That's rediculous. No contractor should ever sign an agreement like that.
You should have set up the headhunter by having somebody pretend to be an employer trying to hire you and then sued the headhunter if they badmouthed you.
"Need a new Computer? No Credit - Bad Credit -- No Problem!"
"8 FREE Movie Tickets Any Theater - Nothing To Join"
"Award Confirmation"
When they were operating, I was getting about 5 spams a day; so, I took the maximum steps [Send in their upstreams all the way to the backbone plus the DNS server into the abuse.net database.]
Plus I sent them a contract proposal that they could agree to by sending me an e-mail. Haven't heard from them since...
I can tell you from experience that hard drives to not last a long time in vehicles... And I always make sure the temparature is up to 55F before I power them up.
About 90% of those new business models involved selling copies of something (lyrics, 24 track regordings, fancy graphics, etc). Not even getting into the issue of whether very many people would actually pay for it, it's all stuff that can be copied. How can that make money when copying is free?
Your mailserver must not be working or there is a spam filter upstream of it. I was getting about 10 a day to the e-mail I used in the domain registration. I just killed that mailbox and put an @spamcop.net address in there. Hopefully, there won't be as many that are stupid enough to send to that one.
BTW, your e-mail is hidden in your Spamcop posts; although, I don't think Spamcop posts are much of an issue, because it's not a very crawlable web site.
This has started because the Artists filed a friend of the court brief requesting that Judge Patel not issue a ruling that re-inforces the record companies claim that recordings are "works-for-hire". The record companies are trying to establish back door precedents by claiming the work-for-hire relationship in unrelated court cases.
In theory, this wouldn't be a big deal, because the label would just have to go back to the artists and get a signature authorizing the court action and they would get it, because I don't think there are very many artists out there (unsigned or not) who think Napster is acting in thier best interest. The catch is that by doing that, the labels would be admitting they don't have a work-for-hire arrangement with the artists.
It sounds to me like bnetd.org complied with the DMCA. They specifically avoided reverse engineering the copy protection mechanism. They only reverse engineered the game playing protocol (which they are allowed to do). -- Oh could a room full or lawyers have fun with this one -- my head is spinning, now...
This sounds like a really good one for EFF to pick as a test case: They could have hundreds of paying customers testifying in court that they used bnetd servers because the Battle.net server was inaccessible, or too slow, or incompatible with firewalls, or whatever (essentially a breach of contract, BTW).
It was a bad movie before 9/11, too
on
Collateral Damage
·
· Score: 1
The Motorcycle accident scene at the end was best example. They were too cheap to even crash a real bike; so, they threw a few parts in a pile! The budget on this one must have been 99% Arnold's salary. They didn't even show the mines going of when he dragged the pick over them: Only canned sound effects!
I mean, anyone who relates to this story is probably in bed asleep already.;)
Guess again. Some of us are still staying up all night...
Some nostalgia: Remember the time when somebody did things like multipunched all the holes in a row or column (to jam the university card readers). Remember what happened to them the second time they did it when 50 people were in the computer center with a next day deadline....
Or doing the same thing on the power company bill (they were not pleased). Or trying to add an extra high order digit to the phone company's punch card (never got that to work).
You didn't read the scenario carefully enough. They do it like this:
1. They send the self-audit application to the company.
2. The company runs the self-audit application.
3. They then ask the company to pay the license fees on any unlicensed applications the self-audit program finds. Undoubtely implying that's all they need to do.
4. The company pays the fees (i.e., provides proof of guilt).
5. Then the BSA calls back to demand a settlement for the copyright infringement. At that point, the company has provided the legal evidence to hang itself for up to $150,000 per copy.
I have a little contract I send out to any spammers that openly advertise contact points. It stops spam from identifiable sources really fast; so, I sent a slightly modifed one to TRUSTe. The really cool part about it is the encryption technology they will be using makes it real easy to establish the identify of the sender... Here is what I sent.
This is a legal notice regarding the "trusted senders" program you are initiating.
I do not wish to receive unsolicited electronic mail from any participants in the program who do not have an existing business relationship with me or my company. To put it more formally, here is a contract regarding the participation of my company in the "trusted senders" program:
The following is a contract between the sole proprietorship [my company], herein referred to as HRMS, and TRUSTe.
HRMS is owned by [me] and is located [somewhere] in the state of Massachusetts.
TRUSTe is located at 1180 Coleman Avenue, Suite 202 in the city of San Jose in the state of California
Once accepted, this contract shall apply to TRUSTe and any other members of the "trusted senders" program being initiated by TRUSTe.
HRMS will provide the service of "wasted time" to TRUSTe each and every time a member of the "trusted senders" program sends an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message to HRMS using any covered electronic mail address.
The service "wasted time" is defined to be any amount of time, no matter how short, that HRMS computers or personnel spend dealing with an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message. It may include time spent complaining about the message to relevant authorities, but may also just consist of archiving the message. The extent and nature of wasted time is determined solely at the discretion of HRMS.
For this agreement, a covered electronic mail address is defined to be any of the following:
[address]
[address]
all addresses in the Internet domain [domain].com
all addresses in the Internet domain [domain].com
all addresses in any Internet domain publicly registered during
the contract period by HRMS or [me]
TRUSTe acknowledges that [my name] is a computer software expert and that for the purposes of this contract, [my name] is the sole authority on what is or is not an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message. In particular, the presence of any encrypted information provided by TRUSTe is explicitly deemed irrelevant to this determination.
TRUSTe agrees that the service fee paid to HRMS for wasted time is ten thousand US dollars for each unsolicited commercial electronic mail message received by HRMS. HRMS advises that this is an unreasonable price to pay for said service; however, HRMS will be happy to provide said service if TRUSTe accepts this contract in spite of this advice.
TRUSTe may resell this service at a profit to any member of the "trusted senders" program.
This contract shall take effect when accepted by TRUSTe and shall be remain in effect until cancelled in writing by HRMS.
TRUSTe shall indicate acceptance of this contract by allowing any member of the "trusted senders" program to send a "trusted senders" electronic mail message to any of the covered electronic mail addresses any time between the initial offer date and December 31st, 2011. A "trusted senders" electronic mail message is defined to be any electronic mail message containing the encrypted information normally contained in electronic mail messages under the "trusted senders" program.
The initial offer date for this contract is February 1, 2002.
TRUSTe shall indicate rejection of this contract by not allowing any member of the "trusted senders" program to send a "trusted senders" electronic mail message to any of the covered electronic mail addresses any time between the initial offer date and December 31st, 2011.
HRMS extends the offer of this contract to TRUSTe for the period beginning on the initial offer date and ending December 31st, 2011. TRUSTe may accept this contract in the specified manner at any time during that period even if TRUSTe has previously rejected the offer.
This contract shall be enforced under the laws and courts of the state of Massachusetts.
In the event any portion of this contract shall be deemed invalid, the remaining provisions still apply.
TRUSTe agrees to pay any service fees within 30 days of receiving the invoice.
TRUSTe agrees to pay double the normal fees to any lawyers, collection agencies, private investigators, internet service providers and other professionals hired by HRMS to collect overdue service fees.
TRUSTe authorizes any and all third parties with information regarding electronic mail messages sent by any member of the "trusted senders" program to any of the covered electronic mail addresses to provide such information to HRMS or its agents. TRUSTe authorizes any and all third parties with information regarding the identify of individuals sending electronic mail messages on behalf of any member of the "trusted senders" program to provide such information to HRMS or its agents.
In the event that HRMS obtains a judgement against TRUSTe for overdue service fees, TRUSTe agrees to pay punitive damages of ten times the amount of that judgement to a registered charity chosen by HRMS.
Agreed this 1st day of February, the year 2002 by [me], proprietor of [my coompany].
They certainly weren't patented by Intel. [Most of the work in this area was done prior to 1990... Intel only made silicon then.] IBM has some patents, but there is apparently a lot of prior art that makes them pretty toothless. There were a lot of papers published in the 70's about the Bliss optimizing compiler that cover most of the optimization techniques.
They wouldn't believe that. Not in English. OTOH, if you encrypt it with something really good. Or just send a string of random numbes that looks like encrypted data...
I thought big corporations weren't supposed to mess up and use other people's trademarks. About the only good thing about this annoyance is that the spammers will lose an address...
Oh my. Think about the poor schmos who think they have just "won" this domain name... There e-mail servers will be inundated for years...
Note that the paper indicates they were originally planning on selling the viewers. I'll bet there is an internal political story there...
I assume they eventually got paid for including it in the printer drivers in Mac OS and Windows, but initially, they were just giving it away. In fact, they also gave away the rendering tools to just about everybody who owned another Adobe product. Of course the net result was that it quickly became indispensable.
Other have already noticed this, but the article was totally devoid of facts arount the case:
1. Varian case: 14,000 messages is huge effort, but if the claims were both pretty hard to call one way or the other... For all we know, the manager accused of be homophobic may have been gay, or something like that. There could be something wrong there, but we weren't given enough info to tell.
2. Intel case: I may be remembering this wrong, but all Intel went after and got was a court order to stop sending e-mail. I don't think it was a lawsuit...
3. printCafe: They haven't won this case, yet. They haven't even gotten the court to tell them who it is, yet. Companies have been trying to do this all along, until they succeed (when they shouldn't), it doesn't contribute to the conclusion.
Bottom line, there is no trend to back up the article's claim, MAYBE one case...
That's not true. ASCAP, BMI and the Songwriter's Guild are open for all to join; so, the musicians DO get paid from the blank media royalties.
The catch is that the blank media royalties only apply to the music only CDRs that, as has been pointed out before, only a chump will buy because the data blanks work just as well for music. There is no royalty on the data only blanks.
Also, the hardware vendors are inflating the music only CDR blank prices beyond all reason -- making sure that almost nobody buys them.
MS has more money to pay lawyers; so, they will probably eventually prevail whether they have a valid claim or not; however, they risk a lot by going into court. There were a lot of things using the term generically before the Windows software ever existed and there is one major software project called XWindows that has been around longer. In fact, the fact that XWindows has been around longer may mean that MS's trademark is only good for the exact name "Windows" (because other one charactrer variants existed when they filed the trademark).
Actually I just checked the USPTO web site and it took MS lawyers 5 1/2 years to get the registration through and two years later somebody challenged it again. It is currently listed with the following status: "A cancellation proceeding has been filed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and is now pending." The first use listed for the Trademark is 1983/10/18. Microsoft barely existed then, let alone the Windows operating system! This is about as weak as a trademark can possibly get, isn't it?
Even if they win, they still lose. The most they can do is get the other company to change the name to some thing else. They can't really sue for any kind of damages without trying to prove the other product was of inferior quality and actually damaged their reputation because consumers were confused... I would not want to be the person trying to prove that in court. It could be very embarassing. Net result is the other company has to change the name (and, let's face it, Lindows is basically a really sucky name). And the other company get's a ton of free publicity in the process. Plus they are instantly legitimized simply because MS sued them.
Incidentally, this is a classic way to get a startup instantly turned from being regarded as a finge element into a serious contender -- Prod a huge company into suing you... Roberts messed up the first time around, because he picked a lawsuit that cost him a bundle of money, but he appears to have nailed it this time.
A number of people are starting to sue spammers for theft of services. I've been sending "contract proposals" to several large spam outfits with the agreement mechanism being "send me an e-mail". Two of the three stopped sending me anything immediately and my e-mail dropped in half. The third hasn't stopped; so, I get to try sending them a bill and see what happens. The service I provide them is "wasted time" and I value it at $10,000 per incident (hopefully, it's high enough to get a lawyer interested in helping collect it).
For more on the topic, see:
http://law.spamcon.org/
http://law.spamcon.org/articles/index.shtml#frau d
The artical on the web site contract by Nima Taradji is especially intriguing.
If the spammer has money, you can sue for reputation damage. This probably only works if the e-mail address spelled out your real name. There also may not be much money to collect when you win... It would seem like it would at least be worth taking the process far enough to get the real identity of the spammer.
It's pretty unlikely that you would go onto know spammer lists. The return address on spam is forged so often that it pretty much gets ignored these days...
Slashdot Mirror
That's rediculous. No contractor should ever sign an agreement like that.
You should have set up the headhunter by having somebody pretend to be an employer trying to hire you and then sued the headhunter if they badmouthed you.
"Receive great offers!"
"Need a new Computer? No Credit - Bad Credit -- No Problem!"
"8 FREE Movie Tickets Any Theater - Nothing To Join"
"Award Confirmation"
When they were operating, I was getting about 5 spams a day; so, I took the maximum steps [Send in their upstreams all the way to the backbone plus the DNS server into the abuse.net database.]
Plus I sent them a contract proposal that they could agree to by sending me an e-mail. Haven't heard from them since...
I can tell you from experience that hard drives to not last a long time in vehicles... And I always make sure the temparature is up to 55F before I power them up.
About 90% of those new business models involved selling copies of something (lyrics, 24 track regordings, fancy graphics, etc). Not even getting into the issue of whether very many people would actually pay for it, it's all stuff that can be copied. How can that make money when copying is free?
Here's what you do about this:
1. Don't say anything to your company.
2. Volunteer to do the obfiscation.
3. Make sure the obfiscation is reversable (don't tell anybody, of course).
4. When the project is done, quit and start your own company. I don't have to tell you selling what....
Your mailserver must not be working or there is a spam filter upstream of it. I was getting about 10 a day to the e-mail I used in the domain registration. I just killed that mailbox and put an @spamcop.net address in there. Hopefully, there won't be as many that are stupid enough to send to that one.
BTW, your e-mail is hidden in your Spamcop posts; although, I don't think Spamcop posts are much of an issue, because it's not a very crawlable web site.
This has started because the Artists filed a friend of the court brief requesting that Judge Patel not issue a ruling that re-inforces the record companies claim that recordings are "works-for-hire". The record companies are trying to establish back door precedents by claiming the work-for-hire relationship in unrelated court cases.
In theory, this wouldn't be a big deal, because the label would just have to go back to the artists and get a signature authorizing the court action and they would get it, because I don't think there are very many artists out there (unsigned or not) who think Napster is acting in thier best interest. The catch is that by doing that, the labels would be admitting they don't have a work-for-hire arrangement with the artists.
That's why this means a settlement is immanent.
It sounds to me like bnetd.org complied with the DMCA. They specifically avoided reverse engineering the copy protection mechanism. They only reverse engineered the game playing protocol (which they are allowed to do). -- Oh could a room full or lawyers have fun with this one -- my head is spinning, now...
This sounds like a really good one for EFF to pick as a test case: They could have hundreds of paying customers testifying in court that they used bnetd servers because the Battle.net server was inaccessible, or too slow, or incompatible with firewalls, or whatever (essentially a breach of contract, BTW).
The Motorcycle accident scene at the end was best example. They were too cheap to even crash a real bike; so, they threw a few parts in a pile! The budget on this one must have been 99% Arnold's salary. They didn't even show the mines going of when he dragged the pick over them: Only canned sound effects!
I mean, anyone who relates to this story is probably in bed asleep already. ;)
Guess again. Some of us are still staying up all night...
Some nostalgia: Remember the time when somebody did things like multipunched all the holes in a row or column (to jam the university card readers). Remember what happened to them the second time they did it when 50 people were in the computer center with a next day deadline.... Or doing the same thing on the power company bill (they were not pleased). Or trying to add an extra high order digit to the phone company's punch card (never got that to work).
I wonder if that film they are talking about will ruin players as it outgasses?
You didn't read the scenario carefully enough. They do it like this:
1. They send the self-audit application to the company.
2. The company runs the self-audit application.
3. They then ask the company to pay the license fees on any unlicensed applications the self-audit program finds. Undoubtely implying that's all they need to do.
4. The company pays the fees (i.e., provides proof of guilt).
5. Then the BSA calls back to demand a settlement for the copyright infringement. At that point, the company has provided the legal evidence to hang itself for up to $150,000 per copy.
Don't forget to audit every call to sprintf and strcat to make sure the output buffer is big enough. In my experience, half of them won't be.
I have a little contract I send out to any spammers that openly advertise contact points. It stops spam from identifiable sources really fast; so, I sent a slightly modifed one to TRUSTe. The really cool part about it is the encryption technology they will be using makes it real easy to establish the identify of the sender... Here is what I sent.
To: licensee@truste.org
From: [me] hrob@nowhere.com
Subject: LEGAL NOTICE
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
This is a legal notice regarding the "trusted senders" program you are initiating.
I do not wish to receive unsolicited electronic mail from any participants in the program who do not have an existing business relationship with me or my company. To put it more formally, here is a contract regarding the participation of my company in the "trusted senders" program:
The following is a contract between the sole proprietorship [my company], herein referred to as HRMS, and TRUSTe.
HRMS is owned by [me] and is located [somewhere] in the state of Massachusetts.
TRUSTe is located at 1180 Coleman Avenue, Suite 202 in the city of San Jose in the state of California
Once accepted, this contract shall apply to TRUSTe and any other members of the "trusted senders" program being initiated by TRUSTe.
HRMS will provide the service of "wasted time" to TRUSTe each and every time a member of the "trusted senders" program sends an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message to HRMS using any covered electronic mail address.
The service "wasted time" is defined to be any amount of time, no matter how short, that HRMS computers or personnel spend dealing with an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message. It may include time spent complaining about the message to relevant authorities, but may also just consist of archiving the message. The extent and nature of wasted time is determined solely at the discretion of HRMS.
For this agreement, a covered electronic mail address is defined to be any of the following:
[address]
[address]
all addresses in the Internet domain [domain].com
all addresses in the Internet domain [domain].com
all addresses in any Internet domain publicly registered during
the contract period by HRMS or [me]
TRUSTe acknowledges that [my name] is a computer software expert and that for the purposes of this contract, [my name] is the sole authority on what is or is not an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message. In particular, the presence of any encrypted information provided by TRUSTe is explicitly deemed irrelevant to this determination.
TRUSTe agrees that the service fee paid to HRMS for wasted time is ten thousand US dollars for each unsolicited commercial electronic mail message received by HRMS. HRMS advises that this is an unreasonable price to pay for said service; however, HRMS will be happy to provide said service if TRUSTe accepts this contract in spite of this advice.
TRUSTe may resell this service at a profit to any member of the "trusted senders" program.
This contract shall take effect when accepted by TRUSTe and shall be remain in effect until cancelled in writing by HRMS.
TRUSTe shall indicate acceptance of this contract by allowing any member of the "trusted senders" program to send a "trusted senders" electronic mail message to any of the covered electronic mail addresses any time between the initial offer date and December 31st, 2011. A "trusted senders" electronic mail message is defined to be any electronic mail message containing the encrypted information normally contained in electronic mail messages under the "trusted senders" program.
The initial offer date for this contract is February 1, 2002.
TRUSTe shall indicate rejection of this contract by not allowing any member of the "trusted senders" program to send a "trusted senders" electronic mail message to any of the covered electronic mail addresses any time between the initial offer date and December 31st, 2011.
HRMS extends the offer of this contract to TRUSTe for the period beginning on the initial offer date and ending December 31st, 2011. TRUSTe may accept this contract in the specified manner at any time during that period even if TRUSTe has previously rejected the offer.
This contract shall be enforced under the laws and courts of the state of Massachusetts.
In the event any portion of this contract shall be deemed invalid, the remaining provisions still apply.
TRUSTe agrees to pay any service fees within 30 days of receiving the invoice.
TRUSTe agrees to pay double the normal fees to any lawyers, collection agencies, private investigators, internet service providers and other professionals hired by HRMS to collect overdue service fees.
TRUSTe authorizes any and all third parties with information regarding electronic mail messages sent by any member of the "trusted senders" program to any of the covered electronic mail addresses to provide such information to HRMS or its agents. TRUSTe authorizes any and all third parties with information regarding the identify of individuals sending electronic mail messages on behalf of any member of the "trusted senders" program to provide such information to HRMS or its agents.
In the event that HRMS obtains a judgement against TRUSTe for overdue service fees, TRUSTe agrees to pay punitive damages of ten times the amount of that judgement to a registered charity chosen by HRMS.
Agreed this 1st day of February, the year 2002 by [me], proprietor of [my coompany].
They certainly weren't patented by Intel. [Most of the work in this area was done prior to 1990... Intel only made silicon then.] IBM has some patents, but there is apparently a lot of prior art that makes them pretty toothless. There were a lot of papers published in the 70's about the Bliss optimizing compiler that cover most of the optimization techniques.
I think you've been had. I checked the TOS on their web site and it does not forbid NAT. It does forbid
1. VPNs (NAT does not make a VPN).
2. Connecting a machine in another building.
3. All commercial use...
They wouldn't believe that. Not in English. OTOH, if you encrypt it with something really good. Or just send a string of random numbes that looks like encrypted data...
I thought big corporations weren't supposed to mess up and use other people's trademarks. About the only good thing about this annoyance is that the spammers will lose an address...
Oh my. Think about the poor schmos who think they have just "won" this domain name... There e-mail servers will be inundated for years...
Note that the paper indicates they were originally planning on selling the viewers. I'll bet there is an internal political story there...
I assume they eventually got paid for including it in the printer drivers in Mac OS and Windows, but initially, they were just giving it away. In fact, they also gave away the rendering tools to just about everybody who owned another Adobe product. Of course the net result was that it quickly became indispensable.
Some do! AOL just won a big one.
Other have already noticed this, but the article was totally devoid of facts arount the case:
1. Varian case: 14,000 messages is huge effort, but if the claims were both pretty hard to call one way or the other... For all we know, the manager accused of be homophobic may have been gay, or something like that. There could be something wrong there, but we weren't given enough info to tell.
2. Intel case: I may be remembering this wrong, but all Intel went after and got was a court order to stop sending e-mail. I don't think it was a lawsuit...
3. printCafe: They haven't won this case, yet. They haven't even gotten the court to tell them who it is, yet. Companies have been trying to do this all along, until they succeed (when they shouldn't), it doesn't contribute to the conclusion.
Bottom line, there is no trend to back up the article's claim, MAYBE one case...
That's not true. ASCAP, BMI and the Songwriter's Guild are open for all to join; so, the musicians DO get paid from the blank media royalties.
The catch is that the blank media royalties only apply to the music only CDRs that, as has been pointed out before, only a chump will buy because the data blanks work just as well for music. There is no royalty on the data only blanks.
Also, the hardware vendors are inflating the music only CDR blank prices beyond all reason -- making sure that almost nobody buys them.
MS has more money to pay lawyers; so, they will probably eventually prevail whether they have a valid claim or not; however, they risk a lot by going into court. There were a lot of things using the term generically before the Windows software ever existed and there is one major software project called XWindows that has been around longer. In fact, the fact that XWindows has been around longer may mean that MS's trademark is only good for the exact name "Windows" (because other one charactrer variants existed when they filed the trademark).
Actually I just checked the USPTO web site and it took MS lawyers 5 1/2 years to get the registration through and two years later somebody challenged it again. It is currently listed with the following status: "A cancellation proceeding has been filed at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and is now pending." The first use listed for the Trademark is 1983/10/18. Microsoft barely existed then, let alone the Windows operating system! This is about as weak as a trademark can possibly get, isn't it?
Even if they win, they still lose. The most they can do is get the other company to change the name to some thing else. They can't really sue for any kind of damages without trying to prove the other product was of inferior quality and actually damaged their reputation because consumers were confused... I would not want to be the person trying to prove that in court. It could be very embarassing. Net result is the other company has to change the name (and, let's face it, Lindows is basically a really sucky name). And the other company get's a ton of free publicity in the process. Plus they are instantly legitimized simply because MS sued them.
Incidentally, this is a classic way to get a startup instantly turned from being regarded as a finge element into a serious contender -- Prod a huge company into suing you... Roberts messed up the first time around, because he picked a lawsuit that cost him a bundle of money, but he appears to have nailed it this time.
A number of people are starting to sue spammers for theft of services. I've been sending "contract proposals" to several large spam outfits with the agreement mechanism being "send me an e-mail". Two of the three stopped sending me anything immediately and my e-mail dropped in half. The third hasn't stopped; so, I get to try sending them a bill and see what happens. The service I provide them is "wasted time" and I value it at $10,000 per incident (hopefully, it's high enough to get a lawyer interested in helping collect it).
u d
For more on the topic, see:
http://law.spamcon.org/
http://law.spamcon.org/articles/index.shtml#fra
The artical on the web site contract by Nima Taradji is especially intriguing.
If the spammer has money, you can sue for reputation damage. This probably only works if the e-mail address spelled out your real name. There also may not be much money to collect when you win... It would seem like it would at least be worth taking the process far enough to get the real identity of the spammer.
It's pretty unlikely that you would go onto know spammer lists. The return address on spam is forged so often that it pretty much gets ignored these days...