I know lots of hypocrites, and some of them are otherwise perfectly nice people.
I don't personally know any traitors.
When Petraeus PURPOSELY WILLFULLY and with WANTON DISREGARD FOR THE LAW provided top secret, sensitive, and compartmentalized secure information to an outside party he committed TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
It is only a sign of the duality of justice for the 1% where he was given a misdemeanor slap on the rest.
For him to EVEN MENTION Snowden's name let alone mouth off as if he has any chops ... is an insult to traitors everywhere. For him to LIE and suggest [go through channels; whistleblower, etc, already covered above] is what I expect from a TRAITOR.
Do not forget.
Petraeus BETRAYED US. He committed treason against the United States of America. He is not someone who should be looked to for advice, opinion, suggestion, or commentary on how to behave in or around classified information. He is a DISGRACE to the UNIFORM, the armed services, and the many MEN AND WOMEN WHO WEAR THAT UNIFORM and don't betray the country.
So do I judge him for being a hypocrite? No. That's not even coming up to knee-biting level on him. He's a traitor.
Plaintiffs are unsympathetic and their claims infringe on free speech. That having been said, the article says:
"They argue (perhaps correctly), that the filing comes way too late"
There's no "perhaps correctly" about this:
Plaintiff's Opposition is clear: 1. "Courts have held that amicus briefs are untimely when they are filed after the parties’ briefing on the pertinent motion has already been completed." 2. "If LCS had submitted its proposed amicus brief in a federal appellate court, it would have been untimely by several weeks."
The article is behind a paywall. If you click directly above you will get the first paragraph and an invitation to sign in or sign up.
If, however, you go to news.google.com, type "The Encryption Farce" into the search bar, and click on the story link from there, it will work fine. (Note: it's the same link, but the referrer page of google news will get you in).
It's ok to call everybody else children and beneath your knowledge ("be an adult") but then you go and bring your own personal religion into it.
But* Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, be a realist about things. It's embarrassing when you're dressing down everyone on this topic and have to invoke your personal deity.
Ehud
*Never start a proper English sentence with a conjunction.
I know, we're having fun laughing at Donald Trump's incredibly wee wee-wee. The legal aspects, however, interest me more than another man's schlong*.
17USC512 does not have a "notice of takedown", merely a "notice of claimed infringement". Content providers have only the incentive of NOT-removing their "safe-harbor" if they take appropriate responses, of which taking content down is merely one of several options.
However, if you followed the Viacom v Youtube case you're aware that those "safe-harbor" provisions don't allow you to early remove a case (ala a motion for summary judgement, or as you'd see in a SLAPP cas) but rather must be litigated to its eventual conclusion/settlement.
The DMCA safe-harbor is a joke. It's not a funny one either. Most ISPs with half a brain disregard any of the process OR fall on the other side of taking down everything (e.g. youtube). Either way, if someone is determined to file suit, they will. What you do in response to the "notice of claimed infringement" is almost irrelevant.
Ehud
* Mike Masnick used it because Donald Trump uses it, so I used it in the same context. Also it's a perfectly fine word to describe OTHER people's private parts because "schlong" includes "long" but Donald's would be "schshort."
Ultralight aircraft as per 14CFR103 do not require a pilot to be certificated. However, there are other restrictions that make most ultralights not actually be able to fly under that part of the regulations. Pilots therefore do have to be certificated, hold a medical certificate as well, and do biennial flight reviews. http://www.usua.org/faq.htm
Specifically in this case, a "Jetpack" doesn't fit the definition of 14CFR103.1(4) by having a stall speed in excess of the allowed maximum of 24 knots. In layman's terms that means "Hey if the jetpack stopped producing thrust, how fast do you glide to keep from plopping into the ground." This is directly related to wing size and even wingsuit flyers have a stall speed in excess of twice that.
So forget about the 5gal fuel limit ... jetpacks will not be flown as ultralights...
Politics: Personal flying devices have been a dream of lots of people. Don't worry, neither law-enforcement nor the insurance lobby will ever let that be something you can do. There's not going to be any way to "enforce the laws" with that many people able to operate; the insurance companies would hate the unending liability; neither side will allow this to be made lawful.
The next time someone says "personal flying machine" or "flying car" "without needing a license" you can just smile and nod because that's not happening ever.
Ehud Gavron FAA Commercial Pilot - Helicopter Tucson AZ US
John85851 wrote: > In other words, this is another $47,000 spent to make it look like the TSA is "doing something".
Absolutely. All this talk of math is missing the forest for the trees.
The TSA's job is to prevent hazardous materials and dangerous people from crossing into the sterile area of a public airport. All the rest of this discussion is about a trivial piece of waving shiny object with an arrow on it which is all just a part of The Security Theater.
It's not really important whether it's truly random. As Whatever pointed out "A true randomizer (and not one that can be predicted)" is what's important. For being unpredictable the stock random functions are important enough.
We're very proud of the "American tradition" that our free-market economy, supply-and-demand, and market-driven focus allows "greater freedoms."
Of course ignoring tariffs*, trade-agreements, credit-exchanges, and other regulatory mechanisms that entirely make the above false, we get to the crux of the thing.
We love it when we can get a great deal on a new car because we did our homework. We love it when we find a great special at Macy's on that crystal photo frame we just didn't get as a gift at wedding number one. We love it when we can get five limes for a dollar instead of three.
On the flip side we're proud when we sold our used VW Bug for a few thousands of dollars over the estimated price. We love seeing that Blac Chyna will likely get one million dollars for "starring" in a KUWTK episode. We love it if our worthless script for "Time Tunnel 1980" (starring Barry Van Dyke and Kent McCord) is purchased for a million dollars.
So we love getting something for less than what it's worth. We love selling something for more than what it's worth.
This thing isn't a failure on IBM's part. IBM did their shareholders proud by collecting an amazing ("tragicomical"?) amount of money for a one-line app any schoolkid can code in under a minute. That someone put a graphical user interface (GUI) on it that's a big arrow, and someone else made it "tamper-proof"* is awesome.
What IS the problem is that our government -- which is supposed to have accountability and checks and balances -- not only happily approved this whole mess, but then tries to explain it's not as bad as we think it is.
So good on IBM and its shareholders for maintaining a profit margin on every app. Bad on the TSA for this. You can, however, consider that after fondling children, searching baby diapers, making people take out colostomy bags and various other things, having a mother drink her own breast milk, and holding travelers hostage for 15 years... this isn't even sweet icing on that cake.
Ehud
* Those blue regulation "genital fondling" gloves mean they can't hack anything. They don't trigger a response from capacitative-touch screens.
Here's what I said: Hello. The DMCA notice process is heavily abused both to silence criticism and censor speech and in blatant disregard for the actual Act itself and requirements for verification of proper content "ownership", lack of license or right to use (including fair use), and oftentimes no validity to the requested takedown target.
These create a chilling effect and are most often not challenged because of the potential liability of the challenger to statutory damages and the fight against a mega-corporation (or a shameless organization representing them like the RIAA or MPAA).
Our Constitutional rights are first and foremost protective of our freedom of speech and expression. The use of DMCA notices to take down content that people find objectionable, competitive, or otherwise take down for other censorious reasons violates our rights under the First Amendment. That in itself should lead to a change in the "burden" that someone sending such a notice has, and someone acting based on such a notice would have.
The lack of fact-checking, oftentimes issuing notice to content entirely unrelated to the sender's own copyrights, a lack of ability to punish those who regularly abuse this process, and no penalty to repeat offenders all contribute to a broken process.
HOW TO FIX THE DMCA NOTICE PROCESS: 1. Because aspects of copyright law (such as fair use and other exemptions) require a human being to verify the use to see if it's a violation of the Copyright, require a human to verify and swear under oath to its authenticity. Today's automated bots send out a fake electronically "signed" document that has no force of oath. 2. Someone who knowingly sends a notice for content for which either a. they do not have the copyright or copyright holder's permission in writing to represent them and their rights b. is not infringing (either through fair use or other reasons) c. does so more than once in 30 days will have to pay a penalty and will be prohibited from issuing takedown notices for 90 days. 3. Someone who uses the DMCA notice process to censor speech shall have to pay a penalty and will be prohibited from issuing takedown notices for one year. 4. People would be allowed to challenge and contest the DMCA notice without subjecting themselves to any additional liability.
ADDITIONALLY: 5. There is no requirement that anyone ever "take down" content. The only requirement is that when served a Notice the party will evaluate it and take the appropriate action --as they see fit-- not the DMCA notice maker. 6. There is no requirement that once something is removed anyone must look for other similar data and impact it as well. 7. There is no requirement that once something is removed it must "stay down".
The Internet is a great medium for the people of the world to share information. The United States not only pioneered the Internet technology but contributes heavily to Internet culture. Our emphasis on freedom of speech that is Constitutionally guaranteed sets us aside from foreign regimes that shutter their people's access (China) or prevent them from using social media (Turkey) or punishes them harshly for downloading songs (Iran). It's time we took our antiquated idea of allowing a few censorious DMCA thugs to take down content without human review.
The FBI has pretended its mission includes fighting terrorism, and Techdirt has covered this. Now it pretends its mission is to break into iphones.
In reality the FBI was formed to solve crimes. This crime is solved. Syed Farook (or as previous commenter would rather he be called "San Bernardino Shooter McGavin or Whatever) is dead. He and his ugly-ass wife* killed a bunch of people and then they died. This crime is solved.
The crime (manslaughter) was committed in California, hatched in California, done by Californians, and ended in California. Other than watching a bunch of movies where the FBI comes in and "declares" they're in charge much to the lack of delight of the immediate law-enforcement agency I don't see where HERE the FBI has *ANY* jurisdiction.
I think the FBI stepped over its own dick in the worst possible way in three separate methods - they didn't have jurisdiction - they tried to make this the raison d'etre for Apple to OBEY YOUR GOVERNMENT MASTERS - they committed perjury, lying to the Court about there being no other methods and them having consulted everyone about unlocking the iphone.
Linkies to previous TD stories about the FBI's mission-motto creep, Edward Snowden's tweets about perjury, various experts opining on the iphone, and analysis about the AWA left out because if you read TD and its comments you know how to read those on your own.
Sorry, FBI, you're useless and obsolete. Better mission-creep your motto to something you're good at doing. Right now that doesn't include law enforcement, investigation, terrorism, using obsolete arcane laws, or parading about your knowledge (or ignorance).
Ehud
* Total opinion here, but they're dead, so not only can I not be sued for slander but there's nobody with standing anyway :)
Between their desire to monetize thumbnails, and the right to be forgotten in countries in which you've never been known, the French are showing their keen sense of missing the obvious.
They just haven't gotten over the fact that the lingua franca of the modern day is American English.
If Apple hadn't filed a response the FBI could move to dismiss and the Court would typically let them.
However in this case there's a response and a motion and so they can delay (with the Court's approval) but in the end unless they sweet-talk Apple then Apple's reply and motion will be heard.
"Mike Masnick... make an achievement... before you come blabbing and running your lips..."
Actually THIS IS Mike Masnick's website. He didn't COME blabbing and running his lips. YOU came to HIS website blabbing and running your lips.*
Ehud * In modern English the words you meant to use were blabbering and running your mouth off. Of course to expect literacy from a hater that tells a website owner off while drowing in invisible irony is an exercise in futility.
On the post: David Patraeus, Who Leaked Classified Info To His Mistress, Says Snowden Should Be Prosecuted
Hypocrisy is not a crime, treason is.
I don't personally know any traitors.
When Petraeus PURPOSELY WILLFULLY and with WANTON DISREGARD FOR THE LAW provided top secret, sensitive, and compartmentalized secure information to an outside party he committed TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
It is only a sign of the duality of justice for the 1% where he was given a misdemeanor slap on the rest.
For him to EVEN MENTION Snowden's name let alone mouth off as if he has any chops ... is an insult to traitors everywhere. For him to LIE and suggest [go through channels; whistleblower, etc, already covered above] is what I expect from a TRAITOR.
Do not forget.
Petraeus BETRAYED US. He committed treason against the United States of America. He is not someone who should be looked to for advice, opinion, suggestion, or commentary on how to behave in or around classified information. He is a DISGRACE to the UNIFORM, the armed services, and the many MEN AND WOMEN WHO WEAR THAT UNIFORM and don't betray the country.
So do I judge him for being a hypocrite? No. That's not even coming up to knee-biting level on him. He's a traitor.
Ehud
On the post: The Fight Over Copyrighting Klingon Heats Up, And Gets More Ridiculous
Untimely amici
"They argue (perhaps correctly), that the filing comes way too late"
There's no "perhaps correctly" about this:
Plaintiff's Opposition is clear:
1. "Courts have held that amicus briefs are untimely when they are filed after the parties’ briefing on the pertinent motion has already been completed."
2. "If LCS had submitted its proposed amicus brief in a federal appellate court, it would have been untimely by several weeks."
Mr. Randazza is a masterful scholar of the defense and the direct use of free expression... except when he uses the DMCA to censor others' use of the same. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/embattled-copyright-lawyer-uses-dmca-to-remove-article-ab out-himself/
E
On the post: Even The Surveillance-Loving Wall Street Journal Is Bashing The FBI For Its War With Apple
paywall
If, however, you go to news.google.com, type "The Encryption Farce" into the search bar, and click on the story link from there, it will work fine. (Note: it's the same link, but the referrer page of google news will get you in).
Ehud
On the post: Not Funny: How The OFAC Is Outlawing Even The Lamest Attempts At Humor Over Terrorist Fears
Dumb and stupid
It was just incredibly stupid.
Dumb is the inability to speak. Stupid is epitomized by the behavior of our reactionary governmental fools.
E
On the post: Nothing About The Story Of An Artist Being Threatened With A Lawsuit Over A Painting Of A Small-Dicked Donald Trump Makes Sense
Re: The expected response:
...and the Yaley says "I'm so sorry, Sir, but can you tell me where the library is at, a**hole."
Agreed though that Trump's wee wee-wee is of no factor in his opportunity to totally f*** up this country. You're right on that one.
Best
E
On the post: Nothing About The Story Of An Artist Being Threatened With A Lawsuit Over A Painting Of A Small-Dicked Donald Trump Makes Sense
Re: It never ceases to amaze me
But* Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, be a realist about things. It's embarrassing when you're dressing down everyone on this topic and have to invoke your personal deity.
Ehud
*Never start a proper English sentence with a conjunction.
On the post: Nothing About The Story Of An Artist Being Threatened With A Lawsuit Over A Painting Of A Small-Dicked Donald Trump Makes Sense
DMCA
17USC512 does not have a "notice of takedown", merely a "notice of claimed infringement". Content providers have only the incentive of NOT-removing their "safe-harbor" if they take appropriate responses, of which taking content down is merely one of several options.
However, if you followed the Viacom v Youtube case you're aware that those "safe-harbor" provisions don't allow you to early remove a case (ala a motion for summary judgement, or as you'd see in a SLAPP cas) but rather must be litigated to its eventual conclusion/settlement.
The DMCA safe-harbor is a joke. It's not a funny one either. Most ISPs with half a brain disregard any of the process OR fall on the other side of taking down everything (e.g. youtube). Either way, if someone is determined to file suit, they will. What you do in response to the "notice of claimed infringement" is almost irrelevant.
Ehud
* Mike Masnick used it because Donald Trump uses it, so I used it in the same context. Also it's a perfectly fine word to describe OTHER people's private parts because "schlong" includes "long" but Donald's would be "schshort."
On the post: DailyDirt: Personal Flying Machines
Ultralight ... and jetpacks... and politics
Specifically in this case, a "Jetpack" doesn't fit the definition of 14CFR103.1(4) by having a stall speed in excess of the allowed maximum of 24 knots. In layman's terms that means "Hey if the jetpack stopped producing thrust, how fast do you glide to keep from plopping into the ground." This is directly related to wing size and even wingsuit flyers have a stall speed in excess of twice that.
So forget about the 5gal fuel limit ... jetpacks will not be flown as ultralights...
Politics:
Personal flying devices have been a dream of lots of people. Don't worry, neither law-enforcement nor the insurance lobby will ever let that be something you can do. There's not going to be any way to "enforce the laws" with that many people able to operate; the insurance companies would hate the unending liability; neither side will allow this to be made lawful.
The next time someone says "personal flying machine" or "flying car" "without needing a license" you can just smile and nod because that's not happening ever.
Ehud Gavron
FAA Commercial Pilot - Helicopter
Tucson AZ US
On the post: FOIA Documents Expose Details On TSA's $47,000 Coin Flipping App
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Price Is Right-ish.
> In other words, this is another $47,000 spent to make it look like the TSA is "doing something".
Absolutely. All this talk of math is missing the forest for the trees.
The TSA's job is to prevent hazardous materials and dangerous people from crossing into the sterile area of a public airport. All the rest of this discussion is about a trivial piece of waving shiny object with an arrow on it which is all just a part of The Security Theater.
Ehud
On the post: FOIA Documents Expose Details On TSA's $47,000 Coin Flipping App
"True Random" vs "Pseudo Random"
See http://www.2uo.de/myths-about-urandom/ for a much more thorough discussion.
However, whatever random function they used, it's still a huge chunk of change...
On the post: FOIA Documents Expose Details On TSA's $47,000 Coin Flipping App
mas o menos
Of course ignoring tariffs*, trade-agreements, credit-exchanges, and other regulatory mechanisms that entirely make the above false, we get to the crux of the thing.
We love it when we can get a great deal on a new car because we did our homework. We love it when we find a great special at Macy's on that crystal photo frame we just didn't get as a gift at wedding number one. We love it when we can get five limes for a dollar instead of three.
On the flip side we're proud when we sold our used VW Bug for a few thousands of dollars over the estimated price. We love seeing that Blac Chyna will likely get one million dollars for "starring" in a KUWTK episode. We love it if our worthless script for "Time Tunnel 1980" (starring Barry Van Dyke and Kent McCord) is purchased for a million dollars.
So we love getting something for less than what it's worth.
We love selling something for more than what it's worth.
This thing isn't a failure on IBM's part. IBM did their shareholders proud by collecting an amazing ("tragicomical"?) amount of money for a one-line app any schoolkid can code in under a minute. That someone put a graphical user interface (GUI) on it that's a big arrow, and someone else made it "tamper-proof"* is awesome.
What IS the problem is that our government -- which is supposed to have accountability and checks and balances -- not only happily approved this whole mess, but then tries to explain it's not as bad as we think it is.
So good on IBM and its shareholders for maintaining a profit margin on every app. Bad on the TSA for this. You can, however, consider that after fondling children, searching baby diapers, making people take out colostomy bags and various other things, having a mother drink her own breast milk, and holding travelers hostage for 15 years... this isn't even sweet icing on that cake.
Ehud
* Those blue regulation "genital fondling" gloves mean they can't hack anything. They don't trigger a response from capacitative-touch screens.
On the post: Want To Tell The Copyright Office To Stop Abusive DMCA Takedowns? Here's How
Re: Re: Mr Gavron
Ehud
On the post: Want To Tell The Copyright Office To Stop Abusive DMCA Takedowns? Here's How
I told 'em.
Hello. The DMCA notice process is heavily abused both to silence criticism and censor speech and in blatant disregard for the actual Act itself and requirements for verification of proper content "ownership", lack of license or right to use (including fair use), and oftentimes no validity to the requested takedown target.
These create a chilling effect and are most often not challenged because of the potential liability of the challenger to statutory damages and the fight against a mega-corporation (or a shameless organization representing them like the RIAA or MPAA).
Our Constitutional rights are first and foremost protective of our freedom of speech and expression. The use of DMCA notices to take down content that people find objectionable, competitive, or otherwise take down for other censorious reasons violates our rights under the First Amendment. That in itself should lead to a change in the "burden" that someone sending such a notice has, and someone acting based on such a notice would have.
The lack of fact-checking, oftentimes issuing notice to content entirely unrelated to the sender's own copyrights, a lack of ability to punish those who regularly abuse this process, and no penalty to repeat offenders all contribute to a broken process.
HOW TO FIX THE DMCA NOTICE PROCESS:
1. Because aspects of copyright law (such as fair use and other exemptions) require a human being to verify the use to see if it's a violation of the Copyright, require a human to verify and swear under oath to its authenticity. Today's automated bots send out a fake electronically "signed" document that has no force of oath.
2. Someone who knowingly sends a notice for content for which either
a. they do not have the copyright or copyright holder's permission in writing to represent them and their rights
b. is not infringing (either through fair use or other reasons)
c. does so more than once in 30 days
will have to pay a penalty and will be prohibited from issuing takedown notices for 90 days.
3. Someone who uses the DMCA notice process to censor speech shall have to pay a penalty and will be prohibited from issuing takedown notices for one year.
4. People would be allowed to challenge and contest the DMCA notice without subjecting themselves to any additional liability.
ADDITIONALLY:
5. There is no requirement that anyone ever "take down" content. The only requirement is that when served a Notice the party will evaluate it and take the appropriate action --as they see fit-- not the DMCA notice maker.
6. There is no requirement that once something is removed anyone must look for other similar data and impact it as well.
7. There is no requirement that once something is removed it must "stay down".
The Internet is a great medium for the people of the world to share information. The United States not only pioneered the Internet technology but contributes heavily to Internet culture. Our emphasis on freedom of speech that is Constitutionally guaranteed sets us aside from foreign regimes that shutter their people's access (China) or prevent them from using social media (Turkey) or punishes them harshly for downloading songs (Iran). It's time we took our antiquated idea of allowing a few censorious DMCA thugs to take down content without human review.
Best regards
Ehud Gavron
Tucson AZ US
On the post: Oh, Look: Yet Another Security Flaw In Government Websites
Argument by example
Ehud
On the post: iPhone Forensics Experts Demonstrate Basic Proof Of Concept That The iPhone Hack The FBI Says 'Doesn't Work' Actually Does Work
FBI lies
In reality the FBI was formed to solve crimes. This crime is solved. Syed Farook (or as previous commenter would rather he be called "San Bernardino Shooter McGavin or Whatever) is dead. He and his ugly-ass wife* killed a bunch of people and then they died. This crime is solved.
The crime (manslaughter) was committed in California, hatched in California, done by Californians, and ended in California. Other than watching a bunch of movies where the FBI comes in and "declares" they're in charge much to the lack of delight of the immediate law-enforcement agency I don't see where HERE the FBI has *ANY* jurisdiction.
I think the FBI stepped over its own dick in the worst possible way in three separate methods
- they didn't have jurisdiction
- they tried to make this the raison d'etre for Apple to OBEY YOUR GOVERNMENT MASTERS
- they committed perjury, lying to the Court about there being no other methods and them having consulted everyone about unlocking the iphone.
Linkies to previous TD stories about the FBI's mission-motto creep, Edward Snowden's tweets about perjury, various experts opining on the iphone, and analysis about the AWA left out because if you read TD and its comments you know how to read those on your own.
Sorry, FBI, you're useless and obsolete. Better mission-creep your motto to something you're good at doing. Right now that doesn't include law enforcement, investigation, terrorism, using obsolete arcane laws, or parading about your knowledge (or ignorance).
Ehud
* Total opinion here, but they're dead, so not only can I not be sued for slander but there's nobody with standing anyway :)
On the post: French Politicians Want To Create Ancillary Copyright In Thumbnail Images
Right to forgotten thumbnails, oh my
They just haven't gotten over the fact that the lingua franca of the modern day is American English.
Ehud
On the post: DOJ To Court: Hey, Can We Postpone Tomorrow's Hearing? We Want To See If We Can Use This New Hole To Hack In
Re:
However in this case there's a response and a motion and so they can delay (with the Court's approval) but in the end unless they sweet-talk Apple then Apple's reply and motion will be heard.
On the post: Another Story Of A 'Fake' Brilliant Inventor? Is 'Scorpion Walter O'Brien' A Real Computer Security Genius?
Re: Walter O'brien
Actually THIS IS Mike Masnick's website. He didn't COME blabbing and running his lips. YOU came to HIS website blabbing and running your lips.*
Ehud
* In modern English the words you meant to use were blabbering and running your mouth off. Of course to expect literacy from a hater that tells a website owner off while drowing in invisible irony is an exercise in futility.
On the post: What Should We Do About Linking To Sites That Block People Using Ad Blockers?
Point to another source
Instead of linking to them, how about a hat tip to them and a link to an alternate source? I envision:
Original article at [source name but not a real URL] blocks ad-blocker viewers so instead of that here's a working link: [working URL]
Example:
Original article at Forbes blocks ad-blocker viewers so instead of that please see https://www.linksRus.com/linkie.html
E
On the post: Another Story Of A 'Fake' Brilliant Inventor? Is 'Scorpion Walter O'Brien' A Real Computer Security Genius?
Back to the topic...
As much fun as it is to point out that our third-world friend makes no sense, that is not the point of this discussion thread.
Sorry, "South African" Troll Boy, you'll have to go get your jollies somewhere else.
Ehud
Next >>