wow, you're right! when i first read your comment i doubted its correctness. so i went to check myself.
http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/ fedora core 1 was released Nov 5, 2003, core 2 on May 18, 2004, and core 3 (final) is scheduled for Nov 1, 2004.
that's slightly over 2 releases per year, average (and 3 releases within a 365-day period)!
You obviously don't understand how bittorrent works.
Everybody downloads from everybody else. You're not using "your" internet connection, you're using an incredibly efficient set of internet peers to transmit to each other.
You only ever have to share one copy once... and so does everyone else. That's why companies (Valve et al) are using it rather than pay for download bandwidth.
They already have #2. It's called WebDav. It's built into Apache. You set up a WebDav repository and multiple users can work on a file (only one can actively be typing into it... the logistics otherwise would be insane).
OpenOffice supports WebDav natively (ie you give it an http:// filename, and if it's a WebDav enabled server, OOo uses it). Also important to note that MS Office XP and later (though not 2000 and earlier) support WebDav as well.
Yes, it's not really collaborative editing (does MS Office have that?), but I've never seen true collaborative editing used outside a coding situation.
What? You're telling me that OOo and Java have no external library dependencies!? I seriously doubt that glibc, zlib, a bunch of math libraries, and basically the entire foundational linux C libraries (whoa, that's a lot) are statically linked in these packages.
Yes, they'll successfully install on systems with older (possibly buggy) versions of, say, glibc. But that doesn't mean it's OOo's fault if it crashes because of a bug in glibc that was fixed three years ago. Chances are, they don't know about an incompatibility between OOo and that particular version of glibc, because most people aren't using such older versions.
Redhat uses the community-supported Fedora as a base for it's RHEL product, but Fedora is by no means "beta" quality or unstable (the betas or release candidates obviously are, but i'm referring to actual releases (core 1, 2, and soon 3)). Besides, if you want a "supported upgrade path" and don't want to rely on community support, you could upgrade to RHEL. Running a three year old version of Red Hat is not acceptable. You can't compare a computer to a car.
Here's a better analogy. You bought a car ten years ago. It still runs fine. You want to add a new version of OpenOffice... i mean, you want to add a rotary engine/fuel cell power source/hoverjet assembly. can you do that on a ten year old car? yes, but the -car must be modified-. you can't put OOo on a stock RedHat 8 system and expect it to work flawlessly, because it hasn't been tested on that platform.
All libraries are not equal. Glibc is not perfect. Try to run software versions that are chronologically compatible. Hint: don't run software that relies on 2004 versions of glibc (but only checks for "glibc" due to an oversight/assumption) with a 2001 version of glibc.
Substitute "insert library here" for glibc in everything I've said above.
Rather than create a patch, you might try running updated or more standards-conforming software.
"RH Linux" hasn't been around for a couple years (I can only assume you're running RH8 or 9, forgive me if it's RHEL). A fresh install of Fedora would alleviate all of your problems, trust me. I've been running various linux distributions (Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Fedora) over the last six years, and I've never run into any of the problems you describe.
It would appear that the Firefox people aren't leaving the linux world behind, they're leaving you behind personally. Could it be that their newest binary releases aren't supported on an old version of Red Hat (same for OOo)?
These are simply not problems experienced by the majority of users, and as such, are a little hard to understand.
alienated all the allies we had after 9/11 (notice nobdy had a problem with us going to Afghanistan.. we knew Saddam was there, we could prove it, he attacked us, we went).
Did you mean.... Osama? All I can think is that you've become confused thanks to the media confusion and Bush's insistence on a link between Osama and Saddam... it's enough to confused even Bush (as he slipped once during the debates and almost said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, just as you implied)...
i think what you're missing is the difference in demographics... wal-mart shoppers are not likely to be in the same crowd as those who buy books/electronics/etc on the internet.
also, things like groceries and scotch tape don't sell well on the internet. i'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to figure out why.
the "guardians" are the ones making war. are you telling me that we need... the guardians... to protect us all from... the guardians?
if nobody had a military, nobody would need one. there is no causal relationship there... it's the same as nuclear proliferation. either we all have them, or we all don't, and there's no in-between.
How many companies today are deciding between Linux and Windows NT?
Most of them. Windows NT is a product line that includes the following products:
Windows NT 1.0-4.0 Windows 2000 Windows XP Windows 2003 Server
Asking that question is like saying most companies are looking at using RHEL, and then saying "How many companies today are deciding between Windows and Red Hat Linux?", as if "Red Hat Linux" did not apply to their new RHEL product...
By that measurement, John Kerry and George W. Bush are much "stronger" candidates than any third parties, so what's the point of including any number (greater than 0) of third party candidates?
I really don't think popularity is what the poster was going for. Maybe... ability to challenge the status quo and arbitrary conventions that the two parties hold to, as well as the positions on issues of the main candidates that are not in the best interest (or not the most popular stance) among the American people.
Yeah, it's funny how that's been happening as of late.
Ten years ago, Senator John Kerry was supporting export restrictions on encryption in Congress, while Senator John Ashcroft (Bush's Attorney General) was against such restrictions.
Zoom ahead, and John Kerry is against the USAPATRIOT act, a bill championed by John Ashcroft, severely limiting personal freedoms in the United States and expanding the powers of the federal government.
Kerry might or might not be a "good" Catholic. That's irrelevant. He understands that it is not the place of the federal government to put forth legislation based on any religious position, be it one he agrees with or not.
He is -personally- against abortion, but understands that it should not be within the power of the federal government to prevent others (who do not share his religious views) to do what they will. Why can't more politicians take this stance (among those who -are- personally against abortion)?
according to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/browse.html:
department of agriculture: 19.1 billion department of commerce: 5.7 billion department of defense: 401.7 billion department of education: 57.3 billion department of energy: 24.3 billion department of health and human services: 66.8 billion department of homeland security: 33.8 billion department of housing and urban development: 31.3 billion department of the interior: 10.8 billion department of justice: 18.7 billion department of labor: 11.9 billion department of state (and international assistance programs): 10.3 billion department of transportation: 57.4 billion department of the treasury: 10.8 billion department of veterans affairs: 29.7 billion corps of engineers - civil works: 4.0 billion environmental protection agency (EPA): 7.8 billion national aeronautics and space administration (NASA): 16.2 billion national science foundation (NSF): 5.7 billion small business adminstration: 0.68 billion social security administration: 9.1 billion
or, if you look at the summary table provided at http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb2 0041 242/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/budget/tab les.pdf... the department of defense is about 45% of the total government, in terms of spending.
seeing as the single largest chunk of government spending / size is the military ($281 billion spent per year, under Clinton even), shrinking that massive beast would easily pay for the kinds of programs Cobb wants without increasing taxes or overall size of government. it would probably even decrease.
the government already pays for most education, some medical care, and a huge amount of energy research (just move some of that to -antipollution- energy research), and inner city housing assistance... and does so with the lowest federal taxes among democratic states.
slightly o/t, but a min wage level wouldn't be paid for by the government, except to government employees... it would have a much larger effect on corporations.
well, my point was more that rebooting a piece of "critical ATC hardware" absolutely should not -happen-... hell, rebooting critical anything shouldn't happen.
does anyone else see how completely ridiculous it is that they were -okay- with using a system that had to be rebooted every 30 days?
it's the boss' fault for making a task like that necessary in the first place.
if i design a system in which someone has to press a button every 12 hours or the world blows up, would anyone want to use that system? no, you think? what if you could -order someone who works below you- to do it!?
that's just plain stupid management. the rebooting job is a waste of the tech's time (anyone competent could make it reboot automatically) and a completely unnecessary job (any competant operating system doesn't need to be rebooted every 30 days, or even every 3 years).
If the boss had scheduled maintanance (Windows Update, to get service pack 4) or had used an operating system that doesn't require that much maintanance to function correctly, the job wouldn't have needed to be performed.
the boss should be fired for general incompetence/negligence (since he had the responsibility to make the system stable), and the tech should be put to work carrying boxes or something (or just fired as well), since he isn't competent enough to put an automatic timer on the rebooting.
well, i answered that in the reply, though admittedly not well.
those who make more have more, and those who have more benefit more from government services. take, for example, schools. a hypothetical rich person and poor person each have two kids. they send their kids to public school, and so far the rich person has paid quite a bit more dollars for this privilege. the poor person's kids, having been to school, become productive members of society (or more productive than they would have been) 10-15 years later. the rich person benefits (through returns on investments in society) from the effect that the school has on society more than he could have possibly benefited from sending any children there (financially speaking).
it's in the best interest of the rich to keep society functioning (well). no single rich person can afford (literally) to have the schools in this country cease to function as a whole, or to have roads not work.
the poor person could probably care less. they're not invested financially in society. chances are, they're barely surviving day to day, and all they really need is food, water, and shelter.
at the very least, people who have more should pay the -same amount- proportionally.
i don't think anybody's going to suggest that the rich pay less, as a percentage of their income, than the poor... that's a broken economic system, aside from being "unfair" or whatever.
however, this is exactly what is being proposed through the tax on goods and services rather than income.
if the poor pay more as a percentage of their income than the rich, then the government programs that are being distributed evenly across the population are being gotten for cheaper by the rich than the poor. this is a bypass of capitalism, and a way for (effectively) those who pay less in tax to "steal" by getting things more cheaply than they would be in a market system.
the government provides goods and services to all (such as roads, energy subsidies, parks, and schools), for free (not really, it's tax money), and unless that is going to change, then it's not a good idea to implement an unbalanced tax system in which some individuals pay more or less than others.
right now, the tax system is such that the rich pay more, as a percentage of their income, than the poor... that isn't exactly fair either, but it's seen by most as a way to rectify the "unfair" (extremely slanted, if you look at a graph) distribution of wealth in the first place.
the reason it doesn't make sense to have the poor person pay the same amount in actual dollars as the rich is that the government wouldn't be able to bring in even 1/10 of its tax money that way. not even close. unless you want to put the poor in debt (like they're not already, but that's another story) by taxing them more than they have (it's been tried, it definitely doesn't work, lol)...
what he meant by platform was processor architecture.
writing gcc-only code on x86 is just as bad as writing icc-only code on x86, but if you want your program to run on sparc, or whatever, you'd be better off writing for gcc (assuming you have to write for a specific compiler)
you're right, of course, about coding for the ansi standard. definitely a better idea.
it would be horribly inefficient, and would get slow for large numbers, but you could write an algorithm to do it. just loop (use a while loop) forward from 1^1, 2^2 (use whole numbers at this point) etc, until you go beyond the target. then loop back accurate to the tenths place until you're less than the target. then loop forward accurate to the hundredths place until you're above, etc.
do this for as long as you want to (as much accuracy as you need, keeping in mind it gets 10 times slower for each decimal place), and then average the result that's slightly above (or below) with the one you got before it, with a certain range of error.
but that's just an estimation algorithm, and may not be what you're looking for.
He can't get federal matching funds, because that's done by Party... the best he could possibly hope for is getting the Reform Party federal matching funds, but there's no way that's going to happen (I'm not even sure if it's technically possible given the status of the Reform Party).
No, seriously, this is not just another blind linux-advocacy "w00t linux" post... but if you're reading about advanced topics in Linux, you might as well be already using it... just to demonstrate, you say it takes 30+ seconds to load PDF Reader (I assume you mean the official Adobe Reader), and a reply to your post lists 3-4 seconds to load Adobe Reader on a fast system.
I have a fast system, and this is the time it took to open, and then close the file with xpdf. Note that I actually opened xpdf at the command line with "xpdf file" and then waited for it to be fully open, and then actually clicked the quit button (meaning a lot of the time is my response time)... and this is how long it took:
real 0m1.752s user 0m0.100s sys 0m0.030s
So it took 0.1 seconds of CPU time, and 1.752 seconds of actual time (including the time it took me to hit the quit button)... is that not -very- attractive to you?
Slashdot Mirror
wow, you're right! when i first read your comment i doubted its correctness. so i went to check myself.
http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
fedora core 1 was released Nov 5, 2003, core 2 on May 18, 2004, and core 3 (final) is scheduled for Nov 1, 2004.
that's slightly over 2 releases per year, average (and 3 releases within a 365-day period)!
You obviously don't understand how bittorrent works.
Everybody downloads from everybody else. You're not using "your" internet connection, you're using an incredibly efficient set of internet peers to transmit to each other.
You only ever have to share one copy once... and so does everyone else. That's why companies (Valve et al) are using it rather than pay for download bandwidth.
They already have #2. It's called WebDav. It's built into Apache. You set up a WebDav repository and multiple users can work on a file (only one can actively be typing into it... the logistics otherwise would be insane).
OpenOffice supports WebDav natively (ie you give it an http:// filename, and if it's a WebDav enabled server, OOo uses it). Also important to note that MS Office XP and later (though not 2000 and earlier) support WebDav as well.
Yes, it's not really collaborative editing (does MS Office have that?), but I've never seen true collaborative editing used outside a coding situation.
Maybe that's just because nobody does it yet.
What? You're telling me that OOo and Java have no external library dependencies!? I seriously doubt that glibc, zlib, a bunch of math libraries, and basically the entire foundational linux C libraries (whoa, that's a lot) are statically linked in these packages.
Yes, they'll successfully install on systems with older (possibly buggy) versions of, say, glibc. But that doesn't mean it's OOo's fault if it crashes because of a bug in glibc that was fixed three years ago. Chances are, they don't know about an incompatibility between OOo and that particular version of glibc, because most people aren't using such older versions.
Redhat uses the community-supported Fedora as a base for it's RHEL product, but Fedora is by no means "beta" quality or unstable (the betas or release candidates obviously are, but i'm referring to actual releases (core 1, 2, and soon 3)). Besides, if you want a "supported upgrade path" and don't want to rely on community support, you could upgrade to RHEL. Running a three year old version of Red Hat is not acceptable. You can't compare a computer to a car.
Here's a better analogy. You bought a car ten years ago. It still runs fine. You want to add a new version of OpenOffice... i mean, you want to add a rotary engine/fuel cell power source/hoverjet assembly. can you do that on a ten year old car? yes, but the -car must be modified-. you can't put OOo on a stock RedHat 8 system and expect it to work flawlessly, because it hasn't been tested on that platform.
All libraries are not equal. Glibc is not perfect. Try to run software versions that are chronologically compatible. Hint: don't run software that relies on 2004 versions of glibc (but only checks for "glibc" due to an oversight/assumption) with a 2001 version of glibc.
Substitute "insert library here" for glibc in everything I've said above.
Rather than create a patch, you might try running updated or more standards-conforming software.
"RH Linux" hasn't been around for a couple years (I can only assume you're running RH8 or 9, forgive me if it's RHEL). A fresh install of Fedora would alleviate all of your problems, trust me. I've been running various linux distributions (Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Fedora) over the last six years, and I've never run into any of the problems you describe.
It would appear that the Firefox people aren't leaving the linux world behind, they're leaving you behind personally. Could it be that their newest binary releases aren't supported on an old version of Red Hat (same for OOo)?
These are simply not problems experienced by the majority of users, and as such, are a little hard to understand.
alienated all the allies we had after 9/11 (notice nobdy had a problem with us going to Afghanistan.. we knew Saddam was there, we could prove it, he attacked us, we went).
Did you mean.... Osama? All I can think is that you've become confused thanks to the media confusion and Bush's insistence on a link between Osama and Saddam... it's enough to confused even Bush (as he slipped once during the debates and almost said Saddam was responsible for 9/11, just as you implied)...
or was it supposed to be sarcasm?
i think what you're missing is the difference in demographics... wal-mart shoppers are not likely to be in the same crowd as those who buy books/electronics/etc on the internet.
also, things like groceries and scotch tape don't sell well on the internet. i'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to figure out why.
the "guardians" are the ones making war. are you telling me that we need ... the guardians... to protect us all from... the guardians?
if nobody had a military, nobody would need one. there is no causal relationship there... it's the same as nuclear proliferation. either we all have them, or we all don't, and there's no in-between.
Aren't they completely expendible? Don't get me wrong, I like computers, but they're, well, computers, not people. ...
Oh, yeah, we -definitely- shouldn't spend money on -anything other than people-... only people should be bought and sold. wtf?
How many companies today are deciding between Linux and Windows NT?
Most of them. Windows NT is a product line that includes the following products:
Windows NT 1.0-4.0
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows 2003 Server
Asking that question is like saying most companies are looking at using RHEL, and then saying "How many companies today are deciding between Windows and Red Hat Linux?", as if "Red Hat Linux" did not apply to their new RHEL product...
By that measurement, John Kerry and George W. Bush are much "stronger" candidates than any third parties, so what's the point of including any number (greater than 0) of third party candidates?
I really don't think popularity is what the poster was going for. Maybe... ability to challenge the status quo and arbitrary conventions that the two parties hold to, as well as the positions on issues of the main candidates that are not in the best interest (or not the most popular stance) among the American people.
Yeah, it's funny how that's been happening as of late.
Ten years ago, Senator John Kerry was supporting export restrictions on encryption in Congress, while Senator John Ashcroft (Bush's Attorney General) was against such restrictions.
Zoom ahead, and John Kerry is against the USAPATRIOT act, a bill championed by John Ashcroft, severely limiting personal freedoms in the United States and expanding the powers of the federal government.
Kerry might or might not be a "good" Catholic. That's irrelevant. He understands that it is not the place of the federal government to put forth legislation based on any religious position, be it one he agrees with or not.
He is -personally- against abortion, but understands that it should not be within the power of the federal government to prevent others (who do not share his religious views) to do what they will. Why can't more politicians take this stance (among those who -are- personally against abortion)?
according to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/browse.html :
2 0041 242/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/budget/tab les.pdf ... the department of defense is about 45% of the total government, in terms of
department of agriculture: 19.1 billion
department of commerce: 5.7 billion
department of defense: 401.7 billion
department of education: 57.3 billion
department of energy: 24.3 billion
department of health and human services: 66.8 billion
department of homeland security: 33.8 billion
department of housing and urban development: 31.3 billion
department of the interior: 10.8 billion
department of justice: 18.7 billion
department of labor: 11.9 billion
department of state (and international assistance programs): 10.3 billion
department of transportation: 57.4 billion
department of the treasury: 10.8 billion
department of veterans affairs: 29.7 billion
corps of engineers - civil works: 4.0 billion
environmental protection agency (EPA): 7.8 billion
national aeronautics and space administration (NASA): 16.2 billion
national science foundation (NSF): 5.7 billion
small business adminstration: 0.68 billion
social security administration: 9.1 billion
or, if you look at the summary table provided at
http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb
spending.
is that chunk big enough for you?
seeing as the single largest chunk of government spending / size is the military ($281 billion spent per year, under Clinton even), shrinking that massive beast would easily pay for the kinds of programs Cobb wants without increasing taxes or overall size of government. it would probably even decrease.
the government already pays for most education, some medical care, and a huge amount of energy research (just move some of that to -antipollution- energy research), and inner city housing assistance... and does so with the lowest federal taxes among democratic states.
slightly o/t, but a min wage level wouldn't be paid for by the government, except to government employees... it would have a much larger effect on corporations.
well, my point was more that rebooting a piece of "critical ATC hardware" absolutely should not -happen-... hell, rebooting critical anything shouldn't happen.
does anyone else see how completely ridiculous it is that they were -okay- with using a system that had to be rebooted every 30 days?
that's the incompetence.
it's the boss' fault for making a task like that necessary in the first place.
if i design a system in which someone has to press a button every 12 hours or the world blows up, would anyone want to use that system? no, you think? what if you could -order someone who works below you- to do it!?
that's just plain stupid management. the rebooting job is a waste of the tech's time (anyone competent could make it reboot automatically) and a completely unnecessary job (any competant operating system doesn't need to be rebooted every 30 days, or even every 3 years).
If the boss had scheduled maintanance (Windows Update, to get service pack 4) or had used an operating system that doesn't require that much maintanance to function correctly, the job wouldn't have needed to be performed.
the boss should be fired for general incompetence/negligence (since he had the responsibility to make the system stable), and the tech should be put to work carrying boxes or something (or just fired as well), since he isn't competent enough to put an automatic timer on the rebooting.
well, i answered that in the reply, though admittedly not well.
those who make more have more, and those who have more benefit more from government services. take, for example, schools. a hypothetical rich person and poor person each have two kids. they send their kids to public school, and so far the rich person has paid quite a bit more dollars for this privilege. the poor person's kids, having been to school, become productive members of society (or more productive than they would have been) 10-15 years later. the rich person benefits (through returns on investments in society) from the effect that the school has on society more than he could have possibly benefited from sending any children there (financially speaking).
it's in the best interest of the rich to keep society functioning (well). no single rich person can afford (literally) to have the schools in this country cease to function as a whole, or to have roads not work.
the poor person could probably care less. they're not invested financially in society. chances are, they're barely surviving day to day, and all they really need is food, water, and shelter.
at the very least, people who have more should pay the -same amount- proportionally.
i don't think anybody's going to suggest that the rich pay less, as a percentage of their income, than the poor... that's a broken economic system, aside from being "unfair" or whatever.
however, this is exactly what is being proposed through the tax on goods and services rather than income.
if the poor pay more as a percentage of their income than the rich, then the government programs that are being distributed evenly across the population are being gotten for cheaper by the rich than the poor. this is a bypass of capitalism, and a way for (effectively) those who pay less in tax to "steal" by getting things more cheaply than they would be in a market system.
the government provides goods and services to all (such as roads, energy subsidies, parks, and schools), for free (not really, it's tax money), and unless that is going to change, then it's not a good idea to implement an unbalanced tax system in which some individuals pay more or less than others.
right now, the tax system is such that the rich pay more, as a percentage of their income, than the poor... that isn't exactly fair either, but it's seen by most as a way to rectify the "unfair" (extremely slanted, if you look at a graph) distribution of wealth in the first place.
the reason it doesn't make sense to have the poor person pay the same amount in actual dollars as the rich is that the government wouldn't be able to bring in even 1/10 of its tax money that way. not even close. unless you want to put the poor in debt (like they're not already, but that's another story) by taxing them more than they have (it's been tried, it definitely doesn't work, lol)...
wish i had mod points for this. you're my friend now.
what he meant by platform was processor architecture.
writing gcc-only code on x86 is just as bad as writing icc-only code on x86, but if you want your program to run on sparc, or whatever, you'd be better off writing for gcc (assuming you have to write for a specific compiler)
you're right, of course, about coding for the ansi standard. definitely a better idea.
it would be horribly inefficient, and would get slow for large numbers, but you could write an algorithm to do it. just loop (use a while loop) forward from 1^1, 2^2 (use whole numbers at this point) etc, until you go beyond the target. then loop back accurate to the tenths place until you're less than the target. then loop forward accurate to the hundredths place until you're above, etc.
do this for as long as you want to (as much accuracy as you need, keeping in mind it gets 10 times slower for each decimal place), and then average the result that's slightly above (or below) with the one you got before it, with a certain range of error.
but that's just an estimation algorithm, and may not be what you're looking for.
He can't get federal matching funds, because that's done by Party... the best he could possibly hope for is getting the Reform Party federal matching funds, but there's no way that's going to happen (I'm not even sure if it's technically possible given the status of the Reform Party).
He's running for -nothing- this time around.
The "Boston News" he's referring to is the Boston Globe article linked to by the grandparent post (that does, admittedly, call it "Boston News")...
I'll stick to my Washington News and New York News in the meantime... whatever THAT means.
Grandparent needs a cluestick.
where do you think the MS in msnbc comes from? it's a partnership between NBC, and, you guessed it.. Microsoft. i wonder whether it's biased...
it would seem to be so, heavily, based on the choice quotes you used. i just wouldn't expect it to be "fair and balaced", to use a Newscorp trademark.
Try using linux :P
No, seriously, this is not just another blind linux-advocacy "w00t linux" post... but if you're reading about advanced topics in Linux, you might as well be already using it... just to demonstrate, you say it takes 30+ seconds to load PDF Reader (I assume you mean the official Adobe Reader), and a reply to your post lists 3-4 seconds to load Adobe Reader on a fast system.
I have a fast system, and this is the time it took to open, and then close the file with xpdf. Note that I actually opened xpdf at the command line with "xpdf file" and then waited for it to be fully open, and then actually clicked the quit button (meaning a lot of the time is my response time)... and this is how long it took:
real 0m1.752s
user 0m0.100s
sys 0m0.030s
So it took 0.1 seconds of CPU time, and 1.752 seconds of actual time (including the time it took me to hit the quit button)... is that not -very- attractive to you?