" . ..Jon saying that religion was responsible for all the world's ills"
He did not, given the rest of the article he did worse: he insinuated it.
"If I were to try and excuse Hitler's behaviour by pointing to the spanish inquisition, would you accept that as a valid argument?"
Of course not. I wasn't trying to excuse the acts of the members of the Inquisition, either. Frankly, there is no excuse for the acts of either. I was trying to make a point about how good/bad acts are aspects of the world both in and out of religion, and that Katz makes entirely too many ties to the 'mistakes' of religion, and the triumphs of non-religion, rather than taking an impartial view to both.
If I assume you are atheist, I could easily say that you are incabable of indepent thought (such as accepting Christianity *grin* ), because you are bound by atheist precepts.
Christendom is a community that accepts the notions that
God exists
He loves us so much that He sent His Son to spread His Word, despite the persacution and death that ensued
following His Word is the ideal way to live
If this can be determined by independent thought, then there is plenty of room in interpretation and real life application for independent thought. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be thousands upon thousands of denominations. So you are then saying that my three precepts could only be accepted by some sort of brainwashing. I would say that blindly denying these things, which can not be proved or disproved scientifically, is not independent thought, and that someone who truly believed in independent thought would have to accept that some people could believe above to be true.
It's fine with me if it is an intellegent flame;).
"why did he care about gays?"
Hitler was involved in some non-racial persecution, and even some religious persecution. His main targets were based on race, though.
"Is it OK to watch South Park, if you are a 'religious' Christian? "
Yes, with a condition.;). The condition is just a simple inspection of the act. Personally, I don't watch South Park very often because I don't find it funny (Yes, I am aware that makes me the only person in the world who feels that way), but it is "OK" for me to watch it. For the believer, it involves your experience while viewing it. If you are a believer, and when you watch it you start to hate God and think "Satan's pretty cool", you should not watch it. However, if you enjoy it and don't take that attitude (and I really doubt many people do) it is perfectly "OK". In fact, if you learn a little bit about self humor (you are a believer and you believe God is allowing this), you _should_ watch it. Remember, a paramount Christian value is humility.
Addendum: I am speaking from my viewpoint. Other THOUGHT OUT Chrisian viewpoints are equally, if not more so, valid. Christianity is about one simple thing, sincerely following God and his lessons. If you are doing that (note sincerely, as in this does not apply to people like the inquistadores twisting Christianity to their benefit) you are a good Christian.
Just as most any group, the loudest ones are usually wrong. The problem is, there isn't much of a 'story' for media to pick up on about tolerant Christians, so you actually have to find someone who is mellow to have mellow viewpoints, and mellow people get overlooked pretty easily.
"Why is this bad news if they're good games? Because they're religion based? Or for other reasons?"
Good question. I wasn't trying to say anything about the news itself, I was trying to make a point about Katz and the early posters attitude. I don't think it is too off-topic, but a moderator will decide that shortly;).
At "anything", not "everything". Please read carefully. Or should network admins use a 'graphical' ping? And we can through scripting out the window, with no command line tools. (Ever see the gtk implementation of/bin/true ?) Please take the time to read posts carefully before hastily writing a reply because someone disagreed with you.
How come whenever something about Christianity on/., everyone assumes that all Christendom is behind it, and it will inevitably end in A) moral confusion and/or B) holy wars and/or C) unjust persecution of geeks. Sorry to crush a collective dillusion, but Christians _are_ capable of independent thought, and aren't necessarily bent on starting a second Inquisition. And then there are comments like "They might actually revel in blasphemy and angel-bashing." refering to watching The Simpsons? There is not a commandment that says "thou shall not laugh." And then we get the comment "Religion and freedom have never really gotten along." Nice tie, but it doesn't explain a few people like Gangis Kahn, Napolean, or Hitler (who prosecuted the Jewish RACE much more so than the religion). I am sorry, I guess it is just more 'fun' to live with a severly outdated, extremely prejudicial view of the religious.
>>You are slowly dying past... that eventually will disapear
Not at all. It is absurd to say that GUI is better than command line at anything (which I don't think you are saying anyways). As long as there are some things that can be done quicker and better at the command line, even client stuff, people will use the command line. Do you realize how much quicker it is to type in 'mutt' than to move your mouse over to the start button, left click, move up to programs, left click, move over to 'Qualcom', left click, move down to Eudora, left click, wait while a purty splash screen pops up, and then have your email client started? And don't tell me about desktop icons, because if you multitask it is the same thing minimizing windows and moving them around to get to the desktop. Sure, John smith isn't a nerd and we can't expect him to remember 'all' the commands of a text based interface (though in my experience it is just as hard for newbies to remember "Outlook Express == mail" and all the similiar apps. And sure, one day there will be dumb boxes that do all media stuff, and *real* computers will be delegated to true geeks, but *real* computer users will use the command line for the foreseeable future.
Okay, this is at the bottom of the list, prolly won't get read, but learn to make a simple theme for enlightenment. Here is how it goes.
2 Desktops, one with Netscape Navigator, one with NSMail (or client of your choice). Completely borderless, with a button to switch desktops, and maybe one that will run shutdown, one that will run something that kills Netscape dead and restarts it (bloated, buggy . ..). Tell E to remember the location of each window and you are done (the windows go to the edge of the desktop save one side with the buttons). Maybe sawmilll would be better, but you get the point. A simple 'su grandpa; startx' at the end of init would be good enough, and then leave the other terminals open in the very unlikely event you would ever have to fix something again. It would be as simple as the browser and email client, basically (heh, you could even use Opera if it suited you and came out in time).
Of course they can handle it better. Again, that is not the point. Freedom of speech does not gaurantee ease, and the lack of ease in defending an unpopular opinion does not mean that there is no freedom of speech.
The simple fact is that if you make a statement, you should be convinced of it enough to handle inevitable criticism. Besides, it is not even as though every person must be responded to, just every criticism.
The point is that a lack of freedom of speech only results from threats and the like, not from counterarguements, regardless of the quantity.
If I say that fascism is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I get hoards of email ranging from 'you are an idiot' to a historical review of fascist systems, it does in no way mean that I wasn't free to make the statement.
Sure, you can be 'socially blasted' for unpopular opinions. But disallowing that is censorship.
If you have an unpopular opinion, WHY is it wrong for the majority to voice their opinion back??? Are you advocating that only unpopular opinions may be voiced? And don't try to wiggle your way out with statements that the majority-opinion holders must be standing on prejudicial ground. THAT, sir/maam, is prejudice.
Can someone rationalize through many views and possibly come out with the same view the majority holds? YES! Can they voice their opinion? YES! Because they can is what makes America free, that they do is inconsequential.
If you have an unpopular opinion, go ahead and express it, just don't expect everyone to agree and praise you for being so wise.
Thomas More wrote Utopia as a parody above all else. Utopia is roughly Latin for "No place". The book was written not to see 'how good things could be' but to put these things together and see just how impossible it would be to realize. That is NT down to the core, IMHO. Okay, granted the vernacular term 'utopia' doesn't take all this into account, but it is interesting to note.
Addendum 1) If you haven't read Utopia, I highly suggest it. I especially love the children laughing at the visiting dignitary. Great stuff.
Addendum 2) As a previous NT user, I don't understand the value of the rescue disk. Sounds great (hmm, the Utopia analogy still applies), but everytime NT died to the point it wouldn't reboot (twice that I remember, and I used it for less than a year), the rescue disk did NOTHING except complain that it couldn't find NT. Frustrating.
If you notice carefully, that is in the last section where it talks about Linux on the desktop. This is how FUD works, you set up a bunch of assumptions (here, we are presumably talking about NT) and then you change the assumptions without telling the reader. Comes off really good, doesn't it? How about Linux has permission for all its files and processes, while Windows does not, therefore Linux is a LOT more secure than NT.
The LGPL, to my knowledge, allows for the OUTPUT of the LGPLed software to be owned by the user instead of the GPL or (apparently) the TGPL. This is why it is great for libraries, compiliers, et. al. Perhaps there needs to be an additional TLGPL;)
"According to Belair, most Linux enthusiasts are currently running Linux on a partition in their desktop. Corel sees its version of Linux as complementary to Windows rather than a replacement for it."
And you disagreed (. ..). First, cut through media lies and remove the "enthusiasts", as that is plain media BS. Point is, Corel is going to be a distribution with their own focus. Lil' secret here: I don't think they are courting the hardcore Debian guys or Slackers. I bet if you looked at the number of people dual booting there would be a big difference by distribution. Corel is going after that crowd. ..the ones now using RH and Mandrake. (All the distributions I have mentioned appear pretty cool to me, I am not trying to start a dist war, just pointing out different types of users use different distros. ..omigosh)
but I've yet to see one that costs less than $500 that I'd actually want to/use/ for any significant amount of time
The point here isn't the present. ..it isn't the future. I can't see any reason why in 2-5 years you shouldn't have a $200 box that browses the web, checks mail, and lets you type up a paper (that's it, nothing else). ..the thing most people use computers for.
"Simple" is not the word that comes to mind. "Efficient, fast, functional" do, however.
Okay, this comes down to the fact that Linux is a KERNEL, not an OS (GNU/Linux debate aside). Again, for 95% of the people, forget X, bash, vi, etc. Write a webrowser-as-the-desktop directly over the kernel to surf the web, check your hotmail, and type up papers with your StarOffice account (or whatever they are planning to do with S.O. over the web). Now it is simple.
in summary, one might get the impression from this article that no one would want to use Linux except for specific tasks where you really just want stability
Again. ..think future. The impression is what Linux could excel at, even Dominate the World with. Sure, the happy hackers will still be using vi et. al. on Linux for the foreseeable future, but this is about what Joe Computeranxiety wants. Remember, setting your VCR's clock is too complex for the majority of the population. ..Keep It Simple Stupid!
I was trying to install it on my new Adaptec, AIC-7890 system. Yes, I did have the driver disk. But before you install NT you need to do a pre-install in DOS. ..and of course they don't supply you with a DOS boot disk. Fortunately, I had one. But that didn't have the drivers. Again, to my fortune, I had one of the windows98 boot disks with a bunch of drivers. (One of the nicest things I have seen MS put out, even if they only put together pre-existing tools). Okay, cool, just go ahead and format the drive and do the preinstall, right? Nope. 98 would only do a FAT32 format, and NT doesn't understand FAT32. I pulled out half my hair. Eventually, I borrowed someone's old 500 meg IDE hd to install the preinstall to and then used the setup. I don't think that many people would consider that 'painless'.
I agreed with your post too. ..perhaps I should have chosen my title more carefully;). Regardless, my intent was a little different (that is why I had a new post, instead of replying to yours).
I agree it was bad to not find out the facts, I am just saying I think we 'pulled a Homer' or whatever. We did not do the 'right' thing but our doing the wrong thing might prove to be the best thing to have done in the long run. (if you follow all that).
Yes, perhaps the 'Linux Community' did jump the gun. I have no qualms with Corel for their liscence [if that was the original reading of it. ..never got to see one:( ] or they way they handled the situation. In fact, I think they did a good job. However, I also think it was good that the 'ignorant masses' took a stand on this one. With corprate players coming in looking for $$$ (and not caring who or what they trample on to get it), it is very important to flex our collective muscle and show we will not get bullied around, that Linux is/was/will always be end-user driven. Even if we are wrong;).
Okay, please don't moderate this down until winlinux.net has recovered from the/. effect, a mirror is found, or it is reasonable to assume that there is no mirror
The article makes good points. It is interesting to know that here at OSU MS seems to be making different plans (client side). While our servers are primarily Sun and BSD, some departements use NT. Regardless, I heard that MS is offering a *special* for college students. Buy a liscence (don't know how much) and get free Windows updates while you are in college. Personally, I didn't even know Linux existed before I went to college, and I might have signed up for such a thing. Scary.
As an aside, the article is interesting but it prompts the question: Has Linux reached a critical mass such that these techniques are too late to affect Linux drastically, or will Linux wind up being touted as another case of MS's domination at some future anti-trust case?
Okay, this whole thread is a little offtopic. ..but I have to admit I am surprised Be hasn't been mentioned. Its multimedia capabilities *seem* to kick multimedia *ss compared to anything this side of SGI...comments???
E is definetly on its way to dropping off gnome. If you don't know, there is plans of an E filemanager. Raster felt that E was being saddled by gnome so he left RH (among other reasons) and decided to have E take over a lot of stuff gnome does. As far as documentation, that is already getting better. e.t.o and enlightenment.org have a lot more documentation than, say, a couple months ago, though there still is a long way to go. I don't get the feeling 1.0 is coming out any time soon, but hopefully the documentation is getting better.
"blackbox rocks! And the future direction of Blackbox seems even cooler"
Well, don't leave me hanging. ..what 'future' do you speak of? I don't use blackbox regularly (just for VNC when I want a fast, light wm), but I do admit I am curious. I went to the homepage and I didn't see any planned feature list. Can you, or someone else enlighten me?
For those intereseted. . ..I was really surprised the register had $35 in the article title with the quote being £35!
btw. ..my keycodes didn't work! I dunno, it would either bring up a Netscape composer (yes I am using communicator) with the 3 above the keyboard, or beep at me for the 3 on the keyboard. hrmph, thank goodness for cut & paste!
Slashdot Mirror
" . . .Jon saying that religion was responsible for all the world's ills"
He did not, given the rest of the article he did worse: he insinuated it.
"If I were to try and excuse Hitler's behaviour by pointing to the spanish inquisition, would you accept that as a valid argument?"
Of course not. I wasn't trying to excuse the acts of the members of the Inquisition, either. Frankly, there is no excuse for the acts of either. I was trying to make a point about how good/bad acts are aspects of the world both in and out of religion, and that Katz makes entirely too many ties to the 'mistakes' of religion, and the triumphs of non-religion, rather than taking an impartial view to both.
If I assume you are atheist, I could easily say that you are incabable of indepent thought (such as accepting Christianity *grin* ), because you are bound by atheist precepts.
Christendom is a community that accepts the notions that
- God exists
- He loves us so much that He sent His Son to spread His Word, despite the persacution and death that ensued
- following His Word is the ideal way to live
If this can be determined by independent thought, then there is plenty of room in interpretation and real life application for independent thought. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be thousands upon thousands of denominations. So you are then saying that my three precepts could only be accepted by some sort of brainwashing. I would say that blindly denying these things, which can not be proved or disproved scientifically, is not independent thought, and that someone who truly believed in independent thought would have to accept that some people could believe above to be true."You should have known you'd get flamed for it"
;).
;). The condition is just a simple inspection of the act. Personally, I don't watch South Park very often because I don't find it funny (Yes, I am aware that makes me the only person in the world who feels that way), but it is "OK" for me to watch it. For the believer, it involves your experience while viewing it. If you are a believer, and when you watch it you start to hate God and think "Satan's pretty cool", you should not watch it. However, if you enjoy it and don't take that attitude (and I really doubt many people do) it is perfectly "OK". In fact, if you learn a little bit about self humor (you are a believer and you believe God is allowing this), you _should_ watch it. Remember, a paramount Christian value is humility.
It's fine with me if it is an intellegent flame
"why did he care about gays?"
Hitler was involved in some non-racial persecution, and even some religious persecution. His main targets were based on race, though.
"Is it OK to watch South Park, if you are a 'religious' Christian? "
Yes, with a condition.
Addendum: I am speaking from my viewpoint. Other THOUGHT OUT Chrisian viewpoints are equally, if not more so, valid. Christianity is about one simple thing, sincerely following God and his lessons. If you are doing that (note sincerely, as in this does not apply to people like the inquistadores twisting Christianity to their benefit) you are a good Christian.
Just as most any group, the loudest ones are usually wrong. The problem is, there isn't much of a 'story' for media to pick up on about tolerant Christians, so you actually have to find someone who is mellow to have mellow viewpoints, and mellow people get overlooked pretty easily.
"Why is this bad news if they're good games? Because they're religion based? Or for other reasons?"
;).
Good question. I wasn't trying to say anything about the news itself, I was trying to make a point about Katz and the early posters attitude. I don't think it is too off-topic, but a moderator will decide that shortly
At "anything", not "everything". Please read carefully. Or should network admins use a 'graphical' ping? And we can through scripting out the window, with no command line tools. (Ever see the gtk implementation of /bin/true ?) Please take the time to read posts carefully before hastily writing a reply because someone disagreed with you.
How come whenever something about Christianity on /., everyone assumes that all Christendom is behind it, and it will inevitably end in A) moral confusion and/or B) holy wars and/or C) unjust persecution of geeks. Sorry to crush a collective dillusion, but Christians _are_ capable of independent thought, and aren't necessarily bent on starting a second Inquisition. And then there are comments like "They might actually revel in blasphemy and angel-bashing." refering to watching The Simpsons? There is not a commandment that says "thou shall not laugh." And then we get the comment "Religion and freedom have never really gotten along." Nice tie, but it doesn't explain a few people like Gangis Kahn, Napolean, or Hitler (who prosecuted the Jewish RACE much more so than the religion). I am sorry, I guess it is just more 'fun' to live with a severly outdated, extremely prejudicial view of the religious.
>>You are slowly dying past... that eventually will disapear
Not at all. It is absurd to say that GUI is better than command line at anything (which I don't think you are saying anyways). As long as there are some things that can be done quicker and better at the command line, even client stuff, people will use the command line. Do you realize how much quicker it is to type in 'mutt' than to move your mouse over to the start button, left click, move up to programs, left click, move over to 'Qualcom', left click, move down to Eudora, left click, wait while a purty splash screen pops up, and then have your email client started? And don't tell me about desktop icons, because if you multitask it is the same thing minimizing windows and moving them around to get to the desktop. Sure, John smith isn't a nerd and we can't expect him to remember 'all' the commands of a text based interface (though in my experience it is just as hard for newbies to remember "Outlook Express == mail" and all the similiar apps. And sure, one day there will be dumb boxes that do all media stuff, and *real* computers will be delegated to true geeks, but *real* computer users will use the command line for the foreseeable future.
Okay, this is at the bottom of the list, prolly won't get read, but learn to make a simple theme for enlightenment. Here is how it goes.
.). Tell E to remember the location of each window and you are done (the windows go to the edge of the desktop save one side with the buttons). Maybe sawmilll would be better, but you get the point. A simple 'su grandpa; startx' at the end of init would be good enough, and then leave the other terminals open in the very unlikely event you would ever have to fix something again. It would be as simple as the browser and email client, basically (heh, you could even use Opera if it suited you and came out in time).
2 Desktops, one with Netscape Navigator, one with NSMail (or client of your choice). Completely borderless, with a button to switch desktops, and maybe one that will run shutdown, one that will run something that kills Netscape dead and restarts it (bloated, buggy . .
The simple fact is that if you make a statement, you should be convinced of it enough to handle inevitable criticism. Besides, it is not even as though every person must be responded to, just every criticism.
The point is that a lack of freedom of speech only results from threats and the like, not from counterarguements, regardless of the quantity.
If I say that fascism is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I get hoards of email ranging from 'you are an idiot' to a historical review of fascist systems, it does in no way mean that I wasn't free to make the statement.
Sure, you can be 'socially blasted' for unpopular opinions. But disallowing that is censorship.
If you have an unpopular opinion, WHY is it wrong for the majority to voice their opinion back??? Are you advocating that only unpopular opinions may be voiced? And don't try to wiggle your way out with statements that the majority-opinion holders must be standing on prejudicial ground. THAT, sir/maam, is prejudice.
Can someone rationalize through many views and possibly come out with the same view the majority holds? YES! Can they voice their opinion? YES! Because they can is what makes America free, that they do is inconsequential.
If you have an unpopular opinion, go ahead and express it, just don't expect everyone to agree and praise you for being so wise.
Thomas More wrote Utopia as a parody above all else. Utopia is roughly Latin for "No place". The book was written not to see 'how good things could be' but to put these things together and see just how impossible it would be to realize. That is NT down to the core, IMHO. Okay, granted the vernacular term 'utopia' doesn't take all this into account, but it is interesting to note.
Addendum 1) If you haven't read Utopia, I highly suggest it. I especially love the children laughing at the visiting dignitary. Great stuff.
Addendum 2) As a previous NT user, I don't understand the value of the rescue disk. Sounds great (hmm, the Utopia analogy still applies), but everytime NT died to the point it wouldn't reboot (twice that I remember, and I used it for less than a year), the rescue disk did NOTHING except complain that it couldn't find NT. Frustrating.
If you notice carefully, that is in the last section where it talks about Linux on the desktop. This is how FUD works, you set up a bunch of assumptions (here, we are presumably talking about NT) and then you change the assumptions without telling the reader. Comes off really good, doesn't it? How about Linux has permission for all its files and processes, while Windows does not, therefore Linux is a LOT more secure than NT.
$rpmfind --latest RedHat
And that should update . . .hmm, maybe it is 'redhat', Oh, well, you can figure it out ;)
The LGPL, to my knowledge, allows for the OUTPUT of the LGPLed software to be owned by the user instead of the GPL or (apparently) the TGPL. This is why it is great for libraries, compiliers, et. al. Perhaps there needs to be an additional TLGPL ;)
"According to Belair, most Linux enthusiasts are currently running Linux on a partition in their desktop. Corel sees its version of Linux as
complementary to Windows rather than a replacement for it."
And you disagreed (. .
but I've yet to see one that costs less than $500 that I'd actually want to
The point here isn't the present. . .it isn't the future. I can't see any reason why in 2-5 years you shouldn't have a $200 box that browses the web, checks mail, and lets you type up a paper (that's it, nothing else). . .the thing most people use computers for.
"Simple" is not the word that comes to mind. "Efficient, fast, functional" do, however.
Okay, this comes down to the fact that Linux is a KERNEL, not an OS (GNU/Linux debate aside). Again, for 95% of the people, forget X, bash, vi, etc. Write a webrowser-as-the-desktop directly over the kernel to surf the web, check your hotmail, and type up papers with your StarOffice account (or whatever they are planning to do with S.O. over the web). Now it is simple.
in summary, one might get the impression from this article that no one would want to use Linux except for specific tasks where you really just want stability
Again. .
<rant>
I was trying to install it on my new Adaptec, AIC-7890 system. Yes, I did have the driver disk. But before you install NT you need to do a pre-install in DOS. . .and of course they don't supply you with a DOS boot disk. Fortunately, I had one. But that didn't have the drivers. Again, to my fortune, I had one of the windows98 boot disks with a bunch of drivers. (One of the nicest things I have seen MS put out, even if they only put together pre-existing tools). Okay, cool, just go ahead and format the drive and do the preinstall, right? Nope. 98 would only do a FAT32 format, and NT doesn't understand FAT32. I pulled out half my hair. Eventually, I borrowed someone's old 500 meg IDE hd to install the preinstall to and then used the setup. I don't think that many people would consider that 'painless'.
</rant>
I agree it was bad to not find out the facts, I am just saying I think we 'pulled a Homer' or whatever. We did not do the 'right' thing but our doing the wrong thing might prove to be the best thing to have done in the long run. (if you follow all that).
Yes, perhaps the 'Linux Community' did jump the gun. I have no qualms with Corel for their liscence [if that was the original reading of it. . .never got to see one :( ] or they way they handled the situation. In fact, I think they did a good job. However, I also think it was good that the 'ignorant masses' took a stand on this one. With corprate players coming in looking for $$$ (and not caring who or what they trample on to get it), it is very important to flex our collective muscle and show we will not get bullied around, that Linux is/was/will always be end-user driven. Even if we are wrong ;).
BUT
Does anyone know of a mirror???
As an aside, the article is interesting but it prompts the question: Has Linux reached a critical mass such that these techniques are too late to affect Linux drastically, or will Linux wind up being touted as another case of MS's domination at some future anti-trust case?
Okay, this whole thread is a little offtopic. . .but I have to admit I am surprised Be hasn't been mentioned. Its multimedia capabilities *seem* to kick multimedia *ss compared to anything this side of SGI. ..comments???
E is definetly on its way to dropping off gnome. If you don't know, there is plans of an E filemanager. Raster felt that E was being saddled by gnome so he left RH (among other reasons) and decided to have E take over a lot of stuff gnome does.
As far as documentation, that is already getting better. e.t.o and enlightenment.org have a lot more documentation than, say, a couple months ago, though there still is a long way to go. I don't get the feeling 1.0 is coming out any time soon, but hopefully the documentation is getting better.
"blackbox rocks! And the future direction of Blackbox seems even cooler"
.what 'future' do you speak of? I don't use blackbox regularly (just for VNC when I want a fast, light wm), but I do admit I am curious. I went to the homepage and I didn't see any planned feature list. Can you, or someone else enlighten me?
Well, don't leave me hanging. .
For those intereseted. . . .I was really surprised the register had $35 in the article title with the quote being £35!
.my keycodes didn't work! I dunno, it would either bring up a Netscape composer (yes I am using communicator) with the 3 above the keyboard, or beep at me for the 3 on the keyboard. hrmph, thank goodness for cut & paste!
btw. .