I had great trouble trying to work out if I should feel offended or contemptuous or just amused by that SCO email excerpt - but "amused" won in the end.
It is kind of an offensive term, but I guess you need to have some respect for a person's opinion in order to be offended by them.
And the fact that they couldn't even spell their own disparaging term... well.
Q: I'd like to direct your attention to the bottom email. Quote, "Reading some of the comments on the internet, the long-hair smelly's (sic) are indicating we have not turned off our Linux downloads?" Close quote.
Who are the long-hair smellies?
A: That's a common stereotypical name of computer geeks.
Ten percent???? Where on earth did you get that figure? From all I've heard you're at least two, possibly three, orders of magnitude out. And of course it varies hugely depending on what kind of fradulent product is being "marketed".
Why is it that I never have mod points when I actually need them?:)
This is the first time in ages I've actually laughed out loud at a slashdot post. Okay, maybe that says a bit too much about my lowbrow sense of humour - ah well.:)
I lead a large team working on AJAX apps at big corporation, I can tell you that building AJAX apps is much, much harder than any other UI technology I've dealt with in years. Can you build simple form-driven apps which are faster and more effective? Sure. But as soon as you stray from the path of least resistance [...]
The thing is, though, that you can actually cover a lot of needs just with those "simple form-driven apps". And the fact that webapps tend to be so simple and form-driven (at least in comparison to desktop apps) is in fact one of the reasons that unsophisticated users (and even quite a few sophisticated users) like them.
And if you take a serious look at those corporate AJAX apps you worked on, you'll probably find that in most cases it wasn't strictly necessary to draw a diagonal line.
Although even that will become quite doable once you mix SVG into the AJAX soup.
Never ever ever, period? You're absolutely sure about that?
I think you may be falling into the trap of extrapolating user
behaviour from yourself. Users are not all like you.
No, really, they're not. Sorry:).
I know a bunch of people that use only web-based email
(eg. GMail, YahooMail). And they had the experience of using desktop
email programs before, but they actually prefer the web UI.
Even without the XMLHttpRequest part of AJAX. And I have a bunch of
friends that I talk to on a couple of IRC channels - and to make life
easier for some of them, I set up an CGI::IRC web client for them on
my server. So if someone new wants to join, they can have a quick,
no-fuss way to try it out, without having to download and install and
setup a "real" IRC client. Most of them now use the CGI::IRC client as
a quick way to drop in from work, or from a uni machine - but some
actually prefer using CGI::IRC (much to my horror, as it's a
fairly slow and kludgy system - a modern XMLHttpRequest system could
probably do a much better job).
But there's one aspect of your post which may have a point - it's not
so much going to be web-apps replacing desktop apps, but
people who are (relatively) new to computers being introduced to web
apps before ever using a desktop app. For those people, it's quite
natural to use "web" applications, as they don't have so much of a
desktop background to unlearn.
Even the database stuff is an order of magnitude more difficult to implement on the web than on the desktop.
It is? Um... that's kind of a vague statement at best...
but with AJAX it takes your programmers ten times as long to do as it does in Java or VB or C# or whatever. So you can use a web app, but at ten times the cost.
Well, what a relief. People seem to find it difficult enough to accurately measure productivity between different programming languages when building the same kind of applications... but thankfully ednopantz is ready to stake his reputation on a nice round number - a number with a zero on the end, even!
There you go, webdevelopers! Whatever you try to develop as a desktop application, it'll take ten times longer if you try to do a functionally similar thing as a web application.
Yep. Ten times longer. That's right.
How'd I find that out, you ask? Did I conduct an extensive (and expensive) series of tests with a variety of different projects and teams?
No! What a silly idea! I just read a comment on slashdot by this guy "ednopantz". And I'm sure he's done an extensive series of tests to back up his statement, otherwise he'd just be pulling numbers out of his arse - and surely no slashdot user would disgrace themselves by doing that!
...So anyway... what do you mean, you want something vaguely credible? Look at the guy's name! ednopantz! How could you not take that seriously!?!?!
True. This is a case of people only get fat when the availability of food is high. Webapps are fat. Computing power is readily available.
*stares at SilverspurG's words*
*blinks, shakes head, stares again*
Nope, sorry, I think I'll have to chuck your entire post in the makes-absolutely-no-fucking-sense basket.
Let me know if you can rephrase it in a way that makes some sense:). As best I can guess, I think you were trying to say that web apps were a bad thing.
It's not Photoshop or heavy-media type applications you should be thinking of, it's the simple end-user-interacts-with-database type applications - where you don't need to have lightning-fast feedback. It's the sort of applications that can work fairly well even as "traditional" web applications - eg. webmail, usenet, flickr, etc.
Using AJAX-like techniques just opens the gate a bit further and makes it possible for quite a few more types of applications to exist and run on the "web" platform.
And the thing is that lots of non-computer-geek people really like web applications - they tend to be simpler and easier to use, there are no download/install issues, you can in theory access them from any computer with a network connection and a web browser (ie. just about anywhere), you don't have to worry about managing or backing up your data because it's being looked after by professionals (for what that's worth *grin*)...
No, webapps in general (and AJAX-type web apps specifically) can't do everything. But they can do a hell of a lot more than you might think.
you know when you liver is overworked producing insulin it kinda stops working properly after a while and any guesses what that's called, ummm.... well done diabetes,
It's not the liver that produces insulin, it's the pancreas.
I'll be nice and assume that was just a brain fart, as otherwise you seem to have at least a rough idea what you're talking about.;-)
It's kind of the thin end of the wedge - wrehe sleplnig tnhigs lkie tihs all the tmie is the oehtr end.
Sure, most people can read and understand the above... well, most native English-speakers at least. But it's painful. And reading sentences where "it's" is used in an "its" context (and vice-versa)... well, that hurts me.
So if you're feeling in a sadistic mood, swapping "it's" and "its" is a great way to inflict pain on innocent pedants like me (and it doesn't give non-pedants any trouble at all! Win-win!:-)). Oh, and "loose"/"lose". And - well, I'm sure there's a lot more (ah, the infinite variety of slashdot-commenter-bad-spelling), but my brain is blocking them out at the moment. Thank you, brain.
ALL Engineers KNOW how to write comments. If they don't know how to comment they're code they aren't an Engineer. [...] Because they're had to write Analysis Documents, Design Documents, and Test Plans. They code doesn't need documentation [...]
The sentences around vivin's quote that you didn't quite manage to paste: "In addition to accurately describing what we were doing, he checked our grammar. One thing he always stressed is that too many engineers these days don't know how to write comments. Grammar is important in getting the message across unambiguously."
I guess it's a good thing those fake engineers will have you to write they're comments for the'm.;)
In fact I will lay odds the 60% of the "Software Engineers" out there aren't really Engineers.
And for god's sake dude, "engineer" is not a proper noun, you're not supposed to capitalise it. The same applies for analysis documents, design documents and test plans. Argh.
If I want humor, I'll go watch CaddyShack or Fletch.
Humour subjective. Right. Gotcha.:)
I know that in general I want to read comments that actually have something to do with the code. But when talking about humorous comments, I generally see them as little throwaway one- or two-liners sparsely scattered through the code. And virtually all the funny comments I've encountered are funny only in context - that is, they're funny only to another programmer who has a rough understanding of the code being commented.
I'm guessing you've had a bad encounter with a programmer that thought they were funny when they really weren't. If so, you have my sympathies. But really, it's extremely cool when you're plowing through a large chunk of otherwise fairly dull code, and you run across an innocuous bit of dry wit that catches you off guard and makes you laugh.
Especially when it's the kind of humour that only another programmer would get. It feels like the original programmer is sharing a grin with you, through a window of months or years since the code was written. It's really quite cool.
Er, well... okay, I'm trying to be diplomatic, but... no. It wasn't very funny. It wasn't even funny. It wasn't clean, it wasn't easy to read (your grammar/spelling is so bad it was actually painful for me to read, though I'll let you off if English is not your first language:)) and it wasn't a translation.
I think this qualifies as possibly the weirdest >0-rated (well, at the moment) slashdot post I've seen for a while.
I reckon it deserves a special "delusional-nutcase-fantasy" mod tag:).
I don't have anything particularly intelligent to say other than that I totally agree with you.
That Planetary Society FAQ does seem like... now what's the right word.... bullshit. So they came up with a suspiciously large and round number ($250K) but, as far as we've seen, no detailed budget behind it? No explanation of what happens to excess funds?
For fuck's sake, Planetary Society people, it looks disturbingly like a "don't think just donate! QUICKLY!" campaign, built around fear of NASA apparently doing something extraordinarily stupid. There are just too many holes in the story, too much that makes no sense.
I strongly suspect that they really just want to fund a few qualified people to work on the data full-time for 6-12 months. But if that's so, a little honesty would be appreciated. There's no fucking way I'd donate to support some ridiculous US salary, when I'm sure there are an enormous number of university-based people all around the world that would love to spend time analysing this kind of data and would do it for free.
And yeah, it is kind of hazy regarding what information of value they hope to extract from this data. The slashdot writeup "...or it may be as groundbreaking as a clue to completely new physics, perhaps related to dark matter or dark energy" sounds like a nutcase trying to sell something.
Are you claiming that doctors and dentists are disclosing patients' confidential health records? I'd love to see any proof you have of that; certainly here in the UK, that would equate to "career dead" within a matter of days.
I'm not actually disagreeing with the overall theme of your post, since you do seem to have the right idea (although perhaps you're just a leetle bit too unworried in general) but you may perhaps be overly optimistic on this point.
Doctors are no more invulnerable to social engineering than anyone else. And especially given the heavily networked (and extraordinarily bureaucratic) health system in the UK, I suspect most doctors wouldn't blink if they received what looked like an official request from another doctor for a patient's medical records - "as I'm treating that patient now, you see."
And doctors are also no less human than the rest of us - and while there are some humans (unfortunately a minority) who have a genuine respect for privacy, far too many go by with the blithe "Eh, I don't care if $GOVT/$BUSINESS/$WHOEVER know all about me, I've got nothing to hide". Which is fine for them of course, but less fine for the rest of us when they translate their lack-of-caring onto the way they handle information about other people.
And with some doctors, they think of their patients as little more than objects, objects with a medical history attached.... and they do not treat that medical history with the respect it deserves - nor do they treat the patient-objects with the respect they deserve regarding their medical histories. If you don't believe me, go ask your doctor to destroy any medical records they've kept on you. If they don't claim they've got a legal obligation to keep them (which indeed they might), they'll say that the records are their property, not yours - and in many cases they won't even let you see them.
So if you could go and see a doctor without having to identify yourself, that wouldn't be much of a problem - as there'd be no (easy) way for someone to connect that private medical history to you. But of course...
[...] I am very well informed about what various organisations can and cannot do with the personal information about me that they hold, and quite prepared to stand up for my rights and bring others along with me.
None of that changes the fact that, since some groups do require personal information about me in order to fulfil their part of our relationship.
When you're talking about GP-type doctors specifically, they shouldn't need to know your real identity. They just don't need it.
You come in, get a consult, get your treatment (if any), pay and leave. It's only for getting presciptions filled that a name is needed, but again that's only needed for drugs that you can't get over the counter - and of course the only reason you can't get them over the counter is because the state has put an artificial restriction on accessing certain kinds of drugs.
Of course one of the justifications is so that people can get subsidised drugs - and that's fairly reasonable. But if I don't care about the subsidy, why shouldn't I be allowed to get the drugs I want/need without having to get a "note from the doctor"?
Specific example - I can't express how irritating it is for me to have to keep going to a doctor for no other reason than to get a prescription for the drug that I'll die without. "Yes," I say to doctor, "surprise fucking surprise, I'm still a diabetic. And I need some more insulin - gee, I bet you never saw that one coming.":-)
....Hmm, I think that turned into a semi-rant. Oh well, I hope it wasn't too boring.:)
It won't be a deterrent, because no intruder will ever believe they'll actually get caught.
I know very little about this case, but I strongly suspect that the guy in question didn't spend a lot of effort on tricks to make it harder to track him down (and if he actually left a note on the desktop in question saying "I broke in, you need to fix your security", well...:)). And that's what an utterly ludicruous sentence of 70 years would do - make any (future) illicit intruder be more wary and more prepared to take extreme measures to cover their tracks.
And of course there have probably been more than a few intruders both before and since. Just ones that didn't actually try to make their intrusion obvious.
Still, from what I have seen,
proprietary linux apps are
inherently more difficult to install on some linux distros. Mostly
because many of them are packaged for exactly one of them. I've seen
problems with e.g. oracle or maya, big name apps, from which you'd
expect a certain amount of "taking care".
To be fair, Oracle is the most nightmarishly
hideously painfully complex app to install (on
many systems, not just Linux - though I
think Linux is probably worse than most others).
I'm not sure exactly why Oracle-the-company make
Oracle-the-database so (unnecessarily)
difficult to install, but my theory is that Larry
likes to punish people for giving him money, and
then laugh at them.:)
I've bought a few commercial closed-source games
for Linux, and just about all of them use the
(open-source) Loki install. I've had a
couple of minor problems with one game, but most
were flawless.
Of the other commercial apps I've used on Linux,
VMWare and Crossover Office are both really good,
their installers worked fine. Opera, of
course, is packaged for most Linux systems, but
I've had no trouble with it on distros it doesn't
officially support.
I think that (aside from Oracle, which stands
alone for pure pain) the most awkward
closed-source-app install I've found on Linux
systems would be Adobe Acrobat Reader. It's not a
bad app, but the install is just... fiddly.
It's an interesting conversation when you talk
about whether you can see source codes or not.
...and...
Then, OK, in Microsoft's Shared Source program,
people can access up to 65 percent of source
codes for our core products. And through the
government security program around the world,
governments can access even more of our source
codes, if they choose to.
Goddamn. I think anyone who uses the term "source
codes" in cold blood can safely be classed
as a fucking tool. *eye roll*
Slashdot Mirror
All computer geeks may join, and you can define your own rank. And: "please note that as we are Smellies, you are allowed to be *very* rank." :-)
I had great trouble trying to work out if I should feel offended or contemptuous or just amused by that SCO email excerpt - but "amused" won in the end.
It is kind of an offensive term, but I guess you need to have some respect for a person's opinion in order to be offended by them. And the fact that they couldn't even spell their own disparaging term... well.
Ye fucking gods. :-)
Ten percent???? Where on earth did you get that figure? From all I've heard you're at least two, possibly three, orders of magnitude out. And of course it varies hugely depending on what kind of fradulent product is being "marketed".
This is the first time in ages I've actually laughed out loud at a slashdot post. Okay, maybe that says a bit too much about my lowbrow sense of humour - ah well. :)
Er, sorry, that SVG demo link I provided seems a bit non-functional :). Try this instead.
The thing is, though, that you can actually cover a lot of needs just with those "simple form-driven apps". And the fact that webapps tend to be so simple and form-driven (at least in comparison to desktop apps) is in fact one of the reasons that unsophisticated users (and even quite a few sophisticated users) like them.
And if you take a serious look at those corporate AJAX apps you worked on, you'll probably find that in most cases it wasn't strictly necessary to draw a diagonal line. Although even that will become quite doable once you mix SVG into the AJAX soup.
Never ever ever, period? You're absolutely sure about that?
I think you may be falling into the trap of extrapolating user behaviour from yourself. Users are not all like you. No, really, they're not. Sorry :).
I know a bunch of people that use only web-based email (eg. GMail, YahooMail). And they had the experience of using desktop email programs before, but they actually prefer the web UI. Even without the XMLHttpRequest part of AJAX. And I have a bunch of friends that I talk to on a couple of IRC channels - and to make life easier for some of them, I set up an CGI::IRC web client for them on my server. So if someone new wants to join, they can have a quick, no-fuss way to try it out, without having to download and install and setup a "real" IRC client. Most of them now use the CGI::IRC client as a quick way to drop in from work, or from a uni machine - but some actually prefer using CGI::IRC (much to my horror, as it's a fairly slow and kludgy system - a modern XMLHttpRequest system could probably do a much better job).
But there's one aspect of your post which may have a point - it's not so much going to be web-apps replacing desktop apps, but people who are (relatively) new to computers being introduced to web apps before ever using a desktop app. For those people, it's quite natural to use "web" applications, as they don't have so much of a desktop background to unlearn.
It is? Um... that's kind of a vague statement at best...
Well, what a relief. People seem to find it difficult enough to accurately measure productivity between different programming languages when building the same kind of applications... but thankfully ednopantz is ready to stake his reputation on a nice round number - a number with a zero on the end, even!
There you go, webdevelopers! Whatever you try to develop as a desktop application, it'll take ten times longer if you try to do a functionally similar thing as a web application. Yep. Ten times longer. That's right.
How'd I find that out, you ask? Did I conduct an extensive (and expensive) series of tests with a variety of different projects and teams? No! What a silly idea! I just read a comment on slashdot by this guy "ednopantz". And I'm sure he's done an extensive series of tests to back up his statement, otherwise he'd just be pulling numbers out of his arse - and surely no slashdot user would disgrace themselves by doing that!
*ahem* :-)
*stares at SilverspurG's words*
*blinks, shakes head, stares again*
Nope, sorry, I think I'll have to chuck your entire post in the makes-absolutely-no-fucking-sense basket.
Let me know if you can rephrase it in a way that makes some sense :). As best I can guess, I think you were trying to say that web apps were a bad thing.
It's not Photoshop or heavy-media type applications you should be thinking of, it's the simple end-user-interacts-with-database type applications - where you don't need to have lightning-fast feedback. It's the sort of applications that can work fairly well even as "traditional" web applications - eg. webmail, usenet, flickr, etc.
Using AJAX-like techniques just opens the gate a bit further and makes it possible for quite a few more types of applications to exist and run on the "web" platform.
And the thing is that lots of non-computer-geek people really like web applications - they tend to be simpler and easier to use, there are no download/install issues, you can in theory access them from any computer with a network connection and a web browser (ie. just about anywhere), you don't have to worry about managing or backing up your data because it's being looked after by professionals (for what that's worth *grin*)...
No, webapps in general (and AJAX-type web apps specifically) can't do everything. But they can do a hell of a lot more than you might think.
It's not the liver that produces insulin, it's the pancreas.
I'll be nice and assume that was just a brain fart, as otherwise you seem to have at least a rough idea what you're talking about. ;-)
Sure, most people can read and understand the above... well, most native English-speakers at least. But it's painful. And reading sentences where "it's" is used in an "its" context (and vice-versa)... well, that hurts me.
So if you're feeling in a sadistic mood, swapping "it's" and "its" is a great way to inflict pain on innocent pedants like me (and it doesn't give non-pedants any trouble at all! Win-win! :-)). Oh, and "loose"/"lose". And - well, I'm sure there's a lot more (ah, the infinite variety of slashdot-commenter-bad-spelling), but my brain is blocking them out at the moment. Thank you, brain.
*hammers on desk*
The sentences around vivin's quote that you didn't quite manage to paste: "In addition to accurately describing what we were doing, he checked our grammar. One thing he always stressed is that too many engineers these days don't know how to write comments. Grammar is important in getting the message across unambiguously."
I guess it's a good thing those fake engineers will have you to write they're comments for the'm. ;)
No True Scotsman, anyone?...
And for god's sake dude, "engineer" is not a proper noun, you're not supposed to capitalise it. The same applies for analysis documents, design documents and test plans. Argh.
It's probably because you have such a cool name.
Humour subjective. Right. Gotcha. :)
I know that in general I want to read comments that actually have something to do with the code. But when talking about humorous comments, I generally see them as little throwaway one- or two-liners sparsely scattered through the code. And virtually all the funny comments I've encountered are funny only in context - that is, they're funny only to another programmer who has a rough understanding of the code being commented.
I'm guessing you've had a bad encounter with a programmer that thought they were funny when they really weren't. If so, you have my sympathies. But really, it's extremely cool when you're plowing through a large chunk of otherwise fairly dull code, and you run across an innocuous bit of dry wit that catches you off guard and makes you laugh.
Especially when it's the kind of humour that only another programmer would get. It feels like the original programmer is sharing a grin with you, through a window of months or years since the code was written. It's really quite cool.
But it was wrong. You got that right. :)
BTW, you spell "porsche" with an 's'.
I think this qualifies as possibly the weirdest >0-rated (well, at the moment) slashdot post I've seen for a while. I reckon it deserves a special "delusional-nutcase-fantasy" mod tag :).
That Planetary Society FAQ does seem like... now what's the right word.... bullshit. So they came up with a suspiciously large and round number ($250K) but, as far as we've seen, no detailed budget behind it? No explanation of what happens to excess funds?
For fuck's sake, Planetary Society people, it looks disturbingly like a "don't think just donate! QUICKLY!" campaign, built around fear of NASA apparently doing something extraordinarily stupid. There are just too many holes in the story, too much that makes no sense.
I strongly suspect that they really just want to fund a few qualified people to work on the data full-time for 6-12 months. But if that's so, a little honesty would be appreciated. There's no fucking way I'd donate to support some ridiculous US salary, when I'm sure there are an enormous number of university-based people all around the world that would love to spend time analysing this kind of data and would do it for free.
And yeah, it is kind of hazy regarding what information of value they hope to extract from this data. The slashdot writeup "...or it may be as groundbreaking as a clue to completely new physics, perhaps related to dark matter or dark energy" sounds like a nutcase trying to sell something.
I'm not actually disagreeing with the overall theme of your post, since you do seem to have the right idea (although perhaps you're just a leetle bit too unworried in general) but you may perhaps be overly optimistic on this point.
Doctors are no more invulnerable to social engineering than anyone else. And especially given the heavily networked (and extraordinarily bureaucratic) health system in the UK, I suspect most doctors wouldn't blink if they received what looked like an official request from another doctor for a patient's medical records - "as I'm treating that patient now, you see."
And doctors are also no less human than the rest of us - and while there are some humans (unfortunately a minority) who have a genuine respect for privacy, far too many go by with the blithe "Eh, I don't care if $GOVT/$BUSINESS/$WHOEVER know all about me, I've got nothing to hide". Which is fine for them of course, but less fine for the rest of us when they translate their lack-of-caring onto the way they handle information about other people.
And with some doctors, they think of their patients as little more than objects, objects with a medical history attached.... and they do not treat that medical history with the respect it deserves - nor do they treat the patient-objects with the respect they deserve regarding their medical histories. If you don't believe me, go ask your doctor to destroy any medical records they've kept on you. If they don't claim they've got a legal obligation to keep them (which indeed they might), they'll say that the records are their property, not yours - and in many cases they won't even let you see them.
So if you could go and see a doctor without having to identify yourself, that wouldn't be much of a problem - as there'd be no (easy) way for someone to connect that private medical history to you. But of course...
When you're talking about GP-type doctors specifically, they shouldn't need to know your real identity. They just don't need it. You come in, get a consult, get your treatment (if any), pay and leave. It's only for getting presciptions filled that a name is needed, but again that's only needed for drugs that you can't get over the counter - and of course the only reason you can't get them over the counter is because the state has put an artificial restriction on accessing certain kinds of drugs.
Of course one of the justifications is so that people can get subsidised drugs - and that's fairly reasonable. But if I don't care about the subsidy, why shouldn't I be allowed to get the drugs I want/need without having to get a "note from the doctor"?
Specific example - I can't express how irritating it is for me to have to keep going to a doctor for no other reason than to get a prescription for the drug that I'll die without. "Yes," I say to doctor, "surprise fucking surprise, I'm still a diabetic. And I need some more insulin - gee, I bet you never saw that one coming." :-)
I thought the little comic storyline was really cool too. Made me laugh out loud quite a few times. :)
I know very little about this case, but I strongly suspect that the guy in question didn't spend a lot of effort on tricks to make it harder to track him down (and if he actually left a note on the desktop in question saying "I broke in, you need to fix your security", well... :)). And that's what an utterly ludicruous sentence of 70 years would do - make any (future) illicit intruder be more wary and more prepared to take extreme measures to cover their tracks.
And of course there have probably been more than a few intruders both before and since. Just ones that didn't actually try to make their intrusion obvious.
To be fair, Oracle is the most nightmarishly hideously painfully complex app to install (on many systems, not just Linux - though I think Linux is probably worse than most others). I'm not sure exactly why Oracle-the-company make Oracle-the-database so (unnecessarily) difficult to install, but my theory is that Larry likes to punish people for giving him money, and then laugh at them. :)
I've bought a few commercial closed-source games for Linux, and just about all of them use the (open-source) Loki install. I've had a couple of minor problems with one game, but most were flawless.
Of the other commercial apps I've used on Linux, VMWare and Crossover Office are both really good, their installers worked fine. Opera, of course, is packaged for most Linux systems, but I've had no trouble with it on distros it doesn't officially support.
I think that (aside from Oracle, which stands alone for pure pain) the most awkward closed-source-app install I've found on Linux systems would be Adobe Acrobat Reader. It's not a bad app, but the install is just... fiddly.
Goddamn. I think anyone who uses the term "source codes" in cold blood can safely be classed as a fucking tool. *eye roll*