Off Topic, but it is about Cancer

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rife must have been a pretty clever forger to produce photographs of
pathogens that were comparable to
what you would get under an electron microscope, long before the

microscopes

Quoted message said:

were advanced enough to do so.
(The diffraction limit never did apply in Rife's scopes since allegedly

the

Quoted message said:

beam didn't cross)
Anth

The beam didn't cross? What, pray tell, does THAT mean? Looking at viruses
with light waves is the equivalent of trying to determine the shape of
houseflies by bouncing bowling balls off them. Rife claimed to see "living"
viruses IN COLOR! This feat is impossible because viruses are far too small
to reflect light at all, particularly in separate wavelengths (colors).
Whatever Rife "photographed" were certainly not viruses, and probably not
pathogens. They are not recognizable to any microbiologists today. My guess
is that they were probably artifact of some sort.

--Rich

This is actually about scientific medicine and how it becomes progressively
better at treating cancer.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/wire/sns-ap-molecular-computer,0,396724
8,print.story?coll=sns-ap-health-headlines

DNA 'Computer' Able to Detect Cancer

By CHRIS KAHN
Associated Press Writer

April 28, 2004, 1:29 PM EDT

Researchers have developed a vanishingly tiny "computer" that could someday
enable doctors to treat cancer and other diseases from inside the body.

The molecular-scale device, which is essentially a liquid mixture of synthetic
DNA and enzymes, is designed to sniff out chemical signs of disease and pump
out drugs in response.

In a new study, researchers say it showed promising results in a test tube.

Ehud Shapiro of Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science, who led the team of
computer experts and biochemists that built it, said the next step will be to
package the computer so it works within the complex chemical soup of the body.

"The problems are big, and we do not have a clear way to solve them," said
Shapiro, who describes the device in the study, published online Wednesday by
the journal Nature.

Molecular computers have only been around for a decade. Instead of micro chips
and processors, they harness the software-like ability of DNA strands to store
information. Enzymes "read" chemical sequences on the DNA in a way that allows
the computer to perform calculations.

Experts say such computers could become extremely powerful, given DNA's
potential to store huge amounts of information. The computing power of 1
trillion compact discs could be stored in less than an ounce of dried DNA.

John Reif, a computer science professor at Duke University who built his own
molecular computer in 2000, said until now no molecular computer has ever
demonstrated much practical use.

"It's really an ingenious concept," Reif said of Shapiro's computer. "This
could have a major significance in the medical world, if only they could get it
in the cell."

In the future, a doctor might inject trillions of the devices into a patient.
The computer is designed to detect cancer by monitoring concentrations of
certain molecules. If cancer is detected, the computer releases other molecules
that interfere with a cancer cell's activities and cause it to self-destruct.

Unlike many of its predecessors, the computer is autonomous -- it doesn't need
supervision or added chemicals to make it work.

Shapiro, who received a U.S. patent for a previous version in 2001, said the
new computer worked fine detecting chemical markers of lung and prostate cancer
in lab experiments using a pristine water solution.

But it could get confused if it were put in a medium teeming with other
molecules, Shapiro said. "There could be many reactions with many other
molecules that may be detrimental to either the computer or to the cell in
which it operates."

Of course I've seen them.
Anth

"Jesus Loves Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rife must have been a pretty clever forger to produce photographs of
pathogens that were comparable to
what you would get under an electron microscope, long before the

microscopes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

were advanced enough to do so.

Have you seen the pictures? What I've seen bears little if any

resemblence to

Quoted message said:

the Actual appearance of the viruses and bacteria in question.

Quoted message said:

(The diffraction limit never did apply in Rife's scopes since allegedly

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

beam didn't cross)
Anth

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jesus Loves Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Rife must have been a pretty clever forger to produce photographs of
pathogens that were comparable to
what you would get under an electron microscope, long before the microscopes
were advanced enough to do so.
(The diffraction limit never did apply in Rife's scopes since allegedly the
beam didn't cross)
Anth

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jesus Loves Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Reif, a computer science professor at Duke University who built his

own

Quoted message said:

molecular computer in 2000, said until now no molecular computer has

ever

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

demonstrated much practical use.

The Reif molecular computer is, however, more plausible and promising than
the Rife microscope ever was.

;o) Rich

Quoted message said:

Rife must have been a pretty clever forger to produce photographs of
pathogens that were comparable to
what you would get under an electron microscope, long before the microscopes
were advanced enough to do so.

Have you seen the pictures? What I've seen bears little if any resemblence to
the Actual appearance of the viruses and bacteria in question.

Quoted message said:

(The diffraction limit never did apply in Rife's scopes since allegedly the
beam didn't cross)
Anth

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jesus Loves Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rife must have been a pretty clever forger to produce photographs of
pathogens that were comparable to
what you would get under an electron microscope, long before the

microscopes

Quoted message said:

were advanced enough to do so.
(The diffraction limit never did apply in Rife's scopes since allegedly

the

Quoted message said:

beam didn't cross)
Anth

The beam didn't cross? What, pray tell, does THAT mean? Looking at viruses
with light waves is the equivalent of trying to determine the shape of
houseflies by bouncing bowling balls off them. Rife claimed to see

"living"

Quoted message said:

viruses IN COLOR! This feat is impossible because viruses are far too

small

Quoted message said:

to reflect light at all, particularly in separate wavelengths (colors).
Whatever Rife "photographed" were certainly not viruses, and probably not
pathogens. They are not recognizable to any microbiologists today. My

guess

Quoted message said:

is that they were probably artifact of some sort.

'Crossing the beams' means you get diffraction patterns which makes viewing
small things impossible.
In other words you have a cone of light, at the apex the beams cross and
form another cone, which is what happens in regular optical microscopes.
(This is where you get terrible diffraction patterns)
Physicists have beat the diffraction limit and managed squeezing light
through a hole 1/10 of the wavelength of the light, so how do you explain
that? They stretched an optical fibre out into a cone and the apex let the
light out, even though the hole was much smaller than the wavelength of
light.
Google SNOM and you will see how they used this effect.
Remember light is a particle and wave depending on hwo you think of it.

Where did you get the information that Rife was looking at virus?
He was looking at pleomorphic organisms which resembled fungi and bacteria.

Quoted message said:

Rife claimed to see "living" viruses IN COLOR! This feat is impossible

because viruses are far too small

Quoted message said:

to reflect light at all, particularly in separate wavelengths (colors).

Have you heard of 'flourescence', kind of like when you got to a club and
your shirt lights up,
essentially the organism becomes a very small point light source with it's
very own waveform.
Rife shifted this waveform into the visible spectrum by some method.

Quoted message said:

Whatever Rife "photographed" were certainly not viruses, and probably not
pathogens. They are not recognizable to any microbiologists today. My

guess

Quoted message said:

is that they were probably artifact of some sort.

(1) They are easy to miss when they are not lit up..
(2) There exists photo's and films produced by Rife which show these
organisms, which are on par with electroni microscope scans BUT electron
microscopes were in their infancy when these phots were produced.
(3) http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/9/10/1
(4) They are recognisable.

Quoted message said:

My guess is that they were probably artifact of some sort.

I wouldn't put your money on it.

The rest I don't know, and I doubt scientists will know for years to come,
but it is something I would enjoy experimenting with.

Anth

Also look here
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/4
The sharpest images ever achieved by optical means have been produced by
researchers in Germany. Stefan Hell and Marcus Dyba of the Max Planck
Institute for Biophysical Chemistry used conventional optics to image clumps
of bacteria just 33 nanometres across - equivalent to 1/23 of the wavelength
of light used to illuminate them. The achievement shows that 'far-field'
optical microscopes can operate well beyond the so-called diffraction limit
without exploiting the quantum nature of light (M Dyba and S Hell 2002 Phys.
Rev. Lett. 88 163901).

Quote:
1/23 the wavelength of the illumination light, so indeed Rife is possible.
They used a dye to iluminate them - just think what could be achieved if the
pathogens were made to glow in their natural colours, or indeed frequencies
which are invisible to the human eye, which can be shifted into the optical
range.
Anth

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Also (if you are interested) the shifting in waveform is called
heterodyning.
So you could transform invisible light into the visible spectrum or even use
this to magnify or filter out unwanted bands.
Anth

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Rife used monochromatic light, and yes I believe he could have done it.

Yes, I know you believe that. You believe many interesting things.
However, a laser is not just monochromatic light.

Point is irrelevant anyways because the right frequency of light will make
the organisms glow.

It is not possible for single objects that are many times smaller than the
wavelength of visible light to "glow" in that spectrum. Rife believers would
have you believe that under his microscope, they not only "glow," but in so
doing they reveal even smaller details of their structure. [censored]!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If he didn't do it then how come there's pictures proving it?

Well, you say there are. However, other people do not seem to find
these pictures persuasive.

Doesn't mean to say the pictures are frauds.

Whatever they are, they are not microorganisms that fall into known
classifications today.
Electron microscopes and scanning tunelling microscopes can image objects
far smaller than Rife ever dreamed existed. Why haven't they produced
pictures to match Rife's?

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> Anth <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >Rife used monochromatic light, and yes I believe he could have done

it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> Yes, I know you believe that. You believe many interesting things.
> However, a laser is not just monochromatic light.

Point is irrelevant anyways because the right frequency of light will

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the organisms glow.

It is not possible for single objects that are many times smaller than

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wavelength of visible light to "glow" in that spectrum. Rife believers

would

Quoted message said:

have you believe that under his microscope, they not only "glow," but in

so

Quoted message said:

doing they reveal even smaller details of their structure. [censored]!

Why?
Rife used monochromatic light that wasn't in the visible spectrum.
It's possible for 1 molecule to 'glow' why do you think your shirt lights

up

Quoted message said:

in the club?

The Dbya-Hell instrument that you mentioned in an earlier post can resolve
a point of light that is 33 nanometers in diameter. So even if Rife had had
the technology to produce these results, he could not have imaged viruses or
made his instrument produce images similar to those of an electron
microscope. The Ebola virus, one of the larger ones, is about 200nm in its
largest dimension, or about six dots at the above resolution. Small viruses,
such as rhinoviruses that give you a cold, are as small as 20nm, maybe one
dim dot...hardly a detailed image. If Rifes "pleomorphic organisms" are
larger than that, how have they been missed all these years? Electron
microscopes don't care whether their target is "lit up." They make beautiful
images of viruses, by the way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >If he didn't do it then how come there's pictures proving it?
>
> Well, you say there are. However, other people do not seem to find
> these pictures persuasive.

Doesn't mean to say the pictures are frauds.

Whatever they are, they are not microorganisms that fall into known
classifications today.
Electron microscopes and scanning tunelling microscopes can image

objects

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

far smaller than Rife ever dreamed existed. Why haven't they produced
pictures to match Rife's?

The specimen is destroyed in an electron microscope - that is one of the
disadvantages about it..
Anth

What specimen? Are you saying that Rife's bugs are somehow different from
viruses so that they cannot be imaged by electron microscopy? Nonsense!

Rife used monochromatic light, and yes I believe he could have done it.
If he didn't do it then how come there's pictures proving it?
Anth

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Also look here
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/4
The sharpest images ever achieved by optical means have been produced by
researchers in Germany. Stefan Hell and Marcus Dyba of the Max Planck
Institute for Biophysical Chemistry used conventional optics to image

clumps

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of bacteria just 33 nanometres across - equivalent to 1/23 of the

wavelength

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of light used to illuminate them. The achievement shows that 'far-field'
optical microscopes can operate well beyond the so-called diffraction

limit

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

without exploiting the quantum nature of light (M Dyba and S Hell 2002

Phys.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rev. Lett. 88 163901).

Quote:
1/23 the wavelength of the illumination light, so indeed Rife is

possible.

Quoted message said:

But he couldn't have done it -- not like these guys did. They used
lasers. Rife did not have a laser -- they weren't invented until long
after he produced his microscope.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Also Rife lit up the specimens as point light sources therefore avoiding
diffraction.
Anth

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Rife used monochromatic light, and yes I believe he could have done it.

Yes, I know you believe that. You believe many interesting things.
However, a laser is not just monochromatic light.

Point is irrelevant anyways because the right frequency of light will make
the organisms glow.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If he didn't do it then how come there's pictures proving it?

Well, you say there are. However, other people do not seem to find
these pictures persuasive.

Doesn't mean to say the pictures are frauds.

Quoted message said:

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Also look here
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/4
The sharpest images ever achieved by optical means have been produced by
researchers in Germany. Stefan Hell and Marcus Dyba of the Max Planck
Institute for Biophysical Chemistry used conventional optics to image clumps
of bacteria just 33 nanometres across - equivalent to 1/23 of the wavelength
of light used to illuminate them. The achievement shows that 'far-field'
optical microscopes can operate well beyond the so-called diffraction limit
without exploiting the quantum nature of light (M Dyba and S Hell 2002 Phys.
Rev. Lett. 88 163901).

Quote:
1/23 the wavelength of the illumination light, so indeed Rife is possible.

But he couldn't have done it -- not like these guys did. They used
lasers. Rife did not have a laser -- they weren't invented until long
after he produced his microscope.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Anth <[email hidden]> wrote:
>Rife used monochromatic light, and yes I believe he could have done

it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, I know you believe that. You believe many interesting things.
However, a laser is not just monochromatic light.

Point is irrelevant anyways because the right frequency of light will

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the organisms glow.

It is not possible for single objects that are many times smaller than the
wavelength of visible light to "glow" in that spectrum. Rife believers

would

Quoted message said:

have you believe that under his microscope, they not only "glow," but in

so

Quoted message said:

doing they reveal even smaller details of their structure. [censored]!

Why?
Rife used monochromatic light that wasn't in the visible spectrum.
It's possible for 1 molecule to 'glow' why do you think your shirt lights up
in the club?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>If he didn't do it then how come there's pictures proving it?

Well, you say there are. However, other people do not seem to find
these pictures persuasive.

Doesn't mean to say the pictures are frauds.

Whatever they are, they are not microorganisms that fall into known
classifications today.
Electron microscopes and scanning tunelling microscopes can image objects
far smaller than Rife ever dreamed existed. Why haven't they produced
pictures to match Rife's?

The specimen is destroyed in an electron microscope - that is one of the
disadvantages about it..
Anth

Rife organisms allegedly are visible unde the darkfield microscope.
Anth

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> > In article <[email hidden]>,
> > Anth <[email hidden]> wrote:
> > >Rife used monochromatic light, and yes I believe he could have

done

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it.

Quoted message said:

> >
> > Yes, I know you believe that. You believe many interesting

things.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > However, a laser is not just monochromatic light.
>
> Point is irrelevant anyways because the right frequency of light

will

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

make

Quoted message said:

> the organisms glow.

It is not possible for single objects that are many times smaller than

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wavelength of visible light to "glow" in that spectrum. Rife believers

would

Quoted message said:

have you believe that under his microscope, they not only "glow," but

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so

Quoted message said:

doing they reveal even smaller details of their structure. [censored]!

Why?
Rife used monochromatic light that wasn't in the visible spectrum.
It's possible for 1 molecule to 'glow' why do you think your shirt

lights

Quoted message said:

up

Quoted message said:

in the club?

The Dbya-Hell instrument that you mentioned in an earlier post can

resolve

Quoted message said:

a point of light that is 33 nanometers in diameter. So even if Rife had

had

Quoted message said:

the technology to produce these results, he could not have imaged viruses

or

Quoted message said:

made his instrument produce images similar to those of an electron
microscope. The Ebola virus, one of the larger ones, is about 200nm in its
largest dimension, or about six dots at the above resolution. Small

viruses,

Quoted message said:

such as rhinoviruses that give you a cold, are as small as 20nm, maybe one
dim dot...hardly a detailed image. If Rifes "pleomorphic organisms" are
larger than that, how have they been missed all these years? Electron
microscopes don't care whether their target is "lit up." They make

beautiful

Quoted message said:

images of viruses, by the way.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >If he didn't do it then how come there's pictures proving it?
> >
> > Well, you say there are. However, other people do not seem to

find

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > these pictures persuasive.
>
> Doesn't mean to say the pictures are frauds.

Whatever they are, they are not microorganisms that fall into known
classifications today.
Electron microscopes and scanning tunelling microscopes can image

objects

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

far smaller than Rife ever dreamed existed. Why haven't they produced
pictures to match Rife's?

The specimen is destroyed in an electron microscope - that is one of the
disadvantages about it..
Anth

What specimen? Are you saying that Rife's bugs are somehow different from
viruses so that they cannot be imaged by electron microscopy? Nonsense!

Yeah, and your reasoning?
Anth

"Happy Dog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Rife used monochromatic light, and yes I believe he could have done it.

Not likely. Whatever he used couldn't have yielded the resolution he
claimed.

le moo

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Rife used monochromatic light, and yes I believe he could have done it.

Yes, I know you believe that. You believe many interesting things.
However, a laser is not just monochromatic light.

Quoted message said:

If he didn't do it then how come there's pictures proving it?

Well, you say there are. However, other people do not seem to find
these pictures persuasive.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

Anth

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Also look here
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/4
The sharpest images ever achieved by optical means have been produced by
researchers in Germany. Stefan Hell and Marcus Dyba of the Max Planck
Institute for Biophysical Chemistry used conventional optics to image

clumps

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of bacteria just 33 nanometres across - equivalent to 1/23 of the

wavelength

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of light used to illuminate them. The achievement shows that 'far-field'
optical microscopes can operate well beyond the so-called diffraction

limit

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

without exploiting the quantum nature of light (M Dyba and S Hell 2002

Phys.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rev. Lett. 88 163901).

Quote:
1/23 the wavelength of the illumination light, so indeed Rife is

possible.

Quoted message said:

But he couldn't have done it -- not like these guys did. They used
lasers. Rife did not have a laser -- they weren't invented until long
after he produced his microscope.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"Anth" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Rife used monochromatic light, and yes I believe he could have done it.

Not likely. Whatever he used couldn't have yielded the resolution he
claimed.

le moo

Quoted message said:

If he didn't do it then how come there's pictures proving it?
Anth

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Also look here
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/4
The sharpest images ever achieved by optical means have been produced

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

researchers in Germany. Stefan Hell and Marcus Dyba of the Max Planck
Institute for Biophysical Chemistry used conventional optics to image

clumps

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of bacteria just 33 nanometres across - equivalent to 1/23 of the

wavelength

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of light used to illuminate them. The achievement shows that

'far-field'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

optical microscopes can operate well beyond the so-called diffraction

limit

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

without exploiting the quantum nature of light (M Dyba and S Hell 2002

Phys.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Rev. Lett. 88 163901).

Quote:
1/23 the wavelength of the illumination light, so indeed Rife is

possible.

Quoted message said:

But he couldn't have done it -- not like these guys did. They used
lasers. Rife did not have a laser -- they weren't invented until long
after he produced his microscope.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)