AC has an anger problem, but he is correct. All devices that use wire connections and are connected to computers must have the same power feed, including ground. That includes all the computers in your own house.
It has nothing to do with a piece of paper called a license.
The reason is that the ethernet connectors use low-voltage digital logic, which can be overwhelmed if there are differences in voltage caused by dissimilar grounds.
"All devices" means printers, for example, and all computers that share the same wires.
Also, don't plug a laser printer into a battery backup power supply. Laser printers draw too much power when heating.
The message: Microsoft cannot compete unless they have an unfair advantage.
Just like HP. Without the crazy, temporary, situation of being able to sell ink, that is mostly cheap solvent, for thousands of dollars more than the cost of the raw material, HP would be much smaller and poorer.
These people are not real business people. They survive only by being adversarial toward the world.
One thing was accomplished in Iraq. The oil profits that went to Saddam Hussein before now go to associates of Bush and Cheney in the United States and Britain. That's a huge conflict of interest.
The point of my comment is that there is a wide-ranging lack of attention to politics on the part of the people in the United States. The people are not doing their job effectively. If they were, small things like the subject of this Slashdot story could not have happened, and big things like killing Iraqis for oil profits could not have happened, either.
"And then when there's a huge discrepancy when you get your annual inspections, you'll explain how?"
I've been an electronics design engineer, so maybe it is obvious to me, but wouldn't be to others. A hundred screwy things could happen to disturb the readings. It could not be proven that the person who owned the car did anything to change the readings.
They are talking about each person having an on board computer linked to a sensitive receiver getting signals from thousands of miles away. What about computer crashes? What about reboots? What about car electrical problems? What about people deliberately jamming the GPS signals with a battery operated transmitter left on the side of a road? What about newly installed equipment that is defective and is emitting radio noise? Even car alternators sometimes become very noisy. What about a woman changing a baby's diapers and putting a wet diaper wrapped in plastic over the GPS antenna?
This sounds to me like corrupt people taking advantage of the technical ignorance of politicians.
GPS only works if the people who have the receivers want it to work, and are willing to maintain it when it fails.
This idea came from Oregon, and is entirely wacky. Yes, people will need
tinfoil, but not for their hats, for their GPS antennas. A tiny bit of tinfoil
will render the GPS completely inoperative.
Those who want corruption attack the weak states first. Oregon state
government has become, in my opinion, very corrupt, so that's where the
corrupters try their stupid ideas.
Apparently, this has very little to do with "a team at Oregon State
University". That's just to give the idea a little credibility. If I remember
correctly, the people behind it want to sell the electronics.
Suppose there is a system like this and it records that a teenager
drove 10,000 miles in the mountains of Peru last month? What could the
government do about that? There would be no taxes in California or Oregon for
driving in Peru, would there?
A system like this would make war drivers very, very happy. They could
make a very simple electronic device that would send GPS signals to every car
as they drove looking for wireless connections. Can you imagine the court
cases:
Accused: But judge, the records show that I was calmly driving
north on I-5, and then one hour later I was driving more than 100 miles per
hour through the streets of Moscow.
Judge: Will you certify for the court that you are not an alien
with extraterrestrial means of transport?
Accused: Yes.
Judge: Case dismissed.
Anyhow, this story is a dupe of a dupe, by a Slashdot editor, Michael,
who was duped:
This story should scare you, even if you don't live in the United
States. Two men, whose family and business associates and friends have
extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and
vice-president of the entire U.S. government. The president is a
not-too-smart partier and heavy drinker who has been arrested three times. The
vice-president also has been a heavy drinker and has been arrested twice for
drunken driving.
Knowing all this, think how corrupt the lower governments
must be.
You are revealing my lack of knowledge about these things.
My understanding is that the VOIP providers establish a "connection" using TCP, and then the actual communication takes place with UDP. Skype uses only UDP for the voice part of the communication.
Can anyone help here? I find it impossible to know everything about every subject in computing, as does everyone else.
Also, my understanding is that BroadVoice is far better than Vonage, which annoys Slashdotters with Flash ads, as though we are like little cats and something moving will make us follow it.
BroadVoice, like Skype, works around the difficulty. If necessary, they could do everything over port 80, I understand.
There was no court loss for WxWidgets. Microsoft challenged the WxWidgets team over the name WxWindows, and they decided not to fight. This was sensible, since the law in Great Britain is more supportive of big companies than even that of the United States.
Story about Lindows: http://www.vnunet.com/news/1130639
Those who aren't working with cross-platform GUIs may not know that WxWindows is now WxWidgets.
See the name change page. Don't use the word "windows" unless you mean a Microsoft product, because Microsoft owns the word in the UK and in the United States.
Corrupt governments don't just support overly broad trademarks against their people, they kill Iraqis for oil profits, too.
Agreed. Closed-source software companies can be extremely abusive in hiding the fact that some crucial element of their software doesn't really work. You may have to use the software for 3 months (off and on, few people can drop everything to evaluate software) to discover that it is so much hassle that it is useless to you.
And once you pay for their software, you have absolutely no recourse. In decades of evaluating software, I've never known a company that listened to their technical support people.
A Slashdot comment is too short to be a full discussion of a complex
issue. I don't think that being a billionaire necessarily makes someone
arrogant. I've never thought Warren Buffett is
arrogant, for example.
Here is some Microsoft history. Microsoft is much worse than anyone says, simply because recording all the abuses would take a lifetime of writing:
1994 October: IBM released OS/2 version 3.0, an operating system far
superior to anything Microsoft had, or would have for years. IBM launched a
major campaign to get software developed for it. Many major software houses
signed up to port their applications, but nearly all had to drop OS/2
development when they read the NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) for the
Windows 95 development kit. If you were developing anything for OS/2, you could
not participate in the Windows 95 program. The NDA itself required total
secrecy, so the reason everyone dropped OS/2 development was only rumored for
years.
1995 August: Microsoft and Department of Justice finalize
the antitrust Consent Decree. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is ordered to sign it, since
Judge Stanley Sporkin refused, indicating it was too easy on Microsoft.
Microsoft immediately starts publicly ridiculing the Department of Justice,
changes the names of the practices forbidden by the Concent Decree, and
continues business as usual.
1995 November: Intel released the Pentium Pro chip. Microsoft was
livid because Pentium Pro was optimized for 32-bit code. Windows 95 runs like a
dog on the Pentium Pro, exposing Microsoft's "32-bit" claims to be lies. OS/2 and Unix
run just fine.
1998 June: Microsoft releases Windows 98. While it contained
bug fixes for Windows 95 the real reason for its release was to bury Internet
Explorer in Windows so the Justice Department couldn't make them take it out.
1998 October: Novell introduces NetWare 5.0. NetWare gets great
reviews, and Microsoft feels the heat, especially from comparisons between
NetWare 5.0 (shipping, works great) and Windows NT 5.0 (very, very late; very,
very buggy, not shipping yet), so renames Windows NT 5.0 to Windows 2000 to
stop the 5.0 vs 5.0 comparisons.
1998 November: AOL purchases Netscape for $4.2 billion. Netscape
has been crushed by Microsoft's monopolist business proactices, but Microsoft
spin doctors say it proves the vitality of the market.
1999 April: the Melissa virus is released, bringing down
Windows-based networks worldwide.
1999 November: Guilty! Judge Jackson's Finding Of Fact in the
Justice Department suit was released, declaring that Microsoft has a monopoly
and has knowingly abused its monopoly position.
2000 February: Microsoft can't take the heat - buys off Caldera
evil business practices lawsuit. Microsoft demands a gag order as always to
keep the truth from getting out. Microsoft announces a charge of $150 million
and implies that was the total price (so Caldera position must have been
weak). Experts estimate the actual buy-out was between $350 million and $500
million based on $150 million added to pre-existing reserves.
2000 April: Guilty! Judge Jackson's Finding of Law is released
immediately after DOJ / Microsoft settlement negotiations break down.
Microsoft guilty on nearly all counts, "not proven" on a couple, and innocent
on none.
2000 November: George W. Bush is elected president of the U.S.
under suspicious circumstances. The business world presumes this means
Microsoft will be let off on anti-trust charges.
2001 June: A pro-business, Libertarian leaning Court of Appeals
unanimously upholds all 8 counts of Microsoft's conviction for abusing its
monopoly. The court then set aside the penalty for retrial due to an
"appearance" of bias on the part of judge Thomas Jackson.
When there is a new feature in software, and an organization begins using
it, the feature can become considered "necessary". However, often that same
advantage can be had another way.
Open Office has features that Microsoft Office will never have, like
complete customizability, because the source code is available.
In my experience of corporations and government, most uses of word
processors are for letters like, Dear Ms. Jones, We have reviewed your
application for a loan, and have found that you have not yet provided all the
requested documents. Please check the list we sent you again. Regards, Mrs.
Smith.
No one will ever open that file again, unless there is an unusual
problem. No one but Ms. Jones and Mrs. Smith will ever read the letter. Open
Office is a perfect environment for automating that kind of letter.
If an organization such as the one in the story that has 26,000
computers discovers that they have programmed some office automation that
doesn't always work because of an incorrect assumption about Open Office, they
can pay to have an existing feature fixed or a new feature added to OO.
On the other hand, the men who run Microsoft are billionaires, and act
like it. Even someone with an important position in government is just a small
insect to someone with a billionaire personality. Not only will they not
consider adding a new feature to their product, they won't even allow you to
communicate with them. Microsoft is run by arrogant people, and it shows in
everything they do. For example, Microsoft seems to calculate very closely
just how much aggravation they can give their customers and still keep them as
customers. (53 serious vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer in two
years! If I ever tour Microsoft, I want to see their vulnerability programming
department.)
Ask people what they want for their government. Do they want their
government to be completely free of outside control? Then they want Open
Office.
Or, do they want their government operations to be partly under the
control of someone who is spending much of his time with his wife indulging in
the rich person's hobby of doling out mere millions to unfortunate natives?
That's one way to get appreciation: Buy it.
When you have "26,000 desktops", commercial support is not a factor,
because you have your own support staff. Also, my experience with Open Office
is that the help messages are better and there are fewer serious quirks than
Microsoft Word 2000. (I've never tried Office XP because I decided to get off
the Microsoft time waste train.)
I'm guessing governments have not adopted Open Office sooner because
most government officials did not have enough technical knowledge to feel
confident in committing thousands of desktops to something that didn't come
from Microsoft. It is "you can't get fired for choosing Microsoft, even if the
software doesn't work well".
When someone chooses a software package, they are choosing business
partners, because so much staff time is invested in becoming comfortable with
software and in using it. Officials are beginning to think about this: Is is
sensible to want to be the business partner of a company that has been so
adversarial toward its customers, and which produces software of amazingly bad
quality?
If you test Open Office, be sure you test the latest version, 1.1.4. Version 2.0 will be available in April or May of this year.
Generally, when you send documents outside your company or
organization, it is better to send PDF files. That guards against accidental
changes. To make PDF files in Open Office, just click the PDF icon in the
toolbar. To do this in Microsoft Word, install additional software.
"... if you sniff the air, you can just make out the first hints of rot."
There's something wrong with the reporter's nose.
I've been smelling the ugly stench of Microsoft mismanagement since the days of the CP/M operating system.
A lot of business writers assume that, if a company makes money, it is a well-managed company. But that's not always true. Microsoft has had a virtual monopoly. The money comes from the monopoly, not from the quality of Microsoft products.
For example, the Internet Explorer browser is buggy. One-hundred-thirty-three security advisories! It appears to me that either Microsoft has some very, very sloppy programmers, or the U.S. government's spy agencies made a deal with Microsoft so that they could hack into any computer connected to the web.
As users become more knowledgeable, they are not so easily fooled. The beginnings of a revolt are starting to appear in the media. People are disgusted with all the viruses and malware.
Slashdot Mirror
AC has an anger problem, but he is correct. All devices that use wire connections and are connected to computers must have the same power feed, including ground. That includes all the computers in your own house.
It has nothing to do with a piece of paper called a license.
The reason is that the ethernet connectors use low-voltage digital logic, which can be overwhelmed if there are differences in voltage caused by dissimilar grounds.
"All devices" means printers, for example, and all computers that share the same wires.
Also, don't plug a laser printer into a battery backup power supply. Laser printers draw too much power when heating.
How to Form a Corporation.
How to Form a Corporation.
The oil tanker: "Condoleezza Rice". What did she do that so pleased Chevron that they named a tanker after her?
Read more about it: Every Day Is An Anti-war Protest Day.
My parent comment was moderated up, and then moderated down as "Flamebait", for being too negative about Microsoft.
Funny thing, though, someone is even more negative than I, a few stories later: Richard Clarke on Microsoft security: "Richard Clarke, former White House cybersecurity and counterterrorism adviser, harshly critized Microsoft's security track record. 'Given their record in the security area, I don't know why anybody would buy from them.'
With that way of looking at the world, you will never get hired at Google.
The message: Microsoft cannot compete unless they have an unfair advantage.
Just like HP. Without the crazy, temporary, situation of being able to sell ink, that is mostly cheap solvent, for thousands of dollars more than the cost of the raw material, HP would be much smaller and poorer.
These people are not real business people. They survive only by being adversarial toward the world.
Alcoholics generally have a lot of hidden anger. They see things in an angry, adversarial way. For example: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000.
One thing was accomplished in Iraq. The oil profits that went to Saddam Hussein before now go to associates of Bush and Cheney in the United States and Britain. That's a huge conflict of interest.
The point of my comment is that there is a wide-ranging lack of attention to politics on the part of the people in the United States. The people are not doing their job effectively. If they were, small things like the subject of this Slashdot story could not have happened, and big things like killing Iraqis for oil profits could not have happened, either.
"And then when there's a huge discrepancy when you get your annual inspections, you'll explain how?"
I've been an electronics design engineer, so maybe it is obvious to me, but wouldn't be to others. A hundred screwy things could happen to disturb the readings. It could not be proven that the person who owned the car did anything to change the readings.
They are talking about each person having an on board computer linked to a sensitive receiver getting signals from thousands of miles away. What about computer crashes? What about reboots? What about car electrical problems? What about people deliberately jamming the GPS signals with a battery operated transmitter left on the side of a road? What about newly installed equipment that is defective and is emitting radio noise? Even car alternators sometimes become very noisy. What about a woman changing a baby's diapers and putting a wet diaper wrapped in plastic over the GPS antenna?
This sounds to me like corrupt people taking advantage of the technical ignorance of politicians.
GPS only works if the people who have the receivers want it to work, and are willing to maintain it when it fails.
This idea came from Oregon, and is entirely wacky. Yes, people will need tinfoil, but not for their hats, for their GPS antennas. A tiny bit of tinfoil will render the GPS completely inoperative.
Those who want corruption attack the weak states first. Oregon state government has become, in my opinion, very corrupt, so that's where the corrupters try their stupid ideas.
Apparently, this has very little to do with "a team at Oregon State University". That's just to give the idea a little credibility. If I remember correctly, the people behind it want to sell the electronics.
Suppose there is a system like this and it records that a teenager drove 10,000 miles in the mountains of Peru last month? What could the government do about that? There would be no taxes in California or Oregon for driving in Peru, would there?
A system like this would make war drivers very, very happy. They could make a very simple electronic device that would send GPS signals to every car as they drove looking for wireless connections. Can you imagine the court cases:
Accused: But judge, the records show that I was calmly driving north on I-5, and then one hour later I was driving more than 100 miles per hour through the streets of Moscow.
Judge: Will you certify for the court that you are not an alien with extraterrestrial means of transport?
Accused: Yes.
Judge: Case dismissed.
Anyhow, this story is a dupe of a dupe, by a Slashdot editor, Michael, who was duped:
Oregon Considers GPS-based Road Taxes
More on Oregon and GPS-tracked Gas Taxes
If you would like to read more about my part-time, unfinished investigation of state government corruption, see The idea cannot work. So why do they propose it?
This story should scare you, even if you don't live in the United States. Two men, whose family and business associates and friends have extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and vice-president of the entire U.S. government. The president is a not-too-smart partier and heavy drinker who has been arrested three times. The vice-president also has been a heavy drinker and has been arrested twice for drunken driving.
Knowing all this, think how corrupt the lower governments must be.
Some of the Bush and Cheney arrest records.
You are revealing my lack of knowledge about these things.
My understanding is that the VOIP providers establish a "connection" using TCP, and then the actual communication takes place with UDP. Skype uses only UDP for the voice part of the communication.
Can anyone help here? I find it impossible to know everything about every subject in computing, as does everyone else.
Also, my understanding is that BroadVoice is far better than Vonage, which annoys Slashdotters with Flash ads, as though we are like little cats and something moving will make us follow it.
BroadVoice, like Skype, works around the difficulty. If necessary, they could do everything over port 80, I understand.
My understanding is that the Netgear FVS-328 blocks incoming connections to all UDP ports. It has a control panel for unblocking them.
I don't understand this discussion, or maybe I understand it better than others. I have VOIP. I have a hardware firewall which blocks all but port 80.
My understanding is that, when the SIP device finds all ports blocked, it works around the block. Maybe with STUN.
Skype also works around firewall blocks.
Can anyone explain this?
There was no court loss for WxWidgets. Microsoft challenged the WxWidgets team over the name WxWindows, and they decided not to fight. This was sensible, since the law in Great Britain is more supportive of big companies than even that of the United States.
Story about Lindows: http://www.vnunet.com/news/1130639
Those who aren't working with cross-platform GUIs may not know that WxWindows is now WxWidgets.
See the name change page. Don't use the word "windows" unless you mean a Microsoft product, because Microsoft owns the word in the UK and in the United States.
Corrupt governments don't just support overly broad trademarks against their people, they kill Iraqis for oil profits, too.
Agreed. Closed-source software companies can be extremely abusive in hiding the fact that some crucial element of their software doesn't really work. You may have to use the software for 3 months (off and on, few people can drop everything to evaluate software) to discover that it is so much hassle that it is useless to you.
And once you pay for their software, you have absolutely no recourse. In decades of evaluating software, I've never known a company that listened to their technical support people.
Funny, and so true. -- Moderate parent UP.
A Slashdot comment is too short to be a full discussion of a complex issue. I don't think that being a billionaire necessarily makes someone arrogant. I've never thought Warren Buffett is arrogant, for example.
Here is some Microsoft history. Microsoft is much worse than anyone says, simply because recording all the abuses would take a lifetime of writing:
1994 October: IBM released OS/2 version 3.0, an operating system far superior to anything Microsoft had, or would have for years. IBM launched a major campaign to get software developed for it. Many major software houses signed up to port their applications, but nearly all had to drop OS/2 development when they read the NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) for the Windows 95 development kit. If you were developing anything for OS/2, you could not participate in the Windows 95 program. The NDA itself required total secrecy, so the reason everyone dropped OS/2 development was only rumored for years.
1995 August: Microsoft and Department of Justice finalize the antitrust Consent Decree. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson is ordered to sign it, since Judge Stanley Sporkin refused, indicating it was too easy on Microsoft. Microsoft immediately starts publicly ridiculing the Department of Justice, changes the names of the practices forbidden by the Concent Decree, and continues business as usual.
1995 November: Intel released the Pentium Pro chip. Microsoft was livid because Pentium Pro was optimized for 32-bit code. Windows 95 runs like a dog on the Pentium Pro, exposing Microsoft's "32-bit" claims to be lies. OS/2 and Unix run just fine.
1998 June: Microsoft releases Windows 98. While it contained bug fixes for Windows 95 the real reason for its release was to bury Internet Explorer in Windows so the Justice Department couldn't make them take it out.
1998 October: Novell introduces NetWare 5.0. NetWare gets great reviews, and Microsoft feels the heat, especially from comparisons between NetWare 5.0 (shipping, works great) and Windows NT 5.0 (very, very late; very, very buggy, not shipping yet), so renames Windows NT 5.0 to Windows 2000 to stop the 5.0 vs 5.0 comparisons.
1998 November: AOL purchases Netscape for $4.2 billion. Netscape has been crushed by Microsoft's monopolist business proactices, but Microsoft spin doctors say it proves the vitality of the market.
1999 April: the Melissa virus is released, bringing down Windows-based networks worldwide.
1999 November: Guilty! Judge Jackson's Finding Of Fact in the Justice Department suit was released, declaring that Microsoft has a monopoly and has knowingly abused its monopoly position.
2000 February: Microsoft can't take the heat - buys off Caldera evil business practices lawsuit. Microsoft demands a gag order as always to keep the truth from getting out. Microsoft announces a charge of $150 million and implies that was the total price (so Caldera position must have been weak). Experts estimate the actual buy-out was between $350 million and $500 million based on $150 million added to pre-existing reserves.
2000 April: Guilty! Judge Jackson's Finding of Law is released immediately after DOJ / Microsoft settlement negotiations break down. Microsoft guilty on nearly all counts, "not proven" on a couple, and innocent on none.
2000 November: George W. Bush is elected president of the U.S. under suspicious circumstances. The business world presumes this means Microsoft will be let off on anti-trust charges.
2001 June: A pro-business, Libertarian leaning Court of Appeals unanimously upholds all 8 counts of Microsoft's conviction for abusing its monopoly. The court then set aside the penalty for retrial due to an "appearance" of bias on the part of judge Thomas Jackson.
2001 September
When there is a new feature in software, and an organization begins using it, the feature can become considered "necessary". However, often that same advantage can be had another way.
Open Office has features that Microsoft Office will never have, like complete customizability, because the source code is available.
In my experience of corporations and government, most uses of word processors are for letters like, Dear Ms. Jones, We have reviewed your application for a loan, and have found that you have not yet provided all the requested documents. Please check the list we sent you again. Regards, Mrs. Smith.
No one will ever open that file again, unless there is an unusual problem. No one but Ms. Jones and Mrs. Smith will ever read the letter. Open Office is a perfect environment for automating that kind of letter.
If an organization such as the one in the story that has 26,000 computers discovers that they have programmed some office automation that doesn't always work because of an incorrect assumption about Open Office, they can pay to have an existing feature fixed or a new feature added to OO.
On the other hand, the men who run Microsoft are billionaires, and act like it. Even someone with an important position in government is just a small insect to someone with a billionaire personality. Not only will they not consider adding a new feature to their product, they won't even allow you to communicate with them. Microsoft is run by arrogant people, and it shows in everything they do. For example, Microsoft seems to calculate very closely just how much aggravation they can give their customers and still keep them as customers. (53 serious vulnerabilities in Microsoft Internet Explorer in two years! If I ever tour Microsoft, I want to see their vulnerability programming department.)
Ask people what they want for their government. Do they want their government to be completely free of outside control? Then they want Open Office.
Or, do they want their government operations to be partly under the control of someone who is spending much of his time with his wife indulging in the rich person's hobby of doling out mere millions to unfortunate natives? That's one way to get appreciation: Buy it.
"maybe has a little less support"
When you have "26,000 desktops", commercial support is not a factor, because you have your own support staff. Also, my experience with Open Office is that the help messages are better and there are fewer serious quirks than Microsoft Word 2000. (I've never tried Office XP because I decided to get off the Microsoft time waste train.)
I'm guessing governments have not adopted Open Office sooner because most government officials did not have enough technical knowledge to feel confident in committing thousands of desktops to something that didn't come from Microsoft. It is "you can't get fired for choosing Microsoft, even if the software doesn't work well".
When someone chooses a software package, they are choosing business partners, because so much staff time is invested in becoming comfortable with software and in using it. Officials are beginning to think about this: Is is sensible to want to be the business partner of a company that has been so adversarial toward its customers, and which produces software of amazingly bad quality?
If you test Open Office, be sure you test the latest version, 1.1.4. Version 2.0 will be available in April or May of this year.
Generally, when you send documents outside your company or organization, it is better to send PDF files. That guards against accidental changes. To make PDF files in Open Office, just click the PDF icon in the toolbar. To do this in Microsoft Word, install additional software.
"... if you sniff the air, you can just make out the first hints of rot."
There's something wrong with the reporter's nose.
I've been smelling the ugly stench of Microsoft mismanagement since the days of the CP/M operating system.
A lot of business writers assume that, if a company makes money, it is a well-managed company. But that's not always true. Microsoft has had a virtual monopoly. The money comes from the monopoly, not from the quality of Microsoft products.
For example, the Internet Explorer browser is buggy. One-hundred-thirty-three security advisories! It appears to me that either Microsoft has some very, very sloppy programmers, or the U.S. government's spy agencies made a deal with Microsoft so that they could hack into any computer connected to the web.
As users become more knowledgeable, they are not so easily fooled. The beginnings of a revolt are starting to appear in the media. People are disgusted with all the viruses and malware.
Firebird relational database.
What about the Firebird relational database?
Evans Data says it is the best, in a survey done for 2005, but copyrighted 2003. (I'm uncertain how much they should be trusted.)
Thanks.
That's a link that a large percentage of the people who commented on this story need.
It takes patience. I started complaining about Carly Fiorina at least 4 years ago. [grin]