I installed spamassassin a few months ago, and it was great to begin with. Recently tho, it has been letting one or two items of blatant spam through with a hit count of 0.0, which I find is a bit strange. Anyone encountered this?
It doesnt matter that MS are a monopoly in this case, win98 people have exactly the same upgrade options as they would have if MS werent a monopoly: newer version of Windows, Apple, Linux, BSD. Just because a company is a monopoly doesnt mean the upgrade options are missing.
I would have, but in this case the police officer in charge of my case admitted that the only reason I got off lightly was because it was shown to the court that there were mitigating factors for my actions. If i had fought back right away, I would have sustained less injuries and probably came out with a worse result. For the record, after I legged it out the window, I got about 2 streets away before I called the paramedics (for her, since I thought I had knocked her out) and the cops. Then I passed out (I sustained head trauma as well):)
No, the money saved would not be enough to accelerate the development to the point of usability, simply because the things that we are missing to develop a working evelator are things that we know are theoretically possible to produce, but never have in a sustainable way. So you are basically looking at throwing more money toward researching production techniques, and because of that you cannot say that the extra money will be the impetus that provides a breakthrough next year, or the year after. Breakthroughs happen when they happen, not when you schedule them.
I like the better "Moving Mars" by Greg Bear. Yes, its science fiction and thus has the science-fictiony type stuff in it, but the politics of Earth controlling the Moon, Mars and the asteroid belt with an iron fist is very very realistic.
Ive been beaten shitless by a woman before (I was 21 at the time, she was 20), and she planned the whole thing beforehand. Basically she had been told that I had slept with her sister (untrue, told to her by someone who became her boyfriend after I told her to fuck off), invited me around for an evening in, locked the door using the security lock while i was settling in on the couch, and hit me with a fucking ball hammer. THe only reason i sustained a broken nose, wrist and collarbone was because of this fucking stupid retoric that it is totally not allowed to hit a woman in any situation. In the end, after I sustained the above, i thwapped her one, she went down and out, i got out a window and legged it.
The outcome? I got arrested by the police, had to explain everything (she admitted to assaulting me with a hammer, and causing my injuries, for the reason I stated above.) and in the end, I was charged with assault and sentanced to a 6 month suspended sentence, while she got off with nothing at all, but was allowed to take out a restraining order against me. While I was in hospital, she ripped off my bank account to the tune of just over 3000, and again the police did nothing (she had requested my pin number and had picked it up from my house a few nights before while she had keys and I was away on business. Wasnt until after this that I noticed my card was missing from my wallet).
It once took me 36 hours to install Gentoo, KDE and Xfree. Does that count? (the GRP has brought thta down to a nice and comfortable 45 minutes or so).
The problem is is that you can only say copyright infringement is wrong because its illegal. I may not personally agree with everything copyright stands for, but its part of the laws of the land that i inhabit, and unfortunately laws are not selectively enforcable.
IF there were no IP laws, then there would be little incentive for anyone to produce anything that was easily copyable. Music would go back to band performances live, because thats the only way bands would get money. Software would stop being written by professionals looking for financial reward, because they could do nothing to stop copying, and we would end up with a sourceforge type situation ( a few gems, mainly dross, certainly little to combat commercial software). Professional Photographers would cease to exist, except for event photography because they cannot resell the same photograph. Newspapers and magazines would be severally disrupted, because they could not protect the contents of their publications. Book publication would be slashed, as there is no profit in it for publishers because Chinese publishers are taking one copy of theirs, duplicating and selling it for 1% of the price.
A World devoid of copyright laws could exist, but only if finacial reward was missing from that world. Or we went back to the world of the 1700s, when information was not what it is now. THere would be two outcomes to a copyrightless world, one is utopian, or alternatively individual contracts would be drawn up for each distribution of works, rather than the catch all "contract" of current copyright law. The lawyers always win.
Not trying to post against you here, but i would be genuinely interested if you can point me to articles where the Australian Recording Industry Assosication has stated that downloads have damaged CD sales.
Also ever thought of this one? It may not be damaging CD sales, but what incentive does kazaa give the ARIA etc to provide a download service? Itunes was successful, but who knows how much revenue it is loosing to kazaa et al?
Nope, it may be illegal but it's not immoral. IP law is totally broken at the moment and civil disobedience is entirely appropriate.
Civil disobedience in these cases is where you publically declare that you are going to break the law, state your reasons why, and publically do it. Civil disobedience stives to raise the public view of the act you are campaigning against, and it does it by demonstrating why it is wrong, and why you are against it, and giving the chance for the act to be taken to court, so it can be demonstrated there as well. People downloading off kazaa, copying off friends etc etc are not doing this, they are hiding in the shadows and not performing any civil disobedience at all, and until someone does im sorry but this arguement does not stand for me.
Copyright infringement is wrong, just because its not having a negative affect on sales doesnt mean its ok to continue copying. Im not against fair use, whether implied or granted by the government, but wholesale copying of music, which is what is going on via kazaa etc, is just plain immorally wrong, regardless of what the RIAA or the ARIA or whoever does so people can "justify" it.
Discover if there is an Airmarshal on the flight. Not the easiest thing to do, since usually the pilots do not know themselves until he is onboard and seated.
Find out who the Airmarshal is. Again, not the easiest things, since in many cases the pilots are told there is one aboard, but not who he is. Also he does not appear on the passenger manifest with big asterisks against his name.
Take the gun from the Airmarshal. Hmmm, taking a gun from a person who is trained to kill you, and protect the lives of people on the aircraft, possibly at the extent of one or two innocent lives (majority rules etc). These people are trained to cope with these situations, the hijackers are not. The Airmarshal basically has the upperhand.
As I read it, the aircraft did not get its altitude wrong (yes I did read that site, and there are various things posted on there that are wrong) but that the computer was set into one operational mode, and the pilot did not alter the mode of operation.
On the early Airbus flight computers, you selected which mode the computer was to be in at any one time, ie cruise, takeoff, landing, manual operation, generic flight. If the computer was in the wrong mode to what you actually were doing, it would react differently to input from the flight controls. In this case, the flight mode was set as landing and the pilot is stated as saying that he increased the throttle and the engines did not respond. In the mode it was, the computer had no reason to increase the engine power, as it thought it was landing, and to increase the power while the emergancy breakers had not been tripped would be dangerous to the aircraft.
This was a common compliant with early Airbus pilots, that if given a go around signal while landing, they did not gain engine power until the computer was placed into a different mode of flight. So with this accident, the aircraft was in the mode for landing, and that is exactly what the computer was going to do, regardless of what the pilot wanted to do.
That the pilot and flight crew were sentanced for a criminal act is appalling, given that up until that crash, there were many complaints of Airbus flight computers misbehaving, when expected to do otherwise, being passed back to the company. It is heartening to know that Airbus redesigned the flight computers shortly after this crash to include less flight modes, and greater ability for the computer to disregard the current flight mode. This has led to less events where the pilot has failed to alter the flight mode and caused confusion.
In the case you state (I think, otherwise a similar case, Ive not heard of one in an unrecoverable climb), the pilot was given a "go around" when on approach by the ground controller. HE pulled the nose up and banked the aircraft, but the fly-by-wire system did exactly what it was designed to do, keep the aircraft within its envelope. The computer pitched the nose down to gain airspeed after it determined that the pilot had put the aircraft into a stall capable climb, and the pilot faught it, producing some alarming rollercoaster up-and-down moves. Basically in this case the pilot had been told one thing about the aircraft, namely its envelope, but the aircraft had been given more conservative parameters.
Actually the UN backed the AngloFrench move, and raised a resolution against Egypt.
Look, International Law is all well and interesting, but the Suez crisis was conducted inside it, and followed correct channels. The Iraq invasion was conducted outside it, but the Kosovo intervention was correct because the regions governing body requested internation invervention, as kuwait did circa 1991.
Why the hell does everything have to come back to the current invasion of Iraq anyway? Its like there are some people out there who jsut dont like it when some things are pointed out! Suez had nothing to do with Iraq, it was a whole different scenario, with different contenders and different potential outcomes. We were never in it to overthrow the Egyptian government, and Israel deserved everything it got.
Let me get this straight, the Suez Canal was completely in the sovereign territory of Egypt, right?
Technically yes, but egypt did not own the land or the canal. When the area was broken down after the British Empire was disbanded, treaties were made with the egyptian leader of that time which guarenteed the fact that the canal was AngloFrench sovereign territory, while physically being located within egypt. Basically the canal had the same status as embassies do today, that is they are treated as foreign soil, the sovereign territory of the country that is occupying the embassy.
The situation cannot be compared to that of the oil fields, because those were handed back to the nations, or that of Panama, which did not have clear cut ownership rights laid down. The canal was owned wholey by the coalition of business men and ownership was protected by treaties signed by heads of state, and it was forceably taken by the Egyptians. Their governments intervened in the matter, and were forced to back down by the US.
Welcome to the world of Realpolitik. Recall that France and England invaded Egypt in the 1956 to gain access to the Suez Canal when it was thought to be in their economic interest.
The main antagonist to this plan? The US forced France and England to back down.
The reason why France and England invaded Egypt to gain control of the Suez Canal was because they owned it, and had built it. The Egyptian government was outbid by a AngloFrench coalition of business men to purchase the canal from the British and French governments, and thus decided to use force to seize the canal. The French and the British governments quite rightly acted to defend their property, and launched invasions, and were threatened by the US of cancellation of various contracts and purchases, because at that time the US had fairly good ties with the Egyptian government, and the ties with the UK were strained.
Another point for war was that it was shown that there is a connection between O.B.L. and Saddam.
A rather low level Iraqi government agent was known to have met a known member of Al Qaieda for 60 minutes in a cafe in Europe in the early 1990s. That is the entire public basis on this link, and if that is the quality of intelligence that the US has and that is the quality of intelligence that the US acts upon, then god help us all. Also to note, members of the US government have met with members of Al Qaieda in the past, for much more indepth talks than these two individuals had.
Another point was that Iraq was training terrorist for use against the U.S. and it's friends.
Where is the proof that these were government funded? During the various stages of the war, the US reported that it attacked and destroyed several "terrorist camps". You know whats interesting about these reports? The majority of them place the camps inside kurdish controlled northern Iraq, protected by the UN no fly zones, and on the border with Turkey, which the kurds also controlled. Hmmmmmmm, but oh well, its within Iraq, so lets blame Hussein, its jsut convinient that he could not take any action against them himself.
The entire premise of this war stinks, and it stinks worse the longer it drags on. which ever way you look at it, the US and the UK attacked a country for reasons that either were not very well defined, or had holes so big you could drive a 747-400 through them. The US/UK wanted to see an end to Husseins rule, and to do so they used a UN situation to do so, which they had no right to do so. They acted like the local vigilante lynch mob, acting on a police arrest warrant. If that is acceptable where you are, then fine, the war is also acceptable, but it isnt around here.
What the hell are you on? The 1991 cease fire was an agreement between the UN and Iraq, not the US and Iraq. THE US DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUST DO WHAT THE FUCK IT WANTS. It had no right to "take the gloves off" without permission from the UN Security Council, which it blatently did not have and decided to ignore the decisions of the Council anyway. If the US is going to do what it wants without accepting a group decision, then what the hell is the point in it being part of the UN?
You know, im getting sick and tired of this. Yes, all those crimes happened, and I am glad that Hussein has been taken into custody and will face trial for those crimes. But the fact of the matter is that the UK and the US invaded Iraq under the pretense of disarming the Iraqis of Weapons of Mass Descruction. Those weapons have not been found, and the extensive evidence that these programs existed has not yet appeared, and so far is looking very unlikely to appear.
Now, if we held up our arms and said "Yes, ok we were not as right as we would have liked to have been, but we now have him and it would be criminal of us to let him go without punishment for his crimes." that would be ok to the vast majority of people, but we arent, we have jsut changed the pretense to include these new factors.
If Bush and Blair admitted that they were not completely correct, then that would be enough. But they havent, and so we still have legitimate concerns. This could happen again, and again and again. We could use the same pretenses to invade other countries that we have concerns over, and our politicians are NEVER wrong. Because they said so.
Thats the point he is making. Noone should expect to be reimbursed for anything that becomes obsolete, be it because its old or because it just lost out to a different technology. If the + format does loose out to - then it isnt Dells responsability that its customers bought the kit, its the customers fault for not anticipating the fact that out of two standards, one will probably fall pretty soon.
Slashdot Mirror
I installed spamassassin a few months ago, and it was great to begin with. Recently tho, it has been letting one or two items of blatant spam through with a hit count of 0.0, which I find is a bit strange. Anyone encountered this?
It doesnt matter that MS are a monopoly in this case, win98 people have exactly the same upgrade options as they would have if MS werent a monopoly: newer version of Windows, Apple, Linux, BSD. Just because a company is a monopoly doesnt mean the upgrade options are missing.
Actually, the way I read it was that it was a BSD kernel with Xnu Mach extensions. A hybrid of both!
I would have, but in this case the police officer in charge of my case admitted that the only reason I got off lightly was because it was shown to the court that there were mitigating factors for my actions. If i had fought back right away, I would have sustained less injuries and probably came out with a worse result. For the record, after I legged it out the window, I got about 2 streets away before I called the paramedics (for her, since I thought I had knocked her out) and the cops. Then I passed out (I sustained head trauma as well) :)
I live in Wiltshire in the UK. Yeah so the US doesnt have a monopoly on stoopid laws :)
No, the money saved would not be enough to accelerate the development to the point of usability, simply because the things that we are missing to develop a working evelator are things that we know are theoretically possible to produce, but never have in a sustainable way. So you are basically looking at throwing more money toward researching production techniques, and because of that you cannot say that the extra money will be the impetus that provides a breakthrough next year, or the year after. Breakthroughs happen when they happen, not when you schedule them.
I like the better "Moving Mars" by Greg Bear. Yes, its science fiction and thus has the science-fictiony type stuff in it, but the politics of Earth controlling the Moon, Mars and the asteroid belt with an iron fist is very very realistic.
Ive been beaten shitless by a woman before (I was 21 at the time, she was 20), and she planned the whole thing beforehand. Basically she had been told that I had slept with her sister (untrue, told to her by someone who became her boyfriend after I told her to fuck off), invited me around for an evening in, locked the door using the security lock while i was settling in on the couch, and hit me with a fucking ball hammer. THe only reason i sustained a broken nose, wrist and collarbone was because of this fucking stupid retoric that it is totally not allowed to hit a woman in any situation. In the end, after I sustained the above, i thwapped her one, she went down and out, i got out a window and legged it.
The outcome? I got arrested by the police, had to explain everything (she admitted to assaulting me with a hammer, and causing my injuries, for the reason I stated above.) and in the end, I was charged with assault and sentanced to a 6 month suspended sentence, while she got off with nothing at all, but was allowed to take out a restraining order against me. While I was in hospital, she ripped off my bank account to the tune of just over 3000, and again the police did nothing (she had requested my pin number and had picked it up from my house a few nights before while she had keys and I was away on business. Wasnt until after this that I noticed my card was missing from my wallet).
It once took me 36 hours to install Gentoo, KDE and Xfree. Does that count? (the GRP has brought thta down to a nice and comfortable 45 minutes or so).
The problem is is that you can only say copyright infringement is wrong because its illegal. I may not personally agree with everything copyright stands for, but its part of the laws of the land that i inhabit, and unfortunately laws are not selectively enforcable.
IF there were no IP laws, then there would be little incentive for anyone to produce anything that was easily copyable. Music would go back to band performances live, because thats the only way bands would get money. Software would stop being written by professionals looking for financial reward, because they could do nothing to stop copying, and we would end up with a sourceforge type situation ( a few gems, mainly dross, certainly little to combat commercial software). Professional Photographers would cease to exist, except for event photography because they cannot resell the same photograph. Newspapers and magazines would be severally disrupted, because they could not protect the contents of their publications. Book publication would be slashed, as there is no profit in it for publishers because Chinese publishers are taking one copy of theirs, duplicating and selling it for 1% of the price.
A World devoid of copyright laws could exist, but only if finacial reward was missing from that world. Or we went back to the world of the 1700s, when information was not what it is now. THere would be two outcomes to a copyrightless world, one is utopian, or alternatively individual contracts would be drawn up for each distribution of works, rather than the catch all "contract" of current copyright law. The lawyers always win.
Not trying to post against you here, but i would be genuinely interested if you can point me to articles where the Australian Recording Industry Assosication has stated that downloads have damaged CD sales.
Also ever thought of this one? It may not be damaging CD sales, but what incentive does kazaa give the ARIA etc to provide a download service? Itunes was successful, but who knows how much revenue it is loosing to kazaa et al?
Nope, it may be illegal but it's not immoral. IP law is totally broken at the moment and civil disobedience is entirely appropriate.
Civil disobedience in these cases is where you publically declare that you are going to break the law, state your reasons why, and publically do it. Civil disobedience stives to raise the public view of the act you are campaigning against, and it does it by demonstrating why it is wrong, and why you are against it, and giving the chance for the act to be taken to court, so it can be demonstrated there as well. People downloading off kazaa, copying off friends etc etc are not doing this, they are hiding in the shadows and not performing any civil disobedience at all, and until someone does im sorry but this arguement does not stand for me.
Copyright infringement is wrong, just because its not having a negative affect on sales doesnt mean its ok to continue copying. Im not against fair use, whether implied or granted by the government, but wholesale copying of music, which is what is going on via kazaa etc, is just plain immorally wrong, regardless of what the RIAA or the ARIA or whoever does so people can "justify" it.
- Discover if there is an Airmarshal on the flight. Not the easiest thing to do, since usually the pilots do not know themselves until he is onboard and seated.
- Find out who the Airmarshal is. Again, not the easiest things, since in many cases the pilots are told there is one aboard, but not who he is. Also he does not appear on the passenger manifest with big asterisks against his name.
- Take the gun from the Airmarshal. Hmmm, taking a gun from a person who is trained to kill you, and protect the lives of people on the aircraft, possibly at the extent of one or two innocent lives (majority rules etc). These people are trained to cope with these situations, the hijackers are not. The Airmarshal basically has the upperhand.
Not exactly great eh?As I read it, the aircraft did not get its altitude wrong (yes I did read that site, and there are various things posted on there that are wrong) but that the computer was set into one operational mode, and the pilot did not alter the mode of operation.
On the early Airbus flight computers, you selected which mode the computer was to be in at any one time, ie cruise, takeoff, landing, manual operation, generic flight. If the computer was in the wrong mode to what you actually were doing, it would react differently to input from the flight controls. In this case, the flight mode was set as landing and the pilot is stated as saying that he increased the throttle and the engines did not respond. In the mode it was, the computer had no reason to increase the engine power, as it thought it was landing, and to increase the power while the emergancy breakers had not been tripped would be dangerous to the aircraft.
This was a common compliant with early Airbus pilots, that if given a go around signal while landing, they did not gain engine power until the computer was placed into a different mode of flight. So with this accident, the aircraft was in the mode for landing, and that is exactly what the computer was going to do, regardless of what the pilot wanted to do.
That the pilot and flight crew were sentanced for a criminal act is appalling, given that up until that crash, there were many complaints of Airbus flight computers misbehaving, when expected to do otherwise, being passed back to the company. It is heartening to know that Airbus redesigned the flight computers shortly after this crash to include less flight modes, and greater ability for the computer to disregard the current flight mode. This has led to less events where the pilot has failed to alter the flight mode and caused confusion.
In the case you state (I think, otherwise a similar case, Ive not heard of one in an unrecoverable climb), the pilot was given a "go around" when on approach by the ground controller. HE pulled the nose up and banked the aircraft, but the fly-by-wire system did exactly what it was designed to do, keep the aircraft within its envelope. The computer pitched the nose down to gain airspeed after it determined that the pilot had put the aircraft into a stall capable climb, and the pilot faught it, producing some alarming rollercoaster up-and-down moves. Basically in this case the pilot had been told one thing about the aircraft, namely its envelope, but the aircraft had been given more conservative parameters.
IF i remember correctly, I read this about Hubbles mirror:
If the mirror was the size of London, the tallest object would be the size of a grain of sand.
Now thats impressive!
Actually the UN backed the AngloFrench move, and raised a resolution against Egypt.
Look, International Law is all well and interesting, but the Suez crisis was conducted inside it, and followed correct channels. The Iraq invasion was conducted outside it, but the Kosovo intervention was correct because the regions governing body requested internation invervention, as kuwait did circa 1991.
Why the hell does everything have to come back to the current invasion of Iraq anyway? Its like there are some people out there who jsut dont like it when some things are pointed out! Suez had nothing to do with Iraq, it was a whole different scenario, with different contenders and different potential outcomes. We were never in it to overthrow the Egyptian government, and Israel deserved everything it got.
Let me get this straight, the Suez Canal was completely in the sovereign territory of Egypt, right?
Technically yes, but egypt did not own the land or the canal. When the area was broken down after the British Empire was disbanded, treaties were made with the egyptian leader of that time which guarenteed the fact that the canal was AngloFrench sovereign territory, while physically being located within egypt. Basically the canal had the same status as embassies do today, that is they are treated as foreign soil, the sovereign territory of the country that is occupying the embassy.
The situation cannot be compared to that of the oil fields, because those were handed back to the nations, or that of Panama, which did not have clear cut ownership rights laid down. The canal was owned wholey by the coalition of business men and ownership was protected by treaties signed by heads of state, and it was forceably taken by the Egyptians. Their governments intervened in the matter, and were forced to back down by the US.
Welcome to the world of Realpolitik. Recall that France and England invaded Egypt in the 1956 to gain access to the Suez Canal when it was thought to be in their economic interest.
The main antagonist to this plan? The US forced France and England to back down.
The reason why France and England invaded Egypt to gain control of the Suez Canal was because they owned it, and had built it. The Egyptian government was outbid by a AngloFrench coalition of business men to purchase the canal from the British and French governments, and thus decided to use force to seize the canal. The French and the British governments quite rightly acted to defend their property, and launched invasions, and were threatened by the US of cancellation of various contracts and purchases, because at that time the US had fairly good ties with the Egyptian government, and the ties with the UK were strained.
Another point for war was that it was shown that there is a connection between O.B.L. and Saddam.
A rather low level Iraqi government agent was known to have met a known member of Al Qaieda for 60 minutes in a cafe in Europe in the early 1990s. That is the entire public basis on this link, and if that is the quality of intelligence that the US has and that is the quality of intelligence that the US acts upon, then god help us all. Also to note, members of the US government have met with members of Al Qaieda in the past, for much more indepth talks than these two individuals had.
Another point was that Iraq was training terrorist for use against the U.S. and it's friends.
Where is the proof that these were government funded? During the various stages of the war, the US reported that it attacked and destroyed several "terrorist camps". You know whats interesting about these reports? The majority of them place the camps inside kurdish controlled northern Iraq, protected by the UN no fly zones, and on the border with Turkey, which the kurds also controlled. Hmmmmmmm, but oh well, its within Iraq, so lets blame Hussein, its jsut convinient that he could not take any action against them himself.
The entire premise of this war stinks, and it stinks worse the longer it drags on. which ever way you look at it, the US and the UK attacked a country for reasons that either were not very well defined, or had holes so big you could drive a 747-400 through them. The US/UK wanted to see an end to Husseins rule, and to do so they used a UN situation to do so, which they had no right to do so. They acted like the local vigilante lynch mob, acting on a police arrest warrant. If that is acceptable where you are, then fine, the war is also acceptable, but it isnt around here.
What the hell are you on? The 1991 cease fire was an agreement between the UN and Iraq, not the US and Iraq. THE US DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUST DO WHAT THE FUCK IT WANTS. It had no right to "take the gloves off" without permission from the UN Security Council, which it blatently did not have and decided to ignore the decisions of the Council anyway. If the US is going to do what it wants without accepting a group decision, then what the hell is the point in it being part of the UN?
You know, im getting sick and tired of this. Yes, all those crimes happened, and I am glad that Hussein has been taken into custody and will face trial for those crimes. But the fact of the matter is that the UK and the US invaded Iraq under the pretense of disarming the Iraqis of Weapons of Mass Descruction. Those weapons have not been found, and the extensive evidence that these programs existed has not yet appeared, and so far is looking very unlikely to appear.
Now, if we held up our arms and said "Yes, ok we were not as right as we would have liked to have been, but we now have him and it would be criminal of us to let him go without punishment for his crimes." that would be ok to the vast majority of people, but we arent, we have jsut changed the pretense to include these new factors.
If Bush and Blair admitted that they were not completely correct, then that would be enough. But they havent, and so we still have legitimate concerns. This could happen again, and again and again. We could use the same pretenses to invade other countries that we have concerns over, and our politicians are NEVER wrong. Because they said so.
Thats the point he is making. Noone should expect to be reimbursed for anything that becomes obsolete, be it because its old or because it just lost out to a different technology. If the + format does loose out to - then it isnt Dells responsability that its customers bought the kit, its the customers fault for not anticipating the fact that out of two standards, one will probably fall pretty soon.
I.
Cant.
Take.Much more of this!