Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 9/23/06, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maru wrote: The Wikipedia entry for R is under GNU-S :-) I hate to play the pedantic resident Wikipedia expert here, marudubinski, I presume :-) You forgot the Dr.! ...(Nah, I'm kidding.) Ok, but if we want to use the search engine from the initial page, it's much simpler to search for GNU-S then to search for R :-P Alberto Monteiro Certainly, but how many people know of it as the GNU implementation of the S programming language (or is it family now? Doesn't seem very clear) rather than as the R programming language? Google hits prove nothing of course, but R programming language gets ~50,300,000 ghits and GNU-S ~3,910,000 (I'm not including hits for GNU S, since looking over the top 20 shows it to be a rather ambiguous term, but even GNU-S's first hit is for the mail reader Gnus). ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Maru wrote: The Wikipedia entry for R is under GNU-S :-) I hate to play the pedantic resident Wikipedia expert here, marudubinski, I presume :-) but it's actually at [[R (programming language)]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28programming_language%29), like it should (since programming languages' whose name are ambiguous are supposed to be disambiguated rather than be at [[R programming language]], which could be misleading). Now, [[GNU S]] and [[GNU-S]] do indeed redirect to the actual article, but that's not the same thing as the article being at those names... Ok, but if we want to use the search engine from the initial page, it's much simpler to search for GNU-S then to search for R :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
I don't know if this has already been suggested, but I have recently learned the programming language R, and it seems that it's exactly what you would like to use to teach your kids how to use a computer: (a) it's free and available for _all_ systems [M$, Linux, Mac] How about the good olde Apple ][, C64, or some other prehistoric computers? Wouldn't Logo be a better choice? OTOH, on more modern computers, one might teach the child OOA and OOP with some Smalltalk system. (b) it's simple to use Logo's simple to use as well. Smalltalk even simpler, especially if it comes to debugging. (c) it's powerful enough to treat numerical data Hm, never trated large amounts of numerical in Logo. Bit boring for children, no? Smalltalk, OTOH, can treat numerical data (even arbitrary fraction with no rounding errors, or arbitrary precision FP data), and it can do even _fully_ object-oriented! Ok, if you want complex arithmetic built-in, Python might be an option as well. For example, if you want to show the plot of a point, you just start R and type: plot(10, 10) That's overkill. For such simple tasks, I use a pencil. Don't teach your children how to perform stupifyingly simple takes with the aid of technological overkill! and it plots a small ball at coordinates (10,10). If you want then to add another point, just type: points(12, 12) For the price of a computer, I could buy a room full of balls! and the plot will be updated, showing the two balls. [notice that the first plot fixes the size of the graphic window, so points will only show points inside the picture]. Yup, the balls in the room would also be visible from the outside, though the window. Of course, rtfm and you will see that _much_ more can Balls often come without manuals, but they also can be used for a multitude of activities, including soccer, basketball, smashing of windows, attacking penguins, thwrowing at apples, whatever! Best regards, Klaus ;-) _ This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Klaus Stock suggested: OTOH, on more modern computers, one might teach the child OOA and OOP with some Smalltalk system. From... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk Because of that the meaning of Smalltalk expressions using binary messages can be different from their traditional interpretation: 3 + 4 * 5 is evaluated as (3 + 4) * 5, producing 35. No, I don't think Smalltalk is a good teaching device :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Klaus Stock suggested: OTOH, on more modern computers, one might teach the child OOA and OOP with some Smalltalk system. From... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk Because of that the meaning of Smalltalk expressions using binary messages can be different from their traditional interpretation: 3 + 4 * 5 is evaluated as (3 + 4) * 5, producing 35. No, I don't think Smalltalk is a good teaching device :-P Yup, that's why I wrote that algebra works object-oriented 8as opposed to math-oriented). ;-) OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Yes, mathematical reality is nowadays defined as what the pocket calculator says. This is one more of the points where electronic assistence becomes a problem - kids don't really learn math with the assitance of computers, they are just drilled like a assembly line worker or a circus animal, just repeating the standard number entry trick they learned. Anyway, I meant Smalltalk not for teaching mathmetics, for for the teaching of object-oriented analysis and object-oriented programming (and, to some extent, also for OOD). Instead of drawing balls on a screen, kids could learn how to define a Ball class, how to add behavior and how to communicate with Ball instances (myball := Ball new. myball color: red. myball moveto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] myball bounce.). If someone could learn how to define reasonable and meaningful abstraction of given problems, we would have to endure a lot less of that crap which is programmed about everywhere. For example, Java, a language designed by someone who had not the slightest clue about object-orientation. Oh yes, there are things called classes and methods, but they are, in reality, mostly just modules and procedures. With the result that software development in Java takes as much time as it would in C++. Best regards, Klaus _ This mail sent using V-webmail - http://www.v-webmail.orgg ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Hi brinellers! Glad to see you still in business! I am very sorry to have neglected you in favor of that darned, time-consuming blog. http://www.davidbrin.blogspot.com/ In part because the political issues are so important/urgent right now that I'll grab any influence where I can get it. Of course see news at http://www.davidbrin.com and watch out for my new History Channel show in November. As for the article that just appeared in Salon, whew! Let me append below my canned response after receiving HUNDREDS of emails (not including more hundreds that came into Salon Slashdot!) Thrive all! With cordial regards, David Brin http://www.davidbrin.com = Yes, I got a LOT of mail about the Salon article. and that doesnt count the letters to both my blog and Salon itself! What shocked me was the degree of passion... no, bilious RAGE that my effrontery provoked. In comparison, mere politics and religion seem to have mild effects! Only a small minority seemed at all interested in even looking at my core idea, which was how to create a nice, comfortable starting point for millions of kids, so they could use their computers to do a little COMPUTING for mild classroom assignments, and so get a taste of this way of looking at the world. Indeed, the tiniest fraction seemed to grasp how valuable it once was (but no longer) for ALL kids to be able to easily type in little illustrative examples at the end of each math or physics chapters. Everyone seemed to think it could still be done. But it cannot. I repeat that. It cannot AND it simply, simply cannot be done. It does no good to preach what languages kids SHOULD have. Most dont. Period. Three solutions were offered that might plausibly address the problem in a practical way. 1) Somehow persuade Microsoft to care. In which case, with a fingernails effort, they could offer micro-implementations of Basic, python, scratch, etc in versions tuned precisely to be usable as classroom and homework demos, with launchpads to download expanded versions if the kids interest is sparked. 2) Some place with an historical interest in Basic (like Dartmouth) could create a slimmed version, along with maybe a hundred little 12-line programs that illustrate everything from statistics to galilean laws of motion to PONG, and offer this perfect turnkey download for text publishers to link to. (BTW, did you know that TrueBasic http://www.truebasic.com/ is still being offered? I didn't know myself until 30 seconds ago. 40 bucks for the dumbed down version. Includes some demo programs, apparently. Sounds like no solution, alas.) 3) Many readers are so enthusiastic for PYTHON... and I admit it seems to be the logical successor to BASIC. It allows simple syntax and direct expression of the algorith in sequential lines of code -- which would be highly compatible with the notion of collaborating with schools and textbook publishers. Indeed, an effort along these lines can be seen at: http://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e/ Indeed, Python is so widely available, that the goal might be achieved simply via some kind of DECLARATION... say by a prominent education association... declaring support for a Python-based universal entry-level environment. If well-publicized, that may be all thats needed for everyone from Microsoft and Apple to textbook publishers to lift their pinkies (a minimal twitch) and make this happen. 4) In order to keep using those textbooks (like my sons) that still have TRY IT IN BASIC exercises, one reader had a fantastically simple suggestion. A turn-key web site! For easy to use BASIC, it occurred to me that someone could set up a web site consisting of a single big BASIC window. Use Ajax to connect it to a server running one of the free BASICs to do the computation. Retain the BASIC session between visits using cookies. This isn't too hard, it could be whipped up in a week or two. Some of the letters Ive received pointed out that JAVA is the one language so ubiquitous that maybe it might do. Only, alas, the syntax is so difficult and unfriendly to beginners that its just not help, after all. Unless... a coterie of Java guys created some plug-ins and maybe a few dozen sample programs that would accomplish dual goals (1) illustrate something cool from math/physics curricula or a classic game or moving pixels with math and (2) enticed with software elegance. Such a set of small programs might entice textbook publishers and teachers, in turn, to go along. And Javas universal distribution could then do the trick. (And yes, I admit TOTAL ignorance about both Java and Javascript... which are apparently VERY different... which shows how long this road may be.) Alas, from the majority of the responses I received, it seems that most of those who already know software see absolutely no problem arising from the fact that nearly all computers today lack a universally accessible beginners; language. Nearly all of them have
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Although number one, M$oft, could be done with some public pressure - or Apple doing it first - my vote is Four: 4) In order to keep using those textbooks (like my son’s) that still have TRY IT IN BASIC exercises, one reader had a fantastically simple suggestion. A turn-key web site! “For easy to use BASIC, it occurred to me that someone could set up a web site consisting of a single big BASIC window. Use Ajax to connect it to a server running one of the free BASICs to do the computation. Retain the BASIC session between visits using cookies. This isn't too hard, it could be whipped up in a week or two.” My first experience was editing a lunar lander game running in BASIC on a Commodore PET w/cassette tapes for off-line storage. This small beginning lead me to ever greater systems and although I rarely code much beyond CSS anymore it has been an invaluable stepping stone and gave me early insight into this industry. As an under-employed designer I'd be more than happy to begin developing this with a small team. Any takers or interested parties please GOTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I can at least coordinate. END - Jonathan Gibson - On Sep 22, 2006, at 8:22 AM, David Brin wrote: Hi brinellers! Glad to see you still in business! I am very sorry to have neglected you in favor of that darned, time-consuming blog. http://www.davidbrin.blogspot.com/ In part because the political issues are so important/urgent right now that I'll grab any influence where I can get it. Of course see news at http://www.davidbrin.com and watch out for my new History Channel show in November. As for the article that just appeared in Salon, whew! Let me append below my canned response after receiving HUNDREDS of emails (not including more hundreds that came into Salon Slashdot!) Thrive all! With cordial regards, David Brin http://www.davidbrin.com = Yes, I got a LOT of mail about the Salon article. and that doesn’t count the letters to both my blog and Salon itself! What shocked me was the degree of passion... no, bilious RAGE that my effrontery provoked. In comparison, mere politics and religion seem to have mild effects! Only a small minority seemed at all interested in even looking at my core idea, which was how to create a nice, comfortable starting point for millions of kids, so they could use their computers to do a little COMPUTING for mild classroom assignments, and so get a taste of this way of looking at the world. Indeed, the tiniest fraction seemed to grasp how valuable it once was (but no longer) for ALL kids to be able to easily type in little illustrative examples at the end of each math or physics chapters. Everyone seemed to think it could still be done. But it cannot. I repeat that. It cannot AND it simply, simply cannot be done. It does no good to preach what languages kids SHOULD have. Most don’t. Period. Three solutions were offered that might plausibly address the problem in a practical way. 1) Somehow persuade Microsoft to care. In which case, with a fingernail’s effort, they could offer micro-implementations of Basic, python, scratch, etc in versions tuned precisely to be usable as classroom and homework demos, with “launchpads” to download expanded versions if the kids’ interest is sparked. 2) Some place with an historical interest in Basic (like Dartmouth) could create a slimmed version, along with maybe a hundred little 12-line programs that illustrate everything from statistics to galilean laws of motion to PONG, and offer this “perfect turnkey download” for text publishers to link to. (BTW, did you know that TrueBasic http://www.truebasic.com/ is still being offered? I didn't know myself until 30 seconds ago. 40 bucks for the dumbed down version. Includes some demo programs, apparently. Sounds like no solution, alas.) 3) Many readers are so enthusiastic for PYTHON... and I admit it seems to be the logical successor to BASIC. It allows simple syntax and direct expression of the algorith in sequential lines of code -- which would be highly compatible with the notion of collaborating with schools and textbook publishers. Indeed, an effort along these lines can be seen at: http://www.python.org/doc/essays/cp4e/ Indeed, Python is so widely available, that the goal might be achieved simply via some kind of DECLARATION... say by a prominent education association... declaring support for a Python-based universal entry-level environment. If well-publicized, that may be all that’s needed for everyone from Microsoft and Apple to textbook publishers to lift their pinkies (a minimal twitch) and make this happen. 4) In order to keep using those textbooks (like my son’s) that still have TRY IT IN BASIC exercises, one reader had a fantastically simple suggestion. A turn-key web site! “For easy to use BASIC, it occurred to me that someone could set up a web site consisting of a single big BASIC window. Use Ajax to connect it to a server running one of
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Hi, WHILE we're on the subject of ancient programming languages AND their relative merits, we might as well dip into that deep well of wisdom regarding programming that poured forth from the nimble fingers of Edsger Dijkstra: How do we tell truths that might hurt? (http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/ewd498.html) In which a number of ancient programming languages are given the acerbic treatment FOR which he was known. For those of you who are thinking about implementing an online BASIC interpreter, here's one that's already running: http://www.pachesoft.com/rockerferbasic/ Dave PS: The Good Doctor's eulogy for BASIC is mentioned in the Maturity section of the Wikipedia entry for BASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
For those of you who are thinking about implementing an online BASIC interpreter, here's one that's already running: http://www.pachesoft.com/rockerferbasic/ This is a great idea. But need to make a list of attributes that such an implementation would need. 1. A good welcome page that gave extremely simple instructions for use, just clicking a button and beginning to type in the code from, say a textbook. But with links that can lead to tutorials and other info, if students want. 2. tested with some of the more common textbook examples, to be sure they work, with a minimum of steps. 3. link to a LIBRARY of cool games and short demo programs... with a method for people to inload their own contributions. 4. A very easy to use graphics pop-up screen, that shows pixels moving in response to the program. 5. Something I think would be great. a button that lets you iterate the value of n each time you press it, instead of just letting the program zoom ahead. Great for students who want to watch the algorithm gradually change in time. 6. A list of cooperating institutions and text publishers. Obviously if you add my laundry list. This starts to look like a substantial project. The good news is that a version that works basically could then lead to a grant to finish it... ...But I am more an instigator than finisher. Alas, now I must go on to hurl OTHER grenades! PS: The Good Doctor's eulogy for BASIC is mentioned in the Maturity section of the Wikipedia entry for BASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC Kewl! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
Dave Land wrote: PS: The Good Doctor's eulogy for BASIC is mentioned in the Maturity section of the Wikipedia entry for BASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC Hmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BASICaction=history ... who is Dland? :-) Now do the proper homework and increase the list of planets in the Uplift Universe :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 22 Sep 2006 at 8:22, David Brin wrote: Only a small minority seemed at all interested in even looking at my core idea, which was how to create a nice, comfortable starting point for millions of kids, so they could use their computers to do a little COMPUTING for mild classroom assignments, and so get a taste of this way of looking at the world. If the examples are writtern in modern BASIC, then why not? That'll with with a range of modern BASICs up to and including FreeBASIC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBASIC If it's not writtern in modern BASIC, then I have no sympathy. People don't number lines anymore. People don't use goto's. Teaching a chuld the wrong fundermental basics of coding is not a good idea. Actually, personally I'd recommend Pascal, especially for dyslexic children - the syntax is considered far more natural by many. http://www.freepascal.org/ 3) Many readers are so enthusiastic for PYTHON... and Personally I detest it. I'm a scriptor, not a coder. I have some Pascal skills, but i've mostly worked with Lua and varients, as well as visual scripting languages (partial and full), the powerful and propriatory SRealmsScript and so on. I don't like the useage of indenting it uses, it misses a lot of libraries I've used with php and it doesn't do automatic garbage collection (I admit that one usually bites me, Lua and SRealmsScript spoilt me in that regard). Indeed, Python is so widely available, that the goal might be achieved simply via some kind of DECLARATION... say by a prominent education association... declaring support for a Python-based universal entry-level environment. If Can't be just python. It doesn't compile natively, and has no native GUI. Something to keep in mind, anyway. If Lua ever gives up on being a scripting language and becomes a fully fledged programing language, then frankly it has just the potential you want to see. It's very powerful, free-as-in-free (it's used in a number of high profile commercial games for scripting) and the syntax is easy to learn for coders and non-coders alike print Hello, world http://www.lua.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_programming_language AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
At 10:11 AM Friday 9/22/2006, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Funny, that's exactly the example many books used 30-odd years ago to illustrate why round-off error is a problem programmers have to keep in mind, as mathematically division by three and multiplication by three should be inverse operations, so X = 1 Y= X/3 Z = 3*Y IF (Z=X) THEN GOTO 10 PRINT (Z IS NOT EQUAL TO X) GOTO 20 10 PRINT (Z IS EQUAL TO X) 20 END would always return something like 0.99 IS NOT EQUAL TO 1 so if you expected X and Z to be equal (as it would be in mathematics or infinite-precision arithmetic) and were testing for that, it would never be equal. (In FORTRAN¹, it would be even worse if you forgot the difference between integer arithmetic and real arithmetic, as I = 1/3 would set I = 0 and then J = 3*I would make J = 0.) _ ¹Yes, this dates me to the same era as Himself. (Even though I recently re-installed the Fortran 90 package on this machine.) I probably still have some boxes of cards from those days somewhere in the storage shed . . . another benefit (?) of inheriting the house you lived in back then from your parents . . . ) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Um, .9* *is* 1. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
At 08:20 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Um, .9* *is* 1. .999... is equal to 1. (infinite string of 9s) .999 is not equal to 1. (finite string of 9s) As I said earlier, computers represent numbers with a finite number of digits, which causes round-off errors, which can grow when the result of one calculation is used in another calculation. Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 23/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:20 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Um, .9* *is* 1. .999... is equal to 1. (infinite string of 9s) .999 is not equal to 1. (finite string of 9s) As I said earlier, computers represent numbers with a finite number of digits, which causes round-off errors, which can grow when the result of one calculation is used in another calculation. Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. Computers do, but do no programming environments take account of this, by marking recurring numbers as such? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
At 09:02 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 08:20 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote: On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote: OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code: x := 1 / 3. x := 3 * x. x inspect. Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk insists on 1. Um, .9* *is* 1. .999... is equal to 1. (infinite string of 9s) .999 is not equal to 1. (finite string of 9s) As I said earlier, computers represent numbers with a finite number of digits, which causes round-off errors, which can grow when the result of one calculation is used in another calculation. Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. Computers do, but do no programming environments take account of this, by marking recurring numbers as such? Anyone know how Mathematica works? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
On 9/22/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . The Wikipedia entry for R is under GNU-S :-) Alberto Monteiro I hate to play the pedantic resident Wikipedia expert here, but it's actually at [[R (programming language)]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_%28programming_language%29), like it should (since programming languages' whose name are ambiguous are supposed to be disambiguated rather than be at [[R programming language]], which could be misleading). Now, [[GNU S]] and [[GNU-S]] do indeed redirect to the actual article, but that's not the same thing as the article being at those names... ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
... Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. Computers do, but do no programming environments take account of this, by marking recurring numbers as such? Anyone know how Mathematica works? -- Ronn! :) Ronn-- I believe it avoids decimal approximations unless they are specifically asked for. Rational numbers would always be represented internally as pairs of integers. And this continues; almost everything is represented symbolically. So (1 + sqrt(2))^2 is exactly 3 + 2*sqrt(2), etc. ---David As one would expect from the name, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated
At 10:14 PM Friday 9/22/2006, David Hobby wrote: ... Especially when you subtract two nearly equal numbers. Computers do, but do no programming environments take account of this, by marking recurring numbers as such? Anyone know how Mathematica works? -- Ronn! :) Ronn-- I believe it avoids decimal approximations unless they are specifically asked for. Rational numbers would always be represented internally as pairs of integers. And this continues; almost everything is represented symbolically. So (1 + sqrt(2))^2 is exactly 3 + 2*sqrt(2), etc. ---David As one would expect from the name, Maru I thought it was something of the sort, but I figured someone else here might know better than I do. (I've been a good little boy and not attempted to reverse engineer the copy I have here. :P As to finding the book in all this stuff, I'm not sure I'd have an idea where to start more exact than the room it's most likely in . . . :( ) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
