Linux-Advocacy Digest #214, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR (Donovan Rebbechi)
Free WebSphere Homepage Builder 4.0 for Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Marcus Turner")
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Marcus Turner")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (Craig Kelley)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions (Craig Kelley)
Re: maximum (?) linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbough,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 3 Aug 2000 19:11:21 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:35:29 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>For example, if you are a retiree who wants INCOME, then you want
>dividends.
Care to name some dividend stocks that you believe are good enough ? I'm
not an expert on dividend stocks ( admittedly having little interest in
them ) but from what I've seen, it seems that the annual return of a dividend
stock is fairly poor unless the company is undergoing earnings growth
( with dividend stocks, such growth is small or nonexistent ) The dividend
stocks don't offer true security and they don't perform that well on average.
>Thus, there are investors for whom it makes sense to want dividends,
>and there are companies for which it makes sense to pay dividends
>rather than plowing profits into capital purchases.
I can see why it makes sense for the companies, but not for the investors
( unless the dividend is very good ). Again, usually, dividend stocks
have a very poor return unless the company grows.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: 3 Aug 2000 19:14:56 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 04:23:01 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>So, in other words, the only difference is what matter of retribution
>which one may suffer for standing up to the extortionist. But, as
>you have noted, there is no difference in the fact that the threat
>of retribution exists for refusal to go along with the demands of
>the extortionists listed here, and that each organization does,
>in fact, engage in extortion.
The problem is that you are using too different definitions of "voluntary".
In Microsoft's case, "voluntary" means that it would be inconvenient not
to do the deal. But in the employees case, the bar suddenly moves. Basically,
you want it both ways. When it's Microsoft, you're a social democrat and
when it's politics, you go back to being a right wing nut.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: 3 Aug 2000 19:17:04 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 08:00:42 GMT, Steve Chaney wrote:
>On 3 Aug 2000 00:52:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>Wanna bet?
>They can bring the government down on you.
No one got arrested for not using Microsoft.
[ irrelevance snipped ]
The problem with Kulkis's arguments is he has too completely different
definitions of voluntary consensual agreements -- one that applies to
Microsoft and their associates, and one that applies to employers and
employees.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Free WebSphere Homepage Builder 4.0 for Linux
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 19:18:49 GMT
New Download from IBM developerWorks
Recently developerWorks released a free downloadable version of
WebSphere Homepage Builder 4.0 for Linux which allows anyone to
creating dynamic, professional-quality Web pages. IBM developerWorks
allows you to download WebSphere Homepage Builder for Linux for free
and use it fully for up to 60 days from the time you first install the
program. This resource includes a Page Builder, Image Tools, and Site
Management Tools. Enjoy!
Download technology off developerWorks
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/webservers/hpbuilder/linux/download.html?
open&l=203,t=gr,p=linWS
developerWork Homepage:
http://www.ibm.com.developer?open&l=252,t=gr,p=dwhp
There is also an interesting Linux/Bluetooth protocol driver download
off alphaWorks
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/bluedrekar?open&l=252,t=gr,p+bldrk
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:28:14 GMT
"SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I do know that Patterson was with Microsoft from 80 - 96. I don't know
if
> >he is still there or not.
> >
> >I've got an article at home about it. I'll grab it and give you the
> >sources.
>
> Thanks, I'd be curious. I don't think he was an employee. But tell
> me, when he sued MS (as you claimed), was he an employee of MS at that
> time?
For what I read, Patterson was working for Seattle Software ( still not sure
about that name ) and MS bought QDos from Seattle Software. Patterson then
jumped ship to go with MS and was one of the leads on the MSDos rewrite.
It was Seattle Software that sued for more money ( '92 I think ).
Arg. I had the book here in the office until a couple of months ago...
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:31:54 GMT
"SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:57:00 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >... Can you name one software product which Microsoft has developed
> >successfully by themselves?
Nope.
Can You name a PC application in the last ten years that isn't based on
prior art?
> Are you asking me? If you think I'm a Microsoft fan, you couldn't be
> more wrong, but I'll take a stab at it.
>
> Lessee... there was "Bob". Hmmm... welll, nevermind that one...
>
> Excel. They stole the idea of a spreadsheet, but they did write the
> product. Same with Windows. And NT (although they hired the DEC VMS
> guy to do it, but I suppose that counts).
>
> Ummm... well, they did _write_ a lot of things (as opposed to
> purchasing them outright like SourceSafe or Visio), but I don't think
> I can point to anything they can actually claim to have _innovated_.
> Which is why it's always so comical to hear Bill Gates and Steve
> Ballmer use the word "innovate". Especially Ballmer, who wouldn't
> know innovation if it bit him. All MS ever does is see somebody
> else's clever idea and mimic it. And by about the third iteration, it
> becomes usable. "Microsoft: Where Quality Is Job 3.1"
Aside from the Bob jokes, Microsoft's claim to fame is the tight and
pervasive level of integration that it has in the OS to the apps. That is
why it became so popular.
> But I'm still waiting to hear about that pre-1980 Unix windowing
> system. (and emacs doesn't count).
So am I.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:37:02 -0500
Nik Simpson wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Irational fears, mixed with lies and FUD, make for stupid, pointless
> > posts.
>
> But if we banned such posts from advocacy groups by both sides of the
> argument, the traffic would fall by about 90-95% :-)
>
> --
> Nik Simpson
And that would be a bad thing?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:28:20 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
bgeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8mc6r0$kja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >The "three-finger salute" Ctrl-Alt-Del was on the PC from the beginning
long
> >before Windows.
>
> Ok, if we're picking nits, the same collective brought us both.
Well...... Yes and no.
The Ctrl-Alt-Del key sequence was selected as a result of IBM PC hardware
when Dos was already owned by Microsoft. However, the soft reboot via a
keystroke sequence was already in Dos before Microsoft aquired Dos.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Aug 2000 13:57:33 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Windows droids don't understand how easy it is to munge headers.
[snip]
> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
Then why not munge it to something else?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 3 Aug 2000 20:04:02 GMT
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:44:41 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Precisely. Once they realize that all of the "government goodies"
>don't come for free, they will start looking at how parasitic the
>bureaucracies of all these programs are.
By the time services are cut to the point where everyone can afford your
"head tax", not only will you have no public hospitals or schools, you
will have no law enforcement, no courts, and no prisons. Oh, and no defence
budget either.
>As long as you don't overly burdent the people with taxes, there will
>be plenty of jobs that cover everyone's needs.
Hardly a supportable assertion. Low unemployment levels are *NOT* causally
related to low taxes.
>> In Mr. Kulkis's ideal world, there would be none, because not
>> having much money is proof that one is not worthy of any.
>
>Have you ever considered the possibility of getting a job and EARNING
>MONEY
... even if it's not enough money to pay for a hospitakl visit or afford
the "head tax" ?
>"Ooops, I don't know how I got pregnant--In the middle of the night,
Your complete and utter contempt for women is astounding.
>1. Loren is resorting to lies again. Social Security is an off-budget
>Item. 2/3 of the budget is spent on various "Rob to productive to
>give to the lazy, irresponsible, and drug-addicted" schemes.
Education, health, law enforcement and defence are not just for the
"lazy, irresponsible and drug-addicted".
Your desire to see these people suffer appears to be clouding your judgement.
You seem so desperate to inflict pain on these people that the possibility
that innocent people suffer as a result escapes you.
>> follwed by the military and Treasury-bill dividends. I'd *love* to see
>
>The military is constitutionally mandated, asshole
It may well be, but if there's no revenue, then that won't help.
>> Furthermore, in the absence of taxes, one would have to pay
>> bills, so it's not clear that one has really gained anything.
>
>Another strew man. What part of "replace the INCOME tax with a
>SALES tax" do you not fucking understand?
You were advocating head taxes previously, and then conceded that the head
tax is so monumentally stupid that it would have to be eliminated. Sales
taxes were tacked on as an after thought.
>Let's take.....blue-blood Republican Jay Rockefeller, for example.
>
>He's living off of grandpa's money.
Which was taxed when he (grandpa) earned it. And taxed again when it was
inherited.
> He makes..what..$70,000/year
>as a Senator (give or take a few)...that is his taxable income.
The inheritence is also taxed. Quite steeply ( probably more than 50% )
>more than $70,000 each year. His taxes are completely out of line
Aside from the fact that you are wrong, the right way to tax people who
inherit is obviously to just tax inheritence. Why be obscure and hit them
through a sales tax ?
>You're absolutely full of shit, Loren. The current system is
>completely indefensible.
The current system works, and it works quite well. It arguably works better
than any other system. And the funny thing is, not long ago, you were defending
the system while Loren attacked it.
> It punishes high-income/low-burden-to-society
Again, you abuse the word "punish". This word implies that hardship is
imposed on these people. Can you demonstrate that these people are really
suffering as a result of government policy ? I don't hear about refugees
leaving the US to "escape punishment".
>people for the benefit of low-income/high-burden-to-society people.
>
>Only a SADISTIC ASSHOLE LIKE YOURSELF can defend such a system.
He may be both sadistic and an asshole, but you haven't made a strong
case for either assertion.
>How much are the Kennedy assholes contributing to society (other
>than the entertainment value of watching people with more money
>than brains concoct not-so-bright ways of removing themselves from
>the gene poool.)
I don't know. Inheritence either is or should be taxed.
>> However, the parents can promise a *big* gift of money -- as long
>> as their kids can attend.
>
>Woooooooooooohoo. Another telling insight into the twisted, sadistic
>mind of wannabe-Dicator-For-Life LOREN COMMUNIST PETRICH.
Laugh all you like. My mother used to teach, and she was given a list
of the kids names, and information regarding to what degree the child
could be disciplined. This was based on the parents power and influence.
Oh, private school, of course.
>So? What you are saying is... if presented with the option of
>lowering academic and behavior standards....you, LOREN PETRICH would
>sell out the student body for your lust of money.....provided the
>payoff is big enough.
The real sellouts are those that are unwilling to fund a decent education
system.
>Threatening to put me in jail for not contributing to the charity
>of YOUR choice, denying me the right to contribute that money to the
>charity of MY choice is EXTORTION.
Cut the crap. You weren't going to give it to any charity -- the charity
could give the money to a "low life" or a "lazy freeloader".
>Ever notice who whenever I make a really telling comment about
>the basic methods used by the Communists, Loren always attempts
>to stifle further discussion of the idea.
Absurd and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Until you bring some
factual evidence to support your absurd claims to the table, there is
nothing to discuss.
>Name ONE COUNTRY where the communists have taken over where they
>did not replace all the teachers.
That's not supporting evidence. Why not ?
because you have no evidence that it's happening here
>they did....and to make sure that the old teachers didn't return,
>the standard practice was to slaughter the teachers in cold blood,
>and to leave the bodies in the center of town.
Oh -- so we do have a causal relation. In all communist countries, teachers
are slaughtered publically in cold blood. I don't know aboput you, but I
haven't seen any bodies in the street lately. Therefore your claim that the
same is happening in the US is simply wrong, by your own claims. IOW,
you are contradicting yourself.
>> And Europe seems to have escaped that. As have the better US schools.
>
>The "better US schools" are those not run by the government,
>nor dependant upon government bribe^H^H^H^H^Hgrants.
Completely wrong.
(*) Some of the top schools in the US are public.
(*) The top private schools are usually better funded than the top
public schools.
(*) Most of the schools in Europe are better than most of the private
schools in the US.
>Wrong. Both families consist of nothing but parasitic scum, who
>pay nary a penny in taxes while being a great burden to society.
Wrong.
>> What they've benefited from is *inherited* wealth, and a
>> transition from income taxes to sales taxes would *not* make that go away.
>
>Actually, SALES TAXES are the best inheritence tax there is.
No, it's not. It taxes consumption. You can inherit without consuming,
especially if you inherit assets ( for example, a house ). An inherited
house bypasses a consumption tax, but doesn't make it past an inheritence
tax.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux & FreeBSD - security questions
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Aug 2000 14:04:58 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent) writes:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 03:46:48 GMT, Des Dougan wrote:
> >I know little about FreeBSD, other than its background and that it is
> >a closed development rather than the open environment Linux flourishes
> >in. That said, I am working with a client who has been led to believe
> >that FreeBSD is more secure (as a web hosting platform) than is Linux.
>
> I'm not an expert, but I've seen opinions that OpenBSD is the most
> secure OS because of the effort they've put into auditing the code for
> insecurities. It's also open-source.
It also defaults to everything off.
And I mean *everything*.
It's not very useful out-of-the-box. (and I sympathize with this
setup -- more Linux distributions should default to most everything
disabled as well).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: maximum (?) linux
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:55:10 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I too feel that Maximum Linux is a gigantic joke, and in fact recently
> > started a thread about exactly this same problem. I feel that the
> > magazine isn't about Linux so much as it is about Windows.
>
> I tried Maximum Linux and was equaly disappointed. One thing that I am not
> sure about, their stupid act. Are they really that stupid in reguards to
> Linux and unix, or are they just trying to act that way to look cool to the
> anti-Linux readership? Even when they try to get into more advanced
> subjects they just fall short of being useful.
>
> Case in point in volume 1 number 3 August/September 2000 issue, there is an
> article "Partition Recovery ER".
>
> The mistakes begin right on the first page of the article with the cartoon.
> The style of the cartoons reminds me of those from the early Byte magazines.
> But I find a problem in that they put to mask on the chin of the penguins
> leaving their mouths and nostrils exposed. The subject of the article is
> "Partition Recovery" so they should be working on a harddrive, but they are
> operating on a computer's motherboard and power supply instead.
>
> page 50 column one paragraph one, "The program used to check the filesystem
> on the drive is named fsck. When files or drive are munged, the drive is
> referred to as being fsck'ed. If you need to use this article, you have a
> fsck'ed drive. You may even be fsck'ed." Where have we heard that
> inaccurate usage before?
>
> Page 52 column two onder the heading "Other Utilities: Alternatives to
> fdisk": 'Cfdisk (Get it? "See fdisk"; it's stupid Linux humor!)' What the
> author overlooked was the real meaning of cfdisk which is "Curses fdisk".
> Curses it the screen handling library to was used to develop the user
> interface for cfdisk.
>
> Page 50 column one paragraph three: the author cites an old mini-HOWTO for
> partition recovery that he claims promotes software piracy of the commercial
> program "Partition Magic". The only URL he provides is for the current
> replacement of that mini-HOWTO which is maintained be a different author. I
> contacted the magazine's web and ftp sites for any supporting evidence of
> the author's accusation, but they have nothing on it. I have not seen the
> mini-HOWTO that he cited so I can not judge his accuracy in this respect.
> But I will note that the author of the article makes no mention of the fact
> that there was shareware package for DOS called Partition Magic, that latter
> became freeware. Downloading and using the freeware "Partition Magic" is
> not piracy. It was a few year after the original "Partition Magic" became
> freeware, that the commercial Software package was developed and was given
> the same name. Without seeing the mini-HOWTO that the author was citing, it
> is not possible to verify which package the author of the mini-HOWTO was
> recommending the download of.
>
> In that same paragraph the author also states, "Duh! If your computer won't
> work, how are you gonna search for warez?" He ignore the situation that you
> can have a floppy disk or a "live filesystem" on CD that can give you access
> to the internet or BBS's. HE ignores the situation of having a host with
> multiple harddrives that still has limited functionality or multiple
> computers so another computer can be used for on-line access.
>
> The author of this article has also made the assumption that Linux runs on
> PC's to the exclusion of other hardware platforms that also run Linux.
>
> Other articles and columns are equally flawed, just like Mae Ling Mak's
> column that you mentioned in the previous thread on the subject of this
> magazine. In addition to the other problems of that column it also contains
> errors that could cause any neophyte who depends on its accuracy to look
> like an idiot.
True, since I am a subscriber (forgive me, I expected a Linux version of
MaximumPC/boot) I have ready the very innaccurate articles and been
flabbergasted by them. I especially liked in that recovery article how
they basically made the (usual winvocate) assumption that any time the
computer has the plug pulled ext2 filesystems will become completely and
unrepairably corrupt. Then, in the same issue, a person asking for help
on partition recognition problems was told that they should simply use
DOS FDISK to rid themselves of all Linux partitions. Anyone that has
ever set up a dual boot system will recognize the falacy of that
remark. You cannot delete logical ext2 partitions from DOS FDISK, and
it will not let you remove the extended partition until you delete all
logical partitions. Therefore, not only did they not help this poor
person, but they gave him advice that will do nothing but frustrate the
living hell out of him. The other help articles and advice sections are
equally misleading on nearly every front. It is quite obvious that
these people have come from the Windows world and still see through
Windows blinders. The only person in the entire magazine that seems to
have a grip is the "Colonel", and he gets one page in the very back of
the magazine. Although he's a little coarse, he does manage to make
some valid points (his most recent being that Corel is a bunch of
dumbasses for using WINE in their Office Suite, when they could have
made a Linux native application by updating their old Unix versions).
Sorry for the rant, but the very idea of a Windows influenced and nearly
completely Windows oriented magazine calling itself Maximum Linux seems
so utterly incomprehensible to me to make me question reality over it.
I mean, every article has more mention of Windows than of Linux. It
usually starts with "While you can't do what you do on Windows with the
Linux software that is available..." and then goes on to whine about how
terrible Linux software is and how incredibly stupid you would have to
be to convert over to Linux full time. I actually saw an entire article
in one of the early magazines saying that it is impossible at the
current moment to use nothing but Linux on your systems. According to
them you "have" to use Windows in a dual boot configuration at the very
least, if not just use Windows full time and only watch Linux from the
sidelines. I think that Corel and Maximum Linux have a lot in common.
They may think they are promoting Linux, but they are really just
promoting Windows through bad Linux advocacy.
We need to let them know (and I will keep emailing them, even though
I've already been told flat out by them that "the world runs on Windows,
deal with it" and that if I can't handle that Linux isn't as 'cool' as
Windows, then I should be doing something else with my time. That's a
terrific attitude for a Linux magazine to have, and I'm sick of seeing
even supposed Linux advocates tell us long-term Linux people what idiots
we are for using Linux. It really does need to stop.
*I would not be nearly so upset over this if it wasn't for my email
correspondence with one of the writers for the magazine. Being in
charge of a Linux magazine, I would think they would be a little bit
more impartial, or even lean in the direction of Linux in the Windows
vs. Linux debates.*
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
