Slashdot Mirror

Thank you! I was going for a well known case (and trying to document it) but I appreciate the criticism. Some other examples might be comparing JetBlue or SkyWest and United Airlines and other unionized airlines. Albeit there are other obstacles to running an airline business, unions are only one. But these non-unionized airlines are showing consistent profit while their unionized competitors aren't seeing profit even with massive government support (similar non audio link here.)

I might also mention various problems with teachers unions. But that's an entirely different story.

I think most competitive industries that have unions display these tendencies. A government enforced monopoly always seems to be a bad deal for everyone, not just unions. Besides, the main point of my post was not that unions are bad, merely that Carnegie was not an imbecile.

Jean Gallier at UPenn has a lot of stuff about this on his webpage: here

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/index.cfm?fa=vi ewfeature&id=1497

Lawmakers don't know enough technically to make a law that wouldn't have unforeseen and damaging consequences, even if they supported net neutrality.

Read all about it.

There's VerbNet, FrameNet, Arabic WordNet, and probably others I don't know about.

WordNet has become a standard for working with semantic relations computationally these days. It works by storing all known senses of every dictionary word, and each sense has links to other words based on how it's semantically related(synonym, antonym, hyper/hyponym, meronym, troponym, cause, is_a, morphological derivative, etc...)

There's not any model that can compete with it currently, and it's widely accessible and very easy to use. As this tool improves, so will the semantic web.

"A patent on software is identicle to a Patent on a cook book." I hate analogies. And this one is particularly erroneous. I won't waste my time explaining why. Regardless, you should correct the typo before sending your letter/email.

I was talking about things like these Project Gutenberg texts. The page says they're illegal to download in the USA.

By design it was impossible for KeyKOS to support variable-sized inodes or disk blocks, partition resizing, etc.

KeyKOS had no notion of inodes or diskblocks, it had a single-level store. Files and filesystems were implemented by processes that operated on red-black trees. There is nothing in the design the precludes the features you mention. Unless of course, you are discussing how to manage storage add/remove disks, etc. when using a single-level store. This is a completely separate issue from microkernels and the KeyKOS architecture.

Even removable media (floppy disks) were a horrible kludge that often threw the object store into an inconsistent state.

Once again removable media are sometimes a problem for single-level stores, not for microkernels or KeyKOS/EROS in particular. I also highly doubt your claim of inconsistency, as the developers were very careful to avoid those ends, so please provide a pointer to validate this claim.

The checkpoint/transaction manager was a performance nightmare once you had to scale to multiple concurrent processes; single process (which were all KeyKOS generally published benchmarks for, aside from a well-known carefully constructed transaction benchmark explicitly designed to make sure that only completely independent data was ever written to the system) were pretty efficient, but tangled references quickly forced the set of objects that needed to be committed to the ENTIRE SYSTEM once you had a fair number of processes running at once. Disk usage was incredibly inefficient.

This paragraph leads me to believe that you have little idea about how KeyKOS operated. KeyKOS and its successors are built on transparent orthogonal persistence, which means a snapshot of the entire system is always written to disk as an atomic transaction. Contrary to your assertion, disk usage has been shown to be incredibly efficient.

Unless by "transaction manager" you're talking about the ATM software which ran on KeyKOS, which would be a completely different matter and unrelated to KeyKOS as a viable OS.

Moreover, the checkpoint system wasn't ACID compliant so you didn't get anything useful for all that complexity; in crash recovery situations, a transaction that had already been committed could be replayed multiple times (causing data inconsistencies or worse).

Checkpointing is and was ACID. If you believe it was not, then please explain.

I could go on, but the major point is that all of these problems stemmed directly from the design of the KeyKOS microkernel, and the barriers to solutions were ones that would not have existed in a monolithic kernel.

Completely untrue. I suggest you read some KeyKOS kernel and architecture papers to learn the true limits of KeyKOS.

None of those problems were easily soluable, and the attempt to improve the system in EROS wound up in a development rathole that was eventually abandoned because of systemic complexity and severe performance problems.

Only partly true. The EROS founder abandoned it in favour of Coyotos because the reliability guarantees achievable via C-based development were too low, and the message passing primitives which defined the architecture made "certain" high-performance designs challenging. This is not "severe" performance problems, any more than Linux had "severe" performance problems before epoll. By high-performance, we're talking saturating Gigabit ethernet here (EROS achieved 90% saturation), which is above and beyond the bandwidth needed for most uses.

Attempts to follow it up (notably CaprOS with the EROS code, and Coyotos recoding the design from scratch) also have achieved little to date.

It's been a year. CapROS has been ported to the ARM, the Coyotos group has developed the BitC language, and the

By design it was impossible for KeyKOS to support variable-sized inodes or disk blocks, partition resizing, etc.

KeyKOS had no notion of inodes or diskblocks, it had a single-level store. Files and filesystems were implemented by processes that operated on red-black trees. There is nothing in the design the precludes the features you mention. Unless of course, you are discussing how to manage storage add/remove disks, etc. when using a single-level store. This is a completely separate issue from microkernels and the KeyKOS architecture.

Even removable media (floppy disks) were a horrible kludge that often threw the object store into an inconsistent state.

Once again removable media are sometimes a problem for single-level stores, not for microkernels or KeyKOS/EROS in particular. I also highly doubt your claim of inconsistency, as the developers were very careful to avoid those ends, so please provide a pointer to validate this claim.

The checkpoint/transaction manager was a performance nightmare once you had to scale to multiple concurrent processes; single process (which were all KeyKOS generally published benchmarks for, aside from a well-known carefully constructed transaction benchmark explicitly designed to make sure that only completely independent data was ever written to the system) were pretty efficient, but tangled references quickly forced the set of objects that needed to be committed to the ENTIRE SYSTEM once you had a fair number of processes running at once. Disk usage was incredibly inefficient.

This paragraph leads me to believe that you have little idea about how KeyKOS operated. KeyKOS and its successors are built on transparent orthogonal persistence, which means a snapshot of the entire system is always written to disk as an atomic transaction. Contrary to your assertion, disk usage has been shown to be incredibly efficient.

Unless by "transaction manager" you're talking about the ATM software which ran on KeyKOS, which would be a completely different matter and unrelated to KeyKOS as a viable OS.

Moreover, the checkpoint system wasn't ACID compliant so you didn't get anything useful for all that complexity; in crash recovery situations, a transaction that had already been committed could be replayed multiple times (causing data inconsistencies or worse).

Checkpointing is and was ACID. If you believe it was not, then please explain.

I could go on, but the major point is that all of these problems stemmed directly from the design of the KeyKOS microkernel, and the barriers to solutions were ones that would not have existed in a monolithic kernel.

Completely untrue. I suggest you read some KeyKOS kernel and architecture papers to learn the true limits of KeyKOS.

None of those problems were easily soluable, and the attempt to improve the system in EROS wound up in a development rathole that was eventually abandoned because of systemic complexity and severe performance problems.

Only partly true. The EROS founder abandoned it in favour of Coyotos because the reliability guarantees achievable via C-based development were too low, and the message passing primitives which defined the architecture made "certain" high-performance designs challenging. This is not "severe" performance problems, any more than Linux had "severe" performance problems before epoll. By high-performance, we're talking saturating Gigabit ethernet here (EROS achieved 90% saturation), which is above and beyond the bandwidth needed for most uses.

Attempts to follow it up (notably CaprOS with the EROS code, and Coyotos recoding the design from scratch) also have achieved little to date.

It's been a year. CapROS has been ported to the ARM, the Coyotos group has developed the BitC language, and the

I don't see any evidence in what you quote that Pullum is being misleading. What he is criticizing is the advice in Strunk and White against using "they" with singular reference, in favor of using "he". That is indeed the advice in the book, is it not? He didn't make it up.

It is not uncommon to find people who arguably know what they are doing citing Strunk and White as a valuable reference. Whether they actually follow its advice is another question. Indeed, Strunk and White don't follow their own advice. In one of his posts Pullum points out that they themselves frequently violate their injunction to eliminate unnecessary words.

Here are some examples of bad advice from Strunk and White:

• In formal writing, the future tense requires shall for the first person, will for the second and third.
• That is the defining, or restrictive pronoun, which the nondefining, or nonrestrictive.
• Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs.

Neither of the first two accurately describes the usage of people widely considered good writers now or at any stage in the recent history of English, nor has anyone ever offered any reason that observing these would improve the language. The third is even stupider. Does anyone write without adjectives and adverbs? Of course not. See Pullum's discussion of this bit of nonsense. Among other things, he points out that Strunk and White themselves disobey this injunction.

I'll probably be the lone voice of dissent on this point. I hate this book. I am a linguist, which means I'm a pedantic grammarian. The Elements of Style is simply wrong on most grammatical advice it gives, and is frequently misguided about stylistic advice. Almost none of the great works of literature follow their rules: Shakespeare, Conrad, Twain, Poe, Hawthorne, Elliot--even the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are faulty by the standards of that book! Even they don't follow their own advice! The sooner this book stops being pushed on students, the better.

Don't just take my word for it. Here's the opinion of one of the authors of one of the most complete and accurate grammars of the English Language ever written:

[Elements of Style is] a horrid little compendium of unmotivated prejudices (don't use ongoing), arbitrary stipulations (don't begin a sentence with however), and fatuous advice ("Be clear"), ridiculously out of date in its positions on appropriate choices among grammatical variants, deeply suspect in its style advice and grotesquely wrong in most of the grammatical advice it gives.

No! No! A thousand times no! The Elements of Style is awful. It purveys ignorant advice that no good writer would follow. For an idea of how awful it is, see this discussion by linguist Geoff Pullum.

Your average criminal, even high level mafia bosses, aren't that bright when it comes to encryption. I think you're giving them too much credit.

The first para conforms to a pattern as well. As Language Log put it:

"Renowned author Dan Brown staggered through his formulaic opening paragraph."

It was probably meant in homage. But Google should respond that it was a parody to show how greed is preventing people from knowing, let alone enjoying, an artist's work. And then tell ARS to go pound sand and stop violating the moral rights of the artist.

Who is this Theodore Feder guy?

"But in addition to providing access to top-quality art images --for a fee-- Feder is involved in protecting the artists themselves from copyright infringement, illicit use or piracy of their works. He founded the Artists Rights Society in 1986 to preserve artists' interests while also providing "reputable publishers and producers of commercial goods" with a clearinghouse for rights and permissions." link [bolding added]

Sounds more like this guy is more concerned about protecting his cash flow.

A trade secret is just what it sounds like, a secret. You develop something and don't tell anyone. So let's say I invent a way to turn lead in to gold at my company. I decide to keep it a secret. I release the plans to nobody and make all my employees sign an NDA. Thus I'm the only one who can do it. Fair enough, but there's no special legal protection. If a rival happens to discover how I do it, they are free to use it, it's not a secret anymore.

from http://executiveeducation.wharton.upenn.edu/course .cfm?Program=MA

wow. from the description it really looks like it's exactly what i want.
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/ seems to be the offical homepage.
too bad there are no screenshots of gtk interface ;) ...and it's even in suse packman repository. and it seems to work.
thank you :)

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/ - Listing over 25,000 free books on the Web

For dead tree books, you can search the LoC online catalog: http://catalog.loc.gov/

It's
just
you.

Exactly. Speed is much more important than patents. We see that all the time in the telecom and software industries too. No one even has the time to seek patents on the good stuff anymore, because by the time the application goes through, there's something new on the market anyway. Then again, we have a functioning patent office that doesn't just rubberstamp anything that comes their way. Prior art searches take a while.

But, what if you infringe on someone else's patent? Since you're in such a hurry to patent everything, how can you take the time to do proper prior art searches? In fact, that's what we hear from VCs; they are wary to enter new fields exactly because they don't know the patent risks involved.

Steve Andriole, a venture capitalist who was most recently CTO of Safeguard Scientifics, offered the perspective of a VC investing in software and information technology. "In a way, intellectual property and patents are in the eye of the beholder," he said, noting that while entrepreneurs looking to raise capital often ascribe great value to their patents and patents pending, venture capitalists are not that impressed. "In the thousands of pitches I experienced personally, patents were considered one of the least important factors. Entrepreneurs would talk about the need to seize the marketplace within six months, but they didn't realize that this makes the patent process pretty much irrelevant," said Andriole, referring to the fact that patents take years to receive.
Why High-Tech Firms Can't Afford to Ignore Patents

I worked in a lab a summer ago whose focus was doing something similar to this, though in baby steps. They built VLSI models in silicon using mixed-mode circuits to simulate a large array of interconnected neurons. Each "neuron" was actually a small circuit that was designed to approximate some type of real neuron. When the "neuron" fired, it actually sent what they called an AER event, an event with an address (column, row, and chip) attached to it. By routing these events around they could interconnect various chips to simulate the combination of various functions.

Of course they were nowhere near their goal of simulating an entire human brain. When I left, they had models of a section of the hippocampus, the retina, and a few other small areas.

The concept is good, however. By "computing" using analog circuits in a massively parallel format, we can drastically reduce the computational and energetic overhead involved in these simulations. After all, real neurons are essentially a very complicated charge pump with a certain firing threshold. With appropriate circuitry, researchers can come fairly close to the real thing without supercomputers.

For those interested, check out www.neuroengineering.upenn.edu/boahen/.

Compilers are being held back by the programming languages chosen by developers. As hardware concurrency increases, the technology behind compilers for imperative and procedural languages (C, Pascal, Fortran, Java) shows just ill-suited it is take advantage of that power. Instead, we will need to move to new languages that will enable compilers to optimize for concurrency

Such languages exist and have been around for quite some time. Occam was originally designed for the transputer which was supposed to herald the arrival of seriosuly concurrent computing back in the 1980s. As it happened the transputer never took off and Occam has remained a largely fringe language (though it has continued to develop). If you want to have easy to write highly concurrent code with a compiler that can optimize well for concurrency then Occam might be a good place to look.

For a range of other experimental options there's JoCaml (based on OCaml), Pict, Acute (extending OCaml), and Cw (pronounced C-omega) (an extension of C#) which all make some use of Pi-calculus ideas. Some are more experimental than others.

Jedidiah.

The guidelines that say to use trademarks only as adjectives are clearly intended to discourage the term from becoming used as a generic noun by non-trademark owners -- that is, to encourage the trademark owner to set an example to non-trademark owners, as a way of forestalling the growth of the term as a generic noun.

The trademark trial transcripts I could find all adduce examples of usage of the trademark terms as generic nouns by the general populace, not such usage by the trademark owners. My point stands.

See here for a slightly different take on the question.

Obviously a submission to the Trent Reznor Award for Complicated Sentences.

Some clinics may happen to have doctors and nurses who speak the languages of their clientele, but communication between patients and medical staff is a significant problem in the United States. I had a post about this on Language Log a while back that contains links to other information. There are large numbers of patients who do not speak English well and cannot make use of a clinic whose staff speak their language. That may be because they speak a language that is not well enough represented in the US. In many cases an ethnic group is underrepresented in the medical profession. There are lots of Chinese doctors, for example, but even proportionately very few Hmong. And in many places the distribution of people just doesn't work out so as to match X-speaking patients with X-speaking medical staff. And of course when people travel or have an emergency or need to see a specialist they aren't in a position to go to a particular clinic that serves their ethnic group.

The result is that in many cases the children of immigrants interpret for them. There are several problems with this. One is that they may not have a good knowledge of medical terminology and will misunderstand or make mistakes. A second is that they may not be good interpreters. Just speaking two languages doesn't mean you will do a good job of interpreting. A third problem is that people often do not want to talk about their medical problems in front of their friends or relatives, especially children. They may be embarassed or they may not want to burden them with their problems. A fourth problem is that the friend or relative may have a vested interest and, consciously or unconsciously, slant the interpretation. They may downplay the patient's symptoms or exagerate them, depending on their attitude toward the patient (e.g. "Mom is such a hypochondriac!"), and they may distort the doctor's instructions if they don't like them (e.g. because they find them burdensome or they have joined a sect that believes in faith healing or herbal medicine or whatever). A fifth problem is that, if the interpreter is a child, having the child interpret for the parent can create a problematic inversion of parent-child relations that makes the patient feel helpless. Finally, children often feel stressed by this kind of interpreting and may even decide that they are responsible for the adult's illness.

For all these reasons, providing trained medical interpreters is highly desirable. One approach in use in the US is to contract with a telephone service. That way a wide range of languages is available. A device like this won't entirely replace a good interpreter since it is limited to a certain set of questions and responses and some patients, especially elderly ones, will have difficulty communicating with a machine, but assuming that it is well done, it will be quite useful.

Don't worry, man, we've got you covered. BANNED BOOKS[upenn.edu] Did you really think we'd actually let LITERATURE fall into the hands of those unpredictable teens?!

In many cases, works from the 20's, 30's, and 40's are in the public domain because the copyright holders didn't renew their copyrights after 28 years. You can check the records for books here. One of the most obvious, simple, and effective things we could do to reform copyright law would be to go back to requiring renewals.

Yohooo!!! I will protest then too.

I will protest against censoring materials related to nazism & fashism. What about racism censorship? Poor kids on the block were killing others for no reason - why not to give them one???

And why U.S. ban so much books? http://www.banned-books.com/bblist.html here and here http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books. html or even http://horizon.nmsu.edu/101/pornography.html here. And I want to have no problems when searching for old Hindu symbol commonly known as swastika.

What about for example lolicon? In Japan it's pretty normal, over here in Europe as well as in USA it's considered to be paedophilia. Strangely enough, "hentai" what's normal pr0n for us, in fact is "freaking" for them...

You can hardly expect people to have the same morality standards when their cultures are only several thousand years apart. And censorship is all about morality. That's in general. As to China in particular. Memorize one saying of old: people deserve their rulers. It's not that chinese did something new. It's not USA stopped supporting them. (And it's not that USA has no censorship of their own. Who doesn't?)

Plus, because the machine is mine I don't have to be concerned about privacy. I also give accounts to friends and aquaintences, allowing them access to the same resource. And, of course, to set aside any further privacy concerns files can always been encrypted before transfer.

It's from Robert Frost's poem, "Mending Wall". In the poem, it is his neighbour that says that "good fences make good neighbors", after which Frost writes:

Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.'

It's interesting to note that when Frost penned that line, it was sarcastic.

No, ENIAC wasn't my first computer - that was a Tandy MC10 - but here is a link to the ENIAC museum.

Read about it here.

You are looking for Unison, at least as far as your notes and non-audio/video data.

Of course, some of us have heard that this "large number of words for snow" story is somewhat misleading.

I heard that too on a CAGD newsgroup, but I think it is still in negotiation. Gallier's work is interesting though - here is his webpage , which has all of his articles.

Nearly every car company fell into line to pay royalties to the Association for the privilege of making and selling cars.

Except Henry Ford. The association did not want another competitor in Detroit and it did not like his idea of driving prices down to where average people could afford a car. So it refused to license him. For Ford, it was either exit the industry or fight the Selden Patent in court. He decided to raise a legal war chest and fight the incumbents. The litigation lasted from 1903 until 1911 and along the way, the association launched hundreds of lawsuits against Ford's customers to scare them away from his showrooms for buying "unlicensed vehicles."

Er ...not quite...there was follow up research that showed no signs of repair to heart tissue in the mice. Sorry I don't have the link to hand but google around the subject. I think the new research was 2005...oh all right i'll look it up for you. Try this: http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/mcrc/lepore/publications /MRL%20mice%20fail%20to%20heal.pdf Heart tiussue is notoriously non-regenerative. Thats not to say you can't grow it but that so far it has not been clearly shown that it will regenerate. I would note that the Wistar Institute mice may have some more genetic changes but if they did I don't think they reported it.

"This black list was nothing to joke about. People lost their lives, lost their businesses, lost their homes, and were falsely jailed."

"Give one example?"

Only one?

Suicide:
"On Feb. 9, 1950, in Wheeling, W.Va., McCarthy claimed that there were 205 known communists in the State Department. Later on the Senate floor, he reduced this number to 57. That led to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings and McCarthy's continued attacks.
In 1951, Hunt noted that "there have been many suicides due to the smearing received either in Committee hearings or from remarks made in the United States Congress." He introduced a bill providing for lawsuits against the United States for those who were defamed by members of Congress. The bill did not receive enough support."
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/11/ 01/news/wyoming/8cf263f85d4be99387256f3e0020f92f.t xt [casperstartribune.net]

Lost Jobs:
"Yale Law School professor Ralph Brown, who conducted the most systematic survey of the economic damage of the McCarthy era, estimated that roughly ten thousand people lost their jobs. Such a figure may be low, as even Brown admits, for it does not include rejected applicants, people who resigned under duress, and the men and women who were ostensibly dismissed for other reasons. Still, it does suggest the scope of the economic sanctions."
http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schreck er-blacklist.html [upenn.edu]

Frightened Students:
"In the late 1950s a group of graduate students at the University of Chicago wanted to have a coffee vending machine installed outside the Physics Department for the convenience of people who worked there late at night. They started to circulate a petition to the Buildings and Grounds Department, but their colleagues refused to sign. They did not want to be associated with the allegedly radical students whose names were already on the document."
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecke r6.htm [uiuc.edu]

More:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthyis m.htm [schoolnet.co.uk]

Not convinced?
Do a google search on McCarthism + Blacklist

Could you fix it with harmony?

http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/harmony/index.h tml

Actually, many linguists (or at least the ones who post on Language Log) seem to agree that Elements of Style should be burned or worse. Prescriptivist nonsense! (Or, in Geoff Pullum's words, fascist grammar. Do I hear an echo of the common /. complaint against "grammar Nazis"?)

That's not to say that anything goes, though. I am in favor of better grammar checking by /. editors, but Strunk and White, and other loads of prescriptivist blarney, are not the solution. Any native speaker knows a grammatical utterance when they hear one, though perhaps only certain people know one when they read one (speech is, after all, more basic than writing); thus grammar checking is, in principle, easy: Just read things out loud.

Eh.

The trouble with using expensive hardware like dedicated RAID controllers is that if/when they break, you'll have to replace them (ie. buy a new one of the exact same brand/type/firmware rev.) to get at your data. Not something to recommend for a home-setup. You're better off with commodity hardware and software RAID.

Also, it's probably not a good idea to set up a big NFS server with your data and have all your other boxes mount their filesystems there, since that leaves you with a nice big single-point-of-failure. Power-supplies will blow, motherboards will fry; stuff like that is inevitable. Not being able to get at your data will become a major nuisance then.

I'm currently using unison to keep my homedirectories on both my boxes synchronised. That works quite nicely. I'm not sure if it scales to multi-machine setups though.

Gayest? No, that implies some form of sexuality, and anybody with an alias of 'Fatal1ty' is quite clearly a virgin for life.

PS: Dancy-jism isn't exactly cool either.

PPS: Don't sound stupid, stop saying "like".

I think there is a prevalent belief that it is impossible not to be negatively affected by looking at pornography...

According to Harris Poll: "No Consensus Among American Public on the Effects of Pornography on Adults or Children or What Government Should Do About It" http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index .asp?PID=606

There was a study done at the University of Hawai`i concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornograp hy/prngrphy_ovrvw.html

There was another study done at the University of Pennsylvania concerning the effects of pornography: http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/porn_effects. html

Thats the only way to dodge their inefficiency problems. Outside of like, designing better chips.

Hands up everybody who wants to sound like a brainless teenage valley girl! Not you? Stop saying like!

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archive s/002679.html

Brian

Benjamin Zimmer over at Language Log notes some problems with the story. Most notably:

There's no evidence that the composition of word squares, let alone 10-squares, was a pastime in ancient Greece.

And, there's the timeliness of the article:

[I]t's unclear why the Times thought that this was at all newsworthy, considering that Clarke announced his discovery of the square back in April 1999, in an issue of his e-zine WordsWorth.

Linguist Mark Liberman wrote about this the other day. Explains how OSM Media LLC took the Open Source name without any of the philosophy intact.