Re:Looking forward... mostly
on
Quicksilver
·
· Score: 1
Not quite, it was a *little bit* more credible. Bad Guy had a nuke in his motorcycle sidecar with a dead-man switch radio-linked to his person, so if his heart stopped it went off. Far out, but still more or less believable in the context of a yarn.
I've been following the X-Prize contenders, and it sure seems like Rutan's group are the odds-on favorite to produce a working system. They are VERY professional, solid engineering, and good well-buttoned lips. Sure, the White Knight/SpaceShipOne combo is suborbital, but that's just the first pass. Once they're selling tickets for zero-G joyrides and generating income above the X-prize purse, it's a very good bet we'll see a second-generation system. I sure hope so, anyway.
I *do* wish Carmack's crew well, but I think Rutan et al are closer to the goal and progressing faster.
The orbiter itself may not rationally NEED wings, but the launcher should, unless you're talking really massive payloads. Here's why: The typical first-stage rocket booster uses most of its propellant just to get the first few dozen feet of altitude and few dozens of feet per second of velocity. If you use an air-breathing first stage (such as Scaled Composites' X-prize candidate, which uses a turbojet carrier plane as the first stage, or Orbital Science's Pegasus satellite launcher, which is lauched from a jet plane), you eliminate a LOT of mass. An airplane is just LOTS more fuel-efficient than a rocket at 40,000 feet and below. Use an air-breather from zero to 30,000 feet and 250 knots, and a rocket for the rest.
SCO's going to get pounded into the ground, and until there is a motion of actual litigation on their part against someone for infringing code in linux, there's not much to get riled up about. Until then, it's just a contract dispute between sco and IBM.
Not quite true, actually. SCO doesn't need to sue anyone else to get into deep legal poo; they're already rolling in it. Their very public behavior in trying to scare off potential Linux users has had a deliberate, calculated negative effect on the Linux community, and specifically has damaged the business of RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, et al. This sort of thing is called "Tortious interference with business", and it is a major reason some Linux distributors are suing SCO. If SCO cannot substantiate their public claims, RedHat et al will ultimately get to dance on SCO's collective grave -- though this may already be well-flattened by IBM when that happens.
In the long run, Open Source is unstoppable. Too many countries wanting independence from Microsoft, too much Open Source "critical mass".
If WIPO and the US continue to pursue the corporate agenda for IP policies (I agree with the parent post's point on WIPO's actual goals as demonstrated by its actions!), Open Source will still prosper; it's the Open Source-hostile countries who will suffer. Think the US' technological edge is permanent? Think again, fast...
The problem is, if one reads the article (nudge, nudge), that 1) at least some of the routers do this with NO operator interface or settability, and 2) some older routers would keep hitting the hardcoded server address even when configured to use some other address. Plus 3) there were some fixes that weren't. The routers in question accept ANY response, even if it isn't an NTP packet! Sending the wrong time would have zero impact. (Why does a home-network router need a clock so badly, anyway? It's not like they do useful remote logging or anything...)
This is a case of ill-designed, badly written, poorly debugged, wretchedly tested code. The article details the testing of a code fix that still didn't fix things properly. On the bright side, Netgear is trying to Do The Right Thing now, and they deserve credit for that.
Yeah. Every time I think these fools have maxed out the Fool-O-Meter, they go themselves one better. I'll be perversely disappointed the day after they finally flame out and crash for good. (May that day be SOON!)
Any Linux developer would be INSANE to sign anything like SCO's NDA, as it would end their Linux career then and there. OF COURSE Linus won't go near it...
Don't be so sure you know no hams, it ain't always obvious... Lotsa us obsolete old upstart hams have backup systems in sealed metal containers, with backup power systems. EMP isn't all-destroying, y'know. A good deal of RF gear is quite well-hardened. And those creaky old vacuum-tube boat anchors some of us insist on running just laugh at EMP effects. That's why we call it "wireless telegraphy". And yes, we DO still grok Morse...
On a more practical and likely note, history suggests that we hams will be the ones coordinating the Red Cross efforts to get your collective sorry ass rescued, fed and medically treated (along with all your neighbors, unless you have supplies for them, too?) when the more-likely next hurricane, major fire, or terrorist attack hits. We're sprinkled all around, and yes, some of us DO carry emergency go-kits every damn place we go, so we can set up comms networks very, very quickly.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
As I read this, SCO has terminated their right to distribute their Linux-based OS (and anything using Samba...) by attempting to sublicense to others under a non-GPL license (i.e., by trying to extort license fees for Linux from all and sundry). However, those who bought from them are in the clear as long as they comply with the GPL. Am I wrong here?
Clearly, they are very, very dumb. GPL invalid 'cause copyright law forbids multiple copies? (et bloody cetera, ad freaking infinitum) They're either barking mad or immensely, fiendishly, deviously clever, and the evidence leans heavily toward barking mad... The fortunate part in all this is that, as SCO's claims get ever wilder, soon even the PHBs will recognize that they're a rebel without a case.
Sunplus is VERY coy about the data on this chip (doesn't appear on their Web site and can't be searched out there), but from looking at datasheets for other chips in the series that are referenced by Zaram Technology, http://www.zaram.com/zaramweb_eng/product/zr_produ ct_camera.htm, I strongly suspect this chip uses an 8032-compatible uC core, so the flash RAM is likely to contain 8032 microcode that could be decompiled to reverse-engineer the USB protocol. (After all, there's a big SRAM chip in the unit too, so it seems likely the flash is strictly for code). A datasheet on the SPCA504B would be really nice, but seems hard to obtain. A word of caution: The Linux spca504_flash driver developers on SourceForge warn that you can toast the camera's flash RAM if a driver does something wrong; this suggests the flash RAM can be reflashed via USB, which could be both useful and dangerous...
To get a USB cable that mates to the unit, I did the following:
Buy a Radio Shack serial hotsync cable for Palm m100/m105; it's the right 10-pin connector, but is too thick. Carefully saw about 0.5 mm off the back of the connector tongue as I did, OR pop off the plastic cap that forms the back side of the connector tongue and shim the now-too-thin connector to fit. Carefully pry open the connector backshell as well.
Connections: Cut off the square end of a USB cable and strip 3/4" of the wires on the remaining cable, trimming the shield back out of the way (appears unnecessary to terminate the shield at this end); they SEEM to have consistent color-coding on the internal wires. Pinout as follows (if you hold the connector with the contacts facing you and the cord pointing DOWN, pin 10 is at the left):
Pin___Function____Color 10____Black_______groun d 9_____Data-_______white 8_____Data+_______gree n 6_____USB +V____red
Plug it into a Windows box, and you'll get a "PC" indication on the LCD and a Windows driver search. Until someone reverse-engineers the host software protocol and/or dumps the flash memory, this is as far as we can go for now...
The problem with the "derivative works" angle for SCO is that, if I understand correctly, IBM carefully did not permit direct copying of their AIX code to their Linux contributions. Hence, even in the (highly unlikely) event that their JFS, NUMA, etc. code in AIX is held to be derivative of UNIX, the Linux versions won't be, 'cause while the concepts were derived from the AIX add-ons, the code wasn't. Claiming that "derivative works" extends to the concepts themselves is WAAY to big a stretch even for an American judge.
Not to mention the they-released-it-all-under-the-GPL limpet mine attached to SCO's keel.
Yup, you're right on. Go to their GPL downloads page, and type "busybox.tgz" into the "Search" box at the bottom of the page (about 15 lines below the entry marked 'busybox.tgz'.) The search WON'T find anything. (Why the hell not? Surely the search engine gets tipped off about things it is supposed to index -- or to NOT index?)
It would be rather hard for Linksys to do less than this; it seems they've gone to some pains to be minimal in their GPL compliance...
I suspect that they've probably already evaluated this case and decided it was kosher.
Or perhaps, it suddenly occurs to me, the SEC is hesitant to interfere with ongoing private litigation and will act if and when the case is shown to be meritless and it all becomes public record? (NB: a sealed settlement with IBM would massively complicate that effort). Twitchy they may be, but they're still run by an administration that is decidedly anti-regulation; that might limit their potential eagerness and make them act cautiously.
It occurs to me that the SEC should be looking hard at current events in the SCO case, as there's a real prospect the board are engaging in illegal stock manipulation. If SCO's case is all just hot air (IF? well, just for the sake of argument...), then those who are buying the shares the board are slowly dumping at high prices (assuming this is true; I cannot be sure) are being defrauded right now. If the board knows or should know that the case is empty and the stock rise just a bubble, are they not commiting fraud? Does only a stockholder have standing to raise the issue with the SEC (IANAL, I don't really know)? In that case, maybe I have $10 for a share of SCO and a dime to call the Feds...
I think Linux itself is not threatened in its essence. Pray hard (if you live in the EU or US) that the EU doesn't follow the US' idiot lead and decide that software can be patented. As long as there are significant Linux players in countries that DON'T recognize software patents (say, China, India, and Brazil, to name a few?), Linux will thrive safe from the software patent menace. I don't think innovation itself will wither, just in certain countries.
Of course, this will come as cold comfort to those of us in the idiot countries, because if M$ and company DO manage to erect software patent barriers to OSS, Linux will be a banned article we cannot legally import.
The logical result of all this will be that the US and (probably) EU will lose their technological edge to China and India and become second-rate powers (and probably not just in the software field) until the software patent madness is overturned.
Our leaders, if they had any ability to think strategically beyond the next election, would realize that Open Source is a critical resource for their countries' ability to compete in the only area they have a critical advantage in -- their technological edge. (Not that I like what's been sliced up with that edge recently, but living in a declining country is an unpleasant prospect...).
Per the GPL, you must include the source with the binaries when you distribute to a third party. Also per the GPL, the same rights you have under the GPL transfer to said third party, i.e. you CANNOT contractually prohibit them from further distribution of the binary (with source, natch) OR from distributing the source for whatever fee they choose, or for free.
So: As long as at least ONE of the people you distributed the source to wishes to "give it to everyone", the deed is done, the cat out of the bag, the horse out of the barn. QED.
Silly RIAAbit. According to a recent NPR piece, several folk and indie labels are doing just fine, thanks; one label just had its best year ever. Seems they distribute music people actually want to - gasp - Buy...
This week, NPR reported that indie labels are doing better than the Big Record Companies; for example, one major folk label (I believe 'twas Rounder Records) just had its best year EVER.
The clear and obvious conclusion: Folkies and indie listeners are less prone to dastardly thieving music piracy than, say, Metallica listeners. Of course, the other explanation, that some labels are actually carrying acts people WANT to listen to as opposed to pushing mass-produced synthetic sound-alike cardboard cutout bands and buying air play for them, THAT explanation is too preposterous to consider...
The only problem I see is that the hashes are still derived from SCO's intellectual property and are therefore still covered by copyright.
Nope, not a problem at all. I'm not a copyright expert, but the hashes would certainly not be covered by SCO copyright for two reasons: 1) They are not an original work of authorship, but instead an application of a mathematical algorithm to "fingerprint" a file; they're just a list of numbers. That would be like copyrighting the output of "ls -l". 2) Even if a judge somehow finds 1) above to be inapplicable, the hashes would certainly fall under the "fair use" exception to the copyright on the SCO files, as they are a form of commentary on them.
Of course, SCO will never agree to such reasonable measures, since they are not fundamentally looking for something reasonable, so the whole thing is moot. A far more likely scenario is that SCO may *eventually* be forced to submit their code base and backups to a court-appointed special master tasked with analyzing the issue of code derivation (what, when, and in which direction), and will be required to fully disclose their development logs to the court. At which time,assuming it ever gets to trial, the case will finally, finally collapse for good and all, and we can get back to sniping at Microsoft.
I've tried WiFi, and it has its uses (expanding the LAN party to additional rooms with a wireless bridge) but it just cannot compete with the Cat 5 I ran to every bedroom. Cheap, reliable, secure, zero management required, and it didn't take very long to install it. (Of course, you have to own the house to do this...) Sometimes LESS gadgetry yields MORE results, sad as it is to admit it.
OK that's clear; the big question now is, "Who gets to swing the headsmean's sword?" Hands? Damn, too many to count. Way too many for rock/scissors/paper. We'll hafta draw straws for the privilege...;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite, it was a *little bit* more credible. Bad Guy had a nuke in his motorcycle sidecar with a dead-man switch radio-linked to his person, so if his heart stopped it went off. Far out, but still more or less believable in the context of a yarn.
I've been following the X-Prize contenders, and it sure seems like Rutan's group are the odds-on favorite to produce a working system. They are VERY professional, solid engineering, and good well-buttoned lips. Sure, the White Knight/SpaceShipOne combo is suborbital, but that's just the first pass. Once they're selling tickets for zero-G joyrides and generating income above the X-prize purse, it's a very good bet we'll see a second-generation system. I sure hope so, anyway.
I *do* wish Carmack's crew well, but I think Rutan et al are closer to the goal and progressing faster.
The orbiter itself may not rationally NEED wings, but the launcher should, unless you're talking really massive payloads. Here's why: The typical first-stage rocket booster uses most of its propellant just to get the first few dozen feet of altitude and few dozens of feet per second of velocity. If you use an air-breathing first stage (such as Scaled Composites' X-prize candidate, which uses a turbojet carrier plane as the first stage, or Orbital Science's Pegasus satellite launcher, which is lauched from a jet plane), you eliminate a LOT of mass. An airplane is just LOTS more fuel-efficient than a rocket at 40,000 feet and below. Use an air-breather from zero to 30,000 feet and 250 knots, and a rocket for the rest.
SCO's going to get pounded into the ground, and until there is a motion of actual litigation on their part against someone for infringing code in linux, there's not much to get riled up about. Until then, it's just a contract dispute between sco and IBM.
Not quite true, actually. SCO doesn't need to sue anyone else to get into deep legal poo; they're already rolling in it. Their very public behavior in trying to scare off potential Linux users has had a deliberate, calculated negative effect on the Linux community, and specifically has damaged the business of RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, et al. This sort of thing is called "Tortious interference with business", and it is a major reason some Linux distributors are suing SCO. If SCO cannot substantiate their public claims, RedHat et al will ultimately get to dance on SCO's collective grave -- though this may already be well-flattened by IBM when that happens.
In the long run, Open Source is unstoppable. Too many countries wanting independence from Microsoft, too much Open Source "critical mass".
If WIPO and the US continue to pursue the corporate agenda for IP policies (I agree with the parent post's point on WIPO's actual goals as demonstrated by its actions!), Open Source will still prosper; it's the Open Source-hostile countries who will suffer. Think the US' technological edge is permanent? Think again, fast...
The problem is, if one reads the article (nudge, nudge), that 1) at least some of the routers do this with NO operator interface or settability, and 2) some older routers would keep hitting the hardcoded server address even when configured to use some other address. Plus 3) there were some fixes that weren't. The routers in question accept ANY response, even if it isn't an NTP packet! Sending the wrong time would have zero impact. (Why does a home-network router need a clock so badly, anyway? It's not like they do useful remote logging or anything...)
This is a case of ill-designed, badly written, poorly debugged, wretchedly tested code. The article details the testing of a code fix that still didn't fix things properly. On the bright side, Netgear is trying to Do The Right Thing now, and they deserve credit for that.
Yeah. Every time I think these fools have maxed out the Fool-O-Meter, they go themselves one better. I'll be perversely disappointed the day after they finally flame out and crash for good. (May that day be SOON!)
... But he won't sign an NDA.
Any Linux developer would be INSANE to sign anything like SCO's NDA, as it would end their Linux career then and there. OF COURSE Linus won't go near it...
Don't be so sure you know no hams, it ain't always obvious...
Lotsa us obsolete old upstart hams have backup systems in sealed metal containers, with backup power systems. EMP isn't all-destroying, y'know. A good deal of RF gear is quite well-hardened. And those creaky old vacuum-tube boat anchors some of us insist on running just laugh at EMP effects. That's why we call it "wireless telegraphy". And yes, we DO still grok Morse...
On a more practical and likely note, history suggests that we hams will be the ones coordinating the Red Cross efforts to get your collective sorry ass rescued, fed and medically treated (along with all your neighbors, unless you have supplies for them, too?) when the more-likely next hurricane, major fire, or terrorist attack hits. We're sprinkled all around, and yes, some of us DO carry emergency go-kits every damn place we go, so we can set up comms networks very, very quickly.
73 de N1XNX
GPL section 4 states:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
As I read this, SCO has terminated their right to distribute their Linux-based OS (and anything using Samba...) by attempting to sublicense to others under a non-GPL license (i.e., by trying to extort license fees for Linux from all and sundry). However, those who bought from them are in the clear as long as they comply with the GPL. Am I wrong here?
Clearly, they are very, very dumb. GPL invalid 'cause copyright law forbids multiple copies? (et bloody cetera, ad freaking infinitum) They're either barking mad or immensely, fiendishly, deviously clever, and the evidence leans heavily toward barking mad... The fortunate part in all this is that, as SCO's claims get ever wilder, soon even the PHBs will recognize that they're a rebel without a case.
Sunplus is VERY coy about the data on this chip (doesn't appear on their Web site and can't be searched out there), but from looking at datasheets for other chips in the series that are referenced by Zaram Technology, http://www.zaram.com/zaramweb_eng/product/zr_produ ct_camera.htm, I strongly suspect this chip uses an 8032-compatible uC core, so the flash RAM is likely to contain 8032 microcode that could be decompiled to reverse-engineer the USB protocol. (After all, there's a big SRAM chip in the unit too, so it seems likely the flash is strictly for code). A datasheet on the SPCA504B would be really nice, but seems hard to obtain. A word of caution: The Linux spca504_flash driver developers on SourceForge warn that you can toast the camera's flash RAM if a driver does something wrong; this suggests the flash RAM can be reflashed via USB, which could be both useful and dangerous...
D-oh. The Radio Shack part number for the hotsync unit is 250-983, and it costs $9.97.
Thanks to various folks for the pinout...
n de n
To get a USB cable that mates to the unit, I did the following:
Buy a Radio Shack serial hotsync cable for Palm m100/m105; it's the right 10-pin connector, but is too thick.
Carefully saw about 0.5 mm off the back of the connector tongue as I did, OR pop off the plastic cap that forms the back side of the connector tongue and shim the now-too-thin connector to fit. Carefully pry open the connector backshell as well.
Connections: Cut off the square end of a USB cable and strip 3/4" of the wires on the remaining cable, trimming the shield back out of the way (appears unnecessary to terminate the shield at this end); they SEEM to have consistent color-coding on the internal wires. Pinout as follows (if you hold the connector with the contacts facing you and the cord pointing DOWN, pin 10 is at the left):
Pin___Function____Color
10____Black_______grou
9_____Data-_______white
8_____Data+_______gre
6_____USB +V____red
Plug it into a Windows box, and you'll get a "PC" indication on the LCD and a Windows driver search. Until someone reverse-engineers the host software protocol and/or dumps the flash memory, this is as far as we can go for now...
The problem with the "derivative works" angle for SCO is that, if I understand correctly, IBM carefully did not permit direct copying of their AIX code to their Linux contributions. Hence, even in the (highly unlikely) event that their JFS, NUMA, etc. code in AIX is held to be derivative of UNIX, the Linux versions won't be, 'cause while the concepts were derived from the AIX add-ons, the code wasn't. Claiming that "derivative works" extends to the concepts themselves is WAAY to big a stretch even for an American judge.
Not to mention the they-released-it-all-under-the-GPL limpet mine attached to SCO's keel.
Yup, you're right on. Go to their GPL downloads page, and type "busybox.tgz" into the "Search" box at the bottom of the page (about 15 lines below the entry marked 'busybox.tgz'.) The search WON'T find anything. (Why the hell not? Surely the search engine gets tipped off about things it is supposed to index -- or to NOT index?)
It would be rather hard for Linksys to do less than this; it seems they've gone to some pains to be minimal in their GPL compliance...
I suspect that they've probably already evaluated this case and decided it was kosher.
Or perhaps, it suddenly occurs to me, the SEC is hesitant to interfere with ongoing private litigation and will act if and when the case is shown to be meritless and it all becomes public record? (NB: a sealed settlement with IBM would massively complicate that effort). Twitchy they may be, but they're still run by an administration that is decidedly anti-regulation; that might limit their potential eagerness and make them act cautiously.
It occurs to me that the SEC should be looking hard at current events in the SCO case, as there's a real prospect the board are engaging in illegal stock manipulation. If SCO's case is all just hot air (IF? well, just for the sake of argument...), then those who are buying the shares the board are slowly dumping at high prices (assuming this is true; I cannot be sure) are being defrauded right now. If the board knows or should know that the case is empty and the stock rise just a bubble, are they not commiting fraud? Does only a stockholder have standing to raise the issue with the SEC (IANAL, I don't really know)? In that case, maybe I have $10 for a share of SCO and a dime to call the Feds...
I think Linux itself is not threatened in its essence. Pray hard (if you live in the EU or US) that the EU doesn't follow the US' idiot lead and decide that software can be patented. As long as there are significant Linux players in countries that DON'T recognize software patents (say, China, India, and Brazil, to name a few?), Linux will thrive safe from the software patent menace. I don't think innovation itself will wither, just in certain countries.
Of course, this will come as cold comfort to those of us in the idiot countries, because if M$ and company DO manage to erect software patent barriers to OSS, Linux will be a banned article we cannot legally import.
The logical result of all this will be that the US and (probably) EU will lose their technological edge to China and India and become second-rate powers (and probably not just in the software field) until the software patent madness is overturned.
Our leaders, if they had any ability to think strategically beyond the next election, would realize that Open Source is a critical resource for their countries' ability to compete in the only area they have a critical advantage in -- their technological edge. (Not that I like what's been sliced up with that edge recently, but living in a declining country is an unpleasant prospect...).
Per the GPL, you must include the source with the binaries when you distribute to a third party. Also per the GPL, the same rights you have under the GPL transfer to said third party, i.e. you CANNOT contractually prohibit them from further distribution of the binary (with source, natch) OR from distributing the source for whatever fee they choose, or for free.
So: As long as at least ONE of the people you distributed the source to wishes to "give it to everyone", the deed is done, the cat out of the bag, the horse out of the barn. QED.
Silly RIAAbit. According to a recent NPR piece, several folk and indie labels are doing just fine, thanks; one label just had its best year ever. Seems they distribute music people actually want to - gasp - Buy...
This week, NPR reported that indie labels are doing better than the Big Record Companies; for example, one major folk label (I believe 'twas Rounder Records) just had its best year EVER.
The clear and obvious conclusion: Folkies and indie listeners are less prone to dastardly thieving music piracy than, say, Metallica listeners. Of course, the other explanation, that some labels are actually carrying acts people WANT to listen to as opposed to pushing mass-produced synthetic sound-alike cardboard cutout bands and buying air play for them, THAT explanation is too preposterous to consider...
The only problem I see is that the hashes are still derived from SCO's intellectual property and are therefore still covered by copyright.
Nope, not a problem at all. I'm not a copyright expert, but the hashes would certainly not be covered by SCO copyright for two reasons: 1) They are not an original work of authorship, but instead an application of a mathematical algorithm to "fingerprint" a file; they're just a list of numbers. That would be like copyrighting the output of "ls -l". 2) Even if a judge somehow finds 1) above to be inapplicable, the hashes would certainly fall under the "fair use" exception to the copyright on the SCO files, as they are a form of commentary on them.
Of course, SCO will never agree to such reasonable measures, since they are not fundamentally looking for something reasonable, so the whole thing is moot. A far more likely scenario is that SCO may *eventually* be forced to submit their code base and backups to a court-appointed special master tasked with analyzing the issue of code derivation (what, when, and in which direction), and will be required to fully disclose their development logs to the court. At which time,assuming it ever gets to trial, the case will finally, finally collapse for good and all, and we can get back to sniping at Microsoft.
I've tried WiFi, and it has its uses (expanding the LAN party to additional rooms with a wireless bridge) but it just cannot compete with the Cat 5 I ran to every bedroom. Cheap, reliable, secure, zero management required, and it didn't take very long to install it. (Of course, you have to own the house to do this...) Sometimes LESS gadgetry yields MORE results, sad as it is to admit it.
OK that's clear; the big question now is, "Who gets to swing the headsmean's sword?" Hands? Damn, too many to count. Way too many for rock/scissors/paper. We'll hafta draw straws for the privilege... ;-)