Limits socializing, who knew? Seriously though, I have some friends from highschool that I wouldn't mind getting back in contact with and tried to look up on facebook. But with a common name like Mike Smith and no profile picture or friend information how are you supposed to find people? Maybe these people don't want to be found but that seems to be odd seeing as you have a Facebook profile. If you only want to have contact with people you are already in contact with something else would work, eg. email, Facebook IMHO is meant to help people find people they've lost contact with. This is impossible with too much privacy on the site.
I didn't say that emotional awareness isn't useful. It just isn't intelligence. For a starters it often goes against the rational method, which is accepted as a activity of the intelligence, and thus can't be equated with intelligence. For another, it can be, albeit crudely, measured but the correctness of an emotional decision can't be proven, so it can't be used as a measure of how right a choice was.
It also might be true that you need "both sides" of the brain for each to work at its best. But I know very emotionally "intelligent" people that are absolute morons, thus emotional intelligence isn't causal of rational intelligence and at best is supportive of the rational side.
As for your example of highly intelligent leaders that can't get anything done because they don't appeal to the emotional side of things with their employees: does that prove that the leader is poorly functioning, or just that the average person behaves only slightly better than a monkey in a tree (if you make me feel good I'll pick flees off your back)? It is quite possible that the lack of rational thinking leads the masses not to follow the brilliant leader, not the lack of emotional awareness causing the brilliant leader to be ineffective.
I didn't say it isn't useful, I said it isn't intelligence. I also find it interesting that the first example in the book is of a parent giving up their life for their child. If a parent didn't sacrifice themselves for their child would we say that they are less intelligent than the one that did? Or would we say they are less caring, cowardly, or selfish?
There is a way to rationally assess the situation and act intelligently: simply acknowledge that the child is likely to live longer and reproduce where as the parent/parents are possibly past child rearing stage and have potentially less life to live. As far as genetics goes the parents are pretty much useless, there generation is done.
The thing is the book seems to imply that the reason for saving the child is simply that the parents love them. Again feelings are not provably correct and so cannot be used to assess intelligence.
What if the child was say a male with Down Syndrome? Almost certainly infertile and until recently had a life expectancy of ~25yrs. The rational decision would be for the parents to save themselves yet many wouldn't. This goes to show that "emotional intelligence" can act against rational judgment which is already accepted as intelligence, and thus cannot equate to intelligence.
That isn't to say that the emotional response isn't sometimes the correct one. I suspect people worry and loose more sleep about emotional issues than they do about something that they made a rational decision about, so in some cases you might have to go against a purely objective rational approach just to have emotional stability. Which can be the only reasonable thing to do;)
we go out of our way to always make it sound like the sexes are equal. We can't ever just say a negative we have to find some way of qualifying it. For example the article says that men are better at spatial recognization but then says but women are better at "emotional intelligence". Since when is emotional a type of intelligence? The way I've seen the term used it has been to mean being able to correctly identify what you or others are feeling. Well good for you. It is similar to awarding points for being able to identify smells. "Sure your son is as dumb as a brick but his aroma intelligence is off the charts."
Also, they can't say that the way an average man thinks makes him more suited for work life and the way a woman thinks makes her more suited for nurturing tasks. When they want to say something like that they have to find a way around it by saying something like "men tend to have a logical/rational thinking process, whereas women tend to have a more empathetic thinking process". emotion != intelligence/reasoning. One is subjective and one is objective. I can reason with you and prove that my ideas are right, however I can't ever prove to you that my feelings are right. One way you are open to being persuaded the other way you just state that you have a right to feel that way and so what you've chosen to do is right.
These are also obviously averages. I personally think my mother is more intelligent than my father, even though my dad finished highschool and my mother dropped out. Similarly in university I took physics and I think the girls in the class were on average smarter than the guys. This could be due to a selection bias though: for a girl to go into physics she has to overcome the society stereotype that it is a men's profession and women can't do it, so it could lead to only the most gifted women trying the field.
No I mean if a string like:
011000110101
becomes:
11000110101 and is then broken down into 8 bit bytes there may be no obvious to the human correlation between the almost right file and the random collection of junk that comes out. Even worse if a lot of compression has been done because a one bit shift left could mean anything once it is uncompressed, could be that missing bit made the whole hash table of the compressed file out of wack and the rest of the file can't be interpreted at all, etc. OCR isn't the same thing, it is designed to assume that it will get slightly junky input and will have to figure out a best match, and adjacent data is highly correlated with each other, that isn't necessarily the case for a binary file, especially since you might not have any idea what that file is supposed to contain, letters numbers etc, if the file extension/header or whatever is what gets nuked.
And how well did that work for your last corrupted text file? Or a printer job that the printer didn't know how to handle? My guess you could pick out a few words and the rest was random garble. The mind is good at filtering out noise but it is an intrinsically hard problem to do a similar thing with a computer. Say a random bit is missed and the whole file ends up shifted one to the left, how does the computer know that the combinations of pixel values it is displaying should start one bit out of sync so that the still existing data "looks" good? Similarly with a text file, all the remaining bits could be valid characters, how is a computer to know what characters to show other than having the correct data?
Kindle works as a mass storage device too, in fact that is the default when it is connected to a computer the thing is mounted like a thumb drive. I agree very convenient to have a lot of material with you. I'm usually reading a few things at a time, having to chose which book to bring with me is no longer an issue, I just bring all of them.
Are extremely change adverse as well. I worked at a large cancer centre. After a software upgrade that added a lot of extremely helpful features I still got tonnes of complaints for things like "the close dialog button moved from the bottom left of the form to the bottom right". Sure you have muscle memory, but it is an extremely minor difference and you still know what you need to do, but still it was a big deal for them. It was sometimes to the point where doctors just didn't want to deal with any change so they had a nurse do all the computer stuff for him like open the patient image and "click the button show image for me and call me when the image is on the screen".
But the new systems could make doctors more accurate. Sure a doctor can scribble on a page vary fast probably faster than you can enter data into an electronic form, but ones electronic form will read the same way as the next guys, at least the text will look exactly the same etc. So no more problem with messy handwritting. Then you can also validate things, no more doctor missing a digit on an insurance form and not being able to get the claim. Finally, it is much much easier to do quantitative research against a database of records than it is to do it by having to manually search through paper work. This in turn makes medical research cheaper and adds the potential to look at things more closely, for example is using this drug really better than the surgical procedure? Does night shift have a higher mortality rate because the cases are different (DUI, gunshot wounds etc.) or because less experienced staff tend to get stuck on that shift? Until you analyze the data who knows.
Good point about the bouncing seas. 400m is listed as the effective range of the AK, where as 550m is the M16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16). These numbers are all over the place when I was in the army I was thought 300m individual and 600 group. The idea is roughly 50% hits count as effective. This isn't deer hunting you don't have to hit on the first try. If you miss then you have another 29 bullets in the rifle and they have no were to go be inside the ship and you can clean them out later once your on the ship.
To hell with the warning shot. If you are trying to rob me you should expect me to defend myself. This isn't like a street protest where the people in the crowd can think that they aren't doing anything aggressive or at least not agressive to the crowd control police. These guys are charging at you presumably with guns. They have to expect that they might be fought back against. The good thing with the net idea (not sure if it would work but) is that it is non lethal. If you miss identify someone, or can't recover your net or whatever the worst you've done is inconvenience someone that is innocent, much better than blinding a bunch of fishermen or whatever.
I would classify pirates as nether civilians nor armed/uniformed combatants. They are irregulars and not sure on this, but I don't think the Geneva convention covers them. If you want to fight a war you got to war a uniform if you don't you are just like a violent bank robber and the Geneva convention doesn't come to play.
That said: another problem with the net: pirates see a cannon shaped object on the stern of your ship, me thinks they try to get to you from a different angle. Also seems like something that would be slow reloading, so if the pirates see the little splashes and know what it is they can just try to drive their boat around it. This means you'd have to time your shot in such a way that they don't have time to get out of the way. Which probably also means that you'll still be near the cannon when they are 400m close or less which is nice rifle range.
I think international governments should force countries to enforce piracy laws. Somalian pirates shouldn't be able to capture a boat and then go to shore and hold everyone hostage. They should be outlaws when they come back and should be fired apon/commandoed. Yeah it would suck for a few crews that might die in the process but afterwards word would get around that you can't come to shore if you are a pirate, which makes it a lot harder to do your raping and pillaging in your off time.
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works;
I don't see anywhere that it says you must distribute the source code. Just that the source code version must contain the copyright, patent etc information. So could you distribute the binary and "retain" the legal junk in your private version of the source code?
At the moment MS only ships versions for Windows and I don't think they have any plans to change that. There is the Mono project which has reverse engineered a lot of the framework but to be honest it isn't that great, it is roughly 5 years behind the current version of.Net in terms of the version of the framework it clones.
if someone patents an invention but then poorly implements. Say MS gets a patent for a "completely secure system" but it ends up being found that their is a bug in the code. Can people then reverse engineer/distribute something that implements the same thing? After all the product doesn't do what the patent claims so IMHO it isn't covered by the patent.
You can need to run Mac apps before you own a Mac. Or it could be time for an upgrade and you want to by the $400 Walmart special rather than a 1k+ system from Apple.
While I'd love to see Apple open up their OS to other systems if they don't want to that is their right. They own the software so they can decide who can run it.
I think what has done MS in is they did some fairly major user facing changes in all their main product offerings. The ribbon in Office, the look and tabs of IE 7-8, the gui, layout of stuff and UAC in Vista etc. People just pretty much said can't I do that with IE 6, Office 2003, XP and people said yeah you can but IE8 Office 2007 and Vista/Win 7 are so much prettier. This was followed by "who cares", and at least in business with "so I'm going to spend all this money and retrain staff and redevelop internal stuff why?".
True but have you ever tried to open up a Mac laptop or Mac Mini? Every time I see it done (I'm a server guy so don't do it myself:-)) it makes me wince. Always seems like its going to break using a putty knife like thing to wedge the plastic bit off the corner and pry the thing open. That said still better than the 40 or so screws needed to disassemble the Toshibas at my last job.
Now, there's no where on earth most of us could afford to pay for all the content we consume.
Perhaps because we consume so much more because we aren't worrying about paying for it.
My father sits most of his days off in his chair reading and listening to an oldies station that plays the same 20 or so albums every day. I sit in my office at work and listen to a 1000 or so albums I've "acquired" sorted based on last listened to. That means I only hear the same song about once every couple months. We are listening to more music I'd say than previous generations just because we have convenient portable music devices, but we consume vastly more music than the previous generation just because we don't re-listen to things as much. Instead of getting an album a week or whatever instead whenever an artist we like, or even just an artist is recommended to us comes around we hit the internet and grab everything they've ever made. Maybe we only listen to it once and delete it but we don't care because we didn't pay for it.
As for "music literacy" improving: perhaps. However I'd dispute most claims that it has any value. Very few people have work related to music, or even do any sort of critical thinking about the music. Heck most of my friends will even admit they don't care about the lyrics and haven't ever read them for their favorite bands. Music is just background noise that sounds good to us, that is about the extent that must of think about it. Being able to identify a band and name a song are very unlikely things to come up in a job interview or even in a social situation where people's view of you would depend on whether you know the answer or not. Its just trivia like people that can quote batting averages: no one really cares except the drunk idiot in the bar that is going to fight you during an argument over it.
Not necessarily. If your advertisement is geared to one market but possibly offensive to another region you'd rather not have your ad shown there at all. For example during the cold war area McDonald's had an expensive American import image in Russia and people paid insane amounts to go to MDs, you wouldn't want to advertise your $1 menu to those customers at that time.
True ads are hard to translate across regions or cultures, perhaps a fee for service model would work better for expanding the market for shows. Also, there are a lot of companies that are very region centric, often US, or US and Canada that don't rely on advertising. For example: why did it take nearly 2 years to get a version of the Kindle that works outside the US (oddly it still doesn't work in Canada but it works in Germany where I currently live)? Even now that we have the Kindle outside the US you still have a narrower selection of titles than US customers and they don't bother to ship it with a power adapter for your country. Similarly Sony's e-book store only sells in the US; really is it that uncomfortable for authors/publishers/storefronts to accept non-US customers? For a while southpark episodes weren't available online internationally now they are. etc etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Limits socializing, who knew? Seriously though, I have some friends from highschool that I wouldn't mind getting back in contact with and tried to look up on facebook. But with a common name like Mike Smith and no profile picture or friend information how are you supposed to find people? Maybe these people don't want to be found but that seems to be odd seeing as you have a Facebook profile. If you only want to have contact with people you are already in contact with something else would work, eg. email, Facebook IMHO is meant to help people find people they've lost contact with. This is impossible with too much privacy on the site.
like me when I'm angry. AARRGHH.
I didn't say that emotional awareness isn't useful. It just isn't intelligence. For a starters it often goes against the rational method, which is accepted as a activity of the intelligence, and thus can't be equated with intelligence. For another, it can be, albeit crudely, measured but the correctness of an emotional decision can't be proven, so it can't be used as a measure of how right a choice was.
It also might be true that you need "both sides" of the brain for each to work at its best. But I know very emotionally "intelligent" people that are absolute morons, thus emotional intelligence isn't causal of rational intelligence and at best is supportive of the rational side.
As for your example of highly intelligent leaders that can't get anything done because they don't appeal to the emotional side of things with their employees: does that prove that the leader is poorly functioning, or just that the average person behaves only slightly better than a monkey in a tree (if you make me feel good I'll pick flees off your back)? It is quite possible that the lack of rational thinking leads the masses not to follow the brilliant leader, not the lack of emotional awareness causing the brilliant leader to be ineffective.
I didn't say it isn't useful, I said it isn't intelligence. I also find it interesting that the first example in the book is of a parent giving up their life for their child. If a parent didn't sacrifice themselves for their child would we say that they are less intelligent than the one that did? Or would we say they are less caring, cowardly, or selfish? ;)
There is a way to rationally assess the situation and act intelligently: simply acknowledge that the child is likely to live longer and reproduce where as the parent/parents are possibly past child rearing stage and have potentially less life to live. As far as genetics goes the parents are pretty much useless, there generation is done.
The thing is the book seems to imply that the reason for saving the child is simply that the parents love them. Again feelings are not provably correct and so cannot be used to assess intelligence.
What if the child was say a male with Down Syndrome? Almost certainly infertile and until recently had a life expectancy of ~25yrs. The rational decision would be for the parents to save themselves yet many wouldn't. This goes to show that "emotional intelligence" can act against rational judgment which is already accepted as intelligence, and thus cannot equate to intelligence.
That isn't to say that the emotional response isn't sometimes the correct one. I suspect people worry and loose more sleep about emotional issues than they do about something that they made a rational decision about, so in some cases you might have to go against a purely objective rational approach just to have emotional stability. Which can be the only reasonable thing to do
we go out of our way to always make it sound like the sexes are equal. We can't ever just say a negative we have to find some way of qualifying it. For example the article says that men are better at spatial recognization but then says but women are better at "emotional intelligence". Since when is emotional a type of intelligence? The way I've seen the term used it has been to mean being able to correctly identify what you or others are feeling. Well good for you. It is similar to awarding points for being able to identify smells. "Sure your son is as dumb as a brick but his aroma intelligence is off the charts."
Also, they can't say that the way an average man thinks makes him more suited for work life and the way a woman thinks makes her more suited for nurturing tasks. When they want to say something like that they have to find a way around it by saying something like "men tend to have a logical/rational thinking process, whereas women tend to have a more empathetic thinking process". emotion != intelligence/reasoning. One is subjective and one is objective. I can reason with you and prove that my ideas are right, however I can't ever prove to you that my feelings are right. One way you are open to being persuaded the other way you just state that you have a right to feel that way and so what you've chosen to do is right.
These are also obviously averages. I personally think my mother is more intelligent than my father, even though my dad finished highschool and my mother dropped out. Similarly in university I took physics and I think the girls in the class were on average smarter than the guys. This could be due to a selection bias though: for a girl to go into physics she has to overcome the society stereotype that it is a men's profession and women can't do it, so it could lead to only the most gifted women trying the field.
No I mean if a string like: 011000110101 becomes: 11000110101 and is then broken down into 8 bit bytes there may be no obvious to the human correlation between the almost right file and the random collection of junk that comes out. Even worse if a lot of compression has been done because a one bit shift left could mean anything once it is uncompressed, could be that missing bit made the whole hash table of the compressed file out of wack and the rest of the file can't be interpreted at all, etc. OCR isn't the same thing, it is designed to assume that it will get slightly junky input and will have to figure out a best match, and adjacent data is highly correlated with each other, that isn't necessarily the case for a binary file, especially since you might not have any idea what that file is supposed to contain, letters numbers etc, if the file extension/header or whatever is what gets nuked.
And how well did that work for your last corrupted text file? Or a printer job that the printer didn't know how to handle? My guess you could pick out a few words and the rest was random garble. The mind is good at filtering out noise but it is an intrinsically hard problem to do a similar thing with a computer. Say a random bit is missed and the whole file ends up shifted one to the left, how does the computer know that the combinations of pixel values it is displaying should start one bit out of sync so that the still existing data "looks" good? Similarly with a text file, all the remaining bits could be valid characters, how is a computer to know what characters to show other than having the correct data?
Kindle works as a mass storage device too, in fact that is the default when it is connected to a computer the thing is mounted like a thumb drive. I agree very convenient to have a lot of material with you. I'm usually reading a few things at a time, having to chose which book to bring with me is no longer an issue, I just bring all of them.
Are extremely change adverse as well. I worked at a large cancer centre. After a software upgrade that added a lot of extremely helpful features I still got tonnes of complaints for things like "the close dialog button moved from the bottom left of the form to the bottom right". Sure you have muscle memory, but it is an extremely minor difference and you still know what you need to do, but still it was a big deal for them. It was sometimes to the point where doctors just didn't want to deal with any change so they had a nurse do all the computer stuff for him like open the patient image and "click the button show image for me and call me when the image is on the screen".
But the new systems could make doctors more accurate. Sure a doctor can scribble on a page vary fast probably faster than you can enter data into an electronic form, but ones electronic form will read the same way as the next guys, at least the text will look exactly the same etc. So no more problem with messy handwritting. Then you can also validate things, no more doctor missing a digit on an insurance form and not being able to get the claim. Finally, it is much much easier to do quantitative research against a database of records than it is to do it by having to manually search through paper work. This in turn makes medical research cheaper and adds the potential to look at things more closely, for example is using this drug really better than the surgical procedure? Does night shift have a higher mortality rate because the cases are different (DUI, gunshot wounds etc.) or because less experienced staff tend to get stuck on that shift? Until you analyze the data who knows.
Good point about the bouncing seas. 400m is listed as the effective range of the AK, where as 550m is the M16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16). These numbers are all over the place when I was in the army I was thought 300m individual and 600 group. The idea is roughly 50% hits count as effective. This isn't deer hunting you don't have to hit on the first try. If you miss then you have another 29 bullets in the rifle and they have no were to go be inside the ship and you can clean them out later once your on the ship.
To hell with the warning shot. If you are trying to rob me you should expect me to defend myself. This isn't like a street protest where the people in the crowd can think that they aren't doing anything aggressive or at least not agressive to the crowd control police. These guys are charging at you presumably with guns. They have to expect that they might be fought back against. The good thing with the net idea (not sure if it would work but) is that it is non lethal. If you miss identify someone, or can't recover your net or whatever the worst you've done is inconvenience someone that is innocent, much better than blinding a bunch of fishermen or whatever.
That said: another problem with the net: pirates see a cannon shaped object on the stern of your ship, me thinks they try to get to you from a different angle. Also seems like something that would be slow reloading, so if the pirates see the little splashes and know what it is they can just try to drive their boat around it. This means you'd have to time your shot in such a way that they don't have time to get out of the way. Which probably also means that you'll still be near the cannon when they are 400m close or less which is nice rifle range.
I think international governments should force countries to enforce piracy laws. Somalian pirates shouldn't be able to capture a boat and then go to shore and hold everyone hostage. They should be outlaws when they come back and should be fired apon/commandoed. Yeah it would suck for a few crews that might die in the process but afterwards word would get around that you can't come to shore if you are a pirate, which makes it a lot harder to do your raping and pillaging in your off time.
AC? I personally would use the cooling to keep my beer cold.
You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works;
I don't see anywhere that it says you must distribute the source code. Just that the source code version must contain the copyright, patent etc information. So could you distribute the binary and "retain" the legal junk in your private version of the source code? .Net in terms of the version of the framework it clones.
At the moment MS only ships versions for Windows and I don't think they have any plans to change that. There is the Mono project which has reverse engineered a lot of the framework but to be honest it isn't that great, it is roughly 5 years behind the current version of
if someone patents an invention but then poorly implements. Say MS gets a patent for a "completely secure system" but it ends up being found that their is a bug in the code. Can people then reverse engineer/distribute something that implements the same thing? After all the product doesn't do what the patent claims so IMHO it isn't covered by the patent.
You can need to run Mac apps before you own a Mac. Or it could be time for an upgrade and you want to by the $400 Walmart special rather than a 1k+ system from Apple.
While I'd love to see Apple open up their OS to other systems if they don't want to that is their right. They own the software so they can decide who can run it.
I think what has done MS in is they did some fairly major user facing changes in all their main product offerings. The ribbon in Office, the look and tabs of IE 7-8, the gui, layout of stuff and UAC in Vista etc. People just pretty much said can't I do that with IE 6, Office 2003, XP and people said yeah you can but IE8 Office 2007 and Vista/Win 7 are so much prettier. This was followed by "who cares", and at least in business with "so I'm going to spend all this money and retrain staff and redevelop internal stuff why?".
Wouldn't that be what was known as a terminal back in the day?
A blade server would a perfect format for a desktop system if it wasn't for that damned 4-8RU chassis :-)
True but have you ever tried to open up a Mac laptop or Mac Mini? Every time I see it done (I'm a server guy so don't do it myself :-)) it makes me wince. Always seems like its going to break using a putty knife like thing to wedge the plastic bit off the corner and pry the thing open. That said still better than the 40 or so screws needed to disassemble the Toshibas at my last job.
Now, there's no where on earth most of us could afford to pay for all the content we consume.
Perhaps because we consume so much more because we aren't worrying about paying for it.
My father sits most of his days off in his chair reading and listening to an oldies station that plays the same 20 or so albums every day. I sit in my office at work and listen to a 1000 or so albums I've "acquired" sorted based on last listened to. That means I only hear the same song about once every couple months. We are listening to more music I'd say than previous generations just because we have convenient portable music devices, but we consume vastly more music than the previous generation just because we don't re-listen to things as much. Instead of getting an album a week or whatever instead whenever an artist we like, or even just an artist is recommended to us comes around we hit the internet and grab everything they've ever made. Maybe we only listen to it once and delete it but we don't care because we didn't pay for it.
As for "music literacy" improving: perhaps. However I'd dispute most claims that it has any value. Very few people have work related to music, or even do any sort of critical thinking about the music. Heck most of my friends will even admit they don't care about the lyrics and haven't ever read them for their favorite bands. Music is just background noise that sounds good to us, that is about the extent that must of think about it. Being able to identify a band and name a song are very unlikely things to come up in a job interview or even in a social situation where people's view of you would depend on whether you know the answer or not. Its just trivia like people that can quote batting averages: no one really cares except the drunk idiot in the bar that is going to fight you during an argument over it.
Not necessarily. If your advertisement is geared to one market but possibly offensive to another region you'd rather not have your ad shown there at all. For example during the cold war area McDonald's had an expensive American import image in Russia and people paid insane amounts to go to MDs, you wouldn't want to advertise your $1 menu to those customers at that time.
If the media companies want to make it hard for me to watch something with their ads, I'll make it easy on myself.
One could say that rather than jumping through Hulu's hoops we'll find another way then.
True ads are hard to translate across regions or cultures, perhaps a fee for service model would work better for expanding the market for shows. Also, there are a lot of companies that are very region centric, often US, or US and Canada that don't rely on advertising. For example: why did it take nearly 2 years to get a version of the Kindle that works outside the US (oddly it still doesn't work in Canada but it works in Germany where I currently live)? Even now that we have the Kindle outside the US you still have a narrower selection of titles than US customers and they don't bother to ship it with a power adapter for your country. Similarly Sony's e-book store only sells in the US; really is it that uncomfortable for authors/publishers/storefronts to accept non-US customers? For a while southpark episodes weren't available online internationally now they are. etc etc.