From - Tue Feb 20 18:08:11 2001 X-UIDL: 5ef66aa745ac3b40 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: lacall-onemodel:org-lacall@onemodel.org X-Envelope-To: lacall@onemodel.org Received: (qmail 70102 invoked by uid 800); 20 Feb 2001 14:11:01 -0000 Date: 20 Feb 2001 14:11:01 -0000 Message-ID: <20010220141101.70101.qmail@uruz.pair.com> To: lacall@onemodel.org References: <3A927AE2.4010408@onemodel.org> In-Reply-To: <3A927AE2.4010408@onemodel.org> X-Loop: general-digest-list@onemodel.org From: general-digest-list-request@onemodel.org Reply-To: Please.write.a.new.mail.instead.of.replying@FIRST.WORD.archive Content-ID: <"volume00/7"%general-digest-list-request@onemodel.org> Subject: archive retrieval: volume00/7 Precedence: bulk Content-Disposition: inline; filename="volume00/7" Content-Type: message/rfc822; directory="volume00"; name="7" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: general-digest-list-request@onemodel.org Subject: general-digest-list Digest V00 #7 X-Loop: general-digest-list@onemodel.org X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/7 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary=3D"----------------------------"= To: general-digest-list@onemodel.org Reply-To: general-list@onemodel.org ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain general-digest-list Digest Volume 00 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Markets for a Unified Model of Knowl [ "Tom and other Packers" To: "OM List" Subject: Markets for a Unified Model of Knowledge Message-ID: <000e01c005ab$84eac9e0$2b08a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 2000.08.06/Sun: Hello OM List, Synopsis of the Following Long Letter which I wrote a week ago: An informal essay on the usefulnesses and potential markets for a unified model of knowledge, including inference, (UMKI). Four overlappin= g areas of application are discussed, with examples of each given. There won't be a test afterwards, so don't read this if you don't want to. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Before I start ... Luke, how does one unsubscribe from the list? I'm not planning on unsubscribing, of course, but, just in case someone else asks me... Jared, if (when) you've joined this list, let me know, so I don't hav= e to include you separately. Now I begin. ~~~~~~~~~ Lee was at my [parents'] house on Friday to look at the photographs w= e took on our recent trip to Europe, and we got to talking about the "One Model" project (OM). He played the devil's advocate a little, and challenged me to name something that our UMK could do that another specialised program could not do better, but I was too tired to defend my= position very well. His question is a good one -- I mean, if I don't have an answer, then= what am I doing wasting any time on this project, and likewise why should= any of you be interested in this project? I'm now going to try to answer= his question, now that I'm not half-asleep, and now that I'm back in my element, (I like writing more than talking). There are four major types of potential markets for the OM, or UMKI, = or whatever we want to call it. (Did we ever come up with a name, Luke?) A= unified model of knowledge and inference could be the means of doing the following beneficial things: (1) bringing together two or more previously= disparate and incompatible subjects, in such a way that inferences can be= made, for the first time, across the union of these bodies of knowledge i= n a natural, useful, intelligent way; (2) promote a single, centralised, universal repository of information; (3) make possible natural language translation; (4) establish the only hope of true, complete AI. (1) Amalgamating two or more previously-disparate subjects: I believe that there is much useful information hiding in the as-of-y= et un-made comparisons between many pairs of subjects. I believe these pair= s of subjects have not yet been compared because (1) the two fields of knowledge had different developmental origins, and became distant "subcultures" early on, and (2) each of the two fields of knowledge is mo= st easily understood using incomplete, and mutually-incompatible paradigms. = I think OM can greatly help in the process of removing the hindrances, of these intellectual tradition _per_se_, and of these conceptual blocks (compartmentalisations) in human neurology. Examples are: (1) physical vs. biological sciences, (2) objective vs.= subjective thinking, (3) hard vs. soft sciences, (4) science vs. religion/mysticism, (5) science vs. art, (6) deduction vs. induction, (7)= quality vs. quantity, (8) linguistic vs. metalinguistic thinking, (9) geometric linguistics vs. symbolic linguistics, (10) theoretical vs. practical/experiential thinking, (11) thinking vs. emoting, etc. There are no boundaries between these, or any other, subjects; except= for, perhaps, cultural (sub-cultural) boundaries, and temporary mental blocks. The modern age has developed a handful of niches for us to specialise in; and these, by-in-large, do not overlap. This is sometimes= (not always) a problem. If we had the attitude of the great thinkers fro= m the Age of Enlightenment, we wouldn't have this problem. But instead, we= have a post-modernistic, multiculturalistic attitude. I guess it has appeared more efficient for man to structure society that way, or less taxing on the human psyche. But I think the costs outweigh the benefits = for such a fragmented view of knowledge in many instances. This division is = a hindrance to making valuable inferences. (I'm not the only one who sees this. For example, see James Burk's b= ook "Connections", or Edward O. Wilson's book "Concilience: A Unity of Knowledge", or Howard Gardener's book "The Mind's New Science", and proba= bly many other books I haven't heard of yet.) As an example of what some people are doing to unify "disparate" fiel= ds of knowledge under one, narrow recombinant field: there is a graduate-lev= el degree called "cognitive science" at many universities now, which is the combination of neurology, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, anthropolo= gy, math and logic, and computer science and AI. (This is the degree which I= intend to get. I guess it's the closest thing I could find to "Applied Philosophy".) Cognitive science is considered an "interdisciplinary subject" -- so much so that these schools don't have a "cognitive science department". Instead, they have several participating departments working together -- probably in a way never before seen on a university campus, despite the implied "unity" in the word "university". I hope cog. sci. never does coalesce into one department, because that would narrow the subject into = a subculture, and reduce the cross-pollination which has breathed so much l= ife into this new science, ("The Mind's New Science", as Howard Gardener call= s it). (By the way, don't confuse cognitive science with cognitive psycholog= y. They're different things.) This, the first type of market out of the four, is the type of application which Lee asked me about. He asked me to name two fields of study which had any benefit in being combined inside our One Model. I couldn't answer his question at the time; I think I was making it harder than I needed to. Examples are so obvious, I looked right past them. Th= e example he drew out of a hat, zoology and mathematics, *is* one of many possibilities. If we had a model of knowledge, in which mathematical knowledge and zoological knowledge were both seamlessly integrated, we co= uld have a program automatically map/fit patterns in zoology to existing functions and equations in mathematics. Applications: ranching, farming,= medicine, etc. Other examples of potential uses in this area are: * Zoology and Economics: How might we take advantage of the similarities hidden within the complexities of two seemingly different systems? An abstract model of the interactions of organisms in an ecosystem, and an abstract model of the interactions of people, governmen= ts, and businesses in an economy, could reveal patterns which would allow inferences relating to one field based on premises derived from the other= =2E I believe that human brains reason the same way, to an extent, through intuition. Why not try to find a way to automate this process? You can'= t find an algorithm (or heuristic) to do this kind of thing effectively without having a single model to apply the algorithm to, a single, unifie= d way to represent knowledge in both fields. * Inside Businesses: How do you run a business optimally? Optimali= sm is dependent on how much knowledge you have of the situation. "As good a= s is possible" increases with your knowledge of what is possible. What doe= s knowledge of a business include? Finances, psychology (of employees and customer), physics and logistics (of the physical facilities and properties), laws, and the product itself. Costs and benefits in a busin= ess can be classified among all of these areas, and they must all be compared= , contrasted, and balanced, in making optimal decisions and actions inside = the business. It's an incomplete, heuristic process inside the mind of the owner/manager. Why not make it a complete, algorithmic process? I've re= ad that we can automatically and "optimally" run simple machines, like steam= engines (this is the classic example) and balancing mechanisms like thermostats, using fuzzy logic. What's stopping us from automatically an= d optimally running complex machines, like corporations? * Cognitive Science: How can we understand what _knowledge_ really = is, without understanding language, neurology, philosophy, etc.? * Music Therapy: How does music therapy work? You need to model tw= o different fields: music and therapy. This includes music theory, musicology, neurology, health-in-general. Then you need to make inductiv= e and deductive inferences across this composite body of knowledge. Simila= r things can be said about art therapy, or any other type of therapy. (Finding the right type of therapy, or combination of therapies, is a har= d, and too-frequently failed, challenge for doctors, psychologists and socia= l workers, but this is an application which fits better in the second secti= on, below.) * Psychology: How can we truly understand human psychology? We hav= e to consider mythology, archetypes, literature, art, pscychoneuroimmunoendocrinology (another relatively new composite field o= f study), overt human behaviour of all types, game theory, religion, introspection, comparative psychology, systematic psychology, etc. Shall I go on? (2) Promote a single, centralised, universal repository of informatio= n: Today was "Fast Sunday" in the Mormondom, and I wanted to know if the= monthly CES fireside would be broadcast. The LDS church broadcasts this fireside almost every Fast Sunday (nearly once per month), but this patte= rn is not consistent enough that I would drive to the nearest stake centre o= n any given Fast Sunday to watch it without having some confirmation that there was actually a fireside scheduled for this particular month. But w= ho do I ask? I asked my dad. He didn't know. I asked the YSA leader in our stake= , and he wasn't sure. I've asked the YSA rep in my ward in the past, and s= o I knew that that was a less-effective plan, and didn't attempt it this time= =2E Where do I go for information on this subject? I've asked that quest= ion enough that it's practically a motto. It's a common question. If there were one, _de_facto_ standard location for information, then= I would know where to go. I would go to one place, because everyone else i= n the world would go there first to enter information; by either (1) manual= ly putting in information there, or (2) setting up the programmatic channels= through which the information would be gathered automatically from their = own database/natural-language-corpus. People would do one or both of these things because they knew that they need only enter the information once, = and everyone in the world who was interested in this information could find i= t there. This centralisation (or maybe federalisation) of information would obviously require a lot of work and collaboration and co=F6peration; but think of the benefits. They would be unprecedented in this world, *IF* w= e had a fully unified model of knowledge, something so well integrated that= all the information available could be taken advantage of. It would have= to be unified, because we don't want any arbitrary edges, any unnatural boundaries, which would turn into "blind spots" in our model. It would h= ave to be able to model all knowledge equally well, so people could stop guessing whether or not their knowledge could be found there. Example uses: * The Human Genome Project: How are the genetic researchers going t= o be able to complete the comparing, correlating, and mapping of phenotypes= and genotypes, if not through one huge repository of all relevant information, put in from every source under the sun, and independently calculated and verified by every available researcher in under the sun. * Genealogy: Need I say more. * Mundane Personal Records: Is anyone tired of filling out forms? Every time you go anywhere, every time you turn around: "Please give me y= our last name, your first name, your middle initial, your maiden name, your mother's maiden name, your social security number, your home phone number= , your home mailing address, your alternate mailing address, your birthday,= your marital status, your work phone number, your work mailing address, y= our fax number, you insurance information, your next-of-kin's information, yo= ur e-mail address (this actually isn't asked for as much as it should be), y= our driver licence number, your savings account number, your check routing number, your shoe size, your hat size, your mother's favourite flower, grandmother's favourite oatmeal cookie recipe ... and then sign next to t= he "x" and date it." Is this not ludicrous? Maybe no one else in the world cares or think= s about this ... but if we had one repository of information, all we would ever have to do is write our name and our SSN, and be sure to update our entry in the universal repository whenever we moved or something else changed. Most of this information is meaningless and redundant once we h= ave so many bits of data -- enough information to unambiguously identify ourselves. We'd have to make this database very secure, of course, and v= ery reliable, and practically "read-only" without special permission and authority. But I think it could work. Your doctor would have access to information relevant to his job, e.g= =2E health information and billing information, and all those records wouldn'= t have to change hands every time you went to a new doctor; your employer would have access to information relevant to him, demographers and the ten-year US census people would have access to whatever it is they need, etc. I went to the allergist today for a normal, routine visit, and out = of the blue they had me fill out a form I must have filled out a hundred tim= es before -- one of which I know I filled out a year ago when I started goin= g to this allergist. If "Bountiful Ears, Nose, and Throat" had access to m= y information in the OM, I wouldn't have to do that, never again; and they wouldn't have to do so much paperwork and data-entry/comparisons. Someon= e please tell me why this isn't a good idea. (Pretty soon, we won't even have to write in our name and SSN, we'd s= can a card which represents all the other cards most of us have been carrying= around for years: drivers licence, SS card, credit/debit cards, concealed= weapons permit, etc.) * Traffic: Anyone who has ever gotten caught in "Stau", as they cal= l congested traffic in Germany, will appreciate this one. With GPS satellites, knowledge of automobile mechanics, human psychology, local an= d national laws, road and weather conditions, chaos theory, traffic flow theory, etc., we could do away with traffic patterns and stop lights as w= e know them. We could make traffic flow better, and help people find their= destinations far better, than what is happening today. One sub-example: Have you ever turned onto a road and not known what = the speed limit is, because the sign on that road happened to be posted a few= yards back in the wrong direction? Why post the speed limit in signs in such an incomplete, discrete way when your car computer can tell you the speed limit at any point along any road, in a continuous way? All of this information would have to be centralised and co=F6rdinate= d, and given a common, standardised interface, and be accessible all over th= e world. The actual knowledge would probably be distributed over a network= , in a what I think the DBA's call a federalised database architecture, but= the knowledge would be seamlessly integrated. Am I dreaming? * Research: They say that you can find anything on the internet. W= ith a slight correction of the wording, this might almost be approximately correct, maybe. Sure, there are web pages devoted to nearly every subject= under the sun. But can you always find what you need on the internet? I= cannot. And how reliable is the knowledge on all of these pages? It var= ies from one organisation or author to the next. And how do you search for it? Which search engine do you use? Can y= ou always remember the Boolean syntax for any given search engine? Is any given search engine likely to have the best pages available on your subje= ct indexed -- or any pages on that subject at all? And how about businesses wanting to register their URL with search engines to increase their "web presence". Should they register with each= one separately, or pay the bucks to have someone else do that? The whole= situation is ludicrous. What if we had but one location for information, with a common, standardised interface (or a variety of alternate, specialised interfaces= ), a well-defined and independently-applied epistemological ranking of information for each source (i.e. reliability, certainty) -- and all subjects are there? There would be no guessing about what information yo= u might find there, no concern about whether some other web site might have= better information, and no fear that the appropriate links aren't established between subjects for you (cross-referencing, indexing), in ca= se your research project happens to combine two previously unrelated subject= s. Shall I go on? By the way, one of my sources for information on the fireside said th= at there *was* a fireside this month, so I went. Did anybody else show up? No. I guess they all had a better source for information. Silly me. Th= ere was no fireside this month. If we had a repository for all such information, I would not only have found out that there was no CES firesi= de this month, I could have found dozens of other firesides to go to instead= =2E (3) Make natural language translation possible: We have some young Mexicans staying with us for a week, starting toda= y. They are involved in an international folk dance festival going on in Bountiful, and they don't speak English, and none of my family speaks Spanish. How are we supposed to communicate? The simple answer is, we don't -- not without a lot of bodily movements, and then only for very important matters, and only very crudely. Why on Earth do we not have programs available at EggHead and RadioShack -- and Deanox -- that can do= something as basic as translate between languages? There are a few parts to the answer of this question, but I believe t= hat the biggest reason is that we do not know how to model everything that ca= n be represented in a natural language within one artificial language. We need a complete model of pure semantics. It hasn't happened yet. Until = it does happen, the standard and pitiful method of trying to translate betwe= en two languages, for example Spanish and English, will be to translate directly, a word at a time, a phrase at a time. Any one who has learned a second language recently remembers that thi= s method doesn't really work. A common fallacy for beginners is to think t= hat you can learn a second language by learning a vocabulary list, a set of word-by-word translations, such as Katze =3D cat, Hund =3D dog, Iegel =3D= hedgehog, etc. This doesn't work. There is no simple rule, no "one-to-o= ne" and "onto" linear-algebraic mapping between languages, no pathway directl= y between a thought expressed in one language and the same thought expresse= d in another. There is only the approximate and "fuzzy" path that passes through pure semantic thoughts, through a unified model of semantics, something based on the common psychology and experiences of all speakers = of natural languages here on planet Earth. Therefore, in order to translate between two languages, we need two things: (1) A unified model of knowledge, (2) A unified model of knowledg= e. By listing our OM twice, I not only mean to more strongly advertise o= ur OM, I also mean to emphasise the two types of knowledge needing to be included in our model: (1) Linguistic knowledge, (2) Metalinguistic knowledge. We need both a model of the same semantics that natural languages represent, and a model of how the physical structure of written= and spoken language, the graphemes and the phonemes, are mapped into that= model of semantics. As a secondary benefit, this two-part translation mechanism is also w= hat we need to automate input and output, to and from our UMK, from and to th= e languages which are easiest for humans to use. This would make for a winning UI (user interface) and HCI (human computer interaction), two important topics in computer science. You would use half of the translat= ion mechanism to automatically fill the database using natural language corpo= ra and entering queries, and you'd use the other half of the mechanism when displaying results to queries of the database. It would be beautiful. You'd use both halves, alternately, in a dialogue between the computer an= d the user, the way expert systems are supposed to operate. This, by the way, is just one of many very big potential uses for our= UMK: expert systems (ES). This requires good NLT. Just think of the val= ue of having all medical knowledge concentrated into one location, with a natural language interface, such that any doctor in the world could carry= on a short conversation with the ES, and thereby discover the optimal diagno= sis and therapy(ies) for his patient. You could have any expert in the world= , the expert of any subsystem in the human body, the expert on any disease,= diagnose any patient, anywhere in the world, if you could only collect hi= s papers and let the ES read them. And the difference between this and the= improvements in telecommunications going on (e.g. remote surgery) is this= : this expert would actually be the composite of all experts in that subjec= t, since the invention of printing. But back to our Mexican guests. With a natural language translator, = my family would not have a need to learn Spanish for one or two weeks of use= , and these Mexican students would not have to learn English for their shor= t stay in America. (Sure it's beneficial to learn a second or third langua= ge, but there are more than three or four languages to choose from in this world, each of which having a varying degree of value.) Likewise, we cou= ld end these debates on whether or not there should be one national language= in the US. Only one language is needed, and everyone who doesn't understand= it can either learn that language (if he intends to stay here for very long)= , or else he can have a personal interpreter who never gets tired of your asking him to interpret for you, and who you don't have to fear is giving= you the best translation possible. This would save a lot of money, in th= e long run. Sure, there would be difficulty in keeping up to date with all the subtleties of jargon and dialect in every natural language, (in any natur= al language for that matter). But if we do as good as is possible, that's g= ood enough. And maybe this program will have a beneficial sociological effec= t on the wider usage of language. I for one don't like the evolution (devolution) that is going on all the time in English. We need some standardisations that last, and that can be taught in school. Take for example noun plurals. ... never mind. I'm not going to get = on my soap box about "datum" vs. "data point", or "e-mails" today. If we had a standard language translation algorithm, we would be motivated to learn the type of English that it uses, so we could at least= use that good English when we used that program. We, as speakers and writer, knowing this standard "Hoch Deutsch" woul= d also be helping newcomers to our language in their attempt to learn this crazy, inconsistent mess. Let's fight against linguistic entropy! (Now = I'm sounding neurotic. I'll move on.) (Actually, some of you may wonder why I use British spelling in all m= y writing now-a-days. Well, if we're to standardise and unify language, do= you think we would use American? Not hardly. Okay, so I am neurotic. B= ut you can call me eccentric. That's a little less pejorative.) (4) Establish the only hope of true, complete AI. First, what I mean by AI. By "true AI", I don't mean "strong AI", which is the humanistic belie= f that it is possible to make machines which _truly_ think the way humans d= o, which I _strongly_ believe is impossible. (In fact, for anyone who is interested, I have a Mathetical proof that it is impossible for computers= to think the way humans do. It is closely related to the "proof" that it is= impossible to prove anything, so be careful. No, this proof is not by G=F6del; it's by TomP.) Rather, I would define "true AI" to be any mechanism which mimics the= information processing capacity of the human mind, and does so as well as= a human does, and may even do some things better. Thus, given equal input,= including axiological, ontological, and epistemological inputs, the machi= ne would put out something as valuable as, if not more valuable than, the output of a human being, temporally and spatially. Also thus, I think th= e benefit of true AI is in computing the output of a human mind, not necessarily mimicking the exact thought process underneath. This definition is necessarily pragmatic, useful, valuable. This has= nothing to do with Turing Tests, and whether or not a human can tell the difference between the machine and the human by what they see appearing o= n a monitor. I couldn't care less if Mr. Data (from Star Trek) had an emotio= n chip, while classifying him as "AI". True AI, to me, is usefulness on th= e level, and of the quality, that heretofore has only been associated with human intelligence. Thus any computer or computing device made in the la= st several decades could be considered "artificially intelligent", if they could perform any information-processing function which was before only performable by human intelligence. My HP48GX contains AI. My watch contains AI. (Actually, I don't own a watch. It's just a rhetorical illustration.) By _complete_ AI, I mean one complex mechanism which can perform all = of the information processing tasks human intelligence can do, to an equal o= r greater extent. Now, before you religious folks get excited, and worry that I'm falli= ng into the secularist/humanist trap, I don't actually think that even this = is possible. By my saying "the only hope" of such a thing, I mean that the closest that mankind can come to achieving true, complete AI would be through a UMK. The reason is this: in all other models there are arbitra= ry boundaries which hinder the mechanism from taking advantage of patterns, heuristics, intuitions, relations, connections, etc. Complete AI, and strong AI are not possible. Therefore OM will only be optimal, not perfe= ct. Sorry. I'm sick of writing. So I'm going to stop now before I give = you unique examples of good AI, like all the comparisons that could be made among all the elements of historical knowledge ... ~~~~~~~ By the way, I like "OM" as the name of this project. It's reminiscen= t of the Hindu "om", also spelled "AUM", which is a very important word in their religion, and represents everything: beginning, middle, and end. Feedback is always appreciated. Meine Wenigkeit, TomP ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To subscribe to the "One Model" mailing list, Send a letter to: general-list-request@onemodel.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2000.08 Thomas sum, quem nihil obstat. TomP@Burgoyne.Com http://www.onemodel.org http://www.burgoyne.com/pages/tomp/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Omnia apud me mathesis fiunt." (With me, everything turns into mathesis.) An improvement of the quote by Ren=E9 Descartes 1596 - 1650 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 11:34:19 -0600 From: "Jeremy P. Almond" To: Subject: Quite honored indeed. Message-ID: <004301c00615$e3436aa0$0402a8c0@thoughtform.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_000_0040_01C005E3.95CF9BE0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=3D_NextPart_000_0040_01C005E3.95CF9BE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all you funny people, I am quite honored to be a one model mailing list member. I am not much = =3D into deep thinking but I am a very open minded person from the land of =3D= the Orient. The trees there are beautiful and much desirable to look =3D= upon. =3D20 If any of you people are interested in the where-about of the Ten Lost =3D= Tribes I would be delighted to enlighten you. I am looking forward to hearing from the authorities. =3D20 Thanks, Jeremy Almond -------------------------------------------------------------------------= =3D --- Have a nice day. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= =3D --- ------=3D_NextPart_000_0040_01C005E3.95CF9BE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all you funny =3D people,
 
I am quite honored to be a one model= =3D mailing list=3D20 member.  I am not much into deep thinking but I am a very open =3D minded=3D20 person from the land of the Orient.  The trees there are beautiful =3D= and much=3D20 desirable to look upon.  
If any of you people are interested = in=3D20 the where-about of the Ten Lost Tribes I would be delighted=3D20 to enlighten you.
I am looking forward to hearing from= =3D the=3D20 authorities.
     =3D
Thanks,
 
Jeremy Almond
 
--------------------------------------------------------------= --=3D ------------
Have=3D20 a nice=3D20 day.
-----------------------------------------------------------------= =3D -----------
------=3D_NextPart_000_0040_01C005E3.95CF9BE0-- -------------------------------- End of general-digest-list Digest V00 Issue #7 **********************************************