Problem solved always use either (depending on source and in order of preference)
1. apt-get/synaptic (command line/gui of the same thing) 2. dpkg 3. checkinstall
Everything will be in the proper place. You CAN (since you can maintain your system however you choose for your own reasons) put software wherever you like. More choice is better, but you have the tools to keep things organized. I think this is superior to OSX's mass of statically linked libraries with versions scattered in every stinking app that has no central way to manage updates.
But wouldn't a cyclo-gyro not need the cyclic pitch? the variation is above and below the "wing" not side to side, so no balance issue? Honestly a question based on the 30k ft view.
We're still passing each other in the night here. Point by point to keep it organized:
"Paid for by who? Remember, we're talking about a single sale. Not per customer single sale...but one sale for the entire world. Take something like Matlab, Maya, Photoshop Suite, etc. These have years of labor investment by 100's of programers. If they were to say "Ok, we want to sell this tech to one person" the bill would be astronomical. It would take a full blown billionaire philanthropist to lay down that kind of cash for the benefit of others."
No, I'm not talking about a single sale. I'm talking about software engineers either a) paid by a company for their labors or b) looking at their time as an investment toward selling support services and custom features/code updates (SAS in short). That is the most viable business model given the ease of replication, distribution, and defeat of licensing restrictions.
"Yes, it has manufacturing costs, but have no doubt there's a profit in there too. CD's may not be compelling as a delivery medium, but after all what we're supposed to be paying for (and what the profits are for) is the content. Just like with novels and other traditional media. As far as one being reasonably priced and one being excessive, this does not invalidate the model itself...only the pricing which is a different issue all together."
And they deserve profit for value added services, just as musicians deserve profit for value added services. But that's the crux we keep dancing around. To add value you must do something that I cannot easily or quickly (or both) do myself to get my money. That's the basis of laissez-faire capitalism. People constantly accuse OSS and music "Pirates" of not being capitalists when in fact it is the forces of the market that have led to the inevitable outcome. That is why the "capitalists" of the MP/RIAA that are relying on intervention in the market to enforce their monopoly on distribution.
"Right, but depending on the product the company who pays you most assuredly does make a profit off of each sale. The model has not changed, only the role of certain individuals in the overall scheme. If you were to branch out on your own, you would be in the position of the "salesmen" rather then solely an employee. (I've been made keenly aware of this as me and a partner are currently investigating business opportunities for some bio-tech we've designed.)"
And each sale is of something (such as a computer chip, car, house, or whatever else) that I can't easily make for myself, so I pay someone else for their time, expertise, and the amortized cost of tooling to do it for me. Do you think the person who drafted the blueprint for the cookie-cutter houses in suburbia gets a cut of each house that's sold? He doesn't, he designed it for a company, who sells the plans to those who want to build them (or who builds them themselves). Now, should they be charged for the plans? That's an arguable point, but they're willing to, so the market has spoken.
If I could afford the cost of the tooling, I could certainly charge others for manufacturing (the time I'm putting into making that device, plus my costs, etc), but would I be able to charge them for a digital photo of the house? or a digital photo of the processor?
I don't think its just pricing, its more the balance between price and utility. A CD itself is worthless, the recordings should be used to promote the bands and drum up business for the MUSIC industry instead of the RECORDING industry.
Point by point, since its not as simple as you make it:
1. Programs: yes, they should only be paid for once and service and updates to the software are what should be monetized by either the programmer or the company employing him.
2. Authors: producing a bound volume has manufacturing costs, and books tend to not be complete ripoffs. Most people will pony up for the physical book. Most people give shit all about a CD's physical media. Reading a physical book is far preferrable to reading it on a screen.
3. Engineers (me): I do only get paid once for designs. By the company who I produce the design for. Then the company that produces that product gets paid for the physical product they produce. So we already have the situation you describe, yet there seem to be products out there. There are a few examples of those that manage to bootstrap it themselves, but it is (in fact) a proof to the model I'm describing because when the means of production create a scarcity, then you're adding value. (physical manufacturing).
When the means of production are in everyone's hands, you're not adding any value. If it is difficult or time consuming enough (like food production) someone will pay you to do it, if its a matter of hitting a button and waiting, you're sol. FIND ANOTHER BUSINESS MODEL BECAUSE THE BASIC ECONOMICS ARE AGAINST YOU.
No, its simply that its a reasonable "performance" to see a film. There is an experience that I am unable to provide myself. I don't own a 40' diagonal screen. I don't own a 1000W 13 channel digital stereo system.
Like I said in another spot here, its not about what you think is intellectually honest, I'm speaking to the economic realities these companies/performers should deal with. If they don't, they'll be bankrupt. Just because its wrong to copy music/movies doesn't stop people from doing it, so you need to monetize your business in a way that others cannot easily provide themselves.
The basic numbers of cost/benefit analysis make copying music/movies worthwhile even given the court judgments that the MAFIAA have gotten. As long as that balance remains, the artists need to deal with the economic realities and adjust their business models. The road is littered with businesses who didn't change their models to deal with reality.
So wax philosophical all you want about what's right and wrong, all the while these companies are wasting their money screaming against the market forces that are quickly showing them to be outmoded. Innovate or die.
That's not productivity, that's your advertising/promotion budget. Musicians should play music, artists should paint, coders should code, salesmen should sell.
I imagine they would be a hell of an act to see live, no? They should charge a lot of money to perform music that takes that much care, skill, and effort to produce. I'm sure if its good, they'll pack venues and monetize.
Stop bringing the straw man of movies into this. Some movies are worthy of seeing in a theater. I will pay for that. No one but you brought up movies. We're talking of music.
Thanks for assuming, but I don't mind paying to see a movie in the theater. It's (to reiterate for the umpteenth time) an experience I cannot get myself for free. You cannot fight the basic economics of storage and replication. When the means for storage and replication are not so cheap that anyone can own them, selling cd's is a viable business model.
Otherwise (you know, as is actually the situation) its not. You MUST provide ADDED VALUE or a false scarcity such as when I can't make my own cd in the early 90's or before, to be paid for your product or service. Its not about what you're owed, what you have a "right" to, or anything else, its about basic economics.
But I cannot reproduce the experience of seeing them on a larger than life screen. Just as I cannot reproduce the experience of a good soundsystem (at a good venue) for a live performance. I far prefer the experience of music live, just as (for films that are worth it) I prefer a viewing at a good movie theater.
You have to provide an experience that I can't get myself. If I can play the cd/dvd/whatever media, I can reproduce it at the quality you released it at. Why bother with the expense of copy protection and the distribution in the first place, and just use the recordings to promote a way you actually CAN make money?
I am in the middle of buying a house, and it has been invaluable (since I rely on a calendar at the office to keep track of all my work especially) to have the convenience of not really needing to remember when I set things up (inspections, walkthroughs, meetings w/my mortgage company). Perhaps you haven't been busy before. Or perhaps you're just not scatterbrained (as I am).
The point is, the toolset in linux allows me to do these things (like running these servers) without having to spend the hours (that I've spent in the past for others) setting up windows apps to do the same thing. Tools like dpkg, dselect, diff, patch, grep, awk, shell scripting, etc. Research them and you'll see the types of things you can do with it.
It's quite insulting when people are expected to pay money for overpriced instructions for their computers to imitate your music. Ring tones outsold singles in the UK for the last two years which shows that people will pay for something useful that they can't get for free.
I think musicians should cast off the chains of the RIAA, get off their ass, work for a living by performing. Make tickets for live shows more expensive, and use the album to promote them, not as a way to get more money than the than sitting in their living room while you listen to average/poor sound quality reproductions of their work.
Oh, and by the way, the reason you should only get paid once for the recordings you produce is that they add very little value. Produce something like performances that entertain to millions of people and you will find it easier to earn a living.
No, I agree that artists should be paid. I think they should be paid for experiences that I cannot reproduce myself (live performances). I also think that painters should be paid for the paintings they produce by their hand. I don't think I should pay for a photo of that painting to show on my desktop.
As I said, I pay a lot of money to go see live performances because it is an experience I value. I buy SWAG there specifically because I know that's how artists make their money on tours. I recognize the basic economics of the situation. When I couldn't make my own cd's or store the data, the data in a portable form was added value. Now hard drive space is cheap as are CDR's.
You cannot, through technological means or any other, fight the basic economics. No matter how much you whine about "your rights". Its not about getting a "day job" its about providing added value, if you don't provide that, you don't get paid. In art, business, or any other endeavor.
"Incidentally, how does running all those things "for the heck of it" translate to exponential gains in productivity? You really mean to tell me that fiddling with keeping an email server & calendaring application online in-house makes you MORE productive than, oh, I don't know, pointing Thunderbird at GMail? You plainly state that you're not a dev and don't write any of the code running on your server... so why reinvent the wheel? How is that in any way a "more productive" use of your time?"
Because it saves me time on things like keeping track of my schedule and appointments (datebooks etc never worked, and something that's not accessible everywhere and on a server I run just didn't do it for me) thus reducing the chaos that was my life full of missed appointments and undone tasks (resulting in angry significant others).
I'm not reinventing the wheel, I'm keeping my data where I want to keep it. The other thing is, it doesn't take much time once I got done with the hardcore learning curve when I first switched to linux. That's what you're missing, get over the learning curve, and all of a sudden, building a server doesn't sound like a huge task that will suck up your time, you realize that its something that, research included, may take an active hour of your time (with some dead time in there for letting it crunch).
The music server is better than anything I can get anywhere else as it allows me to remotely sync the multiple music players in our household with the same library as well as use my laptop as a "radio" in any room in my house.
It allows me to backup all of my systems in my house to one central location that can then be backed up to a server off-site so I don't lose my data, nor do I have to worry about actively doing anything about it.
The firewall/etc. server allows me to connect to any machine on my network via hostname without maintaining host files on any machine or running an ldap server. It also allows me to easily manage firewall rules for my domain.
Everything on my network is there for a reason, and the reason IS to make my life easier and more productive. It also happens to be fun.
If "your thing" is not practicing your craft, and is instead to try to get us to pay you in perpetuity for the favor of having once played some music, go fuck yourself. You need to earn your money just like everyone else. You earn it by doing something. That something can certainly be performing music. I truly enjoy live music. I pay a lot of money for concert tickets. I buy SWAG at the shows.
I wish I could just sit back and let everyone who read my specs pay me a royalty for the favor of doing my job. Instead I have to produce new content. I could do this by charging per document I PRODUCE, but I choose instead to be an employee. Doesn't really change the model, though, to remain an employee, I must continue to produce useful work. Otherwise they'll show me the door.
Being and artsy fuck doesn't exempt you from needing to contribute.
That would get old if it wasn't the same old tired ass hack from you. You are complaining about a problem that (despite the fact that if you had any common sense it wouldn't have been a tragedy) has been fixed. For two years.
"-or warned you to to have a recovery CD or separate high speed internet connection and CD burner read, because somehow the Ubuntu install/live CD (cause they're they same right? except when you ask for help on the forums) can't fill the role of a recovery CD"
They spent two releases working on the installer as part of making Ubuntu ready for prime time and already fixed that situation, the default installer is now a livecd that functions as a recovery cd. So go away.
Just because you have no commons sense in having a backup when doing something like messing with the MBR of your system isn't their fault. STOP RETREADING TOPICS.
You did this Pre-Dapper when things weren't ready for prime-time, even admitted by the community. Ubuntu comes with (from the license, and any time you log in) NO WARRANTY.
Yes, but what you fail to realize: Using linux will MAKE you into a system administrator. Once you see that all the buttons are there, easy to press, and no, you won't "accidentally change something", you start having fun with it.
I now run a mail and calendar server, a blog, a firewall/dhcp/dns/proxy server, a music server, and a network file server just for the heck of it. Because it makes my life easier, more enjoyable.
And I make changes to those setups all the time. I figure something out that will make them run more efficiently, or make them more scalable, or more accessible, etc. I do this because I can. Because my Free OS gives me the toolset and the applications to do so.
I am thankful to the devs that have worked and given me the code to do this. I am not a CS major, I have not written a line of code that goes into any of the servers in my network. I have fixed configs, fixed make scripts, etc.
Once you are given the tools, and pick them up, look at them, and realize that they are easy to use if you can get over the fear, you will be Free.
Slashdot Mirror
Works fine on my desktop. Have fun with your OS.
No OS fills everyone's needs, competition is good and healthy, as is a good vision of what an OS should be and the needs it should fill.
Problem solved always use either (depending on source and in order of preference)
1. apt-get/synaptic (command line/gui of the same thing)
2. dpkg
3. checkinstall
Everything will be in the proper place. You CAN (since you can maintain your system however you choose for your own reasons) put software wherever you like. More choice is better, but you have the tools to keep things organized. I think this is superior to OSX's mass of statically linked libraries with versions scattered in every stinking app that has no central way to manage updates.
Thus, proposal rejected.
Rejected
Reason: Linux is not OSX, nor does it need to be.
But wouldn't a cyclo-gyro not need the cyclic pitch? the variation is above and below the "wing" not side to side, so no balance issue? Honestly a question based on the 30k ft view.
Not just around Sweden. Same holds true in the US.
We're still passing each other in the night here. Point by point to keep it organized:
"Paid for by who? Remember, we're talking about a single sale. Not per customer single sale...but one sale for the entire world. Take something like Matlab, Maya, Photoshop Suite, etc. These have years of labor investment by 100's of programers. If they were to say "Ok, we want to sell this tech to one person" the bill would be astronomical. It would take a full blown billionaire philanthropist to lay down that kind of cash for the benefit of others."
No, I'm not talking about a single sale. I'm talking about software engineers either a) paid by a company for their labors or b) looking at their time as an investment toward selling support services and custom features/code updates (SAS in short). That is the most viable business model given the ease of replication, distribution, and defeat of licensing restrictions.
"Yes, it has manufacturing costs, but have no doubt there's a profit in there too. CD's may not be compelling as a delivery medium, but after all what we're supposed to be paying for (and what the profits are for) is the content. Just like with novels and other traditional media. As far as one being reasonably priced and one being excessive, this does not invalidate the model itself...only the pricing which is a different issue all together."
And they deserve profit for value added services, just as musicians deserve profit for value added services. But that's the crux we keep dancing around. To add value you must do something that I cannot easily or quickly (or both) do myself to get my money. That's the basis of laissez-faire capitalism. People constantly accuse OSS and music "Pirates" of not being capitalists when in fact it is the forces of the market that have led to the inevitable outcome. That is why the "capitalists" of the MP/RIAA that are relying on intervention in the market to enforce their monopoly on distribution.
"Right, but depending on the product the company who pays you most assuredly does make a profit off of each sale. The model has not changed, only the role of certain individuals in the overall scheme. If you were to branch out on your own, you would be in the position of the "salesmen" rather then solely an employee. (I've been made keenly aware of this as me and a partner are currently investigating business opportunities for some bio-tech we've designed.)"
And each sale is of something (such as a computer chip, car, house, or whatever else) that I can't easily make for myself, so I pay someone else for their time, expertise, and the amortized cost of tooling to do it for me. Do you think the person who drafted the blueprint for the cookie-cutter houses in suburbia gets a cut of each house that's sold? He doesn't, he designed it for a company, who sells the plans to those who want to build them (or who builds them themselves). Now, should they be charged for the plans? That's an arguable point, but they're willing to, so the market has spoken.
If I could afford the cost of the tooling, I could certainly charge others for manufacturing (the time I'm putting into making that device, plus my costs, etc), but would I be able to charge them for a digital photo of the house? or a digital photo of the processor?
I don't think its just pricing, its more the balance between price and utility. A CD itself is worthless, the recordings should be used to promote the bands and drum up business for the MUSIC industry instead of the RECORDING industry.
Point by point, since its not as simple as you make it:
1. Programs: yes, they should only be paid for once and service and updates to the software are what should be monetized by either the programmer or the company employing him.
2. Authors: producing a bound volume has manufacturing costs, and books tend to not be complete ripoffs. Most people will pony up for the physical book. Most people give shit all about a CD's physical media. Reading a physical book is far preferrable to reading it on a screen.
3. Engineers (me): I do only get paid once for designs. By the company who I produce the design for. Then the company that produces that product gets paid for the physical product they produce. So we already have the situation you describe, yet there seem to be products out there. There are a few examples of those that manage to bootstrap it themselves, but it is (in fact) a proof to the model I'm describing because when the means of production create a scarcity, then you're adding value. (physical manufacturing).
When the means of production are in everyone's hands, you're not adding any value. If it is difficult or time consuming enough (like food production) someone will pay you to do it, if its a matter of hitting a button and waiting, you're sol. FIND ANOTHER BUSINESS MODEL BECAUSE THE BASIC ECONOMICS ARE AGAINST YOU.
No, its simply that its a reasonable "performance" to see a film. There is an experience that I am unable to provide myself. I don't own a 40' diagonal screen. I don't own a 1000W 13 channel digital stereo system.
Like I said in another spot here, its not about what you think is intellectually honest, I'm speaking to the economic realities these companies/performers should deal with. If they don't, they'll be bankrupt. Just because its wrong to copy music/movies doesn't stop people from doing it, so you need to monetize your business in a way that others cannot easily provide themselves.
The basic numbers of cost/benefit analysis make copying music/movies worthwhile even given the court judgments that the MAFIAA have gotten. As long as that balance remains, the artists need to deal with the economic realities and adjust their business models. The road is littered with businesses who didn't change their models to deal with reality.
So wax philosophical all you want about what's right and wrong, all the while these companies are wasting their money screaming against the market forces that are quickly showing them to be outmoded. Innovate or die.
That's not productivity, that's your advertising/promotion budget. Musicians should play music, artists should paint, coders should code, salesmen should sell.
I imagine they would be a hell of an act to see live, no? They should charge a lot of money to perform music that takes that much care, skill, and effort to produce. I'm sure if its good, they'll pack venues and monetize.
NEXT!
Stop bringing the straw man of movies into this. Some movies are worthy of seeing in a theater. I will pay for that. No one but you brought up movies. We're talking of music.
Bad straw man on an OSS site bud. I believe that companies who produce software should monetize through support, see above.
the way you spelled it there's no 'r' in either tag :p
Thanks for assuming, but I don't mind paying to see a movie in the theater. It's (to reiterate for the umpteenth time) an experience I cannot get myself for free. You cannot fight the basic economics of storage and replication. When the means for storage and replication are not so cheap that anyone can own them, selling cd's is a viable business model.
Otherwise (you know, as is actually the situation) its not. You MUST provide ADDED VALUE or a false scarcity such as when I can't make my own cd in the early 90's or before, to be paid for your product or service. Its not about what you're owed, what you have a "right" to, or anything else, its about basic economics.
But I cannot reproduce the experience of seeing them on a larger than life screen. Just as I cannot reproduce the experience of a good soundsystem (at a good venue) for a live performance. I far prefer the experience of music live, just as (for films that are worth it) I prefer a viewing at a good movie theater.
You have to provide an experience that I can't get myself. If I can play the cd/dvd/whatever media, I can reproduce it at the quality you released it at. Why bother with the expense of copy protection and the distribution in the first place, and just use the recordings to promote a way you actually CAN make money?
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it true. I run a Zimbra server.
http://www.zimbra.com/
I am in the middle of buying a house, and it has been invaluable (since I rely on a calendar at the office to keep track of all my work especially) to have the convenience of not really needing to remember when I set things up (inspections, walkthroughs, meetings w/my mortgage company). Perhaps you haven't been busy before. Or perhaps you're just not scatterbrained (as I am).
The point is, the toolset in linux allows me to do these things (like running these servers) without having to spend the hours (that I've spent in the past for others) setting up windows apps to do the same thing. Tools like dpkg, dselect, diff, patch, grep, awk, shell scripting, etc. Research them and you'll see the types of things you can do with it.
It's quite insulting when people are expected to pay money for overpriced instructions for their computers to imitate your music. Ring tones outsold singles in the UK for the last two years which shows that people will pay for something useful that they can't get for free.
I think musicians should cast off the chains of the RIAA, get off their ass, work for a living by performing. Make tickets for live shows more expensive, and use the album to promote them, not as a way to get more money than the than sitting in their living room while you listen to average/poor sound quality reproductions of their work.
Oh, and by the way, the reason you should only get paid once for the recordings you produce is that they add very little value. Produce something like performances that entertain to millions of people and you will find it easier to earn a living.
Try it.
No, I agree that artists should be paid. I think they should be paid for experiences that I cannot reproduce myself (live performances). I also think that painters should be paid for the paintings they produce by their hand. I don't think I should pay for a photo of that painting to show on my desktop.
As I said, I pay a lot of money to go see live performances because it is an experience I value. I buy SWAG there specifically because I know that's how artists make their money on tours. I recognize the basic economics of the situation. When I couldn't make my own cd's or store the data, the data in a portable form was added value. Now hard drive space is cheap as are CDR's.
You cannot, through technological means or any other, fight the basic economics. No matter how much you whine about "your rights". Its not about getting a "day job" its about providing added value, if you don't provide that, you don't get paid. In art, business, or any other endeavor.
"Incidentally, how does running all those things "for the heck of it" translate to exponential gains in productivity? You really mean to tell me that fiddling with keeping an email server & calendaring application online in-house makes you MORE productive than, oh, I don't know, pointing Thunderbird at GMail? You plainly state that you're not a dev and don't write any of the code running on your server... so why reinvent the wheel? How is that in any way a "more productive" use of your time?"
Because it saves me time on things like keeping track of my schedule and appointments (datebooks etc never worked, and something that's not accessible everywhere and on a server I run just didn't do it for me) thus reducing the chaos that was my life full of missed appointments and undone tasks (resulting in angry significant others).
I'm not reinventing the wheel, I'm keeping my data where I want to keep it. The other thing is, it doesn't take much time once I got done with the hardcore learning curve when I first switched to linux. That's what you're missing, get over the learning curve, and all of a sudden, building a server doesn't sound like a huge task that will suck up your time, you realize that its something that, research included, may take an active hour of your time (with some dead time in there for letting it crunch).
The music server is better than anything I can get anywhere else as it allows me to remotely sync the multiple music players in our household with the same library as well as use my laptop as a "radio" in any room in my house.
It allows me to backup all of my systems in my house to one central location that can then be backed up to a server off-site so I don't lose my data, nor do I have to worry about actively doing anything about it.
The firewall/etc. server allows me to connect to any machine on my network via hostname without maintaining host files on any machine or running an ldap server. It also allows me to easily manage firewall rules for my domain.
Everything on my network is there for a reason, and the reason IS to make my life easier and more productive. It also happens to be fun.
If "your thing" is not practicing your craft, and is instead to try to get us to pay you in perpetuity for the favor of having once played some music, go fuck yourself. You need to earn your money just like everyone else. You earn it by doing something. That something can certainly be performing music. I truly enjoy live music. I pay a lot of money for concert tickets. I buy SWAG at the shows.
I wish I could just sit back and let everyone who read my specs pay me a royalty for the favor of doing my job. Instead I have to produce new content. I could do this by charging per document I PRODUCE, but I choose instead to be an employee. Doesn't really change the model, though, to remain an employee, I must continue to produce useful work. Otherwise they'll show me the door.
Being and artsy fuck doesn't exempt you from needing to contribute.
to VOLUNTEERS trying despite his abuse to help him:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=122473
That would get old if it wasn't the same old tired ass hack from you. You are complaining about a problem that (despite the fact that if you had any common sense it wouldn't have been a tragedy) has been fixed. For two years.
Go away.
"-or warned you to to have a recovery CD or separate high speed internet connection and CD burner read, because somehow the Ubuntu install/live CD (cause they're they same right? except when you ask for help on the forums) can't fill the role of a recovery CD"
They spent two releases working on the installer as part of making Ubuntu ready for prime time and already fixed that situation, the default installer is now a livecd that functions as a recovery cd. So go away.
Just because you have no commons sense in having a backup when doing something like messing with the MBR of your system isn't their fault. STOP RETREADING TOPICS.
You did this Pre-Dapper when things weren't ready for prime-time, even admitted by the community. Ubuntu comes with (from the license, and any time you log in) NO WARRANTY.
Stop complaining about this endlessly.
Its getting old.
Yes, but what you fail to realize: Using linux will MAKE you into a system administrator. Once you see that all the buttons are there, easy to press, and no, you won't "accidentally change something", you start having fun with it.
I now run a mail and calendar server, a blog, a firewall/dhcp/dns/proxy server, a music server, and a network file server just for the heck of it. Because it makes my life easier, more enjoyable.
And I make changes to those setups all the time. I figure something out that will make them run more efficiently, or make them more scalable, or more accessible, etc. I do this because I can. Because my Free OS gives me the toolset and the applications to do so.
I am thankful to the devs that have worked and given me the code to do this. I am not a CS major, I have not written a line of code that goes into any of the servers in my network. I have fixed configs, fixed make scripts, etc.
Once you are given the tools, and pick them up, look at them, and realize that they are easy to use if you can get over the fear, you will be Free.