Actually the whole Linux source code analogy is quite relevant to a republic. Lot's of people participate to some extent, but the direction comes from the top (Linus, Alan, etc.). However, if Linus and crew decide to take a direction that the community doesn't like, then they are welcome to, but they risk having the source code forked.
In the case of a source code fork, it's the users (the general Linux populace) that eventually get to decide.
Heck, if you abstract the whole enchilada a little further it is even possible to draw parallels between the Emacs/vi divisions and the American two party republic. Advocates of both of these tools are actively trying to gain users (voters) which both fuel further development, and create de-facto standards. You could even count XEmacs as a "Reform" party.
Actually, I have not. My Windows virus scanners seem to think that BO2k is a virus. Even so, I would suspect that the possibilities that B02k open up are not nearly as comprehensive as what a systems administrator could do with root access and Perl.
How scriptable is BO2k? Chances are it is nowhere near as scriptable as Linux is right out of the box.
Actually, most of the time that *nix is deployed as a desktop solution the employee does _not_ have root access to the machine. In other words, you probably have less power on your *nix box than your Windows machine.
If you were using something like Debian Linux (or any distro with a decent packaging system) it would be pretty trivial to implement something very SMS-like. The administrator could _easily_ see what software was installed on your machine, what hardware you were running (I have seen software that makes very pretty text files of the hardware), who had logged on recently, etc.
Heck, they could even archive all of the software that you had run, and other such esoterics like what websites you have visited.
If you have root on someone's desktop Linux box, you _own_ them. This is not necessarily true of Windows machines.
While it is certainly true that there are things that PHP and MySQL can't do, I am sure that it is more than a replacement for this person's current setup.
After all, he is currently using Cold Fusion and Access.
As my boss says frequently. "You only need an Aircraft carrier if you are landing planes on the water. If all you are is going fishing, a rowboat is fine."
I am sure that Cold Fusion and Oracle are quite amazing, but look at what CmdrTaco has done with Perl and MySQL. How many sites really need more than that? And as for the database, if you need a database with more features, most people would be just fine with PostgreSQL. The guys at postgresql.org have done some pretty amazing work.
So you would rather wait until some child's life has been ruined before you put the brakes on the pedophile?
Personally I think that this line of reasoning is quite disengenious. After all, in this particular case if there would have been a little girl and not an FBI agent waiting for our pedophile friend then he would have had his way with her.
After all, that's why he had traveled all that way.
Quite frankly, if it were _my_ little girl involved I would want him prosecuted for simply having a sexual chat with her after she mentioned she was 13.
Most GNU applications are already available for NT. In fact, I can't hardly stand to sit down to an NT Workstation without bash, and emacs installed (and Perl is nice too).
From my personal experience, however, once you get someone hooked on Linux applications they start to wonder why in the world they aren't running them under Linux. After all, it takes quite a bit of work to get a Windows NT Workstation to the point where it has enough GNU software to really be comfortable. Any decent Linux distro comes with all of the goodies you could possibly want already to go.
And that's the rub. I wouldn't mind if the Feds were simply aiming for the _same_ sorts of intrusion for digital. However, if you read the article closely you will see that not only is the government trying to maintain the status quo, but they are also blazing new territory.
That's the problem that I have with CALEA.
Pretty soon it will be possible for the government to tape, store, and index each and every phone call made. Eventually they will even be able to match individuals via their voice prints and search the conversations for key words and phrases. Technology is going to make this sort of thing possible whether I want it to or not. I am not willing to set precedents, however, that might make this sort of activity _legal_ in the country where I live.
This is kind of a stretch, IMO. It would be more akin to the government requiring all trash cans to have an easily-removed lid.
Should we provide the government with a key to our front door so that they can easily access our insecure garbage cans? Should I be considered a criminal if I refuse? Should it be illegal to purchase or make a lock that cannot be easily picked by law enforcement agencies? Perhaps we should just have a government "inspector" stop by randomly about once a month and check for illegal activities?
I'm not saying the government won't be out to get us in the future. That's not what this law is about. It's about fear that it *could* happen in the future.
I would personally prefer to make it harder for the government to _get us_. Governments have done far more damage to individuals than criminals ever have. Take a look at the world _right now_ and see all of the racial and ethnic violence and then tell me that giving power to the "majority" is a good idea.
It's all about the rule of law, and sometimes that means that the law enforcement people have to jump through hoops to protect the rights of the little guy who happens to be part of the minority.
All of the various persecutions in the past were done with overwhelming public support. If something like that does happen again, like you seem to think it will, I only hope that people like you will be around to fight against it.
Like it will do any good if the government can monitor all forms of communication at will. The time to protest is when you still have some say.
However, this is not one of those times.
By which you are saying that "the government isn't out to get me, it's out to get `terrorists and criminals.'" The government isn't out to get me either, but that doesn't me that I want to give them the means by which they might come get me in the future.
I am not against wire-tapping of any kind. I am just against expanding the list of things that the FBI can do without specifically getting a warrant. The Feds can already do everything on your list except track the location of any cell phone user. They simply need to get a judge who is amenable.
This is not an onerous requirement of law enforcement professionals. As has been stated in other responses it is generally a foregone conclusion that the wire-taps will be granted, but at the very least there is a check on the power of the law enforcement agencies.
There is no question that some of the parts of CALEA would be useful to law enforcement, but so would implanting homing devices in each of our brains so that they could find us at will. The question is not whether it might be useful to law enforcement, the question is whether it is a good idea to give that much power to _anybody_.
The law enforcement people will always say that they are trying to protect us from terrorists and criminals, but all of us here on Slashdot already know that these people already have access to all of the strong crypto they need. Not that criminals use crypto. Heck, most criminals have turned to crime because they are too stupid to do anything else. The Feds don't even need fancy smancy things like wire-taps, most criminals get IDed at the scene of the crime and get picked up while doing something completely unrelated like _speeding_.
I wonder where this fear of majority rule comes from? Microsoft? Monopolies? I can see that, but really, is it worse than the rule of the have's over the have-nots? I think we're confusing majority rule with mob rule. I think there's a difference.
If you go back far enough you will find that Majority rule has been tried in the US and (for the minorities anyway) it proved disastrous. The Presidency of Andrew Jackson is a good example of this. He was a strong believer in letting the majority rule. There was an "Extermination Order" for Mormons in the State of Missouri that was signed in this period that stood clear into the 1980's, and that doesn't even begin to include how ethnic minorities were treated.
I will take the rule of law over that mess any day. And the harder it is for people to pass new laws, the better.
Think about it, if the Majority always got its say what would stop them from passing laws that required ISPs to give free net access to everyone. That sort of law would certainly be in the best interests of the "majority."
You have been watching too much "Murder She Wrote." How exactly are you going to know which phone to tap if you don't know where the kidnappers are? I suppose you are expecting the kidnapper in question to pop back to his apartment for some tea and cookies and a quick phone call to Grandma telling her that he has got the kids locked up in the Warehouse at the corner of First and Poster.
Or are you expecting the Feds to tap every phone in a 4 square mile territory, and just listen to everything that goes on?
What the Federales will almost certainly do is to tap _your_ phone (with your permission), then if the bad guys call they will be able to find out where you are being called from. They won't know anything about the groups plans or movements, however, unless the group decides to tell you.
Even if broader wire-tapping could help in this theoretical situation I would not think that it would make broader wire-tap measures a good idea. The chances of my child getting kidnapped is considerably less than her getting hit by a drunk driver. This doesn't mean that I want alcohol made illegal (and I don't even drink). You can't protect yourself from everything, so why barter away your rights without a realistic chance of some type of return.
Actually in 6.5 there now is a serial type that will create the sequences and and the indexes for you and automatically increment the count with each insert.
Jeez, just get the SGML source and do whatever you want with it. The source is quite readable, and you can use it to generate whatever type of output you want (pretty much).
Heck, you can even use the RTF filter to make a document that is suitable for viewing in MS Word.
SGML is very cool, perhaps you should learn before flaming.
I suppose Wizard would be good, if I get to be a Wizard too. In my mind Wizard has always been reserved for people like Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox. I like to think that I am at the very least an aspiring hacker, but a Wizard. Maybe in my next lifetime.
I would certainly agree that we need to come up with some sort of a moniker, however. Nothing personal to RMS or any of the other Free Software Folk, but hacker needs a replacement for much the same reason that Free Software needed the alternate Open Source title.
It's all about marketing.
It is all right to refer to yourself as a hacker when you are among hackers, but it takes too long to explain when the boss or a customer is around.
So you saved your company $1k (the cost of new PC with 10x the capacity) by using Linux? The total cost of administering email of 600 user is probably $200k/yr, so Linux reduced your costs by 1/200 = 0.5%? Yawn.
That is quite an assumption saying that email administration costs $200K/year for 600 users. Especially considering that with Linux there are no licenses to purchase, or any software costs at all. If email for 600 people still costs $200k/year, in purely administrative fees, then I want that job. I would really like to make $200K/year.
And saying that the hardware cost savings weren't significant is also a bit of a red herring. It would take quite a bit of hardware (probably at least $30K) to serve up that much email using Microsoft Exchange. Contrast that with a 486/33, which is basically free, and you have a nearly infinite cost savings.
Not only that, but the more of a ruckus you make switching from Linux to NT, the more chance your users will get a bad taste in their mouths about Linux.
After all, your users don't want to know about your network, that is why they hired you. If you tread lightly, and simply use Linux for new services at first your users will come to see Linux as a solution.
For example, I added a Linux web server, and people cheered. I developed a PHP3/PostgreSQL helpdesk application, and a perl/glimpse document retrieval system, and they were amazed. Now, I can use Linux for just about anything and no one even blinks.
If the FSF job is fighting ignorance and apathy they have an uphill battle. No one outside the hacker community cares what gcc is, much less who wrote it.
While it is certainly true that there are some people who use Linux that don't know what the FSF is, it is also true that there are tens of thousands of people who only know of the FSF because Linus Torvalds wrote a free kernel to host all of those nifty tools.
I personally am one of those people. I would NEVER have known about the FSF if it weren't for Linux.
Heck, I even agree with RMS in that it is important that the freedom of Linux needs to be stressed. But this argument has gotten to the point where it is doing RMS's cause harm, and I don't care if Saint Ignucius started this whole GPL bandwagon, it's now officially bigger than one person.
How old is that box? What are you going to do when one of the capacitors finally dries out and the whole machine goes kaput?
You simply need to have more than one. Heck, I don't generally use 486's in especially critical roles, but if I did I could easily set up create a backup machine when I created the first one. Plus, these old 486's allow me to leverage my Linux experience all over the place.
Geez, I have got a stack of old 486's. I use them for all sorts of things, department webservers, proxy servers, dial in servers, you name it. Mostly however, I put them out on the plant floor. If they die, I get another out of the stack and pull out the appropriate CD. Half an hour later I have a new 486 out on the floor, and the original is in the trash.
Re:Comercial linux software....
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Actually I believe that glibc is LGPL'ed. There is a distinct difference. Basically the difference is that you can link closed programs to LGPL libraries.
It was cheap publicity. Sun didn't write lxrun, it already existed and only needed "improvements" so that it would run on x86 Solaris.
Sun releases a Linux article, thousands of Linuxers stampede their site, and they get to be even more buzzwordy than before.
Oh, and lxrun get's some improvements and some industry endorsement. So I suppose it's a win all around. That's the best part of this open source stuff. Even when I am being cynical I have to admit that announcements like this help the Linux community. The fact that they might help Sun as well just makes it a happy place for everyone.
If you look at the statics for both automobile deaths and shooting deaths, you will come across an interesting connection.
Alcohol (and/or drug use).
Hey, perhaps we could simply do away with alcohol. That would (apparently) cut down on the deaths from both automobiles and guns. After all we don't NEED alcohol.
There's disagreement, and then there is plain stupidity. Some of the people I tend to disagree with most have the highest scores in my GNUS scorefile. Why? Because I found that I learn more by reading posts from intelligent rational people who happen to see things differently.
On the other hand, there are some people who NEVER have something intelligent to say. They swear, they brag, they invent stories, and they insult. So I ignore them. This is, however, my choice. I am not interested in an Internet where Disney makes that choice for me. In this regard I couldn't agree with you more.
In fact, this is all that Slashdot is doing. It is trying to use dynamic HTML to recreate UseNet. Personally I don't think that CmdrTaco has a prayer in this endeavor. After all, it would take a whole lot of horsepower to simulate emacs for 80,000 posters. It is certainly getting better, but it isn't anywhere near reading UseNet with a good news reader.
Of course, people who don't use a powerful (read complicated) news reader doesn't understand how it makes UseNet readable. It is like explaining colors to blind people.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the whole Linux source code analogy is quite relevant to a republic. Lot's of people participate to some extent, but the direction comes from the top (Linus, Alan, etc.). However, if Linus and crew decide to take a direction that the community doesn't like, then they are welcome to, but they risk having the source code forked.
In the case of a source code fork, it's the users (the general Linux populace) that eventually get to decide.
Heck, if you abstract the whole enchilada a little further it is even possible to draw parallels between the Emacs/vi divisions and the American two party republic. Advocates of both of these tools are actively trying to gain users (voters) which both fuel further development, and create de-facto standards. You could even count XEmacs as a "Reform" party.
Yikes! it must be time to go home.
Actually, I have not. My Windows virus scanners seem to think that BO2k is a virus. Even so, I would suspect that the possibilities that B02k open up are not nearly as comprehensive as what a systems administrator could do with root access and Perl.
How scriptable is BO2k? Chances are it is nowhere near as scriptable as Linux is right out of the box.
Actually, most of the time that *nix is deployed as a desktop solution the employee does _not_ have root access to the machine. In other words, you probably have less power on your *nix box than your Windows machine.
If you were using something like Debian Linux (or any distro with a decent packaging system) it would be pretty trivial to implement something very SMS-like. The administrator could _easily_ see what software was installed on your machine, what hardware you were running (I have seen software that makes very pretty text files of the hardware), who had logged on recently, etc.
Heck, they could even archive all of the software that you had run, and other such esoterics like what websites you have visited.
If you have root on someone's desktop Linux box, you _own_ them. This is not necessarily true of Windows machines.
While it is certainly true that there are things that PHP and MySQL can't do, I am sure that it is more than a replacement for this person's current setup.
After all, he is currently using Cold Fusion and Access.
As my boss says frequently. "You only need an Aircraft carrier if you are landing planes on the water. If all you are is going fishing, a rowboat is fine."
I am sure that Cold Fusion and Oracle are quite amazing, but look at what CmdrTaco has done with Perl and MySQL. How many sites really need more than that? And as for the database, if you need a database with more features, most people would be just fine with PostgreSQL. The guys at postgresql.org have done some pretty amazing work.
So you would rather wait until some child's life has been ruined before you put the brakes on the pedophile?
Personally I think that this line of reasoning is quite disengenious. After all, in this particular case if there would have been a little girl and not an FBI agent waiting for our pedophile friend then he would have had his way with her.
After all, that's why he had traveled all that way.
Quite frankly, if it were _my_ little girl involved I would want him prosecuted for simply having a sexual chat with her after she mentioned she was 13.
Most GNU applications are already available for NT. In fact, I can't hardly stand to sit down to an NT Workstation without bash, and emacs installed (and Perl is nice too).
From my personal experience, however, once you get someone hooked on Linux applications they start to wonder why in the world they aren't running them under Linux. After all, it takes quite a bit of work to get a Windows NT Workstation to the point where it has enough GNU software to really be comfortable. Any decent Linux distro comes with all of the goodies you could possibly want already to go.
And that's the rub. I wouldn't mind if the Feds were simply aiming for the _same_ sorts of intrusion for digital. However, if you read the article closely you will see that not only is the government trying to maintain the status quo, but they are also blazing new territory.
That's the problem that I have with CALEA.
Pretty soon it will be possible for the government to tape, store, and index each and every phone call made. Eventually they will even be able to match individuals via their voice prints and search the conversations for key words and phrases. Technology is going to make this sort of thing possible whether I want it to or not. I am not willing to set precedents, however, that might make this sort of activity _legal_ in the country where I live.
It sounds like Sony has got a racket that makes Lucifer look like a used car salesman. People actually sign that stuff?
This is kind of a stretch, IMO. It would be more akin to the government requiring all trash cans to have an easily-removed lid.
Should we provide the government with a key to our front door so that they can easily access our insecure garbage cans? Should I be considered a criminal if I refuse? Should it be illegal to purchase or make a lock that cannot be easily picked by law enforcement agencies? Perhaps we should just have a government "inspector" stop by randomly about once a month and check for illegal activities?
I'm not saying the government won't be out to get us in the future. That's not what this law is about. It's about fear that it *could* happen in the future.
I would personally prefer to make it harder for the government to _get us_. Governments have done far more damage to individuals than criminals ever have. Take a look at the world _right now_ and see all of the racial and ethnic violence and then tell me that giving power to the "majority" is a good idea.
It's all about the rule of law, and sometimes that means that the law enforcement people have to jump through hoops to protect the rights of the little guy who happens to be part of the minority.
All of the various persecutions in the past were done with overwhelming public support. If something like that does happen again, like you seem to think it will, I only hope that people like you will be around to fight against it.
Like it will do any good if the government can monitor all forms of communication at will. The time to protest is when you still have some say.
However, this is not one of those times.
By which you are saying that "the government isn't out to get me, it's out to get `terrorists and criminals.'" The government isn't out to get me either, but that doesn't me that I want to give them the means by which they might come get me in the future.
Sorry. It's not. Thanks for the conversation anyhow.
I am not against wire-tapping of any kind. I am just against expanding the list of things that the FBI can do without specifically getting a warrant. The Feds can already do everything on your list except track the location of any cell phone user. They simply need to get a judge who is amenable.
This is not an onerous requirement of law enforcement professionals. As has been stated in other responses it is generally a foregone conclusion that the wire-taps will be granted, but at the very least there is a check on the power of the law enforcement agencies.
There is no question that some of the parts of CALEA would be useful to law enforcement, but so would implanting homing devices in each of our brains so that they could find us at will. The question is not whether it might be useful to law enforcement, the question is whether it is a good idea to give that much power to _anybody_.
The law enforcement people will always say that they are trying to protect us from terrorists and criminals, but all of us here on Slashdot already know that these people already have access to all of the strong crypto they need. Not that criminals use crypto. Heck, most criminals have turned to crime because they are too stupid to do anything else. The Feds don't even need fancy smancy things like wire-taps, most criminals get IDed at the scene of the crime and get picked up while doing something completely unrelated like _speeding_.
I wonder where this fear of majority rule comes from? Microsoft? Monopolies? I can see that, but really, is it worse than the rule of the have's over the have-nots? I think we're confusing majority rule with mob rule. I think there's a difference.
If you go back far enough you will find that Majority rule has been tried in the US and (for the minorities anyway) it proved disastrous. The Presidency of Andrew Jackson is a good example of this. He was a strong believer in letting the majority rule. There was an "Extermination Order" for Mormons in the State of Missouri that was signed in this period that stood clear into the 1980's, and that doesn't even begin to include how ethnic minorities were treated.
I will take the rule of law over that mess any day. And the harder it is for people to pass new laws, the better.
Think about it, if the Majority always got its say what would stop them from passing laws that required ISPs to give free net access to everyone. That sort of law would certainly be in the best interests of the "majority."
Fah...
You have been watching too much "Murder She Wrote." How exactly are you going to know which phone to tap if you don't know where the kidnappers are? I suppose you are expecting the kidnapper in question to pop back to his apartment for some tea and cookies and a quick phone call to Grandma telling her that he has got the kids locked up in the Warehouse at the corner of First and Poster.
Or are you expecting the Feds to tap every phone in a 4 square mile territory, and just listen to everything that goes on?
What the Federales will almost certainly do is to tap _your_ phone (with your permission), then if the bad guys call they will be able to find out where you are being called from. They won't know anything about the groups plans or movements, however, unless the group decides to tell you.
Even if broader wire-tapping could help in this theoretical situation I would not think that it would make broader wire-tap measures a good idea. The chances of my child getting kidnapped is considerably less than her getting hit by a drunk driver. This doesn't mean that I want alcohol made illegal (and I don't even drink). You can't protect yourself from everything, so why barter away your rights without a realistic chance of some type of return.
You might want to hang on to that clue bus ticket :).
_Code_ Fusion is an IDE for Linux. It has _everything_ to do with makefiles et al.
Actually in 6.5 there now is a serial type that will create the sequences and and the indexes for you and automatically increment the count with each insert.
Jeez, just get the SGML source and do whatever you want with it. The source is quite readable, and you can use it to generate whatever type of output you want (pretty much).
Heck, you can even use the RTF filter to make a document that is suitable for viewing in MS Word.
SGML is very cool, perhaps you should learn before flaming.
I suppose Wizard would be good, if I get to be a Wizard too. In my mind Wizard has always been reserved for people like Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox. I like to think that I am at the very least an aspiring hacker, but a Wizard. Maybe in my next lifetime.
I would certainly agree that we need to come up with some sort of a moniker, however. Nothing personal to RMS or any of the other Free Software Folk, but hacker needs a replacement for much the same reason that Free Software needed the alternate Open Source title.
It's all about marketing.
It is all right to refer to yourself as a hacker when you are among hackers, but it takes too long to explain when the boss or a customer is around.
And saying that the hardware cost savings weren't significant is also a bit of a red herring. It would take quite a bit of hardware (probably at least $30K) to serve up that much email using Microsoft Exchange. Contrast that with a 486/33, which is basically free, and you have a nearly infinite cost savings.
Not only that, but the more of a ruckus you make switching from Linux to NT, the more chance your users will get a bad taste in their mouths about Linux.
After all, your users don't want to know about your network, that is why they hired you. If you tread lightly, and simply use Linux for new services at first your users will come to see Linux as a solution.
For example, I added a Linux web server, and people cheered. I developed a PHP3/PostgreSQL helpdesk application, and a perl/glimpse document retrieval system, and they were amazed. Now, I can use Linux for just about anything and no one even blinks.
If the FSF job is fighting ignorance and apathy they have an uphill battle. No one outside the hacker community cares what gcc is, much less who wrote it.
While it is certainly true that there are some people who use Linux that don't know what the FSF is, it is also true that there are tens of thousands of people who only know of the FSF because Linus Torvalds wrote a free kernel to host all of those nifty tools.
I personally am one of those people. I would NEVER have known about the FSF if it weren't for Linux.
Heck, I even agree with RMS in that it is important that the freedom of Linux needs to be stressed. But this argument has gotten to the point where it is doing RMS's cause harm, and I don't care if Saint Ignucius started this whole GPL bandwagon, it's now officially bigger than one person.
You simply need to have more than one. Heck, I don't generally use 486's in especially critical roles, but if I did I could easily set up create a backup machine when I created the first one. Plus, these old 486's allow me to leverage my Linux experience all over the place.
Geez, I have got a stack of old 486's. I use them for all sorts of things, department webservers, proxy servers, dial in servers, you name it. Mostly however, I put them out on the plant floor. If they die, I get another out of the stack and pull out the appropriate CD. Half an hour later I have a new 486 out on the floor, and the original is in the trash.
Actually I believe that glibc is LGPL'ed. There is a distinct difference. Basically the difference is that you can link closed programs to LGPL libraries.
It was cheap publicity. Sun didn't write lxrun, it already existed and only needed "improvements" so that it would run on x86 Solaris.
Sun releases a Linux article, thousands of Linuxers stampede their site, and they get to be even more buzzwordy than before.
Oh, and lxrun get's some improvements and some industry endorsement. So I suppose it's a win all around. That's the best part of this open source stuff. Even when I am being cynical I have to admit that announcements like this help the Linux community. The fact that they might help Sun as well just makes it a happy place for everyone.
If you look at the statics for both automobile deaths and shooting deaths, you will come across an interesting connection.
Alcohol (and/or drug use).
Hey, perhaps we could simply do away with alcohol. That would (apparently) cut down on the deaths from both automobiles and guns. After all we don't NEED alcohol.
There's disagreement, and then there is plain stupidity. Some of the people I tend to disagree with most have the highest scores in my GNUS scorefile. Why? Because I found that I learn more by reading posts from intelligent rational people who happen to see things differently.
On the other hand, there are some people who NEVER have something intelligent to say. They swear, they brag, they invent stories, and they insult. So I ignore them. This is, however, my choice. I am not interested in an Internet where Disney makes that choice for me. In this regard I couldn't agree with you more.
In fact, this is all that Slashdot is doing. It is trying to use dynamic HTML to recreate UseNet. Personally I don't think that CmdrTaco has a prayer in this endeavor. After all, it would take a whole lot of horsepower to simulate emacs for 80,000 posters. It is certainly getting better, but it isn't anywhere near reading UseNet with a good news reader.
Of course, people who don't use a powerful (read complicated) news reader doesn't understand how it makes UseNet readable. It is like explaining colors to blind people.