Hey, I'm not worried about BCC: being "killed" by Facebook. I'm worried about e-mail getting killed by Facebook.
It's like having to be a member of AOL just to e-mail someone.
While the article mentions Facebook, it has nothing to do with Facebook. The BCC: problem he mentions is a "problem" with mail clients, not the competition. This BCC: trouble could be neatly solved if all mail that arrived in your box not actually addressed or CC'ed to you was highlighted, or the client simply inserted a yellow bar above the display text saying "This mail was sent to a different address, listed mail recipients do not know you have this information, and will not see your mail address." It's not a bad idea for the next Thunderbird, in fact.
It's an interesting case you make, but I seriously doubt that experts in the field properly comprehend the sociological forces (if any) that apply to the Internet, let alone 4chan. They're working on it, and it's going to take one talented and speedy researcher to provide us with information that will remain relevant for very long.
IMHO, 25-50 years from now, if our society isn't in ashes, someone is going to write one hell of a definitive work on how the Internet has no sociology (as we knew it), disables most sociological pressures (like shame), and allows people with truly bizarre ideas to find enough peers to reinforce their fetishes/pechants/whims etc. with lethal force, because they are so completely disconnected from the consequences, and can remain fully socialized in appearance whilst being something quite else behind a keyboard.
I'm just glad that all they can do with the thing right now is launch DDoSes at commerce and disseminate restricted information. At the point where they can kill people, they will, and will think of it as "just for the lulz." Some people, absent significant social restriction, behave that way. They're usually loners. Those people in a group, connected by the Internet, I don't know where that leads.
Don't underestimate this trend by claiming it to be "sociology 101." Sociology 101 doesn't inform us of anything regarding this, because basic sociological assumptions become invalid when the interactions occur on the Internet. This is new bleeding-edge ground, and will not be covered in the survey course. It is a field unto itself.
Next in line of succession will be Steve's own ego, which by the time he dies will have become a world-sized entity unto itself, making Skynet look like a Sinclar ZX81. And you *will* obey Steve's ego--or else!
"If there's anything bigger than my ego in here I want it caught and shot right now"--Zaphod Beeblebrox
LOL. I'd probably recommend s/mass people/the mainstream, but "mass people" has a funny and truthful ring to it when it concerns we Americans.
Honestly, I think "the mainstream" is going to die with the baby boom. The generations that follow are not nearly so uniform. Lucky we have this Internet thing to deliver to us our own private truth.
My wife, after seeing 2 3d films in short order (2 days apart), told me she hopes this is just a fad, because she's not going to want to go to movies if they're all 3d.
I concurred. Even after seeing Tron Legacy, which was pretty good stuff (visually), I concluded that this is a novelty. The movie would have been better if they spent all that money on finding the right writers.
It's nice to see it getting some press. "3d" is not like "talkie" pictures. It is a game changer, but in a way that seems limiting to everything but computer animation. Peripheral vision is a serious problem. I hope it doesn't last, because I will miss movies that work, and look good.
As an aside, when you take off the glasses seeing things in real3d may persist. If you see in 3d for a period longer than 4 hours, take some Viagra.
This is trivializing over a century of wanton bloodshed and terror to make a point. Poorly. It's a point that has been made by science in far more peaceful and compelling terms.
I couldn't find it funny. I tried. This is, IMHO, simply tasteless. Perhaps this will endure, as Swift above, but I doubt it.
Right now, all I can say is thanks for your small contribution to the death of rational, purposeful discourse. Good luck.
I somehow get the sense that when quantum computing reaches that level, you'll be able to know either the precise encryption keys, or which computer they work with, but never both simultaneously.;^P
We may as well do a study to see if people who lack "critical thinking skills" wind up believing things that are utter bollocks and stock large amounts of snake oil. The source doesn't matter. Snake oil has been for sale for years. Just because Fox is selling it in bulk, doesn't mean you can't get it in quantity from any of the 24/7 "news" networks. Remember how many people thought Saddam Hussein was connected to the Twin Towers attack? That belief was across the board.
Snake oil salesmen are slick because they don't have a product worth buying. Confirmation bias is a con man's best friend. No one is immune. Let's just remember that, and let's stop pointing out motes in others' eyes when we've got a big ol' log in ours.
-- Toro
(Who sometimes watches Fox "News" for the entertainment value, especially Beck.)
I wish I had the mod point to take your comment up to +5. Instead I'll echo your comment and add.
That's exactly what the 'skeptics' are thinking, and saying, as opposed to others (so-called 'deniers') who are silly enough to believe that scientists are actually lying about the temperature rise, as some sort of conspiracy movement. Anyone who knows can tell such deniers that you can't get scientists to conspire to do anything. They argue too much, and the funding models encourage discord. That's a deliberate tradition, which allows us to get a real variety of approaches to a problem, and thus enhances the chance of a discovery or breakthrough. I know an NSF grant worker, and she tells me that the NSF knows it's funding a certain percentage of crackpot projects, because you can't tell what's crackpot and what's not when it's a radical change.
Why that didn't happen this time, when it is pervasive in much of science, tells me something about the agenda of the people funding the research, not the perceived agenda of scientists. It makes me nervous when a bunch of scientists get together in lock-step, and refuse to look into issues that, as you describe, "[may] be inconvenient" to their ability to march in time. It suggests to me that their meal tickets are being punched on their ability to dance, rather than on the quality of their results.
I am sure scientists could have a reasonable argument if there weren't strings attached to their funding. It is clear to me that the funding went to projects "discovering the causes of a presumed problem (global warming)" rather than "discovering if there is a problem, what causes it, the nature of any problem that can be found, and what we can safely do about it."
Big difference, and the latter method got no funding from anyone but oil companies (which introduces just as much potential bias), and was resultantly lambasted as "bad science."
The solution is that we focus on funding science again, instead of justification and rationalization of political presumption. We need to put our Federal money into research, not agendas.;^)
Your premise is suspect. "Noticeable impact" is not the bar that was raised. "Cause significant and irreparable harm to life on earth" is the bar. That is what was sold (perhaps not by scientists, but certainly by Al Gore), that assumption is what drives and informs current carbon policy, and that is the burden of proof that people are skeptical of. And it's the climatologists that have to meet it, because it's the premise that is stifling debate. If we're going to act as if this is a threat to life on Earth, then that case has to be very well made, because the actions to reverse it are going to cause mass suffering. Period.
If the bar was merely "noticeable impact," I think we could have a rational discussion about it. No one would deny it. Of course it has a "noticeable impact." So what? Is it serious is what matters. Is that noticeable impact serious enough to drive a reasonable policy arrived at by consensus? Probably.
It's (mostly) the politicians (both sides!) I blame. They decided to fool the people to agree with their respective intractable positions, instead of engage them and bring consensus about an issue that may or may not be politically treatable. We still don't have good public information, that can be digested by laypeople. Where I live, practically nobody knows that water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane are greenhouse gases too, and that the "greenhouse effect" is very likely what sustains life on Earth. Ask anyone with basic sophistication, and they think the "greenhouse effect" is bad. Fact is, that's only true if it's out of control. Otherwise, it's likely to be the biggest factor in keeping earth temperate and "life friendly."
The problem is misinformation. The last thing we got right on atmospheric pollution, IMHO, was the ozone/CFC debacle, and that was messy (ban, restore, whoops!, ban again). Since then, there hasn't been a proper debate about greenhouse gasses. Proper debate is stifled by fear mongering and misinformation from both sides.
Therefore, the problem, IMHO, is currently political, not scientific. We haven't got the political cohesion to act on the findings, is the problem. This is because we no longer have the intellectual honesty to report the facts to the people.
We should first figure out what we're trying to prove before we burden anyone with doing so, let alone "solve it" don't you think? I, for one, think a layperson with enough consensus should be able to tell a group of experts what is reasonable when it has a significant enough effect upon his constituency. Regardless of who "knows better."
I believe we need to settle the burden of proof that democracy still works.
Someone "pushing" a religion is not a "zealot." A "zealot" is someone who is extreme, e.g. chains themselves to the top of a column and starves awaiting the Kingdom. It's characterized by blind passion for an absolute truth, which often leads to crazy, irrational behaviors.
He never mentioned extremism, just a lack of dialogue within the climate change movement, except among its progenitors and elites, and that a requirement to join the movement is that you never, ever question the movement. It should be, if it is rationally based, that one must always look and question whether man may be pushing global homeostasis past human viability, not that one must first believe that he is.
Not questioning can certainly lead to zealotry (a la Fight Club), but it's also a condition of joining any infantry unit or many cultural causes, such as animal rights. I see a range there, not necessarily extremes.
You move to dismiss, on the basis of a straw man. I call "zealot" out as the straw man. He never said it, nor am I sure he even implied it.
I wonder what a Jainist would say about this? Their religious symbol was the swastika long before Hitler co-opted it for his ill-adivised secular Teutonic religion.
There can be no ultimate sin but the belief that it exists. Nathaniel Hawthorne was right.
Fine. Let me simplify this. You can't put bird seed in a road, with a sign reading "Free Bird Seed," for the intent of hitting who ever comes pecking at it with a boulder. Even if you are the Acme bird-seed company.
It doesn't wash. Torrents are not infringing by virtue of the transmission protocol. The relationship between a downloader on a torrent site and your "sting operation" is not as clear as you think. At the least, it smacks of entrapment, as the company must actively provide a torrent and a tracker. They have to advertise it. That is the definition of entrapment, the "sting operation" advertises instead of insisting that the target initiate illicit activity. I wonder if you are even familiar with how trackers work if you don't realize that. There has to be someone providing that torrent. They initiate by advertising. You respond and participate. Licit or illicit. Period.
If they are running a tracker, they're "Super Geniuses" and really should knock it off with the Warner Bros. tactics before the laws of physics stop working and kick them in the butt.
And "allegedly" guilty thieves? Explain to me, how do you download from a torrent of copyrighted material without committing copyright infringement?
If the definition of "torrent sneaking company" is what I think it is, the downloader isn't committing copyright infringement when it's entrapment, that is: the copyright holder is deliberately providing a free (but supposedly illicit) copy through a shill torrent to collect addresses for legal action. You can't literally give someone your product and then claim they were infringing.
Worse, GOG.com is a download-only provider. So there's the potential for things to get muddied awfully fast.
I'm not sure what he's talking about, though. If these a "sneaking company" is a covert entity that provides a torrent just to harvest ip addresses for legal association action, what you have is wire fraud, and I think that's a good deal worse than any DRM scheme I've ever seen.
I've not run into the term "torrent sneaking" before though, and the Google fails me. The top hits are this article. Can someone else shed some light on it?
If it's anything like I think it is, the folks at GOG.com, who recently pulled a "shut down" stunt, have gone in my eyes from irresponsible to criminal. I want to know exactly what that CD Projekt rep meant before I will ever buy anything from them again.
NSA SIGINT guy, to paraphrase, claims that we really need to do something about this end-user "reasonable expectation of privacy," or my agency can collect no domestic signals intelligence, and I'm out of a job. It's just like the "Cold War!" Panic everybody.
And Microsoft stands behind him, ready to sell it, just like they were there to sell DRM/Palladium to Hollywood and the RIAA in 2000. Selling the same basic product. Trying to solve a human problem in software. How's that working out?
It is clear, however, that simplified, out-of-the-box security is the next big thing, as soon as we drum up a good reason to "need" all of it.
Microsoft is going to be a security company, not an OS vendor, in 20 years. That is, if they don't fail to deliver entirely. The "Cloud" plays into this, as it is inherently (and perhaps deliberately) less secure than storing your data on your own hardware, where you have that expectation of privacy. Just watch. Create the crisis then sell the solution. They'll have an entire campus in the National Business Park in Maryland.
I, OTOH, want my reasonable expectation of privacy. This is what the future looks like. MS is stepping up to the military-industrial complex. I encourage our government to opt-out, unless they prove they can deliver with a real respect for the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I'm not worried about BCC: being "killed" by Facebook. I'm worried about e-mail getting killed by Facebook.
It's like having to be a member of AOL just to e-mail someone.
While the article mentions Facebook, it has nothing to do with Facebook. The BCC: problem he mentions is a "problem" with mail clients, not the competition. This BCC: trouble could be neatly solved if all mail that arrived in your box not actually addressed or CC'ed to you was highlighted, or the client simply inserted a yellow bar above the display text saying "This mail was sent to a different address, listed mail recipients do not know you have this information, and will not see your mail address." It's not a bad idea for the next Thunderbird, in fact.
--
Toro
If you look at the diagram in TFA, you'll see that the "URL tab" reads, google.com/ponies.
As a Slashdot reader, I therefore cannot take this article seriously.
It's an interesting case you make, but I seriously doubt that experts in the field properly comprehend the sociological forces (if any) that apply to the Internet, let alone 4chan. They're working on it, and it's going to take one talented and speedy researcher to provide us with information that will remain relevant for very long.
IMHO, 25-50 years from now, if our society isn't in ashes, someone is going to write one hell of a definitive work on how the Internet has no sociology (as we knew it), disables most sociological pressures (like shame), and allows people with truly bizarre ideas to find enough peers to reinforce their fetishes/pechants/whims etc. with lethal force, because they are so completely disconnected from the consequences, and can remain fully socialized in appearance whilst being something quite else behind a keyboard.
I'm just glad that all they can do with the thing right now is launch DDoSes at commerce and disseminate restricted information. At the point where they can kill people, they will, and will think of it as "just for the lulz." Some people, absent significant social restriction, behave that way. They're usually loners. Those people in a group, connected by the Internet, I don't know where that leads.
Don't underestimate this trend by claiming it to be "sociology 101." Sociology 101 doesn't inform us of anything regarding this, because basic sociological assumptions become invalid when the interactions occur on the Internet. This is new bleeding-edge ground, and will not be covered in the survey course. It is a field unto itself.
--
Toro
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death my right to sue you for saying it.
Next in line of succession will be Steve's own ego, which by the time he dies will have become a world-sized entity unto itself, making Skynet look like a Sinclar ZX81. And you *will* obey Steve's ego--or else!
"If there's anything bigger than my ego in here I want it caught and shot right now"--Zaphod Beeblebrox
Oblig.
LOL. I'd probably recommend s/mass people/the mainstream, but "mass people" has a funny and truthful ring to it when it concerns we Americans.
Honestly, I think "the mainstream" is going to die with the baby boom. The generations that follow are not nearly so uniform. Lucky we have this Internet thing to deliver to us our own private truth.
Besides, in this case Google is clearly not a competitor, it's a collaborator.
The gall of them, not lying down for MS to run the bus over them.
--
Toro
Ah, I see you've redecorated... I don't like it.
(In fact, I do, but a way to make the font size bigger would be nice.)
My wife, after seeing 2 3d films in short order (2 days apart), told me she hopes this is just a fad, because she's not going to want to go to movies if they're all 3d.
I concurred. Even after seeing Tron Legacy, which was pretty good stuff (visually), I concluded that this is a novelty. The movie would have been better if they spent all that money on finding the right writers.
It's nice to see it getting some press. "3d" is not like "talkie" pictures. It is a game changer, but in a way that seems limiting to everything but computer animation. Peripheral vision is a serious problem. I hope it doesn't last, because I will miss movies that work, and look good.
As an aside, when you take off the glasses seeing things in real3d may persist. If you see in 3d for a period longer than 4 hours, take some Viagra.
--
Toro
This article seems an immodest proposal, to say the least.
This is trivializing over a century of wanton bloodshed and terror to make a point. Poorly. It's a point that has been made by science in far more peaceful and compelling terms.
I couldn't find it funny. I tried. This is, IMHO, simply tasteless. Perhaps this will endure, as Swift above, but I doubt it.
Right now, all I can say is thanks for your small contribution to the death of rational, purposeful discourse. Good luck.
Meteorologists : Climatologists :: Microeconomics : Macroeconomics.
Their predictions are generally worth the same, too.
--
Toro
I have RTFA, but I've already forgotten it.
QED. ;^P
I somehow get the sense that when quantum computing reaches that level, you'll be able to know either the precise encryption keys, or which computer they work with, but never both simultaneously. ;^P
--
Toro
We may as well do a study to see if people who lack "critical thinking skills" wind up believing things that are utter bollocks and stock large amounts of snake oil. The source doesn't matter. Snake oil has been for sale for years. Just because Fox is selling it in bulk, doesn't mean you can't get it in quantity from any of the 24/7 "news" networks. Remember how many people thought Saddam Hussein was connected to the Twin Towers attack? That belief was across the board.
Snake oil salesmen are slick because they don't have a product worth buying. Confirmation bias is a con man's best friend. No one is immune. Let's just remember that, and let's stop pointing out motes in others' eyes when we've got a big ol' log in ours.
--
Toro
(Who sometimes watches Fox "News" for the entertainment value, especially Beck.)
I wish I had the mod point to take your comment up to +5. Instead I'll echo your comment and add.
That's exactly what the 'skeptics' are thinking, and saying, as opposed to others (so-called 'deniers') who are silly enough to believe that scientists are actually lying about the temperature rise, as some sort of conspiracy movement. Anyone who knows can tell such deniers that you can't get scientists to conspire to do anything. They argue too much, and the funding models encourage discord. That's a deliberate tradition, which allows us to get a real variety of approaches to a problem, and thus enhances the chance of a discovery or breakthrough. I know an NSF grant worker, and she tells me that the NSF knows it's funding a certain percentage of crackpot projects, because you can't tell what's crackpot and what's not when it's a radical change.
Why that didn't happen this time, when it is pervasive in much of science, tells me something about the agenda of the people funding the research, not the perceived agenda of scientists. It makes me nervous when a bunch of scientists get together in lock-step, and refuse to look into issues that, as you describe, "[may] be inconvenient" to their ability to march in time. It suggests to me that their meal tickets are being punched on their ability to dance, rather than on the quality of their results.
I am sure scientists could have a reasonable argument if there weren't strings attached to their funding. It is clear to me that the funding went to projects "discovering the causes of a presumed problem (global warming)" rather than "discovering if there is a problem, what causes it, the nature of any problem that can be found, and what we can safely do about it."
Big difference, and the latter method got no funding from anyone but oil companies (which introduces just as much potential bias), and was resultantly lambasted as "bad science."
The solution is that we focus on funding science again, instead of justification and rationalization of political presumption. We need to put our Federal money into research, not agendas. ;^)
--
Toro
Your premise is suspect. "Noticeable impact" is not the bar that was raised. "Cause significant and irreparable harm to life on earth" is the bar. That is what was sold (perhaps not by scientists, but certainly by Al Gore), that assumption is what drives and informs current carbon policy, and that is the burden of proof that people are skeptical of. And it's the climatologists that have to meet it, because it's the premise that is stifling debate. If we're going to act as if this is a threat to life on Earth, then that case has to be very well made, because the actions to reverse it are going to cause mass suffering. Period.
If the bar was merely "noticeable impact," I think we could have a rational discussion about it. No one would deny it. Of course it has a "noticeable impact." So what? Is it serious is what matters. Is that noticeable impact serious enough to drive a reasonable policy arrived at by consensus? Probably.
It's (mostly) the politicians (both sides!) I blame. They decided to fool the people to agree with their respective intractable positions, instead of engage them and bring consensus about an issue that may or may not be politically treatable. We still don't have good public information, that can be digested by laypeople. Where I live, practically nobody knows that water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane are greenhouse gases too, and that the "greenhouse effect" is very likely what sustains life on Earth. Ask anyone with basic sophistication, and they think the "greenhouse effect" is bad. Fact is, that's only true if it's out of control. Otherwise, it's likely to be the biggest factor in keeping earth temperate and "life friendly."
The problem is misinformation. The last thing we got right on atmospheric pollution, IMHO, was the ozone/CFC debacle, and that was messy (ban, restore, whoops!, ban again). Since then, there hasn't been a proper debate about greenhouse gasses. Proper debate is stifled by fear mongering and misinformation from both sides.
Therefore, the problem, IMHO, is currently political, not scientific. We haven't got the political cohesion to act on the findings, is the problem. This is because we no longer have the intellectual honesty to report the facts to the people.
We should first figure out what we're trying to prove before we burden anyone with doing so, let alone "solve it" don't you think? I, for one, think a layperson with enough consensus should be able to tell a group of experts what is reasonable when it has a significant enough effect upon his constituency. Regardless of who "knows better."
I believe we need to settle the burden of proof that democracy still works.
--
Toro
Someone "pushing" a religion is not a "zealot." A "zealot" is someone who is extreme, e.g. chains themselves to the top of a column and starves awaiting the Kingdom. It's characterized by blind passion for an absolute truth, which often leads to crazy, irrational behaviors.
He never mentioned extremism, just a lack of dialogue within the climate change movement, except among its progenitors and elites, and that a requirement to join the movement is that you never, ever question the movement. It should be, if it is rationally based, that one must always look and question whether man may be pushing global homeostasis past human viability, not that one must first believe that he is.
Not questioning can certainly lead to zealotry (a la Fight Club), but it's also a condition of joining any infantry unit or many cultural causes, such as animal rights. I see a range there, not necessarily extremes.
You move to dismiss, on the basis of a straw man. I call "zealot" out as the straw man. He never said it, nor am I sure he even implied it.
--
Toro
I have to go take the wheels off my car so I can put on these newly invented "Tai-ers."
...and all of this will happen again. So say we all.
Now if there's data to support that? COOL!
--
Toro
I wonder what a Jainist would say about this? Their religious symbol was the swastika long before Hitler co-opted it for his ill-adivised secular Teutonic religion.
There can be no ultimate sin but the belief that it exists. Nathaniel Hawthorne was right.
--
Toro
Who writes in pencil in sixth grade anyway. I recommend they all bring in a pen. }B^>
D@mn, people.
--
Toro
Johnny is staying home from school today principal, he told me, "My body is a weapon."
Fine. Let me simplify this. You can't put bird seed in a road, with a sign reading "Free Bird Seed," for the intent of hitting who ever comes pecking at it with a boulder. Even if you are the Acme bird-seed company.
It doesn't wash. Torrents are not infringing by virtue of the transmission protocol. The relationship between a downloader on a torrent site and your "sting operation" is not as clear as you think. At the least, it smacks of entrapment, as the company must actively provide a torrent and a tracker. They have to advertise it. That is the definition of entrapment, the "sting operation" advertises instead of insisting that the target initiate illicit activity. I wonder if you are even familiar with how trackers work if you don't realize that. There has to be someone providing that torrent. They initiate by advertising. You respond and participate. Licit or illicit. Period.
If they are running a tracker, they're "Super Geniuses" and really should knock it off with the Warner Bros. tactics before the laws of physics stop working and kick them in the butt.
And "allegedly" guilty thieves? Explain to me, how do you download from a torrent of copyrighted material without committing copyright infringement?
If the definition of "torrent sneaking company" is what I think it is, the downloader isn't committing copyright infringement when it's entrapment, that is: the copyright holder is deliberately providing a free (but supposedly illicit) copy through a shill torrent to collect addresses for legal action. You can't literally give someone your product and then claim they were infringing.
Worse, GOG.com is a download-only provider. So there's the potential for things to get muddied awfully fast.
I'm not sure what he's talking about, though. If these a "sneaking company" is a covert entity that provides a torrent just to harvest ip addresses for legal association action, what you have is wire fraud, and I think that's a good deal worse than any DRM scheme I've ever seen.
I've not run into the term "torrent sneaking" before though, and the Google fails me. The top hits are this article. Can someone else shed some light on it?
If it's anything like I think it is, the folks at GOG.com, who recently pulled a "shut down" stunt, have gone in my eyes from irresponsible to criminal. I want to know exactly what that CD Projekt rep meant before I will ever buy anything from them again.
--
Toro
NSA SIGINT guy, to paraphrase, claims that we really need to do something about this end-user "reasonable expectation of privacy," or my agency can collect no domestic signals intelligence, and I'm out of a job. It's just like the "Cold War!" Panic everybody.
And Microsoft stands behind him, ready to sell it, just like they were there to sell DRM/Palladium to Hollywood and the RIAA in 2000. Selling the same basic product. Trying to solve a human problem in software. How's that working out?
It is clear, however, that simplified, out-of-the-box security is the next big thing, as soon as we drum up a good reason to "need" all of it.
Microsoft is going to be a security company, not an OS vendor, in 20 years. That is, if they don't fail to deliver entirely. The "Cloud" plays into this, as it is inherently (and perhaps deliberately) less secure than storing your data on your own hardware, where you have that expectation of privacy. Just watch. Create the crisis then sell the solution. They'll have an entire campus in the National Business Park in Maryland.
I, OTOH, want my reasonable expectation of privacy. This is what the future looks like. MS is stepping up to the military-industrial complex. I encourage our government to opt-out, unless they prove they can deliver with a real respect for the law.
--
Toro
I, for one, welcome our mini-overlords from the mini-universe created by this mini-big bang. I regret that they will only lead us for a microsecond.