George Washington University Law Professor Bill Kovacic gave some analysis of the referral on NPR's All Things Considered. The Real Audio file is here. --
The breakup of AT&T showed that it wasn't smaller feifdoms that were beneficial to consumers, but actual competition. Long distance rates fell dramatically, because the breakup allowed actual competition. Local telephone rates and service haven't improved much becuase there hasn't been real competition, but the availability of services like DSL have been accelerated and priced lower because of the potential to co-locate equipment in a telco's CO, a result of the breakup and regulation that followed.
Microsoft much different than AT&T, since it owns no physical monopoly, but as AT&T showed, it is not the physical breakup that matters as much as the ability of an outside company to compete in your space. A horizontal breakup, e.g. three units have access to the source code, sounds like it would foster competition. It might, but it would be far more drastic than the courts would allow, and IMHO, it would cause more harm than good. A vertical breakup is more tenable, since the consumer gets no real benefit from having an OS and an office suite made by the same company. This would clearly make the applications market more competitive and might improve OS competition since the applications would have more of an incentive to be ported to other OSes. It would also mean that API's would be more open, perhaps allowing better reverse engineering.
I'd say that the best remedy would likely be transparent, non-discriminatory pricing and a vertical breakup, with some bundling restrictions. Any more would be too drastic. Any less wouldn't do much good. --
This is the case of importance in technology today, or at least it appears to be. (I suspect that open access to broadband networks will be the decision that matters in the long run). It is facinating because nearly everyone (except Tom Christiansen apparently) uses or has used MS software and everyone (including Tom) has an opinion about it.
Most people on/. have a negative opinion of the quality of MS software, but even more than that, most people don't like the heavy-handedness with which they have to gained and retained market-share. This feeling has been intensified since MS has taken aim at such sacred cows as Linux and open source software. Many of these same people are also wary of the power of government and don't believe that legal solutions to technical problems lead to salutory results. So here we are faced with a legal process that vindicates the./ opinion of MS and has the potential to change the competitive landscape of software. Yet there is the nagging suspicion that the government will get it wrong and agree to a settlement/remedy that is too strong, too weak, or has too many negative side effects. Of course we're interested. --
Much of the work of the Supreme Court is in ferreting out the original intent and applicability of the Constitution and federal laws. In this case, the original intent is clear, as documented by Tim Phillips. (Well worth reading, as is the entire ~dkarjala site). Thomas Jefferson wanted a term that was equal to the mean remaining life expectancy for an adult. This was 19 years at the time.
In other writing, he is very explicit about naturalness of public domain.
It would be curious...if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed
in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, received instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
No a false result means that we have x% confidence that a civilization broadcasting in these particular frequencies does not exist in a well defined volume and time period in space.
It is similar to the task of identifying the top quark. Before the top quark was observed, there were a large number of negative experiments which proved that it must have a mass greater than the mass observed in the experiments.
These kinds of experiments are invaluable, since they tell you where not to look in the future. They can also help disprove a theory that predicts a greater frequency of observations than those actually observed. --
Tom Christiansen's mood was quite fiery, As he sat down to write in his diary. He had happened to read That unsavory screed: "The Plural of Virus is Virii." --
Open source works best when the developers are "scratching their own itch" or at least eating their own dogfood. Linux supports lots of odd hardware because the users need to use lots of odd hardware. OpenBSD is fairly secure because the users need it to be secure.
In the case of SETI, there is a mismatch between the potential developers and users that is unique to a distributed system. The client user/developer wants a client that is faster, potentially at the expense of accuracy. The official SETI developers are not users primarily, but instead want to have great confidence in the client, potentially at the expence of speed.
This mismatch turns many of the benefits of open source on its head, from the perspective of the SETI developers, since their goals are different than the potential developer community. Note that the client user/developer would achieve his goals quite well if the client were open sourced, as per dogma.
Perhaps we need to tweak the dogma a bit to account for this bizarre bazaar. Instead of "open source is always better", try this on for size:
Open source always makes what I am running on my computer better for my needs, assuming I am a developer or there are developers whose goals coincide with mine.
It does not necessarily make me happier with what you are running on your computer. If you are running a server I am happy that the server is open source because that means it has open interfaces. I'd be equally happy if you just opened your interfaces. If you are running my code for me in a distributed type of network, I want my goals to be preeminent in the code design. Open source only gaurantees this in the rare case that our goals completely coincide.
For open source to work reliably in a distributed network of users with varying goals, there has to be a central authority with approved clients for whom the cost of approving clients is less than the benefit of the potential innovation. In addition there must be a way to strongly authenticate that those clients have not been modified. Incidentally, an authentication method is what is really needed in a closed source case as well. I can't think of a foolproof method for doing this, the best bet is probably just random result comparison and some speed heuristics.
So the answer is that SETI could open source their client, and the people running it would benefit. But it might not be a benefit to them since the benefit of added speed (the most likely outcome) is not currently needed, and the potential for good faith bogus clients increases greatly. Bad faith bogus clients would likely stay at the same frequency.
If the distribution and/or use of the Program or Derivative Works is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
Funny this looks remarkably like Section 8 of the GPL
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
This is not to say that there aren't patent problems. It would be better if they explicitly licenced those particular patents to open source software or at least derivatives of this software. That should make any derivatives redistributable. If they did not do this and decided to sue later for patent infringement, I should think that one would have a case that they acted in bad faith, but IANAL.
If they do not own the patents then all bets are off. --
While I share your cynicism at times, I think it's the wrong compromise. Dishonesty is not a good policy in education. What are you supposed to say when the student makes the connection and asks about it? Deny that you know anything? In the end it is unfair because it makes it much more difficult to teach human biology properly. --
I do not want to downplay Darwin's role in the development of the biological sciences, but it depends on what you call biology and what you call history. Let me offer another example. Thousands of experiments with different types of chemicals (a.k.a. drugs) have shown that a given substance will have similar enough effects on mice, primates, and humans) that scientific experiments can be done as to the efficacy and safety of those substances. If Darwin's theory was disproven, none of these experiments would be invalidated, would they? So they don't depend on the theory, even if the original science that allowed the use of animals in experiments related to humans (60+ years ago) was essentially allowed because the theory was accepted as a possibility. (re: the Scope's Monkey trial).
The results of the experiments don't require the use of evolutionary theory, but any generalization or reasonable explanation of those results do. Without evolutionary theory, all of biology would be disconnected facts with complex theories to explain why dissimilar creatures are similar in so many ways.
Which IMHO would be the same thing as saying "Communism is superior to free market capitalism" and expecting a student to accept it as fact without a shred of evidence to support it.
We(including myself) commonly argue the reverse. If you want an example of a science with very weak theoretical footing, look no further than economics. When it comes time to take a class in theoretical micro-economics, you find that you can only prove the efficient market theory (the foundation of free market capitalism) if you assume a system with no time, perfect information, perfect competition, and perfectly rational consumers. That doesn't mean that the free market capitalism is worthless, but you'll never look at a demand curve with quite the same blissful acceptance again.
I don't mind a "wart's and all" approach to teaching evolution, as long as you explain that it is the best scientific explanation put forward that fits the facts. And by scientific I mean that it must be disprovable. Creationism has no place in a science class because it is not disprovable and therefore not science. --
Why dinosaurs fossils are different in different layers of the earth.
Why there are fossils and of humanoids who are like us but not exactly like us.
Why we look so much like apes, and share so much genetic and behavioral similarities.
Why studies on mice have any applicability to humans.
Why we have many of the same or similar proteins as other animals.
Why pollinating insects and pollinating plants are so amazingly well suited for eachother.
Why human beings display distinct regional cosmetic and physical variation.
Why respiration is so similar in animals and plants.
Why male songbirds are so colorful.
Why there is such a diversity of life, but a relative paucity of structures.
Why is the Panda's thumb really a finger.
What will happen (short and long term) to the creatures of the rain forest if their habitat is destroyed. How is catastrophic change different than gradual change.
What does it mean for a species to be destroyed, will they ever come back?
Why are there bacteria resistant to antibiotic drugs that didn't exist 50 years ago.
etc.
You may be able to explain one or two with hand waving, complex theories and "we don't know why but we know that it is true, look at these experiments" but I can explain all of them and more with a single simple coherent theory that they can use to make predictions and make sense of other areas of biology as well as earth sciences.
The real question is, what do we want our students to learn from biology. A small set of facts and associations? Or do we want to tell them our best guess as to why things actually are and let them have some chance of organizing that vast complexity and making informed predictions. It would be as tragic and pointless as teaching children how to use a calculator but never teaching them how to add. --
What about geology, or I suppose you dislike that as well. No one has observed/macro/ geology, yet the assumption that the forces at work in the present are the same forces that have been at work through all time has great explanatory and predictive powers.
The problem with creationism is not that it doesn't make sense, just that it is not science. Science must be able to be disproven. I can never disprove creationism, because I can't disprove God. In fact I challenge you to disprove the assertion that the universe was created in it's entirety a millisecond before you read this message. It is a defensible but ultimately useless claim, because it has no predictive power.
Evolutionary theory is science because it is disprovable, simple and makes useful predictions. I know of no competing theory that explains the diversity, similarity, and fossil evidence of life on Earth that holds to these tenets. --
My exception here is "useful predictions." I disagree. Rather, evolution can help explain an accurate historical record. Because there are no controlled experiments that can be conducted to test evolution, there is no way to predict results.
By your thinking it would seem we would have to invalidate all of geology as well, since we can't replicate earthquakes or ice ages in the laboratory. But geology explains why the plates of the earth move at rates of centimeters a year and show how all the data fit nicely if you assume this movement has been happening forever.
Evolutionary theory predicts that natural genetic changes in populations are sufficient to explain all of the organisms in the fossil record and those of present time. It predicts that all animals are genetically related, with branches in lineage occuring at identifiable times. It predicts that adaptations are suboptimal, since they are gradual and make usually use of existing structures. It further predicts that these forces and changes continue to occur. There are experiments that can test evolution: genetic lineage studies, breeding, computer modeling, fossil record analysis, among others.
And vis versa, I hope. Science's place is to help explain and understand the inner workings of the physical reality. To step beyond that goes against everything that science is about. Likewise, religion cannot hope to explain, in detail, the structure of the atom, and for it to attempt to do so is foolish. I'm not quite sure if I know what you mean. We need some coherent theory of how change occurs on the planet if we are to make good plans for the future, surely you don't object to that. I agree that science tells us little about morality (although it says a great deal about how morality is learned) or purpose, or many of the most important things in life. I too, am scared with the prospect of someday understanding and being able to manipulate conciousness and thought, those things that are most important to our humanity.
I wouldn't worry too much about the encroachment of science on religious issues, the one thing science can never do is disprove the existence of God. That's the point, if faith were disprovable, it would be scientific. I am just glad that God chose to make a comphrehensible universe. By fumbling in the dark and seeking to light a small corner of it, are I not revealing parts of the true wonder of God's creation?
Beowulf clusters have notoriously bad security. This should help.
ACHTUNG! ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS!
Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben.
Ist easy schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und poppencorken mit spitzensparken. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und watchen das blinkenlichten.
If the perpetrator mistakenly identifies the victim it can still be considered a hate crime. For example if you get beat up coming out of a gay bar with a friend, but you are not gay, but the person beat you up because they thought you were gay (they usually have to verbalize this during the attack or admit to it later), that person can be prosecuted for a hate crime. --
Zee-toes (an italian restaurant?) Chee-toes (a crunchy cheesy snack) Shee-toes (a really bad breakfast cereal?) Ket-oh-ess (an OS for processing backward TeX?)
What happened in Scotland was that McDonalds threatened to sue someone who had a restaurant named McDonald's Restaurant, but backed down when they found out that this was the McDonald of the clan McDonald and that by Scottish law he could probably prevent them from taking the name. --
Slashdot Mirror
George Washington University Law Professor Bill Kovacic gave some analysis of the referral on NPR's All Things Considered. The Real Audio file is here.
--
Do yourself a favor. Spend your every moment doing something productive.
/.?
Does that include reading
--
The breakup of AT&T showed that it wasn't smaller feifdoms that were beneficial to consumers, but actual competition. Long distance rates fell dramatically, because the breakup allowed actual competition. Local telephone rates and service haven't improved much becuase there hasn't been real competition, but the availability of services like DSL have been accelerated and priced lower because of the potential to co-locate equipment in a telco's CO, a result of the breakup and regulation that followed.
Microsoft much different than AT&T, since it owns no physical monopoly, but as AT&T showed, it is not the physical breakup that matters as much as the ability of an outside company to compete in your space. A horizontal breakup, e.g. three units have access to the source code, sounds like it would foster competition. It might, but it would be far more drastic than the courts would allow, and IMHO, it would cause more harm than good. A vertical breakup is more tenable, since the consumer gets no real benefit from having an OS and an office suite made by the same company. This would clearly make the applications market more competitive and might improve OS competition since the applications would have more of an incentive to be ported to other OSes. It would also mean that API's would be more open, perhaps allowing better reverse engineering.
I'd say that the best remedy would likely be transparent, non-discriminatory pricing and a vertical breakup, with some bundling restrictions. Any more would be too drastic. Any less wouldn't do much good.
--
This is the case of importance in technology today, or at least it appears to be. (I suspect that open access to broadband networks will be the decision that matters in the long run). It is facinating because nearly everyone (except Tom Christiansen apparently) uses or has used MS software and everyone (including Tom) has an opinion about it.
/. have a negative opinion of the quality of MS software, but even more than that, most people don't like the heavy-handedness with which they have to gained and retained market-share. This feeling has been intensified since MS has taken aim at such sacred cows as Linux and open source software. Many of these same people are also wary of the power of government and don't believe that legal solutions to technical problems lead to salutory results. So here we are faced with a legal process that vindicates the ./ opinion of MS and has the potential to change the competitive landscape of software. Yet there is the nagging suspicion that the government will get it wrong and agree to a settlement/remedy that is too strong, too weak, or has too many negative side effects. Of course we're interested.
Most people on
--
Michael Keaton's birth name was Michael Douglas
--
% man cron | grep "day of the week"
day of the week (0-6 with 0=Sunday).
--
Byte had a feature entitled: "How to Fail at Software Development, Don't Communicate" it at a slightly higher level, but is just as useful.
--
In other writing, he is very explicit about naturalness of public domain.
--
No a false result means that we have x% confidence that a civilization broadcasting in these particular frequencies does not exist in a well defined volume and time period in space.
It is similar to the task of identifying the top quark. Before the top quark was observed, there were a large number of negative experiments which proved that it must have a mass greater than the mass observed in the experiments.
These kinds of experiments are invaluable, since they tell you where not to look in the future. They can also help disprove a theory that predicts a greater frequency of observations than those actually observed.
--
Tom Christiansen's mood was quite fiery,
As he sat down to write in his diary.
He had happened to read
That unsavory screed:
"The Plural of Virus is Virii."
--
In the case of SETI, there is a mismatch between the potential developers and users that is unique to a distributed system. The client user/developer wants a client that is faster, potentially at the expense of accuracy. The official SETI developers are not users primarily, but instead want to have great confidence in the client, potentially at the expence of speed.
This mismatch turns many of the benefits of open source on its head, from the perspective of the SETI developers, since their goals are different than the potential developer community. Note that the client user/developer would achieve his goals quite well if the client were open sourced, as per dogma.
Perhaps we need to tweak the dogma a bit to account for this bizarre bazaar. Instead of "open source is always better", try this on for size:
It does not necessarily make me happier with what you are running on your computer. If you are running a server I am happy that the server is open source because that means it has open interfaces. I'd be equally happy if you just opened your interfaces. If you are running my code for me in a distributed type of network, I want my goals to be preeminent in the code design. Open source only gaurantees this in the rare case that our goals completely coincide.
For open source to work reliably in a distributed network of users with varying goals, there has to be a central authority with approved clients for whom the cost of approving clients is less than the benefit of the potential innovation. In addition there must be a way to strongly authenticate that those clients have not been modified. Incidentally, an authentication method is what is really needed in a closed source case as well. I can't think of a foolproof method for doing this, the best bet is probably just random result comparison and some speed heuristics.
So the answer is that SETI could open source their client, and the people running it would benefit. But it might not be a benefit to them since the benefit of added speed (the most likely outcome) is not currently needed, and the potential for good faith bogus clients increases greatly. Bad faith bogus clients would likely stay at the same frequency.
--
is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted
interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under
this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation
excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in
or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License
incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
Funny this looks remarkably like Section 8 of the GPL
This is not to say that there aren't patent problems. It would be better if they explicitly licenced those particular patents to open source software or at least derivatives of this software. That should make any derivatives redistributable. If they did not do this and decided to sue later for patent infringement, I should think that one would have a case that they acted in bad faith, but IANAL.
If they do not own the patents then all bets are off.
--
While I share your cynicism at times, I think it's the wrong compromise. Dishonesty is not a good policy in education. What are you supposed to say when the student makes the connection and asks about it? Deny that you know anything? In the end it is unfair because it makes it much more difficult to teach human biology properly.
--
I do not want to downplay Darwin's role in the development of the biological sciences, but it
depends on what you call biology and what you call history. Let me offer another example. Thousands of experiments with different types of chemicals (a.k.a.
drugs) have shown that a given substance will have similar enough effects on mice, primates, and humans) that scientific experiments can be done as to the
efficacy and safety of those substances. If Darwin's theory was disproven, none of these experiments would be invalidated, would they? So they don't depend on
the theory, even if the original science that allowed the use of animals in experiments related to humans (60+ years ago) was essentially allowed because the
theory was accepted as a possibility. (re: the Scope's Monkey trial).
The results of the experiments don't require the use of evolutionary theory, but any generalization or reasonable explanation of those results do. Without evolutionary theory, all of biology would be disconnected facts with complex theories to explain why dissimilar creatures are similar in so many ways.
Which IMHO would be the same thing as saying "Communism is superior to free market
capitalism" and expecting a student to accept it as fact without a shred of evidence to support it.
We(including myself) commonly argue the reverse. If you want an example of a science with very weak theoretical footing, look no further than economics. When it comes time to take a class in theoretical micro-economics, you find that you can only prove the efficient market theory (the foundation of free market capitalism) if you assume a system with no time, perfect information, perfect competition, and perfectly rational consumers. That doesn't mean that the free market capitalism is worthless, but you'll never look at a demand curve with quite the same blissful acceptance again.
I don't mind a "wart's and all" approach to teaching evolution, as long as you explain that it is the best scientific explanation put forward that fits the facts. And by scientific I mean that it must be disprovable. Creationism has no place in a science class because it is not disprovable and therefore not science.
--
I want to explain to my students:
Why dinosaurs fossils are different in different layers of the earth.
Why there are fossils and of humanoids who are like us but not exactly like us.
Why we look so much like apes, and share so much genetic and behavioral similarities.
Why studies on mice have any applicability to humans.
Why we have many of the same or similar proteins as other animals.
Why pollinating insects and pollinating plants are so amazingly well suited for eachother.
Why human beings display distinct regional cosmetic and physical variation.
Why respiration is so similar in animals and plants.
Why male songbirds are so colorful.
Why there is such a diversity of life, but a relative paucity of structures.
Why is the Panda's thumb really a finger.
What will happen (short and long term) to the creatures of the rain forest if their habitat is destroyed. How is catastrophic change different than gradual change.
What does it mean for a species to be destroyed, will they ever come back?
Why are there bacteria resistant to antibiotic drugs that didn't exist 50 years ago.
etc.
You may be able to explain one or two with hand waving, complex theories and "we don't know why but we know that it is true, look at these experiments" but I can explain all of them and more with a single simple coherent theory that they can use to make predictions and make sense of other areas of biology as well as earth sciences.
The real question is, what do we want our students to learn from biology. A small set of facts and associations? Or do we want to tell them our best guess as to why things actually are and let them have some chance of organizing that vast complexity and making informed predictions. It would be as tragic and pointless as teaching children how to use a calculator but never teaching them how to add.
--
What about geology, or I suppose you dislike that as well. No one has observed /macro/ geology, yet the assumption that the forces at work in the present are the same forces that have been at work through all time has great explanatory and predictive powers.
The problem with creationism is not that it doesn't make sense, just that it is not science. Science must be able to be disproven. I can never disprove creationism, because I can't disprove God. In fact I challenge you to disprove the assertion that the universe was created in it's entirety a millisecond before you read this message. It is a defensible but ultimately useless claim, because it has no predictive power.
Evolutionary theory is science because it is disprovable, simple and makes useful predictions. I know of no competing theory that explains the diversity, similarity, and fossil evidence of life on Earth that holds to these tenets.
--
My exception here is "useful predictions." I disagree. Rather, evolution can help explain an accurate historical record. Because there are no controlled experiments
that can be conducted to test evolution, there is no way to predict results.
By your thinking it would seem we would have to invalidate all of geology as well, since we can't replicate earthquakes or ice ages in the laboratory. But geology explains why the plates of the earth move at rates of centimeters a year and show how all the data fit nicely if you assume this movement has been happening forever.
Evolutionary theory predicts that natural genetic changes in populations are sufficient to explain all of the organisms in the fossil record and those of present time. It predicts that all animals are genetically related, with branches in lineage occuring at identifiable times. It predicts that adaptations are suboptimal, since they are gradual and make usually use of existing structures. It further predicts that these forces and changes continue to occur. There are experiments that can test evolution: genetic lineage studies, breeding, computer modeling, fossil record analysis, among others.
And vis versa, I hope. Science's place is to help explain and understand the inner workings of the physical reality. To step beyond that goes against everything that
science is about. Likewise, religion cannot hope to explain, in detail, the structure of the atom, and for it to attempt to do so is foolish.
I'm not quite sure if I know what you mean. We need some coherent theory of how change occurs on the planet if we are to make good plans for the future, surely you don't object to that. I agree that science tells us little about morality (although it says a great deal about how morality is learned) or purpose, or many of the most important things in life. I too, am scared with the prospect of someday understanding and being able to manipulate conciousness and thought, those things that are most important to our humanity.
I wouldn't worry too much about the encroachment of science on religious issues, the one thing science can never do is disprove the existence of God. That's the point, if faith were disprovable, it would be scientific. I am just glad that God chose to make a comphrehensible universe. By fumbling in the dark and seeking to light a small corner of it, are I not revealing parts of the true wonder of God's creation?
--
It could always be nerdier. Bessel functions, Fourier transforms, LaTeX... the mind boggles.
--
ACHTUNG! ALLES LOOKENSPEEPERS!
--
It sounds like an urban myth, but in this case it actually happened. Here's a
news storywith links to others.
--
I'm frankly more concerned with who has their finger on the Stop+A buttons.
--
If the perpetrator mistakenly identifies the victim it can still be considered a hate crime. For example if you get beat up coming out of a gay bar with a friend, but you are not gay, but the person beat you up because they thought you were gay (they usually have to verbalize this during the attack or admit to it later), that person can be prosecuted for a hate crime.
--
Zee-toes (an italian restaurant?)
Chee-toes (a crunchy cheesy snack)
Shee-toes (a really bad breakfast cereal?)
Ket-oh-ess (an OS for processing backward TeX?)
--
In the real world McDowell would have had his ass sued off by McDonald's, so your point is moot.
--
What happened in Scotland was that McDonalds threatened to sue someone who had a restaurant named McDonald's Restaurant, but backed down when they found out that this was the McDonald of the clan McDonald and that by Scottish law he could probably prevent them from taking the name.
--