This has got to be a troll, since you're cheering about Microsoft's open source contributions, but I'll bite.
First, Apple cannot possibly contribute to all the open source software projects that ship with their OS. Neither does Sun, or Red Hat, or IBM, or anyone else. It's simply not possible. Everyone takes more than they give. It's like asking a Linux user to contribute to every open source project they use. They can't. But that's part of the beauty of open source: there is a huge amount of high quality code out there with healthy developer communities that a software vendor (and end user) can put to good use without having to vet every single line of code themselves. And when all of those vendors each give back to a few of the projects they use, it feeds back into the health of the entire open source community. So, every company can't help every project, but every project can help every company (and user). That's a good thing, the way I see it.
And, Apple does give back. Particularly to GCC, FreeBSD userland, KHTML, X.org, Postfix, and others. And they always publish source for any modifications according to the appropriate license. I'm too lazy to go look up specifics for all of those, but there's a quick writeup regarding KHTML at www.kdedevelopers.org. Examples of the others shouldn't be too hard to find. But, you're not likely to see much front-page press about it. "Vendor X gives some code back to project Y" won't capture people's attention like "Vendor X stole code from project Y and is violating the license". You can scan the Slashdot headlines for proof of that.:)
I cannot personally think of any mainstream Apple software that Apple has made OSS.
Well, there is Quicktime Streaming Server. That should count for something. There's also OpenPlay, and Rendezvous. Anyway, there's a list on Apple's site, go take a look. It's not Apple's fault if none of the projects they have put out there are anything that you want to use.
but what has Apple really given of their own creation?
QSS, as just mentioned. Anyway, you can't make any money by just giving everything away. Ask Red Hat. Anyway, every vendor has to keep certain things for themselves to differentiate their product or there would be no reason to buy their specific product. That holds true for any vendor using open source code, be it Sun, IBM, SGI, Apple, or anyone else.
What about Quartz, Aqua, iTMS, iTunes, "Fairplay", Sorensen?
Quartz: I highly suspect there may be issues with IP from the display technology vendors. ATI and NVidia are stingy with their IP, which is why there are no real open source drivers for their display cards for any OS.
Aqua: Apple's UI is their main point of product differentiation, besides the custom hardware. Giving away Aqua would be like giving the hardware away.
iTunes/iTMS/Fairplay: They can't release the source to these because it would compromise the authentication/DRM scheme that allows them to sell RIAA music in the first place. But even so, who cares? DRM sucks anyway and I won't buy DRM encumbered music from anyone for any cost. And, if you want to use iTunes for library management, there's Crossover iTunes.
Sorenson: Not Apple's IP to open source. Go talk to Sorenson.
Yes. You get one hardware discount per $500 membership. But, the discount applies to one CPU and anything you can add onto the bill at the Apple store with the CPU, so you can throw a monitor, an iPod, a printer and a bunch of other stuff on at the same time, although the discounts you get for non-CPU stuff varies greatly, esp. if it's not an Apple branded product.
As with any comparison, this largely depends on exactly what you are using the database for and what feature set you require. There is some comparison of HSQL and Derby on the derby-user list. To sum up, Derby supports a number of features that HSQL does not, and HSQL has a slight advantage in speed and footprint.
2) Does anyone plan to finally get a database that rewrites its SQL into java code and then compiles it?
You're in luck. This is exactly what Derby does. The optimizer picks a query plan and then an internal compiler compiles the query plan into a java class that performs the actual execution of the query.
*sigh* I hate discussing politics and I really shouldn't be responding to this, but...
I'd rather have a president who wants to lower my taxes rather than raise them
How wonderfully short-sighted: let's sell out the future for a few bucks in my pocket right now. In the course of George W. Bush's term, we've gone from the greatest budget surplus in history to the greatest budget deficit in a mere 4 years, and we're spending billions more over budget every month we're in Iraq. Who's going to pay for this? Maybe not you, but neither is anyone else, apparently. It will end up falling on your children and/or bankrupting social security, etc. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Is your position really 'who cares as long as my own taxes are lower?' Please explain how that position leads to doing the right thing.
I'd rather have a president that is pro-life and anti-gay marriage than one who won't take a stand either way.
Abortion I won't touch except to say that I'm in favor of more rights for citizens than fewer. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, but don't take away anyone else's right to have one. Kerry doesn't hedge when saying he is pro-choice, and he has said that he doesn't support gay marriage but that civil unions for couples of the same sex are a state's rights issue. That's a pretty clear stance to me.
To expand on this for people who are missing the distinction: mp3 rates are bit rates, meaning that the audio stream is reduced to a certain number of bits per second. The sample rates for digital pro audio equipment refer to how many samples (of varying width, usually 16 or 24) are taken represent the analog audio stream.
So, one can see intuitively that a stereo 24-bit 192Khz audio file will be 24 times larger than a stereo mp3 file that is 192kpbs. The difference in clarity will be almost as striking as the size difference.;)
Real's files are digital, copyrighted, and encoded with an copy control device.
Yeah, but isn't it Apple's copy control device? Since it's Apple's copy control device, can't Apple circumvent it whenever they feel like? If not, why not? I think this is what the original poster meant by saying it was a new situation, unanticipated by the DMCA.
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Yeah, I know, this only covers patent litigation and not copyright litigation, but it's a start.
Only suddenly that counts as good and fine, because it's from Apple.
I never said that. I only said that it was legally within their rights and arguably within their responsibility to their shareholders. I would expect other companies, yes, including Microsoft, to do the same. It's an issue for the courts to sort out whether its legal reverse engineering or illegal circumvention. Like it or not, that's the way the system works, and if you don't like, maybe you should do something to fix the system.
And how the fsck is it good for the consumer?
Here's a better question: how is any DRM system good for the consumer? Why should I buy any DRM music, be it Real's or Apple's? Either way, it's still use restricted and I get screwed on the deal.
And please don't give me the "so offer the files without DRM". You know that isn't an option.
How about 'don't buy any music encumbered by DRM'? I only buy CDs (which sound better anyway), which I then convert to the format of my choosing, or download legal mp3s with no DRM. I'm voting with my wallet: I refuse to support any DRM scheme, plain and simple. Some argue this is precisely what the record labels want, but until I can download audio of near-CD quality with no DRM, I'm not interested in purchasing any music as a digital download.
And I really, really, really don't care if one company's DRM scheme won't interoperate with another company's DRM scheme. I hope they end up screwing each other over in court over it. Maybe an expensive, ongoing lawsuit will make them realize there's less financial advantage to having DRM in the first place.
If I could buy any mp3 player and run the iPod software on it, and iPod software held an effective monopoly on mp3 player operating software, then you're analogy would hold. But, the software in question is available on only one device from one vendor, and there is no competing software for the device.
And, there no restrictions that lock a user in to listening to music purchased from Apple. Any music in mp3 or AAC format can be played on the iPod. If Real wanted, they could have made their music available in a supported format and show up automatically in iTunes. Other software does this already (like LimeWire, for example). This is about another company modifying the software on the device to allow playing an unsupported format, not about screwing the consumer over. It's no surprise that the final sentence in Apple's statement is, essentially, "don't be surprised if unsupported modifications to your iPod conflict with supported updates".
Anyway, this brings up an interesting question: how come someone hasn't hacked the iPod to get, say, the Linux kernel to run on the hardware and replaced the included software with an open source version? Then it would be truly open, and you could have support for any format your heart desires, as long as it was within the hardware's limits.
Please see my response to the person above. Thanks!
(briefly: "The ability to play another online music store's DRMed files can only be good for iPod sales because it gives potential buyers s bigger incentive to purchase the product." is a speculative assumption, based on a single sample: you. The iPod's ability to play other music store's files might affect your decision to buy an iPod, but the effect of this ability on other people's decision to buy an iPod is not necessarily identical.)
I would expect any corporation in the United States would likely react similarly in a simlar situation. It's a function of the rules of the system, not of the participants in the system. Any hyprocrisy you see is purely imagined, since corporations are dedicated to protecting the interests of the shareholders, and it doesn't matter at all what I think of their behavior.
In a similar situation, Microsoft would have the same responsibility, and would likely invoke the DCMA and any other applicable laws. And they would have every right to do so under current law. How it would play out in the courts would likely be very different, however, since Microsoft has been legally declared a monopoly.
Trust me, I'm not your problem. You're focused on the people exploiting the system. Try fixing the system instead.
Until you can produce some proof that opening it up will sell iPods, your argument is speculation. For all you know, the dilemma of choice, having too many options, could make it less attractive and drive down sales. What, you say? I would argue that one of the reasons the iPod has been so successful is precisely because it is not a swiss-army knife type of gadget. It does one thing very, very well, and doesn't try (very hard) to do anything else. The experience from purchasing to listening music is simple and well-thought out. Other options diminish the value of the integration.
If Real starting licensing their scheme to others, as they've hinted that they would, you have immediate evidence of revenue Apple should be earning that is going to another company.
Also, don't forget that if someone else's software works poorly with the iPod, it tarnishes the image of seamless integration that Apple strives to maintain. There are other posts here explaining that position more thoroughly.
There is no tautology, and this is a very complicated situation indeed. If the iPod sales drop, either my original argument or yours could form the basis of a lawsuit by the shareholders. In fact, situations where executives of a company have been sued by two different groups of shareholders for not taking opposite courses of action have occurred. Usually one is dropped as having no merit, and those people all go join the other suit.:)
It doesn't really matter to me, personally, since I'm not an executive at Apple. But don't you think that if anyone should open up the iPod, it should be Apple, not Real?
Apple has a legal responsibility to its shareholders to protect the business interests of the company. The executives of the company can be held legally and financially responsible for not acting in the shareholder's interest if they do not do everything possible to protect their businesses' interests. That means using the laws on the books, like the DMCA, where necessary, to stop other companies from damaging the sales or image of Apple's products.
It's not Apple that's screwed up, it's the (legal|economic) system. If you're a US citizen, start writing your Congresspeople and helping the campaigns of those who would improve the system.
The way they sent out nasty letters to people who implemented GIF-producing algorithms, I would say it was more like a "battalion-of-tanks-at-your-front-door" patent.
There is a very good chance that anyone with mutual fund investments in growth funds that deal in mid-to-large-cap stocks will own a bit of Microsoft. Since I'm guessing there are quite a few people who are gainfully employed reading Slashdot that are probably younger, probably have a 401k, and probably are choosing longer-term investment options to grow their money, I would bet a significant percentage of (the gainfully employed) Slashdotters own a chunk of Microsoft, whether they realize it or not.
I can't give you exact figures, but I know that I indirectly own a little chunk of Microsoft and I'm guessing a lot of other people here do too.
Judging by the rate of increase in my broadband connection's speed over the last 5 years, it'll be about 5 or 6 thousand years before it catches up to these speeds.
However fucked up it may be, the DMCA is law, and Apple's has a legal right to do what it's doing.
I would like to point out that not only does Apple have a legal right to do this, but as the parent of the parent inferred but did not state explicitly, they have a legal responsibility to the shareholders to do this! The executives of the company can be held legally and financially responsible for not acting in the shareholder's interest if they do not do everything possible to protect their businesses interests.
It's not Apple that's screwed up, it's the (legal|economic) system. Start writing your Congresspeople and helping the campaigns of those who would improve the system.
Slashdot Mirror
This has got to be a troll, since you're cheering about Microsoft's open source contributions, but I'll bite.
:)
First, Apple cannot possibly contribute to all the open source software projects that ship with their OS. Neither does Sun, or Red Hat, or IBM, or anyone else. It's simply not possible. Everyone takes more than they give. It's like asking a Linux user to contribute to every open source project they use. They can't. But that's part of the beauty of open source: there is a huge amount of high quality code out there with healthy developer communities that a software vendor (and end user) can put to good use without having to vet every single line of code themselves. And when all of those vendors each give back to a few of the projects they use, it feeds back into the health of the entire open source community. So, every company can't help every project, but every project can help every company (and user). That's a good thing, the way I see it.
And, Apple does give back. Particularly to GCC, FreeBSD userland, KHTML, X.org, Postfix, and others. And they always publish source for any modifications according to the appropriate license. I'm too lazy to go look up specifics for all of those, but there's a quick writeup regarding KHTML at www.kdedevelopers.org. Examples of the others shouldn't be too hard to find. But, you're not likely to see much front-page press about it. "Vendor X gives some code back to project Y" won't capture people's attention like "Vendor X stole code from project Y and is violating the license". You can scan the Slashdot headlines for proof of that.
I cannot personally think of any mainstream Apple software that Apple has made OSS.
Well, there is Quicktime Streaming Server. That should count for something. There's also OpenPlay, and Rendezvous. Anyway, there's a list on Apple's site, go take a look. It's not Apple's fault if none of the projects they have put out there are anything that you want to use.
but what has Apple really given of their own creation?
QSS, as just mentioned. Anyway, you can't make any money by just giving everything away. Ask Red Hat. Anyway, every vendor has to keep certain things for themselves to differentiate their product or there would be no reason to buy their specific product. That holds true for any vendor using open source code, be it Sun, IBM, SGI, Apple, or anyone else.
What about Quartz, Aqua, iTMS, iTunes, "Fairplay", Sorensen?
Quartz: I highly suspect there may be issues with IP from the display technology vendors. ATI and NVidia are stingy with their IP, which is why there are no real open source drivers for their display cards for any OS.
Aqua: Apple's UI is their main point of product differentiation, besides the custom hardware. Giving away Aqua would be like giving the hardware away.
iTunes/iTMS/Fairplay: They can't release the source to these because it would compromise the authentication/DRM scheme that allows them to sell RIAA music in the first place. But even so, who cares? DRM sucks anyway and I won't buy DRM encumbered music from anyone for any cost. And, if you want to use iTunes for library management, there's Crossover iTunes.
Sorenson: Not Apple's IP to open source. Go talk to Sorenson.
Request to moderators: Mod down anyone who says "I know I'll be modded down for this."
I know I'll be modded down for this.
Interweb? Is that the same as the 'Information superhighway'?
They're very similar. One notable difference is that the Information Superhighway was invented by Al Gore.
Yes. You get one hardware discount per $500 membership. But, the discount applies to one CPU and anything you can add onto the bill at the Apple store with the CPU, so you can throw a monitor, an iPod, a printer and a bunch of other stuff on at the same time, although the discounts you get for non-CPU stuff varies greatly, esp. if it's not an Apple branded product.
1) Is this better than HSQL?
As with any comparison, this largely depends on exactly what you are using the database for and what feature set you require. There is some comparison of HSQL and Derby on the derby-user list. To sum up, Derby supports a number of features that HSQL does not, and HSQL has a slight advantage in speed and footprint.
2) Does anyone plan to finally get a database that rewrites its SQL into java code and then compiles it?
You're in luck. This is exactly what Derby does. The optimizer picks a query plan and then an internal compiler compiles the query plan into a java class that performs the actual execution of the query.
For details, see the architecture overview post on derby-dev.
*sigh* I hate discussing politics and I really shouldn't be responding to this, but...
I'd rather have a president who wants to lower my taxes rather than raise them
How wonderfully short-sighted: let's sell out the future for a few bucks in my pocket right now. In the course of George W. Bush's term, we've gone from the greatest budget surplus in history to the greatest budget deficit in a mere 4 years, and we're spending billions more over budget every month we're in Iraq. Who's going to pay for this? Maybe not you, but neither is anyone else, apparently. It will end up falling on your children and/or bankrupting social security, etc. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Is your position really 'who cares as long as my own taxes are lower?' Please explain how that position leads to doing the right thing.
I'd rather have a president that is pro-life and anti-gay marriage than one who won't take a stand either way.
Abortion I won't touch except to say that I'm in favor of more rights for citizens than fewer. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, but don't take away anyone else's right to have one. Kerry doesn't hedge when saying he is pro-choice, and he has said that he doesn't support gay marriage but that civil unions for couples of the same sex are a state's rights issue. That's a pretty clear stance to me.
Yeah, but how long does it take you to make a copy of a 22MB Photoshop file? That's what I really want to know. I bet it takes forever.
:-P
To expand on this for people who are missing the distinction: mp3 rates are bit rates, meaning that the audio stream is reduced to a certain number of bits per second. The sample rates for digital pro audio equipment refer to how many samples (of varying width, usually 16 or 24) are taken represent the analog audio stream.
;)
So, one can see intuitively that a stereo 24-bit 192Khz audio file will be 24 times larger than a stereo mp3 file that is 192kpbs. The difference in clarity will be almost as striking as the size difference.
Real's files are digital, copyrighted, and encoded with an copy control device.
Yeah, but isn't it Apple's copy control device? Since it's Apple's copy control device, can't Apple circumvent it whenever they feel like? If not, why not? I think this is what the original poster meant by saying it was a new situation, unanticipated by the DMCA.
There is sort of something like this out there. The Apache License 2.0, section 3:
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Yeah, I know, this only covers patent litigation and not copyright litigation, but it's a start.
Only suddenly that counts as good and fine, because it's from Apple.
I never said that. I only said that it was legally within their rights and arguably within their responsibility to their shareholders. I would expect other companies, yes, including Microsoft, to do the same. It's an issue for the courts to sort out whether its legal reverse engineering or illegal circumvention. Like it or not, that's the way the system works, and if you don't like, maybe you should do something to fix the system.
And how the fsck is it good for the consumer?
Here's a better question: how is any DRM system good for the consumer? Why should I buy any DRM music, be it Real's or Apple's? Either way, it's still use restricted and I get screwed on the deal.
And please don't give me the "so offer the files without DRM". You know that isn't an option.
How about 'don't buy any music encumbered by DRM'? I only buy CDs (which sound better anyway), which I then convert to the format of my choosing, or download legal mp3s with no DRM. I'm voting with my wallet: I refuse to support any DRM scheme, plain and simple. Some argue this is precisely what the record labels want, but until I can download audio of near-CD quality with no DRM, I'm not interested in purchasing any music as a digital download.
And I really, really, really don't care if one company's DRM scheme won't interoperate with another company's DRM scheme. I hope they end up screwing each other over in court over it. Maybe an expensive, ongoing lawsuit will make them realize there's less financial advantage to having DRM in the first place.
If I could buy any mp3 player and run the iPod software on it, and iPod software held an effective monopoly on mp3 player operating software, then you're analogy would hold. But, the software in question is available on only one device from one vendor, and there is no competing software for the device.
And, there no restrictions that lock a user in to listening to music purchased from Apple. Any music in mp3 or AAC format can be played on the iPod. If Real wanted, they could have made their music available in a supported format and show up automatically in iTunes. Other software does this already (like LimeWire, for example). This is about another company modifying the software on the device to allow playing an unsupported format, not about screwing the consumer over. It's no surprise that the final sentence in Apple's statement is, essentially, "don't be surprised if unsupported modifications to your iPod conflict with supported updates".
Anyway, this brings up an interesting question: how come someone hasn't hacked the iPod to get, say, the Linux kernel to run on the hardware and replaced the included software with an open source version? Then it would be truly open, and you could have support for any format your heart desires, as long as it was within the hardware's limits.
Please see my response to the person above. Thanks!
(briefly: "The ability to play another online music store's DRMed files can only be good for iPod sales because it gives potential buyers s bigger incentive to purchase the product." is a speculative assumption, based on a single sample: you. The iPod's ability to play other music store's files might affect your decision to buy an iPod, but the effect of this ability on other people's decision to buy an iPod is not necessarily identical.)
I would expect any corporation in the United States would likely react similarly in a simlar situation. It's a function of the rules of the system, not of the participants in the system. Any hyprocrisy you see is purely imagined, since corporations are dedicated to protecting the interests of the shareholders, and it doesn't matter at all what I think of their behavior.
In a similar situation, Microsoft would have the same responsibility, and would likely invoke the DCMA and any other applicable laws. And they would have every right to do so under current law. How it would play out in the courts would likely be very different, however, since Microsoft has been legally declared a monopoly.
Trust me, I'm not your problem. You're focused on the people exploiting the system. Try fixing the system instead.
Until you can produce some proof that opening it up will sell iPods, your argument is speculation. For all you know, the dilemma of choice, having too many options, could make it less attractive and drive down sales. What, you say? I would argue that one of the reasons the iPod has been so successful is precisely because it is not a swiss-army knife type of gadget. It does one thing very, very well, and doesn't try (very hard) to do anything else. The experience from purchasing to listening music is simple and well-thought out. Other options diminish the value of the integration.
:)
If Real starting licensing their scheme to others, as they've hinted that they would, you have immediate evidence of revenue Apple should be earning that is going to another company.
Also, don't forget that if someone else's software works poorly with the iPod, it tarnishes the image of seamless integration that Apple strives to maintain. There are other posts here explaining that position more thoroughly.
There is no tautology, and this is a very complicated situation indeed. If the iPod sales drop, either my original argument or yours could form the basis of a lawsuit by the shareholders. In fact, situations where executives of a company have been sued by two different groups of shareholders for not taking opposite courses of action have occurred. Usually one is dropped as having no merit, and those people all go join the other suit.
It doesn't really matter to me, personally, since I'm not an executive at Apple. But don't you think that if anyone should open up the iPod, it should be Apple, not Real?
Apple has a legal responsibility to its shareholders to protect the business interests of the company. The executives of the company can be held legally and financially responsible for not acting in the shareholder's interest if they do not do everything possible to protect their businesses' interests. That means using the laws on the books, like the DMCA, where necessary, to stop other companies from damaging the sales or image of Apple's products.
It's not Apple that's screwed up, it's the (legal|economic) system. If you're a US citizen, start writing your Congresspeople and helping the campaigns of those who would improve the system.
The way they sent out nasty letters to people who implemented GIF-producing algorithms, I would say it was more like a "battalion-of-tanks-at-your-front-door" patent.
seriously how many /.actually have MS stock.
There is a very good chance that anyone with mutual fund investments in growth funds that deal in mid-to-large-cap stocks will own a bit of Microsoft. Since I'm guessing there are quite a few people who are gainfully employed reading Slashdot that are probably younger, probably have a 401k, and probably are choosing longer-term investment options to grow their money, I would bet a significant percentage of (the gainfully employed) Slashdotters own a chunk of Microsoft, whether they realize it or not.
I can't give you exact figures, but I know that I indirectly own a little chunk of Microsoft and I'm guessing a lot of other people here do too.
Linux needs to improve to become a better desktop OS.
So does Windows.
I think the Mac OS is the only OS to become a better desktop OS by staying the same, but don't quote me on that.
Judging by the rate of increase in my broadband connection's speed over the last 5 years, it'll be about 5 or 6 thousand years before it catches up to these speeds.
Here's 14 pages of job postings for COBOL programmers.
Yes, I realize that's nothing compared to the 100+ for Java programmers, but you clearly missed his point.
However fucked up it may be, the DMCA is law, and Apple's has a legal right to do what it's doing.
I would like to point out that not only does Apple have a legal right to do this, but as the parent of the parent inferred but did not state explicitly, they have a legal responsibility to the shareholders to do this! The executives of the company can be held legally and financially responsible for not acting in the shareholder's interest if they do not do everything possible to protect their businesses interests.
It's not Apple that's screwed up, it's the (legal|economic) system. Start writing your Congresspeople and helping the campaigns of those who would improve the system.
The RIAA is now "beleaguered"? Wait, does this mean its dying, like Apple?
It's been announced, but that is all:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0400403/
Bravo!
A most excellent post. It gets right at the heart of what is "truth" and what we fool ourselves into believing is true.