What you are talking about is doubling the useable sides, not density.
You used to be able to get a "special" hole punch (out of the back of Computer Shopper, back before it sucked. Damn internet!) that put an extra hole in a "Double Density" (720k) floppy so that the drive would see it as a "High Density" (1.44M) floppy.
It didn't work worth a damn (my dad bought one, he's pretty cheap) because the "coercivity" (amount of energy required to make the magnetic state change) of the media is different.
The thing that makes this all super on-topic is that Sony created the 3.5 in diskette!
I guess this means no resolution to the loose ends from "Young Zaphod Plays It Safe" and no movie.
Unfortunately, it probably means that the movie will finally be made, badly.
I think that the reason we haven't seen it yet is that he never got the movie deal that he wanted in terms of control. (I can just see studio execs now "This Marvin is all wrong, too depressing for a comedy, we think he should be more of a 'surfer dude.'" or "Slartibartfast is not going to work for marketing tie-ins. We are thinking more of a furry E.T. named 'Giget.'") Ugh.
I guess one of the problems with desktops is that the monitors still require AC power, so it'd be useless to have a battery integrated in to the box if it didn't have a DC-AC converter to supply power for the monitor.
Huh? I think that people have UPSes so they can stare at their monitors when the lights are out are in the minority.
More often people use UPSes so that their work doesn't get lost when there is a brief power outage, or to keep a server up during a power outage. Neither of these things require a monitor.
I have been incorrectly saying Free Software when I meant Copyleft.
And "Correcting" people using the term correctly! Doh!
I didn't understand the distinction.
I, of course, know that GPL is an instance of a Free Software license, not "the Free license." I mistakenly thought that all Free licenses included the Copyleft characteristic.
On re-reading it is clear that BSD style qualifies as Free. I'm sorry that I said otherwise.
I am sorry, and thank you to everyone who helped clear this up for me.
Now, this article is not talking about Free Software. It is talking about Open Source Software (Free Software is OSS, OSS is not necessarily Free Software) that is specifically NOT Free Software. This software does protect "freedom" to co-opt the software.
From the GPL:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it[)]
[. ..]
[Given you a]ccompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code[. ..]
This is somewhat simplified (for instance you don't have to do the above if you just provide source up front.)
Note the parenthetical statement "or a work based on it." That is key. No one may take Free Software, modify it, distribute it, and keep the changes secret.
CD-R(W)s use track or disk based writing, not random access, inode type writing. I don't think you can tell a CD-RW drive to write a block of data to some arbitrary location on the disc.
Now, there isn't much that is impossible, but I think this would take a VERY complicated (and VERY badly performing) abstraction layer, and would be impractical.
The benefit of the GPL over, say, Sun's "open" license or simply putting your code in the public domain is that it requires people who use your code to play by your rules.
So, for instance, if I spend a bazillion man hours doing grunt work on some project, and want to share it with the world, some company (or person) can't add one "killer" feature and refuse to share under the same terms.
So why should something be licensed if no one is making money off of it, is it to be geek-chic or something?
If your only motivator is money, I suppose it doesn't make sense. But in the final analysis it really comes down to the same reason that proprietary software is licensed: whoever writes the code, makes the rules. Don't come to the party if you don't like the way the host plays.
So you are saying that the courts nullified the warrant element of the fourth amendment?
Now, I am assuming that you are actually a cop, and not some subtle troll.
I believe that you mean what you are saying, and that you are sincere in your work.
Let me ask you, what to you do when people say no? If you are like the majority of your peers, you ask again. Most people say yes either because a. they think that you are going to hassle them more if they say no. or b. (and this is big) they don?t really think they can say no.
When a cop asks ?Can I look in your car/house/bag/etc.? people often think the he is being POLITE by phrasing it as a question instead of a command. To illustrate, if you said ?Could you please put your hands behind you back?? and I said no, could (I said could, not would) I be charged with resisting? I think so. So, if you say ?Can I please come in your house?? how am I to know that saying no isn?t a crime too?
Face it, it isn?t really okay with ANYONE if you throw all of their stuff out of their car on the side of the road. Let me put it to you a different way. Have you ever had someone stop you and ask you to sift through all of his personal belongings?
I took some police training a while back. On of the lessons was on the escalation of force. The instructor defined the first level of force as ?presence.? He said, be in shape, in a clean, pressed uniform, with a shiny badge and shoes. Use a commanding voice, and you will rarely have to go to chemical irritants (level 2).
Even if you make it very clear that it is okay to say no (which would put you in a disappearingly small minority.) you are probably saying something quite different with your body language.
Let me frame this in a different light. If I was a person in authority and/or carrying a gun, and I asked your daughter to perform a sex act, and she said yes, how can that be wrong? ?Hey, you can say no, baby.?
Both scenarios sound equally hollow to me.
Anyway, if you pull me over and search my car, a judge is going to be involved. Before or after, it?s up to you. If after, be ready to defend you PC.
Did I say the majority find the police abusive, or did I say that the police abuse everyone equally? I'll have to check.
I don't understand the continued race-baiting. What I am saying applies to all Americans equally.
My point is that our governments are doing things that fly in the face of the Constitution, and very few people seem to care. These things are being done largely in the prosecution of the ?war on drugs.? (Admittedly a lot of it is in the name of ?safety.? None of this exists in isolation though.)
Where is the amendment that says "The 4th amendment stands, except on public highways and airports?"
I think that the standard ?of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects? has been greatly diminished in the last several decades.
I have two words in reaction to your first paragraph. Drive by.
I don't have any illusions that depressed inner city neighborhoods were lovely gardens before "the drug war." They weren't war zones, though. Ultra-violent behavior, like drive by shootings, is about territory. That territory is largely guarded for drug distribution.
It is true that members of minority groups were often not treated as full citizens in the past. I don't see how this justifies a general loss of rights. As I said in response to a similar post in this thread, why is it bad to infringe on the freedoms of minorities, but fine to do it EQUALLY?
Let's have none of this false dichotomy nonsense. Law enforcement has never been so ABUSIVE to the general public, the majority.
Please don't take the above as a dismissal of past (or even present) racism, but I simply will not lay down and surrender my rights because of past failures or because someone plays the race card.
Let me also say that it is easy to sit here and judge past generations? mistakes, by today's standards. But let's face it, the "war on drugs" wouldn't seem so insurmountable if it weren't for single motherhood and divorce. And Communism was very seriously considered to be a threat to the American way of life. Remember that we were locked in a life-and-death struggle. Again, why should past failures to uphold freedoms justify abandoning them today?
Some elements of the past were better, and some were worse. Should we take the existence of those that were worse as evidence that we should abandon those that were better?
The fact is that at that time, many people were not treated as full citizens by society as a whole.
Fortunately, we don't tolerate that sort of discrimination anymore as a society. Unfortunately, it still goes on in many places in spite of strides we have made.
That is another (very interesting) discussion.
OTOH, I think it is too bad that we accept our rights being trampled on, as long as it is done EQUALLY.
So, as I say, it is a good point, but I don't think it in anyway mitigates my point.
Of course the difference is that murder has a victim.
You seem to believe (as I do) that a secondary effect of drug use is crime (that is, crime with victims, like burglary.)
My question to you is: when has legislation EVER been effective at controlling secondary effects? EVER!?
I would speculate that prohibition on drugs has caused as much secondary crime as legalization ever could. The "war on drugs" basically created gangs. It turned safe (if depressed) housing projects into battlefields.
Money currently spent on interdiction, incarceration, and prosecution could be spent on treatment and education.
What we have to face, if we ever want to improve this problem, is that the only way to make a difference is ON THE DEMAND SIDE. We can?t stop EVERY drug sale. EVERY smuggler. In the end laws and law enforcement is a waste of effort. The drug war can only be won in the hearts and minds of potential drug users.
Now that I have said all of that, let me tell you how this affects me.
I don?t use any illegal drugs. I never have. I don?t have any reason to lie about this.
The reason that I care about this is freedom. Not the freedom to use drugs (which I think we have the right to, but as I said, this is not a right I choose to exercise) but more fundamental freedoms.
Before the ?war on drugs? the police didn?t kick the doors of private citizens? doors in on a DAILY basis. There weren?t places (like airports) where simply by being there your gave up your freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It wasn?t okay for law enforcement agencies to confiscate your property, liquidate it, and add that money to their treasuries WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
Ask your grandparents if, when they were your age, a police officer or sheriff?s deputy could pull you over, throw all your possessions in the street and still have his job the next day if he didn?t find anything.
We are going down the road of trading freedom for safety. It seems we might end up with neither. Do you think the streets are safer than they were forty years ago?
Hmmm. Well, you sort of address your own issue. If a mail admin has roming users then clearly he needs to do something like POP before SMTP or SMTP-AUTH.
I am suprised that your ISP didn't offer webmail. With great Free packages out there like <shameless_plug>
SquirrelMail
</shameless_plug>
I don't see why they wouldn't.
You are right. I had that in quotes for a reason, but I should have been clearer.
My usage of "legitimate" was to describe a company that is doing what it says it is doing. Selling a real product (not Herbal Viagra - It WORKS!) and will really not mail you anymore or share/trade/sell your address if you ask them not to.
Of course you can't know this, see the first reply to my original post, and my reply to it.
My point was about how you stop them from sending spam (which this mail, as you say, clearly is) and I think that the APPROACH is different because the INTENT is different (even if you can't tell this from the receiving end.)
OTOH, I am interested in what you mean by "strong anti-spam measures." I do run my own domains, on a colo box. The only "anti-spam measure" I have taken is to deny relaying by default. I haven't even turned VRFY and EXPN off (because I think they are handy, and they don't seem to be causing a problem.) I don't have a spam problem.
I really am interested, and hope you will reply and elaborate about those measures.
I think that one of the biggest problems with fighting spam is that the problem is ill defined.
I think it will take a totally different set of approaches to stop, for instance, a fortune 500 company from sending spam (some do) vs. stopping some d00d with a stolen AOL account fishing for credit card numbers through some jokers cable modem connected to a box with some default Linux install with Sendmail running wide open.
I think the first step has been taken. The clue bell rang, and most MTAs (and packagers) are shipping deny-relay by default.
Anyway, "spam" is clearly applied to some very different activities, how should they be defined so we can work on them? Maybe:
0. Opt in. I have no pity for you.
1. People who found/bought/were given (by you) your email address. These people will really take you off the list if you ask. Call this "Legitimate opt-out" spam. These people respect you as a customer.
2. People who won't let you opt out, just use opt out as a legal cover/way to verify your address. "Real" businesses.
3. People selling snakeoil, but trying to stay within the law.
4. People who steal other peoples resources to send spam (you can argue every spammer is stealing your resources when you recieve spam.)
I think that (1) can be addressed with a standardized header. (2) is tough. The only approaches I can think of are a. filters and b. trying to make it so that "spam doesn't pay" (which in the end is what filters are all about.) c. (ugh) legislation. (3) is tougher still. You can use a and b, but legislation doesn't work on criminals. (by definition.) Finally (4) CLOSE THOSE RELAYS! And use of black holes. (which is ultimately to make people close relaying.)
Slashdot Mirror
Noooo. Jeeze that's an Apple ][ hack.
What you are talking about is doubling the useable sides, not density.
You used to be able to get a "special" hole punch (out of the back of Computer Shopper, back before it sucked. Damn internet!) that put an extra hole in a "Double Density" (720k) floppy so that the drive would see it as a "High Density" (1.44M) floppy.
It didn't work worth a damn (my dad bought one, he's pretty cheap) because the "coercivity" (amount of energy required to make the magnetic state change) of the media is different.
The thing that makes this all super on-topic is that Sony created the 3.5 in diskette!
-Peter
Where can I get a hole punch that will convert my regular CDRs to DD-CDRs?
-Peter
PS: It's a joke. If you don't get it just move on.
-P
I do. I haven't gotten to ripping them to MP3 yet though.
I also have the much bragged about leather edition of the first four. His bio, the radio scripts, etc.
I haven't gotten "The Meaning of Lif" yet. I'm avoiding that hippie book. I don't like hippie books. Ah, nobody is perfect.
I also don't have the electronic book version of the Guide. I don't think that disqualifies me though.
-Peter
I think you are talking about the BBC series on VHS. This was not a theatrical movie, which is what we are talking about.
/real/ fan.)
It covers roughly the first two books.
Of course, I have the series on VHS (like any
-Peter
I guess this means no resolution to the loose ends from "Young Zaphod Plays It Safe" and no movie.
Unfortunately, it probably means that the movie will finally be made, badly.
I think that the reason we haven't seen it yet is that he never got the movie deal that he wanted in terms of control. (I can just see studio execs now "This Marvin is all wrong, too depressing for a comedy, we think he should be more of a 'surfer dude.'" or "Slartibartfast is not going to work for marketing tie-ins. We are thinking more of a furry E.T. named 'Giget.'") Ugh.
-Peter
That whole interview was kind of weird.
Reminded me of Obi-Wan talking about Anikin with that far-away look in his eye.
"He wasn't always a hulking metal monster, you know?"
Anyway, why is it the clued in one who dissapears from the scene?
-Peter
I guess one of the problems with desktops is that the monitors still require AC power, so it'd be useless to have a battery integrated in to the box if it didn't have a DC-AC converter to supply power for the monitor.
Huh? I think that people have UPSes so they can stare at their monitors when the lights are out are in the minority.
More often people use UPSes so that their work doesn't get lost when there is a brief power outage, or to keep a server up during a power outage. Neither of these things require a monitor.
To all those who set me straight in this thread:
I have been incorrectly saying Free Software when I meant Copyleft.
And "Correcting" people using the term correctly! Doh!
I didn't understand the distinction.
I, of course, know that GPL is an instance of a Free Software license, not "the Free license." I mistakenly thought that all Free licenses included the Copyleft characteristic.
On re-reading it is clear that BSD style qualifies as Free. I'm sorry that I said otherwise.
I am sorry, and thank you to everyone who helped clear this up for me.
-Peter
I did not realize that Free Software includes BSD style.
I looked into this a bit. I thought that Copyleft was just a pun. When I said Free Software above I really meant Copylefted.
Sorry.
-Peter
I'm afraid you are mistaken.
.]
.]
Now, this article is not talking about Free Software. It is talking about Open Source Software (Free Software is OSS, OSS is not necessarily Free Software) that is specifically NOT Free Software. This software does protect "freedom" to co-opt the software.
From the GPL:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it[)]
[. .
[Given you a]ccompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code[. .
This is somewhat simplified (for instance you don't have to do the above if you just provide source up front.)
Note the parenthetical statement "or a work based on it." That is key. No one may take Free Software, modify it, distribute it, and keep the changes secret.
See the GPL.
See an explanation of Free Software.
And an overview of categories of software.
-Peter
When people write software they choose a license (or don't.)
I choose the GPL for my little hacks because I don't want people doing this with my code.
One would assume that people who are making OSS that isn't Free Software don't care if this happens (or maybe even want it to, how can I know.)
Anyway, this is why license choice matters. This is why OSS is not necessarily Free Software.
-Peter
I'm not so sure about this.
CD-R(W)s use track or disk based writing, not random access, inode type writing. I don't think you can tell a CD-RW drive to write a block of data to some arbitrary location on the disc.
Now, there isn't much that is impossible, but I think this would take a VERY complicated (and VERY badly performing) abstraction layer, and would be impractical.
Anyone know enough about this to confirm or deny?
-Peter
Wow, that's an easy one.
The benefit of the GPL over, say, Sun's "open" license or simply putting your code in the public domain is that it requires people who use your code to play by your rules.
So, for instance, if I spend a bazillion man hours doing grunt work on some project, and want to share it with the world, some company (or person) can't add one "killer" feature and refuse to share under the same terms.
So why should something be licensed if no one is making money off of it, is it to be geek-chic or something?
If your only motivator is money, I suppose it doesn't make sense. But in the final analysis it really comes down to the same reason that proprietary software is licensed: whoever writes the code, makes the rules. Don't come to the party if you don't like the way the host plays.
-Peter
So you are saying that the courts nullified the warrant element of the fourth amendment?
Now, I am assuming that you are actually a cop, and not some subtle troll.
I believe that you mean what you are saying, and that you are sincere in your work.
Let me ask you, what to you do when people say no? If you are like the majority of your peers, you ask again. Most people say yes either because a. they think that you are going to hassle them more if they say no. or b. (and this is big) they don?t really think they can say no.
When a cop asks ?Can I look in your car/house/bag/etc.? people often think the he is being POLITE by phrasing it as a question instead of a command. To illustrate, if you said ?Could you please put your hands behind you back?? and I said no, could (I said could, not would) I be charged with resisting? I think so. So, if you say ?Can I please come in your house?? how am I to know that saying no isn?t a crime too?
Face it, it isn?t really okay with ANYONE if you throw all of their stuff out of their car on the side of the road. Let me put it to you a different way. Have you ever had someone stop you and ask you to sift through all of his personal belongings?
I took some police training a while back. On of the lessons was on the escalation of force. The instructor defined the first level of force as ?presence.? He said, be in shape, in a clean, pressed uniform, with a shiny badge and shoes. Use a commanding voice, and you will rarely have to go to chemical irritants (level 2).
Even if you make it very clear that it is okay to say no (which would put you in a disappearingly small minority.) you are probably saying something quite different with your body language.
Let me frame this in a different light. If I was a person in authority and/or carrying a gun, and I asked your daughter to perform a sex act, and she said yes, how can that be wrong? ?Hey, you can say no, baby.?
Both scenarios sound equally hollow to me.
Anyway, if you pull me over and search my car, a judge is going to be involved. Before or after, it?s up to you. If after, be ready to defend you PC.
Did I say the majority find the police abusive, or did I say that the police abuse everyone equally? I'll have to check.
I don't understand the continued race-baiting. What I am saying applies to all Americans equally.
My point is that our governments are doing things that fly in the face of the Constitution, and very few people seem to care. These things are being done largely in the prosecution of the ?war on drugs.? (Admittedly a lot of it is in the name of ?safety.? None of this exists in isolation though.)
Where is the amendment that says "The 4th amendment stands, except on public highways and airports?"
I think that the standard ?of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects? has been greatly diminished in the last several decades.
I have two words in reaction to your first paragraph. Drive by.
I don't have any illusions that depressed inner city neighborhoods were lovely gardens before "the drug war." They weren't war zones, though. Ultra-violent behavior, like drive by shootings, is about territory. That territory is largely guarded for drug distribution.
It is true that members of minority groups were often not treated as full citizens in the past. I don't see how this justifies a general loss of rights. As I said in response to a similar post in this thread, why is it bad to infringe on the freedoms of minorities, but fine to do it EQUALLY?
Let's have none of this false dichotomy nonsense. Law enforcement has never been so ABUSIVE to the general public, the majority.
Please don't take the above as a dismissal of past (or even present) racism, but I simply will not lay down and surrender my rights because of past failures or because someone plays the race card.
Let me also say that it is easy to sit here and judge past generations? mistakes, by today's standards. But let's face it, the "war on drugs" wouldn't seem so insurmountable if it weren't for single motherhood and divorce. And Communism was very seriously considered to be a threat to the American way of life. Remember that we were locked in a life-and-death struggle. Again, why should past failures to uphold freedoms justify abandoning them today?
Some elements of the past were better, and some were worse. Should we take the existence of those that were worse as evidence that we should abandon those that were better?
That's a really, really good point.
The fact is that at that time, many people were not treated as full citizens by society as a whole.
Fortunately, we don't tolerate that sort of discrimination anymore as a society. Unfortunately, it still goes on in many places in spite of strides we have made.
That is another (very interesting) discussion.
OTOH, I think it is too bad that we accept our rights being trampled on, as long as it is done EQUALLY.
So, as I say, it is a good point, but I don't think it in anyway mitigates my point.
-Peter
You're right.
I meant street gangs.
It's really the same thing though, isn't it . . .
-Peter
Of course the difference is that murder has a victim.
You seem to believe (as I do) that a secondary effect of drug use is crime (that is, crime with victims, like burglary.)
My question to you is: when has legislation EVER been effective at controlling secondary effects? EVER!?
I would speculate that prohibition on drugs has caused as much secondary crime as legalization ever could. The "war on drugs" basically created gangs. It turned safe (if depressed) housing projects into battlefields.
Money currently spent on interdiction, incarceration, and prosecution could be spent on treatment and education.
What we have to face, if we ever want to improve this problem, is that the only way to make a difference is ON THE DEMAND SIDE. We can?t stop EVERY drug sale. EVERY smuggler. In the end laws and law enforcement is a waste of effort. The drug war can only be won in the hearts and minds of potential drug users.
Now that I have said all of that, let me tell you how this affects me.
I don?t use any illegal drugs. I never have. I don?t have any reason to lie about this.
The reason that I care about this is freedom. Not the freedom to use drugs (which I think we have the right to, but as I said, this is not a right I choose to exercise) but more fundamental freedoms.
Before the ?war on drugs? the police didn?t kick the doors of private citizens? doors in on a DAILY basis. There weren?t places (like airports) where simply by being there your gave up your freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It wasn?t okay for law enforcement agencies to confiscate your property, liquidate it, and add that money to their treasuries WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
Ask your grandparents if, when they were your age, a police officer or sheriff?s deputy could pull you over, throw all your possessions in the street and still have his job the next day if he didn?t find anything.
We are going down the road of trading freedom for safety. It seems we might end up with neither. Do you think the streets are safer than they were forty years ago?
-Peter
I always thought that show was prophetic.
And now, a word from Matt Groening?s head in a jar . . .
-Peter
Hmmm. Well, you sort of address your own issue. If a mail admin has roming users then clearly he needs to do something like POP before SMTP or SMTP-AUTH.
I am suprised that your ISP didn't offer webmail. With great Free packages out there like <shameless_plug>
SquirrelMail
</shameless_plug>
I don't see why they wouldn't.
-Peter
You are right. I had that in quotes for a reason, but I should have been clearer.
My usage of "legitimate" was to describe a company that is doing what it says it is doing. Selling a real product (not Herbal Viagra - It WORKS!) and will really not mail you anymore or share/trade/sell your address if you ask them not to.
Of course you can't know this, see the first reply to my original post, and my reply to it.
My point was about how you stop them from sending spam (which this mail, as you say, clearly is) and I think that the APPROACH is different because the INTENT is different (even if you can't tell this from the receiving end.)
OTOH, I am interested in what you mean by "strong anti-spam measures." I do run my own domains, on a colo box. The only "anti-spam measure" I have taken is to deny relaying by default. I haven't even turned VRFY and EXPN off (because I think they are handy, and they don't seem to be causing a problem.) I don't have a spam problem.
I really am interested, and hope you will reply and elaborate about those measures.
-Peter
You are absolutely correct. I meant to say something about that, but my post started getting too long.
In fact, I will go one step further and say that opt-out is worthless, because you can't distinguish between 1 and 2.
Which is why opt-in is the only acceptable mass mail.
-Peter
I think that one of the biggest problems with fighting spam is that the problem is ill defined.
I think it will take a totally different set of approaches to stop, for instance, a fortune 500 company from sending spam (some do) vs. stopping some d00d with a stolen AOL account fishing for credit card numbers through some jokers cable modem connected to a box with some default Linux install with Sendmail running wide open.
I think the first step has been taken. The clue bell rang, and most MTAs (and packagers) are shipping deny-relay by default.
Anyway, "spam" is clearly applied to some very different activities, how should they be defined so we can work on them? Maybe:
0. Opt in. I have no pity for you.
1. People who found/bought/were given (by you) your email address. These people will really take you off the list if you ask. Call this "Legitimate opt-out" spam. These people respect you as a customer.
2. People who won't let you opt out, just use opt out as a legal cover/way to verify your address. "Real" businesses.
3. People selling snakeoil, but trying to stay within the law.
4. People who steal other peoples resources to send spam (you can argue every spammer is stealing your resources when you recieve spam.)
I think that (1) can be addressed with a standardized header. (2) is tough. The only approaches I can think of are a. filters and b. trying to make it so that "spam doesn't pay" (which in the end is what filters are all about.) c. (ugh) legislation. (3) is tougher still. You can use a and b, but legislation doesn't work on criminals. (by definition.) Finally (4) CLOSE THOSE RELAYS! And use of black holes. (which is ultimately to make people close relaying.)
What do you think?
-Peter
I can't decide which is more appealing, the lack of a subject or the reckless use of CAPS LOCK.
Somehow this email reminds me of the Southpark movie . . .
-Peter