In some cases, goto actually makes the meaning of C code clearer. There are plenty of examples from the Linux kernel where goto is used for exactly this purpose; I posted one above.
Arguably, this is a problem with C, rather than a benefit of goto:).
Hardly pedantic or lunacy. For example, pick one of the drivers from the Linux kernel, e.g. this one. Look in particular at the "geode_aes_probe" function.
The structure looks like a pyramid. On one side is the setup phase, on the other side is the cleardown phase. If one of the setup operations fails, then the "goto" jumps to the appropriate cleardown operation and continues from there. If the top of the pyramid is reached, then return #1 (success) is used. Otherwise, return #2 (failure) is used.
This function could be written in C without using goto. But would it be as easy to read and as easy to maintain? Doubt it. As it is, it's perfectly obvious what you would need to do in order to add a new capability to the driver. Tricks to work around "goto" would only obfuscate the functionality.
Yes, the 2009 Act will be worse. I completely agree with you about that.
But I'd love to know what you think "centre-right" means in the context of New Labour. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
I still see a bunch of semi-Marxists who are obsessed with controlling everything. To me, the focus groups are just a way to learn how to present whatever it is they already decided to do in an "acceptable" and "media friendly" way. And "small minded Middle England" is still the despised scapegoat for every authoritarian law they come up with. "Sorry guys, we had to introduce detention without trial/ID cards/whatever. The Daily Mail demanded it."
This is an interesting idea. All public areas, always on CCTV, always recorded. Combine with a Street View interface and a nice search engine, perhaps hooked into the identifying information broadcast by the little GSM radio transponders that many of us carry. You could find out all sorts of interesting information about other people. They could find out all sorts of things about you.
What bothers me is that such surveillance would inevitably be disabled for sufficiently important people. You'd expect the President or Prime Minister to be surrounded be a cloak of electronic countermeasures: no CCTV, no recording. For national security. I think this would eventually be extended to anyone considered to be of any importance. And of course those are exactly the people who most need to be watched!
Firstly, this is the "Windows Vista" style of "upgrade". CCTV is no substitute for a real policeman. The presence of an actual person is reassuring to the law abiding and off-putting to the crims.
Secondly, in the 1800s, "Bill the Copper" was not an arm of the Government. Have a look at Robert Peel's original principles: "the police are the public, and the public are the police". Of course it is not like that any more. The Government has been interfering with the police, mostly making their job harder, which is why we now pay for almost-useless window-dressing substitutes such as CCTV and Community Support Officers, while the real officers sit in their stations filling out forms, occasionally reacting to crime after it has happened.
You can read all about this on various UK police blogs, which make a fascinating read. Start with http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/ ; a lot of other interesting sites are listed in his blogroll.
It's certainly true that drugs could be much cheaper if they were legalised. The black market has a hefty profit margin.
The idea that this higher price leads to more crime amongst desperate addicts is certainly the conventional wisdom, and you are in good company by thinking that.
However, one group of people who would disagree with you are the police. I think they probably have a lot of experience dealing with people who are both petty criminals and smackheads, so it's interesting that they perceive the causal relationship as being the other way around. They take a holistic view of the problem. Laziness and dishonesty are the cause. Stealing and heroin use are just symptoms. I think there is a lot of merit in this perspective, because people need to be responsible for the poor choices that they make. Especially if drugs are legalised.
Decriminalisation is no substitute for legalisation. In fact, in my view, it is actually worse than putting resources into enforcing the law, both from the perspective of society and from the perspective of drug law reform.
Instead of creating a legal industry of suppliers, decriminalisation keeps all supply in the black market. For gangsters, decriminalisation is a license to grow money, because users won't be harassed by the police. All of the problems of the black market continue to exist and get worse. This means more crime.
In turn, this means that prohibitionists* can point to "failed decriminalisation experiments" as evidence that drugs should not be legalised. I have heard Alaska, the Netherlands and Portugal used in exactly this way; if the drugs had been fully legalised, the prohibitionists might not be able to point to increases of certain social problems, objections of local people, etc. Far from being a stepping stone towards legalisation, decriminalisation is a step backwards.
Personally I think it is easier to be creative and solve problems when you're not on drugs. You're more likely to overestimate the importance and uniqueness of your own ideas when you're high.
Yes. You couldn't hope to legalise any drug without holding people responsible for whatever they do because of the drug, whether high or not. In my country, "drug addiction" is a catch-all excuse to get your sentence reduced. It helps that our prisons are chock-full and "community rehabilitation" is a nice cheap option. "Drug addiction" is something that could possibly be "cured", so if addiction is involved, "cures" may be regarded as the answer to the entire problem.
"My client is deeply ashamed that he has burgled a hundred houses during the last two months, but in his defence, he is a heroin addict. He also has his third child on the way, and he is determined to turn over a new leaf this time."
Sorry, it's a cliche, but I think I'll have to do [citation needed] on that. I think you're comparing the best case of Government management with the worst case of corporate management.
Please remember that I live in Britain. Not only am I forced to pay for one of the worst healthcare systems in the entire world, I am also exposed to constant propaganda about how great it is. You know it's the "envy of the world" according to the BBC? Given that, you'd have thought I'd be here singing it's praises, because that's all you see in our media! But I'm not, because I know different.
I know how wasteful it is. I know people who work in entirely useless NHS jobs, collecting statistics from one level of the bureaucracy to give to another, so that the Government can churn out another report about how they've cut waiting lists by 10% thanks to their latest glorious five year plan. I know others who work in useful jobs, like nursing. And I've heard their complaints about lack of facilities, badly run hospitals and red tape.
I've also worked in corporations. They downsize stuff that isn't profitable. Not making money? Affecting the bottom line? OUT.
You know what happens when the NHS downsizes? The bureaucracy doesn't downsize. Medicine is what downsizes. Hospitals close. Under New Labour's 12 year term of office, the number of hospital beds actually fell. They said the NHS was their top priority and increased spending. Where did the money go? Not patient care. Management. Public service fat cats.
If you want to get an appointment to see your local doctor in Britain, you have to call that morning, as early as possible. You can't book an appointment next week. Why? Because the Government promised to reduce waiting times for doctors appointments. They did it by forcing most patients to make an appointment on the day. If the NHS ever looks good, it's because of statistics-fiddling tricks like that, which are ultimately harmful to patient care.
Please, please, please, if you're going to argue for socialised medicine, don't use the NHS as your shining example, because it's the very worst of the worst. Use Germany or Sweden or somewhere where the whole thing actually works.
Ah, but they do have a financial incentive to act against improvements within the system. Any attempt to reform the NHS for the better will cause hassle for other public servants, and that will affect a bureaucrat's career prospects and pension plan. So NHS reforms only come from the top, where the actual problems are poorly understood and "more managers" is always the solution.
Quite seriously, the NHS is a really really terrible system. Trust me, I live here! If you want to argue for socialised healthcare, don't use the NHS as your example. Instead, use one of the systems that actually works, like Germany or Sweden.
There is a limit on overheads in a corporation. Too much overhead = negative profit. That's an incentive to reduce overheads. There is no limit on overheads in a public service, hence no incentive to reduce them.
Thanks for suggesting that my comment is deluded. I'm afraid it's a bit worse than that, though. It's entirely rational, because in fact I am totally and completely evil. I don't like socialised healthcare because I think poor people deserve to starve or die of minor illnesses so that there are more resources for people who matter, i.e. me. And I would have got away with it too, but you just had to go figure it out. Guess I'll have to ring up my old buddy George W. and ask if he can get the CIA to kill you.
No, I live in Britain, and I'm just pointing out that our system is one of the worst in the world because the Government runs it. That's just a fact and I thought it was worth pointing out. I doubt your insurance companies and HMOs would remain profitable if they behaved like the NHS.
Now, you could say "Ah! But Obamacare isn't going to be like the NHS, as he specifically said yesterday. It's healthcare insurance reform, not some giant Soviet-style healthcare behemoth that will make everything worse like it did in Britain." And then I would say "Fair enough, hope that works out for you."
Thanks for calling me a propagandised fool and everything! Have a nice day!
I wouldn't say the American system is perfect, I'm sure it isn't, but based on evidence from Britain, getting the Government involved on such a large scale is probably not going to help.
Maybe there is some other sort of reform that could be applied here?
That's certainly what socialism is supposed to be about.
However, what actually happens is a vast bureaucracy is created to solve social problems. This is wasteful of resources, because centralised systems are inefficient. Result - fewer hospitals, fewer doctors and worse medical treatment. More bureaucrats are hired to solve the above problems. The management structure is made more and more complex.
So, under socialism, we don't just help the guy with the broken leg. We help him, and then we're forced to pay for a large number of managers and administrators. Our "help" is lining the pockets of officials and public service fat cats, who consume valuable resources and produce nothing of value.
At least, that's how it worked out in Britain. It's not a problem with socialism per se, just a problem with Government-run bureaucracy. And now we Brits are not even allowed to discuss the facts, or the BBC will call us nasty names.
There's no need for advocacy. It is official policy, enshrined in law. Mandelson has everything to do with this, because he's one of the people who made it happen.
You know nothing about me you patronising cocksucker. The old chestnut of 'when you get older you will understand' is just an excuse to avoid addressing somebodies arguments on their own merit.
See, this is why I said "probably". You're very touchy about having your beliefs challenged, aren't you?
You seem to hate conspiracy theorists, "tinfoil helmets" and so on. That's something we have in common because I always prefer the simplest explanation. So what's with all this "New Labour = Thatcherite" business? Pretty weird conspiracy theory that, especially about a party run by former Marxists, but since it's such a common belief in Britain, I guess the stats prove that it must be true. Only a "mediocre mind" would disagree with the crowd.
The funny thing is that I probably used to be exactly like you. I probably would have agreed with everything you said, and posted a similar flame of someone who disagreed.
Everybody in Britain is a socialist by default, because that faith is preached by the television and the schools. It has been for decades. That is why it is so hard to convince anyone to reassess their faith. And yet, apostates do exist. I am one of them. If I can convince just one British person to start thinking about why people like Mandelson behave as they do, why the media lets them get away with it, and why the country is in such a mess, then I will have succeeded.
Interesting that you should mention a vanished newspaper article that criticised Mandelson.
A while back I tried to find a quotation from Mandelson in which he said that "we now live in the post-democratic age". It was reported in a newspaper. He said it while working as a European Commissioner.
Weirdly, the original quotation is nowhere to be found. It turns up on blogs and so on, but there's no source.
"You're a kind of Trotsky figure," said a fellow guest.
"Oh no," said Lord Mandelson. "I'm far more of a Beria."
Beria is the nasty version of Himmler, as you will find if you read about his activities as Stalin's secret police chief. What sort of man would find a comparison with mass murderers like Trotsky and Beria flattering and amusing? A former member of the Young Communist League, perhaps? But I'm sure he abandoned the Marxist ideology years ago, just like the rest of New Labour. You know, when they became "right wing" like the BBC says. <Hollow Laughter>.
My evidence would be the questions that are NOT asked on Question Time!
Politicians get an undeservedly easy ride on this and all BBC news programmes. The purpose of these programmes to give the impression of independence, giving the Ministers a hard time. This is created by disagreeing with the Government on minor issues. The hope is that the British people will believe that the BBC is on their side when something really important comes up.
Modern propagandists do not behave like Goebbels. They do not present one set of facts, they present two, but misrepresent and omit details about the second. This gives the illusion of independence while serving their agenda.
Although both Vanders and IBBoard are exactly right, security problems are very important, the real problem is the effect on individual liberty.
As citizens, we don't need the state, except to defend borders and keep the peace. But ID cards tell us that we do need the state, and that without it's blessing, we are nobody. The state is still (notionally) our servant, but now it will not help us unless we do as it says.
In a free country, the function of government is not to tell citizens what to do. It is not to control the population, to exercise power against them, to interfere in their lives. ID cards change that and this is why I do not approve of them.
Anti-ID card people, not just the "right wing" (ohnoes!) Daily Mail, always said that something like this was inevitable regardless of the effort put into securing the cards. The Government always brushed their concerns aside while expanding the list of people who would have access to the National ID Register.
If you got a Government spokesman on Question Time, and you were able to get into QT to ask an awkward question, then he would be as evasive as they have always been. Probably he'd just try to distract attention from the real issues. But the point is moot because all QT questions are vetted. The BBC wouldn't want to put the Government on the spot.
Slashdot Mirror
In some cases, goto actually makes the meaning of C code clearer. There are plenty of examples from the Linux kernel where goto is used for exactly this purpose; I posted one above.
Arguably, this is a problem with C, rather than a benefit of goto :).
Hardly pedantic or lunacy. For example, pick one of the drivers from the Linux kernel, e.g. this one. Look in particular at the "geode_aes_probe" function.
The structure looks like a pyramid. On one side is the setup phase, on the other side is the cleardown phase. If one of the setup operations fails, then the "goto" jumps to the appropriate cleardown operation and continues from there. If the top of the pyramid is reached, then return #1 (success) is used. Otherwise, return #2 (failure) is used.
This function could be written in C without using goto. But would it be as easy to read and as easy to maintain? Doubt it. As it is, it's perfectly obvious what you would need to do in order to add a new capability to the driver. Tricks to work around "goto" would only obfuscate the functionality.
Yes, the 2009 Act will be worse. I completely agree with you about that.
But I'd love to know what you think "centre-right" means in the context of New Labour. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
I still see a bunch of semi-Marxists who are obsessed with controlling everything. To me, the focus groups are just a way to learn how to present whatever it is they already decided to do in an "acceptable" and "media friendly" way. And "small minded Middle England" is still the despised scapegoat for every authoritarian law they come up with. "Sorry guys, we had to introduce detention without trial/ID cards/whatever. The Daily Mail demanded it."
This is an interesting idea. All public areas, always on CCTV, always recorded. Combine with a Street View interface and a nice search engine, perhaps hooked into the identifying information broadcast by the little GSM radio transponders that many of us carry. You could find out all sorts of interesting information about other people. They could find out all sorts of things about you.
What bothers me is that such surveillance would inevitably be disabled for sufficiently important people. You'd expect the President or Prime Minister to be surrounded be a cloak of electronic countermeasures: no CCTV, no recording. For national security. I think this would eventually be extended to anyone considered to be of any importance. And of course those are exactly the people who most need to be watched!
I disagree with this for two reasons.
Firstly, this is the "Windows Vista" style of "upgrade". CCTV is no substitute for a real policeman. The presence of an actual person is reassuring to the law abiding and off-putting to the crims.
Secondly, in the 1800s, "Bill the Copper" was not an arm of the Government. Have a look at Robert Peel's original principles: "the police are the public, and the public are the police". Of course it is not like that any more. The Government has been interfering with the police, mostly making their job harder, which is why we now pay for almost-useless window-dressing substitutes such as CCTV and Community Support Officers, while the real officers sit in their stations filling out forms, occasionally reacting to crime after it has happened.
You can read all about this on various UK police blogs, which make a fascinating read. Start with http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/ ; a lot of other interesting sites are listed in his blogroll.
It's certainly true that drugs could be much cheaper if they were legalised. The black market has a hefty profit margin.
The idea that this higher price leads to more crime amongst desperate addicts is certainly the conventional wisdom, and you are in good company by thinking that.
However, one group of people who would disagree with you are the police. I think they probably have a lot of experience dealing with people who are both petty criminals and smackheads, so it's interesting that they perceive the causal relationship as being the other way around. They take a holistic view of the problem. Laziness and dishonesty are the cause. Stealing and heroin use are just symptoms. I think there is a lot of merit in this perspective, because people need to be responsible for the poor choices that they make. Especially if drugs are legalised.
Whoosh.
Decriminalisation is no substitute for legalisation. In fact, in my view, it is actually worse than putting resources into enforcing the law, both from the perspective of society and from the perspective of drug law reform.
Instead of creating a legal industry of suppliers, decriminalisation keeps all supply in the black market. For gangsters, decriminalisation is a license to grow money, because users won't be harassed by the police. All of the problems of the black market continue to exist and get worse. This means more crime.
In turn, this means that prohibitionists* can point to "failed decriminalisation experiments" as evidence that drugs should not be legalised. I have heard Alaska, the Netherlands and Portugal used in exactly this way; if the drugs had been fully legalised, the prohibitionists might not be able to point to increases of certain social problems, objections of local people, etc. Far from being a stepping stone towards legalisation, decriminalisation is a step backwards.
* I am not one of these people.
Personally I think it is easier to be creative and solve problems when you're not on drugs. You're more likely to overestimate the importance and uniqueness of your own ideas when you're high.
Not that I would know anything about that.
Yes. You couldn't hope to legalise any drug without holding people responsible for whatever they do because of the drug, whether high or not. In my country, "drug addiction" is a catch-all excuse to get your sentence reduced. It helps that our prisons are chock-full and "community rehabilitation" is a nice cheap option. "Drug addiction" is something that could possibly be "cured", so if addiction is involved, "cures" may be regarded as the answer to the entire problem.
"My client is deeply ashamed that he has burgled a hundred houses during the last two months, but in his defence, he is a heroin addict. He also has his third child on the way, and he is determined to turn over a new leaf this time."
"Unlike last time. And the times before that."
Sorry, it's a cliche, but I think I'll have to do [citation needed] on that. I think you're comparing the best case of Government management with the worst case of corporate management.
Please remember that I live in Britain. Not only am I forced to pay for one of the worst healthcare systems in the entire world, I am also exposed to constant propaganda about how great it is. You know it's the "envy of the world" according to the BBC? Given that, you'd have thought I'd be here singing it's praises, because that's all you see in our media! But I'm not, because I know different.
I know how wasteful it is. I know people who work in entirely useless NHS jobs, collecting statistics from one level of the bureaucracy to give to another, so that the Government can churn out another report about how they've cut waiting lists by 10% thanks to their latest glorious five year plan. I know others who work in useful jobs, like nursing. And I've heard their complaints about lack of facilities, badly run hospitals and red tape.
I've also worked in corporations. They downsize stuff that isn't profitable. Not making money? Affecting the bottom line? OUT.
You know what happens when the NHS downsizes? The bureaucracy doesn't downsize. Medicine is what downsizes. Hospitals close. Under New Labour's 12 year term of office, the number of hospital beds actually fell. They said the NHS was their top priority and increased spending. Where did the money go? Not patient care. Management. Public service fat cats.
If you want to get an appointment to see your local doctor in Britain, you have to call that morning, as early as possible. You can't book an appointment next week. Why? Because the Government promised to reduce waiting times for doctors appointments. They did it by forcing most patients to make an appointment on the day. If the NHS ever looks good, it's because of statistics-fiddling tricks like that, which are ultimately harmful to patient care.
Please, please, please, if you're going to argue for socialised medicine, don't use the NHS as your shining example, because it's the very worst of the worst. Use Germany or Sweden or somewhere where the whole thing actually works.
Ah, but they do have a financial incentive to act against improvements within the system. Any attempt to reform the NHS for the better will cause hassle for other public servants, and that will affect a bureaucrat's career prospects and pension plan. So NHS reforms only come from the top, where the actual problems are poorly understood and "more managers" is always the solution.
Quite seriously, the NHS is a really really terrible system. Trust me, I live here! If you want to argue for socialised healthcare, don't use the NHS as your example. Instead, use one of the systems that actually works, like Germany or Sweden.
There is a limit on overheads in a corporation. Too much overhead = negative profit. That's an incentive to reduce overheads. There is no limit on overheads in a public service, hence no incentive to reduce them.
Thanks for suggesting that my comment is deluded. I'm afraid it's a bit worse than that, though. It's entirely rational, because in fact I am totally and completely evil. I don't like socialised healthcare because I think poor people deserve to starve or die of minor illnesses so that there are more resources for people who matter, i.e. me. And I would have got away with it too, but you just had to go figure it out. Guess I'll have to ring up my old buddy George W. and ask if he can get the CIA to kill you.
No, I live in Britain, and I'm just pointing out that our system is one of the worst in the world because the Government runs it. That's just a fact and I thought it was worth pointing out. I doubt your insurance companies and HMOs would remain profitable if they behaved like the NHS.
Now, you could say "Ah! But Obamacare isn't going to be like the NHS, as he specifically said yesterday. It's healthcare insurance reform, not some giant Soviet-style healthcare behemoth that will make everything worse like it did in Britain." And then I would say "Fair enough, hope that works out for you."
Thanks for calling me a propagandised fool and everything! Have a nice day!
I wouldn't say the American system is perfect, I'm sure it isn't, but based on evidence from Britain, getting the Government involved on such a large scale is probably not going to help.
Maybe there is some other sort of reform that could be applied here?
That's certainly what socialism is supposed to be about.
However, what actually happens is a vast bureaucracy is created to solve social problems. This is wasteful of resources, because centralised systems are inefficient. Result - fewer hospitals, fewer doctors and worse medical treatment. More bureaucrats are hired to solve the above problems. The management structure is made more and more complex.
So, under socialism, we don't just help the guy with the broken leg. We help him, and then we're forced to pay for a large number of managers and administrators. Our "help" is lining the pockets of officials and public service fat cats, who consume valuable resources and produce nothing of value.
At least, that's how it worked out in Britain. It's not a problem with socialism per se, just a problem with Government-run bureaucracy. And now we Brits are not even allowed to discuss the facts, or the BBC will call us nasty names.
It might be different in America. Let's hope so.
Google "Kronstadt rebellion".
There's no need for advocacy. It is official policy, enshrined in law. Mandelson has everything to do with this, because he's one of the people who made it happen.
You know nothing about me you patronising cocksucker. The old chestnut of 'when you get older you will understand' is just an excuse to avoid addressing somebodies arguments on their own merit.
See, this is why I said "probably". You're very touchy about having your beliefs challenged, aren't you?
You seem to hate conspiracy theorists, "tinfoil helmets" and so on. That's something we have in common because I always prefer the simplest explanation. So what's with all this "New Labour = Thatcherite" business? Pretty weird conspiracy theory that, especially about a party run by former Marxists, but since it's such a common belief in Britain, I guess the stats prove that it must be true. Only a "mediocre mind" would disagree with the crowd.
The funny thing is that I probably used to be exactly like you. I probably would have agreed with everything you said, and posted a similar flame of someone who disagreed.
Everybody in Britain is a socialist by default, because that faith is preached by the television and the schools. It has been for decades. That is why it is so hard to convince anyone to reassess their faith. And yet, apostates do exist. I am one of them. If I can convince just one British person to start thinking about why people like Mandelson behave as they do, why the media lets them get away with it, and why the country is in such a mess, then I will have succeeded.
Interesting that you should mention a vanished newspaper article that criticised Mandelson.
A while back I tried to find a quotation from Mandelson in which he said that "we now live in the post-democratic age". It was reported in a newspaper. He said it while working as a European Commissioner.
Weirdly, the original quotation is nowhere to be found. It turns up on blogs and so on, but there's no source.
I guess I must have been mistaken in ever believing that it existed. The Commissar vanishes. The lie becomes truth and the erasure is forgotten.
Himmler is close, but both I and Mandelson himself think that Stalin's henchman Lavrentiy Beria is a closer fit:
Beria is the nasty version of Himmler, as you will find if you read about his activities as Stalin's secret police chief. What sort of man would find a comparison with mass murderers like Trotsky and Beria flattering and amusing? A former member of the Young Communist League, perhaps? But I'm sure he abandoned the Marxist ideology years ago, just like the rest of New Labour. You know, when they became "right wing" like the BBC says. <Hollow Laughter>.
My evidence would be the questions that are NOT asked on Question Time!
Politicians get an undeservedly easy ride on this and all BBC news programmes. The purpose of these programmes to give the impression of independence, giving the Ministers a hard time. This is created by disagreeing with the Government on minor issues. The hope is that the British people will believe that the BBC is on their side when something really important comes up.
Modern propagandists do not behave like Goebbels. They do not present one set of facts, they present two, but misrepresent and omit details about the second. This gives the illusion of independence while serving their agenda.
Although both Vanders and IBBoard are exactly right, security problems are very important, the real problem is the effect on individual liberty.
As citizens, we don't need the state, except to defend borders and keep the peace. But ID cards tell us that we do need the state, and that without it's blessing, we are nobody. The state is still (notionally) our servant, but now it will not help us unless we do as it says.
In a free country, the function of government is not to tell citizens what to do. It is not to control the population, to exercise power against them, to interfere in their lives. ID cards change that and this is why I do not approve of them.
Anti-ID card people, not just the "right wing" (ohnoes!) Daily Mail, always said that something like this was inevitable regardless of the effort put into securing the cards. The Government always brushed their concerns aside while expanding the list of people who would have access to the National ID Register.
If you got a Government spokesman on Question Time, and you were able to get into QT to ask an awkward question, then he would be as evasive as they have always been. Probably he'd just try to distract attention from the real issues. But the point is moot because all QT questions are vetted. The BBC wouldn't want to put the Government on the spot.