And it would be even cooler if you kept a live counter on the same page of the amount of money that board members, the Canopy Group, and SCO insiders have made by selling off SCO stock since this corporate kamakaze mission began...
but it's not that much of a big deal to provide the necessary driver to the installer
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but all I know is that if I have to locate and download a separate network card driver and somehow figure out some kind arcane interface for "supplying" it just to get the hardware to run, that is in fact a big deal. In fact, it's unacceptable.
I basically judge distributions based on how much bullshit they make me do and how much of the bullshit they do for me. If I have to even think about what "drivers" I need, I consider the distribution to have failed me. I had one experience with Debian and it was excellent, but a big part of that was that installation meant downloading a single floppy disk image and booting off of it, and after that one floppy disk ran and downloaded all the parts it needed, everything worked.
I can't speak for anytone else. But if upon running the installer I had been presented with "please supply propeitary network driver" (which would have been difficult to fulfill, because at the time linux lacked support for HFS+, and it would not have been able to read from my hard drive), I would have gone "oh hell no" and tried something else, as that would have caused me to assume that there was going to be a lot of bullshit once I got things running and it would be best to bail out while I had the chance.
If Junior Achievement recieved sigificant feedback from "concerned parents" who do not approve of an supposedly neutral and exists-for-the-benefit-of-minors organization like Junior Achievement being used as a hired hand for the PR firms of corporate interests and would as a result in the future not consider Junior Achievement to be an organization they would want them or their children affiliated with... do you think that might cause them to rethink things perhaps?
I mean, this is of course just hypothetical, since after all, how many slashbots actually have kids:P
There is no correlation between pricing and piracy, and I challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary.
Silly statement. Go look on any warez site, anywhere. What are you going to find? Adobe photoshop. Adobe photoshop. Maya, some video editing packages, Adobe photoshop...
Does this say high prices cause piracy? Of course not, not directly anyway (an alternate explanation is that higher priced software packages are more likely to be pirated not because they are higher priced, but becuase they are better software). But it's certainly a correlation.
While your system is intruiging in theory, I think more study is needed before it can be truly adopted as an analytical tool. After all, if what you say is true, then the thing to do right now would be run out and buy stock in Infinium...
How exactly do you expect WMP's competitors to make a quality product, when WMP's existence on the market neatly prevents them from being able to charge money for their product?
Remember, "we'll pour lots of money into making a product that will dominate this market, and not expect any of it back!" is something that in most markets only MS can do; this is, in fact, one of the biggest complaints of those who claim MS's monopoly unfair.
It is real easy to see that Apple is doing most of the stuff that MS is doing, with the only difference being that Apple has an extremely small market share.
The other difference is that Microsoft is a monopolist, and has been convicted of this in a court of law in the U.S. This is a sufficient difference, because the law applies differently to monopolies than it does to other companies. That's how antitrust laws work.
This is an excellent point, since MP3 and JPEG have been absolute failures as formats and Free software cannot interoperate with them. Do we want to repeat that?
The original WASTE was released under the GPL without permission by someone without the authority to license it
No. The original WASTE was released under the GPL by someone whose permission to license it is in dispute. I have yet to see any even remotely conclusive argument about this either way, and it looks like the kind of question that really only a court has the authority to answer.
What I've always said is that "viral" is a misleading way to describe the GPL because it doesn't behave like a virus.
It's more like a prion, like Mad Cow Disease.
In order to catch a prion, you have to actually injest it. You eat a cow whose proteins have the prion, and now your proteins contain the prion, but you can only give it to someone else if they eat you. Similar to the GPL, which only applies if you link the things you created into already-GPLed code; your code becomes GPL iff it incorporates something GPL. On the other hand you can catch a virus just by being near someone, or interacting with them, which isn't how the GPL works.
So it's a P2P version of "Hotline". That's neat! It really is.
However, what I would like to see done with this project is someone tack some kind of version control system onto it. Once you do that, this could be the perfect "floating development board" system for projects such as PlayFair which cannot find shelter elsewhere due to legal problems and/or harassment.
Then all you have to do is move the transport layer from being straight P2P to the data being stored on FreeNet, and you've got a way to have totally public yet totally anonymous development of an "illegal" software application...
No, Sun has (in my paranoid opinion) agreed to kill Java and probably StarOffice as well.
What on earth are you basing this on? Sun settles a lawsuit and signs a patent crosslicensing agreement, and all of a sudden we have people hypothesizing Sun agreed under-the-table to drop their only interesting or promising products in exchange for a measly two billion? Why not just go all out and suggest that Microsoft had Scott McNealy quietly killed six months ago and replaced with an actor hired to impersonate him while running the company into the ground, and Sun will soon be sending out squads of mercenaries to kill Linux users on sight?
A monopoly or cartel that comes together under natural market forces is still under market constraints in Austrian theory because of the ability for new entrants to enter the field and the ability of consumers to make good substitutions and use reductions (if only on the margins).
Huh. (And I assume by "special priviliges and immunities" you specifically mean ones that have been instituted by the government.) But doesn't it recognize that there can very well be naturally occuring barriers to entry in some markets that are so high no one will be able to surmount them?
MS constantly pushed this "any kid in a garage can take us down by just making a better product!" line during the antitrust trials.
Except this wasn't true, because:
You cannot effortlessly switch to a different operating system. A large number of factors prevent you from doing so. For example, installing a new operating system involves hard drive partitioning, a long and lengthy install of something that could potentially be gigabytes in size, and transferring your data over. This is a difficult task. Moreover, you are locked in to your current OS by the programs you use: will those programs be available on your new OS? Will you be able to find replacements? Will you be able to seamlessly use your data in said replacements if they exist? The amount of consumer inertia in the OS market is simply enormous.
Microsoft in myriad ways exerts its monopoly power to prevent anyone with a better product from being able to successfully compete. For example, its contracts with all of the major PC OEMs that blocked them from adopting BeOS to any extent.
Meanwhile, this argument is true with Google because of the market it's in. If you don't believe me, try to remember exactly how quickly we all forgot about AltaVista when google appeared. Switching away from google is effortless. You just type "www.hypothetical.com" instead of "www.google.com" next time; perhaps you'll have to install the hypothetical.com toolbar if you're using the google.com toolbar now. Even the proverbial "your grandmother" could do this. Google's inertia consists of nothing but mindshare. Moreover, Google lacks the ability and will to do things like abuse contracts in order to keep its competitors locked out of distribution channels such as OEMs.
And does the russian space program have $3.5 billion? Last I checked they weren't even able to pay for the space missions they're doing already, and their contributions to the ISS were finished with NASA's money.
I mean, it isn't like I've been paying *that* much attention, but still, they don't seem to be doing great over there.
If any pressure on your iPod Mini results in crackling and static, you should return your iPod immediately to an Apple store for a free replacement.
Were it not for this, I'd imagine things might be a lot less forgiving. Were you around when the ipodsdirtysecret "the ipod battery fails after one to three years and apple is antagonistic and pricey about replacing it" thing broke? That was not nearly so neutral.
Is how these people spout as if free market economic theory were the solution to all problems, yet appear to not understand a number of very basic things about it. For example, the simple fact that even according to the theory, free market economic theory ceases to function in the presence of a monopoly or cartel.
The RIAA is a classical textbook case of a cartel. The rules the music industry is operating by are no longer located in the chapter in the microeconomics textbook labelled "free market capitalism".
Everyone keeps talking about Sun "working with" Microsoft. I just don't see where this is happening. I don't see "settling a lawsuit" and "partnering" as being the same thing at all.
If you're talking about the cryptic "IP cross-licensing agreement", then why aren't you spitting the same venom at Apple? Because they signed such an agreement with Microsoft as well when they settled their lawsuits against Microsoft in 1997. I don't see this cross-licensing as "working with". This is just an "okay, no more lawsuits" agreement. Sun hasn't given up on fighting MS, they've just given up on fighting them in the courtroom.
Who audits the open source software that they use? I certainly don't. I rarely even bother to look at the source. So in this respect, it doesn't matter (to me) if the software is closed source or open source since the code isn't looked at even if you (I) had the chance to.
Let's say you're in a major city. Let's say there's a small, narrow street. And let's say you walk down this street twice; once in the middle of the day, when the street is well-lit and crowded. And the second time in the middle of the night, when it is empty, abandoned and dark.
In which of these situations do you feel more safe?
I would probably guess the second. Why? In both the first and the second case, you have no way of knowing if there is someone who has a weapon and wishes you harm. But in the first case, this possibility is not something that worries you.
Open source is kind of like the well-lit, crowded street, and auditing is kind of like being able to tell if someone wishes you harm. First off, you don't *have* to be constantly watching your back; it's more than likely someone is looking at your back at any given moment, and can tell if someone is walking up behind you with a blunt instrument. Second off, the fact that *everyone knows people are watching* means it's less likely anyone will try anything, because they know they'll get caught and have messy problems with the law.
Note that this argument does not go so well unless the open source product is relatively well used. If you're the only user, well, you're not much better off.
---
Anyway, as far as (1) goes, I would imagine that while it may probably be a very important point insofar as you go, as far as the kinds of software discussed in this article go it's not so useful. You probably don't audit the open source software you use. But a propreitary embedded RTOS vendor certainly would, since their demands for security and reliability are much higher.
But wait, you say, wouldn't the need to audit the code at that level be an argument against open source, since it destroys the "free" nature? Well, here we run into the basic problem of the conflation of "free" software with "open source" software, or the conflation of "free" software with what RMS might call "software libre". These two concepts are often described by the same term. However, they are not the same thing!
A program being open source does not mean that it can have a trusted company of some kind behind it! A company such as IBM could be providing an open source program they internally wrote, or you could have a case such as that with MySQL (ok, maybe that's not a great example, but you know what I mean) where a community-developed program passes through a certain central trusted point (MySQL AB) which can be trusted to-- or demanded to-- perform the auditing for you. So this is not a problem with Open Source, this is just a problem with software you downloaded for free off the internet.
Playfair is designed to simply the process of converting an iTunes media file to a format playable on devices other than the iPod. This is precisely the definition of fair use established by the courts.
Um, yes... and it's a clear-cut violation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. The DMCA and the doctrine of fair use established by the courts are incompatible. Did you actually read any of my post past the second sentence?
Nor is Fairplay really anything "new" -- it's basically the same thing as every other online music store, and follows published RIAA specs for DRM systems.
Yes, just like all those other large-scale online music stores we had before the iTMS. Wait, what?
Most people here think "Apple==Good; RIAA==Bad", but for this one, you guys are going to have to get over the cognitive dissonance.
You may or may not have noticed this, but in the grandparent post I made no attempt to make a value judgement of whether what Apple is doing is good or bad. I was just trying to say, it certainly isn't unambiguously bad, and trying to convince the general public that Apple is in a "bad guy" role is, more than likely, going to be an extremely uphill battle.
As for myself, I can see where your viewpoint is coming from, but I don't particularly share it. I would like to hope that Apple's goal is just to sell music, period, and the DRM is there because Apple recognizes that high levels of DRM are a demand made by the supply part of the economic section they've dropped themselves into. Does Apple themselves actively want the DRM? Hell, maybe. I don't know. However, I can plainly see by the technical decisions they have made that they at least recognize that the demand part of the iTMS's economic sector-- you know, the customers-- demands as little DRM as possible. The fact they are at least willing to recognize this means that this is, for the moment, good enough for me. In other words, I consider DRM evil, but I am totally neutral on the specific case of Apple's connection to DRM.
That said, in this case, I do consider the RIAA==evil and Apple==good. I consider my reasons for this reasonable.
The reason I consider the RIAA evil is not just because of the DRM, but because they're an oligopoly, becuase they have a deathgrip on the commercial expression an art that is important to me, and becuase they are using that deathgrip to limit the range and depth of expression within that art.
The primary reason I consider Apple good in this case is because the iTMS carries non-riaarecordlabels. To me, this means that the iTMS is an exposing force for independent musical artists. To me, this means that the iTMS is a positive thing. I would consider that positive thing to be significant enough it overcomes whatever extent to which the iTMS promotes the use of DRM technologies.
> > It immediately turns from green to yellow to red.' > Now, you may be reading into that a much shoter (or nonexistent) interval between green-red. I don't.
Hmm. I had in fact been interpreting that as meaning a shortened/quick-flash yellow, but now that you mention it, yes, that could mean a normal yellow interval. The phrasing is rather ambiguous. As you said, we will have to see.
Slashdot Mirror
And it would be even cooler if you kept a live counter on the same page of the amount of money that board members, the Canopy Group, and SCO insiders have made by selling off SCO stock since this corporate kamakaze mission began...
but it's not that much of a big deal to provide the necessary driver to the installer
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but all I know is that if I have to locate and download a separate network card driver and somehow figure out some kind arcane interface for "supplying" it just to get the hardware to run, that is in fact a big deal. In fact, it's unacceptable.
I basically judge distributions based on how much bullshit they make me do and how much of the bullshit they do for me. If I have to even think about what "drivers" I need, I consider the distribution to have failed me. I had one experience with Debian and it was excellent, but a big part of that was that installation meant downloading a single floppy disk image and booting off of it, and after that one floppy disk ran and downloaded all the parts it needed, everything worked.
I can't speak for anytone else. But if upon running the installer I had been presented with "please supply propeitary network driver" (which would have been difficult to fulfill, because at the time linux lacked support for HFS+, and it would not have been able to read from my hard drive), I would have gone "oh hell no" and tried something else, as that would have caused me to assume that there was going to be a lot of bullshit once I got things running and it would be best to bail out while I had the chance.
If Junior Achievement recieved sigificant feedback from "concerned parents" who do not approve of an supposedly neutral and exists-for-the-benefit-of-minors organization like Junior Achievement being used as a hired hand for the PR firms of corporate interests and would as a result in the future not consider Junior Achievement to be an organization they would want them or their children affiliated with... do you think that might cause them to rethink things perhaps?
:P
I mean, this is of course just hypothetical, since after all, how many slashbots actually have kids
There is no correlation between pricing and piracy, and I challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary.
Silly statement. Go look on any warez site, anywhere. What are you going to find? Adobe photoshop. Adobe photoshop. Maya, some video editing packages, Adobe photoshop...
Does this say high prices cause piracy? Of course not, not directly anyway (an alternate explanation is that higher priced software packages are more likely to be pirated not because they are higher priced, but becuase they are better software). But it's certainly a correlation.
While your system is intruiging in theory, I think more study is needed before it can be truly adopted as an analytical tool. After all, if what you say is true, then the thing to do right now would be run out and buy stock in Infinium...
How exactly do you expect WMP's competitors to make a quality product, when WMP's existence on the market neatly prevents them from being able to charge money for their product?
Remember, "we'll pour lots of money into making a product that will dominate this market, and not expect any of it back!" is something that in most markets only MS can do; this is, in fact, one of the biggest complaints of those who claim MS's monopoly unfair.
It is real easy to see that Apple is doing most of the stuff that MS is doing, with the only difference being that Apple has an extremely small market share.
The other difference is that Microsoft is a monopolist, and has been convicted of this in a court of law in the U.S. This is a sufficient difference, because the law applies differently to monopolies than it does to other companies. That's how antitrust laws work.
This is an excellent point, since MP3 and JPEG have been absolute failures as formats and Free software cannot interoperate with them. Do we want to repeat that?
....err, wait
The original WASTE was released under the GPL without permission by someone without the authority to license it
No. The original WASTE was released under the GPL by someone whose permission to license it is in dispute. I have yet to see any even remotely conclusive argument about this either way, and it looks like the kind of question that really only a court has the authority to answer.
What I've always said is that "viral" is a misleading way to describe the GPL because it doesn't behave like a virus.
It's more like a prion, like Mad Cow Disease.
In order to catch a prion, you have to actually injest it. You eat a cow whose proteins have the prion, and now your proteins contain the prion, but you can only give it to someone else if they eat you. Similar to the GPL, which only applies if you link the things you created into already-GPLed code; your code becomes GPL iff it incorporates something GPL. On the other hand you can catch a virus just by being near someone, or interacting with them, which isn't how the GPL works.
So it's a P2P version of "Hotline". That's neat! It really is.
However, what I would like to see done with this project is someone tack some kind of version control system onto it. Once you do that, this could be the perfect "floating development board" system for projects such as PlayFair which cannot find shelter elsewhere due to legal problems and/or harassment.
Then all you have to do is move the transport layer from being straight P2P to the data being stored on FreeNet, and you've got a way to have totally public yet totally anonymous development of an "illegal" software application...
At the least, it could be interesting.
No, Sun has (in my paranoid opinion) agreed to kill Java and probably StarOffice as well.
What on earth are you basing this on? Sun settles a lawsuit and signs a patent crosslicensing agreement, and all of a sudden we have people hypothesizing Sun agreed under-the-table to drop their only interesting or promising products in exchange for a measly two billion? Why not just go all out and suggest that Microsoft had Scott McNealy quietly killed six months ago and replaced with an actor hired to impersonate him while running the company into the ground, and Sun will soon be sending out squads of mercenaries to kill Linux users on sight?
These threads continue to baffle me.
A monopoly or cartel that comes together under natural market forces is still under market constraints in Austrian theory because of the ability for new entrants to enter the field and the ability of consumers to make good substitutions and use reductions (if only on the margins).
Huh. (And I assume by "special priviliges and immunities" you specifically mean ones that have been instituted by the government.) But doesn't it recognize that there can very well be naturally occuring barriers to entry in some markets that are so high no one will be able to surmount them?
nt
Except this wasn't true, because:
- You cannot effortlessly switch to a different operating system. A large number of factors prevent you from doing so. For example, installing a new operating system involves hard drive partitioning, a long and lengthy install of something that could potentially be gigabytes in size, and transferring your data over. This is a difficult task. Moreover, you are locked in to your current OS by the programs you use: will those programs be available on your new OS? Will you be able to find replacements? Will you be able to seamlessly use your data in said replacements if they exist? The amount of consumer inertia in the OS market is simply enormous.
- Microsoft in myriad ways exerts its monopoly power to prevent anyone with a better product from being able to successfully compete. For example, its contracts with all of the major PC OEMs that blocked them from adopting BeOS to any extent.
Meanwhile, this argument is true with Google because of the market it's in. If you don't believe me, try to remember exactly how quickly we all forgot about AltaVista when google appeared. Switching away from google is effortless. You just type "www.hypothetical.com" instead of "www.google.com" next time; perhaps you'll have to install the hypothetical.com toolbar if you're using the google.com toolbar now. Even the proverbial "your grandmother" could do this. Google's inertia consists of nothing but mindshare. Moreover, Google lacks the ability and will to do things like abuse contracts in order to keep its competitors locked out of distribution channels such as OEMs.And does the russian space program have $3.5 billion? Last I checked they weren't even able to pay for the space missions they're doing already, and their contributions to the ISS were finished with NASA's money.
I mean, it isn't like I've been paying *that* much attention, but still, they don't seem to be doing great over there.
To this sentence:
If any pressure on your iPod Mini results in crackling and static, you should return your iPod immediately to an Apple store for a free replacement.
Were it not for this, I'd imagine things might be a lot less forgiving. Were you around when the ipodsdirtysecret "the ipod battery fails after one to three years and apple is antagonistic and pricey about replacing it" thing broke? That was not nearly so neutral.
Is how these people spout as if free market economic theory were the solution to all problems, yet appear to not understand a number of very basic things about it. For example, the simple fact that even according to the theory, free market economic theory ceases to function in the presence of a monopoly or cartel.
The RIAA is a classical textbook case of a cartel. The rules the music industry is operating by are no longer located in the chapter in the microeconomics textbook labelled "free market capitalism".
That was a typo. You'll notice my justification of why you'd prefer that street referred to how well-lit and crowded it was. Sorry about that.
"Plone" does sound like something they would be playing at a rave
Everyone keeps talking about Sun "working with" Microsoft. I just don't see where this is happening. I don't see "settling a lawsuit" and "partnering" as being the same thing at all.
If you're talking about the cryptic "IP cross-licensing agreement", then why aren't you spitting the same venom at Apple? Because they signed such an agreement with Microsoft as well when they settled their lawsuits against Microsoft in 1997. I don't see this cross-licensing as "working with". This is just an "okay, no more lawsuits" agreement. Sun hasn't given up on fighting MS, they've just given up on fighting them in the courtroom.
Am I missing something?
Who audits the open source software that they use? I certainly don't. I rarely even bother to look at the source. So in this respect, it doesn't matter (to me) if the software is closed source or open source since the code isn't looked at even if you (I) had the chance to.
Let's say you're in a major city. Let's say there's a small, narrow street. And let's say you walk down this street twice; once in the middle of the day, when the street is well-lit and crowded. And the second time in the middle of the night, when it is empty, abandoned and dark.
In which of these situations do you feel more safe?
I would probably guess the second. Why? In both the first and the second case, you have no way of knowing if there is someone who has a weapon and wishes you harm. But in the first case, this possibility is not something that worries you.
Open source is kind of like the well-lit, crowded street, and auditing is kind of like being able to tell if someone wishes you harm. First off, you don't *have* to be constantly watching your back; it's more than likely someone is looking at your back at any given moment, and can tell if someone is walking up behind you with a blunt instrument. Second off, the fact that *everyone knows people are watching* means it's less likely anyone will try anything, because they know they'll get caught and have messy problems with the law.
Note that this argument does not go so well unless the open source product is relatively well used. If you're the only user, well, you're not much better off.
---
Anyway, as far as (1) goes, I would imagine that while it may probably be a very important point insofar as you go, as far as the kinds of software discussed in this article go it's not so useful. You probably don't audit the open source software you use. But a propreitary embedded RTOS vendor certainly would, since their demands for security and reliability are much higher.
But wait, you say, wouldn't the need to audit the code at that level be an argument against open source, since it destroys the "free" nature? Well, here we run into the basic problem of the conflation of "free" software with "open source" software, or the conflation of "free" software with what RMS might call "software libre". These two concepts are often described by the same term. However, they are not the same thing!
A program being open source does not mean that it can have a trusted company of some kind behind it! A company such as IBM could be providing an open source program they internally wrote, or you could have a case such as that with MySQL (ok, maybe that's not a great example, but you know what I mean) where a community-developed program passes through a certain central trusted point (MySQL AB) which can be trusted to-- or demanded to-- perform the auditing for you. So this is not a problem with Open Source, this is just a problem with software you downloaded for free off the internet.
Playfair is designed to simply the process of converting an iTunes media file to a format playable on devices other than the iPod. This is precisely the definition of fair use established by the courts.
Um, yes... and it's a clear-cut violation of the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. The DMCA and the doctrine of fair use established by the courts are incompatible. Did you actually read any of my post past the second sentence?
Nor is Fairplay really anything "new" -- it's basically the same thing as every other online music store, and follows published RIAA specs for DRM systems.
Yes, just like all those other large-scale online music stores we had before the iTMS. Wait, what?
Most people here think "Apple==Good; RIAA==Bad", but for this one, you guys are going to have to get over the cognitive dissonance.
You may or may not have noticed this, but in the grandparent post I made no attempt to make a value judgement of whether what Apple is doing is good or bad. I was just trying to say, it certainly isn't unambiguously bad, and trying to convince the general public that Apple is in a "bad guy" role is, more than likely, going to be an extremely uphill battle.
As for myself, I can see where your viewpoint is coming from, but I don't particularly share it. I would like to hope that Apple's goal is just to sell music, period, and the DRM is there because Apple recognizes that high levels of DRM are a demand made by the supply part of the economic section they've dropped themselves into. Does Apple themselves actively want the DRM? Hell, maybe. I don't know. However, I can plainly see by the technical decisions they have made that they at least recognize that the demand part of the iTMS's economic sector-- you know, the customers-- demands as little DRM as possible. The fact they are at least willing to recognize this means that this is, for the moment, good enough for me. In other words, I consider DRM evil, but I am totally neutral on the specific case of Apple's connection to DRM.
That said, in this case, I do consider the RIAA==evil and Apple==good. I consider my reasons for this reasonable.
The reason I consider the RIAA evil is not just because of the DRM, but because they're an oligopoly, becuase they have a deathgrip on the commercial expression an art that is important to me, and becuase they are using that deathgrip to limit the range and depth of expression within that art.
The primary reason I consider Apple good in this case is because the iTMS carries non-riaa record labels. To me, this means that the iTMS is an exposing force for independent musical artists. To me, this means that the iTMS is a positive thing. I would consider that positive thing to be significant enough it overcomes whatever extent to which the iTMS promotes the use of DRM technologies.
This is just my opinion.
> > It immediately turns from green to yellow to red.'
> Now, you may be reading into that a much shoter (or nonexistent) interval between green-red. I don't.
Hmm. I had in fact been interpreting that as meaning a shortened/quick-flash yellow, but now that you mention it, yes, that could mean a normal yellow interval. The phrasing is rather ambiguous. As you said, we will have to see.