back when trying to install Red Hat 8.0 on my machine at home, I had to constantly reboot back into Win2K to download patches/rpms, or read up about bugs and errata, get network drivers, configuration minutae, etc
Funny, I've never had that problem with FreeBSD. Even back in the bad old days, it was:
Slot boot floppy, slot root floppy, partition disk, configure network, select distribution, commit... and let it download and install itself overnight.
On the other hand today's operating systems are more modular and have modules that are easier to replace. On top of that, things like custom disk drives don't exist any more. Even the video cards on the Powermac and Windows PCs are pretty much the same cards and use the same hardware and software interface.
And on the Mac at least a lot of those drivers are open-source, which is how come I could run OS X on my unsupported Powermac 7500.
They filled them with fuel and washing-up liquid to act out a Jedi Knight fight scene from new movie Revenge Of The Sith.
Now I'm not really up on the latest Anarchist's Cookbook documents, but I'm pretty sure I remember mixing gasoline and soap being at least part of the process of making napalm...
Look, tonight was my first night to mess with OSX because my suster got a new powerbook. And you know what I noticed was the difference between it and Windows/Linux (I use both A LOT)? That everything works. The wireless worked out of the box. Every piece of hardware worked well, no messing with drivers or any of that crap.
Funny, that's the same experience I get with a Thinkpad.
I'm still having problems with my Mac-compatible and Mac-marketed Macally webcam on my Mac mini. Works from Windows just fine. Oh, and I wasn't able to use the floppy, serial ports, or Adaptec Mac-branded SCSI card in my G3 after I upgraded it to Jaguar.
That's why a lot of technical people are buying Macs now, because with OS X you've finally started making a product that works. Before that, you had a product that didn't work, a lot of the time. But it was a product that when it didn't work, it could usually be made to work by giving it a good thump on the side. It failed in a predictable way, so even if it failed more than it should that was OK, people could deal with it. And with OS X, you've tried pretty hard to keep that feeling, so there's good solid "thump on the side" rituals you've established like "Repair Permissions" and "Archive and Install". You see this in forums like this... someone explains how he traced things down to a missing kext, and some old-school Apple user asks him why he didn't just reinstall...
So, really, you sell products to people who want them to be predictable. It's a certain kind of reliability that isn't really what the technical folks see that way, but it's a certain kind of reliability. And when it's not there, the old-school Apple users go totaly ballistic. And, well, DRM is one of the places you've had a history of freaking them out with... you've responded pretty well to that, increasing the number of computers you can authorize for iTunes, making it less of a hassle for people who've hit the limit because their "thump on the side" reinstall blew away their authorization, and so on.
And that's one of the strengths of iTunes and the iPod, because the stronger the DRM is the more likely it is to break and the less likely people are going to be able to fix it by thumping it on the side... because letting people fix it easily themselves makes it easier for people to break the DRM. So you're going to have to keep balancing for a while longer, because it's NOT just the "Alpha Geeks" you need to worry about.
Turner CEO Jamie Kellner said that editing out commercials entirely with special software in DVRs is stealing.
How do you feel about people who keep lists of the ads they see on TV and deliberately avoid using those products?
Advertising is a gamble. When someone pays money to advertise, they are hoping people will see it and buy their product. If people don't see it because they're fast-fowarding over it, don't see it because they're automatically fast-forwarding over it, or don't buy the products because they're boycotting advertisers, the result is the same.
I personally like many of the advertisements I see on TV. The Energizer Bunny ads, for example, were brilliant. When I go to the store, I buy whatever batteries are cheapest... usually the house brand. It doesn't matter to Eveready (I think...) whether I'm buying Kroger Brand because I didn't see the ad, I didn't care about the ad, I didn't care about the product, or I'm boycotting advertisers. The result is the same.
The problem is that people have gotten used to TV as meaning "guaranteed eyeballs". The guy watching TV is a product. Well, that product has decided that it doesn't want to sell its eyeballs for the same price it used to... is it OK for Kellner to go ahead and take them at the same rate he did before? I don't think so. Commercial skipping software isn't theft, it's part of a negotiation between the consumer and the network. Kellner calling it theft should be taken no more seriously than the stereotypical haggler declaiming "Five dollars? You're stealing the bread from the mouths of my children!"
A human someone, I'll grant. But only because humans have primate brains that have been shaped by millions of years of evolution. A designer mind deliberately constructed to enjoy a given task hasn't been shaped by those forces, and thus thinks differently.
Something funny here. I posted a reply that addressed this but I can't find it now. It probably got lost when RoadRunner was being flakey.
Anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter how the holocharacters evolved, because they are DESIGNED to simulate a primate brain shaped by millions of years of evolution, and when they "wake up" they act like an entity that IS in such a brain, so it really doesn't matter whether they're programmed to be identical to such an antity, programmed to act AS IF they were identical to such an antity, or a similation of such an entity at a low enough level they're neurologically equivalent to it. No matter what the option, you have to treat them as if they are what they claim they think they are, once you treat them as self-aware at all.
If the entity can't say "Well, now, I'm in this situation. How do I feel about that? And do I have values and a life I can measure it against and decide for myself whether I want to continue doing it?" - are they fully human? If they never have the internal choice of saying "No" or "Yes" are they ever human? If they do not make that decision independently every moment, are they human during the other moments when that decision is denied them?
So, what you're saying is that I'm not fully human? OK, I can live with that, I've often felt like I was just a simulation of myself... so this is hardly anything new.
Yeh, when I heard about this I assumed that Apple would use kqueue and watch changes in the vnodes. It would require some extension to kqueue, because there's no "EVFILT_FS" or "EVFILT_VOP" filter that would monitor VOPs on more than a single file. But they needed to extend HFS+, too, so that's not really a big deal. You do have to be careful with this, because trying to monitor VOP_WRITE would be like drinking from a firehose... but you wouldn't actually need to track file content changes that closely for something like Spotlight that only needs to know that a file has changed recently. The key is that file content changes are reflected in the file modification time, so changes to the stat structure would be good enough if you delayed the actual examination of the file more than the granularity of time_t (one second), so by monitoring a few key VOPs you could get Spotlight working efficiently over any file system.
In fact, you could even just track inode changes and VOP_OPEN, VOP_MMAP, and VOP_CLOSE, and periodically peek at files that are open a long time to see if they're changed. The main thing is to be able to tell where to look without having to regularly traverse the whole file system.
Why they decided to use HFS+ instead of doing it at the vnode layer, I don't know. I can make some pretty good guesses, of course, because after all HFS+ is their baby and they really don't care much about supporting other file systems.
It's a shame. I really don't trust HFS+, and I wish they'd do more to support UFS transparently.
Look at the Original 68000 based Macs. Were they compatible with the 68000 based Amiga?
Yeh, actually, someone came up with a hack to boot Mac OS on the Amiga. "AMax" needed a Mac Plus ROM image, which it patched to use the Amiga hardware and then rebooted into Mac OS. I don't know how useful it was (since the Mac Plus ROMs were pretty creaky and old at the time this came out), but it was possible.
To use the Cell as the primary processor in the Mac, and actually have the extra cores doing something other than being a test load on the power supply, Apple would have to build a protected mode server or kernel module that implemented a sandboxed environment for multiple applications to hand off jobs to the special purpose cores. Which would mean coming up with APIs that did useful things that could still be used in a multi-user multi-tasking environment. There are some APIs they could use... OpenGL of course, the NovodeX Physics API, maybe Renderman... but it'd be a hell of a lot more work than Sony's had to do in an unprotected environment like a console.
The price difference between the Mac mini and a comparably equipped PC is about the same as price of the software shipped with the Mac mini. If Apple sold an x86-based mini, why do you imagine they'd sell it more cheaply than the current version? It's not like the processor makes that much difference in cost.
This sounds like an opportunity for someone to fill in the gaps that Apple left, the way Codetek Virtual Desktop or Unsanity Shapeshifter have. The Spotlight configuration files are relatively simple, so it doesn't sound like it would be difficult to produce a "Spotlight Enhancer".
WindowNT on the Alpha was 64bit, used 64bit integer, 64bit floating point, and 64bit address space (only curtailed by the CPU Address Space limitation).
That's not what Microsoft says, it's not what Microsoft has ever said.
Microsoft is a relatively late arrival to the 64-bit party. The DEC Alpha chip is 64-bit, and there are 64-bit versions of Unix that run on the Alpha. Under Windows NT 4.0 and Windows NT 5.0, the top 32 bits of the address space aren't used (at least not without special help). -- Microsoft Systems Journal, 1998
Windows NT on the Alpha, as shipped, used the Win32 API. The Win64 API was developed on the Alpha, but that was not released to the public. Existing applications that require large address space before the release of Win64 on Itanium needed to use a special API, whether they're on Alpha or Xeon. These are database applications, they run on a server, they don't require a GUI.
64-bit Mac OS X applications under Tiger on the G5 have a 64-bit address space, not a 32-bit one. They are 64-bit in the same sense that Win64 server applications are, and they are 64-bit in a way that Win32 large address space server application aren't.
Now, can you tell me something? Do you actually know of a Windows GUI application that uses an address space over 32 bits, that actually benefits from those large pointers? Can you provide a pointer to Win64 GUI code that actually requires 64-bit pointers for full functionality? Higher performance is not enough, unless you can show that higher performance is due to the larger address space and not the larger register file.
You won't find it on the Xbox.
Oh, one more thing - even the 8087 had 80-bit floating point, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make when you talk about "64-bit floating point".
Apple just not have the technology development advtantage they did in the 80s.
Apple didn't HAVE much of a technology advantage in the '80s. The original Mac OS was awful, and the things that made Apple a powerhouse in the '80s happened in spite of their appalling OS design. It was their artists and user interface designers that built on top of the OS that made it attractive, and it was their tight hand on their developers (both in-house and third-party) that kept that user interface coherent and kept people using it.
Apple's strength has never been the quality of their underlying software, it's always been what they did with it. Now they have good underlying software as well as a good and highly consistent user interface. It doesn't matter where it came from, because like always it's what they do with it that counts.
People have been screaming at apple since 1984 that they need to put something better under the covers. Now they've actually done it, and what are you bitching about? That the GUI doesn't provide a 64-bit API even though the underlying OS does, and even though you haven't actually come up with a single example of a program that would benefit from a 64-bit GUI.
The cheapest combo I could find on Pricewatch was $16, unless you want a ball mouse.
That's actually pretty good, for online. I get a lot of that stuff from surplus electronics places, and if you don't want to dig around in a bin or you don't live in a big city, that's a good deal. So, make it $20.
"if you don't have a spare monitor just sitting around, you're looking at $100-$200 extra"
If you have a monitor and you're using it, then you're out something like $20-$50 for a KVM switch. But you save some on that because you don't need a second keyboard and mouse.
You can. It's called eBay.
I'm happy to buy surplus equipment when I can actually see and test it before I buy it. Buying on eBay is a whole different level of risk, especially for something like a laptop.
Best Buy sells PCs for $400 with keyboard, mouse, monitor, and printer. [...] PCs are still cheaper.
I'm confused. Did you miss where I said "It's about half again more expensive than a Wintel PC with the same specs.", or what? Those are REALLY minimal PCs, with S3 or similar video and no VRAM, and really cruddy monitors.
$400 PC with onboard video and CRT, keyboard, and mouse. -$20 Keyboard and mouse -$100 Comparable cheesy monitor +$40 Radeon 9200 video card ---- $320 Value of PC $160 Half as much again ---- $480 Close enough for back-of-the-envelope calculation
So, yes, they cost more than PCs. I already said that. But when people start talking about the "value" of the missing display and keyboard they end up pricing Apple's components and "proving" the Mini costs as much as an iMac... and that's what I'm trying to head off here.
Depends on what the metal does when it freezes. Gallium is one of those funny substances that expands when it freezes (another reason pure gallium is an unlikely candidate for the metal), but most metals just stop flowing. When it warms up again it should be fine.
Tha Mac Mini is actually pretty expensive for what it does
Well, that depends on what you mean "what it does".
If that's "being a PC with these specs", yes. It's about half again more expensive than a Wintel PC with the same specs.
The keyboard and mouse are negligable. If you spend more than US$10 on them you're not trying. Yes, you need a monitor... if you don't have one you're looking at $100-$200 extra.
On the other hand, if "what it does" is "run Mac OS X", it's pretty cheap... especially considering the license is included in the price.
If I could have got an iBook for close to the same amount, that would have been a different matter, but those built-in screens really run the price up... and they're too low resolution, so I'd end up paying for the separate keyboard, display, and mouse anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
back when trying to install Red Hat 8.0 on my machine at home, I had to constantly reboot back into Win2K to download patches/rpms, or read up about bugs and errata, get network drivers, configuration minutae, etc
Funny, I've never had that problem with FreeBSD. Even back in the bad old days, it was:
Slot boot floppy, slot root floppy, partition disk, configure network, select distribution, commit... and let it download and install itself overnight.
On the other hand today's operating systems are more modular and have modules that are easier to replace. On top of that, things like custom disk drives don't exist any more. Even the video cards on the Powermac and Windows PCs are pretty much the same cards and use the same hardware and software interface.
And on the Mac at least a lot of those drivers are open-source, which is how come I could run OS X on my unsupported Powermac 7500.
They filled them with fuel and washing-up liquid to act out a Jedi Knight fight scene from new movie Revenge Of The Sith.
Now I'm not really up on the latest Anarchist's Cookbook documents, but I'm pretty sure I remember mixing gasoline and soap being at least part of the process of making napalm...
Look, tonight was my first night to mess with OSX because my suster got a new powerbook. And you know what I noticed was the difference between it and Windows/Linux (I use both A LOT)? That everything works. The wireless worked out of the box. Every piece of hardware worked well, no messing with drivers or any of that crap.
Funny, that's the same experience I get with a Thinkpad.
I'm still having problems with my Mac-compatible and Mac-marketed Macally webcam on my Mac mini. Works from Windows just fine. Oh, and I wasn't able to use the floppy, serial ports, or Adaptec Mac-branded SCSI card in my G3 after I upgraded it to Jaguar.
We sell products to people who want them to work.
That's why a lot of technical people are buying Macs now, because with OS X you've finally started making a product that works. Before that, you had a product that didn't work, a lot of the time. But it was a product that when it didn't work, it could usually be made to work by giving it a good thump on the side. It failed in a predictable way, so even if it failed more than it should that was OK, people could deal with it. And with OS X, you've tried pretty hard to keep that feeling, so there's good solid "thump on the side" rituals you've established like "Repair Permissions" and "Archive and Install". You see this in forums like this... someone explains how he traced things down to a missing kext, and some old-school Apple user asks him why he didn't just reinstall...
So, really, you sell products to people who want them to be predictable. It's a certain kind of reliability that isn't really what the technical folks see that way, but it's a certain kind of reliability. And when it's not there, the old-school Apple users go totaly ballistic. And, well, DRM is one of the places you've had a history of freaking them out with... you've responded pretty well to that, increasing the number of computers you can authorize for iTunes, making it less of a hassle for people who've hit the limit because their "thump on the side" reinstall blew away their authorization, and so on.
And that's one of the strengths of iTunes and the iPod, because the stronger the DRM is the more likely it is to break and the less likely people are going to be able to fix it by thumping it on the side... because letting people fix it easily themselves makes it easier for people to break the DRM. So you're going to have to keep balancing for a while longer, because it's NOT just the "Alpha Geeks" you need to worry about.
Turner CEO Jamie Kellner said that editing out commercials entirely with special software in DVRs is stealing.
How do you feel about people who keep lists of the ads they see on TV and deliberately avoid using those products?
Advertising is a gamble. When someone pays money to advertise, they are hoping people will see it and buy their product. If people don't see it because they're fast-fowarding over it, don't see it because they're automatically fast-forwarding over it, or don't buy the products because they're boycotting advertisers, the result is the same.
I personally like many of the advertisements I see on TV. The Energizer Bunny ads, for example, were brilliant. When I go to the store, I buy whatever batteries are cheapest... usually the house brand. It doesn't matter to Eveready (I think...) whether I'm buying Kroger Brand because I didn't see the ad, I didn't care about the ad, I didn't care about the product, or I'm boycotting advertisers. The result is the same.
The problem is that people have gotten used to TV as meaning "guaranteed eyeballs". The guy watching TV is a product. Well, that product has decided that it doesn't want to sell its eyeballs for the same price it used to... is it OK for Kellner to go ahead and take them at the same rate he did before? I don't think so. Commercial skipping software isn't theft, it's part of a negotiation between the consumer and the network. Kellner calling it theft should be taken no more seriously than the stereotypical haggler declaiming "Five dollars? You're stealing the bread from the mouths of my children!"
A human someone, I'll grant. But only because humans have primate brains that have been shaped by millions of years of evolution. A designer mind deliberately constructed to enjoy a given task hasn't been shaped by those forces, and thus thinks differently.
Something funny here. I posted a reply that addressed this but I can't find it now. It probably got lost when RoadRunner was being flakey.
Anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter how the holocharacters evolved, because they are DESIGNED to simulate a primate brain shaped by millions of years of evolution, and when they "wake up" they act like an entity that IS in such a brain, so it really doesn't matter whether they're programmed to be identical to such an antity, programmed to act AS IF they were identical to such an antity, or a similation of such an entity at a low enough level they're neurologically equivalent to it. No matter what the option, you have to treat them as if they are what they claim they think they are, once you treat them as self-aware at all.
If the entity can't say "Well, now, I'm in this situation. How do I feel about that? And do I have values and a life I can measure it against and decide for myself whether I want to continue doing it?" - are they fully human? If they never have the internal choice of saying "No" or "Yes" are they ever human? If they do not make that decision independently every moment, are they human during the other moments when that decision is denied them?
So, what you're saying is that I'm not fully human? OK, I can live with that, I've often felt like I was just a simulation of myself... so this is hardly anything new.
Given that they had the ability to duplicate him once, one can only guess why they didn't make better use of him.
Federation has REALLY good Digital Rights Management schemes?
The mini is basically a laptop design, it'd use Pentium III or Mobile or whatever the current name Intel's using for those things is.
Yeh, when I heard about this I assumed that Apple would use kqueue and watch changes in the vnodes. It would require some extension to kqueue, because there's no "EVFILT_FS" or "EVFILT_VOP" filter that would monitor VOPs on more than a single file. But they needed to extend HFS+, too, so that's not really a big deal. You do have to be careful with this, because trying to monitor VOP_WRITE would be like drinking from a firehose... but you wouldn't actually need to track file content changes that closely for something like Spotlight that only needs to know that a file has changed recently. The key is that file content changes are reflected in the file modification time, so changes to the stat structure would be good enough if you delayed the actual examination of the file more than the granularity of time_t (one second), so by monitoring a few key VOPs you could get Spotlight working efficiently over any file system.
In fact, you could even just track inode changes and VOP_OPEN, VOP_MMAP, and VOP_CLOSE, and periodically peek at files that are open a long time to see if they're changed. The main thing is to be able to tell where to look without having to regularly traverse the whole file system.
Why they decided to use HFS+ instead of doing it at the vnode layer, I don't know. I can make some pretty good guesses, of course, because after all HFS+ is their baby and they really don't care much about supporting other file systems.
It's a shame. I really don't trust HFS+, and I wish they'd do more to support UFS transparently.
Look at the Original 68000 based Macs. Were they compatible with the 68000 based Amiga?
Yeh, actually, someone came up with a hack to boot Mac OS on the Amiga. "AMax" needed a Mac Plus ROM image, which it patched to use the Amiga hardware and then rebooted into Mac OS. I don't know how useful it was (since the Mac Plus ROMs were pretty creaky and old at the time this came out), but it was possible.
To use the Cell as the primary processor in the Mac, and actually have the extra cores doing something other than being a test load on the power supply, Apple would have to build a protected mode server or kernel module that implemented a sandboxed environment for multiple applications to hand off jobs to the special purpose cores. Which would mean coming up with APIs that did useful things that could still be used in a multi-user multi-tasking environment. There are some APIs they could use... OpenGL of course, the NovodeX Physics API, maybe Renderman... but it'd be a hell of a lot more work than Sony's had to do in an unprotected environment like a console.
The price difference between the Mac mini and a comparably equipped PC is about the same as price of the software shipped with the Mac mini. If Apple sold an x86-based mini, why do you imagine they'd sell it more cheaply than the current version? It's not like the processor makes that much difference in cost.
Possibly the results depend on how people upgrade? What upgrade options did you use?
Call it "floodlight"?
This sounds like an opportunity for someone to fill in the gaps that Apple left, the way Codetek Virtual Desktop or Unsanity Shapeshifter have. The Spotlight configuration files are relatively simple, so it doesn't sound like it would be difficult to produce a "Spotlight Enhancer".
That's not what Microsoft says, it's not what Microsoft has ever said.
Windows NT on the Alpha, as shipped, used the Win32 API. The Win64 API was developed on the Alpha, but that was not released to the public. Existing applications that require large address space before the release of Win64 on Itanium needed to use a special API, whether they're on Alpha or Xeon. These are database applications, they run on a server, they don't require a GUI.
64-bit Mac OS X applications under Tiger on the G5 have a 64-bit address space, not a 32-bit one. They are 64-bit in the same sense that Win64 server applications are, and they are 64-bit in a way that Win32 large address space server application aren't.
Now, can you tell me something? Do you actually know of a Windows GUI application that uses an address space over 32 bits, that actually benefits from those large pointers? Can you provide a pointer to Win64 GUI code that actually requires 64-bit pointers for full functionality? Higher performance is not enough, unless you can show that higher performance is due to the larger address space and not the larger register file.
You won't find it on the Xbox.
Oh, one more thing - even the 8087 had 80-bit floating point, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make when you talk about "64-bit floating point".
Apple just not have the technology development advtantage they did in the 80s.
Apple didn't HAVE much of a technology advantage in the '80s. The original Mac OS was awful, and the things that made Apple a powerhouse in the '80s happened in spite of their appalling OS design. It was their artists and user interface designers that built on top of the OS that made it attractive, and it was their tight hand on their developers (both in-house and third-party) that kept that user interface coherent and kept people using it.
Apple's strength has never been the quality of their underlying software, it's always been what they did with it. Now they have good underlying software as well as a good and highly consistent user interface. It doesn't matter where it came from, because like always it's what they do with it that counts.
People have been screaming at apple since 1984 that they need to put something better under the covers. Now they've actually done it, and what are you bitching about? That the GUI doesn't provide a 64-bit API even though the underlying OS does, and even though you haven't actually come up with a single example of a program that would benefit from a 64-bit GUI.
How do I run Mac OS X on a Celeron M?
That's actually pretty good, for online. I get a lot of that stuff from surplus electronics places, and if you don't want to dig around in a bin or you don't live in a big city, that's a good deal. So, make it $20.
"if you don't have a spare monitor just sitting around, you're looking at $100-$200 extra"
If you have a monitor and you're using it, then you're out something like $20-$50 for a KVM switch. But you save some on that because you don't need a second keyboard and mouse.
You can. It's called eBay.
I'm happy to buy surplus equipment when I can actually see and test it before I buy it. Buying on eBay is a whole different level of risk, especially for something like a laptop.
Best Buy sells PCs for $400 with keyboard, mouse, monitor, and printer. [...] PCs are still cheaper.
I'm confused. Did you miss where I said "It's about half again more expensive than a Wintel PC with the same specs.", or what? Those are REALLY minimal PCs, with S3 or similar video and no VRAM, and really cruddy monitors.So, yes, they cost more than PCs. I already said that. But when people start talking about the "value" of the missing display and keyboard they end up pricing Apple's components and "proving" the Mini costs as much as an iMac... and that's what I'm trying to head off here.
your comp might go below the freezing point
Depends on what the metal does when it freezes. Gallium is one of those funny substances that expands when it freezes (another reason pure gallium is an unlikely candidate for the metal), but most metals just stop flowing. When it warms up again it should be fine.
Sounds like the metal wouldn't need to actually be liquid to work, then, and the electromagnetic pumps are redundant.
Thank you for lookingthat up for us, I'm also getting really tired of the way Physorg is using Slashdot to drive clicks into their sandtrap.
Tha Mac Mini is actually pretty expensive for what it does
Well, that depends on what you mean "what it does".
If that's "being a PC with these specs", yes. It's about half again more expensive than a Wintel PC with the same specs.
The keyboard and mouse are negligable. If you spend more than US$10 on them you're not trying. Yes, you need a monitor... if you don't have one you're looking at $100-$200 extra.
On the other hand, if "what it does" is "run Mac OS X", it's pretty cheap... especially considering the license is included in the price.
If I could have got an iBook for close to the same amount, that would have been a different matter, but those built-in screens really run the price up... and they're too low resolution, so I'd end up paying for the separate keyboard, display, and mouse anyway.
As dead as BSD ;)
So there's RiscOS code in Windows and Mac OS X? Wow, I never knew that.