when you want to buy something, don't waste your time looking on yahoo/google, or altavista, or theindex.com (god forbid). I don't understand why anyone would really spend time trying to help the poor suckers who somehow decided that the world needs YET ANOTHER search engine/portal. This isn't about barriers to entry, it's about functionality- why should users humor a new entry into a space where there's already a clear winner?
It's not just shooting up mice and Mad Cow Disease- all those biotech people are clamoring for more computing power. But now that they've sequenced the whole human genome, does our pal J. Craig at Celera really know what to do with more computing power? I'd give dollars to donuts that he'd waste it on a UT server, while people like Stephen Mayo and his research group at CalTech are drooling over power like this.
Hot biotech now isn't about sequencing the genome, it's trying to decide what to do with the sequence now that there is a blueprint to work from. Thus companies like Incyte Genomics and Sangamo Biosciences are making money selling tools to build on or manipulate the structure we already have.
A machine running code that will reliably predict the actual folded tertiary structure of the unique protein that derives from any known sequence of DNA is the holy grail of biotech today. Maybe this IBM box (or should I call it a house?) is a step in that direction.
>There is already an established section for
>books just like this one - computer culture
That jet-plane sound you must have heard immediately after posting was the point going riiiiiiight over your head.
Anybody who even pretends to give a rat's ass about computer culture already reads/. so there's no benefit to putting out another "computer culture" book that no one new will read. What we're looking for here is a Harry-Potter-cum-Chicken-Soup-4-The-Soul book that _EVERYONE_ will have to read. Pop culture meets geek angst- it will be the beginning of a Spaceballsesque New Era (tm). Just imagine-- first,/. THE BOOK! Next,/. THE MOVIE! Or maybe/. goes to Washington...
is a standup-console version of some emulated games. With the coinslots and the joysticks. Is anybody making a cabinet model that runs, say, a 486 that will let me play all those oldskool games like SpyHunter and Centipede and Altered Beast all on the same system? I could have it in my house like on Silver Spoons...
Last I heard, TM isn't building a fab facility. So this begs the question- who are they contracting with to actually make the chips?
This same story is in today's print edition of the Wall Streen Journal (the bastards charge for their online edition, so I don't know if it's there too), but the WSJ claims that Transmeta has not released the name of the manufacturer of the chips in question. Could it be a foreign company, as this Yahoo! page seems to suggest?
I haven't seen the information about the TM & Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company anywhere else. Can anyone confirm this from an independant source? Oddly, it doesn't look like TSMC has posted the TM press release on their press page at the website above. If this is true, I'd be interested in hearing of any good reasons to suppress the information - IBM/Intel threats to firebomb Linus' house, etc.
I am concerned by recent developments in copyright law. In this election year, I would be very interested to learn of your official stance on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and its enforcement. This law destroys the doctrine of fair use as it applies to software and technology products, and steals valuable personal rights from the consumers who vote for you.
Please remember that while corporations may provide the largest individual donations to your fundraising efforts, corporations and industry conglomerates do not have a single vote. As a concerned citizen and constituent in the high-tech sector, and as a registered voter, I hope that you will do your duty to represent the interests of the people who elected you.
There is currently a proposal by the Progressive Policy Institute, of Washington, D.C., to modify the DMCA to include new, draconian language that would destroy any remnants of privacy and anonymity in the online world. Please refer to the website
http://www.dlcppi.org/press/release/napster1.htm
for the PPI press release, which includes the points of the proposal. Of greatest concern from a constitutional standpoint is the proposal to
"Require internet service providers that wish to qualify for safe harbor to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users.[...]"
This initiative is reprehensible, and as such is perfectly in keeping with the overall tone of the DMCA, which invades personal property rights in favor of undue protections for large corporations. For a published US Supreme Court decision regarding this very issue, please consider the decision in _Talley_v._California_(1960)_, which addresses the distribution of anonymous publications. The court found then, and reiterated as recently as 5 years ago, in _McIntyre_v._Ohio_(1995)_, that anonymity is often an essential ingredient for the propagation of democratic ideas that are unpopular to the powers that be. I quote an excerpt from the _Talley_ decision:
"... n7 Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes."
You may read the entire _Talley_v._California_(1960)_ online at http://www.epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_californi a.html and the entire _McIntyre_v._Ohio_(1995)_ online at http://www.epic.org/free_speech/mcintyre.html
Please examine this matter closely, and take action to prevent the extension of a law that already reaches too far.
But seriously, for the last 2 weeks Jon has been railing against all the young angry white nerds who need some kind of benificent guidance to appreciate what they have. Then someone comes out (presumably one of these hot-headed geeks, taking time out from a flame-war) and asks Jon to be that organizing force, and Mr. Katz can do is blather about Orwell.
For pete's sake man, put your money where your mouth is. Unplug for a minute and take a stand for what you believe to be right, in the *gasp* real world. THAT's what the online community really respects, and the only way you'll get 3/4ths of the people in this country to even know you exist. Otherwise, you are as guilty as anyone else is of treating the real world as an abstraction, something you don't have to worry about as long as the modem (or ISDN, or DSL- have you subscribed to that corporate incubus yet?) is working.
Mr. Case has realized that it is necessary for any real business that has plans for long term success to be anchored in brick and mortar, because that's what this world is made of- not bytes and photons. It sounds like maybe you're a little jealous you didn't think of it first.
They didn't write the code on the DNA, they can't patent it.
Nobody #WROTE# the DNA code. it's just there, like the ocean and the stars. The argument about Kansas school board vs. rational minds everywhere is not the issue- don't try to drag us into that. Extant patents on genes have been granted to cover cDNA clones, which are not the same thing at all as the DNA in your precious cells, which may or may not be the work of "Someone Else."
Before I get into the case tho, I want to drop some knowledge on what the process actually involves, and what the patent physically covers. IMHO most people making a stink about the immorality of patenting human genes wouldn't know DNA if it bit them on the ear. The patents issued so far are not the same, base for base, as the DNA in your cells and mine. Some poor molecular biologist (who is most likely white or asian, female, and under 40) spends her days playing with chemistry sets and manipulating E.Coli bacteria, hoping to find the right clone.
Some basic genetics: the DNA in your cells is wound into chromosomes, big lumpy superhelices of antiparallel molecules. If you start at one end and read thru to the other end, some of the DNA codes for proteins and some is not-quite-random junk. Think of the alphabet written from left to right on the page: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYANDZ. All the letters which can be written entirely with straight lines represent garbage...that leaves us with BCDGJOPQRSU. Now, if B was a gene, and C was a gene, and D, we wouldn't have a problem. Unfortunately, the situation is that BCDGJ is a gene, and OP is a gene, and QRSU is a gene... this makes copying the sequence from a real cell to an artificial construct difficult because to get from...ABCDEFGHIJ... to BCDGJ, somehow you have to get rid of ABDEFHI, and then stick the remaining 3 pieces back together in the correct order. Usually, it's all or nothing, meaning that if you just get BCDG or if you leave F in and have BCDFG, the protein doesn't work. The whole alphabet is your natural DNA, which nobody _wants_ to patent because everybody's got some already. The garbage is garbage. The BCDGJ chunk is called a cDNA. Getting from the whole gmish to the cDNA is the hard part. The technique is pretty much the same no matter who's applying it. And it can and does take years from start to finish.
What Jenny lab rat ends up with is a piece of circular DNA that bears only a faint resemblence to the material she started with. This DNA lives inside a bacteria, and would be immediately destroyed by evolutionary defense mechanisms if it was inserted into your body.
This physical piece of cDNA is what is being patented.
The issue is that the bioscience industry is slow, unlike the computer industry. It might take years worth of work, start to finish, to clone a single meaningful gene and make sure you have the right thing at the end. And that's once you know what you're looking for and where to start.
Building a functional cDNA represents years of work, with no return on investment. And it's useless as a profit-making instrument, unless it can be sold. But since it is packaged in a bacteria, anyone who purchases the cDNA can effictively begin producing and selling identical copies immediatley with a minimal investment-all you would really need is some sugar water and a bucket. Licensing is the only way to prevent this kind of misappropriation. The patenting of cDNA's is to protect Jenny's invested time and her company's invested spending for wages and materials.
Human genes will not be patented in situ, not because it's not ethical (when has that ever stopped anyone?) but because it's not particularly useful. cDNA's are patented because they're hard to build, they have the potential to be very useful, and they're easy to copy.
There's more than one BI. The one I know is on CalTech's campus in Pasadena, CA. Our mascot is the mighty Beaver, as heard in our favorite cheer- "Beaver Fever! Snatch it up!"
I'm pretty sure the fighting Illini were an afterthought for Arnold and Mabel;?>
As my grandma still says, that's ka-ka. I bet Pinker could play hell with those syllables.
we have every evidence to believe that the military IT sector is incompetant, or at the very least careless. Sure, the NSA hires as many engineers as they can get their hooks into, but consider the trial of Wen Ho Lee from Livermore Labs.
He allegedly conned his co-workers into logging him into systems above his security clearance, and is charged with using his augmented access to abscond with directions for building THE BOMB. if he is deliberately being made into a pawn in some kind of obscene international game, the SFbay area papers are doing a pretty good job because he looks guilty as hell.
Can you convincingly argue that some manager in the US military power structure or in research WANTED to give the PRC the blueprints to build a fusion weapon as a budget gambit? I mean, there are some crazy people out there, but most of them I know are bearish on increasing the nuclear stockpile.
Short of secret alliances to build gravity lasers with space aliens, this is pretty much the most embarrassing thing that could happen to the US nuclear weapons program, short of blowing up Chicago by accident. But it got out anyway! Team that up with the recent hi-profile NASA failures, and I think that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the US government is as careless/incompetant as ever (pick your adjective).
bottom line, if HAL was out there, somebody would have slipped up or intentionally spilled the beans.
Re:Media monopoly time ...
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
-- There are literally dozens of radio staions in virtually every US market.
I heard Sunday on KALX in Berkeley CA that 95% of commercial radio stations are owned by 5 companies. Of those 5, I wonder how many are owned by TimeWarner?
Of course, this is taken with a grain of salt, coming as it does from the People's Republic of Berkeley.
Re:Katz is onto something...
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 1
You better get a patent on that idea, before it becomes IP of TW/AOL because it traveled thru architecture they own...
The principle is topological, like a moebius strip. A Klein bottle is a construct that has its "inside" joined to its "outside," courtesy of a hole in its surface. The upshot of this is if you made one out of a thin sheet of rubber, one could mark any point on the "outside" and then continuously deform the surface until that same point was on the "inside." If you make the thing out of glass, _of_course_ it's going to take up space in 3D. The joke is that there is no topological way to distinguish the inside from the outside, so there must not be an "inside" to contain volume. By this definition of volume, a coffee cup doesn't have a volume until you put a cover on it.
I don't know about gattica, but I do know a little about the research. Look at http://www.sangamo.com
They're building "light switches" for genes, and the going price is 50K a pop. US dollars only please.
Do you read _Science_? there's been a blurb every issue for the past 2 months about the future of gene therapy in the US, because some unfortunate MD's killed a kid while trying to cure him. The whole clinical trials regulatory system is in for an overhaul.
Waiting for the HGP to finish isn't holding up scientists/entrepreneurs. People will make money off this any way that they can, as long as they can convince VC's of the potential for profits. But the money driving this research isn't coming from you or me, it's coming from the Phizers and AstraZenecas and Upjohns. Since the end motivation for these companies is shareholder value and _NOT_ improving general public health, the ethics of current gene therapy efforts are dubious at best.
I think that pharmaceutical companies of today will be the Big Tobacco of tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
that on Dune, they also had 400-meter-long worms that ruled the desert. Maybe those are under the ice caps too...
just becaue you read it somewhere doesn't mean it really happened.
shop at goto.
I looked for "AMD K6-2 500"
my first try... after about 20 seconds...
when you want to buy something, don't waste your time looking on yahoo/google, or altavista, or theindex.com (god forbid). I don't understand why anyone would really spend time trying to help the poor suckers who somehow decided that the world needs YET ANOTHER search engine/portal. This isn't about barriers to entry, it's about functionality- why should users humor a new entry into a space where there's already a clear winner?
It's not just shooting up mice and Mad Cow Disease- all those biotech people are clamoring for more computing power. But now that they've sequenced the whole human genome, does our pal J. Craig at Celera really know what to do with more computing power? I'd give dollars to donuts that he'd waste it on a UT server, while people like Stephen Mayo and his research group at CalTech are drooling over power like this.
Hot biotech now isn't about sequencing the genome, it's trying to decide what to do with the sequence now that there is a blueprint to work from. Thus companies like Incyte Genomics and Sangamo Biosciences are making money selling tools to build on or manipulate the structure we already have.
A machine running code that will reliably predict the actual folded tertiary structure of the unique protein that derives from any known sequence of DNA is the holy grail of biotech today. Maybe this IBM box (or should I call it a house?) is a step in that direction.
>There is already an established section for >books just like this one - computer culture
/. so there's no benefit to putting out another "computer culture" book that no one new will read. What we're looking for here is a Harry-Potter-cum-Chicken-Soup-4-The-Soul book that _EVERYONE_ will have to read. Pop culture meets geek angst- it will be the beginning of a Spaceballsesque New Era (tm). Just imagine-- first, /. THE BOOK! Next, /. THE MOVIE! Or maybe /. goes to Washington...
That jet-plane sound you must have heard immediately after posting was the point going riiiiiiight over your head.
Anybody who even pretends to give a rat's ass about computer culture already reads
not a troll, honest.
is a standup-console version of some emulated games. With the coinslots and the joysticks. Is anybody making a cabinet model that runs, say, a 486 that will let me play all those oldskool games like SpyHunter and Centipede and Altered Beast all on the same system? I could have it in my house like on Silver Spoons...
Last I heard, TM isn't building a fab facility. So this begs the question- who are they contracting with to actually make the chips?
This same story is in today's print edition of the Wall Streen Journal (the bastards charge for their online edition, so I don't know if it's there too), but the WSJ claims that Transmeta has not released the name of the manufacturer of the chips in question. Could it be a foreign company, as this Yahoo! page seems to suggest?
I haven't seen the information about the TM & Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company anywhere else. Can anyone confirm this from an independant source? Oddly, it doesn't look like TSMC has posted the TM press release on their press page at the website above. If this is true, I'd be interested in hearing of any good reasons to suppress the information - IBM/Intel threats to firebomb Linus' house, etc.
Cut. Paste. Insert your name. Print. Sign. Mail. I know it's a couple of steps, but life is tough sometimes.
i a.html
[Your Congressperson] [xxxx] Rayburn HOB Washington, D.C. 20515
Your Honor,
I am concerned by recent developments in copyright law. In this election year, I would be very interested to learn of your official stance on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and its enforcement. This law destroys the doctrine of fair use as it applies to software and technology products, and steals valuable personal rights from the consumers who vote for you.
Please remember that while corporations may provide the largest individual donations to your fundraising efforts, corporations and industry conglomerates do not have a single vote. As a concerned citizen and constituent in the high-tech sector, and as a registered voter, I hope that you will do your duty to represent the interests of the people who elected you.
There is currently a proposal by the Progressive Policy Institute, of Washington, D.C., to modify the DMCA to include new, draconian language that would destroy any remnants of privacy and anonymity in the online world. Please refer to the website
http://www.dlcppi.org/press/release/napster1.htm
for the PPI press release, which includes the points of the proposal. Of greatest concern from a constitutional standpoint is the proposal to
"Require internet service providers that wish to qualify for safe harbor to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users.[...]"
This initiative is reprehensible, and as such is perfectly in keeping with the overall tone of the DMCA, which invades personal property rights in favor of undue protections for large corporations. For a published US Supreme Court decision regarding this very issue, please consider the decision in _Talley_v._California_(1960)_, which addresses the distribution of anonymous publications. The court found then, and reiterated as recently as 5 years ago, in _McIntyre_v._Ohio_(1995)_, that anonymity is often an essential ingredient for the propagation of democratic ideas that are unpopular to the powers that be. I quote an excerpt from the _Talley_ decision:
"... n7 Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes."
You may read the entire _Talley_v._California_(1960)_ online at
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_californ
and the entire _McIntyre_v._Ohio_(1995)_ online at
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/mcintyre.html
Please examine this matter closely, and take action to prevent the extension of a law that already reaches too far.
Sincerely,
[Your Name +Address Here]
Whoever it was that suggested Jon should lead us all must have been appealing to the /. sense of irony.
It becomes increasingly apparent that Mr. Katz is interested only in formulating ever-longer rants against the corporate beast, rather than taking any kind of positive action in the real world. This is still a world where everything significant must be done on paper- I've been applying for a license to resell products in the state of california, and it's like registering my car all over again. You have to get the paperwork, you have to fill the paperwork out _BY_HAND_ in pen, because there is no format for editing the PDF file they considerately you with, and then you have to go to the office and stand in line to make sure they get the damn thing. If Steve Case can bring any kind of efficiency processes like this, I'm all for him running the world.
Steve Case for President!
But seriously, for the last 2 weeks Jon has been railing against all the young angry white nerds who need some kind of benificent guidance to appreciate what they have. Then someone comes out (presumably one of these hot-headed geeks, taking time out from a flame-war) and asks Jon to be that organizing force, and Mr. Katz can do is blather about Orwell.
For pete's sake man, put your money where your mouth is. Unplug for a minute and take a stand for what you believe to be right, in the *gasp* real world. THAT's what the online community really respects, and the only way you'll get 3/4ths of the people in this country to even know you exist. Otherwise, you are as guilty as anyone else is of treating the real world as an abstraction, something you don't have to worry about as long as the modem (or ISDN, or DSL- have you subscribed to that corporate incubus yet?) is working.
Mr. Case has realized that it is necessary for any real business that has plans for long term success to be anchored in brick and mortar, because that's what this world is made of- not bytes and photons. It sounds like maybe you're a little jealous you didn't think of it first.
They didn't write the code on the DNA, they can't patent it.
...ABCDEFGHIJ... to BCDGJ, somehow you have to get rid of ABDEFHI, and then stick the remaining 3 pieces back together in the correct order. Usually, it's all or nothing, meaning that if you just get BCDG or if you leave F in and have BCDFG, the protein doesn't work. The whole alphabet is your natural DNA, which nobody _wants_ to patent because everybody's got some already. The garbage is garbage. The BCDGJ chunk is called a cDNA. Getting from the whole gmish to the cDNA is the hard part. The technique is pretty much the same no matter who's applying it. And it can and does take years from start to finish.
Nobody #WROTE# the DNA code. it's just there, like the ocean and the stars. The argument about Kansas school board vs. rational minds everywhere is not the issue- don't try to drag us into that. Extant patents on genes have been granted to cover cDNA clones, which are not the same thing at all as the DNA in your precious cells, which may or may not be the work of "Someone Else."
Before I get into the case tho, I want to drop some knowledge on what the process actually involves, and what the patent physically covers. IMHO most people making a stink about the immorality of patenting human genes wouldn't know DNA if it bit them on the ear. The patents issued so far are not the same, base for base, as the DNA in your cells and mine. Some poor molecular biologist (who is most likely white or asian, female, and under 40) spends her days playing with chemistry sets and manipulating E.Coli bacteria, hoping to find the right clone.
Some basic genetics: the DNA in your cells is wound into chromosomes, big lumpy superhelices of antiparallel molecules. If you start at one end and read thru to the other end, some of the DNA codes for proteins and some is not-quite-random junk. Think of the alphabet written from left to right on the page: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYANDZ. All the letters which can be written entirely with straight lines represent garbage...that leaves us with BCDGJOPQRSU. Now, if B was a gene, and C was a gene, and D, we wouldn't have a problem. Unfortunately, the situation is that BCDGJ is a gene, and OP is a gene, and QRSU is a gene... this makes copying the sequence from a real cell to an artificial construct difficult because to get from
What Jenny lab rat ends up with is a piece of circular DNA that bears only a faint resemblence to the material she started with. This DNA lives inside a bacteria, and would be immediately destroyed by evolutionary defense mechanisms if it was inserted into your body.
This physical piece of cDNA is what is being patented.
The issue is that the bioscience industry is slow, unlike the computer industry. It might take years worth of work, start to finish, to clone a single meaningful gene and make sure you have the right thing at the end. And that's once you know what you're looking for and where to start.
Building a functional cDNA represents years of work, with no return on investment. And it's useless as a profit-making instrument, unless it can be sold. But since it is packaged in a bacteria, anyone who purchases the cDNA can effictively begin producing and selling identical copies immediatley with a minimal investment-all you would really need is some sugar water and a bucket. Licensing is the only way to prevent this kind of misappropriation. The patenting of cDNA's is to protect Jenny's invested time and her company's invested spending for wages and materials.
Human genes will not be patented in situ, not because it's not ethical (when has that ever stopped anyone?) but because it's not particularly useful. cDNA's are patented because they're hard to build, they have the potential to be very useful, and they're easy to copy.
There's more than one BI. The one I know is on CalTech's campus in Pasadena, CA. Our mascot is the mighty Beaver, as heard in our favorite cheer- "Beaver Fever! Snatch it up!"
;?>
I'm pretty sure the fighting Illini were an afterthought for Arnold and Mabel
As my grandma still says, that's ka-ka. I bet Pinker could play hell with those syllables.
we have every evidence to believe that the military IT sector is incompetant, or at the very least careless. Sure, the NSA hires as many engineers as they can get their hooks into, but consider the trial of Wen Ho Lee from Livermore Labs.
He allegedly conned his co-workers into logging him into systems above his security clearance, and is charged with using his augmented access to abscond with directions for building THE BOMB. if he is deliberately being made into a pawn in some kind of obscene international game, the SFbay area papers are doing a pretty good job because he looks guilty as hell.
Can you convincingly argue that some manager in the US military power structure or in research WANTED to give the PRC the blueprints to build a fusion weapon as a budget gambit? I mean, there are some crazy people out there, but most of them I know are bearish on increasing the nuclear stockpile.
Short of secret alliances to build gravity lasers with space aliens, this is pretty much the most embarrassing thing that could happen to the US nuclear weapons program, short of blowing up Chicago by accident. But it got out anyway! Team that up with the recent hi-profile NASA failures, and I think that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the US government is as careless/incompetant as ever (pick your adjective).
bottom line, if HAL was out there, somebody would have slipped up or intentionally spilled the beans.
-- There are literally dozens of radio staions in virtually every US market.
I heard Sunday on KALX in Berkeley CA that 95% of commercial radio stations are owned by 5 companies. Of those 5, I wonder how many are owned by TimeWarner?
Of course, this is taken with a grain of salt, coming as it does from the People's Republic of Berkeley.
You better get a patent on that idea, before it becomes IP of TW/AOL because it traveled thru architecture they own...
The principle is topological, like a moebius strip. A Klein bottle is a construct that has its "inside" joined to its "outside," courtesy of a hole in its surface. The upshot of this is if you made one out of a thin sheet of rubber, one could mark any point on the "outside" and then continuously deform the surface until that same point was on the "inside." If you make the thing out of glass, _of_course_ it's going to take up space in 3D. The joke is that there is no topological way to distinguish the inside from the outside, so there must not be an "inside" to contain volume. By this definition of volume, a coffee cup doesn't have a volume until you put a cover on it.
I don't know about gattica, but I do know a little about the research. Look at
http://www.sangamo.com
They're building "light switches" for genes, and the going price is 50K a pop. US dollars only please.
Do you read _Science_? there's been a blurb every issue for the past 2 months about the future of gene therapy in the US, because some unfortunate MD's killed a kid while trying to cure him. The whole clinical trials regulatory system is in for an overhaul.
Waiting for the HGP to finish isn't holding up scientists/entrepreneurs. People will make money off this any way that they can, as long as they can convince VC's of the potential for profits. But the money driving this research isn't coming from you or me, it's coming from the Phizers and AstraZenecas and Upjohns. Since the end motivation for these companies is shareholder value and _NOT_ improving general public health, the ethics of current gene therapy efforts are dubious at best.
I think that pharmaceutical companies of today will be the Big Tobacco of tomorrow.
I laugh, because I'm crying inside.