Apple and malware

[Randall Bart]

'Twas Fri, 5 Sep 2003 08:13:21 -0400 when all alt.privacy.spyware stood in
awe as "mto" <nobody@dontsendmeanyspam.thanks> uttered:

>But the guy that put a car in your driveway was Ford - not
>Daimler, Benz, Olds etc. They all built cars for the wealthy rather than
>the masses. Ford changed history as they say with his most important
>invention - the assembly line.

Correct. Ford's great invention was not the automobile, but the assembly
line. He was the father of mass production. His cars weren't the best,
but he could build a lot of them and sell them at a price the masses could
afford.

He advertised that his cars were any color you like, just paint it
yourself. Very few people bothered to paint over the black primer, so the
joke was any color you like as long as it's black.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ admin@RandallBart.spam.com Barticus@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam I LOVE YOU 1-917-715-0831
dt ||\ http://RandallBart.com/ Ånåheim Ångels 2002 World Chåmps!
a |/ Multiple sclerosis: http://www.cbc.ca/webone/alison/
l |\ DOT-HS-808-065 The Church Of The Unauthorized Truth:
l |/ MS^7=6/28/107 http://yg.cotut.com mailto:s@cotut.com

[James E. Morrow]

Randall Bart <Barticus@att.spam.net> wrote in
news:dujklv82q1qjbdj3kqmn44j82odve5e0rp@4ax.com:

> 'Twas Fri, 05 Sep 2003 19:56:16 GMT when all alt.privacy.spyware
> stood in awe as LESLIE@JRLVAX.HOUSTON.RR.COM (leslie) uttered:
>
>>Nicolas Joseph Cugnot...
>>
>> http://inventors.about.com/library/w...carssteama.htm
>> The History of the Automobile - Steam Cars
>>
>> "...In 1769, the very first self-propelled road vehicle was a
>> military
>> tractor invented by French engineer and mechanic, Nicolas
>> Joseph Cugnot (1725 - 1804). Cugnot used a steam engine to
>> power his vehicle, built under his instructions at the Paris
>> Arsenal by mechanic Brezin. It was used by the French Army to
>> haul artillery at a whopping speed of 2 1/2 mph on only three
>> wheels. The vehicle had to stop every ten to fifteen minutes to
>> build up steam power. The steam engine and boiler were separate
>> from the rest of the vehicle and placed in the front (see
>> engraving above). The following year (1770), Cugnot built a
>> steam-powered tricycle that carried four passengers.
>>
>> In 1771, Cugnot drove one of his road vehicles into a stone
>> wall, making Cugnot the first person to get into a motor
>> vehicle accident. This was the beginning of bad luck for the
>> inventor. After one of Cugnot's patrons died and the other was
>> exiled, the money for Cugnot's road vehicle experiments
>> ended..."
>
> Thank you. The way it was presented on some PBS show, he crashed
> his first day out and gave up. This paints a very different
> picture. It seems Cugnot was memorable character after all. The
> vehicle was impractical in its time, and could only exist through
> the largesse of patrons. Genius inventors are always hindered by
> the primitive tools they have to work with.

For the record the first American automobile was built by the Duryea
brothers in 1896. This excludes some steam power contraptions built
earlier. By 1896 the European auto industry was well advanced.

http://www.modelt.org/articles/art_tcent.htm

Henry Ford invented almost nothing.

The Cugnot vehicle was intended to pull artillery for the French Army.
Had history been different Napoleon might have had his own blitzkrieg.

--
James E. Morrow
Email to: jamesemorrow@email.com

[Gail Pamphilon]

Quoth Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net>:

>WordPerfect was a very popular MS-DOS application *long* before the Mac was
>ever introduced; but even that is not the platform upon which it started
>out. I'll wager you don't even know who the original author/publisher of

Now you've got me interested. My vintage dates back to WordPerfect
(ugh) for DOS by WordPerfect Corporation, I actually taught myself 4.2
on the library computer. Also superior in every way (then, not now),
Word for DOS (with the original and only decent mouse), version
unknown, as it was ages ago. All right, Holden and Ford, but still!
;-) Boy, we had to use our brains and imagination to get around the
limitations back then. Windows aficionados might be surprised at what
we managed to do.

Before that, it was the horrendous WordStar and MultiMate, thank
goodness I didn't have to endure them for long. Though even they had
nothing on Word version 1, which one company I temped with was
incredibly still using.

So tell us. Where did WordPerfect start, if not in DOS with WC? I have
long memories, so I'm interested.

For the further edification of the dim bulb you were writing to, I
remember that when WordPerfect was released for the Macintosh, the
d*heads ported it over exactly as it was, with no attempt to rewrite
it for Mac conditions. You can imagine the howls of outrage from
insulted Mac-only users. ;-) My brother was the only person who didn't
mind, as he was used to Word and WordPerfect on the PC and used to
both PC and Mac.

Interesting that Xerox had lots of applications that were copied by
other companies. I knew they invented the GUI, but that's all I knew.
You'd think I wasn't around during that time - I had no idea computers
existed back then, a lot of people didn't. :-) How we missed out!

Gail
c|_|

If you want to email me, use your imagination first.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 00:33:39 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, tony@well.com
wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Today's computers and software are sophisticated enough for any number
> of solutions to a problem. But as I indicated in my original post, I
> want to simplify my life, not compete in cleverness with my electronic
> gadgetry.
[snip]

All the more reason to adopt *permanent* solutions (or at least, as close to
that as technologically feasible).

> I want a machine that will run and produce with a minimum
> amount of attention and involvement on my part. Tinkering is no longer
> amusing or rewarding.
>
[snip]

IOW, you want a "toaster" -- an "appliance" so brain-dead simple that any
moron can use it without significant risk. Unfortunately for you, computers
are NOT toasters, and I highly doubt they ever will be. We are, in fact,
going in the opposite direction. So you have a choice:

1. - You can do your best imitation of "Three Monkeys"[1], and to the extent
that is successful *pretend* it's a toaster. But that *will* bite you in
the a__ sooner or later, mark my words.

2. - You can accept the fact that computers are not toasters, and learn what
you must in order to deal with that fact competently.

3. - You can say "Fsck it!", pull the plug, and walk away.

Which road you take is completely up to you.


Footnotes -
1. <http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/m-p/noevil.shtml>


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 03:08:10 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Surreal Killer
<not.here@all.now> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Matter of perspective, mayhaps? As evidenced in my other article, I
> was referencing the Alto, and I believe you refer to the Star.
[snip]

Yes, more-or-less. The discussion was focused on the antecedants of Windows
and the Mac -- which most directly would be the Star, even tho' the Alto
incorporated *some* of the same features (and was significantly marketed;
I'm not sure the Star ever was, probably because by then the cost issue was
too great a barrier).

> These
> youngsters just cannot bring themselves to believe there was anything
> before the Mac or PC. <g>
>
[snip]

It's as if the (broken) logic is, "If I don't know about it, it must not
exist" -- which is more than a bit egocentric, to say the least. But it's
not just "youngsters" (tho' obviously, youth is particularly prone to this
particular flavor of irrationality); I've seen 50-year-olds with advanced
cases of precisely the same mental myopia.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:42:41 +1000, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Gail Pamphilon
<gail@melbpc.thinkcarefully.org.au> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Now you've got me interested. My vintage dates back to WordPerfect
> (ugh) for DOS by WordPerfect Corporation,
[snip]

"Ugh" is right. We used to call it "WordIMperfect", and that was a huge
understatement.

> I actually taught myself 4.2
> on the library computer.
[snip]

So you first encountered it after it had been saturation marketed for the
MS-DOS/IBM-PC platform. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, of
course; but hold the thought because it does impact on your later
comments...

> Also superior in every way (then, not now),
> Word for DOS (with the original and only decent mouse), version
> unknown, as it was ages ago.
[snip]

Well, I didn't much care for MS Word, even at v1.0; but I'll grant you that
it was better than WordIMperfect.

> All right, Holden and Ford, but still!
> ;-) Boy, we had to use our brains and imagination to get around the
> limitations back then.
[snip]

And one of the biggest reasons for that is that too many software vendors
tried (and still try) to do your thinking for you, in a misguided belief
that this made/makes their product "easier to use" -- which was one of the
BIG marketing buzzwords back then. But the reality is that there is a HUGE
difference between "easy to use" and "easy to stumble around blindly without
any clue as to what you're doing, yet still eventually accomplish
*something*". It was precisely this misconception which led to Windows, in
fact. But I'm getting ahead of myself a bit here; so before I digress too
far, let's move on...

> Windows aficionados might be surprised at what
> we managed to do.
>
[snip]

At least most "Windows aficionados" only qualify for that description
because they don't know any better.

> Before that, it was the horrendous WordStar and MultiMate, thank
> goodness I didn't have to endure them for long.
[snip]

Whoa, Nellie!

This is where you're derailing, big time.

MultiMate shared many of the same fundamental problems that plagued
WordIMperfect, mostly for the same reasons -- they were both ports of
existing mainframe/terminal programs, which (at least at first) did not make
the transition to the microcomputer/"personal computer" environment all that
gracefully. Their marketing departments would tell you (as loudly as they
could muster) quite differently, of course; but the fact is that both of
these applications were written for systems with dedicated terminals, mostly
with dedicated function keys designed to support these very apps (or at
least apps very much like them, such as Wang dedicated wordprocessor
terminals). Hence, the very basis of their user interface was flat-out
*missing* on the microcomputer platforms; and the necessarily kludged
replacements they came up with based on the generic IBM PC F-keys was a poor
substitute, at best.

WordStar, however, was a very different story, and you do it a great
disservice to call it "horrendous". Wordstar was originally written for the
CP/M environment, which meant that anything beyond a plain-vanilla ASCII
terminal/keyboard *could*not* be assumed by the programmers. This
"limitation" was actually a very good thing for the development of the
program's user interface, because it led directly to the "WordStar
Diamond"[1] -- a fundamentally intuitive selection of cursor-control
keystrokes (in combination with the Ctrl key, of course) which went on to
become an industry standard, widely copied/imitated by MANY other text
editors and word processors (except, ironically enough, those which were
most directly competing with WordStar at the time -- due of course to "Not
Invented Here Syndrome"). The WordStar command interface remains a classic
today (you can even download a shareware utility to implement this command
structure in your copy of MS Word 97/2000[2]) precisely because, in addition
to its intuitiveness, it is "easy to use" -- in the *true* sense of that
phrase. Your hands never need to leave the home row to perform virtually
all commands and text manipulations.

WordStar also had several other advanced -- yet under-appreciated by the
Johnny-come-latelys who got seduced by the slick (and in some cases,
libelous and unethical) marketing campaigns conducted by the publishers of
Word, Multimate, and WordIMperfect in particular -- features. Chief among
these were the fact that it did *not* force you to wade through menu after
menu to perform routine tasks -- yet the menus *were* available, if and when
you needed them (such as while learning the program, for example). Even
slicker, the on-screen help levels were user-selectable; so that once the
very basics were mastered, you could get back virtually all of your screen
"real estate" (which was a *very* precious commodity in that era of 80x24
character-based displays) to use for it's best purpose: the actual editing
window. Yet, the command interface was also implemented an automatic
time-sensitive "progression" to more complete/detailed help/menus for the
lesser-used commands that the user might not instantly remember -- so if you
knew what you wanted to do, you just *did* it, without the program getting
in the way; and if you didn't, the program would gently help you along, with
a minimum of muss and fuss. This is the core of what I was saying above
about the difference between "truly easy to use" vs. "initially *appearing*
easy to a novice -- but then proving that appearances are deceiving".

Still more unique-to-WordStar features: An elegant way of embedding printing
codes and spacing commands in the text file without making it unreadable
using any of zillions of other tools (including the OS command line) which
expected to find "normal" ASCII text files; an always-available "WYSIWYG"
representation of the actual *file* contents, which made fancy formatting
and troubleshooting MUCH easier (by comparison, recall WP's horrid "reveal
codes" command? Yecchh!); *published* entry points and data values for
virtually all program variables, permitting *extensive* customization of the
program's operation to suit the individual user's needs; a completely
customizable printer interface, permitting the user to make the program
support printers that were not even designed when the program was released
-- for example, I use it with an HP LaserJet 4P/MP, with full functionality
*including* Postscript; and if I bought a newer/fancier printer today, it
could support that too. It was also *dead* reliable -- unlike WordIMperfect
which would not only crash regularly, it would take the entire *disk* with
it (to the point of requiring reformatting -- bye-bye data) in the process;
and it only took removing a floppy from the drive at the "wrong" moment to
trigger such idiotic travesties.

In short, WordStar was (and remains to this day -- I *still* use v7.0D
whenever I need to *write*, as opposed to make overly fussy "pretty pages")
a FAR superior writer's tool than the programs which eventually killed it in
the marketplace. It died not because it wasn't good, but because it got
out-marketed by the purveyors of inferior products. This was partly
(perhaps largely) due to the fact that MicroPro (the company which
originally wrote and published WordStar) severely shot themselves in the
foot multiple times during the course of "The Word Processor Wars" (which,
in turn, was due in large part to the loss of key personnel, and in other
large part to some just-plain-dumb marketing decisions)[3].

> Though even they had
> nothing on Word version 1, which one company I temped with was
> incredibly still using.
>
[snip]

MS-Word was originally written more-or-less from scratch for MS-DOS (and the
IBM PC in particular); so it did not suffer from most of the legacy issues
that plagued Multimate and WordIMperfect. But MS also failed to appreciate
the "easy to use vs. easy to learn" wisdom inherent in the WordStar user
interface. As a result, it looked real good to newbies on a showroom floor
(and thus sold well). But even after you learned the basics of the program,
it forced you to continue to _act_like_ a novice, stepping through menus
(which you could not remove from the screen), pointing at things with the
mouse (which of course made you remove your hands from the Home Row), etc.
-- all of which served to slow you down and kill productivity. (IIRC, they
later added Ctrl-key and Alt-key aliases for a lot of the menu-based
commands, in an attempt to ameliorate this gaffe; but the entire existing
command structure was such that they could not come up with anything so
elegant and intuitive as the WordStar Diamond.) It also used a proprietarty
binary file format that nothing else understood, and which (for the most
part, anyway) could not be "edited by hand" to rescue it in the event of a
disk problem or something like that. And forget customizing it
significantly, or supporting new printers -- it is only a small exaggeration
to say that if MS didn't support it out of the box, you were S.O.L (thus
forming the start of the "endless upgrade merry-go-round" that the MS
marketing department has thrived on for decades now).

Now, as for why you liked it... I suspect that part of that was because you
found it *initially* easy to cope with, probably with little or no formal
instruction. That is to be expected, since the program was designed to do
exactly that. But you probably also did not have the benefit of proper
instruction (or sufficient experience) with WordStar, which was *not*
written primarily to impress newbies, thus slanting your perceptions. Also,
by the time MS-Word was introduced and gaining popularity, WordStar was
already starting to lose the "creeping featureitis" races which drove
("plagued" might be the better term) the microcomputer software market at
that time. "Features" (regardless of whether they were really useful or
valuable in the long-term) equated to "something for magazine reviewers to
talk about", particularly if said reviewers were sufficiently inexperienced
or unsophisticated to lack appreciation for subtler (but ultimately more
important) forms of functionality -- which most of them were (remember, this
was all during the big microcomputer boom of the '80s; so "inexperienced and
unsophisticated" was *everywhere*, including on the editorial staffs of the
big-name specialty-market magazines). Hence, the "newer, shinier" programs
got the rave reviews, and so the zillions of newbies entering the market for
the first time started gravitating to them -- and as they say, the rest is
history.

> So tell us. Where did WordPerfect start, if not in DOS with WC? I have
> long memories, so I'm interested.
>
[snip]

Well, I guess "mto" has had long enough to pipe up, if he was going to
(yeah, riiiiiight), so.... <drum-roll please>

WordPerfect was originally released as "SSI*WP" (based on the earlier
"P-Edit" text editor) by "Satellite Software International", nee "Satellite
Systems, Inc.", in March of 1980, carrying a retail price tag of $5,500 per
copy. It ran ONLY on Data General systems, using DG's "AOS" operating
system, and only with Data General terminals, for which it was specifically
written. By the time it made it to the MS-DOS platform (as v2.20) late the
following year, the official product name was "WordPerfect", but both that
*and* "SSI*WP" appeared on the manual covers, IIRC. And oh, the price tag
had dropped to less than 10% of the original (a sub-$300 "street price" was
generally considered the the "market ceiling" for microcomputer
wordprocessors back then -- but remember, this was in 1981 dollars). In
1986, "Satellite Software International" became "WordPerfect Corporation",
as they committed their focus to a single product after several abortive
attempts (read: "dismal failures") to broaden their line with such things as
spreadsheets, programming languages, legal time & billing, and so on. Later
that same year, the version you first encountered (4.2) was released (back
then, it was "de rigueur" for nearly *all* new products, versions, etc.,
regardless of vendor, to be officially introduced at the COMDEX trade show
held each November in Las Vegas; a much smaller number were launched at the
"Spring COMDEX" in Chicago).

And thus endeth today's stroll down Memory Lane. ;-)


Footnotes -

1. The following illustration originally by Dan Strychalski
<dski[at]cameonet.cameo.com.tw>; edited to reduce line-length by Jay T.
Blocksom (use FIXED-PITCH font to view correctly):

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------ The WordStar Cursor Diamond and Scrolling Square ------------
.-------. .--------------.--------------.
| Quick*| | Line Up _.-' `-._ Scrn Up |
| ^Q | | ^W _.-' ^E `-._ ^R |
`-------' | _.-' Line up `-._ |
_.-' `-._
..----------. _.-' Word Char Char Word `-._
| Home-row | .-' ^A ^S _|_ ^D ^F `-.
| Ctrl key | `-._ Left Left | Right Right _.-'
`----------' `-._ _.-'
/ `-._ _.-' ^ = Ctrl
Cursor Control | `-._ Line Down _.-' | ^X = Ctrl+x
| ^Z `-._ ^X _.-' ^C | ^Qx = Ctrl+q, then x
Viewframe Control --| Line Dn `-._ _.-' Scrn Dn | ^Qx = ^QX = ^Q^X
`--------------"--------------'
*"Quick" Functions:
------ Cursor ------- ------- Viewframe ------ --- Miscellaneous ---
^Qe: top of screen | ^Qw: auto-scroll up | ^Qa: search & replace
^Qs: left edge | ^Qz: auto-scroll down | ^Qf: search
^Qd: right edge | ^Qr: jump to top of file | ^Qq: repeat next char
^Qx: bottom of screen | ^Qc: jump to end of file | or command
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Left hand: All movement Middle: Risky functions Right hand: All others
.---------------------.--------------.----------------------------.
Quick | ======== Up ======= | == Delete == | ====== Menus & Misc ====== |
Funcs | Scr Cursor Scr | | Undo/ On-scrn Print |
===== | 1 Ln 1 Ln 1 Scr | Word Line | Cancel Tab Format Ctrls |
..---. | .---. .---. .---. | .---. .---. | .---. .---. .---. .---. |
|^Q*| | |^W | |^E | |^R | | |^T | |^Y | | |^U | |^I** |^O*| |^P*| |
`---' | `---' `---' `---' | `---' `---' | `---' `---' `---' `---' |
.----' `-. `-. |
| ======= Left/Right ======= | Char Char Lf | Help Block Last Search |
| .---Left---. .---Right--. | .---. .---. | .---. .---. .---. (or |
| |^A | |^S | |^D | |^F | | |^G | |^H** | |^J*| |^K*| |^L | srch |
| `---' `---' `---' `---' | `---' `---' | `---' `---' `---' and |
| Word Char Char Word | (Bksp)| ("File") repl)|
`--. .---' - - - - - .-' .------------'
| .---. .---. .---. | .---. .---. |.---. .---. | == Legend ==
| |^Z | |^X | |^C | | |^V | |^B | ||^N | |^M** | ^ = Ctrl
| `---' `---' `---' | `---' `---' |`---' `---' | === Note ===
| Scr Cursor Scr | Ins/ "Box Up" | Add Add New | All commands
| 1 Ln 1 Ln 1 Scr | Ovr- (Reform) | New Line and | are case-
| ====== Down ====== | type P'graph | Line Go Down | insensitive.
`---------------------`----------------'---------------'
*^Q ^O ^P ^J ^K : Prefix keys; display menus showing available functions.
**^H ^I ^M ......: Universal editing keys. Defined in ASCII and Unicode.
"Quick" Funcs .: Long cursor jumps, search, search and replace, math...
"Block" Funcs .: Select, move, copy, save, quit, print, open... almost
: anything which dealt with "blocks" of text
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

See also:

<http://www.techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm?term=WORDSTARDIAMOND>
<http://www.wordstar.org/wordstar/tutorial/tutorial.htm>

2. <http://www.simtel.net/product.php?url_fb_product_page=14249>
3. <http://www.wordstar.org/wordstar/history/history.htm>



--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[tony@well.com]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:03:38 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

>IOW, you want a "toaster" -- an "appliance" so brain-dead simple that any
>moron can use it without significant risk.

No, not at all. There are other alternatives for intelligent people
with the right imagination.

>Unfortunately for you, computers
>are NOT toasters, and I highly doubt they ever will be. We are, in fact,
>going in the opposite direction.

So they are not, and so we are going... And it is unfortunate for all
of us. Isn't this an outstanding opportunity for someone who has
enough knowhow and inventiveness to find another solution rather than
accept such a bleak conclusion?

T.
========================
Tony Roder, speaking his mind....