Is finding another P2P solution really going to help the hacker community not look like pirates? I've heard some legal uses for P2P networking, but all anyone ever talks about is the next Napster. One that can't be shut down so easily. Some even go so far as to admit (odd they'd do that) that Napster is illegal. With dicussions like these, it's no wonder many people view us as thieves. Or am I just way off the boat here and the hacker community really doesn't care how they're thought of?
As a side note, I really don't care what happens to Napster or P2P networking. Shutting down Napster isn't going to stop MP3s, and Napster was basically an illegal service. Although there was some legal MP3's traded on it. Everyone cries about losing Napster, but in reality it doesn't change anything.
Anyway, back to my previous question. Does this community care how it is perceived?
But this is often the mentality many software companies take that lead to increasingly bad software. They don't go back and fix problems because no one will pay for a program that is just bug fixes or infrastructure redesign. The ability to do these things is one of the reasons open source software is superior (IMO). If they're working like a company with a revenue stream, how are they going to act any different? IE, what's the guarantee that they will fix the problems he sees if commercial companies are depending on it and desiring more features?
I've read through Miguel's comments and I agree with his reasoning for the most part. GTK+ 2.0 breaking binary and source compatibility is a mess in itself, but I worry that if they "Aim Low" then the problems they see that need to be fixed to obtain the "Blue Sky" will never be done. How many times do developers say "I'll fix that later" and then never do because they run out of time or have to implement too many other features? As a result, problems in the design get worked around and tweaked. It then becomes next to impossible to fix the problems because it would involve and even bigger undertaking than before. I would like to see his ideals met, but I do worry that by not fixing the major problems you see in your product by the next release that those problems will then stay in the product forever. I hope the Gnome team is considering this and realizes this potential danger.
I don't see why. You can program an extremely trivial program and protect it by copy protection. All that means is someone else can't copy it or (thanks to the DMCA) reverse engineer it. Copy protection just means someone else can't muck with it, but the program can do whatever the original creator designed it to do. Including replicate itself.
I would agree with you except for one thing. They're not just getting them as a preventative measure. If that were the case, there wouldn't be lawsuits about these stupid patents (Amazon's enforcement of 1-click patent comes to mind). They would get the patent and sit on it. The companies realize they can get money from the patents and are using them as such. If Symantec was just getting this patent to prevent from being sued then they wouldn't be talking about pursuing their rights. I could have mis-read the article, but I gathered that they were going to enforce this patent in not just virus updates, but in many other areas. That doesn't sound like a company getting a patent for preventative measures. Just because all the other companies are getting patents and suing doesn't mean any single one has to. It appears that this practice (patenting something after it's widely used) has become a source of revenue, which is sad. I'm not saying not to be mad at the USPTO for creating a scenario that allows this, but the corporations are the ones attempting to uphold their patents. No one is forcing them to sue. If they're getting a patent just for prevenative measures, why would they care if it gets invalided because they don't enforce it? I'd say be angry at both equally.
If used correctly they are ment to allow the situation I mentioned. However, patenting a technology that has been used by the industry for a while, with clear prior art, to gain an advantage is what I am referring to. What I don't know, and isn't mentioned in the story, is when Symantec started using this technology. If it was last year, than there's no problem with this. I somehow doubt that considering AV programs have been doing viril updates over the net for years. I don't know about enough about this tech works to comment knowledgably on this patent. I'll let others do that. However, my comment was in a broad sense and not necessarily apply specifically to Symantec. There have been a number of silly patents that have gone through and I was just stating what I saw happening in general.
While the idea does have a few flaws, it'd be interesting to seem something like this attempted. I mean, if I wrote a virus with some form of copy protection in it, I could sue them for circumventing it under the DMCA. Now, I'd get fined and/or thrown in jail for writting the virus, but if you got out on bail and sued the company, it just might open up their eyes a bit. Soon we'd have all the virus writters using copy protection (if they don't already) in their viruses making AV programs invalid or illegal. I think the AV companies would jump on the bandwagon to get DMCA declared Unconstitutional. It'd be interesting to see what would happen, but this will probably never come to be. Kinda sad too because I think an event like this (not necessarily this) is what the industry needs to open it's eyes.
It seems to me that companies that can't compete or can't find a competitive advantage over the other companies in their field have resorted to patenting things in order to gain this advantage. Virus scanners have been around for a long time, and have been upgrading their databases for a long time, so this patent just seems like an attempt to gain an advantage. The only anti-virus program I found to be any good was AVP, and they're not a major player. I like them because updates were free forever and it could detect more viruses than Norton OR MacCafee. In that business, whoever has the largest virus database the fastest has an advantage. Since most big anti-virus companies are about the same in this regard, is seems Symantec is trying to find another way to get an advantage. Lord forbid they work harder. Course, being a non-windows user means I don't have to worry about things like this, so this really doesn't phase me.:)
I'm not necessarily referring to actual knowledge, but perceived knowledge. I agree with what you're saying, and it's similar to the previous reply. However, many times older people see themselves as more knowledgable simply because they are older. There are counter examples (where I work), but I was oversimplifying my generalization.:) Age does not necessarily determine experience or knowledge, but it does determine perceived knowledge and experience. Society tends to believe older people vs younger ones regardless of the situation. Younger people also tend to think they know more than they actually do. This could be because it's hard to get people to listen to them when they are young. Anyway, I digress. It's just how we've evolved. Someday it may change, but I don't that being too likely. Not within my life time anyway.:)
Did anyone catch the number of transistors on that chip? It's close to the number you find on AMD or Intel CPUs. Either it's incredibly complex, or deisgned horribly. Think of the cooling system needed to cool the chip. I'd think it'd just about HAVE to have a heat sink and fan along the lines of what you put on a CPU. I could be wrong, but doesn't heat disappation have something to do with the number of transistors? Still like to see some performance numbers.
I agree with you completely. I wasn't meaning to imply that it isn't partially his fault, but that this trend will be consistent through time. Older people will generally think less of younger people regardless of how they present themselves. This isn't always the case however as I work in a place that doesn't exhibit these situations at all, but I'm over simplifying my generalization. More than likely he does have a little bit of an ego. Most students do even through college. I wasn't trying to hop onto the bandwagon of David vs. Goliath, but just trying to point it will probably always be this way regardless. How you present yourself and your ideas can lessen it though.
It's been this way for a long time, and probably will continue to be this way in the future. No one likes to have someone younger than you show they're more knowledgable than you. You've spent a time in the work place and should know more about solving problems than some young kid. It won't matter what the ages involved are. It's the way society is. Best you can hope for is someone who isn't so egocentric.
Khyron
I don't really see a way to prevent DoS or DDoS attacks in the future. The concept is way too simple. All you have to do is flood a site with enough packets to overload the server, and you've committed a DoS attack. The DoS attack will probably continue to evolve into something that isn't as esily stopped as some people mention. The DDoS will probably never be stopped because no matter how alert you are with security patches, there is still the likelihood that a hole will be found and exploited before it is patched. Once the machine is cracked, that's it. With the number of machines connected to the net, you could easily gain access to enough to start a DDoS attack once you find just one such security hole. You can't punish them because companies don't have jusidiction in foreign countries and as we've noted several times, each country appears to look at things differently. IMO, the best you can do is use the most secure OS you can find and pray. Am I missing anything?
Ah, well that I can understand and in fact agree with. Some of the stunts they did with the bettle were impressive from an engineering stand point. This does just look like a prank, although a rather expensive one to clean up. To truly be fair, we'd have to know how much it cost to clean up the past pranks. It's fun to read about, but I'm sure those cleaning it up aren't laughing too hard. If they hadn't choosen a bridge in such a populated area they might not be threatened with a lawsuit. Big cities tend to be more uptight. Of course they chose that bridge for a reason, and they should deal with those consequences. Find some way to anonymously ask for damages and pay it. I don't think the students need to be prosecuted.
I am a big football fan and I watch and discuss games with a group of people who are football fans. After a weekend of NFL football, football is discussed not cheerleaders. After the XFL these same people just discussed the cheerleaders, not the games or the quality of football. So, either the football is so bad as to not even be discussable, or the cheerleaders were emphasized more. Regardless, there is an obivous shift in attention for some reason. Atleast with what the people I interact with find interesting in the league. Granted, this is from my experience, but I see it as a pretty significant evidence that the XFL isn't focused on football that much. Don't even get me started on the commentators.
That being said, I haven't judged it at all. I haven't seen enough to do so, and some weekend I don't have too much to do I will watch more. All I said is that it appears to be more about the cheerleaders and commentator's sexual inuendoes than about football. Learn more about a comment before you judge someone next time.
I think you missed the point. From what I read, the objection has to deal with how great an engineering feat it is to hang a car off a bridge, not how much fun it is to drive 16 hrs and do this. As an engineering feat, this isn't that impressive. Assembling a car on top of a building (whether it be MIT students or any other students) is a far more impressive feat than dangling one off a bridge. Not to say that engineering skills aren't used in this stunt, but it's not as complicated as putting together a car even if it's just a shell.
As for your points, "Yanks" as you put it, are not the only people easily distracted by four drops of rain. I'd say I'm pretty safe in saying just about everyone is that easily distracted, regardless of nationality.
The second and third points are completely pointless and therefore I won't comment on them. Seems as if you have some pent up hostility though.
I didn't see much of the XFL, but the few minutes I saw were in an odd camera angle. Not one that you couldn't get used to, just a different angle. With all this tech, why can't they give me the camera angle I want to see? In the Super Bowl they were showing off their new Matrix camera tech, but they did it stupidly. The commentator would say something like "Let's look at the passing lane he had" then spin the camera 180 degress so now I'm looking at the right side of the field inside of the left. How does that help? I want to see the view from BEHIND the QB or running back so I can see what they see. I can't imagine this is that difficult, but no game I've seen with "new technology" has done that. Did XFL do anything like this, or did it just concentrate on the player and coaches comments?
Is the XFL really about football? Everyone I talked to who saw the games just commented on the cheerleaders and their revealing leather outfits. I saw a few minutes of the game and the football wasn't that great. Seems to me the new league is more about watching scantily clan women than football. If that's the case, fine, but don't try to pass it off as football.
Khyron
There was a movie called Inner Space that dealt with shrinking a person in a machine and injecting them into another person, but I don't think that's along the same lines as you're talking about. The only other one that comes to mind are the nanities from Star Trek.
This is great news for the everyone but MS. Creating a common desktop interface across all Unicies and Linux/BSD will only accelerate Linux's success. The Unix world tried this with CDE but they over looked one important detail. People have to LIKE the interface, and no one I know who has used CDE likes it. You can fight about Gnome vs. KDE, but you can't argue that Gnome isn't better than CDE. When the other major Unix ventors follow suit (hopefully they will anyway. They said they would, and we all know they wouldn't lie just to look good to the open source community:)), it very well cause a resurgence in UNIX. We'll have to wait a see though.
A friend of mine created a card game called Bureaucracy. It apparantly took about 8 decks of cards to play, and 1 turn could last a long time with many cards played. The object was to get rid of all your cards if I remember correctly, but the rules were so bloated (like a real bureaucracy) that that was next to impossible but the rules make the attempts hilariously fun. I tried to get him to teach me, but he wouldn't because it takes so long. Kids would probably get bored playing and call it a draw. Does that count as a zero-sum game?:)
I agree with you for the most part. I've used KDE2 a little and I must say I like it's interface much better than KDE1's, but I'm still a Gnome/Sawfish user and will stay that way until KDE comes up with corner panels. I think that's supposed to be in KDE2.1 though, so I may end up switch when that becomes stable. Anyway, I think both Gnome and KDE are more intuitive than Windows because windows has many nooks and crannies that a normal user wouldn't be able to find, and these things are necessary to be able to use the damn thing. People always say Linux isn't ready for the desktop because of the user interface. That's BS. I believe Linux IS ready and all that's required is time. The more familiar the look will is to people, the more "intuitive" it will become. That's not a reason to stop working on it though.:)
I heard that the MOO series was good, but I got sucked into StarCon 2 at the time I learned about the games. Then sucked into Civ and Alpha Centauri, so I never really got to play it. What's the idea behind it? I got the impression it was kinda like Civ.
What about 989 sports? I liked their Gameday 2000 on PS far better then Madden 2000. I haven't played Madden 2001 or Gameday 2001, but I played NFL 2k for a bit and it seemed better than Gameday and Madden together. Still, 989 is still a competitor to EA and Sega, but I'm not sure how much of one.
Slashdot Mirror
Is finding another P2P solution really going to help the hacker community not look like pirates? I've heard some legal uses for P2P networking, but all anyone ever talks about is the next Napster. One that can't be shut down so easily. Some even go so far as to admit (odd they'd do that) that Napster is illegal. With dicussions like these, it's no wonder many people view us as thieves. Or am I just way off the boat here and the hacker community really doesn't care how they're thought of?
As a side note, I really don't care what happens to Napster or P2P networking. Shutting down Napster isn't going to stop MP3s, and Napster was basically an illegal service. Although there was some legal MP3's traded on it. Everyone cries about losing Napster, but in reality it doesn't change anything.
Anyway, back to my previous question. Does this community care how it is perceived?
Khyron
But this is often the mentality many software companies take that lead to increasingly bad software. They don't go back and fix problems because no one will pay for a program that is just bug fixes or infrastructure redesign. The ability to do these things is one of the reasons open source software is superior (IMO). If they're working like a company with a revenue stream, how are they going to act any different? IE, what's the guarantee that they will fix the problems he sees if commercial companies are depending on it and desiring more features?
Khyron
I've read through Miguel's comments and I agree with his reasoning for the most part. GTK+ 2.0 breaking binary and source compatibility is a mess in itself, but I worry that if they "Aim Low" then the problems they see that need to be fixed to obtain the "Blue Sky" will never be done. How many times do developers say "I'll fix that later" and then never do because they run out of time or have to implement too many other features? As a result, problems in the design get worked around and tweaked. It then becomes next to impossible to fix the problems because it would involve and even bigger undertaking than before. I would like to see his ideals met, but I do worry that by not fixing the major problems you see in your product by the next release that those problems will then stay in the product forever. I hope the Gnome team is considering this and realizes this potential danger.
Khyron
I don't see why. You can program an extremely trivial program and protect it by copy protection. All that means is someone else can't copy it or (thanks to the DMCA) reverse engineer it. Copy protection just means someone else can't muck with it, but the program can do whatever the original creator designed it to do. Including replicate itself.
Khyron
I would agree with you except for one thing. They're not just getting them as a preventative measure. If that were the case, there wouldn't be lawsuits about these stupid patents (Amazon's enforcement of 1-click patent comes to mind). They would get the patent and sit on it. The companies realize they can get money from the patents and are using them as such. If Symantec was just getting this patent to prevent from being sued then they wouldn't be talking about pursuing their rights. I could have mis-read the article, but I gathered that they were going to enforce this patent in not just virus updates, but in many other areas. That doesn't sound like a company getting a patent for preventative measures. Just because all the other companies are getting patents and suing doesn't mean any single one has to. It appears that this practice (patenting something after it's widely used) has become a source of revenue, which is sad. I'm not saying not to be mad at the USPTO for creating a scenario that allows this, but the corporations are the ones attempting to uphold their patents. No one is forcing them to sue. If they're getting a patent just for prevenative measures, why would they care if it gets invalided because they don't enforce it? I'd say be angry at both equally.
Khyron
If used correctly they are ment to allow the situation I mentioned. However, patenting a technology that has been used by the industry for a while, with clear prior art, to gain an advantage is what I am referring to. What I don't know, and isn't mentioned in the story, is when Symantec started using this technology. If it was last year, than there's no problem with this. I somehow doubt that considering AV programs have been doing viril updates over the net for years. I don't know about enough about this tech works to comment knowledgably on this patent. I'll let others do that. However, my comment was in a broad sense and not necessarily apply specifically to Symantec. There have been a number of silly patents that have gone through and I was just stating what I saw happening in general.
Khyron
While the idea does have a few flaws, it'd be interesting to seem something like this attempted. I mean, if I wrote a virus with some form of copy protection in it, I could sue them for circumventing it under the DMCA. Now, I'd get fined and/or thrown in jail for writting the virus, but if you got out on bail and sued the company, it just might open up their eyes a bit. Soon we'd have all the virus writters using copy protection (if they don't already) in their viruses making AV programs invalid or illegal. I think the AV companies would jump on the bandwagon to get DMCA declared Unconstitutional. It'd be interesting to see what would happen, but this will probably never come to be. Kinda sad too because I think an event like this (not necessarily this) is what the industry needs to open it's eyes.
Khyron
It seems to me that companies that can't compete or can't find a competitive advantage over the other companies in their field have resorted to patenting things in order to gain this advantage. Virus scanners have been around for a long time, and have been upgrading their databases for a long time, so this patent just seems like an attempt to gain an advantage. The only anti-virus program I found to be any good was AVP, and they're not a major player. I like them because updates were free forever and it could detect more viruses than Norton OR MacCafee. In that business, whoever has the largest virus database the fastest has an advantage. Since most big anti-virus companies are about the same in this regard, is seems Symantec is trying to find another way to get an advantage. Lord forbid they work harder. Course, being a non-windows user means I don't have to worry about things like this, so this really doesn't phase me. :)
Khyron
I'm not necessarily referring to actual knowledge, but perceived knowledge. I agree with what you're saying, and it's similar to the previous reply. However, many times older people see themselves as more knowledgable simply because they are older. There are counter examples (where I work), but I was oversimplifying my generalization. :) Age does not necessarily determine experience or knowledge, but it does determine perceived knowledge and experience. Society tends to believe older people vs younger ones regardless of the situation. Younger people also tend to think they know more than they actually do. This could be because it's hard to get people to listen to them when they are young. Anyway, I digress. It's just how we've evolved. Someday it may change, but I don't that being too likely. Not within my life time anyway. :)
Khyron
Did anyone catch the number of transistors on that chip? It's close to the number you find on AMD or Intel CPUs. Either it's incredibly complex, or deisgned horribly. Think of the cooling system needed to cool the chip. I'd think it'd just about HAVE to have a heat sink and fan along the lines of what you put on a CPU. I could be wrong, but doesn't heat disappation have something to do with the number of transistors? Still like to see some performance numbers.
Khyron
I agree with you completely. I wasn't meaning to imply that it isn't partially his fault, but that this trend will be consistent through time. Older people will generally think less of younger people regardless of how they present themselves. This isn't always the case however as I work in a place that doesn't exhibit these situations at all, but I'm over simplifying my generalization. More than likely he does have a little bit of an ego. Most students do even through college. I wasn't trying to hop onto the bandwagon of David vs. Goliath, but just trying to point it will probably always be this way regardless. How you present yourself and your ideas can lessen it though.
Khyron
It's been this way for a long time, and probably will continue to be this way in the future. No one likes to have someone younger than you show they're more knowledgable than you. You've spent a time in the work place and should know more about solving problems than some young kid. It won't matter what the ages involved are. It's the way society is. Best you can hope for is someone who isn't so egocentric. Khyron
I don't really see a way to prevent DoS or DDoS attacks in the future. The concept is way too simple. All you have to do is flood a site with enough packets to overload the server, and you've committed a DoS attack. The DoS attack will probably continue to evolve into something that isn't as esily stopped as some people mention. The DDoS will probably never be stopped because no matter how alert you are with security patches, there is still the likelihood that a hole will be found and exploited before it is patched. Once the machine is cracked, that's it. With the number of machines connected to the net, you could easily gain access to enough to start a DDoS attack once you find just one such security hole. You can't punish them because companies don't have jusidiction in foreign countries and as we've noted several times, each country appears to look at things differently. IMO, the best you can do is use the most secure OS you can find and pray. Am I missing anything?
Khyron
Ah, well that I can understand and in fact agree with. Some of the stunts they did with the bettle were impressive from an engineering stand point. This does just look like a prank, although a rather expensive one to clean up. To truly be fair, we'd have to know how much it cost to clean up the past pranks. It's fun to read about, but I'm sure those cleaning it up aren't laughing too hard. If they hadn't choosen a bridge in such a populated area they might not be threatened with a lawsuit. Big cities tend to be more uptight. Of course they chose that bridge for a reason, and they should deal with those consequences. Find some way to anonymously ask for damages and pay it. I don't think the students need to be prosecuted.
Khyron
I am a big football fan and I watch and discuss games with a group of people who are football fans. After a weekend of NFL football, football is discussed not cheerleaders. After the XFL these same people just discussed the cheerleaders, not the games or the quality of football. So, either the football is so bad as to not even be discussable, or the cheerleaders were emphasized more. Regardless, there is an obivous shift in attention for some reason. Atleast with what the people I interact with find interesting in the league. Granted, this is from my experience, but I see it as a pretty significant evidence that the XFL isn't focused on football that much. Don't even get me started on the commentators.
That being said, I haven't judged it at all. I haven't seen enough to do so, and some weekend I don't have too much to do I will watch more. All I said is that it appears to be more about the cheerleaders and commentator's sexual inuendoes than about football. Learn more about a comment before you judge someone next time.
Khyron
I think you missed the point. From what I read, the objection has to deal with how great an engineering feat it is to hang a car off a bridge, not how much fun it is to drive 16 hrs and do this. As an engineering feat, this isn't that impressive. Assembling a car on top of a building (whether it be MIT students or any other students) is a far more impressive feat than dangling one off a bridge. Not to say that engineering skills aren't used in this stunt, but it's not as complicated as putting together a car even if it's just a shell.
As for your points, "Yanks" as you put it, are not the only people easily distracted by four drops of rain. I'd say I'm pretty safe in saying just about everyone is that easily distracted, regardless of nationality.
The second and third points are completely pointless and therefore I won't comment on them. Seems as if you have some pent up hostility though.
Khyron
I didn't see much of the XFL, but the few minutes I saw were in an odd camera angle. Not one that you couldn't get used to, just a different angle. With all this tech, why can't they give me the camera angle I want to see? In the Super Bowl they were showing off their new Matrix camera tech, but they did it stupidly. The commentator would say something like "Let's look at the passing lane he had" then spin the camera 180 degress so now I'm looking at the right side of the field inside of the left. How does that help? I want to see the view from BEHIND the QB or running back so I can see what they see. I can't imagine this is that difficult, but no game I've seen with "new technology" has done that. Did XFL do anything like this, or did it just concentrate on the player and coaches comments?
Is the XFL really about football? Everyone I talked to who saw the games just commented on the cheerleaders and their revealing leather outfits. I saw a few minutes of the game and the football wasn't that great. Seems to me the new league is more about watching scantily clan women than football. If that's the case, fine, but don't try to pass it off as football. Khyron
There was a movie called Inner Space that dealt with shrinking a person in a machine and injecting them into another person, but I don't think that's along the same lines as you're talking about. The only other one that comes to mind are the nanities from Star Trek.
You forgot IBM's AIX, although I don't see that on a desktop or using X in any way. Still, they're a UNIX vendor.
This is great news for the everyone but MS. Creating a common desktop interface across all Unicies and Linux/BSD will only accelerate Linux's success. The Unix world tried this with CDE but they over looked one important detail. People have to LIKE the interface, and no one I know who has used CDE likes it. You can fight about Gnome vs. KDE, but you can't argue that Gnome isn't better than CDE. When the other major Unix ventors follow suit (hopefully they will anyway. They said they would, and we all know they wouldn't lie just to look good to the open source community:)), it very well cause a resurgence in UNIX. We'll have to wait a see though.
A friend of mine created a card game called Bureaucracy. It apparantly took about 8 decks of cards to play, and 1 turn could last a long time with many cards played. The object was to get rid of all your cards if I remember correctly, but the rules were so bloated (like a real bureaucracy) that that was next to impossible but the rules make the attempts hilariously fun. I tried to get him to teach me, but he wouldn't because it takes so long. Kids would probably get bored playing and call it a draw. Does that count as a zero-sum game? :)
I agree with you for the most part. I've used KDE2 a little and I must say I like it's interface much better than KDE1's, but I'm still a Gnome/Sawfish user and will stay that way until KDE comes up with corner panels. I think that's supposed to be in KDE2.1 though, so I may end up switch when that becomes stable. Anyway, I think both Gnome and KDE are more intuitive than Windows because windows has many nooks and crannies that a normal user wouldn't be able to find, and these things are necessary to be able to use the damn thing. People always say Linux isn't ready for the desktop because of the user interface. That's BS. I believe Linux IS ready and all that's required is time. The more familiar the look will is to people, the more "intuitive" it will become. That's not a reason to stop working on it though. :)
I heard that the MOO series was good, but I got sucked into StarCon 2 at the time I learned about the games. Then sucked into Civ and Alpha Centauri, so I never really got to play it. What's the idea behind it? I got the impression it was kinda like Civ.
What about 989 sports? I liked their Gameday 2000 on PS far better then Madden 2000. I haven't played Madden 2001 or Gameday 2001, but I played NFL 2k for a bit and it seemed better than Gameday and Madden together. Still, 989 is still a competitor to EA and Sega, but I'm not sure how much of one.