Technologically, Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows
Are they? I can't really comment about OS X since I don't use it (my brother swears by it tho) but being well versed in both Windows and Linux, I suppose I tend to disagree. Would you list some of the things that you consider Linux to be light years ahead of Windows on? I'm curious.
Sorry but after so many "incidents", in my mind "Wikipedia administrator" == not trustworthy.
Perhaps not you personally, but your peers have earned that mistrust with a steady hand over the past few years. When you're busy creating and ruling little fiefdoms and exercising your alleged "powers" instead of actually trying to make a better encyclopedia, you fail it. Most of you lost sight of the goals of that website a long time ago.
Judging from how you've stormed this article, I have a feeling you might be one of the people involved on the WP side. This is a sordid saga to say the least, and Wales was very much involved in making sure that the "SlimVirgin" admin was shielded from blowback on the whole thing.
Every single post you've made so far is nothing more than ad hominems directed towards Byrne, but nothing particular of value other than your opinion that he's an idiot. Which may very well be the case, but doesn't magically come true just because you say it.
Ultimately, even if it's true or false, it's just another internet drama, brought to you by the unintentionally funny faux secrecy so desperately and incompetently exercised by the people who control Wikipedia.
And you (and Slashdot, as usual, although FUD is really not missing the point) also missed it. CodePlex does not prevent you from using any other license you wish for your code, up to and including the GPL.
If Microsoft comes up with a software license that says you can't compile the source on an iPhone, then it's highly suggested you use some other license if those terms bother you in any way.
Microsoft is also free to license their code under whatever legalese they see fit. It's up to you to decide whether or not that's acceptable to you.
As to the definition of "open source", Richard Stallman tells me that "open source" is an insulting and misleading term, so I guess if you think Microsoft is subverting the meaning of "open" somehow, they must be getting cozy with him. Open Source is OSI's trademark. "open source" is a generic term.
US engineers that will work for substandard wages, and are not willing to live with 10 other engineers cramped up in one apartment in order to save money to send home, rather than house and feed their US families in the area which they work
Microsoft pays standard salaries to H1-B visa holders. They are required to, by law. And they all get the same benefits as citizens and residents. That the industry at large is not willing to pay half-decent wages to qualified people is another thing.
The situation you describe here is, in my experience, specific to companies like IBM, who do exactly that to L1 visa holders while they are working for Fortune 500 firms like American Express who have outsourced their entire IT operations to them. L1 visa holders are NOT required to be paid equivalent US salaries, because technically they are not supposed to be paying the standard tax bracket rates as normal US-based workers. So they basically earn the dollar equivalent to a good salary in rupees.
Of course in the press releases they never mention they outsource the whole thing to IBM India, just "IBM". That's how it works.
With the exception of one product manager in the server group who should have been sweeping the floor, every single MS employee I've ever interacted with was bright and intelligent, especially in the developer tools division.
There are 60,000 people working at Microsoft. Feel free to generalize though, it makes you look clever.
Bill Gates, eh? What about all the other companies that lobbied to get this trough? IBM is one of the largest importers of foreign labor, but of course we don't want to mention that. Heck, IBM is the largest employer of L1 visa holders. IBM uses these visas to get around the salary and posting requirements of H1-B visas. Thousands and thousands of Indians, Chinese and Russians are in the US occupying jobs under L1 visas and working for IBM and a few other companies, mostly on mid- and lower-level IT jobs that pay well but don't require high qualifications, and of which there is no shortage in this country.
Microsoft does not use L1 visas, because they don't import cheap outsourced labor like IBM does. They are trying to bring in valuable, qualified college graduates to this country to fill higher-level positions that cannot be filled with US-based engineers because at that level, there truly is a shortage.
But hey, this is Slashdot so we can happily spin this so that it seems Bill Gates is manipulating US immigration policies for his own benefit. That way we get another "Microsoft is teh evil" bullet point for the "advocacy" folks, and Slashdot sells more ads. Everybody wins.
Yes, during WWII it was actually quite common for planes to attack surface ships with iron bombs, or even just strafe them with machine gun fire. That became problematic with the availability of air cover from aircraft carriers and better ship-mounted defensive systems, so it went out of style until cruise missiles were developed and standoff attacks were made possible.
God, I can't help myself, you really pissed me off. Your point about the F-14 and the AIM-54 is also painfully incorrect, since the cruise missile threat to US navy ships dates back to the Tu-95 and, which was first deployed in the 1960s with the predecessors to the current Kh-55SM ant-shipping missile, which is similar to the US AHM-84 Harpoon. Later the threat was the Tu-22M Backfire. One of the primary stated aims of the AIM-54 was in fact to intercept large cruise missiles launched at carriers, such as the AS-6. You seem to be high on Wikipedia, so I'll quote from it:
The Phoenix was designed to defend the Carrier Battle Group against a variety of threats including cruise missiles, and its range and loiter capability provided defense in depth. During the height of the Cold War, the threat included regimental-size raids of Badger and Backfire bombers equipped with high-speed cruise missiles and considerable Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) of various types. The upgraded Phoenix, the AIM-54C, was developed to better counter projected threats from tactical aircraft and cruise missiles and its final upgrade included a re-programmable memory capability to keep pace with emerging threat ECM.
Whaddya know, bombers attacking ships. With cruise missiles! Oh the humanity!
The reality is that the Soviet Navy simply never hoped to match the blue-water capabilities of the US Navy, thus the use of the long-range bomber and the cruise missile as the primary attack weapon against surface combatants. Large numbers of Soviet bombers were tasked to naval aviation regiments throughout the Cold War.
And finally, the manned strategic bomber went the way of the condor in the early 80s. The Soviets had no illusions about their ability to successfully penetrate US air defenses, which is why they increased their ICBM throw weight enormously during the 70s and 80s. That was the actual "missile gap", not the one Kennedy claimed existed in the early 60s. Soviet bombers in the Cold War existed almost solely to fight the US Navy. You won't read that on Wikipedia, but you could read it on Jane's or FAS.
Kh-15 is a supersonic, short-range attack missile carrying a 200-kiloton nuclear or 250 kg conventional warhead. It was designed to provide Soviet medium- and long-range bombers with an outstanding strike capability against targets protected by sophisticated air defense systems. This can be done thanks to its impressive maximum speed of Mach 5. Kh-15 guidance system is based on the inertial navigation and may be backed up with a radar homing head for anti-ship applications.
Kh-15P designation refers to the anti-radiation version of Kh-15 which is a superb weapon for enemy air defenses suppression. Kh-15A and/or Kh-15S refer to an anti-ship variant. The Russian/Soviet Air Force deployed the Kh-15 on its Tu-160, Tu-22M and Tu-95 bombers. NATO calls this weapon the AS-16 Kickback. It is the Soviet counterpart to US AGM-69 SRAM.
May I suggest you stop using Wikipedia as the source of your "expertise"? Or just shut the fuck up. Whatever works for you.
Yes, The GBU-43 is also designed as an earth penetrator, whereas this one being a thermobaric device is necessarily an airburst.
And yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy in charge of flying a Mack truck with wings at 120kts over a hot target to drop a 6-ton device. Someone with a BB gun might shoot me down.
The Blackjack might look like the Lancer but it really is a completely different aircraft. Not only is it bigger, it's also heavier, faster and carries a lot more ordnance.
The Soviet Union designed the TU-160 as a counter weight to the US carrier groups. If WWIII had actually started, those birds were the only thing in their inventory that could effectively counter a Navy task force. In fact their entire strategy for a land war in Europe depended on them interdicting shipping from the US across the GIUK line. The bombers would attack the escort ships with massive conventional cruise missile swarms, or single nuclear ones.
Bears, Bisons, Backfires and Blackjacks. That's why the Aegis cruisers were designed, and that's why the F-14 Tomcat and the AIM-54 Phoenix were rushed into service.
It must be somewhere around 7-8 metric tons or so. I believe they dropped it from a bomber, which they must have had to modify to carry something like that - either the external hardpoints would have to be re-inforced or the internal bomb bay mechanisms pretty much ripped out. I wonder if they had a guy back there with scissors, ready to cut the strings holding it up.
And you're right, large devices are mostly useless, whether they are nuclear or conventional. That's why both the US and USSR stopped making multi-megaton bombs and started creating MIRVed payload ICBMs and SLBMs to deliver multiple smaller devices.
A radial airburst of 6-7 nuclear warheads in the 200-300KT range is *much* more destructive than a single 20MT bomb. That's the nuclear doctrine for both Russia and the US for large counter-population or counter-value targets, and has been for the past thirty years or so. The large bombs went out of style in the late 60s along with the hippies.
This is nothing more than a large thermobaric device. Very few people call them "vacuum bombs" anymore. It's not the same technology as the US Air Force's "MOAB", which uses semi-conventional explosives. I bet it's also unstable as hell.
These weapons are nothing more than grandiose show-offs with alleged dubious psychological effects. They're not going to launch one of these on an ICBM any time soon, unless Russia started using Antonovs as ICBMs while I was on vacation.
This is the military equivalent of having a nuclear warhead that has to be set off with a match. Flashy but completely useless.
Thanks. I appreciate that. Ultimately though, one can be a sheep, or one can speak one's mind. The stupidity of this "review" does not lend itself well to being nice. Holy crap the cries of doom that emanate from here very time someone does the opposite thing, yet here we are with something written by a guy employed by the same company that controls Slashdot. And it's supposed to be "news".
One of the things that amaze me the most about this "community" is how quickly they descend into the same pit they claim Microsoft throws "FUD" at them all the time. I just never get tired of pointing that out. Who knows, maybe someone will snap out of the ridiculous open-source-is-perfect-la-la-la mindset and start using their brains for a change. Or stop using vacuous arguments to support a POV that ultimately comes down to "it's free and I hate Microsoft anyway so there". Unfortunately for people like me, these are the only people who are in a position to give Microsoft a run for their money. But I despair when I see so much of that amazing potential being wasted on petty bullshit like this.
If that gets me modded down here, tough. I've been around long enough that it just doesn't bother me at all.
I guess if this was someone doing a review of Word vs Writer with Word coming up on top it would be automatically discarded, but I'm sure we can trust Linux.com for a good, balanced review.
Except where he forgot to review things like collaboration (shared workspaces, SharePoint and NetMeeting interop), revision control, integration, extensibility model, autoformatting, the insane amount of clip art available for free from the Office website, mail merge, the document map functionality, Office Update, speed, etc. etc.
People don't generally use something like Word because it's a good word processor - there are cheaper solutions for that. Word is good because it's part of a complete integrated solution. Otherwise you can get something cheaper or more specialized.
I doubt that, and for all the dick waiving I still fail to see why these are important, given they support something that's 12 years old.
While you and your friends (and by "friends" I mean people for whom OOXML vs ODF is as usual a black and white issue littered with religious overtones) hump the bells of freedom, Microsoft still has a monopoly on the desktop, hundreds of millions of Office installs and $40 billion in the bank. You have an office "suite" that is painfully slow, barely operates with itself and your banner operating system still has less market share than Windows 98.
The "evangelists" like Rob Weir could have used this as a good stepping stone to start pressuring Microsoft to open up gradually. But the all-or-nothing zealot modus operandi will get you exactly jack shit, ISO or not.
Good luck with the Jihad. You're going to need it.
Why is a completely new format including commands related to some arcane application, anyway?
And why do you care if they are there? Do you figure the evil Microsoft will have some tricksies up their sleeves because of these tags? What part of the phrase "ignore them if you don't care about backwards compatibility" do you fail to grok?
Standards are supposed to work for my benefit, I don't give a damn about MS or its customers.
ROFL, of course you don't. But still, they do. So Microsoft could have always just modified ODF to support their customers, right? Oh, no. Scratch that, Sun won't allow it and in any case you and your friends would be on the rafters crying "embrace extend extinguish" as usual. It's a game that Microsoft cannot win no matter what they do, and I'm surprised they even decided to play it at all.
The world doesn't need standards that can't be implemented.
You'll get your wish soon enough, I'm sure. But not because of any technical merits, which is ironic enough.
Is there a cognitive problem here? What part of you only need that tag if you plan on supporting Office 95 did we manage to miss? Are you saying that the group of people behind Open Office are up in arms because they cannot support a proprietary application that's 12 years old?
Microsoft has absolutely no obligation to the "gimme the spec or die" crowd other than to specify how to read and write a document that can be created with the version of Word or Excel that exists at the time the spec is released. They do have an obligation to support their paying users. The rest is just whining for the sake of whining, because the reality is that if OOXML was indeed a superior format it would be irrelevant - that same group of people when confronted by that inconvenient reality would declare the standard "shit" for the simple reason that it comes from Microsoft.
OOXML is doomed not because it has "OMG bit fields" or 6000 pages of documentation or funky tags or tries to be backwards compatible, it's doomed because it's trying to be a standard in an environment where people don't give a rat's ass about pesky things like compatibility, paying customers or creating commercial ecosystems around software. So it will never be good enough, even if it is.
You're missing the point. Backwards compatibility is only important for Microsoft, not for Sun or RedHat or the FSF or anyone else that is pushing ODF. Once you realize that, you also realize that you can simply throw away all the compat crap and create your own OOXML reader or writer or whatever you need to do.
Microsoft however cannot afford to throw away almost two decades of compatibility, least of all compatibility with versions of Office that still have hundreds of millions of users. Nor are they required to tell you or anyone else how Word 95 rendered a table.
BTW, it's hilarious that someone who uses terms like "the open source community" is happy to suggest that Microsoft can modify ODF to support its own legacy customers. I can almost hear the cries of "embrace extend extinguish" coming out of that.
That's clever. Did you miss the part of the standard where that sort of thing is required for backwards compatibility? Apparently only Microsoft cares about that sort of thing, so that's why it's in the damn standard. If the ODF fanboys and FSF-sponsored trolls don't care about that sort of thing, I reckon they can safely ignore them and not implement them. But I guess that's no fun because it eliminates one of the fav memes being thrown around to prove that the standard is somehow deficient.
When de Icaza talks about OOXML being "FUDed" to death, he's probably referring to this sort of ignorant thing. Bullet point evangelism seems to work quite well with the Slashdot/Digg crowds, which are amusingly enough the first ones to complain about Microsoft doing the same things to them.
I don't particularly cherish the idea of XML-based file formats. A binary one could have been well-documented and work a hell of a lot better, so I dislike both ODF and OOXML. But the level of stupidity in the "criticism" being leveled at OOXML is just ridiculous. Complete with "OMFG the 1.0 implementation as a BUG!!! Therefore the standard SUCKS!!!" detailed articles that include blatant misconceptions about how certain things work, ignorant points about the compatibility sections and the number of pages in the fucking document.
Slashdot Mirror
Technologically, Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows
Are they? I can't really comment about OS X since I don't use it (my brother swears by it tho) but being well versed in both Windows and Linux, I suppose I tend to disagree. Would you list some of the things that you consider Linux to be light years ahead of Windows on? I'm curious.
to one as large as 900MB
Is that what powers your HTML applications?
Sorry but after so many "incidents", in my mind "Wikipedia administrator" == not trustworthy.
Perhaps not you personally, but your peers have earned that mistrust with a steady hand over the past few years. When you're busy creating and ruling little fiefdoms and exercising your alleged "powers" instead of actually trying to make a better encyclopedia, you fail it. Most of you lost sight of the goals of that website a long time ago.
Ah, I see you've met twitter.
Judging from how you've stormed this article, I have a feeling you might be one of the people involved on the WP side. This is a sordid saga to say the least, and Wales was very much involved in making sure that the "SlimVirgin" admin was shielded from blowback on the whole thing.
Every single post you've made so far is nothing more than ad hominems directed towards Byrne, but nothing particular of value other than your opinion that he's an idiot. Which may very well be the case, but doesn't magically come true just because you say it.
Ultimately, even if it's true or false, it's just another internet drama, brought to you by the unintentionally funny faux secrecy so desperately and incompetently exercised by the people who control Wikipedia.
And you (and Slashdot, as usual, although FUD is really not missing the point) also missed it. CodePlex does not prevent you from using any other license you wish for your code, up to and including the GPL.
If Microsoft comes up with a software license that says you can't compile the source on an iPhone, then it's highly suggested you use some other license if those terms bother you in any way.
Microsoft is also free to license their code under whatever legalese they see fit. It's up to you to decide whether or not that's acceptable to you.
As to the definition of "open source", Richard Stallman tells me that "open source" is an insulting and misleading term, so I guess if you think Microsoft is subverting the meaning of "open" somehow, they must be getting cozy with him. Open Source is OSI's trademark. "open source" is a generic term.
Microsoft pays standard salaries to H1-B visa holders. They are required to, by law. And they all get the same benefits as citizens and residents. That the industry at large is not willing to pay half-decent wages to qualified people is another thing.
The situation you describe here is, in my experience, specific to companies like IBM, who do exactly that to L1 visa holders while they are working for Fortune 500 firms like American Express who have outsourced their entire IT operations to them. L1 visa holders are NOT required to be paid equivalent US salaries, because technically they are not supposed to be paying the standard tax bracket rates as normal US-based workers. So they basically earn the dollar equivalent to a good salary in rupees.
Of course in the press releases they never mention they outsource the whole thing to IBM India, just "IBM". That's how it works.
There are 60,000 people working at Microsoft. Feel free to generalize though, it makes you look clever.
Microsoft does not use L1 visas, because they don't import cheap outsourced labor like IBM does. They are trying to bring in valuable, qualified college graduates to this country to fill higher-level positions that cannot be filled with US-based engineers because at that level, there truly is a shortage.
But hey, this is Slashdot so we can happily spin this so that it seems Bill Gates is manipulating US immigration policies for his own benefit. That way we get another "Microsoft is teh evil" bullet point for the "advocacy" folks, and Slashdot sells more ads. Everybody wins.
Yes, during WWII it was actually quite common for planes to attack surface ships with iron bombs, or even just strafe them with machine gun fire. That became problematic with the availability of air cover from aircraft carriers and better ship-mounted defensive systems, so it went out of style until cruise missiles were developed and standoff attacks were made possible.
Whaddya know, bombers attacking ships. With cruise missiles! Oh the humanity!
The reality is that the Soviet Navy simply never hoped to match the blue-water capabilities of the US Navy, thus the use of the long-range bomber and the cruise missile as the primary attack weapon against surface combatants. Large numbers of Soviet bombers were tasked to naval aviation regiments throughout the Cold War.
And finally, the manned strategic bomber went the way of the condor in the early 80s. The Soviets had no illusions about their ability to successfully penetrate US air defenses, which is why they increased their ICBM throw weight enormously during the 70s and 80s. That was the actual "missile gap", not the one Kennedy claimed existed in the early 60s. Soviet bombers in the Cold War existed almost solely to fight the US Navy. You won't read that on Wikipedia, but you could read it on Jane's or FAS.
http://www.deagel.com/Land-Attack-Cruise-Missiles/Kh-15_a000869001.aspx
May I suggest you stop using Wikipedia as the source of your "expertise"? Or just shut the fuck up. Whatever works for you.
And yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy in charge of flying a Mack truck with wings at 120kts over a hot target to drop a 6-ton device. Someone with a BB gun might shoot me down.
The Blackjack might look like the Lancer but it really is a completely different aircraft. Not only is it bigger, it's also heavier, faster and carries a lot more ordnance.
The Soviet Union designed the TU-160 as a counter weight to the US carrier groups. If WWIII had actually started, those birds were the only thing in their inventory that could effectively counter a Navy task force. In fact their entire strategy for a land war in Europe depended on them interdicting shipping from the US across the GIUK line. The bombers would attack the escort ships with massive conventional cruise missile swarms, or single nuclear ones.
Bears, Bisons, Backfires and Blackjacks. That's why the Aegis cruisers were designed, and that's why the F-14 Tomcat and the AIM-54 Phoenix were rushed into service.
And you're right, large devices are mostly useless, whether they are nuclear or conventional. That's why both the US and USSR stopped making multi-megaton bombs and started creating MIRVed payload ICBMs and SLBMs to deliver multiple smaller devices.
A radial airburst of 6-7 nuclear warheads in the 200-300KT range is *much* more destructive than a single 20MT bomb. That's the nuclear doctrine for both Russia and the US for large counter-population or counter-value targets, and has been for the past thirty years or so. The large bombs went out of style in the late 60s along with the hippies.
These weapons are nothing more than grandiose show-offs with alleged dubious psychological effects. They're not going to launch one of these on an ICBM any time soon, unless Russia started using Antonovs as ICBMs while I was on vacation.
This is the military equivalent of having a nuclear warhead that has to be set off with a match. Flashy but completely useless.
One of the things that amaze me the most about this "community" is how quickly they descend into the same pit they claim Microsoft throws "FUD" at them all the time. I just never get tired of pointing that out. Who knows, maybe someone will snap out of the ridiculous open-source-is-perfect-la-la-la mindset and start using their brains for a change. Or stop using vacuous arguments to support a POV that ultimately comes down to "it's free and I hate Microsoft anyway so there". Unfortunately for people like me, these are the only people who are in a position to give Microsoft a run for their money. But I despair when I see so much of that amazing potential being wasted on petty bullshit like this.
If that gets me modded down here, tough. I've been around long enough that it just doesn't bother me at all.
Rant's over =)
Except where he forgot to review things like collaboration (shared workspaces, SharePoint and NetMeeting interop), revision control, integration, extensibility model, autoformatting, the insane amount of clip art available for free from the Office website, mail merge, the document map functionality, Office Update, speed, etc. etc.
People don't generally use something like Word because it's a good word processor - there are cheaper solutions for that. Word is good because it's part of a complete integrated solution. Otherwise you can get something cheaper or more specialized.
While you and your friends (and by "friends" I mean people for whom OOXML vs ODF is as usual a black and white issue littered with religious overtones) hump the bells of freedom, Microsoft still has a monopoly on the desktop, hundreds of millions of Office installs and $40 billion in the bank. You have an office "suite" that is painfully slow, barely operates with itself and your banner operating system still has less market share than Windows 98.
The "evangelists" like Rob Weir could have used this as a good stepping stone to start pressuring Microsoft to open up gradually. But the all-or-nothing zealot modus operandi will get you exactly jack shit, ISO or not.
Good luck with the Jihad. You're going to need it.
You so totally deserve that troll moderation. How *dare you* suggest ODF is not the cheeky piece of sunshine most Slashbots think it is? Shame on you.
And why do you care if they are there? Do you figure the evil Microsoft will have some tricksies up their sleeves because of these tags? What part of the phrase "ignore them if you don't care about backwards compatibility" do you fail to grok?
ROFL, of course you don't. But still, they do. So Microsoft could have always just modified ODF to support their customers, right? Oh, no. Scratch that, Sun won't allow it and in any case you and your friends would be on the rafters crying "embrace extend extinguish" as usual. It's a game that Microsoft cannot win no matter what they do, and I'm surprised they even decided to play it at all.
You'll get your wish soon enough, I'm sure. But not because of any technical merits, which is ironic enough.
Microsoft has absolutely no obligation to the "gimme the spec or die" crowd other than to specify how to read and write a document that can be created with the version of Word or Excel that exists at the time the spec is released. They do have an obligation to support their paying users. The rest is just whining for the sake of whining, because the reality is that if OOXML was indeed a superior format it would be irrelevant - that same group of people when confronted by that inconvenient reality would declare the standard "shit" for the simple reason that it comes from Microsoft.
OOXML is doomed not because it has "OMG bit fields" or 6000 pages of documentation or funky tags or tries to be backwards compatible, it's doomed because it's trying to be a standard in an environment where people don't give a rat's ass about pesky things like compatibility, paying customers or creating commercial ecosystems around software. So it will never be good enough, even if it is.
Microsoft however cannot afford to throw away almost two decades of compatibility, least of all compatibility with versions of Office that still have hundreds of millions of users. Nor are they required to tell you or anyone else how Word 95 rendered a table.
BTW, it's hilarious that someone who uses terms like "the open source community" is happy to suggest that Microsoft can modify ODF to support its own legacy customers. I can almost hear the cries of "embrace extend extinguish" coming out of that.
When de Icaza talks about OOXML being "FUDed" to death, he's probably referring to this sort of ignorant thing. Bullet point evangelism seems to work quite well with the Slashdot/Digg crowds, which are amusingly enough the first ones to complain about Microsoft doing the same things to them.
I don't particularly cherish the idea of XML-based file formats. A binary one could have been well-documented and work a hell of a lot better, so I dislike both ODF and OOXML. But the level of stupidity in the "criticism" being leveled at OOXML is just ridiculous. Complete with "OMFG the 1.0 implementation as a BUG!!! Therefore the standard SUCKS!!!" detailed articles that include blatant misconceptions about how certain things work, ignorant points about the compatibility sections and the number of pages in the fucking document.
I'm really looking forward to your pointing out where I said that. Really.
Otherwise, I suggest you shut the fuck up.