgrade? Even as a full time Eudora client, this thing is nearly unusable. Maybe I'll finally shell out for a constant connection at home and turn it into a firewall. Or maybe I'll get some potting soil and plant some petunias.
At any rate, let me try a little translation of your original post.
Is that anything similar to what you had in mind? If so, I will (i) grant that your original was more artfully phrased than my translation, but (ii) suggest that it also still pretty hard to read and understand.It may be no more than that the failures are so spectacular. For instance, death is sad, but death of a child is a tragedy. Surely, this is because the child is seen to have so much unrealized potential. The death of an elder is, eventually, expected.
Similarly, a "worst offender" may often be considered "worst" because, in addition to murder (or suicide or bullying or whatever the act in question), this offender has also committed betrayal and, perhaps, hypocrisy. It may be that we call such offenders "worst" because of the unrealized potential for good that has turned to evil.
Of course, other explanations exist. Perhaps the adherents of such philosophies decry the fallen offender all the louder to prove that they are not like him. Perhaps the opponents of such philosophies decry the offender to score political points. Or, perhaps, the person who falls from the greatest height falls not merely furthest, but also to the deepest abyss.
Fear. Doubt. Loneliness. These really do lead to the dark side. They lead to despair, anger, and hatred. Violence is only a short step away. The means of violence are ubiquitous.
Where do we learn our worth? First and foremost, from our parents (or parent surrogates). Why? Because they have the first opportunity. If they fail, we may later learn our worth from a friend, mentor, pastor, or lover, but the odds of success drop off very fast.
So what can we do to fix this gaping hole in our society and culture? Love somebody. Love a kid. Love somebody who has a kid. Love somebody who wasn't loved enough as a kid. Do at least one nice thing, one random act of kindness, for someone today.
Then do another one tomorrow. We can debate the long term sociologic strategies at our leisure. Meanwhile, let's start right now doing something no one opposes and that we know will help.
Oh, quite right! That opt-in is impractical only means it is a bad idea (that the RIAA doesn't honestly believe can be made to work by Napster or anyone). If it were theoretically sound, the court might indeed have no choice but to impose an impossible opt-in requirement on Napster and thus kill the service.
It's the fact that opt-in would be an injunction against a lot of legal conduct, as well as the illegal conduct that does need to cease that makes opt-in unacceptable even in theory. Pick your own metaphor, but such a rule paints with too broad a brush. Shall we enjoin all encryption to prevent the planning of crime unless users opt-in to key escrow? Shall we outlaw grocery shopping unless users opt-in to purchase-tracking club cards? (OK, i know these aren't exactly analogous.)
A wise collective once said "DON'T PANIC." At least not yet. The filtering may yet become (mostly) effective. Good technology doesn't always spring into being fully-grown overnight. The RIAA should calm down and start being helpful by supplying common misspellings. We can bet they know what those are, since they have every incentive to police their works. Napster should try harder. It's obvious to everyone that a name filter must cover the full names, parts of the names, rot13, backwards, pig latin, 31337, all real world non-english languages, nick names. Some of this stuff is best handled by algorithm and some must be handled by hand. It takes some time.No, name filtering will never be 100% effective and, yes, it will have to evolve constantly. But, it probably can be made good enough to get Napster off the hook on facilitating infringement and put the users back on the hook.
Does anyone else smell a scandal when the RIAA's list gets published and people start finding out they've claimed copyright to a bunch of things they don't really own? C'mon, 500K titles without a mistake? If that list were published, some one, probably an artist, would find a few errors and try to give RIAA a black eye with them. Anyone know if it has been published? Or has RIAA coated the list itself under copyright and court-ordered confidentiality?
And we all thought the UDRP was bad!
(1) Napster lacks the resources to administer this. Trying to make them do so is just another attempt to drive them out of business.
(2) This is a legal 'hard problem'. Even if the RIAA were paying for it and CmdrTaco were running it, with Linus Torvalds as technical advisor, it still couldn't be done efficiently to most people's satisfaction. Let alone everyone's satisfaction. This would indeed work about as well as "Opt in TCP"!
(3) As many people have already said, this would be guilty until proven innocent. Copyright infringement must be proved by a rights-holder, not assumed. Can you say "chilling effect"?
He who controls the language controls the debate. While it's convenient short hand, "They may sell the majority of all music recordings" is conceding too much. At most, we might allow that "Of recorded music that is sold for money, RIAA members control a majority as measured by number of copies sold." (And we don't even have a stat in front of us that proves that.)
The RIAA is concerned only with music that is sold for money. And rightly so, as they represent companies whose only goal is to make money. The RIAA is not concerned with variety -- they would rather have 10 top songs that sell 1,000,000+ copies per year than have 1,000 songs that sell only 500 copies per year. The RIAA is not concerned with artistic innovation -- the middle of the bell curve pays more. The RIAA is not concerned with promoting widespread or good musicianship -- they know that if the only music available anywhere is theirs, we'll buy it even if it's bad.
The glorious revolution is that today smaller publishers and self publishers exist and can cheaply distribute their creations to the public. (And maybe even get paid a little by us, while avoiding corporate overhead.) This is why Napster, or some free song sharing service, must survive.
Recorded music has had a detrimental effect on professional musicians and amatuer musicianship over the last century or so, decreasing the numbers of both. Why pay a live player when you can buy a stereo cheaper? (Yes, yes, I acknowledge that recorded music has also had beneficial effects on collaboration, mass accessibility, etc. Flame if you must, but one post can only cover so many topics.) My point is that free, or at least zero-overhead, song sharing has the potential to make small-scale artists and bands into viable business ventures and careers again.
The situation 'on the ground' was considerably different when the following was written:
In that age, freedom of the press amounted to "he who owns a printing press may print whatever truth he feels like (and can afford to print)." Well guess what? Today, we all have a press of our own. I've got a 600MHz press on my desk and a 75MHz press in my closet that I've been tinkering on for a decade now.I wonder what I'll print today. . . . I wonder what you'll print tomorrow.