If you still have the pirated[sic] songs, you continue to infringe.
Isn't the act of copying what violates copyright? In my mind, if you copied something 10 years ago, the statute is up. Of course, with the attitude in our courts they probably wouldn't see it that way, and agree with your statement instead of mine.
A rented offsite data center would protect against them physically taking your main data center though. My non-profit is doing that now, and we aren't exactly rich. Your main data center, everything running virtual servers, periodically sends vm copies to the offsite data center. It isn't very complex.
Now, if the FBI for some reason wanted to confiscate the rented data center copies as well.....not sure why they would though.
Assuming they only had the hardware on hand to run the exact amount of servers they were hosting, then yeah, setting up the hardware alone is going to take time.
But with modern virtual machines (I use ZFS and VMware) and a some extra processing power and disk space around, there isn't any excuse for downtime longer than half a day. You can take hourly or nightly snapshots of running virtual machines, and send those snaps to other servers or offsite even. That whole rack of virtual machines blows up, you pull the snaps back onto spare room on another rack, and presto, everything is working again.
I've done this multiple times with pretty complex architecture. Not as disaster recovery, but to install newer, more powerful hardware. Set up the new hardware, "zfs send snapshot1 > new server X", "zoneadm -z snapshot1 boot", done. I work for a non-profit with a pretty tight budget, and even we have enough extra computing power around to double up virtual zones for most of our applications. Not to mention, an entirely offsite data center (rented space) that our servers sync to in case our main data center is literally taken out (earthquake or something).
You don't necessarily need a mobile app. You could stream from your server using any number of methods (apache alone can do it) or use something like GNUMP3D which has a web based client to play the songs.
Assuming a rights holder can prove that the track is pirated, which is basically impossible, assuming your music isn't watermarked in some way. Based on the statements of the exec,
"We will respond to requests by rights holders who feel their rights have been violated."
So I doubt that Google is going to be constantly scanning for pirated watermarks. They will instead wait for a complaint to do the following (maybe).
And though it seems like it will be difficult to distinguish what's pirated and what's not, Google could use the same analysis tech they use for playlists to verify you that have the right to upload that track to Google Music. (Spectral analysis and/or watermarks could expose rips from different sources).
I guess if you were really paranoid, you could get some software to check/remove any watermarks. They are specific to each seller (iTunes, etc..) but there is software for sale that will do it. I'm not sure if there is any free software that has kept pace with all the different company watermarks though.
And do you have to make your Google music library public? If not, how would a rights holder even check it for pirated copies?
I don't think American's are any more susceptible to propaganda than citizens of other countries. It is just that we have so much of it because we have so much money. Transplant our corporations with their 10's and 100's of billions of dollars into a left leaning country, and in 20-30 years I'd be willing to bet that country would start looking like the US.
We've got to find a way to get money out of politics. No political ads by third parties, extension of libel and slander laws to political speech, set public funds for campaigns no donations, etc. I can't conceive of it ever happening though.
Better to focus on creating an upwardly mobile society that can more easily adapt to these inevitable changes than to risk making society poorer and therefore less able to adapt.
Are the two goals (adaptable and renewable energy) mutually exclusive? When a power company puts up windmills, does that somehow lessen the pool of resources that could be used to drive adaptable design?
It seems to me that the argument for focusing on handling climate change, over focusing on reducing climate change, often is used as the basis for doing nothing to move forward with smart grids, energy storage, and renewable energy sources.
Googling and taking the averages from a few sites, human breath only accounts for about 6% of the total carbon dioxide released. Power plants, cars, etc.. makes up the other 94%.
In order to increase profit long term though, wouldn't it be in the best interests of producers to find ways to produce less carbon? Isn't that motivating factor a good thing despite the initial 'passing of the cost' onto the consumer?
For a real world example that completely contradicts basically everything you said, please look at Germany.
The US is exporting more goods that ever before. We've gained in efficiency so it requires less workers. Just search for "US total exports". You'll see it going up every year. However, a search for "percent employed in manufacturing", you'll see that going down every year. Its not because less and less is being made here, its because of manufacturing efficiency.
Certain segments of manufacturing have moved, but manufacturing as a whole is going strong. It just requires less workers now.
I won't get into unions in detail, but you can thank them for the weekend, 40 hour work week, and generally safe working conditions that we all take for granted. They are the only force in a free market that pushes back against worker exploitation. Without at least some union presence in the work force, businesses would slowly take away basic worker benefits in a race to the bottom.
I'd be more inclined to embrace outsourcing with partners that had equal tariff and currency playing fields. China puts up high tariff walls to protect its industries. The US is basically at zero tariffs. That makes competition nearly impossible right there.
I'd also like to see a little morality/responsibility (dealing with externalities and employee treatment) mixed into trade agreements from time to time. You know, if Chinese industry X has zero pollution regulations, but the US industry X has certain sets of environmental regulations that our society deemed as necessary for being responsible stewards of the planet, Chinese industry X should either not be allowed to export goods here, or face a tariff that places the cost of those ignored external costs on the product.
When it is discovered that some company is using child labor in a remote country, the bad press is usually enough for them to switch to another manufacturer. But we don't seem to have the same media coverage of pollution, worker rights, or other factors that the US is generally pretty good about compared with developing countries.
I'm all for raising the standard of living around the world, but pure profit/cost motives can't be the only motivator.
(old thread so no one will read this, but oh well:))
I wonder just how much could have been done if taxes had stayed higher (40% income tax, 30% capital gains tax, less corporate loopholes that have increased over time, etc..)
Complete smart grid with high percent of renewables? Updated infrastructure with fast trains? Less crumbling understaffed inner city schools? Perhaps more job re-training and less unemployment? 100% free college?
Just because the total gross amount of revenue has increased doesn't mean we need to lower taxes just for the heck of it. We've been prosperous and happy with high taxes at many times in our Nation's history. Cutting taxes just for the sake of cutting taxes, when we have so many big problems to solve, and are so far behind the rest of the world in so many categories, just doesn't make sense to me.
Do you think the lack of qualified engineers is due to school getting worse?
It seems to me that our entire culture has changed. In the 50's-60's and partly in the 70's, it seemed that science and do it yourself type projects were cool. Chemistry kits, erector sets, the rise of personal computing, etc... I'm not sure why that changed, but it doesn't seem that school has changed that much, moreso our overall societal interest in 'tinkering' and experimenting.
Isn't the overall manufacturing output of our country higher than it has ever been?
http://forecastchart.com/graph-us-exports.html
Now, if you look at the percent of people employed in manufacturing, that has dropped steadily since 1970, due to efficiency gains, not offshoring. A certain segments of manufacturing and industrial work have shrank faster than other areas as demand has changed, or technology has changed.
What America really needs is to create new markets for engineers, not try to cling to old ones that are gaining efficiency (needs fewer workers) every year, or have been off shored for a variety of reason.
Renewable energy, and all its related tech, is an obvious choice. From massive building projects like water pumped storage to building superconductive DC interchanges to move electricity long distances, the overall upgrades to the electrical grid, new designs in solar collection, the building of solar thermal plants, wind turbine design and installation, floating turbines, ocean wave generators, etc..
There is a ton of new tech and projects that engineers could be involved with if the Government would make those areas more attractive with subsidies or by other means.
It also wouldn't hurt to have a massive media-friendly Nasa/Apollo type project to capture the imagination of the next generation of engineers. In general, science just doesn't seem as cool as it was 50 years ago. It doesn't help that half of congress basically doesn't understand science and flat out rejects most of it (evolution for example).
I often wonder if the draining of American's manufacturing and wealth, and transplanting it overseas, was intentional. When I see politicians, sometimes very smart ones, passing legislation that is obviously bad for American workers, I think to myself, "what possible motive could be driving this?"
Is it purely sociopathic greed? Probably is some cases yes. But for those other cases, what is the reason that you'd intentionally take wealth away from American and basically give it to another country? The only reason that makes sense to me, is that those in power are trying to bring 2nd/3rd world countries up to 1st/2nd world countries, in order to raise the living standards around the world. It also would create more buying markets for us to sell our goods. Short term pain for America to gain long term world wide growth and stability?
If we forced countries like China to remain 3rd world, by blocking access to our market via tariffs, would they eventually grow desperate and start a war?
You're assuming that illegal immigrants are lowering the legal immigration slots. I doubt that is happening. A highly skilled scientist or engineer immigrating to the US isn't going to be a drain on society. Quite the opposite.
One would assume that the more our society is being drained of resources (health care, school, etc..) the more the US would want to import producers (scientists, engineers, etc..).
So "progress?" I don't think that word means what you think it does. The first world has made it's decision and you can flog the dead horse of nuclear, but the only new adopters will be the third world and powers that want to refine for nuclear weapons, such as arabic countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Yes, progress. It's clear that fossil fuels aren't viable even in the medium term, and unless we stop our population growth or drastically change lifestyles, "renewable" isn't going to cut it, either. The "future" ultimately, can and must be fusion. And we aren't going to get it by abandoning high technology, high energy density engineering. Though they aren't directly related, fission makes a good trainer for fusion. Teaches you to be CAREFUL.
Citation please? Every time this comes up, the claim is made that renewables cannot provide enough power. Every time I google a bit, I find examples of renewables providing baseline power, and studies showing how renewables could replace baseline elsewhere.
There was even a Ted Talk about nuclear/renewables. It was actually a debate if I recall. One guy said renewables could provide enough, the other guy said no. Each side appeared to have actual numerical data to support their argument, and in the end, I wasn't convinced by either of them. But internet searches show plenty of articles indicating that renewables can provide enough power. I have yet to find an article that proves, with data, that renewables can't replace the vast majority of our energy sources.
(There are very few people coming in the doors who truly have no coverage, despite what the politicians would have you believe)
I worked at a hospital as a system analyst for 5 years and our non-profit was driven out of business by people using the ER as their healthcare plan without insurance. Different towns are going to have different patient populations. Politicians aren't lying about the number of uninsured in the country.
But we have to make the books balance somehow....You hear about $8 tylenol being billed, well, tylenol has to cost $8 because you're actually buying a whole bottle and sharing it with everyone else.
Private insurance isn't going to pay any amount the hospital asks. You could attempt to balance your books by raising the cost of Tylenol to 1 million dollars, but private insurance wouldn't pay for it. Just like the Government plans, private insurance has pricing guidelines. It isn't the Government insurance holders that are eating your profits, it is the actual cost of the equipment, nurses, doctors, pills, etc...
The hospital isn't buying heart stents for 1 dollar and charging 1,000 dollars for them to offset Medicaid patients. They are doing that because the Doctor is being paid 400,000 dollars a year, the nurse 90,000, the stent cost 800 dollars, the equipment in the operating room cost 1,000,000 dollars, etc...
Single-payer systems, like in France, drive the costs down in several ways. 1) That 400k doctor in the US would be making 150k in France, the nurse 60k. 2) Single payer = single buyer. Buying heart stents for the entire country lowers the price because of bulk 3) likewise with equipment purchases, 4) standardization across the entire country makes things tons more efficient. Oh, and they have better outcomes, except for cutting edge expensive stuff like rare cancers or odd diseases.
I've been complaining about that for a long time. There is no exploration in games anymore.
Even 'big' mmorpgs, like Age of Conan, are basically linear maps with uncomplicated quests that are handed to you in order. Makes me miss everquest.... you start a character, get dropped into a town, and....nothing. No clues, no hints, no obvious quests: start exploring.
I'm not sure what media sources you're watching, but from my vantage point, fox news is still the number one cable news station (most viewers) and republican/conservative viewpoints completely dominate talk radio.
Both sides are guilty of biased reporting. But the volume of biased reporting by conservatives is mountains beyond what liberals are producing. Right-leaning shows are just way more numerous than left-leaning shows.
Hehe, I'm sitting here in Portland OR and was just going to type basically the same thing:)
But they do have us beat on a number of things like unemployment rate, social liberties, etc.. If I ever moved out of the states, it would most likely be to the Netherlands.
We do this test every day. On any aircraft of reasonable size, there are at least a dozen cell phones not in the off position during takeoff and landing.
The last time I flew, the pilot somehow knew that a phone(s) was on and refused to take off. We sat there for 20 minutes or so, with the pilot saying every 5 minutes "I still detect a phone on folks, please turn them off".
Slashdot Mirror
If you still have the pirated[sic] songs, you continue to infringe.
Isn't the act of copying what violates copyright? In my mind, if you copied something 10 years ago, the statute is up. Of course, with the attitude in our courts they probably wouldn't see it that way, and agree with your statement instead of mine.
A rented offsite data center would protect against them physically taking your main data center though. My non-profit is doing that now, and we aren't exactly rich. Your main data center, everything running virtual servers, periodically sends vm copies to the offsite data center. It isn't very complex.
Now, if the FBI for some reason wanted to confiscate the rented data center copies as well.....not sure why they would though.
Assuming they only had the hardware on hand to run the exact amount of servers they were hosting, then yeah, setting up the hardware alone is going to take time.
But with modern virtual machines (I use ZFS and VMware) and a some extra processing power and disk space around, there isn't any excuse for downtime longer than half a day. You can take hourly or nightly snapshots of running virtual machines, and send those snaps to other servers or offsite even. That whole rack of virtual machines blows up, you pull the snaps back onto spare room on another rack, and presto, everything is working again.
I've done this multiple times with pretty complex architecture. Not as disaster recovery, but to install newer, more powerful hardware. Set up the new hardware, "zfs send snapshot1 > new server X", "zoneadm -z snapshot1 boot", done. I work for a non-profit with a pretty tight budget, and even we have enough extra computing power around to double up virtual zones for most of our applications. Not to mention, an entirely offsite data center (rented space) that our servers sync to in case our main data center is literally taken out (earthquake or something).
I wasn't aware of Ampache. That looks really nice. Android app and everything.
You don't necessarily need a mobile app. You could stream from your server using any number of methods (apache alone can do it) or use something like GNUMP3D which has a web based client to play the songs.
http://maketecheasier.com/4-easy-ways-to-stream-your-music-online/2009/04/13
Assuming a rights holder can prove that the track is pirated, which is basically impossible, assuming your music isn't watermarked in some way. Based on the statements of the exec,
"We will respond to requests by rights holders who feel their rights have been violated."
So I doubt that Google is going to be constantly scanning for pirated watermarks. They will instead wait for a complaint to do the following (maybe).
And though it seems like it will be difficult to distinguish what's pirated and what's not, Google could use the same analysis tech they use for playlists to verify you that have the right to upload that track to Google Music. (Spectral analysis and/or watermarks could expose rips from different sources).
I guess if you were really paranoid, you could get some software to check/remove any watermarks. They are specific to each seller (iTunes, etc..) but there is software for sale that will do it. I'm not sure if there is any free software that has kept pace with all the different company watermarks though.
And do you have to make your Google music library public? If not, how would a rights holder even check it for pirated copies?
I don't think American's are any more susceptible to propaganda than citizens of other countries. It is just that we have so much of it because we have so much money. Transplant our corporations with their 10's and 100's of billions of dollars into a left leaning country, and in 20-30 years I'd be willing to bet that country would start looking like the US.
We've got to find a way to get money out of politics. No political ads by third parties, extension of libel and slander laws to political speech, set public funds for campaigns no donations, etc. I can't conceive of it ever happening though.
Better to focus on creating an upwardly mobile society that can more easily adapt to these inevitable changes than to risk making society poorer and therefore less able to adapt.
Are the two goals (adaptable and renewable energy) mutually exclusive? When a power company puts up windmills, does that somehow lessen the pool of resources that could be used to drive adaptable design?
It seems to me that the argument for focusing on handling climate change, over focusing on reducing climate change, often is used as the basis for doing nothing to move forward with smart grids, energy storage, and renewable energy sources.
Googling and taking the averages from a few sites, human breath only accounts for about 6% of the total carbon dioxide released. Power plants, cars, etc.. makes up the other 94%.
In order to increase profit long term though, wouldn't it be in the best interests of producers to find ways to produce less carbon? Isn't that motivating factor a good thing despite the initial 'passing of the cost' onto the consumer?
For a real world example that completely contradicts basically everything you said, please look at Germany.
The US is exporting more goods that ever before. We've gained in efficiency so it requires less workers. Just search for "US total exports". You'll see it going up every year. However, a search for "percent employed in manufacturing", you'll see that going down every year. Its not because less and less is being made here, its because of manufacturing efficiency.
Certain segments of manufacturing have moved, but manufacturing as a whole is going strong. It just requires less workers now.
I won't get into unions in detail, but you can thank them for the weekend, 40 hour work week, and generally safe working conditions that we all take for granted. They are the only force in a free market that pushes back against worker exploitation. Without at least some union presence in the work force, businesses would slowly take away basic worker benefits in a race to the bottom.
I'd be more inclined to embrace outsourcing with partners that had equal tariff and currency playing fields. China puts up high tariff walls to protect its industries. The US is basically at zero tariffs. That makes competition nearly impossible right there.
I'd also like to see a little morality/responsibility (dealing with externalities and employee treatment) mixed into trade agreements from time to time. You know, if Chinese industry X has zero pollution regulations, but the US industry X has certain sets of environmental regulations that our society deemed as necessary for being responsible stewards of the planet, Chinese industry X should either not be allowed to export goods here, or face a tariff that places the cost of those ignored external costs on the product.
When it is discovered that some company is using child labor in a remote country, the bad press is usually enough for them to switch to another manufacturer. But we don't seem to have the same media coverage of pollution, worker rights, or other factors that the US is generally pretty good about compared with developing countries.
I'm all for raising the standard of living around the world, but pure profit/cost motives can't be the only motivator.
Lists a bunch of sites by category that only sell stuff made in the USA
Well, and defense spending has nearly doubled since 9/11/01
(old thread so no one will read this, but oh well:))
I wonder just how much could have been done if taxes had stayed higher (40% income tax, 30% capital gains tax, less corporate loopholes that have increased over time, etc..)
Complete smart grid with high percent of renewables?
Updated infrastructure with fast trains?
Less crumbling understaffed inner city schools?
Perhaps more job re-training and less unemployment?
100% free college?
Just because the total gross amount of revenue has increased doesn't mean we need to lower taxes just for the heck of it. We've been prosperous and happy with high taxes at many times in our Nation's history. Cutting taxes just for the sake of cutting taxes, when we have so many big problems to solve, and are so far behind the rest of the world in so many categories, just doesn't make sense to me.
Do you think the lack of qualified engineers is due to school getting worse?
It seems to me that our entire culture has changed. In the 50's-60's and partly in the 70's, it seemed that science and do it yourself type projects were cool. Chemistry kits, erector sets, the rise of personal computing, etc... I'm not sure why that changed, but it doesn't seem that school has changed that much, moreso our overall societal interest in 'tinkering' and experimenting.
Isn't the overall manufacturing output of our country higher than it has ever been?
http://forecastchart.com/graph-us-exports.html
Now, if you look at the percent of people employed in manufacturing, that has dropped steadily since 1970, due to efficiency gains, not offshoring. A certain segments of manufacturing and industrial work have shrank faster than other areas as demand has changed, or technology has changed.
What America really needs is to create new markets for engineers, not try to cling to old ones that are gaining efficiency (needs fewer workers) every year, or have been off shored for a variety of reason.
Renewable energy, and all its related tech, is an obvious choice. From massive building projects like water pumped storage to building superconductive DC interchanges to move electricity long distances, the overall upgrades to the electrical grid, new designs in solar collection, the building of solar thermal plants, wind turbine design and installation, floating turbines, ocean wave generators, etc..
There is a ton of new tech and projects that engineers could be involved with if the Government would make those areas more attractive with subsidies or by other means.
It also wouldn't hurt to have a massive media-friendly Nasa/Apollo type project to capture the imagination of the next generation of engineers. In general, science just doesn't seem as cool as it was 50 years ago. It doesn't help that half of congress basically doesn't understand science and flat out rejects most of it (evolution for example).
I often wonder if the draining of American's manufacturing and wealth, and transplanting it overseas, was intentional. When I see politicians, sometimes very smart ones, passing legislation that is obviously bad for American workers, I think to myself, "what possible motive could be driving this?"
Is it purely sociopathic greed? Probably is some cases yes. But for those other cases, what is the reason that you'd intentionally take wealth away from American and basically give it to another country? The only reason that makes sense to me, is that those in power are trying to bring 2nd/3rd world countries up to 1st/2nd world countries, in order to raise the living standards around the world. It also would create more buying markets for us to sell our goods. Short term pain for America to gain long term world wide growth and stability?
If we forced countries like China to remain 3rd world, by blocking access to our market via tariffs, would they eventually grow desperate and start a war?
You're assuming that illegal immigrants are lowering the legal immigration slots. I doubt that is happening. A highly skilled scientist or engineer immigrating to the US isn't going to be a drain on society. Quite the opposite.
One would assume that the more our society is being drained of resources (health care, school, etc..) the more the US would want to import producers (scientists, engineers, etc..).
So "progress?" I don't think that word means what you think it does. The first world has made it's decision and you can flog the dead horse of nuclear, but the only new adopters will be the third world and powers that want to refine for nuclear weapons, such as arabic countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Yes, progress. It's clear that fossil fuels aren't viable even in the medium term, and unless we stop our population growth or drastically change lifestyles, "renewable" isn't going to cut it, either. The "future" ultimately, can and must be fusion. And we aren't going to get it by abandoning high technology, high energy density engineering. Though they aren't directly related, fission makes a good trainer for fusion. Teaches you to be CAREFUL.
Citation please? Every time this comes up, the claim is made that renewables cannot provide enough power. Every time I google a bit, I find examples of renewables providing baseline power, and studies showing how renewables could replace baseline elsewhere.
There was even a Ted Talk about nuclear/renewables. It was actually a debate if I recall. One guy said renewables could provide enough, the other guy said no. Each side appeared to have actual numerical data to support their argument, and in the end, I wasn't convinced by either of them. But internet searches show plenty of articles indicating that renewables can provide enough power. I have yet to find an article that proves, with data, that renewables can't replace the vast majority of our energy sources.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13337864
http://www.wri.org/stories/2011/05/ipcc-study-renewable-energy-could-provide-majority-worlds-energy-2050
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/7506294/Renewable-energy-can-generate-enough-power-to-meet-the-worlds-needs.html
(There are very few people coming in the doors who truly have no coverage, despite what the politicians would have you believe)
I worked at a hospital as a system analyst for 5 years and our non-profit was driven out of business by people using the ER as their healthcare plan without insurance. Different towns are going to have different patient populations. Politicians aren't lying about the number of uninsured in the country.
But we have to make the books balance somehow. ...You hear about $8 tylenol being billed, well, tylenol has to cost $8 because you're actually buying a whole bottle and sharing it with everyone else.
Private insurance isn't going to pay any amount the hospital asks. You could attempt to balance your books by raising the cost of Tylenol to 1 million dollars, but private insurance wouldn't pay for it. Just like the Government plans, private insurance has pricing guidelines. It isn't the Government insurance holders that are eating your profits, it is the actual cost of the equipment, nurses, doctors, pills, etc...
The hospital isn't buying heart stents for 1 dollar and charging 1,000 dollars for them to offset Medicaid patients. They are doing that because the Doctor is being paid 400,000 dollars a year, the nurse 90,000, the stent cost 800 dollars, the equipment in the operating room cost 1,000,000 dollars, etc...
Single-payer systems, like in France, drive the costs down in several ways. 1) That 400k doctor in the US would be making 150k in France, the nurse 60k. 2) Single payer = single buyer. Buying heart stents for the entire country lowers the price because of bulk 3) likewise with equipment purchases, 4) standardization across the entire country makes things tons more efficient. Oh, and they have better outcomes, except for cutting edge expensive stuff like rare cancers or odd diseases.
I've been complaining about that for a long time. There is no exploration in games anymore.
Even 'big' mmorpgs, like Age of Conan, are basically linear maps with uncomplicated quests that are handed to you in order. Makes me miss everquest.... you start a character, get dropped into a town, and....nothing. No clues, no hints, no obvious quests: start exploring.
I'm not sure what media sources you're watching, but from my vantage point, fox news is still the number one cable news station (most viewers) and republican/conservative viewpoints completely dominate talk radio.
Both sides are guilty of biased reporting. But the volume of biased reporting by conservatives is mountains beyond what liberals are producing. Right-leaning shows are just way more numerous than left-leaning shows.
Hehe, I'm sitting here in Portland OR and was just going to type basically the same thing:)
But they do have us beat on a number of things like unemployment rate, social liberties, etc.. If I ever moved out of the states, it would most likely be to the Netherlands.
We do this test every day. On any aircraft of reasonable size, there are at least a dozen cell phones not in the off position during takeoff and landing.
The last time I flew, the pilot somehow knew that a phone(s) was on and refused to take off. We sat there for 20 minutes or so, with the pilot saying every 5 minutes "I still detect a phone on folks, please turn them off".