Speaking of which, God didn't even write the bible. People who believed they were speaking god's mind did. When I was told this I felt that most of the bible was invalidated. (I'm 14, I was told this somewhere around 10, so I was still at the age where it doesn't sound far-fetched to think that god wrote the bible:-) lol)
Whoops lemme pre-empt your flames... I made this post without doing research:-) I had never heard of africanized honey bees and now I have. It appears that they were not "intentionally" released:-) but my point stands, with rewording...
Point 3 rebuttal: africanized bees. That says nothing about how creating a new organism might affect the environment. Or maybe it does. You're missiing my point here, I think. They're not talking about developing a new organism for relase into the wild. They're talking about creating an organism in a lab for the purpose of science, basically to find out if we could, and if not then why, what prevents us.
OK the first organism actually _created_ by us would surely be under better security. Cross-breeding has been around forever so it's not high-security. People would be much more careful with the first organism ever created by us.
Point 3 rebuttal: africanized bees. That says nothing about how creating a new organism might affect the environment. Or maybe it does.
You're missiing my point here, I think. They're not talking about developing a new organism for relase into the wild. They're talking about creating an organism in a lab for the purpose of science, basically to find out if we could, and if not then why, what prevents us.
Point 4 rebuttal: Mars is a pristine, untouched environment. There should be SOME thought of respect for that.
OK i'll give you that, the fact that it's an untouched environment is something to be said. However, as far as I'm concerned, if there is no life then there will be no life for any time in the future (when i say in the future I mean during the existance of humankind. Some time long after we're extinct something might develop, but it will be so long afterwords that the life wouldn't care that we were once there.) Now one thing I forgot to stress... If we find any life (not talking about intelligent life, i mean single celled or whatnot) then we sure want to preserve it, however i'm not sure about interfering with it. All my star trek training says that the prime directive forbids that:-) lol. So for my purposes, mars is a wasteland, where wasteland = devoid of life.
Point 4! rebuttal: No rebuttal. You're exactly right.
For the record, Point 4! is not a typo:-) it's 4 factorial, meaning point 4*3*2*1 or point 24. Eh I'm just tryin to get out of using the preview button to see typos. LOL.
Note: The following will most likely end in a rant and a line containing "sorry for the rant."
I am so sick of hearing about god, and people trying to say what god wants us to do and what he doesn't want us to do. Who says god didn't lay everything out perfectly so we would discover how to create our own little organisms at that exact moment? Who says god doesn't want us to create life?? If you ask me, based on catholicism (i know little about other religions, and I don't consider my self a catholic) reproducing is what god put us here to do. So what if we're not using our own parts to reproduce? Proliferating life is the way to go as far as god says. Whether it's human life or not, it's life, and there's nothing wrong with making more life.
OK now here's another point: Who says god exists? Now just think about that, i'm not gonna go explaining my position and everything, as you know where i'd go with it.
Point 3: On the subject of man destroying the environment... I'm all for keeping the environment healthy, but surely you can't equate creating a new organism in a laboratory as eclologically distressing. I could see creating a new organism with the purpose of altering something, and releasing it into the wild, but that's another story. I'm not suggesting that we do that. I'm suggesting that science for the purpose of science is important in our existance if we're ever going to leave this rock and move somewhere else after we destroy it.
Point 4: Mars? How would we ruin mars? It's a wasteland as far as I see, and if we don't find life anywhere in it then I say it's free reign. Hell, we'd have to improve mars just to bring it up to the level of habitable by humans. Sure you could make the argument that "habitable by humans is not necesarily habitable by martian organisms" but as i said, unless we find some life there, we can do what we want to mars. The key part is: Unless we find life there. I'd agree completely that if we discover life on mars then we shouldn't terraform mars to human comfort without consideration of these organisms. But here comes:
Point 4!: Survival of the fittest. If there is some organism on mars that may one day evolve into something sentient and wonderful then great, let it try. But if it's wiped out by expanding humans then it probably wouldn't have become so wonderful. Evolution teaches us that smart/savvy/stronger animals live and proliferate, while stupid/slow/weak animals die off and fade into the background or become extinct. Humans have evolved so far and they are probably to the point of "Monopoly" where according to the DoJ we should be broken up. Maybe colonization is the way to go. Maybe if a substantial portion of earths humans move to another planet then earth's ecology can start working harder and get back into the point of healthy. K I'm out of rant material, can't believe you read it all.
I agree with your position but... I don't like your analogies... lol. The nuclear bomb was a covert operation, if we had consulted religious leaders than it would've been public domain and we all know how much government (yes even democracy) hates telling us what it's doing. Then, as far as I know scientists didn't exterminate passenger pigeons, and if they did then they surely didn't plan their extinction! That's not how it works. Now here's a better analogy... "Scientists didn't consult religious leaders when they first thought of nuclear fission/computers/violent computer games/etc". Eh ok they arent the best either, if anyone comes up with a better one put em here:-)
Hold on a sec, I am not a lawyer, but I have read the GPL and it seems that the spirit of the GPL is that software can be distributed any way we please, as long as the source code is available. Also, that whoever we give/sell it to is given free rights to redistribute however they wish. I don't remember seeing anything in there about "If you release any version of a program under GPL then all other versions must be GPL'd" maybe that falls under the derivitive works clause, but I felt that that clause was intended to prevent people other than the author from changing the code and then not gpl'ing it. My point: I don't see anything in the GPL that says I can't make money off of someone elses work. (yea I know that doesn't sound like what I was talking about:-)). It seems to me that the spirit of the GPL is of free rights of redistribution, as long as the source and a copy of the GPL (at least a link to it?) are included, as well as the understanding that all rights granted the distributor (author or not) are also granted the purchaser/downloader. That's that.
What's the big idea tossing out a screenshot of different linux distributions? There is no "standard" look and feel for any linux distribution I've ever used. They all seem to have multiple options. And of course you can always use your own window manager/desktop suite. I use enlightenment. I find it stable, fast, and clean. And it looks the same when i'm done configuring it, whether I did it in redhat or slackware. (the two distributions i've had much success with, currently using Slack 7.) I don't like the slackware screenshot either. It's a shot of the konsole with xf86config (i'm pretty sure.), saying that slackware doesn't configure the gui by default. This make any sense to anyone else, running xf86config from X in this context? I don't know about how easy it is to take a screenshot without being in x (btw how do I take a screenshot from x? i'd like a comprehensive manual that tells me all about this. bwahaha) but it makes no sense to take a screenshot of configuring x from x. I could see reconfiguring it but that's it.
Since when is an "easy" installation worth 4 points? Slackware (zipslack to be exact) was my first linux distro and it got me hooked. The installation for that was, of course, easy. Pretty much unzip and type loadlin. I recently installed slackware 7, switching from redhat, and it works beautifully. But while we're on the subject of installation woes... what about the horrible SCSI problems so often encountered when installing redhat linux? That sure isn't easy. NOTE: I am a slackware zealot. At one point I grew so sick of packages that I formatted redhat while in search of a less package-oriented distribution. My qualm with the redhat package system is that it installs things in non posix-standard places usually. which means that when I upgrade to a new version of... say apache... i now have two copies, and I can't find where to go to uninstall the old one. Other than installation I never used rpm. Anyway my rant is over, now as long as no one decides to pour hot grits down my pants and turn my girlfriend into a statue i'll be fine.
When are you damn moderators gonna learn what Redundant means... it means the same thing as repetetive, in other words, it's unoriginal and copies off of a previous post... but how could the first post be copying off of a previous post???
However, if I'm put under investigation by the FBI for some computer crime (ie "hacking"... quotes used because i'm one of those guys who thinks that's the wrong term) then my name is forever tainted... this is the problem with our "trial by media" system. If my name is ever again mentioned by someone who doesn't know me directly, they are talking about that "hacker guy" who broke into... some government division with an acronym... and it is now impossible for me to get a job with anyone without them wondering if I'm breaking into their networks. Under investigation = guilty in the eyes of the public.
I continually laugh every time I hear these people talking about how whether this is useful or not, it fortells linux's rise to power... all of us dedicated linux guys have stopped fortelling it because it's already happening. Linux is set to become the dominant OS, or if nothing else than prepare us for the influx of *nix os's. If Linux doesn't become #1, then some other nix will. There are far too many nix os's for that not to happen. Anyone interested in counting all the distributions / full-blown OS's of unix and unix-like operating systems? That oughtta be a fun and time consuming project. Anyway i'm drifting... my point was that ported software isn't really news, it's expected that this will happen... it's more of gratification for all of us linux guys:-) we were RIGHT all along, hehe.
How exactly do you propose I take steps to stop something that I'm unaware is happening? I'm sorry, but your answer of "Install a firewall to filter out all outgoing packets on ports that you don't use" is ludicrous... If I install a piece of software on my computer, I expect it to do what it said it would, that's all. If it doesn't work then that's OK because it didn't violate my privacy by not working. I didn't pay for the software, so I'm not gonna be mad if it doesn't work. I'll work it out (open source:-) and find out how to get it working.. But if a program gives me the misconception that it's doing exactly what I want it to and then it does something else that I may not like... ie format my hard drive (think about it, it's not an extremely farfetched comparison), then I will be pissed.
NOTE: This discussion is no longer an "I'm angry at ID" discussion, as they've cleared themself of wrongdoing, they just forgot to put it in the newest readme.
And to add to that, I do NOT appreciate being spyed on, that's what you're proposing. If someone is observing my behavior without my knowledge, I will give them a piece of my mind when I find out. I'm not saying I will boycott their employer just to spite them and try to get them fired. However, If someone wants to know about my behavior, they can ask to spy on me. In this situation, I will say no. However, if someone asked me what kind of video card I had, I'dve gladly told them. It's a different thing. I have no problem giving out data about my system... when someone asks me for it. If someone just takes it from me, not even notifying me that they are, I am pissed. That's how it works.
You've obviously missed my point. I would've been happy to give ID any information about my video card that they wanted... had they asked for it. I would've told them pretty much anything they wanted to know about my system (I don't have anything important on here:-) but the point is they didn't ask for it... they took it without my knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I love ID, and I am a big fan of their products. This is not going to stop me from buying Linux Q3. I'm simply stating that if they wanted my system's specs, they should've asked first.
Yes but these "undocumented features" can truly be called bugs. I'm not talking about stuff like the NSAKey, I agree that MS should be sued over that one, but i'm talking about the constant freezing, the BSOD, etc... all that stuff we don't like.
Anyway, my point is that you don't "accidentally" code a section that gathers data and sends it somewhere. This should not be tolerated, no matter what. Don't boycott ID, I love them, but do send a strong (non-swearing etc) letter to ID protesting it.
But you don't "accidentally" program code to check data about a computer and then send it to you. This is not a bug, it's an undocumented feature. A feature I'd prefer didn't exist, and I'm offended that it does. Fortunately I'm willing to let ID off of this, considering that I'd gladly have given them this data had they asked. I would've even attached a name to it. I'm not excusing ID, just saying I'm not going to boycott them.
I really liked ID too... I thought they were software for the people, by a cool person. Carmack was one of my favorite people. Was. He should've publicized this before now. I don't appreciate being told that some marketing exec now has personal data about my computer, something that I would've gladly given out had I been asked. 90% of people don't care who knows what kind of video card they have. I tell people all the time. But I doubt if anyone appreciates that information being taken from them without their knowledge. That's today's rant. yebyen@adelphia.net
NOTE: Before I begin, I am not a KDE zealot, and I don't even use KDE... I use straight enlightenment*.
(I actually find it to be stable and fast, but then again I was a windows user for the greater portion of my life so pretty much anything is stable and fast.)
I think that our closed-source friend Opera will be blown out of the water by Konquerer once KDE 2.0 is out, and I even plan to switch to KDE with the 2.0 release. GO KONQUERER!!
Opera was a great idea, and probably still is... I forget, isn't it text only? Then it won't be competing for the same market as Konq. OK now feel free to flame away for my E usage:-)
No actually I don't, but I'll go check... ok I can't find it anywhere, what does it mean? I don't think it's even russian, as there is no N in russian... only a backwards N that is the same as an english E. Are you saying it is a word or are you just asking if it is?
Moderators, please don't mark this post down, I have no other way to communicate with AC's that ask me questions, and I know this is off topic. Thanx:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of which, God didn't even write the bible. People who believed they were speaking god's mind did. When I was told this I felt that most of the bible was invalidated. (I'm 14, I was told this somewhere around 10, so I was still at the age where it doesn't sound far-fetched to think that god wrote the bible :-) lol)
Whoops lemme pre-empt your flames... I made this post without doing research :-) I had never heard of africanized honey bees and now I have. It appears that they were not "intentionally" released :-) but my point stands, with rewording...
Point 3 rebuttal: africanized bees. That says nothing about how creating a new organism might affect the environment. Or maybe it does.
You're missiing my point here, I think. They're not talking about developing a new organism for relase into the wild. They're talking about creating an organism in a lab for
the purpose of science, basically to find out if we could, and if not then why, what prevents us.
OK the first organism actually _created_ by us would surely be under better security. Cross-breeding has been around forever so it's not high-security. People would be much more careful with the first organism ever created by us.
Point 3 rebuttal: africanized bees. That says nothing about how creating a new organism might affect the environment. Or maybe it does.
:-) lol. So for my purposes, mars is a wasteland, where wasteland = devoid of life.
:-) it's 4 factorial, meaning point 4*3*2*1 or point 24. Eh I'm just tryin to get out of using the preview button to see typos. LOL.
You're missiing my point here, I think. They're not talking about developing a new organism for relase into the wild. They're talking about creating an organism in a lab for the purpose of science, basically to find out if we could, and if not then why, what prevents us.
Point 4 rebuttal: Mars is a pristine, untouched environment. There should be SOME thought of respect for that.
OK i'll give you that, the fact that it's an untouched environment is something to be said. However, as far as I'm concerned, if there is no life then there will be no life for any time in the future (when i say in the future I mean during the existance of humankind. Some time long after we're extinct something might develop, but it will be so long afterwords that the life wouldn't care that we were once there.) Now one thing I forgot to stress... If we find any life (not talking about intelligent life, i mean single celled or whatnot) then we sure want to preserve it, however i'm not sure about interfering with it. All my star trek training says that the prime directive forbids that
Point 4! rebuttal: No rebuttal. You're exactly right.
For the record, Point 4! is not a typo
Last time I checked, there was a buffalo user group that hasn't been touched since 1997., but i'll check your thing out.
Note: The following will most likely end in a rant and a line containing "sorry for the rant."
I am so sick of hearing about god, and people trying to say what god wants us to do and what he doesn't want us to do. Who says god didn't lay everything out perfectly so we would discover how to create our own little organisms at that exact moment? Who says god doesn't want us to create life?? If you ask me, based on catholicism (i know little about other religions, and I don't consider my self a catholic) reproducing is what god put us here to do. So what if we're not using our own parts to reproduce? Proliferating life is the way to go as far as god says. Whether it's human life or not, it's life, and there's nothing wrong with making more life.
OK now here's another point: Who says god exists? Now just think about that, i'm not gonna go explaining my position and everything, as you know where i'd go with it.
Point 3: On the subject of man destroying the environment... I'm all for keeping the environment healthy, but surely you can't equate creating a new organism in a laboratory as eclologically distressing. I could see creating a new organism with the purpose of altering something, and releasing it into the wild, but that's another story. I'm not suggesting that we do that. I'm suggesting that science for the purpose of science is important in our existance if we're ever going to leave this rock and move somewhere else after we destroy it.
Point 4: Mars? How would we ruin mars? It's a wasteland as far as I see, and if we don't find life anywhere in it then I say it's free reign. Hell, we'd have to improve mars just to bring it up to the level of habitable by humans. Sure you could make the argument that "habitable by humans is not necesarily habitable by martian organisms" but as i said, unless we find some life there, we can do what we want to mars. The key part is: Unless we find life there. I'd agree completely that if we discover life on mars then we shouldn't terraform mars to human comfort without consideration of these organisms. But here comes:
Point 4!: Survival of the fittest. If there is some organism on mars that may one day evolve into something sentient and wonderful then great, let it try. But if it's wiped out by expanding humans then it probably wouldn't have become so wonderful. Evolution teaches us that smart/savvy/stronger animals live and proliferate, while stupid/slow/weak animals die off and fade into the background or become extinct. Humans have evolved so far and they are probably to the point of "Monopoly" where according to the DoJ we should be broken up. Maybe colonization is the way to go. Maybe if a substantial portion of earths humans move to another planet then earth's ecology can start working harder and get back into the point of healthy. K I'm out of rant material, can't believe you read it all.
I agree with your position but... I don't like your analogies... lol. The nuclear bomb was a covert operation, if we had consulted religious leaders than it would've been public domain and we all know how much government (yes even democracy) hates telling us what it's doing. Then, as far as I know scientists didn't exterminate passenger pigeons, and if they did then they surely didn't plan their extinction! That's not how it works. Now here's a better analogy... "Scientists didn't consult religious leaders when they first thought of nuclear fission/computers/violent computer games/etc". Eh ok they arent the best either, if anyone comes up with a better one put em here :-)
Hold on a sec, I am not a lawyer, but I have read the GPL and it seems that the spirit of the GPL is that software can be distributed any way we please, as long as the source code is available. Also, that whoever we give/sell it to is given free rights to redistribute however they wish. I don't remember seeing anything in there about "If you release any version of a program under GPL then all other versions must be GPL'd" maybe that falls under the derivitive works clause, but I felt that that clause was intended to prevent people other than the author from changing the code and then not gpl'ing it. My point: I don't see anything in the GPL that says I can't make money off of someone elses work. (yea I know that doesn't sound like what I was talking about :-)). It seems to me that the spirit of the GPL is of free rights of redistribution, as long as the source and a copy of the GPL (at least a link to it?) are included, as well as the understanding that all rights granted the distributor (author or not) are also granted the purchaser/downloader. That's that.
What's the big idea tossing out a screenshot of different linux distributions? There is no "standard" look and feel for any linux distribution I've ever used. They all seem to have multiple options. And of course you can always use your own window manager/desktop suite. I use enlightenment. I find it stable, fast, and clean. And it looks the same when i'm done configuring it, whether I did it in redhat or slackware. (the two distributions i've had much success with, currently using Slack 7.) I don't like the slackware screenshot either. It's a shot of the konsole with xf86config (i'm pretty sure.), saying that slackware doesn't configure the gui by default. This make any sense to anyone else, running xf86config from X in this context? I don't know about how easy it is to take a screenshot without being in x (btw how do I take a screenshot from x? i'd like a comprehensive manual that tells me all about this. bwahaha) but it makes no sense to take a screenshot of configuring x from x. I could see reconfiguring it but that's it.
Since when is an "easy" installation worth 4 points? Slackware (zipslack to be exact) was my first linux distro and it got me hooked. The installation for that was, of course, easy. Pretty much unzip and type loadlin. I recently installed slackware 7, switching from redhat, and it works beautifully. But while we're on the subject of installation woes... what about the horrible SCSI problems so often encountered when installing redhat linux? That sure isn't easy.
NOTE: I am a slackware zealot. At one point I grew so sick of packages that I formatted redhat while in search of a less package-oriented distribution. My qualm with the redhat package system is that it installs things in non posix-standard places usually. which means that when I upgrade to a new version of... say apache... i now have two copies, and I can't find where to go to uninstall the old one. Other than installation I never used rpm. Anyway my rant is over, now as long as no one decides to pour hot grits down my pants and turn my girlfriend into a statue i'll be fine.
Fundamental flaw: A working class stiff usually doesn't have a $25,000 credit line on one card.
When are you damn moderators gonna learn what Redundant means... it means the same thing as repetetive, in other words, it's unoriginal and copies off of a previous post... but how could the first post be copying off of a previous post???
That's it, i'm starting my own country. Everyone who wants to move there e-mail me.
yebyen@adelphia.net
However, if I'm put under investigation by the FBI for some computer crime (ie "hacking"... quotes used because i'm one of those guys who thinks that's the wrong term) then my name is forever tainted... this is the problem with our "trial by media" system. If my name is ever again mentioned by someone who doesn't know me directly, they are talking about that "hacker guy" who broke into ... some government division with an acronym ... and it is now impossible for me to get a job with anyone without them wondering if I'm breaking into their networks. Under investigation = guilty in the eyes of the public.
yebyen@adelphia.net
I continually laugh every time I hear these people talking about how whether this is useful or not, it fortells linux's rise to power... all of us dedicated linux guys have stopped fortelling it because it's already happening. Linux is set to become the dominant OS, or if nothing else than prepare us for the influx of *nix os's. If Linux doesn't become #1, then some other nix will. There are far too many nix os's for that not to happen. Anyone interested in counting all the distributions / full-blown OS's of unix and unix-like operating systems? That oughtta be a fun and time consuming project. Anyway i'm drifting... my point was that ported software isn't really news, it's expected that this will happen... it's more of gratification for all of us linux guys :-) we were RIGHT all along, hehe.
How exactly do you propose I take steps to stop something that I'm unaware is happening? I'm sorry, but your answer of "Install a firewall to filter out all outgoing packets on ports that you don't use" is ludicrous... If I install a piece of software on my computer, I expect it to do what it said it would, that's all. If it doesn't work then that's OK because it didn't violate my privacy by not working. I didn't pay for the software, so I'm not gonna be mad if it doesn't work. I'll work it out (open source :-) and find out how to get it working.. But if a program gives me the misconception that it's doing exactly what I want it to and then it does something else that I may not like... ie format my hard drive (think about it, it's not an extremely farfetched comparison), then I will be pissed.
NOTE: This discussion is no longer an "I'm angry at ID" discussion, as they've cleared themself of wrongdoing, they just forgot to put it in the newest readme.
BAD MODERATION (don't moderate this, just a message to the moderators)
there were supposed to be some [RANT] taggs in there, but it took em out.. guess i have to use the > thingy (hmm)
And to add to that, I do NOT appreciate being spyed on, that's what you're proposing. If someone is observing my behavior without my knowledge, I will give them a piece of my mind when I find out. I'm not saying I will boycott their employer just to spite them and try to get them fired. However, If someone wants to know about my behavior, they can ask to spy on me. In this situation, I will say no. However, if someone asked me what kind of video card I had, I'dve gladly told them. It's a different thing. I have no problem giving out data about my system... when someone asks me for it. If someone just takes it from me, not even notifying me that they are, I am pissed. That's how it works.
yebyen@adelphia.net
Read my post before you angrily respond... i said, "I love ID, and this is not going to stop me from buing Linux Quake 3."
You've obviously missed my point. I would've been happy to give ID any information about my video card that they wanted... had they asked for it. I would've told them pretty much anything they wanted to know about my system (I don't have anything important on here :-) but the point is they didn't ask for it... they took it without my knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I love ID, and I am a big fan of their products. This is not going to stop me from buying Linux Q3. I'm simply stating that if they wanted my system's specs, they should've asked first.
yebyen@adelphia.net
Yes but these "undocumented features" can truly be called bugs. I'm not talking about stuff like the NSAKey, I agree that MS should be sued over that one, but i'm talking about the constant freezing, the BSOD, etc... all that stuff we don't like.
Anyway, my point is that you don't "accidentally" code a section that gathers data and sends it somewhere. This should not be tolerated, no matter what. Don't boycott ID, I love them, but do send a strong (non-swearing etc) letter to ID protesting it.
But you don't "accidentally" program code to check data about a computer and then send it to you. This is not a bug, it's an undocumented feature. A feature I'd prefer didn't exist, and I'm offended that it does. Fortunately I'm willing to let ID off of this, considering that I'd gladly have given them this data had they asked. I would've even attached a name to it. I'm not excusing ID, just saying I'm not going to boycott them.
I really liked ID too... I thought they were software for the people, by a cool person. Carmack was one of my favorite people. Was. He should've publicized this before now. I don't appreciate being told that some marketing exec now has personal data about my computer, something that I would've gladly given out had I been asked. 90% of people don't care who knows what kind of video card they have. I tell people all the time. But I doubt if anyone appreciates that information being taken from them without their knowledge. That's today's rant. yebyen@adelphia.net
NOTE: Before I begin, I am not a KDE zealot, and I don't even use KDE... I use straight enlightenment*.
:-)
(I actually find it to be stable and fast, but then again I was a windows user for the greater portion of my life so pretty much anything is stable and fast.)
I think that our closed-source friend Opera will be blown out of the water by Konquerer once KDE 2.0 is out, and I even plan to switch to KDE with the 2.0 release. GO KONQUERER!!
Opera was a great idea, and probably still is... I forget, isn't it text only? Then it won't be competing for the same market as Konq. OK now feel free to flame away for my E usage
No actually I don't, but I'll go check... ok I can't find it anywhere, what does it mean? I don't think it's even russian, as there is no N in russian... only a backwards N that is the same as an english E. Are you saying it is a word or are you just asking if it is?
:-)
Moderators, please don't mark this post down, I have no other way to communicate with AC's that ask me questions, and I know this is off topic. Thanx