Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking Businesses Google The Internet Hardware

Details on San Francisco's Free Wifi 80

Posted by Zonk
from the both-the-wi-and-the-fi-are-free dept.
FrenchSilk writes to mention that the San Francisco Chronicle has more details on the previously discussed Earthlink/Google municipal wifi project. The paper confirms that free access will be free to everyone, with higher bandwidth and more reliable tiers also available. The article touches on a number of related subjects, such as security, reliability, and privacy. From the article: "Recognizing the concerns expressed by electronic privacy advocates and community members, the City has negotiated an Agreement that addresses the privacy needs of our residents, negotiating terms stronger than any other City and incorporating protections that go far beyond what federal, state or local law requires. EarthLink and the provider of the free service will be required to fully disclose their privacy policy. This ensures that all users are aware of the privacy policies."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Details on San Francisco's Free Wifi

Comments Filter:
  • Wifi (Score:5, Informative)

    by JoshJ (1009085) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @02:28AM (#17485722) Journal
    But does it run on Linux? All joking aside, the service seems pretty decent for a free service (300 Kbps), although $21.95 for a 1 Mbps service is a bit under the norm, but possibly a better deal than whatever internet providers exist in SF now- especially considering the mobility of it. The $12.95 discount for low-income residents makes me go "WTF" though- if your family is "low-income" by the conventional measure (poverty line) you probably shouldn't be spending money on wi-fi. I detect political hijinks. I wonder how the service is going to know whether each person is "free" or "paid", and how long it'll be before that gets hacked.
    I do like the following things, though: Network neutrality. The City has required that EarthLink adhere to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) principles of internet freedom to address any potential for abuse of consumers or retail service providers. Non exclusivity: The agreement provides access to the City's right of way and facilities on a competitively neutral and non discriminatory basis. Nothing will prevent additional Wi-Fi providers from deploying similar networks should they desire to do so. Open Access: The agreement ensures that all internet service providers, including our local businesses, nonprofits and other organizations, will be able to provide commercial services without fear of a local monopoly. The City is not granting an exclusive franchise; rather, the City has negotiated an Agreement that provides the foundation for competition.
    • Without knowing the specifics of this law, I would say that "Low Income" probably means something different in San Francisco than you'd expect.

      It's been a few years since I lived there, but... at the time, there were laws in place that apartment complexes meeting certain size criteria or what have you were required to offer some percentage of their units at reduced rates to "low income" residents. At one apartment complex I looked at living at at the time, "low income" was any family with a household incom
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by aslvrstn (1047588)
        At the same time, salaries are proportionately raised. Job offers at Google's HQ in CA pays a good $30-$40k more than their new Pittsburgh, PA office. It may not be the best sample points, but I have friends whose parents each make solid 6 figures in CA and live at about the same level that I do with one parent making minimal six-figures in PA. I do still agree though, if people really are living with relatively low incomes, whatever that may be, they shouldn't be spending it on increasing their internet ex
        • Re:Low Income (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kfg (145172) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @06:02AM (#17486536)
          if people really are living with relatively low incomes, whatever that may be, they shouldn't be spending it on increasing their internet experience, nor should they be incited to by the lower cost.

          That's right, they should be spending it on Slim Jims, beer and lottery tickets, like the good old days.

          We'll have none of this tapping into a world of information, education, free software, looking for work, looking for a better place to live, access to cheap delivered goods instead of being stuck getting everything from the low income neighborhood ripoff joint, effective communication with each other across town or across the globe without having to support a landline/cell contract, etc. Think of the children, man!

          Especially at a lower cost than what they're paying now for inferior service. Jeeeezus Christ, where's the economic sense in that? Do you know what will happen to the nation's economy if the mass of low income people start being incited to buy things because they cost less?

          It'll collapse, that's what it'll do. We depend on them to buy Kellog's Frosted Flakes instead of Corn Meal and sugar, Microsoft Windows instead of downloading Ubuntu, emergency room visits for flu instead of a reasonably priced GP down the block, blockbuster movies instead of community theater.

          Just who do they think they are determining their own priorities anyway? The whole point of having low income people around is so that higher income people can tell them how they should be living, innit? Next thing ya know they'll start thinking they might like an afternoon at the art museum or something. We'd have to rub shoulders with them or something if we allowed that sort of thing; when they should be putting in that sixteenth hour at work, dammit. They obviously need the three bucks.

          No, the purpose of low income people is to pick oranges/cotton to provide tax dollars to provide museums and ubiquitous WiFi for high income people.

          Fucking peasants are revolting.

          Next week if you're not careful.

          KFG
          • by aslvrstn (1047588)
            My point wasn't that they shouldn't be paying for internet access if they don't have any; I fully agree that it can be nearly as important as basic utilities for nearly anyone. But if they're already getting free access, why the need to pay more for better service? Perhaps it would be better spent on things more needed, or *gasp*, put away in savings. I agree that most people likely won't, but why should the state be inciting them to spend money on things they don't need, like an improved browsing experienc
          • by paniq (833972)
            is that you bill?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by FLEB (312391)
          Now could the economists here (armchair or otherwise) explain to me how this condition doesn't collapse, especially when it's driven in part by the technology industry, which has far fewer reasons to physically locate anywhere in particular? Considering that the rest of the world-- the rest of the country, even-- is paying far less wage for the same amount of living, how does the inflated wage/price leapfrog continue, yet still manage to survive within the greater saner, more reasonably-priced world?
      • by Belgand (14099)
        To provide some relevant information the minimum wage just increased here with the new year to $9.14/hr.
        • by JoshJ (1009085)
          That's quite the nice minimum wage there. Can we borrow your legislators here?
          • by dynamo52 (890601)
            The cost of living here is high. I would not consider that a living wage as a single male with no children. A 1 bedroom apartment here runs about $1200 and other expenses are high as well. $62K for a family of four would be low income by US standards.
            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by Belgand (14099)
              I know it's high. I'm paying $1200 on a 1 bedroom apartment (a basement place about a block from the Daly City BART, but just barely within city limits) shared with my girlfriend. For comparisons I was paying about $600 for a larger two bedroom apartment in a well-managed complex with in-unit washer/dryer, dishwasher, included cable TV, and pool before moving. That was in a small, college town in Kansas (Manhattan, KS to be exact) though where that was at the high end of the scale.

              At the same time though I'
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by TheRaven64 (641858)
            Is it really? It works out at £4.697 at today's exchange rate, while the minimum wage here is £5.35/hour, or $10.41/hour. Cost of living here (Wales) is a lot lower than California too...
            • by PCM2 (4486)
              Interesting. But it's true, San Francisco's minimum wage is a lot higher than ... well, that of most of the United States. Sales tax -- it's like your VAT but instead of being figured into the sticker price of goods it's added on at the register -- also varies from state to state and even from locality to locality within the state. In San Francisco you add 8.5 percent tax onto the price of everything you buy, other than groceries. And the earlier poster is correct ... a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisc
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by norkakn (102380)
      *disclaimer: I had a pitcher of beer and a bottle of wine*

      The internet means more to 'low income' folks than to us in a lot of ways. It's a way to stay in touch with friends without physical addresses or access fees.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually $21.95 is for symmetric 1Mbps. It's quite unusual to pay that little for 1Mpbs upload capacity, at least around SF.

      Of course, these are early reports, so I'll believe that when I see it.

      As far as the system knowing whether you've paid, that'll probably work much like it does at Starbucks or wherever. The difference here is that your credentials will be used to adjust some rate-limiting on a router somewhere I guess.
    • Re:Wifi (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fiddlesticks (457600) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @04:19AM (#17486244) Homepage
      "if your family is "low-income" by the conventional measure (poverty line) you probably shouldn't be spending money on wi-fi"

      Care to share with us anything else that you think people on low incomes shouldn't be spending money on?

      Books? Holidays? Clothes?

      On the other hand, perhaps subsidising people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford to go online is a good thing. Maybe that way they'll, you know, learn stuff/ get jobs/ have fun - all the things everyone else uses the Net for.

      Oh, right, this is /. The market will take care of it, riiiight?
      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        Holidays? Absolutely.

        When you have money to burn, then you can burn it on Holy Days. Worry about food and rent now.
        • by PCM2 (4486)
          That's right. Back to the coal mines, you proles! Since when does the world owe you the light of day?
      • by maxume (22995)
        There is a whatchacallit, *free* service tier.
      • by c6gunner (950153)
        If you can afford the required hardware, and the $12 per month, you're not exactly "low income". Especially if you're willing to pay even though there's a FREE service available.

        There's something very wrong about a society which classifies "poor" as "someone with only one computer".
        • by PCM2 (4486)
          There's something very wrong about a society which classifies "poor" as "someone with only one computer".

          Really? Wow. That would seem like the ideal society to me. If it were really true, it would be a virtual utopia. How desperate and starving do the poor people have to be for a society to count as "right" in your view?

          • by c6gunner (950153)
            Are you naturally retarded, or did it actually take some effort to write that response?

            The problem isn't that the "poor" are too wealthy, the problem is that people continue to shift the definition of what it means to be poor. At what point do you say "enough! you're not getting any more free shit!"? When people with large homes, multiple vehicles, plenty of food, medical care, and all sorts of luxuries can still be classified as "poor", and demand our pity (and money), that's WRONG. There's no two ways
            • 'Are you naturally retarded, or did it actually take some effort to write that response?'

              Ah, a natural debater.

              'the problem is that people continue to shift the definition of what it means to be poor.'

              Yes, society does that. It's called relative poverty, or inequality.

              'I don't mind giving money to make sure that people have the basic necessities of life'

              Hurrah!

              Don't you think that in a developed, civilised country, internet access becomes a necessity?

              Would you give it up? No? Oh, but the poor shouldn't have
              • by c6gunner (950153)
                "Yes, society does that. It's called relative poverty, or inequality."

                Oh, I see the problem here. You're a commie. Well. No wonder.

                Hey, how 'bout we start handing out Olympic medals to everyone? You know, in the name of equality. God forbid some people do better than others.

                Poverty is one thing, inequality another. I'll fight poverty, sure, but those trying to make me equal to everyone else can all go to hell.
                • Ah, I see the problem, here. You're an idiot. Well. No wonder.

                  We're talking about wifi, and poverty, you're talking about the Olympics. and medals (??) and commies (?????)

                  'I'll fight poverty, sure'

                  And howm exactly, Mr Clark Kent, are you fighting poverty? By not eating so many chocolates?

                  'Poverty is one thing, inequality another.'

                  And there we were just agreeing that they are two sides of the same coin, and that there's no /absolute/ definition of poverty that doesn't take into account relative inequality. G
                  • by c6gunner (950153)
                    Maybe I should change my tagline to "I don't respond to idiots".

                    For you, I'll make an exception. Let me lay it out for you Einstein:

                    You are equating poverty with equality. That my friend is a communist, or at the very least "socialist", mindset. You are in effect saying that eliminating poverty is not enough - we must also work to make sure that everyone is as equal as possible. Now, in your ignorance, I'm sure that this sounds like a fantastic idea.

                    Having grown up under a communist regime, I k
                    • by PCM2 (4486)
                      Wow. You are really crazy, as in out-of-your-mind crazy, aren't you?

                      You are equating poverty with equality.

                      Really? From my read of the thread, you're the only one doing that. The other guy isn't quite as nuts as you.

                      Enforced "equality" has been used to justify so much slaughter, oppression, and misery that, in this respect, it is almost on par with religion. Feel-good ideas like yours are the security-blankets of weak minds, and a trademark of the bumper-sticker philosopher.

                      And here I thought we were ta

        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          If you can afford the required hardware, and the $12 per month, you're not exactly "low income".

          Uh, who said anything about the poor buying a computer? What happens to all the old computers when someone buys a new one from Dell?

          The old ones get recycled. Smarter recyclers realize there are some powerful machines being recycled - powerful enough to do basic word processing and surf the 'net. Heck, if you know of underpriviledged people, you might give them your old computer that's too "slow" for you.

          Even a P

      • "if your family is "low-income" by the conventional measure (poverty line) you probably shouldn't be spending money on wi-fi"

        This should be read as:
        If your family is "low-income" by the conventional measure (poverty line) you probably shouldn't be spending money on wi-fi when you're already getting it for free.

        If they did not have a way of easy [free] access to the internet then they have a reason to spend money on it. On the other hand, if they are already getting broadband access to the internet for free they probably shouldn't be spending their money on a better connection.

    • The $12.95 discount for low-income residents makes me go "WTF" though- if your family is "low-income" by the conventional measure (poverty line) you probably shouldn't be spending money on wi-fi.

      Yeah, right. We wouldn't want poor people trying to improve their technical skills, take online courses, or any of that crap.

      And while we're at it, let's close down the public libraries. Face it, people who aren't poor can afford to buy their own own books. And yet they're the ones who pay the taxes that support

      • Yeah, right. We wouldn't want poor people trying to improve their technical skills, take online courses, or any of that crap.


        Is 300kbs free to slow to take online courses and improve their technical skills. If so, I agree with offering them a faster connection at a lower rate.
  • Clarification (Score:4, Interesting)

    by goldspider (445116) <ardrake79NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday January 06, 2007 @02:29AM (#17485730) Homepage
    When you say "free", do you mean:

    1. Free as in beer.
    2. Free as in speech.
    or
    3. Free as in taxpayer-subsidized?
    • Re:Clarification (Score:4, Interesting)

      by supervillainsf (820395) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @02:43AM (#17485812)
      I guess you didn't rtfa. Here is the relevant info:

      Fees paid to the City:
      $600,000 in guaranteed payments for access to the City's right of way.
      An estimated $40,000 per year for the use of City facilities (street light poles);
      A 5% share of all gross access revenues, estimated to generate $300,000 per year, depending on paying subscriber uptake. These funds may be used to fund computer and other equipment, training and self-help programs and community relevant content development.


      So I guess the answer is free as in Earthlink thinks that between advertising and subscribers to the 1Mbps tier, the service will produce enough profit to far out weigh the costs. And, if it doesn't, i'm sure Earthlink will find some way around the privacy clause and start selling personal info on top of the huge amount of marketing that we are bound to put up with for access.
      • by bunions (970377)
        so, basically, free as in 'getting paid to drink free beer.'

        that's pretty free.
      • by JoshJ (1009085)
        The paying subscriber model alone is probably enough to be worth it for earthlink, I think. (Ads for google). Not to mention the ready access to politicians that can be "donated to" in exchange for favorable laws.
      • by taojing (849446)
        That amount of money the city will realize under Google/Earthlink compared to their combined worth is a pittance of what they could make if they used the city-owned fiber network that is already installed and WiFi for the last mile. And they could throw in new computers for all of us to boot. Also, by using this model, the city would get to lease access to large bandwidth clients for 40-60% less than what commercial providers charge. The city is not in the business of making a profit. This would provide sm
  • Privacy "agreement" (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 06, 2007 @02:38AM (#17485786)
    EarthLink will not share protected personal information (such as name, address, phone number, financial and medical profiles, and credit card information) without the consent of the user, except in the following cases:

    To third party suppliers, provided that users may opt out of receiving marketing communications.

    To law enforcement with court-ordered documentation for a criminal or national security investigation

    In response to a civil legal demand, but only after reasonable prior notice to the user.

    EarthLink shall provide Subscribers an opportunity to opt out of EarthLink's use of location information (i.e., information about the location of the user's computer or other device that is accessing the network) EarthLink shall retain Location Information no longer than 60 days.

    Sign-in to the free service will require only minimal information, mainly for the purpose of protecting the network from abuse by "robot software" and other malicious programs.


    Read carefully folks!
    • EarthLink and the provider of the free service will be required to fully disclose their privacy policy. This ensures that all users are aware of the privacy policies."
      What it ensures is that users are overwhelmed with the amount of text and quickly click "Okay".
    • FTA(S):
      ...protections that go far beyond what federal, state or local law requires.

      Shit. Based on those terms, I'd hate to see what "federal, state or local law" require.

      - RG>
  • by inviolet (797804) <slashdot@ideasmatt e r .org> on Saturday January 06, 2007 @02:39AM (#17485788) Journal
    "Recognizing the concerns expressed by electronic privacy advocates and community members, the City has negotiated an Agreement that addresses the privacy needs of our residents, negotiating terms stronger than any other City and incorporating protections that go far beyond what federal, state or local law requires. EarthLink and the provider of the free service will be required to fully disclose their privacy policy.

    Earthlink guarantees your privacy by tossing 95% of your emails. Nobody will be able to reconstruct your conversations.

    And your security is insured by having 30% of your packets dropped. This has been scientifically proven to reduce probing attacks by 30%.

  • Maybe I'm dense or something, but I can't seem to find this anywhere in the plan: As a citizen of the East Bay and not San Francisco, would I be able to use the 300 kbs "free service" for free when I happen to be in the city?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tloh (451585)
      Heh, Why bother "happening" to be in the city at all? Point your Pringle yagi antenna [oreillynet.com]- powered wireless connection west across the bay and be a proud San Franciscan from the comfort of your own home. If I needed to, I know I would. But seriously, I'm wondering 2 things:

      How tamper proof are they actually going to make this thing? If the policy is libral/versatile/friendly enough, they probably won't face *too* much circumvention attempts. But there will inevitably be a few bad apples intent upon bein
      • by JoshJ (1009085)
        Well, the stuff that's already operating will in no way be barred. (RTFA) Whether or not they have any reason to exist, however, is a different matter.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by FrenchSilk (847696)
      Did you RTFA? "A 300 Kbps free tier of service for use by all residents, businesses and visitors. This 300 Kbps tier is adequate for most basic Internet tasks such as web, email and even VoIP."
  • in theory at least, I could simply use several network cards with different mac adresses to get N x 300 kb/s , could I ?

    anyway, let's hope they adhere to the terms of the picopeering agreement [1].

    [1] http://www.picopeer.net/ [picopeer.net]
  • by namityadav (989838) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @02:54AM (#17485868)
    If I remember correctly, Google will manage the free 300-kilobits-per-second Wi-Fi service, EarthLink will offer the faster premium service (1mbps and above), and Motorola and Tropos will provide the hardware / software for the mesh with the wireless service running at 2.4GHz and the mesh backbone at 5.8GHz
  • So what's the news of this being implemented elsewhere? You can be sure that there are a lot of cities in the world that could use this just as much... New York City, for instance? I want to hear details of this idea sprouting up elsewhere.
  • Buy WiFi card without giving out your identity and use SF free network to get even with **AA
  • by Belgand (14099)
    Personally I see the appeal, but it feels like this service will only be used in two ways: 1)people who want to use it to get online while wandering around town or to provide connectivity for ultra-portable devices (e.g. PDAs, DS, etc.) 2)low-income Internet availability. From the way I've heard it pushed (I haven't been to any of the community meetings so this is mainly what I've read online and in the Guardian) this is exactly the way they've been trying to sell it. Bleeding-hearts can claim that they're
  • VOIP? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by popo (107611) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @04:41AM (#17486292) Homepage
    So, when do the telecom companies start bribing city officials to kill this project?
    Free citywide Wifi would seem to me to be a deathblow for anyone currently selling
    dialtone. Won't everyone just start using VOIP?

    And just wait until VOIP enabled mobile handsets become commonplace...
  • It's sad. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by lzmbr (906441)

    This 300 Kbps tier is adequate for most basic Internet tasks such as web, email and even VoIP

    And here am I, in the third world, stuck with a 300k ADSL while paying a fortune for it.

    Sometimes it's quite depressing to read Slashdot, you guys have high definition TVs, next-gen consoles, fast broadband services and free Wifi, while in this part of the world it's either not avaliable or too expensive. The Wii, for example, costs more than the equivalent of 1000 USD here.

    Perhaps Google has any plans to extend this project worldwide? :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DECS (891519)
      Sorry your ADSL is expensive.

      I pay $1100 a month to share a basic 2 BR flat in SF, and going out to eat somewhere basic typically costs $20/person unless drinks are involved. If my motorcycle gets ticketed for being parked on the sidewalk, it's $100. People commonly pay $200 a month for a garage, or being careful, you can park on the street and pay the inevitable $250 in tickets every quarter.

      WiFi won't be free in SF until the City approves the plan and it actually gets built. While the plan drags along, I
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by alphafoo (319930)
        Funny this should come up today. I have been without my ADSL here in SF for nearly a week now, and in fact have not even had dial tone for two days. So the $50/month has felt even more expensive than usual. In fact, I just got down from the roof, where I was hanging out with the ATT/PacBell/Yahoo/YouNameIt tech. He told me it was my lucky day--- he was going to replace the dry-rotted wiring with wire that would conduct a signal, thus re-establishing my dial-tone and my DSL. I asked him why it was lucky that
        • by SuperQ (431) *
          Ouch, the best thing I've found is to lie to these type of retards.. "yes.. yes.. I'm running windows XP home"

          This is also why I have speakeasy service.. when i call them, they answer the phone, understand what traceroute is, and don't ask me stupid questions.

          Of course, I have to pay a crapton ($100/month) for this level of service. Thankfully my job lets me expense most of that.
    • Re:It's sad. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Overzeetop (214511) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @09:34AM (#17487166) Journal
      Fear not, all of these 15M/2M FTTP guys on /. are in the cherry picked areas of the country. Most of the US is still on dialup. I define most as "more than 50% of landmass," and I'd bet a dollar that it's closer to 70-80% of landmass, but I'm not going to try and look it up.

      Until just two years ago, I was ten miles from a major university with several GB/s of bandwidth (may be tens of GB, for all I know) and when I called the local telco and cableco inquiring about "high speed internet" they were excited to tell me that they had high speed internet - they'd just upgraded more than half of their modem pool to 56kb! By the time I left there, they had a 768/128kb ADSL that I badgered them into extending to my house (about 20,000 ft from the CO), where I got 680/65kb. And a bargain at $45/mo. Note that this is not some university in the middle of nowhere, as we're less than 250 miles from Washington, D.C. Now I'm "in town" and can get better DSL, or cable if I don't mind being down for 10-15% of the time (fuck you Adephia). Ten years ago they were all going to have 10bT to the houses thanks to the University, but I can only guess that Adelphia and Bell Atlantic (now Verizon) squashed that pretty quickly.

    • And here am I, in the third world, stuck with a 300k ADSL while paying a fortune for it. Sometimes it's quite depressing to read Slashdot, you guys have high definition TVs, next-gen consoles, fast broadband services and free Wifi, while in this part of the world it's either not avaliable or too expensive. The Wii, for example, costs more than the equivalent of 1000 USD here.

      Dude, you third-worlders are getting our jobs (we can't export them fast enough!), so very soon after you may have all the tech g

  • I imagine a few dedicated people will attempt a poor mans multi link and have multiple connections to the wifi network. Just set up a load balancing virtual IP as your gateway and hey presto. Would boost their speed quite nicely (Sure, you won't get more than 300kb/s on a single connection, but if you use a download manager then it wouldn't matter).
  • I live in oakland county in MI, and by the end of the year they will provide free Wifi across the whole county. I love it as after it becomes avalable I won't have to choose between a phone line I don't want (to get DSL) or Cable I don't need (for Cable modem) just to get online. I'll be able to save well over 50$ a month. Fyi where I am we have ONE phone provider, and ONE cable provider. More info about wireless oakland can be found here http://www.oakgov.com/wireless/ [oakgov.com]
  • This has been YEARS now they have been talking about this. When will results appear? How do they propose to limit individual WiFi users? It is very vague. Limit you by MAC? A Muni-WiFi is going to have BIG problems with their coverage. I work with a small neighborhood WISP and I know there are certain locations we abandoned trying to cover, because they are already jam-packed with other AP's, cordless phones, baby monitors, and other interference sources. If gov't wanted to REALLY improve internet access
  • Get a 50% discount...

    Umm, shouldnt they be worrying more about food and housing and paying off their dealer/pimp/etc then buying computers playing on the internet ?

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson

Working...