Presumably you're after "care enough to spend money on", which is a much harder question.
One thing that would get the public interested would be to make spaceflight available to somebody other than a few dozen astronauts. The public has gotten pretty tired of living vicariously, which is why they don't watch shuttle launches any more (well, didn't even when there were some.) But they'd fund a few tens of billions if they thought it would eventually result in them personally going. Sadly, it'll cost way more than that.
Now, the public would probably be interested in another moon landing, and they'd certainly be glued to their TV sets for a Mars landing. Nobody's seen a moon landing in forever, and if it could be sold as beating the Chinese to it, so much the better. So they would watch one, but they wouldn't tune in for the repeat. Not even for Mars. Viewers are easily bored.
Now if they could sell a reality series based on somebody getting kicked out of the ISS every week...
That may be, but you don't visit 99% of sites, and you don't visit them randomly. The thing with the web isn't how much crap it has, but how much good stuff it has: amazon for buying stuff, cnn.com and myriad others for news (slanted any way you like), and a bazillion cool toys that you can find with google.
So basically I'm not certain the Internet is in any need of being reclaimed. Yeah, there are an awful lot of jerks out there. Most of them stay away, publishing rants in their blogs. A few want to break into your computer, and that's a problem, but one that anybody who reads slashdot should be able to manage. For the rest of them, the problem is getting better: Windows does manage to get more secure over time, and the alternatives (linux, mac, Firefox under Windows) are either more secure or at least smaller targets. Spam is also a problem, one that's not solved yet, but filters help (as does taking care with your email address).
There are plenty of reasons to despair in the world, but the Internet isn't one of them.
The pricing situation is a bit tricky. Right now the equipment is pricey because relatively few people want to spend money on it. As you say, existing TV is good enough for most people. (Especially since most people get their TV over cable or satellite and therefore this won't help them, but I'll get to that in a minute.)
The FCC is hoping to tell everybody, "Look, we're going to DTV, start making it," which should drop the price to the point where an adapter for your existing TV is $50. (The manufacturers keep claiming it's going to add $100 to the price of a new TV; that figure seems bogus to me. It's basically a bottom-of-the-line video card.) Remember that the FCC doesn't really give a rat's ass about the quality of your picture; they want you to switch so that they can reclaim the bandwidth.
In the end a DTV will cost more than an equivalent analog TV, because they're compressing the signal more and you need more sophisticated equipment to read it. That's what lets them reclaim the valuable bandwidth, and pass the cost on to you. The carrot is better reception, better resolution, and the 16:9 ratio, as well as a few other fancy digital features. (You'll pay more for a 16:9 TV, too.) But that's just the incentive, not the reason.
You're not paying more for less; you're paying more for more. That sucks, since you'll see the benefits only very indirectly (the new wi-fi and cell services that will gradually take over the old TV bandwidth).
But if you're unwilling to pay for it, eventually you're gonna lose. They're taking your analog signal, and you're free to stare at your old TV from 8 PM to 11:30 PM every night, but there won't be anything on except static.
Fortunately, instead of buying a new $300 TV, you'll be able to by an adapter, which right now costs $150 but will hopefully be closer to $50 by the time this is done. That's why the FCC is pushing the switch: there will be a lot of people in your position, wanting to adapt their old TV to the new signal, which should make for cheap adapters. It won't happen until the cutover gets near, in 2008.
As far as I can tell the ones who really get screwed are the cable/satellite viewers, who never really use the tuner in their TV set. And that's 90% of everybody. They use the tuner in an external box, which they usually rent from the cable/satellite company for around $5 per month or pay $100 to $200 for.
I'd like to see them start selling $200 21" TVs with no tuner in them at all, for those people. I dunno if that'll happen or not.
I'm all in favor of the phone-free zones on aircraft (hell, if we put the phone-users together, maybe they'll bug each other enough until they realize how much they're bugging other people), but a long-shot science program hardly seems reason to ban them altogether.
People want to use their phones for work, or to contact their families, and if they already had the ability to use their cell phones in the air they'd consider it a major inconvenience. Calling it "remotely inconvenienced" is an understatement.
And "screwing science" is an overstatement. SETI is a fun idea but the odds of succeeding on any given telescope or any given day are so low that it hardly seems worth shutting down the planet so you can go look for aliens. It's a tiny, tiny project tucked into the corners (free telescope time, free computer time) of the scientific world.
Because patents are important parts of business plans. Somebody who holds a patent in good faith (as opposed to one of these dimwit patents we've been seeing so much of) wants to get started making money off that patent before it expires. And it'll be harder to get seed money based on your patent ownership if your investors are afraid that you will be challenged over it.
However, there is one important "forever" component to this legislation: if a patent holder uses the patent against you, you can file to have it overturned, no matter when the suit is filed (as long as you do it within six months of the lawsuit filing). So if you add one-click ordering to your web site, and Amazon sues you over it, you can try to have that patent overturned.
That doesn't get in the way of business planning, because it can't be used pre-emptively by a competitor once the nine months have passed.
There are still serious ways to abuse this system if well-funded competitors file challenges intended to force you to spend your money defending your patent rather than exploiting it. And a small company will still have a hard time gathering the money to sue if Microsoft is violating its patent. The wheels of justice still grind slow, but I haven't got a good solution to that problem.
Man, that's too bad. They specifically created example.com for this.
Well, it's too late now. Once the cat is into the spammer's bag (to mangle a metaphor), it's everywhere. Information wants to be free, especially your email address.
It's a good idea; I wonder if it's possible. The head moves with exquisite precision to pick up the hundreds of separate tracks. Instead, you'd need hundreds of separate heads, powerful enough to read the data and isolated enough not to interfere with each other.
I'm sure that there are tricks to make it happen. Say, 8 separate arms so that each one contains only 1/8 the number of heads, possibly spacing them out far enough to make it happen. I believe high-end hard drives already have multiple arms.
Redundant heads might even increase disk life, which might be necessary to compensate for the increased chance of single-head failure with hundreds of heads, even if they don't move.
Sorry; I'm not an expert on hard-drive construction so I can't analyze the idea any deeper. I'd love to see it happen, because it could greatly improve throughput, and as you say things that don't move are more reliable than things that do.
Even before switching to x86, Mac has started using a lot of commodity hardware (memory, IDE hard disks, USB for mice and keyboards). IIRC they still have an idiosyncratic video connector but I gather that they still use at least partly commodity video boards.
Do they still encode part of the OS in ROM on the motherboard? They used to, but I thought they'd dumped that years ago.
What's left besides the motherboard? Are they going to roll their own chipset?
The biggest non-IE/OE bug I can recall was the Sasser worm, which attacked a vulnerability in the LSASS proces. That's not quite kernel code, but it's pretty close. There were others, but that was the one with the biggest exploitation that I can recall.
The OS itself is comparatively easy to secure. Its interactions with the outside world are fairly simple. IE and OE are expected to execute untrusted code, either from Javascript or once upon a time from VBScript (now THERE was a dumb idea) or ActiveX components (another dumb idea but at least occasionally useful).
That's not to say that various ports aren't vulnerable to attack (either from overflows, or from bugs in the implementation) but they're mostly request/response things rather than executing arbitrary code. You have to make certain about your authentication, but at least there is an authentication step (as opposed to scripting, which may run without special authorization).
Still, when a process like LSASS, which manages security, is reading from a port open to the world, you're in serious danger and you don't even have to be sitting at the terminal. The vulnerability there was a buffer overflow.
IE/OE suffer more from bad interface design; even when literal vulnerabilities were patched they are suceptible to user error because they kept asking the user to make security decisions. It was easy for somebody like Gator to simply badger the user into clicking "yes". (Personally, I don't want to visit the sort of web sites that would permit that sort of pestering, but you know how it is.)
Most of the new "exploits" often involve user engineering rather than pure hacking. It's still MS's fault, and it's partly the OS's fault for not making these security decisions easier to undo (e.g. programs you can't uninstall, that can hide from you, that can prevent you from reaching sites for virus updates, etc.). So you can blame it both on IE and OE for making the vulnerabilities available, and the OS for making them so damaging.
Between 98 and 2K there actually wasn't all that big a difference. There were some, but it was a long time ago and I've wiped most of it from memory. There are bigger (and more recent) differences between 2K/98 and XP.
Menus were laid out differently. There are different transition effects (e.g. menus fading in and out). In terms of visual layout, XP has brighter colors and more rounded edges (compared to the very boxy stuff that came before.)
I forget which, but various L&Fs have single-click rather than double-click to activate icons on the desktop (i.e. like a hyperlink).
I keep all of the systems I work with set pretty much the same, and I preferred the 2K layout to the XP layout. You're right that the differences aren't huge, but they're the sort of things that make a difference when you've got habits built up. Even tiny differences to a look & feel can interfere with your habits, and that can make a big difference in your experience.
I live in Maryland; the going rate is around $9, with one or two ads before the previews. (I like previews, and one ad doesn't piss me off too terribly much, but two or more ticks me off and I complain.)
I don't really expect them to go back to theater-only viewing. I just meant that back in the Good Old Days, that was how you got to watch movies. You get to watch movies on DVD because they think they can turn a profit on it.
If DVD copying software were ubiquitous and convenient (something sharing physical VHS tapes never was), that equation might not continue to hold.
I say let the little bastard consumers wallow in their own shit until they're paying $11 every single time they want to watch the newest shitty hollywood flick that they can no longer obtain through any means but 24-hour-per-use download.
Actually, that's pretty much the way it is already. You pay $9, you get to watch it exactly once, when they feel like showing it to you. It's called "going to the movies".
For a long time it was the only way that movie studios made any money. If they think they can't make any money off selling DVDs, they'll go back to it.
Newborns have considerable content. For example, they have a predisposition to learn language, and not just any language, but human languages. Human languages are far from random things; they have particular structures, like words and sentences. Language doesn't have to be that way, but every human language is. There are many other language universals.
There are a lot of other things that appear to be built-in to the human brain (some aspects of gender roles, love for family, a sense of fair play, the ability to see in 3D). A newborn is a lot more than a mass of unwired neurons.
These things are far from completely understood, but the notion of a blank slate has been pretty well debunked.
It's not like it's easier on Adobe to make differerent, variously crippled versions of Photoshop. It's actually more work. They do it because it works for their shareholders: you sell a basic version with features disabled for $x, and make users pay for more features. Yeah, it's the same cost to them to print a CD either way, but the price of things is ALWAYS set by what people are willing to pay, not by what it costs you to make.
At least in the non-free software world. Rather different economics there.
It's trivial news that they found some artifacts that they didn't know they had. They're of some small historical value, and therefore makes page 37 of the paper.
The fact that they have a suit labeled "007" allows them to put "James Bond" in the headline, booting it up to page 7 of the newspaper and page 1 of the newspaper for nerds (even if it's hardly "news that matters".)
I like your.movie idea. Especially if there's somebody taking at least a halfhearted attempt to restrict it to actual movies, the way the.edu domain is restricted.
Or at least vigorously favor people making actual movies; that is, when you discover that some jackass has registered davincicode.movie and wants to sell it to Columbia Pictures, they get to take the domain name and punch him in the nose.
There will still be plenty of infighting among the eight billion indie movie producers for the good names, and God only knows what the porn movie producers are going to try, but it's definitely an idea with promise. And since I bet you could charge even more than $250, the domain registrars could definitely get behind it.
Sadly, many connections don't give fixed IPs. It would be extremely frustrating to find myself blacklisted because I happened to get an IP that belonged to some nimrod yesterday.
I think that the problem is better solved closer to the zombie, by their ISP cutting them off, and reserve the global solutions targeted at those ISPs who don't appear to be making an effort.
That's extremely clever, though even 10 years on from Windows 95 I still regularly install programs in a Programs directory rather than Program Files, for precisely that reason. Emacs command line file completion doesn't handle the spaces well (at least not in the rapidly-aging three year old version I use).
Is your assertion a fact, or just your suspicion? Either way its quite a clever idea.
Distributing Java programs is tricky. Adding JNI DLLs makes it trickier. Write Swing and you know the interface is there, for free. You can distribute a jar file with a manifest and nothing else; no path problems, no DLL hell, just double-click the icon (hopefully). Path of least resistance.
I'm not saying Swing is better, just easier to distribute (and more widely known; again, path of least resistance.)
And I'd say the greatest SWT application ever is Eclipse.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably you're after "care enough to spend money on", which is a much harder question.
One thing that would get the public interested would be to make spaceflight available to somebody other than a few dozen astronauts. The public has gotten pretty tired of living vicariously, which is why they don't watch shuttle launches any more (well, didn't even when there were some.) But they'd fund a few tens of billions if they thought it would eventually result in them personally going. Sadly, it'll cost way more than that.
Now, the public would probably be interested in another moon landing, and they'd certainly be glued to their TV sets for a Mars landing. Nobody's seen a moon landing in forever, and if it could be sold as beating the Chinese to it, so much the better. So they would watch one, but they wouldn't tune in for the repeat. Not even for Mars. Viewers are easily bored.
Now if they could sell a reality series based on somebody getting kicked out of the ISS every week...
How quaint.
Very quaint. Along with the idea of abiding by the terms of a licensing agreement. Quite outmoded.
99% of the web content is pretty much useless.
That may be, but you don't visit 99% of sites, and you don't visit them randomly. The thing with the web isn't how much crap it has, but how much good stuff it has: amazon for buying stuff, cnn.com and myriad others for news (slanted any way you like), and a bazillion cool toys that you can find with google.
So basically I'm not certain the Internet is in any need of being reclaimed. Yeah, there are an awful lot of jerks out there. Most of them stay away, publishing rants in their blogs. A few want to break into your computer, and that's a problem, but one that anybody who reads slashdot should be able to manage. For the rest of them, the problem is getting better: Windows does manage to get more secure over time, and the alternatives (linux, mac, Firefox under Windows) are either more secure or at least smaller targets. Spam is also a problem, one that's not solved yet, but filters help (as does taking care with your email address).
There are plenty of reasons to despair in the world, but the Internet isn't one of them.
The pricing situation is a bit tricky. Right now the equipment is pricey because relatively few people want to spend money on it. As you say, existing TV is good enough for most people. (Especially since most people get their TV over cable or satellite and therefore this won't help them, but I'll get to that in a minute.)
The FCC is hoping to tell everybody, "Look, we're going to DTV, start making it," which should drop the price to the point where an adapter for your existing TV is $50. (The manufacturers keep claiming it's going to add $100 to the price of a new TV; that figure seems bogus to me. It's basically a bottom-of-the-line video card.) Remember that the FCC doesn't really give a rat's ass about the quality of your picture; they want you to switch so that they can reclaim the bandwidth.
In the end a DTV will cost more than an equivalent analog TV, because they're compressing the signal more and you need more sophisticated equipment to read it. That's what lets them reclaim the valuable bandwidth, and pass the cost on to you. The carrot is better reception, better resolution, and the 16:9 ratio, as well as a few other fancy digital features. (You'll pay more for a 16:9 TV, too.) But that's just the incentive, not the reason.
You're not paying more for less; you're paying more for more. That sucks, since you'll see the benefits only very indirectly (the new wi-fi and cell services that will gradually take over the old TV bandwidth).
But if you're unwilling to pay for it, eventually you're gonna lose. They're taking your analog signal, and you're free to stare at your old TV from 8 PM to 11:30 PM every night, but there won't be anything on except static.
Fortunately, instead of buying a new $300 TV, you'll be able to by an adapter, which right now costs $150 but will hopefully be closer to $50 by the time this is done. That's why the FCC is pushing the switch: there will be a lot of people in your position, wanting to adapt their old TV to the new signal, which should make for cheap adapters. It won't happen until the cutover gets near, in 2008.
As far as I can tell the ones who really get screwed are the cable/satellite viewers, who never really use the tuner in their TV set. And that's 90% of everybody. They use the tuner in an external box, which they usually rent from the cable/satellite company for around $5 per month or pay $100 to $200 for.
I'd like to see them start selling $200 21" TVs with no tuner in them at all, for those people. I dunno if that'll happen or not.
I'm all in favor of the phone-free zones on aircraft (hell, if we put the phone-users together, maybe they'll bug each other enough until they realize how much they're bugging other people), but a long-shot science program hardly seems reason to ban them altogether.
People want to use their phones for work, or to contact their families, and if they already had the ability to use their cell phones in the air they'd consider it a major inconvenience. Calling it "remotely inconvenienced" is an understatement.
And "screwing science" is an overstatement. SETI is a fun idea but the odds of succeeding on any given telescope or any given day are so low that it hardly seems worth shutting down the planet so you can go look for aliens. It's a tiny, tiny project tucked into the corners (free telescope time, free computer time) of the scientific world.
Because patents are important parts of business plans. Somebody who holds a patent in good faith (as opposed to one of these dimwit patents we've been seeing so much of) wants to get started making money off that patent before it expires. And it'll be harder to get seed money based on your patent ownership if your investors are afraid that you will be challenged over it.
However, there is one important "forever" component to this legislation: if a patent holder uses the patent against you, you can file to have it overturned, no matter when the suit is filed (as long as you do it within six months of the lawsuit filing). So if you add one-click ordering to your web site, and Amazon sues you over it, you can try to have that patent overturned.
That doesn't get in the way of business planning, because it can't be used pre-emptively by a competitor once the nine months have passed.
There are still serious ways to abuse this system if well-funded competitors file challenges intended to force you to spend your money defending your patent rather than exploiting it. And a small company will still have a hard time gathering the money to sue if Microsoft is violating its patent. The wheels of justice still grind slow, but I haven't got a good solution to that problem.
So rather than being a general case study with broad applicability, Slashdot has just put on its front page an article that says, "I like keyboards!"
Somehow, "News for one particular nerd" just doesn't have the right ring.
Slow news day, here we come.
It even appears in the HTML specifications
Man, that's too bad. They specifically created example.com for this.
Well, it's too late now. Once the cat is into the spammer's bag (to mangle a metaphor), it's everywhere. Information wants to be free, especially your email address.
It's a good idea; I wonder if it's possible. The head moves with exquisite precision to pick up the hundreds of separate tracks. Instead, you'd need hundreds of separate heads, powerful enough to read the data and isolated enough not to interfere with each other.
I'm sure that there are tricks to make it happen. Say, 8 separate arms so that each one contains only 1/8 the number of heads, possibly spacing them out far enough to make it happen. I believe high-end hard drives already have multiple arms.
Redundant heads might even increase disk life, which might be necessary to compensate for the increased chance of single-head failure with hundreds of heads, even if they don't move.
Sorry; I'm not an expert on hard-drive construction so I can't analyze the idea any deeper. I'd love to see it happen, because it could greatly improve throughput, and as you say things that don't move are more reliable than things that do.
Even before switching to x86, Mac has started using a lot of commodity hardware (memory, IDE hard disks, USB for mice and keyboards). IIRC they still have an idiosyncratic video connector but I gather that they still use at least partly commodity video boards.
Do they still encode part of the OS in ROM on the motherboard? They used to, but I thought they'd dumped that years ago.
What's left besides the motherboard? Are they going to roll their own chipset?
The biggest non-IE/OE bug I can recall was the Sasser worm, which attacked a vulnerability in the LSASS proces. That's not quite kernel code, but it's pretty close. There were others, but that was the one with the biggest exploitation that I can recall.
The OS itself is comparatively easy to secure. Its interactions with the outside world are fairly simple. IE and OE are expected to execute untrusted code, either from Javascript or once upon a time from VBScript (now THERE was a dumb idea) or ActiveX components (another dumb idea but at least occasionally useful).
That's not to say that various ports aren't vulnerable to attack (either from overflows, or from bugs in the implementation) but they're mostly request/response things rather than executing arbitrary code. You have to make certain about your authentication, but at least there is an authentication step (as opposed to scripting, which may run without special authorization).
Still, when a process like LSASS, which manages security, is reading from a port open to the world, you're in serious danger and you don't even have to be sitting at the terminal. The vulnerability there was a buffer overflow.
IE/OE suffer more from bad interface design; even when literal vulnerabilities were patched they are suceptible to user error because they kept asking the user to make security decisions. It was easy for somebody like Gator to simply badger the user into clicking "yes". (Personally, I don't want to visit the sort of web sites that would permit that sort of pestering, but you know how it is.)
Most of the new "exploits" often involve user engineering rather than pure hacking. It's still MS's fault, and it's partly the OS's fault for not making these security decisions easier to undo (e.g. programs you can't uninstall, that can hide from you, that can prevent you from reaching sites for virus updates, etc.). So you can blame it both on IE and OE for making the vulnerabilities available, and the OS for making them so damaging.
Between 98 and 2K there actually wasn't all that big a difference. There were some, but it was a long time ago and I've wiped most of it from memory. There are bigger (and more recent) differences between 2K/98 and XP.
Menus were laid out differently. There are different transition effects (e.g. menus fading in and out). In terms of visual layout, XP has brighter colors and more rounded edges (compared to the very boxy stuff that came before.)
I forget which, but various L&Fs have single-click rather than double-click to activate icons on the desktop (i.e. like a hyperlink).
I keep all of the systems I work with set pretty much the same, and I preferred the 2K layout to the XP layout. You're right that the differences aren't huge, but they're the sort of things that make a difference when you've got habits built up. Even tiny differences to a look & feel can interfere with your habits, and that can make a big difference in your experience.
I live in Maryland; the going rate is around $9, with one or two ads before the previews. (I like previews, and one ad doesn't piss me off too terribly much, but two or more ticks me off and I complain.)
I don't really expect them to go back to theater-only viewing. I just meant that back in the Good Old Days, that was how you got to watch movies. You get to watch movies on DVD because they think they can turn a profit on it.
If DVD copying software were ubiquitous and convenient (something sharing physical VHS tapes never was), that equation might not continue to hold.
I say let the little bastard consumers wallow in their own shit until they're paying $11 every single time they want to watch the newest shitty hollywood flick that they can no longer obtain through any means but 24-hour-per-use download.
Actually, that's pretty much the way it is already. You pay $9, you get to watch it exactly once, when they feel like showing it to you. It's called "going to the movies".
For a long time it was the only way that movie studios made any money. If they think they can't make any money off selling DVDs, they'll go back to it.
Newborns have considerable content. For example, they have a predisposition to learn language, and not just any language, but human languages. Human languages are far from random things; they have particular structures, like words and sentences. Language doesn't have to be that way, but every human language is. There are many other language universals.
There are a lot of other things that appear to be built-in to the human brain (some aspects of gender roles, love for family, a sense of fair play, the ability to see in 3D). A newborn is a lot more than a mass of unwired neurons.
These things are far from completely understood, but the notion of a blank slate has been pretty well debunked.
It's not like it's easier on Adobe to make differerent, variously crippled versions of Photoshop. It's actually more work. They do it because it works for their shareholders: you sell a basic version with features disabled for $x, and make users pay for more features. Yeah, it's the same cost to them to print a CD either way, but the price of things is ALWAYS set by what people are willing to pay, not by what it costs you to make.
At least in the non-free software world. Rather different economics there.
It's trivial news that they found some artifacts that they didn't know they had. They're of some small historical value, and therefore makes page 37 of the paper.
The fact that they have a suit labeled "007" allows them to put "James Bond" in the headline, booting it up to page 7 of the newspaper and page 1 of the newspaper for nerds (even if it's hardly "news that matters".)
I like your .movie idea. Especially if there's somebody taking at least a halfhearted attempt to restrict it to actual movies, the way the .edu domain is restricted.
Or at least vigorously favor people making actual movies; that is, when you discover that some jackass has registered davincicode.movie and wants to sell it to Columbia Pictures, they get to take the domain name and punch him in the nose.
There will still be plenty of infighting among the eight billion indie movie producers for the good names, and God only knows what the porn movie producers are going to try, but it's definitely an idea with promise. And since I bet you could charge even more than $250, the domain registrars could definitely get behind it.
Think of it as a fundraiser for domain registrars. Like a bake sale, only with porn.
Sadly, many connections don't give fixed IPs. It would be extremely frustrating to find myself blacklisted because I happened to get an IP that belonged to some nimrod yesterday.
I think that the problem is better solved closer to the zombie, by their ISP cutting them off, and reserve the global solutions targeted at those ISPs who don't appear to be making an effort.
I've noticed Microsoft also dumps a lot of crap there.
That's extremely clever, though even 10 years on from Windows 95 I still regularly install programs in a Programs directory rather than Program Files, for precisely that reason. Emacs command line file completion doesn't handle the spaces well (at least not in the rapidly-aging three year old version I use).
Is your assertion a fact, or just your suspicion? Either way its quite a clever idea.
Distributing Java programs is tricky. Adding JNI DLLs makes it trickier. Write Swing and you know the interface is there, for free. You can distribute a jar file with a manifest and nothing else; no path problems, no DLL hell, just double-click the icon (hopefully). Path of least resistance.
I'm not saying Swing is better, just easier to distribute (and more widely known; again, path of least resistance.)
And I'd say the greatest SWT application ever is Eclipse.
Thanks for sharing!