Slashdot Mirror

Consequently, if a piece of software is protected by a patent that you don't have the ability to freely license (and to grant others the ability to freely license, ad nauseum), you cannot fulfill the obligations that come with redistribution under Paragraph 2 of the GPL (specifically, you cannot grant, at least, the permissions in the last sentence of Paragraph 1), and therefore you are barred from redistributing the software at all by Paragraph 7.

GPL Version 2, June 1991

"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."

Paragraph 1 does not require that you grant the recipient any rights to do anything with the Program. Paragraph 1 simply requires that you include certain text as a condition of your ability to redistribute the Program source code under the license. If you distribute patent-encumbered code written by someone else under the GPL, then you yourself cannot be said to have violated paragraph 1. You are not sublicensing the code under paragraph 1.

"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:"

Paragraph 2 only applies if you modify the Program, and hence is inapplicable in the vast majority of circumstances. As you recall, you argued that one could not fulfill the obligations of paragraph 2. If you have not modified the Program, then you have fulfilled them. You will also notice that paragraph 3 is quite similar to paragraph 1 in that it does not require that you grant the recipient any rights to do anything with the Program.

More interestingly, see Linux's Patent Risk

Under your interpretation of the GPL, specifically your interpretation of paragraph 2(b), essentially every version of the Linux kernel since at least version 2.4 is almost certainly being distributed in violation of the GPL. Unless you know of someone who happens to have 283 clearance opinions or royalty-free, non-exclusive, and sublicenseable license agreements, then you are merely assuming that all 283 patents do not apply. I suggest that you notify the FSF of this rampant license violation immediately.

The problem with your argument is that patent rights exist the moment that they are granted by the USPTO. There is no need for the rights to be asserted against anyone, there is no need for the patent to be "court-validated", see 35 U.S.C. 282, and there is certainly no need to you to have actual knowledge that the patent(s) exist. Yet the GPL is clearly not enforced in the manner that you are suggesting.

What you have left is the first sentence of paragraph 7:

"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License."

Which, as stated earlier, requires an action that directly implictes you as an individual or organization, and excludes a waiver of such an action that directly excludes you as an individual or organization even if it does not do so for others.

With respect to SuSE, you may be technically correct (which is the best kind of correct), since it is extremely likely that SuSE has created derivative works under the GPL, however, it is trivial to create a distribution that is both patent violative and GPL compliant by acquiring and redistributing the code under the GPL.

Or do you mean "stolen" as in "trying to fake up thousands of democratic-leaning votes?

And by "thousands" you mean "about eight"? From TFA:

The four indicted--Kwaim A. Stenson, Dale D. Franklin, Stephanie L. Davis and Brian Gardner--were employed by ACORN as registration recruiters. They were each charged with two counts.

[...]

The Kansas City Election Board told KMBC they found suspicious forms, such as seven applications from one person and an application for a dead man.

And no one has indicated, once, that there was anything suspect about the actual results. Plenty wrong with the people actually understanding how to cast a vote, but that's rather a different thing, isn't it.

Really? That's news to me. And to respected statisticians who have looked at the results:

They concluded, based on voting and population trends and other indicators, that irregularities associated with machines in three traditionally Democratic counties in southern Florida may have delivered at least 130,000 excess votes for Bush in a state the president won by about 381,000 votes. The study prompted heated critiques from some polling experts.

[Dr. Charles] Stewart of MIT was skeptical, too. But he ran the numbers and came up with the same result. "You can't break it; I've tried," Stewart said. "There's something funky in the results from the electronic-machine Democratic counties."

So, other than just repeating that meme, what's your actual evidence that what you're saying is actually true?

Oh, I don't know. Means, motive, and opportunity, perhaps? Results that just don't add up? An unfortunate history of election fraud in certain parts of the South? (this coming from someone born and raised in Virginia) Grounds, at the very least, to count the paper ballots (the practive of which Florida attempted to ban somewhat recently)?

What I smell is a frenzied effort to have, in pocket, a handy explanation for why fewer people that some political camps might wish will actually vote they way they're stamping their feet and insisting that they do.

Indeed. Damned partisan hacks stamping their feet and trying to block out reality. How dare they?

-jdm

The CIA certainly knows how important the search engines are for
internet data mining. Back in 1998, Zapata Petroleum (the company
started by George H. Bush in 1953 which has been thought by some to be
a CIA front) tried to purchase the 'Excite' search engine website but
was turned
down.

Google pays them for that privilege:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 590756

I don't think the Firefox team would complain if Microsoft paid them more to be featured up top, though I could be wrong.

As recently as 2002, Microsoft Outlook could be tricked into running Javascript from HTML email. Running Javascript allows the Karl Voth Reaper exploit to run, which goes beyond tracking forwarding to phone home with all the comments added to the message as it gets passed around.

Do the distros change the referrer info that is sent along with Google (and other) searches performed from the browser search bar? Some speculate that Mozilla Co. makes some pretty good cash this way--are there any distros that change this and get a piece of the action?

Earlier this year Coverity analyzed the Firefox source code also.

"Add to that the potential liability of making a service that by most reports has upward of 90% of its traffic fall into a 'legally questionable' gray area, how can I win in this situation?" -Author

Well as long as you are at it, you might as well block email given that there are reports that upward of 82% of it is spam. 419 scams, get-rich-quick schemes, multi-level-marketing, fake viagra, medication without a prescription, blatant fraud, identity theft, phishing, Pump & Dump stock trades, you name a scam & e-mail has it.

But still, for the 18% of mail that is legitamet, you still make use of it.

Just as e-mail systems block spam, you would do better to block the copy-right infringement websites. Maybe redirect them to OSS software sites & Creative Commons music sites where people can legally explore & download music.

No joke, even with the way he pronounces his name. And that has nothing to do with anyone reading a story about goats(e).

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3 519946

OK ok, so it's not the HP board, but oh so close.

Didn't we get this thing tested in 2002. Haven't we learned anything? or has it all been forgotten?

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1 486981

Even when Vista comes out it won't have instant effect on the over all system, but the load will grow in time and the system will have to be customed for that.

I'll try and refine that into something he might actually answer...

1. With Ubuntu storming over the desktop, and the ever growing support for Debian among large corporations for server roles, where does that leave RH/Fedora?

2. Has the Fedora community seen growth in the last year? I know this is probably hard to measure, but I'm curous if your project has any metrics that would indicate whether Fedora is on the way up, or down at this point.

There have been reports of poll workers being allowed to take electronic voting machines home with them the night before the election. Even if that weren't the case, lots of people have access to these machines in the days/weeks/months leading up to the election. There's nothing about this hack that requires it to be performed the same day.

UK population: ~60,000,000
UK online percentage ~33%
US population: ~300,000,000
US online percentage ~35%

US has ~105,000,000 people online. UK has ~20,000,000 people online. A factor of 5.25. But the US puts out over 12 times as much spam.

UK population: ~60,000,000
UK online percentage ~33%
US population: ~300,000,000
US online percentage ~35%

US has ~105,000,000 people online. UK has ~20,000,000 people online. A factor of 5.25. But the US puts out over 12 times as much spam.

Four words in reply: slap on the wrist

-a.d.-

Most of you know that Google is pretty much poised to become a direct rival of ebay, or at least Paypal. The fact that ebay also happens to own Paypal gives them great incentive to stifle Google payment solutions in order to try to prevent an loss of market share. This just sounds like normal business competition to me guys/gals. Why berate a company for protecting itself? Google suing Ebay for this would be like Microsoft suing Apple for not allowing it to sell Music through Itunes.

Cool.
I'm sure IBM is not showing us everything, (wink, wink) what they do for the DoD, NSA and the rest of the alphabet, I'm sure would give us nightmares.

(Laboratory for Telecommunications Sciences (LTS) -programs continue to emphasize transmission of quantum communications through optical elements.
Quantum communications, quality of service, and high- speed network interfaces)

http://www.er.doe.gov/ascr/NITRD05supplement.pdf

August 19, 2002
IBM, RIM Drafted By Defense Department

http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/1 448711

"Big Blue Monday said its AIX 5L was the first UNIX operating system certified by the DoD to run COE Version 4 (Common Operating Environment), a user interface which utilizes the same commands regardless of what operating system is running on the server."

Fun huh?

VMware: US military staff and do not recommend VMware for secure environment:

http://www.cs.nps.navy.mil/people/faculty/irvine/p ublications/2000/VMM-usenix00-0611.pdf

Apple's foray in DOS add-on cards

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=112 244

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadra_610

http://www.ralentz.com/old/mac/faqs/source/houdini .html

http://homepage.mac.com/olivers/DOScard/DOScard.ht ml

http://lowendmac.com/archive/06/0407.html

Umm, they're not, with the exception of ISPs who are an arm of a telco -- and even in that case, the ISP subsidiary is not a government-regulated monopoly.

Just to pick nits, but nearly every last-mile broadband ISP is an unregulated arm of a regulated monopoly. Cable companies are limited monopolies, too. A cable company can't just walk into town and bury cable in people's yards. I can think of precious few places in the world where you have a choice in cable companies.

The only real exception would be satellite and/or wireless internet providers, which are limited only by the number of satellites in orbit or towers on the ground and their ability to buy bulk bandwidth. That said, I suspect those nontraditional ISPs make up no more than a couple of percent of the end user broadband in the world. Ooh. Just found a link that puts it right about at 2%.... Good guess. Anyway, that means that 98% of consumer broadband is provided by a company that provides data services on the same wire as their primary service, which in turn, is almost always a limited monopoly.

Tell that to Mozilla, which made $72MM from Google.

Did you just compare OS X to Win 98 and Win Me? If that's what you are basing your whole OS X / Windows argument on, there is your problem. No self respecting Windows user would be caught dead using an OS that old. It would be like running Mandrake 2.x or something. Why would you bother?

Exactly. That's why I'm comparing OS X to Win 98 and ME in terms of virus activity. They have similar market share (roughly 5%), and 98/ME is innundated with current day viruses. An OS X virus would have as much impact economically/socially, but vastly more impact in the media (Worlds First Automated OS X worm).

However, whether you like it or not, computers are as accessible as they are largely because of Microsoft and not because of *nix or Apple.

That's a goofy statement. There's no way to prove it true or false, but I see no reason why OS/2, Novell's GUI efforts, XFree86, or Macintosh OS could have made computing accessible.

The reason I hate Microsoft is not because they are successful. The reason I hate Microsoft is because they ruthlessly (and unethically) bash companies into the ground via illegal tactics. And this is not a disputable claim; it's been verified, repeatedly, in court. Even worse, the above merely refers to contractual fraud/deception; include monopoly tactics, and the picture is bleaker.

Even the venerable IE has its roots in a shady deal with a company (SpyGlass) who would have _never_ licensed to Microsoft had they known what Microsoft was planning.

Furthermore, Microsoft fills the airwaves with disgusting, falsehood-ridden fud. "Linux is a cancer" "Our customers aren't interested in interoperability" "Linux is 10 times as expensive to run as Windows" "Linux was stolen from Minix"

Not to mention Microsoft contribution of both FUD and $$ to the SCO case.

Yes, its safe to say I hate them. In terms of business ethics, Microsoft is pretty much as low as you can go.

Yahoo! uses it: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1 491221

They're using WordPress for their corp blogs nowadays, too, like http://yuiblog.com/.

Google uses PHP for their store, where they sell their Google Minis etc.: http://www.google-store.com/appliance/product_info .php?products_id=1

As stated it's^H^H^H^H BAD PROGRAMMERS left thousands of sites vulnerable to SQL-injection hacks and it's certainly not as durable and reliable as other combinations.

And comparing a non-profit site like Wikipedia, which has significantly limited resources, to a hundred-billion-plus company like Google is so absurd it doesn't even deserve a response.

So it is a callback, but from this link:

"But Google has published a FAQ. According to it, when searchers click on the phone icon, they get a prompt to enter their phone numbers, then click a "Connect For Free" button. Google calls the number provided, then, when the searcher picks up, connects the searcher with the advertiser." ...
"Google said the advertiser can't see the searcher's phone number, and it promised to delete the number from its servers after a short period of time. However, the phone number is stored in an encrypted cookie placed on the searcher's computer, so that next time, he or she won't need to re-enter the phone number. The company suggested that users who don't want their phone numbers stored should refuse the cookie."

So it's kind of in-between - you are giving up your phone number, but only to Google and only for a short time. The advertiser still does not see it as it's Google calling them and you.

I still really like the idea of direct Skype links though.

Thanks for pushing me to read further, I assumed too much from the name.

It's a shame that you got marked troll. It's not like this is not a pattern of behavior going all the way back to the MS-DOS days of computing. ...Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it I guess.

FYI, Dell now owns Alienware. Where's your knowledge?

As for affluence, it's been reported that Mac users are more affluent than PC users. The same study reported that most Mac users are more highly educated than PC users too, which goes hand in hand with the higher level of affluence. You must bear in mind that the study is from 2002. So, his statements were backed up. Sorry you didn't know about it.

The SCSL is going away in Java 1.6 in favor of some much more liberal licenses. I'll be able to compile and use it on my production FreeBSD server at work and not worry about being "tainted" as a programmer.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 437481

Google pays Mozilla Foundation and it's no peanuts..
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 590756/

Now, I think it's perfectly sane that Google is upset that they can't be included in IE7 as the default search engine.
Hey, if they're willing to pay...

Offcourse, for Microsoft this is business as usual, funny to read after the EU trial last week ;-)

Because Firefox does not gain from making Google a default, it is more permisable

You never read this did you? http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3 590756 Even though I'm an avid M$ basher I don't really see what they're doing wrong here. What else should they default to? Also, if you've set another engine in the IE6 preferences for autosearch, you'll get that engine rather than msn. http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/04/30/587373 .aspx

They might think about including some other options by default though just to make the courts happy.

And yet cases are going against them, and further lawsuits are being brought against them, in their overzealous pursuit of profit:

• RIAA Chan case dismissal
• High Court Bounces Latest RIAA Effort
• RIAA lawyers bully witnesses into perjury
• Oregon RIAA Victim Fights Back; Sues RIAA for Electronic Trespass, Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud

It's not in the millions by any stretch, but as these things gain momentum, the RIAA is going to be defending itself on a thousand fronts and undoubtedly as more and more cases make their way into the headlines, they will find themselves on the losing end, as more and more people abandon CDs and pick up music for free on-line.

It's not a victory yet, but this could be the biggest blow, if it's found that RIAA members were busy fudging the evidence to get their own way. If they're in the right, why the deception? Because they know they have alosing battle on their hands unless they stack the deck. This one thing may come back to bite them hard.

AMD was announcing dual core chips years before Intel had planned to release any.

Your "wrong" is wrong. Sorry. Try reading your own (highly sensational links) next time. Check 21 is all about electronic processing of the check. The moment the check is transferred to the bank (either by hand or by electronics), the bank will make the check electronic and communicate with the bank of origin. This reduces the "float" period between when your check arrives at the destination bank and your bank removes the funds from your account. This used to take several days due to the amount of paper generated.

Or to put it another way, just how do you think that your bank knows that you've written a check and put it in the mailbox before the recipient receives it? Electronic paper, maybe? Your own checkbook is transmitting to your bank?

Here are a few less sensational links:

http://www.bcsalliance.com/credit_checkact.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_floating
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 414351

structure is necessary for any OS project to be successful and effective. however, whether it is 72 or 50, there seems to be a serious problem with the mozilla foundation when looking at the generous alienware that the developer of the best firefox extension gets. imho, there needs to be more transparency because firefox is to a large extent a community projet - yet, the money that the foundation generates does not go to the people who deserve it. there is not not even clarity on the absolute amount that the - open (yeah right) source - project generates. critising is always easy, so here are our thoughts.

(This is something that people often seem to get confused about - open source does NOT always mean its legal)

Hate to tell you, but this is alreay at critical mass. Look at the number of big-time patent fights that are going on now:

• Lawyer insists Microsoft infringed antipiracy patent
• RIM, NTP and Patent Madness
• SCO Heading For The Edge?

The list continues to grow. Somewhere, someone is writing code in the warm little cocoon of ignorance and once they have released it into the wild, they will be set upon by flocks of hungry vultures^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers and will eventually be sued into backruptcy and destitution. Ah, it's a great time to be a programmer!

I think the "news" is the transfer rate, not the file system.

According to this article, the idea was just to see how fast a sustained transfer rate they could achieve. That rate was 102 GiB/s, which apparently is a record. The purpose of the project apparently has something to do with reducing the bottlenecking in parallel-computing interconnects. The machine they used, ASC Purple (a weapons-research system at Lawrence Livermore Labs) has about 10,000+ processors, so that's their obvious application.

The filesystem itself doesn't seem to be anything new -- I have no idea why the poster fixated on that, since it's kind of a minor footnote in most of the articles I've read about this today.

Google founders, insiders, and employees all like to "raise capital", clearly evident by the torrent of sells.

Indeed. Sells that have already happened.

They've made their money. Now they're sitting down, all fat and happy. We'll see if the sells continue if Google's price drops too far.

Secondly, Google is almost certainly maturing, and that will mean mergers and acquisitions -- usually done through share equity -- COMPLETELY dependent upon the share price staying elevated.

Stock swaps are a way of using Monopoly(TM) money to purchase Monopoly(TM) goods. Google has made precious few aquisitions to date, and in those aquisitions they are believed to have paid cash.

You don't seem to be following the fact that Google isn't doing business the way that Wall Street expects. (Which is to say, reckless and fiscally irresponsible.) Google is performing the market version of putting its credit cards and loan applications away, and paying cash for its new car. If and when Google needs to purchase a new home (i.e. merge with a multi-billion dollar company), we'll see if they start worrying about their stock price.

Today, if you walked into a RBOC and asked to buy/lease local loops or rackspace, they'd have to let you.

Not since 2002, that was overturned. source

... ability to use javascript is for simple things like form validation and contacting websites. It can be used to authenicate a user trying to read a document with a security server, for example.

Because what the world really needs is yet another document and/or image format that lets you include code or download code when the document is opened.

One day they'll learn. Apparently it isn't today.

An article about it. http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3 578821

You're being quoted in some papers btw...

http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/358360 6

Once upon a time, I used Winamp.

And it was good.

It was fairly lightweight, I could load in huge playlists of college-napster-garbage without slowdown and I knew all the hot keys for searching and what not.

Then that llama came into the picture. I think it must have been version three or four (I can't remember) when there was a damned llama or alpaca or whatever in a green field. Now, I love llamas and alpacas, don't get me wrong. The problem was that now Winamp was about "graphix" and "features" that were once plugins that I didn't want.

I don't know why they thought Winamp needed to be able to play videos but it did now. I don't know why they thought Winamp had to show stupid tripping-on-acid-harmonograph visualizations but it did now. I don't know why they thought Winamp had to melt songs together but it did now ... etc.

On top of that, the memory footprint in Windows was crazy. And my roommate tried to put skins on Winamp that just made my computer shit its gourd. I was disgusted ... the hot keys may have still been there but what I was looking for in a media player was not. For some reason, they seemed to think that competing with Windows Media Player meant mimicking it to every detail. Fine. I never want to touch Windows Media Player, it's about as useful as my appendix. And now I feel the same way about Winamp.

Now there's a spyware flaw in Winamp. Am I surprised? Not really. They have gotten so complicated that there's probably a thousand holes in that application. They definitely lost site of what I was looking for--a plain jane slim audio player. Winamp's executing a remote method invocation through a playlist that can trigger itself to be automatically loaded and ran? Now that sounds like a "feature" I want my audio player to have.

Is this the first time this has happened? Nope, remember the zero day exploit that targeted skins in 2004? There's been a myriad of security issues with Winamp since it became more and more complicated.

"Gee, the way our audio player loads playlists isn't very secure. But it works and the people who use our application aren't interested in security--they're interested in playing AVI files on their audio player!"

So what would I recommend? Well, if you're using Linux, I can think of at least ten things better but XMMS would probably be my favorite. If you're running Windows, I like to use Quintessential Player which can be modified to be as complicated as new Winamp or can be

aren't google's servers all running linux? aren't they all heavily modified customized? does google ever go down? sounds like they've got some good software and hardware engineers working for them... i think they know what they're doing.

OOOORR.. they have lots of redundancy.

Not saying that they haven't done everything they could to make the OS they are using as robust as possible, but it's not ALL software...

I stopped using Tor after i realised, that more than 1/3 of it's exit nodes where (us-)navy machines.

Tor was developed by the US Navy. This is not a huge surprise -- DARPA and the ONR fund a lot of computer research, including security. Besides, if the federal government wanted to spy on you, it wouldn't be doing so via the Navy. That's the FBI's job.

Well, unless you don't live in the US. Then it's the CIA's job.

LinuxScribe

Compared to Google clusters, they seem to be light years behind. As a software developer, I can tell you that the key to rolling out applications quickly, is to have a decent framework in place. Whatever that framework might be (from shell scripts to java monstrosities), once its in place, developing apps on top of it are easy. Similarly a well thought out app execution environment is golden.

If you ever check out Google's MapReduce, you'll see what I mean. It's just so well thought out and so elegant, that its easy to believe that they can scale outwards forever. You'd not be too far off if you thought that Microsoft were rethinking their whole production environment to compete with Google.

There's no way that Microsoft can quickly and easily roll out vast new applications that scale, because that whole clustering framework is completely opposite to what Windows provides.

Using a mouse to make an online purchase .... Oops too late Amazon already did it... http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/ask_tim/2000/ amazon_patent.html

Automatically updating security software over the internet ... Sorry McAfee already got that one ... http://www.dotgnu.org/patent-analysis.html

Use of graphics and text to sell products over the internet... Darn too late again (see Pangea Intellectual Properties) http://www.chillingeffects.org/ecom/

Tabbed browsing... You might be thinking Mozilla or Opera... Nope Microsoft http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3 406551

Maybe "techniques for cleaning one's anus using rolls of soft paper"... I have not checked but I am sure that one's covered too.

And YOU try building a big code-and-hardware system where the basic spec changes fairly massively every year or so. . .you have something that's STARTING to work. . .and the new CIO wants it to do something entirely different.

And when it fails due to scope creep and requirements drift. . .blame the contractors who tried to do their best to meet the changing needs, but found the needs changed faster than they could write and test good code. . . .

At least now, they're trying to get some IT guys with a clue inside the walls, instead of just as contractors. . .

there is a consortium of states working to simplify the tax code with regards to eCommerce sales, so that you don't have to charge 30 different rates. It will actually make it pretty easy. here's a link. http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3 552921

Enter IMlogic, a Waltham, Mass.-based IM management software provider. The company today announced IM Detector Pro, free downloadable software designed to detect and block unmanaged IM, P2P and VoIP activity.

A seven-year-old Mountain View, Calif., company, Narus Inc., has devised a way for telephone companies to detect data packets belonging to VoIP applications and block the calls. For example, now when someone in Riyadh clicks on Skype's "call" button, Narus's software, installed on the carrier's network, swoops into action. It analyzes the packets flowing across the network, notices what protocols they adhere to, and flags the call as VoIP. In most cases, it can even identify the specific software being used, such as Skype's.

Google cease-and-desisted a user for creating RSS feeds of Google News a year before doing the same thing themselves.

http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/1403 581 There is a citation for you.