Stupidly worded summary aside, I have a couple of question regarding AirPods.
Every single bluetooth headset I have ever used, has given me grief in terms of connectivity. Every. Single. One. I live in a very urban area with a ridiculous amount RF interference, and it's virtually impossible for me to walk down the sidewalk and not have the audio break up at least once. More often than not, the signal will break up very badly at certain points.
1. How do AirPods fair in this regard? If Apple's custom bluetooth hardware is able to punch through, then that IMO would be HUGE.
2. Are they designed the same as their other earPods? I have the basic wired earphones that came with my iPhone, and I just can't wear them for long. Their solid unyielding structure presses on my ears in just the wrong way, and becomes shockingly painful if I wear them for more than 30 minutes. My only option is to keep them as loose in my ear as possible, risking them falling out.
3. Related to 2: Are they noise isolating? One of the thing I like most about my current set of (otherwise crappy) bluetooth headphones, is that they suction against the ear and isolate the sometimes incredibly loud surrounding din of the city. While my earPods sound perfectly good, they make no effort at isolating my ears, which means if it gets noisy, I have to either stop listening entirely, or crank the volume up and hurt my ears. Based on the product page, it looks like the AirPods follow the same overall structure as the rest of Apple's headphones.
Longer battery life AND better performance AND lighter than a MBP?
Something smells really fishy. Microsoft has pulled sketchy stunts like this before, so only a fool would take this announcement at face value. I'll wait for some actual reviews before I'll form an opinion.
It's using their newly released Windows 10S, so you can only install UWP and select windows store approved win32 apps. This is another massive alarm bell, and it's certainly not fit for "professional" use, no matter what they like to claim. There are more than plenty of "professional" applications which are not available in their app store.
If you're painting a wall, and a bunch of people want pale yellow and you want pale blue, then you're correct. There are lots of situations in this world where being exactly right, whatever that 'right' may be, is less important than simply coming to a consensus and moving forward.
However, if a bunch of people think vaccines cause autism or are otherwise far more dangerous than the illnesses that they prevent, that is unequivocally wrong. There isn't even a question. They are wrong. Period. And yet, these wrong people will dig in their heels and not change their mind no matter how much evidence you put in front of them.
The movie example is good as an illustration of the social pattern the author is trying to convey. However, the message gets lost if you focus too closely on the example itself. People have different opinions about movies, but no one truly gives a shit what anyone's given opinion is cause... well... it's just a movie. But if you extend the example to more serious problems, such as whether it's a good idea to build a ginormous wall spanning half the continent, then yes, whether the idea is 'good' or not becomes a heck of a lot more important.
I just don't understand this. Every single time he says something idiotic, there are always people who try to claim that he isn't serious. "Oh, he's not serious about the wall" "Oh, he's not serious about his vendetta against immigrants." And then he will do, or at least try to do, exactly what he said. Anyone who, at this point, honestly believes that he doesn't mean what he says, is either stupid, deluded, or both.
So yes, I think he's entirely serious that he wants to have people walking on Mars within his term. The only question is, what will he do when he finds out that it's impossible? Will he throw craptons of money at NASA, thinking that he just throw money at the problem? Will he just get pissed off and "fire" NASA?
The man is so completely divorced from reality that there's really no way to anticipate what he will do.
Wow, the number of utterly heartless, black and white thinking people on this thread is amazing.
It totally depends on a variety of factors, although I agree that 'insufficient compensation' isn't one of them.
First and foremost, is it impacting the job that you're being paid to do? If not, then who cares? Hell, if it's something interesting it may even open up an opportunity for the company to branch out into that other thing if the employe was interested in sharing that other expertise.
If it does impact the job, then the usual things come into play like past performance, corporate policies, etc. Maybe they have an important underlying reason for doing it (eg: Designing a custom 3d-printable artificial limb for a family member who lost one in an accident). Maybe they're just an asshole who thinks the rules don't apply to them and don't want to do their job. It should be a judgement call based on as many relevant factors as possible including attitude, past job performance, exceptional circumstances, etc.
So this ISP was handing out shoddy insecure modems by the truckload, leaving all their customers susceptible to attack.
It's bad enough that this kinds of crappy device exist on the market in the first place, but for an ISP to peddle the things... that's inexcusable. IMO the ISP needed this firm punch in the nose.
It's one thing to empower the average person with technology. It's another thing if you simply vomit fancy gizmos on a public that isn't skilled or responsible enough to use them properly.
I mean, we have people who still refuse to accept evolution exists. Or think that vaccines cause autism because some celebrity told them so. Or hell, actually think the world is flat. These people by definition do not have the knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to use advanced technology. So maybe they shouldn't get to use it at all.
That may well be true, except there's one critical problem
Individuals who do not do their due diligence, who do not take the necessary steps to secure their property so that it doesn't cause harm to others, are *not* in any way liable for the damage they cause. Because they arn't liable, they don't give a shit, and won't make attempts to rectify the situation. The manufacturers are not liable for putting out insecure crap. Because they arn't liable, they don't give a shit, and won't make attempts to rectify the situation.
And so vigilantism like this becomes inevitable, because the law isn't doing fuck all about the actual problem.
There are going to be bad actors. There are *always* going to be bad actors. Whether it's individual, terrorist organization, or even governments, there will always be someone pumping out this kind of malware. This is not an argument of blaming the victim vs blaming the offender. This isn't analogous to some petty crime. This is close to war than anything else. And as anyone (should) knows, there are no rules in war. There are only the survivors and the dead.
You either defend against it, or you get steamrolled by the inevitable. You may still get steamrolled even if you defend against it, but the point is that you have to at least try because if you don't you *will* be compromised, and your devices *will* be used to harm others.
If you do not at least try to secure your devices, then IMO you are as liable for the damage they cause as if you performed the act yourself, in the same way that you are still responsible if you leave a loaded gun on the sidewalk in a crime-ridden neighbourhood.
Some might. Some will simply shift the blame because they refuse to accept that they are in any way responsible for the situation. I had such a thing happen with a neighbour whose internet had been cut off because his machine had been infected and was spewing spam.
He was irate that the ISP didn't protect him from this and felt he was being unfairly penalized, and wouldn't budge no matter how much I tried to explain to him that the computer was his property and he was responsible for maintenance and security. Eventually I told him that the only option was to backup any critical data and completely reformat his hard drive, and that there was nothing else I could do for him.
Every word that came out of his mouth made me less and less sympathetic to him, to the point where I hoped he was never able to access the internet again. People like that are beyond help. The only thing you can do is isolate them so they don't hurt others.
Actually, us Windows 7'ers and hanging on to the previous OS for as long as humanly possible in the hope that Microsoft will pull their head out of their ass before Win7 support ends completely.
The fact is is that Windows 10 is a a godawful pile of horse shit. They took a technically beautiful OS that rightfully should have taken the world by storm, and did everything they could possible do to sour people on it, and the list of complains just gets longer as times passes. Between privacy issues, forced updates routinely hose your machine, and forced advertisements, there is absolutely no way I would use Windows 10 unless I had no other choice.
The choices are simple: -Give back control of *my* computer -Tell me who I can start sending invoices to every time I need to clean up their fuckups.
Until either of those things happen, I won't be installing Windows 10 on any machine I am responsible for.
I'm using it wiggle fingers right now foot itches squirrel is it lunch time yet and it works perfectly did I leave the oven on well I smell pizza i can't believe I did that 10 years ago.
You like Windows 10? Fine. You don't mind not having control of your machine? That's your choice. I despise it. But our personal OS preferences are irrelevant to the discussion.
You're assuming that the number of non-OEM installs are an insignificant number. They are not. Between retail copies, Volume License copies, and people who have simply exercised their right upgrade to Windows 7 from Windows 10, this is still a very sizeable number. This is also irrelevant to the discussion.
What IS relevant is that they are breaking their contractual agreement to provide support for Windows based on a very narrow and completely arbitrary criteria, for no other purpose than pushing people to Windows 10.
Mainstream support for Windows 7 only ended last week. Windows 8.1 mainstream support doesn't end until *next year*. Kaby Lake and Rizen processors have been around since last year, and Windows 10 was working *just fine* with those new processors. You could buy computers and they would run Windows 7 and 8.1. And now suddenly, they've decided they're going to arbitrarily hold back security updates if the machine has one of these newer processors? Again, these are *security updates* only. If they said that they were going to withhold new features on newer processors, that would be one thing, but not providing security updates is entirely different.
And THAT is the issue here. Microsoft has pulled a Darth Vader and altered the agreement, and you have to pray that they don't alter it further.
Not Fedora. RHEL specifically. (ie: RedHat *Enterprise* Linux, hint hint) Fedora is, more or less, just the consumer testing ground for software before it ends up going into RHEL.
If you examine major commercial linux software (not sure what you mean by "both"), they are infinitely more likely to support RHEL than Ubuntu. Things are have been changing in the past few years... Ubuntu Server *has* increased in popularity and support, and Amazon Linux is turning into a major contender simply because it's the default when setting up in Teh Cloud(tm). But with few notable exceptions, you are almost guaranteed to have RHEL support for any given major software package. Oracle. DB2. Zimbra. Etc.
So far the company work for have had multiple interactions with outsourced 'developers'. I can't even use the word "incompetent" because that implies that they have at least some skill at their job, and that's patently untrue.
Every. Single. Project. that they were involved in became a nightmare. The time and effort required for babysitting them, and correcting their (sometimes incredible) mistakes was greater than our own work.
While I'm sure there are exceptions, in general I would say that this article is completely correct. I wouldn't trust these people to flip my hamburger correctly let alone operate something that uses electricity.
Because Fedora is the baby version of RHEL, and RHEL is the first distro that all enterprise software vendors certify against in preference to literally everyone else.
You might see Ubuntu Server. You might see SLES. You will never not see RHEL.
While Network Transparency is really cool, it's useless in an environment where network connectivity isn't guaranteed. I haven't seen a single system in years now that makes use of it.
I've personally used it lots of times, and I would hate to lose that functionality because in specific situations, it is overwhelmingly better than the next closest option. But when it comes to, say, a desktop user that needs to VPN into work and connect to a remote machine, Network Transparency becomes a liability. The last thing you want is for your application to fault out because your network connection dies. As ugly as full screen remote desktop is, it has one overwhelmingly massive advantage: You don't lose your progress if you're disconnected.
It's the exact same situation if I am sshing into another box. First thing I do is run screen or tmux, and then do all my work from within that. That way I don't have to worry about connectivity loss hosing whatever I was doing. Better still, it gives me the option TO break connectivity. I can do some work from home, reconnect from a mobile device while I'm on the train, keep working, and then resume again when I'm in the office.
Additionally, full screen remote desktop is a heck of a lot more efficient than individual applications, because it's simply not possible to aggregate all the screen painting. Every application is handled separately. Meanwhile, a full remote desktop solution can do all kinds of tricks to improve performance, such as only screen deltas, reducing colour depth, changing update frequency, etc.
Really, this shouldn't be an either/or situation. My preference would be to have both full screen AND NT, but in terms of feature priority, I can't fault the devs for wanting to get NT going first.
What about local LAN play? Blizzard ruined the entire franchise for me when they took away local play options.
I realize it's hard for a lot of people to imagine now-a-days, especially Blizzard management, but there are in fact several scenarios where not having to route through the internet is beneficial, if not a requirement.
At no point has Microsoft *ever* been responsible for supporting all those drivers. Ever. They may throw some base-level drivers for common well known hardware, but when something new comes out, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to put out new drivers.
This has been true for every single piece of hardware in existence, whether it's a PCI winmodem, a printer, a graphics card, or a motherboard chipset. If you've ever done a clean install of Windows, you would know that there are a cavalcade of drivers you need to install, including drivers specific to processors, and chipsets.
So this isn't the issue. The issue is that Microsoft refuses to be responsible for THEIR software, for completely nebulous reasons that have never been a problem in the past. This is nothing more than a flimsy excuse to push people to Windows 10, for the exact same reason that they tried to prove in court that IE was inseparable from the OS during their browser monopoly trial: For their own self-serving interest, nothing more, nothing less.
Slashdot Mirror
Stupidly worded summary aside, I have a couple of question regarding AirPods.
Every single bluetooth headset I have ever used, has given me grief in terms of connectivity. Every. Single. One. I live in a very urban area with a ridiculous amount RF interference, and it's virtually impossible for me to walk down the sidewalk and not have the audio break up at least once. More often than not, the signal will break up very badly at certain points.
1. How do AirPods fair in this regard? If Apple's custom bluetooth hardware is able to punch through, then that IMO would be HUGE.
2. Are they designed the same as their other earPods? I have the basic wired earphones that came with my iPhone, and I just can't wear them for long. Their solid unyielding structure presses on my ears in just the wrong way, and becomes shockingly painful if I wear them for more than 30 minutes. My only option is to keep them as loose in my ear as possible, risking them falling out.
3. Related to 2: Are they noise isolating? One of the thing I like most about my current set of (otherwise crappy) bluetooth headphones, is that they suction against the ear and isolate the sometimes incredibly loud surrounding din of the city. While my earPods sound perfectly good, they make no effort at isolating my ears, which means if it gets noisy, I have to either stop listening entirely, or crank the volume up and hurt my ears. Based on the product page, it looks like the AirPods follow the same overall structure as the rest of Apple's headphones.
Thx.
You are all apps. Apps say moo. MOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOOOO! Mooooo apps MOOOOOOO! Mooo say the apps. YOU LUDDITES!!
You are clearly an imposter. The REAL Apps AC has much more nuanced and sophisticated arguments.
Longer battery life AND better performance AND lighter than a MBP?
Something smells really fishy. Microsoft has pulled sketchy stunts like this before, so only a fool would take this announcement at face value. I'll wait for some actual reviews before I'll form an opinion.
It's using their newly released Windows 10S, so you can only install UWP and select windows store approved win32 apps. This is another massive alarm bell, and it's certainly not fit for "professional" use, no matter what they like to claim. There are more than plenty of "professional" applications which are not available in their app store.
It depends on what that idea is.
If you're painting a wall, and a bunch of people want pale yellow and you want pale blue, then you're correct. There are lots of situations in this world where being exactly right, whatever that 'right' may be, is less important than simply coming to a consensus and moving forward.
However, if a bunch of people think vaccines cause autism or are otherwise far more dangerous than the illnesses that they prevent, that is unequivocally wrong. There isn't even a question. They are wrong. Period. And yet, these wrong people will dig in their heels and not change their mind no matter how much evidence you put in front of them.
The movie example is good as an illustration of the social pattern the author is trying to convey. However, the message gets lost if you focus too closely on the example itself. People have different opinions about movies, but no one truly gives a shit what anyone's given opinion is cause... well... it's just a movie. But if you extend the example to more serious problems, such as whether it's a good idea to build a ginormous wall spanning half the continent, then yes, whether the idea is 'good' or not becomes a heck of a lot more important.
I just don't understand this. Every single time he says something idiotic, there are always people who try to claim that he isn't serious. "Oh, he's not serious about the wall" "Oh, he's not serious about his vendetta against immigrants." And then he will do, or at least try to do, exactly what he said. Anyone who, at this point, honestly believes that he doesn't mean what he says, is either stupid, deluded, or both.
So yes, I think he's entirely serious that he wants to have people walking on Mars within his term. The only question is, what will he do when he finds out that it's impossible? Will he throw craptons of money at NASA, thinking that he just throw money at the problem? Will he just get pissed off and "fire" NASA?
The man is so completely divorced from reality that there's really no way to anticipate what he will do.
Wow, the number of utterly heartless, black and white thinking people on this thread is amazing.
It totally depends on a variety of factors, although I agree that 'insufficient compensation' isn't one of them.
First and foremost, is it impacting the job that you're being paid to do? If not, then who cares? Hell, if it's something interesting it may even open up an opportunity for the company to branch out into that other thing if the employe was interested in sharing that other expertise.
If it does impact the job, then the usual things come into play like past performance, corporate policies, etc. Maybe they have an important underlying reason for doing it (eg: Designing a custom 3d-printable artificial limb for a family member who lost one in an accident). Maybe they're just an asshole who thinks the rules don't apply to them and don't want to do their job. It should be a judgement call based on as many relevant factors as possible including attitude, past job performance, exceptional circumstances, etc.
Could you not have let me have my daydream for just a little bit longer? :(
It appears Fox is unravelling at the seams.
Apparently some wishes do come true.
So this ISP was handing out shoddy insecure modems by the truckload, leaving all their customers susceptible to attack.
It's bad enough that this kinds of crappy device exist on the market in the first place, but for an ISP to peddle the things... that's inexcusable. IMO the ISP needed this firm punch in the nose.
Umm... you think "bored" humans will stop reproducing? I don't think you know very many humans.
Well, to be fair, the parent IS a ghoul. He may have simply lived in his undead state for too long and have forgotten.
Which may effectively doom IoT for consumers.
You say that as if it's a bad idea.
It's one thing to empower the average person with technology. It's another thing if you simply vomit fancy gizmos on a public that isn't skilled or responsible enough to use them properly.
I mean, we have people who still refuse to accept evolution exists. Or think that vaccines cause autism because some celebrity told them so. Or hell, actually think the world is flat. These people by definition do not have the knowledge and critical thinking skills necessary to use advanced technology. So maybe they shouldn't get to use it at all.
That may well be true, except there's one critical problem
Individuals who do not do their due diligence, who do not take the necessary steps to secure their property so that it doesn't cause harm to others, are *not* in any way liable for the damage they cause. Because they arn't liable, they don't give a shit, and won't make attempts to rectify the situation. The manufacturers are not liable for putting out insecure crap. Because they arn't liable, they don't give a shit, and won't make attempts to rectify the situation.
And so vigilantism like this becomes inevitable, because the law isn't doing fuck all about the actual problem.
There are going to be bad actors. There are *always* going to be bad actors. Whether it's individual, terrorist organization, or even governments, there will always be someone pumping out this kind of malware. This is not an argument of blaming the victim vs blaming the offender. This isn't analogous to some petty crime. This is close to war than anything else. And as anyone (should) knows, there are no rules in war. There are only the survivors and the dead.
You either defend against it, or you get steamrolled by the inevitable. You may still get steamrolled even if you defend against it, but the point is that you have to at least try because if you don't you *will* be compromised, and your devices *will* be used to harm others.
If you do not at least try to secure your devices, then IMO you are as liable for the damage they cause as if you performed the act yourself, in the same way that you are still responsible if you leave a loaded gun on the sidewalk in a crime-ridden neighbourhood.
Some might. Some will simply shift the blame because they refuse to accept that they are in any way responsible for the situation. I had such a thing happen with a neighbour whose internet had been cut off because his machine had been infected and was spewing spam.
He was irate that the ISP didn't protect him from this and felt he was being unfairly penalized, and wouldn't budge no matter how much I tried to explain to him that the computer was his property and he was responsible for maintenance and security. Eventually I told him that the only option was to backup any critical data and completely reformat his hard drive, and that there was nothing else I could do for him.
Every word that came out of his mouth made me less and less sympathetic to him, to the point where I hoped he was never able to access the internet again. People like that are beyond help. The only thing you can do is isolate them so they don't hurt others.
Actually, us Windows 7'ers and hanging on to the previous OS for as long as humanly possible in the hope that Microsoft will pull their head out of their ass before Win7 support ends completely.
The fact is is that Windows 10 is a a godawful pile of horse shit. They took a technically beautiful OS that rightfully should have taken the world by storm, and did everything they could possible do to sour people on it, and the list of complains just gets longer as times passes. Between privacy issues, forced updates routinely hose your machine, and forced advertisements, there is absolutely no way I would use Windows 10 unless I had no other choice.
The choices are simple:
-Give back control of *my* computer
-Tell me who I can start sending invoices to every time I need to clean up their fuckups.
Until either of those things happen, I won't be installing Windows 10 on any machine I am responsible for.
I'm using it wiggle fingers right now foot itches squirrel is it lunch time yet and it works perfectly did I leave the oven on well I smell pizza i can't believe I did that 10 years ago.
You like Windows 10? Fine. You don't mind not having control of your machine? That's your choice. I despise it. But our personal OS preferences are irrelevant to the discussion.
You're assuming that the number of non-OEM installs are an insignificant number. They are not. Between retail copies, Volume License copies, and people who have simply exercised their right upgrade to Windows 7 from Windows 10, this is still a very sizeable number. This is also irrelevant to the discussion.
What IS relevant is that they are breaking their contractual agreement to provide support for Windows based on a very narrow and completely arbitrary criteria, for no other purpose than pushing people to Windows 10.
Mainstream support for Windows 7 only ended last week. Windows 8.1 mainstream support doesn't end until *next year*. Kaby Lake and Rizen processors have been around since last year, and Windows 10 was working *just fine* with those new processors. You could buy computers and they would run Windows 7 and 8.1. And now suddenly, they've decided they're going to arbitrarily hold back security updates if the machine has one of these newer processors? Again, these are *security updates* only. If they said that they were going to withhold new features on newer processors, that would be one thing, but not providing security updates is entirely different.
And THAT is the issue here. Microsoft has pulled a Darth Vader and altered the agreement, and you have to pray that they don't alter it further.
Oh neat! Thank you!
Not Fedora. RHEL specifically. (ie: RedHat *Enterprise* Linux, hint hint) Fedora is, more or less, just the consumer testing ground for software before it ends up going into RHEL.
If you examine major commercial linux software (not sure what you mean by "both"), they are infinitely more likely to support RHEL than Ubuntu. Things are have been changing in the past few years... Ubuntu Server *has* increased in popularity and support, and Amazon Linux is turning into a major contender simply because it's the default when setting up in Teh Cloud(tm). But with few notable exceptions, you are almost guaranteed to have RHEL support for any given major software package. Oracle. DB2. Zimbra. Etc.
So far the company work for have had multiple interactions with outsourced 'developers'. I can't even use the word "incompetent" because that implies that they have at least some skill at their job, and that's patently untrue.
Every. Single. Project. that they were involved in became a nightmare. The time and effort required for babysitting them, and correcting their (sometimes incredible) mistakes was greater than our own work.
While I'm sure there are exceptions, in general I would say that this article is completely correct. I wouldn't trust these people to flip my hamburger correctly let alone operate something that uses electricity.
That would be... pardon my french... fucking amazing.
Microsoft may otherwise be a bunch of flaming douche canoes, but they did a really good job on RDP and I wish I saw it on non-windows platforms.
Because Fedora is the baby version of RHEL, and RHEL is the first distro that all enterprise software vendors certify against in preference to literally everyone else.
You might see Ubuntu Server. You might see SLES. You will never not see RHEL.
While Network Transparency is really cool, it's useless in an environment where network connectivity isn't guaranteed. I haven't seen a single system in years now that makes use of it.
I've personally used it lots of times, and I would hate to lose that functionality because in specific situations, it is overwhelmingly better than the next closest option. But when it comes to, say, a desktop user that needs to VPN into work and connect to a remote machine, Network Transparency becomes a liability. The last thing you want is for your application to fault out because your network connection dies. As ugly as full screen remote desktop is, it has one overwhelmingly massive advantage: You don't lose your progress if you're disconnected.
It's the exact same situation if I am sshing into another box. First thing I do is run screen or tmux, and then do all my work from within that. That way I don't have to worry about connectivity loss hosing whatever I was doing. Better still, it gives me the option TO break connectivity. I can do some work from home, reconnect from a mobile device while I'm on the train, keep working, and then resume again when I'm in the office.
Additionally, full screen remote desktop is a heck of a lot more efficient than individual applications, because it's simply not possible to aggregate all the screen painting. Every application is handled separately. Meanwhile, a full remote desktop solution can do all kinds of tricks to improve performance, such as only screen deltas, reducing colour depth, changing update frequency, etc.
Really, this shouldn't be an either/or situation. My preference would be to have both full screen AND NT, but in terms of feature priority, I can't fault the devs for wanting to get NT going first.
What about local LAN play? Blizzard ruined the entire franchise for me when they took away local play options.
I realize it's hard for a lot of people to imagine now-a-days, especially Blizzard management, but there are in fact several scenarios where not having to route through the internet is beneficial, if not a requirement.
Apparently at least one did. :P
At no point has Microsoft *ever* been responsible for supporting all those drivers. Ever. They may throw some base-level drivers for common well known hardware, but when something new comes out, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to put out new drivers.
This has been true for every single piece of hardware in existence, whether it's a PCI winmodem, a printer, a graphics card, or a motherboard chipset. If you've ever done a clean install of Windows, you would know that there are a cavalcade of drivers you need to install, including drivers specific to processors, and chipsets.
So this isn't the issue. The issue is that Microsoft refuses to be responsible for THEIR software, for completely nebulous reasons that have never been a problem in the past. This is nothing more than a flimsy excuse to push people to Windows 10, for the exact same reason that they tried to prove in court that IE was inseparable from the OS during their browser monopoly trial: For their own self-serving interest, nothing more, nothing less.