Right. I get that Google has a larger view of data. That's not my point. My point is that, for the purposes of that and all of your other searches, you have to reveal the same data (what you are searching for, what is your IP address, etc) than you would to Google.
And, let's be honest, what's to stop Scroogle from turning around a year from now and selling that data to Google outright, AND to everyone else who offers them money? They have your IP address, the dates you accessed their service, and what you searched for. That information could easily be combined with anyone's "panopticon" in this day and age of nearly-fixed IP addresses (remember, Scroogle has your actual IP address in their logs - their proxy does not protect you from them).
Scroogle has no published privacy policy I could see. They have made only one promise - to anonymize your access to Google during the course of the search.
Scroogle can't gather that full profile, but you are giving them enough information to be very saleable for use as part of a profile like that.
I'm not saying "trust Google blindly." You, as an individual, can and absolutely should make a decision on whom you trust. I know that my usage of Google is being sold to advertisers. I understand the nature of the bargain I've made with the Google Devil.
But, for your own safety, don't distrust Google then blindly turn to a lesser-known company and just trust them because they are not Google. What level of trust has Scroogle offered? What promises have they made? Who have they contracted with to make sure their willingness to keep their promises has been kept?
I'm not saying "Google Good, Scroogle Bad". I'm saying that Google is a pretty well known quantity (whether you like them or not). You have a good base of knowledge upon which to make your decision.
Scroogle is not a known quantity. Scroogle could be backed by anyone (frankly, even Google themselves), or their data could be bought out by anyone at any time. They've only promised you "proxy anonymity". Nothing more. I see no promise not to keep server logs, or resell them later. And there's no verification to ensure that they are even keeping the one promise they've made.
If you know someone on the Scroogle team, great, you have a basis for trusting them. Personally, I don't. To me, they are a bunch of names on a web page, and I have no assurances that the names even refer to real people.
Maybe they're in it for completely altruistic purposes like they claim. They probably are. But how do I know?
OK, there's not a lot of life down there to be affected, and the radiation isn't going to propagate without a lot of dissipation. Got it. OK with it. It's an environmental catastrophe, but nowhere NEAR the scale of the one we are currently experiencing, and you gotta go with the lesser evil even if it is an evil.
But that still leaves me with a big, possibly unfounded, concern.
I'm not a civil engineer, but how much do we really know about the seabed at those depths? I mean, are we placing these wells where they are because we know the thicknesses with a decent level of confidence, or only because we know the crust we have to drill through is thinner there and therefore easier to drill through?
If the crust is thinner, how do we know that the area we are placing the nukes is thick enough to withstand the explosion? I mean, the idea is to shift a crapload of rock, right? What happens if the crust underneath is thin enough that it ruptures, or there are cracks or fissures we expose in the process? Can we guarantee that won't happen to a relatively high level of confidence? What are the odds that we might cap this hole, but make one ten or a hundred times larger - large enough that it's uncappable even employing the same dramatic technique, and spews out oil at rates that make the current spill look pathetic?
This is a bad and extreme situation, agreed, but what is the risk that this plan would make it far, far worse?
I was about to post the same thing, then I saw your post...
Frankly, I'm amused that someone would distrust Google enough to use any third party to anonymize searches for them. Don't get me wrong, Google collects more than I'm comfortable with, but at least they are a well-known and pretty well-regulated entity. Whenever an unknown comes in and tells me they are going to protect me from the boogeyman for free, I start looking for the catch. When I can't find one, I get nervous. Why, exactly, does Scroogle exist? Is it to protect me from Google? Great, so now quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Do I have a reason to trust Scroogle more than I do Google?
I mean, think about it - Scroogle has access to the exact same information Google would have had you used Google. The only difference is that, instead of giving that information to a company that discloses how they use it and why they want it and is under massive international scrutiny and gets pounced on every time they appear to break their promise, you are now giving the information to a much smaller company that promises not to use it at all, but you don't know how they are making money or what their true motivation is for offering the service, nor do you know if they are keeping said promises.
How long is Scroogle maintaining your search history? Who are they going to sell it to? Where is their privacy policy? I sure as hell don't see one on their site.
Google is the devil I can see. I know precisely what Bezos et al want from me - they want to know as much about me as possible so they can show me ads they think I'll click on and buy shit. In order to tempt me to cough up said information, they offer me world-class tools to do all manner of things. For free. I get that there's a price tag attached. And there are plenty of governments and organizations out there watching to make sure Google doesn't take more from me than they promised. It's a Faustian bargain, but the devil's only agreed to take part of my soul, and can be held to his promises.
Scroogle? No, all I see is a list of names, and no promises or real claims about anything, except that their proxies will protect me from Google. What protects me from them?
Scroogle has the absolute right to a refund for any and all money that they have paid Google because Google isn't living up to the contract where Scroogle pays Google for a stable connec... wait, what was that? Oh, I see. Never mind.
Scroogle may be providing a service that people value, but they are still using Google to do it, and not paying Google for that access. Google is tolerating this, which is all well and good, but they are under absolutely no obligation to make sure the connection is unchanged. Sites change all the time, and anyone who employs scraping technology as part of their technological solution should not be surprised when they do.
It is. The punishment is still extreme to the point of being silly. And I'm still not sure I buy the reasoning behind the ban.
Hell, as others have pointed out, this came out after the letter from the state food folks clarifying that candy is not covered by the ban, so this could possibly just be the school rotating in a new excuse when the old one is discredited.
I don't know the school or its policies, and of course trying to search for any "gum and hard candy ban" that might have been in place before the story broke is now pretty much impossible.
If such a ban existed, then the school's story has a lot more credibility - they were (possibly overzealously) in enforcing a (possibly misguided) ban that existed as a reaction to a real problem.
It's also possible that the ban exists, and was enforced as written, and the only real sin is that some administrator didn't take the time to understand what was going on before he/she made something up to get a reporter to stop hounding him/her.
Pay our janitors more and deal with the fact that kids like candy and will bring it to school, regardless of the rules or punishment in place.
OK, good start. A ban is a bad idea (I actually agree), but what are the alternatives? Where does the money come from to pay these janitors more? How many community members will approve the budget increase, and how many of them will rail against how much money is being wasted?
A ten-year-old was harshly punished before she ever caused any harm, and that's not right. The friend that gave her the candy got in trouble too. I might understand the punishment if she had been a repeat offender and had been given warnings before but there is no mention of that in any article. Humiliating and punishing a child like this is not fair, and that act should be punished. I hope the media rips this school to shreds. We, the people, should have zero fucking tolerance towards this stupidity.
Fair enough. But at least we are ripping them to shreds based on the real reasons for their actions.
Misrepresentations like the original article and the summary fuel the debate, but people are now debating about "nutritional value" bans. That's not what this case is about, and that's not why the candy was banned.
The punishment is extreme. The ban is probably wrong. But understanding WHAT you are criticizing is important.
They should, but unfortunately hard candy and especially gum take a lot of effort to clean up even from an "easy to clean" area. And eating areas are usually constructed to meet a construction budget by the lowest of multiple bidders.
I have a theory, but it may or may not match up to reality. The school may have been (like many schools) facing cuts to their budget, and had to lose a janitor or cut hours for the cleaning staff, so they instituted the ban to keep the effort to clean the lunch room to a minimum.
And, yes, on the topic of junk food bans, it is crazy. As a proud lover of the ideals of things like "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution", and a full supporter of the idea that we need to start feeding our children real food, I don't think a ban is the correct way to get it done. You'll just get inevitable backlash, and it'll be seen as "government interference" and the ban will be flouted by the very people the ban would be designed to help.
Fortunately, that's not what this story appears to be about.
This punishment may still be unfair. I'm not sure I agree with a 5-day detention. I think that was a gross overreaction, unless these students have been flouting the ban for some time or the administrators had some other reason to believe that these specific students were about to make (or previously had made) a big mess with the candy. Even so, I think this is an overreaction.
But let's criticize the school officials for something they did based on the real reasons they did it and not an apparently deliberate misquote to sell more column space.
I read the article. Did you read the one I posted? The one from an actual local newspaper who sent an actual journalist out to talk to them?
Ellis concedes not all candy is treated equally. “If we had a kid whose mom slipped a couple of candy kisses in their lunch, we don't mess with that,” he said. ”It's basically the hard candy and gum that we don't want. Hard candy, when dropped, it's the messiest to clean up.”
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy (gum, hard candy, etc) were banned because the kids were continually making a mess with them.
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy were banned because the kids were making a mess with them. Oh, and by the way, the friend was also punished with the same detention.
No, the newspaper that was chosen for the summary misrepresented the issue, probably to sell more ad space. The candy was not banned at all due to a state guideline. Certain types of candy (gum and Jolly Ranchers among them) were banned because the kids were making a mess with them. It was probably that or go to the taxpayers for overtime for the janitors. And we all know how well asking for money goes over in the current economic environment.
The actual news story is far less interesting than making this out to be a nazi plot against our chilluns so more people will indignantly read the story and view ads, I know, but when you have to go 6 pages on a Google search to get to the first local coverage of the event (you know, people who have reporters who can go and talk to people)...
The real story will never catch up with the lie that sells more papers.
Much more enlightening than the coverage provided was a story in a local newspaper. They (gasp!) actually took the time to talk to the school officials involved and determine why such a ban exists, and why the punishment was so harsh. Heavens! It's almost like they engaged in, dare I say it, journalism! What's really telling is that it was on about page 7 of the Google search results list, well after all the blogs and screaming and angst over this injustice.
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy were banned because the kids were making a mess with them, and it was getting expensive to have to keep cleaning it up. Personally, I'd make any kid caught making a mess with candy give up a week or two of recess and spend time helping to clean the school. Or send their parents the janitor's bill for a day and let them enforce the problem with their little darlings. But a ban is probably an easier, if less fair, way to deal with the minority who were making a mess.
This still might be an overly harsh punishment for an action that doesn't even deserve punishment, but the real reason is far more interesting than the knee-jerk sells-newspapers coverage I've seen everywhere else.
You don't. That's why this is good. So far, people are getting the message they've been fed. "Pirates are evil, you need to accept bullshit to fight them." Now the average person will understand that the pirates are not affected by this, but that their multi-thousand-dollar HDTV rigs will now be useless once Hollywood is done getting all these controls passed.
Then, maybe, people will accept that this is just entertainment, and stop supporting this shit as if it was something important and worth our attention as a society. They'll stop spending their money supporting this crap and start living a life again. I have a dream, but I'm afraid it's just a delusion.
Or, in this case, who screens the screeners? (my Latin sucks, English will have to do)
Stories like this simply make it clear that:
a) the level of detail coming out of these scanners is somewhat better than many have been led to believe. b) the level of professionalism of some of the people charged with operating the scanners is somewhat worse than many have been led to believe.
If seeing people naked is what it really takes to introduce real security into the scanning process, just tell everyone they have to get naked to go through security. Don't hide the fact behind millions of dollars in technology and bullshittery and try to convince us that the people operating the gear are anything other than underpaid security guards, some (the vast minority, but still some) of whom will jump on the chance to sell any images they can capture, and that the images are of sufficient clarity that they are worth capturing.
I'm not against such scanners per se, though they seem like a very expensive way to gain a possibly marginal but mostly imaginary increase in security. But let's stop bullshitting ourselves that there will be any realistic expectation of privacy once they get implement, mmmm'kay?
It's also an enlightening example of the behavior of the "trained professionals" who are supposed to not be paying attention to the size of your johnson when you walk through the scanners. It's like being a porn star, only you aren't being paid and you have no choice in the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, so THEY are the originators of ManBearPig!
Those crazy Minoans, they got exactly what they deserved.
Right. I get that Google has a larger view of data. That's not my point. My point is that, for the purposes of that and all of your other searches, you have to reveal the same data (what you are searching for, what is your IP address, etc) than you would to Google.
And, let's be honest, what's to stop Scroogle from turning around a year from now and selling that data to Google outright, AND to everyone else who offers them money? They have your IP address, the dates you accessed their service, and what you searched for. That information could easily be combined with anyone's "panopticon" in this day and age of nearly-fixed IP addresses (remember, Scroogle has your actual IP address in their logs - their proxy does not protect you from them).
Scroogle has no published privacy policy I could see. They have made only one promise - to anonymize your access to Google during the course of the search.
Scroogle can't gather that full profile, but you are giving them enough information to be very saleable for use as part of a profile like that.
I'm not saying "trust Google blindly." You, as an individual, can and absolutely should make a decision on whom you trust. I know that my usage of Google is being sold to advertisers. I understand the nature of the bargain I've made with the Google Devil.
But, for your own safety, don't distrust Google then blindly turn to a lesser-known company and just trust them because they are not Google. What level of trust has Scroogle offered? What promises have they made? Who have they contracted with to make sure their willingness to keep their promises has been kept?
I'm not saying "Google Good, Scroogle Bad". I'm saying that Google is a pretty well known quantity (whether you like them or not). You have a good base of knowledge upon which to make your decision.
Scroogle is not a known quantity. Scroogle could be backed by anyone (frankly, even Google themselves), or their data could be bought out by anyone at any time. They've only promised you "proxy anonymity". Nothing more. I see no promise not to keep server logs, or resell them later. And there's no verification to ensure that they are even keeping the one promise they've made.
If you know someone on the Scroogle team, great, you have a basis for trusting them. Personally, I don't. To me, they are a bunch of names on a web page, and I have no assurances that the names even refer to real people.
Maybe they're in it for completely altruistic purposes like they claim. They probably are. But how do I know?
OK, there's not a lot of life down there to be affected, and the radiation isn't going to propagate without a lot of dissipation. Got it. OK with it. It's an environmental catastrophe, but nowhere NEAR the scale of the one we are currently experiencing, and you gotta go with the lesser evil even if it is an evil.
But that still leaves me with a big, possibly unfounded, concern.
I'm not a civil engineer, but how much do we really know about the seabed at those depths? I mean, are we placing these wells where they are because we know the thicknesses with a decent level of confidence, or only because we know the crust we have to drill through is thinner there and therefore easier to drill through?
If the crust is thinner, how do we know that the area we are placing the nukes is thick enough to withstand the explosion? I mean, the idea is to shift a crapload of rock, right? What happens if the crust underneath is thin enough that it ruptures, or there are cracks or fissures we expose in the process? Can we guarantee that won't happen to a relatively high level of confidence? What are the odds that we might cap this hole, but make one ten or a hundred times larger - large enough that it's uncappable even employing the same dramatic technique, and spews out oil at rates that make the current spill look pathetic?
This is a bad and extreme situation, agreed, but what is the risk that this plan would make it far, far worse?
I was about to post the same thing, then I saw your post...
Frankly, I'm amused that someone would distrust Google enough to use any third party to anonymize searches for them. Don't get me wrong, Google collects more than I'm comfortable with, but at least they are a well-known and pretty well-regulated entity. Whenever an unknown comes in and tells me they are going to protect me from the boogeyman for free, I start looking for the catch. When I can't find one, I get nervous. Why, exactly, does Scroogle exist? Is it to protect me from Google? Great, so now quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Do I have a reason to trust Scroogle more than I do Google?
I mean, think about it - Scroogle has access to the exact same information Google would have had you used Google. The only difference is that, instead of giving that information to a company that discloses how they use it and why they want it and is under massive international scrutiny and gets pounced on every time they appear to break their promise, you are now giving the information to a much smaller company that promises not to use it at all, but you don't know how they are making money or what their true motivation is for offering the service, nor do you know if they are keeping said promises.
How long is Scroogle maintaining your search history? Who are they going to sell it to? Where is their privacy policy? I sure as hell don't see one on their site.
Google is the devil I can see. I know precisely what Bezos et al want from me - they want to know as much about me as possible so they can show me ads they think I'll click on and buy shit. In order to tempt me to cough up said information, they offer me world-class tools to do all manner of things. For free. I get that there's a price tag attached. And there are plenty of governments and organizations out there watching to make sure Google doesn't take more from me than they promised. It's a Faustian bargain, but the devil's only agreed to take part of my soul, and can be held to his promises.
Scroogle? No, all I see is a list of names, and no promises or real claims about anything, except that their proxies will protect me from Google. What protects me from them?
Scroogle has the absolute right to a refund for any and all money that they have paid Google because Google isn't living up to the contract where Scroogle pays Google for a stable connec... wait, what was that? Oh, I see. Never mind.
Scroogle may be providing a service that people value, but they are still using Google to do it, and not paying Google for that access. Google is tolerating this, which is all well and good, but they are under absolutely no obligation to make sure the connection is unchanged. Sites change all the time, and anyone who employs scraping technology as part of their technological solution should not be surprised when they do.
Yup, works fine.
Looks like it.
accept -1 Redundant
Given the number of digits in your UID, all I can say is...
"Why yes, yes I am new here."
Where is your lawn, so I know to avoid it? (grin)
It is. The punishment is still extreme to the point of being silly. And I'm still not sure I buy the reasoning behind the ban.
Hell, as others have pointed out, this came out after the letter from the state food folks clarifying that candy is not covered by the ban, so this could possibly just be the school rotating in a new excuse when the old one is discredited.
I don't know the school or its policies, and of course trying to search for any "gum and hard candy ban" that might have been in place before the story broke is now pretty much impossible.
If such a ban existed, then the school's story has a lot more credibility - they were (possibly overzealously) in enforcing a (possibly misguided) ban that existed as a reaction to a real problem.
It's also possible that the ban exists, and was enforced as written, and the only real sin is that some administrator didn't take the time to understand what was going on before he/she made something up to get a reporter to stop hounding him/her.
Pay our janitors more and deal with the fact that kids like candy and will bring it to school, regardless of the rules or punishment in place.
OK, good start. A ban is a bad idea (I actually agree), but what are the alternatives? Where does the money come from to pay these janitors more? How many community members will approve the budget increase, and how many of them will rail against how much money is being wasted?
A ten-year-old was harshly punished before she ever caused any harm, and that's not right. The friend that gave her the candy got in trouble too. I might understand the punishment if she had been a repeat offender and had been given warnings before but there is no mention of that in any article. Humiliating and punishing a child like this is not fair, and that act should be punished. I hope the media rips this school to shreds. We, the people, should have zero fucking tolerance towards this stupidity.
Fair enough. But at least we are ripping them to shreds based on the real reasons for their actions.
Misrepresentations like the original article and the summary fuel the debate, but people are now debating about "nutritional value" bans. That's not what this case is about, and that's not why the candy was banned.
The punishment is extreme. The ban is probably wrong. But understanding WHAT you are criticizing is important.
Fine. I actually agree for the most part. I think the ban was probably misguided and the punishment was almost certainly an overreaction.
But, hey, at least now you're criticizing the policy based on the actual facts behind it, and not some made-up "nutritional value ban".
They should, but unfortunately hard candy and especially gum take a lot of effort to clean up even from an "easy to clean" area. And eating areas are usually constructed to meet a construction budget by the lowest of multiple bidders.
I have a theory, but it may or may not match up to reality. The school may have been (like many schools) facing cuts to their budget, and had to lose a janitor or cut hours for the cleaning staff, so they instituted the ban to keep the effort to clean the lunch room to a minimum.
And, yes, on the topic of junk food bans, it is crazy. As a proud lover of the ideals of things like "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution", and a full supporter of the idea that we need to start feeding our children real food, I don't think a ban is the correct way to get it done. You'll just get inevitable backlash, and it'll be seen as "government interference" and the ban will be flouted by the very people the ban would be designed to help.
Fortunately, that's not what this story appears to be about.
This punishment may still be unfair. I'm not sure I agree with a 5-day detention. I think that was a gross overreaction, unless these students have been flouting the ban for some time or the administrators had some other reason to believe that these specific students were about to make (or previously had made) a big mess with the candy. Even so, I think this is an overreaction.
But let's criticize the school officials for something they did based on the real reasons they did it and not an apparently deliberate misquote to sell more column space.
I read the article. Did you read the one I posted? The one from an actual local newspaper who sent an actual journalist out to talk to them?
Ellis concedes not all candy is treated equally. “If we had a kid whose mom slipped a couple of candy kisses in their lunch, we don't mess with that,” he said. ”It's basically the hard candy and gum that we don't want. Hard candy, when dropped, it's the messiest to clean up.”
The only liars are the newspapers for not telling the whole story.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy (gum, hard candy, etc) were banned because the kids were continually making a mess with them.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy were banned because the kids were making a mess with them. Oh, and by the way, the friend was also punished with the same detention.
No, the newspaper that was chosen for the summary misrepresented the issue, probably to sell more ad space. The candy was not banned at all due to a state guideline. Certain types of candy (gum and Jolly Ranchers among them) were banned because the kids were making a mess with them. It was probably that or go to the taxpayers for overtime for the janitors. And we all know how well asking for money goes over in the current economic environment.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
The actual news story is far less interesting than making this out to be a nazi plot against our chilluns so more people will indignantly read the story and view ads, I know, but when you have to go 6 pages on a Google search to get to the first local coverage of the event (you know, people who have reporters who can go and talk to people)...
The real story will never catch up with the lie that sells more papers.
Much more enlightening than the coverage provided was a story in a local newspaper. They (gasp!) actually took the time to talk to the school officials involved and determine why such a ban exists, and why the punishment was so harsh. Heavens! It's almost like they engaged in, dare I say it, journalism! What's really telling is that it was on about page 7 of the Google search results list, well after all the blogs and screaming and angst over this injustice.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy were banned because the kids were making a mess with them, and it was getting expensive to have to keep cleaning it up. Personally, I'd make any kid caught making a mess with candy give up a week or two of recess and spend time helping to clean the school. Or send their parents the janitor's bill for a day and let them enforce the problem with their little darlings. But a ban is probably an easier, if less fair, way to deal with the minority who were making a mess.
This still might be an overly harsh punishment for an action that doesn't even deserve punishment, but the real reason is far more interesting than the knee-jerk sells-newspapers coverage I've seen everywhere else.
No, silly billy, dessert is a religion (especially the bacon gelato I had for dessert last night, with maple syrup on it - YUM!)
But TV and movies are, in fact, "just" entertainment. :)
You don't. That's why this is good. So far, people are getting the message they've been fed. "Pirates are evil, you need to accept bullshit to fight them." Now the average person will understand that the pirates are not affected by this, but that their multi-thousand-dollar HDTV rigs will now be useless once Hollywood is done getting all these controls passed.
Then, maybe, people will accept that this is just entertainment, and stop supporting this shit as if it was something important and worth our attention as a society. They'll stop spending their money supporting this crap and start living a life again. I have a dream, but I'm afraid it's just a delusion.
Good. Then the average person who doesn't understand the whole debate will now get the message that they are being fucked with loud and clear.
bluray
Am I the only one who sees that word as "blurry" unless it is capitalized "BluRay"?
I tried to compile it, but I think you had a misplaced tab.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Or, in this case, who screens the screeners? (my Latin sucks, English will have to do)
Stories like this simply make it clear that:
a) the level of detail coming out of these scanners is somewhat better than many have been led to believe.
b) the level of professionalism of some of the people charged with operating the scanners is somewhat worse than many have been led to believe.
If seeing people naked is what it really takes to introduce real security into the scanning process, just tell everyone they have to get naked to go through security. Don't hide the fact behind millions of dollars in technology and bullshittery and try to convince us that the people operating the gear are anything other than underpaid security guards, some (the vast minority, but still some) of whom will jump on the chance to sell any images they can capture, and that the images are of sufficient clarity that they are worth capturing.
I'm not against such scanners per se, though they seem like a very expensive way to gain a possibly marginal but mostly imaginary increase in security. But let's stop bullshitting ourselves that there will be any realistic expectation of privacy once they get implement, mmmm'kay?
A month? The people who come out with the pictures after a month will be VERY late to the "TSA CELEB PHOTO" bandwagon.
It's also an enlightening example of the behavior of the "trained professionals" who are supposed to not be paying attention to the size of your johnson when you walk through the scanners. It's like being a porn star, only you aren't being paid and you have no choice in the matter.