...was in an excellent science fiction novel "The Dark Cloud", by Sir Fred Hoyle. It won't spoil anything if I said that part of the novel dealt with super-intelligent aliens spontaneously exploding whenever they advanced beyond a certain point.
It would be, except the nucleus is too small to undergo fission and any fissile output (eg: neutrons) would not strike anything. A point source cannot strike itself. That is the truly evil part of this whole thing - what would normally occur cannot do so, which means that the matter has no alternative but to reorganize itself to minimize the energy in other ways.
It's a bit like taking liquid hydrogen and exerting enough pressure on it to turn it into solid metal. The temperature technically goes up, but it can't remain liquid or convert to a gas because the volume is too small. The most stable state it can enter is a "high-temperature" solid.
In this case, what we're doing is compressing a BEC "superatom" to a temperature in which it can no longer remain a BEC, but it cannot revert to deuterium atoms either. Neither is stable, under the conditions imposed. The only alternative is for the nuclei to fuse together, because it is the only valid way left that they can reduce the space requirements to what they have.
You'd need to be a little careful, though. You don't want to leave any nuclei with no valid state, or you're going to squish the lot into a quark-gluon soup. Again, that could be nasty, as I'm not sure you can magnetically contain the gluons... which ARE going to react with the containment system.
The neutrons would be emitted as though from a point source (which a BEC is) and would therefore not hit anything for a chain reaction to occur.
Now, there MAY be a way to use a BEC more destructively. If you have a BEC that consists of pure deuterium, use magnetic containment to prevent the BEC from expanding back out at all, raise the temperature as close to instantaneously as possible to the point where fusion can occur...
The BEC obviously can't remain a BEC at superhigh temperatures, so must unfold to some degree. The structure is guaranteed to move to the lowest possible energy state, because that is what atomic structures do. This is part of why it would be important to raise the temperature rapidly. You want it so that there simply is no valid state with deuterium nucleii.
If deuterium is simply not an option, the nucleii will fuse. They have no alternative. Here is where it gets fun, though. If the energies are high enough and the compression great enough, you can produce elements as far up the periodic table as you like. Unlike normal particle accelerator efforts to produce super-massive atoms, these will actually last for a while - there won't be room for them to fall apart.
The difficulty in producing the correct conditions would be enormous, but if you could crack that nut, there'd be no theoretical reason why you couldn't push for a nucleus with an atomic mass of a thousand or so.
The energy to produce such a monster atom would be guaranteed much greater than ALL of the energy output by the fusion reactions. (Iron takes more energy to fuse than it gives out and we're talking something a couple of orders of magnitude larger.) Sustaining it might even be worse.
The fun part, though, will be in letting it collapse after a time. A very substantial part of the energy put into the fusion of the nucleii would be released in a matter of microseconds over an extremely small space. Current physics predicts that if you exceed a certain energy density, space will "inflate". This might cause the whole of space/time to explode, it might form a pocket universe, or it might do all sorts of other strange things. Nobody knows much about energy densities of that magnitude.
The problem is with the WINE team.
on
Linux 2.6.15 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
...any of these bootloaders? True, they're not so modern, but there's a good chance the Windows virus checkers will have been updated between then and now. Well, one would hope, anyway!
Rather, I'm saying that the technology to do this has become so cheap and so pervasive that it only makes sense to assume that anyone can watch everyone else.
Since you can't roll back the discoveries, you can't stop people from being able to do this. All you can do is change social attitudes so that you largely eliminate the desire to do this. The only way I can think of to do this safely is through better, more extensive education that specifically deals with the study of information (a hard science) and the study of people (a social science). Once people are socially equipt to handle the information flood, they will be in a stronger position to understand how it should be altered to work FOR people, not against them.
In the end, knowledge and understanding are the only instruments that are effective at controlling information. Information availability, at present, far exceeds most people's knowledge and understanding. I do not believe this is safe, stable or sustainable.
Transcending limitations is inherent in ANY civilization that is progressing. You cannot have it both ways - you either improve technology OR improve constraints. The best compromise you can have is to have technology that frees you from constraints and which society (as a collective) agrees to socially place limitations on.
Technology is a two-edged sword and that is why societies that develop technology for which they lack the social values to deal with always self-destruct.
Invisibility is also inherent in technology. When was the last time you toggled the states of each individual bit in RAM with a switch? That's how computers were programmed in the 1940s. These days, we don't need to care about the internal representation. Even programmers generally allow the compiler (and even the assembler) take care of such mundane details.
Wireless technology, from your cell phone to your modem, will be packed with invisible details that you cannot discern through trivial observation. How many connections are there? Unless you've a wifi scanner you can't know, because there isn't anything physical about the connections to observe.
Decentralization is also inherent in technology. Why do you thing P2P is so popular, or why the web has overthrown the central archive, why clusters have replaced vector processors, etc.
Technology also overthrows the need for labor. The luddites noticed that one in the 1800s, which is why they destroyed as much technology as they could. It had nothing to do with a hatred of technology, it had everything to do with the fact that they were being replaced with machines.
There has never been a time in history where "specific suspicion" has ever really existed, so that element isn't a factor. People have always been arrested on general suspicion, held for a certain length of time for investigations to produce something specific, and then charged. America has actually been worse than much of Europe for that - Britain won't generally allow a person to be held without specific charge for more than 24 hours, yet Kevin Mitnick was not brought to trial for many years and many held for terror-related reasons may well be held for life and never be charged at all.
(Britain, one of the most ruthless, dictatorial of European countries, baulked at anything longer than 21 days without charge under absolutely any conditions whatsoever, and nearly overthrew Tony Blair altogether when he pushed for more.)
The single-biggest problem with spy-cams and surveillance societies has nothing to do with the list (which applies to ANY technological advance, so is irrelevent anyway). The biggest problem is that the information is controlled by a minority for the interests of that minority, with no possibility of rigorous control over potential use or prevention of potential abuse.
The "correct" solution to the problem is to require the information be available to anyone. In the end, anyone can (in theory) buy a high altitude weather balloon, hook a video camera to it, and gather their own information, so preventing open dissemination doesn't provide for any more privacy or security. It just prevents any guarantees of either.
Every camera - from speed cameras to traffic light cams to CCTV cams monitoring public areas - the whole lot should be open to public scrutiny at all times. Removing the cameras will do nothing for society, any more than removing the Spinning Jenny from the mills protected jobs. Better management, better scalability, better dissemination would have protected the livlihoods back then, but by focussing all the efforts on the technology and NONE of the effort on society, mass unemployment and mass unrest was inevitable.
So easy to avoid, so trivial to implement, so naive to ignore, yet so hard to get anyone to actually do anything about.
Life used to be simpler. Well, no it didn't, we just delude ourselves that it was. Life hasn't changed. Society is bar
I would, however, note that if a forger invented their own technique which created a comparable layering effect (ie: they were good enough to know why the original was so good, AND were good enough to reverse-engineer the technique), then although they cannot (and SHOULD NOT) be considered Rembrandt, a craftsman of such a caliber should be considered a master nonetheless.
Provided ALL the texture and effect is in place, that is. If it's just a cheap imitation - ie: none of the qualities that demonstrate mastery are present - then it is little more than a photocopy.
I do like the fact that KDE, ROX and Gnome are working together on a few interchangeable definitions and files - some core components just don't need to be rebuilt EVERY time, because they really are going to be essentially the same EVERY time.
I have used fvwm2, Enlightenment, Gnome (with all the assorted window managers they've managed to go through!:), KDE, twm, olvwm, afterstep, gwm - I've forgotten the names of the others... All of them - yes, even OpenLook - have their place. OpenLook was one of the first to sport a genuine pannable window manager, not just separate screens, which I happen to prefer but I recognize is not to everyone's taste. I also prefer the drag-and-drop actions in OpenLook over some of the more modern implementations.
I agree with those who argue that a thousand window managers is probably more than most individuals need. (I'd like it, but then I'm nuts.) However, there are easily over a thousand classes of user, and it is very likely that some of these window managers will be better than others for those classes.
I would therefore like to see packaging groups to sport a wider range of window managers to allow people to make use of the richness of the GUI world for *nix. There is far more out there than most people realize.
(And what of the non-X11 folk? I'd like to see them supported more, too. Where's the RPMs and DEBs for Berlin? KGI? There was once even a GUI based on Postscript, which would probably be a godsend to anyone more interested in desktop publishing than in games - and such people do exist, though there are treatments these days.)
To me, the absurdity is that the sheer volume of options is being hidden in all of these flamewars, behind the illusion of a binary choice that nobody ever really makes. (Many who use Gnome will use KDE-based applications, and vice versa.)
All Internet sites are a collection of whatever the Internet site owner considers interesting, as are the majority of websites. Indeed, that is one of the primary strengths of the web - the ability to publish whatever you find interesting.
The ability to format the data as a diary, or a collection of diaries, is not in and of itself anything I would consider noteworthy. The content may be, and sometimes is, but the use of extra layers of language to describe something that doesn't need describing just obscures what is interesting by emphasizing the points that are not.
(eg: There are plenty of commercial sites on the Internet today, but the use of "e-commerce" as a specific term is on the decline and "dot-com" is generally a term of ridicule. Sometimes, language gets in the way of the expression.)
As I see it, blogs that are essentially just personal rants will die a richly-deserved death, but "insider" blogs - which the media can draw from without being in danger of lawsuits, grand juries, etc - will likely prosper. "Special Interest Groups" (SIGs) do well as blogs - Slashdot is an example - but I doubt you can manufacture a SIG from a blog alone.
We will know when blogs have become totally accepted. That will occur when we no longer need to see them as anything special, they'll just be a part of the whole.
If someone wrote a worm that replaced the underlying OS with something decent, then layered enough compatibility on top for Windows applications to run correctly, then I don't see there'd be too much of a problem. Even the chair industry would stand to make a profit, if history is anything to go by.
Mind you, the only ones who know enough of the Windows internals to pull such a stunt are Microsoft employees, and I seriously doubt they'd risk a stunt like that. Especially as they'd likely be on said chair when Microsoft's CEO lobbed it off the roof.
In America, it is quite true that a sheep can move at a significant pace in comparison to the trains there. It's not even unusual to see trains parked while on crossings. Meanwhile, the sheep are all on speed and angel dust.
In England, it's not unusual for trains to be blasting about at 125mph. Also, sheep farming is largely confined to the Pennines, the Dales and the Cotswalds, which means lots of mud and slopes. The sheep are much better behaved, having grown up on a diet of James Herriot. Quite possibly literally, given the usual attitude of British farmers.
Yes, cats do recognize ownership. If it's not nailed down and covered in cat repellent, they own it. In total disregard for US law, cats also own humans.
Microsoft are leveraging their monopoly to promote one format over another. One will be supported, the other (probably) not. Sure, they're not preventing the development, but they are retaliating in the sense of destroying any competitive advantage a rival format would have. It's indirect, sure. It's not "direct" retaliation, sure. It demonstrates a passive-aggressive streak in Microsoft, sure.
There are other ways and means Microsoft could retaliate without being too obvious. Periodically updating underlying multimedia support via Windows Update, so that drivers for rival formats break, for example. Third party drivers aren't their problem, right?
Even the mere threat, or implied threat, of such action could be considered retaliation of sorts. It's like insiders using confidential information to deliberately manipulate the stock market, only this time it would be to manipulate the value of a product, not a stock.
My interpretation of the judgement would be that it is exactly this sort of conduct that was anticipated, not hostile buy-outs or drive-by shootings. Ok, maybe I should re-phrase. It is my belief that that damn well should have been how the judgement was supposed to be interpreted, on the grounds that you could never "prove" any of the terms except in the absolutely most blatant cases imaginable, and those would simply never arise. There is no point in a judgement if it is so restrictive that it prohibits itself from applying to anything that is likely to happen.
But if the summary of "waves in a changing medium" sums it up, then here are a few ideas. (Please note that if the summary I got is inaccurate or incomplete, then none of these examples would apply):
Supersonic and hypersonic aircraft design: The shockwave is a wave (duh!) and the medium it travels through (the air) is certainly changing. This applies to the shock going through the air into the surroundings, so could modify models of aircraft noise.
Vibrations within any aircraft: The vibrations are also a wave. The aircraft changes (as a medium) with temperature, also because it uses up fuel (and therefore changes in composition and distortion) but also as a result of the waves (stress in the metal, for example). The same will apply to any vehicle, provided there is sufficient change to the vehicle to be significant.
Gravity waves: Gravity alters space, space alters the movement of the gravitational bodies, the gravitational bodies alter the waves.
Microwave ovens: The microwaves heat the food. In so doing, you change the composition of the atmosphere through which the microwaves travel, thus absorbing some and potentially causing refraction.
Dunno about living, but some town in Brazil recently outlawed dying. There's just gotta be some way of modding these sorts of things +sqrt(-1) for being nuts.
...you are generous and don't define Windows as malware, you can reasonably define it as insecure, so it would certainly be bannable under the proposal. Especially early versions of Windows. And that's important, as a very large number of Windows users haven't upgraded and won't upgrade. (Windows 98 is still a very common OS and Windows 95 is still far from dead.)
The other concern Microsoft may well have is that if you can only run "approved" OS' on the Internet, it will kill their beta programs and may well make it harder to roll out service packs. After all, it changes the version ID, so won't be an "approved" OS any more. If nobody patches their system, for fear of being disconnected from the Internet, it will be Microsoft that suffers.
What about Linux users? Well, there's always the IP Personality patch. This disguises your OS, so that common methods of fingerprinting your computer will return the OS identity that you choose. You can always make a Linux box look like Windows XP or whatever.
That's probably another concern of Microsoft. Linux distributions can be easily modified to fool such restrictions and existing Linux users will likely install the necessary patches. This could make Linux more attractive to the Walmarts of the world (fewer customer complaints) and also to corporations (no risk of unexpected downtime, due to ISPs not keeping up).
I'm all for these restrictions, because they don't apply to Open Source software - masquerading as other software is already quite standard. Only closed-source vendors and closed-minded customers have anything to be scared of, and I've no problem with them being scared silly by Homeland Security.
Slashdot Mirror
This ties in with them wanting Second Amendment relief. The right to bear arms, prayers to God... Yes, this is beginning to make sense...
...was in an excellent science fiction novel "The Dark Cloud", by Sir Fred Hoyle. It won't spoil anything if I said that part of the novel dealt with super-intelligent aliens spontaneously exploding whenever they advanced beyond a certain point.
It's a bit like taking liquid hydrogen and exerting enough pressure on it to turn it into solid metal. The temperature technically goes up, but it can't remain liquid or convert to a gas because the volume is too small. The most stable state it can enter is a "high-temperature" solid.
In this case, what we're doing is compressing a BEC "superatom" to a temperature in which it can no longer remain a BEC, but it cannot revert to deuterium atoms either. Neither is stable, under the conditions imposed. The only alternative is for the nuclei to fuse together, because it is the only valid way left that they can reduce the space requirements to what they have.
You'd need to be a little careful, though. You don't want to leave any nuclei with no valid state, or you're going to squish the lot into a quark-gluon soup. Again, that could be nasty, as I'm not sure you can magnetically contain the gluons... which ARE going to react with the containment system.
Now, there MAY be a way to use a BEC more destructively. If you have a BEC that consists of pure deuterium, use magnetic containment to prevent the BEC from expanding back out at all, raise the temperature as close to instantaneously as possible to the point where fusion can occur...
The BEC obviously can't remain a BEC at superhigh temperatures, so must unfold to some degree. The structure is guaranteed to move to the lowest possible energy state, because that is what atomic structures do. This is part of why it would be important to raise the temperature rapidly. You want it so that there simply is no valid state with deuterium nucleii.
If deuterium is simply not an option, the nucleii will fuse. They have no alternative. Here is where it gets fun, though. If the energies are high enough and the compression great enough, you can produce elements as far up the periodic table as you like. Unlike normal particle accelerator efforts to produce super-massive atoms, these will actually last for a while - there won't be room for them to fall apart.
The difficulty in producing the correct conditions would be enormous, but if you could crack that nut, there'd be no theoretical reason why you couldn't push for a nucleus with an atomic mass of a thousand or so.
The energy to produce such a monster atom would be guaranteed much greater than ALL of the energy output by the fusion reactions. (Iron takes more energy to fuse than it gives out and we're talking something a couple of orders of magnitude larger.) Sustaining it might even be worse.
The fun part, though, will be in letting it collapse after a time. A very substantial part of the energy put into the fusion of the nucleii would be released in a matter of microseconds over an extremely small space. Current physics predicts that if you exceed a certain energy density, space will "inflate". This might cause the whole of space/time to explode, it might form a pocket universe, or it might do all sorts of other strange things. Nobody knows much about energy densities of that magnitude.
Despite years of trying, they just can't get the viruses to work properly.
"What do you get when you multiply nine by six?" is the problem.
...any of these bootloaders? True, they're not so modern, but there's a good chance the Windows virus checkers will have been updated between then and now. Well, one would hope, anyway!
Since you can't roll back the discoveries, you can't stop people from being able to do this. All you can do is change social attitudes so that you largely eliminate the desire to do this. The only way I can think of to do this safely is through better, more extensive education that specifically deals with the study of information (a hard science) and the study of people (a social science). Once people are socially equipt to handle the information flood, they will be in a stronger position to understand how it should be altered to work FOR people, not against them.
In the end, knowledge and understanding are the only instruments that are effective at controlling information. Information availability, at present, far exceeds most people's knowledge and understanding. I do not believe this is safe, stable or sustainable.
Technology is a two-edged sword and that is why societies that develop technology for which they lack the social values to deal with always self-destruct.
Invisibility is also inherent in technology. When was the last time you toggled the states of each individual bit in RAM with a switch? That's how computers were programmed in the 1940s. These days, we don't need to care about the internal representation. Even programmers generally allow the compiler (and even the assembler) take care of such mundane details.
Wireless technology, from your cell phone to your modem, will be packed with invisible details that you cannot discern through trivial observation. How many connections are there? Unless you've a wifi scanner you can't know, because there isn't anything physical about the connections to observe.
Decentralization is also inherent in technology. Why do you thing P2P is so popular, or why the web has overthrown the central archive, why clusters have replaced vector processors, etc.
Technology also overthrows the need for labor. The luddites noticed that one in the 1800s, which is why they destroyed as much technology as they could. It had nothing to do with a hatred of technology, it had everything to do with the fact that they were being replaced with machines.
There has never been a time in history where "specific suspicion" has ever really existed, so that element isn't a factor. People have always been arrested on general suspicion, held for a certain length of time for investigations to produce something specific, and then charged. America has actually been worse than much of Europe for that - Britain won't generally allow a person to be held without specific charge for more than 24 hours, yet Kevin Mitnick was not brought to trial for many years and many held for terror-related reasons may well be held for life and never be charged at all.
(Britain, one of the most ruthless, dictatorial of European countries, baulked at anything longer than 21 days without charge under absolutely any conditions whatsoever, and nearly overthrew Tony Blair altogether when he pushed for more.)
The single-biggest problem with spy-cams and surveillance societies has nothing to do with the list (which applies to ANY technological advance, so is irrelevent anyway). The biggest problem is that the information is controlled by a minority for the interests of that minority, with no possibility of rigorous control over potential use or prevention of potential abuse.
The "correct" solution to the problem is to require the information be available to anyone. In the end, anyone can (in theory) buy a high altitude weather balloon, hook a video camera to it, and gather their own information, so preventing open dissemination doesn't provide for any more privacy or security. It just prevents any guarantees of either.
Every camera - from speed cameras to traffic light cams to CCTV cams monitoring public areas - the whole lot should be open to public scrutiny at all times. Removing the cameras will do nothing for society, any more than removing the Spinning Jenny from the mills protected jobs. Better management, better scalability, better dissemination would have protected the livlihoods back then, but by focussing all the efforts on the technology and NONE of the effort on society, mass unemployment and mass unrest was inevitable.
So easy to avoid, so trivial to implement, so naive to ignore, yet so hard to get anyone to actually do anything about.
Life used to be simpler. Well, no it didn't, we just delude ourselves that it was. Life hasn't changed. Society is bar
Provided ALL the texture and effect is in place, that is. If it's just a cheap imitation - ie: none of the qualities that demonstrate mastery are present - then it is little more than a photocopy.
For further information, please consult "Doctor Who: City of Death" and on no account x-ray the Mona Lisa. (What DID happen to her eyebrows?)
I have used fvwm2, Enlightenment, Gnome (with all the assorted window managers they've managed to go through!
I agree with those who argue that a thousand window managers is probably more than most individuals need. (I'd like it, but then I'm nuts.) However, there are easily over a thousand classes of user, and it is very likely that some of these window managers will be better than others for those classes.
I would therefore like to see packaging groups to sport a wider range of window managers to allow people to make use of the richness of the GUI world for *nix. There is far more out there than most people realize.
(And what of the non-X11 folk? I'd like to see them supported more, too. Where's the RPMs and DEBs for Berlin? KGI? There was once even a GUI based on Postscript, which would probably be a godsend to anyone more interested in desktop publishing than in games - and such people do exist, though there are treatments these days.)
To me, the absurdity is that the sheer volume of options is being hidden in all of these flamewars, behind the illusion of a binary choice that nobody ever really makes. (Many who use Gnome will use KDE-based applications, and vice versa.)
The ability to format the data as a diary, or a collection of diaries, is not in and of itself anything I would consider noteworthy. The content may be, and sometimes is, but the use of extra layers of language to describe something that doesn't need describing just obscures what is interesting by emphasizing the points that are not.
(eg: There are plenty of commercial sites on the Internet today, but the use of "e-commerce" as a specific term is on the decline and "dot-com" is generally a term of ridicule. Sometimes, language gets in the way of the expression.)
As I see it, blogs that are essentially just personal rants will die a richly-deserved death, but "insider" blogs - which the media can draw from without being in danger of lawsuits, grand juries, etc - will likely prosper. "Special Interest Groups" (SIGs) do well as blogs - Slashdot is an example - but I doubt you can manufacture a SIG from a blog alone.
We will know when blogs have become totally accepted. That will occur when we no longer need to see them as anything special, they'll just be a part of the whole.
Mind you, the only ones who know enough of the Windows internals to pull such a stunt are Microsoft employees, and I seriously doubt they'd risk a stunt like that. Especially as they'd likely be on said chair when Microsoft's CEO lobbed it off the roof.
In England, it's not unusual for trains to be blasting about at 125mph. Also, sheep farming is largely confined to the Pennines, the Dales and the Cotswalds, which means lots of mud and slopes. The sheep are much better behaved, having grown up on a diet of James Herriot. Quite possibly literally, given the usual attitude of British farmers.
Yes, cats do recognize ownership. If it's not nailed down and covered in cat repellent, they own it. In total disregard for US law, cats also own humans.
There are other ways and means Microsoft could retaliate without being too obvious. Periodically updating underlying multimedia support via Windows Update, so that drivers for rival formats break, for example. Third party drivers aren't their problem, right?
Even the mere threat, or implied threat, of such action could be considered retaliation of sorts. It's like insiders using confidential information to deliberately manipulate the stock market, only this time it would be to manipulate the value of a product, not a stock.
My interpretation of the judgement would be that it is exactly this sort of conduct that was anticipated, not hostile buy-outs or drive-by shootings. Ok, maybe I should re-phrase. It is my belief that that damn well should have been how the judgement was supposed to be interpreted, on the grounds that you could never "prove" any of the terms except in the absolutely most blatant cases imaginable, and those would simply never arise. There is no point in a judgement if it is so restrictive that it prohibits itself from applying to anything that is likely to happen.
In the end, only semolina has a thick skin.
Only if you were caught copying spam :)
How else to mod the little voices inside their heads? :)
Dunno about living, but some town in Brazil recently outlawed dying. There's just gotta be some way of modding these sorts of things +sqrt(-1) for being nuts.
Never smoked pot, but I have set fire to a frying pan.
I'll just tell them it's a Windows screensaver. Failing that, I'll just gross them out until they give up and go home.
The other concern Microsoft may well have is that if you can only run "approved" OS' on the Internet, it will kill their beta programs and may well make it harder to roll out service packs. After all, it changes the version ID, so won't be an "approved" OS any more. If nobody patches their system, for fear of being disconnected from the Internet, it will be Microsoft that suffers.
What about Linux users? Well, there's always the IP Personality patch. This disguises your OS, so that common methods of fingerprinting your computer will return the OS identity that you choose. You can always make a Linux box look like Windows XP or whatever.
That's probably another concern of Microsoft. Linux distributions can be easily modified to fool such restrictions and existing Linux users will likely install the necessary patches. This could make Linux more attractive to the Walmarts of the world (fewer customer complaints) and also to corporations (no risk of unexpected downtime, due to ISPs not keeping up).
I'm all for these restrictions, because they don't apply to Open Source software - masquerading as other software is already quite standard. Only closed-source vendors and closed-minded customers have anything to be scared of, and I've no problem with them being scared silly by Homeland Security.