Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

So long, losers.

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
September 17, 2005 10:11:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Oh...and a parting gift:

http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/67465#14370254


--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.

More about : long losers

Anonymous
September 17, 2005 11:58:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Dunno what his problem is.

I just got a HR10-250 free after rebate, and today my Waiver was applied
so I get Fox 5 HD NYC on 88, despite living in the Center of Houston, TX.
September 18, 2005 12:43:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in news:jackzwick-
8253A0.14435717092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:

> I just got a HR10-250 free after rebate, and today my Waiver was applied
> so I get Fox 5 HD NYC on 88, despite living in the Center of Houston, TX.

And if you think it is DRM-free, you're even dumber than I thought.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:43:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Howard (stile99@email.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in news:jackzwick-
> 8253A0.14435717092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > I just got a HR10-250 free after rebate, and today my Waiver was applied
> > so I get Fox 5 HD NYC on 88, despite living in the Center of Houston, TX.
>
> And if you think it is DRM-free, you're even dumber than I thought.

Even if it has DRM, it doesn't have the same issues as the SA TiVos. I
recorded every one of the Fox programs that people had "problems" with, and
they were all without any "protection".

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ShermansLagoon/GoldenRetri...
September 18, 2005 3:15:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d9665bc672573e9989fc7@news.nabs.net:

> Even if it has DRM, it doesn't have the same issues as the SA TiVos. I
> recorded every one of the Fox programs that people had "problems" with,
> and they were all without any "protection".

That's because not everybody had "problems", nor were these "problems"
restricted only to any particular type of TiVo. Or for that matter, TiVo
at all...which was kind of the point.

For example, my SA TiVo had no "problem" at all, but in following the link,
it seems at least one TV card did. Since TiVo doesn't market TV cards for
computers, it's really hard for people to continue to claim it is a "TiVo"
problem.

Hence, my post. Anyone who is dumping TiVo for alternate DVRs...So long,
losers. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And if you think your
replacement will be free of any problems...

Well, good luck with that.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 3:16:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Howard wrote:
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d9665bc672573e9989fc7@news.nabs.net:
>
>
>>Even if it has DRM, it doesn't have the same issues as the SA TiVos. I
>>recorded every one of the Fox programs that people had "problems" with,
>>and they were all without any "protection".
>
>
> That's because not everybody had "problems", nor were these "problems"
> restricted only to any particular type of TiVo. Or for that matter, TiVo
> at all...which was kind of the point.
>
> For example, my SA TiVo had no "problem" at all, but in following the link,
> it seems at least one TV card did. Since TiVo doesn't market TV cards for
> computers, it's really hard for people to continue to claim it is a "TiVo"
> problem.
>
> Hence, my post. Anyone who is dumping TiVo for alternate DVRs...So long,
> losers. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And if you think your
> replacement will be free of any problems...
>
> Well, good luck with that.
>

Yeah, I think Howard's OP was a bit unclear. It took a minute for me to
see what he was driving at, but he's right, DRM is pervasive. It's
there because the broadcasters and MPAA folks are forcing it into *all*
devices, not just Tivo. They do it by blackmail, either add it in, or
they won't allow you to display their content. Either they won't
deliver it to you, or they'll sue the pants off you.

The only possible way around the DRM is home-brew systems that are too
small potato to sue. However don't be surprised if the DRM gets
packaged into the hardware eventually. If that happens, even the MythTV
and Freevo folks are going to be up the proverbial creek since they
could do whatever they want with the software, if the Tuner card won't
allow specific digital streams to be recorded, then there's little they
can do.

Randy S.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 3:16:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Randy S. (rswitt@NOSPAM.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > Hence, my post. Anyone who is dumping TiVo for alternate DVRs...So long,
> > losers. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And if you think your
> > replacement will be free of any problems...
> >
> > Well, good luck with that.
> >
>
> Yeah, I think Howard's OP was a bit unclear.

Yeah, I missed the point, too.

I thought he was dumping TiVo to go to something else.

> If that happens, even the MythTV
> and Freevo folks are going to be up the proverbial creek since they
> could do whatever they want with the software, if the Tuner card won't
> allow specific digital streams to be recorded, then there's little they
> can do.

It'll be a long time before an HDTV tuner card has any hardware encryption
on it. It's just too expensive to do for no reason.

The thing missing from the PCI HDTV cards is the "TiVo" part...wishlists,
etc. But, every PCI HDTV card has a way to add recordings to their
"To Do" list without knowing squat about the software other than "put the
following data format into a file and run this helper program". So, a
TiVo-like program could do all the heavy lifting, then 15 minutes before a
recording is to start, it would add the recording to the card's "To Do"
list.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/SupportTraining.gi...
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:25:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Jack Zwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:jackzwick-8253A0.14435717092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> Dunno what his problem is.
>
> I just got a HR10-250 free after rebate, and today my Waiver was applied
> so I get Fox 5 HD NYC on 88, despite living in the Center of Houston, TX.

No surprise there. Fox27 Houston is a Fox O&O affiliate. A waiver should
not be necessary.

If your local CBS, ABC, and NBC affiliates are network owned, you should
get the New York HD feed for those networks.

http://www.directv.com/see/landing/abc_hd.html
You should also be receiving the NY WABC HD channel.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:32:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <Xns96D49FFE2C90Fstile@129.250.170.91>,
Howard <stile99@email.com> wrote:

> Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in news:jackzwick-
> 8253A0.14435717092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > I just got a HR10-250 free after rebate, and today my Waiver was applied
> > so I get Fox 5 HD NYC on 88, despite living in the Center of Houston, TX.
>
> And if you think it is DRM-free, you're even dumber than I thought.

When DRM comes, if you think Cable wont lead the way then you're the
dumbest of them all.
September 18, 2005 6:33:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
news:MPG.1d969528fd00adbb989fca@news.nabs.net:

> Randy S. (rswitt@NOSPAM.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>> Yeah, I think Howard's OP was a bit unclear.
>
> Yeah, I missed the point, too.
>
> I thought he was dumping TiVo to go to something else.

I tend to be a little on the obscure side (quite on purpose). Perhaps in
this instance I strayed a bit TOO far into obscure-land, but I thought
given my recent posts on the topic and the link provided, there were enough
pieces to the puzzle.

> It'll be a long time before an HDTV tuner card has any hardware
> encryption on it. It's just too expensive to do for no reason.

Trust me, "Do it or we'll sue your ass back to the stone age" is generally
accepted to be reason enough.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 6:33:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Howard (stile99@email.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > It'll be a long time before an HDTV tuner card has any hardware
> > encryption on it. It's just too expensive to do for no reason.
>
> Trust me, "Do it or we'll sue your ass back to the stone age" is generally
> accepted to be reason enough.

It would be if there was some reason (like a law) behind it. But, with
the broadcast flag in limbo, it'll be a very long time before such cards
have to have hardware encryption.

One of the more interesting things about the broadcast flag is that anybody
who uses Windows Media Center Edition to record HDTV will be in for a real
shock if the broadcast flag ever comes back. Despite the fact that Microsoft
software encrypts/can encrypt the recorded files, this is *not* good enough
to make the system broadcast flag compliant. Microsoft's only choice would
be to stop recording shows where the broadcast flag is set until the HDTV
card is replaced by one with hardware encryption.

--
Jeff Rife | "Tragedy struck today in Sector Nine as rebel
| terrorists blew up the Death Star, killing
| thousands. The Rebel Alliance, a fringe group
| of anti-Empire fanatics, has claimed
| responsibility for the terrorist act.
| Fortunately, Lord Vader escaped without harm.
| Our hearts go out to the families of the
| victims."
| -- "NewsRadio"
September 18, 2005 6:49:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jack Zwick <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:jackzwick-F72880.21320217092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com:

> When DRM comes, if you think Cable wont lead the way then you're the
> dumbest of them all.

Ummm...DRM is already here.

And satellite didn't just lead the way, they did the surveying, graded the
ground, installed the road and paved it.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:32:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

you troll
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:35:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <Ol3Xe.2959$5n4.1828@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
"Jack Ak" <akjack@excite.com> wrote:

>
> "Jack Zwick" <jackzwick@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:jackzwick-8253A0.14435717092005@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> > Dunno what his problem is.
> >
> > I just got a HR10-250 free after rebate, and today my Waiver was applied
> > so I get Fox 5 HD NYC on 88, despite living in the Center of Houston, TX.
>
> No surprise there. Fox27 Houston is a Fox O&O affiliate. A waiver should
> not be necessary.

It's Fox26 in Houston, last station in Houston to broadcast in Stereo.

>
> If your local CBS, ABC, and NBC affiliates are network owned, you should
> get the New York HD feed for those networks.
>
> http://www.directv.com/see/landing/abc_hd.html
> You should also be receiving the NY WABC HD channel.

I agree but they insisted FCC rules required the waiver process.

So soon I'll have ABC too, and have it denoted as a Channel I receive
for that day.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:31:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jack Zwick wrote:
> you troll

Hmm, this thread seems to be attracting obscure posts. I'm not getting
the reasoning for Jack's at all. Unless he's *purposefully* trying to
be obscure.

Randy S.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 12:35:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Howard (stile99@email.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
>
>>>It'll be a long time before an HDTV tuner card has any hardware
>>>encryption on it. It's just too expensive to do for no reason.
>>
>>Trust me, "Do it or we'll sue your ass back to the stone age" is generally
>>accepted to be reason enough.
>
>
> It would be if there was some reason (like a law) behind it. But, with
> the broadcast flag in limbo, it'll be a very long time before such cards
> have to have hardware encryption.

Well, I sort of see your point. Requiring broadcast restriction in
hardware is a bit more difficult then requiring it in software, because
they aren't actually doing the recording. It might be a tougher road to
go without a law, like you say. I'm not sure there wouldn't be some
underhanded, monopolistic way to do it, but I can't think of it right now.

> One of the more interesting things about the broadcast flag is that anybody
> who uses Windows Media Center Edition to record HDTV will be in for a real
> shock if the broadcast flag ever comes back. Despite the fact that Microsoft
> software encrypts/can encrypt the recorded files, this is *not* good enough
> to make the system broadcast flag compliant. Microsoft's only choice would
> be to stop recording shows where the broadcast flag is set until the HDTV
> card is replaced by one with hardware encryption.

You're saying they couldn't choose to store a program for 7 days or
less, so they'd have to block recording it entirely in the first place?

Randy S.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 3:16:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> The only possible way around the DRM is

Recognize that it's just TELEVISION for pity's sake and get on with your
lives.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 5:29:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Randy S. (rswitt@NOSPAM.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> > One of the more interesting things about the broadcast flag is that anybody
> > who uses Windows Media Center Edition to record HDTV will be in for a real
> > shock if the broadcast flag ever comes back. Despite the fact that Microsoft
> > software encrypts/can encrypt the recorded files, this is *not* good enough
> > to make the system broadcast flag compliant. Microsoft's only choice would
> > be to stop recording shows where the broadcast flag is set until the HDTV
> > card is replaced by one with hardware encryption.
>
> You're saying they couldn't choose to store a program for 7 days or
> less, so they'd have to block recording it entirely in the first place?

Yep, because the BF ruling part that talks about accepted means of protection
says the data cannot be unencrypted over any public bus. PCI is a public
bus, and it's trivial to write a "wedge" driver that sits between the real
driver and the rest of Windows and just dump everything that gets sent over
the bus.

--
Jeff Rife | "Grab a shovel...I'm only one skull
| short of a Mouseketeer reunion."
|
| -- Bender, "Futurama"
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 7:07:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

>>You're saying they couldn't choose to store a program for 7 days or
>>less, so they'd have to block recording it entirely in the first place?
>
>
> Yep, because the BF ruling part that talks about accepted means of protection
> says the data cannot be unencrypted over any public bus. PCI is a public
> bus, and it's trivial to write a "wedge" driver that sits between the real
> driver and the rest of Windows and just dump everything that gets sent over
> the bus.
>

Interesting, so in that case (since the data travels straight from the
tuner card to the PCI (or PCI-E once PCI-E tuner cards are available)),
the DRM would *have* to be built-in to the tuner card itself! Simplest
way would probably be to encrypt the data some way that only the
approved driver would be able to decrypt. Not that I want to give them
any ideas ;-).

The ramifications of that are complex. Would Microsoft then refuse to
support Tuner cards that did *not* have built-in DRM? What would the
impact of that be on Tuner card manufacturers?

Of course this is all academic since the BG got voted down, unless they
find some backdoor way of getting in reinstituted. But that gets us
back to the first part of the last post!

Randy S.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 7:53:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

Randy S. (rswitt@NOSPAM.com) wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> Interesting, so in that case (since the data travels straight from the
> tuner card to the PCI (or PCI-E once PCI-E tuner cards are available)),
> the DRM would *have* to be built-in to the tuner card itself! Simplest
> way would probably be to encrypt the data some way that only the
> approved driver would be able to decrypt.

Correct. The usual way to do this is to have the encryption/decyrption
hardwired into the silicon of the card, then when you want to decrypt, you
feed it to the card, which then does the output. There is no other
non-standarized way to get around the "unencrypted over a public bus"
requirement, and that's one of the BF issues...there aren't any real
standards on the protection, just requirements.

> The ramifications of that are complex. Would Microsoft then refuse to
> support Tuner cards that did *not* have built-in DRM?

Well, since Microsoft requires software decoding to support their current
DRM for MCE, and *only* hardware decryption and decoding in a special card
would allow compliance, it seems that they'd seriously have to change their
setup. This is mainly because MCE allows recording of analog with any
codec installed on the computer. MCE really wasn't designed to handle
pre-compressed data as the broadcast.

The best possibility is a public-key system where the tuner card encrypts
to the video card's public key. That would still require a change in the
way Microsoft does things, but not as much, since they do have support for
hardware-assist decoding in the video card. They'd just push everything
(including the decryption) to the other card.

This would even allow a setup where you could enter a small number of
public keys to have the data encrypted to, and allow playback on any one
of 10 (for example) devices. This certainly protects the spirit of the
broadcast flag ruling (which is no wide unencrypted distribution), while
allowing a user to use the material.

This would require some standardization among manufacturers, and they
wouldn't like it much, because they want to lock you in. I'd expect that
the reality would be tuner/video combo cards with completely proprietary
encryption methods.

> Of course this is all academic since the BG got voted down, unless they
> find some backdoor way of getting in reinstituted.

They will try to get Congress to vote it in, but I think that the fact that
every new scripted show this year is *still* HDTV might sway Congress to
think that the copyright owners don't really care as much as they say...
they just want to have their cake and eat it, too.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Zits/AttentiveIgnorer.jpg
September 18, 2005 9:57:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote in news:D gjmnq$pmu$1
@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu:

> Jack Zwick wrote:
>> you troll
>
> Hmm, this thread seems to be attracting obscure posts. I'm not getting
> the reasoning for Jack's at all. Unless he's *purposefully* trying to
> be obscure.

As far as I can tell, he's just trying to be stupid (IE, not even trying to
pick up anyone's point) and insulting. He's toed the line for quite some
time...as I said in his other abusive thread, he doesn't even look at
threads anymore, he has one agenda and pursues it blindly. But it's
ok...he's gone now.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
September 19, 2005 1:40:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

In article <dgif9i$nq8$1@spnode25.nerdc.ufl.edu>, "Randy S." <rswitt@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>Howard wrote:
>> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1d9665bc672573e9989fc7@news.nabs.net:
>>
>>
>>>Even if it has DRM, it doesn't have the same issues as the SA TiVos. I
>>>recorded every one of the Fox programs that people had "problems" with,
>>>and they were all without any "protection".
>>
>>
>> That's because not everybody had "problems", nor were these "problems"
>> restricted only to any particular type of TiVo. Or for that matter, TiVo
>> at all...which was kind of the point.
>>
>> For example, my SA TiVo had no "problem" at all, but in following the link,
>> it seems at least one TV card did. Since TiVo doesn't market TV cards for
>> computers, it's really hard for people to continue to claim it is a "TiVo"
>> problem.
>>
>> Hence, my post. Anyone who is dumping TiVo for alternate DVRs...So long,
>> losers. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And if you think your
>> replacement will be free of any problems...
>>
>> Well, good luck with that.
>>
>
>Yeah, I think Howard's OP was a bit unclear. It took a minute for me to
>see what he was driving at, but he's right, DRM is pervasive. It's
>there because the broadcasters and MPAA folks are forcing it into *all*
>devices, not just Tivo. They do it by blackmail, either add it in, or
>they won't allow you to display their content. Either they won't
>deliver it to you, or they'll sue the pants off you.
>
>The only possible way around the DRM is home-brew systems that are too
>small potato to sue. However don't be surprised if the DRM gets
>packaged into the hardware eventually. If that happens, even the MythTV
>and Freevo folks are going to be up the proverbial creek since they
>could do whatever they want with the software, if the Tuner card won't
>allow specific digital streams to be recorded, then there's little they
>can do.
>
>Randy S.


Already being considered
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050720_191403.ht...
September 20, 2005 4:29:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"Howard" <stile99@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D4B9D5E1E36stile@129.250.170.88...
> Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d9665bc672573e9989fc7@news.nabs.net:
>
>> Even if it has DRM, it doesn't have the same issues as the SA TiVos. I
>> recorded every one of the Fox programs that people had "problems" with,
>> and they were all without any "protection".
>
> That's because not everybody had "problems", nor were these "problems"
> restricted only to any particular type of TiVo. Or for that matter, TiVo
> at all...which was kind of the point.
>
> For example, my SA TiVo had no "problem" at all, but in following the
> link,
> it seems at least one TV card did. Since TiVo doesn't market TV cards for
> computers, it's really hard for people to continue to claim it is a "TiVo"
> problem.
>
> Hence, my post. Anyone who is dumping TiVo for alternate DVRs...So long,
> losers. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. And if you think your
> replacement will be free of any problems...


My understanding was that this was covered withthe whole VCR debate of the
80's shouldn't "free" broadcast tv be unprotected regardless?
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 12:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

> My understanding was that this was covered withthe whole VCR debate of the
> 80's shouldn't "free" broadcast tv be unprotected regardless?

Yeah, you would think. And you should be able to copy music you
purchase as many times as you want as well. But the media companies
have managed to convince the politicians that they have the right to
trample all over the customer's rights in order to protect their own.

They're scared of digital media because it can be easily copied and
distributed an unlimited number of times with no loss in quality.

Randy S.
September 20, 2005 9:21:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)

"john" <jabitzerjr@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:jeMXe.3211$P34.3003@okepread07:

> My understanding was that this was covered withthe whole VCR debate of
> the 80's shouldn't "free" broadcast tv be unprotected regardless?

There was an episode of South Park that featured a record executive. He
basically kept being an ass and flagrantly breaking the law, and whenever
anyone called him on it, he would say "I am above the law!" before putting
his really bad comb-over back into place.

Alas, this was not a parody of a record exec, it was a darned good
imitation. It goes for all recording industries, video as well as audio.
The law? A minor inconvenience. Your rights? Even less importance.
You? Nothing but a criminal.

--
Minister of All Things Digital & Electronic, and Holder of Past Knowledge
stile99@email.com. Cabal# 24601-fnord | Sleep is irrelevant.
I speak for no one but myself, and |Caffeine will be assimilated.
no one else speaks for me. O- | Decaf is futile.
!