I actually thought the article (and by extension the book) makes a lot of sense. If only we'd stop thinking in extremes and start to see that everything can and should be classified along a continuum of possible values.
I liked the part of the article best that discusses the inability to define (and probable inexistence of) perfect normalcy.
If one fully accepts the continuum principle, then disease stops to have much meaning. It's merely a state of being closer to extreme points. That can even be a blessing as it allows for very different and interesting experiences/perceptions/abilities/talents/what-hav e-you.
You're quite wrong. Nadine Strossen's arguments make a lot of sense. Agreed, she looks at the issue only from one angle (other angles have been taken care of quite nicely by the memorandum). It is important that Nadine's angle be given a lot of thought, unless we want to give up not just free speech, but also free thought (from lack of exposure to challenging/controversial/unconventional ideas.
The specter of each of us having to always and continuously rate whatever we 'publish', including this submission of mine to./, will have great costs, i.e. me deciding that I don't want to jump through the hoops this time. Thinking I might have to go back and label everything I ever put on the web simply makes me think very hard whether I want to do it at all. The true cost of rating is loss of lots of interesting content.
And then knowing that arbitrary filters will be applied to the rated content that may shield some/many/most people from seeing it is just horrible.
The outcome of all this is that the Net will look like one giant Disney store. I'd truly hate to expose my children to that!
Well, I guess I can claim to be doing my job, at least by your definition.
I have three children, ages 9, 11 and 12. Our home computer has absolutely no censorware loaded (to the extent that I know of), but it is located in a central location in the house. Our kids are allowed to go online only when one of us parents is at home. We don't closely monitor where they surf to, but we keep in touch about their general habits, just like we keep in touch about what is going on in their lives in general. We ask our kids to let us see and approve forms where they have to give away personal information. There is also a time limit to their online time in order to encourage pursuing a broad variety of activities.
So far, this sort of mutual trust has worked very well. I can highly recommend thorough parental involvement. It pays back handsomely, not just in the realm of online behavior.
Rating schemes, filtering and other similar measures are nonsense. It is a rare day that I agree with what other people have decided is suitable or unsuitable for me, my kids or anyone else. I only really trust my own judgement and so should you!
That said, if (non)voluntary rating comes to pass, all web sites where I have influence over such matters will be rated as suitable for all ages, no matter what, and a notice to that effect will be up front.
Also, Why put a groovy case on a machine that's going to sit in a darkened server room?
Our supercomputers sit in a glasshouse in full view. You have to give the public something to look at or the $$$ won't come rolling in anymore.:) I'm really glad our serves aren't ugly gray or beige boxes! You want a very fast computer look the part.
That is of course complete bullshit. Irix 6.5 includes a lot of GNU tools in/usr/gnu. Don't remember whether it's part of the default install or not. GNU tools are also distributed on SGI's Freeware CD and installed into/usr/freeware. Your friend most likely had/usr/gnu or/usr/freeware in his path before/bin and/usr/bin, as many of us do to get the benefit of better tools. He or you should check facts and configs before spouting such nonsense. SGI's//bin/ls does NOT accept a --help flag, nor does it pop up a GPL notice.
Various scientific apps, such as MSI InsightII and Felix, CSD quest and Macromodel, SGI's gmemusage and sysmon, Remedy, Framemaker, you name it.
Some of the above are low bandwidth, some are very high bandwidth, some use GL through X, some are pure X.
The idea that the way to do network transparency is to have the remote machine be the one tracking the mouse is just crazy. It would be far better for all GUIs to live locally, and for the on-the-wire activity to happen with some more domain-specific RPC, or other services.
I completely agree. But as you state elsewhere, we are stuck with X because it is entrenched. And I'd like to add that for the average user it doesn't suck so badly as to be unbearable. I actually enjoy what I have.
But [SGI's X server is] still ridiculously slow, given what their hardware is capable of! You only have to compare X performance to GL performance to see this.
Well, I have benchmarked one app that comes in both flavors, although you might call both implementations below par. The numbers are not incredibly different. The overhead due to macro interpretation and number crunching involved in this app simply outweighs the raw graphics performance, and that seems also to be the case in many other scientific apps I see day in and out.
I guess my point is that for many apps real life performance is not as markedly affected as you'd guess based on the internal workings of the X protocol. In my pedestrian view that means X is mostly good enough to get work done.
As much as I respect Jamie, I beg to differ. The 'dubious feature' to remotely display lets me get my work done very effectively.
As a sysadmin / app supporter my screen is littered with windows displayed from all manner of Unix hosts, and not all of them are xterms. It saves me countless hours of walking across the hall or campus.
Before I came to work in computing support, I also used remote displays rountinely, including several sessions that crossed the Atlantic, to get essential tasks done.
In my view the remote display capability is one of the best assets that X has. Granted, it makes X a dog compared to other windowing systems, but that's why my desktop is an SGI. Their X server is as great as it gets.
Well, I DID move from one of the richest countries (Switzerland) to the US, and I took a 30% pay cut.
BUT: Prices being far lower here in San Diego, and a host of other things which we value highly as a family adding positive points to the tally, it made our own standard of living come out about equal. Plus, there's a far bigger job market locally in my field (biotech/biotech-related comouting) than anywhere in my country. And we haven factored in the climate yet.:) All these comparisons and evaluations are going to be different for each person, but for us it was a no-brainer, pay cut or not.
When I applied for an H1-B in 1995, my employer had to pay the 'prevailing wage' in my field. I still worked as a scientist in a non-profit environment back then and the numbers worked out to much less than $60,000. More like $40,000.
I don't think that H1-B holders in science-related fields earn much less than their peers, but it may be that employers can pull tricks with job descriptions to influence the wage they are required to pay.
Changing to another job is basically impossible, as the visa/work permit is tied to the specific job. You need a new H1-B for a different job. But promotions work, as do other minor adjustments to your job description or compensation. I held two H1-Bs at one time for two part-time jobs; and I was able to adjust the pay scale of one from the equivalent of $60,000 to $72,000 when I renegotiated the contract. That employer was a SW company. Hence the payscale.
In the science field, most foreign workers are pulled in because they offer unique skills to the employer. Hence, there is little incentive for the employer to cheat on wages. Besides, compensation being quite low already, wages are typically not the reason why people come to the US to work in science, and by extension, they are ready to leave if the work environment doesn't fit requirements. Whether that's compensation, personal relations or just plain boredom, it doesn't matter.
Read the article closely (and others that deal with the subject)! SGI is not killing Irix. They just opted to not port it to IA64.
At the end of the article it is spelled out clearly that there is MIPS CPU roadmap for R14000 and R16000. For a few years minimum, we will see MIPS/Irix systems alongside with IA64/Linux systems being sold and supported by SGI.
What you say above is exactly was SGI states if you ask them. They seem to have a bit more insight than some of their competitors (or perhaps arrive at the insight a little quicker?).
Not only is this a storage system rather than a (single) hard drive, but it also isn't much news. 420 GB storage cabinets - configured as RAID, JBOD or mirrored drives or whatever else you may fancy - are all over the market and terabyte-sized ones also. I haven't seen 11 TB configs, but then I haven't looked. Vendors tend to stress scalability and throughput, rather than sheer size.
Sorry to spoil the party. SAN and storage systems are buzzwords in the glasshouse these days and everyone and his/her grandmother are offering them, including IBM.
For truly huge data storage needs (petabytes and beyond) coming down the pipe, and no real technical solution in sight check Nature, June 10, 1999, p. 517. Unfortunately, you need to have a paid subscription for the online article, but you can ask me for a FAXed copy.
SUN had an x86 box (386 based) whose name esacpes me at the moment. I've read that they scrapped the 486 model because it would have been a serious threat to the Sparc1 performance-wise (to put it nicely).
No way SGI plan to ditch Irix in 3 years
on
SGIs Linux Future
·
· Score: 2
SGI has shown MIPS CPU roadmaps for several years out. Essentially, the current R12000 wil be followed by R14000 and R16000. Search Deja for more details.
All systems based on MIPS chips will run Irix. Keep in mind that such systems tend to live far longer than your average PC. I expect to see MIPS/Irix-based boxes in operation (and supported by SGI) well after 2005, probably out to 2010.
However, SGI has publicly stated that they will migrate features from Unicos to Irix, and from Irix to Linux. Eventually, Unicos will fall by the wayside along with the systems it runs on. A few years after that, Irix will be discontinued. But this is many years from now.
Exactly! The final bill will most certainly not look like the version that the Armed Services committee passed.
Come to think of it, it was to be expected that the Armed Services committee would magle the SAFE bill the way they have done. Now let's just hope that the people dealing with finalizing the bill have a lot of common sense and do listen to all sides, including citizens at large.
Yes, it's great that even niche applications find their way out into the open. (Not wanting to slight IRCAM or jMAX.:) )
The music sector needs some free and open source stuff very badly, especially stuff that caters to the middle ground and high end. This is the equivalent to mp3 on the production/composition side and will help free music from the grip of rich and successful producers and labels who also have their fingers in music software, the sampling industry and a host of other places.
What interesting stuff is there on TV, anyway? I haven't felt the urge to own a TV for more than 15 years, and I can't say I feel I am missing something essential nor does anyone else in the family.
However, I spend hours on the net every day, and so do my wife and kids. More power to the people! We can make our own programming, and mostly prefer information over 'shows'.
For movies we go to the big screen and pay a few bucks.
No, pyramids won't work. Hypercube is the way to go, or perhaps a hyper-torus. Essentailly, you will want to guarantee a consistent maximal path length for each A to B connection, irrespective of where nodes A and B are. Then you pile on a handful or more of control nodes to monitor and steer the system.
Correct. Hardware maintenance is a very real killer for all large systems. Once you are at a few thousand CPU plus all the other associated hardware, you can essentially hire one to two teches to just run around and swap out broken HW. IF your stuff is smart enough, you can have a couple sysadmin sitting in a control booth, telling the techs where to go. Otherwise, you will be reduced to hunter-gatherer-type interaction with bad HW.
This is NOT how supercomputers are run, and with good reason. There is simply no easy way to cut corners.
I agree, Jon's article misses the mark. Jeff Bezos has hinted for quite a while now that Amazon would epand into various areas very soon. I even believe that the fact that Amazon started out as a bookstore is more of a coincidence than anything else. Back then as now books could be distributed through Ingram and catalogs were available in electronic form. Ideal circumstances for selling online and not necessarily present in other categories in 1995.
And yes, bookselling can make money, even online. AFAIK Amazon is bleeding money because they advertise heavily and grow their business aggressively. Book sales by hemselves would be profitable. Whoever wrote that it can't be done is clueless.
If Amazon's blatant commercialism disturbs you (they never claimed NOT to be after your money, by the way), there are plenty of alternatives. One not mentioned yet would be books.com.
AFAK, Unicos and IRIX are going to fade out along with their supported hardware, which will take a fair number of years. It's not like Linux will be powering current T3E's.
Keep in mind that developing and supporting an OS costs a LOT of money. SGI has stated that it just doesn't make economic sense for anyone to always play catchup with the Joneses by adding features that are the must-haves du jour. It is far easier to start from a common OS base and then add value on top of it. The splintered nature of commercial Unix almost killed it, remember?
So, once IA-64 based systems are reality, Linux on them with appropriate extensions to accommodate high-end features makes a whole lot more sense than porting existing Unices.
SGI is slowly migrating features from Unicos into IRIX (DMF and SCSL recently) and at the same time migrating features from IRIX into Linux (XFS is a recent example). Eventually, a variant of Linux will be able to power a true supercomputer, no doubt. (Yeah, I know about Beowulf. I'm talking about tighter integrated systems here.)
The computer industry can lobby also, can't it? Given that the high-tech sector is recognized as driving the economy, I'd expect Congress to be fairly receptive to our pleas. Besides, laws can be repealed, even though it takes a while. And there are laws that have hardly ever been enforced.
Face it: mp3 would not be where it is, if it weren't for mp3 pirates who cared little, if any, about the legality of their doings. Anything that tries to stem the tide will buckle, even if it's laws.
Not that I'd recommend braking laws. But you have to recognize the full extent of what's going on. As the Street Performance Protocol article states it: No tech fix or law will work, ever, if perfect copies can be made somehow.
With this ruling I wonder about copying software for 'fair use'. Can I now forget/disregard the increasingly stringent rules implied by shrinkwrap licenses and claim fair use when I copy software from the original CD to my work PC, home PC, laptop and whatever other hardware I own and use personally? This ruling might have very interesting implications far beyond music.
I can just see one more nail in the coffin of non-free software.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually thought the article (and by extension the book) makes a lot of sense. If only we'd stop thinking in extremes and start to see that everything can and should be classified along a continuum of possible values.
v e-you.
I liked the part of the article best that discusses the inability to define (and probable inexistence of) perfect normalcy.
If one fully accepts the continuum principle, then disease stops to have much meaning. It's merely a state of being closer to extreme points. That can even be a blessing as it allows for very different and interesting experiences/perceptions/abilities/talents/what-ha
You're quite wrong. Nadine Strossen's arguments make a lot of sense. Agreed, she looks at the issue only from one angle (other angles have been taken care of quite nicely by the memorandum). It is important that Nadine's angle be given a lot of thought, unless we want to give up not just free speech, but also free thought (from lack of exposure to challenging/controversial/unconventional ideas.
./, will have great costs, i.e. me deciding that I don't want to jump through the hoops this time.
The specter of each of us having to always and continuously rate whatever we 'publish', including this submission of mine to
Thinking I might have to go back and label everything I ever put on the web simply makes me think very hard whether I want to do it at all. The true cost of rating is loss of lots of interesting content.
And then knowing that arbitrary filters will be applied to the rated content that may shield some/many/most people from seeing it is just horrible.
The outcome of all this is that the Net will look like one giant Disney store. I'd truly hate to expose my children to that!
Well, I guess I can claim to be doing my job, at least by your definition.
I have three children, ages 9, 11 and 12. Our home computer has absolutely no censorware loaded (to the extent that I know of), but it is located in a central location in the house. Our kids are allowed to go online only when one of us parents is at home. We don't closely monitor where they surf to, but we keep in touch about their general habits, just like we keep in touch about what is going on in their lives in general. We ask our kids to let us see and approve forms where they have to give away personal information. There is also a time limit to their online time in order to encourage pursuing a broad variety of activities.
So far, this sort of mutual trust has worked very well. I can highly recommend thorough parental involvement. It pays back handsomely, not just in the realm of online behavior.
Rating schemes, filtering and other similar measures are nonsense. It is a rare day that I agree with what other people have decided is suitable or unsuitable for me, my kids or anyone else. I only really trust my own judgement and so should you!
That said, if (non)voluntary rating comes to pass, all web sites where I have influence over such matters will be rated as suitable for all ages, no matter what, and a notice to that effect will be up front.
Also, Why put a groovy case on a machine that's going to sit in a darkened server room?
Our supercomputers sit in a glasshouse in full view. You have to give the public something to look at or the $$$ won't come rolling in anymore. :) I'm really glad our serves aren't ugly gray or beige boxes! You want a very fast computer look the part.
That is of course complete bullshit. Irix 6.5 includes a lot of GNU tools in /usr/gnu. Don't remember whether it's part of the default install or not. GNU tools are also distributed on SGI's Freeware CD and installed into /usr/freeware. Your friend most likely had /usr/gnu or /usr/freeware in his path before /bin and /usr/bin, as many of us do to get the benefit of better tools. He or you should check facts and configs before spouting such nonsense. SGI's //bin/ls does NOT accept a --help flag, nor does it pop up a GPL notice.
And in fact InsightII has also been on IBM AIX for many years. Not that I'd ever want run MSI software on AIX myself, but it's been there all along.
If you look closely, MSI like many other ISV's has other plans, like shifting to a web-centric way of providing apps.
And I can tell you, after 2 years living with XFS, I'd never go back. These features rock!
Various scientific apps, such as MSI InsightII and Felix, CSD quest and Macromodel, SGI's gmemusage and sysmon, Remedy, Framemaker, you name it.
Some of the above are low bandwidth, some are very high bandwidth, some use GL through X, some are pure X.
The idea that the way to do network transparency is to have the remote machine be the one tracking the mouse is just crazy. It would be far better for all GUIs to live locally, and for the on-the-wire activity to happen with some more domain-specific RPC, or other services.
I completely agree. But as you state elsewhere, we are stuck with X because it is entrenched. And I'd like to add that for the average user it doesn't suck so badly as to be unbearable. I actually enjoy what I have.
But [SGI's X server is] still ridiculously slow, given what their hardware is capable of! You only have to compare X performance to GL performance to see this.
Well, I have benchmarked one app that comes in both flavors, although you might call both implementations below par. The numbers are not incredibly different. The overhead due to macro interpretation and number crunching involved in this app simply outweighs the raw graphics performance, and that seems also to be the case in many other scientific apps I see day in and out.
I guess my point is that for many apps real life performance is not as markedly affected as you'd guess based on the internal workings of the X protocol. In my pedestrian view that means X is mostly good enough to get work done.
As much as I respect Jamie, I beg to differ. The 'dubious feature' to remotely display lets me get my work done very effectively.
As a sysadmin / app supporter my screen is littered with windows displayed from all manner of Unix hosts, and not all of them are xterms. It saves me countless hours of walking across the hall or campus.
Before I came to work in computing support, I also used remote displays rountinely, including several sessions that crossed the Atlantic, to get essential tasks done.
In my view the remote display capability is one of the best assets that X has. Granted, it makes X a dog compared to other windowing systems, but that's why my desktop is an SGI. Their X server is as great as it gets.
Well, I DID move from one of the richest countries (Switzerland) to the US, and I took a 30% pay cut.
:)
BUT: Prices being far lower here in San Diego, and a host of other things which we value highly as a family adding positive points to the tally, it made our own standard of living come out about equal. Plus, there's a far bigger job market locally in my field (biotech/biotech-related comouting) than anywhere in my country. And we haven factored in the climate yet.
All these comparisons and evaluations are going to be different for each person, but for us it was a no-brainer, pay cut or not.
When I applied for an H1-B in 1995, my employer had to pay the 'prevailing wage' in my field. I still worked as a scientist in a non-profit environment back then and the numbers worked out to much less than $60,000. More like $40,000.
I don't think that H1-B holders in science-related fields earn much less than their peers, but it may be that employers can pull tricks with job descriptions to influence the wage they are required to pay.
Changing to another job is basically impossible, as the visa/work permit is tied to the specific job. You need a new H1-B for a different job. But promotions work, as do other minor adjustments to your job description or compensation. I held two H1-Bs at one time for two part-time jobs; and I was able to adjust the pay scale of one from the equivalent of $60,000 to $72,000 when I renegotiated the contract. That employer was a SW company. Hence the payscale.
In the science field, most foreign workers are pulled in because they offer unique skills to the employer. Hence, there is little incentive for the employer to cheat on wages. Besides, compensation being quite low already, wages are typically not the reason why people come to the US to work in science, and by extension, they are ready to leave if the work environment doesn't fit requirements. Whether that's compensation, personal relations or just plain boredom, it doesn't matter.
Read the article closely (and others that deal with the subject)! SGI is not killing Irix. They just opted to not port it to IA64.
At the end of the article it is spelled out clearly that there is MIPS CPU roadmap for R14000 and R16000. For a few years minimum, we will see MIPS/Irix systems alongside with IA64/Linux systems being sold and supported by SGI.
What you say above is exactly was SGI states if you ask them. They seem to have a bit more insight than some of their competitors (or perhaps arrive at the insight a little quicker?).
Not only is this a storage system rather than a (single) hard drive, but it also isn't much news. 420 GB storage cabinets - configured as RAID, JBOD or mirrored drives or whatever else you may fancy - are all over the market and terabyte-sized ones also. I haven't seen 11 TB configs, but then I haven't looked. Vendors tend to stress scalability and throughput, rather than sheer size.
Sorry to spoil the party. SAN and storage systems are buzzwords in the glasshouse these days and everyone and his/her grandmother are offering them, including IBM.
For truly huge data storage needs (petabytes and beyond) coming down the pipe, and no real technical solution in sight check Nature, June 10, 1999, p. 517. Unfortunately, you need to have a paid subscription for the online article, but you can ask me for a FAXed copy.
SUN had an x86 box (386 based) whose name esacpes me at the moment. I've read that they scrapped the 486 model because it would have been a serious threat to the Sparc1 performance-wise (to put it nicely).
All systems based on MIPS chips will run Irix. Keep in mind that such systems tend to live far longer than your average PC. I expect to see MIPS/Irix-based boxes in operation (and supported by SGI) well after 2005, probably out to 2010.
However, SGI has publicly stated that they will migrate features from Unicos to Irix, and from Irix to Linux. Eventually, Unicos will fall by the wayside along with the systems it runs on. A few years after that, Irix will be discontinued. But this is many years from now.
Exactly! The final bill will most certainly not look like the version that the Armed Services committee passed.
Come to think of it, it was to be expected that the Armed Services committee would magle the SAFE bill the way they have done. Now let's just hope that the people dealing with finalizing the bill have a lot of common sense and do listen to all sides, including citizens at large.
Yes, it's great that even niche applications find their way out into the open. (Not wanting to slight IRCAM or jMAX. :) )
The music sector needs some free and open source stuff very badly, especially stuff that caters to the middle ground and high end. This is the equivalent to mp3 on the production/composition side and will help free music from the grip of rich and successful producers and labels who also have their fingers in music software, the sampling industry and a host of other places.
What interesting stuff is there on TV, anyway? I haven't felt the urge to own a TV for more than 15 years, and I can't say I feel I am missing something essential nor does anyone else in the family.
However, I spend hours on the net every day, and so do my wife and kids. More power to the people! We can make our own programming, and mostly prefer information over 'shows'.
For movies we go to the big screen and pay a few bucks.
No, pyramids won't work. Hypercube is the way to go, or perhaps a hyper-torus. Essentailly, you will want to guarantee a consistent maximal path length for each A to B connection, irrespective of where nodes A and B are.
Then you pile on a handful or more of control nodes to monitor and steer the system.
Correct. Hardware maintenance is a very real killer for all large systems. Once you are at a few thousand CPU plus all the other associated hardware, you can essentially hire one to two teches to just run around and swap out broken HW. IF your stuff is smart enough, you can have a couple sysadmin sitting in a control booth, telling the techs where to go. Otherwise, you will be reduced to hunter-gatherer-type interaction with bad HW.
This is NOT how supercomputers are run, and with good reason. There is simply no easy way to cut corners.
I agree, Jon's article misses the mark. Jeff Bezos has hinted for quite a while now that Amazon would epand into various areas very soon. I even believe that the fact that Amazon started out as a bookstore is more of a coincidence than anything else. Back then as now books could be distributed through Ingram and catalogs were available in electronic form. Ideal circumstances for selling online and not necessarily present in other categories in 1995.
And yes, bookselling can make money, even online. AFAIK Amazon is bleeding money because they advertise heavily and grow their business aggressively. Book sales by hemselves would be profitable. Whoever wrote that it can't be done is clueless.
If Amazon's blatant commercialism disturbs you (they never claimed NOT to be after your money, by the way), there are plenty of alternatives. One not mentioned yet would be books.com.
AFAK, Unicos and IRIX are going to fade out along with their supported hardware, which will take a fair number of years. It's not like Linux will be powering current T3E's.
Keep in mind that developing and supporting an OS costs a LOT of money. SGI has stated that it just doesn't make economic sense for anyone to always play catchup with the Joneses by adding features that are the must-haves du jour. It is far easier to start from a common OS base and then add value on top of it. The splintered nature of commercial Unix almost killed it, remember?
So, once IA-64 based systems are reality, Linux on them with appropriate extensions to accommodate high-end features makes a whole lot more sense than porting existing Unices.
SGI is slowly migrating features from Unicos into IRIX (DMF and SCSL recently) and at the same time migrating features from IRIX into Linux (XFS is a recent example). Eventually, a variant of Linux will be able to power a true supercomputer, no doubt. (Yeah, I know about Beowulf. I'm talking about tighter integrated systems here.)
The computer industry can lobby also, can't it? Given that the high-tech sector is recognized as driving the economy, I'd expect Congress to be fairly receptive to our pleas.
Besides, laws can be repealed, even though it takes a while. And there are laws that have hardly ever been enforced.
Face it: mp3 would not be where it is, if it weren't for mp3 pirates who cared little, if any, about the legality of their doings. Anything that tries to stem the tide will buckle, even if it's laws.
Not that I'd recommend braking laws. But you have to recognize the full extent of what's going on. As the Street Performance Protocol article states it: No tech fix or law will work, ever, if perfect copies can be made somehow.
With this ruling I wonder about copying software for 'fair use'. Can I now forget/disregard the increasingly stringent rules implied by shrinkwrap licenses and claim fair use when I copy software from the original CD to my work PC, home PC, laptop and whatever other hardware I own and use personally? This ruling might have very interesting implications far beyond music.
I can just see one more nail in the coffin of non-free software.