JCooney.NET

Should I install Hyper-V on my new Laptop?

Joseph Cooney — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:54:00 GMT

A few weeks ago Snagy (don't worry, he's not always as serious as he looks in that photo on his blog) got a new laptop - an extremely large and amazingly spec'd 17” XPS (raid, SLI video cards...a laptop!). At the same time he forwarded around a great offer Dell were running here in .au - 25% off XPS laptops over $2500. Fast-forward a few weeks and I now have a brand new XPS 1530 with 4GB of ram, a dual-core 2.6 GHz CPU and an 8600M GT GPU, good enough to score a sweet 5.1 on the Windows Experience Index out-of-the-box (the same score as Snagy's SLI monster). And then I went and installed Server 2008 x64 on it.

I spent plenty of time getting Vista beta2 running on my previous notebook melty, and I've been running Vista x64 on two of my machines at home, and one at work so I'm able to tolerate (and even relish) a small amount of driver pain. After a day of concerted effort about half my devices work properly, and I'm generally lovin' life on my new rig.

The question I have is - should I install hyper-V? It gives me great virtualization, a feature I don't use _that_often now that I'm deeply in WPF land where running on _real_ GPUs is much better than virtualized ones, but which I'm keen to play with a bit more. I lose fairly important laptop features like “sleep” and “hibernate” in exchange. Should I stick with Server 2008 (to break the Vista homogenity) or roll back to Vista x64? Regardless of the answers I'm hoping the current state-of-affairs won't last tooo long, and I'll have a Windows7 drop in the next few months. Leon is indeed right in that there aren't too many original ideas out on the internet. While I originally thought running hyper-V on a laptop was a little unusual there are lots of people doing it.

Steve Jobs Invents Threads!

Joseph Cooney — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:59:00 GMT

Leon forwarded me this gushing NY Times regurgitation of this apple press release. This part on upcoming advancements in OSX Snow Leopard's use of mutiple cores was interesting:

Snow Leopard delivers unrivaled support for multi-core processors with a new technology code-named “Grand Central,” making it easy for developers to create programs that take full advantage of the power of multi-core Macs.

The NY Times quoted Steve Jobs as saying:

“The way the processor industry is going is to add more and more cores, but nobody knows how to program those things,” he said. “I mean, two, yeah; four, not really; eight, forget it.”

And Apple's “snow leopard” landing page says this:

Grand Central takes full advantage by making all of Mac OS X multicore aware and optimizing it for allocating tasks across multiple cores and processors. Grand Central also makes it much easier for developers to create programs that squeeze every last drop of power from multicore systems.

Colour me sceptical. Concurrency is a hard problem and current programming models rely on the developer to (try and) keep track of what is shared and what isn't. Apple is certainly not the first company to notice the rise of multi-core, and not the first company to try and ease the pain for simple-minded developers. On top of the “normal” concurrency stuff (threads, monitors, locks etc) that are built into .NET Joe Duffy and co have been cranking out parallelfx releases for at least 6 months (and discussed for nearly a year and a half). Joes upcoming book on concurrency looks awesome. I've done some sholder-surfing while Joel has been flicking thru some of the chapters in the rough cuts version and I can't wait. You can pre-order form Amazon.com here.

One thing I did like about the Apple press-release was the announcement that they are working on “foundational” enhancements in snow leopard rather than a lot of user-facing features. This is something that Microsoft tried with Vista. Time will tell if it has paid off for them or not, but I certainly think there is a lot of work that could be done on “foundational” stuff and “fit and finish” in Windows, rather than going for bullet-points-on-the-back-of-the-product-box features.

Data grids - lack of imagination or abdication of design responsibility?

Joseph Cooney — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:50:00 GMT

Paul recently wrote a great blog entry that called out something I've felt for a long time, regarding the absence* of an editable datagrid in the “out of the box” WPF control set. While many hard-core winforms users bemoan the lack of a data grid in WPF, I think the absence of a data grid in WPF is a good thing. Why? To me the editable data grid is an over-used UI device, which shows either a terrible lack of imagination or understanding as to how data is going to be entered, or an abdication of UI design responsibility. To be clear - I'm not talking about displaying of tabular data ala the ListView (WPF's list view is very powerful for this). I'm talking about banging in data, row by row, cell by cell. We don't give users a copy of SQL Management Studio, show them how to open up underlying tables and let them go nuts, but (to me) giving them an editable grid is not that different.

The reason editable data grids fall short is that when a user enters some data that means something, and I believe data grids don't do a great job of capturing that meaning because all data entry operations look the same. A bank employee changes a customer credit rating from “good” to “credit risk” using a drop-down list in an editable grid means the nature of that customer's relationship with the bank is about to change fairly dramatically. Why was the change made? What validations need to be applied? What other processes need to be initiated as a result of this change? As Chris Stevenson pointed out a while ago, editable grids don't do a great job of capturing these subtleties. Data grids are the “one size fits all“ data entry solution you don't even have to think about. Sure, the data you get may not be as good as it could have been. The user might have had to jump through a few hoops to get what they wanted done, and they may have been exposed to some implementation details of the system but the data got in there.

Users and analysts will often request an Excel-like interface to data. Some people think that given Excel's ubiquity this will reduce training. However Excel is a commercial product with hundreds of person-years poured into its code-base. Is the grid you're using going to be as fast as Excel (given that unlike Excel your data probably has to come from a remote server)? How will your grid handle concurrency (Excel doesn't have to care about concurrency)? Excel has hundreds of features and tweaks to make editing of tabular data faster - how many of those are you going to implement? Which ones? When Excel v.Next comes out will you rev your application to continue to “be like excel“? If end users want Excel why not just let them use Excel?

When the only tool you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a miniature in-line version of Excel. By keeping the data grid off the table for a while the WPF team may have forced people to get a little more creative in how they interract with their data. At the end of the day “it that makes me find creative ways to work around its deficienceis“ is not a great selling point for a framework (although it never seemed to hurt the adoption of HTML) and the WPF team have come to the party and said they will provide a grid. That still doesn't change the fact that I think they are generally a bad idea.

* There are 3rd party WPF grids from Xceed and Infragistics (both of which are free IIRR).

Thinkgeek should sell cologne, shampoo etc with the distinctive aroma of solder

Joseph Cooney — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:25:00 GMT

I love the smell of solder. You know solder - the alloy (typically of lead and tin) used for creating electrical contacts between components. Well, I love the smell of it. I also know that breathing in the vapours is not good for me. I wish I could exude that beautiful, crisp and slightly acrid “I just finished working on a cool hardware hack” smell all the time. I wish think geek sold this kind of thing.

Software engineering is blessed to have 90% of its practitioners located in the top 5%

Joseph Cooney — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:18:00 GMT

seen here

Pex is now available from MSR

Joseph Cooney — Mon, 26 May 2008 06:14:00 GMT

Super-smart-guy Peli disappeared into MSR a while ago to work on Pex, an exploratory testing framework for .NET. There had been lots of teaser blog entries, a few conference appearances, chats with Hanselman, a video or two but no release, until last monday when Pex 0.5 was released. Testing Supremo Bruce McLeod is planning a series of posts explaining all of this tentatively titled “the Joy of Pex”. He then plans a follow-up article “how to explain to your spouse why you're staying up a night reading something on the internet called 'The Joy of Pex'”. Can't wait.

My ReMix talk slides and demos on WPF 3.5 and 3.5 SP1 are available here

Joseph Cooney — Wed, 21 May 2008 22:32:00 GMT

I just finished delivering my WPF talk at ReMix melbourne, which seemed to go OK. The talk was on WPF 3.5 and 3.5 SP1, and was somewhat based on the talk that Rob Relyea delivered at Mix08 in Las Vegas. Here's the slides, and the demos (one of which was borrowed from Kevin Moore here, and the pixelshader one is based on Greg's demo here). Leave me a comment if you have any feedback.

World Wide Telescope - nice app, shame it isn't WPF

Joseph Cooney — Thu, 15 May 2008 08:54:00 GMT

I had a look at the new World Wide Telescope created by Microsoft Research today. Like scoble I also wanted to cry when I saw it, but perhaps not for the same reason. Unlike scoble (who did it for publicity) I felt like crying because it seemed like what COULD have been a great showcase for WPF instead stooped to “legacy” technologies. Please MS - WPF was _made_ for creating these kind of apps. If you're not going to use it to build things like this then why should anyone else?

CodeCampOz 2008 slides - Silverlight 2.0 and WPF

Joseph Cooney — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:18:00 GMT

Here are my slides from the talk I gave at CodeCampOz 2008 on “Silverlight 2.0 and WPF - what's the same and what's different”. Thanks to everyone who came along to my talk. I'll be doing the same talk in June at the QMSDNUG in Brisbane. I had to cancel on Mike for the May session because of ReMix, where I'll be talking about WPF 3.5 and the coming improvements to WPF.

slides as PDF [691K] (the WPF logo looks a little weird in the background...something strange with transparent PNGs and export to PDF from Powerpoint?)

A gentle reminder that interfaces aren't contracts

Joseph Cooney — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:33:00 GMT

I received a gentle reminder this evening that interfaces aren't contracts. I was attempting to bend Silverlight 2 to my will, specifically the ResourceDictionary. I really wanted the keys, and was pleased to see that it implemented IDictionary<object,object>, which would give me a collection of keys (of object). I was dismayed to see the following implementation in reflector for the Keys and Values properties.

    ICollection<object> IDictionary<object, object>.Keys
    {
        get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
    }

    ICollection<object> IDictionary<object, object>.Values
    {
        get { throw new NotImplementedException(); }
    }

This really brought home to me that Interfaces are nice and all, but really only tell us that a type will have methods with a certain name that take certain paramters - exactly the same thing the compiler tells us about lots of other things (that is if you're in a compiled world....the benefits of interfaces seem even more marginal in more dynamically typed duck typing* languages). It doesn't guarantee that the methods will actually DO what we think they'll do (or even that they'll do anything at all except throw an exception in your face). Don't get me wrong - I like and user interfaces, but they're not a contract, more of a gentleman's agreement or shared understanding. Now if you'll excuse me I have some nasty reflection hacks I need to brutally force on the Silverlight run-time.

* Aside: speaking of duck typing, I heard of another interesting turn of phrase for monkey patching - duck punching! If it walks like a duck and flaps like a duck but doesn't quite quack the way you want it to you just punch it [chewie].

Ideas are worth next-to-nothing

Joseph Cooney — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:59:00 GMT

I was reading through a discussion thread on a programming forum, where someone was proposing that a large software vendor should pay community members for ideas on how to enhance said software vendor's platform. This is an interesting idea, which files in the face of my own personal belief that ideas (with a few notable exceptions) are worth approximately nothing. It is the implementation/execution of the idea that is worth something. Lets look at some big software companies - Microsoft and Google. Operating systems were certainly not a new idea when Microsoft released MS-DOS, it was their implementation of the idea and the royalty stream they created through savvy licensing to IBM that made MS. The operating system they licensed to IBM wasn't even theirs, it was a CP/M clone they bought for $50K. Internet search and on-line advertising were not new ideas when google entered this market, but their dogged refinement of their search implementation built the brand/trust in the company, which in turn lead to extreme user buy-in and eventually a strong “network effect” between on-line content providers (AdSense) and advertisers (AdWords). Strong implementations of ideas are bought and sold every day (they're called companies, or the rights to products) whereas there is not currently an established market for ideas.

WPF MVP for another year

Joseph Cooney — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:56:00 GMT

I was very happy to receive notification that I've been renewed as a WPF (technicall 'Visual Developer - Windows Client') MVP for another year. Thanks to Rose S. and the MVP team.

A Soul-ful Batman and Batgirl at Heroes Happen in Brisbane

Joseph Cooney — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:12:00 GMT

Brisbane's own Dyanmic Duo Bronwyn and John showed up to the Heroes Happen event dressed as Batman and Batgirl. Respekt! They had previously emailed me trying to convince me to wear this superman outfit, but I had assumed it was a ruse and if I'd shown up in it there would have been much pointing and laughing. I work in an office environment where elaborate pranks featuring fake UPS tracking sites, trojaned laptops, host file entries, shelf companies, skype answering services attached to foreign numbers and faking your own death in the name of a good laff are not unheard of, so I assuemd this was just a pretty simple prank directed against me.

We can be "heroes" just for one day

Joseph Cooney — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 03:43:00 GMT

Tomorrow I'll be attending the Visual Studio 2008, SQL Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 "heroes happen here" launch event, manning a booth of some kind.

Works on My Machine logo as ASCII Art - prefect for check-in/defect resolution/bug triage/investigation comments

Joseph Cooney — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 05:51:00 GMT

Have you ever wanted to attach the ever-popular “works on my machine” logo to a check-in comment or “bug” report, but been thwarted by text-only fields? Well look no further friends (courtesy of glassgiant):

Small Version:

MMMMMMMMMMMMM=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=+???????IIIIII
MMMMMM~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIII
MM:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+III
:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ?II? III~,IIIIIIIIIIIII.~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII= II. :II IIIIIIIIIIIIII.~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II . I~ II.   =II =  I.~I+ II=   IIIIIII    ?II +   IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII   ?IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=  .IIIIIIIII =?.I I +I .III II +III.~ ,III..IIIIIIII ~III II III ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I+                     I  IIIIIIIII? .II.~ II ,III II +III.~ .IIIII? +IIIII =III II III ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIII  II? ?III ,?..II +III.~I? II.=? IIIIII? := :II III ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .        II, .II, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,II  II: III  I~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,II  II: III, . .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,II  II: IIII  .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII I                      I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII ?I                    ,I  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, ~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII                          ~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIII                            +IIIIIIII. ~IIIIII  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .IIIIII+ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII                              IIIIIIII., IIIII?  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII                              IIIIIIII.,,.IIII I III    .III    .I .    III II .    III,    IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII                              IIIIIIII.,I III :I IIIIIII II ?IIIII  III =II II  III.:I~.III? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIII,                             IIIIIIII.,I? I=.II III     II IIIIII .III ~II II .III.,I.      IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.,II.. III II :III II IIIIII .III ~II II .III.,I:.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.,III +III II.   . III    ,I .III ~II II .III.,II.    =IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=
,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,I
II:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=III
IIIIII:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:IIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIII=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=IIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:~=+??IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII???=~:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
                                                                                                         GlassGiant.com

Large Version:

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM,~=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+~,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
MMMMMMMMMMMM:?IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII?:IIIIIIIIIIIII
MMMMMMMM:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:IIIIIIIII
MMMM:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+IIIII
MM=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=III
+IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIII   ?IIII..IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII= ~III=   :III? +IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .III. ~ .III, IIIII:. .:IIIII: .I+..II. IIII. ,IIII~. ,+IIIIIIIIIIIII,. .~IIIII. :I?..,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,                                         +IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  =II ,I  II? .III. =III~ ,III:   +IIII. II? .IIII~ .IIIIIIIIIIIIIII. ?III, ~III.   +II. =IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII                                            ~IIIIIIIIIIIIIII, .II +I, ?I, =II~ .IIIII. =II: .IIIIII. I~  IIIII, .IIIIIIIIIIIIII. ,IIIII  ?II. .IIII. ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   +IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,   IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  +~.II? ,? .III. :IIIII, .II: .IIIIII.   ,IIIIIII+.   =IIIIIIIIII  +IIIII. ~II. :IIII. ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  =I+                                   II   IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, ,.:III.., ~III. ,IIIII. ,II: .IIIIII. I. .IIIIIIIII?  .IIIIIIIII  =IIIII  =II. :IIII. ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                    ,I+  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII?   IIII=  .IIIII  IIIII .III: .IIIIII. III. =IIIIIIII= .IIIIIIIII+  IIII? .III. :IIII. ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.  IIIII  ~IIIIII.     .IIII: .IIIIII. IIII  ,II,     .?IIIIIIIIII?      ,IIII. :IIII. ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   II, .:III=. :IIII    IIIIII  .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   +      ?      ?II~   :IIII+  ?IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII    +I+    +II.  ,III.   IIII  ?IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   IIII   IIII:  ,III?   +II. :IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   IIII   IIII:  ,IIII,  .I=  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   IIII   IIII:  ,IIIII.  ,  :IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   IIII   IIII:  ,IIIII+    .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                     II  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   IIII   IIII:  ,IIIIII,  .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II                                    ,I?  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+  +IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII  II,                                   ?I:  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:  =IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII   II:                                .+I=   IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=  ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII     +IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII?=    ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=                                          ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, .IIIIIIIIIII. .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+                                              .IIIIIIIIIIIIII+   ~IIIIIIIIII:   IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, .IIIIIIIIIII. .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=                                                 IIIIIIIIIIIII+    IIIIIIIIII .  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.                                                 IIIIIIIIIIIII+  : ~IIIIIIII: =  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII                                                  IIIIIIIIIIIII+  I, +IIIIII~ ==  IIII:       ?IIIII.      .II, .      .IIII, .III~ ..      IIIII?       +IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII                                                  IIIIIIIIIIIII+  II .IIIII?  I=  IIII:?IIII? .III?  .IIIIIIII,  =IIII  ,III, .III~  ~IIII. .III+  =IIII. ?IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,                                                 IIIIIIIIIIIII+  II: .IIII  +I=  IIIIIIIIIII  III  ~IIIIIIIII, .IIIII~ .III, .III~  IIIII+  III  ?IIIIII .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=                                                 IIIIIIIIIIIII+  III. ~II, ,II=  IIIII:       III  IIIIIIIIII, .IIIII~  III, .III~ .IIIII+  II+          .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=                                              ,IIIIIIIIIIIIII+  IIII  =: .III=  III:  IIIII  III  IIIIIIIIII, .IIIII~  III, .III~ .IIIII+  II+  IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+  IIII= .  ?III=  III. :IIIII  III  :IIIIIIIII, .IIIII~  III, .III~ .IIIII+  III  ~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+  IIIII.  ~IIII=  III. .IIII.  III=  :IIIIIIII, .IIIII~  III, .III~ .IIIII+  III:  =IIIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+  IIIIII.,IIIII=  IIII.     =  IIIII,      ,II, .IIIII~  III, .III~ .IIIII+  IIIII.      ,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~
+IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+
II=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=.
IIII:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=I?.
IIIIIIII:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:IIIII?,
IIIIIIIIIIII:+IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+: ,?IIIIIII:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=:?,      :IIIIIIII=.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:~=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII+~,IIIIIIIII:     .~IIIIIIII+.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,:~=++???IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII???++=~::+IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=.    .+IIIIIIII?.
                                                                                                                                                                                         GlassGiant.com