I hardly think anyone could credibly claim that Mac OS had good memory management before OS X.
Good memory management in the sense that Windows NT or UNIX had good memory management? Hell no. They were way behind.
Good memory management in contrast to consumer OS options at the time (i.e., Win 3.1)? Yeah. It wasn't bad at all. In fact, for the early 90s, it was pretty slick how easy it was to tweak memory allocation for apps and monitor memory use through the "About" box.
A pair of cute third-party apps called "RAM Doubler" and "RAM Charger" made it even better, and nearly every System 7 user got their hands on one or both of them.
However, once NT4 and Win98 came along, it became obvious that Microsoft was leap-frogging them in this area... and the rise of Linux really spoiled the CS geeks on college campuses for proper virtual memory use. Mac OS users had to endure constant snickering about it as 7.5, 7.6, 8, 8.1 etc., continued to trickle out patches of the same broken concept, while one plan after another for the Next Big Thing at Apple fizzled and died.
Amelio was far from the perfect Apple CEO, but he was 100% right in his decision to scrap all internal efforts in favor of buying a better solution from either Be or NeXT.
I thought Hollywood learned their lesson after Super Mario Brothers. But then they came out with Alien vs Preditor.
Alien vs. Preditor was a comic book.
Your basic point, that all movies based on videogames suck, remains valid.
And am I the only person who sees the irony that Halo is basically the same as Marathon (famous for being Macintosh only) but running only on wintel hardware?
No, but that just means you're not the only person who's wrong.
1. Halo is a sequel to Matathon 2, not the same game as Marathon.
2. Marathon 2 ran on Windows PC's (although, bafflingly, it would not allow you play on a cross-platform LAN with Mac users.)
I must admit that after reading your post, it was tempting to advise you to have a rectocraniotomy, but I think Slashdot needs more info and less flaming. I hope my simple presentation of facts will enlighten you.
Wow. So you managed to take a pathetic and insulting cheap shot while pretending to be reasonable and still pretend you're trying to rise above it. You must be so proud.
None of the giants of supersonic flight (MiG-25, SR-71, A-12, Concorde) were ever lost due to structural failure during supersonic flight
An account in the thread just before this one directly contradicts your "simple presentation of facts." Before accusing other people of having their heads up their asses, perhaps you should fetch a crowbar of your own.
Uh, that's a Fortitude saving throw vs. stun, not a saving throw versus Fortitude or be stunned.
Fortitude is a good thing. You don't roll against it, you add the bonus for it to your roll and roll against the DC of that which you are trying to resist.... and I've just confirmed that I'm one of the biggest nerds ever. I think I'll shut up now.
Well, the other thing interesting about it is that a name-change is involved, so not everybody realizes that its the same person.
The only point I was making was that the Walter Carlos who recorded "Switched on Bach" was the same person as the Wendy Carlos the grandparent was raving about.
Not every mention of a sex-change is an assult on the person's lifestyle choice. Try not to be so hypersensitive.
Yes, but a tiny defect in the wing of a subsonic plane, or even the total failure of an engine or the computer system, is something that happens once in a while and can be completely recovered from... occasionally even reaching your destination. Even disasterous failures, such as rupture of the plane and loss of cabin pressure, do not always translate into a fatal accident for everyone on board.
Supersonic flight means that a miniscule problem can sometimes cause the whole damned thing to disintegrate in mid-air into scrap metal. This is an acceptable risk during war-time, when speed improves your chance of survival and effectiveness enough to offset the minor risks involved, but kind of silly if you are just talking about getting home from Japan in time to catch the newest episode on "24". Some people would rather fly the cheaper, slower, safer plane and use TiVo.
You obviously do not fly across the Pacific very often. Realizing that you're flying at 550 mph when technology to fly at 1400 mph was introduced in the 1970s becomes really excruciating after about 10 hours into the flight.
And realizing that planes occasionally will violently break up into little pieces at supersonic speeds, with no hope of survival, when some tiny thing goes just a tiny bit wrong... makes you realize that getting to Japan in four hours might not be so important after all.
It kind of reminds me how "MTV News" back in the day would report on a massive hurricane in the South Pacific, and follow up with how it's expected to impact Whitesnake's tour plans.
Its chief good is providing profit to its shareholders, and if it must do that in some way other than satisfying its customers, then that is what it will do. In other words, satisfying the customers is a means not an end.
Very true, but satisfying customers is usually the best means to the desired end. The end result is that Walmart becomes fantastically wealthy by selling people stuff they want at prices they like. Microsoft becomes fantastically wealthy by selling a relatively cheap, relatively easy OS which runs on commodity hardware. Oil companies become fantastically wealthy by selling us the cheapest available energy source, which we so desperately want for our cars and our electricity.
Corporations don't always act in the best interest of society, but they usually act in the interest of meeting the demands of their customers, which coincides more often than it doesn't.
If this wasn't true, capitalism would have utterly collapsed a long time ago, and command economies like Cuba would be far better off than free-market economies like Singapore.
well, lets try this: right-wing nutjob = someone who gives knee-jerk reaction against the mere mention of spending tax-dollars on something for the common good.
Kindly point out to the place in my original post (the "knee-jerk" one you had such a problem with) where I said spending taxes on the common good was a bad idea.
Were I on Comcast, I might be inclined to feel the same way.
Thankfully, the guys at IPHouse.com are awesome. They answer ridiculous support calls at sick hours of the evening and are extremely helpful and friendly people. Push them out of business using my taxes to do it, and you're certainly no friend of mine.
Only a retard would assume that TFA was referring to free (beer) wifi access.
Except that free (beer) access does exist, and some of us would like to see it expand. Municipal WiFi programs would kill such a movement in the cradle.
Every time somebody says that OS X runs on top of BSD, people will post a correction, pointing out that it actually runs on a Mach microkernel and has a BSD compatability layer.
Likewise, everytime somebody calls something "free" when it is funded with taxes, people will post a correction, stating that it's not really free, but rather is a hidden cost.
Instead of getting pissed off at the nit-picks, people should endeavor to get it right the first time.
Far more tiresome than politically-motivated moderation is people who post instructions to "mod down" those points which they dislike. I see from your comment history that this is something you do a lot.
If my comments pain you so greatly, instead of spending your energy trying to convince others to help you censor views you don't like, just put me and anybody else who expresses an opinion you can't handle on your "foes" list and set us at -6 in your preferences.
I think there is a fundamental difference between somthing that comes to us as a result of our well spent tax dollars and something we are charged for at time of use. we appear to disagree on this point.
Didn't you just criticize me for putting words in your mouth? I don't disagree with that point at all. In any way.
you appear to disagree with a major linguistic convention of our society, fine, I can respect that.
Thank you for your respect. That's actually the only point made in my original post: That "Free" has now been unwisely expanded to incorporate things which are not actually free.
A linguistic point was the only point I made. I never said collectively paying for WiFi was a bad idea.
I think it is, but for other reasons. (I'm convinced that it will lead to overregulation, a stifling of technological advancement in communications, and ultimately, government oversight of Internet content.) However, that was not the point I was making... A lot of people made a lot of bold assumptions about the agenda behind my words, rather than simply take what I said at face value.
I take it as an indicator of the utter failure of most people to engage in rational discourse about pretty much anything.
Oh, for fuck's sake, why are you still arguing this point?
The swingset cost my niece NOTHING, therefore it is FREE to HER.
If somebody is using my WiFi at the moment, it is not without my permission. I don't care if they use it or not, and there's no law against logging in to an open network hotspot.
So, in your world, the US government should be providing free WiFi to the citizens of Brazil and the Brazilian government should be providing free WiFi to the citizens of US? And anything else is unethical?
No.
WTF are you talking about? Did you even read my original post, or did it just skim it and decided I was one of those kooks who opposes all government spending of any kind and wants Income Tax made unconstitutional again?
It's free in the sense that you'll be paying less than you would be for a private service because of economies of scale.
So, if we outlawed UPS and FedEx, then sending packages would become vastly cheaper because of the "economies of scale" applied to the Post Office?
It's also free in the sense that it will be encouraging economic development and thus reducing the tax load on you in the long term.
That's not a sense of free. It's also not established to be true.
If I buy stock in a company and make money over the long term, that doesn't mean I got the stock for free. It just means the gain outweighed the cost.
This should be a perfectly simple principle: If it costs money, it's not free.
Earlier in the thread, somebody was critical of moderators for calling my original post "Insightful" when I was saying something so completely obvious and self-evident. Now there are a good half-dozen posts proving him wrong, because this is clearly a concept which utterly escapes some people.
then why dont we dispense with the bullshit labling. Public organization is, in certain instances, such as education, defense, and the development of infrastructure, because it is held responsible by all, while a corporation is responsible only to its shareholders.
What shareholders universally want is to make money, and in a capatalist society, nearly all money is made one way: By satisfying consumers.
Therefore, it's slightly misleading to say that a corporation is "responsible only to its shareholders," because the responsibility in question is to find and satisfy customers - in other words, to provide goods and services that people want at prices they are willing to pay.
It's a fantastic organizing principle, and it usually only goes horrifically wrong when the government gets involved. ADM, Global Crossing, Enron, etc. These are (or "were") companies with very close ties to our elected officials which have allowed them to manipulate laws and regulations in their favor.
I've already quoted P.J. O'Rourke once in this thread, but I'm about to do it again:
"When government gets involved in commerce, the first thing bought and sold is the government."
Well, if slavery to you is being coerced into taking responsability for ensuring the common good, then surely the right to vote is tantamount to some form of rape?
A lot of people from Florida certainly seem to think so.
I'm not a fan of hyperbolic expressions. Taxes are not "slavery", but they are manditory, and therefore a constitutional government has a responsibility to only spend money on things which promote the general welfare of the people. Roads and schools count. Even if we don't drive, everything we buy arrives on trucks. Even if we have no kids in public school, we can know that everybody we meet has had an opportunity to be educated. The military, the police, the fire department... all things which we all rely on. They count.
An opera house or a sports stadium? Now you're pushing it. The vast majority of the people paying for it will not enjoy much of an advantage from it.
"Free" WiFi or those "Yellow Bikes" that St. Paul thought was such a neat idea a few years ago? Hell no.
When it comes to evaluating how government money should be used, P.J. O'Rourke invented the ultimate litmus test for libertarian cranks like me:
Taxes are manditory. Fail to pay them, and you can go to jail. Attempt to break out of jail, and you could end up getting shot. Therefore, for every government spending proposal, ask yourself "would I shoot my favorite grandmother over this?" If the answer is "no", then we can do without the state funding it.
The real sick part about it is that Waste Management was one of the first companies in America to get busted for an Enron-type accounting scandal. It's a crooked company, but if you live in Minnesota, your tax dollars help sustain it.
The landfill my city currently uses is down in Burnsville, and is not likely to reach full capacity in my lifetime, but it is true that landfills are expensive. Not just because of "nimbyism", but because we've learned enough about potential problems like soil contamination that all the required safeguards of a landfull cost a huge amount of money to do properly.
This seem to me to be incredibly irrelevant. Why should anyone care how long the paper sits in a warehouse before it is reused?
Because a lot it doesn't get reused. Ever. Paper recycling collection far out-paces our capacity to process it. Also, paper recycling plants cause a hell of a lot more environmental damage than a plant which simply pulps virgin wood from tree farms. The chemical waste produced from the process is considerably more difficult to deal with than old paper.
The best way to recycle paper is the way my grandfater up in Northern Minnesota does it: In the wood furnace that heats his home.
The swingset is due to a relationship you have with that child's parents. It may not have cost the child anything in dollars, but relationships require some amount of energy to maintain.
LOL! Yeah, my brother's 2 year-old daughter must have spent a lot of energy maintaining her relationship with me. I just wasn't looking at the time.
The same goes for your WiFi.
Incorrect. For all I know, somebody I've never meet is sitting on the curb in front of my house, using my WiFi connection at this very moment.
And the point i was making is that there are any number of goods and services provided by the government that are, in the parlance of our times, referred to as "free."
It is by no means a lie to cal municipal wi-fi free, it is simply a usage of the word that, pervasive tho it is, does not fit into the beer-speech paradigm.
Which is why I think we need another "as in" category for the word, because when you say "the parlance of our times" what you really are saying is "when we are being lied to."
I refer you again to public education, libraries, roads, and scientific research.
I don't consider any of those things to be free. Money well spent, yes, but I'm not so deluded as to imagine that any of them come for free.
Slashdot Mirror
I hardly think anyone could credibly claim that Mac OS had good memory management before OS X.
Good memory management in the sense that Windows NT or UNIX had good memory management? Hell no. They were way behind.
Good memory management in contrast to consumer OS options at the time (i.e., Win 3.1)? Yeah. It wasn't bad at all. In fact, for the early 90s, it was pretty slick how easy it was to tweak memory allocation for apps and monitor memory use through the "About" box.
A pair of cute third-party apps called "RAM Doubler" and "RAM Charger" made it even better, and nearly every System 7 user got their hands on one or both of them.
However, once NT4 and Win98 came along, it became obvious that Microsoft was leap-frogging them in this area... and the rise of Linux really spoiled the CS geeks on college campuses for proper virtual memory use. Mac OS users had to endure constant snickering about it as 7.5, 7.6, 8, 8.1 etc., continued to trickle out patches of the same broken concept, while one plan after another for the Next Big Thing at Apple fizzled and died.
Amelio was far from the perfect Apple CEO, but he was 100% right in his decision to scrap all internal efforts in favor of buying a better solution from either Be or NeXT.
I thought Hollywood learned their lesson after Super Mario Brothers. But then they came out with Alien vs Preditor.
Alien vs. Preditor was a comic book.
Your basic point, that all movies based on videogames suck, remains valid.
And am I the only person who sees the irony that Halo is basically the same as Marathon (famous for being Macintosh only) but running only on wintel hardware?
No, but that just means you're not the only person who's wrong.
1. Halo is a sequel to Matathon 2, not the same game as Marathon.
2. Marathon 2 ran on Windows PC's (although, bafflingly, it would not allow you play on a cross-platform LAN with Mac users.)
3. Halo is available for the Mac.
I must admit that after reading your post, it was tempting to advise you to have a rectocraniotomy, but I think Slashdot needs more info and less flaming. I hope my simple presentation of facts will enlighten you.
Wow. So you managed to take a pathetic and insulting cheap shot while pretending to be reasonable and still pretend you're trying to rise above it. You must be so proud.
None of the giants of supersonic flight (MiG-25, SR-71, A-12, Concorde) were ever lost due to structural failure during supersonic flight
An account in the thread just before this one directly contradicts your "simple presentation of facts." Before accusing other people of having their heads up their asses, perhaps you should fetch a crowbar of your own.
Uh, that's a Fortitude saving throw vs. stun, not a saving throw versus Fortitude or be stunned.
... and I've just confirmed that I'm one of the biggest nerds ever. I think I'll shut up now.
Fortitude is a good thing. You don't roll against it, you add the bonus for it to your roll and roll against the DC of that which you are trying to resist.
Well, the other thing interesting about it is that a name-change is involved, so not everybody realizes that its the same person.
The only point I was making was that the Walter Carlos who recorded "Switched on Bach" was the same person as the Wendy Carlos the grandparent was raving about.
Not every mention of a sex-change is an assult on the person's lifestyle choice. Try not to be so hypersensitive.
Yes, but a tiny defect in the wing of a subsonic plane, or even the total failure of an engine or the computer system, is something that happens once in a while and can be completely recovered from... occasionally even reaching your destination. Even disasterous failures, such as rupture of the plane and loss of cabin pressure, do not always translate into a fatal accident for everyone on board.
Supersonic flight means that a miniscule problem can sometimes cause the whole damned thing to disintegrate in mid-air into scrap metal. This is an acceptable risk during war-time, when speed improves your chance of survival and effectiveness enough to offset the minor risks involved, but kind of silly if you are just talking about getting home from Japan in time to catch the newest episode on "24". Some people would rather fly the cheaper, slower, safer plane and use TiVo.
You obviously do not fly across the Pacific very often. Realizing that you're flying at 550 mph when technology to fly at 1400 mph was introduced in the 1970s becomes really excruciating after about 10 hours into the flight.
And realizing that planes occasionally will violently break up into little pieces at supersonic speeds, with no hope of survival, when some tiny thing goes just a tiny bit wrong... makes you realize that getting to Japan in four hours might not be so important after all.
Same person. Walter became Wendy between "Switched on Bach" and "Switched on Bach 2" She also did the soundtrack Tron, among others.
It kind of reminds me how "MTV News" back in the day would report on a massive hurricane in the South Pacific, and follow up with how it's expected to impact Whitesnake's tour plans.
Bingo.
Anonymous Coward posts like that are the reason I still read at 0.
Its chief good is providing profit to its shareholders, and if it must do that in some way other than satisfying its customers, then that is what it will do. In other words, satisfying the customers is a means not an end.
Very true, but satisfying customers is usually the best means to the desired end. The end result is that Walmart becomes fantastically wealthy by selling people stuff they want at prices they like. Microsoft becomes fantastically wealthy by selling a relatively cheap, relatively easy OS which runs on commodity hardware. Oil companies become fantastically wealthy by selling us the cheapest available energy source, which we so desperately want for our cars and our electricity.
Corporations don't always act in the best interest of society, but they usually act in the interest of meeting the demands of their customers, which coincides more often than it doesn't.
If this wasn't true, capitalism would have utterly collapsed a long time ago, and command economies like Cuba would be far better off than free-market economies like Singapore.
well, lets try this: right-wing nutjob = someone who gives knee-jerk reaction against the mere mention of spending tax-dollars on something for the common good.
Kindly point out to the place in my original post (the "knee-jerk" one you had such a problem with) where I said spending taxes on the common good was a bad idea.
Can't do it, can you?
Who's the one who had a knee-jerk reaction now?
Were I on Comcast, I might be inclined to feel the same way.
Thankfully, the guys at IPHouse.com are awesome. They answer ridiculous support calls at sick hours of the evening and are extremely helpful and friendly people. Push them out of business using my taxes to do it, and you're certainly no friend of mine.
Only a retard would assume that TFA was referring to free (beer) wifi access.
Except that free (beer) access does exist, and some of us would like to see it expand. Municipal WiFi programs would kill such a movement in the cradle.
Every time somebody says that OS X runs on top of BSD, people will post a correction, pointing out that it actually runs on a Mach microkernel and has a BSD compatability layer.
Likewise, everytime somebody calls something "free" when it is funded with taxes, people will post a correction, stating that it's not really free, but rather is a hidden cost.
Instead of getting pissed off at the nit-picks, people should endeavor to get it right the first time.
Far more tiresome than politically-motivated moderation is people who post instructions to "mod down" those points which they dislike. I see from your comment history that this is something you do a lot.
If my comments pain you so greatly, instead of spending your energy trying to convince others to help you censor views you don't like, just put me and anybody else who expresses an opinion you can't handle on your "foes" list and set us at -6 in your preferences.
I think there is a fundamental difference between somthing that comes to us as a result of our well spent tax dollars and something we are charged for at time of use. we appear to disagree on this point.
Didn't you just criticize me for putting words in your mouth? I don't disagree with that point at all. In any way.
you appear to disagree with a major linguistic convention of our society, fine, I can respect that.
Thank you for your respect. That's actually the only point made in my original post: That "Free" has now been unwisely expanded to incorporate things which are not actually free.
A linguistic point was the only point I made. I never said collectively paying for WiFi was a bad idea.
I think it is, but for other reasons. (I'm convinced that it will lead to overregulation, a stifling of technological advancement in communications, and ultimately, government oversight of Internet content.) However, that was not the point I was making... A lot of people made a lot of bold assumptions about the agenda behind my words, rather than simply take what I said at face value.
I take it as an indicator of the utter failure of most people to engage in rational discourse about pretty much anything.
Oh, for fuck's sake, why are you still arguing this point?
The swingset cost my niece NOTHING, therefore it is FREE to HER.
If somebody is using my WiFi at the moment, it is not without my permission. I don't care if they use it or not, and there's no law against logging in to an open network hotspot.
So you are completely wrong in both cases. STFU.
So, in your world, the US government should be providing free WiFi to the citizens of Brazil and the Brazilian government should be providing free WiFi to the citizens of US? And anything else is unethical?
No.
WTF are you talking about? Did you even read my original post, or did it just skim it and decided I was one of those kooks who opposes all government spending of any kind and wants Income Tax made unconstitutional again?
It's free in the sense that you'll be paying less than you would be for a private service because of economies of scale.
So, if we outlawed UPS and FedEx, then sending packages would become vastly cheaper because of the "economies of scale" applied to the Post Office?
It's also free in the sense that it will be encouraging economic development and thus reducing the tax load on you in the long term.
That's not a sense of free. It's also not established to be true.
If I buy stock in a company and make money over the long term, that doesn't mean I got the stock for free. It just means the gain outweighed the cost.
This should be a perfectly simple principle: If it costs money, it's not free.
Earlier in the thread, somebody was critical of moderators for calling my original post "Insightful" when I was saying something so completely obvious and self-evident. Now there are a good half-dozen posts proving him wrong, because this is clearly a concept which utterly escapes some people.
Yep. It's new. It's also the reason for the new bin.
then why dont we dispense with the bullshit labling. Public organization is, in certain instances, such as education, defense, and the development of infrastructure, because it is held responsible by all, while a corporation is responsible only to its shareholders.
What shareholders universally want is to make money, and in a capatalist society, nearly all money is made one way: By satisfying consumers.
Therefore, it's slightly misleading to say that a corporation is "responsible only to its shareholders," because the responsibility in question is to find and satisfy customers - in other words, to provide goods and services that people want at prices they are willing to pay.
It's a fantastic organizing principle, and it usually only goes horrifically wrong when the government gets involved. ADM, Global Crossing, Enron, etc. These are (or "were") companies with very close ties to our elected officials which have allowed them to manipulate laws and regulations in their favor.
I've already quoted P.J. O'Rourke once in this thread, but I'm about to do it again:
"When government gets involved in commerce, the first thing bought and sold is the government."
Well, if slavery to you is being coerced into taking responsability for ensuring the common good, then surely the right to vote is tantamount to some form of rape?
A lot of people from Florida certainly seem to think so.
I'm not a fan of hyperbolic expressions. Taxes are not "slavery", but they are manditory, and therefore a constitutional government has a responsibility to only spend money on things which promote the general welfare of the people. Roads and schools count. Even if we don't drive, everything we buy arrives on trucks. Even if we have no kids in public school, we can know that everybody we meet has had an opportunity to be educated. The military, the police, the fire department... all things which we all rely on. They count.
An opera house or a sports stadium? Now you're pushing it. The vast majority of the people paying for it will not enjoy much of an advantage from it.
"Free" WiFi or those "Yellow Bikes" that St. Paul thought was such a neat idea a few years ago? Hell no.
When it comes to evaluating how government money should be used, P.J. O'Rourke invented the ultimate litmus test for libertarian cranks like me:
Taxes are manditory. Fail to pay them, and you can go to jail. Attempt to break out of jail, and you could end up getting shot. Therefore, for every government spending proposal, ask yourself "would I shoot my favorite grandmother over this?" If the answer is "no", then we can do without the state funding it.
The real sick part about it is that Waste Management was one of the first companies in America to get busted for an Enron-type accounting scandal. It's a crooked company, but if you live in Minnesota, your tax dollars help sustain it.
The landfill my city currently uses is down in Burnsville, and is not likely to reach full capacity in my lifetime, but it is true that landfills are expensive. Not just because of "nimbyism", but because we've learned enough about potential problems like soil contamination that all the required safeguards of a landfull cost a huge amount of money to do properly.
This seem to me to be incredibly irrelevant. Why should anyone care how long the paper sits in a warehouse before it is reused?
Because a lot it doesn't get reused. Ever. Paper recycling collection far out-paces our capacity to process it. Also, paper recycling plants cause a hell of a lot more environmental damage than a plant which simply pulps virgin wood from tree farms. The chemical waste produced from the process is considerably more difficult to deal with than old paper.
The best way to recycle paper is the way my grandfater up in Northern Minnesota does it: In the wood furnace that heats his home.
The swingset is due to a relationship you have with that child's parents. It may not have cost the child anything in dollars, but relationships require some amount of energy to maintain.
LOL! Yeah, my brother's 2 year-old daughter must have spent a lot of energy maintaining her relationship with me. I just wasn't looking at the time.
The same goes for your WiFi.
Incorrect. For all I know, somebody I've never meet is sitting on the curb in front of my house, using my WiFi connection at this very moment.
And the point i was making is that there are any number of goods and services provided by the government that are, in the parlance of our times, referred to as "free."
It is by no means a lie to cal municipal wi-fi free, it is simply a usage of the word that, pervasive tho it is, does not fit into the beer-speech paradigm.
Which is why I think we need another "as in" category for the word, because when you say "the parlance of our times" what you really are saying is "when we are being lied to."
I refer you again to public education, libraries, roads, and scientific research.
I don't consider any of those things to be free. Money well spent, yes, but I'm not so deluded as to imagine that any of them come for free.