"Guitarists have already rejected technically-superior digital solid state amps going back instead to vacuum tubes because of the warmer sound."
I'm not sure that this is true. The first wave of transistor amps that came out where largely avoided if you had the money to buy valves. Eventually though the transistor people stopped calling the guitarists ignorant, and realised that they need to listen to what the guitarists where saying.
The solid state amps which are coming out now sound far far better, and are much closer to the sound of a valve than even five years ago. And of course they are much more robust than valve technology, and cheaper.
"Maybe it would be better (cheaper, more efficient) to buy some professional tools instead."
It might be, but this is still largely irrelevant. If academia just employs professional programmers (which it does), then you can get professional tools out the other end. With the advantage that the source is available, and people can extend that source as they need to. Given that we are talking about research here, "off the shelf" solutions are often less applicable than in general computing.
This is the case with EMBOSS, and several other projects that I can think off. The code is well constructed and documented, and freely available. As a result it has been used as the basis for numerous other projects, which could not have happened with GCG.
"what they should do is earmark some money to get
programmers to write for free usage software like Vector NTI. "
The same argument of course applies to pretty much all software, not just bioinformatics software.
Actually I think that there is a more convincing argument here. I would argue that the process which is used to generate data is in fact a material part of that data. Without access to the software that operates on the primary data to produce the final result, it is not possible to replicate that result independantly. If bioinformatics wants to be taken seriously as a science, then it needs to able to address the issue of repeatability. Code is part of the methodology, methodology is part of the result. If code is not freely available, then the result is not either.
He does. I am sure that he is quite happy for instance to be directly involved in porting Emacs to run under NT. And likewise for other projects that he doesn't directly work on.
The point that he is making is that the purpose of free software is not to have as many people use it as possible, but to help develop the idea that software should be free. This is his aim, which you may or may not agree with, but is something that he stuck to clearly thoughout the years.
GNOME is not important to him per se. Free software is important. Seems like an admirable position to me.
Phil
Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it.
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 2
As I said people have some choice. But its an oversimplification to say "it exists therefore we choose it". Straightforward enough.
I live in Europe too. What does that have to do with this?
Phil
Re:Globalization - We didn't vote for it.
on
Globalization
·
· Score: 2
"What's stopping it? You're the ones buying our products. Nobody's holding a gun to your head at the Gap and making you buy their t-shirts. "
Our kids are. Metaphorically of course.
They are some what more sensitive to the propagandising of the the various corporate interests.
Freedom is a fairly specious notion. When we had a King most people thought that we were free because we had a king, and hated the notion of democracy. Did they chose to have a king. Well in a sense. At least until we got around to cutting his head off.
I think its over simplified to say "it exists, therefore we choose it". Clearly we have had some choice in the matter, but the choice is not made in a vacuum.
Of course unlike some I don't see this in terms of American cultural imperialism. Most of the population in American were not asked any more than most of the British were during the time of our empire. It seems to me that there are a few who are profitting mightly from the situation, whilst most of us get on with the struggle to survive.
Perhaps "jihad" has no religious connotation either? Both words mean a holy war. Both words have other meanings.
Talk of a "war on terrorism" I find extremely scary to be honest. Its a meaningless phrase, like suggesting after Pearl Harbour the US would launch a war on bombing.
And statements like "wanted dead or alive", and the suggestion that the bar on assassination should be removed, suggest to me that Bush is not serious about stopping terrorism, just stopping terrorism that he does not agree with.
I think that there is a big storm coming, I think many people are going to die, and I think Bush is going to be at the fore front of it. This scares me deeply. I'm sorry if I don't come up to your standards of objectivity, but in the current climate this is hardly surprising.
I think that the key is to ensure that the curbs on freedom are always the minimum necessary.
Take for instance the old example of identity cards, which have always been viewed with suspicion in the UK, where I am from.
What harm would it do to have them I have heard ask? Well of course it depends on what is on them and when you have to carry them.
For instance we already have identity cards whilst flying on commercial flights anyway. They are called passports. I don't think that anyone has any real problems with this. This is follows the idea of the mimimum requirement. On a plane there is an overridingly good reason why ID is required. This is different from saying we should have to carry ID all the time.
What should be on them? We could just have names for instance. Okay that's probably reasonable. But what if they had addresses? Okay you say whats the problem. Well if you live in a region where you are likely to be mugged you probably would not want to carry something with your address on it. What about religion? In the light of recent attacks on Mosques in Manchester where I live, I can see many people who would have great worries about this.
The danger at the moment is that every time some one criticises official policy, suggests that they might be wrong, they get accused of being supportive of terrorism. Its a very dangerous state of affairs. We need criticism more now, and not less. We need to ensure that any curbs on freedoms are necessary, that they are likely to effective in what they are supposed to achieve, and that they are proportionate to the threat.
News that Bush has decided to launch a crusade on a terrorist jihad do not fill me with hope that this will be the case.
"Airlines have the right to know with whom they are doing business with."
This is simple enough surely. A simple requirement that you carry your passport with you on flights. This is the case with international flights, and its strongly encouraged on domestic flights in the UK.
"Actually, despite what you say in your second paragraph, you are indeed supporting what was done by justifying it."
No this is not true.
Saying that you agree with the position of a terrorist is not the same thing as saying that you agree with the us of terrorism.
For instance I tend to think that the partition in Ireland was a bad thing, and that it should be part of Ireland. Does this mean I support the IRA's campaign of violence? Absolutely not.
Similarly I think that the US is an imperialistic world power, whose foreign policy causes untold pain and suffering around the world. Do I think that flying a plane into a building is a solution. Absolutely not.
And do I hope that some good things might come out of this attack? Absolutely I do hope this. Does this mean that I think that the attack was a good idea in the first place. Absolutely not.
No body deserves to die in the way that they did. The first poster was not saying that. He was saying however that it can hardly come as a surprise.
"Seems to me the rest of the world has no problem with the U.S. when we're acting as their rich uncle Sam dolling out cash like a fucking ATM. "
For every dollar that the US gives out in foreign aid, it gets back 10 or 20 in debt repayments.
Look people around the world do hate the US. Mostly the do so for one very simple reason. They are scared of the US. US foreign policy needs to change not to appease terrorists but because its wrong and deeply offensive to humanity. If US foreign policy continues to be driven by amoungst other things exploitation of oil at any cost, including the loss of hundreds of thousands of lifes, then it will create a wave of people prepared to loose their life for an ideal of freedom however misguided that might be.
Your own history should teach you this. The US was born from people who were prepared to lose their lives fighting an overwhelmingly oppressive world power.
Noraid is an organisation that operates in America. Ironically it was from NY that much of its support, and much of its finances came.
It essentially an organisation which collected and helped to fund the IRA, which is a terrorist organisation, which has bombed, shot, and knee-capped people in Britian for the last 30 years.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter it would seem. As far as I am concerned though a dead body looks pretty much the same whether its been blown up in London, Iraq, or New York.
"Hopefully, this will do something to make sure these cowards are brought to justice, and that there will be no more such attacks anywhere."
I think its clear that many of the individiuals involved in this attack must have lost their lives during the course of it. This may well make them misguided, it may make them stupid, but it probably does not make them cowards.
I think that the original poster was wrong. We not know how bad the situation is yet, but its clear that there will have been a large loss of life. The situation is as big a disaster as Pearl Harbour.
In another way I think he is right though. The response to this sort of action can be an enormous upswelling of hate. There have been many periods in the past when powerful individuals have used this to commit massive atrocities against other countries, and an of course also against the citizens of their own countries.
Hate is a dangerous emotion. In the end it damages everbody, and everyones freedom is lessened by it. Its a very real danger for the US at a time like this. And of course if its a risk to the US, then its a risk for the rest of us as well.
"Harry Potter is also amazingly similar to "The Books of Magic," written by Neil Gaiman. "
As Neil Gaiman lacks almost of all of the talent of Rowling for producing a tightly plotted, funny and moving book however, I think the similarities are pretty irrelevant.
Harry Potter is not novel. Its the way that its wrapped up that makes it good.
"I had to check out what all the fuss was about and read the first book. While I'm sure it's a good adventure story for six year olds, there is no way in hell it's anywhere close to Hugo quality. "
She seems to be going for the "cohort" approach. In book one Harry is 11, and the book is written for an audience of that age. In book four harry is 14, and the audience is likewise treated as if they were older.
The books are getting a much much harder edge as they go one. Book 3 for instance does not have an entirely happy ending and lacks the resolution of the first two, as well as convoluted and taxing plot. Book 4 as I am sure you know features a death, and several rather unpleasant happenings, although I think it meanders a little bit.
Read the other books is my advice. If she carries on as she has started I think Harry Potter may grow into one of the classic serials of this century.
"Or maybe that "philosopher" has a much different connotation in American English rather than British English."
Does the notion of the "philosophers stone" not
exist in the US. Given that it dates back to well before the US was created I thought that it might.
As with a lot of stuff JK Rowling nicked her stuff from real mythology. The philosophers stone was the aim of alchemy, the substance that changed based metals to gold.
Which is of course what it does in the book. I don't understand why they changed the name in the US, except for perhaps a concern that the word "philosopher" would put people off. It seems to me that the US publishers should have more faith in the US population, and of course Rowlings story telling.
Phil
Re:If you go to the "Free Dmitry" party..
on
Sklyarov Update
·
· Score: 2
"Take your camcorder and camera."
Great idea. After all if it worked for Rodney King it can work for you too.
"if children learn to speak from their parents, then why do parents always say things like "Gooogooo. Baabaadddaaaaa. Ptttttpppaa Goooaaciiiiii!" to their kids? "
They are using the vowels sounds, and emphasing those sounds which are the most important in understanding speech. Quite clever really.
"When did you last hear of lawyers going on strike, or even threatening industrial action?"
They don't need to. They just sue instead.
Besides if the lawyers went on strike precisely what difficulties would it cause?
"When they start acting like professionals, maybe society will start treating them like professionals."
Sounds like crap to me. We treat people with respect in our societies when the earn lots of money. Most of the teachers I know are highly professional as it is. Still its much easier to launch a diatribe against something as meaningless as "political correctness" than it is to actually think isn't it.
"You can take or leave the deal, and the government will enforce it as a matter of contract law. "
This is just shifting the balance of course. Okay so we have forgotten about copyright law. But now we have to have contract law, which needs supporting. It does not change substanitially what I was saying.
And of course we still need numerous other laws for the contract law. Okay so I get you to agree to a contract so you have to do it. The fact that you made the agreement because I was threatening you a gun at the time is clearly of relevance to this.
"Software licenses are contract, not law"
This is true, but software licenses are only made possible or necessary because of law. The software license is a contractual agreement which defines under what circumstances the author can do something which is other wise against the law.
"You may have a fundamental right to your mumblewarts"
But only society can determine what rights you have are fundamental. Defining that is the key, and everything stems from it. Notions of trading and contracts come after wards.
"You have the right to not use the software, in which case its author has no state-enforced rights over you. "
This is non sensical as far as I can see. Its like arguing that because I do not kill people, the murder laws do not apply to me.
The problem with ESR's argument is this. What would happen if we made proprietary licenses illegal he asks? He suggests this reduces freedom because essentially its another state enforced law, which being the libertarian that he is is obviously a bad thing.
But this is a false premise. Perhaps we should instead ask what would happen if the law that already exists which make proprietary licenses possible did not exist. Surely then this would result in an increase in freedom. Which is what the FSF argues.
"A Libertarian society lets you trade life, liberty, or property however you like."
Well this is all very well but all of those three things are words like freedom open to interpretation. I shall bypass the question of what life is, as I'm a biologist so that ones probably one of interest to me, and also liberty because this is more or less a synonym for freedom. But property? You can not trade "property" however you like. Property is a legal concept. It's meaning only comes from law, which in our societies means from the mechanisms of state. If you want to trade in slaves for instance, you can not do so however much you might like to.
"I thought this decision was very surprising, I expected an all out ban. "
I thought it was interesting. Its normally fairly
easy to second guess Bush. Is it good for Big Business? Then it should go ahead. And sod all the stuff that he came out with about pluralistic bipartisan government that he came out with.
Now in this case of course we have a different situation. Big Business wants one thing, whilst the christian right who had a big part in getting him elected wanted the opposite.
His decision was interesting. He fudged it. Whether he has come up with a good compromise, or just failed to please anyone, only time will tell.
Slashdot Mirror
"Guitarists have already rejected technically-superior digital solid state amps going back instead to vacuum tubes because of the warmer sound."
I'm not sure that this is true. The first wave of transistor amps that came out where largely avoided if you had the money to buy valves. Eventually though the transistor people stopped calling the guitarists ignorant, and realised that they need to listen to what the guitarists where saying.
The solid state amps which are coming out now sound far far better, and are much closer to the sound of a valve than even five years ago. And of course they are much more robust than valve technology, and cheaper.
Who knows?
Phil
"Maybe it would be better (cheaper, more efficient) to buy some professional tools instead."
It might be, but this is still largely irrelevant. If academia just employs professional programmers (which it does), then you can get professional tools out the other end. With the advantage that the source is available, and people can extend that source as they need to. Given that we are talking about research here, "off the shelf" solutions are often less applicable than in general computing.
This is the case with EMBOSS, and several other projects that I can think off. The code is well constructed and documented, and freely available. As a result it has been used as the basis for numerous other projects, which could not have happened with GCG.
Phil
"what they should do is earmark some money to get
programmers to write for free usage software like Vector NTI. "
The same argument of course applies to pretty much all software, not just bioinformatics software.
Actually I think that there is a more convincing argument here. I would argue that the process which is used to generate data is in fact a material part of that data. Without access to the software that operates on the primary data to produce the final result, it is not possible to replicate that result independantly. If bioinformatics wants to be taken seriously as a science, then it needs to able to address the issue of repeatability. Code is part of the methodology, methodology is part of the result. If code is not freely available, then the result is not either.
Phil
"Stallman needs to recognize this and embrace it"
He does. I am sure that he is quite happy for instance to be directly involved in porting Emacs to run under NT. And likewise for other projects that he doesn't directly work on.
The point that he is making is that the purpose of free software is not to have as many people use it as possible, but to help develop the idea that software should be free. This is his aim, which you may or may not agree with, but is something that he stuck to clearly thoughout the years.
GNOME is not important to him per se. Free software is important. Seems like an admirable position to me.
Phil
As I said people have some choice. But its an oversimplification to say "it exists therefore we choose it". Straightforward enough.
I live in Europe too. What does that have to do with this?
Phil
"What's stopping it? You're the ones buying our products. Nobody's holding a gun to your head at the Gap and making you buy their t-shirts. "
Our kids are. Metaphorically of course.
They are some what more sensitive to the propagandising of the the various corporate interests.
Freedom is a fairly specious notion. When we had a King most people thought that we were free because we had a king, and hated the notion of democracy. Did they chose to have a king. Well in a sense. At least until we got around to cutting his head off.
I think its over simplified to say "it exists, therefore we choose it". Clearly we have had some choice in the matter, but the choice is not made in a vacuum.
Of course unlike some I don't see this in terms of American cultural imperialism. Most of the population in American were not asked any more than most of the British were during the time of our empire. It seems to me that there are a few who are profitting mightly from the situation, whilst most of us get on with the struggle to survive.
Phil
"He is on a crusade against terrorism"
Perhaps "jihad" has no religious connotation either? Both words mean a holy war. Both words have other meanings.
Talk of a "war on terrorism" I find extremely scary to be honest. Its a meaningless phrase, like suggesting after Pearl Harbour the US would launch a war on bombing.
And statements like "wanted dead or alive", and the suggestion that the bar on assassination should be removed, suggest to me that Bush is not serious about stopping terrorism, just stopping terrorism that he does not agree with.
I think that there is a big storm coming, I think many people are going to die, and I think Bush is going to be at the fore front of it. This scares me deeply. I'm sorry if I don't come up to your standards of objectivity, but in the current climate this is hardly surprising.
Phil
I think that the key is to ensure that the curbs on freedom are always the minimum necessary.
Take for instance the old example of identity cards, which have always been viewed with suspicion in the UK, where I am from.
What harm would it do to have them I have heard ask? Well of course it depends on what is on them and when you have to carry them.
For instance we already have identity cards whilst flying on commercial flights anyway. They are called passports. I don't think that anyone has any real problems with this. This is follows the idea of the mimimum requirement. On a plane there is an overridingly good reason why ID is required. This is different from saying we should have to carry ID all the time.
What should be on them? We could just have names for instance. Okay that's probably reasonable. But what if they had addresses? Okay you say whats the problem. Well if you live in a region where you are likely to be mugged you probably would not want to carry something with your address on it. What about religion? In the light of recent attacks on Mosques in Manchester where I live, I can see many people who would have great worries about this.
The danger at the moment is that every time some one criticises official policy, suggests that they might be wrong, they get accused of being supportive of terrorism. Its a very dangerous state of affairs. We need criticism more now, and not less. We need to ensure that any curbs on freedoms are necessary, that they are likely to effective in what they are supposed to achieve, and that they are proportionate to the threat.
News that Bush has decided to launch a crusade on a terrorist jihad do not fill me with hope that this will be the case.
Phil
"I think that works well in the UK - but here in the states, our passports are so forgeable, "
I suspect passports which are difficult to forge is technically easier than automated face recognition.
"Airlines have the right to know with whom they are doing business with."
This is simple enough surely. A simple requirement that you carry your passport with you on flights. This is the case with international flights, and its strongly encouraged on domestic flights in the UK.
Phil
"Actually, despite what you say in your second paragraph, you are indeed supporting what was done by justifying it."
No this is not true.
Saying that you agree with the position of a terrorist is not the same thing as saying that you agree with the us of terrorism.
For instance I tend to think that the partition in Ireland was a bad thing, and that it should be part of Ireland. Does this mean I support the IRA's campaign of violence? Absolutely not.
Similarly I think that the US is an imperialistic world power, whose foreign policy causes untold pain and suffering around the world. Do I think that flying a plane into a building is a solution. Absolutely not.
And do I hope that some good things might come out of this attack? Absolutely I do hope this. Does this mean that I think that the attack was a good idea in the first place. Absolutely not.
No body deserves to die in the way that they did. The first poster was not saying that. He was saying however that it can hardly come as a surprise.
Phil
"Seems to me the rest of the world has no problem with the U.S. when we're acting as their rich uncle Sam dolling out cash like a fucking ATM. "
For every dollar that the US gives out in foreign aid, it gets back 10 or 20 in debt repayments.
Look people around the world do hate the US. Mostly the do so for one very simple reason. They are scared of the US. US foreign policy needs to change not to appease terrorists but because its wrong and deeply offensive to humanity. If US foreign policy continues to be driven by amoungst other things exploitation of oil at any cost, including the loss of hundreds of thousands of lifes, then it will create a wave of people prepared to loose their life for an ideal of freedom however misguided that might be.
Your own history should teach you this. The US was born from people who were prepared to lose their lives fighting an overwhelmingly oppressive world power.
Phil
"NORAID?"
Noraid is an organisation that operates in America. Ironically it was from NY that much of its support, and much of its finances came.
It essentially an organisation which collected and helped to fund the IRA, which is a terrorist organisation, which has bombed, shot, and knee-capped people in Britian for the last 30 years.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter it would seem. As far as I am concerned though a dead body looks pretty much the same whether its been blown up in London, Iraq, or New York.
Phil
"Hopefully, this will do something to make sure these cowards are brought to justice, and that there will be no more such attacks anywhere."
I think its clear that many of the individiuals involved in this attack must have lost their lives during the course of it. This may well make them misguided, it may make them stupid, but it probably does not make them cowards.
I think that the original poster was wrong. We not know how bad the situation is yet, but its clear that there will have been a large loss of life. The situation is as big a disaster as Pearl Harbour.
In another way I think he is right though. The response to this sort of action can be an enormous upswelling of hate. There have been many periods in the past when powerful individuals have used this to commit massive atrocities against other countries, and an of course also against the citizens of their own countries.
Hate is a dangerous emotion. In the end it damages everbody, and everyones freedom is lessened by it. Its a very real danger for the US at a time like this. And of course if its a risk to the US, then its a risk for the rest of us as well.
Phil
"You have actually read some of Gaiman's work right? "
Yes. And seen it on the TV. It's okay but to my mind misses the mark.
Phil
"Harry Potter is also amazingly similar to "The Books of Magic," written by Neil Gaiman. "
As Neil Gaiman lacks almost of all of the talent of Rowling for producing a tightly plotted, funny and moving book however, I think the similarities are pretty irrelevant.
Harry Potter is not novel. Its the way that its wrapped up that makes it good.
Phil
"I had to check out what all the fuss was about and read the first book. While I'm sure it's a good adventure story for six year olds, there is no way in hell it's anywhere close to Hugo quality. "
She seems to be going for the "cohort" approach. In book one Harry is 11, and the book is written for an audience of that age. In book four harry is 14, and the audience is likewise treated as if they were older.
The books are getting a much much harder edge as they go one. Book 3 for instance does not have an entirely happy ending and lacks the resolution of the first two, as well as convoluted and taxing plot. Book 4 as I am sure you know features a death, and several rather unpleasant happenings, although I think it meanders a little bit.
Read the other books is my advice. If she carries on as she has started I think Harry Potter may grow into one of the classic serials of this century.
Phil
Does the notion of the "philosophers stone" not
exist in the US. Given that it dates back to well before the US was created I thought that it might.
As with a lot of stuff JK Rowling nicked her stuff from real mythology. The philosophers stone was the aim of alchemy, the substance that changed based metals to gold.
Which is of course what it does in the book. I don't understand why they changed the name in the US, except for perhaps a concern that the word "philosopher" would put people off. It seems to me that the US publishers should have more faith in the US population, and of course Rowlings story telling.
Phil
"Take your camcorder and camera."
Great idea. After all if it worked for Rodney King it can work for you too.
Phil
"if children learn to speak from their parents, then why do parents always say things like "Gooogooo. Baabaadddaaaaa. Ptttttpppaa Goooaaciiiiii!" to their kids? "
They are using the vowels sounds, and emphasing those sounds which are the most important in understanding speech. Quite clever really.
Phil
"When did you last hear of lawyers going on strike, or even threatening industrial action?"
They don't need to. They just sue instead.
Besides if the lawyers went on strike precisely what difficulties would it cause?
"When they start acting like professionals, maybe society will start treating them like professionals."
Sounds like crap to me. We treat people with respect in our societies when the earn lots of money. Most of the teachers I know are highly professional as it is. Still its much easier to launch a diatribe against something as meaningless as "political correctness" than it is to actually think isn't it.
Phil
"You can take or leave the deal, and the government will enforce it as a matter of contract law. "
This is just shifting the balance of course. Okay so we have forgotten about copyright law. But now we have to have contract law, which needs supporting. It does not change substanitially what I was saying.
And of course we still need numerous other laws for the contract law. Okay so I get you to agree to a contract so you have to do it. The fact that you made the agreement because I was threatening you a gun at the time is clearly of relevance to this.
"Software licenses are contract, not law"
This is true, but software licenses are only made possible or necessary because of law. The software license is a contractual agreement which defines under what circumstances the author can do something which is other wise against the law.
"You may have a fundamental right to your mumblewarts"
But only society can determine what rights you have are fundamental. Defining that is the key, and everything stems from it. Notions of trading and contracts come after wards.
Phil
This is non sensical as far as I can see. Its like arguing that because I do not kill people, the murder laws do not apply to me.
The problem with ESR's argument is this. What would happen if we made proprietary licenses illegal he asks? He suggests this reduces freedom because essentially its another state enforced law, which being the libertarian that he is is obviously a bad thing.
But this is a false premise. Perhaps we should instead ask what would happen if the law that already exists which make proprietary licenses possible did not exist. Surely then this would result in an increase in freedom. Which is what the FSF argues.
"A Libertarian society lets you trade life, liberty, or property however you like."
Well this is all very well but all of those three things are words like freedom open to interpretation. I shall bypass the question of what life is, as I'm a biologist so that ones probably one of interest to me, and also liberty because this is more or less a synonym for freedom. But property? You can not trade "property" however you like. Property is a legal concept. It's meaning only comes from law, which in our societies means from the mechanisms of state. If you want to trade in slaves for instance, you can not do so however much you might like to.
Phil
So you should. Soloman actually made decisions, came down on one side or another, using his extreme wisdom to determine the right course.
Bush has just fudged the issue, and is sitting firmly on the fence. Its amusing of course, but not actually very helpful.
Phil
I thought it was interesting. Its normally fairly easy to second guess Bush. Is it good for Big Business? Then it should go ahead. And sod all the stuff that he came out with about pluralistic bipartisan government that he came out with.
Now in this case of course we have a different situation. Big Business wants one thing, whilst the christian right who had a big part in getting him elected wanted the opposite.
His decision was interesting. He fudged it. Whether he has come up with a good compromise, or just failed to please anyone, only time will tell.
Phil