It's handy, but it's hardly a Mozilla innovation. QuickSearch, one of the free IE PowerToys that came out circa IE4, added very similar functionality to IE. It still works with IE6.
I'm sure there is some human oversight. That doesn't bother me so long as it's only used in cases where the automated search tech isn't yet able to cope. Googlebombing, for example, deserved to be squashed before it was exploited any further. That (apparently) required human intervention this time around, but the long-term solution is obviously to improve their ranking algorithm.
Those are good questions. There are lots of other things that people probably assume are private, but which may actually be public information. For example, how much you paid when you bought your house, and (depending on your employer) perhaps even your salary.
"I suspect that some places, particularly bars and banks, will assume that the license is forged and treat you/it differently..."
They might, but I imagine that enough magstrips really are erased by accident to require a policy for when it happens. I imagine that people working around equipment with strong magnetic fields would be familiar with this problem. MRI scanners, for example, can wreak havok with credit cards.
The desktop is a "private part" of the user's computer? Not hardly. And, yes, they're paid placements for companies with whom they have a financial relationship. I don't have a problem with that.
That's true. But measures put in place to curb pollution are not without consequences of their own. Some of the unintended or unknown consequences, like what we've seen after substituting MTBE for tetraethyl lead in gasoline, may be worse than the problems they were intended to solve.
If you have an urgent problem then it often makes sense to make an immediate decision and hope that the unknown consequences are better than the known disaster. If your house is on fire, then jumping out the window and risking serious injury makes sense. But if your house has a leaky roof then jumping out the window is not a rational reaction; the solution to the problem isn't appropriate and doesn't warrant the severe consequences. When every environmental problem these days is posed as being an imminent planet-threatening disaster then it becomes very difficult to rationally weigh what we need to do and how quickly it needs to be done.
Even the most recalcitrant of industries have begun to realize that they have to clean up their mess, it's just a matter of how to do it without bankrupting themselves and/or putting huge numbers of people out of work. Environmentalists need to take a more pragmatic approach and stop preaching continual doom and hellfire before they lose what credibility they have left.
"The bottom line here is that you are being paid to work, not to check your personal email, IM your friends, or post to Slashdot. If that seems unreasonable, start your own damn company."
Nonsense. You're not a manager, are you? The attitude that employees should become mindless drones the moment they step into the office is incredibly shortsighted. Employees are people first, and if you want them to be productive and happy they need to be treated with respect.
If a company's employees are nonproductive and waste massive amounts of time doing personal stuff at work, then I strongly suspect that they would be equally nonproductive with or without personal email or the web. Perhaps we should just shackle all employees to their desks, put blinders on them to avoid distractions, and forbid unnecessary speech.
As for the supposed security risks, if an employee is so poorly trained and the network so poorly secured that a single employee clicking on executable file will cripple a company for days, then you have serious problems. The company should be glad they were exposed (and presumably fixed) before they were deliberately exploited by someone with sinister intentions.
If a company that treats its employees like slackers, idiots and criminals then the employees will most certainly treat the company with the same contempt. And rightfully so.
I'm sure we'd find all sorts of environmental impact when scaling up the "friendly" power sources enough to be practical.
Windmills can chop up migrating birds, and enough of them can interfere with local wind patterns. Acres of solar panels out in the desert result in what's essentially a huge silicon parking lot, killing off the desert life underneath and creating hot spots that may have unanticipated effects on the local weather.
There's no such thing as a power source that doesn't have some environmental impact. The problem is that some environmentalists have decided that certain technologies should recieve more scrutiny than others. It's dishonest. I'm not saying that we have the best of all possible power infrastructures, but we need less FUD and hype and more rational consideration of all the alternatives.
"As an employer you are looking to maximize output for a minimum outlay of cash. It is up to the *employee* to determine when and if he/she is being paid fairly for his/her services."
Yes and no. A good employer recognizes that minimizing expenses doesn't necessarily equate with maximizing output. Paying an employee a bit more is very much worth it if it saves you the expense, time, and lost productivity of training a replacement.
It also means that your employees aren't constantly paranoid about being manipulated in whatever way may happen to maximize output this week. Money isn't everything, after all.
"The GPS onboard the ship updates the ships current position on the charting software running on the NT workstation so the master can see where they are with respect to the course that has been plotted previously."
Unless you have drooling idiots configuring your NT box, you shouldn't have a problem. NT/2000 uptimes are very good for properly configured and maintained systems. (Except, apparently, for Linux advocates with an axe to grind.) But if the system is as critical to the daily operation of the ship as you indicate, then there should be a duplicate system either running in parallel or ready to drop in at a moment's notice. If the hardware fails then it doesn't really matter which OS you're running.
"The ship also has access to email (and consiquently attachments) at sea via Immersat satellite software + (uhh-ohh) Microsoft Outlook. If a member of the ships crew were to open an email attachment apparently from the office, which was in fact a virus, and the network security was not up to scratch, it may have the capacity to shut down not only the ships main course plotting software (sending them to backup paper charts), but to disturb the monitoring of oil/balast on & off the ship in the dock."
How so? First off, Outlook is not difficult to secure, unless people insist on running random executables and disabling routine security options. And I would certainly hope people aren't checking their email or running extraneous programs on the navigation computer described above. That would be silly.
But, leaving aside the religious preference of OS and email apps, if any physically unsecured computer on the ship could be used to cripple the vessel or mess with monitoring systems then that seems like a fairly big security problem all by itself.
"Good products and services sell themselves; it is the junk that you push."
Not so. Nothing "sells itself". It's true that good products are sold by word of mouth, but people still have to know the product exists and that it has certain advantages that they may appreciate.
A well-advertised and more widely distributed inferior product will often sell better than the superior alternative, simply because the better product is unknown to the customer or too difficult for them to obtain, or simply too expensive. Not that that's always a bad thing; an "inferior" product is often good enough for the purposes at hand, especially if your task is not demanding or the time for researching the alternatives is limited.
You're clearly intent on inventing a conflict where none exists. Gates laid out the software's memory configuration in order to accomodate the documented hardware limitations built into the platform for which he was writing. That's all he's saying.
It's only a "major flaw" if you don't understand the intended use of the substance. Try reading the article:
"Riots, protests, noncombatant evacuations, and sanction enforcement are just a few of the situations where this kind of tactical barrier would be most useful," says Capt. Andrew B. Warren, MDS project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command, headquartered in Quantico, Va.
...
"The concept of employment for this system is to be part of a barrier or obstacle plan that will provide stand-off distance and force protection for U.S. military personnel," says Warren. "The MDS will be applicable in many different missions to include checkpoint operations, denying avenues of approach, and dealing with confrontational crowds."
Not for crowd control. Not for encouraging dispersal. It's purpose is as a quickly deployed barrier against incursion by people or vehicles that they need to be kept out.
And people get injured in riots and attacks all the time. Current old-fasioned non-lethal weapons are, in fact, _designed_ to injure, in preference to killing outright. There are some circumstances where you have to stop people from doing violent things, particularly in millitary situations.
"Noone complains about receiving email that they requested, knowingly."
Actually, given a large enough group some people inevitably do. It's not all that uncommon for people to opt-in to quiet mailing lists, forget all about it, and then complain when they recieve email.
I believe you are missing the point. If I understand you correctly, that 3% includes the largest and most frequent contributors. Their postings to the message boards are likley a large part the reason why the other 97% of visitor are here.
They're also the ones who are likely to take greatest offense to the new advertising, either on general principles or simply because they see so much more of it because they're here more often.
The incentive offered for subscribing is to remove the ads. But by charging the most frequently contributing users more to achieve the same effect you're creating a disincentive for participation among the population you need the most. If you want to keep them around it follows that they should be the ones most lightly touched by your new subscription scheme, but the reverse is currently true.
Consider aborting this plan and go to a flat rate, or at least offer it an option.
"I know NT 4 refused to boot when headless, and AFAIK, Win2k and XP won't either (but I'm not sure about that)."
Yes, they will boot headless. That is, the OS has no problem with staring up and running without a keyboard, mouse, or monitor. (Actually, NT4 could also boot headless, though it may have required some configuration to avoid undesirable side effects; it's been a while.)
"Returning to smallpox, saying that no cases have been reported does not mean that the virus no longer exists in nature, or indeed, that there have been no cases."
Good grief. No one claims that every single smallpox virus has been wiped off the face of the planet. Do you see huge numbers of people dropping dead from smallpox epidemics? No? Then things are certainly much improved. If a relative handful of
"Also, the vaccination program that led to the decline of smallpox caused debilitating illness and death in and of itself. The scientists didn't predict that."
Yes they did know that, and they didn't keep it a secret, either. Vaccination always carries a small risk of infection, be it for smallbox, polio, etc. It wasn't something new or unexpected.
"Don't get me wrong, I think that anything that can alleviate suffering and poverty in the third world is worth considering, but forcing the extinction of an organism can not be considered a viable option."
Frankly, I think you'd feel differently in their position. It's an interesting academic discussion for us, but for them it's swarms of deadly insects and large numbers of people dying on a regular basis.
It's a straw-man argument anyway. We couldn't kill off every single fly if we wanted to, and no one's even trying. This same technique has been used routinely for lots of other insects with no ill effects. It's safe--it's dying from insect-borne illnesses that dangerous.
"I ***know*** what it running on my system. I know this because I built the binaries myself. I know this because I can look at the source code and see what it does."
But _have_ you actually audited the source code, and do you have the knowledge and expertise to understand all of it? If so, then more power to you.
"Firstly, you speak as if the United States Constitution is in some way 'right'."
Actually, yes, it is right. Any government which does not acknowledge the fundemental freedoms of it's citizenry is, inherently, a bad government.
And I think you have it backwards. No document, including the Constitution, can grant rights to anyone. Governments have no rights to give, only powers granted to them by those they govern. The rights noted in the Constitution are inherent to all human beings, built-in and present at the time of birth no matter where you live or what form over gov't you live under. Members of a society may choose to abridge or suspend the exersize of those rights under certain cirumstances, and evil governments may punish their citizenry for exersizing their rights, but by definition they cannot take them away.
"Secondly; when composing this did you not notice that Freedom of Speech was the first Ammendment to the Constitution? I.E, that it was clearly not sufficiently fundamental as to be included in the original document?"
That's ridiculous. The Amendments that became Bill of Rights were added to the full text of the Constitution because some of the states didn't feel that the checks and balances written into the Constitution itself did an adequate job of emphasizing the limits of governmental power, or the rights of the governed. (And, considering how often people assume the powers of government are unlimited by default, as you apparently do, they were right.)
The Bill of Rights was a concession to those states who's representatives were unwilling to ratify the Constition without it. They were largely agreed to before the Constitution was ratified and, in accordance with the way the new government worked, ratified by Congress shortly thereafter. Most of the provisions were already present and active in the State's constitutions, so this was more of a safeguard against later abuse than an urgent matter requiring immediate action.
The fact that three states didn't ratify them until later is meaningless, since they'd already been passed. Their ratifications in 1939 were largely symbolic event done for the sesquicentennial of the Constitution, and certainly doesn't mean that they didn't support the Amendments. Massachusetts, in particular, was one of the states that pretty much demanded the amendments in the first place. Connecticut and Georgia were among those who felt an explict list of rights was unnecessary, and possibly even harmful because it could be misinterpreted as limiting the rights of the people when the intent was actually just the opposite. None of those three states opposed the Amendments, as disingenously implied in your post.
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/b il lmain.html
They've been sending up weather balloons for decades now. They're a practical and environmentally benign way of gathering weather data. I hardly think that this is symptomatic of anything, except perhaps of clear thinking that gets the job done.
You're right. And since moving between states is hardly uncommon it would only take a relatively short time for the whole thing to become completely arbitrary. And suppose I have residences in two states? Am I entitled to domain names in both?
Journalists are all sheep. The public are all sheep. Everyone that disagrees with us or fails to acknowledge our conclusions are sheep. We'd run for office and change things for the better, but the bleating masses would never be smart enough to vote for us, being sheep and all.
Did it occur to you that you might simply be wrong? That your perception of the truth (i.e. the "coup" in 2000) is so partisian, so unsupported by facts, and so bizzarely at odds with reality that people just don't take such opinions seriously? I certainly don't take them seriously. But don't get all introspective or anything, I suppose that's simply because I'm so much less enlightened than all you guys. Carry on.
Slashdot Mirror
It's handy, but it's hardly a Mozilla innovation. QuickSearch, one of the free IE PowerToys that came out circa IE4, added very similar functionality to IE. It still works with IE6.
I'm sure there is some human oversight. That doesn't bother me so long as it's only used in cases where the automated search tech isn't yet able to cope. Googlebombing, for example, deserved to be squashed before it was exploited any further. That (apparently) required human intervention this time around, but the long-term solution is obviously to improve their ranking algorithm.
Those are good questions. There are lots of other things that people probably assume are private, but which may actually be public information. For example, how much you paid when you bought your house, and (depending on your employer) perhaps even your salary.
"I suspect that some places, particularly bars and banks, will assume that the license is forged and treat you/it differently..."
They might, but I imagine that enough magstrips really are erased by accident to require a policy for when it happens. I imagine that people working around equipment with strong magnetic fields would be familiar with this problem. MRI scanners, for example, can wreak havok with credit cards.
It's quite possible to do exactly the same thing with Windows 2000 or XP, of course.
The desktop is a "private part" of the user's computer? Not hardly. And, yes, they're paid placements for companies with whom they have a financial relationship. I don't have a problem with that.
That's true. But measures put in place to curb pollution are not without consequences of their own. Some of the unintended or unknown consequences, like what we've seen after substituting MTBE for tetraethyl lead in gasoline, may be worse than the problems they were intended to solve.
If you have an urgent problem then it often makes sense to make an immediate decision and hope that the unknown consequences are better than the known disaster. If your house is on fire, then jumping out the window and risking serious injury makes sense. But if your house has a leaky roof then jumping out the window is not a rational reaction; the solution to the problem isn't appropriate and doesn't warrant the severe consequences. When every environmental problem these days is posed as being an imminent planet-threatening disaster then it becomes very difficult to rationally weigh what we need to do and how quickly it needs to be done.
Even the most recalcitrant of industries have begun to realize that they have to clean up their mess, it's just a matter of how to do it without bankrupting themselves and/or putting huge numbers of people out of work. Environmentalists need to take a more pragmatic approach and stop preaching continual doom and hellfire before they lose what credibility they have left.
"Ground up rewriting means that you chuck out your old inefficient car and get a new better one."
More like throwing out your existing car and designing, engineering, and building a new one yourself.
"The bottom line here is that you are being paid to work, not to check your personal email, IM your friends, or post to Slashdot. If that seems unreasonable, start your own damn company."
Nonsense. You're not a manager, are you? The attitude that employees should become mindless drones the moment they step into the office is incredibly shortsighted. Employees are people first, and if you want them to be productive and happy they need to be treated with respect.
If a company's employees are nonproductive and waste massive amounts of time doing personal stuff at work, then I strongly suspect that they would be equally nonproductive with or without personal email or the web. Perhaps we should just shackle all employees to their desks, put blinders on them to avoid distractions, and forbid unnecessary speech.
As for the supposed security risks, if an employee is so poorly trained and the network so poorly secured that a single employee clicking on executable file will cripple a company for days, then you have serious problems. The company should be glad they were exposed (and presumably fixed) before they were deliberately exploited by someone with sinister intentions.
If a company that treats its employees like slackers, idiots and criminals then the employees will most certainly treat the company with the same contempt. And rightfully so.
I'm sure we'd find all sorts of environmental impact when scaling up the "friendly" power sources enough to be practical.
Windmills can chop up migrating birds, and enough of them can interfere with local wind patterns. Acres of solar panels out in the desert result in what's essentially a huge silicon parking lot, killing off the desert life underneath and creating hot spots that may have unanticipated effects on the local weather.
There's no such thing as a power source that doesn't have some environmental impact. The problem is that some environmentalists have decided that certain technologies should recieve more scrutiny than others. It's dishonest. I'm not saying that we have the best of all possible power infrastructures, but we need less FUD and hype and more rational consideration of all the alternatives.
"As an employer you are looking to maximize output for a minimum outlay of cash. It is up to the *employee* to determine when and if he/she is being paid fairly for his/her services."
Yes and no. A good employer recognizes that minimizing expenses doesn't necessarily equate with maximizing output. Paying an employee a bit more is very much worth it if it saves you the expense, time, and lost productivity of training a replacement.
It also means that your employees aren't constantly paranoid about being manipulated in whatever way may happen to maximize output this week. Money isn't everything, after all.
"The GPS onboard the ship updates the ships current position on the charting software running on the NT workstation so the master can see where they are with respect to the course that has been plotted previously."
Unless you have drooling idiots configuring your NT box, you shouldn't have a problem. NT/2000 uptimes are very good for properly configured and maintained systems. (Except, apparently, for Linux advocates with an axe to grind.) But if the system is as critical to the daily operation of the ship as you indicate, then there should be a duplicate system either running in parallel or ready to drop in at a moment's notice. If the hardware fails then it doesn't really matter which OS you're running.
"The ship also has access to email (and consiquently attachments) at sea via Immersat satellite software + (uhh-ohh) Microsoft Outlook. If a member of the ships crew were to open an email attachment apparently from the office, which was in fact a virus, and the network security was not up to scratch, it may have the capacity to shut down not only the ships main course plotting software (sending them to backup paper charts), but to disturb the monitoring of oil/balast on & off the ship in the dock."
How so? First off, Outlook is not difficult to secure, unless people insist on running random executables and disabling routine security options. And I would certainly hope people aren't checking their email or running extraneous programs on the navigation computer described above. That would be silly.
But, leaving aside the religious preference of OS and email apps, if any physically unsecured computer on the ship could be used to cripple the vessel or mess with monitoring systems then that seems like a fairly big security problem all by itself.
Most of what you say is common sense.
"Good products and services sell themselves; it is the junk that you push."
Not so. Nothing "sells itself". It's true that good products are sold by word of mouth, but people still have to know the product exists and that it has certain advantages that they may appreciate.
A well-advertised and more widely distributed inferior product will often sell better than the superior alternative, simply because the better product is unknown to the customer or too difficult for them to obtain, or simply too expensive. Not that that's always a bad thing; an "inferior" product is often good enough for the purposes at hand, especially if your task is not demanding or the time for researching the alternatives is limited.
You're clearly intent on inventing a conflict where none exists. Gates laid out the software's memory configuration in order to accomodate the documented hardware limitations built into the platform for which he was writing. That's all he's saying.
It's only a "major flaw" if you don't understand the intended use of the substance. Try reading the article:
"Riots, protests, noncombatant evacuations, and sanction enforcement are just a few of the situations where this kind of tactical barrier would be most useful," says Capt. Andrew B. Warren, MDS project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command, headquartered in Quantico, Va.
...
"The concept of employment for this system is to be part of a barrier or obstacle plan that will provide stand-off distance and force protection for U.S. military personnel," says Warren. "The MDS will be applicable in many different missions to include checkpoint operations, denying avenues of approach, and dealing with confrontational crowds."
Not for crowd control. Not for encouraging dispersal. It's purpose is as a quickly deployed barrier against incursion by people or vehicles that they need to be kept out.
And people get injured in riots and attacks all the time. Current old-fasioned non-lethal weapons are, in fact, _designed_ to injure, in preference to killing outright. There are some circumstances where you have to stop people from doing violent things, particularly in millitary situations.
Well, yeah. In which case it doesn't make much sense to attempt to recoup the costs associated with those users with offers of ad-free browsing.
"Noone complains about receiving email that they requested, knowingly."
Actually, given a large enough group some people inevitably do. It's not all that uncommon for people to opt-in to quiet mailing lists, forget all about it, and then complain when they recieve email.
I believe you are missing the point. If I understand you correctly, that 3% includes the largest and most frequent contributors. Their postings to the message boards are likley a large part the reason why the other 97% of visitor are here.
They're also the ones who are likely to take greatest offense to the new advertising, either on general principles or simply because they see so much more of it because they're here more often.
The incentive offered for subscribing is to remove the ads. But by charging the most frequently contributing users more to achieve the same effect you're creating a disincentive for participation among the population you need the most. If you want to keep them around it follows that they should be the ones most lightly touched by your new subscription scheme, but the reverse is currently true.
Consider aborting this plan and go to a flat rate, or at least offer it an option.
"I know NT 4 refused to boot when headless, and AFAIK, Win2k and XP won't either (but I'm not sure about that)."
Yes, they will boot headless. That is, the OS has no problem with staring up and running without a keyboard, mouse, or monitor. (Actually, NT4 could also boot headless, though it may have required some configuration to avoid undesirable side effects; it's been a while.)
"Returning to smallpox, saying that no cases have been reported does not mean that the virus no longer exists in nature, or indeed, that there have been no cases."
Good grief. No one claims that every single smallpox virus has been wiped off the face of the planet. Do you see huge numbers of people dropping dead from smallpox epidemics? No? Then things are certainly much improved. If a relative handful of
"Also, the vaccination program that led to the decline of smallpox caused debilitating illness and death in and of itself. The scientists didn't predict that."
Yes they did know that, and they didn't keep it a secret, either. Vaccination always carries a small risk of infection, be it for smallbox, polio, etc. It wasn't something new or unexpected.
"Don't get me wrong, I think that anything that can alleviate suffering and poverty in the third world is worth considering, but forcing the extinction of an organism can not be considered a viable option."
Frankly, I think you'd feel differently in their position. It's an interesting academic discussion for us, but for them it's swarms of deadly insects and large numbers of people dying on a regular basis.
It's a straw-man argument anyway. We couldn't kill off every single fly if we wanted to, and no one's even trying. This same technique has been used routinely for lots of other insects with no ill effects. It's safe--it's dying from insect-borne illnesses that dangerous.
"I ***know*** what it running on my system. I know this because I built the binaries myself. I know this because I can look at the source code and see what it does."
But _have_ you actually audited the source code, and do you have the knowledge and expertise to understand all of it? If so, then more power to you.
"Firstly, you speak as if the United States Constitution is in some way 'right'."
b il lmain.html
Actually, yes, it is right. Any government which does not acknowledge the fundemental freedoms of it's citizenry is, inherently, a bad government.
And I think you have it backwards. No document, including the Constitution, can grant rights to anyone. Governments have no rights to give, only powers granted to them by those they govern. The rights noted in the Constitution are inherent to all human beings, built-in and present at the time of birth no matter where you live or what form over gov't you live under. Members of a society may choose to abridge or suspend the exersize of those rights under certain cirumstances, and evil governments may punish their citizenry for exersizing their rights, but by definition they cannot take them away.
"Secondly; when composing this did you not notice that Freedom of Speech was the first Ammendment to the Constitution? I.E, that it was clearly not sufficiently fundamental as to be included in the original document?"
That's ridiculous. The Amendments that became Bill of Rights were added to the full text of the Constitution because some of the states didn't feel that the checks and balances written into the Constitution itself did an adequate job of emphasizing the limits of governmental power, or the rights of the governed. (And, considering how often people assume the powers of government are unlimited by default, as you apparently do, they were right.)
The Bill of Rights was a concession to those states who's representatives were unwilling to ratify the Constition without it. They were largely agreed to before the Constitution was ratified and, in accordance with the way the new government worked, ratified by Congress shortly thereafter. Most of the provisions were already present and active in the State's constitutions, so this was more of a safeguard against later abuse than an urgent matter requiring immediate action.
The fact that three states didn't ratify them until later is meaningless, since they'd already been passed. Their ratifications in 1939 were largely symbolic event done for the sesquicentennial of the Constitution, and certainly doesn't mean that they didn't support the Amendments. Massachusetts, in particular, was one of the states that pretty much demanded the amendments in the first place. Connecticut and Georgia were among those who felt an explict list of rights was unnecessary, and possibly even harmful because it could be misinterpreted as limiting the rights of the people when the intent was actually just the opposite. None of those three states opposed the Amendments, as disingenously implied in your post.
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/
They've been sending up weather balloons for decades now. They're a practical and environmentally benign way of gathering weather data. I hardly think that this is symptomatic of anything, except perhaps of clear thinking that gets the job done.
You're right. And since moving between states is hardly uncommon it would only take a relatively short time for the whole thing to become completely arbitrary. And suppose I have residences in two states? Am I entitled to domain names in both?
Journalists are all sheep. The public are all sheep. Everyone that disagrees with us or fails to acknowledge our conclusions are sheep. We'd run for office and change things for the better, but the bleating masses would never be smart enough to vote for us, being sheep and all.
Did it occur to you that you might simply be wrong? That your perception of the truth (i.e. the "coup" in 2000) is so partisian, so unsupported by facts, and so bizzarely at odds with reality that people just don't take such opinions seriously? I certainly don't take them seriously. But don't get all introspective or anything, I suppose that's simply because I'm so much less enlightened than all you guys. Carry on.