but a good filesystem would stick heavily duplicated blocks on fast media (flash or inner cylinders).
Why? Just because a block of data is duplicated all over your filesystem that doesn't mean it's accessed all that frequently. If I have a disk with 8,000 slightly different ghosted Linux disk images on it, I'm bound to have plenty of blocks that are identical in all of them, so deduplication would save me lots of space. However, since they're probably all just there for archival or testing purposes, and I only occasionally need to access any of them, putting those deduplicated blocks on fast storage would be a waste of my most expensive disks.
Fast storage is for frequently accessed data, not heavily duplicated data. Most halfway decent network storage devices already have caching algorithms that will put frequently accessed data on fast storage, whether that's SSD or NVRAM (or both).
I agree. I can't even imagine what would happen if anyone found out I had attended a Cisco conference. I would be a social pariah. My children wouldn't be able to look me in the eye. My wife would leave me. The dog would run away. Even my cats would look at me even more disdainfully than they usually do.
You're right. The original Wright Flyer barely made it off the ground in optimum conditions, there's no way it would have made it in poor weather, and it certainly wouldn't get me across the country in a reasonable amount of time. Clearly this whole heavier-than-air flight nonsense is wildly impractical and we should stop trying to make it work.
Solar powered flight is evolving just like any technology, and it's currently in its infancy. It may or may not ever prove to be practical, but abandoning it just because an experimental craft has shortcomings we don't think a fully mature product should have would be silly.
To be fair, that's not the actual idea, that's just one of the suggestions that inspired the idea. The actual idea is more reasonable, although it's so vague and contains so many different ideas in one that I don't know how you would go about implementing it even with unlimited funds, much less a measly $10 million. The only part of it that sounds like it could actually be done with $10 million, the banking from mobile devices, is already being done by several banks.
All of the ideas are vague and at least partially impractical. Even once they figure out which idea to spend the money on, they'd have to figure out how to go about doing that. None of the ideas really have clearly defined goals to be accomplished, they're mostly the sorts of things that people come up with when they get really high and start talking about "You know what would be awesome? What if we..."
discussing poetry purely by means of interpretive dance.
I don't know how you found out about their next lecture series, but I think it would be best if you kept that information to yourself until they get closer to releasing it.
Let me just say, though, that it's almost impossible to truly understand French Medieval poetry until you've seen it performed by a dude in a black unitard.
Well, it doesn't say "no math", it says "no math background required." Presumably this means they'll be introducing math concepts in this course as well, starting with 8th grade pre-algebra and ending up at advanced calculus. Seems rather ambitious for a 9-part series of PDFs.
But if you succeed you will have done something most people dream of their entire life.
In my experience, when most people say they would like to build their own home it means they would like to someday make enough money to pay someone else to build them a home to their specifications. Very, very few people dream of actually building the thing themselves.
My school doesn't have computers, so I have someone at another university send the pirated movies to me bit by bit via morse code. I then transcribe this onto paper. I then get the art department to decode the bits by hand and draw each frame by hand onto gigantic sheets of paper. We then assemble all of these sheets into a gigantic flip book which we hang on the wall of the student union. We then have the A/V club flip the sheets rapidly while the rest of us watch the "movie". It's a difficult process, and we had a rash of suicides after expending all that effort just to see how crappy The Last Airbender was, but it works pretty well most of the time.
In the short term, there is pain due to offshoring. In the long term, it helps everyone.
How long is the long term? This stuff has been going on for at least 40 years. How much longer do we have to wait before it starts helping everyone?
This is YOUR opinion on what government should be doing. I would argue that it would be far more productive for the government to provide support for those displaced by offshoring by offering retraining, financial support, and job placement services during the time they are displaced, along with laws that provide for a level playing field for businesses within the nation and keeping us competitive with other nations.
They've tried that, it doesn't work. Sure, you help a few people with retraining, but businesses just keep offshoring the jobs they retrained for, so you have to do it again. Eventually, the only jobs left are in the service industry and upper management, everything else has been offshored.
This is not to say globalization in and of itself is bad. However, it needs to be undertaken much more carefully and gradually than it has been.
Ahh, Soviet-era Communism and central planning rears its ugly head again.
That's slippery-slope nonsense. Market-based economies have employed tariffs and other restrictions on trade for hundreds of years without falling into Communism.
a) No single entity can control the economic situation more efficiently than the billions of independent short-term decisions that are made daily. (Rumor has it that at least one Cold War-era Soviet leader was taken on a tour of a supermarket in Houston, TX during a visit, and was depressed by how well free-market economics kept all demanded goods on the shelves as compared to the centrally-planned Soviet economy.)
I'm advocating for tariffs and regulations and you're arguing against a centrally planned Soviet-style economy. That's what we call a strawman. There is a vast middle ground between totally unregulated free markets and Communism, you really should learn about it.
Seems to me I recall this exact situation happening oh, say, 200 years ago, after the US gained its independence from Britain. Britain doesn't seemed to have fared very poorly!
200 years ago nations had complex systems of tariffs designed to keep domestic production healthy, there was no unrestricted free trade between Western nations. There was also the fact that shipping between nations, especially over the ocean, was far more expensive, risky, and slow than it is today. The situations are not even remotely comparable.
I think you need to read a few economics and history textbooks to figure out where your logical fallacies lie. I can't provide enough text here to cover them all in this short space.
I would rather pay a get more for the product to ensure I get good customer support.
You say that now, but how many products tell you where their tech support is based on the packaging? If you see two identical products on the shelf and one is ten bucks less than the other, you're going to buy the cheaper product without even thinking about where their call center is. Consumers cannot be trusted to vote with their dollars on things like this, especially since in the vast majority of cases they are called upon to make purchasing decisions with incomplete information.
Global free trade is one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere, decreasing quality of products and services, and gutting the middle class of more prosperous nations. We've seen this over the past decades. Unfortunately, both consumers and suppliers make decisions on short-term scales, meaning they tend to make decisions based on what the balance sheets say today without even considering the impact those decisions will have years or decades down the line. In theory, government regulation is supposed to help provide a hedge against that sort of thing, since governments are supposed to be concerned with more long-term economic matters.
This is not to say globalization in and of itself is bad. However, it needs to be undertaken much more carefully and gradually than it has been. Simply dropping all tariffs and letting businesses run wild all at once has produced a situation where everyone except for the very richest among us suffers, and even they will start to suffer if we allow the middle class to completely disappear and they have to drive through squalor on the way to their gated compounds like they do in many developing countries.
It's in everyone's best interest to preserve a robust middle class in developed countries and encourage the middle class to grow in developing countries. Globalization policies should be undertaken with that goal in mind, not with the sole purpose of driving down cost as has been done so far.
They are not solving the problem as reported, they are redefining the problem to something they can fix without a hardware recall.
The problem as reported is that the signal strength weakens consistently when the phone is held in a certain way. This is clearly a hardware issue, but hardware issues are expensive to fix. So, Apple fixes a similar but ultimately unrelated problem via a much cheaper software patch and hopes their loyal fan base will just pay attention to the fact that *a* problem has been fixed, even if it isn't *the* problem everyone is complaining about.
Unless Apple honestly believes this software patch will fix the actual reported problem, which I find very difficult to believe, they are acting in an unethical and customer-unfriendly manner in order to avoid the real solution, which would be to issue a recall of their flagship product and fix the hardware.
My rejection of Dr. Paul's ideas is not meant in any way to imply that I agree with our current fiscal policy. There is a middle ground between "spend like drunken sailors and borrow all the money" and "spend nothing and drastically cut everyone's taxes". The fact that everyone ignores the possibility of such a middle ground is part of the reason we seem unable to not only get ourselves out of the hole, but why we can't even seem to keep ourselves from continuing to dig it deeper.
It's not difficult to understand: It just means they posted a notice without that annoying embedded MIDI music that was so popular in the mid-1990s playing in the background. For example, when my company wants to loudly announce something, we'll post a notice on our main web page with a recording of vuvuzelas at full blast. It really gets everyone's attention.
My wife bought a laptop from Dell (the only Dell computer either of us have ever bought) and the fan failed on it after about 8 months. Dell had a guy out the next day who replaced the fan at no cost and with no questions asked. Of course, it was still under warranty. If you want service like that beyond the warranty period, you buy an extended warranty or a support contract.
In my experience Dell's hardware is sometimes a bit dodgy, but their support is top notch.
Sorry, but as much as I disagree with much of what the current power base does, I'm not quite ready to join a bunch of raving nutters who think the solution is to abolish government entirely or return us to some imagined utopia that never existed where the economy was always stable and everyone was always prosperous (seriously, look up some of the many financial collapses that occurred while we were on the gold standard). Ron Paul has some good ideas but he also has some that range from the wildly impractical to the borderline insane.
The Free State Project is basically an example of a few hardcore extremists being cheered on by a bunch of the same people you decry: they sit around and complain but when push comes to shove, they do nothing. That project has been around for many years, and so far the vast majority of people who claim to support it aren't moving and have no real concrete plans to move. Even if they somehow got enough people to move they'd quickly realize what has become apparent in some of the tea party organizations: beyond a general anger at the government, the people in the movement agree on very little. They have no unified plan as to how to fix any of our problems other than "kick everyone out and stop taxing me", which is not really a useful plan.
The people on the extreme right today have the same problem as the extreme left of the 1960s: they're great at protesting and getting attention, but they have no real practical solutions to any of the problems we face. They're heavy on idealism and ideology but very light on pragmatism and reason. They don't represent a feasible alternative to what we have now, which is why they have so much trouble gaining traction beyond their far-right base, and why we're still stuck with the same old government we've always had.
it's a legal agreement between two people which supposedly brings some sort of perceived tax benefit which I have never seen (we pay out far more now that we're married)
See an accountant. The tax benefit is highest for those in "traditional" marriages, meaning ones in which only one spouse works. Then, if you file a joint return you get twice the deduction you normally would have gotten. The math may also result in less tax even if you both work, depending on how disparate your incomes are. There are also certain deductions that you may qualify for but your spouse doesn't (or vice versa), but if you file a joint return it will apply to both of you (sometimes at twice the amount it would be for just one of you).
Generally, unless you are a one-income household, the tax benefits to marriage are fairly modest and sometimes nonexistent depending on your individual situation. But then, if you're looking to get married because you want a lower tax bill you may not be in the right frame of mind to get married at all.
The problem with playing to a crisis is eventually the crisis ends and suddenly nobody cares about your proposals anymore. Nixon and Carter both talked big about getting off of foreign oil during the oil shortages in the 1970s, even creating a whole new Cabinet-level department for that purpose. Then the crisis passed, people stopped caring, and before you know it everyone is driving giant SUVs and we're using more foreign oil than ever before.
I dunno, I guess it's a matter of taste. There are a few large wind farms in west Texas, and I find them quite beautiful. There's something majestic about a sea of giant windmills stretching off into the distance.
This sort of story happens whenever a major technological shift occurs. When TV first became popular people were going out and buying TVs and ignoring their radios, and so programming began to shift from radio to TV. All of the serial programming, news shows, and all the other rich programming that used to populate the radio waves all moved to TV, leaving nothing but political talk and music on the radio. Certainly some older consumers ended up getting stuck because they didn't want to or couldn't move to TV, so they stuck with their increasingly useless radios. People that are having trouble with this switch are people that have had the same TV set for 20 years or more and are still watching entirely over-the-air programming even though more and more programming has been moving to cable and satellite for decades. These tend to be older people as a general rule, although not all old people get stuck. My grandmother has a nice new HDTV with a DVR, and my grandfather just got DirecTV hooked up, although he still uses his old 20 year old VCR.
Technological progress moves on, and you either move on with it or get stuck with increasingly useless old tech that you have to jump through more and more hoops to get to work properly. My TV in the living room died just a couple of months ago, and instead of getting a cheap SDTV I went ahead and bought the HDTV because I figured with more and more programming going to HD, the SDTV will become more useless over time. Eventually as programming continues to move to HD, I'll have to switch out the TV upstairs or end up watching all of my programming with the sides cut off. We grumble about these things, but it would be absurd to halt progress just because not everyone is ready or willing to go along with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I learned about my last reunion on Facebook too. Ever since then, they've made it a policy never to announce reunions on Facebook.
. Why pay for an IMBD app when IMDB and wikipedia and Google are accessable for free in the internet?
Because the IMDB app is free and the IMDB web page takes forever to render over 3G on the iPhone's crappy web browser.
but a good filesystem would stick heavily duplicated blocks on fast media (flash or inner cylinders).
Why? Just because a block of data is duplicated all over your filesystem that doesn't mean it's accessed all that frequently. If I have a disk with 8,000 slightly different ghosted Linux disk images on it, I'm bound to have plenty of blocks that are identical in all of them, so deduplication would save me lots of space. However, since they're probably all just there for archival or testing purposes, and I only occasionally need to access any of them, putting those deduplicated blocks on fast storage would be a waste of my most expensive disks.
Fast storage is for frequently accessed data, not heavily duplicated data. Most halfway decent network storage devices already have caching algorithms that will put frequently accessed data on fast storage, whether that's SSD or NVRAM (or both).
I agree. I can't even imagine what would happen if anyone found out I had attended a Cisco conference. I would be a social pariah. My children wouldn't be able to look me in the eye. My wife would leave me. The dog would run away. Even my cats would look at me even more disdainfully than they usually do.
You're right. The original Wright Flyer barely made it off the ground in optimum conditions, there's no way it would have made it in poor weather, and it certainly wouldn't get me across the country in a reasonable amount of time. Clearly this whole heavier-than-air flight nonsense is wildly impractical and we should stop trying to make it work.
Solar powered flight is evolving just like any technology, and it's currently in its infancy. It may or may not ever prove to be practical, but abandoning it just because an experimental craft has shortcomings we don't think a fully mature product should have would be silly.
To be fair, that's not the actual idea, that's just one of the suggestions that inspired the idea. The actual idea is more reasonable, although it's so vague and contains so many different ideas in one that I don't know how you would go about implementing it even with unlimited funds, much less a measly $10 million. The only part of it that sounds like it could actually be done with $10 million, the banking from mobile devices, is already being done by several banks.
All of the ideas are vague and at least partially impractical. Even once they figure out which idea to spend the money on, they'd have to figure out how to go about doing that. None of the ideas really have clearly defined goals to be accomplished, they're mostly the sorts of things that people come up with when they get really high and start talking about "You know what would be awesome? What if we..."
discussing poetry purely by means of interpretive dance.
I don't know how you found out about their next lecture series, but I think it would be best if you kept that information to yourself until they get closer to releasing it.
Let me just say, though, that it's almost impossible to truly understand French Medieval poetry until you've seen it performed by a dude in a black unitard.
Well, it doesn't say "no math", it says "no math background required." Presumably this means they'll be introducing math concepts in this course as well, starting with 8th grade pre-algebra and ending up at advanced calculus. Seems rather ambitious for a 9-part series of PDFs.
But if you succeed you will have done something most people dream of their entire life.
In my experience, when most people say they would like to build their own home it means they would like to someday make enough money to pay someone else to build them a home to their specifications. Very, very few people dream of actually building the thing themselves.
My school doesn't have computers, so I have someone at another university send the pirated movies to me bit by bit via morse code. I then transcribe this onto paper. I then get the art department to decode the bits by hand and draw each frame by hand onto gigantic sheets of paper. We then assemble all of these sheets into a gigantic flip book which we hang on the wall of the student union. We then have the A/V club flip the sheets rapidly while the rest of us watch the "movie". It's a difficult process, and we had a rash of suicides after expending all that effort just to see how crappy The Last Airbender was, but it works pretty well most of the time.
You insensitive clod.
In the short term, there is pain due to offshoring. In the long term, it helps everyone.
How long is the long term? This stuff has been going on for at least 40 years. How much longer do we have to wait before it starts helping everyone?
This is YOUR opinion on what government should be doing. I would argue that it would be far more productive for the government to provide support for those displaced by offshoring by offering retraining, financial support, and job placement services during the time they are displaced, along with laws that provide for a level playing field for businesses within the nation and keeping us competitive with other nations.
They've tried that, it doesn't work. Sure, you help a few people with retraining, but businesses just keep offshoring the jobs they retrained for, so you have to do it again. Eventually, the only jobs left are in the service industry and upper management, everything else has been offshored.
This is not to say globalization in and of itself is bad. However, it needs to be undertaken much more carefully and gradually than it has been. Ahh, Soviet-era Communism and central planning rears its ugly head again.
That's slippery-slope nonsense. Market-based economies have employed tariffs and other restrictions on trade for hundreds of years without falling into Communism.
a) No single entity can control the economic situation more efficiently than the billions of independent short-term decisions that are made daily. (Rumor has it that at least one Cold War-era Soviet leader was taken on a tour of a supermarket in Houston, TX during a visit, and was depressed by how well free-market economics kept all demanded goods on the shelves as compared to the centrally-planned Soviet economy.)
I'm advocating for tariffs and regulations and you're arguing against a centrally planned Soviet-style economy. That's what we call a strawman. There is a vast middle ground between totally unregulated free markets and Communism, you really should learn about it.
Seems to me I recall this exact situation happening oh, say, 200 years ago, after the US gained its independence from Britain. Britain doesn't seemed to have fared very poorly!
200 years ago nations had complex systems of tariffs designed to keep domestic production healthy, there was no unrestricted free trade between Western nations. There was also the fact that shipping between nations, especially over the ocean, was far more expensive, risky, and slow than it is today. The situations are not even remotely comparable.
I think you need to read a few economics and history textbooks to figure out where your logical fallacies lie. I can't provide enough text here to cover them all in this short space.
I could say the same of you.
I would rather pay a get more for the product to ensure I get good customer support.
You say that now, but how many products tell you where their tech support is based on the packaging? If you see two identical products on the shelf and one is ten bucks less than the other, you're going to buy the cheaper product without even thinking about where their call center is. Consumers cannot be trusted to vote with their dollars on things like this, especially since in the vast majority of cases they are called upon to make purchasing decisions with incomplete information.
Global free trade is one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere, decreasing quality of products and services, and gutting the middle class of more prosperous nations. We've seen this over the past decades. Unfortunately, both consumers and suppliers make decisions on short-term scales, meaning they tend to make decisions based on what the balance sheets say today without even considering the impact those decisions will have years or decades down the line. In theory, government regulation is supposed to help provide a hedge against that sort of thing, since governments are supposed to be concerned with more long-term economic matters.
This is not to say globalization in and of itself is bad. However, it needs to be undertaken much more carefully and gradually than it has been. Simply dropping all tariffs and letting businesses run wild all at once has produced a situation where everyone except for the very richest among us suffers, and even they will start to suffer if we allow the middle class to completely disappear and they have to drive through squalor on the way to their gated compounds like they do in many developing countries.
It's in everyone's best interest to preserve a robust middle class in developed countries and encourage the middle class to grow in developing countries. Globalization policies should be undertaken with that goal in mind, not with the sole purpose of driving down cost as has been done so far.
They are not solving the problem as reported, they are redefining the problem to something they can fix without a hardware recall.
The problem as reported is that the signal strength weakens consistently when the phone is held in a certain way. This is clearly a hardware issue, but hardware issues are expensive to fix. So, Apple fixes a similar but ultimately unrelated problem via a much cheaper software patch and hopes their loyal fan base will just pay attention to the fact that *a* problem has been fixed, even if it isn't *the* problem everyone is complaining about.
Unless Apple honestly believes this software patch will fix the actual reported problem, which I find very difficult to believe, they are acting in an unethical and customer-unfriendly manner in order to avoid the real solution, which would be to issue a recall of their flagship product and fix the hardware.
My rejection of Dr. Paul's ideas is not meant in any way to imply that I agree with our current fiscal policy. There is a middle ground between "spend like drunken sailors and borrow all the money" and "spend nothing and drastically cut everyone's taxes". The fact that everyone ignores the possibility of such a middle ground is part of the reason we seem unable to not only get ourselves out of the hole, but why we can't even seem to keep ourselves from continuing to dig it deeper.
It's not difficult to understand: It just means they posted a notice without that annoying embedded MIDI music that was so popular in the mid-1990s playing in the background. For example, when my company wants to loudly announce something, we'll post a notice on our main web page with a recording of vuvuzelas at full blast. It really gets everyone's attention.
My wife bought a laptop from Dell (the only Dell computer either of us have ever bought) and the fan failed on it after about 8 months. Dell had a guy out the next day who replaced the fan at no cost and with no questions asked. Of course, it was still under warranty. If you want service like that beyond the warranty period, you buy an extended warranty or a support contract.
In my experience Dell's hardware is sometimes a bit dodgy, but their support is top notch.
What are you people doing that causes Firefox to have such horrible stability problems?
Porn. Vast amounts of porn.
Sorry, but as much as I disagree with much of what the current power base does, I'm not quite ready to join a bunch of raving nutters who think the solution is to abolish government entirely or return us to some imagined utopia that never existed where the economy was always stable and everyone was always prosperous (seriously, look up some of the many financial collapses that occurred while we were on the gold standard). Ron Paul has some good ideas but he also has some that range from the wildly impractical to the borderline insane.
The Free State Project is basically an example of a few hardcore extremists being cheered on by a bunch of the same people you decry: they sit around and complain but when push comes to shove, they do nothing. That project has been around for many years, and so far the vast majority of people who claim to support it aren't moving and have no real concrete plans to move. Even if they somehow got enough people to move they'd quickly realize what has become apparent in some of the tea party organizations: beyond a general anger at the government, the people in the movement agree on very little. They have no unified plan as to how to fix any of our problems other than "kick everyone out and stop taxing me", which is not really a useful plan.
The people on the extreme right today have the same problem as the extreme left of the 1960s: they're great at protesting and getting attention, but they have no real practical solutions to any of the problems we face. They're heavy on idealism and ideology but very light on pragmatism and reason. They don't represent a feasible alternative to what we have now, which is why they have so much trouble gaining traction beyond their far-right base, and why we're still stuck with the same old government we've always had.
it's a legal agreement between two people which supposedly brings some sort of perceived tax benefit which I have never seen (we pay out far more now that we're married)
See an accountant. The tax benefit is highest for those in "traditional" marriages, meaning ones in which only one spouse works. Then, if you file a joint return you get twice the deduction you normally would have gotten. The math may also result in less tax even if you both work, depending on how disparate your incomes are. There are also certain deductions that you may qualify for but your spouse doesn't (or vice versa), but if you file a joint return it will apply to both of you (sometimes at twice the amount it would be for just one of you).
Generally, unless you are a one-income household, the tax benefits to marriage are fairly modest and sometimes nonexistent depending on your individual situation. But then, if you're looking to get married because you want a lower tax bill you may not be in the right frame of mind to get married at all.
Isn't ruling from the heart and not from the head exactly the sort of thing people rail against when it comes to Supreme Court nominees?
Only when their own heart disagrees with the nominee's.
You're about 15 years too late to be wishing for fewer newbs and lamers on "your" Internet. That ship has sailed, my friend.
The problem with playing to a crisis is eventually the crisis ends and suddenly nobody cares about your proposals anymore. Nixon and Carter both talked big about getting off of foreign oil during the oil shortages in the 1970s, even creating a whole new Cabinet-level department for that purpose. Then the crisis passed, people stopped caring, and before you know it everyone is driving giant SUVs and we're using more foreign oil than ever before.
I dunno, I guess it's a matter of taste. There are a few large wind farms in west Texas, and I find them quite beautiful. There's something majestic about a sea of giant windmills stretching off into the distance.
This sort of story happens whenever a major technological shift occurs. When TV first became popular people were going out and buying TVs and ignoring their radios, and so programming began to shift from radio to TV. All of the serial programming, news shows, and all the other rich programming that used to populate the radio waves all moved to TV, leaving nothing but political talk and music on the radio. Certainly some older consumers ended up getting stuck because they didn't want to or couldn't move to TV, so they stuck with their increasingly useless radios. People that are having trouble with this switch are people that have had the same TV set for 20 years or more and are still watching entirely over-the-air programming even though more and more programming has been moving to cable and satellite for decades. These tend to be older people as a general rule, although not all old people get stuck. My grandmother has a nice new HDTV with a DVR, and my grandfather just got DirecTV hooked up, although he still uses his old 20 year old VCR.
Technological progress moves on, and you either move on with it or get stuck with increasingly useless old tech that you have to jump through more and more hoops to get to work properly. My TV in the living room died just a couple of months ago, and instead of getting a cheap SDTV I went ahead and bought the HDTV because I figured with more and more programming going to HD, the SDTV will become more useless over time. Eventually as programming continues to move to HD, I'll have to switch out the TV upstairs or end up watching all of my programming with the sides cut off. We grumble about these things, but it would be absurd to halt progress just because not everyone is ready or willing to go along with it.
Hitler didn't have a laptop in school either, and look how he turned out. Clearly these laptops are necessary.