Slashdot Mirror
Can Mesh Networks Save a Dying Web? (thenextweb.com)
From an anonymous reader:
"The web is dying, but mesh networks could save it," writes open source hacker Andre Staltz. He warns that Facebook, Google, and Amazon plan to "grow beyond browsers, creating new virtual contexts where data is created and shared," and predicts the next wave of walled gardens will be a "social internet" bypassing the web altogether. "The Web may die like most other technologies do, simply by becoming less attractive than newer technologies."
He wants to build a mobile mesh web that works with or without internet access to reach the four billion people currently offline, adding that all the tools we need are already in our hands: smartphones, peer-to-peer protocols, and mesh networks. His vision? "Novel peer-to-peer protocols such as IPFS and Dat help replace HTTP and make the web a content-centered cyberspace... Browsers can be made to work like that, and although it's a small tweak to how the web works, it has massive effects on social structures in cyberspace... Now that we have experience with some of the intricacies of the social web, we can reinvent it to put people first without intermediate companies... We can actually beat the tech giants at this game by simply giving local and regional connectivity to people in developing countries. With mobile apps that are built mesh-first, the smartphones would make up self-organizing self-healing mobile ad-hoc networks... In internet-less regions, there is potential for scaling quickly, and through that, we can spawn a new industry around peer-to-peer wireless mesh networks."
He cites mega-projects "to rescue the web from the internet", which include progress on peer-to-peer and mesh networking protocols, followed by adoption on smartphones (and then a new wave of apps) -- plus a migration of existing web content to the new protocols, "to fix the overutilization of the wirenet and the underutilization of airnets, bringing balance to the wire-versus-air dichotomy, providing choice in how data should travel in each case...But it can only happen if the web takes a courageous step towards its next level."
He wants to build a mobile mesh web that works with or without internet access to reach the four billion people currently offline, adding that all the tools we need are already in our hands: smartphones, peer-to-peer protocols, and mesh networks. His vision? "Novel peer-to-peer protocols such as IPFS and Dat help replace HTTP and make the web a content-centered cyberspace... Browsers can be made to work like that, and although it's a small tweak to how the web works, it has massive effects on social structures in cyberspace... Now that we have experience with some of the intricacies of the social web, we can reinvent it to put people first without intermediate companies... We can actually beat the tech giants at this game by simply giving local and regional connectivity to people in developing countries. With mobile apps that are built mesh-first, the smartphones would make up self-organizing self-healing mobile ad-hoc networks... In internet-less regions, there is potential for scaling quickly, and through that, we can spawn a new industry around peer-to-peer wireless mesh networks."
He cites mega-projects "to rescue the web from the internet", which include progress on peer-to-peer and mesh networking protocols, followed by adoption on smartphones (and then a new wave of apps) -- plus a migration of existing web content to the new protocols, "to fix the overutilization of the wirenet and the underutilization of airnets, bringing balance to the wire-versus-air dichotomy, providing choice in how data should travel in each case...But it can only happen if the web takes a courageous step towards its next level."
Best that you just accept it and move on.
Wait. WTF? The web is dying???
his dumbass is mixing up layer 2 and layer 7
news for nerds my ass, more like stories from idiot millienials
The promise of the internet: decentralized information.
The reality: 90% of the traffic goes to FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google) monopolists.
The only solution: get away from a single source of access, and to one where we can route around the herd and its chosen megacorps.
Alternative Right.
He warns that Facebook, Google, and Amazon plan to "grow beyond browsers ..." ... and predicts the next wave of walled gardens will be a "social internet" bypassing the web altogether.
You know that the Web is more than just social media and online shopping sites - right?
He wants to build a mobile mesh web that works with or without internet access ... He cites mega-projects "to rescue the web from the internet", which include progress on peer-to-peer and mesh networking protocols,
So... using other networks, but not "the internet"? You know that "the internet" is a network of networks, perhaps even different kinds of networks - right?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
For fucks sake, who thinks this is viable? The internet ONLY worked because by the time it reached end users, it cost little time to set up and offered a lot of utility. Meshnets are, from an end-user perspective, far worse.
"How do we save the web from the internet?" The article asks. Well, if you want to save the web from the internet, you have to start with physical infrastructure at near-parity to the current multibillion dollar one. And jerking off to the ideology of decentralisation won't get you there. More, end users won't get you there either, and that's the real problem. In some countries, population is distributed so sparsely that even with massive end user adoption - unlikely, because, again, in the early days of developing infrastructure, meshnets give them fuck and all - that there would be utterly incredible bottlenecking issues.
It's not viable, and the question that it's predicated on isn't even really meaningful, since the web is in the same class as these hypothetical wholly-proprietary walled gardens: a service executed across the internet, and not the internet itself. Nothing that google and facebook do changes the fact that they operate on a layer above the one the author contends is the problem.
And full of pipe dreams.
In places like Cuba, where you don't have internet all over the place, then it works to have the packets routed through people cell phones or other devices to go out to all.
But don't confuse the base internet pipes with those companies that sit on top of it. The Base Internet is fine.
Old, basic and obviously forgotten.
Can we go back to where it states that the web is dying, I was too busy laughing and lost track of the rest of the post.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Why do would a global network of mesh networks not be considered the Internet?
Or do they think it's going to be IoT peer to peer all thr way across the ocean?
The "World Wide Web" is not the Internet, it's what is the cumulative result of using the Hyper Text Transport Protocol. The Internet is the amalgamated cable, routers and servers which send information around, including the Web. I agree that the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) which dictates what qualifies as being Web has gone to shit and needs to be replaced but that has nothing to do with the hardware.
The Internet is more alive than ever, it's only what the Internet is used for that needs to be replaced.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
People can decide to route around [the Internet giants] whenever they want to.
Unless all ISPs serving your area have decided to deprioritize and/or charge per bit for traffic other than to the Internet giants.
But don't confuse the base internet pipes with those companies that sit on top of it.
Ajit Pai and his FCC voted along party lines to allow ISPs to perform exactly such confusion in the United States.
... writes open source hacker Andre Staltz.
So... he downloads the source and edits it? Cool. Something to add to my resume. :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
From the piece of drivel written
In other words, the internet economy simply isn’t ready for a scenario where IPv6 is used everywhere and NAT is abandoned. We are stuck with what we have.
That is exactly the crap I hear that stops IPv6 migration. This person literally is the reason why they are lamenting IPv6's slow adoption. But that said, so we have this technical argument for why the "web" is dying, even though it's an Internet argument. But let's backtrack to this little gem.
The advent of NAT routers also allowed for that intermediate computer to become a guardian and protect other computers from some dangers of the open internet.
If that's what you are doing, you are doing it mostly wrong. That's not a function of NAT, that's a flipping function of *routing*. You can literally have all kinds of globally addressable IP addresses on systems, connect them, and then have 100% of them respond to 0% of the incoming requests. You literally do not need NAT for that and if that's the sole reason you are using NAT (to be more secure), you more than likely shouldn't have your job. That's not saying NAT doesn't have a place or anything, but that is me saying that if your rationale is solely for security, you will find lots of folks that will tell you otherwise. Again, NAT has a place, time, and use, but this person writing the piece is missing every single point of that. Now I know everyone is going to foam or spout with their opinion on NAT, but you have to snap out of it because, remember these are "Internet" issues not "web" issues and as you keep reading, if you aren't keeping that point in your head, you'll just get sucked into this argument of "NAT is awesome v. F*** NAT!" So I digress, let's actually continue.
It also meant that some computers were first-class citizens on the internet, while other computers were subordinates. In addition, the scarcity of IP addresses caused them to be considered valuable assets, and so it became a business opportunity. IP addresses are being sold so that some computers can become first-class citizens on the internet.
I had no actual problem with this point until that last part I highlighted. That's when my brain snapped out of it and was like, "Wait, this has absolutely nothing to do with why Facebook, Google, et al are these massive black holes." This person is literally making this overly complicated, but weak attempt to dumb down an argument about the web, on technical merits that have nothing to do with what reasonable people would call "the web". And that point became even more clear here.
As a consequence, the internet has allowed intermediate computers to rule. These are like parasites that have grown too large to remove without killing the host. The technical flaw that favored intermediate computers prefigured a world where middlemen business models thrive. Google and Facebook connect consumers with advertisement publishers and charge fees for each ad.
Oh Mother of Stars that's eight hundred times pi radians of all kinds of wrong!! IPv4's short comings have **NOTHING** to do with why the big boys on the Internet are who they are. It is at this point your brain should be saying, "This person has about as much clue as to what they are saying as a canine on the ISS has of managing the station." I assure you it does not get better as it goes.
Novel peer-to-peer protocols such as IPFS and Dat help replace HTTP and make the web a content-centered cyberspace. This way the link to an image can be something like QaPdNnDWRLF1b — a so-called hash of the image, summarizing it — instead of mywebsite.com/pic.jpeg so that even if mywebsite.com servers are removed,
Web is great for it's purpose to compose and link information. However, it sucks as an alternative to well written apps that it replaced. I am glad that technology is catching up and that companies are investing resources to keep social forums clean rather than everything being a wall of dick picks. I am also glad that there are freer options like 4chan and completely decentralized facilities like Tor/Bittorrent for absolute free speech. But these are (important) edge cases, not mainstream Internet passtime.
Someone already built it and you can download it for free. It is also open source. http://www.servalproject.org/
Get their internet censorship proof and encrypted.
Too many gov, mil, NGO, people, brand owners want to censor and totally stop free speech, search results.
Create an internet that works again that does not get blocked.
Links can be shared without losing an account, been banned, reported.
Something that is resilient to the US party politics of a few computer brand and social media owners.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
No.
It is not.
Also, Betteridges Law
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Already has. You can download it now. http://www.servalproject.org/
They started almost 10 years ago. 95% of the work is the back end. It is designed to be resilient and functional, not pretty. Considering they are funded entirely on donations it is very impressive.
I heard about this giant, world-wide mesh network once, but I've forgotten what it was called.
http://www.servalproject.org/ These guys wrote their own protocol to solve the problem you are discussing.
Yes, they can just like they can save public security surveillance, and data preservation in a way that neither commercial nor government endeavors are possibly even capable of. They won't though, because a critical mass of people are simply too stupid to realize it. And I don't mean that they're too stupid to actually do the work. One or two people could do all the work. All the bulk of the rest of the populace would need to do is cooperate by plugging in the damned devices. They're just too stupid to even realize it's necessary. Maybe this is proof they don't deserve salvation after all.
Set aside some of the ridiculous hyperbole and optimistic technological claims of the article, and look just at the technologies it mentions. Some of them are pretty cool and could have their valued uses. I've praised IPFS many times on this site because it has the potential to distribute static content in a manner that is more affordable, reliable, and bandwidth-efficient than just putting it up on web servers. Throw in a bit of decentralised wireless, and your cellphone data use could plumet - rather than download all those big updates over the cell network, it'll just ask the phone of the person sitting next to you to send them via wlan, and only need to go to the cell network if it can't find a copy in range.
Just don't view distribution as a way to 'replace the internet.' It's a supplement. It can do certain things better.
Has Netcraft confirmed? Or is this just clickbait... yeah, I think it's the latter.
The Web has been dying ever since its inception, one link at a time. The problem with the Web is that the links in it don't point to content, but to locations. So whenever a server goes down, be it temporarily or permanently, the content disappears and the links go dead. Even a bit of renaming on the the server site makes links go dead. That's one of the problems IPFS addresses by making links based on a content hash, not the current storage location.
That issue cascades into a whole lot of other issues and is one of the reasons why Facebook and Co. are so popular, since they can provide a stable content host, something that wouldn't be possible with regular HTTP and everybody renting their own server. With IPFS you can have a stable and self hosted web, since the storage location no longer is the thing that holds the web together.
That's ok. Most internet users don't even know what an SLA is, let alone actually have one other than "whatever we can provide is what you'll get, no matter what we advertise".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Can we first do world hunger? It's logistically easier.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This statement is more accurate than the silly one Andrew Staltz made.
Yes, yes. There's a reason Ted Nelson's Xanadu idea never panned out.
Whenever someone points out that the web suffers link-rot, they demonstrate that they're not thinking clearly about robustness in large distributed systems.
You don't have the choice between link-rot and utopia. Your choice is between a single centralised point of failure, or many points of 'partial failure'. Thankfully, the web gives us the second option. We even have archive.org to take the edge off. Unfortunately, of course, we now have silos, which take us back to the first option.
That's one of the problems IPFS addresses by making links based on a content hash, not the current storage location.
Eh? So if I make a correction, the address of the resource changes? On the web, you have the choice. e.g. on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterPlanetary_File_System gives you the latest page, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InterPlanetary_File_System&oldid=818883368 will always give you the snapshot from the 6th of January 2018. Similar schemes exist on GitHub and BitBucket.
(Disclaimer: I'm just being snarky and don't really know much about Xanadu, or distributed databases, or IPFS. I'd be glad to be corrected.)
OK, let's take control away from ISPs by using our smartphones to route around them. That's great but I think maybe you forgot how smartphones are connected to each other?
Mesh network = network topology, web = HTTP, the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol which is at a completely different level of the OSI model. Why is this drivel on slashdot? It's complete nonsense. Aren't the editors supposed to have some understanding of the internet?
We'll make great pets
Any time some dipshit tells you the Web's dying, just ask them what they think they're selling, and then cut them off and send them on their way. Like Jehovah's Witness door-to-door people.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Because "social" shit has really done SOooo much for the internet today.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Every time a new class graduates university, a few of them realize there's problems with the way things are and decide they're smart so they'll fix them. That's great, but of course they fail to do the basic work of coming up to speed on all the reasons why it is the way it is.
The internet was already designed as a decentralized network. It's already fundamentally peer-to-peer at its lowest level. It automatically routes around damage.
The fact that companies built centralized services like Facebook and Google on top of them doesn't mean you need to throw away the whole network. Email is federated (you can run your own email server if you want) and worked just fine until Facebook offered everyone the devil's bargain and they mostly all accepted it.
Building a mesh network can't solve this problem. Why can't you build a Facebook on top of a mesh network? Answer: you can.
Facebook and Google are huge because they offer stuff "for free" in exchange for your personal information, which is worth far more to them than they money it costs to run the service. You can go invent a distributed communication and/or social network where it's not supported by selling your data, but then the users will have to pay, and almost nobody will want to pay the few dollars a month it will cost. If most people won't pay, then there won't be enough people on it to be a viable network.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Those of us who used “the web” before the dot com bomb 1.0 © 2001 will likely attest the “web” died long ago. There was a time when the internet was a wonderful place of sharing and learning. The “godz” shared their knowledge, and those to whom such wisdom was bestowed, passed it on. We built and answered questions and learned because it was the right thing to do. A time when browsers just loaded, unencumbered by relentless multi-media ads. The web was built by techies, for anyone who desired to build, learn and create.
All goodness is eventually corrupted – the web was consumed by marketers and parasites. Used by the uniformed masses willing to gleefully hand over deeply personal information and preferring the instant gratification of a “like” over a professionally researched news is now the norm. Morons chanting artificial, made up and meaningless terms like, “pivot” or “disruption” not really caring to learn, create, build or share – just wanting to throw together some useless idea funded by someone else’s money in the hopes of being swallowed by an even larger entity and walking away with a pile of soulless cash.
As far as a mesh it’s more expensive than fiber – and ask Google how that fiber thing went I looked into building a mesh a couple of years ago. 36 endpoints per square mile are required for complete coverage with signal strength throughput decreasing by ½ per node jump. Logistically and financially, it’s not practical – unless you use super cheap equipment, aka super vulnerable and unsupported/un patched. So, once again you’re at a point where it can be hijacked for profit. Cycle repeats.
I would be far better if users could simply define what they'd like to see and pick or create the look and feel for how to see it.
It frustrates me to no end that others take over my browser windows, showing ads and videos to me that I do not want to see. Also, why do I have to learn a different system for every single website? Different colors, styles, menu types, etc..
I really want control over my own system.
I would prefer just define what content I am looking for, have the browser query for that and display it in the panels that I setup for them (horizontal/vertical orientation, fonts, font sizes, colors, etc). For example, I might want to setup a menu with options for common activities. Each option would include criteria by which to query the web for data and a layout description as for how to present it on the screen. Let's say I want to see funny, fail, and cat videos plus daily xkcd and dilbert cartoons and tech news. I might setup the layout to present one video at a time in the upper right corner (not autoplaying) that would enable skipping through them or further filtering the types. The cartoons would be in a similar panel on the left but say about 3 at a time oriented vertically. The lower right would then show the tech news vertically scrolling..
Imagine also the commercial implications of this. If my queries to the web can also be seen (which should be optional) then not only could I write the criteria for what kinds of products and services i am interested in but retailers could see what kinds of products and services people are seeking. The criteria would include any factors of relavance. For example, the following heuristic search:
laptop computer:
price $100
battery life > 8 hours
memory > 64 megabytes
hard disk size > 200 gigabytes
include unknowns
This should be a heuristic search. So if I said "hard disk > 200" it could reasonably infer the size in gigabytes. The results can add the specifics so I could modify the criteria if it's not what I am seeking. Also, "include unknowns" if for cases where the requested data isn't provided. If the vendor didn't list the memory of a laptop, include it also because I added "include unknowns" but by default unknowns should be left out of the results.
The Semantic Web is a terrible basis for this. It is too rigid and complex. Schema's demand only specific sets of fields each with a highly specific definition. This inevitably leads to a plethora of new schemas each very similar to others and horrific levels of misuse of fields.
Also, we cannot expect the world to instantly convert their databases to this network. It must be very easy, quick, flexible, and extensible. As JSON and non-type-safe languages demonstrate, flexible and extensible usually leads to easy and quick. This and heuristic methods lubricate programs interactions with each other, as well as internally. It would be a good idea to build crawlers to common retailer sites for data.
However, I also believe that if even just a few hundred people began making queries for commercial products in such a system, that retailers would be more than willing to start using it. Frankly, I bet even 10 users would interest a retailer. So selling this should be no hassle.
It would be more challenging for news sites and other non-retailers. However, it would act as meta-news. That is, people tagging and categorizing interesting content from elsewhere. One could choose go to their conventional web pages or not, from there. However, I'd suggest that ultimately retailers would much prefer this system to paying for advertising everywhere in everyone's faces. Eventually, perhaps you'd pay for access to investigative journalism. Perhaps you'd be satisfied with citizen journalism and government and non-profit resources. In any case, it would be a free market with no ability of monopolistic control. So free market principles could work as ideally envisioned and not as the growing conglomerates have taken us, lately.
No offense, but why are you repeating more or less the smae post now for the third time?
It only runs on Amdroid btw.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"The web is dying, but mesh networks could save it," writes open source hacker Andre Staltz. He warns that Facebook, Google, and Amazon plan to "grow beyond browsers, creating new virtual contexts where data is created and shared," and predicts the next wave of walled gardens will be a "social internet" bypassing the web altogether. "The Web may die like most other technologies do, simply by becoming less attractive than newer technologies."
"The U.S. Postal Service is dying, but mesh postal delivery could save it," writes someone with a fantastic view of his own colon...
"Social postal delivery will bypass the USPS altogether. People will just deliver mail FOR each other, and even though letters may not get to anyone truly rural, or be able to go from one city to another if no one HAPPENS to be going that way, at that time, until someone does, that's a perfectly fine and acceptable replacement for the USPS. Sure, sometimes instead of delivering your mail, the neighbor you're forced to entrust it with might instead open and read it, then laugh about the contents with all his (and your) friends, or maybe just use it for kindling, but hey... we can ALL feel good about STICKING it to the postal service by using these new, amazing social postal delivery systems.
The idea of replacing the internet with "mesh networks" is as laughable as replacing the USPS with a hodgepodge of people carrying each other's mail. Note, not some company offering services IN-PLACE-OF the USPS's, but private individuals. It's a joke, and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't really thought about it.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
"to fix the overutilization of the wirenet and the underutilization of airnets, bringing balance to the wire-versus-air dichotomy, providing choice in how data should travel in each case...But it can only happen if the web takes a courageous step towards its next level."
What the heck does a 'balanced dichotomy' with taking the 'next bold step' in the evolution of the web?
This reads more like a transcript from a slacker boardroom bingo game than anything useful...
I think the submitter needs to stop watching HBOs "Silicon Valley" stoned...
Ken
As you add more nodes they get slower and slower as the packets have to jump more hops to get to their destination. To build a scalable ad-hoc mostly mesh network you need backbone nodes that do long haul transfer between small mesh clouds. This has been well researched by the US military and the wireless sensor network research community. Also battery power is an issue for mobile nodes, are you willing to dedicate half your battery to forwarding packets for other people while your phone is in your pocket? A mesh mode for phones that only forwards very short text messages in a disaster area may have some utility, however building a nation sized mesh-only network won't work. So figure out how communities could provide some fiber or microwave links between small mesh clouds (maybe use cars as more powerful mobile backbone nodes, and homes as fixed location backbone nodes?) and then you'll have a workable, scalable partially mobile partially ad-hoc network. Routing in such a network is another difficult problem though, if everyone is moving, the data that needs to be sent to inform every node how to get packets to every other node is massive. There are some possible solutions for that, though those solutions and the backbone links may result in giving up some decentralization and possibly be a privacy vulnerability. Creating a completely independent mobile internet/web that does not rely on the existing internet is not a simple problem. How to grow your network is a chicken and egg problem as well (until the full network exists who will use it?) Learn from how UUNET started using UUCP over telephone lines; you could use existing networks to support your new network until it can stand on its own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Oh Hey! I saw this on reddit. Someone linked to the initial posting on the dude's site. I shot it full of holes and he actually responded down in the comments. Looks like he didn't take any of my criticisms and is continuing to push it. He also posted it up on /r/technology.
Lemme see... the highlights of all that bullshit....
1) This is hyperbole in the extreme. He's lying to you to generate traffic and controversy. Clickbait.
2) He makes up bullshit terms like "closed web" and "Wirenet".
3) He's somehow trying to blame IPv4 and NAT for the rise of Google and Amazon as middlemen. This is crazy.
4) Oh, and "wires" in general. No, seriously, did you read that line:
It is possible to escape middlemen businesses by decreasing reliance on the infrastructure that plugs their systems together: wires.
I can't make this shit up
5) He mentions "scuttlebutt" which legitimately looks interesting as a way to harvest and cache parts of the Internet when your connection is intermittent.
6) He also mentions DAT, but doesn't know how it works. He thinks it would remove the need for the IP layer. Also DAT would be TERRIBLE for a mesh network.
7) After cutting away all the salespitch bullshit and technological misconceptions, I think he's imagining a bunch of Africans walking around with cellphones
hosting their own webpage that gets harvested by their friends cellphones when they're in wifi range of each other. With some mesh networking to help extend that range a little. Which is a cool idea.
The big takeaway from that whole ordeal was when he admitted:
I have never used a MANET myself, I have basically no practical experience with its concrete problems.
I have no idea why he would then write an article about how they would save the world.
I have to agree with the others above, it's drivel.
Witness BitZtream getting pwned!... twice.....three times..... four times!
How's life in the hypocrite lane?
Ah, the usual libertarian rhetoric. Gotta love that smell. State == bad, private enterprise == good.
Really? I thought I sounded like a Bernie bro on that one. The state does misunderstand its role, but the cronyism is really my biggest complaint. Giant corporations paying for laws that benefit them, and hinder the rest of the industry, literally stealing taxpayer money in the form of handouts. And the cable industry has had some of the biggest handouts in history.
Thing is that state is these days deep in private enterprise's (note: only big corps in that club!) pockets.
If you agree with me, then why are you trying to argue the same point I'm making?
Is now state == good, since it's just a branch of private enterprise?
(Yours, I assume is a branch of Big Coal these days).
I'm having trouble parsing that last part. Sorry.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Yep.
This signature has Super Cow Powers