Like somebody mentioned - rotate the younger ones around, and you don't need it to be 100% or even 50% of 70+ year olds for it to be handy living space. Worst case, if they don't drop from heart attack/stroke and eventually become disabled you move them out of the area.
There are already effectively volunteers - There's a fair number of old folks who moved back into their homes on the outskirts of Chernobyl. Thus far their cancer rates are tracking with that of those outside the affected area.
It's my understanding that it's a group a lot like one set of my grandparents - they consider that one spot home and want to stay there, risks or no risks.
If you have to burn money at the end of the year, then you DON'T need it.
You're missing part of it. Expenses are generally NOT static. Consider a personal level - Let's say that my annual expenses were $18k last year, but I got $20k to cover it.. This year I discover my roof needs fixing ($2k), so actually 'need' the full $20k.
What tends to happen is that if they have a year where they only spend $18M they lower that authorization down to $18M. So 2012 - $20M, 2013 - $18M. So now when the roof breaks they don't have the ability to fix it without compromising the mission in other ways.
Now, they have some ability to cost shift between fiscal years - delay fixing the roof this year into the next, delay or speed up replacing durable equipment - everything from computers to vehicles, number of spare parts you buy, etc... But that ability is limited.
You make a good point about the approval from the top, however calculating the 'greater loss' can be complex, especially if you're considering long term. Sort of like how many/most companies today will fight 'frivolous' lawsuits to the hilt - it's more expensive in the short term, against that litigator, yes, but in the long run if you're seen as a target you face so many more lawsuits it's actually cheaper to fight.
Then it's a good thing there's more than two data points there.
Yeah, misread your original post; rereading later I saw the deal. My original point was more along the lines that if you look from the initial cell culture bacterial growth in a petri dish will be a very clear exponential curve - right up to the limits of the dish. I don't think that solar adoption is going to slow anytime soon(other than regular already known swings), it's just that taking it to 2050 and 'more power than the USA currently uses' is a bit far to be extrapolating.
Solar power is not suited for all power needs. For example, making steel/iron from ore it's desirable to use coal in the process to provide the necessary carbon - and the burning of the coal provides enough energy. I'm sure it's possible to produce with 'just enough' coke to provide the necessary carbon without burning it and providing the heat electrically, but that's not really efficient.
Getting back to the op - the new cell is only a bit more efficient, now the question becomes how affordable is it when put into mass production, or can details of it's construction be used to improve cheaper cells? Not to mention that at 200+ suns of concentration you're not going to be putting it on many houses.
Really, it's like electric cars and batteries - nothing wrong with energy storage capacity today, just the expense of the battery. A cheaper battery(per kwh stored) is more desirable in most applications today than one with higher energy density but equal cost per kwh. Research is still valuable though - higher efficiency/density means you need fewer devices to fulfill your needs and it's one of the paths to making things cheaper. A solar cell that's twice as efficient at 50% more cost is 'cheaper' in many ways than what it replaces.
You always have to be careful about extrapolation. What looks like exponential growth is unlikely to stay that way as further order effects come into play.
But making the phage and making it only kill what you want it to kill, there is your DNA scan for each different sample you make, and then for each sample of a good one that you get to make sure it didn't mutate in a bad way . ..
One of the problems with phages is that they DO tend to be extremely specific, and it's not like a phage that targets bacteria is going to mutate to attack humans. Maybe your gut fauna, but even that's unlikely.
But then we run the risk of phage resistant bacteria, or a phage that doesn't die when it's target does; though if that meant enhanced immunity to a target bacteria for life, sign me up right away!
That's part of the fun, the phage mutates to keep up with the bacteria. It's like you're giving the infection the flu just before it's title fight with your immune system.;)
As for the phage, once the target bacteria is gone it'll probably be eliminated from the body pretty quickly - it can't replicate without the bacteria, and the body is a fairly hostile system that will probably break down the protein bodies of the viruses within days/weeks.
It's my understanding that the Russians had some success with real world trials. Your body's immune system attacking the phage as well is indeed a concern, but so isn't it attacking the antibiotics.
The trick is that the virus is released after the bacteria, and while the body will eventually respond to it it should take enough time to take a good chunk out of the infection.
Designing them so the human body doesn't quickly generate an immune response against the phages would be a good trick though.
But when you have hours or minutes (or even a day, just long enough to get a culture and preliminary resistance check) to start treating a bacterial infection before septic shock sets in, DNA typing and creating a phage takes too long. The opposite problem is that if your first guess isn't 100% effective, than you also just upped the chance of training the bacteria to be more resistant.
That's why I said the #1 obstacle to this is speed of testing. You need a fast way, preferably under an hour, to test the infection and determine the best 'mix' of preventatives - hitting an infection with phages and antibiotics on top of the body's immune response should be an easy knockout on most infections, especially if you're specifically selecting for maximum vulnerability.
The biggest thing to make this work is that we need faster and cheaper detection of specific attributes of any bacterial infection. DNA typing is all well and good, but we still need to work on being able to attribute specific characteristics to a given strain. Something that takes less than an hour and $20 would be great.
I remember first proposing this back when I learned about phages - viruses that target bacteria. Thing is, they're much more specific to any given strain of bacteria than antibiotics are, which are comparatively broad-spectrum. In order to effectively employ them you'd need to ID the specific strain. Then you hit the bacteria that's infecting you with an infection of it's own - kind of like opening a second front in a war.
Same deal with antibiotics I guess. Develop a profile of the infection and which antibiotic(s) would be best suited for dealing with it.
A couple dozen antibiotics is still a much smaller shelf than the several hundred/thousand phage cultures you'd need.
Basically NO power source is 'net clean'. Even power sources like wind and solar aren't clean or even 'carbon neutral'. Wind requires, on average, massive amounts of concrete and steel for the footings and towers. It actually ends up taking considerably more concrete for an equivalent amount of energy per year. Solar cell manufacture involves nasty amounts of chemical waste.
Nuclear isn't perfectly clean, no, but it produces so much energy in such a compact fashion that it's a real contender for cleanest per energy.
Of course, hydrocarbon based power is so dirty that the differences between nuclear, wind, and solar are basically moot. It's like worrying about the difference between.1 and.2 per X pollution levels and not taking any action about the 100 per X pollution of coal.
While there is considerable variation between individual installs, on a net level coal is easily the dirtiest.
bonding it to low-impact-cultivated biomass that can either be then buried or sunk to the ocean floor.
Actually, since it's a hydrocarbon again I'd probably convert it into a fuel and burn it. Preferably capturing the CO2 yet again and using it as a regenerating system. It could be useful in peaking power systems.
Personally, my preference is to switch to carbon-neutral electricity generation systems, leaving coal usage for stuff it's particularly suited for such as steel production. My mix of electricity would be ~40% nuclear(baseload), 20% solar(increased power usage during day), 20% wind(easily doable at this percentage), and 20% other to include hydro, biomass plants and such. Note that these are single digit accuracy numbers - there's a lot of room for variances.
Get most vehicles to being electric, and you can drop CO2 emissions even more. We don't necessarily need to be completely carbon neutral - steel, concrete and such, but removing electricity and vehicles would take something like 2/3rds of the CO2 production out.
As the AC mentioned, resolution matters. Orbital mapping is incredibly good for the distance, but if you're flying lower you can get far more detail - even if your camera system is far cheaper.
A plane flying low for survey purposes can give you detail down to around the centimeter vs meter+ for satellite. It might not be enough to identify somebody in a crowd, but it's enough to tell a heck of a lot more. It's also relatively cheap and quick.
The problem with this logic is that the Colorado events are being described as a 500 year flood. That is more than twice the age of the USA, and more than ten times the age of FEMA.
The trick to this is that as a federal agency FEMA doesn't just handle floods in Boulder county, Colorado. It supports floods in the whole USA. So while it might be the first flood of that magnitude in that spot during FEMA's tenure, it's experienced 500 year floods elsewhere, as well as more frequent floods of similar magnitude in various bits of the USA.
This is much, much worse than Katrina, and they really managed to fuck that up.
How is this worse than Katrina? Gallons, depth of flood, people affected?
You do realize that there's lots of other floods, right? How about the flooding of Minot, ND just a few years ago? I've also seen images of Grand Forks, ND and Fairbanks, AK seriously flooded.
I'd consider a drone to be an unmanned aircraft capable of following a pre-programmed flight path(not necessarily doing so at the time), and operating beyond the line of sight of the operator(s) while returning data such as, but not limited to, video and other imagery.
I'm sure it can use some work, but that's the definition I'll go by. It keeps basic RC aircraft from counting because they're generally tethered to line of sight.
No real idea on how 'conservative' Google's been with the driving(As in avoiding dangerous/complex situations in the first place), but it's my understanding that they've done many more miles than would be average for a car to have an at-fault accident. Thus far all accidents have been the fault of others - google cars have been hit, but not vice versa.
They've even run it through at least one drive-through.
Simple solution: Have an app for your 'calling' your taxi that also asks for the destination(helping you confirm that the system can actually get you there before you wait for the taxi), or give it to the dispatcher(who checks for improbable destinations/problems), and the system automatically selects one with sufficient charge to reach you, your destination, and back to the charging station with sufficient overhead. Worst case, it'll likely have dropped you off already before it dies. 'Emergency mode' should have it find a safe spot for the emergency charge/tow vehicle.
If it's a 'hail' taxi and you have to give the destination in the vehicle it can arrange for another taxi to intercept you even as it informs you that it unfortunately doesn't have sufficient charge for the whole trip, but in 15 miles you can transfer to a vehicle that does.
Remember, city taxi; it shouldn't be driving huge distances.
Another point would be that a Tesla Model S has enough range to only need 2 hours of fast-charge to exceed the average daily mileage of a NYC taxi.
Taxing me is one thing; calling it something else and pretending not to collect taxes is another.
No real argument there. There's a difference between charging $25 for a pair of license plates because that's what they cost, having a static fee for type/weight of vehicle for the road funds, and charging on the basis of the blue book value of the vehicle - so a sucky 10 year old F-350 is cheaper than a new Prius.
Honesty is good if you're going to do it.
That being said, as a moderate libertarian I don't consider 'tax' a bad word, since I believe that we should have a budget that's balanced on average. You can't do that without taxes. However, said taxes should be clear and relatively simple.
There are extreme libertarians out there that think differently, of course, just as there are people who call themselves libertarian that only do so because 'anarchist' is a dirty word that they don't want to be associated with.
I believe that there should be a government, but limited in scope - to put it into technological terms, think of a cell phone. As a libertarian I want my 'cell phone' to be a simple flip phone, not a smart phone. But just because I don't want my phone to have email, games, web browsing, and such doesn't mean that I don't want it to have good cell reception, voice quality, battery life, etc...
All too often in becoming bloated in scope(smart phone), we see massive increases in costs(they give away flip phones today for $30), functionality quality loss, etc... So, Law Enforcement is a 'core' government duty, so it should be effective law enforcement. Defense of the nation, courts, etc...
You know, the place with all the libertarians and no taxes and Live Free Or Die, Motherfucker! I was shocked when it $500 or so to register my car there - the fee (not "tax") is calculated based on the MSRP and age of your car, just like down here. Nice going, guys.
Ever consider that it might be stuff like that that tends to push people into the libertarian party?
But yeah, different states are different. To look at how much tax a state differs by you have to look at a lot of taxes - and quite a few states seem to have a tax on just about everything. Sales tax or no sales tax? Are counties/cities allowed to assess their own tax? Is it all through property taxes? Do you only tax 'land' property, or do you also tax vehicles, and what about other assets? There is at least one state where you're supposed to pay a property tax on any items you have above a certain value, such as jewelry. Gas taxes, fuel taxes, phone taxes, income taxes etc...
Some arguments I've heard against driverless taxis/transport services: 1. People will dirty/graffiti/vandalize/steal the vehicles 2. What if it breaks down!!! 3. It'll get lost/not understand directions 4. Somebody will hide on board to attack the next passenger 5. People will do drugs/have sex/sleep in them(see #1)
I'll note that I don't believe any of these are can't be mitigated to the point that driverless taxis are practical, or are at least no more of a problem than manned taxis.
Slashdot Mirror
They had a nasty habit of going over cliffs and exploding in tremendous pyrotechnic displays(after coming to a complete stop)
For that matter, going vertical/zero G was often enough for them. I remember times when they exploded in mid-air before they even hit anything.
I do, my grandparents come pretty close.
Like somebody mentioned - rotate the younger ones around, and you don't need it to be 100% or even 50% of 70+ year olds for it to be handy living space. Worst case, if they don't drop from heart attack/stroke and eventually become disabled you move them out of the area.
There are already effectively volunteers - There's a fair number of old folks who moved back into their homes on the outskirts of Chernobyl. Thus far their cancer rates are tracking with that of those outside the affected area.
It's my understanding that it's a group a lot like one set of my grandparents - they consider that one spot home and want to stay there, risks or no risks.
If you have to burn money at the end of the year, then you DON'T need it.
You're missing part of it. Expenses are generally NOT static. Consider a personal level - Let's say that my annual expenses were $18k last year, but I got $20k to cover it.. This year I discover my roof needs fixing ($2k), so actually 'need' the full $20k.
What tends to happen is that if they have a year where they only spend $18M they lower that authorization down to $18M. So 2012 - $20M, 2013 - $18M. So now when the roof breaks they don't have the ability to fix it without compromising the mission in other ways.
Now, they have some ability to cost shift between fiscal years - delay fixing the roof this year into the next, delay or speed up replacing durable equipment - everything from computers to vehicles, number of spare parts you buy, etc... But that ability is limited.
You make a good point about the approval from the top, however calculating the 'greater loss' can be complex, especially if you're considering long term. Sort of like how many/most companies today will fight 'frivolous' lawsuits to the hilt - it's more expensive in the short term, against that litigator, yes, but in the long run if you're seen as a target you face so many more lawsuits it's actually cheaper to fight.
Then it's a good thing there's more than two data points there.
Yeah, misread your original post; rereading later I saw the deal. My original point was more along the lines that if you look from the initial cell culture bacterial growth in a petri dish will be a very clear exponential curve - right up to the limits of the dish. I don't think that solar adoption is going to slow anytime soon(other than regular already known swings), it's just that taking it to 2050 and 'more power than the USA currently uses' is a bit far to be extrapolating.
Solar power is not suited for all power needs. For example, making steel/iron from ore it's desirable to use coal in the process to provide the necessary carbon - and the burning of the coal provides enough energy. I'm sure it's possible to produce with 'just enough' coke to provide the necessary carbon without burning it and providing the heat electrically, but that's not really efficient.
Getting back to the op - the new cell is only a bit more efficient, now the question becomes how affordable is it when put into mass production, or can details of it's construction be used to improve cheaper cells? Not to mention that at 200+ suns of concentration you're not going to be putting it on many houses.
Really, it's like electric cars and batteries - nothing wrong with energy storage capacity today, just the expense of the battery. A cheaper battery(per kwh stored) is more desirable in most applications today than one with higher energy density but equal cost per kwh. Research is still valuable though - higher efficiency/density means you need fewer devices to fulfill your needs and it's one of the paths to making things cheaper. A solar cell that's twice as efficient at 50% more cost is 'cheaper' in many ways than what it replaces.
I'm not saying it's going to break now. I think it'd break(IE level off) before solar alone outstrips all current power generation in the USA.
Also, it takes more than 2 data points to even extrapolate for exponential growth.
As usual, an XKCD comic applies...
You always have to be careful about extrapolation. What looks like exponential growth is unlikely to stay that way as further order effects come into play.
But making the phage and making it only kill what you want it to kill, there is your DNA scan for each different sample you make, and then for each sample of a good one that you get to make sure it didn't mutate in a bad way . . .
One of the problems with phages is that they DO tend to be extremely specific, and it's not like a phage that targets bacteria is going to mutate to attack humans. Maybe your gut fauna, but even that's unlikely.
But then we run the risk of phage resistant bacteria, or a phage that doesn't die when it's target does; though if that meant enhanced immunity to a target bacteria for life, sign me up right away!
That's part of the fun, the phage mutates to keep up with the bacteria. It's like you're giving the infection the flu just before it's title fight with your immune system. ;)
As for the phage, once the target bacteria is gone it'll probably be eliminated from the body pretty quickly - it can't replicate without the bacteria, and the body is a fairly hostile system that will probably break down the protein bodies of the viruses within days/weeks.
It's my understanding that the Russians had some success with real world trials. Your body's immune system attacking the phage as well is indeed a concern, but so isn't it attacking the antibiotics.
The trick is that the virus is released after the bacteria, and while the body will eventually respond to it it should take enough time to take a good chunk out of the infection.
Designing them so the human body doesn't quickly generate an immune response against the phages would be a good trick though.
But when you have hours or minutes (or even a day, just long enough to get a culture and preliminary resistance check) to start treating a bacterial infection before septic shock sets in, DNA typing and creating a phage takes too long. The opposite problem is that if your first guess isn't 100% effective, than you also just upped the chance of training the bacteria to be more resistant.
That's why I said the #1 obstacle to this is speed of testing. You need a fast way, preferably under an hour, to test the infection and determine the best 'mix' of preventatives - hitting an infection with phages and antibiotics on top of the body's immune response should be an easy knockout on most infections, especially if you're specifically selecting for maximum vulnerability.
The biggest thing to make this work is that we need faster and cheaper detection of specific attributes of any bacterial infection. DNA typing is all well and good, but we still need to work on being able to attribute specific characteristics to a given strain. Something that takes less than an hour and $20 would be great.
I remember first proposing this back when I learned about phages - viruses that target bacteria. Thing is, they're much more specific to any given strain of bacteria than antibiotics are, which are comparatively broad-spectrum. In order to effectively employ them you'd need to ID the specific strain. Then you hit the bacteria that's infecting you with an infection of it's own - kind of like opening a second front in a war.
Same deal with antibiotics I guess. Develop a profile of the infection and which antibiotic(s) would be best suited for dealing with it.
A couple dozen antibiotics is still a much smaller shelf than the several hundred/thousand phage cultures you'd need.
I have read that nuclear is not really net clean.
Basically NO power source is 'net clean'. Even power sources like wind and solar aren't clean or even 'carbon neutral'. Wind requires, on average, massive amounts of concrete and steel for the footings and towers. It actually ends up taking considerably more concrete for an equivalent amount of energy per year. Solar cell manufacture involves nasty amounts of chemical waste.
Nuclear isn't perfectly clean, no, but it produces so much energy in such a compact fashion that it's a real contender for cleanest per energy.
Of course, hydrocarbon based power is so dirty that the differences between nuclear, wind, and solar are basically moot. It's like worrying about the difference between .1 and .2 per X pollution levels and not taking any action about the 100 per X pollution of coal.
While there is considerable variation between individual installs, on a net level coal is easily the dirtiest.
bonding it to low-impact-cultivated biomass that can either be then buried or sunk to the ocean floor.
Actually, since it's a hydrocarbon again I'd probably convert it into a fuel and burn it. Preferably capturing the CO2 yet again and using it as a regenerating system. It could be useful in peaking power systems.
Personally, my preference is to switch to carbon-neutral electricity generation systems, leaving coal usage for stuff it's particularly suited for such as steel production. My mix of electricity would be ~40% nuclear(baseload), 20% solar(increased power usage during day), 20% wind(easily doable at this percentage), and 20% other to include hydro, biomass plants and such. Note that these are single digit accuracy numbers - there's a lot of room for variances.
Get most vehicles to being electric, and you can drop CO2 emissions even more. We don't necessarily need to be completely carbon neutral - steel, concrete and such, but removing electricity and vehicles would take something like 2/3rds of the CO2 production out.
As the AC mentioned, resolution matters. Orbital mapping is incredibly good for the distance, but if you're flying lower you can get far more detail - even if your camera system is far cheaper.
A plane flying low for survey purposes can give you detail down to around the centimeter vs meter+ for satellite. It might not be enough to identify somebody in a crowd, but it's enough to tell a heck of a lot more. It's also relatively cheap and quick.
The problem with this logic is that the Colorado events are being described as a 500 year flood. That is more than twice the age of the USA, and more than ten times the age of FEMA.
The trick to this is that as a federal agency FEMA doesn't just handle floods in Boulder county, Colorado. It supports floods in the whole USA. So while it might be the first flood of that magnitude in that spot during FEMA's tenure, it's experienced 500 year floods elsewhere, as well as more frequent floods of similar magnitude in various bits of the USA.
This is much, much worse than Katrina, and they really managed to fuck that up.
How is this worse than Katrina? Gallons, depth of flood, people affected?
You do realize that there's lots of other floods, right? How about the flooding of Minot, ND just a few years ago? I've also seen images of Grand Forks, ND and Fairbanks, AK seriously flooded.
I'd consider a drone to be an unmanned aircraft capable of following a pre-programmed flight path(not necessarily doing so at the time), and operating beyond the line of sight of the operator(s) while returning data such as, but not limited to, video and other imagery.
I'm sure it can use some work, but that's the definition I'll go by. It keeps basic RC aircraft from counting because they're generally tethered to line of sight.
No real idea on how 'conservative' Google's been with the driving(As in avoiding dangerous/complex situations in the first place), but it's my understanding that they've done many more miles than would be average for a car to have an at-fault accident. Thus far all accidents have been the fault of others - google cars have been hit, but not vice versa.
They've even run it through at least one drive-through.
Wait... is that an argument for or against?
Given the type who make that complaint? They obviously consider it a negative. My only concern about it is whether they make a mess.
IE discarded needles/bodily fluids, which is why my note was 'see #1'.
Even with #4 you have the problem that while he's not hidden, attacks by cabbies themselves against passengers aren't unknown.
That's a valid concern, though I understand that Google's been driving it's autonomous cars through San Francisco for quite some time.
Simple solution: Have an app for your 'calling' your taxi that also asks for the destination(helping you confirm that the system can actually get you there before you wait for the taxi), or give it to the dispatcher(who checks for improbable destinations/problems), and the system automatically selects one with sufficient charge to reach you, your destination, and back to the charging station with sufficient overhead. Worst case, it'll likely have dropped you off already before it dies. 'Emergency mode' should have it find a safe spot for the emergency charge/tow vehicle.
If it's a 'hail' taxi and you have to give the destination in the vehicle it can arrange for another taxi to intercept you even as it informs you that it unfortunately doesn't have sufficient charge for the whole trip, but in 15 miles you can transfer to a vehicle that does.
Remember, city taxi; it shouldn't be driving huge distances.
Another point would be that a Tesla Model S has enough range to only need 2 hours of fast-charge to exceed the average daily mileage of a NYC taxi.
Taxing me is one thing; calling it something else and pretending not to collect taxes is another.
No real argument there. There's a difference between charging $25 for a pair of license plates because that's what they cost, having a static fee for type/weight of vehicle for the road funds, and charging on the basis of the blue book value of the vehicle - so a sucky 10 year old F-350 is cheaper than a new Prius.
Honesty is good if you're going to do it.
That being said, as a moderate libertarian I don't consider 'tax' a bad word, since I believe that we should have a budget that's balanced on average. You can't do that without taxes. However, said taxes should be clear and relatively simple.
There are extreme libertarians out there that think differently, of course, just as there are people who call themselves libertarian that only do so because 'anarchist' is a dirty word that they don't want to be associated with.
I believe that there should be a government, but limited in scope - to put it into technological terms, think of a cell phone. As a libertarian I want my 'cell phone' to be a simple flip phone, not a smart phone. But just because I don't want my phone to have email, games, web browsing, and such doesn't mean that I don't want it to have good cell reception, voice quality, battery life, etc...
All too often in becoming bloated in scope(smart phone), we see massive increases in costs(they give away flip phones today for $30), functionality quality loss, etc... So, Law Enforcement is a 'core' government duty, so it should be effective law enforcement. Defense of the nation, courts, etc...
You know, the place with all the libertarians and no taxes and Live Free Or Die, Motherfucker! I was shocked when it $500 or so to register my car there - the fee (not "tax") is calculated based on the MSRP and age of your car, just like down here. Nice going, guys.
Ever consider that it might be stuff like that that tends to push people into the libertarian party?
But yeah, different states are different. To look at how much tax a state differs by you have to look at a lot of taxes - and quite a few states seem to have a tax on just about everything. Sales tax or no sales tax? Are counties/cities allowed to assess their own tax? Is it all through property taxes? Do you only tax 'land' property, or do you also tax vehicles, and what about other assets? There is at least one state where you're supposed to pay a property tax on any items you have above a certain value, such as jewelry. Gas taxes, fuel taxes, phone taxes, income taxes etc...
It can get crazy.
Some arguments I've heard against driverless taxis/transport services:
1. People will dirty/graffiti/vandalize/steal the vehicles
2. What if it breaks down!!!
3. It'll get lost/not understand directions
4. Somebody will hide on board to attack the next passenger
5. People will do drugs/have sex/sleep in them(see #1)
I'll note that I don't believe any of these are can't be mitigated to the point that driverless taxis are practical, or are at least no more of a problem than manned taxis.