I think people have stopped thinking proactively on governmental topics. Everybody's so disillusioned and cynical that they've given up hope of improving it. I've got enough cynicism regarding government, but I still try to come up with effective ideas.:) I don't know how to go about actually implementing them though. Most of the support you find for ideas like this come from thirdparties, and it seems you can't get a third party into office without enacting some of these reforms first. Chicken, meet egg.:P
If only half of these cynical disillusioned citizens would actually vote (third party, any third party) on election day, we might see some massive reform in this country. Can you imagine what the response would be if several major races came back with a tally of ~33% Repugnican, ~33% Democrap, ~9% Libertarian, ~8% Green, ~8% Constitution, ~9% Reform, with a voter turnout ~78%? Especially since this would virtually guarantee that these minor parties actually won more than a mere handful of races? (Odds are that somewhere the number of these "'new' non-traditional" voters would overwhelm the Duopoly voters and carry some elections for a particularly effective 3rd-party candidate.) The political landscape and course of debate would be transformed overnight. The reaction would be far disproportionate to the number of seats actually won by minor parties. Just the fact that they had a significant showing would have huge impact.
And all it would take is some lazy disaffected people to get off their butts one November Tuesday. If you don't like the system, then buck the system! I'd almost say it doesn't matter which alternative party you vote for as long as it breaks the Duopoly's lock, but I still advocate making an informed decision. Investigate all the parties' platforms and vote for the one closest to your own beliefs, regardless of their showing in the polls. If you don't vote what you believe, you won't get what you want. I know it is difficult to stick to this when we have a plurality vote system, but unless we vote our principles now, the current corrupt system will continue to erode those principles further.
I'm also in favor of Congressional salaries being determined by the individual states. The only restriction being that changes cannot take effect mid-term, so states cannot use pay increases/decreases as a club/bait for their agendas.
Paying these salaries wouldn't be so bad if the USG were limited to doing only what it's supposed to be doing. As much as I am against growing the government budget, I honestly think that this would shrink government overall.
In all honesty, I doubt things would change that much if we have 8300 representatives vs. 435. It's not just a matter of having too many constituents that makes them unresponsive, it also has something to do with all of those campaign contributions and their own private dealings.
The point is that with 10x as many representatives, maybe some "honest folks" would be in office. At the very least, there would be 10x as many congressman for special interests to pay off. Maybe that would be a disincentive to do it at all. Right now, power is too concentrated in the hands of a few. It's too easy to buy votes and sway consciences.
This is a perfect illustration why 435 representatives in Congress is not enough. Congressman simply do not have time for their constituents. They can't be bothered with the concerns of ordinary folks.
The original representation ratio was 1:30k. Now it's more like 1:575k. Today we have the technology that would make a meeting of 8300 representatives possible instead of completely impractical. Personally I'm fully in favor of a tenfold increase in the number of representatives in the House. Heck, even raising the number to something nice and round like 1000 reps would be a step in the right direction.
I looked at this subject and thought it was about a Trojan asteroid. Me: "Why is this important enough for Slashdot? And why isn't it in the science section?" 55808 was discovered in 1994, but I don't know if it's a Trojan or not.
That's very cool. Fortunately I've never had to call the police for anything more than minor vandalism and traffic accidents. In every case I've felt the police acted professionally, though I was a bit disappointed they didn't dust for prints on the cue ball that was thrown through my windshield. The odds of catching someone from that would have been pretty low, though.
Darn right. Several court cases have determined that the police cannot be sued for failure to protect. That means that yes, despite the "To protect and to serve" motto, it is still your own responsibility to defend yourself. Government does not take responsibility for this, though it likes to try to take away the right.
Sort of ironic thing is, though, that some cops in CCW states (where carrying a weapon is obviously legal, as if the 2nd Amendment didn't make it obvious enough) were asked what they would do if, during a routine traffic stop with a completely ordinary driver, they happened to notice a gun in plain sight. There were responses like, "Call for backup, you never know if the guy is a nut," and, "Get him out of the car to cuff him and then hold on to the weapon." You'd think the police would have a better understanding of what it means for citizens to act legally and within their rights. Unfortunately, many (not all, and I wouldn't even say most) cops have an "us vs. them" attitude.
Yeah. The government ought to be spanked for that one. But with all the clueless officials and bureaucrats I'm not surprised that "interoperability" and "standards" never entered the picture when drafting the requirements. The public shouldn't be steered toward a particular product or solution - what happened to the free market?
I also believe that not many things should be publically funded
I agree completely. The federal government particularly has far overstepped its delegated authority.
I am not generally on the "ban it!" side of things
Great, neither am I.:)
There are lots of situations where it's OK to discriminate based even on the characteristics you mention (let's say my Catholic church is hiring a new priest)
Exactly correct. Private entities (Boy Scouts, churches, the Augusta golf course, etc) may set their own rules for membership, holding office, etc, exercising their freedom of association. Public entities, i.e. government, may not discriminate on those factors.
Appealing to 'discrimination' I think is a weak argument.
Amen to that. Rebut all you want, but use your own platform. I don't have to give you one.
It would be different if the criticizer had a monopoly on platforms to speak from. But that's hardly the case on the internet. You can create a brand new platform for a pittance, and easily too.
The right to speak (or not) is worthless without the right to listen/read (or not). I supply my own voice and ears, and you supply yours too. That's fair.
But I have a much different, stronger reaction than you do when it comes to tax-funded things, even specifically your example with the bicycles.
Just because something is publicly funded doesn't mean you can use it for any purpose you want. Your kids don't play on the interstate. Nor do you drive your car through the park. Some laws exist so that a certain degree of orderliness can be achieved. Highways are for high-speed transportation. Use them however you want, as long as its for that purpose.
I know a lot of people have pet peeves, and they'd like to ban the offending thing. You just have to ask yourself, what if something you liked, that you happen to know does or might peeve someone else, were banned? Where's the freedom in that? I hit a turning point in my life about 4 years ago when I realized that government didn't exist "to make life good for everybody" but to defend our rights and freedoms. When we can fully enjoy those freedoms, life is good for everybody. Going the other way creates a nanny-state, where life might be good, but denies you the freedom to discover if it could be better. (ST:TOS "The Cage" comes to mind for some reason.)
Again (I seem to be repeating this a lot) I agreed with the poster regarding using standards, not being tied to a specific product, etc. I just disagreed with his use of the term "discrimination". As I said elsewhere, discrimination is unlawful when it's based on something the person can't control (sex, race) or something society considers sacrosanct (religion). In virtually every case, your browser is your choice, so crying "non-IE discrimination!" doesn't win much sympathy from me when phrased that way. Should government make their pages accessible according to the specs and guidelines? Unequivocally yes! It's their job to serve us, all of us. Just don't call it "discrimination" because for the overwhelming majority of people, IE is an option that we have just chosen not to use.
To make a real-life analogy, it's like the debate over civil rights for homosexuals. If homosexuality is a choice, then I can choose not to do business (or whatever) with them if I do not like that behavior, just like I can choose to not do business with nose-pickers (for example). On the other hand, if homosexuality is genetic, then I am morally and ethically obliged to treat this difference the same as a different race/age/gender/etc - that is, not different at all. The question of "do you have a choice in the matter" is a very important one.
This is still a bit iffy, IMO. In this case, the user doesn't really have a choice...he is limited by his disability. He cannot access the page because his browser is dictated to him, and that browser is denied access.
This is very similar to the issue of wheelchairs and curb cuts. Businesses don't necessary discriminate actively against the mobility-impaired, but the impaired person has no choice to how he gets about. He has to be in a wheelchair, and the high curb denies him access.
Both are cases of not choosing the lowest common denominator to begin with. The web developer could have coded to standards with little additional overhead. The business could have built their curb with a cut with little additional overhead. Retrofitting in either case incurs more work than doing it right to start with, and that's why people fight against this. Not because they are bigots, but because it's expensive and the returns on the investment are relatively small. Most would agree it's the right thing to do, and if they could do it over again they'd "do it right", because those small returns would be worth the smaller investment.
But again, my point was only that this is not discrimination per se, in the most general usage of the term. Most people are free to choose their browser (and what store they go to). A small minority don't have that choice, but you can hardly take ignorance or oversight and call it discrimination.
Government must make every reasonable concession necessary to serve the public - that's its job. Smart business owners should do so likewise - it's profitable and it's the right thing. But I still disagree with the expansion of the definition of discrimination from "kicking some people out" to "not doing enough to help some people in".
Again, my only point was how the term "discrimination" was used by the poster. I did not intend to address the morality or legality of the actions themselves. I feel like I'm being drawn into an argument I didn't intend to get involved with.
I only said the poster was wrong to call it "discrimination". It cheapens the work of Dr. MLK Jr. It may still be bad, wrong, illegal, or whatever (or not) - but that wasn't my point. If you are free to make a choice about something, and I freely act in a way that doesn't support your choice, it is not discrimination.
Agreed. It is not Mozilla's fault that everyone spoofs Mozilla. IE started the evil trend of spoofing. This is just like blaming the victim of identity theft. Mozilla's identity is stolen when you spoof - that is not Mozilla's fault.
It may not even be fair to blame IE (or Opera, or anyone else). After all, MS was just responding to all the web dee-zine-urs who incorporated nonstandard golly-gee-whiz features into their pages and wanted a way to keep others from seeing their broken creations. When IE got up to speed, they needed a way to "get to the good stuff" without waiting for the dee-zine-urs to fix their browser sniffers.
Moral of the story? Designers: stop sniffing. Surfers: stop spoofing. The truth shall set you free.
In which case, it's even worse. The system was built using taxpayers' money (including yours), in such a way that it discriminates against you.
Sorry, you don't have much of a case there. Your choice of browser is just that, your choice. Government cannot discriminate based on factors that people have no choice about (gender, race) or on factors that are considered beyond criticism (religion). (Private entities should have the right to freedom of association, but I digress.) But on matters of choice, they don't have to cater to your whims. If your choice of transportation mode is a bicycle, sorry, you can't ride it on the freeway, and this is not discrimination against bicycle-riders.
One may be able to make the argument that the government ought to conform to established standards rather than the arbitrary behaviors of any given product, so that any conforming interface would work with it. But this is hardly the same thing as discrimination.
In summary, what you're saying is correct. Validate the code, don't just design an IE-only page. Just don't cry "discrimination" so lightly.
How many of us can honestly say that we're doing what we love to do? And not just "working at an appropriately geek/tech job" either. I mean, this guy started a project as a hobby, people found value in it, and now he gets a salary to maintain it as he sees fit. When you look at history, even people like Michaelangelo who got to do what they liked doing, and got paid to do it, still had to work on someone else's project. "Michaelangelo, paint this ceiling, something in a biblical motif." Even top athletes get told who to play and when. Not many people have, or have ever had, as sweet a deal as Linus. I have several projects, as well as other non-geeky hobbies, that I scarcely have time for. I wish I could get paid to work on them. Heck, I'd settle for simply having more time for them without pay.
Gaaah, can you imagine how slow OS X would be if you ran Aqua on Solaris???
*ducks and runs for cover*
Re:Sun Doesn't appeal to me
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think Solaris tends to have more "torque" under load than
Linux, OS X is better at interoperability with other systems, and IRIX...well, no comment.
This is what I'd like to hear. Is there a site that gives similar (well perhaps just a bit longer) summaries of the various *nix flavors? My experience is limited to Ultrix, Linux, Solaris, and NetBSD (in the order I encountered them), and with most I wouldn't say I have the perspective of an admin.
I've often heard that A/UX was pretty cool. I've got a Q840AV sitting around, and every once in awhile I wish I could find a copy of A/UX to install just to see what I missed out on.
I couldn't agree more. The bailouts were nothing more than massive wealth redistribution. (Much like subsidized housing, subsidized health care, subsidized drugs, etc.) One more example of how totalitarian and socialist the USG has really gotten.
There are only two things standing between you and your freedom: Democrats and Republicans.
Serious question. I see mention of apps like PNGcrush, etc, but I'm not a graphics guru. I crop scans, or create cheezy little button images for my web site, but that's the limits of my talent. I need something relatively simple.
Which free (beer) Mac or Linux apps can I use to (easily) create good PNGs? So far I've been using ColorIt! and GIFConverter on the (classic) MacOS side, and the PNGs seldom beat GIFs in size. A simple PNG converter that could read TIFF would be excellent for my purposes.
Make it $1 for the 51st year, and double every year thereafter. Some posters have already mentioned the "automated copyright for perpetuity" problem. If the copyright is still worth $1M after 71 years, fine, let them keep it. If it's still worth $1G after 81 years, fine, let them keep it. But copyright in perpetuity? C'mon...
Thoughts and ideas are not born in a vacuum. The public domain contributed something to those thoughts and ideas, it's only fair to give back eventually. That's the whole idea of mentioning "limited times" in A1S8. Personally I think 50 years is already too long, 25 years should be sufficient.
Slashdot Mirror
I think people have stopped thinking proactively on governmental topics. Everybody's so disillusioned and cynical that they've given up hope of improving it. I've got enough cynicism regarding government, but I still try to come up with effective ideas. :) I don't know how to go about actually implementing them though. Most of the support you find for ideas like this come from third parties, and it seems you can't get a third party into office without enacting some of these reforms first. Chicken, meet egg. :P
If only half of these cynical disillusioned citizens would actually vote (third party, any third party) on election day, we might see some massive reform in this country. Can you imagine what the response would be if several major races came back with a tally of ~33% Repugnican, ~33% Democrap, ~9% Libertarian, ~8% Green, ~8% Constitution, ~9% Reform, with a voter turnout ~78%? Especially since this would virtually guarantee that these minor parties actually won more than a mere handful of races? (Odds are that somewhere the number of these "'new' non-traditional" voters would overwhelm the Duopoly voters and carry some elections for a particularly effective 3rd-party candidate.) The political landscape and course of debate would be transformed overnight. The reaction would be far disproportionate to the number of seats actually won by minor parties. Just the fact that they had a significant showing would have huge impact.
And all it would take is some lazy disaffected people to get off their butts one November Tuesday. If you don't like the system, then buck the system! I'd almost say it doesn't matter which alternative party you vote for as long as it breaks the Duopoly's lock, but I still advocate making an informed decision. Investigate all the parties' platforms and vote for the one closest to your own beliefs, regardless of their showing in the polls. If you don't vote what you believe, you won't get what you want. I know it is difficult to stick to this when we have a plurality vote system, but unless we vote our principles now, the current corrupt system will continue to erode those principles further.
I'm also in favor of Congressional salaries being determined by the individual states. The only restriction being that changes cannot take effect mid-term, so states cannot use pay increases/decreases as a club/bait for their agendas.
Paying these salaries wouldn't be so bad if the USG were limited to doing only what it's supposed to be doing. As much as I am against growing the government budget, I honestly think that this would shrink government overall.
The point is that with 10x as many representatives, maybe some "honest folks" would be in office. At the very least, there would be 10x as many congressman for special interests to pay off. Maybe that would be a disincentive to do it at all. Right now, power is too concentrated in the hands of a few. It's too easy to buy votes and sway consciences.
This is a perfect illustration why 435 representatives in Congress is not enough. Congressman simply do not have time for their constituents. They can't be bothered with the concerns of ordinary folks.
The original representation ratio was 1:30k. Now it's more like 1:575k. Today we have the technology that would make a meeting of 8300 representatives possible instead of completely impractical. Personally I'm fully in favor of a tenfold increase in the number of representatives in the House. Heck, even raising the number to something nice and round like 1000 reps would be a step in the right direction.
I looked at this subject and thought it was about a Trojan asteroid. Me: "Why is this important enough for Slashdot? And why isn't it in the science section?" 55808 was discovered in 1994, but I don't know if it's a Trojan or not.
That's very cool. Fortunately I've never had to call the police for anything more than minor vandalism and traffic accidents. In every case I've felt the police acted professionally, though I was a bit disappointed they didn't dust for prints on the cue ball that was thrown through my windshield. The odds of catching someone from that would have been pretty low, though.
Darn right. Several court cases have determined that the police cannot be sued for failure to protect. That means that yes, despite the "To protect and to serve" motto, it is still your own responsibility to defend yourself. Government does not take responsibility for this, though it likes to try to take away the right.
Sort of ironic thing is, though, that some cops in CCW states (where carrying a weapon is obviously legal, as if the 2nd Amendment didn't make it obvious enough) were asked what they would do if, during a routine traffic stop with a completely ordinary driver, they happened to notice a gun in plain sight. There were responses like, "Call for backup, you never know if the guy is a nut," and, "Get him out of the car to cuff him and then hold on to the weapon." You'd think the police would have a better understanding of what it means for citizens to act legally and within their rights. Unfortunately, many (not all, and I wouldn't even say most) cops have an "us vs. them" attitude.
Yeah. The government ought to be spanked for that one. But with all the clueless officials and bureaucrats I'm not surprised that "interoperability" and "standards" never entered the picture when drafting the requirements. The public shouldn't be steered toward a particular product or solution - what happened to the free market?
I agree completely. The federal government particularly has far overstepped its delegated authority.
Great, neither am I. :)
Exactly correct. Private entities (Boy Scouts, churches, the Augusta golf course, etc) may set their own rules for membership, holding office, etc, exercising their freedom of association. Public entities, i.e. government, may not discriminate on those factors.
Precisely my point.
It's been a looong time. We just need to get some different people in office, that's all.
Amen to that. Rebut all you want, but use your own platform. I don't have to give you one.
It would be different if the criticizer had a monopoly on platforms to speak from. But that's hardly the case on the internet. You can create a brand new platform for a pittance, and easily too.
The right to speak (or not) is worthless without the right to listen/read (or not). I supply my own voice and ears, and you supply yours too. That's fair.
Just because something is publicly funded doesn't mean you can use it for any purpose you want. Your kids don't play on the interstate. Nor do you drive your car through the park. Some laws exist so that a certain degree of orderliness can be achieved. Highways are for high-speed transportation. Use them however you want, as long as its for that purpose.
I know a lot of people have pet peeves, and they'd like to ban the offending thing. You just have to ask yourself, what if something you liked, that you happen to know does or might peeve someone else, were banned? Where's the freedom in that? I hit a turning point in my life about 4 years ago when I realized that government didn't exist "to make life good for everybody" but to defend our rights and freedoms. When we can fully enjoy those freedoms, life is good for everybody. Going the other way creates a nanny-state, where life might be good, but denies you the freedom to discover if it could be better. (ST:TOS "The Cage" comes to mind for some reason.)
Again (I seem to be repeating this a lot) I agreed with the poster regarding using standards, not being tied to a specific product, etc. I just disagreed with his use of the term "discrimination". As I said elsewhere, discrimination is unlawful when it's based on something the person can't control (sex, race) or something society considers sacrosanct (religion). In virtually every case, your browser is your choice, so crying "non-IE discrimination!" doesn't win much sympathy from me when phrased that way. Should government make their pages accessible according to the specs and guidelines? Unequivocally yes! It's their job to serve us, all of us. Just don't call it "discrimination" because for the overwhelming majority of people, IE is an option that we have just chosen not to use.
To make a real-life analogy, it's like the debate over civil rights for homosexuals. If homosexuality is a choice, then I can choose not to do business (or whatever) with them if I do not like that behavior, just like I can choose to not do business with nose-pickers (for example). On the other hand, if homosexuality is genetic, then I am morally and ethically obliged to treat this difference the same as a different race/age/gender/etc - that is, not different at all. The question of "do you have a choice in the matter" is a very important one.
This is still a bit iffy, IMO. In this case, the user doesn't really have a choice...he is limited by his disability. He cannot access the page because his browser is dictated to him, and that browser is denied access.
This is very similar to the issue of wheelchairs and curb cuts. Businesses don't necessary discriminate actively against the mobility-impaired, but the impaired person has no choice to how he gets about. He has to be in a wheelchair, and the high curb denies him access.
Both are cases of not choosing the lowest common denominator to begin with. The web developer could have coded to standards with little additional overhead. The business could have built their curb with a cut with little additional overhead. Retrofitting in either case incurs more work than doing it right to start with, and that's why people fight against this. Not because they are bigots, but because it's expensive and the returns on the investment are relatively small. Most would agree it's the right thing to do, and if they could do it over again they'd "do it right", because those small returns would be worth the smaller investment.
But again, my point was only that this is not discrimination per se, in the most general usage of the term. Most people are free to choose their browser (and what store they go to). A small minority don't have that choice, but you can hardly take ignorance or oversight and call it discrimination.
Government must make every reasonable concession necessary to serve the public - that's its job. Smart business owners should do so likewise - it's profitable and it's the right thing. But I still disagree with the expansion of the definition of discrimination from "kicking some people out" to "not doing enough to help some people in".
Again, my only point was how the term "discrimination" was used by the poster. I did not intend to address the morality or legality of the actions themselves. I feel like I'm being drawn into an argument I didn't intend to get involved with.
I only said the poster was wrong to call it "discrimination". It cheapens the work of Dr. MLK Jr. It may still be bad, wrong, illegal, or whatever (or not) - but that wasn't my point. If you are free to make a choice about something, and I freely act in a way that doesn't support your choice, it is not discrimination.
Heh. Hopefully more like "Vam^H^H^HIE Slayer".
Agreed. It is not Mozilla's fault that everyone spoofs Mozilla. IE started the evil trend of spoofing. This is just like blaming the victim of identity theft. Mozilla's identity is stolen when you spoof - that is not Mozilla's fault.
It may not even be fair to blame IE (or Opera, or anyone else). After all, MS was just responding to all the web dee-zine-urs who incorporated nonstandard golly-gee-whiz features into their pages and wanted a way to keep others from seeing their broken creations. When IE got up to speed, they needed a way to "get to the good stuff" without waiting for the dee-zine-urs to fix their browser sniffers.
Moral of the story? Designers: stop sniffing. Surfers: stop spoofing. The truth shall set you free.
Sorry, you don't have much of a case there. Your choice of browser is just that, your choice. Government cannot discriminate based on factors that people have no choice about (gender, race) or on factors that are considered beyond criticism (religion). (Private entities should have the right to freedom of association, but I digress.) But on matters of choice, they don't have to cater to your whims. If your choice of transportation mode is a bicycle, sorry, you can't ride it on the freeway, and this is not discrimination against bicycle-riders.
One may be able to make the argument that the government ought to conform to established standards rather than the arbitrary behaviors of any given product, so that any conforming interface would work with it. But this is hardly the same thing as discrimination.
In summary, what you're saying is correct. Validate the code, don't just design an IE-only page. Just don't cry "discrimination" so lightly.
How many of us can honestly say that we're doing what we love to do? And not just "working at an appropriately geek/tech job" either. I mean, this guy started a project as a hobby, people found value in it, and now he gets a salary to maintain it as he sees fit. When you look at history, even people like Michaelangelo who got to do what they liked doing, and got paid to do it, still had to work on someone else's project. "Michaelangelo, paint this ceiling, something in a biblical motif." Even top athletes get told who to play and when. Not many people have, or have ever had, as sweet a deal as Linus. I have several projects, as well as other non-geeky hobbies, that I scarcely have time for. I wish I could get paid to work on them. Heck, I'd settle for simply having more time for them without pay.
Gaaah, can you imagine how slow OS X would be if you ran Aqua on Solaris???
*ducks and runs for cover*
This is what I'd like to hear. Is there a site that gives similar (well perhaps just a bit longer) summaries of the various *nix flavors? My experience is limited to Ultrix, Linux, Solaris, and NetBSD (in the order I encountered them), and with most I wouldn't say I have the perspective of an admin.
I've often heard that A/UX was pretty cool. I've got a Q840AV sitting around, and every once in awhile I wish I could find a copy of A/UX to install just to see what I missed out on.
So does this mean the resistance forces are based on the Antarctic Peninsula, Svalbard, and in Canada?
I couldn't agree more. The bailouts were nothing more than massive wealth redistribution. (Much like subsidized housing, subsidized health care, subsidized drugs, etc.) One more example of how totalitarian and socialist the USG has really gotten.
There are only two things standing between you and your freedom: Democrats and Republicans.
Send your coworkers the Mozilla installer as an attachment.
Serious question. I see mention of apps like PNGcrush, etc, but I'm not a graphics guru. I crop scans, or create cheezy little button images for my web site, but that's the limits of my talent. I need something relatively simple.
Which free (beer) Mac or Linux apps can I use to (easily) create good PNGs? So far I've been using ColorIt! and GIFConverter on the (classic) MacOS side, and the PNGs seldom beat GIFs in size. A simple PNG converter that could read TIFF would be excellent for my purposes.
Make it $1 for the 51st year, and double every year thereafter. Some posters have already mentioned the "automated copyright for perpetuity" problem. If the copyright is still worth $1M after 71 years, fine, let them keep it. If it's still worth $1G after 81 years, fine, let them keep it. But copyright in perpetuity? C'mon...
Thoughts and ideas are not born in a vacuum. The public domain contributed something to those thoughts and ideas, it's only fair to give back eventually. That's the whole idea of mentioning "limited times" in A1S8. Personally I think 50 years is already too long, 25 years should be sufficient.