I just read about EROS last week . . . don't know how well it works, and it's probably old news to a lot of people. But the concept seemed interesting. EROS OS
This is precisely the reason they have revisits. They take viewer input and try scenarios or ways of doing things they didn't consider -- and sometimes they are able to duplicate the result. If this episode in December is still about Archimedes, then this will be the second revisit (maybe third??) they've had for this myth.
That said, I've had times when they've tested myths and came away thinking that just because they didn't do it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Some of the myths they try to bust are based on scenarios of freak accidents, in which case there could be factors they don't know about, or it could be sheer dumb luck that a victim survived.
Regardless, it's entertaining, and there are times when I learn things, but I don't take their results as gospel.
The other problem with having Greedo shoot first is that they were, what . . . about 2-3' feet from each other? Across the table? Greedo is an experienced bounty hunter. How the hell does he miss from that distance??
Conservatives vs liberals. Liberals vs conservatives.
Pro-choice vs pro-life. Pro-life vs pro-choice.
Responsible disclosure vs full disclosure. Full disclosure vs responsible disclosure.
This is a hot-button issue where side A tries to convince side B they're wrong, and side B tries to convince side A of same.
There are benefits and drawbacks of full disclosure. There are benefits and drawbacks of responsible disclosure. There will never be a consensus.
I'm not trying to say it's not worth trying, but when doing a Google search for "full disclosure" and "responsible disclosure" on slashdot.org comes up with:
All on the first page . . . all from 2010 . . . All as threads with this debate going on . ..
Hasn't the deceased equine been flogged enough?
I believe there are times when full disclosure is better, especially when a company has shown a track record of not following through. I believe there are times when responsible disclosure is better. I don't think it's an absolute and this is not the only criteria I use when trying to decide which one applies to a scenario. But when the debate keeps going on over and over and over and over again . . . perhaps there should be a "Full Disclosure vs Responsible Disclosure" classification for Slashdot.
That's the whole point of a petition - to publicly state your support for a particular position
Sort of. What it's really stating is that you believe this is an issue that should appear on the ballot for a vote of the people. I would suspect that the majority of people who sign the petition likely do support the petition's position, but that's really not the point. It just means you agree it should be voted on.
The ballot is how you state your support (or lack thereof) for a particular position.
R2 was out with Luke at the time. They had to fix the hyperdrive and C3-PO had to talk to the computer to find out what was wrong. He needed to do it because R2 wasn't around.
Take a moment to consider life from the disabled child's point of view. Obviously, you didn't think this one through.
And you'd be wrong.
How about those children that go on to overcome their adversities? Are you going to avoid having a child because that child may have dyslexia? Cerebral palsy? Diabetes? You don't want your child to go through breast cancer? Perhaps Crohn's disease? Hemophaelia? How about those children that go on to do great things even though their genetic makeups are not what we may consider normal? Are you going to shun Helen Keller? Ever stopped to consider the difficulties through which she was able to navigate? And come out smelling like a rose?
Are all children like this? No. Some will buckle under and just not make it. Some will adapt to their situation. And some will excel beyond their limitations. Sounds like most "normal" children I know too.
We don't understand enough of the little nuances of nature to be able to say we shouldn't pass on gene N because of the pain and suffering it may cause. The passing on of these genes may be the intermediate effects of nature updating the human genome. We just don't know. And by avoiding combinations of certain genes just because we think the offspring will have a bad life may cause delays in generating our future genetic makeup.
We just don't know. We think we're smart, but really we may be too smart for our own good. And do I know any of this for sure? Absolutely not. But I feel I at least have the insight to be able to ask what the potential long-term effects are instead of just living for my generation and perhaps the next -- and know that I don't have all the answers.
If someone learns they both carry the recessive Gene for a harmful genetic disorder (*not* trivial stuff like eye color or crow's peak) then it's important to know.
In our own minds, we feel it's important to know. However, by knowing and avoiding mating with someone with a recessive gene for some condition we consider tragic, we may be preventing the completion of a gene mutation in progress that would strengthen us at some point in the future. No, not all of our offspring live as a result of these inherited diseases but it is likely some will and they may reproduce, potentially passing on a new gene that avoids this condition in the future.
We learn more from adversity. Having the perfect child doesn't teach us anything. I would posit that many of those parents who have to deal with children with disabilities learn a lot more about parenting and selflessness than those whose children are considered "normal" by society.
Yeah.. you're wrong. Telecommunications has always defined KB as 1000 bytes, as have storage manufacturers. In the 80s I had a 9600baud modem that transfered at 9.6KB/s, aka 9.6kbps. I could pull a 9.6KB file in 1.024 seconds.
And you know the reason for this, yes? It was because the units being transferred (given 8N1 - 8 data bits, no parity bit, 1 stop bit - which was very common at the time) WERE 10 bits. You had one start bit, plus 8 data bits, plus 1 stop bit. 10 bits. 7E1 was the same - you excluded a data bit and included a parity bit -- still 10 bits. Each unit being transferred (8N1 or 7E1) was 10 bits. So in this case, it made sense to be measuring it like that. But when you're speaking storage, disk space and RAM, you're referring to the amount of data that can be stored without regard to additional bits that may be needed for ECC, hard drive overhead (sector markings, CRC, etc.). 64 KB of RAM could store 2^16 bytes (octets). Ergo, it is more appropriate to measure in units of 8 bits with respect to RAM and disk space than it is to measure in units of 10 bits.
But the IRS doesn't have all the information it needs. You donate to Goodwill? The IRS doesn't know that. You donate to a local charity? The IRS doesn't know that. A church? Your medical bills (do you REALLY want the IRS knowing automagically about your medical bills?????). Tuition at college. Etc. So ultimately, the information has to go through you because you have information the IRS doesn't which will reduce your tax obligation.
Now, if you want a flat tax system based solely on your income, and forgetting any deductions (children, mortgage interest, contributions to your IRA, etc.), then all the information could go to the IRS and be processed there. But if that were the case, they could just take x% out of your check and be done with it because you would've automatically paid the right percentage every time.
You can be in whichever religious camp you want, but when it boils right down to it, the right tool for the right job.
Yes, I use Linux. I use it a lot and I much prefer it. But then again, I maintain a 1500+ node network, use home-grown Perl scripts, perform direct command-line SNMP queries (snmpget/snmpwalk from Net-SNMP), and parse that data primarily with sed/awk/grep. Once I write a script or a procedure, I know that it will move from a Linux system to some flavor of UNIX (Solaris in particular) with little-to-no modification. And yes, when I have a lot of data to examine, I'll export it to a.CSV or.TSV file and import it into Excel or OpenOffice in Windows, then use the filtering and sorting capabilities.
I could use Cygwin for the base utilities and ActivePerl on Windows . . . but why when I know that it's going to end up on a UNIX-type system? OTOH, if we were a Windows-centric shop (we're split pretty evenly, but most of the network management stuff is on UNIX), then I would set up my environment such that I was using Windows so that I could port the solutions to Windows boxes. The right tool for the right job.
We're in the process of revamping our network monitoring. One of the options for us is Cacti + Nagios. Yes, Nagios is more difficult to configure than Cacti, but really they're two different tools intended for two different purposes. Nagios excels at event notifications and monitoring when something goes down, but it isn't designed for long-term historical data collection (interface statistics, etc.). Yes, there are plugins that can do some of that, but it's not really the task for which it was designed. On the other hand, Cacti excels at tracking statistics on a device but isn't great at monitoring for up/down events.
Surely everybody on Slashdot is old enough to remember 386s? What about 286s? I even remember a 186... It scared me that where I worked recently with a lot of Gen Y's, some of them may not have ever used a single-tasking OS like MS-DOS or CPM.
I seem to recall the Tandy 1000 used the 80186 processor. This processor came in two flavors, the 80186 and the 80188, same as the 8086/8088. I believe the 80188 had the same modification as the 8088 . . . it had an 8-bit external data bus whereas the 80186 had a 16-bit external data bus.
The 486 SX was just a 486 that they could not guarantee that the coprocessor would work so it was switched off.
This was how I remember hearing it as well. In addition, the 487SX was a 486 that couldn't guarantee the main processor so the main processor was switched off. I believe i486 boards used to have a co-processor slot that could take either an 80387 or an i487SX.
People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is (and in fact, takes on much of the same character... do something we don't like and we'll sue you.) Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car. Or house. That's why I don't use GPL'd code, and why I don't use the GPL on my code. It's the same as commercial code - a legal minefield, and as such, totally not worth my time.
Forgive me, but I'm just not seeing the issue here.
The GPL boils down to the following:
If you want to use GPL software privately, as an individual, knock yourself out. Make changes, do whatever you want. Have fun.
If you want to use GPL software privately, within your organization, knock yourself out. Make changes, do whatever you want. Have fun.
If you want to distribute GPL software outside of your realm (personal or organization) in binary form, you need to distribute (or otherwise make available) the source code too in a manner that does not burden the recipient (you can't charge $500 just for the CD with the source code). Make changes, do whatever you want. But make the source code available in a reasonable manner. Credit where credit's due.
If you don't want to follow these rules, don't use pre-existing GPL code as the basis for your product. Problem solved. Or, if you want to see if the author (or authors) is/are willing to re-license it under a different license for your project, you can do that too. And yes, there are additional details regarding patents and such, but the above is the gist of the license. Those additional details are intended to ensure that any downstream recipients won't be encumbered by other legal restrictions that may prevent them from exercising the rights they receive with the source code.
For all the complaining about the restrictions placed on them by the GPL, the above seems pretty simple to me. What am I missing? I must be missing something for all the complaints I read.
Truthfully, I'm not sure if screen savers require root access to install, but it wouldn't be that difficult to change that.
Required or not, the barrier that needs to be breached is the social engineering one. If I tell people I've created a screen saver that will give the user a direct, live feed from the Hubble Telescope, and it says that administrative privilege is required to install it, those who are interested in my "screen saver" will grant those privileges and at that point the system is hacked. Doesn't matter if I have an in with NASA to get direct images from Hubble or not.
I'm curious where the fair use doctrine fits in here. Four minutes of a movie ain't much if, for example, it's a two-hour movie.
Since the intent wasn't even to film the movie, but to video the birthday celebration, I think they'd be hard-pressed to prove intent to distribute or any other principle on which one would gain from having these four minutes in a personal video.
We have a Toshiba laptop. The pattern I noticed is when my daughter is playing games on it and the headphones were plugged in from bootup, the sound came out the speakers. Unplugging and replugging the headphones changes the output to headphones only. We had a few other issues with the laptop, so I figured it was related to the laptop's hardware and didn't investigate it.
BTW, this is on Hardy Heron. I haven't tried KK on it yet.
Expecting people to automatically do the right thing without laws won't work.
Expecting laws to fix everything without expecting people to automatically do the right thing won't work either.
You can't legislate morality. You can't legislate everything; we're human beings, not automatons. You need a balance between expecting people to do right of themselves and legislation. I can see anarchy developing in either situation -- if you have no laws, you have anarchy because people don't know the basic rules of society. If you have laws to cover every single little situation, you can have anarchy as well because individuals will either not know all the rules and get arrested for every little infraction or they'll get fed up with the government trying to control their every little move and ignore the laws.
There was a situation in Multnomah County, Oregon, last year where the sheriff made questionable decisions and finally resigned. A former sheriff (in his 70's, as I recall), who had been respected when he was sheriff previously, agreed to come on a temporary basis to try to fix the issues caused by the previous sheriff. Problem: the law of the State of Oregon says a sheriff has to be a fully-certified law enforcement officer. It also says if you haven't had your law enforcement certification for 3 (?) years, you have to go through the full academy. They tried to legislate around this, putting in special exceptions that, while not specific to him, were tailored for his situation. He still had to pass the written testing, which he failed. He's resigning in November because of this. Now, if Multnomah County was allowed the latitude in this special situation to keep him to do the administrative work, they would reap the benefits of the expertise of this veteran manager at a time when they need it, with the understanding that it is temporary and they should be looking for a new sheriff. As it is, he has to leave his post because the law is not flexible enough to cover this situation. The law is getting in the way.
Justice should be tempered with mercy. And yet we passed Measure 11 mandating minimum sentences for various crimes. Parts of it have just been declared unconstitutional because they don't allow enough flexibility in extenuating circumstances. The law is getting in the way of administering justice. Oh, the irony.
You can't legislate all of society. You must allow people to be people. There will be a certain percentage of people that violate your trust. But there will also be a certain percentage of people who violate laws. Neither extreme will work on its own; you must have some trust in the nature of people and you must have some laws. And back to the original point, automatically presuming that laws are the answer is just ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Touché.
For the record I believe in evolution, questioning the bible, and tolerance for everybody, be they black, white, gay, Klingon
Wow. That is beautiful.
This would be even more beautiful:
For the record I believe in evolution, questioning the bible, and acceptance for everybody, be they black, white, gay, Klingon or even women.
I just read about EROS last week . . . don't know how well it works, and it's probably old news to a lot of people. But the concept seemed interesting. EROS OS
This is precisely the reason they have revisits. They take viewer input and try scenarios or ways of doing things they didn't consider -- and sometimes they are able to duplicate the result. If this episode in December is still about Archimedes, then this will be the second revisit (maybe third??) they've had for this myth. That said, I've had times when they've tested myths and came away thinking that just because they didn't do it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Some of the myths they try to bust are based on scenarios of freak accidents, in which case there could be factors they don't know about, or it could be sheer dumb luck that a victim survived. Regardless, it's entertaining, and there are times when I learn things, but I don't take their results as gospel.
Indeed. He feels human beings are a problem. Okay, first thing you do is stop contributing to the problem. Ergo, take care of yourself first.
The other problem with having Greedo shoot first is that they were, what . . . about 2-3' feet from each other? Across the table? Greedo is an experienced bounty hunter. How the hell does he miss from that distance??
This is a hot-button issue where side A tries to convince side B they're wrong, and side B tries to convince side A of same.
There are benefits and drawbacks of full disclosure. There are benefits and drawbacks of responsible disclosure. There will never be a consensus.
I'm not trying to say it's not worth trying, but when doing a Google search for "full disclosure" and "responsible disclosure" on slashdot.org comes up with:
All on the first page . . . all from 2010 . . . All as threads with this debate going on . . .
Hasn't the deceased equine been flogged enough?
I believe there are times when full disclosure is better, especially when a company has shown a track record of not following through. I believe there are times when responsible disclosure is better. I don't think it's an absolute and this is not the only criteria I use when trying to decide which one applies to a scenario. But when the debate keeps going on over and over and over and over again . . . perhaps there should be a "Full Disclosure vs Responsible Disclosure" classification for Slashdot.
That's the whole point of a petition - to publicly state your support for a particular position
Sort of. What it's really stating is that you believe this is an issue that should appear on the ballot for a vote of the people. I would suspect that the majority of people who sign the petition likely do support the petition's position, but that's really not the point. It just means you agree it should be voted on.
The ballot is how you state your support (or lack thereof) for a particular position.
R2 was out with Luke at the time. They had to fix the hyperdrive and C3-PO had to talk to the computer to find out what was wrong. He needed to do it because R2 wasn't around.
Take a moment to consider life from the disabled child's point of view. Obviously, you didn't think this one through.
And you'd be wrong.
How about those children that go on to overcome their adversities? Are you going to avoid having a child because that child may have dyslexia? Cerebral palsy? Diabetes? You don't want your child to go through breast cancer? Perhaps Crohn's disease? Hemophaelia? How about those children that go on to do great things even though their genetic makeups are not what we may consider normal? Are you going to shun Helen Keller? Ever stopped to consider the difficulties through which she was able to navigate? And come out smelling like a rose?
Are all children like this? No. Some will buckle under and just not make it. Some will adapt to their situation. And some will excel beyond their limitations. Sounds like most "normal" children I know too.
We don't understand enough of the little nuances of nature to be able to say we shouldn't pass on gene N because of the pain and suffering it may cause. The passing on of these genes may be the intermediate effects of nature updating the human genome. We just don't know. And by avoiding combinations of certain genes just because we think the offspring will have a bad life may cause delays in generating our future genetic makeup.
We just don't know. We think we're smart, but really we may be too smart for our own good. And do I know any of this for sure? Absolutely not. But I feel I at least have the insight to be able to ask what the potential long-term effects are instead of just living for my generation and perhaps the next -- and know that I don't have all the answers.
If someone learns they both carry the recessive Gene for a harmful genetic disorder (*not* trivial stuff like eye color or crow's peak) then it's important to know.
In our own minds, we feel it's important to know. However, by knowing and avoiding mating with someone with a recessive gene for some condition we consider tragic, we may be preventing the completion of a gene mutation in progress that would strengthen us at some point in the future. No, not all of our offspring live as a result of these inherited diseases but it is likely some will and they may reproduce, potentially passing on a new gene that avoids this condition in the future.
We learn more from adversity. Having the perfect child doesn't teach us anything. I would posit that many of those parents who have to deal with children with disabilities learn a lot more about parenting and selflessness than those whose children are considered "normal" by society.
Yeah.. you're wrong. Telecommunications has always defined KB as 1000 bytes, as have storage manufacturers. In the 80s I had a 9600baud modem that transfered at 9.6KB/s, aka 9.6kbps. I could pull a 9.6KB file in 1.024 seconds.
And you know the reason for this, yes? It was because the units being transferred (given 8N1 - 8 data bits, no parity bit, 1 stop bit - which was very common at the time) WERE 10 bits. You had one start bit, plus 8 data bits, plus 1 stop bit. 10 bits. 7E1 was the same - you excluded a data bit and included a parity bit -- still 10 bits. Each unit being transferred (8N1 or 7E1) was 10 bits. So in this case, it made sense to be measuring it like that. But when you're speaking storage, disk space and RAM, you're referring to the amount of data that can be stored without regard to additional bits that may be needed for ECC, hard drive overhead (sector markings, CRC, etc.). 64 KB of RAM could store 2^16 bytes (octets). Ergo, it is more appropriate to measure in units of 8 bits with respect to RAM and disk space than it is to measure in units of 10 bits.
But the IRS doesn't have all the information it needs. You donate to Goodwill? The IRS doesn't know that. You donate to a local charity? The IRS doesn't know that. A church? Your medical bills (do you REALLY want the IRS knowing automagically about your medical bills?????). Tuition at college. Etc. So ultimately, the information has to go through you because you have information the IRS doesn't which will reduce your tax obligation.
Now, if you want a flat tax system based solely on your income, and forgetting any deductions (children, mortgage interest, contributions to your IRA, etc.), then all the information could go to the IRS and be processed there. But if that were the case, they could just take x% out of your check and be done with it because you would've automatically paid the right percentage every time.
Mod P and GP up!
You can be in whichever religious camp you want, but when it boils right down to it, the right tool for the right job.
Yes, I use Linux. I use it a lot and I much prefer it. But then again, I maintain a 1500+ node network, use home-grown Perl scripts, perform direct command-line SNMP queries (snmpget/snmpwalk from Net-SNMP), and parse that data primarily with sed/awk/grep. Once I write a script or a procedure, I know that it will move from a Linux system to some flavor of UNIX (Solaris in particular) with little-to-no modification. And yes, when I have a lot of data to examine, I'll export it to a .CSV or .TSV file and import it into Excel or OpenOffice in Windows, then use the filtering and sorting capabilities.
I could use Cygwin for the base utilities and ActivePerl on Windows . . . but why when I know that it's going to end up on a UNIX-type system? OTOH, if we were a Windows-centric shop (we're split pretty evenly, but most of the network management stuff is on UNIX), then I would set up my environment such that I was using Windows so that I could port the solutions to Windows boxes. The right tool for the right job.
The right tool for the right job.
With two prop electric engines, lithium phosphate batteries and a top speed of almost 300 mph
Ahhh, newer, faster, and better ways to auger one's self into the ground.
That's how you know the story isn't true. Russians would have used FidoNET, and GoldED as an editor!
Hey, I was a beta tester for GoldED, you insensitive clod!
(Actually, I was . . .)
Surely everybody on Slashdot is old enough to remember 386s? What about 286s? I even remember a 186 ... It scared me that where I worked recently with a lot of Gen Y's, some of them may not have ever used a single-tasking OS like MS-DOS or CPM.
I seem to recall the Tandy 1000 used the 80186 processor. This processor came in two flavors, the 80186 and the 80188, same as the 8086/8088. I believe the 80188 had the same modification as the 8088 . . . it had an 8-bit external data bus whereas the 80186 had a 16-bit external data bus.
The 486 SX was just a 486 that they could not guarantee that the coprocessor would work so it was switched off.
This was how I remember hearing it as well. In addition, the 487SX was a 486 that couldn't guarantee the main processor so the main processor was switched off. I believe i486 boards used to have a co-processor slot that could take either an 80387 or an i487SX.
People can release code under any conditions they like, and I'm all for it. What I don't particularly like is false claims; and the claim that GPL code is "free" is one of those. It's no more free than commercial code is (and in fact, takes on much of the same character... do something we don't like and we'll sue you.) Because of the legal ramifications, it has real monetary cost as well; you think you're saving time, while your lawyer is planning on you paying for their new car. Or house. That's why I don't use GPL'd code, and why I don't use the GPL on my code. It's the same as commercial code - a legal minefield, and as such, totally not worth my time.
Forgive me, but I'm just not seeing the issue here.
The GPL boils down to the following:
If you don't want to follow these rules, don't use pre-existing GPL code as the basis for your product. Problem solved. Or, if you want to see if the author (or authors) is/are willing to re-license it under a different license for your project, you can do that too. And yes, there are additional details regarding patents and such, but the above is the gist of the license. Those additional details are intended to ensure that any downstream recipients won't be encumbered by other legal restrictions that may prevent them from exercising the rights they receive with the source code.
For all the complaining about the restrictions placed on them by the GPL, the above seems pretty simple to me. What am I missing? I must be missing something for all the complaints I read.
Truthfully, I'm not sure if screen savers require root access to install, but it wouldn't be that difficult to change that.
Required or not, the barrier that needs to be breached is the social engineering one. If I tell people I've created a screen saver that will give the user a direct, live feed from the Hubble Telescope, and it says that administrative privilege is required to install it, those who are interested in my "screen saver" will grant those privileges and at that point the system is hacked. Doesn't matter if I have an in with NASA to get direct images from Hubble or not.
I'm curious where the fair use doctrine fits in here. Four minutes of a movie ain't much if, for example, it's a two-hour movie.
Since the intent wasn't even to film the movie, but to video the birthday celebration, I think they'd be hard-pressed to prove intent to distribute or any other principle on which one would gain from having these four minutes in a personal video.
BTW, this is on Hardy Heron. I haven't tried KK on it yet.
Expecting laws to fix everything without expecting people to automatically do the right thing won't work either.
You can't legislate morality. You can't legislate everything; we're human beings, not automatons. You need a balance between expecting people to do right of themselves and legislation. I can see anarchy developing in either situation -- if you have no laws, you have anarchy because people don't know the basic rules of society. If you have laws to cover every single little situation, you can have anarchy as well because individuals will either not know all the rules and get arrested for every little infraction or they'll get fed up with the government trying to control their every little move and ignore the laws.
There was a situation in Multnomah County, Oregon, last year where the sheriff made questionable decisions and finally resigned. A former sheriff (in his 70's, as I recall), who had been respected when he was sheriff previously, agreed to come on a temporary basis to try to fix the issues caused by the previous sheriff. Problem: the law of the State of Oregon says a sheriff has to be a fully-certified law enforcement officer. It also says if you haven't had your law enforcement certification for 3 (?) years, you have to go through the full academy. They tried to legislate around this, putting in special exceptions that, while not specific to him, were tailored for his situation. He still had to pass the written testing, which he failed. He's resigning in November because of this. Now, if Multnomah County was allowed the latitude in this special situation to keep him to do the administrative work, they would reap the benefits of the expertise of this veteran manager at a time when they need it, with the understanding that it is temporary and they should be looking for a new sheriff. As it is, he has to leave his post because the law is not flexible enough to cover this situation. The law is getting in the way.
Justice should be tempered with mercy. And yet we passed Measure 11 mandating minimum sentences for various crimes. Parts of it have just been declared unconstitutional because they don't allow enough flexibility in extenuating circumstances. The law is getting in the way of administering justice. Oh, the irony.
You can't legislate all of society. You must allow people to be people. There will be a certain percentage of people that violate your trust. But there will also be a certain percentage of people who violate laws. Neither extreme will work on its own; you must have some trust in the nature of people and you must have some laws. And back to the original point, automatically presuming that laws are the answer is just ridiculous.
I'm not advocating anarchy. But to reflexively say "we need more laws" and believe that new laws are the answer to everything is a load of crap.