Well, Bang & Olufsen, the amazing audiophile and high-end a/v company from Europe, make a telephone system that can play to the caller one of up to (I think) 4 different answering machine messages depending on their caller ID. It will also tell you with an audio voice who is calling if their ID is one that you have programmed. It even ties into their A/V equipment to turn the volume down when a call comes in.
It is an utterly ludicrous phone system at a matching price, but it looks cool and you can have a phone with a remote control.
The future is fine if the government will step in and investigate why/how the ILECs (read phone companies) are harming the other DSL providers (Covad). The future is still OK even if all other DSL providers close because the ILECs will still provide DSL (just more expensively).
The closing of 260 offices isn't all that significant to Covad or the DSL future picture. All the closures were in markets so small they couldn't support an office. Markets in cities or college towns support the market fine so they are open. Podunk towns where only five families have signed up are closing down.
When Covad started business a few years ago, they opened offices in thousands of markets big and small. The smallest markets are just not worth it so are closing. My best friend works at Covad and he said the 260 closings are not all that significant a percentage of Covad's total market.
The problem you're describing is a problem not with Covad, but with the monopolistic phone companies (ILECs). When a phone company does an install, it is a good install 90% of the time. When Covad has to do an install, it is good only 70% of the time. The reason is that Covad has to go through the ILECs to get you service. The ILECs don't like this and don't do a damn thing to help (and are even being accused of harming). This is a major issue and Covad is taking the ILECs to court over these issues.
The point of the closures isn't that it is Covad losing business and going down or anything bad that you suggest by saying "it serves them right." If you had understood a word of the article, you would've noticed that they only closed down offices in small markets in podunk towns. When Covad opened shop a few years ago, they opened up a billion offices all over the place. In the small markets, nobody was really buying DSL so it doesn't make sense anymore to keep that office open. They still have a ton of offices in major markets and are still the market leader of backend DSL providers.
Yeah, I wasn't clear when I made the original post. If you read this post I made, I explain what I meant a little better.
Pretty much, I meant that it wouldn't work as well if the tax preparation software had to be paid for on a monthly basis or if they charged the same amount as a program you use everyday. Another way to look at it is if MS made people pay $10 per month for Office (which is used every single day by people in a business) and you only use it once a week at most (for school or home use); would you be more likely to pay for software that costs one person $0.30 per day while it costs you $3 per day to use?
Subscription services only work well for programs that are guaranteed to be used a certain number of times by a majority of users (tax software and OS's) and not as well for applications like Office and such. I'm not an economist or businessman, so maybe I'm wrong.
You are correct about the monthly payment for monthly use programs. I guess I didn't really make my point very precisely.
What I meant was for payment programs that are designed to be used on a daily basis (like an OS) applied to software used only on a monthly basis. This would probably not be a problem for VERY specific programs like inventory software that is designed for the low use area, where designing a payment programs for its usage isn't pretty simple. It would be nice to pay per use on something that only needs to be done rarely.
On the flip side, though, would be if they tailored their payment model based on the usage statistics and you only use a daily type program (like Windows) on a monthly basis. That is where the problem occurs with this payment model. Some large offices pay to have their trash taken every day because they need it. Would you pay the same amount to have your trash taken once a day when you only need it once a week? The trash companies have set their pricing around this (I'm guessing), but would the software industry? I'm sure the large companies (Sun, MS, etc) would and already do to a certain extant. But what about the small companies that just don't have the clout to make a business pay more than an individual (or even the technology to check to see how often someone is using their program)?
There are a lot of software types for which this type of payment would not work. Think about the programs that you only use once a month or once a week or once only: financial software, inventory software, OS update/optimization software. You wouldn't pay monthly for something you only use monthly.
What would be nice for those programs and even larger programs (like Windows for us Linux users) is a pay per use program. I only use Windows if I want to play some games or use some random, legacy software. That amounts to a day or two per month. I would pay $2 per month to use Windows (if I didn't get a $5 full use copy through my University). That would be $24 per year and since the design cycle for OS software is about two years you would pay about $48 for an OS instead of $90 or more. Just a thought.
Some of the photos show the Sun in front of the camera (behind the astronaut or LEM or other focal object) meaning that if it is the only source of light, the photos would show dark silhoettes. Instead, they show bright objects inside of shadows like there was a light source illuminating them. Therefore, there MUST be a different light source. The Earth's reflection isn't visible in the photos because it is behind the camera reflecting light onto the objects. The reflection of the Moon's surface is also a source of light.
But you're right about the multiple shadows if there were more than one light source. I think the different shadow angles is the slope of land like you said.
There must be multiple sources of light in the photos where the Sun is in the background or when a visible object is deep inside a shadow, but those sources don't have to be strong enough to cast shadows (or maybe the angle of light is straight up so that shadows won't exist from them).
I don't know the exact details of lighting for photos or reflective power of Earth or anything, but I do know that we went to the Moon and that the show wasn't a very well researched case for a conspiracy.
Katz mentioned that some of the scenes were shot at the Madison Estate. This is a little unclear: the barn scene was shot at the Madison Estate, the house of Vernon was shot at the Biltmore Estate. Just thought I'd clear up any confusion...
The house WAS the Biltmore Estate while the barn scene was at the Madison Estate. Mr. Katz wasn't explicit when he said that it had scenes from the Madison Estate. He could've meant just the barn scene, or he could've been mistaken and meant all the house and barn scenes.
I flipped to the show a couple times during commercial breaks of another show. All I saw was a bunch of convincing stories and "facts"... to someone who has no clue about real science and photography (let alone the multibillion dollar space industry).
It was terrible, they made a huge effort to put holes in the pictures shot on the moon and saying there were two light sources (therefore one had to be artificial). All the pictures they showed, though, could be easily explained by the fact that on the moon the Earth is a decent source of light if the Sun is shining on it (which it was in the pictures). They said that NASA didn't send ANY artificial light sources up there; I don't know for a fact, but I'm pretty sure they would have had to send SOME up there. They also played on the fact that some of the pictures had similar backgrounds, but totally different foregrounds. This was just ignorant in my opinion because when they superimposed pictures with different foregrounds (ie the LEM at it's landing site, and then one without it) the back ground was still the "same" mountain structure, but shifted or a resized. Can't that be explained be being a different distance away? Yes.
I also never really saw any interviews with ex-NASA employees or anyone with any real connection to the space program (now or at the time), but just with photographers and conspiracy theorists (not many scientists). I didn't see the entire program, though, so I could be wrong. I just couldn't stand to watch it because it was so awful.
First, it was a joke (maybe a bad one) so take it as such.
And, by the way, we actually live in a 10 dimensional universe. 3 spacial dimensions, a time dimension and the other 6 are rolled up in a space so small we can't see them. At least, this is the hypothesis of hyperdimensional physics theories. I said we were 3d beings because our minds can only SEE 3 dimensions (though we can sense a fourth, can you really visualize a 4d object?). Some physicists don't even think the fourth dimension is really a time dimension, it just feels that way to us since we can't see it.
Oh, and I don't do acid, I just have a bad sense of humor.
For years and years we've been finding all these "dead" giant squid, but we've never found a "live" one. When are scientists going to face up to the fact that maybe they aren't as smart as they think they are? These giant squid aren't dead. They are alive and living perfectly happily (until we cut them up and put them into jars, and even then who knows?); they are just faking death hoping we'll let them go. "Science" just doesn't have the knowledge to know that just because it isn't alive by current standards doesn't mean that it isn't alive in some other way. What if they are hyperdimensional beings? What if their body is contained in three dimensions, but their "life" and "spirit" are contained elsewhere? What if they are a hive society and they have no brain when seperated from the queen? All these holier than thou scientists really piss me off. If we are so smart that we can boats under the water and on top of the water AT THE SAME TIME, why can't we find a couple animals that are 300 feet long?
Well, I've been playing Hextris off and on now since you mentioned it on Saturday. I just got 459,415 points. Seeing as not many people play the game (since it is mainly a Linux game) you would rank pretty high on the list (if there was one). Of course, my personal best in Tetris is only good enough for 63rd place; so if all the good Tetris players played Hextris, we would rank about 70th or so??
Well, I don't know if you checked, but they don't have a section of scores for Hextris. I've played it a few times, but not enough to get the movement down. I can only 150,000 right now (after just a couple games playing). 450,000 sounds pretty amazing. You might be able ask them to put up a section for Hextris, though.
The only reason you need to "stand" on it is so that it can effectively translate the vibrations into your bones (they could just as easily created a mat that you laid down on). They just need the pressure your weight asserts on the surface of the system. This can be done with big rubber bands (already used for exercise regimens to simulate gravity pulling on the muscles and bones) or just by strapping the system to your body while you're floating around doing other work. If it doesn't translate through the rest of the body that well in zero-g, just strap it to different areas at different times. This could be a great risk/cost reducing research project for long range missions like the space station and Mars/interplanetary missions.
I am quite the avid Tetris player (and relatively good, too) so I went to check my top score. On the original NES version I once got 470,000 pts (starting on level 15 and ending on 23). That is
only good enough to put me at #63! I frankly don't believe some of the scores (like the top score of 999,999; that is just wrong and impossible), but I actually have video of my top score. I'm going to find it and have them put my name up.
On the other hand, I know I can do well enough to crack the top 20 in the Gameboy version. I guess fewer people posted their scores on it.
The circumference of geosync is roughly 302,000 km. If 10 km is a "close call" in space, then you can "fit" 30,000 satellites up there. It is not necessarily the physical space that is clogged, though, but the space for bandwidth. The communication signals are just straight lines from the satellite to Earth, they spread out as the distance grows. At geosync distance, they spread a fair deal. If two satellites communicating on the same frequency band (X, K, Ku, S, etc) are too close, their signals will interfere with each other.
What type of satellite can be in which area of geosync has to be tightly regulated or everyone would be wanting to put the same type of high bandwidth comm sat in the most popular areas for their customers. Geosync orbits only work at 0 inclination (equatorial), and most of the equator is water or low population countries. That cuts down the useful space for geosync position by a good deal. For India, they wouldn't want space over the US, so that isn't really an issue. But they will want space that conflicts with those many, many countries of Eur-Asia. There is probably space, but they would have to be willing to work with the regulation agencies to make sure nobody is going to be interfering with anyone else's signals. My original point (maybe made badly) was that it was probably the cooperation issue that made the US and others a little wary about this.
One main reason the US (and others) may have a problem with this is that the communications bands in Geosync are already extremely clogged. You can look at a picture of the satellites up there and see that there just isn't much more room up there. Not that we have exclusive rights to it or anything, but maybe India isn't willing to cooperate with existing regulatory agencies.
I'm not saying India is right or wrong or that our policies are, either; I just think that this is a major problem nowadays. Everyone wants the easy solution in geosync, instead of going with arrays. Of course, room in space wouldn't be as much of a problem if companies would just de-orbit their spacecraft after their designed life cycle (or when they are no longer useful, whichever is first).
Other than maybe this reason of non-cooperation, I can't think of any other valid reason we should get upset with them finally joining the space industry. I would love to go over there and work if I got a typical US salary. Good food... mmmm...
At first glance, I would've said this was an obviously doctored photo. The sun appears to be shining all over the rock from the lower right and shadows moving to the upper left. The box appears to be lit from the upper left and throwing a shadow to the lower right. The photo is on JHUAPL's official NEAR website so I don't think it is doctored.
Any ideas on the weird lighting? The only guess I have is that the box is actually throwing a shadow to the upper left into the large crater shadow. The shadow that appears to belong to the box may actually a cut-out of the "hill" next to the box.
Yeah, for a few weeks afterward I (and most of my fellow fliers) was "that guy." It was just so damned cool. Now we only mention it when people ask what cool things we've done or if someone is getting ready to make their own flight on it, etc.
As for him relating it to a challenge at work, well, 90% of the kids flying were just doing their professor's research and only wanted to fly for fun. The only work challenge I can think of that I would apply from my experience is how to schmooze the higher ups without sounding like a schmooze. I also got a lot of public speaking experience for the educational outreach stuff we had to do (going to elementary and Jr. Highs and getting the kids interested in space stuff).
I forgot to add that NASA has been running this program twice a year for 4 years now. I'm kinda suprised it is just now hitting/.
Also, I've been on national TV twice because of the program (Good Morning America and NBC morning news special about John Glenn's Shuttle flight), and have had dinner with a few astronauts during the trips there.
Well, since this isn't on the front page (yet), I guess I can get in and post my personal experiences on this early.
I've flown the KC-135 (aka "weightless wonder", "vomit comet", "zero-g bird", etc. [NASA hates the term vomit comet]) twice with this program by the Texas Space Grant Consortium and NASA. It is a great opportunity to get design/build/test experience, national media exposure, and have a fun time on the ride (there's some scientific merit, too). The program was run very well and it has helped me to get jobs and other research. It was also a lot of fun.
If you've never been weightless before, it's awesome. You get about 23 seconds per parabola and then a 2-g pull up that is almost more interesting than the weightlessness. During the weightless section, objects will float around (screws, paper, people) and then they fall to the ground hard when the 2-g pullout starts. Water is also very interesting; when the 2-g section hits, it is almost like it is raining if someone spills water from the drinks or experiments. They can also do flight routines that simulate Moon and Mars gravity. Playing football on the Moon gravity was pretty cool.
I personally never got sick during the first trip up (while a friend of mine threw up 33 times... literally). It felt completely natural to me. On the second flight I got sick one time after we had already landed and were taxiing in. I was sick that morning before the flight and for the next couple days so I think I just had the flu.
The 2-g section is pretty cool, too. You can do push ups and situps (extremely difficult), or look like an idiot by trying to jump up and down but only getting a 3 inch vertical.
If you're an undergrad and an engineer or science major, you should look into it; even if you don't want to fly, but just to get some research in zero-g. You do have to pass a physical exam and go through physiological training at NASA (hyperbaric champers, etc), though.
Slashdot Mirror
It is an utterly ludicrous phone system at a matching price, but it looks cool and you can have a phone with a remote control.
The closing of 260 offices isn't all that significant to Covad or the DSL future picture. All the closures were in markets so small they couldn't support an office. Markets in cities or college towns support the market fine so they are open. Podunk towns where only five families have signed up are closing down.
When Covad started business a few years ago, they opened offices in thousands of markets big and small. The smallest markets are just not worth it so are closing. My best friend works at Covad and he said the 260 closings are not all that significant a percentage of Covad's total market.
The problem you're describing is a problem not with Covad, but with the monopolistic phone companies (ILECs). When a phone company does an install, it is a good install 90% of the time. When Covad has to do an install, it is good only 70% of the time. The reason is that Covad has to go through the ILECs to get you service. The ILECs don't like this and don't do a damn thing to help (and are even being accused of harming). This is a major issue and Covad is taking the ILECs to court over these issues.
The point of the closures isn't that it is Covad losing business and going down or anything bad that you suggest by saying "it serves them right." If you had understood a word of the article, you would've noticed that they only closed down offices in small markets in podunk towns. When Covad opened shop a few years ago, they opened up a billion offices all over the place. In the small markets, nobody was really buying DSL so it doesn't make sense anymore to keep that office open. They still have a ton of offices in major markets and are still the market leader of backend DSL providers.
Pretty much, I meant that it wouldn't work as well if the tax preparation software had to be paid for on a monthly basis or if they charged the same amount as a program you use everyday. Another way to look at it is if MS made people pay $10 per month for Office (which is used every single day by people in a business) and you only use it once a week at most (for school or home use); would you be more likely to pay for software that costs one person $0.30 per day while it costs you $3 per day to use?
Subscription services only work well for programs that are guaranteed to be used a certain number of times by a majority of users (tax software and OS's) and not as well for applications like Office and such. I'm not an economist or businessman, so maybe I'm wrong.
What I meant was for payment programs that are designed to be used on a daily basis (like an OS) applied to software used only on a monthly basis. This would probably not be a problem for VERY specific programs like inventory software that is designed for the low use area, where designing a payment programs for its usage isn't pretty simple. It would be nice to pay per use on something that only needs to be done rarely.
On the flip side, though, would be if they tailored their payment model based on the usage statistics and you only use a daily type program (like Windows) on a monthly basis. That is where the problem occurs with this payment model. Some large offices pay to have their trash taken every day because they need it. Would you pay the same amount to have your trash taken once a day when you only need it once a week? The trash companies have set their pricing around this (I'm guessing), but would the software industry? I'm sure the large companies (Sun, MS, etc) would and already do to a certain extant. But what about the small companies that just don't have the clout to make a business pay more than an individual (or even the technology to check to see how often someone is using their program)?
Think about the programs that you only use once a month or once a week or once only: financial software, inventory software, OS update/optimization software. You wouldn't pay monthly for something you only use monthly.
What would be nice for those programs and even larger programs (like Windows for us Linux users) is a pay per use program. I only use Windows if I want to play some games or use some random, legacy software. That amounts to a day or two per month. I would pay $2 per month to use Windows (if I didn't get a $5 full use copy through my University). That would be $24 per year and since the design cycle for OS software is about two years you would pay about $48 for an OS instead of $90 or more. Just a thought.
Some of the photos show the Sun in front of the camera (behind the astronaut or LEM or other focal object) meaning that if it is the only source of light, the photos would show dark silhoettes. Instead, they show bright objects inside of shadows like there was a light source illuminating them. Therefore, there MUST be a different light source. The Earth's reflection isn't visible in the photos because it is behind the camera reflecting light onto the objects. The reflection of the Moon's surface is also a source of light.
But you're right about the multiple shadows if there were more than one light source. I think the different shadow angles is the slope of land like you said.
There must be multiple sources of light in the photos where the Sun is in the background or when a visible object is deep inside a shadow, but those sources don't have to be strong enough to cast shadows (or maybe the angle of light is straight up so that shadows won't exist from them).
I don't know the exact details of lighting for photos or reflective power of Earth or anything, but I do know that we went to the Moon and that the show wasn't a very well researched case for a conspiracy.
Katz mentioned that some of the scenes were shot at the Madison Estate. This is a little unclear: the barn scene was shot at the Madison Estate, the house of Vernon was shot at the Biltmore Estate. Just thought I'd clear up any confusion...
The house WAS the Biltmore Estate while the barn scene was at the Madison Estate. Mr. Katz wasn't explicit when he said that it had scenes from the Madison Estate. He could've meant just the barn scene, or he could've been mistaken and meant all the house and barn scenes.
It was terrible, they made a huge effort to put holes in the pictures shot on the moon and saying there were two light sources (therefore one had to be artificial). All the pictures they showed, though, could be easily explained by the fact that on the moon the Earth is a decent source of light if the Sun is shining on it (which it was in the pictures). They said that NASA didn't send ANY artificial light sources up there; I don't know for a fact, but I'm pretty sure they would have had to send SOME up there. They also played on the fact that some of the pictures had similar backgrounds, but totally different foregrounds. This was just ignorant in my opinion because when they superimposed pictures with different foregrounds (ie the LEM at it's landing site, and then one without it) the back ground was still the "same" mountain structure, but shifted or a resized. Can't that be explained be being a different distance away? Yes.
I also never really saw any interviews with ex-NASA employees or anyone with any real connection to the space program (now or at the time), but just with photographers and conspiracy theorists (not many scientists). I didn't see the entire program, though, so I could be wrong. I just couldn't stand to watch it because it was so awful.
If you're talking about the one by Michio Kaku, I read it a couple years ago. Good book.
And, by the way, we actually live in a 10 dimensional universe. 3 spacial dimensions, a time dimension and the other 6 are rolled up in a space so small we can't see them. At least, this is the hypothesis of hyperdimensional physics theories. I said we were 3d beings because our minds can only SEE 3 dimensions (though we can sense a fourth, can you really visualize a 4d object?). Some physicists don't even think the fourth dimension is really a time dimension, it just feels that way to us since we can't see it.
Oh, and I don't do acid, I just have a bad sense of humor.
For years and years we've been finding all these "dead" giant squid, but we've never found a "live" one. When are scientists going to face up to the fact that maybe they aren't as smart as they think they are? These giant squid aren't dead. They are alive and living perfectly happily (until we cut them up and put them into jars, and even then who knows?); they are just faking death hoping we'll let them go. "Science" just doesn't have the knowledge to know that just because it isn't alive by current standards doesn't mean that it isn't alive in some other way. What if they are hyperdimensional beings? What if their body is contained in three dimensions, but their "life" and "spirit" are contained elsewhere? What if they are a hive society and they have no brain when seperated from the queen? All these holier than thou scientists really piss me off. If we are so smart that we can boats under the water and on top of the water AT THE SAME TIME, why can't we find a couple animals that are 300 feet long?
Well, I've been playing Hextris off and on now since you mentioned it on Saturday. I just got 459,415 points. Seeing as not many people play the game (since it is mainly a Linux game) you would rank pretty high on the list (if there was one). Of course, my personal best in Tetris is only good enough for 63rd place; so if all the good Tetris players played Hextris, we would rank about 70th or so??
Well, I don't know if you checked, but they don't have a section of scores for Hextris. I've played it a few times, but not enough to get the movement down. I can only 150,000 right now (after just a couple games playing). 450,000 sounds pretty amazing. You might be able ask them to put up a section for Hextris, though.
The only reason you need to "stand" on it is so that it can effectively translate the vibrations into your bones (they could just as easily created a mat that you laid down on). They just need the pressure your weight asserts on the surface of the system. This can be done with big rubber bands (already used for exercise regimens to simulate gravity pulling on the muscles and bones) or just by strapping the system to your body while you're floating around doing other work. If it doesn't translate through the rest of the body that well in zero-g, just strap it to different areas at different times. This could be a great risk/cost reducing research project for long range missions like the space station and Mars/interplanetary missions.
On the other hand, I know I can do well enough to crack the top 20 in the Gameboy version. I guess fewer people posted their scores on it.
What type of satellite can be in which area of geosync has to be tightly regulated or everyone would be wanting to put the same type of high bandwidth comm sat in the most popular areas for their customers. Geosync orbits only work at 0 inclination (equatorial), and most of the equator is water or low population countries. That cuts down the useful space for geosync position by a good deal. For India, they wouldn't want space over the US, so that isn't really an issue. But they will want space that conflicts with those many, many countries of Eur-Asia. There is probably space, but they would have to be willing to work with the regulation agencies to make sure nobody is going to be interfering with anyone else's signals. My original point (maybe made badly) was that it was probably the cooperation issue that made the US and others a little wary about this.
I'm not saying India is right or wrong or that our policies are, either; I just think that this is a major problem nowadays. Everyone wants the easy solution in geosync, instead of going with arrays. Of course, room in space wouldn't be as much of a problem if companies would just de-orbit their spacecraft after their designed life cycle (or when they are no longer useful, whichever is first).
Other than maybe this reason of non-cooperation, I can't think of any other valid reason we should get upset with them finally joining the space industry. I would love to go over there and work if I got a typical US salary. Good food... mmmm...
Any ideas on the weird lighting? The only guess I have is that the box is actually throwing a shadow to the upper left into the large crater shadow. The shadow that appears to belong to the box may actually a cut-out of the "hill" next to the box.
As for him relating it to a challenge at work, well, 90% of the kids flying were just doing their professor's research and only wanted to fly for fun. The only work challenge I can think of that I would apply from my experience is how to schmooze the higher ups without sounding like a schmooze. I also got a lot of public speaking experience for the educational outreach stuff we had to do (going to elementary and Jr. Highs and getting the kids interested in space stuff).
Also, I've been on national TV twice because of the program (Good Morning America and NBC morning news special about John Glenn's Shuttle flight), and have had dinner with a few astronauts during the trips there.
I've flown the KC-135 (aka "weightless wonder", "vomit comet", "zero-g bird", etc. [NASA hates the term vomit comet]) twice with this program by the Texas Space Grant Consortium and NASA. It is a great opportunity to get design/build/test experience, national media exposure, and have a fun time on the ride (there's some scientific merit, too). The program was run very well and it has helped me to get jobs and other research. It was also a lot of fun.
If you've never been weightless before, it's awesome. You get about 23 seconds per parabola and then a 2-g pull up that is almost more interesting than the weightlessness. During the weightless section, objects will float around (screws, paper, people) and then they fall to the ground hard when the 2-g pullout starts. Water is also very interesting; when the 2-g section hits, it is almost like it is raining if someone spills water from the drinks or experiments. They can also do flight routines that simulate Moon and Mars gravity. Playing football on the Moon gravity was pretty cool.
I personally never got sick during the first trip up (while a friend of mine threw up 33 times... literally). It felt completely natural to me. On the second flight I got sick one time after we had already landed and were taxiing in. I was sick that morning before the flight and for the next couple days so I think I just had the flu.
The 2-g section is pretty cool, too. You can do push ups and situps (extremely difficult), or look like an idiot by trying to jump up and down but only getting a 3 inch vertical.
If you're an undergrad and an engineer or science major, you should look into it; even if you don't want to fly, but just to get some research in zero-g. You do have to pass a physical exam and go through physiological training at NASA (hyperbaric champers, etc), though.
Whether the usage was correct, I don't know.