According to YouTube videos, Adobe must be having a nightmare, not to mention sleepless nights!
<https://youtu.be/doHqV2t26KU> <https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ArtCraft>
Just 48 hours after Vibe released his products, Adobe called a special
board meeting and requested an urgent meeting with the Trump
administration to discuss ways to stop AI reverse-engineering Adobe products.
It's a worrying time for the greedy corporation that made the
subscription model mandatory in the software industry — we saw HP's CEO
leave the firm for PayPal when HP customers started switching to Ecotank printers, which don't require a subscription, and we might see the same thing happen at Adobe.
Just 48 hours after Vibe released his products, Adobe called a special
board meeting and requested an urgent meeting with the Trump
administration to discuss ways to stop AI reverse-engineering Adobe
products.
On 10/08/2026 7:29 PM, MegaNZ wrote:
Just 48 hours after Vibe released his products, Adobe called a special>> board meeting and requested an urgent meeting with the TrumpNever happened.
administration to discuss ways to stop AI reverse-engineering Adobe
products.
Made up, fictional scenario, exaggeration of tech commentary.
Fake news, fake reporting, fake opinion, fake etc.
Viber is not a 'his'
Op 09-10-2026 om 09:21 schreef ....winston:
On 10/08/2026 7:29 PM, MegaNZ wrote:
Just 48 hours after Vibe released his products, Adobe called a specialNever happened.
board meeting and requested an urgent meeting with the Trump
administration to discuss ways to stop AI reverse-engineering Adobe
products.
Made up, fictional scenario, exaggeration of tech commentary.
; Fake news, fake reporting, fake opinion, fake etc.
Viber is not a 'his'
It definitely exists, just installed it on a virtual MX 25.
Very quick test shows it works, can't judge how good it is or how close
to the real thing, the last Photoshop I used was 5.5, 25 years ago.
On 10/09/2026 2:02 PM, dillinger wrote:
Op 09-10-2026 om 09:21 schreef ....winston:
On 10/08/2026 7:29 PM, MegaNZ wrote:
Just 48 hours after Vibe released his products, Adobe called a special >>>> board meeting and requested an urgent meeting with the TrumpNever happened.
administration to discuss ways to stop AI reverse-engineering Adobe
products.
Made up, fictional scenario, exaggeration of tech commentary.
=> Fake news, fake reporting, fake opinion, fake etc.
Viber is not a 'his'
It definitely exists, just installed it on a virtual MX 25.
Very quick test shows it works, can't judge how good it is or how close
to the real thing, the last Photoshop I used was 5.5, 25 years ago.
The software was valid.
The commentary(special board meeting, request meet with the 'dear old uncle scam administration' was not(i.e. fake)
Vibe is not a 'his' (pronoun)
Vibe, in this case(vibe-coding) is a noun.
The 'his', iirc - creator/author of open-source Adobe alternative is Brandon Thomas
It would be like convincing the average person that
LibreOffice is a decent replacement for MSOffice.
It's a decent tool, if that's what all your associates
use, but if you're collaborating with a group
of MSOffice users, your work will stick out like
a sore thumb. Like, say, change tracking doesn't work
on your chapter, and it works on the rest of the group.
Those sorts of things.
It would be like convincing the average person that
LibreOffice is a decent replacement for MSOffice.
It's a decent tool, if that's what all your associates
use, but if you're collaborating with a group
of MSOffice users, your work will stick out like
a sore thumb. Like, say, change tracking doesn't work
on your chapter, and it works on the rest of the group.
Those sorts of things.
According to YouTube videos, Adobe must be having a nightmare, not to
mention sleepless nights!
<https://youtu.be/doHqV2t26KU> <https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ArtCraft>
Just 48 hours after Vibe released his products, Adobe called a special
board meeting and requested an urgent meeting with the Trump
administration to discuss ways to stop AI reverse-engineering Adobe
products.
It's a worrying time for the greedy corporation that made the
subscription model mandatory in the software industry — we saw HP's CEO leave the firm for PayPal when HP customers started switching to Ecotank printers, which don't require a subscription, and we might see the same
thing happen at Adobe.
Professionals who compare the two side by side say the clones fall short
in ways that are quite likely to be important to most professionals.
Brian Gregory wrote:
Professionals who compare the two side by side say the clones fall short in ways that are quite likely to be important to most professionals.
This week ... once AI gets its teeth into bugfixing that could change surprisingly quickly.
Brian Gregory wrote:
Professionals who compare the two side by side say the clones fall
short in ways that are quite likely to be important to most
professionals.
This week ... once AI gets its teeth into bugfixing that could change surprisingly quickly.
On 11/10/2026 22:39, Andy Burns wrote:
Brian Gregory wrote:
Professionals who compare the two side by side say the clones fall short >>> in ways that are quite likely to be important to most professionals.
This week ... once AI gets its teeth into bugfixing that could change surprisingly quickly.
It's not so much bugs, it's that Adobe knows great ways to implement
things like object masking. If the AI doesn't know, and if it's not
actually reverse engineering it probably won't know, then it can't
implement it so well.
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a fashion, but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is about
as useful as OCRmypdf.
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a fashion, >> but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is about
as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section of Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of seats)
- Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with retraining including training time loss of productivity(i.e. not working on existing responsibilities, new troubleshooting tasking, etc.
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a
fashion,
but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is about
as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section of
Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of seats)
- Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with retraining including training time loss of productivity(i.e. not working on
existing responsibilities, new troubleshooting tasking, etc.
On Tue, 10/13/2026 1:49 PM, ....winston wrote:
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a fashion, >>> but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is about
as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section of Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of seats)
- Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with retraining including training time loss of productivity(i.e. not working on existing responsibilities, new troubleshooting tasking, etc.
For some of them, they don't need training, because they haven't
even done the ribbon yet, and the menu is pretty barren. It won't
take long to fix that.
And while I was pessimistic a few days ago, that this effort could--
finish, I discovered in a recent article, there *is* a way they could
do it.
You can take the existing executable code and reverse engineer it, turning it into source code which is close enough to match 83% of the executable,
byte for byte. Then, by writing an architecture spec based on the
patterns in the reversed engineer effort, you can work in the
forward direction and pretend it was a "clean room" effort.
As the executable code should now be quite different.
Only the theft of non-public algorithms would be a giveaway .
The only thing wrong with that method, is it would take a couple
million dollars worth of tokens to do it. The people doing these
things, are using bulk-rate methods, instead of normal subscriptions.
There were some subscriptions that did not bill at the token level.
About the same as renting an Amazon instance.
Paul
On 10/13/2026 4:38 PM, Paul wrote:
On Tue, 10/13/2026 1:49 PM, ....winston wrote:
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a >>>>fashion,
but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is about >>>>as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section of >>>Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of seats)
- Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with retraining >>>including training time loss of productivity(i.e. not working on existing >>>responsibilities, new troubleshooting tasking, etc.
For some of them, they don't need training, because they haven't
even done the ribbon yet, and the menu is pretty barren. It won't
take long to fix that.
Missing part of the point. OpenSource products(AI or not AI) are not >exclusively static. In the Enterprise environment, training across large >quantity of seats is a continuous long term expense(and those seats can be
a multiple thousands of seats across an entire corporation).
While Adobe Systems(and earlier Macromedia) products are also not static, >but the basic design and use has remained reasonably common over the years.
Features in either product may be common, it's the human behavior
requiring the training.
If I'm Adobe, now I'm worried. It would be pretty expensive to do it
this way, but then, the results would also be pretty impressive.
On 15/10/2026 in message <11aqrrl$2h2sf$1@dont-email.me> ....winston wrote:
On 10/13/2026 4:38 PM, Paul wrote:
On Tue, 10/13/2026 1:49 PM, ....winston wrote:
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a
fashion,
but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is about >>>>> as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section of
Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of seats)
- Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with retraining >>>> including training time loss of productivity(i.e. not working on
existing responsibilities, new troubleshooting tasking, etc.
For some of them, they don't need training, because they haven't
even done the ribbon yet, and the menu is pretty barren. It won't
take long to fix that.
Missing part of the point. OpenSource products(AI or not AI) are not
exclusively static. In the Enterprise environment, training across
large quantity of seats is a continuous long term expense(and those
seats can be a multiple thousands of seats across an entire corporation).
While Adobe Systems(and earlier Macromedia) products are also not
static, but the basic design and use has remained reasonably common
over the years.
Features in either product may be common, it's the human behavior
requiring the training.
That's a standard marketing response to try and frighten people into
staying with expensive, subscription only, products.
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 []Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
On 10/15/2026 4:50 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/10/2026 in message <11aqrrl$2h2sf$1@dont-email.me> ....winston >>wrote:
On 10/13/2026 4:38 PM, Paul wrote:
On Tue, 10/13/2026 1:49 PM, ....winston wrote:
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a >>>>>>fashion,
but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is about >>>>>>as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section of >>>>>Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of seats) >>>>> - Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with retraining >>>>>including training time loss of productivity(i.e. not working on existing
responsibilities, new troubleshooting tasking, etc.
For some of them, they don't need training, because they haven't
even done the ribbon yet, and the menu is pretty barren. It won't
take long to fix that.
Missing part of the point. OpenSource products(AI or not AI) are not >>>exclusively static. In the Enterprise environment, training across >>>large quantity of seats is a continuous long term expense(and those seats >>>can be a multiple thousands of seats across an entire corporation).
While Adobe Systems(and earlier Macromedia) products are also not static, >>>but the basic design and use has remained reasonably common over the >>>years.
Features in either product may be common, it's the human behavior >>>requiring the training.
That's a standard marketing response to try and frighten people into >>staying with expensive, subscription only, products.
Still missing the big picture. 'People' in Enterprise are the users and >don't make the decisions. Companies prefer long term contractual >relationships with software providers with a history of success(in the
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 >troubleshooting support, cost expensed[not capitalized], pre-packaged >self-guided implementation and training.)
-i.e. free, AI models of a proven product may meet some 'people' needs but >remain infants without much foundation, history and benefit beyond(it's >free).
On 12/10/2026 23:24, Paul wrote:
If I'm Adobe, now I'm worried. It would be pretty expensive to do it
this way, but then, the results would also be pretty impressive.
Fair point.
Maybe laws will be changed and/or code will soon be obfuscated or hidden
in secure enclaves.
However look how many companies still use Microsoft Office when several
very capable compatible alternatives exist.
On 2026/10/16 7:4:29, ....winston wrote:
[]
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 []
Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
expression "24/7/365" is not quite correct: either "24/365" or "24/7/52" should be used.
Think about what it means: "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a
year" - or, "24 hours a day, 365 days a year". But what does "24/7/365"
mean?
On 15/10/2026 in message <njd1kgFktb1U2@mid.individual.net> Brian Gregory wrote:
On 12/10/2026 23:24, Paul wrote:
If I'm Adobe, now I'm worried. It would be pretty expensive to do it
this way, but then, the results would also be pretty impressive.
Fair point.
Maybe laws will be changed and/or code will soon be obfuscated or hidden in secure enclaves.
However look how many companies still use Microsoft Office when several very capable compatible alternatives exist.
I had an interesting discussion with Google's AI recently in connection with programming for Windows. It was about the ListView control included with Visual Studio which is one of the most complained about controls because you can't control the height of the Header or ListViewItems and it flickers every time you breathe.
I have written my own based on the Microsoft version and had fixed the row height and flickering but not the Header height. AI suggested a way of doing it which worked once but it reverted if a column width was changed. I followed up the next day and the AI bot came up with the cure which was intercepting one specific Windows Message and manipulating the result sent back to windows every time it was raised, not just the first time.
It works perfectly but raises questions. Any programmer who uses this control will know its limitations and the work rounds but the suggestion from AI has never come up in the 21 years that Visual Studio has been around. Has AI ferreted it out from one of the software companies that provides a better ListView control and released proprietary code into the wild?
I had an interesting discussion with Google's AI recently in connection >>with programming for Windows. It was about the ListView control included >>with Visual Studio which is one of the most complained about controls >>because you can't control the height of the Header or ListViewItems and it >>flickers every time you breathe.
I have written my own based on the Microsoft version and had fixed the row >>height and flickering but not the Header height. AI suggested a way of >>doing it which worked once but it reverted if a column width was changed. >>I followed up the next day and the AI bot came up with the cure which was >>intercepting one specific Windows Message and manipulating the result sent >>back to windows every time it was raised, not just the first time.
It works perfectly but raises questions. Any programmer who uses this >>control will know its limitations and the work rounds but the suggestion >>from AI has never come up in the 21 years that Visual Studio has been >>around. Has AI ferreted it out from one of the software companies that >>provides a better ListView control and released proprietary code into the >>wild?
It just means it was discussed in a place your search engine never
happened to visit.
The "base" training set, is 420TB of data. And actual data sets today, are >multiple
times that big. Have you read 420TB of text since you were born ? I
suspect not.
I don't know how many people are writing code and want a decent
LsitView but there are thousands of comments and suggestions all over
the Internet dating back to 2005.
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I don't know how many people are writing code and want a decent
LsitView but there are thousands of comments and suggestions all over
the Internet dating back to 2005.
The thousands of comments and suggestions aren't relevant, but they are
what search engines will tend to give you; the one correct answer is what >counts and AI has absorbed that information ... if you ask it the same >question again, does it give you any context to where it found it?
On 16/10/2026 in message <njei7rFsdhsU1@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I don't know how many people are writing code and want a decent
LsitView but there are thousands of comments and suggestions all over
the Internet dating back to 2005.
The thousands of comments and suggestions aren't relevant, but they are what search engines will tend to give you; the one correct answer is what counts and AI has absorbed that information ... if you ask it the same question again, does it give you any context to where it found it?
The one correct answer must be among those comments and suggestions then, although neither I nor anybody else has found it or it would be common knowledge.
On Fri, 10/16/2026 8:28 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/10/2026 in message <njei7rFsdhsU1@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns >>wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I don't know how many people are writing code and want a decent >>>>LsitView but there are thousands of comments and suggestions all over >>>>the Internet dating back to 2005.
The thousands of comments and suggestions aren't relevant, but they are >>>what search engines will tend to give you; the one correct answer is >>>what counts and AI has absorbed that information ... if you ask it the >>>same question again, does it give you any context to where it found it?
The one correct answer must be among those comments and suggestions then, >>although neither I nor anybody else has found it or it would be common >>knowledge.
Make it your mission to find it.
If an MoE fits within the VRAM on a video card, they tell me the output tokens can be produced by the video card itself.
If the model does not happen to fit, some amount of thinking can beI almost got sucked into buying a used nVidia data centre card (P40
done on the video card, but the output tokens are done via matrix
multiply using CPU cores. Which is, well, dog slow. That's why the
runtime for queries on my machine are so long. It only has a 4GB
video card.
It really needs a 48GB video card. Intel just came out with a card
for Inference, which is 480GB and LPDDR5x (relatively slow) memory,
no HBM. Should be $15K-$20K or so, so out of reach really. It would
be tons better, but still a joke compared to the machines we get to
use on the Internet.
Paul wrote:
Make it your mission to find it.
No chance! I have been looking for it since 2005 and it is one of the
most common programming questions that is asked, frankly if it's not on StackOverflow it doesn't exist in the public domain.
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Paul wrote:
Make it your mission to find it.
No chance! I have been looking for it since 2005 and it is one of the >>most common programming questions that is asked, frankly if it's not on >>StackOverflow it doesn't exist in the public domain.
Yes, but you've been asking search engines before, now you've turned to
AI, I thought you liked being nice to them :-P
On 16/10/2026 in message <njei7rFsdhsU1@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
I don't know how many people are writing code and want a decent
LsitView but there are thousands of comments and suggestions all over
the Internet dating back to 2005.
The thousands of comments and suggestions aren't relevant, but they are what search engines will tend to give you; the one correct answer is what counts and AI has absorbed that information ... if you ask it the same question again, does it give you any context to where it found it?
The one correct answer must be among those comments and suggestions then, although neither I nor anybody else has found it or it would be common knowledge.
On 2026/10/16 7:4:29, ....winston wrote:
[]
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 []
Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
expression "24/7/365" is not quite correct: either "24/365" or "24/7/52" should be used.
Think about what it means: "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a
year" - or, "24 hours a day, 365 days a year". But what does "24/7/365"
mean?
On 16/10/2026 in message <11asepe$31c1a$1@dont-email.me> ....winston wrote:
On 10/15/2026 4:50 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/10/2026 in message <11aqrrl$2h2sf$1@dont-email.me> ....winston
wrote:
On 10/13/2026 4:38 PM, Paul wrote:
On Tue, 10/13/2026 1:49 PM, ....winston wrote:
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a >>>>>>> fashion,
but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is >>>>>>> about
as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section of >>>>>> Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of seats) >>>>>> - Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with
retraining including training time loss of productivity(i.e. not
working on existing responsibilities, new troubleshooting
tasking, etc.
For some of them, they don't need training, because they haven't
even done the ribbon yet, and the menu is pretty barren. It won't
take long to fix that.
Missing part of the point. OpenSource products(AI or not AI) are not
exclusively static. In the Enterprise environment, training across >>>> large quantity of seats is a continuous long term expense(and those
seats can be a multiple thousands of seats across an entire
corporation).
While Adobe Systems(and earlier Macromedia) products are also not
static, but the basic design and use has remained reasonably common
over the years.
Features in either product may be common, it's the human behavior
requiring the training.
That's a standard marketing response to try and frighten people into
staying with expensive, subscription only, products.
Still missing the big picture. 'People' in Enterprise are the users
and don't make the decisions. Companies prefer long term contractual
relationships with software providers with a history of success(in the
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited
1:1 troubleshooting support, cost expensed[not capitalized], pre-
packaged self-guided implementation and training.)
-i.e. free, AI models of a proven product may meet some 'people' needs
but remain infants without much foundation, history and benefit
beyond(it's free).
Again that just looks like marketing bullshit.
On 2026/10/16 7:4:29, ....winston wrote:
[]
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1
[]
Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
expression "24/7/365" is not quite correct: either "24/365" or "24/7/52" should be used.
Think about what it means: "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a
year" - or, "24 hours a day, 365 days a year". But what does "24/7/365"
mean?
On 10/16/2026 3:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/10/16 7:4:29, ....winston wrote:
[]
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 [] >>Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
expression "24/7/365" is not quite correct: either "24/365" or "24/7/52"
should be used.
Think about what it means: "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a
year" - or, "24 hours a day, 365 days a year". But what does "24/7/365"
mean?
It is Adobe's term as noted(human 1:1)support 24 hrs/day, every day(all
7) of the week, every day(all 365)of the year for Enterprise with SaaS > contractual relationship.
On 2026/10/16 15:52:38, ....winston wrote:
On 10/16/2026 3:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/10/16 7:4:29, ....winston wrote:
[]
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 []
Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
expression "24/7/365" is not quite correct: either "24/365" or "24/7/52" >> should be used.
Think about what it means: "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a
year" - or, "24 hours a day, 365 days a year". But what does "24/7/365"
mean?
It is Adobe's term as noted(human 1:1)support 24 hrs/day, every day(all
7) of the week, every day(all 365)of the year for Enterprise with SaaS contractual relationship.
If it's every (all 365) day of the year anyway (24/365), that implies
the all days of the week are covered - no need to mention them.
(As Mark Lloyd says, it's just a show-offy/overtechnical way of saying
"all the time" anyway. [Except, in the attempt to look technically
clever, they've shown that they're not.[)
On 16/10/2026 in message <njemqbFt5osU1@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Paul wrote:
Make it your mission to find it.
No chance! I have been looking for it since 2005 and it is one of the most common programming questions that is asked, frankly if it's not on StackOverflow it doesn't exist in the public domain.
Yes, but you've been asking search engines before, now you've turned to AI, I thought you liked being nice to them :-P
I am, Skynet is real!
On 10/16/2026 3:42 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/10/2026 in message <11asepe$31c1a$1@dont-email.me> ....winston >>wrote:
On 10/15/2026 4:50 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/10/2026 in message <11aqrrl$2h2sf$1@dont-email.me> ....winston >>>>wrote:
On 10/13/2026 4:38 PM, Paul wrote:
On Tue, 10/13/2026 1:49 PM, ....winston wrote:
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a >>>>>>>>fashion,
but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is >>>>>>>>about
as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section of >>>>>>>Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of seats) >>>>>>> - Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with retraining >>>>>>>including training time loss of productivity(i.e. not working on >>>>>>>existing responsibilities, new troubleshooting tasking, etc.
For some of them, they don't need training, because they haven't >>>>>>even done the ribbon yet, and the menu is pretty barren. It won't >>>>>>take long to fix that.
Missing part of the point. OpenSource products(AI or not AI) are not >>>>>exclusively static. In the Enterprise environment, training across >>>>>large quantity of seats is a continuous long term expense(and those >>>>>seats can be a multiple thousands of seats across an entire >>>>>corporation).
While Adobe Systems(and earlier Macromedia) products are also not >>>>>static, but the basic design and use has remained reasonably common over
the years.
Features in either product may be common, it's the human behavior >>>>>requiring the training.
That's a standard marketing response to try and frighten people into >>>>staying with expensive, subscription only, products.
Still missing the big picture. 'People' in Enterprise are the users and >>>don't make the decisions. Companies prefer long term contractual >>>relationships with software providers with a history of success(in the >>>case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 >>>troubleshooting support, cost expensed[not capitalized], pre- packaged >>>self-guided implementation and training.)
-i.e. free, AI models of a proven product may meet some 'people' needs >>>but remain infants without much foundation, history and benefit >>>beyond(it's free).
Again that just looks like marketing bullshit.
It may look like that(to you, from a strictly consumer perspective) but
it's likely that perception originates from never having been on the >Enterprise side of contractual support(SaaS and/or EAs) for software >providers(e.g. Windows, Azure, Adobe, Oracle, Salesforce, etc.)
On Fri, 10/16/2026 9:58 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/10/2026 in message <njemqbFt5osU1@mid.individual.net> Andy Burns >>wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Paul wrote:
Make it your mission to find it.
No chance! I have been looking for it since 2005 and it is one of the >>>>most common programming questions that is asked, frankly if it's not on >>>>StackOverflow it doesn't exist in the public domain.
Yes, but you've been asking search engines before, now you've turned to >>>AI, I thought you liked being nice to them :-P
I am, Skynet is real!
OK, can you do this ?
Paste the answer in Harmony format (which is the Markdown it uses)
into a posting, for the answer you got where it was revealed what
the important/mystery bits were given to you. Place a <===
next to the bits that arrived from the unknown-type source.
I keep some of my runs, question and answer, in separate text files, for >reference later. Not all the runs though, usually just the
ones with programs in them.
Our best learning, comes from "audience challenges", where you
get to see a query made from a different perspective and how
the machine behaved. That's how we poke the corners and edges
of the machine, individual human queries are great for that,
because people will try the strangest things. Like Micky asking
a question about a Time Life book (short essays), where the machine
kept giving different answers for what characters were being
written about. That was my first chance to use High Reasoning
to get the machine to admit the info was not in the training
material and it was just making shit up. It's hard to understand
how it scraped the title of the book and the concept the book had
short essays in it, yet it did not manage to record what
the topic of the essays was (Albert Einstein or Soupy Sales).
The first shared challenge here, was the "list the US presidents",
where Arlen asked the LLM-AI to sort the answer a particular way.
And the machine kept dropping one of the Presidents names. Not
a controversial figure, more of a relatively obscure one, and the
machine did not managed to answer the question properly until
in frustration I added "And don't lose any Presidents!" to the
query. It doesn't make a lot of sense, why that caused the correct
answer to come out of the machine. Other people had also been doing
that test on the Internet, and observed the same behavior, one
individual kept being dropped from the list. That's really about
the worst case scenario you can imagine for an LLM-AI, where the
query is not challenging, it's definitely in the training set,
and it got fumbled. It means we can't trust them to do anything right.
Paul
On 16/10/2026 in message <11atego$3cn5n$2@dont-email.me> ....winston wrote:
On 10/16/2026 3:42 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/10/2026 in message <11asepe$31c1a$1@dont-email.me> ....winston
wrote:
On 10/15/2026 4:50 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/10/2026 in message <11aqrrl$2h2sf$1@dont-
email.me> ....winston wrote:
On 10/13/2026 4:38 PM, Paul wrote:
On Tue, 10/13/2026 1:49 PM, ....winston wrote:
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after >>>>>>>>> a fashion,
but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is >>>>>>>>> about
as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section >>>>>>>> of Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of >>>>>>>> seats)
- Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with
retraining including training time loss of productivity(i.e.
not working on existing responsibilities, new troubleshooting >>>>>>>> tasking, etc.
For some of them, they don't need training, because they haven't >>>>>>> even done the ribbon yet, and the menu is pretty barren. It won't >>>>>>> take long to fix that.
Missing part of the point. OpenSource products(AI or not AI) are
not exclusively static. In the Enterprise environment, training >>>>>> across large quantity of seats is a continuous long term
expense(and those seats can be a multiple thousands of seats
across an entire corporation).
While Adobe Systems(and earlier Macromedia) products are also not >>>>>> static, but the basic design and use has remained reasonably
common over the years.
Features in either product may be common, it's the human behavior >>>>>> requiring the training.
That's a standard marketing response to try and frighten people
into staying with expensive, subscription only, products.
Still missing the big picture. 'People' in Enterprise are the users
and don't make the decisions. Companies prefer long term contractual
relationships with software providers with a history of success(in
the case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support,
unlimited 1:1 troubleshooting support, cost expensed[not
capitalized], pre- packaged self-guided implementation and training.) >>>> -i.e. free, AI models of a proven product may meet some 'people'
needs but remain infants without much foundation, history and
benefit beyond(it's free).
Again that just looks like marketing bullshit.
It may look like that(to you, from a strictly consumer perspective)
but it's likely that perception originates from never having been on
the Enterprise side of contractual support(SaaS and/or EAs) for
software providers(e.g. Windows, Azure, Adobe, Oracle, Salesforce, etc.)
That is somewhat patronising and part of the marketing defence, I used
to vet contracts for these services.
On 10/16/2026 3:27 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/10/2026 in message <11atego$3cn5n$2@dont-email.me> ....winston >>wrote:
On 10/16/2026 3:42 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/10/2026 in message <11asepe$31c1a$1@dont-email.me> ....winston >>>>wrote:
On 10/15/2026 4:50 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/10/2026 in message <11aqrrl$2h2sf$1@dont- email.me> ....winston >>>>>>wrote:
On 10/13/2026 4:38 PM, Paul wrote:
On Tue, 10/13/2026 1:49 PM, ....winston wrote:
On 10/09/2026 9:46 PM, Paul wrote:
Should Adobe be scared ? I don't think so. The OCR worked after a >>>>>>>>>>fashion,
but it is really no better than some Tesseract adventure. It is >>>>>>>>>>about
as useful as OCRmypdf.
That's in agreement and similar sentiment from a cross-section of >>>>>>>>>Enterprise and SMB admin testing (large and small volume of seats) >>>>>>>>> - Another reasonable comment is expenses associated with retraining
including training time loss of productivity(i.e. not working on >>>>>>>>>existing responsibilities, new troubleshooting tasking, etc. >>>>>>>>>
For some of them, they don't need training, because they haven't >>>>>>>>even done the ribbon yet, and the menu is pretty barren. It won't >>>>>>>>take long to fix that.
Missing part of the point. OpenSource products(AI or not AI) are not >>>>>>>exclusively static. In the Enterprise environment, training across >>>>>>>large quantity of seats is a continuous long term expense(and those seats
can be a multiple thousands of seats across an entire corporation). >>>>>>>
While Adobe Systems(and earlier Macromedia) products are also not static,
but the basic design and use has remained reasonably common over the
years.
Features in either product may be common, it's the human behavior >>>>>>>requiring the training.
That's a standard marketing response to try and frighten people into >>>>>>staying with expensive, subscription only, products.
Still missing the big picture. 'People' in Enterprise are the users and >>>>>don't make the decisions. Companies prefer long term contractual >>>>>relationships with software providers with a history of success(in the >>>>>case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1
troubleshooting support, cost expensed[not capitalized], pre- packaged >>>>>self-guided implementation and training.)
-i.e. free, AI models of a proven product may meet some 'people' needs >>>>>but remain infants without much foundation, history and benefit >>>>>beyond(it's free).
Again that just looks like marketing bullshit.
It may look like that(to you, from a strictly consumer perspective) but >>>it's likely that perception originates from never having been on the >>>Enterprise side of contractual support(SaaS and/or EAs) for software >>>providers(e.g. Windows, Azure, Adobe, Oracle, Salesforce, etc.)
That is somewhat patronising and part of the marketing defence, I used to >>vet contracts for these services.
I understand your position...but to imply the entire spectrum of SaaS/EAs) >is 'marketing' would still be a very narrow perception, even for one that >currently or previously 'vets contracts'.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:How does saying "24/7/365" rather than "24/365" show any better what you
On 2026/10/16 15:52:38, ....winston wrote:
On 10/16/2026 3:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:If it's every (all 365) day of the year anyway (24/365), that implies
On 2026/10/16 7:4:29, ....winston wrote:
[]
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 []
Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
expression "24/7/365" is not quite correct: either "24/365" or "24/7/52" >>>> should be used.
Think about what it means: "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a
year" - or, "24 hours a day, 365 days a year". But what does "24/7/365" >>>> mean?
It is Adobe's term as noted(human 1:1)support 24 hrs/day, every day(all >>> 7) of the week, every day(all 365)of the year for Enterprise with SaaS
contractual relationship.
the all days of the week are covered - no need to mention them.
(As Mark Lloyd says, it's just a show-offy/overtechnical way of saying>> "all the time" anyway. [Except, in the attempt to look technically
clever, they've shown that they're not.[)
Well, what's going to happen on the extra day of a leap year? Is that> covered by the "every day (all 7) of the week" part or *not* covered
because of the "every day (all 365) of the year" part!? :-)
After all, this is about business, i.e. lawyers and stuff, isn't it!? :-)
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/10/16 15:52:38, ....winston wrote:
On 10/16/2026 3:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:If it's every (all 365) day of the year anyway (24/365), that implies
On 2026/10/16 7:4:29, ....winston wrote:
[]
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 []
Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
expression "24/7/365" is not quite correct: either "24/365" or "24/7/52" >>>> should be used.
Think about what it means: "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a
year" - or, "24 hours a day, 365 days a year". But what does "24/7/365" >>>> mean?
It is Adobe's term as noted(human 1:1)support 24 hrs/day, every day(all
7) of the week, every day(all 365)of the year for Enterprise with SaaS
contractual relationship.
the all days of the week are covered - no need to mention them.
(As Mark Lloyd says, it's just a show-offy/overtechnical way of saying
"all the time" anyway. [Except, in the attempt to look technically
clever, they've shown that they're not.[)
Well, what's going to happen on the extra day of a leap year? Is that covered by the "every day (all 7) of the week" part or *not* covered
because of the "every day (all 365) of the year" part!? :-)
After all, this is about business, i.e. lawyers and stuff, isn't it!? :-)
I copied and pasted it into my notepad then into my code. My point is if that answer was in the public domain then during the last 21 years of seeking the information all over the Internet it would have come to
light and it didn't.
But you're apparently unwilling to paste it here (just as plain-text)
for us to look at?
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Paul wrote:
Make it your mission to find it.
No chance! I have been looking for it since 2005 and it is one of the
most common programming questions that is asked, frankly if it's not on
StackOverflow it doesn't exist in the public domain.
Yes, but you've been asking search engines before, now you've turned to
AI, I thought you liked being nice to them :-P
--
23467009
As noted, it was Adobe Systems terminology.
- afiacs, it's a lot more definitive than 'all the time' which leads
to other confusion(e.g. are holiday's included).
I initially was going to include a comment that the 365(also covers 366
for leap years)...but figured most would understand without questioning
Feb. 29th every four years.
Some of it's about protection(as any contractual would cover the
business side and the contractual[legal, not lawyer] part/ stuff).
Sorry, couldn't help wondering - did you lean on the enter key before posting? (And that "--" line didn't have a space - was it supposed to?
If so, what's with the number signature?)
On 10/16/2026 1:51 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/10/16 15:52:38, ....winston wrote:
On 10/16/2026 3:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:If it's every (all 365) day of the year anyway (24/365), that implies
On 2026/10/16 7:4:29, ....winston wrote:
[]
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support,
unlimited 1:1 []
Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
expression "24/7/365" is not quite correct: either "24/365" or
"24/7/52"
should be used.
Think about what it means: "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a >>>>> year" - or, "24 hours a day, 365 days a year". But what does
"24/7/365"
mean?
It is Adobe's term as noted(human 1:1)support 24 hrs/day, every day(all >>>> 7) of the week, every day(all 365)of the year for Enterprise with SaaS >>>> contractual relationship.
the all days of the week are covered - no need to mention them.
(As Mark Lloyd says, it's just a show-offy/overtechnical way of saying
"all the time" anyway. [Except, in the attempt to look technically
clever, they've shown that they're not.[)
Well, what's going to happen on the extra day of a leap year? Is that >> covered by the "every day (all 7) of the week" part or *not* covered
because of the "every day (all 365) of the year" part!? :-)
After all, this is about business, i.e. lawyers and stuff, isn't
it!? :-)
As noted, it was Adobe Systems terminology.
- afiacs, it's a lot more definitive than 'all the time' which leads
to other confusion(e.g. are holiday's included).
I initially was going to include a comment that the 365(also covers 366
for leap years)...but figured most would understand without questioning
Feb. 29th every four years.
Some of it's about protection(as any contractual would cover the--
business side and the contractual[legal, not lawyer] part/ stuff).
On 2026/10/16 18:51:49, Frank Slootweg wrote:
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/10/16 15:52:38, ....winston wrote:
On 10/16/2026 3:16 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:If it's every (all 365) day of the year anyway (24/365), that implies
On 2026/10/16 7:4:29, ....winston wrote:
[]
case of Adobe subscription/cloud based, 24/7/365 support, unlimited 1:1 []
Though very widely used (Adobe themselves may well use it), the
expression "24/7/365" is not quite correct: either "24/365" or "24/7/52" >>>> should be used.
Think about what it means: "24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a >>>> year" - or, "24 hours a day, 365 days a year". But what does "24/7/365" >>>> mean?
It is Adobe's term as noted(human 1:1)support 24 hrs/day, every day(all >>> 7) of the week, every day(all 365)of the year for Enterprise with SaaS >>> contractual relationship.
the all days of the week are covered - no need to mention them.
(As Mark Lloyd says, it's just a show-offy/overtechnical way of saying
"all the time" anyway. [Except, in the attempt to look technically
clever, they've shown that they're not.[)
Well, what's going to happen on the extra day of a leap year? Is that covered by the "every day (all 7) of the week" part or *not* covered because of the "every day (all 365) of the year" part!? :-)
After all, this is about business, i.e. lawyers and stuff, isn't it!? :-)
How does saying "24/7/365" rather than "24/365" show any better what you
will do on leap days?
Anyway, as I'm a Five Nines guy, I don't care either way! :-)
On 17/10/2026 8:55 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<Snip>
Anyway, as I'm a Five Nines guy, I don't care either way! :-)Sorry .... "Five Nines guy"??
On 17/10/2026 8:55 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<Snip>
Anyway, as I'm a Five Nines guy, I don't care either way! :-)
Sorry .... "Five Nines guy"??
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 17/10/2026 8:55 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<Snip>
Anyway, as I'm a Five Nines guy, I don't care either way! :-)Sorry .... "Five Nines guy"??
Sorry to hear that Google is broken Down Under.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+Five+Nines>
On 17/10/2026 10:45 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
On 17/10/2026 8:55 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<Snip>
Anyway, as I'm a Five Nines guy, I don't care either way! :-)Sorry .... "Five Nines guy"??
Sorry to hear that Google is broken Down Under.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+Five+Nines>
Google?? What's that?? ;-)
I used DuckDuckGo and it did reveal that "Five Nines guys" was a Tech Support Team https://fivenines.com/about/ .... but, here in OZ, I'd
never heard of it.
On 17/10/2026 10:45 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:Google?? What's that?? ;-)
On 17/10/2026 8:55 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<Snip>
Anyway, as I'm a Five Nines guy, I don't care either way! :-)Sorry .... "Five Nines guy"??
Sorry to hear that Google is broken Down Under.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+Five+Nines>
I used DuckDuckGo and it did reveal that "Five Nines guys" was a Tech Support Team https://fivenines.com/about/ .... but, here in OZ, I'd
never heard of it.
On 17/10/2026 8:55 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<Snip>
Anyway, as I'm a Five Nines guy, I don't care either way! :-)Sorry .... "Five Nines guy"??
On 2026/10/17 12:9:33, Daniel70 wrote:
On 17/10/2026 8:55 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<Snip>
Anyway, as I'm a Five Nines guy, I don't care either way! :-)Sorry .... "Five Nines guy"??
You'll have seen Carlos's explanation by now (that it's a high-uptime
service quality level).
It's part of the American - I won't say obsession, as that's pejorative; habit, or custom, of speaking strings of numbers. It's just a different culture; it only becomes oppressive when the user/speaker assumes
everyone else immediately knows what they're talking about.
Recent
examples include "twenty-four seven", "five nines", and - most
irritating - "nine eleven". At the time of that atrocity, it occurred to
me that the immediate assumption that everyone knew that that last was a
date was one of the things that made people outside that sphere of
influence, resent; in Britain, it wasn't just that we express dates the
other way round (so if it _was_ a date it'd be the ninth of November),
but that we don't generally express dates as just two numbers, at least
not in speech. (We'd say the day as an ordinal, such as "eleventh", and
the month as a month. With a "the" and "of" thrown in there somewhere
too, probably.)
You can probably think of other examples of this speech style.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/10/17 12:9:33, Daniel70 wrote:
On 17/10/2026 8:55 pm, Frank Slootweg wrote:
<Snip>
Anyway, as I'm a Five Nines guy, I don't care either way! :-)Sorry .... "Five Nines guy"??
You'll have seen Carlos's explanation by now (that it's a high-uptime
service quality level).
It's part of the American - I won't say obsession, as that's pejorative;
habit, or custom, of speaking strings of numbers. It's just a different
culture; it only becomes oppressive when the user/speaker assumes
everyone else immediately knows what they're talking about.
FWIW, *I* was not being 'oppressive' or/and assuming everyone knows
what I was referring to. It was just tongue-in-cheek jest, because of
the - for most people rather silly - "24/7/365" term. I.e. my silly term
can beat your silly term.
Recent
examples include "twenty-four seven", "five nines", and - most
irritating - "nine eleven". At the time of that atrocity, it occurred to
me that the immediate assumption that everyone knew that that last was a
date was one of the things that made people outside that sphere of
influence, resent; in Britain, it wasn't just that we express dates the
other way round (so if it _was_ a date it'd be the ninth of November),
but that we don't generally express dates as just two numbers, at least
not in speech. (We'd say the day as an ordinal, such as "eleventh", and
the month as a month. With a "the" and "of" thrown in there somewhere
too, probably.)
You can probably think of other examples of this speech style.
In its 'defense': Five Nines (uppercase) is only/mostly used by those
in the know and much, much more practical than saying "ninety nine point (dot?) nine nine nine percent" (not to mention point/dot versus comma).
You'll have seen Carlos's explanation by now (that it's a high-uptime >>service quality level).
It's part of the American - I won't say obsession, as that's pejorative; >>habit, or custom, of speaking strings of numbers. It's just a different >>culture; it only becomes oppressive when the user/speaker assumes
everyone else immediately knows what they're talking about.
FWIW, I was not being 'oppressive' or/and assuming everyone knows
what I was referring to. It was just tongue-in-cheek jest, because of
the - for most people rather silly - "24/7/365" term. I.e. my silly term
can beat your silly term.
On 18/10/2026 in message <11b2bj9.q5s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
Frank Slootweg wrote:
You'll have seen Carlos's explanation by now (that it's a high-uptime >>>service quality level).
It's part of the American - I won't say obsession, as that's pejorative; >>>habit, or custom, of speaking strings of numbers. It's just a different >>>culture; it only becomes oppressive when the user/speaker assumes >>>everyone else immediately knows what they're talking about.
FWIW, I was not being 'oppressive' or/and assuming everyone knows
what I was referring to. It was just tongue-in-cheek jest, because of
the - for most people rather silly - "24/7/365" term. I.e. my silly term >>can beat your silly term.
My "24/7/365.25" is better :-)
On 18/10/2026 in message <xn0pw5wqrkks0u1000@news.individual.net> Jeff Gaines wrote:[]
On 18/10/2026 in message <11b2bj9.q5s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>
Frank Slootweg wrote:
FWIW, I was not being 'oppressive' or/and assuming everyone knows
what I was referring to. It was just tongue-in-cheek jest, because of
the - for most people rather silly - "24/7/365" term. I.e. my silly term >>> can beat your silly term.
My "24/7/365.25" is better :-)
I meant on average of course :-)
On 18/10/2026 in message <xn0pw5wqrkks0u1000@news.individual.net> Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/10/2026 in message <11b2bj9.q5s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> >Frank Slootweg wrote:
You'll have seen Carlos's explanation by now (that it's a high-uptime >>>service quality level).
It's part of the American - I won't say obsession, as that's pejorative; >>>habit, or custom, of speaking strings of numbers. It's just a different >>>culture; it only becomes oppressive when the user/speaker assumes >>>everyone else immediately knows what they're talking about.
FWIW, I was not being 'oppressive' or/and assuming everyone knows
what I was referring to. It was just tongue-in-cheek jest, because of
the - for most people rather silly - "24/7/365" term. I.e. my silly term >>can beat your silly term.
My "24/7/365.25" is better :-)
I meant on average of course :-)
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 18/10/2026 in message <xn0pw5wqrkks0u1000@news.individual.net> Jeff >>Gaines wrote:
On 18/10/2026 in message <11b2bj9.q5s.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> >>>Frank Slootweg wrote:
You'll have seen Carlos's explanation by now (that it's a high-uptime >>>>>service quality level).
It's part of the American - I won't say obsession, as that's >>>>>pejorative;
habit, or custom, of speaking strings of numbers. It's just a different >>>>>culture; it only becomes oppressive when the user/speaker assumes >>>>>everyone else immediately knows what they're talking about.
FWIW, I was not being 'oppressive' or/and assuming everyone knows
what I was referring to. It was just tongue-in-cheek jest, because of >>>>the - for most people rather silly - "24/7/365" term. I.e. my silly term >>>>can beat your silly term.
My "24/7/365.25" is better :-)
I meant on average of course :-)
Well, slashes in combination with a decimal point isn't that great
either.
So let's make it a regular expression (and - as John mentioned - get
rid of the silly 7):
24/{365|366}
Now if that is not a catchy marketing phrase, I don't know what is!
| Sysop: | Scott Duensing |
|---|---|
| Location: | Freeburg, IL, USA, Earth |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 497974:21:34 |
| Calls: | 8 |
| Messages: | 25,042 |