I didn't know that, but it wouldn't have made a difference. Where I live, "dude" is a gender-neutral second-person pronoun of address.
Everyone who owns a laptop. CompactFlash + $10 cheapy adaptor = PCMCIA.
Your laptop already has USB on it. (Probably.) So, as I asked the other poster in this thread, why not cut out the middle-man? Everybody and his sister will have to adapt compact flash to PCMCIA or to USB anyway, so why make things harder for the customers? Just use USB and one serial communication protocol or another to talk to the device, like you would any similar piece of gear.
Well I don't have a Compact Flash adapter either, but like the post said, they are like $10 and plug into USB.
Which raises the question of why compact flash would be a good option for this application. If everybody's going to be using a USB-compact flash adapter anyway (modulo the people who use PCMCIA-compact flash adapters), why not just drop the middleman and use plain old USB with a serial communication protocol?
Dude, I hate to burst your bubble here, but that would be a terrible implementation for this kind of thing. How many people have CompactFlash devices on their computers? Show of hands? Okay, I count... six. Now how many people have USB ports? Woah, that looks like everybody. Except for that guy in the back who still uses an AlphaStation for his PC because he says it's "wicked fast, man."
And would anybody in his right mind vote for a text-file format for the control and configuration files? No, thanks. I get enough of that crap at work; I wouldn't want to pay for the privilege of coming home and tweaking config files just to get my damned CD player to skip tracks.
I looked it up after posting. The original Pronto came out in 1998. Now there are a bunch of products in the Pronto line, including a "lite" version of the software that runs on an IR-equipped Palm, and something that looks kinda like a tablet PC.
Philips didn't just release the Pronto. It's literally been around for years.
And the Sony device is totally different. This device and the Pronto use a true LCD display, a la Palm Pilot. The Sony device just uses a backlit template with buttons drawn on it. Depending on your device selection, some buttons are lit and some aren't. Your CD player will have a "play" button, but your TV won't, for instance. But you can't really change the labels of the buttons or anything about their arrangement.
honestly, who cares if Open Source/Linux/whatever gets recognition, loses credibility with someone, achieves world domaination or anything?
Well, I can say that I'm on your side. I agree with you. My own opinion of Linux as an operating system is not high, so I think the danger of it becoming anything more than a minor footnote is minimal. But that's not the issue.
The prevailing opinion in the non-commercial software community is that people should use, or at the very least consider, non-commercial alternatives to software from companies like Microsoft. The reasons given range from the practical (the assertion that non-commercial software is more secure is always a popular one) to the ideological (read anything RMS has ever written for an example of this approach). I don't agree with this basic idea completely, but I certainly understand, accept, and respect the opinion. (Well, mostly. Respect is a fuzzy thing, you know?)
The kind of shit that went on in this discussion runs counter to that prevailing opinion. If I were Cindy, I would run, not walk, to Microsoft and buy whatever it takes to get my job done. Say what you like about Microsoft, but nobody at that company actually tells customers or potential customers to fuck off. (Well, knowing my luck, on a few occasions that's exactly what's happened. But those events, if they've happened, are just as unacceptable as this one, and-- again, if they've even happened-- they're the exception to the rule.)
What you're basically saying here is that it doesn't matter if people are assholes to other people. You're saying that people who were going to use non-commercial software will do so anyway, and people who choose not to based on rudeness probably would have so chosen for some other reason. In the most literal sense, you're probably correct. But that doesn't mean you're right.
People like RMS-- and his followers-- like to say that the true purpose of the open software movement is a political one, not a technological one. Well, just as RMS's off-putting personality runs counter to that purpose, so does telling newbies to go fuck off.
Does it matter? No, not really, not in the grand scheme of things. But that doesn't make it okay.
Any implementation will restrict my ability to use the media blah blah
That's simply not so. I've had to make this point about ten times now; is no one listening? Intertrust, and similar systems, protect the original digital media content. You are free to do whatever the hell you want with the media, as far as Intertrust is concerned, once it becomes analog. Analog piracy has never been a big concern to the media producers, so they're not all that interested in trying to prevent it. The side effect of this approach is that Intertrust won't infringe on any legal, legitimate use of any protected media. In fact, it won't even infringe on illegal, illegitimate uses that occur strictly in the analog realm. If you want to put a copyrighted recording of a song into one of your home movies, go right ahead. Put the microphone right up to your speaker and press "play," or use a pair of RCA cables, or whatever you want. Intertrust doesn't care.
And those limits are rendered useless by the technology.
Congratulations. You've come to the realization that technology can be used to break laws. Whether it's deliberate or not, whether it's done by the consumer or the producer, it's possible for technology to either give or take away rights that one or the other party isn't entitled to.
The cool thing about Intertrust is that it explicitly separates the media from the rights from the exercise of those rights. If RecordCo releases a rights package that is more restrictive of the consumer than the law allows in a particular jurisdiction, then somebody from that jurisdiction can ask the court to compel RecordCo to release a revised rights package that complies with the relevant law. RecordCo, because they used Intertrust (or a conceptually similar system), can just release a new rights package that is available only to customers in that jurisdiction. Easy solution to what is, right now, an impossible problem.
What most people seem to forget is that there is no "natural right" to copyright.
Yawn. I'm not going to get into an argument about this. Copyright is the law of the land, in virtually every jurisdiction on earth. DRM is going to happen sooner or later to implement copyright protections with technology. The only question is whether the system will be technologically sound or not. And, frankly, even that question isn't terribly important, because a good DRM system will succeed in the market while a bad one fails. So really, this whole conversation is just academic. Interesting, but not really that important.
How is removing my current ability to keep what I pay for a good thing?
Because it allows you to pay less for something you don't intend to keep. More choice for the consumer is a good thing, dude.
On my planet, the media industry has tried to conrol each new technology and failed every time.
I don't know what planet that is, but you're not talking about this one. Lobbying on the part of media companies to "control new technology" is strictly a phenomenon of the 80's and 90's. You're whole take on this, in fact, appears to me exceedingly short-sighted.
Remember what Minsky said. He said, "We are in the thousand years between no technology and all technology. We're still in the dark ages."
What GHz "barrier?" It's not like 3 GHz was theoretically impossible or anything. This is just a matter of making something go slightly faster than it did yesterday.
It won't. As I written elsewhere, Intertrust's system is designed to protect the original digital media only. If you want to make an analog copy of the media, go right ahead. Nobody will, or even can, stop you.
Seems like the record companies are just in denial about the fact that their songs WILL BE ripped and shared over P2P networks.
The goal here is to design a system that makes ripping and sharing less convenient than just buying the appropriate license. If the music is worth having, I'll happily spend a dollar for a limited license-- or more if I want a less- or unlimited one-- rather than put up with a crappy analog copy.
But the kind of folks who will be happy with analog copies are the kind of folks that the record-- and other media-- companies aren't that interested in capturing anyway.
You are a walking contradiction, extoling the benevolence and greatness of Intertrust in one post and then bashing them in the next.
Perhaps you should read more closely... or perhaps I should be more explicit.
1. I think DRM is inevitable, and I think that it can be, if properly implemented, a good thing.
2. I think the perfect DRM system will be one that's nearly invisible to the user, and that protects the rights of both the owner and the licensee.
3. I think Intertrust is the closest I've yet seen to the perfect DRM system. Their emphasis on rights as separate data objects that define how media is accessed and used is, as far as I know, unique in the market, and I think it would be a good thing if implemented correctly.
4. I think Intertrust, despite its virtues, depends too much on ubiquity and infrastructure. If you could flip a switch and make it an Intertrust world, I don't think most people would notice, and it would be a good thing overall. But you can't just flip a switch, and deploying Intertrust in any widespread way sounds like a vast undertaking.
There's no contradiction here-- at least not as far as I can see. It's just that my opinion is more complex than "Intertrust sux0rs, d00d!"
but in the near future pvr/dvd and other players will have digital outs, tv's are already shipping with dvi inputs... the components will start supporting pure digital out soon enough.
The key word there was "unencrypted." DVI connections between set-top boxes and TVs and projectors already use HDCP. Simply omitting unencrypted digital outputs takes care of the biggest hole in content protection.
I'm no expert, but I don't believe that actually reduces the number of queries. It might reduce the number of passes through an ODBC conduit (or whatever) between front end and back end, but I don't think it reduces the work that the DBMS has to do.
Is this your way of saying that you don't know how to respond to my points, so you're appealing to an authority that conspicuously also avoids dealing with the points I mentioned?
You-- and many others posting here-- seem to take as read that "digital cash" is even theoretically possible. It is not necessary to delve into the maths to establish that it is not actually possible to satisfy the goals of universal acceptance, electronic transmission, and anonymity. Any two of those three may be possible, but all three together are not.
Actually, in context, I used the phrase "inherent physical value" to mean that cash can be recognized as valuable without the verification of a third party. Cash is entirely self-contained. If you hand me a $20 bill, I can accept, upon cursory examination, that it's valuable. I don't have to call up your bank or the Department of the Treasury and ask them if you're good for it. If it's a real $20 bill, then it's good, no questions asked.
You use the phrase "inherent value" to mean something else. That's fine. We'll just use a different expression to describe what I'm talking about.
The point remains, though. When people say "digital cash," they're hoping for a system in which they can email-- or otherwise transmit electronically-- a sequence of bits to another party, and have that other party accept that sequence of bits as they would any form of currency, without requiring proof of identity or the keeping of records. In order for that to happen, that magical string of bits would have to have the same key characteristic as cash: it would have to be accepted as valuable and authentic without the involvement of a third party. If there's a third party involved, the whole idea collapses into what we have now with electronic credit transactions.
It is not possible for a string of bits to have that characteristic. Any string of bits can be duplicated exactly. Sure, you can play some games with public-key cryptography to make sure that a given string of bits is useful only to its intended recipient, but at that point the whole "trust" can of worms comes into play again and the lofty goal of a completely anonymous system evaporates like dreams.
Yes, but only one of those copies can ever be redeemed.
So a string of bits only has value if it can be redeemed... and the only way to know whether it can be redeemed or not is to ask an issuing authority, because it's impossible to tell one string of bits from another.
At that point, we're not talking about "digital cash" any more. We're talking about digital checks, or digital credit. The issuing authority is a bank or other lender. The string of bits is a check or a credit authorization. This system is already in place, and it works well, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, it's not the same thing as "digital cash."
Federal reserve notes are not backed by gold anymore; they have no inherent value. They only have value to the degree I trust that I can submit those pieces of paper to another party for valuable goods.
By that definition, gold has no inherent value either. (Unless you're manufacturing something out of it, of course, but that's a different kind of value. That's value of utility, not value of trade or exchange.)
I think it's possible to verify a string of bits as digital cash with a certifying authority to give it value.
At that point, it's not cash any more. It's credit: a digital IOU. Goodbye, anonymity.
I'd still like to believe that it's possible that the web of trust need not disclose the entire chain of identities
A chain can be followed. If you're worried about somebody finding out who you are, participating in a trust network is not a good way to stay safe.
Yes, I know. But the argument often comes up, particularly on Slashdot. On the one side you have people who think that PDF is a great format for digital documents and whatnot. On the other side, you have people who bitch about it's being "proprietary" and say TeX and XML are the only politically acceptable formats.
This doesn't make sense to anyone, least of all me. But it comes up all the time.
Well, no, not exactly. With a CD, you can make a bit-for-bit digital copy of the original and give it to somebody else. There's no legitimate reason for you to be able to do this; it's prohibited by law, and there's no "fair use" aspect to it. So it's reasonable and acceptable for this ability to go away. It'll-- in an Intertrust world, which is a far-off, distant thing-- be replaced by the ability to make bit-for-bit digital copies that only you can use (backups), or analog copies that you can do whatever you like with (fair use, home recording act compliance, et cetera).
I've yet to find anything in the Intertrust system that's prima facie objectionable.
Sorry, but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time reading papers or patents or surfing google when I've already reasoned out the theoretical flaws in the idea to my satisfaction. If you want to argue that I'm wrong, go right ahead. But I'm not going to do it for you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a girl.
I didn't know that, but it wouldn't have made a difference. Where I live, "dude" is a gender-neutral second-person pronoun of address.
Everyone who owns a laptop. CompactFlash + $10 cheapy adaptor = PCMCIA.
Your laptop already has USB on it. (Probably.) So, as I asked the other poster in this thread, why not cut out the middle-man? Everybody and his sister will have to adapt compact flash to PCMCIA or to USB anyway, so why make things harder for the customers? Just use USB and one serial communication protocol or another to talk to the device, like you would any similar piece of gear.
I stand by my call of "terrible idea."
Well I don't have a Compact Flash adapter either, but like the post said, they are like $10 and plug into USB.
Which raises the question of why compact flash would be a good option for this application. If everybody's going to be using a USB-compact flash adapter anyway (modulo the people who use PCMCIA-compact flash adapters), why not just drop the middleman and use plain old USB with a serial communication protocol?
Dude, I hate to burst your bubble here, but that would be a terrible implementation for this kind of thing. How many people have CompactFlash devices on their computers? Show of hands? Okay, I count... six. Now how many people have USB ports? Woah, that looks like everybody. Except for that guy in the back who still uses an AlphaStation for his PC because he says it's "wicked fast, man."
And would anybody in his right mind vote for a text-file format for the control and configuration files? No, thanks. I get enough of that crap at work; I wouldn't want to pay for the privilege of coming home and tweaking config files just to get my damned CD player to skip tracks.
even as of 2.4.19.
Ack. I tried to parse this as a date. Had me really stumped for a minute there.
I looked it up after posting. The original Pronto came out in 1998. Now there are a bunch of products in the Pronto line, including a "lite" version of the software that runs on an IR-equipped Palm, and something that looks kinda like a tablet PC.
Google for Philips Pronto. Been around since the 90's.
Philips didn't just release the Pronto. It's literally been around for years.
And the Sony device is totally different. This device and the Pronto use a true LCD display, a la Palm Pilot. The Sony device just uses a backlit template with buttons drawn on it. Depending on your device selection, some buttons are lit and some aren't. Your CD player will have a "play" button, but your TV won't, for instance. But you can't really change the labels of the buttons or anything about their arrangement.
honestly, who cares if Open Source/Linux/whatever gets recognition, loses credibility with someone, achieves world domaination or anything?
Well, I can say that I'm on your side. I agree with you. My own opinion of Linux as an operating system is not high, so I think the danger of it becoming anything more than a minor footnote is minimal. But that's not the issue.
The prevailing opinion in the non-commercial software community is that people should use, or at the very least consider, non-commercial alternatives to software from companies like Microsoft. The reasons given range from the practical (the assertion that non-commercial software is more secure is always a popular one) to the ideological (read anything RMS has ever written for an example of this approach). I don't agree with this basic idea completely, but I certainly understand, accept, and respect the opinion. (Well, mostly. Respect is a fuzzy thing, you know?)
The kind of shit that went on in this discussion runs counter to that prevailing opinion. If I were Cindy, I would run, not walk, to Microsoft and buy whatever it takes to get my job done. Say what you like about Microsoft, but nobody at that company actually tells customers or potential customers to fuck off. (Well, knowing my luck, on a few occasions that's exactly what's happened. But those events, if they've happened, are just as unacceptable as this one, and-- again, if they've even happened-- they're the exception to the rule.)
What you're basically saying here is that it doesn't matter if people are assholes to other people. You're saying that people who were going to use non-commercial software will do so anyway, and people who choose not to based on rudeness probably would have so chosen for some other reason. In the most literal sense, you're probably correct. But that doesn't mean you're right.
People like RMS-- and his followers-- like to say that the true purpose of the open software movement is a political one, not a technological one. Well, just as RMS's off-putting personality runs counter to that purpose, so does telling newbies to go fuck off.
Does it matter? No, not really, not in the grand scheme of things. But that doesn't make it okay.
Any implementation will restrict my ability to use the media blah blah
That's simply not so. I've had to make this point about ten times now; is no one listening? Intertrust, and similar systems, protect the original digital media content. You are free to do whatever the hell you want with the media, as far as Intertrust is concerned, once it becomes analog. Analog piracy has never been a big concern to the media producers, so they're not all that interested in trying to prevent it. The side effect of this approach is that Intertrust won't infringe on any legal, legitimate use of any protected media. In fact, it won't even infringe on illegal, illegitimate uses that occur strictly in the analog realm. If you want to put a copyrighted recording of a song into one of your home movies, go right ahead. Put the microphone right up to your speaker and press "play," or use a pair of RCA cables, or whatever you want. Intertrust doesn't care.
And those limits are rendered useless by the technology.
Congratulations. You've come to the realization that technology can be used to break laws. Whether it's deliberate or not, whether it's done by the consumer or the producer, it's possible for technology to either give or take away rights that one or the other party isn't entitled to.
The cool thing about Intertrust is that it explicitly separates the media from the rights from the exercise of those rights. If RecordCo releases a rights package that is more restrictive of the consumer than the law allows in a particular jurisdiction, then somebody from that jurisdiction can ask the court to compel RecordCo to release a revised rights package that complies with the relevant law. RecordCo, because they used Intertrust (or a conceptually similar system), can just release a new rights package that is available only to customers in that jurisdiction. Easy solution to what is, right now, an impossible problem.
What most people seem to forget is that there is no "natural right" to copyright.
Yawn. I'm not going to get into an argument about this. Copyright is the law of the land, in virtually every jurisdiction on earth. DRM is going to happen sooner or later to implement copyright protections with technology. The only question is whether the system will be technologically sound or not. And, frankly, even that question isn't terribly important, because a good DRM system will succeed in the market while a bad one fails. So really, this whole conversation is just academic. Interesting, but not really that important.
How is removing my current ability to keep what I pay for a good thing?
Because it allows you to pay less for something you don't intend to keep. More choice for the consumer is a good thing, dude.
On my planet, the media industry has tried to conrol each new technology and failed every time.
I don't know what planet that is, but you're not talking about this one. Lobbying on the part of media companies to "control new technology" is strictly a phenomenon of the 80's and 90's. You're whole take on this, in fact, appears to me exceedingly short-sighted.
Remember what Minsky said. He said, "We are in the thousand years between no technology and all technology. We're still in the dark ages."
how the heck do you edit something saved in PDF?
Duh. You don't, typically. Which is the great thing about PDF as a mastering format.
Some programs use PDF as their native file format, however, most notably Illustrator 10.
We break a new GHz barrier every month?
What GHz "barrier?" It's not like 3 GHz was theoretically impossible or anything. This is just a matter of making something go slightly faster than it did yesterday.
Or is it the big round number that impresses you?
X86 is a joke and anyone who is buying a processor these days should just wait and watch, that's what I've been doing since 1998.
;-)
How's that working out for you?
Friend, I think your sense of irony has come unstowed.
But tell me again, how will this stop me...
It won't. As I written elsewhere, Intertrust's system is designed to protect the original digital media only. If you want to make an analog copy of the media, go right ahead. Nobody will, or even can, stop you.
Seems like the record companies are just in denial about the fact that their songs WILL BE ripped and shared over P2P networks.
The goal here is to design a system that makes ripping and sharing less convenient than just buying the appropriate license. If the music is worth having, I'll happily spend a dollar for a limited license-- or more if I want a less- or unlimited one-- rather than put up with a crappy analog copy.
But the kind of folks who will be happy with analog copies are the kind of folks that the record-- and other media-- companies aren't that interested in capturing anyway.
(This is taken from slashdot comments from awhile ago.)
;-)
So it must be true, right?
(Relax, I'm kidding. I don't doubt what you're saying. Your citation, however, cracked me up.)
More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler
"Reflections on Trusting Trust," Communications of the ACM, August '84. Read it here.
You are a walking contradiction, extoling the benevolence and greatness of Intertrust in one post and then bashing them in the next.
Perhaps you should read more closely... or perhaps I should be more explicit.
1. I think DRM is inevitable, and I think that it can be, if properly implemented, a good thing.
2. I think the perfect DRM system will be one that's nearly invisible to the user, and that protects the rights of both the owner and the licensee.
3. I think Intertrust is the closest I've yet seen to the perfect DRM system. Their emphasis on rights as separate data objects that define how media is accessed and used is, as far as I know, unique in the market, and I think it would be a good thing if implemented correctly.
4. I think Intertrust, despite its virtues, depends too much on ubiquity and infrastructure. If you could flip a switch and make it an Intertrust world, I don't think most people would notice, and it would be a good thing overall. But you can't just flip a switch, and deploying Intertrust in any widespread way sounds like a vast undertaking.
There's no contradiction here-- at least not as far as I can see. It's just that my opinion is more complex than "Intertrust sux0rs, d00d!"
but in the near future pvr/dvd and other players will have digital outs, tv's are already shipping with dvi inputs... the components will start supporting pure digital out soon enough.
The key word there was "unencrypted." DVI connections between set-top boxes and TVs and projectors already use HDCP. Simply omitting unencrypted digital outputs takes care of the biggest hole in content protection.
I'm no expert, but I don't believe that actually reduces the number of queries. It might reduce the number of passes through an ODBC conduit (or whatever) between front end and back end, but I don't think it reduces the work that the DBMS has to do.
Remember: not an expert!
Hey, get bent. Flame the guy all you want, but you stay the hell away from Buffy.
;-)
Is this your way of saying that you don't know how to respond to my points, so you're appealing to an authority that conspicuously also avoids dealing with the points I mentioned?
You-- and many others posting here-- seem to take as read that "digital cash" is even theoretically possible. It is not necessary to delve into the maths to establish that it is not actually possible to satisfy the goals of universal acceptance, electronic transmission, and anonymity. Any two of those three may be possible, but all three together are not.
Actually, in context, I used the phrase "inherent physical value" to mean that cash can be recognized as valuable without the verification of a third party. Cash is entirely self-contained. If you hand me a $20 bill, I can accept, upon cursory examination, that it's valuable. I don't have to call up your bank or the Department of the Treasury and ask them if you're good for it. If it's a real $20 bill, then it's good, no questions asked.
You use the phrase "inherent value" to mean something else. That's fine. We'll just use a different expression to describe what I'm talking about.
The point remains, though. When people say "digital cash," they're hoping for a system in which they can email-- or otherwise transmit electronically-- a sequence of bits to another party, and have that other party accept that sequence of bits as they would any form of currency, without requiring proof of identity or the keeping of records. In order for that to happen, that magical string of bits would have to have the same key characteristic as cash: it would have to be accepted as valuable and authentic without the involvement of a third party. If there's a third party involved, the whole idea collapses into what we have now with electronic credit transactions.
It is not possible for a string of bits to have that characteristic. Any string of bits can be duplicated exactly. Sure, you can play some games with public-key cryptography to make sure that a given string of bits is useful only to its intended recipient, but at that point the whole "trust" can of worms comes into play again and the lofty goal of a completely anonymous system evaporates like dreams.
Yes, but only one of those copies can ever be redeemed.
So a string of bits only has value if it can be redeemed... and the only way to know whether it can be redeemed or not is to ask an issuing authority, because it's impossible to tell one string of bits from another.
At that point, we're not talking about "digital cash" any more. We're talking about digital checks, or digital credit. The issuing authority is a bank or other lender. The string of bits is a check or a credit authorization. This system is already in place, and it works well, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, it's not the same thing as "digital cash."
Federal reserve notes are not backed by gold anymore; they have no inherent value. They only have value to the degree I trust that I can submit those pieces of paper to another party for valuable goods.
By that definition, gold has no inherent value either. (Unless you're manufacturing something out of it, of course, but that's a different kind of value. That's value of utility, not value of trade or exchange.)
I think it's possible to verify a string of bits as digital cash with a certifying authority to give it value.
At that point, it's not cash any more. It's credit: a digital IOU. Goodbye, anonymity.
I'd still like to believe that it's possible that the web of trust need not disclose the entire chain of identities
A chain can be followed. If you're worried about somebody finding out who you are, participating in a trust network is not a good way to stay safe.
Yes, I know. But the argument often comes up, particularly on Slashdot. On the one side you have people who think that PDF is a great format for digital documents and whatnot. On the other side, you have people who bitch about it's being "proprietary" and say TeX and XML are the only politically acceptable formats.
This doesn't make sense to anyone, least of all me. But it comes up all the time.
Well, no, not exactly. With a CD, you can make a bit-for-bit digital copy of the original and give it to somebody else. There's no legitimate reason for you to be able to do this; it's prohibited by law, and there's no "fair use" aspect to it. So it's reasonable and acceptable for this ability to go away. It'll-- in an Intertrust world, which is a far-off, distant thing-- be replaced by the ability to make bit-for-bit digital copies that only you can use (backups), or analog copies that you can do whatever you like with (fair use, home recording act compliance, et cetera).
I've yet to find anything in the Intertrust system that's prima facie objectionable.
Sorry, but I'm not going to waste a bunch of time reading papers or patents or surfing google when I've already reasoned out the theoretical flaws in the idea to my satisfaction. If you want to argue that I'm wrong, go right ahead. But I'm not going to do it for you.