I don't see what the problem with links is when the matter is thought about logically. Deep links may bring people past advertisements, but (how can any company not realize this?) it is generally going to be a 1-time bypass that exposes people to their content, and possible gets them more readers.
As far as the legality of it goes, claiming any types of links is just totally absurd. If I walk through the streets with a sign on my chest that says "McDonald's is on 18th street and 6th avenue," would my actions warrant a lawsuit? I admit IANAL, but let's hope not. It seems to me that all websites, unless they require registration (as suggested in the post), should be considered partially public places, as they are more or less freely accessible. Will it soon be illegal for me to bookmark webpages that aren't homepages, because I'm accessing material while bypassing the author's intended starting point? That does not seem like much of a reach if what ol' Bruce Sunstein advocates becomes law.
"Benford and Hawking share insights on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything..."
I know it's not always easy to come up with all new topics for an interview, but I think we already know Hawking's views on the meaning of life. His philosphy is revealed fairly clearly:
"I'm just chillin' yo, no place to be. I take another pull off my 40z. I'm thinking about spinning a fatass tree, a B to the L to the U-N-T."
Or perhaps: "Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority, because kicking their punk asses be my paramount priority. Them wackass bitches say evolution's just a theory. They best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me."
This is getting a bit off topic, but I hope the humor redeems it.
You put decals and bumperstickers on it which embarrass it
Has anybody else seen the ads on TV for the "Monster Booty" soundtrack? The free "goodie" that it comes with is a bumper sticker that says "I Break For Monster Booty!" I am not making this up!
I can just imagine someone with one of these really expensive emotion-emulating cars, and a big "I Break For Monster Booty!" bumper sticker stuck on the rear.
Had you read the article, you would know that it does not describe what stimuli cause the car to cry. Please don't tell me to read the article, which I have already done, before reading it yourself!
Yeah, that seems like just about the time when the car senses a "happy" moment, and takes a picture. In a few years maybe it will automatically email the happy pictures to the owner's parents.
The song "Turbo Lover" (hear it in the Gran Turismo 3 sound track) comes to mind.
Approach the car with the mini-pod and it lights up, opens the door, swivels the seat for easy entry as well as adjusting the seat's height. Switch off the engine with mini-pod, and the car falls in height and bids the driver farewell.
While that is really spiffy, is there really a need for this car? I'll admit that this sounds like a very cool machine, but I'd be much more interested if the research went into developing solar/battery-powered cars. I'd rather get 120 miles to the gallon than have my car talk to me.
But a point of curiosity: does anyone with the inside scoop on this know when the car "cries"? Does it do it when the engine overheats or something?
I've actually had a taxi driver, who, in order to get me to 29th street and 6th avenue from Park avenue downtown, went north to 32nd street, west to 7th avenue, south to 28th street, east through 28th street, and north through 6th avenue. That is, his route was like this:
S
v____6 ave
v ____+{ { {+ 28st
+ 29st o____^
v _________^
v 32st _____^
+} } } } } } + 7 ave
S is the starting point.
o is my final destination
The v,},{, and ^ characters indicate the direction of the route.
The _'s are there as place holders; try to ignore them.
The +'s are specific streets. They correspond to the nearest label.
Sorry if this is cryptic, I couldn't think of a better way to do at the moment.
Oh yeah, he was on a cell phone the whole time. I'm sure that contributed to the formation his route. Needless to say, instead of a tip he received an argument.
Patch Maker -- Mozilla Hacking & Patching Made Easy
Mike Angelo -- 6 October 2001 (c)
The Mozilla Organization's newest toy for Mozilla hacking is Patch Maker. It let's almost anyone familiar with XUL, JS, or CSS create patches to the Mozilla user interface - without having to deal with CVS (Concurrent Versions System), source code, C++, and/or compiling.
Patch Maker makes it easier to write and to submit Mozilla user interface (UI) patches. It was written by Mozilla developer Gervase Markham primarily for people who are not in to, or up to, dealing with CVS and compiling. Even people that are up to snuff skill-wise might not have sufficient computer resources to work with the Mozilla CVS and compiling Mozilla source code.
The impetus for creating Patch Maker seems to lie in the fact that Mozilla bugs are raging out of control. So the Mozilla developers are hoping to get more bug-fixing help from the Mozilla and Open Source communities by making it easier for people to write and submit bug-fix patches.
XUL (pronounced zuul) is Mozilla implementation of XML that is used to describe the interactive Web-like page faces of Mozilla-based applications. Think of XUL as the Mozilla developers' name for an XML-based language used to describe the UI (User Interface). Creating a Mozilla skin or UI is mostly a matter of hacking the XUL, XML, CSS, JS and so forth that define the chrome and skin, and/or redoing the graphic images and widgets they use.
To be more precise, however, XUL is not exactly XML. A standard XML parser cannot interpret XUL. That is why you cannot display XUL as a Web page with Internet Explorer 5, Netscape 4.x, or other non-Mozilla-based browsers. Mozilla-based browsers have a special parser that can interpret XUL.
Here is how it works. The Mozilla browser suite is built on top of the underlying Mozilla application programming framework, which is written in C++. For the most part, the Mozilla browser-suite user-interface employs XUL, JS, and CSS. Patch Maker is a Perl script that let's you modify the user interface XUL, JS, or CSS and try your modification(s) without having to download, compile, or recompile the source code -- and without having to deal with CVS.
More About the Mozilla Application Programming Framework
Mozilla-based Web-browser suites, including the navigator, e-mail, news, and composer components, all are applications built to run upon the underlying Mozilla application programming framework. So what you see when you run such Mozilla-based Web-browser suites essentially are interactive Web-like pages defined and controlled by the XUL, JS, and CSS code, which is interpreted at run time.
What you see when you open Mozilla or Netscape 6 (NS6) browser suites is not the Mozilla or NS6 program itself. What you see essentially is an interactive Web page generated by Mozilla and its Gecko layout engine.
Web page is an oversimplification. The Mozilla Web-browser face is similar to a Web page in that it is laid out by Mozilla's Gecko engine much as the Gecko engine lays out a Web page. Mozilla-the-browser is a combination of text, images, widgets and so forth laid out by Gecko to form an interactive user interface. That interactive user interface is very much similar to a Web page. Something we will call a Web-like page here.
Downloading & Using Patch Maker
Patch Maker is limited to the XUL, JS, and CSS code that runs on top of the underlying Mozilla application programming framework, It will not let you create patches for the underlying Mozilla framework.
You can download the Patch Maker script from the Mozilla Organization Web site. You also should read the Patch Maker Web page on the Mozilla Organization Web site. Links for the Patch Maker script and Web page are in the Resources Section at the end of this article.
Patch Maker is designed primarily for Linux. However, according to the PageMaker Web site, you should be able to use Page Maker with Windows if you also download ActivePerl and Cygwin.
If you would like to hack the Mozilla or Netscape browser suites without using Patch Maker, please check our Mozilla-skinning articles, MozillaQuest the Series: Building Your Own Mozilla-Based Web Browser .
For more information about Mozilla the organization, Mozilla the application programming framework, and Mozilla the Web browser suite, please see the series, Mozilla--A Lizard for All Seasons. (Please check the Resources Section at the end of this article for links.)
In that vein, here's Ebert's review. I'm sorry to say that I trust Ebert's opinions more than Katz's, as they more often reflect my own. He (Ebert) gave it his fairly common three-star rating, so I think it's probably worth watching as a rental.
There is one instance in which I believe that virtual child pronography should be banned. One of the major problems that arises with the legality of this is that it can be extremely difficult if not impossible to tell if some very well-made porn is real or not. For simple reasons of practicality, I would accept a ban of virtual child pornography that looks so real as to be indistinguishable from a photograph. This, obviously, would have to be decided of a jury of some kind, not by a single person. I am in principle against the banning of this, however realistic, but that would make charging and sentencing those reprehensible individuals who do create real child pornography almost impossible.
I disagree. The legality of this should not be related to what it inspires. The question of legality should be related only to the product itself. If studies show that the vast majority of people who read book X become significantly more susceptible to comitting crimes of heinous nature, should we ban book X? Speaking from your point of view, we should. I do not believe we should. Whether a book can do this or not is moot; I my disagreement is based on principle, not practice. The people who perpetrate such repulsive acts as seduction and abuse of minors should undoubtedly be held fully accountable for their actions, but by banning what people think "inspires" them (I put this in quotes because I feel it is our duty to control ourselves, and inspiration is no excuse for responsiblity), we will erase the line that is holding intrusive censorship at bay.
Will banning child pornography affect me at all? Not in any way I can think of. However, it opens the door for censorship that will affect everyone. Censoring things because they are "indecent" or because they "make people more likely to perpetrate particular acts" is a ridiculous idea that has frightening long-term implications.
In response to: To refute your example of the effect of violent movies on children in comparison to child porn presentations on anyone (typically adult males), the majority of children who have seen violent movies will not directly act upon their exposure to the violence.
This doesn't refute my example. My point was not based on actual results. I even included a message to clarify that in parentheses! The point is that the free speech rights of the first amendment should override any effects or inherent qualities of a form of expression, as long as nothing illegal has been done in the creation of such work.
Don't get me wrong here: I think that child pornography is a disgusting idea, and that it is the moral responsibility of those who are sexually aroused by it to refrain from indulging that facet of their personality, because it is one of the few things in this world that is intrinsically evil.
However, regardless of what effects it may have, it still should be protected under free speech. If violent movies cause some kids to become more violent (this is an if, not a statement), violent movies should undoubtedly still be protected by free speech. No matter how disgusting fake child pornography is, it still has a right as a form of (however twisted) expression.
I go to Stuyvesant High School, which is four blocks from the World Trade Center. I don't want to write to much here, but I have never been so scared before in my life. Before we were evacuated, somebody told me that they had just heard that the NYC Supreme Court (very close to our school as well) had been bombed, so I thought the attacks were still going on. Of course this was not the case, but I couldn't verify it because we had lost TV signal with the collapse of Tower 2.
Just as I was leaving the school with the first couple hundreds of the three thousand students, Tower 1 collapsed. People started screaming and running back inside, and I started to follow them but then regained some semblance of composure and continued to exit, because no police officers or faculty were telling us to go back. I thought that the school or the area near the school had exploded or was being bombed.
When I got outside I saw a girl, clearly a student, crying, motioning into the school and shouting "go back!" I stopped for a moment, but then continued after realizing that all the police officers were still telling us to exit. As I passed them one of them said something like "Go quickly but keep calm," and that's when I took off. I ran a mile and a half up the West Side Highway and East into Manhattan until I felt I had effectively distanced myself from all of downtown's happenings. As it turns out, our school was not harmed nor attacked, though it was engulfed in the smoke from the collapse of the WTC. If you catch the clip on Fox News of students running out of the building, you'll probably see me. I remember, as I was first leaving the school, thinking "I may die here today," and being numb and uncomprehending about it. I didn't think the probability was that I was going to die, but I considered it a serious possibility, and I've never had to confront that kind of fear before in my life. It was terrifying.
Display the URL of every link automatically! No more goatse.cx for me! Bwa ha ha ha ha!
STOP! DO NOT VISIT THE ABOVE LINK!
on
Seanbaby.com
·
· Score: 1
Sorry about that, it seems to have gone the way of goatse.cx since the last time I visited. I didn't mean it to be so malicious. I just hope you read this before visiting...
Re:Another great site in this vein...
on
Seanbaby.com
·
· Score: 2, Informative
SA is the king of online sarcastic humor. Back when Lowtax was working on it 7/52 and it was able to financially support him (before GameFan went under), it was at a level of hilarity that has never been rivaled in this universe... Rich Kyanka is a funny guy, and his real personality seems to be down to earth and reasonable as well.
And for those of you who've never visited SA before, be SURE to check out http://www.somethingawful.com/jeffk.
Though it would be horribly wasteful, you could be sure that your computer is the source of much techno-penal-envy. Apply the same cooling process to your overclocked CPU, invite some friends over to check out your new processor, and...
"Hold on a sec while I turn on the 'fan'."
I think the issue has more to do with the termination of accounts of users who haven't comitted any crimes and methods of enforcement. It's not illegal to obtain a copy of a song that you already own on CD. Additionally, making sure that clients aren't violating the non-copyrighted-filesharing ToS would require the ISP to individually check the data flowing from each client, something which seems like a gross, possibly illegal, violation of privacy. What if there's a mistake and I just happen to be emailing my friend a file that's really personal?
Slashdot Mirror
"...claiming any types of links is just totally absurd..."
That should be: "...claiming any type of links is illegal is just totally absurd..."
I don't see what the problem with links is when the matter is thought about logically. Deep links may bring people past advertisements, but (how can any company not realize this?) it is generally going to be a 1-time bypass that exposes people to their content, and possible gets them more readers.
As far as the legality of it goes, claiming any types of links is just totally absurd. If I walk through the streets with a sign on my chest that says "McDonald's is on 18th street and 6th avenue," would my actions warrant a lawsuit? I admit IANAL, but let's hope not. It seems to me that all websites, unless they require registration (as suggested in the post), should be considered partially public places, as they are more or less freely accessible. Will it soon be illegal for me to bookmark webpages that aren't homepages, because I'm accessing material while bypassing the author's intended starting point? That does not seem like much of a reach if what ol' Bruce Sunstein advocates becomes law.
"Benford and Hawking share insights on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything..."
I know it's not always easy to come up with all new topics for an interview, but I think we already know Hawking's views on the meaning of life. His philosphy is revealed fairly clearly:
"I'm just chillin' yo, no place to be.
I take another pull off my 40z.
I'm thinking about spinning a fatass tree, a B to the L to the U-N-T."
Or perhaps:
"Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority, because kicking their punk asses be my paramount priority.
Them wackass bitches say evolution's just a theory. They best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me."
This is getting a bit off topic, but I hope the humor redeems it.
You put decals and bumperstickers on it which embarrass it
Has anybody else seen the ads on TV for the "Monster Booty" soundtrack? The free "goodie" that it comes with is a bumper sticker that says "I Break For Monster Booty!" I am not making this up!
I can just imagine someone with one of these really expensive emotion-emulating cars, and a big "I Break For Monster Booty!" bumper sticker stuck on the rear.
Talk about embarrassing.
Had you read the article, you would know that it does not describe what stimuli cause the car to cry. Please don't tell me to read the article, which I have already done, before reading it yourself!
Yeah, that seems like just about the time when the car senses a "happy" moment, and takes a picture. In a few years maybe it will automatically email the happy pictures to the owner's parents.
The song "Turbo Lover" (hear it in the Gran Turismo 3 sound track) comes to mind.
Approach the car with the mini-pod and it lights up, opens the door, swivels the seat for easy entry as well as adjusting the seat's height. Switch off the engine with mini-pod, and the car falls in height and bids the driver farewell.
While that is really spiffy, is there really a need for this car? I'll admit that this sounds like a very cool machine, but I'd be much more interested if the research went into developing solar/battery-powered cars. I'd rather get 120 miles to the gallon than have my car talk to me.
But a point of curiosity: does anyone with the inside scoop on this know when the car "cries"? Does it do it when the engine overheats or something?
I've actually had a taxi driver, who, in order to get me to 29th street and 6th avenue from Park avenue downtown, went north to 32nd street, west to 7th avenue, south to 28th street, east through 28th street, and north through 6th avenue. That is, his route was like this:
S
v____6 ave
v ____+{ { {+ 28st
+ 29st o____^
v _________^
v 32st _____^
+} } } } } } + 7 ave
S is the starting point.
o is my final destination
The v,},{, and ^ characters indicate the direction of the route.
The _'s are there as place holders; try to ignore them.
The +'s are specific streets. They correspond to the nearest label.
Sorry if this is cryptic, I couldn't think of a better way to do at the moment.
Oh yeah, he was on a cell phone the whole time. I'm sure that contributed to the formation his route. Needless to say, instead of a tip he received an argument.
Here's the main text of the article:
>
Patch Maker -- Mozilla Hacking & Patching Made Easy
Mike Angelo -- 6 October 2001 (c)
The Mozilla Organization's newest toy for Mozilla hacking is Patch Maker. It let's almost anyone familiar with XUL, JS, or CSS create patches to the Mozilla user interface - without having to deal with CVS (Concurrent Versions System), source code, C++, and/or compiling.
Patch Maker makes it easier to write and to submit Mozilla user interface (UI) patches. It was written by Mozilla developer Gervase Markham primarily for people who are not in to, or up to, dealing with CVS and compiling. Even people that are up to snuff skill-wise might not have sufficient computer resources to work with the Mozilla CVS and compiling Mozilla source code.
The impetus for creating Patch Maker seems to lie in the fact that Mozilla bugs are raging out of control. So the Mozilla developers are hoping to get more bug-fixing help from the Mozilla and Open Source communities by making it easier for people to write and submit bug-fix patches.
XUL (pronounced zuul) is Mozilla implementation of XML that is used to describe the interactive Web-like page faces of Mozilla-based applications. Think of XUL as the Mozilla developers' name for an XML-based language used to describe the UI (User Interface). Creating a Mozilla skin or UI is mostly a matter of hacking the XUL, XML, CSS, JS and so forth that define the chrome and skin, and/or redoing the graphic images and widgets they use.
To be more precise, however, XUL is not exactly XML. A standard XML parser cannot interpret XUL. That is why you cannot display XUL as a Web page with Internet Explorer 5, Netscape 4.x, or other non-Mozilla-based browsers. Mozilla-based browsers have a special parser that can interpret XUL.
Here is how it works. The Mozilla browser suite is built on top of the underlying Mozilla application programming framework, which is written in C++. For the most part, the Mozilla browser-suite user-interface employs XUL, JS, and CSS. Patch Maker is a Perl script that let's you modify the user interface XUL, JS, or CSS and try your modification(s) without having to download, compile, or recompile the source code -- and without having to deal with CVS.
More About the Mozilla Application Programming Framework
Mozilla-based Web-browser suites, including the navigator, e-mail, news, and composer components, all are applications built to run upon the underlying Mozilla application programming framework. So what you see when you run such Mozilla-based Web-browser suites essentially are interactive Web-like pages defined and controlled by the XUL, JS, and CSS code, which is interpreted at run time.
What you see when you open Mozilla or Netscape 6 (NS6) browser suites is not the Mozilla or NS6 program itself. What you see essentially is an interactive Web page generated by Mozilla and its Gecko layout engine.
Web page is an oversimplification. The Mozilla Web-browser face is similar to a Web page in that it is laid out by Mozilla's Gecko engine much as the Gecko engine lays out a Web page. Mozilla-the-browser is a combination of text, images, widgets and so forth laid out by Gecko to form an interactive user interface. That interactive user interface is very much similar to a Web page. Something we will call a Web-like page here.
Downloading & Using Patch Maker
Patch Maker is limited to the XUL, JS, and CSS code that runs on top of the underlying Mozilla application programming framework, It will not let you create patches for the underlying Mozilla framework.
You can download the Patch Maker script from the Mozilla Organization Web site. You also should read the Patch Maker Web page on the Mozilla Organization Web site. Links for the Patch Maker script and Web page are in the Resources Section at the end of this article.
Patch Maker is designed primarily for Linux. However, according to the PageMaker Web site, you should be able to use Page Maker with Windows if you also download ActivePerl and Cygwin.
If you would like to hack the Mozilla or Netscape browser suites without using Patch Maker, please check our Mozilla-skinning articles, MozillaQuest the Series: Building Your Own Mozilla-Based Web Browser .
For more information about Mozilla the organization, Mozilla the application programming framework, and Mozilla the Web browser suite, please see the series, Mozilla--A Lizard for All Seasons. (Please check the Resources Section at the end of this article for links.)
>
In that vein, here's Ebert's review. I'm sorry to say that I trust Ebert's opinions more than Katz's, as they more often reflect my own. He (Ebert) gave it his fairly common three-star rating, so I think it's probably worth watching as a rental.
There is one instance in which I believe that virtual child pronography should be banned. One of the major problems that arises with the legality of this is that it can be extremely difficult if not impossible to tell if some very well-made porn is real or not. For simple reasons of practicality, I would accept a ban of virtual child pornography that looks so real as to be indistinguishable from a photograph. This, obviously, would have to be decided of a jury of some kind, not by a single person. I am in principle against the banning of this, however realistic, but that would make charging and sentencing those reprehensible individuals who do create real child pornography almost impossible.
I disagree. The legality of this should not be related to what it inspires. The question of legality should be related only to the product itself. If studies show that the vast majority of people who read book X become significantly more susceptible to comitting crimes of heinous nature, should we ban book X? Speaking from your point of view, we should. I do not believe we should. Whether a book can do this or not is moot; I my disagreement is based on principle, not practice. The people who perpetrate such repulsive acts as seduction and abuse of minors should undoubtedly be held fully accountable for their actions, but by banning what people think "inspires" them (I put this in quotes because I feel it is our duty to control ourselves, and inspiration is no excuse for responsiblity), we will erase the line that is holding intrusive censorship at bay.
Will banning child pornography affect me at all? Not in any way I can think of. However, it opens the door for censorship that will affect everyone. Censoring things because they are "indecent" or because they "make people more likely to perpetrate particular acts" is a ridiculous idea that has frightening long-term implications.
In response to: To refute your example of the effect of violent movies on children in comparison to child porn presentations on anyone (typically adult males), the majority of children who have seen violent movies will not directly act upon their exposure to the violence.
This doesn't refute my example. My point was not based on actual results. I even included a message to clarify that in parentheses! The point is that the free speech rights of the first amendment should override any effects or inherent qualities of a form of expression, as long as nothing illegal has been done in the creation of such work.
Don't get me wrong here: I think that child pornography is a disgusting idea, and that it is the moral responsibility of those who are sexually aroused by it to refrain from indulging that facet of their personality, because it is one of the few things in this world that is intrinsically evil.
However, regardless of what effects it may have, it still should be protected under free speech. If violent movies cause some kids to become more violent (this is an if, not a statement), violent movies should undoubtedly still be protected by free speech. No matter how disgusting fake child pornography is, it still has a right as a form of (however twisted) expression.
A simple and direct ad campaign, "why settle for a cheap immitation when you can have the real thing..."
Didn't work when Windows was first released...
I go to Stuyvesant High School, which is four blocks from the World Trade Center. I don't want to write to much here, but I have never been so scared before in my life. Before we were evacuated, somebody told me that they had just heard that the NYC Supreme Court (very close to our school as well) had been bombed, so I thought the attacks were still going on. Of course this was not the case, but I couldn't verify it because we had lost TV signal with the collapse of Tower 2.
Just as I was leaving the school with the first couple hundreds of the three thousand students, Tower 1 collapsed. People started screaming and running back inside, and I started to follow them but then regained some semblance of composure and continued to exit, because no police officers or faculty were telling us to go back. I thought that the school or the area near the school had exploded or was being bombed.
When I got outside I saw a girl, clearly a student, crying, motioning into the school and shouting "go back!" I stopped for a moment, but then continued after realizing that all the police officers were still telling us to exit. As I passed them one of them said something like "Go quickly but keep calm," and that's when I took off. I ran a mile and a half up the West Side Highway and East into Manhattan until I felt I had effectively distanced myself from all of downtown's happenings. As it turns out, our school was not harmed nor attacked, though it was engulfed in the smoke from the collapse of the WTC. If you catch the clip on Fox News of students running out of the building, you'll probably see me. I remember, as I was first leaving the school, thinking "I may die here today," and being numb and uncomprehending about it. I didn't think the probability was that I was going to die, but I considered it a serious possibility, and I've never had to confront that kind of fear before in my life. It was terrifying.
Display the URL of every link automatically! No more goatse.cx for me! Bwa ha ha ha ha!
Sorry about that, it seems to have gone the way of goatse.cx since the last time I visited. I didn't mean it to be so malicious. I just hope you read this before visiting...
SA is the king of online sarcastic humor. Back when Lowtax was working on it 7/52 and it was able to financially support him (before GameFan went under), it was at a level of hilarity that has never been rivaled in this universe... Rich Kyanka is a funny guy, and his real personality seems to be down to earth and reasonable as well. And for those of you who've never visited SA before, be SURE to check out http://www.somethingawful.com/jeffk.
Though it would be horribly wasteful, you could be sure that your computer is the source of much techno-penal-envy. Apply the same cooling process to your overclocked CPU, invite some friends over to check out your new processor, and... "Hold on a sec while I turn on the 'fan'."
I think the issue has more to do with the termination of accounts of users who haven't comitted any crimes and methods of enforcement. It's not illegal to obtain a copy of a song that you already own on CD. Additionally, making sure that clients aren't violating the non-copyrighted-filesharing ToS would require the ISP to individually check the data flowing from each client, something which seems like a gross, possibly illegal, violation of privacy. What if there's a mistake and I just happen to be emailing my friend a file that's really personal?