I hope you get to see this, as my interest was piqued by this sentence of yours:
This goes for hardware as well as software: look at how their mice have improved and taken the majority market share.
Do you have any numbers on that? I'm not doubting you personally, as your posts make you sound rather well-informed, but I thought that in the overall market, counting the OEM and corporate channels as well as retail, Logitech was still the market leader.
Perhaps Microsoft is the market leader in retail, as I see their stuff everywhere on the store shelves, but on the corporate PCs at my workplace and everywhere else I've been it's Logitech I see, and most OEM PCs in the stores come with low-end rebranded Logitech mice, at least here in Europe. I haven't seen many PCs that came with Microsoft hardware yet.
Yeah, but try running all that without the GNU C Library. You won't get very far.
Stallman has a very good point, I just don't adhere to it because it's not very practical to do everytime. I will however push the importance of the GNU Project and the FSF whenever I can. That seems a good compromise between ideals and pragmatism to me.
Well, actually, the first thing I do when I buy a CD is to immediately rip it to high-quality Ogg/Vorbis. Since I do not have a stereo, but I do have a reasonable quality Philips sound system on my PC, and I like making themed playlists, I would definitely be affected by any laws that would take away my rights to make personal copies, whether directly or indirectly.
Thats one of the reasons why Im willing to fight the European Union Copyright Directive, as I dont laws like the DMCA enacted in my home country (The Netherlands, in case anyone wants to know).
If youre not one of the people who already reacted to my earlier call to action, I am currently trying to get enough people together to do something about the Dutch implementation of this law.
You can get my e-mail address, and my earlier post in the thread you mentioned, from my User Info.
It gets worse. Corporations push for globalisation with the argument that Free Trade is good. They want to be treated equal all over the world, that is what 'no market barriers' means.
However, when the workers want to be treated the same as their colleagues in other countries, and go on strike to enforce that, all of a sudden the corporation isn't so globalist anymore, and moves out of the country, putting thousands out of work because of a few measly procents out of their bottom line.
Instructive example: Volkswagen in Mexico. The workers got their raise, and Volkswagen announced that they would close down the plant.
I'm all for globalisation, but only if that means that citizens get to profit too. As the WTO wants to implement it now, it is giving corporations all the benefits of global free trade without ensuring that other parties in the market (labour and customers) get the same benefits.
So my wage isn't decent? Working conditions are bad?
Your situation at the moment may be good. And what if in 3 months your employer asks you to take a 50% pay cut or lose your job. Will you still smugly maintain that you have equal bargaining power? Only a union can give you that power. Sooner or later every employee will find himself at the bargaining table without an economic boom and an exuberant job market to back up his demands. Why would this be only relevant to blue collar workers? I should think that higher educated labour should be smart enough to see this, it's so obvious.
All your other arguments are basically based on the half-assed implementation of unions in the U.S. Certainly my union is not opposed to pay according to performance. They get consulted by companies as soon as problems become apparent, so that if cuts must happen, they will happen with the cooperation of the union, and not in the almost criminal way I see slashdotters constantly whine about.
And your examples are purely emotional. Can you give me one reason why collective bargaining is not good for workers, whatever their education? You sound like a spoiled kid: "Whaaah! The janitor is only making half of what I do, instead of one-tenth". Tell me, would you still program if you got paid less or nothing for it? Lots of people do just that. Pay for performance is important, but do you really need to make massively more than someone else to do your work properly? I suggest that if that's so, you're in the wrong line of work, as you obviously only do it for the pay.
Sheesh. I thought that the average slashdot reader was smart enough to make a distinction between concept and implementation. Guess I was wrong.
I am very much interested in fighting this legislation. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find an organisation in my home country that seems willing to lead the fight.
If necessary, I'm willing to put in the work to set something up, or help an existing organisation. If any slashdot reader in the Netherlands knows more or wants to help, just drop me an e-mail. Any readers who already have an organisation running in other countries are free to contact me for help and tips.
First, do you have anything to back that up please?
Second, isn't that an incentive for supermarkets to invest in automated checkout methods? The IT company that can sell such solutions will make a tidy profit, the supermarket that employs it can undercut the competition and offer lower prices.
Voila, everybody's happy, except the union. Next round of negotiations, they start at a disadvantage. That's the way the Free Market works and ought to work.
Bad unions ought to get culled from the market just as fast as bad companies. I do agree from what I hear here, that there are some things wrong with the way unions work in the US, but is that a reason to think an IT union should be just as bad? Is that a reason to discredit the concept of a union instead of the implementation?
Disclaimer: I am a union member myself, although unions in the Netherlands are generally low-key affairs who prefer to negotiate in good faith with employers, with both an eye on the company future and on employee demands.
Most of Europe's problems are bound up in restructuring plans by our governments. In most countries this takes the form of blind privatisation. There is this blind trust in the market leading to the government just selling off whole service arms in the expectation that the market will fix the inefficiencies.
Usually this leads to two problems:
The service in question is sold off at a ridiculously low price, meaning the government gets not enough money to invest in other services or cut taxes by a noticeable amount.
The service in question is privatised along with the infrastructure as a single company, leading to just replacing a bureaucratic government service being replaced by a monopoly.
Just about every government in Europe makes mistakes like this, meanwhile cutting back on services considered essential here (like public healthcare) because they are not getting enough money.
Granted that the economy has never been as flexible here as in the States, but that also means that all else being equal, we also don't fall as far in a crisis. I'll gladly trade a little growth in boom times for a little more security in a crisis.
Also, with the exception of militant unions like France's CGT, in most of Europe unions and employers get along pretty well. It is only when idiocy like this appears that the knives are drawn, and rightly so in my opinion, because that's what the unions are for.
There is no call to use words like feudalism and paternalism to characterise the European economies. Mostly our view on how to balance public and private sectors, corporate and labour concerns, grows out of open conversation between governments, labour unions and employers associations. I'd characterise this more as cooperative than anything else.
The above is gross generalisation of course, as every country in Europe has different accents on how things are done, but in the Netherlands, where I live, unions and employers get along just fine, and are mostly responsible for our economy being relatively flexible and definitely in a better state than our neighbours'.
In the marketplace, unions would only inhibit the ability for companies to adapt to rapidly changing market conditions.
No, you're the one who's trolling.
Unions do not serve to protect weaker workers at the expense of the hotshots. Read your fscking Adam Smith (you know, the father of the Free Market) to see what his opinion on unions is.
Frankly, the imbalance in bargaining power between employer and employee is such that the only way the workers can get a reasonable wage and decent working conditions is by collective bargaining. This is historical proven fact, and the reason unions exist in the first place.
If an employer can't pay union scale without going out of business, that means that he is not profitable enough to pay his employees a decent wage. According to the Free Market doctrine, he shouldn't be in business, but he should go broke. Nobody's obliged to support a bad business model, and especially not by taking lower wages and worse conditions.
Remember, the Free Market cuts both ways. Read up on some history and economics before you make a fool of yourself in public again.
With idiotic management that drives a company into the ground, wants to cut salaries in half, and to top it off gives itself a fsckin raise, perhaps those nice cooperative American workers should open their eyes and stop seeing management as an ally. These kind of idiots are the enemy.
While Europe has its own set of problems (and no, they are not what you say they are), methinks that the American labour market could do with a bit of European thinking. This sort of behaviour is nigh on criminal, and any executive trying to do this here would have the unions screaming for his head, and rightly so.
I read the three-part excerpt in Analog last year, and it is definitely worth looking into.
Yes, it is mostly a romance story, but there's some interesting ideas in there as well, and Asaro has a very nice writing style. She publishes regularly in Analog, and she's fast becoming one of my favourites.
I am a user of DynDNS, and I'd say they are more than fairly reliable. With four nameservers in different netblocks and different geographical locations they have more redundancy than most hosting services I have seen. Since running DNS is just about the only thing they do, there is not much chance to fsck things up too.
They are also scrupulously honest about things like privacy. They don't need the EU Safe Harbour provisions, as their privacy policy fully satisfies the EU Privacy Directive, and they seem to hold themselves to it too.
Add to that a friendly and approachable staff (One of their admins popped up on a newsgroup when people were talking about them), and the fact that they will handle Dynamic DNS for a full domain if you become a donator, I'd heartily recommend them to anyone with a good Cable/DSL connection.
The problem is simply with the Big Five record companies out there having a cartel on promotion and distribution, it is impossible to have world-wide name recognition without them. The cartel must be broken up before we start preaching contract freedom for musicians, because this so-called freedom at the moment is the freedom to sell away your soul, or languish in obscurity.
Actually, I agree with Lars Ulrich too. The only thing wrong is too few people realising that Lars is right because he is one of the lucky few artists that actually own the copyright on their own songs.
Seeing your UID, I think you've just been around for too short a time to moderate. There's a time limit for new users before they become eligible, but I don't know how long it lasts.
Mod privs are also bound to visiting and posting frequency. If you're a regular visitor, and a frequent poster, expect to see moderator status soon. I see it irregularly, but then my posting tends to come in bursts. Sometimes multiple posts per week, and sometimes I go months without posting. I am a daily visitor though, so I get to mod a lot.
Don't worry too much. It'll come, and as you can see, sooner or later the moderators catch up with your wishes. The occasional totally bone-headed mod is the price we Slashdot readers have to pay for an imperfect, but working system.
Let's, for charities sake, say that artists want to make it big because they want to be heard by as many people possible. For that they need the distribution machinery of a big label.
Guess what? All the big labels have the same standard contract for artists: sign over all your rights, take all the risks yourself, and we skim off the profits while you pay off the costs of producing your album.
Now, where I come from, this is called a cartel, and it's illegal. And from what I gathered, you guys in the U.S. have something called the Sherman Act outlawing this as well.
So tell me again, how is an artist that wants the widest possible distribution of his work, not forced to sign away his soul to a major label?
I totally agree with you. You better watch out though, some of the rabid anti-Katz posters have mod privileges as well. Check my comment history to see why.
FWIW, I quite like Jons take on things, only his writing occasionally needs a little pruning, because he has the bad habit of being too verbose at times. On the other hand, Jon is man enough to admit to mistakes like that. Somehow I have the feeling he has more backbone and integrity than all the whiners.
To be fair, the pre-empt patch makes only a small difference on my machine. Possibly this is dependent on hardware and general configuration.
Regardless of that, there are several tweaks that can be done to the kernel to make it even better.
I agree with you that Linux definitely feels faster. My previous machine was a PIII/500 with 128M of RAM, comparable to the NT4 workstations at work, and it blew them out of the water on desktop performance, while being closer to Win2000 in features.
Possibly the fact that the Linux kernel is optimised for maximum throughput, which is great for a server, but a workstation OS is better served with maximum responsiveness.
It is things like this that have given rise to the pre-empt patch for example. Let me tell you, it makes a world of a difference to still have a responsive desktop when the system is doing something I/O-intensive.
In fact, Linus has been known to say in interviews that getting the kernel optimisations for workstation class machines right is one of the goals of the 2.5 series of development kernels.
Basically statistics and anecdotes can be used to prop up either side of the argument if one so chose.
Oh, like you did in your 'Open-Source-is-not-so-secure-after-all' fluff piece? Based on raw data that was disavowed as unusable for analyisis by its own source?
(is it just me, or does every error message from DNS failed to network unreachable to IE-doesn't-like-your-SSL say pretty much the same thing?)
Yep. It does.
And what particularly irks me is that the default error page of IE says that it's a http 500 server error. It's as if Microsoft is saying that IE never does anything wrong, it's always the servers fault.
IIRC, the VIC puts the 6510 to "sleep", diddles the CS/A lines, and tells the 6510 to wake up when its done.
You remember correctly. I don't know if it's a feature of the 6510 specifically (I never programmed another CPU from 65xx family), but the processor in the C-64 was fully DMA-capable.
Memory access was not concurrent, so any chip triggering the DMA line put the CPU off the bus, but that was exactly what the VIC chip did. That's also the reason why the C-64 ran faster when you blanked the screen.
No. It's a C-64 v2. Later C-64s came in a C-128-like case, with a modified chipset. They used the 85xx series of CMOS chips, like the C-128. Most important difference was in the voltages used to drive them. I believe the 6581 SID used a +12 volt line to drive its oscillators, whereas the 8581 used +5 volt.
I may be wrong, but I do remember that the 85xx series could not be used in 65xx slots. That was a bastard when my 8581 died in my C-128, as that part was produced in such slight quantities that I could only get a 6581 as a replacement, which was no use. I not only lost sound, but I lost my random number generator as well (the RND function was seeded from the white noise oscillator in some programs).
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you get to see this, as my interest was piqued by this sentence of yours:
Do you have any numbers on that? I'm not doubting you personally, as your posts make you sound rather well-informed, but I thought that in the overall market, counting the OEM and corporate channels as well as retail, Logitech was still the market leader.
Perhaps Microsoft is the market leader in retail, as I see their stuff everywhere on the store shelves, but on the corporate PCs at my workplace and everywhere else I've been it's Logitech I see, and most OEM PCs in the stores come with low-end rebranded Logitech mice, at least here in Europe. I haven't seen many PCs that came with Microsoft hardware yet.
MartYeah, but try running all that without the GNU C Library. You won't get very far.
Stallman has a very good point, I just don't adhere to it because it's not very practical to do everytime. I will however push the importance of the GNU Project and the FSF whenever I can. That seems a good compromise between ideals and pragmatism to me.
MartWell, actually, the first thing I do when I buy a CD is to immediately rip it to high-quality Ogg/Vorbis. Since I do not have a stereo, but I do have a reasonable quality Philips sound system on my PC, and I like making themed playlists, I would definitely be affected by any laws that would take away my rights to make personal copies, whether directly or indirectly.
Thats one of the reasons why Im willing to fight the European Union Copyright Directive, as I dont laws like the DMCA enacted in my home country (The Netherlands, in case anyone wants to know).
Mart
If youre not one of the people who already reacted to my earlier call to action, I am currently trying to get enough people together to do something about the Dutch implementation of this law.
You can get my e-mail address, and my earlier post in the thread you mentioned, from my User Info.
MartIt gets worse. Corporations push for globalisation with the argument that Free Trade is good. They want to be treated equal all over the world, that is what 'no market barriers' means.
However, when the workers want to be treated the same as their colleagues in other countries, and go on strike to enforce that, all of a sudden the corporation isn't so globalist anymore, and moves out of the country, putting thousands out of work because of a few measly procents out of their bottom line.
Instructive example: Volkswagen in Mexico. The workers got their raise, and Volkswagen announced that they would close down the plant.
I'm all for globalisation, but only if that means that citizens get to profit too. As the WTO wants to implement it now, it is giving corporations all the benefits of global free trade without ensuring that other parties in the market (labour and customers) get the same benefits.
MartThanks. It appears someone doesnt agree with you though, as I already got a -1, Overrated on this one.
Ah well, thats what you get for defending unionism on a forum full of wannabe libertarians.
MartYour situation at the moment may be good. And what if in 3 months your employer asks you to take a 50% pay cut or lose your job. Will you still smugly maintain that you have equal bargaining power? Only a union can give you that power. Sooner or later every employee will find himself at the bargaining table without an economic boom and an exuberant job market to back up his demands. Why would this be only relevant to blue collar workers? I should think that higher educated labour should be smart enough to see this, it's so obvious.
All your other arguments are basically based on the half-assed implementation of unions in the U.S. Certainly my union is not opposed to pay according to performance. They get consulted by companies as soon as problems become apparent, so that if cuts must happen, they will happen with the cooperation of the union, and not in the almost criminal way I see slashdotters constantly whine about.
And your examples are purely emotional. Can you give me one reason why collective bargaining is not good for workers, whatever their education? You sound like a spoiled kid: "Whaaah! The janitor is only making half of what I do, instead of one-tenth". Tell me, would you still program if you got paid less or nothing for it? Lots of people do just that. Pay for performance is important, but do you really need to make massively more than someone else to do your work properly? I suggest that if that's so, you're in the wrong line of work, as you obviously only do it for the pay.
Sheesh. I thought that the average slashdot reader was smart enough to make a distinction between concept and implementation. Guess I was wrong.
I am very much interested in fighting this legislation. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find an organisation in my home country that seems willing to lead the fight.
If necessary, I'm willing to put in the work to set something up, or help an existing organisation. If any slashdot reader in the Netherlands knows more or wants to help, just drop me an e-mail. Any readers who already have an organisation running in other countries are free to contact me for help and tips.
Mart (e-mail on my userpage)First, do you have anything to back that up please?
Second, isn't that an incentive for supermarkets to invest in automated checkout methods? The IT company that can sell such solutions will make a tidy profit, the supermarket that employs it can undercut the competition and offer lower prices.
Voila, everybody's happy, except the union. Next round of negotiations, they start at a disadvantage. That's the way the Free Market works and ought to work.
Bad unions ought to get culled from the market just as fast as bad companies. I do agree from what I hear here, that there are some things wrong with the way unions work in the US, but is that a reason to think an IT union should be just as bad? Is that a reason to discredit the concept of a union instead of the implementation?
Disclaimer: I am a union member myself, although unions in the Netherlands are generally low-key affairs who prefer to negotiate in good faith with employers, with both an eye on the company future and on employee demands.
MartHeh. I had that coming eh?
Most of Europe's problems are bound up in restructuring plans by our governments. In most countries this takes the form of blind privatisation. There is this blind trust in the market leading to the government just selling off whole service arms in the expectation that the market will fix the inefficiencies.
Usually this leads to two problems:
Just about every government in Europe makes mistakes like this, meanwhile cutting back on services considered essential here (like public healthcare) because they are not getting enough money.
Granted that the economy has never been as flexible here as in the States, but that also means that all else being equal, we also don't fall as far in a crisis. I'll gladly trade a little growth in boom times for a little more security in a crisis.
Also, with the exception of militant unions like France's CGT, in most of Europe unions and employers get along pretty well. It is only when idiocy like this appears that the knives are drawn, and rightly so in my opinion, because that's what the unions are for.
There is no call to use words like feudalism and paternalism to characterise the European economies. Mostly our view on how to balance public and private sectors, corporate and labour concerns, grows out of open conversation between governments, labour unions and employers associations. I'd characterise this more as cooperative than anything else.
The above is gross generalisation of course, as every country in Europe has different accents on how things are done, but in the Netherlands, where I live, unions and employers get along just fine, and are mostly responsible for our economy being relatively flexible and definitely in a better state than our neighbours'.
MartNo, you're the one who's trolling.
Unions do not serve to protect weaker workers at the expense of the hotshots. Read your fscking Adam Smith (you know, the father of the Free Market) to see what his opinion on unions is.
Frankly, the imbalance in bargaining power between employer and employee is such that the only way the workers can get a reasonable wage and decent working conditions is by collective bargaining. This is historical proven fact, and the reason unions exist in the first place.
If an employer can't pay union scale without going out of business, that means that he is not profitable enough to pay his employees a decent wage. According to the Free Market doctrine, he shouldn't be in business, but he should go broke. Nobody's obliged to support a bad business model, and especially not by taking lower wages and worse conditions.
Remember, the Free Market cuts both ways. Read up on some history and economics before you make a fool of yourself in public again.
MartWith idiotic management that drives a company into the ground, wants to cut salaries in half, and to top it off gives itself a fsckin raise, perhaps those nice cooperative American workers should open their eyes and stop seeing management as an ally. These kind of idiots are the enemy.
While Europe has its own set of problems (and no, they are not what you say they are), methinks that the American labour market could do with a bit of European thinking. This sort of behaviour is nigh on criminal, and any executive trying to do this here would have the unions screaming for his head, and rightly so.
Mart (European and union member)I read the three-part excerpt in Analog last year, and it is definitely worth looking into.
Yes, it is mostly a romance story, but there's some interesting ideas in there as well, and Asaro has a very nice writing style. She publishes regularly in Analog, and she's fast becoming one of my favourites.
MartI am a user of DynDNS, and I'd say they are more than fairly reliable. With four nameservers in different netblocks and different geographical locations they have more redundancy than most hosting services I have seen. Since running DNS is just about the only thing they do, there is not much chance to fsck things up too.
They are also scrupulously honest about things like privacy. They don't need the EU Safe Harbour provisions, as their privacy policy fully satisfies the EU Privacy Directive, and they seem to hold themselves to it too.
Add to that a friendly and approachable staff (One of their admins popped up on a newsgroup when people were talking about them), and the fact that they will handle Dynamic DNS for a full domain if you become a donator, I'd heartily recommend them to anyone with a good Cable/DSL connection.
MartWith proportionally smaller distribution.
With what money?
The problem is simply with the Big Five record companies out there having a cartel on promotion and distribution, it is impossible to have world-wide name recognition without them. The cartel must be broken up before we start preaching contract freedom for musicians, because this so-called freedom at the moment is the freedom to sell away your soul, or languish in obscurity.
MartActually, I agree with Lars Ulrich too. The only thing wrong is too few people realising that Lars is right because he is one of the lucky few artists that actually own the copyright on their own songs.
Why do you think Radiohead made friendly statements about Napster? Check a Radiohead CD for a laugh: all songs on it are © Universal Music. Even funnier in a sick way: how much have we seen Radiohead promoted by its label since they came out in favour of Napster? Think on the chilling implications of that.
Mart (RIAA: Not just all your copyrights, but all your opinions too are belong to us)Seeing your UID, I think you've just been around for too short a time to moderate. There's a time limit for new users before they become eligible, but I don't know how long it lasts.
Mod privs are also bound to visiting and posting frequency. If you're a regular visitor, and a frequent poster, expect to see moderator status soon. I see it irregularly, but then my posting tends to come in bursts. Sometimes multiple posts per week, and sometimes I go months without posting. I am a daily visitor though, so I get to mod a lot.
Don't worry too much. It'll come, and as you can see, sooner or later the moderators catch up with your wishes. The occasional totally bone-headed mod is the price we Slashdot readers have to pay for an imperfect, but working system.
MartLet's, for charities sake, say that artists want to make it big because they want to be heard by as many people possible. For that they need the distribution machinery of a big label.
Guess what? All the big labels have the same standard contract for artists: sign over all your rights, take all the risks yourself, and we skim off the profits while you pay off the costs of producing your album.
Now, where I come from, this is called a cartel, and it's illegal. And from what I gathered, you guys in the U.S. have something called the Sherman Act outlawing this as well.
So tell me again, how is an artist that wants the widest possible distribution of his work, not forced to sign away his soul to a major label?
MartHeh.
I totally agree with you. You better watch out though, some of the rabid anti-Katz posters have mod privileges as well. Check my comment history to see why.
FWIW, I quite like Jons take on things, only his writing occasionally needs a little pruning, because he has the bad habit of being too verbose at times. On the other hand, Jon is man enough to admit to mistakes like that. Somehow I have the feeling he has more backbone and integrity than all the whiners.
Mart
To be fair, the pre-empt patch makes only a small difference on my machine. Possibly this is dependent on hardware and general configuration.
Regardless of that, there are several tweaks that can be done to the kernel to make it even better.
I agree with you that Linux definitely feels faster. My previous machine was a PIII/500 with 128M of RAM, comparable to the NT4 workstations at work, and it blew them out of the water on desktop performance, while being closer to Win2000 in features.
MartPossibly the fact that the Linux kernel is optimised for maximum throughput, which is great for a server, but a workstation OS is better served with maximum responsiveness.
It is things like this that have given rise to the pre-empt patch for example. Let me tell you, it makes a world of a difference to still have a responsive desktop when the system is doing something I/O-intensive.
In fact, Linus has been known to say in interviews that getting the kernel optimisations for workstation class machines right is one of the goals of the 2.5 series of development kernels.
MartOh, like you did in your 'Open-Source-is-not-so-secure-after-all' fluff piece? Based on raw data that was disavowed as unusable for analyisis by its own source?
MartYep. It does.
And what particularly irks me is that the default error page of IE says that it's a http 500 server error. It's as if Microsoft is saying that IE never does anything wrong, it's always the servers fault.
Grrrr....
MartYou remember correctly. I don't know if it's a feature of the 6510 specifically (I never programmed another CPU from 65xx family), but the processor in the C-64 was fully DMA-capable.
Memory access was not concurrent, so any chip triggering the DMA line put the CPU off the bus, but that was exactly what the VIC chip did. That's also the reason why the C-64 ran faster when you blanked the screen.
MartNo. It's a C-64 v2. Later C-64s came in a C-128-like case, with a modified chipset. They used the 85xx series of CMOS chips, like the C-128. Most important difference was in the voltages used to drive them. I believe the 6581 SID used a +12 volt line to drive its oscillators, whereas the 8581 used +5 volt.
I may be wrong, but I do remember that the 85xx series could not be used in 65xx slots. That was a bastard when my 8581 died in my C-128, as that part was produced in such slight quantities that I could only get a 6581 as a replacement, which was no use. I not only lost sound, but I lost my random number generator as well (the RND function was seeded from the white noise oscillator in some programs).
Mart