Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@bbc.co.uk and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log
Yeah, BBC, you *did* have excellent servers and bandwidth...
He is an outspoken critic of homosexuality and gay marriage. I read those works by Orson Scott Card and they were enough to convince me that I didn't want to read any of his fiction.
Would you care to make explicit how the logical jump from not liking the author's views to refusing to read his fiction works?
And if he painted or composed music, would you also refuse to look at or listen to his works?
I wonder what everyone's doing with all these huge drives, other than indulging a compulsive collecting habit. How much music can one listen to, and how many movies can one possibly watch?
Here is one answer for you: photography.
I just came back from a trip and brough back about 12Gb worth of digital images. And that's just one trip.
More, I have a whole bunch of photos as negatives and slides. I scan them for digital processing and printing. Let's do some math, shall we?
A 35mm image is 36x24mm in size, approximately 1.5 x 1 inch. At 4000 dpi scanning (which is a reasonable resolution, some people scan at 5600 dpi) we'll get 4000 x 6000 = 24 megapixels in our scan. For each pixel we need R, G, and B values. A byte for each is too small, since decent film scanners can extract about 10-12 bits of data out of a good negative. So we use 2 bytes for each value giving us 6 bytes per pixel. 24 megapixels times six is 144 Mb -- for a single frame. A full roll of film -- 36 images -- would need slightly over 5 Gb of storage.
So only about a hundred rolls of scanned film will fit on the 500 Gb drive. That's not a lot. Maybe about half a year of shooting for an active amateur photographer. Maybe a couple of weeks for a professional:-)
Science is the accumulation of information using the scientific method. Repeat after me, science is in no way meant to be a search for our purpose as humans. Class dismissed.;)
You fail the class:-)
Accumulation of information is the province of librarians. Science tries to understand what's going on.
And while speaking about the "purpose" of humans is clearly the domain of philosophy (not necessarily religious) and not science proper, I see no reason to frown on people who want to engage in philosophical speculation on the basis of some changes in the way we view the world...
30 solid minutes of ads?? Sorry, I don't buy it (no pun intended). I might see a one or two movies a month, and while I've never put a stopwatch to it, there is no where near an entire sitcom's length of ads before a movie.
It really depends on the theater.
Near the place I live there are several movie theaters. One is an oldish small theater. One is a big shiny megamultiplex or whatever they are called. Obviously the megamulti has bigger screens, better sound system, etc. etc. Yet I don't go there to watch movies. Why?
Because in the oldish small place they'll show me two-three trailers and then show me the movie. That's what I came there for.
In the megamulti I'll have to sit through tons and tons and tons (yes, 15-20 minutes) of commercials before they even get to the trailers. Really stupid and obnoxious ones, too. So I stopped going there.
they do have the legal basis to find the person selling the "Blue 1H sword +20 Str +30 Sta", smack them, kick them off the game, and then find the guy that bought said sword, and delete the item.
True, but they don't have the capability:-)
Let's say I advertise on www.wowuberloot.com and let's say Blizzard reads it. So now they know that foo@hotmail.com wants to sell a sword that a couple of tens of thousands of people have in-game. This is going to help them how?
It's called the 'Its My Sandbox' principle.
Umm... no. This is called the "I'm writing the EULA and no one reads it anyway, so SCREW YOU" principle. Blizzard has legal rights to kick anyone out of the game, for no reason at all. So?
I think Blizzard has a good chance of severly curbing auctioning or at least making a royal pain in the ass to do.
I very much doubt it.
First, Blizzard has no legal basis to prevent anyone from posting things like "Selling blue 1H sword +20 Str +30 Sta". Sure, the EULA might prohibit it, but the EULA isn't binding on, say, a website which hosts a board.
Second, it's trivially easy to arrange sales over boards, IRC channels, etc. etc. Paypal works without Ebay perfectly well. And it's not like it's hard to create one-off email addresses.
So in this case I think Blizzard is all bark and no bite.
The problem is that the items that folks buy off of ebay have to come from somewhere....That means that when I (a casual player) enter the Tomb of Dread in search of the (Ultra Valuable) Short Sword of Uberness, there is already some clown standing ther waiting for it to drop. And when it does drop he'll log that character out and log in another character to wait for it to drop again.
Of course, in WoW the major dungeons are instanced -- meaning you get your own private version of the Tomb of Dread, just as the ebay clown does, and both of you get your own uberloot without stepping on each other's toes.
Sniffing your own traffic to look for unknown data of an unknown format in unknown packets at unknown intervals is hardly trivial.
If they have a stream of data going to server.autralianequivilantoffbi.com it's be fairly easy to detect, but if they're using unused bits in existing traffic, you're looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack without knowing what the needle looks like.
Remember, you control your own machine. It's not "unknown packets at unknown intervals" because you can make your machine emit (or not emit) exactly the packets you choose.
It shouldn't be hard to write a test suite which will generate normal-looking traffic and test what gets logged at the firewall against what that traffic should look like. Since you yourself are writing that test suite you know exactly, down to the last bit, what the traffic should look like.
...and responded by taking a screenshot and saving it into some unused header space in outgoing HTTP requests (hard to grab and re-write from the bus, but I'll bet you could do it)... how would you know? No disk activity. No increase in network usage. No software running on the main CPU... Better yet, just put it in the network card...
The answer's trivial: sniff your own traffic.
Hopefully the net traffic from your machine goes through some kind of a firewall (right? right..?) which can log every single bit. Finding suspicious stuff (e.g. something stuffed into unused header space) shouldn't be hard at all.
Granted, you may have problems figuring out which code on your machine does it, but detection of the spyware's traffic is quite straightforward.
It's funny how an entire feature can be so insightful about digital cameras, and totally leave out suggestions about photo printers.
Umm... and why should it discuss photo printers? A lot of people just bring their memory cards to Costco/some photo lab and get their 4x6s that way.
Quality in prints now is limited to printer quality, not image resolution, if I am not mistaken.
You are mistaken.
Technically speaking it depends on the original image resolution, the size of the print, and the printing technology, but for practical purposes the image quality is the limiting factor.
Besides, which printers? Consumer inkjets? Lightjet-type printers? Dye-sub printers? CMYK offset printers? All are used to print images...
Precisely, but even though the news outlets are using someone else's original reporting as their basis, that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't more original reporting that can be done. Even so, this ends up simply as "reporting", as opposed to "journalism".
Heh. You switched terms mid-discussion. We were talking about news. Now suddenly we are talking about journalism. Two different things.
I'll agree that most (99.9%) of blogs have nothing to do with journalism. But I'll stick to my position that blogs are a good source of news.
That's not news. That's regurgitating press releases and product reviews, 95% of the time. The remaining 5% is where they will occasionally get a tip or discover some information others have overlooked. It's not news when someone is feeding it to you
Umm... I am unsure of what your definition of "news" is.
For me "news" is information about something that's happening or has happened recently. Blogs clearly qualify.
If you define news as original reporting then keep in mind that a very large part of content of newspapers/radio/TV comes straight off Reuters or AP newswire. Besides there are blogs such as Wonkette which do provide original reporting:-)
I know of exactly ZERO people who get their news from blogs.
You should get out more:-)
People rarely get their world-event type of news from blogs, true. But for news about latest gadgets, weird stuff, or a niche area blogs can't be beat.
He's also the first president in many years (perhaps ever?) that won because he openly advocated limiting civil rights of an etnic group, and used it to divide the country.... that was just code for "we REALLY don't like gay people."
I think we are disagreeing mostly about how specific the term "form of government" is.
For you it's quite specific: if the US had, for example, a single-house Congress it would already be a different form of government.
For me it's much less specific: say, a constitutional monarchy is a constitutional monarchy and I would claim that, say, UK and Sweden have the same form of government.
The source code for the Linux kernel is just the "specification" for the binary executable, but the source is the kernel, except in selfserving hairsplitting rhetoric. If you say the structure specified in the Constitution is not the form of government, you have to say that the kernel is the array of charges in your CPU's local cache.
Even within your metaphor -- the kernel's source is sitting as a bunch of files on my machine's hard disk, while the the kernel itself is a live process running in memory. Kinda big difference:-)
But I think a different metaphor is better -- a constitution is a spec sheet. It's a specification document that describes what a program should do. Clearly, there's connection between the two, but just as clearly the spec sheet and the actual program are two very different things.
I'm only smoking quibblers. By "oldest existing form of government" I mean that every other country's form of government in 1788 is gone. And the Constitution is literally and figuratively the form of government; the people and their actions are its the manifestation of that form. Technically, the Constitution is an inked parchment, but I'm not going to dignify microquibbling.
Umm.. You are vaguely redefining concepts to try to suit your muddled thinking:-)
A "form of government" is something like a republic or a monarchy or a theocracy. The form of goverment that the US Consitution specifies is a republic. There were republics (as a form of government) before the US Constitution.
Moreover, a constitution is definitely NOT a form of government. It is just the basic, primary set of laws for a country. True, constitutions usually define the political structure which includes the form of governments, but just because a constitution SPECIFIES a form of government does not mean it IS a form of government.
I think what you are trying to say is that the US Constitution is the oldest constitution still in effect in the Western world (Saudi Arabia would tell you that Koran is their constitution and it's older:-) ). That claim is correct. However it has nothing to do with forms of government.
The Constitution did not deny liberty to slaves
The Constitution pre-13th amendment kinda pretended that slavery does not exist. But I don't think it's justified to say that it "applied liberty to all" in a society with widespread slavery. Of course many (most?) Constitution drafters had slaves...
"Applying liberty" is essential in living free - without its application, it's just a concept.
I said it's a very weird expression because it implies that there is someone (state? God?) who "applies" liberty to passive objects (citizens?). I don't think it works this way. In fact, the US Constitution is very explicit about the fact that liberty is a natural, pre-existing, in-built feature of humans -- it's NOT GRANTED by anyone.
Judging by your comments you are smoking something that's at least as good:-)
Exhibit A:
You might not realize that the US Constitution is the oldest existing form of government on Earth
ROTFL. You mean before 1788 there were no forms of government on Earth..? (not to mention that a constitution is not a form of government at all).
Exhibit B:
and the first to apply liberty to everyone
Well, obviously the US Constitution did NOT apply liberty to slaves. So in that respect it's no better than, say, the Athenian democracy which "applied liberty" [which is a very weird expression, but oh well...] to all citizens back in 500 BC or so...
I've always wanted to have large historic battles, but since the numbers of soldiers were so large back then, it wasn't really feasible for a FPS, but now perhaps they could do it after all.
It's still not feasible for an FPS primarily because not many people are interested in playing as peon #27419 who gets to stand in one place for an hour or so and then gets killed by a canon shot/cavalry charge/etc.
But for an RTS this works well. Check out the TotalWar series of games, especially the latest Rome: TotalWar. You can have several thousand troops fighting on the screen at the same time and the fighting is hugely more intelligent than your usual "gather tanks and throw them at the enemy, rinse, repeat" RTS stupidity.
Can you say Battle of Helms Deep with every character being a real person?
That's fine. You be one of those orcs in the back rows. Don't go far away from the computer, in half an hour you might need to move forward a few paces...:-)
I believe today that there is a need for all people of good will to come with a massive act of conscience and say in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "We ain't goin' study war no more." This is the challenge facing modern man.
The very obvious consequence of this would be that all people of good will will get the shit kicked out of them by people of ill will who do not seem to have a problem studying war.
It's thier forum. If you don't like the rules, go talk elsewhere.. they are only banning people who talk about it on BUNGIE forums.
That's fine. I have no problem with Bungie banning from their forums people who don't follow Bungie's arbitrary rules.
But I do have problems with Bungie promising to lock out of multiplayer people who discuss the leak or post links to the leaked game.
WTF people. Would you feel happy if Microsoft said: "Anyone critical of Microsoft on MSN forums cannot play games on GameZone (or whatever MS multiplayer service is called)"?
Slashdot Mirror
IN a comunist/socialist systme, the people own the code. (Since the people own everything.)
Sigh. No. In a communist/socialist system the state owns everything and just claims to do it in the name of the people.
This is a refreshing contrast to the fascist model, where the state owns the code.
Fascism has to do with totalitarianism and suppression of rights, not with property. The canonical fascist country (Nazi Germany) was capitalist.
So no again -- under the fascist model the programmer owns the code, it's just that the state makes sure he doesn't do anything "unpatriotic" with it.
If he says Linus is Stallin/lennin/marx, then he's Hitler by the same set of parameters.
LOL. And that was modded insightful...?
Yeah, BBC, you *did* have excellent servers and bandwidth...
He is an outspoken critic of homosexuality and gay marriage. I read those works by Orson Scott Card and they were enough to convince me that I didn't want to read any of his fiction.
Would you care to make explicit how the logical jump from not liking the author's views to refusing to read his fiction works?
And if he painted or composed music, would you also refuse to look at or listen to his works?
I wonder what everyone's doing with all these huge drives, other than indulging a compulsive collecting habit. How much music can one listen to, and how many movies can one possibly watch?
:-)
Here is one answer for you: photography.
I just came back from a trip and brough back about 12Gb worth of digital images. And that's just one trip.
More, I have a whole bunch of photos as negatives and slides. I scan them for digital processing and printing. Let's do some math, shall we?
A 35mm image is 36x24mm in size, approximately 1.5 x 1 inch. At 4000 dpi scanning (which is a reasonable resolution, some people scan at 5600 dpi) we'll get 4000 x 6000 = 24 megapixels in our scan. For each pixel we need R, G, and B values. A byte for each is too small, since decent film scanners can extract about 10-12 bits of data out of a good negative. So we use 2 bytes for each value giving us 6 bytes per pixel. 24 megapixels times six is 144 Mb -- for a single frame. A full roll of film -- 36 images -- would need slightly over 5 Gb of storage.
So only about a hundred rolls of scanned film will fit on the 500 Gb drive. That's not a lot. Maybe about half a year of shooting for an active amateur photographer. Maybe a couple of weeks for a professional
Science is the accumulation of information using the scientific method. Repeat after me, science is in no way meant to be a search for our purpose as humans. Class dismissed. ;)
:-)
You fail the class
Accumulation of information is the province of librarians. Science tries to understand what's going on.
And while speaking about the "purpose" of humans is clearly the domain of philosophy (not necessarily religious) and not science proper, I see no reason to frown on people who want to engage in philosophical speculation on the basis of some changes in the way we view the world...
what about Natalie Portman & Hot Grits? Am I so old to remember?
Natalie Portman naked and petrified!
30 solid minutes of ads?? Sorry, I don't buy it (no pun intended). I might see a one or two movies a month, and while I've never put a stopwatch to it, there is no where near an entire sitcom's length of ads before a movie.
It really depends on the theater.
Near the place I live there are several movie theaters. One is an oldish small theater. One is a big shiny megamultiplex or whatever they are called. Obviously the megamulti has bigger screens, better sound system, etc. etc. Yet I don't go there to watch movies. Why?
Because in the oldish small place they'll show me two-three trailers and then show me the movie. That's what I came there for.
In the megamulti I'll have to sit through tons and tons and tons (yes, 15-20 minutes) of commercials before they even get to the trailers. Really stupid and obnoxious ones, too. So I stopped going there.
they do have the legal basis to find the person selling the "Blue 1H sword +20 Str +30 Sta", smack them, kick them off the game, and then find the guy that bought said sword, and delete the item.
:-)
True, but they don't have the capability
Let's say I advertise on www.wowuberloot.com and let's say Blizzard reads it. So now they know that foo@hotmail.com wants to sell a sword that a couple of tens of thousands of people have in-game. This is going to help them how?
It's called the 'Its My Sandbox' principle.
Umm... no. This is called the "I'm writing the EULA and no one reads it anyway, so SCREW YOU" principle. Blizzard has legal rights to kick anyone out of the game, for no reason at all. So?
I think Blizzard has a good chance of severly curbing auctioning or at least making a royal pain in the ass to do.
I very much doubt it.
First, Blizzard has no legal basis to prevent anyone from posting things like "Selling blue 1H sword +20 Str +30 Sta". Sure, the EULA might prohibit it, but the EULA isn't binding on, say, a website which hosts a board.
Second, it's trivially easy to arrange sales over boards, IRC channels, etc. etc. Paypal works without Ebay perfectly well. And it's not like it's hard to create one-off email addresses.
So in this case I think Blizzard is all bark and no bite.
The problem is that the items that folks buy off of ebay have to come from somewhere. ...That means that when I (a casual player) enter the Tomb of Dread in search of the (Ultra Valuable) Short Sword of Uberness, there is already some clown standing ther waiting for it to drop. And when it does drop he'll log that character out and log in another character to wait for it to drop again.
Of course, in WoW the major dungeons are instanced -- meaning you get your own private version of the Tomb of Dread, just as the ebay clown does, and both of you get your own uberloot without stepping on each other's toes.
So, no, that argument does not fly at all.
Sniffing your own traffic to look for unknown data of an unknown format in unknown packets at unknown intervals is hardly trivial.
If they have a stream of data going to server.autralianequivilantoffbi.com it's be fairly easy to detect, but if they're using unused bits in existing traffic, you're looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack without knowing what the needle looks like.
Remember, you control your own machine. It's not "unknown packets at unknown intervals" because you can make your machine emit (or not emit) exactly the packets you choose.
It shouldn't be hard to write a test suite which will generate normal-looking traffic and test what gets logged at the firewall against what that traffic should look like. Since you yourself are writing that test suite you know exactly, down to the last bit, what the traffic should look like.
...and responded by taking a screenshot and saving it into some unused header space in outgoing HTTP requests (hard to grab and re-write from the bus, but I'll bet you could do it)... how would you know? No disk activity. No increase in network usage. No software running on the main CPU... Better yet, just put it in the network card...
The answer's trivial: sniff your own traffic.
Hopefully the net traffic from your machine goes through some kind of a firewall (right? right..?) which can log every single bit. Finding suspicious stuff (e.g. something stuffed into unused header space) shouldn't be hard at all.
Granted, you may have problems figuring out which code on your machine does it, but detection of the spyware's traffic is quite straightforward.
It's funny how an entire feature can be so insightful about digital cameras, and totally leave out suggestions about photo printers.
Umm... and why should it discuss photo printers? A lot of people just bring their memory cards to Costco/some photo lab and get their 4x6s that way.
Quality in prints now is limited to printer quality, not image resolution, if I am not mistaken.
You are mistaken.
Technically speaking it depends on the original image resolution, the size of the print, and the printing technology, but for practical purposes the image quality is the limiting factor.
Besides, which printers? Consumer inkjets? Lightjet-type printers? Dye-sub printers? CMYK offset printers? All are used to print images...
For the non geek, there are only two web browsers, Microsoft and Netscape
Nope. For old geezers there are two web browsers. For regular non-geek people there is one -- Internet Explorer. Period.
Precisely, but even though the news outlets are using someone else's original reporting as their basis, that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't more original reporting that can be done. Even so, this ends up simply as "reporting", as opposed to "journalism".
Heh. You switched terms mid-discussion. We were talking about news. Now suddenly we are talking about journalism. Two different things.
I'll agree that most (99.9%) of blogs have nothing to do with journalism. But I'll stick to my position that blogs are a good source of news.
That's not news. That's regurgitating press releases and product reviews, 95% of the time. The remaining 5% is where they will occasionally get a tip or discover some information others have overlooked. It's not news when someone is feeding it to you
:-)
Umm... I am unsure of what your definition of "news" is.
For me "news" is information about something that's happening or has happened recently. Blogs clearly qualify.
If you define news as original reporting then keep in mind that a very large part of content of newspapers/radio/TV comes straight off Reuters or AP newswire. Besides there are blogs such as Wonkette which do provide original reporting
I know of exactly ZERO people who get their news from blogs.
:-)
You should get out more
People rarely get their world-event type of news from blogs, true. But for news about latest gadgets, weird stuff, or a niche area blogs can't be beat.
Stardock already does this for Windows in a very nice way.
Check it out here.
He's also the first president in many years (perhaps ever?) that won because he openly advocated limiting civil rights of an etnic group, and used it to divide the country. ... that was just code for "we REALLY don't like gay people."
Gay people are now an ETHNIC group..? Boggle...
Fey
I think we are disagreeing mostly about how specific the term "form of government" is.
:-)
For you it's quite specific: if the US had, for example, a single-house Congress it would already be a different form of government.
For me it's much less specific: say, a constitutional monarchy is a constitutional monarchy and I would claim that, say, UK and Sweden have the same form of government.
The source code for the Linux kernel is just the "specification" for the binary executable, but the source is the kernel, except in selfserving hairsplitting rhetoric. If you say the structure specified in the Constitution is not the form of government, you have to say that the kernel is the array of charges in your CPU's local cache.
Even within your metaphor -- the kernel's source is sitting as a bunch of files on my machine's hard disk, while the the kernel itself is a live process running in memory. Kinda big difference
But I think a different metaphor is better -- a constitution is a spec sheet. It's a specification document that describes what a program should do. Clearly, there's connection between the two, but just as clearly the spec sheet and the actual program are two very different things.
I'm only smoking quibblers. By "oldest existing form of government" I mean that every other country's form of government in 1788 is gone. And the Constitution is literally and figuratively the form of government; the people and their actions are its the manifestation of that form. Technically, the Constitution is an inked parchment, but I'm not going to dignify microquibbling.
:-)
:-) ). That claim is correct. However it has nothing to do with forms of government.
Umm.. You are vaguely redefining concepts to try to suit your muddled thinking
A "form of government" is something like a republic or a monarchy or a theocracy. The form of goverment that the US Consitution specifies is a republic. There were republics (as a form of government) before the US Constitution.
Moreover, a constitution is definitely NOT a form of government. It is just the basic, primary set of laws for a country. True, constitutions usually define the political structure which includes the form of governments, but just because a constitution SPECIFIES a form of government does not mean it IS a form of government.
I think what you are trying to say is that the US Constitution is the oldest constitution still in effect in the Western world (Saudi Arabia would tell you that Koran is their constitution and it's older
The Constitution did not deny liberty to slaves
The Constitution pre-13th amendment kinda pretended that slavery does not exist. But I don't think it's justified to say that it "applied liberty to all" in a society with widespread slavery. Of course many (most?) Constitution drafters had slaves...
"Applying liberty" is essential in living free - without its application, it's just a concept.
I said it's a very weird expression because it implies that there is someone (state? God?) who "applies" liberty to passive objects (citizens?). I don't think it works this way. In fact, the US Constitution is very explicit about the fact that liberty is a natural, pre-existing, in-built feature of humans -- it's NOT GRANTED by anyone.
Well, I'm certainly not smoking the crackpipe...
:-)
Judging by your comments you are smoking something that's at least as good
Exhibit A:
You might not realize that the US Constitution is the oldest existing form of government on Earth
ROTFL. You mean before 1788 there were no forms of government on Earth..? (not to mention that a constitution is not a form of government at all).
Exhibit B:
and the first to apply liberty to everyone
Well, obviously the US Constitution did NOT apply liberty to slaves. So in that respect it's no better than, say, the Athenian democracy which "applied liberty" [which is a very weird expression, but oh well...] to all citizens back in 500 BC or so...
I've always wanted to have large historic battles, but since the numbers of soldiers were so large back then, it wasn't really feasible for a FPS, but now perhaps they could do it after all.
:-)
It's still not feasible for an FPS primarily because not many people are interested in playing as peon #27419 who gets to stand in one place for an hour or so and then gets killed by a canon shot/cavalry charge/etc.
But for an RTS this works well. Check out the TotalWar series of games, especially the latest Rome: TotalWar. You can have several thousand troops fighting on the screen at the same time and the fighting is hugely more intelligent than your usual "gather tanks and throw them at the enemy, rinse, repeat" RTS stupidity.
Can you say Battle of Helms Deep with every character being a real person?
That's fine. You be one of those orcs in the back rows. Don't go far away from the computer, in half an hour you might need to move forward a few paces...
I believe today that there is a need for all people of good will to come with a massive act of conscience and say in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "We ain't goin' study war no more." This is the challenge facing modern man.
The very obvious consequence of this would be that all people of good will will get the shit kicked out of them by people of ill will who do not seem to have a problem studying war.
It's thier forum. If you don't like the rules, go talk elsewhere.. they are only banning people who talk about it on BUNGIE forums.
That's fine. I have no problem with Bungie banning from their forums people who don't follow Bungie's arbitrary rules.
But I do have problems with Bungie promising to lock out of multiplayer people who discuss the leak or post links to the leaked game.
WTF people. Would you feel happy if Microsoft said: "Anyone critical of Microsoft on MSN forums cannot play games on GameZone (or whatever MS multiplayer service is called)"?