Why does nobody understand that it's only one new year?
What, after 2006 the calendar just ends? Of course there'll be many more New Years, and the original poster just wanted to pro-actively wish that all of them are Happy.
And that's why the Soviets are doing so well these days.
Oh, wait. They're not. They're actually gone, consigned to the dustbin of history. Must be that military intervention and liberation that did the trick.
Oh, wait. No one invaded the USSR in the 1980s. The system sort of fell down on its own -- remarkably close to peacefully, in fact. Why? Because despite efforts to control what people read, the KGB never pulled it off and samizdat spread, succeeding in laying the groundwork for the evaporation of the Soviet Union. And that was my point, exactly: If the state can control what you read, it can maintain itself for a good long while. The antidote -- the key to a free society -- is to have unrestricted reading.
This is a bit different. One bomb on a plane will kill everyone on board. One book is still, well, just a fucking book.
To the Powers that Be, a single book is far more dangerous than any weapon of mass destruction, real or imagined. As was once said (Henry Peter Brougham),
Education makes peple easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave.
Let the people start to read, to educate themselves, and how the hell are you going to rule them?
Fair enough. One of the things used by both sides to exaggerate the crisis is to pretend that "Christianity" is a monolithic belief system and that all "Christians" come down on the same side of every issue.
So... what would be a good descriptor for the people over whom this prof is in hot water? "Religious anti-evolutionists"? "Christian intelligent design adherents"? I'm not being snarky... I'd really like to see a proper term enter the discourse.
Wow, did you miss the point. The grandparent post indicated that the Soviet Union fell apart solely under the weight of central planning and that the Reagan policies played no role. I was making the point -- through sarcasm, which apparently you missed -- that if central planning alone were enough to propel a nation into a law-based democracy, we'd have seen the same happen to North Korea, Cuba, and China. And of course none of those three have moved toward a free society since 1991.
The real cause of the collapse has more to do with the intrinsic inefficiencies in command economies.
Exactly. That's why the collapse of the Soviet Union was followed in short order by the collapse of Cuba, North Korea, and China, all of whom also transformed themselves into fledgling if flawed democracies.
Oh, wait...
Reagan didn't cause the collapse. But to say that the economic and military policies had no effect is just nonsense.
The key to international security is to show that you are willing to fight those who threaten you, otherwise your weakness is going to be exploited for all it's worth until it's too late for you to do anything but go to war.
This is only half the key. You need discretion and judgment to know when it's worthwhile to fight as opposed to when it's better to pursue other options. It certainly seems true that there are world leaders who understand only the language of force and who must be faced stalwartly. But taking that approach at the wrong time can convince others that you have become the threat, and solidfy diffuse opposition into fierce hostility.
Why not have a democratic body representing the teachers, parents and students to decide on policies effecting them?
Well, current experience on the national scene doesn't enhance my faith in democracy.:) Look, there are many more roles in running a school than classroom teaching. For example, take bookkeeping. Someone has to keep track of money coming in (tuition or state grants), money going out (how about paying all those teachers?), physical plant depreciation, etc. Someone has to make sure the rooms are clean, the photocopier works, that there's toilet paper in the restrooms. Someone has to cut the grass and someone has to hire and oversee the guy who cuts the grass. There's no reason to believe that teachers would be any better than the standard administrator at such tasks; indeed, my experience indicates teachers would likely be worse. (And I repeat -- I am a classroom teacher, so I'm not just bashing the profession.)
It's possible, especially if the school is small, that these administrative tasks could be parcelled out among faculty and maybe parents. (Though I suspect the latter would be a recipe for a conflict-of-interest disaster.) But that's still going to take time away from the things you want the teachers to be doing, i.e., teaching.
First, as a classroom teacher, let me compliment you on a clear articulation as to why these bureaucracies exist. Sure they occasionally go awry but that doesn't they're evil or unnecessary.
But, second, as a classroom teacher, let me respond to
Management is just not what a teacher does, and it isn't likely to turn out well.
What drives teachers crazy is that it seems management isn't done well by managers either. I have assiduously avoided getting "promoted" into administration precisely because I want to teach. But I don't think it's outrageous to ask that those who do take jobs in administration learn to be good at, you know, administering. The grandparent post had a point: The people who make the budgets and track the money often seem openly hostile to hearing from the classroom teachers -- they want to set budgets without asking us what the priorities are from our vantage.
It might or might not be true that if teachers made the budget, we'd all have great classrooms and lousy buildings. I'd like to think that the people in charge of educating the young would be smart enough to understand infrastructure; in fact, I'd be willing to bet that, among professionals not directly involved in infrastructure, teachers probably rank among the highest in their appreciation of those issues. But that's anecdotal and I could be wrong. In any event, if the decision makes sense, why not actually explain it and show people?
In fact, in my experience, most bad management involves a desparate, almost pathological need to control the flow of information and a corresponding disdain for transparency.
Shareholders trying to force the company they own stock in to be socially concious is like a police officer being concerned with observing rights under the Bill of Rights. It would be wonderful, but that isn't his job, either.
Um, it actually is the job of a police officer to be concerned with observing rights under the Bill of Rights. Ever hear of the Fourth Amendment? The Fifth? The Sixth? Ever hear of Miranda? of Epstein?
It is the settled and considered opinion of the American judiciary that law enforcement must be cognizant and respectful of the rights of the accused. Whole cases can be thrown out when they're not. What's more, the majority of law enforcement agencies in America recognize this as part of their duties, too, and not just to secure a good conviction rate. They understand that, by having the populace see them as allies and not thugs, they can do a better job.
So your analogy actually argues for the shareholder activists.
(And yes, I know you have to start somewhere, but why don't you start with the people in China first?)
Hmmm. How about, because they're hard to reach, because of censorship embodied in the Internet infrastructure? How about, because as a citizen in the US, I don't have a lot of reach with Chinese citizens but I can have an impact on an American company?
Investors, i.e., the shareholders, want a monetary return, not a political return on their investment.
Who are you to declare what investors want? You can say what you want, and that's valid. If the majority of shareholders agree with you, well, then this proposal will die and Cisco can go on doing what's it's doing. But if a majority disagree with you on what they want, why the heck should your prescription hold? If only there were some way to officially guage shareholder opinion on this... Something that allows each shareholder to concretely express his/her opinion, maybe in proportional to how much stock they own...
Oh, wait. There is such a process. It's called a shareholder vote. But for some reason the Cisco board doesn't want this to happen. Maybe they're afraid that investors want them to do the right thing, even if it costs some opportunities.
Again, I say... Cisco is not in the business of telling governments how to run their affairs.
And again, this is not what's going on. If this passes, Cisco isn't telling China not to censor. It's telling China that Cisco won't be a part of it.
also consider that if Cisco did, someone else will surely step in to sell their own hardware
This is the convenient cop-out that often allows people to justify their participation in the nefarious deeds of others. Maybe "someone else" would sell the routers. Heck, there'd be a market, right? But neither Cisco nor Cisco's shareholders are responsible for what "someone else" does. They are responsible for what Cisco does. That's what is at issue here.
If Cisco bowed out and "someone else" stepped in, well, at the very least, the routers would be more expensive (because the supply is smaller, as the major supplier is not selling). This impacts the Chinese policy, at least a little. Maybe at some point someone in China would decide that the monetary cost wasn't worth it. Meanwhile, activists would see that their policy could work, and might use a similar one to force the "someone else" to stop working with China, too. As well, it's not outrageous to think that a "boycott complicits" movement will lead to local governments and universities and so on buying only from companies that don't aid in Chinese censorship. And bam! Now Cisco is deriving an actual monetary benefit from their policy.
It's not as cut-and-dried as you want to make it seem. The process seems in fact to be handling the concerns of the shareholders quite well -- at least, until the execs at Cisco get the SEC to allow them to muzzle the proposal.
But then, that would be ironically appropriate, wouldn't it?
Dance with the Devil long enough and you grow cloven feet, too.
what's the phrase? "Maximizing Shareholder Value".
Fair enough. But not all value is monetary value. The shareholders of Cisco get to decide what value they wish to receive. Perhaps they receive value from knowing that the company they own (and it is the shareholders who own it) does not help Communist nations suppress free expression. That might be worth a lot to them, in fact. In which case, it's perfectly reasonable for the shareholders to trade dollar value for that value -- if indeed this will cost dollars (an assumption which I think is, in the long term, uncertain at best).
This is exactly the way it's supposed to work. If the activist shareholders can't convince their fellows to vote a majority of stock behind their proposal, it goes down. Then probably the activists dump their stock -- though they might remain, in order to have a chance to raise the issue again. If they can bring the others on board, then it should go through. That's how democracy works, after all. It might be reasonable that the Chinese aren't too up on the concept, but it's shocking to see how many in the so-called free world seem threatened by this exercise of democracy.
I think this is a fabulous idea for precisely the reason the "classical astronomers" think it's a bad one. It's time to break the connection between timekeeping and the astronomical accidents of the Earth. Clarke was right -- if we have much of a future at all, then for most of human history, "ship" will mean "spaceship".
It would take an act of Congress to eliminate leap seconds
That's not exactly clear. Sometimes the law in the US says "Implement international treaty X" -- especially if X is a technical standard. If the treaty provides for an international body to define the standard, and that body defines it differently, then the change would automatically propagate into US law. The basic idea is, some things are better decided by teams of arcane experts than by elected representatives. Not the "big issues" like abortion or defense spending but the details, like leap seconds.
I find the whole political angle to this as both hilarious and depressing.
but my best guess is that most of the MS camp hasn't seen Firefox until very recently and the UI you are seeing is their first crack at actually trying a slim user interface (read: using someone else's idea in their own products).
Ah, you mean "innovating" (Microsoft style). And then in two years, they'll be claiming they invented all of this anyway.
And the fact that the over 15,000 pieces of debris that hit the shuttle on the previous 113 flights didn't cause any problems 112 of those 113 times. You might say once is too many, but we're only finding issues here because we're looking so hard.
Yeah. And look, the O-rings only caused 1 orbiter to blow up, too -- what's all this about watching the launch temperature?
Once is too many. Maybe they should be looking for a design wherein bits don't randomly fall off. And if that's impossible, maybe they should be going with a system that isn't rendered catastrophically useless (i.e., egg-shell heat tiles) by the bits that fall off.
112 times out of 113, we got undeservedly lucky. It's time for this designed-to-be experimental system to be retired.
It's not an experiment unless there are testable hypothesis that one can disprove or expand upon. The results of this test do/did not increase our understanding of the way fluid flows work.
How the heck do you know? This was a publicity page, for pete's sake. Did you read the papers they published? Could you even name them? You're reading this like it's the great publication of all their work, but it's really a case of "Hey look at these cool videos we made in the course of our research."
Blockquoth the poster:
On top of that, when you say, "the payoff is uncertain," the rule "YAGNI" comes to mind.
It might come to mind, but it shouldn't. First, we're talking experimentation, not programming. Second, YAGNI applied to research essentially says, Do no basic research. In 1930, do I "need" ultrapure silicon wafers? Do I "need" to know why and how silicon can semi-conduct? No. But if no one had been asking those questions, you would not be writing your reply on a mass-produced digital computer.
Basic research is exactly about things for which the applications seem remote or even unforeseeable. Do you think they researched lasers in the 1960s so that you could listen to CDs and watch DVDs? No. They researched lasers because they were interesting quantum phenomena. It was far and away not something "needed". And in fact that is often the case.
I hope you enjoyed the movie that second per second was probably more expensive to create than to just pay ILM to do it on a computer.
I really had resolved to sit this one out, to not get involved with all the NASA-bashing that such a page is guaranteed to inspire. And then I saw this.
It might be hard for someone in media-drenched America to understand, but the point of this was not to entertain you. I know, I know: It's virtually indecent to propose that anything be done for any reason other than your amusement. The point of these experiments was to learn something about fluid flow.
Maybe ILM could have made the samne movie -- and maybe not, because fluid flow is hard. Certainly they could have made a movie that you would have thought was a simulation of fluid flow in microgravity, because they're clever and because you (and no one else, really) has a firm idea of what that would be. But as a visual simulation it could teach us nothing new and concrete. And as a summer blockbuster it would likely have fallen flat.
These guys, on the other hand, are doing science. They're running experiments to explore the operation of the physical universe. Along the way, they came upon video footage that, they thought, looked "fun" and so they shared it. I can't see anything to be critical of here.
I'm sure I'll arouse the ire of the wrath from atop the thing by bringing up the old chestnut of spin-offs, but we have no idea of what practical applications willcome from this knowledge, and the knowledge that comes along with it that they didn't put on that page. It's fairly easy to see how understanding this could help with fuel injection systems, but I'm sure there are many other potential payoffs.
And yes, we do need to spend government money on that, because the payoff is uncertain. Private industry will not invest in basic research, whose beneficiaries are unknowable at the outset. Indeed often the people who make the money are not the ones who do the research. As for it being "uber" dollars: The entire NASA budget is about $16B. The federal budget is about $2,200B. So all of NASA is about about 1% of federal outlays. Not only is this smaller than the series of "emergency" outlays to cover the war in Iraq; it's smaller than the generic pork the Congress (and administration) roll into the budget.
OK, but Websense has a business interest in promoting the idea that "unregulated" Net access hurts productivity. So really, Ars Technica is just giving the other view -- and the truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.
I've been aware of zazzle for about as long as I have of cafepress, which is a little over three years. I don't know why everyone's acting as if this were some vapor startup. It's a going concern that has been producing happy customers for a long while.
(Disclaimer: I don't know how long cafepress has been in operation. I suspect, however, that it is not significantly longer than zazzle.)
Slashdot Mirror
What, after 2006 the calendar just ends? Of course there'll be many more New Years, and the original poster just wanted to pro-actively wish that all of them are Happy.
And that's why the Soviets are doing so well these days.
Oh, wait. They're not. They're actually gone, consigned to the dustbin of history. Must be that military intervention and liberation that did the trick.
Oh, wait. No one invaded the USSR in the 1980s. The system sort of fell down on its own -- remarkably close to peacefully, in fact. Why? Because despite efforts to control what people read, the KGB never pulled it off and samizdat spread, succeeding in laying the groundwork for the evaporation of the Soviet Union. And that was my point, exactly: If the state can control what you read, it can maintain itself for a good long while. The antidote -- the key to a free society -- is to have unrestricted reading.
Excellent, truly excellent. I doff my hat to you, sir! :)
To the Powers that Be, a single book is far more dangerous than any weapon of mass destruction, real or imagined. As was once said (Henry Peter Brougham),
Let the people start to read, to educate themselves, and how the hell are you going to rule them?
Fair enough. One of the things used by both sides to exaggerate the crisis is to pretend that "Christianity" is a monolithic belief system and that all "Christians" come down on the same side of every issue.
So... what would be a good descriptor for the people over whom this prof is in hot water? "Religious anti-evolutionists"? "Christian intelligent design adherents"? I'm not being snarky... I'd really like to see a proper term enter the discourse.
Indeed. That's probably why the reviewer didn't review the show. He/she reviewed a book about the show.
Wow, did you miss the point. The grandparent post indicated that the Soviet Union fell apart solely under the weight of central planning and that the Reagan policies played no role. I was making the point -- through sarcasm, which apparently you missed -- that if central planning alone were enough to propel a nation into a law-based democracy, we'd have seen the same happen to North Korea, Cuba, and China. And of course none of those three have moved toward a free society since 1991.
Put another way, I'm pretty sure you and I agree.
Exactly. That's why the collapse of the Soviet Union was followed in short order by the collapse of Cuba, North Korea, and China, all of whom also transformed themselves into fledgling if flawed democracies.
Oh, wait...
Reagan didn't cause the collapse. But to say that the economic and military policies had no effect is just nonsense.
This is only half the key. You need discretion and judgment to know when it's worthwhile to fight as opposed to when it's better to pursue other options. It certainly seems true that there are world leaders who understand only the language of force and who must be faced stalwartly. But taking that approach at the wrong time can convince others that you have become the threat, and solidfy diffuse opposition into fierce hostility.
Well, current experience on the national scene doesn't enhance my faith in democracy.
It's possible, especially if the school is small, that these administrative tasks could be parcelled out among faculty and maybe parents. (Though I suspect the latter would be a recipe for a conflict-of-interest disaster.) But that's still going to take time away from the things you want the teachers to be doing, i.e., teaching.
But, second, as a classroom teacher, let me respond to
What drives teachers crazy is that it seems management isn't done well by managers either. I have assiduously avoided getting "promoted" into administration precisely because I want to teach. But I don't think it's outrageous to ask that those who do take jobs in administration learn to be good at, you know, administering. The grandparent post had a point: The people who make the budgets and track the money often seem openly hostile to hearing from the classroom teachers -- they want to set budgets without asking us what the priorities are from our vantage.
It might or might not be true that if teachers made the budget, we'd all have great classrooms and lousy buildings. I'd like to think that the people in charge of educating the young would be smart enough to understand infrastructure; in fact, I'd be willing to bet that, among professionals not directly involved in infrastructure, teachers probably rank among the highest in their appreciation of those issues. But that's anecdotal and I could be wrong. In any event, if the decision makes sense, why not actually explain it and show people?
In fact, in my experience, most bad management involves a desparate, almost pathological need to control the flow of information and a corresponding disdain for transparency.
Um, it actually is the job of a police officer to be concerned with observing rights under the Bill of Rights. Ever hear of the Fourth Amendment? The Fifth? The Sixth? Ever hear of Miranda? of Epstein?
It is the settled and considered opinion of the American judiciary that law enforcement must be cognizant and respectful of the rights of the accused. Whole cases can be thrown out when they're not. What's more, the majority of law enforcement agencies in America recognize this as part of their duties, too, and not just to secure a good conviction rate. They understand that, by having the populace see them as allies and not thugs, they can do a better job.
So your analogy actually argues for the shareholder activists.
Hmmm. How about, because they're hard to reach, because of censorship embodied in the Internet infrastructure? How about, because as a citizen in the US, I don't have a lot of reach with Chinese citizens but I can have an impact on an American company?
Who are you to declare what investors want? You can say what you want, and that's valid. If the majority of shareholders agree with you, well, then this proposal will die and Cisco can go on doing what's it's doing. But if a majority disagree with you on what they want, why the heck should your prescription hold? If only there were some way to officially guage shareholder opinion on this... Something that allows each shareholder to concretely express his/her opinion, maybe in proportional to how much stock they own...
Oh, wait. There is such a process. It's called a shareholder vote. But for some reason the Cisco board doesn't want this to happen. Maybe they're afraid that investors want them to do the right thing, even if it costs some opportunities.
And again, this is not what's going on. If this passes, Cisco isn't telling China not to censor. It's telling China that Cisco won't be a part of it.
This is the convenient cop-out that often allows people to justify their participation in the nefarious deeds of others. Maybe "someone else" would sell the routers. Heck, there'd be a market, right? But neither Cisco nor Cisco's shareholders are responsible for what "someone else" does. They are responsible for what Cisco does. That's what is at issue here.
If Cisco bowed out and "someone else" stepped in, well, at the very least, the routers would be more expensive (because the supply is smaller, as the major supplier is not selling). This impacts the Chinese policy, at least a little. Maybe at some point someone in China would decide that the monetary cost wasn't worth it. Meanwhile, activists would see that their policy could work, and might use a similar one to force the "someone else" to stop working with China, too. As well, it's not outrageous to think that a "boycott complicits" movement will lead to local governments and universities and so on buying only from companies that don't aid in Chinese censorship. And bam! Now Cisco is deriving an actual monetary benefit from their policy.
It's not as cut-and-dried as you want to make it seem. The process seems in fact to be handling the concerns of the shareholders quite well -- at least, until the execs at Cisco get the SEC to allow them to muzzle the proposal.
But then, that would be ironically appropriate, wouldn't it?
Dance with the Devil long enough and you grow cloven feet, too.
Fair enough. But not all value is monetary value. The shareholders of Cisco get to decide what value they wish to receive. Perhaps they receive value from knowing that the company they own (and it is the shareholders who own it) does not help Communist nations suppress free expression. That might be worth a lot to them, in fact. In which case, it's perfectly reasonable for the shareholders to trade dollar value for that value -- if indeed this will cost dollars (an assumption which I think is, in the long term, uncertain at best).
This is exactly the way it's supposed to work. If the activist shareholders can't convince their fellows to vote a majority of stock behind their proposal, it goes down. Then probably the activists dump their stock -- though they might remain, in order to have a chance to raise the issue again. If they can bring the others on board, then it should go through. That's how democracy works, after all. It might be reasonable that the Chinese aren't too up on the concept, but it's shocking to see how many in the so-called free world seem threatened by this exercise of democracy.
I think this is a fabulous idea for precisely the reason the "classical astronomers" think it's a bad one. It's time to break the connection between timekeeping and the astronomical accidents of the Earth. Clarke was right -- if we have much of a future at all, then for most of human history, "ship" will mean "spaceship".
Well, solar noon is up to half an hour away from calendar noon now, for places near the edges of timezones. Somehow life goes on.
That's not exactly clear. Sometimes the law in the US says "Implement international treaty X" -- especially if X is a technical standard. If the treaty provides for an international body to define the standard, and that body defines it differently, then the change would automatically propagate into US law. The basic idea is, some things are better decided by teams of arcane experts than by elected representatives. Not the "big issues" like abortion or defense spending but the details, like leap seconds.
I find the whole political angle to this as both hilarious and depressing.
Ah, you mean "innovating" (Microsoft style). And then in two years, they'll be claiming they invented all of this anyway.
As is almost always the case, the statistic seems perfectly fine. The interpretation is trickier.
Yeah. And look, the O-rings only caused 1 orbiter to blow up, too -- what's all this about watching the launch temperature?
Once is too many. Maybe they should be looking for a design wherein bits don't randomly fall off. And if that's impossible, maybe they should be going with a system that isn't rendered catastrophically useless (i.e., egg-shell heat tiles) by the bits that fall off.
112 times out of 113, we got undeservedly lucky. It's time for this designed-to-be experimental system to be retired.
How the heck do you know? This was a publicity page, for pete's sake. Did you read the papers they published? Could you even name them? You're reading this like it's the great publication of all their work, but it's really a case of "Hey look at these cool videos we made in the course of our research."
Blockquoth the poster:
It might come to mind, but it shouldn't. First, we're talking experimentation, not programming. Second, YAGNI applied to research essentially says, Do no basic research. In 1930, do I "need" ultrapure silicon wafers? Do I "need" to know why and how silicon can semi-conduct? No. But if no one had been asking those questions, you would not be writing your reply on a mass-produced digital computer.
Basic research is exactly about things for which the applications seem remote or even unforeseeable. Do you think they researched lasers in the 1960s so that you could listen to CDs and watch DVDs? No. They researched lasers because they were interesting quantum phenomena. It was far and away not something "needed". And in fact that is often the case.
I really had resolved to sit this one out, to not get involved with all the NASA-bashing that such a page is guaranteed to inspire. And then I saw this.
It might be hard for someone in media-drenched America to understand, but the point of this was not to entertain you. I know, I know: It's virtually indecent to propose that anything be done for any reason other than your amusement. The point of these experiments was to learn something about fluid flow.
Maybe ILM could have made the samne movie -- and maybe not, because fluid flow is hard. Certainly they could have made a movie that you would have thought was a simulation of fluid flow in microgravity, because they're clever and because you (and no one else, really) has a firm idea of what that would be. But as a visual simulation it could teach us nothing new and concrete. And as a summer blockbuster it would likely have fallen flat.
These guys, on the other hand, are doing science. They're running experiments to explore the operation of the physical universe. Along the way, they came upon video footage that, they thought, looked "fun" and so they shared it. I can't see anything to be critical of here.
I'm sure I'll arouse the ire of the wrath from atop the thing by bringing up the old chestnut of spin-offs, but we have no idea of what practical applications willcome from this knowledge, and the knowledge that comes along with it that they didn't put on that page. It's fairly easy to see how understanding this could help with fuel injection systems, but I'm sure there are many other potential payoffs.
And yes, we do need to spend government money on that, because the payoff is uncertain. Private industry will not invest in basic research, whose beneficiaries are unknowable at the outset. Indeed often the people who make the money are not the ones who do the research. As for it being "uber" dollars: The entire NASA budget is about $16B. The federal budget is about $2,200B. So all of NASA is about about 1% of federal outlays. Not only is this smaller than the series of "emergency" outlays to cover the war in Iraq; it's smaller than the generic pork the Congress (and administration) roll into the budget.
OK, but Websense has a business interest in promoting the idea that "unregulated" Net access hurts productivity. So really, Ars Technica is just giving the other view -- and the truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.
I've been aware of zazzle for about as long as I have of cafepress, which is a little over three years. I don't know why everyone's acting as if this were some vapor startup. It's a going concern that has been producing happy customers for a long while.
(Disclaimer: I don't know how long cafepress has been in operation. I suspect, however, that it is not significantly longer than zazzle.)