Slashdot Mirror

while the list could use a refresh, may still be helpful http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2388652,00.asp

There is still no serious Android competitor to the new iPad, with its unparalleled 2048x1536 display.

Ye, there is. Because the Android OEM ecosystem is versatile, you can go with the low-res screens for $50-$150, the standard res screens ($150-$350), or fork out for the higher res screens ($350+) such as the Transformer Infinity (1920x1200, 224ppi) or the Iconia A700 (1920x1200, 224ppi). Yes, they are not 264ppi like the iPad 3, but with a blind A/B test, it's tough for people to distinguish that difference. And these screens can emit brighter than the iPad's (For the Prime, way brighter), and as Big Box stores have found, for many people an enhanced dynamic range with brightness is a often a bigger eye candy sales factor than resolution (cf, 720p plasma screens).

And I'm not even going near Android phone screens, where you run a continuum of ppi screens from crappy through the 200s into the 300s that sometimes are equivalent to exceed the iPhone's 326 ppi and, again, with OLED tech look way punchier.

There is still no serious Android competitor to the new iPad, with its unparalleled 2048x1536 display.

Ye, there is. Because the Android OEM ecosystem is versatile, you can go with the low-res screens for $40-$150, the standard res screens ($150-$350), or fork out for the higher res screens ($350+) such as the Transformer Infinity (1920x1200, 224ppi) or the Iconia A700 (1920x1200, 224ppi). Yes, they are not 264ppi like the iPad 3, but with a blind A/B test, it's tough for people to distinguish that difference. And these screens can emit brighter than the iPad's (For the Prime, way brighter), and as Big Box stores have found, for many people an enhanced dynamic range with brightness is a often a bigger eye candy sales factor than resolution (cf, 720p plasma screens).

And I'm not even going near Android phone screens, where you run a continuum of ppi screens from crappy through the 200s into the 300s that sometimes are equivalent to exceed the iPhone's 326 ppi and, again, with OLED tech look way punchier.

There is still no serious Android competitor to the new iPad, with its unparalleled 2048x1536 display.

Ye, there is. Because the Android OEM ecosystem is versatile, you can go with the low-res screens for $40-$150, the standard res screens ($150-$350), or fork out for the higher res screens ($350+) such as the Transformer Infinity (1920x1200, 224ppi) or the Iconia A700 (1920x1200, 224ppi). Yes, they are not 264ppi like the iPad 3, but with a blind A/B test, it's tough for people to distinguish that difference. And these screens can emit brighter than the iPad's (For the Prime, way brighter), and as Big Box stores have found, for many people an enhanced dynamic range with brightness is a often a bigger eye candy sales factor than resolution (cf, 720p plasma screens).

And I'm not even going near Android phone screens, where you run a continuum of ppi screens from crappy through the 200s into the 300s that sometimes are equivalent to exceed the iPhone's 326 ppi and, again, with OLED tech look way punchier.

Yes. Because work consists only of either coding or writing.

Oh. Wait.

Yes. Because work consists only of either coding or writing.

Oh. Wait.

And then a decade before AT&T, Apple invented the Newton. Sure it didn't have a coloured screen, but the grid of icons is there.

That said, it is hardly a revolutionary idea to display icons in a grid.

Also the F-Secure researcher Sean Sullivan was suspicious about the information really coming from FBI.

"Yes, this has been true in the past, but perhaps you've noticed plenty of reports on virus issues on macs?"

No. I acn't say that I have. I also Googled for them and the only places I find saying it is a threat are sites trying to sell me antivirus software who don't actually deliver on their promise of listing any. This PC Mag article makes wild claims and then fails to identify a single virus, once again confusing them with Trojans. A search of CERT for OS X Virus turns up nothing but some Windows pages that have OS and version n.n.X in them.

"As a former operating system programmer, listening to someone say they think any machine is virus proof or worth spending extra for because it can't get a virus demonstrates something much lower down on the ladder than balls and stupidity."

As a long time and current systems programmer I would never claim any OS is virus proof. I never did make such a claim. The fact remains that Linux and OS X are far less susceptible to viruses than Windows.

John C. Dvorak writes for PC Magazine. His August 31, 2012 article is Apple's iPhone 5 Ploy.

Then [Microsoft] started their long spiral decline. They took a shot in the arm up with W7 and 2k8, and Office365 has been a big success, but for the most part their asses have floated on the Xbox360 and residual corporate sales/licensing for some time.

Reality check:

"Microsoft's Xbox division reported disappointing results, recording a 16 percent drop in revenue, to $1.62 billion. The unit also reported a $229 million operating loss, versus a $210 million profit a year ago."

Xbox has never been a big moneymaker for Microsoft -- more often than not, it has lost money.

Why waste a quarter of them with a stupid huge black bar running down the full length of the homescreen, making it look all lop-sided and amateur? Are we supposed, like, dig this as the trendy new way forward?

Actually, Windows Phone 7.8 and 8 is supposed to get rid of that.

Why waste a quarter of them with a stupid huge black bar running down the full length of the homescreen, making it look all lop-sided and amateur?
Are we supposed, like, dig this as the trendy new way forward?

Yes, blind people do ride in cars and may be asked to press a button.

Hey, in California, blind people drive cars themselves.

Then make sure you don't buy from Samsung either, since they've been convicted of (or admitted to) price fixing in not one, not two, but three different product markets - DRAM, Mobile Phones, and LCD panels.

If you're going to crack on a company for business practices, make sure you use the same yardstick for all.

I love sitting on a Swiss Ball, aka Exerball or whatever. Otherwise, the Missionary Position (TM) is awesome.

And here's the computer mounting apparatus for use in the missionary position:

http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,3253,l%253D222445%2526a%253D222436%2526po%253D1,00.asp?p=n

Yeah, because this:

http://imgur.com/a/vK6tr

Looks and functions so much worse than Google Maps. Oh wait, it's better.

Yeah, but Google has already previewed their much improved Maps for iOS 6 so that's the one the Apple app will be competing with. I don't know how far Google is willing to go to put a great Maps experience on a competitor's platform but if they are committed, just like with the Google Now vs. Siri thing, Google can almost certainly make a better Maps app than Apple since they have the experience and the data that Apple can't match. Personally I use Android and iOS devices and I love it when apps are decoupled from the underlying platform. Maps, Youtube, etc. should be a separate download so they can be updated without having to wait for a whole new version of the OS to come out. Most of the original Google Apps for Android including, incidentally Youtube and Maps in addition to GMail, Chrome Browser and probably some others I'm forgetting are now a download from Google Play and are updateable that way. Yes, your phone will still come with that stuff but the apps aren't in lockstep anymore. This is a good thing and should be celebrated for what it is.

It's maintenance. No one does it.

Only in the Windows world. On the Mac platform, where reasonably convenient backup functionality is built into the OS itself, and where it is cleanly integrated with the manufacturer's wireless access point/NAS solution (Time Capsule), about 55% of users back up regularly (source: PC Magazine), as compared with only around 11% of Windows users (source: TechTarget).

Asking and answering your own question does not make for a particularly strong argument. The smartphone market passed the PC market last year. The smartphone market is exclusively OpenGL. What does that suggest to you about mainstream devs who can't figure out how to move away from DirectX?

The quality and accuracy of some articles is great. I would think that most "core" subjects that get a lot of viewers will tend to be of high quality. However look at the entry for so meting obscure, like the town I live in, and you might find something strange. At times there have been mistakes, now corrected - but there is still an odd balance. There is a lot of detail on railway lines that used to go to the station, and what destinations you could reach from the trains.There is a lack of detail on the current geography and economy. Things are driven by people's interests.

Also, any subject (such as, say, Presidential candidates) that is/can be politicized is likely to be suspect

Here's a story directly related to TFA.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407919,00.asp

Samsung is also not allowed to bring up a reference that Shin Nishibori, an Apple design inventor, made regarding Sony's influence on the iPhone. In a deposition, Nishibori referred to a conversation he had with Apple's design chief, Jonathan Ive, in which Ive reportedly asked Nishibori what a Sony-made iPhone would look like.

Perhaps you should get your news from more than one source?

This: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406764,00.asp

It's an app from the ACLU which lets you one-touch photograph or video an event and upload it to a secure location. (There is also plenty of useful information and now-what guides for interacting with police, laywers, an arrest, etc.) A very useful app [that I did not write].

Spread the word. Get the eyes watching the watchers.

The jargon of today is - in theory - the plainspeak of tomorrow.

I know of no such theory that would make that claim. Doctors have had a jargon for as long as there have been doctors, and while SOME of their terms have made it into common language, most have not.

If readers (and listeners) take some time on the front end to learn the terms, they will have an easier time in the long run.

No, they won't. Just what terms do you think someone who is going to see is doctor is supposed to front load into his brain? Just which of the tens of thousands of medical terms will you need today? How about learning the jargon in today's newspaper? Got a clue, before you try reading the article, what's going to be there? Nope.

Jargon is used between people who know the terms. If you know one party doesn't know them, jargon is not appropriate. Especially for a journalist whose job is to explain things to normal people.

So let's all communicate like 7th graders, instead of educating people to the 12th grade.

I didn't say that and you know it. Let's communicate with our intended audiences so they understand what we are saying, not leave them stuck running for the dictionary because we're too erudite to actually communicate. When you say "I ordered a PRI T1 line to replace your SLIP over 56k modem, Gramma", you aren't educating her, you're leaving her behind deliberately.

The author's point, which is spot on, is that dumbing things down has created a general sentiment that jargon is hard.

Some of it is. Do you deny that? Some of it takes advanced education to understand, or depends on knowing so many other things that you aren't going to pick it up just because yuo saw the word on the front page. There's a reason why they don't cover calculus in fifth grade, or nuclear reactor engineering in ninth.

What is the purpose of a journalist writing an article in a newspaper about a technical subject? Is it to teach all the readers that subject, or teach them all the jargon? No. Of course not. It's to convey information. If your reader is a layman, use layman language. You'll save time and not drive your readers away. You're competing for his time, and you'll lose as soon as you lose him. Write an article that's too hard to understand because you're using jargon and the first reaction will be "turn the page", not "find a dictionary".

A T1 can be copper or optical,

You've just proven my point. "T1: A T1 line uses two wire pairs (one for transmit, one for receive) and time division multiplexing (TDM) to interleave 24 64-Kbps voice or data channels. The standard T1 frame is 193 bits long, which holds 24 8-bit voice samples and one synchronization bit with 8,000 frames transmitted per second. T1 is not restricted to digital voice or to 64 Kbps data streams. Channels may be combined and the total 1.544 Mbps capacity can be broken up as required." No mention of fiber. It's jargon. Your definition isn't the same as someone else's. You caused confusion instead of clearing it up. And people who don't deal with it on a regular basis aren't going to know what T1 is, so that point still stands. You say "meat vindaloo, please", to one of the Indian tech support high-schoolers, and you get dog instead of beef because "we" don't know that "meat" mean beef at all. Your problem, not mine.

Yes, let's all use jargon when we don't need to.

Local search removed from samsung galaxy iii because of Apple

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407615,00.asp

..due to quality issues.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407422,00.asp

"Specifically, there's not just one bad batch of Nexus 7 tablets out there - there may multiple bad batches with different problems. Few reviewers got the bad units, of course, because one of the basic jobs of tech product PR is to make sure the gadget works before you send it out. Some of this is luck, of course; we have three tablets and no problems here."

Well technically, the NDA has been dropped, but...

Relenting to pressure from the developer community, Apple has dropped the NDAs that developers were required to agree to when they submitted their applications for consideration on the iPhone App Store.

In a statement on its Web site, Apple states, "The NDA has created too much of a burden on developers, authors and others interested in helping further the iPhone's success, so we are dropping it for released software."

The previous version of the NDA required that a developer not discuss the reasons that its app may have been declined, and restricted developers from publicly rebutting Apple's refusal or dissecting the denial notification that Apple sent them. The revised NDA allows developers to publicly comment on the reasons their app was accepted or declined, and it allows developers to state that they've submitted an app for consideration--but unreleased software currently under review is still covered by the NDA, and Apple has asked developers not to comment on applications currently being considered for the App Store.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2331498,00.asp

...but as the New York Times knows already (and every news outlet knows as well). There does not need to be an NDA in place for Apple to place you permanently in their penalty box.

So I'd say the Bitdefender company definitely made the right call on this one, especially if it intends to have continued special access to the Apple ecosystem. The huge beast is quick-tempered and bears long grudges. It's best to say nothing that could potentially upset it.

Well technically, the NDA has been dropped, but...

Relenting to pressure from the developer community, Apple has dropped the NDAs that developers were required to agree to when they submitted their applications for consideration on the iPhone App Store.

In a statement on its Web site, Apple states, "The NDA has created too much of a burden on developers, authors and others interested in helping further the iPhone's success, so we are dropping it for released software."

The previous version of the NDA required that a developer not discuss the reasons that its app may have been declined, and restricted developers from publicly rebutting Apple's refusal or dissecting the denial notification that Apple sent them. The revised NDA allows developers to publicly comment on the reasons their app was accepted or declined, and it allows developers to state that they've submitted an app for consideration--but unreleased software currently under review is still covered by the NDA, and Apple has asked developers not to comment on applications currently being considered for the App Store.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2331498,00.asp

...but as the New York Times knows already (and every news outlet knows as well). There does not need to be an NDA in place for Apple to place you permanently in their penalty box.

So I'd say the Bitdefender company definitely made the right call on this one, especially if it intends to have continued special access to the Apple ecosystem. The huge beast is quick-tempered and bears long grudges. It's best to say nothing that could potentially upset it.

http://www9.pcmag.com/media/images/351611-marissa-mayer.jpg?thumb=y

"With Firefox 14, Mozilla will automatically encrypt searches conducted via Google's search engine in the browser's location bar, search box, or the right-click menu. The idea is to "protect your data from potentially prying eyes, like network administrators when you use public or shared WiFi networks," Mozilla said in a blog post. At this point, Google is the only search engine that will support encrypted searches, "but we look forward to supporting additional search engines with this feature in the future," Mozilla said." (From the PC Mag article) http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407263,00.asp

Hi AC, thanks for the response. I'd suggest re-reading my question, however. It seems you think I am trying to 'say' that LRC was a bad science investment. I think ALL scientific data is valuable...even erroneous data can be very valuable.

First, I'm asking, not telling here. I'm quoting and asking a question. No bias. I want to know **if** this scientist thinks what you are saying I am saying.

I don't know! That's why I asked...the quotation from Dr. Incandela (awesome name) provided the basis for my question.

Also, you're just wrong about history when you say the following,

"All the technologies you enjoy (TVs, internet, cell phones, automobiles, AC, etc.) were based on research that likely seemed frivolous at the time"

absolutely incorrect:

television - was an application of an electron gun technology that was not derived at all from any 'finding' of a new particle....the tech and science for it was there for at least 50 years

internet - laughable...no discovery in particle physics initiated the ARPANET research whatsoever

cell phones - I am assuming you mean 'cellular' transmitters and receivers placed in a geographic grid of 'cells' that allows the handset to stay wirelessly connected to a transceiver? B/c they were working on that at FERMILAB weren't they???

AC, etc...

Just so you know what actual particle physics application science looks like: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406297,00.asp

You mean that operating system that is on ultra-mega-extended-barely-alive support isn't getting patches? Shocker.

You mean that operating system that Microsoft stopped shipping on June 30, 2010, just ten days over a year ago, even though they had already cut off support? The one that you will still be permitted to "downgrade" to until 2015, three more years from now? That one? The truth is that as long as it is being shipped (and it still is, due to downgrade licenses) it is a current product, by definition.

Numbers to back up ACs claim. Verizon certainly is fast. Verizon also sells your location data, browsing history, and app usage data. I personally don't think their slightly faster network is worth their blatant invasions of privacy.

I always defended WoW's subscription model on the basis that your purchase of the game and its expansions covered "sunk" development costs and your subs covered the ongoing cost of maintaining and incrementally enhancing the game. Based on what Blizzard said a few years ago, the subscriptions are almost pure profit when considering WoW by itself. $200 million in 2008 would have covered four years of operation/maintenance, plus the costs of developing the Burning Crusade and Lich King expansions, all covered by two months' worth of subscription income. Also, the impressive early numbers for D3 are largely an illusion, IMO. Lots and lots of those "sales" were freebies for people that committed to a full year of WoW subscriptions, and from Blizzard's perspective I'd argue that locking in that additional $1.2 billion or so in income was far more important than the income they'd have received from paid D3 sales. Lots of people were not happy with Cataclysm, and D3 offered Blizzard an additional way to maintain those WoW subscriptions in the face of that dissatisfaction while waiting for the release of Mists of Pandaria.

6.5 million were sold in the first 2 weeks worldwide. The free copies given by the Wow Annual Pass did *not* count in those numbers.

I always defended WoW's subscription model on the basis that your purchase of the game and its expansions covered "sunk" development costs and your subs covered the ongoing cost of maintaining and incrementally enhancing the game.

Based on what Blizzard said a few years ago, the subscriptions are almost pure profit when considering WoW by itself. $200 million in 2008 would have covered four years of operation/maintenance, plus the costs of developing the Burning Crusade and Lich King expansions, all covered by two months' worth of subscription income.

Also, the impressive early numbers for D3 are largely an illusion, IMO. Lots and lots of those "sales" were freebies for people that committed to a full year of WoW subscriptions, and from Blizzard's perspective I'd argue that locking in that additional $1.2 billion or so in income was far more important than the income they'd have received from paid D3 sales. Lots of people were not happy with Cataclysm, and D3 offered Blizzard an additional way to maintain those WoW subscriptions in the face of that dissatisfaction while waiting for the release of Mists of Pandaria.

I know a hot topic gets multiple selections, so do Slashdot editors pick the one with the single worst article? This news items is covered in several reputable places, yet, they selected a submission that looks like it was written by an 8th grader. They use AP's Tweet to make it look like an official AP story/headline. There's brilliantly nonsensical lines like "Proview is continuing their lawsuit in Santa Clara for $1.5 billion dollars while allging fraud and unfair competition. The case was soon after thrown out by a judge."

I trust Google not to design in features that make it hard for me to leave, lie to me about how many CPU cycles or I/O I "spent" and just basically rip me off as much as they possibly can

http://blog.carlmercier.com/2012/01/05/ec2-is-basically-one-big-ripoff/

This is where founders matter. My idea of Google is geeks for the greater good of geekdom to the benefit of the long term good of society as a whole

Amazon fonder, CEO and billionaire many times over Jeff Bezeos "feared pirate Bezeos"

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395122,00.asp

fought tooth and nail against Washington State establishing a state income tax so as to maximize his chest o' gold..

Go Google, the closest thing we have to a company who gives a shit about something other than more nose candy and ho's for the board and CEO.

I mean, all the modern tablets look so different from the front, especially when turned off.

I suggest that you get your eyes tested, especially if you think the Motorola Xoom looks anything like the white iPad 3. A Xoom versus a black iPad 1 would be close (but Apple and Motorola/Google aren't exactly BFFs at the moment, and I've lost track over whether the Xoom is an issue)

Go look at the Sony tablet, the Asus Transformer (even without the dock) or even the pictures of the Microsoft Surface (without the brightly coloured magnetic colour, which does look like a lawsuit in the making) and you'll see black rectangles with rounded corners that (a) don't look like an iPad and (b) don't have go-faster stripes or roses around the screen. In any case the "rectangle with rounded corners" is only one of the laundry list of similarities that Apple are upset over and wouldn't be an issue on its own.

particularly this picture of a black rounded rectangle with a screen

If you think you were answering "why are they targeting Samsung?", then you're not doing a very good job. I mean, all the modern tablets look so different from the front, especially when turned off.

Of course there's a lot of design choices for the front panel of a touchscreen device, as Apple expert told us. Make it not rectangular, or not flat, or without rounded corners, or add useless shit on the bevel - and you're in the clear! Because all of this is purely decorative.

The irony is that the U.S. allegedly exports software to Iran.

Competitive? They don't even sell 1k a week in Japan.

And the Japanese market doesn't matter, because it's overshadowed by the USA and Europe.

Take a look at these November 2011 numbers for Japan:

PS3: 22,919
Wii: 11,782
Xbox 360: 1,531

3DS: 103,962

Yes, The Xbox moves less than 1k a week, but the best home consoles in the region barely move 5k units a week. That's not a very lucrative market. And yes, the portable numbers are much higher, but that still doesn't come close to the US market (roughly 333k 3DS units sold per-month since launch).

Now take a look at these US numbers for March 2012: (not the same month but they're both recent and off-peak so it's comparable).

Xbox 360: 371,000
PS3: 337,000
Wii: 175,000

See there difference there? For home consoles, Japan is a drop in the bucket. It's no wonder Microsoft completely ceded the market - until they have a portable there's no point in even trying.

But if you can point me to where gates picked 8088 or even give a hint what I need to look for I'll certainly check it out as i was under the impression he didn't really get any major power until Win 3.x and the breakup of MS OS/2.

cha cha cha ... actually looked at the 68k and then claimed they ditched it because it wasn't debugged, but as it turned out the 68k kicked the shit out of the 8088...

MS peaked in 2003 (XP+Office 2003). And to be fair they pretty much nailed it by then. Off the top of my head the only thing I'd really miss by going back to that setup was indexed searching for emails in Outlook. It'll be interesting to see if Apple finds anywhere to go after smartphones settle down.

Guess we'll all find out on Monday...

Cool. but sometimes I hear weird rumors about Intel vpro, which make me wonder "what is a network?" If your CPU (?!) is listening for 3G radio signals, there's not just "management network" and "production network" but also "their network" although I guess you can always have your computer wear a tinfoil hat.

But here's the other problem: DTV doesn't charge you for a DTV box. It's free with your monthly subscription. How can they release a box that competes with, say, a $200-400 box from Apple and give it away with a $29/month satellite TV subscription?

And why would anyone "cream themselves" when Apple releases their new Apple TV box? So far, Apple TV has been a supremely mediocre product. It's not really even competitive with Roku. The UI for the Apple TV isn't exactly insanely great either.

As for assimilating Roku-like features, check out this news story on Samsung and RVU. Samsung is building the Roku-like features into the TV directly. DTV is serving their data stream (video and GUI interaction) to the TV. DTV benefits because they have to supply one less DTV box. The customer benefits because they have one less box and one less remote, but they can still start watching a recorded show in one room and finish watching it in another.

This was news almost two months ago when he wore them here at an event for The Foundation Fighting Blindness.

On top of that, it isn't that straight forward to directly map eye sight to digital specs.

Chiclet style but ultrathin and powerful 15"

http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,3253,l%253D295660%2526a%253D295655%2526po%253D4,00.asp?p=n

I've heard of a thing called a LiveView, which is a watch-form-factor dumb terminal which speaks Bluetooth to your phone. But I've never seen anyone who had one, and the reviews reckon it doesn't really fly: http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/01/sony-ericsson-liveview-review/

Oh, and here's a more recent one by Sony: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403098,00.asp

But you're just starting to get genuine smartwatches which run Android. Here's Motorola's: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397538,00.asp You can also get any number of unbranded Chinese smartphone watches from Alibaba, but I have no idea what they run.

I've heard of a thing called a LiveView, which is a watch-form-factor dumb terminal which speaks Bluetooth to your phone. But I've never seen anyone who had one, and the reviews reckon it doesn't really fly: http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/01/sony-ericsson-liveview-review/

Oh, and here's a more recent one by Sony: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403098,00.asp

But you're just starting to get genuine smartwatches which run Android. Here's Motorola's: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397538,00.asp You can also get any number of unbranded Chinese smartphone watches from Alibaba, but I have no idea what they run.

On the other hand, if you search "what is the best web browser" (without the quotes!) like the person you're replying to did, you get slightly different results. I see, in order a comparison from some site I've never heard of with Google Chrome as #1, a LifeHacker page (Chrome again), a random Yahoo! Answers link ("Google Chrome is, for Windows users, the fastest web browser."), a review with 4 equal "best browsers" including Chrome, a PC Mag review (spoiler: Chrome wins!), a really annoying YouTube video where Firefox comes first, "Review: Best Web browser? Google's Chrome outshines pack", a review where Firefox wins, and finally one that doesn't answer the question at all.