Gödel's Incompleteness Thm (AFAIK) says that a system P, which might be complete, can't have its completeness proven in its own system.
How the hell do I type Godel correctly? I'm stupid, and unable to figure it out.
Anyways, I can't find the book I am looking for, but Godel's theorem is basically says that given any formalized system of logic, one can generate a self-referrential statement that is neither true nor false.
Thats not actually the theorem, but it is, I think the best explanation of it for the laymen.
An example, in English, is:
"This statement is false".
Is this a true statement, or a false statement?
One can easily generate a symbolic example as well. I would do it myself, but here's a site that's done it better:)
This is insane. How do we know that its just a keylogger? How do we know that its not a virus? How do we know that the government is only using it on people it has obtained a warrant for? How do we know that the government does not install it first, and then gets the warrant if necessary?
National security can go to hell. Worst case scenario (and this is unlikely)---the FBI looses its ability to log keys, and has to go back to doing real detective work. Big Deal. The U.S. will go on, and we will know that our rights are not being infringed.
If the FBI thinks that said documents really contain information pertaining to the case, subpeona the password.
I think if the government has the probably cause(is that the standard? whatever it is) necessary to get a warrant, the person targeted should know about it, and be able to challenge it, in the interets of privacy.
You have a right to know if you have been charged, so why don't you have a right to know if you privacy has been violated? Similarly, don't you have a right to not incriminate yourself? If the fifth amendment prevents the government from using a subpeona to get a password, than it is at least idealogical consistant that is should protect you from unknowingly giving the government your password.
And if it doesn't, and they say no, its a crime in and of itself, and the government than has every right to put the wiretap on whatever computers said person uses. This still provides a reasonable chance to catch the crook, or stop his illegal behavior, and still protects privacy rights. Yeah, this may reduce the probablity of catching them, but hey, it is better for 1000 guilty men to go free, than for 1 innocent man to be punished.
And, of course, I need to say this.
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
Don't worry, that's not directed at you, but this discussion is one that is incredibly difficult to get into.
While idealogically, I am fully in support of the capitalistic ideals (why you might ask? because my somewhat bizarre philosophical ideals (which are almost, but not quite, radically individualistic) jive with what capitalism could allow), I think the capitalist experiment that exists is a failure. However, I am not quite ready to lay the blame at capitalism, the idealogical framework.
Don't get me wrong, in fact, I am rather sure that 97% of slashdotters reading this have already stopped, and are about to inudate me e-mail box with hate mail:). I am not saying capitalism is flawless. But I am not ready to evalute questions of blame involving economic frameworks, because I think the blame lies elsewhere.
Perhaps, the problems that exist in today's society are not dervived from the capitalistic system, but rather from more general sociological factors that affect decision-making on an individual level. . . . Capitalism sucks, since person A is willing to totally screw group B, even though all the other members of group B cooperate for the good of the whole.
You say you have no faith in ANY system that doesn't work. Well, I say I have no faith in ANY system at all.
You may be a human being, you may live for your fellow man, you may be a wonderful person. But there are people around you who aren't. There are many, in fact, who are able to totally write-off all the other human beings in the world, for another $1000. As long as this remains the case, and system which invests any sort of administration capacity in human beings runs the risk of subversion, be it in a small way, or a large way.
Here's three postualtes for you:
1. At any given time, any system which invests any sort of administrative authority in a human being runs a non-zero risk of said human being corrupting the system for personal gain at the cost of the whole. This is true for a monarchy, for a republic, for a corporation, even for Plato's republic. Obviously, proper selection techniques can reduce the risk of this, but the risk is always non-zero, and I would argue that the risk is a siginifcant one at any give point in history.
2.Corruption is created more easily than it is eliminated, as subtle structural changes often go unnoticed, and are generally 'doctored' to give lip service to the public welfare. This is made worse because of perspective. It is easier for one in a position of power to come up with minor structural changes to a body of law than it is for the generally apathetic public at large to conduct an audit of law.
3.As such, any sort of economic framework is doomed to an ever increasing degree of corruption.
This logic paints a pretty dark picture regarding government, and the picture grows even darker as one realizes that in most cases, the original framework of said government was not ideal, as is often quite horrible. Ever read Metamorphisis? Starts bad, gets worse....
Here's where I que in the anarchists. Unforunately, even they can't respond to some of these problems. Anarcho-capitlists don't realize that a corporate framework can easily supplant a govermental framework. If you don't believe thats the case, you are an idiot. Say right now the United States Government dissolved itself. Furthermore, say no other nation on the planet interefed with anyone living on North American soil (Don't mean to slight Canadian and Mexicans, but it makes my explanation easier). You are absolutely, positively, dead wrong if you don't believe that some multi-billion dollar company could not pick some relatively low population state, like.....Colorado, equip a corporate security force, and setup a feudal state.
Anarcho-communists say this couldn't happen in their system. Well, they are right. But you can't even provide some sort of utopian dream scenario in which we didn't need some sort of monetary system. Why do I say that is a part of your utopia? Because it is. Equitable distribution of goods and wealth (which is what money is for) wouldn't be necessary in the Anarcho-communist utopia, since anyone who is able to should automatically (or should I say, automagically) provide whatever any other person needs. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Sad situation, isn't it? I guess, then, I need to provide some sort of advocacy (of my own, that is). Let me preface this: If you have a better idea of what I should support, tell me. This is just my conclusion on the avaliable data. The current system provides the best possible opportunity for improvement within any inviduals life. You are completely right in saying that much is wasted, and that many are abused, and, indeed, that the current system is very, very evil. None the less, of all the possible socio-economic systems I can think of, our form of capitalism is the one that allows me the greatest strength in redefining my surroundings. While my life will probably be a utter failure, and while it is damn near impossible to do this, I am driven by the ideal that if I can make a ton of money, I can improve the world that much more. (If only I was Bill Gates).
The changes that you, and I, and every other human being who deserves the title will never happen by altering the political system. The best we can possibly hope for is maximizing our ability to change the world (even if the possibility of our dreams coming to fruition is next to nothing).
Don't get me started on technology. While I am not willing to defend capitalism (though I am willing to live with it as the best possible tool avaliable) I will defend technology to my death. You are right, perhaps we shouldn't try to genetically engineer beings until we are absolutely sure we won't ruin thousands of lives. But you are dead wrong if you think we should stop research that could improve thousands of lives. Like stem cell research--The possibilities for regenerating nerves alone make me giddy--and you can kindly go fuck yourself if you are going to tell me that Jane Doe has to deal with her paralysis since research is dealing with devil. Technology doesn't do bad things---people do bad things. As long as we can hope to improve a person's life, we should shoot for that possibility. You're right, no system of knowledge (well, I classify my statement to be more Godellian), no formalized system of logic is ever complete->But that's life. Development of any system of thought(read that as living/experiencing) is the same form of techonological evolution. Indeed, one can even study some areas of the 'technology' of thought in linguistics and communication. Not that they are the same thing, but I think one can draw the parallels. Don't condemn any form of technology because it isn't the final development, or because it can be used negatively. One can think genocidal thoughts, but that doesn't mean we should strike whatever brain area controls anger (I know, I know, there is no particular area that does that specifically, but there are certain brain states that relate to anger). Technological development is the only way to reduce the scarcity of resources, and the only way to improve the benchmark lines for standards of living.(other than massive depopulation, but if you believe in rapid, massive depopulation, you are advocating outright murder).
You're right--->There are lots of bad things in the world. But we can't go back in time(not to Jeffersonian Agraian society, nor to the animalist heaven of the cave man), so we must press forth, and at this moment in time (unless some radical movement really manages to step up and truely overthrow the establishment), capitalism+technology is our only hope for escape.
And you are right, it is a very slim hope indeed. But I'm somewhat optimastic, generally because people like me (and I'll hesitate a guess) and you (who are displeased with the world as it is) are pretty stuborn.
Hmmm....sorry about the length of this, but I have had too many cups of coffee;-). Please reply.
I share your feelings of disappointment with the system, but:
I don't think that you necessarily have to give up on the opportunity to make any sort of income to respond to that.
Think performances. It seems to me that a totally legitmate way to deal with this is actually encourage people to distribute your music freely (online, on cd, on tape, on whatever), and then work various jobs to make ends meet.
In fact, I think as long as one operates like this, people who appreciate your music have no problem paying a bit of cash to see a show of some form.
Make the Music itself free(or GPL it(can one GPL music?)). Ask people to support (in a non-exorbantant fashion) you live.
This seems like an entirely fair system, which brings listeners closer to the artist.
I have been using Star Office for awhile, after I dumped Office 2000.
I'm sorry to say, I actually like it. I have even encouraged people to install it.
Yes, it may not have all of Office 2000's functionality, but it is close, and there are several benefits.
1. It's free(as in beer, but not as in speech (read on, however).
2. It's cross-platform. There are linux binaries (and solaris, I believe) on sun's website. This may just be the office suite of choice for linux (at least beginning linux users) users, as it does not require much to get it working.
3. 6.0 looks really sweet.
Plus, come one, people. It has 98% the functionality of office 2000. That is good enough for at least 75% of people out there, because most people don't use the bloated features avaliable in office. Yes, you have to do things slightly differently. But generally, whatever you wanted to do in office, can be done in staroffice.
While my third point is kind of irrelevant (it makes me hopeful, though), I think the first two are serious advantages that IBM/Lotus/Corel don't have. Sure, you could get Corel's Java Wordperfect, but it kind of sucked, and it didn't have all the features of star office, and the full version cost money.
Finally, StarOffice is forming the core of OpenOffice, which has (IMHO) the potential to become fantastic. In fact, the first full featured beta is avaliable, I may just switch.
As it is, however, even if StarOffice falls off the face of the earth, methink the project is a success. There are a substantial number of users (maybe not compared to Office 2000, but a fair number nevertheless), it's free as in beer, it forms the core of an office suite that is free as in speech, and is cross-platform.
Think about it. This is fair use. Yes, the Gator people are using it rather mischeviously. But you did (either knowingly or unknowingly) install Gator. It was in a click through, somewhere or other. But do we want it to be illegal to modify content once it has been downloaded. Gator does not go around an hack IIS/Apache to provide modifiyed pages. Rather, it modifies pages that the end user has already recieved. Much like Smart Tages. Much like Junk Buster.
Sure, get rid of these things, on your own system. But I want my right to use these things.
Everyone seems to posit this as some conflict 'over the internet'. That is simply not the case. Its a conflict over the software you have upon your computer. You download Netzero, you have to use their stupid banner thing. You download Gator?* All your ads are belong to them. You download JunkBuster? All your ads are belong to you. Simply enough, I think.
*I Realize that not everyone installs Gator knowingly. So it goes with ad-ware. Blame the companies who package their software with Gator. Don't decry software that modifies end-user content illegal/unethical.
Next thing you know, we (The U.S.) are going to be launching cruise missiles at him.
I can just see an FBI spokseman now:
"He threatened to to remember the information, and besides, we already got approval from a panel of judge. He's not on U.S. soil, we can do whatever the hell we want with him."
Wow---maybe we can get microsoft to start bashing it.
But seriously, what exactly is the justification for these up-to-date copyright laws? Are all these countries really just the subject of mad lobbying by the RIAA and the MPAA, because I really don't know who else could possible support these idiotic laws.
And isn't it also funny that the bastion of freedom (USofA) in some ways now has more restrictive personal rights than Russia?
Market economics mean that the value of this companies' technology is not the devlopment costs. Rather, it's the ability to be usefully to end users.
Poor encryption is not useful, and therefore, these companies should loose value.
If Ford make a shoddy car, is it ok for people to tell others, even though it might hurt their stock price?
If XYZ, Inc., invented electronic paper that lost all it's data after one month, but had just started shipping it, shouldn't investors know about their scam?
I don't know---if Microsoft went open source tomorrow, voluntairy split their business in two, and unbundled media player, wma, microsoft IM, et al, I think some slashdotters would still bash microsoft [grin].
As much as I am more patrotic (for the U.S., that is) then most Slashdot readers, I hope Russia does start a war (well, maybe not a war, but complains loadly.
Slashdot Mirror
But, it isn't as hard to understand the relationship between knowledge and Godel's Incompletness Theorem.
If you are still having problems doing this, read Stanislaw Lem's Imaginary Magnitude. Focus on Golem [Some roman numeral I can't remember].
How the hell do I type Godel correctly? I'm stupid, and unable to figure it out.
Anyways, I can't find the book I am looking for, but Godel's theorem is basically says that given any formalized system of logic, one can generate a self-referrential statement that is neither true nor false.
Thats not actually the theorem, but it is, I think the best explanation of it for the laymen.
An example, in English, is:
"This statement is false".
Is this a true statement, or a false statement?
One can easily generate a symbolic example as well. I would do it myself, but here's a site that's done it better
Here's the Puzzle
National security can go to hell. Worst case scenario (and this is unlikely)---the FBI looses its ability to log keys, and has to go back to doing real detective work. Big Deal. The U.S. will go on, and we will know that our rights are not being infringed.
If the FBI thinks that said documents really contain information pertaining to the case, subpeona the password.
I think if the government has the probably cause(is that the standard? whatever it is) necessary to get a warrant, the person targeted should know about it, and be able to challenge it, in the interets of privacy.
You have a right to know if you have been charged, so why don't you have a right to know if you privacy has been violated? Similarly, don't you have a right to not incriminate yourself? If the fifth amendment prevents the government from using a subpeona to get a password, than it is at least idealogical consistant that is should protect you from unknowingly giving the government your password.
And if it doesn't, and they say no, its a crime in and of itself, and the government than has every right to put the wiretap on whatever computers said person uses. This still provides a reasonable chance to catch the crook, or stop his illegal behavior, and still protects privacy rights. Yeah, this may reduce the probablity of catching them, but hey, it is better for 1000 guilty men to go free, than for 1 innocent man to be punished.
And, of course, I need to say this.
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
Don't worry, that's not directed at you, but this discussion is one that is incredibly difficult to get into.
While idealogically, I am fully in support of the capitalistic ideals (why you might ask? because my somewhat bizarre philosophical ideals (which are almost, but not quite, radically individualistic) jive with what capitalism could allow), I think the capitalist experiment that exists is a failure. However, I am not quite ready to lay the blame at capitalism, the idealogical framework.
Don't get me wrong, in fact, I am rather sure that 97% of slashdotters reading this have already stopped, and are about to inudate me e-mail box with hate mail
Perhaps, the problems that exist in today's society are not dervived from the capitalistic system, but rather from more general sociological factors that affect decision-making on an individual level. . . . Capitalism sucks, since person A is willing to totally screw group B, even though all the other members of group B cooperate for the good of the whole.
You say you have no faith in ANY system that doesn't work. Well, I say I have no faith in ANY system at all.
You may be a human being, you may live for your fellow man, you may be a wonderful person. But there are people around you who aren't. There are many, in fact, who are able to totally write-off all the other human beings in the world, for another $1000. As long as this remains the case, and system which invests any sort of administration capacity in human beings runs the risk of subversion, be it in a small way, or a large way.
Here's three postualtes for you:
1. At any given time, any system which invests any sort of administrative authority in a human being runs a non-zero risk of said human being corrupting the system for personal gain at the cost of the whole. This is true for a monarchy, for a republic, for a corporation, even for Plato's republic. Obviously, proper selection techniques can reduce the risk of this, but the risk is always non-zero, and I would argue that the risk is a siginifcant one at any give point in history.
2.Corruption is created more easily than it is eliminated, as subtle structural changes often go unnoticed, and are generally 'doctored' to give lip service to the public welfare. This is made worse because of perspective. It is easier for one in a position of power to come up with minor structural changes to a body of law than it is for the generally apathetic public at large to conduct an audit of law.
3.As such, any sort of economic framework is doomed to an ever increasing degree of corruption.
This logic paints a pretty dark picture regarding government, and the picture grows even darker as one realizes that in most cases, the original framework of said government was not ideal, as is often quite horrible. Ever read Metamorphisis? Starts bad, gets worse....
Here's where I que in the anarchists. Unforunately, even they can't respond to some of these problems. Anarcho-capitlists don't realize that a corporate framework can easily supplant a govermental framework. If you don't believe thats the case, you are an idiot. Say right now the United States Government dissolved itself. Furthermore, say no other nation on the planet interefed with anyone living on North American soil (Don't mean to slight Canadian and Mexicans, but it makes my explanation easier). You are absolutely, positively, dead wrong if you don't believe that some multi-billion dollar company could not pick some relatively low population state, like.....Colorado, equip a corporate security force, and setup a feudal state.
Anarcho-communists say this couldn't happen in their system. Well, they are right. But you can't even provide some sort of utopian dream scenario in which we didn't need some sort of monetary system. Why do I say that is a part of your utopia? Because it is. Equitable distribution of goods and wealth (which is what money is for) wouldn't be necessary in the Anarcho-communist utopia, since anyone who is able to should automatically (or should I say, automagically) provide whatever any other person needs. From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Sad situation, isn't it? I guess, then, I need to provide some sort of advocacy (of my own, that is). Let me preface this: If you have a better idea of what I should support, tell me. This is just my conclusion on the avaliable data. The current system provides the best possible opportunity for improvement within any inviduals life. You are completely right in saying that much is wasted, and that many are abused, and, indeed, that the current system is very, very evil. None the less, of all the possible socio-economic systems I can think of, our form of capitalism is the one that allows me the greatest strength in redefining my surroundings. While my life will probably be a utter failure, and while it is damn near impossible to do this, I am driven by the ideal that if I can make a ton of money, I can improve the world that much more. (If only I was Bill Gates).
The changes that you, and I, and every other human being who deserves the title will never happen by altering the political system. The best we can possibly hope for is maximizing our ability to change the world (even if the possibility of our dreams coming to fruition is next to nothing).
Don't get me started on technology. While I am not willing to defend capitalism (though I am willing to live with it as the best possible tool avaliable) I will defend technology to my death. You are right, perhaps we shouldn't try to genetically engineer beings until we are absolutely sure we won't ruin thousands of lives. But you are dead wrong if you think we should stop research that could improve thousands of lives. Like stem cell research--The possibilities for regenerating nerves alone make me giddy--and you can kindly go fuck yourself if you are going to tell me that Jane Doe has to deal with her paralysis since research is dealing with devil. Technology doesn't do bad things---people do bad things. As long as we can hope to improve a person's life, we should shoot for that possibility. You're right, no system of knowledge (well, I classify my statement to be more Godellian), no formalized system of logic is ever complete->But that's life. Development of any system of thought(read that as living/experiencing) is the same form of techonological evolution. Indeed, one can even study some areas of the 'technology' of thought in linguistics and communication. Not that they are the same thing, but I think one can draw the parallels. Don't condemn any form of technology because it isn't the final development, or because it can be used negatively. One can think genocidal thoughts, but that doesn't mean we should strike whatever brain area controls anger (I know, I know, there is no particular area that does that specifically, but there are certain brain states that relate to anger). Technological development is the only way to reduce the scarcity of resources, and the only way to improve the benchmark lines for standards of living.(other than massive depopulation, but if you believe in rapid, massive depopulation, you are advocating outright murder).
You're right--->There are lots of bad things in the world. But we can't go back in time(not to Jeffersonian Agraian society, nor to the animalist heaven of the cave man), so we must press forth, and at this moment in time (unless some radical movement really manages to step up and truely overthrow the establishment), capitalism+technology is our only hope for escape.
And you are right, it is a very slim hope indeed. But I'm somewhat optimastic, generally because people like me (and I'll hesitate a guess) and you (who are displeased with the world as it is) are pretty stuborn.
Hmmm....sorry about the length of this, but I have had too many cups of coffee
P.S. Of course, perhaps I am the greatest fool.
I don't think that you necessarily have to give up on the opportunity to make any sort of income to respond to that.
Think performances. It seems to me that a totally legitmate way to deal with this is actually encourage people to distribute your music freely (online, on cd, on tape, on whatever), and then work various jobs to make ends meet.
In fact, I think as long as one operates like this, people who appreciate your music have no problem paying a bit of cash to see a show of some form.
Make the Music itself free(or GPL it(can one GPL music?)). Ask people to support (in a non-exorbantant fashion) you live.
This seems like an entirely fair system, which brings listeners closer to the artist.
I'm sorry to say, I actually like it. I have even encouraged people to install it.
Yes, it may not have all of Office 2000's functionality, but it is close, and there are several benefits.
1. It's free(as in beer, but not as in speech (read on, however).
2. It's cross-platform. There are linux binaries (and solaris, I believe) on sun's website. This may just be the office suite of choice for linux (at least beginning linux users) users, as it does not require much to get it working.
3. 6.0 looks really sweet.
Plus, come one, people. It has 98% the functionality of office 2000. That is good enough for at least 75% of people out there, because most people don't use the bloated features avaliable in office. Yes, you have to do things slightly differently. But generally, whatever you wanted to do in office, can be done in staroffice.
While my third point is kind of irrelevant (it makes me hopeful, though), I think the first two are serious advantages that IBM/Lotus/Corel don't have. Sure, you could get Corel's Java Wordperfect, but it kind of sucked, and it didn't have all the features of star office, and the full version cost money.
Finally, StarOffice is forming the core of OpenOffice, which has (IMHO) the potential to become fantastic. In fact, the first full featured beta is avaliable, I may just switch.
As it is, however, even if StarOffice falls off the face of the earth, methink the project is a success. There are a substantial number of users (maybe not compared to Office 2000, but a fair number nevertheless), it's free as in beer, it forms the core of an office suite that is free as in speech, and is cross-platform.
Unlike everyone else on slashdot, I dig @home.
I dig @home.
I really truely hope that @home != ATT @home.
You install Junkbuster, it creates derivative works of all the websites you download.
You install Gator, it does the same thing.
Think about it. This is fair use. Yes, the Gator people are using it rather mischeviously. But you did (either knowingly or unknowingly) install Gator. It was in a click through, somewhere or other. But do we want it to be illegal to modify content once it has been downloaded. Gator does not go around an hack IIS/Apache to provide modifiyed pages. Rather, it modifies pages that the end user has already recieved. Much like Smart Tages. Much like Junk Buster.
Sure, get rid of these things, on your own system. But I want my right to use these things.
Everyone seems to posit this as some conflict 'over the internet'. That is simply not the case. Its a conflict over the software you have upon your computer. You download Netzero, you have to use their stupid banner thing. You download Gator?* All your ads are belong to them. You download JunkBuster? All your ads are belong to you. Simply enough, I think.
*I Realize that not everyone installs Gator knowingly. So it goes with ad-ware. Blame the companies who package their software with Gator. Don't decry software that modifies end-user content illegal/unethical.
Not. Slashdot used to be that way. Now they need the income from the banner ads, as does the OSDN.
I still love Slashdot, but banner ads are necessary. After all, bandwith/servers/full-time employes cost money.
They might be able to sue for libel. I don't know...but it seems likely.
I can just see an FBI spokseman now:
"He threatened to to remember the information, and besides, we already got approval from a panel of judge. He's not on U.S. soil, we can do whatever the hell we want with him."
You know what I love even better about slashdot? People who post bitter responses to others who express any sort of positive, non-sarcastic thought.
Its a high latency design anyways.
But seriously, what exactly is the justification for these up-to-date copyright laws? Are all these countries really just the subject of mad lobbying by the RIAA and the MPAA, because I really don't know who else could possible support these idiotic laws.
And isn't it also funny that the bastion of freedom (USofA) in some ways now has more restrictive personal rights than Russia?
The ironies of History.
If possible you should have your corner of the internet go on strike. Just as viable a means of protest.
Now only if I had a critical link in the backbone going through my home. . .
This is funny?WTF?
I mean, even if we can crack it, it doesn't really matter
What used to be simple, now is frustrating---
Doesn't matter anyways, soon some court desicsion going to eliminate fair use.
Market economics mean that the value of this companies' technology is not the devlopment costs. Rather, it's the ability to be usefully to end users.
Poor encryption is not useful, and therefore, these companies should loose value.
If Ford make a shoddy car, is it ok for people to tell others, even though it might hurt their stock price?
If XYZ, Inc., invented electronic paper that lost all it's data after one month, but had just started shipping it, shouldn't investors know about their scam?
I think so.
As much as I am more patrotic (for the U.S., that is) then most Slashdot readers, I hope Russia does start a war (well, maybe not a war, but complains loadly.
$0 Cost of Production.......$Something Sales Revenue=Profit
Actually, this would probably be the most profitable venture ever---Converting something free to something sellable is the capitalist dream.
The problem here, on the other hand, is the inital cost of Research, Development and Deployment.
Duh
But I think we should at least recognize what the hell is going on there.
Not saying that it's enough, but shed a tear for them.
This would be really cool :)