Your argument is good and (as far as I can tell) spot on factually. However, you and many others with your general viewpoint miss an essential point. THAT WAS 230 YEARS AGO!
Example: The number of Muslim citizens of the USA could probably have been counted on one hand. There were probably a lot more Muslims than that but they were all slaves.
Like it or not, the USA has become a multi-cultural, multi-religious country. Folks like yourselves need to deal with it. I will stipulate that we have a problem with a lack of proper public morals in this country. But it seems to me that when folks make the argument that Christianity, for example, is the One True Faith of the USA and that we need to stress the moral tenents of that faith -- never mind the argument over WHOSE version of Christianity; Baptist? Presbyterian? Catholic (God forbid!)-- they just get the argument all sidetracked.
All faiths share core values. The argument can be made that there are absolute moral truths. Confucius said "Treat others as you would have them treat you," in exactly those words more than 200 years before the birth of Christ.
Focus on the stuff we can all agree on and give up on the religious dogma.
You got your simple networks and your complicated ones. Then you have clueless users or savvy users. Basically, it breaks into a four-holed matrix. On the simple/clueless box you probably need one support person per 45-50 seats. On simple/savvy that can go up to 1:100+
Of course if you have a complicated network, you probably need a dedicated admin or two so the ratios go to (1:50) + Netadmins and so on.
Then of course there are platform issues. If you are running MS Back Office, Terminal Server or any of that shite you can pretty much double the number of techs needed.:)
This is my experience based on about 6 years of helping small businesses set-up their IT management situations.
There is no "standard" of valuation of web site worth. You have done a good job. Right off the bat, your site is worth $20k last year in actual accounts receivable. What do you project for this year? Any potental purchaser should expect to pay at least two or three times annual revenue.
Not knowing anything else about the site, except that it generates 1.5m hits/mo. I would say that it should be worth about $150,000 or so. We also don't know anything about your general financial situation. What is your debt load? If there is any debt, the purchaser is going to take this into account and subtract it from the worth.
No, he doesn't approach The Great One (bows down in the direction of Aspen) but then who does? NJ is not just self-referential and/or first person. It can be anything that breaks the rules of "objective journalism."
Some of Katz's stuff, like the Imagineer interview is pure "New Journalism."
But then, the term is practically null and void since the advent of the Net. Every yahoo with an opinion can become a self-styled journalist.
Pricing and cost are the issue. Let's look at music. For as long as the recorded music industry has existed, cost has been dependent on the record companies' cost of production, distribution and marketing. Production is easy to cover, especially in the case of smaller, "indie" releases. The rest of the costs are for production of physical copies of the recording, packaging and marketing and also cost of distribution of physical copies to retailer/end-user. The price is then established by the industry by cost+profit basis as essentially whatever the market will bear.
Does anyone really believe that a Brittany Spears CD is objectively WORTH US$17.00?
What digital technology allows us to do is to eliminate the most costly part of the production and distribution process, the physical manifestation of the recording. Therefore, the price should go down. It also allows us to pick and choose individual songs, e.g. from MP3.com or whatever. Most people don't yet have the drive space and bandwidth to collect a whole collection of "albums" in digital format. So, most just get the songs they like.
What is the true price of a song? US$5.00? Probably too high. How about US$1.00?
At that price, assuming it is easy to acquire for the end-user, the low cost of acquiring the music legally makes the pain of trying to hunt down a decent bootlegged copy not worth the effort.
Of course this would require a complete change in the way record companies do business. They would have to cut costs, do away with all the perks of being record industry big-shots and actually run their businesses like, well... businesses.
Of course the impact on mediums like film, where the production costs are so much higher will be greater, as will the resistance, which is why we see the motion picture industry leading the CeCSS charge.
Well, too bad for them.
Heinlein, in one of his first published works, hit the nail right on the head: "There has grown up in the mind of certain groups in this country that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of protecting such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have the right to come into court to ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." "Life-Line," 1939.
It is only a matter of time before some federal judge figures this out.
The best way to kill these companies is just to ignore them, they only live on hype and MBAs who want to IPO real quick to make money. If no one buys their stock, they shrivel up and die after their initial investment dries up.
I disagree. The best way to kill them is to expose them to the light. While Derek's methods were somewhat unconventional and his narrative is a bit weird, he does manage to raise and not get answers for some very fundamental questions.
Where is the source code?
What is up with Dr. Chio being on the board of Global Village? This just stinks to high heaven.
Where are the Chinese and Japanese products, do they even have alpha builds to share with the community
And so forth. I say beat on them until they cry, "Uncle!" or come clean. This is what the community needs; clear, insightful analysis and collective oversight. Saying let them go public and caveat emptor is irresponsible. And if LinuxOne is perpetuating a scam or fraud at any level, it makes those of us with some insight into their motives complicit in their actions.
I can't blame the investment firm for being angry!
Read it again Joe. The investment firm was interested in what he had to say. It was LinuxOne that was pissed off. Granted, he was not as diplomatic as he possibly should have been, but his points are valid nonetheless.
We can't expect everyone in the community to be both master statesmen and master technologists now can we? I was satistfied that there were only a couple of spelling errors and the grammar was passable.:)
I am continually amazed at the combination of willful naiveté and corporate apoligism that always seems to bubble to the fore in these forums. So, many seem to dismiss calls to collective action (especially if they emanate from or through Jon Katz) completely out of hand.
Individual socio-political dogmas aside, it remains a fact that there is a serious problem looming for those of us who want a future based on freedom of thought and expression. There are a lot of major issues bubbling on the stove right now that are going to affect the case law and legislation which will set most of the ground rules going forward in the realms of technology and the Net. The problem is that the political system is fundamentally broken in two ways; 1) the decision process is seriously skewed in the direction of the corporatist interests by the money-dependecies of the major political players and, 2) most of the key political decision-makers, with only a few exceptions, are completely unqualified to understand the issues currently before them - let alone to try to project into the future.
Sure, capatilism is good or at least better than any competing economic systems. But, those who persist in blathering on about libertarianism and unfettered capitalism fail to appreciate the major lesson of history. Unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to anti-social behavior on the part of those companies; either through direct capitalist maliciousness (i.e. Bohpal, Mitsubishi sex-discrimination) or errors of omission, (Exxon Valdez, any number of product liability cases). That's not a slam to corporations per se, its just what they do. They are not directly accountable to anyone besides their shareholders. In a pure capitalist/libertarian society the only power the consumer/citizen has is through lawsuit (laugh) or boycott.
One of the few things the state can do well in modern society is to set the ground rules for corporate behavior and to reign in corporations that threaten the greater good. But, as pointed out above, the playing field is not level.
In order to change this, collective action is needed. Why do so many pooh. pooh the idea of collective political action to retake control of the political process that may threaten our livelihoods and basic freedoms? Is it some sort of subconscious association 60's type hippie direct action? I've got news for you, Microsoft and AOL/TimeWarner/EMI have no such mental blocks.
The crowning achievement of the Open Source movement is a sort of collective direct political action. Linux is the collaborative achievement of thousands of people working on whatever holds their interest in the service of a central, commonly held goal - end the hegemony of shitty corporate OS'es and put control back in the hands of the people. Linux has some basic operating tenets, i.e. the compatibility with the kernel. But, everyone involved has the freedom to work autonomously on very diverse methods of moving the whole thing forward.
That is what we need in the drive to retain freedom and restrain the inevitable corporate tendency to "embrace and extend" their own interests, an Open Source social movement.
Me too:) Seriously. I've been on the Viridian list since about 00060. I think Bruce missed the mark quite a bit here. A good manifesto (I have the Alpha Manifesto: "The Communist Manifesto in mind here) goes a long way towards describing the problem. And, the one word that does not appear in the Manifesto is, Carbon. The Viridian movement is as much about finding a path towards a non-carbon dependent future as it is about economic and cultural transformation. If one was not familliar with the Viridian Movement's principles prior to reading the manifesto it sadly does read like a bit of pseudo-intellectual wanking. Folks who totally misunderstand the Manifesto should back and read some of the good stuff. At least it puts the Manifesto in perspective.
Okay, this is probably one of those inevitable technologies the utility of which to the security forces makes its adoption -- either covert or overt -- a done deal. I can see this being a good thing in that we have a health-ethstetic problem with obesity in this country. Now, if this technology becomes ubiquitous and everyone knows they are being looked at, in the buff, perhaps people will pay more attention to their bodies' health and appearance, which go hand in hand. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, nakedness will become less taboo. I mean, if we are all being scoped out buck naked anyway, why bother wearing much clothing at all if both the temperature and the humididty are in the 90's as it is here in Chicago in the summertime. I like it.
Honestly, the idea that the US Army would use Slashdot for their recommendations is silly. It gives me a pretty good twinge of fear about our national security. Do you really speak for them, and if so, could you please give us your full name?
I dunno about this. I think that this shows that -- assuming for the sake of argument that Shawn is legit and is not going to get his nuts in the wringer for posting here -- the Army showing an admiriable amount of transparency and willingness to work with the open source community. Also, the consideration of off-the-shelf components is salutory. This is a Good Thing. More secrecy and reliance on horrendusly expensive custom milspec hardware and procurement processes is a Bad Thing. THAT is what takes money from the mouths of the rank-and-file.
Presumably Shawn knows what he is about. From the brief mission requirements he gave, it sounds like these machines will be used to download and process sensor and flight recorder data from aircraft. This being the Army, this equals either helos, RPV's or small fixed wing aircraft. The high-end video then would be needed to review IR and low-light data. The sound card for cockpit and comms data.
Or he just wants to host a Q3 Arena during down-time.:)
This assumes that these servers are hooked up to the outside world. Sounds like they are planning on using them to download and process stored sensor data from something that flies. This being the Army, that imples helos or RPV's. If this is the case they will probably just be on an isolated LAN. After all if you are on a dirt firebase in Albania, you don't exactly have an OC3 out to the local backbone.
Ah, Marshall. An excellent paen to a forgotten hero as well as why the list thing is inane in te first place.
Assuming that you are right Mr. Brin -- and I think you have put together a very persuasive piece -- it is sad to say that Time would never put on the cover a visage and name that would leave 80% of the population under the age of 65 just scratching their heads going, "huh?"
Marshall may win on the fundamentals but I have to give Churchill the win on style points. Sure he was an egotist, but what a life he lived!
Also, gotta thow Gahndi in there. If one is consigering Dr. King, one should go straight to the source. He taught Dr. King everything he knew and made freedom possible for more than half a billion. King is such a navel-gazing, America-centric choice.
IMHO the "person(s)" of the year should be, as Jon pointed out, all the nameless, faceless people who used the internet to derail the WTO confernece and put the more troubling aspects of globalization on the front burner for the general public.
When was the last time most Americans gave two seconds' thought to the World Trade Organization, or the costs & benefits of globalization in general? Granted, the protesters in Seattle pretty much hijacked the debate, but without them there would have been NO debate.
From world trade, to land-mines, to Linux, the true paradigm-shift (tired phrase but true in this case) brought about by the Internet is the ability of geographically and culturally disparate people to organize for both commercial gain and social justice. Just look at the Nobel Peace Prize. Three of the last five laureates have been organizations, The Pugwash conference ('95), Committe to Ban Land Mines ('97) and Medcins Sans Frontieres (99). And to hear Jody Williams put it, the Internet was THE vital factor in the success of the land mine initiative. That and Princess Dianna's contribution.;)
I seriously doubt if Amazon.com will even be a player in 3-4 years. Heck, they'll just be another online shop. Sure they were the first, but someone had to be. This was an idea whose time had come and someone would have done it eventually.
Lastly, I can't beleive anyone cares what Time Magazine says anymore. What a worthless rag!
Just throwing out a new Appleseed thread because I think it deserves it. I wrote an article on the clustering project at the UCLA Physics department nearly a year ago. They had achieved spectacular results using 300HHz Beige G3's and 100BaseT. Very simple setup using off-the-shelf hardware. I do not know if they have looked into using Firewire or Gigabit Ethernet and/or the new G4's yet. But, I would expect that the performance from a 8 or 16 box cluster of G4's with Gigibit Ethernet would pretty much blow away a beowulf cluster in both the performance and price categories. As for NT... don't make me laugh. Doctor Viktor Decyk is the project coordinator and would be glad to speak to you I am sure. The project website has been posted in a previous thread. Connor W. Anderson IT Manager Department of Radiology Univerisity of Chicago
Slashdot Mirror
Getting ready to leave work, so I don't exactly have time to look at your link to "deists" is it anything like a Unitarian?
Because Paine, Adams, and Jefferson -- most definitely Jefferson -- were all Unitarians.
Your argument is good and (as far as I can tell) spot on factually. However, you and many others with your general viewpoint miss an essential point. THAT WAS 230 YEARS AGO! Example: The number of Muslim citizens of the USA could probably have been counted on one hand. There were probably a lot more Muslims than that but they were all slaves. Like it or not, the USA has become a multi-cultural, multi-religious country. Folks like yourselves need to deal with it. I will stipulate that we have a problem with a lack of proper public morals in this country. But it seems to me that when folks make the argument that Christianity, for example, is the One True Faith of the USA and that we need to stress the moral tenents of that faith -- never mind the argument over WHOSE version of Christianity; Baptist? Presbyterian? Catholic (God forbid!)-- they just get the argument all sidetracked. All faiths share core values. The argument can be made that there are absolute moral truths. Confucius said "Treat others as you would have them treat you," in exactly those words more than 200 years before the birth of Christ. Focus on the stuff we can all agree on and give up on the religious dogma.
You got your simple networks and your complicated ones. Then you have clueless users or savvy users. Basically, it breaks into a four-holed matrix. On the simple/clueless box you probably need one support person per 45-50 seats. On simple/savvy that can go up to 1:100+
Of course if you have a complicated network, you probably need a dedicated admin or two so the ratios go to (1:50) + Netadmins and so on.
Then of course there are platform issues. If you are running MS Back Office, Terminal Server or any of that shite you can pretty much double the number of techs needed.:)
This is my experience based on about 6 years of helping small businesses set-up their IT management situations.
There is no "standard" of valuation of web site worth. You have done a good job. Right off the bat, your site is worth $20k last year in actual accounts receivable. What do you project for this year? Any potental purchaser should expect to pay at least two or three times annual revenue.
Not knowing anything else about the site, except that it generates 1.5m hits/mo. I would say that it should be worth about $150,000 or so. We also don't know anything about your general financial situation. What is your debt load? If there is any debt, the purchaser is going to take this into account and subtract it from the worth.
No, he doesn't approach The Great One (bows down in the direction of Aspen) but then who does? NJ is not just self-referential and/or first person. It can be anything that breaks the rules of "objective journalism."
Some of Katz's stuff, like the Imagineer interview is pure "New Journalism."
But then, the term is practically null and void since the advent of the Net. Every yahoo with an opinion can become a self-styled journalist.
Pricing and cost are the issue. Let's look at music. For as long as the recorded music industry has existed, cost has been dependent on the record companies' cost of production, distribution and marketing. Production is easy to cover, especially in the case of smaller, "indie" releases. The rest of the costs are for production of physical copies of the recording, packaging and marketing and also cost of distribution of physical copies to retailer/end-user. The price is then established by the industry by cost+profit basis as essentially whatever the market will bear.
Does anyone really believe that a Brittany Spears CD is objectively WORTH US$17.00?
What digital technology allows us to do is to eliminate the most costly part of the production and distribution process, the physical manifestation of the recording. Therefore, the price should go down. It also allows us to pick and choose individual songs, e.g. from MP3.com or whatever. Most people don't yet have the drive space and bandwidth to collect a whole collection of "albums" in digital format. So, most just get the songs they like.
What is the true price of a song? US$5.00? Probably too high. How about US$1.00?
At that price, assuming it is easy to acquire for the end-user, the low cost of acquiring the music legally makes the pain of trying to hunt down a decent bootlegged copy not worth the effort.
Of course this would require a complete change in the way record companies do business. They would have to cut costs, do away with all the perks of being record industry big-shots and actually run their businesses like, well... businesses.
Of course the impact on mediums like film, where the production costs are so much higher will be greater, as will the resistance, which is why we see the motion picture industry leading the CeCSS charge.
Well, too bad for them.
Heinlein, in one of his first published works, hit the nail right on the head: "There has grown up in the mind of certain groups in this country that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of protecting such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have the right to come into court to ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
"Life-Line," 1939.
It is only a matter of time before some federal judge figures this out.
I disagree. The best way to kill them is to expose them to the light. While Derek's methods were somewhat unconventional and his narrative is a bit weird, he does manage to raise and not get answers for some very fundamental questions.
- Where is the source code?
- What is up with Dr. Chio being on the board of Global Village? This just stinks to high heaven.
- Where are the Chinese and Japanese products, do they even have alpha builds to share with the community
And so forth. I say beat on them until they cry, "Uncle!" or come clean. This is what the community needs; clear, insightful analysis and collective oversight. Saying let them go public and caveat emptor is irresponsible. And if LinuxOne is perpetuating a scam or fraud at any level, it makes those of us with some insight into their motives complicit in their actions.That's just my opinion. I could be Wrong.
Read it again Joe. The investment firm was interested in what he had to say. It was LinuxOne that was pissed off. Granted, he was not as diplomatic as he possibly should have been, but his points are valid nonetheless.
We can't expect everyone in the community to be both master statesmen and master technologists now can we? I was satistfied that there were only a couple of spelling errors and the grammar was passable.
I am continually amazed at the combination of willful naiveté and corporate apoligism that always seems to bubble to the fore in these forums. So, many seem to dismiss calls to collective action (especially if they emanate from or through Jon Katz) completely out of hand.
Individual socio-political dogmas aside, it remains a fact that there is a serious problem looming for those of us who want a future based on freedom of thought and expression. There are a lot of major issues bubbling on the stove right now that are going to affect the case law and legislation which will set most of the ground rules going forward in the realms of technology and the Net. The problem is that the political system is fundamentally broken in two ways; 1) the decision process is seriously skewed in the direction of the corporatist interests by the money-dependecies of the major political players and, 2) most of the key political decision-makers, with only a few exceptions, are completely unqualified to understand the issues currently before them - let alone to try to project into the future.
Sure, capatilism is good or at least better than any competing economic systems. But, those who persist in blathering on about libertarianism and unfettered capitalism fail to appreciate the major lesson of history. Unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to anti-social behavior on the part of those companies; either through direct capitalist maliciousness (i.e. Bohpal, Mitsubishi sex-discrimination) or errors of omission, (Exxon Valdez, any number of product liability cases). That's not a slam to corporations per se, its just what they do. They are not directly accountable to anyone besides their shareholders. In a pure capitalist/libertarian society the only power the consumer/citizen has is through lawsuit (laugh) or boycott.
One of the few things the state can do well in modern society is to set the ground rules for corporate behavior and to reign in corporations that threaten the greater good. But, as pointed out above, the playing field is not level.
In order to change this, collective action is needed. Why do so many pooh. pooh the idea of collective political action to retake control of the political process that may threaten our livelihoods and basic freedoms? Is it some sort of subconscious association 60's type hippie direct action? I've got news for you, Microsoft and AOL/TimeWarner/EMI have no such mental blocks.
The crowning achievement of the Open Source movement is a sort of collective direct political action. Linux is the collaborative achievement of thousands of people working on whatever holds their interest in the service of a central, commonly held goal - end the hegemony of shitty corporate OS'es and put control back in the hands of the people. Linux has some basic operating tenets, i.e. the compatibility with the kernel. But, everyone involved has the freedom to work autonomously on very diverse methods of moving the whole thing forward.
That is what we need in the drive to retain freedom and restrain the inevitable corporate tendency to "embrace and extend" their own interests, an Open Source social movement.
Me too :) Seriously. I've been on the Viridian list since about 00060. I think Bruce missed the mark quite a bit here. A good manifesto (I have the Alpha Manifesto: "The Communist Manifesto in mind here) goes a long way towards describing the problem. And, the one word that does not appear in the Manifesto is, Carbon. The Viridian movement is as much about finding a path towards a non-carbon dependent future as it is about economic and cultural transformation. If one was not familliar with the Viridian Movement's principles prior to reading the manifesto it sadly does read like a bit of pseudo-intellectual wanking. Folks who totally misunderstand the Manifesto should back and read some of the good stuff. At least it puts the Manifesto in perspective.
Um, survival?
Okay, this is probably one of those inevitable technologies the utility of which to the security forces makes its adoption -- either covert or overt -- a done deal. I can see this being a good thing in that we have a health-ethstetic problem with obesity in this country. Now, if this technology becomes ubiquitous and everyone knows they are being looked at, in the buff, perhaps people will pay more attention to their bodies' health and appearance, which go hand in hand. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, nakedness will become less taboo. I mean, if we are all being scoped out buck naked anyway, why bother wearing much clothing at all if both the temperature and the humididty are in the 90's as it is here in Chicago in the summertime. I like it.
I dunno about this. I think that this shows that -- assuming for the sake of argument that Shawn is legit and is not going to get his nuts in the wringer for posting here -- the Army showing an admiriable amount of transparency and willingness to work with the open source community. Also, the consideration of off-the-shelf components is salutory. This is a Good Thing. More secrecy and reliance on horrendusly expensive custom milspec hardware and procurement processes is a Bad Thing. THAT is what takes money from the mouths of the rank-and-file.
Presumably Shawn knows what he is about. From the brief mission requirements he gave, it sounds like these machines will be used to download and process sensor and flight recorder data from aircraft. This being the Army, this equals either helos, RPV's or small fixed wing aircraft. The high-end video then would be needed to review IR and low-light data. The sound card for cockpit and comms data.
Or he just wants to host a Q3 Arena during down-time.
This assumes that these servers are hooked up to the outside world. Sounds like they are planning on using them to download and process stored sensor data from something that flies. This being the Army, that imples helos or RPV's. If this is the case they will probably just be on an isolated LAN. After all if you are on a dirt firebase in Albania, you don't exactly have an OC3 out to the local backbone.
Ah, Marshall. An excellent paen to a forgotten hero as well as why the list thing is inane in te first place.
Assuming that you are right Mr. Brin -- and I think you have put together a very persuasive piece -- it is sad to say that Time would never put on the cover a visage and name that would leave 80% of the population under the age of 65 just scratching their heads going, "huh?"
Marshall may win on the fundamentals but I have to give Churchill the win on style points. Sure he was an egotist, but what a life he lived!
Also, gotta thow Gahndi in there. If one is consigering Dr. King, one should go straight to the source. He taught Dr. King everything he knew and made freedom possible for more than half a billion. King is such a navel-gazing, America-centric choice.
IMHO the "person(s)" of the year should be, as Jon pointed out, all the nameless, faceless people who used the internet to derail the WTO confernece and put the more troubling aspects of globalization on the front burner for the general public.
;)
When was the last time most Americans gave two seconds' thought to the World Trade Organization, or the costs & benefits of globalization in general? Granted, the protesters in Seattle pretty much hijacked the debate, but without them there would have been NO debate.
From world trade, to land-mines, to Linux, the true paradigm-shift (tired phrase but true in this case) brought about by the Internet is the ability of geographically and culturally disparate people to organize for both commercial gain and social justice. Just look at the Nobel Peace Prize. Three of the last five laureates have been organizations, The Pugwash conference ('95), Committe to Ban Land Mines ('97) and Medcins Sans Frontieres (99). And to hear Jody Williams put it, the Internet was THE vital factor in the success of the land mine initiative. That and Princess Dianna's contribution.
I seriously doubt if Amazon.com will even be a player in 3-4 years. Heck, they'll just be another online shop. Sure they were the first, but someone had to be. This was an idea whose time had come and someone would have done it eventually.
Lastly, I can't beleive anyone cares what Time Magazine says anymore. What a worthless rag!
Just throwing out a new Appleseed thread because I think it deserves it. I wrote an article on the clustering project at the UCLA Physics department nearly a year ago. They had achieved spectacular results using 300HHz Beige G3's and 100BaseT. Very simple setup using off-the-shelf hardware. I do not know if they have looked into using Firewire or Gigabit Ethernet and/or the new G4's yet. But, I would expect that the performance from a 8 or 16 box cluster of G4's with Gigibit Ethernet would pretty much blow away a beowulf cluster in both the performance and price categories. As for NT... don't make me laugh. Doctor Viktor Decyk is the project coordinator and would be glad to speak to you I am sure. The project website has been posted in a previous thread. Connor W. Anderson IT Manager Department of Radiology Univerisity of Chicago