I personally expected it to go more the way of the AT&T veresus BSD case, where it turned out that AT&T had stolen tons of code from BSD, not the other way around. The Linux emulation layer in SCO UNIX seemed a particularly likely candidate. Either that turned out not to be the case or IBM simply didn't push the issue (perhaps because SCO was having so much trouble proving anything in their claims) though.
Since IBM most likely wouldn't own the copyrights on that code, they wouldn't have standing to raise the issue, and so probably didn't even care to check. AT&T vs BSD was AT&T vs U of C copyrights.
SCO's strategy always seemed to me to be a shakedown, scare companies into license agreements. Why they went after one of the deepsest pockets first is beyond me, IBM was very likely to fight given their investment, but it was clear early on that management was not very competent.
Their initial hope was to get bought out by IBM. Not a sign of great intelligence, right there. Only when that plan failed spectacularly did they shift to trying to extort Linux customers, using the ongoing existence of the IBM suit as evidence of their claims.
I can only halfway agree with this. It'd work to do this while letting a short-term political problem blow over, but it wouldn't work that well in the long run, IMO; the really really short term projects will quickly be exhausted. It's not a total waste - you'll solve some, and you'll flag which ones turned out to be harder than expected and will need longer term work - but you'll never recover the funding to do long term work again.
It's incorrect to think that because some long-term projects don't survive administration changes, that no long-term projects can survive. There are projects that survived the Bush "Mars, Bitches!" years and made it into Obama's proposed budget -- i.e. through two diametrically opposed changes in leadership.
The principle danger is to -- and from -- the large-scale long-term projects. Those are the projects that are canceled before anything is accomplished (see Constellation), and whose creation necessitates canceling many of the smaller projects to make room (also see Constellation).
That's why the new plan -- if it survives -- is perfect to deal with the political reality at NASA. By focusing on small projects designed to create new technologies and capabilities, that removes the massive projects that both kill off smaller ones and are prime targets to be killed. Whims can change, but the majority of NASA work can continue. The best part is that by focusing on developing greater capabilities, it leaves open a future where what is a large-scale budget-killing project today may be an easier problem less vulnerable to political sea-changes in the future.
For example, a manned lunar mission started today would be a massive undertaking that would require most of NASA's resources and necessitate they cut back on many science and research-based projects, and even then wouldn't involve anything more than the Apollo landings did. In-orbit fuel depots, in-orbit vehicle assembly, robotic missions to the moon to find water resources, further unmanned missions to process those resources into fuel, air, and hey why not water, all could combine to make a lunar mission much more feasible to accomplish in an 8-year window. You wouldn't need a single gigantic launch vehicle that could carry everything needed for the trip to the moon and back in one go, and that means the length of our stay wouldn't be dictated by what mass was left over for actually being on the moon.
That's not a sure thing. The point is, right now we seem to have to choices: Pursuit of modest and sensible advances in technology that will let us try new missions in the future, or tremendous investment in continuing to do the same things we've done before.
I can't wait for all the interesting and new technology that would actually expand our capabilities to get canceled in favor of a appeasing a government contractor who wants us to keep doing what we've been doing and all the people who can't get past Size of Rocket = Size of Nation's Cock.
News flash for the space mid-life-crisis crowd: Big rockets are really impressive... if you live in the 70s! You want NASA to regain it's mojo and reclaim the lead in space? Shuttle 2.0 ain't gonna do it. Everything that will be scrapped in favor of the pork project would.
A nuke does not have to weigh tons to do tons of damage.
Yeah, but only because the "tons" in "tons of damage" refers to equivalent tons of TNT. Which is unfair to TNT in my opinion; it has to weight tons to do tons of damage by definition! TNT wouldn't have to weigh tons to do tons of damage if we measure damage in terms of, say, tons of coke + mentos.
Didn't you read the headline? Google is just copying Hypercard. Forget copying the iPhone, they're copying the 25-year-old Macintosh! Hey Google, at least copy stuff from this millennium!/snark
It looks as though they have "mailmerged" part of their claims into their supposed evidence. Shouldn't this have resulted in the judge throwing this out as null and void?
Immaterial, since it was thrown out on its merits. Well not thrown out, it was admitted as evidence, just it was ruled not to be evidence of infringement. Because it isn't.
Having the evidence rejected because of some procedural matter (like tampering) would in a way have been worse -- Kevin could claim that the evidence wasn't admitted because of improper handling, but that it was in fact evidence of infringement as he claimed.
But it was accepted, analyzed, and determined to not be infringing because it's just some fucking header files, which even a judge understands are simply API definitions which must necessarily be identical in function (or nearly so, LOL at SCO for improperly defining some POSIX return types), and thus unsurprisingly very similar in expression. And in any case not a violation.
So his whole argument is (surprise!) FUD, predicated on non-programmers and non-copyright-lawyers who also haven't been following the case credulously accepting that this might actually be evidence of infringement.
Header files are public - but they seldom contains any advanced functionality. They are just a definition of the calls available, defined data types and constants.
But of course - a lawyer wouldn't understand that, it's just a question of money.
Any lawyer versed in the relevant law would understand that. A lawyer may be able to pretend they don't understand for the sake of their client; I'm not sure but wouldn't that run afoul of rules regarding legal practice? It's certainly possible Kevin really doesn't understand, and even avoided learning so he could in all sincerity advise his client with the bad advice they wanted.
In any case, the judge understood, which is why back when they submitted this evidence, the judge correctly ruled that necessary API definitions didn't by themselves constitute copyright violation. Besides, what with them being necessary APIs, there's no way to say they were copied from UNIX versus any other implementation which would also have the same headers.
This is a sad, pathetic attempt to claim that there really was something to the UNIX-code-in-Linux accusation. Especially sad because as they admit this evidence was already submitted, examined, and rejected as valid evidence of what they claim.
It'd have to be one damn beefy laser, since at the distances we're talking, even a very tightly focused laser beam has diverged to a huge diameter. A ridiculously harder problem than hitting a space elevator climber. Tens of thousands of kilometers, vs about 600 million kilometers at the closest. I don't think it's practical at this time to beam power from earth to Jupiter. Solar power would be way stronger than anything we could provide.
First the Neutrino has mass, then they can't find the Higgs Boson and now
Not bad predicting the existence of neutrino mass even if he wasn't the first to do so, but I'd hold off on claiming the lack of Fermilab finding the Higgs as evidence for Higgs-less theories. There are significant regions of possible Higgs energies where Fermilab wouldn't be expected to see it. If the LHC doesn't see it, then we can talk about it how we can't find it.
Heim theory also calculated the mass of the proton as greater than measured previously!
Which has what to do with finding the charge distribution to be smaller than measured previously? I see no indication that the experimental mass of the proton has changed.
If it's going to fit in your eye, then the largest possible aperture would be too small to make for very enjoyable stargazing.
I have a 7x18 monocular that I carry with me, and it's decent for getting a little more detail on not-too-distant birds to maybe allow an ID, or general hey-I-have-a-spyglass fun, but it's useless for astronomy. Can't even see the Galilean moons of Jupiter with it.
I feel ya though, I too want telescope eyes. But for backyard astronomy anywhere (so, I guess not backyard), just pick up a decent pair of binoculars and leave em in your glove box.:)
Lucas' borrowing was still better than Quentin Tarantino's, though. At least it wasn't immediately transparent, where with Tarantino's films I generally just play "where did he copy this from" during the whole movie, then go rent the actual original films instead of paying a bit of attention to his.
Lemme guess, and then you got to Kill Bill and wondered where he copied Uma's yellow motorcycle suit from, and went to watch Game of Death allegedly starring Bruce Lee and realized you'd taken an unexpected and dramatic dive down the quality scale. "Did George Lucas direct this?!" you wondered. "How could anyone disgrace Bruce's memory like this!"
All energy can be traced back to the Big Bang. Therefore I'm going to fail to see any relevant differences between any form of energy today and call that being smart.
The same sense Han meant when he used the phrase "good blaster".
And in the sense of "does the dirty business for which it was created well", there are most certainly good lawyers, and you want one by your side. Probably in preference to a blaster. After all, a good blaster may be helpful in a firefight, but is typically unwise to use in a courtroom. While a good lawyer is very helpful in a courtroom, and can be used as a shield during a firefight.
I'm assuming it's under the parents name for the account which should be a pleasant conversation at work when your boss asks you why you are trolling the warlock forum?
Already laying the groundwork for the "it was my 13-year-old" excuse, I see.;)
Wow. You really are taking issue with the statement, "amount of time they were expected to operate", and suggesting that 'estimated amount of time' before they ceased to receive adequate power is that necessary of a distinction?
I'm not taking issue with your precise wording, I'm taking issue with your entire characterization of the situation. You are comparing the 90 day mission time frame to the 6-year observed lifespan of the rovers and saying it was either a case of Scotty-esque absurd understatement, or that they simply suck at estimating. That's not a matter of pedantry; it's just utterly wrong.
You can reword it such that you make the rover breaking down from a mechanical or electrical failure sound only minutely different than a perfectly functional rover being unable to operate because of the environment, and in the broadest sense of "how long can we expect the mission to go?" they're the same. Yet in the more specific sense of whether or not the answer to that question is an "absurd understatement", the difference between the two perfectly demonstrates why that is not the case.
See what I'm saying? The only reason they said 90 days was because of a faulty assumption about Martian weather, and when that assumption proved to be false, there was no reason for the rovers to fail anytime soon. Given Mars with no wind, the 90 day estimate would have been largely correct. When they discovered Mars had wind, which was before 90 days had passed, they abandoned that estimate since it no longer applied. The subsequent long life of the rovers given Mars with wind in no way demonstrates that the original estimate was a deliberate understatement of the rover's potential.
If NASA had that the rover had landed next to a cliff, and the only exit for the rover would have sent it right off the cliff immediately and so they predicted a 20 second lifespan, but then it turned out there wasn't a cliff there, you wouldn't say six years later "They predicted a 20 second lifespan, but it lasted 6 years! They suck at estimating!" You could chastise them for their abilities at cliff detection, but calling it a Scotty-esque sandbag would be utterly wrong no matter how you worded it.
Good thing they're doing the opposite of scaling back their program, broadening their cutting edge research along with their budget, and freeing up all the money wasted developing an in-house vehicle. NASA will be able to pursue more missions similar to what JAXA has done, testing new forms of propulsion and automated systems etc. Things that would not be possible if we kept pursuing an Apollo repeat that does nothing to advance us, just proves we can still do what we did 40 years ago, like a man in a mid-life crisis whose big ambition in life is to simply repeat what he did in high school.
Or put another way: If you're impressed by this mission, or at least what it was trying to achieve, and want to see NASA do things like it, then you should be 100% for the new plan.
Of course the 90 days was just the 'minimum for justification of the mission' and the 'warranty' period of the rovers (The minimum amount of time that they were expected to operate).
No, that was just the estimated amount of time before dust accumulation on the solar panels would prevent it from receiving adequate power. The rovers and their components were never designed, estimated to last, or "warrantied" for 90 days, even as a low-ball minimum-guarantee. It was always a statement about environmental conditions on Mars, and once they saw that the environment was different and the Martian wind was strong enough to blow the panels clean, 90 days got thrown out the window because that's all it ever meant.
But like Scotty, with an absurd over-estimate (or in this case, under-estimate) when you shatter that estimate it makes you look pretty spectacular. (Or just really bad at estimates)
There was nothing absurd about it. It was just based on a faulty assumption. If the rover mission had been planned knowing Mars would be kind enough to clean the solar panels for them, they would have planned for a much longer mission. It would have probably still been a lower estimate than the possible lifetime of the rovers as one would expect to ensure that it is probable they would last that long, but not an absurd under-estimate.
From the first reference in that section ([11]): "So you can probably say that within two to three years the beach fauna or beach populations were back to where they were before the spill. I think that's probably a pretty standard thing. Fine-grain, sandy beaches can be cleaned up pretty easily," Tunnell explained.
I just want to point out that sandy beaches are a far different matter than the swampy coastline environments conservationists are most concerned about.
Extrapolating from Ixtoc to this doesn't seem sound. There are plenty of factors that are different.
It's great for those of us in countries like the USA, Canada, Easter Europe
It's really not needed in Easter Europe; they all have good eyesight, what with being bunnies... who eat lots of carrots... which are good for your eyes...
Slashdot Mirror
I personally expected it to go more the way of the AT&T veresus BSD case, where it turned out that AT&T had stolen tons of code from BSD, not the other way around. The Linux emulation layer in SCO UNIX seemed a particularly likely candidate. Either that turned out not to be the case or IBM simply didn't push the issue (perhaps because SCO was having so much trouble proving anything in their claims) though.
Since IBM most likely wouldn't own the copyrights on that code, they wouldn't have standing to raise the issue, and so probably didn't even care to check. AT&T vs BSD was AT&T vs U of C copyrights.
SCO's strategy always seemed to me to be a shakedown, scare companies into license agreements. Why they went after one of the deepsest pockets first is beyond me, IBM was very likely to fight given their investment, but it was clear early on that management was not very competent.
Their initial hope was to get bought out by IBM. Not a sign of great intelligence, right there. Only when that plan failed spectacularly did they shift to trying to extort Linux customers, using the ongoing existence of the IBM suit as evidence of their claims.
I can only halfway agree with this. It'd work to do this while letting a short-term political problem blow over, but it wouldn't work that well in the long run, IMO; the really really short term projects will quickly be exhausted. It's not a total waste - you'll solve some, and you'll flag which ones turned out to be harder than expected and will need longer term work - but you'll never recover the funding to do long term work again.
It's incorrect to think that because some long-term projects don't survive administration changes, that no long-term projects can survive. There are projects that survived the Bush "Mars, Bitches!" years and made it into Obama's proposed budget -- i.e. through two diametrically opposed changes in leadership.
The principle danger is to -- and from -- the large-scale long-term projects. Those are the projects that are canceled before anything is accomplished (see Constellation), and whose creation necessitates canceling many of the smaller projects to make room (also see Constellation).
That's why the new plan -- if it survives -- is perfect to deal with the political reality at NASA. By focusing on small projects designed to create new technologies and capabilities, that removes the massive projects that both kill off smaller ones and are prime targets to be killed. Whims can change, but the majority of NASA work can continue. The best part is that by focusing on developing greater capabilities, it leaves open a future where what is a large-scale budget-killing project today may be an easier problem less vulnerable to political sea-changes in the future.
For example, a manned lunar mission started today would be a massive undertaking that would require most of NASA's resources and necessitate they cut back on many science and research-based projects, and even then wouldn't involve anything more than the Apollo landings did. In-orbit fuel depots, in-orbit vehicle assembly, robotic missions to the moon to find water resources, further unmanned missions to process those resources into fuel, air, and hey why not water, all could combine to make a lunar mission much more feasible to accomplish in an 8-year window. You wouldn't need a single gigantic launch vehicle that could carry everything needed for the trip to the moon and back in one go, and that means the length of our stay wouldn't be dictated by what mass was left over for actually being on the moon.
That's not a sure thing. The point is, right now we seem to have to choices: Pursuit of modest and sensible advances in technology that will let us try new missions in the future, or tremendous investment in continuing to do the same things we've done before.
No wait, not the pigs, just the pork.
I can't wait for all the interesting and new technology that would actually expand our capabilities to get canceled in favor of a appeasing a government contractor who wants us to keep doing what we've been doing and all the people who can't get past Size of Rocket = Size of Nation's Cock.
News flash for the space mid-life-crisis crowd: Big rockets are really impressive... if you live in the 70s! You want NASA to regain it's mojo and reclaim the lead in space? Shuttle 2.0 ain't gonna do it. Everything that will be scrapped in favor of the pork project would.
A nuke does not have to weigh tons to do tons of damage.
Yeah, but only because the "tons" in "tons of damage" refers to equivalent tons of TNT. Which is unfair to TNT in my opinion; it has to weight tons to do tons of damage by definition! TNT wouldn't have to weigh tons to do tons of damage if we measure damage in terms of, say, tons of coke + mentos.
Bill Hicks: You know there was rumours of anti-Castro pigeons seen drinking in bars... Someone overheard them saying 'coup, coup.'
So are you being sarcastic and I'm missing it, or are you being earnest because you missed my sarcasm tag?
Didn't you read the headline? Google is just copying Hypercard. Forget copying the iPhone, they're copying the 25-year-old Macintosh! Hey Google, at least copy stuff from this millennium! /snark
It looks as though they have "mailmerged" part of their claims into their supposed evidence. Shouldn't this have resulted in the judge throwing this out as null and void?
Immaterial, since it was thrown out on its merits. Well not thrown out, it was admitted as evidence, just it was ruled not to be evidence of infringement. Because it isn't.
Having the evidence rejected because of some procedural matter (like tampering) would in a way have been worse -- Kevin could claim that the evidence wasn't admitted because of improper handling, but that it was in fact evidence of infringement as he claimed.
But it was accepted, analyzed, and determined to not be infringing because it's just some fucking header files, which even a judge understands are simply API definitions which must necessarily be identical in function (or nearly so, LOL at SCO for improperly defining some POSIX return types), and thus unsurprisingly very similar in expression. And in any case not a violation.
So his whole argument is (surprise!) FUD, predicated on non-programmers and non-copyright-lawyers who also haven't been following the case credulously accepting that this might actually be evidence of infringement.
Header files are public - but they seldom contains any advanced functionality. They are just a definition of the calls available, defined data types and constants.
But of course - a lawyer wouldn't understand that, it's just a question of money.
Any lawyer versed in the relevant law would understand that. A lawyer may be able to pretend they don't understand for the sake of their client; I'm not sure but wouldn't that run afoul of rules regarding legal practice? It's certainly possible Kevin really doesn't understand, and even avoided learning so he could in all sincerity advise his client with the bad advice they wanted.
In any case, the judge understood, which is why back when they submitted this evidence, the judge correctly ruled that necessary API definitions didn't by themselves constitute copyright violation. Besides, what with them being necessary APIs, there's no way to say they were copied from UNIX versus any other implementation which would also have the same headers.
This is a sad, pathetic attempt to claim that there really was something to the UNIX-code-in-Linux accusation. Especially sad because as they admit this evidence was already submitted, examined, and rejected as valid evidence of what they claim.
It'd have to be one damn beefy laser, since at the distances we're talking, even a very tightly focused laser beam has diverged to a huge diameter. A ridiculously harder problem than hitting a space elevator climber. Tens of thousands of kilometers, vs about 600 million kilometers at the closest. I don't think it's practical at this time to beam power from earth to Jupiter. Solar power would be way stronger than anything we could provide.
First the Neutrino has mass, then they can't find the Higgs Boson and now
Not bad predicting the existence of neutrino mass even if he wasn't the first to do so, but I'd hold off on claiming the lack of Fermilab finding the Higgs as evidence for Higgs-less theories. There are significant regions of possible Higgs energies where Fermilab wouldn't be expected to see it. If the LHC doesn't see it, then we can talk about it how we can't find it.
Heim theory also calculated the mass of the proton as greater than measured previously!
Which has what to do with finding the charge distribution to be smaller than measured previously? I see no indication that the experimental mass of the proton has changed.
If it's going to fit in your eye, then the largest possible aperture would be too small to make for very enjoyable stargazing.
I have a 7x18 monocular that I carry with me, and it's decent for getting a little more detail on not-too-distant birds to maybe allow an ID, or general hey-I-have-a-spyglass fun, but it's useless for astronomy. Can't even see the Galilean moons of Jupiter with it.
I feel ya though, I too want telescope eyes. But for backyard astronomy anywhere (so, I guess not backyard), just pick up a decent pair of binoculars and leave em in your glove box. :)
Singularity? What are you talking about? The Big Bang refers to when the Cosmic He-Turtle got it on with his number one lady the Cosmic She-Turtle.
And before you ask where the energy for that came from, it's turtle-humpings all the way down.
Lucas' borrowing was still better than Quentin Tarantino's, though. At least it wasn't immediately transparent, where with Tarantino's films I generally just play "where did he copy this from" during the whole movie, then go rent the actual original films instead of paying a bit of attention to his.
Lemme guess, and then you got to Kill Bill and wondered where he copied Uma's yellow motorcycle suit from, and went to watch Game of Death allegedly starring Bruce Lee and realized you'd taken an unexpected and dramatic dive down the quality scale. "Did George Lucas direct this?!" you wondered. "How could anyone disgrace Bruce's memory like this!"
Or maybe that was just me. :)
They are referring to emissions during operation.
All energy can be traced back to the Big Bang. Therefore I'm going to fail to see any relevant differences between any form of energy today and call that being smart.
The same sense Han meant when he used the phrase "good blaster".
And in the sense of "does the dirty business for which it was created well", there are most certainly good lawyers, and you want one by your side. Probably in preference to a blaster. After all, a good blaster may be helpful in a firefight, but is typically unwise to use in a courtroom. While a good lawyer is very helpful in a courtroom, and can be used as a shield during a firefight.
I'm assuming it's under the parents name for the account which should be a pleasant conversation at work when your boss asks you why you are trolling the warlock forum?
Already laying the groundwork for the "it was my 13-year-old" excuse, I see. ;)
Wow. You really are taking issue with the statement, "amount of time they were expected to operate", and suggesting that 'estimated amount of time' before they ceased to receive adequate power is that necessary of a distinction?
I'm not taking issue with your precise wording, I'm taking issue with your entire characterization of the situation. You are comparing the 90 day mission time frame to the 6-year observed lifespan of the rovers and saying it was either a case of Scotty-esque absurd understatement, or that they simply suck at estimating. That's not a matter of pedantry; it's just utterly wrong.
You can reword it such that you make the rover breaking down from a mechanical or electrical failure sound only minutely different than a perfectly functional rover being unable to operate because of the environment, and in the broadest sense of "how long can we expect the mission to go?" they're the same. Yet in the more specific sense of whether or not the answer to that question is an "absurd understatement", the difference between the two perfectly demonstrates why that is not the case.
See what I'm saying? The only reason they said 90 days was because of a faulty assumption about Martian weather, and when that assumption proved to be false, there was no reason for the rovers to fail anytime soon. Given Mars with no wind, the 90 day estimate would have been largely correct. When they discovered Mars had wind, which was before 90 days had passed, they abandoned that estimate since it no longer applied. The subsequent long life of the rovers given Mars with wind in no way demonstrates that the original estimate was a deliberate understatement of the rover's potential.
If NASA had that the rover had landed next to a cliff, and the only exit for the rover would have sent it right off the cliff immediately and so they predicted a 20 second lifespan, but then it turned out there wasn't a cliff there, you wouldn't say six years later "They predicted a 20 second lifespan, but it lasted 6 years! They suck at estimating!" You could chastise them for their abilities at cliff detection, but calling it a Scotty-esque sandbag would be utterly wrong no matter how you worded it.
Good thing they're doing the opposite of scaling back their program, broadening their cutting edge research along with their budget, and freeing up all the money wasted developing an in-house vehicle. NASA will be able to pursue more missions similar to what JAXA has done, testing new forms of propulsion and automated systems etc. Things that would not be possible if we kept pursuing an Apollo repeat that does nothing to advance us, just proves we can still do what we did 40 years ago, like a man in a mid-life crisis whose big ambition in life is to simply repeat what he did in high school.
Or put another way: If you're impressed by this mission, or at least what it was trying to achieve, and want to see NASA do things like it, then you should be 100% for the new plan.
Of course the 90 days was just the 'minimum for justification of the mission' and the 'warranty' period of the rovers (The minimum amount of time that they were expected to operate).
No, that was just the estimated amount of time before dust accumulation on the solar panels would prevent it from receiving adequate power. The rovers and their components were never designed, estimated to last, or "warrantied" for 90 days, even as a low-ball minimum-guarantee. It was always a statement about environmental conditions on Mars, and once they saw that the environment was different and the Martian wind was strong enough to blow the panels clean, 90 days got thrown out the window because that's all it ever meant.
But like Scotty, with an absurd over-estimate (or in this case, under-estimate) when you shatter that estimate it makes you look pretty spectacular. (Or just really bad at estimates)
There was nothing absurd about it. It was just based on a faulty assumption. If the rover mission had been planned knowing Mars would be kind enough to clean the solar panels for them, they would have planned for a much longer mission. It would have probably still been a lower estimate than the possible lifetime of the rovers as one would expect to ensure that it is probable they would last that long, but not an absurd under-estimate.
From the first reference in that section ([11]):
"So you can probably say that within two to three years the beach fauna or beach populations were back to where they were before the spill. I think that's probably a pretty standard thing. Fine-grain, sandy beaches can be cleaned up pretty easily," Tunnell explained.
I just want to point out that sandy beaches are a far different matter than the swampy coastline environments conservationists are most concerned about.
Extrapolating from Ixtoc to this doesn't seem sound. There are plenty of factors that are different.
But God, I hope it's true.
The eye of a hurricane ranges from tens to hundreds of square kilometers. Where do you aim?
You aim at the hidden weak spot for MASSIVE DAMAGE.
I suggest you try reading the OP again.
It's great for those of us in countries like the USA, Canada, Easter Europe
It's really not needed in Easter Europe; they all have good eyesight, what with being bunnies... who eat lots of carrots... which are good for your eyes...
I'll show myself out.