Linux-Advocacy Digest #466, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 07:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: State of linux distros ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How much do you *NEED*? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (CBFalconer)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:41:45 +0000
In article <979q95$6dk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave Vandervies"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <979mmq$i3t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>> There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
>>> 180.0:
>>>
>>> double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
>>> {
>>> return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
>>> }
>>
>>
>>It would be easier to use M_PIl as #defined in math.h
>
> Really?
Oh. I assumed that because it was in mine, it would be in everyones. Try
searching math.h for PI.
If you don't have one, then take this nice long definition (from my
math.h) an put it in pi.h or something.
3.1415926535897932384626433832795029L
> double deg2rad(double degrees))
> {
> return deg * M_PIl / 180;
> }
Wouldn't it be better to have this as a macro, It wouldn't icrease the
program size by much, but it would be faster.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:42:51 +0000
In article <979rsq$c3s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dan Pop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In <979mmq$i3t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> There are 2 pi radians in a full circle, so the conversion is pi /
>>> 180.0:
>>>
>>> double deg_to_rad(double degrees)
>>> {
>>> return degrees * 3.14159265358979323846 / 180.0;
>>> }
>>
>>It would be easier to use M_PIl as #defined in math.h
>
> <math.h> has no licence to define such a macro when the compiler is
> invoked in conforming mode.
Is there an official place where a definition of PI is meant to reside?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:04:39 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reefer wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Spot the stupidity.
>>
>> That would be u, using a early 70:s OS like Linsux....
>
> Strange how every MODERN operating system keeps taking ideas wholesale
> from Unix.
>
> And the only ones that are successful are those that implement the ideas
> the same as on Unix.
>
> This is why Mafia$oft products fail.
>
Don't forget that 'doze is slowly becoming a UNIX. ( or trying to). I't
now at the stage that UNIX was in in the 80's.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:00:47 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "B'ichela"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:26:35 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Well, in the UK, we get 3000W out of a standard socket. You can also get
>>cookeer and heater sockets which provide 30A. Why not keep the main
>>computer in the utility room with the other high power stuff?
> Here is the U.S we also have Electric range (cooker) outlets
> that can provide up to 50A power capacities. As well as Electric Dryer
> connections that provide 30A capacity. As for storing the computer in
> the utility room... Neat idea! only thing is the issue of environmental
> concerns such as dust! A dryer is a hell of a lint producer. If yoru
> dryer is vented to the outside you still get LINT!
I hadn't thought of that since we almost never use the drier. Once in the
utility room, you could make the computer case quite a bit bigger and
have one side of it (the outside) as an aluminium fan heat sink. That
way, it could keep cool from natural of forced concevtion on the outside,
eliminating the need for a fan sucking dust inside. And you could put one
helluva fan on the outside :-)
> Todays computers have
> more fans that most heating systems! ;) Not only do these fans gladly
> suck up dust and lint. There also is NO filters on these!
> BTW the average Electric Range and Dryer service is 208VAC
> therefore you can guess the watts. Need more? hardwire the computer to
> the fusebox!
I'm not familiar with VAC.
VA == W for resistive loads and VAR is the geometric difference between
VA and W (in that VAR=|W+ jVAR| )
Out house at home has a 100A fuse coming in from outside. And a 60A fuse
in the circuit breaker. We could get 24,000 W out of that. If we really
needed more, we could get 3-pahse installed in out house, giving use 415V.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:56:54 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:59:58 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
>
> > Conversly, the smaller the fab process size the lower the voltage required
> > to run the processor and the lower the current consumption. The power
>
> Voltage and Current are independant.
V = I * R
Obviously clock speed, number of transistors, how many are actually active
during a given clock cycle, etc have a bearing on current consumption, but
the general v=i*r premise holds.
Else a 1GHz chip would require several kW to run it and the same again to
cool it.
--
Peter
55°25"N 4°44'W
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:56:54 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 01:22:43 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
> >
> > >> I can. Starting from the home computers of the early 80's, the amount
> > >> of power required has steadily increased. Bear in mind, thet the faster
> > >> you want to switch a silicon junctio, the more power you need to switch
> > >> it.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Particularly for CMOS.
> >
> > And Bipolar. You have junction capacitance in the CMOS transistor and
> > charge stored in the base to drive it in to saturation in the bipolar
> > case.
>
> No. Bipolar consumes significant amounts of current even when not switching.
>
> The fastest technology which uses Bipolar transistors is ECL
> (Emitter Coupled Logic). By STEERING a constant current between
> a PNP or an NPN transistor, stray inductance effects are minimized,
> which maximizes speed.
>
> When I was at Purdue, we beta-tested a Powernode 9000 by Gould.
> At the time, this was the fastest technology available.
>
> "Switching costs" are almost zero. The downside is that EVERY
> gate is "on"...either the 'true' output or the 'negated' output
> is on for every gate.
And ECL consumes VAST quantities of power, as well as requiring a -5v power
rail. This made interfacing to standard TTL logic tricky.
The first DVE (Digital Video Effects) devices used in broadcast tv employed
ECL chips because they were the only ones fast enough to deal with the data
rate. They were housed in racks with vast forced air cooling, the noise was
tremendous, as was the power consumption.
That would have been 15 or more years ago.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:03:26 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> >> I can. Starting from the home computers of the early 80's, the
>> >> amount of power required has steadily increased. Bear in mind, thet
>> >> the faster you want to switch a silicon junctio, the more power you
>> >> need to switch it.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Particularly for CMOS.
>>
>> And Bipolar. You have junction capacitance in the CMOS transistor and
>> charge stored in the base to drive it in to saturation in the bipolar
>> case.
>
> No. Bipolar consumes significant amounts of current even when not
> switching.
Yes. The base charge must be removed, or put back to switch a transistor.
In both systems you have to shove charge about the place. The more faster
you want to do this, the more power you need.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:19:32 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Brent R wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > Because Linux's desktop has not caught up to Windows.
>> >>
>> >> Well, the Linux desktop is a lot cooler than Windows. It's a lot
>> >> more configurable, but that's IMO of course.
>> >>
>> >> My main problem with the Linux console is that it's not as
>> >> attractive as the Window's desktop.
>> >
>> > Well, let's compare apples to apples. The console is
>> > 80x25 text, but Linux also has a graphical environment.
>>
>> Not so. The kernel will let you switch in to some text modes and
>> SVGATextMode will let you switch in to 1000's of modes ranging grom
>> 20x7 to 160x64.
>>
>> I'm running at 160x64 with a 16 pixel font (this requires editing the
>> source code for SVGATextMode since it doesn't allow for more that 1024
>> lines if you don't edit it). My graphics card has trouble handling such
>> a fast text mode dot clock, though (80MHz).
I meant 83MHz, not 80MHz.
>
> Good graphics cards are really cheap these days.
Name me one graphics card that can reliable go up to 90MHz in text mode.
The problem is that text mode reqires random access to the video memory,
whilst graphics mode uses sequential access. The memory is optimized for
very high speed sequential access, not random access. Some of the modern
cards wth very high pixel clocks have trouble pushing 60MHz in text mode.
The old Et9000 was one of the very few cards that could do 90MHz in text
mode.
For my next card, I want one that can do high text mode pixel clocks, but
they are very rare and the manufactures don't bother quoting those
figures anyway. I could use the framebuffer instead, but that is slower
and I wouldn't get accelerated X.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: CBFalconer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:23:54 GMT
Dan Pop wrote:
>
> In <9790vd$4od$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) writes:
>
> >Here's a chance to correct (and flame) me. Last time I checked, a full circle
> >is 3.1415926.... radians, that being pi number radians to equal 360 degrees.
>
> It must have shrinked in the meantime. It used to be 2 * 3.1415926...
^^^^^^^^
Gotcha :-). Your perfect English failed. The irregular usage is
"shrunk" or "shrank".
> radians back when I was in highschool.
--
Chuck F ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.qwikpages.com/backstreets/cbfalconer
(Remove "NOSPAM." from reply address. my-deja works unmodified)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (for spambots to harvest)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:35:24 +0000
>> > That's why law-abiding citizens SHOULD HAVE guns....because
>> > LAW-ABIDING CITZENS aren't the ones who would shoot you...but their
>> > *IS* a good chance that one would shoot some thug who doesn't give a
>> > fuck about the laws against murder in the first place.
>> >
>> >> that is MY right as a free Englishman and I want to keep
>> >> that right.
>> >
>> > Clue for the clueless: criminals don't give a fuck about what you
>> > think your rights are.
>> >
>> >> Since guns are not commonplace here, letting nutters
>> >> have them
>> >> means oppression, not freedom for me.
>> >
>> > 1 nutter kills 20 people.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> > 60 criminals, no longer fearing retaliation by disarmed law-abiding
>> > citizens kill 1 person each.
>>
>> Law abiding citizens here were unarmed anyway because we don't have a
>> gun culture, so under our new system, there are 20 less deaths by your
>> reckoning.
>
> Post-handgun ban statistics contradict your argument.
I don't care what the statistics say, the hand gun laws affected a tiny
minority of the population anyway. Any spurious change will settle down
just like it does everywhere else.
> Apparently the mere idea of a rare law-abiding citizen with a gun was
> enough to keep the thugs at bay.
There was no idea of guns because NO ONE HAD GUNS ANY WAY (well, almost
noone).
> But now that you've outlawed them, your criminals are running wild
> because they are 100% confident that all law-abiding individuals will be
> unable to defend themselves.
Since more criminals had guns than the poplation in general, the chance
of a criminal running in to someone with a gun is largely unchanged.
>> > Should we outlaw cars because sometimes there are accidents--
>> > completely disregarding that fact that cars save more lives than what
>> > they take
>> > (quick, sheltered transportation allows people to maintain a higher
>> > standard of living, thereby avoiding malnutrition, disease,
>> > hypothermia, etc.)
>>
>> Guns serve one purpose: to kill. The primary purpose of cars is not to
>> kill.
>
> Wrong. Guns are designed to launch a small metal projectile at high
> velocity.
Yep, for the purpose of killing.
> What that projectile hits is ENTIRELY under the decision-making of the
> person holding it.
So that's why people get killed in crossfire?
> But...let's assume that you are correct...that guns have ZERO purpose
> other than killing.
>
> Is it a good idea that the only people running around English society
> with guns on them are the habitual criminals?
That's all we had anyway.
> What part of "criminals don't obey gun laws" do you not fucking
> understand?
What part of `virtually no one had guns anyway don't you understand.
>> >> To be quite frank, guns or no guns, if they come after me, I am a
>> >> dead man.
>> >
>> > Spoken like a true coward.
>>
>> No, spoken like someone who has a realistic outlook.
>
> Coward.
If I pushed you off a cliff, would you expect to die? The answer is yes
and you are not a coward for believeing that.
>> > And so, on that basis, you would deny everybody else a chance to
>> > defend themselves.
>>
>> People here didn't have guns in general anyway. Under these
>> circumstances, its better not to let nutters at them.
>
> Tell that to the surviving family members and friends of all of the
> mugging and hot-burglary victims who have died in the last year.
Hot burglaries are almost unknown in the UK. And mugings almost never
involve guns. If everyone had guns, then the muggers would get guns too.
So instead of one unarmed person against 3 unarmed muggers, you have one
armed person against 3 armed muggers. Either way, you'll loose your
wallet.
> I'm sure that they'll find a lot of consolation that their loved ones
> have died in the quest to keep guns out of the hands of nutters.
And what about the people who's loved ones have dies precisely because
nutters were allowed guns?
>> > By that logic, your neighbor should prevent you from having a
>> > computer because he can't figure out how to use it effectively.
>>
>> Guns are designed to kill, computers are not.
>>
>
> So is poison.
>
> I don't have any poison. Therefore, I vote that YOU not be allowed to
> purchase any to get rid of the mice that invaded your home last month.
>
> Have fun watching your house get destroyed...
Um, well I hade to be pedantic, but we did have mice in out house a
couple of months ago, but we used mouse traps intead and they were very
effective :-)
But besides, poison serves a useful purpose (other than to kill people,
the usefulness of which is debatable).
>> >> would stop that govt. shelling the house of someone with a personal
>> >> arsenal?
>> >
>> > A concerted response from the entire neighborhood firing upon the gun
>> > crew.
>>
>> How many civs do you know own enough weaponary to stop a mobile gun
>> shelling you from 60 miles away?
>
> Simple...local neighbors AT THE FIRING SITE can take out the gun crew.
I'll assume you've seen a mobile gun---they look very much like tanks
with extermely long guns. How many civs do you know own enough weaponary
to take out one of those?
> Your mis-understanding of government vs. the populace warfare is
> indicative of EXACTLY why your army lost the American Revolution.
They lost the war for many reasons.
>> > "Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither"
>> > --Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> I'm not trading liberty for safety. I get more liberty without guns
>> around than with.
>
> You are so naive, you are dangerous.
I would rather not have someone as hot headed as you running around armed
with a handgun.
> You really don't have the slightest clue how those at the top of the
> pyramid LOVE a working class that is disarmed, unable to revolt.
> Gun control is ALL about suppressing the working classes... regardless
> of whatever popular disinformation campaign which was used to sell you
> on supporting the idea.
Well, good job that most of the country is middle class then.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:40:05 +0000
>>>>If the government wanted to turn on us and guns were legal, it would
>>>>cut off the supply first, as well. Any stocks of ammo wouldn't last
>>>>very long. Again, having a gun wouldn't help much.
>>>
>>> Bad logic. "Your tool might not last forever, so why have the tool at
>>> all?"
>>
>>I don't think the tool would last for a significant amount of time. What
>>would stop that govt. shelling the house of someone with a personal
>>arsenal? Meanwhilst, I am more free out of a gun culture than in one.
>>
>
>
> They have to know about it. Tell me why they didn't shell the IRA into
> the history books?
Because th IRA live amongst civs and are hard to identify. They don't
want to go arouns shelling civilians. If they gouvernment decided to turn
the country in to a dictatorship they would probably not care about
shelling civilians.
>>The Chinese army versus an army of untrained civs armed with hand guns.
>>I wonder who would win.
>>
>
> depends on numbers and will, that's all. Guns make it easier, but it
> takes will.
True. If the government takes arms against the population, guns will
still be avaliable through illiit sources. In that case I would take up
arms and fight.
Until that time, I'd rather that every quick tempered nutter didn't have
the option of going in the the local gun store and going postal.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:48:14 +0000
>>No. Whether the UK had guns in the home or not, by 1941 they would all
>>have been long gone. There was not enough metal to go roung for making
>>weapons.
>>
>>
>
> Bull, there was plenty for hand weapons, ships and tanks take a lot, a
> bolt action rifle takes about 8 lbs.
Why did they go round taking any spare metal (gates, fences, spere pans)
for weapons if there was plenty of metal?
>
>>>> > Gun control is ALWAYS about implementing feudalism.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> Then you truly have no understanding of how the elitist power-brokers
>>> in government view the average citizen like you and me.
>>>
>>> They want you to be a conformist little robot who offers ZERO
>>> resistance to any of their decisions.
>>
>>Me having a gun would make no difference to a single decision the
>>government has made in recent times. The only way it would have made a
>>difference would be through armed uprising which is too extreme for
>>anything that they've done recently.
>>
>
> Tell that to the Indians, or the children at Waco... Then tell me it
> will never get worse, because the same organization which fed retarded
> children radioactive isotopes to study radiation sickness, and prevented
> black men from being treated for syphillis in order to study the
> progression of the disease, promises never to oppress us...
So you lot had guns, yet they were oppressed by the government anyway.
How did guns help them there, then?
> As for getting a shotgun, you can get one, *if* you live in the
> country, and
you can get one for sport.
> certainly not for the purpose of protection, that is expressly
> forbidden.
Forbidden, yes. But if somene breaks in to your house and you happen to
have the key to your gun safe handy...
>>>> > This is a bit out of date, of course. The events of Dunblane
>>>> > resulted in further further hysterical legislation that was equally
>>>> > misdirected....
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>> Disagree all you want. You're still wrong.
>>
>>Well I think your wrong. Why don't you admit that I'm entitled to my own
>>opinion?
>
> opinion != fact. You are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't make
> your opinion correct.
It doesn't make yours correct either. Your point?
>>>> > and inneffective. If British readers of this don't get the point by
>>>> > now, I hope that American readers will, at least.
>>>>
>>>> I get the point, I just disagree. One problem you have is an
>>>> unwillingness to see why other people hold a different point of view.
>>>
>>> My point of view is based on a thorough study of history and the
>>> actions of both common criminals, and those who infect government.
>>>
>>> Trusting EITHER type of criminal to treat you with courtesy is a
>>> foolish thing to do....foolish enough that it may cost you your life.
>>
>>I don't trust either to treat me with courtesy. But I don't think guns
>>are the solution.
>
> not *the* solution, *a* solution.
And not a good one.
>>And the government forces have avaliable guns of far higher precision
>>and power than I would be able to afford. I may as well just use a bow
>>and arrows for all the help a hand gun would be against trained army
>>forces with fantastically expensive weaponary. Again, me owning a gun
>>would do very little against a dictator coming in to power.
>
> You assume that a) all the military would side with tyranny, and b) that
If the military didn't side with tyrrany, there would be no tyrrany
> guerilla forces cannot win against a conventional force, both
> assumptions are wrong.
I'm not assuming that. If there is a war, people will sell the guerillas
guns because there is money to be made. In that case I would buy a gun
and fight. Until then, I'd rather that guns weren't commonplace.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:53:19 +0000
>> If that's the case, then why do MS-Office apps use them???
>
> They don't, at least not since Word 2.0 and Excel 4.
How do you know? do you have access to the source code?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
