Slashdot previously had an article discussing pointless research (which was an interesting and surprisingly two side story). But...this "study" would be an example of said (truly) pointless research.
As soon as they had the hypothesis that people would pick up these sticks and put them in their computer the problem was exposed. Any real leadership would just have moved to solve this problem, rather than prove that it is indeed a problem. I would hope that the "security experts" at the DoHS would ponder than an outcome of 1% and an outcome of 99% would basically be the same problem and studying the particular location on this spectrum should bear little relationship to the need to address the problem.
would you let a device that you couldn't administer onto a network you were responsible for?
Probably not. Its a reasonable request. Maybe you can trade with said IT guy and see if he's designed any surgical devices he'd like to see get some action:)
If I were google, I'd be pretty psyched to be the only ad provider who can triangulate from search to ad delivery. Thats a real coup in terms of unique analytics for them. Between every page that has their ads on it, every site that uses their site analytics and every request that has google.com as the launch point (and access to http-referer information across all of these....it'd be hard to imagine an analytics company coming close to competing.
The real question is, what could they possibly add that I wouldn't want to rip to my computer or device or just download in the first place? If they can put it on the CD....uh...yeah. What they need to do, is get over it.
I love that science can't involve policy statements. The promote free an open presentation of ideas regarding the facts, but are not to make policy statements:
Dear patient: You have lung cancer. I'm not at liberty to discuss if we should do anything about it.
If you drive your car over the cliff you will die. I have no opinion on whether or not you should drive your car over the cliff.
Its just not fun to buy music as a gift when its just "the bits". The real question is what will purchases be like _after_ the holiday season when people are indeed filling up their new iPods.
And...you emited a crapload of CO2, a ridiculously large amount of particulate pollutant and made a bunch of stink.
The requirement is not that things go really far on a tank, but that they go as far on a refill to fit with the current distribution of refilling stations around the country.
I am all for what you are doing - totally commendable. But...it pales in comparison to the dream hydrogen car. Think solar power produces storeable hydrogen produces energy and water. We'd be able to see the hills of LA that are rumored to exist.
Its always a cat & mouse game. Secure thing, exploit found for thing, secure thing etc.
If it were not, security would have been solved and the entire concept wouldn't exist anymore. Or...maybe we're about to achieve it? Wait...I've got the fix! I'm rich....I'm rich!
Security gets good, exploits are found...rinse wash repeat. All we can do is get better and rinsing and washing.
What we measure is not is one secure and the other not, but is one setup to less easily exploited, more easily fixed and then fuzzies like is the organization commmitted to security, able to respond well etc. etc. etc.
His rationale compelled legislation. I do like the "build the sidewalk where people walk" (gennerall) approach to legislation, as infrequently as it is follwed.
But...everyone smokes weed, it still illegal. Oral-sex was illegal and it wasn't even taking moola from anyone. Its only our naivate that makes us think that this sort of argument will influence any legislator beyond a few on the fringe.
Hard to not see this as for google, not for us
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
Hey:
Seems like this is a slippery slope toward increasing searches on indentified keywords, rather an unpredictable search words. If it can't be predicted and isn't common then it can't be sold via adwords.
If they can consolodate outlier searches that they believe (or can convince the searcher) are really looking for something that is more commonly searched for via a specific phrase then its in their interest to do it.
Other than spelling mistakes, what value is this to the user? I just gon't see it as much more than a way of increasing google $.
So...your comments are presented quite succinctly, but a myth-busted is not to say that it wasn't heading in the right direction. To your points:
1.) Yes! Certain trials were destined to affect this president with regards to the economy. Unless you _still_ believe trickle down is good for the masses then things like HIS tax cuts are hard to stomach. Also...his energy policy, invading energy critical areas of the war etc, lack of investment in renewable energy are all long-term bad decisions for the economy. Shipping jobs? Arguably bad for spending since the UNEMPLOYED DON'T BUY CHRISTMAS PRESENTS.
2.) Bush did deal with 0-11 and no-one could have stopped the drop. Thats so true! Hardly gives Bush any points though since anyone could have done it. Me for president!
3.) Yes! And Clinton bombed those camps. And..Clinton made it clear that terrorists were the single biggest threat to national security. Bush said...missile defense is where we should spend our money. Increased contracts with Lockheed and such...they don't stop rats in the streets, they stop COLD WAR STYLE SHIT. He (BUSHCO) lost focus on VERY CLEAR information that was handed to him. This is what happens when you import a bunch of cabinet members who haven't seen the light of government work since the heart of the cold war. Heck...even Condy is a cold-war specialist, but at least her brain is nimbe enough to do a semi-adjustment.
4.) Yup. Kerry is for some of the same shit that Bush is for. Is that an argument for or against Kerry? Are you patting him on the back?
5.) This is the worst interpretation of Kerry's policy I have EVER HEARD. Kerry makes clear that the ponderance of allies would warrant action. I think that (assuming we have any allies left) the invastion of France and England and half the western world would suffice under the proposed Kerry Doctrine. Arguably Desert Storm I would pass muster. Take another look.
6.) Liberals hiding from what? Wasn't it Clinton that created terrorism as the number one priority and BushCo that dropped it until after 9-11? The commission (even the commission which seems a bit hog-tied...waiting on some CIA docs that are magically held up currently) seems to think so? More than 1/2 the senate seems to think so.
7.) Ahhh...the global police AND our need to access global markets in the same sentence. Doesn't that just sum up the sickness of this administrations objectives. Scream freedom! and then push products. Sounds more like tyranny to me. I think a collection of countries providing policing services is at least marginally better than one country doing so. How exactly could it be bad? I like to consult with a friend before I bomb my neighbor...seems like a reasonable axiom for decision making that involves bombing the #@$# out of a bunch of people.
8.) Social Security = Handout. That is a very fascinating view of things. Have you EVER LOOKED AT YOUR PAY STUB?
9.) OOOPS...my numbering is off. I forgot to address the 100,000 deaths. While that statistic is clearly wrong (study states that there is a 95% chance that somewhere between 8,000 and 200,000 people have died as a result of the invastion and 100,000 is basically the average) conservative estimates DO STATE (other studies) that at least 15K have died from actual invastion (bombs, guns, falling buildings etc.). Thats a big enough number for me! At what point exactly does the number get small enough that I just shouldn't care? That I shouldn't make policy decisions to try to avoid that number? Hmmmm.
Your summary;
I'm not quite sure where you are going with your capitalism rant. Your use of jargon is all over the place, like a half-assed college education might provide. "Liberalism" and "capitalism" you seem to think are at odds. Check out the dictionary...liberalism's very definition includes the free market (and historically the gold standard, a bit wac...but whatever). What I think you have a problem with is the injection of certain adjustments in the form of social programs and those that are funded by taxation. I just plain ole disagree and would love to chat with you about assuming you can get your head out of your ass and vote for Kerry.
Its great to ask this question, and I'm all for cheap hardware. But...given that hardware must be manufactured, consume raw materials etc. I would expect that the floor cost for hardware should _never_ go as low as the floor cost of software - especially after you get past some R&D point for both.
Can you say "monopoly"? It seems much clearer to me that software ought to have some fully commodified components and that the OS ought to be that component. Given that the world of software has (intelligently) landed on layered architectures, we'd expect to be spending money at the higher layers and have ever increasing commodification at the lower layers. Again...can you say monopoly?
Now...I"m not arguing that hardware should NOT fall under this rule, but....well....some costs associated with hardware are a given, and those costs will forever be higher than the "given" costs of software.
well...I'm not _sure_ that is a kicker. Saying that video games are not explicitly protected doesn't mean that they are not...
Photography is not explicitly protected. Nor is Painting... What is explicitly protected is stuff that isn't porn, isn't hate speech etc. explicity protections are implied, restrictions are enumerated (vaguely sometimes). So...I think they've just put video games in the same bucket as EVERYTHING else....
but I don't know what the @#@$# I'm talking about....
I just read the ruling, and what's going on is that Video Games are protected forms of speech because they are video games. Just like Photography is protected categorically just because there is Ansel Adams in the world.
I guess I don't see too much of a problem with this if the lines are kept clean (that it doesn't sway toward limiting protections to Video Games - giving greater meaning to medium of "Video Game" to an to "Photography" or "Cinematography". I certainly think it would be possible to create "hate speech" or "pornography" within the context of a video game and that when that judgement is made it should follow in line with the policies.
Now...I'm not saying I agree with where the current line is drawn...but that's different topic!
aligning the term "video game" with the term "pornography" without the work done to define pornography (there is artistic nudity in the current court interpretations that is very protected, if frequently threatended) is just too overbroad.
It's like saying that "photography" is not protected. When it comes down to it, there is sufficient medium agnostic protections and delineations to cover our buts on this stuff - throwing in video games categorically makes not sense and I'd guess it won't last.
If I were microsoft I'd just turn over the code. The duration of time it would take anyone to do a thorough analysis of the codebase (years?) with regards to the issues at hand would PROVE that decoupling is likely infeasible - Microsoft would sureley have to do the same analysis and that would tremendously impede release cycles, resources etc...
Re:Internet in Afghanistan highly doubtful
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Doubtful? I had regular internet communication with relative TREKKING in the MOUNTAINS of Afghanistan just this past spring. Doubtful? I think not.
He said it was not difficult to find internet access, although it was not predictable where he would find it, he managed to write every 3-4 days over a period of 3 months. It was always secretative, his messages were short, but he managed. I'm sure the american-ness helped people's willingness to open up their computers to him.
Firstly, the argument here states that it is ethical to distribute music because it is not a scarce "resource" and differentiates this "resource" from things like property and personal safety. Copyright law exists specifically to protect the PROPERTY rights of individuals and to acknowledge their rights over said property. So...perhaps we may need to redefine our ideas of personal property but at the moment we regard land and things that can be owned and things that can be copywritten through remarkably similar forms.
The GPL and BSD license are fantastically different than distribution of music by Napster. I think it is worth noting (!!!) that the GPL - by the mere fact that exists - acknowledges the rights of creators of "stuff" to do with it what they please. Part of these rights are currently NOT putting your software out under GPL, right?
The RIAA has no objection to people freely distributing music that is offered as freely distributable. This is identical to the GPL. Are you proposing the removal of all copyright law? It kinda sounds that way.
It seems that in the world you describe, if there is a marginal difference in a piece of information, a bit of technology, a piece of music relative to total frivolity that it is ethical to distribute it freely without the consent of the creator or the owner of the article?
There is a far great social interest in breaking down market barriers such as cost and ease of distribution for AIDS medications than for music - this is not apples to apples in an argument that is based on ethics, is it?
So, I sound like I'm pro RIAA here don't I. I'm not at all, but I think that calling this a SIMPLE ethical situation is naive. I'd put this in the "wow...that's a tricky" one category.
Now...what napster TECHNOLOGY can do is remove what has been the driver of RIAA control and the screwing of the artist - control over the methods of distribution. Distribution is what the artist can't get...until now. So...music should be cheaper...I don't think we should be paying for the unnecessary costs associated with the current structure of record industry...but I don't think that if someone creates something as amazing as a piece of music that it should be freely distributed without any potential for financial gain by the creator...unless that is what they want.
So...I have the RIAA because they defend the old world. They know that their companies exist because they have filled the economies-of-scale role necessary for a small artist to get their records out into the big world. But...I'd be happy to pay 2 dollars for a bunch of music if that maximized the cost/value ratio and still rewarded the artists. No problem.
While the simultaneous connection thing is pretty impressive and I love it, blah, blah, blah. This scenario is very different than what Napster had achiever in relation to the recording industry. Napster was MUSIC. Other file swapping systems include lots of other stuff - notably porn. So...don't look for this threat to be as high profile as Napster.....YET.
Re:nice, but welcome back to the real world
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 1
Agreed. I believe the good professor misses the point on several fronts. Firstly - and importantly - bridges aren't perfect. I'd put money on my belief they have their flaws and that any designer of bridges can tell you of those that are engineering marvels and those that are not. Secondly, you'd build a bridge VERY differently if you only needed it to last for 2 years, if it didn't need to stand up to an earthquake and if when you fell through the hole in the bottom of the bridge you landed safely on a pile of silly puddy. Software is good or bad relative to the requirements of the project.
It seems very "academic" to discuss the beauty of the code outside of knowledge of the requirements of a given project. Many of the engineering basics of bridge building go into building a toy bridge out of lego (trademark I'm sure, yada yada), but I hardly need to give it the same rigor as the Golden Gate (which by the way is constantly under retrofit because it's not quite as good as advertised).
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot previously had an article discussing pointless research (which was an interesting and surprisingly two side story). But...this "study" would be an example of said (truly) pointless research.
As soon as they had the hypothesis that people would pick up these sticks and put them in their computer the problem was exposed. Any real leadership would just have moved to solve this problem, rather than prove that it is indeed a problem. I would hope that the "security experts" at the DoHS would ponder than an outcome of 1% and an outcome of 99% would basically be the same problem and studying the particular location on this spectrum should bear little relationship to the need to address the problem.
would you let a device that you couldn't administer onto a network you were responsible for?
Probably not. Its a reasonable request. Maybe you can trade with said IT guy and see if he's designed any surgical devices he'd like to see get some action :)
if the world weren't about to end.
If I were google, I'd be pretty psyched to be the only ad provider who can triangulate from search to ad delivery. Thats a real coup in terms of unique analytics for them. Between every page that has their ads on it, every site that uses their site analytics and every request that has google.com as the launch point (and access to http-referer information across all of these....it'd be hard to imagine an analytics company coming close to competing.
There are many more desserts than just cookies.
The real question is, what could they possibly add that I wouldn't want to rip to my computer or device or just download in the first place? If they can put it on the CD....uh...yeah. What they need to do, is get over it.
Heaven forbid we let experts make policy!
Ugh.
Its just not fun to buy music as a gift when its just "the bits". The real question is what will purchases be like _after_ the holiday season when people are indeed filling up their new iPods.
And...you emited a crapload of CO2, a ridiculously large amount of particulate pollutant and made a bunch of stink.
The requirement is not that things go really far on a tank, but that they go as far on a refill to fit with the current distribution of refilling stations around the country.
I am all for what you are doing - totally commendable. But...it pales in comparison to the dream hydrogen car. Think solar power produces storeable hydrogen produces energy and water. We'd be able to see the hills of LA that are rumored to exist.
Its always a cat & mouse game. Secure thing, exploit found for thing, secure thing etc.
If it were not, security would have been solved and the entire concept wouldn't exist anymore. Or...maybe we're about to achieve it? Wait...I've got the fix! I'm rich....I'm rich!
Security gets good, exploits are found...rinse wash repeat. All we can do is get better and rinsing and washing.
What we measure is not is one secure and the other not, but is one setup to less easily exploited, more easily fixed and then fuzzies like is the organization commmitted to security, able to respond well etc. etc. etc.
His rationale compelled legislation. I do like the "build the sidewalk where people walk" (gennerall) approach to legislation, as infrequently as it is follwed.
But...everyone smokes weed, it still illegal. Oral-sex was illegal and it wasn't even taking moola from anyone. Its only our naivate that makes us think that this sort of argument will influence any legislator beyond a few on the fringe.
Hey:
Seems like this is a slippery slope toward increasing searches on indentified keywords, rather an unpredictable search words. If it can't be predicted and isn't common then it can't be sold via adwords.
If they can consolodate outlier searches that they believe (or can convince the searcher) are really looking for something that is more commonly searched for via a specific phrase then its in their interest to do it.
Other than spelling mistakes, what value is this to the user? I just gon't see it as much more than a way of increasing google $.
So...your comments are presented quite succinctly, but a myth-busted is not to say that it wasn't heading in the right direction. To your points:
1.) Yes! Certain trials were destined to affect this president with regards to the economy. Unless you _still_ believe trickle down is good for the masses then things like HIS tax cuts are hard to stomach. Also...his energy policy, invading energy critical areas of the war etc, lack of investment in renewable energy are all long-term bad decisions for the economy. Shipping jobs? Arguably bad for spending since the UNEMPLOYED DON'T BUY CHRISTMAS PRESENTS.
2.) Bush did deal with 0-11 and no-one could have stopped the drop. Thats so true! Hardly gives Bush any points though since anyone could have done it. Me for president!
3.) Yes! And Clinton bombed those camps. And..Clinton made it clear that terrorists were the single biggest threat to national security. Bush said...missile defense is where we should spend our money. Increased contracts with Lockheed and such...they don't stop rats in the streets, they stop COLD WAR STYLE SHIT. He (BUSHCO) lost focus on VERY CLEAR information that was handed to him. This is what happens when you import a bunch of cabinet members who haven't seen the light of government work since the heart of the cold war. Heck...even Condy is a cold-war specialist, but at least her brain is nimbe enough to do a semi-adjustment.
4.) Yup. Kerry is for some of the same shit that Bush is for. Is that an argument for or against Kerry? Are you patting him on the back?
5.) This is the worst interpretation of Kerry's policy I have EVER HEARD. Kerry makes clear that the ponderance of allies would warrant action. I think that (assuming we have any allies left) the invastion of France and England and half the western world would suffice under the proposed Kerry Doctrine. Arguably Desert Storm I would pass muster. Take another look.
6.) Liberals hiding from what? Wasn't it Clinton that created terrorism as the number one priority and BushCo that dropped it until after 9-11? The commission (even the commission which seems a bit hog-tied...waiting on some CIA docs that are magically held up currently) seems to think so? More than 1/2 the senate seems to think so.
7.) Ahhh...the global police AND our need to access global markets in the same sentence. Doesn't that just sum up the sickness of this administrations objectives. Scream freedom! and then push products. Sounds more like tyranny to me. I think a collection of countries providing policing services is at least marginally better than one country doing so. How exactly could it be bad? I like to consult with a friend before I bomb my neighbor...seems like a reasonable axiom for decision making that involves bombing the #@$# out of a bunch of people.
8.) Social Security = Handout. That is a very fascinating view of things. Have you EVER LOOKED AT YOUR PAY STUB?
9.) OOOPS...my numbering is off. I forgot to address the 100,000 deaths. While that statistic is clearly wrong (study states that there is a 95% chance that somewhere between 8,000 and 200,000 people have died as a result of the invastion and 100,000 is basically the average) conservative estimates DO STATE (other studies) that at least 15K have died from actual invastion (bombs, guns, falling buildings etc.). Thats a big enough number for me! At what point exactly does the number get small enough that I just shouldn't care? That I shouldn't make policy decisions to try to avoid that number? Hmmmm.
Your summary;
I'm not quite sure where you are going with your capitalism rant. Your use of jargon is all over the place, like a half-assed college education might provide. "Liberalism" and "capitalism" you seem to think are at odds. Check out the dictionary...liberalism's very definition includes the free market (and historically the gold standard, a bit wac...but whatever). What I think you have a problem with is the injection of certain adjustments in the form of social programs and those that are funded by taxation. I just plain ole disagree and would love to chat with you about assuming you can get your head out of your ass and vote for Kerry.
Hey:
Its great to ask this question, and I'm all for cheap hardware. But...given that hardware must be manufactured, consume raw materials etc. I would expect that the floor cost for hardware should _never_ go as low as the floor cost of software - especially after you get past some R&D point for both.
Can you say "monopoly"? It seems much clearer to me that software ought to have some fully commodified components and that the OS ought to be that component. Given that the world of software has (intelligently) landed on layered architectures, we'd expect to be spending money at the higher layers and have ever increasing commodification at the lower layers. Again...can you say monopoly?
Now...I"m not arguing that hardware should NOT fall under this rule, but....well....some costs associated with hardware are a given, and those costs will forever be higher than the "given" costs of software.
Just my 2cents.
The google dude didn't have to leave his home or pick up the phone. Fat-assification and no need social interaction are clear advantages of google...
Nicenet has been around for 7 years and servers thousands of students and teachers each semester. It's free...it is a good cause.
Try http://www.nicenet.org . Simple, widely used and FREE. It's designed for the classroom.
well...I'm not _sure_ that is a kicker. Saying that video games are not explicitly protected doesn't mean that they are not...
Photography is not explicitly protected. Nor is Painting... What is explicitly protected is stuff that isn't porn, isn't hate speech etc. explicity protections are implied, restrictions are enumerated (vaguely sometimes). So...I think they've just put video games in the same bucket as EVERYTHING else....
but I don't know what the @#@$# I'm talking about....
I just read the ruling, and what's going on is that Video Games are protected forms of speech because they are video games. Just like Photography is protected categorically just because there is Ansel Adams in the world.
I guess I don't see too much of a problem with this if the lines are kept clean (that it doesn't sway toward limiting protections to Video Games - giving greater meaning to medium of "Video Game" to an to "Photography" or "Cinematography". I certainly think it would be possible to create "hate speech" or "pornography" within the context of a video game and that when that judgement is made it should follow in line with the policies.
Now...I'm not saying I agree with where the current line is drawn...but that's different topic!
aligning the term "video game" with the term "pornography" without the work done to define pornography (there is artistic nudity in the current court interpretations that is very protected, if frequently threatended) is just too overbroad.
It's like saying that "photography" is not protected. When it comes down to it, there is sufficient medium agnostic protections and delineations to cover our buts on this stuff - throwing in video games categorically makes not sense and I'd guess it won't last.
If I were microsoft I'd just turn over the code. The duration of time it would take anyone to do a thorough analysis of the codebase (years?) with regards to the issues at hand would PROVE that decoupling is likely infeasible - Microsoft would sureley have to do the same analysis and that would tremendously impede release cycles, resources etc...
Doubtful? I had regular internet communication with relative TREKKING in the MOUNTAINS of Afghanistan just this past spring. Doubtful? I think not.
He said it was not difficult to find internet access, although it was not predictable where he would find it, he managed to write every 3-4 days over a period of 3 months. It was always secretative, his messages were short, but he managed. I'm sure the american-ness helped people's willingness to open up their computers to him.
I just don't by this argument.
Firstly, the argument here states that it is ethical to distribute music because it is not a scarce "resource" and differentiates this "resource" from things like property and personal safety. Copyright law exists specifically to protect the PROPERTY rights of individuals and to acknowledge their rights over said property. So...perhaps we may need to redefine our ideas of personal property but at the moment we regard land and things that can be owned and things that can be copywritten through remarkably similar forms.
The GPL and BSD license are fantastically different than distribution of music by Napster. I think it is worth noting (!!!) that the GPL - by the mere fact that exists - acknowledges the rights of creators of "stuff" to do with it what they please. Part of these rights are currently NOT putting your software out under GPL, right?
The RIAA has no objection to people freely distributing music that is offered as freely distributable. This is identical to the GPL. Are you proposing the removal of all copyright law? It kinda sounds that way.
It seems that in the world you describe, if there is a marginal difference in a piece of information, a bit of technology, a piece of music relative to total frivolity that it is ethical to distribute it freely without the consent of the creator or the owner of the article?
There is a far great social interest in breaking down market barriers such as cost and ease of distribution for AIDS medications than for music - this is not apples to apples in an argument that is based on ethics, is it?
So, I sound like I'm pro RIAA here don't I. I'm not at all, but I think that calling this a SIMPLE ethical situation is naive. I'd put this in the "wow...that's a tricky" one category.
Now...what napster TECHNOLOGY can do is remove what has been the driver of RIAA control and the screwing of the artist - control over the methods of distribution. Distribution is what the artist can't get...until now. So...music should be cheaper...I don't think we should be paying for the unnecessary costs associated with the current structure of record industry...but I don't think that if someone creates something as amazing as a piece of music that it should be freely distributed without any potential for financial gain by the creator...unless that is what they want.
So...I have the RIAA because they defend the old world. They know that their companies exist because they have filled the economies-of-scale role necessary for a small artist to get their records out into the big world. But...I'd be happy to pay 2 dollars for a bunch of music if that maximized the cost/value ratio and still rewarded the artists. No problem.
While the simultaneous connection thing is pretty impressive and I love it, blah, blah, blah. This scenario is very different than what Napster had achiever in relation to the recording industry. Napster was MUSIC. Other file swapping systems include lots of other stuff - notably porn. So...don't look for this threat to be as high profile as Napster.....YET.
Agreed. I believe the good professor misses the point on several fronts. Firstly - and importantly - bridges aren't perfect. I'd put money on my belief they have their flaws and that any designer of bridges can tell you of those that are engineering marvels and those that are not. Secondly, you'd build a bridge VERY differently if you only needed it to last for 2 years, if it didn't need to stand up to an earthquake and if when you fell through the hole in the bottom of the bridge you landed safely on a pile of silly puddy. Software is good or bad relative to the requirements of the project.
It seems very "academic" to discuss the beauty of the code outside of knowledge of the requirements of a given project. Many of the engineering basics of bridge building go into building a toy bridge out of lego (trademark I'm sure, yada yada), but I hardly need to give it the same rigor as the Golden Gate (which by the way is constantly under retrofit because it's not quite as good as advertised).
Keep it real.