has always hated the idea of some sort of personally owned monetary system, ever since (and now I sound like some sort of nutjob) they disconnected the pieces of paper called 'money' from gold or silver. (In direct violation of article 1, section 10 of the constitution, which forbids money from being anything but gold or silver, or exchangable for gold or silver.)
There are several books about people who have attempted to set up private monetarty systems. Pioneers of American Freedom and Men Against the State are two title I remember off hand. In all cases the US has managed to crush such setups using FUD, harrasment, and basically making up charges against the owners. Neal Stephenson has a short story about this, also.
Annoying, I have to get out the door before Atlanta rush hour, so I can't look up these URLs. But all you people who think this is about credit card fraud...it's not. In fact, it's a great thing if credit card thieves buy virtual cash. The credit card used to buy the gold was stolen? Return the cash to the credit card company, and take back the gold. It might be useful to impliment a 48 hour waiting period or something here, and that would be what the feds did if this was about credit card fraud. Of course, I have to wonder what it is people are buying with this, and why we just can't just track what the people have bought with the stolen gold? I mean, the turnaround time, no matter what, has to be faster with using the stolen card directly vs. using it to buy gold and using the gold to buy things. Why not treat it exactly like normal CC theft and arrest whoever pick it up where it's delievered?
However, this has nothing to do with fraud, that's just the excuse. This has to do with threating the power base. The government hates the idea we could stick all our money in inflation free bars of gold. It completely screws up how they think the economy should work.
Got to run, someone look up those URLs. I think disinfo.com has something about this, too. Long story short, the government has a very long history of trying to shut down private monies.
Actually, they admitted having and using an AOL account, which doesn't always mean they use AOL as their ISP. You can just as easily use AOL over an existing ISP, and may people with cable modems and whatnot do. Many people here at the dorms use AOL over our T1.
...the simple fact of the matter is that there are over a DOZEN of us who live in this state who disagree with this legislation
You know, a dozen people really isn't that impressive. You can probably find a dozen people in any randomly picked 25 square miles that believe the earth is flat and that the round earth 'theory' is a government plot, and Texas is a lot bigger then 25 quare miles. You can probably find a dozen people in Texas with literally any belief you can think of.
I'm pretty sure most car, microwave, VCR, etc embedded computers don't count as 'presonal computers' under the law...but I bet the TiVo does, your PDA (Which half the time isn't even able to surf the net, so censorware is really stupid for it.) does, and the kiosk at the local grocery store that sells custom labels does...
This does strike a blow to Slashdot in the fact that now that they have censored a post, they will have a harder time using the "common carrier" defense. Expect to see a lot of lawsuits (or threatening of lawsuits) from every corp that has a problem with what is said on Slashdot. Free speech is definitely taking a nosedive under the DMCA.
No, removing the post allows them to use the ISP defense. And they cannot be sued if they, after getting legal notification (subject to perjury rules. You lie and say that's your copyright material, go directly to jail.), remove the comment within the amazingly long time of 48 hours. It doesn't add any liablity at all, all this 'common carrier' stuff is removed by the DMCA, and codified into law for 'ISPs'. ISP and other sites hosting/carrying people's copyright stuff cannot be sued if they remove said stuff after legal notification. This is basically a good law, not a bad one. (Although I would have liked to have the 'copyright owners' have to prove it, first. But CoS really does own the copyright on this work, so it wouldn't apply here.)
No, they can't file libel charges, the truth, or something being obviously an opinion, is an absolute defense against libel. However, they could be sued for any damages incured by the breach of contract, which is pretty much exactly how much they could be sued for libel if the statements were false.
I can't think of any recent cases that involve a newspaper published by the school, at all. Period. All the recent cases discussed here are about a student run websites, not using the school's computers or resources at all.
I can only conclude you're attempting to troll, or simply are new here.
AFAIK, most computer science degrees do require a user interface course.
-David T. C.
Re:NITROGEN WARNING is similar to TCP/IP warning
on
Security Hole In TCP
·
· Score: 1
Just because you can get it a catchy and unthreatening name like 'water' doesn't make it any less deadly. I mean, I can call 'dense combinations of DHMA vapor, CO, CO2, and unburned hydrocarbons trapped by atmostspheric inversion' 'sparkle' instead of 'smog', but that doesn't make it any more breathable, does it?
-David T. C.
Re:NITROGEN WARNING is similar to TCP/IP warning
on
Security Hole In TCP
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand why people think DHMO is a joke, it kills thousands of people a year by filling up their lungs and not allowing them to breathe, just like trying to breathe in a room filled with CO. I mean, it's well documented, not some sort of secret thing. You can argue about all the other stuff (the fact it's found in most poisons, the fact it can form heavy, low, dense cloud layers that often cause car and plane accidents, the fact DHMO can stick to an airplane's wings and make it unable to take off at all, etc), but they often have to pump DHMO out of people's lungs after they suffocate in it! This is very well documented, and yet the government ignores it.
Nevertheless, it, or things much like it, were used many times during WWII, by both sides. If it takes a month to figure out what function they're using, and what it's keyed off (Using the date was to make it easier to break, it could have just as easily been the tenth word in the London Time from exactly two weeks ago.), then you can safely use it to coordinate a battle. As long as the function is unknown to the other side, they can't decode it, and once it is known, they still have to figure out what your key is.
It's a very clever solution before the invention of public keys and whatnot, and it's called a psuedo one time pad. In fact, it is still used today, by spys who aren't able to access computers. They just go to a library, and grab last weeks New York Times and do an easy cipher based off line X on page Y in section Z, and vary those (and the paper that was last week's paper changes too, of course) based on some easy formula, like add one to X and subtract three from Y each week. It's not that secure, because it is one piece of information, and once the people you're hiding stuff from knows it, they can decode all your previous and future messages, but it works for short amounts of time. There simply are too many possibly places to get the seed from.
I have a grip, I was just pointing out that someone who doesn't trust a log posted by actual people probably won't take an anonymous person's word that it's good.
Serveral other ex-employees and myself can vouch for this also.
I hate to point out the logical flaw here, but if MeowMeow Jones doesn't want to take the ICQ logs as evidence, she probably won't take an Anon Coward who doesn't identify hisself as evidence either.
Um, and who moderated her as 'flamebait'? I might possibly buy troll, but flamebait? And there are no flames in response, showing that was pretty unjustified.
I love how someone thinks 150 dollars a month, plus spending hours of your time a week, is cheap. You can get a car for that! While something like 3000-4000 dollars a month seems like a lot, you have to take a third out for taxes, a tenth out for food, a tenth out for your house, a tenth out for your SUV, etc...150 dollars is nothing to laugh at, it's about half the size of a lot of middle class people's 'extra' money at the end of each month, before any savings. Granted, this is mostly due to stupid money management, where the idea seems to be to 'fit the purchases to the money supply', instead of 'use as little money as we can', but 150 dollars a month, continutally, can hurt even people making 40 thousand a year.
And, for Lowtax at least, somethingawful is his full time job.
We're not talking about sites hosted off of a home computer hooked to an ISDN here, we're talking semi-serious, non-shared bandwidth, a large time investment, and a medium amount of money.
-David T. C.
Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily.
on
eFront From Inside
·
· Score: 1
According to TV, liking Judy Garland and looking down at everyone else's fashion sense.;)
-David T. C.
Re:Rampant homophobia? Not necessarily.
on
eFront From Inside
·
· Score: 1
Because it's being used as an insult. fougasse's explaination was a bit...lame. You don't need another meaning. The meaing gay is used as in insult is to say someone is homosexual. It's the same way you can use 'black' as an insult. If you use the name of a group of people as an insult, that is, simply put, racist, or sexist, or whatever group it is. (sexual orientationist?;) )
Doesn't matter, even if he did write it, most copies of the bible agree he died almost 2000 years ago...copyright law doesn't mention you getting your rights back if you come back from the dead.;)
However, religious power has often been framed in terms of secrets that make those who obtain them more powerful. Part of remaining powerful is to keep these secrets from others. Freemasonry operated on such a model.
Do you have any evidence Freemasonry is a religion? From what I hear, they make a special point to not even allow people to talk religion (or politics) in meetings.
Of course, that could all be a cover for the Illuminati satanically trying to take over the world or something.;)
Anyway, relgious orders that have kept secrets are traditionally viewed with distrust, for very good reasons. First, half the time, they're some sort of plot to destry another religion/government/way of life, and second they often claim to have one believe system but actually have another once you go far enough in, and third they often secretly or openly attack enemies, like organized crime does, with quasilegal and outright illegal tactics.
Scientology apparenly has the second one, when you get into aliens invading the planet and other stuff further in, and they certainly have the third one, where they attack peole with lawsuits, spread rumors people are child molestors, lie to police, etc...
The great thing abut this site is I don't have to worry about that, as it is certainly possible someone from Scientology will call me some horrible names, but get quickly modded down as a troll.;)
Of course, another bad thing about Scientology is that they're apparently in it for the money, which is not a traditional mode of operation for secret societies.
Yes, but surely you can see 50 years is way too long. I think 20 years is a nice round number, it assume any of their kids are at least 19 and 3 months old, and thus should be out on their own, and not living off dead parents anymore. In fact, I suggest, instead of this, at an author's death, his family situtation is evaluated, if he has just a wife she gets royalties, if there are kids they get royalties until they're 18, etc. Bacially figured the same way child support is figured.
Oh, and take all control of the work out of their hands. It's horrible how control of Sherlock Holmes was, until recently, apparently by a person who didn't really like him and didn't need the money. They shouldn't have any rights to stop people from publishing stuff, just the ability to get a certain percentage of royalties. Control over a works should be reserved for the author, period, and never handed over to someone else.
The entire point of intellectual property is to provide incentive for the author, but I don't really think saying 'Your grandchildren will no longer own the royalties on your works 49 years after you die' is really that less an incentive. If I was an author, I would put something about public domain my work after I die, after making sure it pays for...wait a minute, I have it.
After an author dies, all the money the remaining people can make of this work is, say, one million dollars, or 20 years, which ever comes first. Some sort of cap would help insure that this people haven't become leaches, profiting from intellectual property laws, without actually doing anything. The whole point is that they are an incentive to create, not to sit on your butt and laugh as royalty checks come in.
...with the parties actually hosting the pirated work (impossible to single out due to Usenet's decentralized nature.)
Wha? It's incredibly easy to figure it out.
Did you carry alt.warez.books.sci-fi from January 4th to Febuary 7th? Y/N
Did you specifically cancel any mesages in that group due to copyright infringement? Y/N
Y then N means they carried said material.
I don't think usenet fits in your defination of 'decentralized'. There might be a bunch of servers, but all of them carrying a certain group have the same content, sometimes delay a day or two because of non-instant propogation, but they all will eventually carry, for some amount of time, all content in that newsgroup.
On the other hand, this is as smart as sueing a phone company because someone said 'damn' to you using a telephone. Usenet admins don't touch blatantly illegal stuff like child porn, they can certainly argue they aren't responsibly for copyright infringement, just like the phone company isn't responsibly for a 'damn' or for the kinkiest phone sex line, because they carefully don't touch anything.
In fact, it's kinda interesting how much the phone companies and usenet carriers have in common. Usenet is like one huge collection of conference call numbers. You can't hold the local company libable if someone says nasty stuff to you while you're connected, and you can't hold their company liable either, as no one at all is in charge of who can call where and say what.
Err... In most countries, the library pays the copyright fee.
You mean...the price of the book? That's all they pay in American. Or have megacorps tricked you into believe it's illegal to loan people copyrighted work without them getting another cut?
On that, I ain't sure of it but I'd be willing to bet that each book costs more for the library than what we would pay at a bookstore, because they are an organisation that lend out individual books... Anyone want to clarify that?
Nope. It's exactly the same books we buy in stores. In fact, they get them cheaper because they work out bulk deals with publishers. It's the same with movie rental places, BTW, except the movie companies have managed to scam the rental places into buying a few weeks before everyone else, and having the prices way up during those weeks. It's kinda funny. If I ran a movie rental place I'd stop this kinda crap. Maybe I'd be two weeks behind everyone else, but I wouldn't pay a 10 dollar extra charge on all my movies.;)
This basically comes down to something I believe is called 'right of first sale'. Once you are sold something copyrighted, you can do anything with it, except copy it. (At least with a book. There are cases where actually showing a movie to a group of people can be illegal, and you have to pay to perform a play (On the other hand, you don't have to pay to make copies of the scripts, IIRC.), etc. But you can rent, loan, destroy, use as an erotic sex toy, hand out to homeless people, etc, the physical media, as long as you don't copy it.)
Oddly enough, reading books outloud to people is still technically illegal.
Why have these odd images been projected on my screen, and why do more of them appear when I depress parts of this thing on the desk in front of it? I think all this needs looking into...
First, we know from the Cue:Cat debacle that the DMCA doesn't require the encryption mechanism to be difficult to defeat; it just has to have the intent of protecting copyrighted work.
Huh? The Cuecat people lost. They didn't have any legal leg to stand on, as barcodes are not copyrighted. Which they can't be, any more then credit card numbers or social security numbers can be copyrighted. They're id numbers, and enjoy the same sort of copyright exemption as names of things. You don't have to pay to say the name 'Microsoft', do you? (Trademarks are different, but they merely keep you from identifying yourself as said name, not copying it.)
Not to mention the fact they're also too short to be copywritten, and too unoriginal, and weren't even created by the cuecat people! If anyone owned the copyright on them, it would be the people who assigned them in the first place! Who clearly want you to copy them, as they print them in plain text in two forms (a machine readable format, and arabic numbers) on each item, and sell machines to copy that number into a computer.
Merely scrambling an uncopyrightable work doesn't give you any sort of rights to the results, even under the DMCA.
I love how people are using this as an example of how silly the DMCA was. In reality, they never even got to court, as they would have been laughed out. They really just started harrassing random people with no legal justification. Their legal counsel should be disbarred.
Slashdot Mirror
There are several books about people who have attempted to set up private monetarty systems. Pioneers of American Freedom and Men Against the State are two title I remember off hand. In all cases the US has managed to crush such setups using FUD, harrasment, and basically making up charges against the owners. Neal Stephenson has a short story about this, also.
Annoying, I have to get out the door before Atlanta rush hour, so I can't look up these URLs. But all you people who think this is about credit card fraud...it's not. In fact, it's a great thing if credit card thieves buy virtual cash. The credit card used to buy the gold was stolen? Return the cash to the credit card company, and take back the gold. It might be useful to impliment a 48 hour waiting period or something here, and that would be what the feds did if this was about credit card fraud. Of course, I have to wonder what it is people are buying with this, and why we just can't just track what the people have bought with the stolen gold? I mean, the turnaround time, no matter what, has to be faster with using the stolen card directly vs. using it to buy gold and using the gold to buy things. Why not treat it exactly like normal CC theft and arrest whoever pick it up where it's delievered?
However, this has nothing to do with fraud, that's just the excuse. This has to do with threating the power base. The government hates the idea we could stick all our money in inflation free bars of gold. It completely screws up how they think the economy should work.
Got to run, someone look up those URLs. I think disinfo.com has something about this, too. Long story short, the government has a very long history of trying to shut down private monies.
-David T. C.
Actually, they admitted having and using an AOL account, which doesn't always mean they use AOL as their ISP. You can just as easily use AOL over an existing ISP, and may people with cable modems and whatnot do. Many people here at the dorms use AOL over our T1.
-David T. C.
You know, a dozen people really isn't that impressive. You can probably find a dozen people in any randomly picked 25 square miles that believe the earth is flat and that the round earth 'theory' is a government plot, and Texas is a lot bigger then 25 quare miles. You can probably find a dozen people in Texas with literally any belief you can think of.
-David T. C.
I'm pretty sure most car, microwave, VCR, etc embedded computers don't count as 'presonal computers' under the law...but I bet the TiVo does, your PDA (Which half the time isn't even able to surf the net, so censorware is really stupid for it.) does, and the kiosk at the local grocery store that sells custom labels does...
-David T. C.
No, removing the post allows them to use the ISP defense. And they cannot be sued if they, after getting legal notification (subject to perjury rules. You lie and say that's your copyright material, go directly to jail.), remove the comment within the amazingly long time of 48 hours. It doesn't add any liablity at all, all this 'common carrier' stuff is removed by the DMCA, and codified into law for 'ISPs'. ISP and other sites hosting/carrying people's copyright stuff cannot be sued if they remove said stuff after legal notification. This is basically a good law, not a bad one. (Although I would have liked to have the 'copyright owners' have to prove it, first. But CoS really does own the copyright on this work, so it wouldn't apply here.)
-David T. C.
No, they can't file libel charges, the truth, or something being obviously an opinion, is an absolute defense against libel. However, they could be sued for any damages incured by the breach of contract, which is pretty much exactly how much they could be sued for libel if the statements were false.
-David T. C.
I can only conclude you're attempting to troll, or simply are new here.
-David T. C.
AFAIK, most computer science degrees do require a user interface course.
-David T. C.
Just because you can get it a catchy and unthreatening name like 'water' doesn't make it any less deadly. I mean, I can call 'dense combinations of DHMA vapor, CO, CO2, and unburned hydrocarbons trapped by atmostspheric inversion' 'sparkle' instead of 'smog', but that doesn't make it any more breathable, does it?
-David T. C.
I don't understand why people think DHMO is a joke, it kills thousands of people a year by filling up their lungs and not allowing them to breathe, just like trying to breathe in a room filled with CO. I mean, it's well documented, not some sort of secret thing. You can argue about all the other stuff (the fact it's found in most poisons, the fact it can form heavy, low, dense cloud layers that often cause car and plane accidents, the fact DHMO can stick to an airplane's wings and make it unable to take off at all, etc), but they often have to pump DHMO out of people's lungs after they suffocate in it! This is very well documented, and yet the government ignores it.
-David T. C.
It's a very clever solution before the invention of public keys and whatnot, and it's called a psuedo one time pad. In fact, it is still used today, by spys who aren't able to access computers. They just go to a library, and grab last weeks New York Times and do an easy cipher based off line X on page Y in section Z, and vary those (and the paper that was last week's paper changes too, of course) based on some easy formula, like add one to X and subtract three from Y each week. It's not that secure, because it is one piece of information, and once the people you're hiding stuff from knows it, they can decode all your previous and future messages, but it works for short amounts of time. There simply are too many possibly places to get the seed from.
-David T. C.
I have a grip, I was just pointing out that someone who doesn't trust a log posted by actual people probably won't take an anonymous person's word that it's good.
-David T. C.
Because it also screws with traffic analysis. You can send more or less encrypted stuff as the situtation requires.
-David T. C.
I hate to point out the logical flaw here, but if MeowMeow Jones doesn't want to take the ICQ logs as evidence, she probably won't take an Anon Coward who doesn't identify hisself as evidence either.
Um, and who moderated her as 'flamebait'? I might possibly buy troll, but flamebait? And there are no flames in response, showing that was pretty unjustified.
-David T. C.
And, for Lowtax at least, somethingawful is his full time job.
We're not talking about sites hosted off of a home computer hooked to an ISDN here, we're talking semi-serious, non-shared bandwidth, a large time investment, and a medium amount of money.
-David T. C.
According to TV, liking Judy Garland and looking down at everyone else's fashion sense. ;)
-David T. C.
Because it's being used as an insult. fougasse's explaination was a bit...lame. You don't need another meaning. The meaing gay is used as in insult is to say someone is homosexual. It's the same way you can use 'black' as an insult. If you use the name of a group of people as an insult, that is, simply put, racist, or sexist, or whatever group it is. (sexual orientationist? ;) )
-David T. C.
Doesn't matter, even if he did write it, most copies of the bible agree he died almost 2000 years ago...copyright law doesn't mention you getting your rights back if you come back from the dead. ;)
-David T. C.
Do you have any evidence Freemasonry is a religion? From what I hear, they make a special point to not even allow people to talk religion (or politics) in meetings.
Of course, that could all be a cover for the Illuminati satanically trying to take over the world or something. ;)
Anyway, relgious orders that have kept secrets are traditionally viewed with distrust, for very good reasons. First, half the time, they're some sort of plot to destry another religion/government/way of life, and second they often claim to have one believe system but actually have another once you go far enough in, and third they often secretly or openly attack enemies, like organized crime does, with quasilegal and outright illegal tactics.
Scientology apparenly has the second one, when you get into aliens invading the planet and other stuff further in, and they certainly have the third one, where they attack peole with lawsuits, spread rumors people are child molestors, lie to police, etc...
The great thing abut this site is I don't have to worry about that, as it is certainly possible someone from Scientology will call me some horrible names, but get quickly modded down as a troll. ;)
Of course, another bad thing about Scientology is that they're apparently in it for the money, which is not a traditional mode of operation for secret societies.
-David T. C.
Oh, and take all control of the work out of their hands. It's horrible how control of Sherlock Holmes was, until recently, apparently by a person who didn't really like him and didn't need the money. They shouldn't have any rights to stop people from publishing stuff, just the ability to get a certain percentage of royalties. Control over a works should be reserved for the author, period, and never handed over to someone else.
The entire point of intellectual property is to provide incentive for the author, but I don't really think saying 'Your grandchildren will no longer own the royalties on your works 49 years after you die' is really that less an incentive. If I was an author, I would put something about public domain my work after I die, after making sure it pays for...wait a minute, I have it.
After an author dies, all the money the remaining people can make of this work is, say, one million dollars, or 20 years, which ever comes first. Some sort of cap would help insure that this people haven't become leaches, profiting from intellectual property laws, without actually doing anything. The whole point is that they are an incentive to create, not to sit on your butt and laugh as royalty checks come in.
-David T. C.
Wha? It's incredibly easy to figure it out.
Did you carry alt.warez.books.sci-fi from January 4th to Febuary 7th? Y/N
Did you specifically cancel any mesages in that group due to copyright infringement? Y/N
Y then N means they carried said material.
I don't think usenet fits in your defination of 'decentralized'. There might be a bunch of servers, but all of them carrying a certain group have the same content, sometimes delay a day or two because of non-instant propogation, but they all will eventually carry, for some amount of time, all content in that newsgroup.
On the other hand, this is as smart as sueing a phone company because someone said 'damn' to you using a telephone. Usenet admins don't touch blatantly illegal stuff like child porn, they can certainly argue they aren't responsibly for copyright infringement, just like the phone company isn't responsibly for a 'damn' or for the kinkiest phone sex line, because they carefully don't touch anything.
In fact, it's kinda interesting how much the phone companies and usenet carriers have in common. Usenet is like one huge collection of conference call numbers. You can't hold the local company libable if someone says nasty stuff to you while you're connected, and you can't hold their company liable either, as no one at all is in charge of who can call where and say what.
-David T. C.
You mean...the price of the book? That's all they pay in American. Or have megacorps tricked you into believe it's illegal to loan people copyrighted work without them getting another cut?
-David T. C.
Nope. It's exactly the same books we buy in stores. In fact, they get them cheaper because they work out bulk deals with publishers. It's the same with movie rental places, BTW, except the movie companies have managed to scam the rental places into buying a few weeks before everyone else, and having the prices way up during those weeks. It's kinda funny. If I ran a movie rental place I'd stop this kinda crap. Maybe I'd be two weeks behind everyone else, but I wouldn't pay a 10 dollar extra charge on all my movies. ;)
This basically comes down to something I believe is called 'right of first sale'. Once you are sold something copyrighted, you can do anything with it, except copy it. (At least with a book. There are cases where actually showing a movie to a group of people can be illegal, and you have to pay to perform a play (On the other hand, you don't have to pay to make copies of the scripts, IIRC.), etc. But you can rent, loan, destroy, use as an erotic sex toy, hand out to homeless people, etc, the physical media, as long as you don't copy it.)
Oddly enough, reading books outloud to people is still technically illegal.
-David T. C.
Why have these odd images been projected on my screen, and why do more of them appear when I depress parts of this thing on the desk in front of it? I think all this needs looking into...
-David T. C.
Huh? The Cuecat people lost. They didn't have any legal leg to stand on, as barcodes are not copyrighted. Which they can't be, any more then credit card numbers or social security numbers can be copyrighted. They're id numbers, and enjoy the same sort of copyright exemption as names of things. You don't have to pay to say the name 'Microsoft', do you? (Trademarks are different, but they merely keep you from identifying yourself as said name, not copying it.)
Not to mention the fact they're also too short to be copywritten, and too unoriginal, and weren't even created by the cuecat people! If anyone owned the copyright on them, it would be the people who assigned them in the first place! Who clearly want you to copy them, as they print them in plain text in two forms (a machine readable format, and arabic numbers) on each item, and sell machines to copy that number into a computer.
Merely scrambling an uncopyrightable work doesn't give you any sort of rights to the results, even under the DMCA.
I love how people are using this as an example of how silly the DMCA was. In reality, they never even got to court, as they would have been laughed out. They really just started harrassing random people with no legal justification. Their legal counsel should be disbarred.
-David T. C.