Re:A great example of open-source at work.
on
Five Years of KDE
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First, could we stop doing arbitrary comparisons between Microsoft products and pieces of Linux software? It's pointless. The comparisons, as the previous post intended to point out, are hardly fair, since major chunks of the Free Software space were developed in spare time or for fun.
Second, KDE does not compare to Windows 2000 or Win XP. KDE is a GUI layer on top of a Linux OS-- hell, it's not even entirely that-- since it needs X to run. KDE is also a bunch of applications from the superb (Konqueror) to the not-so-spectacular (Konsole would be a good example of something that could use more work). Win2k/XP (as I understand it) integrate the GUI and the kernel.
Third, calling Microsoft a groundbreaker is just a load of BS. They have never broken any ground that I'm aware of. I have yet to see a single feature on the MS machines I use five days a week that is truly original. In fact, I distinctly recall a point in time where I knew zero about running Windows, but managed to hum along nicely because I'd been using a Mac since 1987. And even still, using the eye-pleasing Liquid theme for KDE, my KDE/Linux experience is a lot more Mac-ish than Windows-ish.
All that said, KDE is my GUI of choice. I'm in the process of learning C++ simply so I can write applications that work with Qt/KDE (yeah, I know they have "bindings" in Python and a couple other scripting languages, but I think it's time to learn C++ anyway). The GUI I have in front of me is simply the nicest looking, most functional (in terms of easily customized and sensibly constructed) interface I think I've ever used. If I could change any one thing, I don't know what it would be. Maybe a better terminal emulator and a KDE port of emacs.;)
Re:A great example of open-source at work.
on
Five Years of KDE
·
· Score: 2
Are you kidding me? Nothing Microsoft did in the GUI arena was marginally original, GUIs have been around since 1973. Here's a screenshot timeline-- note that even in 1983 MS were in the habit of announcing software long before delivery. The first Windows post-dates the first X. And every major change to Windows is foreshadowed in some other GUI.
Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft did anyways, this is a ridiculous competition, this Windows vs. Linux stuff. Obviously Microsoft have been writing software for a very long time now and have some talented programmers and designers working for them-- and while they make some bad decisions, overall the software is not bad. But since all of that is overshadowed by the way they price their products and treat their customers, they could be coding software that turned lead to gold and some of us would do our best to avoid it.
How exactly do you break a law that gives excessive power to a police agency?
Besides, these are anti-terrorism laws. At this point in American history anyone even accused of a terrorism-related activity is going to have his/her life ruined, and not just passively... actively destroyed by millions of Americans, guilty or not. Heck, Muslims and Arabs are being targeted even though they are fine people and good citizens. Even non-Muslims and non-Arabs who look a little dusky are being targeted.
And not to be too pessimistic, but look at all the crap Americans were willing to take as lumps in the Drug War (which often affected regular folks), and then think about how drugs really weren't that bad... now think about how this War is against "evil" fanatics who killed 6000 Americans and destroyed a several blocks worth of real estate in downtown New York. If there were a way to urine or blood test for terrorism, you can bet that by next year this time it would be impossible to find any job in the country that didn't require the test, even if there were no law saying they had to do such tests.
While I doubt most of those "MILLIONS" are actually writing to their reps, I do believe they get a lot of mail. But I've written to President Clinton and to the head of the FCC and gotten decent and fairly timely responses from both. I didn't agree with what they said, and I don't feel like they addressed my letters in any meaningful, but they at least articulated how they felt on the broad topic at issue.
But if I send an email to my senator, I expect more back than an acknowledgement of receipt (which is all I've gotten in response to my first email to an elected official). I expect an email back that contains a link to a web page outlining why the Senator doesn't give a shit what I think and here's why... or a form email that starts off "Dear Constituent, thank you for your email about XYZ, but here's what I have planned in that area..." And if I go to the trouble to write a letter, I at least expect a postcard or form letter in reply. This is what interns are for.
As for majority rule: No, It's Not. The United States is not majority rule, nor was it designed to be such. It was designed with minorities in mind, otherwise you wouldn't have a bill of rights. Even the last presidential election (vote counting irregularities aside) was not won by majority vote. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule. I don't need freedom to do the same thing everyone else is doing. I need freedom if I want to be different.
That and you have no idea whether you should include the HTML markup in the text file itself or not. A host of issues affect posting signed bits into the middle of a web page like this without some guiding principles.
While it's offered and appears to be integrated, I think you should actually use it on a regular basis before you say it's transparent. I highly doubt that it is anywhere as easy to use as PGP/GnuPG are-- even in conjunction with Outlook.
First, no good security is transparent. At some point you, the user, have to create and share your own keys and verify that the keys you receive are valid (even with a web of trust, you have to correctly verify at least one other key to get into the loop).
I don't see how the certificates issued for Outlook users have any real trust built in. How did the Certificate Authority verify that the person requesting the key was really who they said they were-- and what about people with same or similar names? Even if they somehow verified the name, how do I know I've got the right "George Bush"?
Second, you still have to train people to understand the process and then to use it. If you tell them they have to fill out some long form just to get a certificate, they are likely to say "forget it", unless they have serious security needs-- in which case, they are hopefully not Outlook users in the first place.:)
Third, seriously, if secure email is your priority, why would you stack two or three proprietary, closed-source solutions one atop the other? Especially when there is an open source option available for both. Believe me, once you've generated your key for GnuPG on Linux and checked two simple options on KMail, the only non-transparent part of secure email is typing in your passphrase (and of course, obtaining and verifying other keys).
And then there's the problem of the fact that the Outlook security features did NOT use an existing standard for personal public key encryption-- PGP. Hopefully, Microsoft will buy them. Really. And integrate PGP into their mailer. That way the established crypto-using community and Outlook users can begin to interact in a meaningful way. I realize S/MIME is a "standard", but I've not seen it used at all... and the very limited uses for personal security that I've seen (even Slashdot didn't get it right when they ran interviews with Phil Zimmermann), all involved PGP, or the OpenPGP standard. I mean, the blink tag is/was a standard too, but...
The GPL'ed version of MySQL isn't even free software!
I think you might want to explain that-- since on the surface it makes absolutely no sense (except to BSD or public domain zealots who consider the GPL too restrictive).
This case has almost nothing to do with the economy of this country (assuming you mean the USA). Tech stocks as an equity sector may have felt some hit as confidence in all tech stocks waivered-- but consider that many newer companies were flying high on promises and failed to deliver the results, also consider that major chip makers and other manufacturers reported decreases in earnings completely unrelated to the government action against Microsoft.
Then finally consider that the equities market is only an aspect of the economy, which is heavily affected by foreign trade, currency inflation, government debt, personal debt, shopping habits, and a hundred other things. And you want to say that the Microsoft case overwhelms all these other factors in importance? Half the people in this country don't even own computers or use them that regularly (see http://www.epf.org/forecasts/2001/tf20010111.pdf)! Yet a single computer software company is driving the economy? I doubt it. Much more likely that companies like food goods, automotives, banks, petroleum products and the like are driving the economy. The price of energy and health care are more likely to cause ripple effects than the price of Microsoft stock or software.
But I wouldn't expect a 20 year old college sophomore CSci student to understand a complex system like the economy.:)
The free market works just fine. The problem is that it (free market theory, a la Adam Smith and most of the popular thinking on economics) relies on informed, rational consumers. Once we get a few of those, everything should improve.:)
I don't agree that the government (as a representative of the people) should step in to make changes to a market economy the people themselves were unwilling to take any responsibility in. That is, the people-- for better or worse-- have handed MS their cash and CONTINUE to do so. It is therefore not the will of the People that MS be punished. At this point, MS would have to do something terribly illegal or related to terrorism to get any serious attention from either the People or their representatives in government (a few whiny Democrat State AG's notwithstanding).
When it comes to consumer choice, Americans will generally prioritize conformity/show-off value and convenience over price, quality (insofar as this does not detract from either show-off value or convenience), and variety of choice. Look at the nation's largest food chains, if you need any more hints about where this is heading...
http://www.glreach.com/globstats/ -- according to them German is 5th (based on how many people are online that speak it). It goes English (still less than half of all internet users, even though top spot), Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, German. There is also this site which has the information based on web site language : http://www.et.com.mx/mgb/dmoz/stat/
But as far as non-internet languages go, German isn't even top ten. So unless you've already mastered Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic-- I'd wait to learn German later, unless you've already learned some German, in which case you might as well go for fluency.:)
Eh? According to the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment they should be treated the same. So what's your point? Or are you insinuating that things like web pages do not fall under either the rubric of "speech" or "the press"? Or that e-mails don't have the same protections as analog mail (i.e. accorded as speech)? Or that an internet chat isn't as protected as a face to face chat? Quit playing semantic games, it will make for a much cleaner debate.
And can you imagine the damage to your data set when some dipshit spills coffee all over his/her desktop/node, or tries to open the latest Outlook virus?:)
um, just what the flipping heck is "anarcho-tyranny"? It's total nonsense, I'm guessing. Anarchy defined means "having no ruler". Tyranny defined is "oppressive power exerted by government". You can't have tyranny without rulers, you can't have rulers with anarchy. If you mean that the government allows certain types of destabilization/terrorism, then just say that. But if you walk down the streets of America, I think you'll find most citizens support the government, i.e. believe the war on drugs is a good idea. So let's not paint this as some conspiracy to contrive absolute power for a few. Let's call it what it is, a culture with certain attitudes-- one of which is that it is apparently better to be "safe" than "free".
Re:Sweet! Hyperoperators!
on
Apocalypse 3
·
· Score: 2
I think it sounds annoying as heck, because I tend to use a lot of _ in my variable names. Things like $foo_bar are a lot more readable than $fooBar, imho-- and allows me to save caps for other purposes like constants and the occasional global.
It's not a patent on an implementation if the description is broad. It's a patent on a class of implementations, i.e. an idea. I realize this is a commonplace patent currently. Sadly, given our current government's attitude on "intellectual property", I don't think we're going to see this improved. And admittedly it's hard to improve it, how do you protect idea people and plans for unimplemented inventions without this sort of thing slipping through?
Not to mention that most users store a lot of data at the user level! How about an executable that mailed off every file it could find in standard user locations to strangers? How about an app that deletes every file it can? How about something that downloads naughty pictures and sets them as the desktop (wouldn't that be great at work)?
I can think of millions of incredibly destructive things to do at the user level, so let's not pat OS X on the back for being a Unix and having some better-than-MS security model that will keep it safe while running lame MS applications. Security is as security does and this hole can do some real damage despite being a user process.
But it's not really a patent on a specific hardware implementation of the idea. It's a patent on the idea. Which is just too vague. The idea I have of patents is that they provide protection for implementations, not ideas (just like copyright protects actual works, not classes of works). I'd get into the "or otherwise you could patent stuff like..." debates, since it's obvious the USPTO no longer knows or cares what it is granting patent status on. Or they are specifically interested in making sure that business continue to pay the exorbitant patent fees for any and every idea that a business can reasonably describe in a patent application, whether or not the business actually implements those ideas.
And because it is his paycheck on the line, I suggest that we geeks need to take a good look at what we've done so far in this matter. After all, every time we've gone to the movies, bought a DVD or VHS new, watched TV, bought a major-label-(or-minor-label-affiliate)-produced CD new, or purchased merchandise which was co-branded or licensed, we have helped fund the very corporations that are working to destroy a free America and turn it into privately owned fiefdoms. It's not just a question of which representative do we write to, but how do we change our lives (and our culture) so that these corporations become unprofitable?
I found it amusing as I've listened to Governor Bush's Sept. 20th address before Congress, that he describes Afghanis as the first victims of Al-Qaida and the Taliban. He even mentions that in Afghanistan you can be jailed for owning a television. Welcome to the next USA, where you can own a television, but will be jailed if the television you own is not State Approved.
Which is exactly the problem with a code, you must have sketched out most of the plan ahead of time. But say you wanted to steal four airplanes at the same time on the same day and crash them into a few buildings. If you're going to be in the target country and know how to hijack and fly planes and deal with airport security, you're going to have done most of your planning in ways that are totally irrelevant to codes or encryption. You have probably already selected some targets and established the other main points. You will use code to make it sound innocent, when in fact you are discussing what time the flights will leave, who is on that flight, and which of the targets you're going to hit. You *wouldn't* change midstream to a location that was not part of the plan. If it was a good plan, you wouldn't need to.
Slashdot Mirror
First, could we stop doing arbitrary comparisons between Microsoft products and pieces of Linux software? It's pointless. The comparisons, as the previous post intended to point out, are hardly fair, since major chunks of the Free Software space were developed in spare time or for fun.
;)
Second, KDE does not compare to Windows 2000 or Win XP. KDE is a GUI layer on top of a Linux OS-- hell, it's not even entirely that-- since it needs X to run. KDE is also a bunch of applications from the superb (Konqueror) to the not-so-spectacular (Konsole would be a good example of something that could use more work). Win2k/XP (as I understand it) integrate the GUI and the kernel.
Third, calling Microsoft a groundbreaker is just a load of BS. They have never broken any ground that I'm aware of. I have yet to see a single feature on the MS machines I use five days a week that is truly original. In fact, I distinctly recall a point in time where I knew zero about running Windows, but managed to hum along nicely because I'd been using a Mac since 1987. And even still, using the eye-pleasing Liquid theme for KDE, my KDE/Linux experience is a lot more Mac-ish than Windows-ish.
All that said, KDE is my GUI of choice. I'm in the process of learning C++ simply so I can write applications that work with Qt/KDE (yeah, I know they have "bindings" in Python and a couple other scripting languages, but I think it's time to learn C++ anyway). The GUI I have in front of me is simply the nicest looking, most functional (in terms of easily customized and sensibly constructed) interface I think I've ever used. If I could change any one thing, I don't know what it would be. Maybe a better terminal emulator and a KDE port of emacs.
Are you kidding me? Nothing Microsoft did in the GUI arena was marginally original, GUIs have been around since 1973. Here's a screenshot timeline-- note that even in 1983 MS were in the habit of announcing software long before delivery. The first Windows post-dates the first X. And every major change to Windows is foreshadowed in some other GUI.
Frankly, I don't care what Microsoft did anyways, this is a ridiculous competition, this Windows vs. Linux stuff. Obviously Microsoft have been writing software for a very long time now and have some talented programmers and designers working for them-- and while they make some bad decisions, overall the software is not bad. But since all of that is overshadowed by the way they price their products and treat their customers, they could be coding software that turned lead to gold and some of us would do our best to avoid it.
4. Cowboy Neal.
How exactly do you break a law that gives excessive power to a police agency?
Besides, these are anti-terrorism laws. At this point in American history anyone even accused of a terrorism-related activity is going to have his/her life ruined, and not just passively... actively destroyed by millions of Americans, guilty or not. Heck, Muslims and Arabs are being targeted even though they are fine people and good citizens. Even non-Muslims and non-Arabs who look a little dusky are being targeted.
And not to be too pessimistic, but look at all the crap Americans were willing to take as lumps in the Drug War (which often affected regular folks), and then think about how drugs really weren't that bad... now think about how this War is against "evil" fanatics who killed 6000 Americans and destroyed a several blocks worth of real estate in downtown New York. If there were a way to urine or blood test for terrorism, you can bet that by next year this time it would be impossible to find any job in the country that didn't require the test, even if there were no law saying they had to do such tests.
For one aspect of our government we do almost exactly that, where do you think juries come from?
While I doubt most of those "MILLIONS" are actually writing to their reps, I do believe they get a lot of mail. But I've written to President Clinton and to the head of the FCC and gotten decent and fairly timely responses from both. I didn't agree with what they said, and I don't feel like they addressed my letters in any meaningful, but they at least articulated how they felt on the broad topic at issue.
But if I send an email to my senator, I expect more back than an acknowledgement of receipt (which is all I've gotten in response to my first email to an elected official). I expect an email back that contains a link to a web page outlining why the Senator doesn't give a shit what I think and here's why... or a form email that starts off "Dear Constituent, thank you for your email about XYZ, but here's what I have planned in that area..." And if I go to the trouble to write a letter, I at least expect a postcard or form letter in reply. This is what interns are for.
As for majority rule: No, It's Not. The United States is not majority rule, nor was it designed to be such. It was designed with minorities in mind, otherwise you wouldn't have a bill of rights. Even the last presidential election (vote counting irregularities aside) was not won by majority vote. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule. I don't need freedom to do the same thing everyone else is doing. I need freedom if I want to be different.
That and you have no idea whether you should include the HTML markup in the text file itself or not. A host of issues affect posting signed bits into the middle of a web page like this without some guiding principles.
The best argument in favor of Free Software I've ever seen. Thank you. :)
While it's offered and appears to be integrated, I think you should actually use it on a regular basis before you say it's transparent. I highly doubt that it is anywhere as easy to use as PGP/GnuPG are-- even in conjunction with Outlook.
:)
First, no good security is transparent. At some point you, the user, have to create and share your own keys and verify that the keys you receive are valid (even with a web of trust, you have to correctly verify at least one other key to get into the loop).
I don't see how the certificates issued for Outlook users have any real trust built in. How did the Certificate Authority verify that the person requesting the key was really who they said they were-- and what about people with same or similar names? Even if they somehow verified the name, how do I know I've got the right "George Bush"?
Second, you still have to train people to understand the process and then to use it. If you tell them they have to fill out some long form just to get a certificate, they are likely to say "forget it", unless they have serious security needs-- in which case, they are hopefully not Outlook users in the first place.
Third, seriously, if secure email is your priority, why would you stack two or three proprietary, closed-source solutions one atop the other? Especially when there is an open source option available for both. Believe me, once you've generated your key for GnuPG on Linux and checked two simple options on KMail, the only non-transparent part of secure email is typing in your passphrase (and of course, obtaining and verifying other keys).
And then there's the problem of the fact that the Outlook security features did NOT use an existing standard for personal public key encryption-- PGP. Hopefully, Microsoft will buy them. Really. And integrate PGP into their mailer. That way the established crypto-using community and Outlook users can begin to interact in a meaningful way. I realize S/MIME is a "standard", but I've not seen it used at all... and the very limited uses for personal security that I've seen (even Slashdot didn't get it right when they ran interviews with Phil Zimmermann), all involved PGP, or the OpenPGP standard. I mean, the blink tag is/was a standard too, but...
Sure, especially since it blends in with all the other haikus in the file.
For example.
The GPL'ed version of MySQL isn't even free software!
I think you might want to explain that-- since on the surface it makes absolutely no sense (except to BSD or public domain zealots who consider the GPL too restrictive).
Hmmm. A five digit user ID and still can't read the article- in which there is a link to the census form, including the list of religions?
This case has almost nothing to do with the economy of this country (assuming you mean the USA). Tech stocks as an equity sector may have felt some hit as confidence in all tech stocks waivered-- but consider that many newer companies were flying high on promises and failed to deliver the results, also consider that major chip makers and other manufacturers reported decreases in earnings completely unrelated to the government action against Microsoft.
! Yet a single computer software company is driving the economy? I doubt it. Much more likely that companies like food goods, automotives, banks, petroleum products and the like are driving the economy. The price of energy and health care are more likely to cause ripple effects than the price of Microsoft stock or software.
:)
Then finally consider that the equities market is only an aspect of the economy, which is heavily affected by foreign trade, currency inflation, government debt, personal debt, shopping habits, and a hundred other things. And you want to say that the Microsoft case overwhelms all these other factors in importance? Half the people in this country don't even own computers or use them that regularly (see http://www.epf.org/forecasts/2001/tf20010111.pdf)
But I wouldn't expect a 20 year old college sophomore CSci student to understand a complex system like the economy.
The free market works just fine. The problem is that it (free market theory, a la Adam Smith and most of the popular thinking on economics) relies on informed, rational consumers. Once we get a few of those, everything should improve. :)
I don't agree that the government (as a representative of the people) should step in to make changes to a market economy the people themselves were unwilling to take any responsibility in. That is, the people-- for better or worse-- have handed MS their cash and CONTINUE to do so. It is therefore not the will of the People that MS be punished. At this point, MS would have to do something terribly illegal or related to terrorism to get any serious attention from either the People or their representatives in government (a few whiny Democrat State AG's notwithstanding).
When it comes to consumer choice, Americans will generally prioritize conformity/show-off value and convenience over price, quality (insofar as this does not detract from either show-off value or convenience), and variety of choice. Look at the nation's largest food chains, if you need any more hints about where this is heading...
Thank you for a reasoned and sane response to the drooling "love it or leave it" pseudo-patriot. :)
http://www.glreach.com/globstats/ -- according to them German is 5th (based on how many people are online that speak it). It goes English (still less than half of all internet users, even though top spot), Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, German. There is also this site which has the information based on web site language : http://www.et.com.mx/mgb/dmoz/stat/
:)
But as far as non-internet languages go, German isn't even top ten. So unless you've already mastered Chinese, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, and Arabic-- I'd wait to learn German later, unless you've already learned some German, in which case you might as well go for fluency.
Eh? According to the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment they should be treated the same. So what's your point? Or are you insinuating that things like web pages do not fall under either the rubric of "speech" or "the press"? Or that e-mails don't have the same protections as analog mail (i.e. accorded as speech)? Or that an internet chat isn't as protected as a face to face chat? Quit playing semantic games, it will make for a much cleaner debate.
And can you imagine the damage to your data set when some dipshit spills coffee all over his/her desktop/node, or tries to open the latest Outlook virus? :)
um, just what the flipping heck is "anarcho-tyranny"? It's total nonsense, I'm guessing. Anarchy defined means "having no ruler". Tyranny defined is "oppressive power exerted by government". You can't have tyranny without rulers, you can't have rulers with anarchy. If you mean that the government allows certain types of destabilization/terrorism, then just say that. But if you walk down the streets of America, I think you'll find most citizens support the government, i.e. believe the war on drugs is a good idea. So let's not paint this as some conspiracy to contrive absolute power for a few. Let's call it what it is, a culture with certain attitudes-- one of which is that it is apparently better to be "safe" than "free".
I think it sounds annoying as heck, because I tend to use a lot of _ in my variable names. Things like $foo_bar are a lot more readable than $fooBar, imho-- and allows me to save caps for other purposes like constants and the occasional global.
It's not a patent on an implementation if the description is broad. It's a patent on a class of implementations, i.e. an idea. I realize this is a commonplace patent currently. Sadly, given our current government's attitude on "intellectual property", I don't think we're going to see this improved. And admittedly it's hard to improve it, how do you protect idea people and plans for unimplemented inventions without this sort of thing slipping through?
Not to mention that most users store a lot of data at the user level! How about an executable that mailed off every file it could find in standard user locations to strangers? How about an app that deletes every file it can? How about something that downloads naughty pictures and sets them as the desktop (wouldn't that be great at work)?
I can think of millions of incredibly destructive things to do at the user level, so let's not pat OS X on the back for being a Unix and having some better-than-MS security model that will keep it safe while running lame MS applications. Security is as security does and this hole can do some real damage despite being a user process.
But it's not really a patent on a specific hardware implementation of the idea. It's a patent on the idea. Which is just too vague. The idea I have of patents is that they provide protection for implementations, not ideas (just like copyright protects actual works, not classes of works). I'd get into the "or otherwise you could patent stuff like..." debates, since it's obvious the USPTO no longer knows or cares what it is granting patent status on. Or they are specifically interested in making sure that business continue to pay the exorbitant patent fees for any and every idea that a business can reasonably describe in a patent application, whether or not the business actually implements those ideas.
And because it is his paycheck on the line, I suggest that we geeks need to take a good look at what we've done so far in this matter. After all, every time we've gone to the movies, bought a DVD or VHS new, watched TV, bought a major-label-(or-minor-label-affiliate)-produced CD new, or purchased merchandise which was co-branded or licensed, we have helped fund the very corporations that are working to destroy a free America and turn it into privately owned fiefdoms. It's not just a question of which representative do we write to, but how do we change our lives (and our culture) so that these corporations become unprofitable?
I found it amusing as I've listened to Governor Bush's Sept. 20th address before Congress, that he describes Afghanis as the first victims of Al-Qaida and the Taliban. He even mentions that in Afghanistan you can be jailed for owning a television. Welcome to the next USA, where you can own a television, but will be jailed if the television you own is not State Approved.
Which is exactly the problem with a code, you must have sketched out most of the plan ahead of time. But say you wanted to steal four airplanes at the same time on the same day and crash them into a few buildings. If you're going to be in the target country and know how to hijack and fly planes and deal with airport security, you're going to have done most of your planning in ways that are totally irrelevant to codes or encryption. You have probably already selected some targets and established the other main points. You will use code to make it sound innocent, when in fact you are discussing what time the flights will leave, who is on that flight, and which of the targets you're going to hit. You *wouldn't* change midstream to a location that was not part of the plan. If it was a good plan, you wouldn't need to.