The U.S. government should have its own video servers, or lease them from YouTube, and not depend on commercial sites. Commercial sites can do anything they want any time they want; they don't have to consider internal government policy.
"... if they are at home watching TV or playing video games, I know exactly where they are, what they are doing, and what they aren't doing."
Children need a huge amount of adult attention. They need more attention than the adult just assuring himself that he knows what they are doing.
"During my teenage years those "not socially backward" kids as you would put them would be drinking, smoking, having sex..." That's because they got very, very little adult attention.
"... or sometimes partying."
Partying is good. Partying helps teach how to relate to other people. Partying is better than being alone playing usually very violent games.
The biggest issue, it seems to me, is that people who spend a lot of time playing video games generally lack social skills. While everyone else was learning how to relate to the world, video game players were learning how to relate to video games.
Those who play games don't realize that they are socially backward because they are socially backward.
You can read about Padmasree Warrior on the Cisco web site. There is a link to a biography of her. (PDF)
Quoting from that biography: "Warrior joined Cisco in 2007."
She is not the source of Cisco's problems; those problems were
huge long before 2007. Ms. Warrior left
Motorola on December 4, 2007. It is not
correct to imply that she had a strong connection with Cisco. She was there less than
a year.
Another quote: "Prior to that, she was the CTO at Motorola, where
she led a team of 26,000 engineers and directed Motorola Labs, with an annual
R&D budget of $3.7 billion."
Quote from another source: "Did Motorola do the right thing and retire the
head of Thoughtbeam when they shuttered the operation? Nope, in a Dilbert
moment they promoted Thoughtbeam's leader Padmasree Warrior to Chief
Technology Officer of the entire Motorola company"
Maybe Ms. Warrior helped create Motorola's problems. Motorola has been on a
loooong, slow downward slide.
When Intel's 8600 was released the vice-president of
technology at the company where I worked was very unhappy. The architecture is
poor, as anyone who has programmed in assembly language knows. For a time there was a hope that the 68000 would
take over the market. But Motorola's management wasn't able to take advantage of that temporary superiority.
Other people also think Motorola's management is
amazingly weak. For example,
Carl Icahn said this: "It is essential to the future of Motorola that
its directors realize that the BOARD, especially at this precarious time, is
NOT A COUNTRY CLUB OR A FRATERNITY, and that truly "qualified" people whose
interests are truly aligned with Stockholders, are needed..."
You said, "I personally think the best person for the role would be a non-partisan, non-corporate figure." That's what I think, also.
Dubai World sovereign wealth fund invests in other countries. See this article: Dubai fund hits back at criticism. The last sentence is "Dubai is one of the seven self-governing emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates."
If that bill passes, there will be situations like this:
80-year-old man to his 78-year-old wife, Maude: "Maude, maybe we
should get rid of Herman and get a newer car." [Herman is their name for
their 1978 Ford Galaxy.]
Maude: "John, we only drive 800 miles a year. Besides, I like
Herman."
John: "Maude, the guv'mint is giving away free money again. We may
as well get some of it. We can get $1500 for Herman."
Maude: "Yes, but what will happen to Herman?"
John: "He would go to the junkyard."
Maude: "That's no way to treat a friend."
John: "We can get a 2004 Ford Taurus for $3,600. We would pay only
$2100."
Maude: "It's probably no good."
John: "I think we should buy it."
Maude: "I think you shouldn't be driving. You
don't hear well, and you don't see well either."
It's NOT smart. Giving away free money just makes prices rise. Those buying new cars will pay more. Why would a car company give a discount when the extra money is free?
The U.S. government has NO money. The U.S. government is DEEPLY in debt, more in debt than any organization has ever been in the history of the world. This bill would be funded by the Chinese, Saudi, and Dubai governments, among others, and eventually by inflation of the U.S. dollar. Inflation makes everyone pay more, forever.
Have you checked the prices of used SUV's lately? The prices for used cars have gone UP, because people don't want to spend the money for a new car.
Many people with old cars drive old cars because they drive very, very little. There's no yearly mileage requirement in the bill. The fuel economy will not be what the bill's sponsors say.
Someone who drives an "old clunker" now will not want to buy a 2004 or later model car, and probably would not be able to buy a car that expensive. Also, there are many small old cars that get close to the 18 miles per gallon specified in the bill, and many 2004 model year or newer "fuel efficient" cars that get not much more. Someone could, for example, trade in an old Toyota and buy a 2004 SUV or pickup that gets worse gas mileage, but still good gas mileage for that "class" of an SUV or pickup.
Someone who gives a 1998 car to the recyclers that runs fine but gets 16 miles per gallon and buys a far, far more expensive 2004 or newer car that gets 28 miles per gallon, and drives 5,000 miles per year, saves 133 gallons of gas per year. Under the bill, that person gets a $1,500 credit.
That 1998 car doesn't get "recycled" of course. If it runs well, it becomes part of illegal traffic in inexpensive cars for people who don't have jobs. Or, it becomes illegal traffic to Mexico. Cities and states will hire more policemen to prevent the illegal activity.
To get the $1,500 credit, the owner gave a car worth $3,000 or more! That's if the car was in a condition that it was actually being used. Obviously, no one will do that.
What will mostly happen, of course, is that people who want to buy a 2004 or newer car will first buy a damaged car in "drivable condition" that has been sitting in someone's driveway not being used. The buyer will give the junker to the recyclers and will use the free money from the U.S. government to save a little on the newer car. But the savings won't be much, because the prices of all cars will rise.
The biggest effect of that bill, other than lowering the value of the dollar and raising the price of newer cars, would be to cause the price of worthless cars in "drivable condition" to go up enormously.
You said, and I quote: "... Newegg will be charged by UPS or fedex for the dimensions of the box" The size of the box doesn't change in this case. Newegg ships small items in rather large boxes.
Amazingly, you said: "If you want to complain about price gouging, complain about the retail prices of cables in the world." That encouraged me to investigate cable prices at Newegg. Here is a comparison of the price for 10 network cables, each 1 foot long:
Newegg.com: Rosewill RCW-569 1ft./Network Cable Cat 6 White - Retail According to the Newegg web site, this is Newegg's lowest price 1-foot Cat 6 network cable. For 10 cables [Notice, NO discount for quantity order.]:
"Savings, -$0.20 Sale"
Total Price, not $8.90, but $6.90 because of the "Savings".
Subtotal: $6.90
Shipping: $21.92
Grand Total: $28.82
Newegg charges almost $20 more! Most of that is "gouging" for shipping. Remember these cables are only 1 foot long. They are very light.
I've ordered those cables from Monoprice.com, and they are excellent.
Note: These figures were accurate at the time this was researched, Saturday, January 17, 2009, 12:48 PM, PST. I suppose that it is possible that Newegg will have a "special", and change the prices above.
You talk as though you are a top manager at Newegg.com. You said: [My emphasis:] "You've already covered my warehouse manager and workers overhead for going and retrieving the items, and verifying the
order for the most part with the purchase of the first item. Having them grab a second, third, or 10th one while they're already there doesn't cost me as much as the initial send, therefore the handling fee per unit
goes down."
You said, and I quote, "Newegg is attempting to reward you by passing savings on to you for your bulk purchase, not ripping you off jackass."
I don't feel "rewarded". I feel abused, not only by the price, but by your extraordinarily dishonest argument and your abusive language.
Yes, but that it not what Newegg sometimes does, in my experience. Newegg
often charges far, far more than the cost of shipping and handling.
Here's an example: A case fan costs 99 cents. Put four of them in a "shopping
cart", the price for shipping is $13.28. The price for shipping one is $3.99.
The fans weigh very little. The weight to ship 4 is still under 1 pound. Does
it cost $9.29 to have a minimum wage person put 3 more of them in the same
box? No.
The true cost of the fans from Newegg is (13.28-3.99)/4 = $2.32, the
price after $3.99 shipping and handling cost is subtracted, not the 99 cents
advertised price.
Put 10 of the same fans in the cart. The cost for shipping is $21.92.
Now it seems that you are actually paying MORE per fan, because the shipping
cost will not be $9.50, the cost of shipping and handling if you assume you
are paying $2.32 for each fan.
There are many other problems. Newegg's web site is often very slow.
Newegg does not pack hard drives correctly, in my experience.
Newegg plays games with prices. Newegg often charges more for "shipping and
handling" than it costs. So the listed price may be much higher than the
actual price. In my opinion, that is abusive.
In my experience, Newegg carries EVERYTHING. That means products that
don't work well, or are inferior. There is apparently no attempt to select the
best products from a category.
Newegg apparently has no technically knowledgeable people. Newegg
doesn't offer technical help. Quote: Does
Newegg.com offer any technical support or advice? Answer: "Newegg.com
does not offer any technical assistance."
Actually, all computer parts and electronics sellers are abusive, to some
degree, in my experience. The problem was just that Circuit City was worse
that others. My experience of them was that no one who worked there had any
technical knowledge.
CompUSA was worse than Circuit City in my experience.
(That's pronounced com-POOZ-a to show the proper low respect.) The predictable
happened. The title of that article is: "CompUSA closes shop".
Incredible Universe had a unique formula. They abused their sales
people; I was told that and observed that. The predictable happened: Incredible Universe crashes to earth. Actually it crashed
to under the earth.
I remember Future Shop in the U.S. as being a confused place. The
predictable happened in 1999: Future Shop closing U.S. stores.
Most of the problem with computer retail stores is the same as with
any technology company: There are managers who think they can run a technology
company without actually understanding their products.
Does anyone know of an online computer and electronics equipment
seller that is not abusive?
Crazy: You must make decisions about the future.
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
You said, "You can use the LGPL one as long as you want."
No you can't. According to the commercial license restriction, you must know in advance that you plan to make your software commercial. If you didn't know that in advance, and you use the LGPL, you must abandon any idea of making your software commercial.
That's simply crazy. If an employee makes a test version of something to use inside the company, the company cannot later build on that and make a commercial project.
Tricky, and not strictly LGPL
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
It's LGPL, except it's not. The "commercial license" modifies the meaning of LGPL.
Present state of development: WxWidgets vs. Qt?
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
On Windows, how does WxWidgets compare in ease of programming and quality with Qt?
Nokia DOES presume to tell you what you can do with your LGPL code. Read this quote:
"Can I switch from using Qt under the LGPL to commercial afterwards?
"Users of the LGPL versions of Qt need to comply with the LGPL licensing terms and conditions. Qt's commercial license agreement contains a restriction that prohibits customers from initially beginning development with the LGPL licensed version of Qt and then transitioning to a commercial version of Qt."
Wow! How do they know how you "initially" began development?
It seems as though some lawyer or marketing guy with no technical understanding got involved.
How does this affect the open source cross-platform GUI toolkit WxWidgets?
Quote: "So I think it comes down to how well Google understands the Streisand effect."
That made me laugh. I think you are right. But I don't think Google top management intended to get themselves into that situation. They were dragged into it by their employees. I'm guessing the situation was allowed to happen due to the technical ignorance of their public relations department.
If any Google top manager reads this, you could hire us to help you. See our web site.
"The following lists some types of extensions that we'd like to eventually support:...
* Content filtering: Adblock, Flashblock"
Notice that it says, "we'd like" to "eventually" support. Ask yourself, who is "we"? What is the corporate power of the "like" of that person?
I read that as the initial ideas of a very idealistic programmer or program manager who, of course, uses AdBlock Plus and Firefox. I'm guessing it is not Google corporate policy. It was not reviewed by the Google public relations department; the people who work in that department probably have no technical knowledge. It remains to be seen what Google corporate policy will do to the initial design ideas.
The fact that Chrome is open source is not as important as some of those who comment seem to think. Firefox is getting $50,000,000 per year from Google, and look at slow pace of development. For example, the Firefox CPU-hogging bug has improved recently, but now with version 3.05 it has gotten worse.
It costs a lot in time to fork a huge project. A group of very skilled people would have to donate their time. That doesn't always happen.
idlemachine, I have a question for you. Your link to Chromium.org does not have "[chromium.org]" after it. My link to exactly the same web page does. How did you do that?
Slashdot Mirror
Password. Never. Stored. In. Memory.
CPU cache turned off when entering password.
Why not just use TrueCrypt pre-boot system partition encryption? The benefit of a hardware standard is not immediately clear to me.
If you don't like a story, please don't post comments.
The U.S. government should have its own video servers, or lease them from YouTube, and not depend on commercial sites. Commercial sites can do anything they want any time they want; they don't have to consider internal government policy.
"... if they are at home watching TV or playing video games, I know exactly where they are, what they are doing, and what they aren't doing."
Children need a huge amount of adult attention. They need more attention than the adult just assuring himself that he knows what they are doing.
"During my teenage years those "not socially backward" kids as you would put them would be drinking, smoking, having sex..." That's because they got very, very little adult attention.
"... or sometimes partying." Partying is good. Partying helps teach how to relate to other people. Partying is better than being alone playing usually very violent games.
The biggest issue, it seems to me, is that people who spend a lot of time playing video games generally lack social skills. While everyone else was learning how to relate to the world, video game players were learning how to relate to video games.
Those who play games don't realize that they are socially backward because they are socially backward.
You can read about Padmasree Warrior on the Cisco web site. There is a link to a biography of her. (PDF)
Quoting from that biography: "Warrior joined Cisco in 2007." She is not the source of Cisco's problems; those problems were huge long before 2007. Ms. Warrior left Motorola on December 4, 2007. It is not correct to imply that she had a strong connection with Cisco. She was there less than a year.
Another quote: "Prior to that, she was the CTO at Motorola, where she led a team of 26,000 engineers and directed Motorola Labs, with an annual R&D budget of $3.7 billion."
Quote from another source: "Did Motorola do the right thing and retire the head of Thoughtbeam when they shuttered the operation? Nope, in a Dilbert moment they promoted Thoughtbeam's leader Padmasree Warrior to Chief Technology Officer of the entire Motorola company"
Maybe Ms. Warrior helped create Motorola's problems. Motorola has been on a loooong, slow downward slide.
When Intel's 8600 was released the vice-president of technology at the company where I worked was very unhappy. The architecture is poor, as anyone who has programmed in assembly language knows. For a time there was a hope that the 68000 would take over the market. But Motorola's management wasn't able to take advantage of that temporary superiority.
Motorola's Semiconductor Products Sector is now Freescale Semiconductor.
Other people also think Motorola's management is amazingly weak. For example, Carl Icahn said this: "It is essential to the future of Motorola that its directors realize that the BOARD, especially at this precarious time, is NOT A COUNTRY CLUB OR A FRATERNITY, and that truly "qualified" people whose interests are truly aligned with Stockholders, are needed..."
You said, "I personally think the best person for the role would be a non-partisan, non-corporate figure." That's what I think, also.
All Ponzi schemes eventually crash. I'm not the only one who thinks that.
Dubai World sovereign wealth fund invests in other countries. See this article: Dubai fund hits back at criticism. The last sentence is "Dubai is one of the seven self-governing emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates."
If that bill passes, there will be situations like this:
80-year-old man to his 78-year-old wife, Maude: "Maude, maybe we should get rid of Herman and get a newer car." [Herman is their name for their 1978 Ford Galaxy.]
Maude: "John, we only drive 800 miles a year. Besides, I like Herman."
John: "Maude, the guv'mint is giving away free money again. We may as well get some of it. We can get $1500 for Herman."
Maude: "Yes, but what will happen to Herman?"
John: "He would go to the junkyard."
Maude: "That's no way to treat a friend."
John: "We can get a 2004 Ford Taurus for $3,600. We would pay only $2100."
Maude: "It's probably no good."
John: "I think we should buy it."
Maude: "I think you shouldn't be driving. You don't hear well, and you don't see well either."
John: "Oh Maude, let's not start that again."
Quote: "It's actually quite a smart move."
It's NOT smart. Giving away free money just makes prices rise. Those buying new cars will pay more. Why would a car company give a discount when the extra money is free?
The U.S. government has NO money. The U.S. government is DEEPLY in debt, more in debt than any organization has ever been in the history of the world. This bill would be funded by the Chinese, Saudi, and Dubai governments, among others, and eventually by inflation of the U.S. dollar. Inflation makes everyone pay more, forever.
Have you checked the prices of used SUV's lately? The prices for used cars have gone UP, because people don't want to spend the money for a new car.
Many people with old cars drive old cars because they drive very, very little. There's no yearly mileage requirement in the bill. The fuel economy will not be what the bill's sponsors say.
Someone who drives an "old clunker" now will not want to buy a 2004 or later model car, and probably would not be able to buy a car that expensive. Also, there are many small old cars that get close to the 18 miles per gallon specified in the bill, and many 2004 model year or newer "fuel efficient" cars that get not much more. Someone could, for example, trade in an old Toyota and buy a 2004 SUV or pickup that gets worse gas mileage, but still good gas mileage for that "class" of an SUV or pickup.
Someone who gives a 1998 car to the recyclers that runs fine but gets 16 miles per gallon and buys a far, far more expensive 2004 or newer car that gets 28 miles per gallon, and drives 5,000 miles per year, saves 133 gallons of gas per year. Under the bill, that person gets a $1,500 credit.
That 1998 car doesn't get "recycled" of course. If it runs well, it becomes part of illegal traffic in inexpensive cars for people who don't have jobs. Or, it becomes illegal traffic to Mexico. Cities and states will hire more policemen to prevent the illegal activity.
To get the $1,500 credit, the owner gave a car worth $3,000 or more! That's if the car was in a condition that it was actually being used. Obviously, no one will do that.
What will mostly happen, of course, is that people who want to buy a 2004 or newer car will first buy a damaged car in "drivable condition" that has been sitting in someone's driveway not being used. The buyer will give the junker to the recyclers and will use the free money from the U.S. government to save a little on the newer car. But the savings won't be much, because the prices of all cars will rise.
The biggest effect of that bill, other than lowering the value of the dollar and raising the price of newer cars, would be to cause the price of worthless cars in "drivable condition" to go up enormously.
You said, and I quote: "... Newegg will be charged by UPS or fedex for the dimensions of the box" The size of the box doesn't change in this case. Newegg ships small items in rather large boxes.
/Network Cable Cat 6 White - Retail
Amazingly, you said: "If you want to complain about price gouging, complain about the retail prices of cables in the world." That encouraged me to investigate cable prices at Newegg. Here is a comparison of the price for 10 network cables, each 1 foot long:
Newegg.com:
Rosewill RCW-569 1ft.
According to the Newegg web site, this is Newegg's lowest price 1-foot Cat 6 network cable.
For 10 cables [Notice, NO discount for quantity order.]:
"Savings, -$0.20 Sale"
Total Price, not $8.90, but $6.90 because of the "Savings".
Subtotal: $6.90
Shipping: $21.92 Grand Total: $28.82
Monoprice.com:
CAT 6 500MHz UTP 1FT Cable - Black, Product ID: 2288
1: $0.75, 2-9: $0.68 10-19: $0.60, 20-49: $0.53, 50+: $0.46
For 10 cables:
SubTotal $6.00
S&H Cost $2.87
Grand Total $8.87
Newegg charges almost $20 more! Most of that is "gouging" for shipping. Remember these cables are only 1 foot long. They are very light.
I've ordered those cables from Monoprice.com, and they are excellent.
Note: These figures were accurate at the time this was researched, Saturday, January 17, 2009, 12:48 PM, PST. I suppose that it is possible that Newegg will have a "special", and change the prices above.
You talk as though you are a top manager at Newegg.com. You said: [My emphasis:] "You've already covered my warehouse manager and workers overhead for going and retrieving the items, and verifying the order for the most part with the purchase of the first item. Having them grab a second, third, or 10th one while they're already there doesn't cost me as much as the initial send, therefore the handling fee per unit goes down."
You said, and I quote, "Newegg is attempting to reward you by passing savings on to you for your bulk purchase, not ripping you off jackass."
I don't feel "rewarded". I feel abused, not only by the price, but by your extraordinarily dishonest argument and your abusive language.
Yes, but that it not what Newegg sometimes does, in my experience. Newegg often charges far, far more than the cost of shipping and handling.
Here's an example: A case fan costs 99 cents. Put four of them in a "shopping cart", the price for shipping is $13.28. The price for shipping one is $3.99. The fans weigh very little. The weight to ship 4 is still under 1 pound. Does it cost $9.29 to have a minimum wage person put 3 more of them in the same box? No.
The true cost of the fans from Newegg is (13.28-3.99)/4 = $2.32, the price after $3.99 shipping and handling cost is subtracted, not the 99 cents advertised price.
Put 10 of the same fans in the cart. The cost for shipping is $21.92. Now it seems that you are actually paying MORE per fan, because the shipping cost will not be $9.50, the cost of shipping and handling if you assume you are paying $2.32 for each fan.
There are many other problems. Newegg's web site is often very slow. Newegg does not pack hard drives correctly, in my experience.
LOL. MOD PARENT UP. That's funny.
"... a unicorn was stuck in a rainbow in appliances."
"... I accidently knocked over a display of pocket (camera) tripods that the salesperson had just told me they didn't have in stock."
Newegg plays games with prices. Newegg often charges more for "shipping and handling" than it costs. So the listed price may be much higher than the actual price. In my opinion, that is abusive.
In my experience, Newegg carries EVERYTHING. That means products that don't work well, or are inferior. There is apparently no attempt to select the best products from a category.
Newegg apparently has no technically knowledgeable people. Newegg doesn't offer technical help. Quote: Does Newegg.com offer any technical support or advice? Answer: "Newegg.com does not offer any technical assistance."
Actually, all computer parts and electronics sellers are abusive, to some degree, in my experience. The problem was just that Circuit City was worse that others. My experience of them was that no one who worked there had any technical knowledge.
CompUSA was worse than Circuit City in my experience. (That's pronounced com-POOZ-a to show the proper low respect.) The predictable happened. The title of that article is: "CompUSA closes shop".
Incredible Universe had a unique formula. They abused their sales people; I was told that and observed that. The predictable happened: Incredible Universe crashes to earth. Actually it crashed to under the earth.
I remember Future Shop in the U.S. as being a confused place. The predictable happened in 1999: Future Shop closing U.S. stores.
Most of the problem with computer retail stores is the same as with any technology company: There are managers who think they can run a technology company without actually understanding their products.
Does anyone know of an online computer and electronics equipment seller that is not abusive?
You said, "You can use the LGPL one as long as you want."
No you can't. According to the commercial license restriction, you must know in advance that you plan to make your software commercial. If you didn't know that in advance, and you use the LGPL, you must abandon any idea of making your software commercial.
That's simply crazy. If an employee makes a test version of something to use inside the company, the company cannot later build on that and make a commercial project.
It's LGPL, except it's not. The "commercial license" modifies the meaning of LGPL.
On Windows, how does WxWidgets compare in ease of programming and quality with Qt?
Interesting point.
Nokia DOES presume to tell you what you can do with your LGPL code. Read this quote:
"Can I switch from using Qt under the LGPL to commercial afterwards?
"Users of the LGPL versions of Qt need to comply with the LGPL licensing terms and conditions. Qt's commercial license agreement contains a restriction that prohibits customers from initially beginning development with the LGPL licensed version of Qt and then transitioning to a commercial version of Qt."
Wow! How do they know how you "initially" began development?
It seems as though some lawyer or marketing guy with no technical understanding got involved.
How does this affect the open source cross-platform GUI toolkit WxWidgets?
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
That made me laugh.
Quote: "So I think it comes down to how well Google understands the Streisand effect."
That made me laugh. I think you are right. But I don't think Google top management intended to get themselves into that situation. They were dragged into it by their employees. I'm guessing the situation was allowed to happen due to the technical ignorance of their public relations department.
If any Google top manager reads this, you could hire us to help you. See our web site.
See this previous comment: There is an inherent conflict.
Oh, now I see. The "[chromium.org]" appears in the comment, but not when you are replying to a comment. Weird.
Chromium Developer Documentation quote:
...
"The following lists some types of extensions that we'd like to eventually support:
* Content filtering: Adblock, Flashblock"
Notice that it says, "we'd like" to "eventually" support. Ask yourself, who is "we"? What is the corporate power of the "like" of that person?
I read that as the initial ideas of a very idealistic programmer or program manager who, of course, uses AdBlock Plus and Firefox. I'm guessing it is not Google corporate policy. It was not reviewed by the Google public relations department; the people who work in that department probably have no technical knowledge. It remains to be seen what Google corporate policy will do to the initial design ideas.
The fact that Chrome is open source is not as important as some of those who comment seem to think. Firefox is getting $50,000,000 per year from Google, and look at slow pace of development. For example, the Firefox CPU-hogging bug has improved recently, but now with version 3.05 it has gotten worse.
It costs a lot in time to fork a huge project. A group of very skilled people would have to donate their time. That doesn't always happen.
idlemachine, I have a question for you. Your link to Chromium.org does not have "[chromium.org]" after it. My link to exactly the same web page does. How did you do that?