Careful! The denialists will just say that the lack of data proves that they - the nebulous "they" - are hiding the data.
Yes, I've seen numerous people here on Slashdot complain that they can't go download all the data from some public website. It's a super shitload of data, just providing it to all the trolls would be a significant expense. And then, once they had it, they wouldn't know what to do with it. They would wind up just using the data for more cherry picking. Meanwhile, everyone who knows what to do with the data and has enough computing resources and education to do something meaningful with it... already has it.
And I'm certin that that "guy on the internet" knows how to correlate the temperature data from radiosondes with satellite data. Since the satellite data doesn't measure temperatures directly, there has to be some serious work put in to pulling temp data out of what they do measure, to use one of their smoking peashooter examples.
I guess we might look at it similarly to showing some code to someone who isn't a programmer. We have to learn shit to know shit to do shit, and since their only objective is to prove something wrong, any learning they might do will likely convince them that their initial premise was wrong. Ain't no one got time for that!
They can't learn if they deny the basic physics of this, so what on earth are you going to do with data that need larnin' that you refuse to learn?
Oh Great Echo Chamber Leader Of All Things Great And Small On Every Slashdot Clickbait AGW Climate Article!
We, The Ignorant Denialists, Do Beseech You!
Tell Us Oh Great Echo Chamberist! Who pays you to spam the internet with your nonsense?
You've read enough of my modus. Cites of research, and asking for denialist research. And I don't care one bit what you think. Your mind is sealed, filled with denial by politicians who you get your denial from, politicians who are paid for their opinion.
Good for you, because there is a class of people who are happier wiht unchanging opinions, be they right or wrong. If you are happy with ideological physics, join the Lysenkoists, the creationists, and others who define their science by policy, not fact. Not a shit is given by me about them or you, other than enjoying poking the denialst and conspiricist anthills to watch you scurry.
But since I find willful denial od physics kinda dumb, perhaps someone who hasn't closed their mind yet might be spared purposeful ignorance. The universe and physics are amazing and wonderful, much more exciting than the world according to Koch and Exxon.
Those are the people I'm trying to reach, not AC's who now see fit to pull the personality card on me. Good luck with that. I am an asshole, you know. But this asshole deals in facts, so calling me one as refutation just gets a "Yup, I'm an asshole".
The predictions do pan out. Denialists don't accept them because they read a cold day outside their as refutation of AGW.
The peer reviewed research is out there, and much is online. All you have to do is read it. You want Uncle Ol to have storytime when he reads it to you all? Mann, the Boogyman of the Denialist movement has been reviewed so many times, and found not in error that his detractors don't realize that they did a terrible disservice to themselves. The satellite versus ionosphere measurements cited on so many denialists webpages have been correctd and brought into agreement, even by further research by the author. But you won't see that tidbit on the denialist cites, they continue to push the old and incorrect stuff. I've read the paper. It's online.
I've provided many, many cites and links to actual peer reviewed articles, as either evidence or refutation.
And I don't do it to impress or educate you or any denier. You have your mind made up, and it is based on political will, and not science. I do it because there are people out there who are wondering, perhaps not having their minds made up, perhaps wavering somewhere between truth and politics.
Because I've found that we need a lot more people who believe in science, and not so many people who believe in incorrect things, brought to them as science, by politicians who are paid for their version of the truth.
He's referring to that "Snowmageddon" storm that was predicted to hit the East Coast, but the wind blew east and the snow landed offshore. Which, of course, isn't what the weatherman said just the day before so why do these scientists think they can predict 30 years into the future? And why does Al Gore live in such a nice house?
Okay, there lies my confusion. The Weather Channelization effect. Pity though, I was looking forward to reading the research that came up with his claim.
You mean the data that suppressionists are withholding?
Yeah, but it's too late. They moved all the suppressed Data to the Apollo Moon landing stage, loaded it onto jets and destroyed it by spitting it out as Chemtrails, as the Grays ordered them to do.
I hear that the Data contained the evidence of the perpetual motion machines that the Automakers don't want us to have.
And how! One of the things we excel at is collecting raw data. As an example, we are at present making new paleontological discoveries from fossils collected by Cope and Marsh in the 1800's.
Fast forward to the advent of computers, and there is a lot of data colleced that may never be completely analyzed, it's just the nature of recording everything.
Handing over the raw data would swamp the recipient, and even more important, they probably wouldn't be able to do a thing with it.
Oh, well I guess you've said all that needs to be said!
It is not an ad hominem attack when you cite the track record of a scientist in a particular field he is just trying to make accessible to the layman. He is an expert in the field. Bill Nye isn't an expert at all in climatology, this is so obvious.
But you see, this isn't a courtroom trial, where someone needs to be considered an expert in order to make testimony or express an opinion. This is "Bill Nye, the science guy". He actually talks about many things that he is not a certified expert in. And so what?
I don't see why you argue about it. To make his point, he has to refer to someone else, the actual expert, but himself he is just a communicator. He is not authoritative he the field he is talking about.
Do you even know what my argument is? It's that both Sagan and Nye are science popularizers. That says nothing about their respective or comparative bona fides. Sagan for his part, say in Demon Haunted World, is not necessarily an expert in that subject, being that he is an astrophysicist, but I read and learned anyhow from reading it.
To demand only expert Testimony is a bad path to go down. If you want to say "I don't like Bill Nye because he's a cacahead, that's fine. Perhaps we need a court appointed certified expert though rather than you or Sarah Palin or me to decide what Nye is?
Mann is not an asshole, and the denialists largely stopped pursuing him after he proved to be adroit at their tools.
Mark Steyn will still be ready and waiting if Mann is even man enough to go to discovery.
So tell me - Even if Mann is an asshole - even if he's the biggest asshole the world has ever produced, does that make him wrong? In other words, assuming he is, does being an asshole disprove AGW?
By the way, everyone who has written back fell right into my trap.
You see, you have nothing but personality to use to disprove Michael Mann. And you all fell into that steaming pile of denialist shit.
One guy did actually try to add a little science along with his serving of Michael Mann is an asshole. And I don't feel like addressing several people who have politically based physics, so it's your day in the barrel.
Q: Ho wmany investigations of Mann were there?
A. 8 independent investigations.
How many of these investigations concluded that Man was engaging in anything unethical or even just bad science?
A: none of the 8 independent investigations found any wrongdoing.
Q: How many reconstructions were performed on the data of Mann et al?
A. More than two dozen
Q: What were their findings?
A: they support the broad consensus in Mann's research and support the General conclusions of the research.
Side notes, there were other investigations and reconstructions. Including repeated investigations into Mann et al, when the climategate emails surfaced. This was dismissed after 8 more investigations. The reportage by the statistical team that Ed Wegman set up at the request of Representative Ed Whitfield used in statistical recunstruction found some small errors, but nothing invalidating the research, and that paper had plagiarized elements in it.
Joe Barton launched the 2005 investigation which Sherwood Bohlert, the head of the House Science committee called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.
So your elected and revered representatives went after Mann personally. And how many investgations that show he was right do you need?
And you don't have anything else at all. Sad really, trying to argue against science with Lysenkoism.
What denialists like myself go after is demonstrably false predictions by 'scientists' in the past that were disproved long ago. When they said there'd be no snow last year 2000 they were simply wrong.
Who is they? NO scientist I know would ever say such a thing. The models used predict the warming moving north, with the greatest warming in the upper latitudes, but not remotely snow free. The CO2 content in the air would have to approach the Cambrian age, and that isn't going to happen.
Anyhow, give me the cites.
There is no misunderstanding of the concept of science when you make a false prediction. If it is wrong it is wrong and it doesn't matter what kind of scientist they are if they make a wrong prediction .
You really have made an extraordinary claim AC. Prove it.
So you think that Carl Sagan was despised by many in science? I don't think so. I can't discount that are aren't some scientists in the world who don't like the man, but I doubt that it is true that many in science would think that. The fact that you found a couple of links of Sagan-haters from an "Austro-Anarchist Libertarian" patent lawyer and a whacky Christian disabled person is pretty meaningless.
He's been dead for quite a few years now, so I had to take what I could get.
But yes, there were scientists at the time who were pissed at Sagan for being a popularizer..
There are people who find themselves in the unenviable position where science is inconvenient to their beliefs for either political, religious or financial reasons. Those people can't argue on an equal basis since scientists have facts, measurements, mathematics etc while they have just their gut feeling that all the scientists must be wrong. So they go after the scientists themselves, as well as anyone who communicates science to the masses (like Bill Nye). If the person wanting to belittle the science has heard of the person then they can attack them directly, but otherwise they will spread FUD about scientists all being in it for the money or all participating in a giant conspiracy to raise taxes.
So it isn't that people are targeting popularizers; they will go after everyone they can and cherry-pick any weakness that they think they have found. In this case, Sarah Palin has tried to belittle anything that Bill Nye says on this subject by pointing out that he is not a scientist. But if all he does is report what the climate scientists say, then it doesn't matter what his qualifications are. Sarah Palin is NOT as much of a scientist as all the scientists that Bill Nye talks about.
You know, I'm not certain that we are disagreeing other than the Sagan thing.
Have you ever actually met a real woman? They kinda all look like that in the morning.
Yup, And she doesn't look anything like that in the morning. You conflate makeup with beauty. Find a woman who looks good without makeup on. In the long run she'll look better.
One of the most amusing aspects of denialism is that since they have no concept of the science, they go oafter what the can attack. Personality. That's why we were treated to years of "Michael Mann is an asshole", which was somehow supposed to invalidate his work. Mann is not an asshole, and the denialists largely stopped pursuing him after he proved to be adroit at their tools.
Now Nye, he isn't a person on the same caliber as Sagan. But the attacks are similar.
I coud find more of people playing the personality card on people of science. Nye is getting the same treatment as other popularizers like Sagan and N.D. Tyson.
And that's good enough proof that he's on to something, when Deniers single him out for their anti science derision.
Bill Clinton got impeached. All that meant was that $40 million of taxpayer money was spent doing nothing of any practical effect.
What we need to be able to vote for is removal. A few successful recall elections could do a lot.
And a president with a 60 percent approval rating isn't going to be removed. by a popular vote. So the people who wanted him out the most, wouldn't have their way.
Wouldn't that would make him an engineer and not a scientist? Of course, he's still significantly more intelligent than Palin or any of her kinfolk, he's just not a scientist.
He hasn't done any engineering, he's an actor. Like any other actor he ranks below anyone that isn't a sales or marketing guy.
I realize that denialists are reduced now to calling anyone who believes in AGW a "Stupid CacaHEad, and that's the extent of their argument, but tell me. If Bill Nye was a carpenter, or a plumber, does that mean his views are wrong on AGW?
You see, denialists have backed themselves into a corner. They call Nye "not a scientist so he's wrong", But who gives a damn? They don't believe scientists who they say are scientists?
Need a frggin program to keep up with deniers now.
A scientist is someone who seeks to find the truth via the scientific process. Bill Nye is not this. He is an actor.
He's a popularizer. Just like Carl Sagan, Popularizers are despised by many in science, because they are considered "actors" and they are equally despised by people like Sarah Palin, Who are in fact, either idiots, or trying to look like one. If you've heard her speeches lately, she is virtually incoherent.
And in fact, is there a shit to be given when a person is right? As I recall, Bill is calle "The science guy"
Unless of course, you ascribe to Sarah Palin's brand of science. Whic isn't science at all, but denial of science.
In this context, the guy is the cloud provider. His customers, if they're sensible, will have their own backups and so will be able to recover, but they also won't trust his business much if that's their recovery strategy from his incompetence.
So you back up in the cloud, then back up just like you used to before the cloud?
This cloud is an amazing thing that allows us to add another level of work.
Do you back up your local backups in the cloud, and back up your cloud backup locally?
We need to get the cloud in the cloud, now that would be the ultimate.
Slashdot Mirror
Careful! The denialists will just say that the lack of data proves that they - the nebulous "they" - are hiding the data.
Yes, I've seen numerous people here on Slashdot complain that they can't go download all the data from some public website. It's a super shitload of data, just providing it to all the trolls would be a significant expense. And then, once they had it, they wouldn't know what to do with it. They would wind up just using the data for more cherry picking. Meanwhile, everyone who knows what to do with the data and has enough computing resources and education to do something meaningful with it... already has it.
And I'm certin that that "guy on the internet" knows how to correlate the temperature data from radiosondes with satellite data. Since the satellite data doesn't measure temperatures directly, there has to be some serious work put in to pulling temp data out of what they do measure, to use one of their smoking peashooter examples.
I guess we might look at it similarly to showing some code to someone who isn't a programmer. We have to learn shit to know shit to do shit, and since their only objective is to prove something wrong, any learning they might do will likely convince them that their initial premise was wrong. Ain't no one got time for that!
They can't learn if they deny the basic physics of this, so what on earth are you going to do with data that need larnin' that you refuse to learn?
Oh Great Echo Chamber Leader Of All Things Great And Small On Every Slashdot Clickbait AGW Climate Article!
We, The Ignorant Denialists, Do Beseech You!
Tell Us Oh Great Echo Chamberist! Who pays you to spam the internet with your nonsense?
You've read enough of my modus. Cites of research, and asking for denialist research. And I don't care one bit what you think. Your mind is sealed, filled with denial by politicians who you get your denial from, politicians who are paid for their opinion.
Good for you, because there is a class of people who are happier wiht unchanging opinions, be they right or wrong. If you are happy with ideological physics, join the Lysenkoists, the creationists, and others who define their science by policy, not fact. Not a shit is given by me about them or you, other than enjoying poking the denialst and conspiricist anthills to watch you scurry.
But since I find willful denial od physics kinda dumb, perhaps someone who hasn't closed their mind yet might be spared purposeful ignorance. The universe and physics are amazing and wonderful, much more exciting than the world according to Koch and Exxon.
Those are the people I'm trying to reach, not AC's who now see fit to pull the personality card on me. Good luck with that. I am an asshole, you know. But this asshole deals in facts, so calling me one as refutation just gets a "Yup, I'm an asshole".
A good backup strategy has both on-site and off-site backups. If either is broken then the other can be used to recover.
So now instead of the cloud as your everything solution, you have to do exactly what you did before, and add the cloud as just extra work.
Quite the bill of goods.
You didn't address any points he made.
Typical
The predictions do pan out. Denialists don't accept them because they read a cold day outside their as refutation of AGW.
The peer reviewed research is out there, and much is online. All you have to do is read it. You want Uncle Ol to have storytime when he reads it to you all? Mann, the Boogyman of the Denialist movement has been reviewed so many times, and found not in error that his detractors don't realize that they did a terrible disservice to themselves. The satellite versus ionosphere measurements cited on so many denialists webpages have been correctd and brought into agreement, even by further research by the author. But you won't see that tidbit on the denialist cites, they continue to push the old and incorrect stuff. I've read the paper. It's online.
I've provided many, many cites and links to actual peer reviewed articles, as either evidence or refutation.
And I don't do it to impress or educate you or any denier. You have your mind made up, and it is based on political will, and not science. I do it because there are people out there who are wondering, perhaps not having their minds made up, perhaps wavering somewhere between truth and politics.
Because I've found that we need a lot more people who believe in science, and not so many people who believe in incorrect things, brought to them as science, by politicians who are paid for their version of the truth.
He's referring to that "Snowmageddon" storm that was predicted to hit the East Coast, but the wind blew east and the snow landed offshore. Which, of course, isn't what the weatherman said just the day before so why do these scientists think they can predict 30 years into the future? And why does Al Gore live in such a nice house?
Okay, there lies my confusion. The Weather Channelization effect. Pity though, I was looking forward to reading the research that came up with his claim.
Since when has being right meant a damn thing? It sure as hell won't win you an election any time soon.
And as such, un-electable...
Where is this data?
Careful! The denialists will just say that the lack of data proves that they - the nebulous "they" - are hiding the data.
You mean the data that suppressionists are withholding?
Yeah, but it's too late. They moved all the suppressed Data to the Apollo Moon landing stage, loaded it onto jets and destroyed it by spitting it out as Chemtrails, as the Grays ordered them to do.
I hear that the Data contained the evidence of the perpetual motion machines that the Automakers don't want us to have.
but the raw data is not always searchable.
That is not suppression.
And how! One of the things we excel at is collecting raw data. As an example, we are at present making new paleontological discoveries from fossils collected by Cope and Marsh in the 1800's.
Fast forward to the advent of computers, and there is a lot of data colleced that may never be completely analyzed, it's just the nature of recording everything.
Handing over the raw data would swamp the recipient, and even more important, they probably wouldn't be able to do a thing with it.
Fucking lame argument.
Oh, well I guess you've said all that needs to be said!
It is not an ad hominem attack when you cite the track record of a scientist in a particular field he is just trying to make accessible to the layman. He is an expert in the field. Bill Nye isn't an expert at all in climatology, this is so obvious.
But you see, this isn't a courtroom trial, where someone needs to be considered an expert in order to make testimony or express an opinion. This is "Bill Nye, the science guy". He actually talks about many things that he is not a certified expert in. And so what?
I don't see why you argue about it. To make his point, he has to refer to someone else, the actual expert, but himself he is just a communicator. He is not authoritative he the field he is talking about.
Do you even know what my argument is? It's that both Sagan and Nye are science popularizers. That says nothing about their respective or comparative bona fides. Sagan for his part, say in Demon Haunted World, is not necessarily an expert in that subject, being that he is an astrophysicist, but I read and learned anyhow from reading it.
To demand only expert Testimony is a bad path to go down. If you want to say "I don't like Bill Nye because he's a cacahead, that's fine. Perhaps we need a court appointed certified expert though rather than you or Sarah Palin or me to decide what Nye is?
But hey you bastard. You knew the right answer all this time and only now are coming out to enlighten humanity You asshole
So now you're wrong.
But I'm right.
So shallow...
Beauty is skin deep, but Palin's not only ugly, she's stupid and mean.
And incoherent. That's something you can see in every "speech".
Mann is not an asshole, and the denialists largely stopped pursuing him after he proved to be adroit at their tools.
Mark Steyn will still be ready and waiting if Mann is even man enough to go to discovery.
So tell me - Even if Mann is an asshole - even if he's the biggest asshole the world has ever produced, does that make him wrong? In other words, assuming he is, does being an asshole disprove AGW?
By the way, everyone who has written back fell right into my trap.
You see, you have nothing but personality to use to disprove Michael Mann. And you all fell into that steaming pile of denialist shit.
One guy did actually try to add a little science along with his serving of Michael Mann is an asshole. And I don't feel like addressing several people who have politically based physics, so it's your day in the barrel.
Q: Ho wmany investigations of Mann were there?
A. 8 independent investigations.
How many of these investigations concluded that Man was engaging in anything unethical or even just bad science?
A: none of the 8 independent investigations found any wrongdoing.
Q: How many reconstructions were performed on the data of Mann et al?
A. More than two dozen
Q: What were their findings?
A: they support the broad consensus in Mann's research and support the General conclusions of the research.
Side notes, there were other investigations and reconstructions. Including repeated investigations into Mann et al, when the climategate emails surfaced. This was dismissed after 8 more investigations. The reportage by the statistical team that Ed Wegman set up at the request of Representative Ed Whitfield used in statistical recunstruction found some small errors, but nothing invalidating the research, and that paper had plagiarized elements in it.
Joe Barton launched the 2005 investigation which Sherwood Bohlert, the head of the House Science committee called a "misguided and illegitimate investigation" into the data, methods and personal information of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.
So your elected and revered representatives went after Mann personally. And how many investgations that show he was right do you need?
And you don't have anything else at all. Sad really, trying to argue against science with Lysenkoism.
Your move.
What denialists like myself go after is demonstrably false predictions by 'scientists' in the past that were disproved long ago. When they said there'd be no snow last year 2000 they were simply wrong.
Who is they? NO scientist I know would ever say such a thing. The models used predict the warming moving north, with the greatest warming in the upper latitudes, but not remotely snow free. The CO2 content in the air would have to approach the Cambrian age, and that isn't going to happen.
Anyhow, give me the cites. There is no misunderstanding of the concept of science when you make a false prediction. If it is wrong it is wrong and it doesn't matter what kind of scientist they are if they make a wrong prediction .
You really have made an extraordinary claim AC. Prove it.
But he was a popularizer, just like Sagan was.
So you think that Carl Sagan was despised by many in science? I don't think so. I can't discount that are aren't some scientists in the world who don't like the man, but I doubt that it is true that many in science would think that. The fact that you found a couple of links of Sagan-haters from an "Austro-Anarchist Libertarian" patent lawyer and a whacky Christian disabled person is pretty meaningless.
He's been dead for quite a few years now, so I had to take what I could get.
But yes, there were scientists at the time who were pissed at Sagan for being a popularizer. .
There are people who find themselves in the unenviable position where science is inconvenient to their beliefs for either political, religious or financial reasons. Those people can't argue on an equal basis since scientists have facts, measurements, mathematics etc while they have just their gut feeling that all the scientists must be wrong. So they go after the scientists themselves, as well as anyone who communicates science to the masses (like Bill Nye). If the person wanting to belittle the science has heard of the person then they can attack them directly, but otherwise they will spread FUD about scientists all being in it for the money or all participating in a giant conspiracy to raise taxes.
So it isn't that people are targeting popularizers; they will go after everyone they can and cherry-pick any weakness that they think they have found. In this case, Sarah Palin has tried to belittle anything that Bill Nye says on this subject by pointing out that he is not a scientist. But if all he does is report what the climate scientists say, then it doesn't matter what his qualifications are. Sarah Palin is NOT as much of a scientist as all the scientists that Bill Nye talks about.
You know, I'm not certain that we are disagreeing other than the Sagan thing.
I use Facebook to communicate with family (some) and very close friends (from real life). I don't get news from Facebook.
I visit or call mine.
Have you ever actually met a real woman? They kinda all look like that in the morning.
Yup, And she doesn't look anything like that in the morning. You conflate makeup with beauty. Find a woman who looks good without makeup on. In the long run she'll look better.
One of the most amusing aspects of denialism is that since they have no concept of the science, they go oafter what the can attack. Personality. That's why we were treated to years of "Michael Mann is an asshole", which was somehow supposed to invalidate his work. Mann is not an asshole, and the denialists largely stopped pursuing him after he proved to be adroit at their tools.
Now Nye, he isn't a person on the same caliber as Sagan. But the attacks are similar.
Carl Sagan, Socialist Jerk http://www.stephankinsella.com...
https://eternian.wordpress.com...
I coud find more of people playing the personality card on people of science. Nye is getting the same treatment as other popularizers like Sagan and N.D. Tyson.
And that's good enough proof that he's on to something, when Deniers single him out for their anti science derision.
Bill Clinton got impeached. All that meant was that $40 million of taxpayer money was spent doing nothing of any practical effect.
What we need to be able to vote for is removal. A few successful recall elections could do a lot.
And a president with a 60 percent approval rating isn't going to be removed. by a popular vote. So the people who wanted him out the most, wouldn't have their way.
Wouldn't that would make him an engineer and not a scientist? Of course, he's still significantly more intelligent than Palin or any of her kinfolk, he's just not a scientist.
He hasn't done any engineering, he's an actor. Like any other actor he ranks below anyone that isn't a sales or marketing guy.
I realize that denialists are reduced now to calling anyone who believes in AGW a "Stupid CacaHEad, and that's the extent of their argument, but tell me. If Bill Nye was a carpenter, or a plumber, does that mean his views are wrong on AGW?
You see, denialists have backed themselves into a corner. They call Nye "not a scientist so he's wrong", But who gives a damn? They don't believe scientists who they say are scientists? Need a frggin program to keep up with deniers now.
I really dig her! What a naughty girl.
She's almost all makeup. Here she is au natural. http://radaronline.com/wp-cont...
fap to that!
A scientist is someone who seeks to find the truth via the scientific process. Bill Nye is not this. He is an actor.
He's a popularizer. Just like Carl Sagan, Popularizers are despised by many in science, because they are considered "actors" and they are equally despised by people like Sarah Palin, Who are in fact, either idiots, or trying to look like one. If you've heard her speeches lately, she is virtually incoherent.
And in fact, is there a shit to be given when a person is right? As I recall, Bill is calle "The science guy"
Unless of course, you ascribe to Sarah Palin's brand of science. Whic isn't science at all, but denial of science.
This cloud is an amazing thing that allows us to add another level of work....
The "paperless society" .. Hyuk! Remember that? Added another entirely redundant level of work.
I have many containers of the paperless society. And at work, as one piece of paper was eliminated, two took it's place.
In this context, the guy is the cloud provider. His customers, if they're sensible, will have their own backups and so will be able to recover, but they also won't trust his business much if that's their recovery strategy from his incompetence.
So you back up in the cloud, then back up just like you used to before the cloud?
This cloud is an amazing thing that allows us to add another level of work.
Do you back up your local backups in the cloud, and back up your cloud backup locally? We need to get the cloud in the cloud, now that would be the ultimate.