No one chooses Bing (ok some do but not many). People use Bing because their WindowsUpdate updated their browser from IEx to IEy and it changed the default search engine to Bing and the user never even noticed. I say this because, as an IT professional, every single user's PC I have ever seen with Bing as the default search engine, the user still thinks they're using Google. They simply don't pay attention to anything that's going on in front of their own eyes.
Bing is not gaining market share by being good - it's gaining it because MS is using their OS monopoly to "trick" users into using Bing. I say this as someone who generally likes Microsoft, too. When it comes to someone changing my browsers settings - any of them - without asking me, I get really pissed off.
That's not his Twitter account - that's from OceanStretagy (note swapping of e and a), a parody account set up and by now, well documented as such. His own account went from OceanMarketting( yes, spelling error included) to OceanStratagy (yes, another spelling error, unbelievably) to OceanDeepSea. Not that his genuine account didn't have a continuation of his abusive mannerisms - just nothing as blatantly aggressive as this stuff.
Sorry, just to confirm (as I have never used this), if you send an email to someone, using Mac Mail (and they're using Mac Mail) - and you have a PGP private/public key set up already, the recipient will automatically, with no intervention on their behalf, get the public key delivered / installed? I have Mac Mail but I've never looked into this. Sounds very easy for all users at both ends to work with...
However: while that sounds good on the surface doesn't it actually suck really, really badly as an idea? It means that if you typo the email address (as per the parent comment) you're still screwed because the recipient will still get your public key and thus be able to decipher the email? Even if the recipient is not on Mac Mail, if the public key is in some way included in the mail or a methodology to obtain it is available "automatically and transparently", anyone at all could reverse engineer the process and obtain the key? Even anyone man-in-the-middle sniffing the packets could store the encrypted email and then utilise the same process to obtain the public key. So if I am correct in understanding that you do not need to provide the public key "securely" to the recipient in advance, then basically this entire process is a joke that could be worked around in a couple of minutes, providing nothing but a false sense of security.
I once set up a PGP key with a mate of mine, both using Outlook, and it was very easy to do. We just did it for the hell of it though and over time stopped using it because we only basically emailed each other the sort of crap we now put on facebook, instead.
As I believe 2008 should have shown you, market cap can disappear awfully, awfully fast - it's simply an estimated value of investor sentiment based on the last share sold. Mid October Apple's market cap was $420b. 30 days later it was $80b less and Exxon was the biggest market cap company again (and still is). That would clean out the supposed $80b cash pretty quick, if it happened again - and it could. Not saying it will but pointing out that market cap is great and all but damn is it unstable.
As for your last sentence, it's so ludicrous hypocritical it barely justifies a response. iOS was once innovative - no question. Now every release just wholesale rips off (older) Android functionality while claiming innovation (notifications, as one single example, though iOS 5 was basically a first attempt at emulating cupcake, without the widgets functionality) and the faithful jump to their feet and cheer (watch youtube for the release of iOS 5 and people literally do this at notifications, as though it's in some way new). Check Google's behaviour towards Motorola's GSM patents.
Libre Office might be fine if all your staff do is edit documents. What about if they want to integrate with Sharepoint or another document management system? What about if they want live collaboration on the same document, at the same time, with multiple users? Maybe they want to use their existing fleet of VBA macros in Excel - and mock it all you like but this forms the foundation of most of the world's financial / accounting based workers, especially for reporting. What if they want to integrate with a corporate communication / email / scheduling system like Outlook + Exchange + Communicator tools? What if they want to integrate with their CRM, like SugarCRM or Dynamics or SalesForce? What if they maybe want to use plugins for, oh I don't know, virtually any product at all?
Coz if the answer to any of the above is "yes:" then you've just cost your company either productivity, opportunity or money in other ways as they must now work around their problems.
If they don't do any of the above, then I whole heartedly agree with your change; once the life cycle of the software allowed for it. However I have seen enough smaller IT shops force OS solutions on business out of personal choice when it was actually a terrible idea (usually because they business basically ran on VBA) to be highly suspicious when people talk about changes like this. Sorry for the personal bias.
Re:didn't immediately understand the new UI
on
The Condescending UI
·
· Score: 1
Fair call. A good reason to get your PC back to the way you're most efficient with it. However it doesn't negate the fact that you barely touched the new UI before writing it off as flawed and then commenting about its shortcomings.
If you haven't really tried the new UI, a fair comment would be "I haven't really played with it yet but I am happy with what I know". Assuming anyone who did in fact bear with it longer than you and now even likes it is actually being paid to say this is probably taking things a little, far, yes?
I got a new Win 7 machine at work a few months ago, and the first thing I had to do to it was to unhook a lot of the annoyances of the Win 7 theme.
Thus proving the parent argument. You didn't immediately understand the new UI, so you gave up and reverted to the old one. So your actual exposure to the new UI, from your own text above, is either negligible at worst or minimal at best.
To be fair, I likewise dislike pinned apps, versus the old quick launch bar, but this is because I equally never gave them a chance. Having seen others use them, I wonder if I made the right choice.
So what you're saying is because people weren't immediately familiar with something new & different, rather than guide them through to new knowledge, you helped them find a way to stay where they are now, on a less feature rich product? Well done!
Surely we've had enough of this ribbon is bad garbage by now? It's actually not bad - it's the result of trying to cope with massive numbers of command potentials, instead of trying to arbitrary declare they belong under files, options, tools, edit, etc. It was Microsoft saying "there's been a proliferation of new commands in Office and we can't just keep putting menus and sub menus like this forever" - and good on them for realising it. It allows for more generic group and rapid navigation between them. Hot keys still work for common tasks (alt-f-s etc).
Just because some developer / blogger is now past 40 and can no longer learn new things, doesn't mean new things are bad. This is the geek equivalent of visiting your grandmothers to hear all about how things were better in the old days. It basically boils down to "I learnt something and felt special because I was good at it and many other people are not. Now it's no longer relevant, so I'm upset". Well, go get good at the next thing!
If you hate it that much, turn it off. Google "hide ribbon office 2010" and about 43,700,000 people are pretty happy to tell you exactly how to do it. I don't see much complaining about Firefox, Chrome etc removing the old style menu. Seems to be just another anti-MS/Office rant. Boring.
We used to have a room full of them at school and we soon discovered if you rubbed your feet on the carpet and then pushed your locker key in between the keys to the exposed circuit board... they stopped working.
The irony is I later in life wound up maintaining student labs for a university and had to put up with "dickheads" like I forgot I used to be...
It's not great but with Aldiko it's now an eBook reader that can check my email and browse the web or do a few other things. I still prefer my Samsung Galaxy S2 any day but that cost 10 times as much, so horses for courses...
Serious question - I use CentOS and have for a long time. To be really honest, I stopped looking around years ago because of the nature of getting too busy with day to day work to think about something like my distro; which was working and I am fine with it (mostly).
So, if I want to stay in the RedHat strain of things, because I am very familiar with it and don't like the idea of messing my clients around while I play at learning a new distro, what are my options? What's the alternative to CentOS? I know there was WhiteBox linux a while ago but I dropped that because it was even worse than CentOS for responsiveness. I have heard Scientific Linux is good - but I found CentOS, to date at least, pretty good with patches, etc.
Depends if you're logging that traffic. I would imagine if you logged all internet traffic, which by strict definition would be considered "new data", it would dwarf whatever data this SKA can produce. Now admittedly, that logged data would be "mostly useless and never read" - but I imagine most of the data the SKA generates will be "mostly useless and never read", too.
I thnk you'll find the reason Telstra & Optus are doing this is purely financial. You might recall that in the very same week - the very same day in fact - that it came to light Telstra and Optus had agreed to voluntarily implement Conroy's filter they also got a sweet 11billion deal from the 100% governement owned National Broadbank Network to purchase their copper lines.
You'd have to be pretty naive to think one had nothing to do with the other.
No, Microsoft was done for anti-trust because they gave IE away *for free*. Netscape was not free, when IE began to challenge it. If Microsoft had sold IE as an optional extra on Windows, no one would have said boo. The problem was Microsoft said "IE is now built into Windows or available for DL for free and we can survive the massive R&D costs to build a browser from the ground up coz we're gazillionaires". Overnight, it pulled the ground out from under Netscape who had to go free to "compete" for customers and then had no way to charge other than "support", which is pretty much not needed in a browser.
At the end of the day, it's really a very grey area. I could just as easily argue that a huge percentage of sound engineers use Macs and Macs ship with Garage Band "for free", thus destroying the business model of CakeWalk or other such products and as such, Apple should be sued for Antitrust over Garage Band - and the point is every bit as valid as in the IE vs Netscape case... I think the only real difference is Microsoft clearly intended to pound Netscape's corpse into the ground so far that no one would even remember them - and they weren't shy about saying it, publicly.
Almost an excellent question. Apple could be claimed to have a monopoly on the electronic music sales market, tablets, and portable music players. And yet those players, tablets etc only work with iTunes. Apple claim to be the largest seller of PCs (they're not but anyway), they ship them with iTunes, as well.
On the surface it's every bit as bad as shipping Windows with IE. The difference was that MS shipped a product that was previously charged (such as Mosaic/Netscape) for free, thus destroying Netscape's business and eventually destroying them outright and they did this by using their enormous coffers to survive the hit, something Netscape could not afford to do. MS intended to destroy Netscape.
Apple isn't about to start shipping these TVs for free to undercut Sony. If they start selling them at a loss or near enough, things would be different. None the less, I think Apple is still treading close to the line with iTunes and some of their behaviour around it and someone may eventually take them to task over it.
Unless the government says something along the lines of "approve this net filter, which you only care about a little bit, in exchange for getting more of what you want in the carbon tax scheme". That's how politics works. The Greens will make a backroom deal, just like all other political parties and the Carbon Tax is waaaay higher profile and waaaay more important to them than a net filter.
There's no need to use AppReferrer. Just Attach your Android to your gmail. For example, when I switched from an HTC Desire HD to a Samsung Galaxy S2, on the first power up, after entering my gmail, all my apps were automatically downloaded from the market and ready for use. Thats as easy as it gets - it's part of the welcome to your phone experience.
The iPhone is still a good product - it's just no longer the best phone out there. None the less Apple, deserve credit for starting this whole thing and I like where they're going. They just can't move as fast as Android because there's only 1 iPhone (at a time) and there's dozens of Android players, all releasing new phones far more frequently.
Your first paragraph and other comments above show you know nothing about either the market or Android. Android devices, collectively, by virtually every benchmark currently -outsell- iOS devices, collectively. So your belief that iPhone reigns supreme is misplaced.
Exactly as was said above by pandrijeczko, widgets, live wallpapers and the flexibility of Android have made it technologically superior to iOS. The first iPhone was revolutionary but it has not really changed since then, fundamentally. "Webshots" (the ability to set a webpage as your background) was a *key selling feature* of the 2nd generation iPhone, for example. Since day 1, it's gotten a (worse) case (which screwed up the antenna) and it's gotten a sort-of-multitasking ability. That's about it.
Describing Android as clunky for mail, other other features is simply laughable. I set up about 10 phones a week for MS Exchange connections, iPhones, Droids and BBerry's and I can tell you Android is the easiest (by a small margin admittedly - with BBerry's idiotic BES system being the worst by a massive margin).
Additionally, I have iPhone 4s in front of me all the time and I have no idea where you get your assertion that its in any way faster than a new Android. It's no where near as quick, in any avenue of work.
Finally, to claim Apple's ecosystem of joining things together makes them strong. That's certainly what they say each year at WWDC. However, in reality, it's a joke. You need iTunes, a cable and whole bunch of other crap to make it work. If you want to migrate from iPhone to iPad or another iPhone, go install iTunes, get your cable, pair the things up, etc. Waste many hours. Want to swap Androids? Enter your gmail account. Job done. All your contacts, applications, settings, just migrated via the cloud. How on Earth is Apple's iTunes solution even remotely comparable to that?
So my hands are on the keyboard and mouse and now I need to lift my arms up and stretch them out to my monitors which are about 80cm away? How often?
This sounds incredibily inconvenient and (yes I know this makes me sound lazy... but...) tiring.
All hand based input devices should be at least somewhat close to each other (the monitor is not close) and shouldn't require you to suspend your arms in front of you for 8 hours a day.
Slashdot Mirror
No one chooses Bing (ok some do but not many). People use Bing because their WindowsUpdate updated their browser from IEx to IEy and it changed the default search engine to Bing and the user never even noticed. I say this because, as an IT professional, every single user's PC I have ever seen with Bing as the default search engine, the user still thinks they're using Google. They simply don't pay attention to anything that's going on in front of their own eyes.
Bing is not gaining market share by being good - it's gaining it because MS is using their OS monopoly to "trick" users into using Bing. I say this as someone who generally likes Microsoft, too. When it comes to someone changing my browsers settings - any of them - without asking me, I get really pissed off.
That's not his Twitter account - that's from OceanStretagy (note swapping of e and a), a parody account set up and by now, well documented as such. His own account went from OceanMarketting( yes, spelling error included) to OceanStratagy (yes, another spelling error, unbelievably) to OceanDeepSea. Not that his genuine account didn't have a continuation of his abusive mannerisms - just nothing as blatantly aggressive as this stuff.
Sorry, just to confirm (as I have never used this), if you send an email to someone, using Mac Mail (and they're using Mac Mail) - and you have a PGP private/public key set up already, the recipient will automatically, with no intervention on their behalf, get the public key delivered / installed? I have Mac Mail but I've never looked into this. Sounds very easy for all users at both ends to work with...
However: while that sounds good on the surface doesn't it actually suck really, really badly as an idea? It means that if you typo the email address (as per the parent comment) you're still screwed because the recipient will still get your public key and thus be able to decipher the email? Even if the recipient is not on Mac Mail, if the public key is in some way included in the mail or a methodology to obtain it is available "automatically and transparently", anyone at all could reverse engineer the process and obtain the key? Even anyone man-in-the-middle sniffing the packets could store the encrypted email and then utilise the same process to obtain the public key. So if I am correct in understanding that you do not need to provide the public key "securely" to the recipient in advance, then basically this entire process is a joke that could be worked around in a couple of minutes, providing nothing but a false sense of security.
I once set up a PGP key with a mate of mine, both using Outlook, and it was very easy to do. We just did it for the hell of it though and over time stopped using it because we only basically emailed each other the sort of crap we now put on facebook, instead.
As I believe 2008 should have shown you, market cap can disappear awfully, awfully fast - it's simply an estimated value of investor sentiment based on the last share sold. Mid October Apple's market cap was $420b. 30 days later it was $80b less and Exxon was the biggest market cap company again (and still is). That would clean out the supposed $80b cash pretty quick, if it happened again - and it could. Not saying it will but pointing out that market cap is great and all but damn is it unstable.
As for your last sentence, it's so ludicrous hypocritical it barely justifies a response. iOS was once innovative - no question. Now every release just wholesale rips off (older) Android functionality while claiming innovation (notifications, as one single example, though iOS 5 was basically a first attempt at emulating cupcake, without the widgets functionality) and the faithful jump to their feet and cheer (watch youtube for the release of iOS 5 and people literally do this at notifications, as though it's in some way new). Check Google's behaviour towards Motorola's GSM patents.
Libre Office might be fine if all your staff do is edit documents. What about if they want to integrate with Sharepoint or another document management system? What about if they want live collaboration on the same document, at the same time, with multiple users? Maybe they want to use their existing fleet of VBA macros in Excel - and mock it all you like but this forms the foundation of most of the world's financial / accounting based workers, especially for reporting. What if they want to integrate with a corporate communication / email / scheduling system like Outlook + Exchange + Communicator tools? What if they want to integrate with their CRM, like SugarCRM or Dynamics or SalesForce? What if they maybe want to use plugins for, oh I don't know, virtually any product at all?
Coz if the answer to any of the above is "yes:" then you've just cost your company either productivity, opportunity or money in other ways as they must now work around their problems.
If they don't do any of the above, then I whole heartedly agree with your change; once the life cycle of the software allowed for it. However I have seen enough smaller IT shops force OS solutions on business out of personal choice when it was actually a terrible idea (usually because they business basically ran on VBA) to be highly suspicious when people talk about changes like this. Sorry for the personal bias.
Fair call. A good reason to get your PC back to the way you're most efficient with it. However it doesn't negate the fact that you barely touched the new UI before writing it off as flawed and then commenting about its shortcomings.
If you haven't really tried the new UI, a fair comment would be "I haven't really played with it yet but I am happy with what I know". Assuming anyone who did in fact bear with it longer than you and now even likes it is actually being paid to say this is probably taking things a little, far, yes?
I got a new Win 7 machine at work a few months ago, and the first thing I had to do to it was to unhook a lot of the annoyances of the Win 7 theme.
Thus proving the parent argument. You didn't immediately understand the new UI, so you gave up and reverted to the old one. So your actual exposure to the new UI, from your own text above, is either negligible at worst or minimal at best.
To be fair, I likewise dislike pinned apps, versus the old quick launch bar, but this is because I equally never gave them a chance. Having seen others use them, I wonder if I made the right choice.
So what you're saying is because people weren't immediately familiar with something new & different, rather than guide them through to new knowledge, you helped them find a way to stay where they are now, on a less feature rich product? Well done!
Surely we've had enough of this ribbon is bad garbage by now? It's actually not bad - it's the result of trying to cope with massive numbers of command potentials, instead of trying to arbitrary declare they belong under files, options, tools, edit, etc. It was Microsoft saying "there's been a proliferation of new commands in Office and we can't just keep putting menus and sub menus like this forever" - and good on them for realising it. It allows for more generic group and rapid navigation between them. Hot keys still work for common tasks (alt-f-s etc).
Just because some developer / blogger is now past 40 and can no longer learn new things, doesn't mean new things are bad. This is the geek equivalent of visiting your grandmothers to hear all about how things were better in the old days. It basically boils down to "I learnt something and felt special because I was good at it and many other people are not. Now it's no longer relevant, so I'm upset". Well, go get good at the next thing!
If you hate it that much, turn it off. Google "hide ribbon office 2010" and about 43,700,000 people are pretty happy to tell you exactly how to do it. I don't see much complaining about Firefox, Chrome etc removing the old style menu. Seems to be just another anti-MS/Office rant. Boring.
We used to have a room full of them at school and we soon discovered if you rubbed your feet on the carpet and then pushed your locker key in between the keys to the exposed circuit board... they stopped working.
The irony is I later in life wound up maintaining student labs for a university and had to put up with "dickheads" like I forgot I used to be...
...and his name isn't even Robert X Cringley! :-)
(It's Mark Stevens).
Hey! I happen to love a bit of Vegemite on toast!
I wonder how the Australian Government feels about this? After all, the CSIRO (Aus gov research division) holds the recognised patent on 802.11 technology: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/04/23/2550483.htm.
I'd take this a lot more seriously if it had 3 more votes...
I got a tablet from Dinodirect for $85. It's now gone up to $91 (AUD).
http://www.dinodirect.com/tablet-pc-7inch-tft-touch-screen-tcc8902-800mhz-ddr2-2gb-wifi-camera-android-imito-im7s-currency-GBP.html?cur=AUD
It's not great but with Aldiko it's now an eBook reader that can check my email and browse the web or do a few other things. I still prefer my Samsung Galaxy S2 any day but that cost 10 times as much, so horses for courses...
Serious question - I use CentOS and have for a long time. To be really honest, I stopped looking around years ago because of the nature of getting too busy with day to day work to think about something like my distro; which was working and I am fine with it (mostly).
So, if I want to stay in the RedHat strain of things, because I am very familiar with it and don't like the idea of messing my clients around while I play at learning a new distro, what are my options? What's the alternative to CentOS? I know there was WhiteBox linux a while ago but I dropped that because it was even worse than CentOS for responsiveness. I have heard Scientific Linux is good - but I found CentOS, to date at least, pretty good with patches, etc.
So who do you recommend I check out?
Depends if you're logging that traffic. I would imagine if you logged all internet traffic, which by strict definition would be considered "new data", it would dwarf whatever data this SKA can produce. Now admittedly, that logged data would be "mostly useless and never read" - but I imagine most of the data the SKA generates will be "mostly useless and never read", too.
I thnk you'll find the reason Telstra & Optus are doing this is purely financial. You might recall that in the very same week - the very same day in fact - that it came to light Telstra and Optus had agreed to voluntarily implement Conroy's filter they also got a sweet 11billion deal from the 100% governement owned National Broadbank Network to purchase their copper lines.
You'd have to be pretty naive to think one had nothing to do with the other.
No, Microsoft was done for anti-trust because they gave IE away *for free*. Netscape was not free, when IE began to challenge it. If Microsoft had sold IE as an optional extra on Windows, no one would have said boo. The problem was Microsoft said "IE is now built into Windows or available for DL for free and we can survive the massive R&D costs to build a browser from the ground up coz we're gazillionaires". Overnight, it pulled the ground out from under Netscape who had to go free to "compete" for customers and then had no way to charge other than "support", which is pretty much not needed in a browser.
At the end of the day, it's really a very grey area. I could just as easily argue that a huge percentage of sound engineers use Macs and Macs ship with Garage Band "for free", thus destroying the business model of CakeWalk or other such products and as such, Apple should be sued for Antitrust over Garage Band - and the point is every bit as valid as in the IE vs Netscape case... I think the only real difference is Microsoft clearly intended to pound Netscape's corpse into the ground so far that no one would even remember them - and they weren't shy about saying it, publicly.
Almost an excellent question. Apple could be claimed to have a monopoly on the electronic music sales market, tablets, and portable music players. And yet those players, tablets etc only work with iTunes. Apple claim to be the largest seller of PCs (they're not but anyway), they ship them with iTunes, as well.
On the surface it's every bit as bad as shipping Windows with IE. The difference was that MS shipped a product that was previously charged (such as Mosaic/Netscape) for free, thus destroying Netscape's business and eventually destroying them outright and they did this by using their enormous coffers to survive the hit, something Netscape could not afford to do. MS intended to destroy Netscape.
Apple isn't about to start shipping these TVs for free to undercut Sony. If they start selling them at a loss or near enough, things would be different. None the less, I think Apple is still treading close to the line with iTunes and some of their behaviour around it and someone may eventually take them to task over it.
Unless the government says something along the lines of "approve this net filter, which you only care about a little bit, in exchange for getting more of what you want in the carbon tax scheme". That's how politics works. The Greens will make a backroom deal, just like all other political parties and the Carbon Tax is waaaay higher profile and waaaay more important to them than a net filter.
There's no need to use AppReferrer. Just Attach your Android to your gmail. For example, when I switched from an HTC Desire HD to a Samsung Galaxy S2, on the first power up, after entering my gmail, all my apps were automatically downloaded from the market and ready for use. Thats as easy as it gets - it's part of the welcome to your phone experience.
The iPhone is still a good product - it's just no longer the best phone out there. None the less Apple, deserve credit for starting this whole thing and I like where they're going. They just can't move as fast as Android because there's only 1 iPhone (at a time) and there's dozens of Android players, all releasing new phones far more frequently.
Your first paragraph and other comments above show you know nothing about either the market or Android. Android devices, collectively, by virtually every benchmark currently -outsell- iOS devices, collectively. So your belief that iPhone reigns supreme is misplaced.
Exactly as was said above by pandrijeczko, widgets, live wallpapers and the flexibility of Android have made it technologically superior to iOS. The first iPhone was revolutionary but it has not really changed since then, fundamentally. "Webshots" (the ability to set a webpage as your background) was a *key selling feature* of the 2nd generation iPhone, for example. Since day 1, it's gotten a (worse) case (which screwed up the antenna) and it's gotten a sort-of-multitasking ability. That's about it.
Describing Android as clunky for mail, other other features is simply laughable. I set up about 10 phones a week for MS Exchange connections, iPhones, Droids and BBerry's and I can tell you Android is the easiest (by a small margin admittedly - with BBerry's idiotic BES system being the worst by a massive margin).
Additionally, I have iPhone 4s in front of me all the time and I have no idea where you get your assertion that its in any way faster than a new Android. It's no where near as quick, in any avenue of work.
Finally, to claim Apple's ecosystem of joining things together makes them strong. That's certainly what they say each year at WWDC. However, in reality, it's a joke. You need iTunes, a cable and whole bunch of other crap to make it work. If you want to migrate from iPhone to iPad or another iPhone, go install iTunes, get your cable, pair the things up, etc. Waste many hours. Want to swap Androids? Enter your gmail account. Job done. All your contacts, applications, settings, just migrated via the cloud. How on Earth is Apple's iTunes solution even remotely comparable to that?
So my hands are on the keyboard and mouse and now I need to lift my arms up and stretch them out to my monitors which are about 80cm away? How often?
... but...) tiring.
This sounds incredibily inconvenient and (yes I know this makes me sound lazy
All hand based input devices should be at least somewhat close to each other (the monitor is not close) and shouldn't require you to suspend your arms in front of you for 8 hours a day.
Thankyou Sheldon Cooper. :-)