Imagine that company A's driver code contains a function that writes to a FIFO buffer. Company B looks at it and says "Eureka! Their cards are better because they use a FIFO buffer for that." The next version of Company B's card uses a FIFO buffer.
Nice logic. Coke and Pepsi do bad things and aren't monopolies. Microsoft does bad things. Therefore, MS isn't a monopoly.
Your therefore not mine. I linked the two statements with "we don't need to get more aggressive with anti-trust". You should have inferred that anti-trust is ineffective at preventing corporate abuse, not that MSFT isn't a legal monopoly.
How you inferred that I think monopolies should be left to run unchecked I can't even fathom. It looks like your inference unit is broken.
Yes, but how many people voted for Ike because of all the "I like Ike" crap? The more money the candidate has, the more crap he can create. Unfortunately, voters are attracted to crap like peahens to plumage. Only solution is to ask people why they are voting for somebody and if the answer is "I like their commercials" then discourage them from voting.
No. MSFT isn't a monopoly. If MSFT was a monopoly, then Linux isn't an operating system and a Macintosh isn't a Personal Computer. We don't need to get more aggressive with anti-trust. Coke and Pepsi do the same crap that MSFT does, and they are not monopolies. Car companies--same thing.
What's needed is business reform. First, there need to be some rules about what kind of contracts are valid. Companies should have to publish a price schedule, and apply it uniformly without prejudice. By "without prejudice" I mean without regards as to whether or not their customer is purchasing from a competitor, whether or not they said something bad about the CEO, and possibly other condtions.
Next, corporations need to be stripped of some of their personhood status. Only individuals should be allowed to participate in politics.
Of course none of this is likely to pass because the political process is so hamstrung by corporate interests. A revolution at the hands of a bunch of pot-smoking, flag-burning, paper mache puppet marching anarchists isn't the answer either.
The only real way to bust an oppressive company is to replace their product. Alternatives to Windows are coming, and recipes for soda that tastes a lot like Coke are easily found. It just takes someone with vision and determination. Trouble is, few have it, and most see more profit in whining than actually doing something. Sad thing is, whining pays.
...that BSD is... no, no, it doesn't tell me that. It tells me that Opera must be very portable, since they wouldn't have invested too much effort on the *BSD desktop market. Really, I'm surprised that this required much effort at all since the BSDs run X and most of the major X-based desktops anyway. I mean, I can see how you'd have trouble porting from Windows to *NIX, but once you've ported to one *NIX, the rest shouldn't be that difficult unless you've shot yourself in the foot, which the Opera developers plainly haven't.
The price of Windows, the applications of Unix. Why would I want to run it? If I want an x86 *NIX, my choice is *BSD. Now, if Solaris could run Windows apps, or even if it could run MacOS X apps it'd be more than worth it.
Paying for maintenance or "subscribing" sucks too. That's why I won't downgrade to XP. They are trying to move people towards the subscription model. I'm holding out for MacOS X for x86, or a *NIX that can run Windows apps. Running Windows apps a major release back (ie, Win2k apps now, WinXP apps by 2004) would be just fine. If the price is one-time $99, I'm sold.
Does anybody have what it takes to get Windows apps running in less than 2 years? Wine couldn't do it. I wager that a large company like AOL or IBM could do it if they made the commitment. They wouldn't become "the new Microsoft" but they would be like generic drug makers--not household names, but still a good business.
That's called adding value to a commodity, and GPL software distributors are free to do it so long as they don't make those additions proprietary.
Notice how you can't just stop at...free to do it. You have to qualify your statement with regards to freedom. That's one of the flaws in your thinking. I bet you don't think that qualification is important. It is. It's everything!
GPL prevents monopolization of code, end of story
It creates a public monopoly. End of story. It has the potential to be every bit as bad as public education in the long run.
Not very, considering they could use it. In a world where the GPL is the standard, no one expects to get rich writing some code then sitting on their laurels. The code is a one-time expense, the riches to be made come in fast updates, service, support, distribution. Value adds to a basically commodity market, like fancy labels and smooth taste in a bottle of water.
If all software were commodity, this argument might matter, but we are nowhere near that point in the development of software yet. Proprietary authors don't "sit on their laurels". If they do, they go out of business because the existance of proprietary software does not interfere with the free market.
Markets where governments grant artificial monopolies (idea ownership, a.k.a. copyright and patent abuse) are not free and therefore do not benefit from this sort of competition.
Idea ownsership is *not* artificial. Intellectual property *is* a natural right. At this point, the standard pro-GPL argument is to cite Jefferson and other founding fathers. The counter argument is that these same founders supported the idea that women shouldn't vote, Negroes were only 3/5th of a person who couldn't vote, and people under 21 couldn't vote either. The concepts of "what is a right" have expanded and evolved over the years. This is not just in America. Authorities in the EU and other parts of the world agree. The shift towards regarding IP as a right is likely due to the fact that the industrial age caused a greater percentage of labor to be invested in intellectual persuits rather than physical. The idea that only physical property rights matter appears increasingly archaic. Some also argue that recognizing IP rights leads to perpetual ownership and the destruction of the Public Domain. Not true. IP can be "taxed" for the common good just like real property, and "foreclosed" just like a house that is derelict if the owners don't use their IP properly. Also, as I pointed out, IP doesn't destroy the free market. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask the fatcats at Novel who are "resting on their laurels" from Netware or countless other developers of products that were once leaders.
I wonder if the folks at Mandrake, RedHat, Suse, etc have heard your screed yet?
I didn't say the GPL destroys the market totally. To be more precise, it molds the market to favor a particular business model variously described as "software as service", "support", and "customization". Well, excuse me for wanting to be able to choose from a wide variety of shrink-wrapped apps in the $50-500 range and not wanting to pay $200/hr to a consultant to design my "custom software". Right now, both markets exist. For the life of me, I hope neither side "wins" because if they do a lot of people will get screwed.
But whether you are trying to slander him [RMS] here or not certainly is. It's tough when the facts don't support you and you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
No need to dwell on this. I think I've given you enough real substance to chew on.
The strong kill and eat the weak? As far as I know, the cannibals of New Guinea have given up that practice. Even war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic don't actually eat their victims. OK, you are probably referring to some kind of metaphorical "eating" such as the taking of posessions or repression of the people.
The middle ground seems obvious to me: Democracies or representative republics with mixed socialist/capitalist economies. Also, NOT world government since different cultures work differently. That's right. Contrary to what you might think if you knew me, I'm not a capitalist idealogue. Socialist democracy works great in Sweden. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. OTOH, don't try to export it here.
Socialism is only evil when it's forced on people who don't want it, and/or when those who are in charge of making sure it doesn't become corrupt are corrupt themselves. Take a country like China for example, which seems to have both problems. They need to hold officials more accountable and/or give the officials less power. OTOH, It is often said that in the Nordic countries socialism works well. I wager that's because most of the people there like it that way, and because most of the officials aren't corrupt.
Now, before you get the idea that I think the Swedes are "better people" than Americans because they are socialist, think again. It just so happens that socialism has a stronger resemblance to the ideal than capitalism, but that resemblance is superficial because coercion is involved. Remember, you didn't ask me what I thought was the best way to approach the ideal. You asked me for middle ground.
Who comes closest to the ideal? The closest I've seen is in communities like the Amish and in some types of communes. These are people who voluntarily choose to live a communal lifestyle. At certain times (especially during disasters) people also exhibit a community spirit that's close to the ideal. The US Southeast after a hurricane is probably as close to the ideal as most people that I know will ever see. However, even in that situation, with everybody taking what they need and giving what they have, there is the occasional looter or price-gouger. But I've never heard of cannibalism occuring.:)
First, the bottled water analogy is flawed. Water is not free. Don't believe me? Try bottling municipal water and reselling it. Of course nobody would do that because most muni water here tastes like chlorine or whatever crap is in the pipes. Around here we drink bottled because of the taste, not the marketing.
The GPL does not make for consumer-friendly software. If it did, every new computer sold for Joe Sixpack would come with Linux installed.
The GPL does nothing to address the issue of lockin. In fact, it raises barriers to entry and creates lockin. You think MSFT scares people away? How scared would business be if it knew the government was going to release stuff for free? At least MSFT has to please customers enough to sustain its business, get money, and fund its giveaway projects. All the government has to do is confiscate money from the citizens. Netscape and Opera survived the IE giveaway. What makes you think they would have fared better under a government giveaway?
The GPL raises barriers to entry because once a GPL product takes sufficient market share, those who wish to enter the market must provide comparable value before they can even begin to think about charging for their product. If the government funds GPL'd software, it is actually worse than a monopoly like MSFT.
Why defend inferior producers? Never underestimate the value of "crappier but cheaper" to consumers. Many fine programs have started out that way, plowed early profits into R&D, and ended up as best in class applications. Put a GPL product in such a market and you take out the bottom end, reducing consumer choice.
Therefore, the GPL *does* interfere with the commercialization of software. The only "subtle difference" here is the one that you are missing: The GPL does not *explicitly* interfere with software commercialization. You could say that the interference is an "unintended consequence". I don't go so far as to say it's intended. Only RMS knows the true intent, and he denies intent just like you do. But whether RMS is lying or not is irrelevant; whether they intended you to to out of business or not doesn't matter--you are broke either way.
Jesus *is* alive today, and *when* He comes back I'm sure He will make an excellent dictator. Until then, we are better off without the cheap imitations.
Jesus cast out demons too. Some people tried to follow him and because they weren't ready, they ended up being driven insane by the demons. The moral? Don't try to live under such a high ideal unless you are good and ready. See also, Peter's walk on the water. Experience has shown that at present, no society is pure enough to live according to the "everybody give and ask nothing in return" ideal.
Perhaps you've gotten the mistaken idea that Free Software advocates will actually choose a line of reasoning and stand by it. They won't. They will change their reasoning to suit the moment. The only position hardcore advocates like RMS consistently maintain is that Free Software is good and anything else is evil. The only real argument they have in favor of that position is that depriving anybody of anything is evil. Even that argument falls flat, because it's essentially the same as arguing that only pure Communism is good. In theory, that might be true but we don't live in theory. The misaplication of theory, even when well intentioned, is itself evil when those who apply it know the practical outcome will be evil. RMS knows it too. Socialism is a great leveler, but it's a lousy innovator. Introducing it into a business that has historicly flourished under capitalist incentives while depriving *nobody* of basic rights makes no sense. So what do they do? They try to say that software is a right like food or emergency healthcare. Why? Just so they can maintain their dogma; no other reason that I can see.
The point is that when the government sues itself, it begins a process that theoretical physio-economists have postulated will result in the following phases: 1. A massive increase in the consumption of money, in this case pounds. 2. Due to the increased consumption, the government expands. 3. After burning through a considerable ammount of money as determined by the famouse Shrodinger-Herzfeld equation, it begins to collapse in on itself. 4. The collapse accelerates, during which a number of curious phenomenon are predicted such as the emission of Higg-bosons, PI denominated Euros, and pfennig-marks. 5. Finally, the government collapses into a Police Box, err... Tardis, from which an infinite supply of pounds eminates which curiously enough neither overinflates the economy nor vaporizes the world into a burst of X-rays. Unfortunately, it causes everybody to lose their teeth at an early age but most of the scientists studying the matter don't see this as a great problem, and they are eager to continue their research.
You can be sure they juggled the criteria to make the US look as bad as possible, and they only shook us down to 17? Not very impressive.
Also, rankings are meaningless when absolute scores are clustered. On an absolute scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being perfect freedom, All of Western Europe and the US are probably bunched near the top with scores in the 90s, and the Middle East is probably clustered near the bottom with scores in the teens.
Well, I don't know about that, but if it's Copyrighted then these guys are in trouble yet again. OTOH, if the publishers they list, HURST AND BLACKETT, own the US English translation rights and have agreed to let that organization post it, then they are in the clear wrt copyright law. Of course, IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should a hardware company protect the driver
Imagine that company A's driver code contains a function that writes to a FIFO buffer. Company B looks at it and says "Eureka! Their cards are better because they use a FIFO buffer for that." The next version of Company B's card uses a FIFO buffer.
PARTAY!!!
Nice logic. Coke and Pepsi do bad things and aren't monopolies. Microsoft does bad things. Therefore, MS isn't a monopoly.
Your therefore not mine. I linked the two statements with "we don't need to get more aggressive with anti-trust". You should have inferred that anti-trust is ineffective at preventing corporate abuse, not that MSFT isn't a legal monopoly.
How you inferred that I think monopolies should be left to run unchecked I can't even fathom. It looks like your inference unit is broken.
Yes, but how many people voted for Ike because of all the "I like Ike" crap? The more money the candidate has, the more crap he can create. Unfortunately, voters are attracted to crap like peahens to plumage. Only solution is to ask people why they are voting for somebody and if the answer is "I like their commercials" then discourage them from voting.
No. MSFT isn't a monopoly. If MSFT was a monopoly, then Linux isn't an operating system and a Macintosh isn't a Personal Computer. We don't need to get more aggressive with anti-trust. Coke and Pepsi do the same crap that MSFT does, and they are not monopolies. Car companies--same thing.
What's needed is business reform. First, there need to be some rules about what kind of contracts are valid. Companies should have to publish a price schedule, and apply it uniformly without prejudice. By "without prejudice" I mean without regards as to whether or not their customer is purchasing from a competitor, whether or not they said something bad about the CEO, and possibly other condtions.
Next, corporations need to be stripped of some of their personhood status. Only individuals should be allowed to participate in politics.
Of course none of this is likely to pass because the political process is so hamstrung by corporate interests. A revolution at the hands of a bunch of pot-smoking, flag-burning, paper mache puppet marching anarchists isn't the answer either.
The only real way to bust an oppressive company is to replace their product. Alternatives to Windows are coming, and recipes for soda that tastes a lot like Coke are easily found. It just takes someone with vision and determination. Trouble is, few have it, and most see more profit in whining than actually doing something. Sad thing is, whining pays.
...that BSD is... no, no, it doesn't tell me that. It tells me that Opera must be very portable, since they wouldn't have invested too much effort on the *BSD desktop market. Really, I'm surprised that this required much effort at all since the BSDs run X and most of the major X-based desktops anyway. I mean, I can see how you'd have trouble porting from Windows to *NIX, but once you've ported to one *NIX, the rest shouldn't be that difficult unless you've shot yourself in the foot, which the Opera developers plainly haven't.
And what will the three of you do after you unionize?
Get thrown in prison by whatever dictator happens to be in power.
Arms dealers play both sides of the global war.
Lawyers play both sides of the legal war.
Congressmen play both sides of the political war.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure the rest of you can think of more.
Sure, but what if you try to use a hotplate?
...don't play on the interstate.
If you don't want people to see your internal company data, don't put it on the Internet.
Got it boys and girls? Yes? OK, now we can have milk, graham crackers, and naptime.
I don't even want to think about how you arrived at that conclusion.
The price of Windows, the applications of Unix. Why would I want to run it? If I want an x86 *NIX, my choice is *BSD. Now, if Solaris could run Windows apps, or even if it could run MacOS X apps it'd be more than worth it.
Paying for maintenance or "subscribing" sucks too. That's why I won't downgrade to XP. They are trying to move people towards the subscription model. I'm holding out for MacOS X for x86, or a *NIX that can run Windows apps. Running Windows apps a major release back (ie, Win2k apps now, WinXP apps by 2004) would be just fine. If the price is one-time $99, I'm sold.
Does anybody have what it takes to get Windows apps running in less than 2 years? Wine couldn't do it. I wager that a large company like AOL or IBM could do it if they made the commitment. They wouldn't become "the new Microsoft" but they would be like generic drug makers--not household names, but still a good business.
The same people who paid that much for less than 2 shares of VA Linux?
Oh wait... It's not 1999 anymore. I dunno. NOBODY???
Allen Wrench: "Help! They found me in a meteor! I need tungsten to live! TTUUUNNNGGGSSSTTEEENN!"
That's called adding value to a commodity, and GPL software distributors are free to do it so long as they don't make those additions proprietary.
Notice how you can't just stop at ...free to do it. You have to qualify your statement with regards to freedom. That's one of the flaws in your thinking. I bet you don't think that qualification is important. It is. It's everything!
GPL prevents monopolization of code, end of story
It creates a public monopoly. End of story. It has the potential to be every bit as bad as public education in the long run.
Not very, considering they could use it. In a world where the GPL is the standard, no one expects to get rich writing some code then sitting on their laurels. The code is a one-time expense, the riches to be made come in fast updates, service, support, distribution. Value adds to a basically commodity market, like fancy labels and smooth taste in a bottle of water.
If all software were commodity, this argument might matter, but we are nowhere near that point in the development of software yet. Proprietary authors don't "sit on their laurels". If they do, they go out of business because the existance of proprietary software does not interfere with the free market.
Markets where governments grant artificial monopolies (idea ownership, a.k.a. copyright and patent abuse) are not free and therefore do not benefit from this sort of competition.
Idea ownsership is *not* artificial. Intellectual property *is* a natural right. At this point, the standard pro-GPL argument is to cite Jefferson and other founding fathers. The counter argument is that these same founders supported the idea that women shouldn't vote, Negroes were only 3/5th of a person who couldn't vote, and people under 21 couldn't vote either. The concepts of "what is a right" have expanded and evolved over the years. This is not just in America. Authorities in the EU and other parts of the world agree. The shift towards regarding IP as a right is likely due to the fact that the industrial age caused a greater percentage of labor to be invested in intellectual persuits rather than physical. The idea that only physical property rights matter appears increasingly archaic. Some also argue that recognizing IP rights leads to perpetual ownership and the destruction of the Public Domain. Not true. IP can be "taxed" for the common good just like real property, and "foreclosed" just like a house that is derelict if the owners don't use their IP properly. Also, as I pointed out, IP doesn't destroy the free market. If you don't believe me, why don't you ask the fatcats at Novel who are "resting on their laurels" from Netware or countless other developers of products that were once leaders.
I wonder if the folks at Mandrake, RedHat, Suse, etc have heard your screed yet?
I didn't say the GPL destroys the market totally. To be more precise, it molds the market to favor a particular business model variously described as "software as service", "support", and "customization". Well, excuse me for wanting to be able to choose from a wide variety of shrink-wrapped apps in the $50-500 range and not wanting to pay $200/hr to a consultant to design my "custom software". Right now, both markets exist. For the life of me, I hope neither side "wins" because if they do a lot of people will get screwed.
But whether you are trying to slander him [RMS] here or not certainly is. It's tough when the facts don't support you and you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
No need to dwell on this. I think I've given you enough real substance to chew on.
The strong kill and eat the weak? As far as I know, the cannibals of New Guinea have given up that practice. Even war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic don't actually eat their victims. OK, you are probably referring to some kind of metaphorical "eating" such as the taking of posessions or repression of the people.
The middle ground seems obvious to me: Democracies or representative republics with mixed socialist/capitalist economies. Also, NOT world government since different cultures work differently. That's right. Contrary to what you might think if you knew me, I'm not a capitalist idealogue. Socialist democracy works great in Sweden. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. OTOH, don't try to export it here.
Socialism is only evil when it's forced on people who don't want it, and/or when those who are in charge of making sure it doesn't become corrupt are corrupt themselves. Take a country like China for example, which seems to have both problems. They need to hold officials more accountable and/or give the officials less power. OTOH, It is often said that in the Nordic countries socialism works well. I wager that's because most of the people there like it that way, and because most of the officials aren't corrupt.
Now, before you get the idea that I think the Swedes are "better people" than Americans because they are socialist, think again. It just so happens that socialism has a stronger resemblance to the ideal than capitalism, but that resemblance is superficial because coercion is involved. Remember, you didn't ask me what I thought was the best way to approach the ideal. You asked me for middle ground.
Who comes closest to the ideal? The closest I've seen is in communities like the Amish and in some types of communes. These are people who voluntarily choose to live a communal lifestyle. At certain times (especially during disasters) people also exhibit a community spirit that's close to the ideal. The US Southeast after a hurricane is probably as close to the ideal as most people that I know will ever see. However, even in that situation, with everybody taking what they need and giving what they have, there is the occasional looter or price-gouger. But I've never heard of cannibalism occuring. :)
The other guy is performing fallacies?
First, the bottled water analogy is flawed. Water is not free. Don't believe me? Try bottling municipal water and reselling it. Of course nobody would do that because most muni water here tastes like chlorine or whatever crap is in the pipes. Around here we drink bottled because of the taste, not the marketing.
The GPL does not make for consumer-friendly software. If it did, every new computer sold for Joe Sixpack would come with Linux installed.
The GPL does nothing to address the issue of lockin. In fact, it raises barriers to entry and creates lockin. You think MSFT scares people away? How scared would business be if it knew the government was going to release stuff for free? At least MSFT has to please customers enough to sustain its business, get money, and fund its giveaway projects. All the government has to do is confiscate money from the citizens. Netscape and Opera survived the IE giveaway. What makes you think they would have fared better under a government giveaway?
The GPL raises barriers to entry because once a GPL product takes sufficient market share, those who wish to enter the market must provide comparable value before they can even begin to think about charging for their product. If the government funds GPL'd software, it is actually worse than a monopoly like MSFT.
Why defend inferior producers? Never underestimate the value of "crappier but cheaper" to consumers. Many fine programs have started out that way, plowed early profits into R&D, and ended up as best in class applications. Put a GPL product in such a market and you take out the bottom end, reducing consumer choice.
Therefore, the GPL *does* interfere with the commercialization of software. The only "subtle difference" here is the one that you are missing: The GPL does not *explicitly* interfere with software commercialization. You could say that the interference is an "unintended consequence". I don't go so far as to say it's intended. Only RMS knows the true intent, and he denies intent just like you do. But whether RMS is lying or not is irrelevant; whether they intended you to to out of business or not doesn't matter--you are broke either way.
Not until RMS gives them all GNU CD-ROMS and informs them that Free Software is an inalienable right.
Jesus *is* alive today, and *when* He comes back I'm sure He will make an excellent dictator. Until then, we are better off without the cheap imitations.
Jesus cast out demons too. Some people tried to follow him and because they weren't ready, they ended up being driven insane by the demons. The moral? Don't try to live under such a high ideal unless you are good and ready. See also, Peter's walk on the water. Experience has shown that at present, no society is pure enough to live according to the "everybody give and ask nothing in return" ideal.
Well done. There is a nice touch of realism that you might not have noticed: Turn off the console, and you get TV snow.
Perhaps you've gotten the mistaken idea that Free Software advocates will actually choose a line of reasoning and stand by it. They won't. They will change their reasoning to suit the moment. The only position hardcore advocates like RMS consistently maintain is that Free Software is good and anything else is evil. The only real argument they have in favor of that position is that depriving anybody of anything is evil. Even that argument falls flat, because it's essentially the same as arguing that only pure Communism is good. In theory, that might be true but we don't live in theory. The misaplication of theory, even when well intentioned, is itself evil when those who apply it know the practical outcome will be evil. RMS knows it too. Socialism is a great leveler, but it's a lousy innovator. Introducing it into a business that has historicly flourished under capitalist incentives while depriving *nobody* of basic rights makes no sense. So what do they do? They try to say that software is a right like food or emergency healthcare. Why? Just so they can maintain their dogma; no other reason that I can see.
The point is that when the government sues itself, it begins a process that theoretical physio-economists have postulated will result in the following phases: 1. A massive increase in the consumption of money, in this case pounds. 2. Due to the increased consumption, the government expands. 3. After burning through a considerable ammount of money as determined by the famouse Shrodinger-Herzfeld equation, it begins to collapse in on itself. 4. The collapse accelerates, during which a number of curious phenomenon are predicted such as the emission of Higg-bosons, PI denominated Euros, and pfennig-marks. 5. Finally, the government collapses into a Police Box, err... Tardis, from which an infinite supply of pounds eminates which curiously enough neither overinflates the economy nor vaporizes the world into a burst of X-rays. Unfortunately, it causes everybody to lose their teeth at an early age but most of the scientists studying the matter don't see this as a great problem, and they are eager to continue their research.
You can be sure they juggled the criteria to make the US look as bad as possible, and they only shook us down to 17? Not very impressive.
Also, rankings are meaningless when absolute scores are clustered. On an absolute scale of 0 to 100, with 100 being perfect freedom, All of Western Europe and the US are probably bunched near the top with scores in the 90s, and the Middle East is probably clustered near the bottom with scores in the teens.
Well, I don't know about that, but if it's Copyrighted then these guys are in trouble yet again. OTOH, if the publishers they list, HURST AND BLACKETT, own the US English translation rights and have agreed to let that organization post it, then they are in the clear wrt copyright law. Of course, IANAL.
According to this guy, 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot. However, a broader Google search revealed that this figure is in much dispute.