To each their own, but our Windows admins that have to do DNS management with MS' tools rue every request. When the Unix side of the house skips through a zone file with a few Vi keystrokes, they rue some more.
Why is it that Linux clones TrueType fonts? If fonts were so easy, why can't FOSS innovate a better font system?
I'm guessing because it's a standard. Why did Microsoft implement them instead of coming up with their own better font system? Incidentally, xorg also has PostScript Type1 fonts support as well. Another standard. The one that had Apple developing TrueType to avoid due to licensing issues. Note also that TrueType had a lot of problems breaking in to the targeted market because publishing houses had already invested heavily on Type1 fonts. Going against entrenched industry standards is tough.
Why is that Linux uses Samba for File / Print? If networking were so easy, one would think Linux would have its own open and unique protocol, and just publish a Windows client driver like Novell did for IPX/SPX based file / print clients. And to think Novell got a client working in DOS...
Because SMB is a common standard. I prefer to avoid using SMB when I can. I very, very rarely use it for printing (I know - shocking that you can find other printing protocols on most enterprise networks if you look). I occasionally use it for file sharing (I prefer using SSHFS). But it's nice to have available since Microsoft dominates the desktop environment and is incapable of doing anything but SMB (out of the box at least).
If Microsoft is such a shoddy company, where's the VB for Linux?
I haven't noticed the Linux world clamoring for VB. There's definitely folks who think there should be one - I've heard of such projects since 2000. There are even proprietary products that claim to bring VB to Linux. But it seems to be a niche thing. Why? Don't know. I'm not a VB user. Maybe someone else can offer better insight as to why Microsoft shops love VB and the rest of the world doesn't.
bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it. search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies. google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sites
So I gave Bing a shot and found the results pretty close with more "directories" showing up earlier in Bing's results.
The problem with the NSA is that it is part of the intelligence structure. If you insert them as a defensive player, more often than not, they will take absolutely NO action in order to protect their spying capabilities.
I'm not so sure that they would take no action. They certainly have taken actions in the past. And even if you assume that the help they offered didn't affect their best procedures, it still has an effect on the landscape in which they operate.
Having said that - you missed an even more fundamental issue. They are a part of the intelligence structure and as such will treat any problem as an intelligence issue. Some of that probably isn't a bad thing; security procedures, vulnerability assessments and mitigation, etc. But a big part of that is also simply surveillance and spying. Those are aspects that are less necessary to handle the issues involved. But they will want to do these things because that's the culture they're in. They have their hammer and everything presented to them will be a nail.
While I certainly agree that the punishment does not fit the crime, the overwhelming majority of people on Slashdot aren't taking that stance. Instead, they are insisting that the RIAA can't prove it, or hoping for legal loopholes to get her off. They aren't interested in the system being fair, only in their side winning.
I would hazard to guess that these people don't see the option for a fair system. So failing that, they want to see the entire system fail.
I've been infringing copyright in one way or another for well over 20 years. Sometimes it is by accident. Sometimes it is debatable (depending if you're an industry group and your views on fair use). Sometimes it has been entirely willful with full knowledge of my actions. And in this way, these acts tend to be along the lines of when I've gone faster than the posted speed limit (which I've been doing on occasion for less time than I've infringed copyrights). I don't ever expect to have my financial life destroyed because a cop caught me speeding. Of course, I'm not going a hundred miles over the posted speed limit but then I'm also not running a black market DVD manufacturing facility.
What it comes down to is that people on this site believe themselves to possess a God-given right to enjoy other people's work without paying, and they'll demand that "right" be defended by any means necessary. I can't even count how many times I've seen people advocate the murder of record company execs as an appropriate response.
That's an awful broad brush you're using there. I agree that there are definitely a large number from the something-for-nothing crowd. But you're being willfully ignorant by claiming that is the entire breadth of the issue and ignoring the complexity and diversity of arguments that are made on this site. Copyright is a complex little beast and is being made more complex over the years by the very people who claim to have the creator's interests in mind.
Scary good.
At least it shows MS is looking for problems, and fixing them as they find them.
If somebody got a full list of bugs / sec updates for linux everymonth (all software), i'm quite sure that "31" would be quite a low number.
Of course MS could ignore them (or some), and come up with a low number, but that wouldn't be in anybodies best interests...
It's always a shame when people use vulnerability / bug counts as some kind of definitive universal metric. The issues involved are much more complex than a single number score. And while the information can be useful, the simplest use is to debunk zealots' (Windows, Linux, etc.) claims that their software of choice is bug-free or that one particular style of development produces better quality code (if you consider bugs signs of defects that count against your quality metric). And even then, the debate could rage on (which I'll avoid doing as that's not the point right now).
Microsoft producing security patches is an overall good thing. Its a battle that was "won" quite a few years ago. And it's a battle that continues as it takes continued pressure to keep them honest (there is a history of bugs being reported to Microsoft w/out fixes over extended lengths of time). Constant pressure nudges Microsoft to resolve these issues. It's an echo of the bad old days when Microsoft cared little about responding to serious flaws in their products.
Likely it's those echos that probably mislead the masses to assume these numbers meant something that they didn't. Back in those aforementioned bad old days, the bug count outlined largely well-documented and unaddressed flaws. Now days a few of those pop up from time to time (and again - it is more common these days for "responsible disclosure" with commercial vendors to uncover flaws that go unpublished until patch release). But for the most part, those numbers represent issues that are addressed. And that is indeed a victory (bittersweet if you contend that the flaws should never have existed).
In reality this is why search engines like Wolfram Alpha without the broad research and knowledge of Google in the industry don't stand much of a chance unless Google drops the ball.
Yeah - but before Google was people, Yahoo was people. Google gets an advantage based on what they're doing. But it doesn't make them invulnerable. Look at the tech industry for the past several decades to see this theme played out again and again.
The name of the House Committee escapes me, but they do yearly reports on computer security and gov't agencies regularly get Ds (up from their previous Fs).
The big question is what do these grades really mean? Do they really provide any true indication as to how effective the Government is at securing their systems? Is a 'D' all that much better than a 'F'? And what does it mean if an organization manages a 'B' (mine did)?
But at the same time, I get a feeling that it sort of does give an impression as to where things are. A 'D' just isn't all that great. But it is better than a 'F'.
My little nook of the Fed world improved over the years. Infosec took on new meaning when the top of the Fed hierarchy started throwing around requirements and putting on their serious face. I would imagine things ARE getting better all in all. It's just darned hard to tell how much better.
NIST Special Publication 800-53 is what I had in mind. It's generated a ton of work for contractors to bring in auditors. And in my (limited) experience, it's a great opportunity for someone with no infosec background to "get in to security" as auditors are simply required to follow the documentation. Said documentation can be turned on it's ear by a sufficiently adept beurocrat in some cases (and avoided if your auditor isn't too technical in others).
But despite my cynicism... it's something. There ARE some good practices in that document. And NIST has put out some nice automated scripts to help hash it all out (best keep an eye on what its doing though). So it's not ALL bad. Just not great.
Did you actually read my post or just use find/copy/paste ?
I used this thing called "reading comprehension" where you pay attention to what the person wrote and you understand it. It's amazing stuff.
I'm 'trying to turn that into a debate on being a good president' because the thread is focusing too closely on intelligence and comptence. What about ethics? Desire to do the right thing? Huh?
Oh. I see. You meant to reply to BitZtream where those points were put to question. (And good points they are, IMHO).
Where have you been? The federal government frowns on talking about obvious security holes because doing so makes them exploitable. As long as we pretend that the DoD and other government agencies are properly securing their networks the crackers can't get in.
And where have you been? I've been inside the federal government. I've seen them (us) use all that public knowledge and tools to deal with the security issues we've had. I've attended security conferences on the Fed's dime where information from open discussions were brought back to help deal with our vulnerabilities. The Feds have benefited greatly from open security discourse.
That's not to say the Fed is effective with infosec. In recent years they've woken up to the fact that they're sorely lacking. Unfortunately, their response has been to turn the issue in to an exercise in red tape that generates a lot of effort - only a fraction of which goes to actually securing the systems involved. And that's why we get agencies that think they've secured their networks when they haven't (the more redtape exists, the more loopholes there are). It's not all a case of the Emperor's New Clothes.
At which point you run down to the store and pick from one of the several thousand phones that are available without having to resort to perpetual financing options. Or, even more horrific, you hook up a modem. Without asking permission.
I think you should go with a really well thought out image that speaks to your audience with no words needed. Ok, stay with me on this one, ok? Picture this: your head... superimposed on Chuck Norris' body... punching Clippy... into the fires of Mount Doom.
You might have missed the part where he said he wanted something professional (having opted to avoid the GoDaddy parking advertising). Obviously he should replace Clippy with a "PC Load Letter" printer.
.. I am actually happy that Microsoft dominates the market over Apple. Microsoft is bad enough, but Apple is a control-freak of a company:/
Of course, when the year of linux-on-the-desktop-comes, it will all be better. Right?
I'd be happy if neither dominated the market. Let everyone have to worry about screw-ups like this leading to real damage to the bottom line. Companies who dominate markets tend to get a buffer from these kinds of mistakes / actions.
That's what makes Linux interesting. It's not about Linux domination so much as Linux being ubiquitous. Market domination with Linux won't come along AS "Linux." It'll be something like RedHat, Ubuntu, or Android. It will be a company name and a company's product line. But if all the products are based on the same underlying technology, moving away from the bone-headed policies of one company to another's offerings won't be as painful. It is part of the power of commodity hardware platforms and is the next logical step (if you're a consumer - commodities are tough business).
I completely agree. My point was actually that game designers are simply doing what seems to them would be fun. That "fun" coincides with various psychological motivations is rather unsurprising happenstance. Unfortunately, my sarcasm got the better of me.
But game designers know that it's pretty damn easy to tap into this deep-rooted need to collect and accumulate. And like happy suckers we buy into it all the time, some to a greater degree than others.
Game designers are just out to reel in suckers. Skinner boxes, treadmills, and obsessive compulsive triggers - anything to land them a pigeon. Yup. That's it. It wouldn't ever be because someone wants to build something they think might be fun.
When you quote "friend", are you implying that the individual is me? Or are you questioning that he is my friend? You're wrong in either case.
Nothing can ruin a person's career more than a child pornography accusation. As a network admin he should be raising hell up and down the bureaucratic ladder and using his resources as network admin to remotely block access to those machines. . When one of those "files" gets discovered, I hope he gets hauled in for aiding in the trafficking of child pornography when Professor Sixpack gets caught.
My take on it is that it's best to say "hey - I told you guys", document it in some memo or email, and then walk away. Playing around with the data is asking for trouble. But then - it's not me we're talking about.
I also doubt it was some professor involved in this. I apparently failed to explain what is going on with these things and you're apparently unfamiliar with "tagging". There are groups of individuals who scan for anonymous FTP servers. They then "tag" the server with their group's name via a file or, more commonly, a directory structure that identifies the group. Said group then uses that structure to store illicit data. The nature of this data varies. There is nothing to indicate that any individual from within the university is involved in this process.
I'd also note that my friend did a fair amount of bitching. Blocking access to those machines would probably get him fired. Like a lot of folks that have to deal with these kinds of bureaucracies, he lacks any authority required to force the issue.
Network security can work. It bugs me to whits end that someone knowingly lets that type of junk in.
I agree. But at the same time, one has to work within the environment one is in. I've been lucky in the past to work for some really good environments that took this kind of thing seriously. I've also had to deal with occasional brain-dead bureaucrats that let these sorts of situations develop. The blame doesn't always begin and end with the network admin.
I'd just fill the servers with data. Someone will notice then.
It's not so much that they don't notice - they don't care. Whenever the system gets full, they just go do some house cleaning. Sometimes the taggers do stupid directory naming tricks to make that more difficult and he's asked to help.
I have to admit - my friend's sense of cynicism is pretty pegged. He tends to enjoy deleting only the encrypted stuff to "punish" the illicit data traders for not sharing.
Of course - this comes from a few years ago. Maybe by now the university has been hit with enough crap on their network that they've started to care. I wouldn't put money on it though.
Slashdot Mirror
To each their own, but our Windows admins that have to do DNS management with MS' tools rue every request. When the Unix side of the house skips through a zone file with a few Vi keystrokes, they rue some more.
I'm guessing because it's a standard. Why did Microsoft implement them instead of coming up with their own better font system? Incidentally, xorg also has PostScript Type1 fonts support as well. Another standard. The one that had Apple developing TrueType to avoid due to licensing issues. Note also that TrueType had a lot of problems breaking in to the targeted market because publishing houses had already invested heavily on Type1 fonts. Going against entrenched industry standards is tough.
Because SMB is a common standard. I prefer to avoid using SMB when I can. I very, very rarely use it for printing (I know - shocking that you can find other printing protocols on most enterprise networks if you look). I occasionally use it for file sharing (I prefer using SSHFS). But it's nice to have available since Microsoft dominates the desktop environment and is incapable of doing anything but SMB (out of the box at least).
I haven't noticed the Linux world clamoring for VB. There's definitely folks who think there should be one - I've heard of such projects since 2000. There are even proprietary products that claim to bring VB to Linux. But it seems to be a niche thing. Why? Don't know. I'm not a VB user. Maybe someone else can offer better insight as to why Microsoft shops love VB and the rest of the world doesn't.
bing is better than google in many instances i've tried it. search for hardwood suppliers, bing gives me a page of websites of actual hardwood supply companies. google gives me the same for about the top 5 then it gives me a bunch of crap like link agregators and "top 5" sites
So I gave Bing a shot and found the results pretty close with more "directories" showing up earlier in Bing's results.
The problem with the NSA is that it is part of the intelligence structure. If you insert them as a defensive player, more often than not, they will take absolutely NO action in order to protect their spying capabilities.
I'm not so sure that they would take no action. They certainly have taken actions in the past. And even if you assume that the help they offered didn't affect their best procedures, it still has an effect on the landscape in which they operate. Having said that - you missed an even more fundamental issue. They are a part of the intelligence structure and as such will treat any problem as an intelligence issue. Some of that probably isn't a bad thing; security procedures, vulnerability assessments and mitigation, etc. But a big part of that is also simply surveillance and spying. Those are aspects that are less necessary to handle the issues involved. But they will want to do these things because that's the culture they're in. They have their hammer and everything presented to them will be a nail.
Are you claiming that DEC was "a company born to use the internet as its platform for business"? DEC - the (not a) computer company founded in 1957?
While I certainly agree that the punishment does not fit the crime, the overwhelming majority of people on Slashdot aren't taking that stance. Instead, they are insisting that the RIAA can't prove it, or hoping for legal loopholes to get her off. They aren't interested in the system being fair, only in their side winning.
I would hazard to guess that these people don't see the option for a fair system. So failing that, they want to see the entire system fail. I've been infringing copyright in one way or another for well over 20 years. Sometimes it is by accident. Sometimes it is debatable (depending if you're an industry group and your views on fair use). Sometimes it has been entirely willful with full knowledge of my actions. And in this way, these acts tend to be along the lines of when I've gone faster than the posted speed limit (which I've been doing on occasion for less time than I've infringed copyrights). I don't ever expect to have my financial life destroyed because a cop caught me speeding. Of course, I'm not going a hundred miles over the posted speed limit but then I'm also not running a black market DVD manufacturing facility.
What it comes down to is that people on this site believe themselves to possess a God-given right to enjoy other people's work without paying, and they'll demand that "right" be defended by any means necessary. I can't even count how many times I've seen people advocate the murder of record company execs as an appropriate response.
That's an awful broad brush you're using there. I agree that there are definitely a large number from the something-for-nothing crowd. But you're being willfully ignorant by claiming that is the entire breadth of the issue and ignoring the complexity and diversity of arguments that are made on this site. Copyright is a complex little beast and is being made more complex over the years by the very people who claim to have the creator's interests in mind.
Scary good. At least it shows MS is looking for problems, and fixing them as they find them. If somebody got a full list of bugs / sec updates for linux everymonth (all software), i'm quite sure that "31" would be quite a low number. Of course MS could ignore them (or some), and come up with a low number, but that wouldn't be in anybodies best interests...
It's always a shame when people use vulnerability / bug counts as some kind of definitive universal metric. The issues involved are much more complex than a single number score. And while the information can be useful, the simplest use is to debunk zealots' (Windows, Linux, etc.) claims that their software of choice is bug-free or that one particular style of development produces better quality code (if you consider bugs signs of defects that count against your quality metric). And even then, the debate could rage on (which I'll avoid doing as that's not the point right now).
Microsoft producing security patches is an overall good thing. Its a battle that was "won" quite a few years ago. And it's a battle that continues as it takes continued pressure to keep them honest (there is a history of bugs being reported to Microsoft w/out fixes over extended lengths of time). Constant pressure nudges Microsoft to resolve these issues. It's an echo of the bad old days when Microsoft cared little about responding to serious flaws in their products.
Likely it's those echos that probably mislead the masses to assume these numbers meant something that they didn't. Back in those aforementioned bad old days, the bug count outlined largely well-documented and unaddressed flaws. Now days a few of those pop up from time to time (and again - it is more common these days for "responsible disclosure" with commercial vendors to uncover flaws that go unpublished until patch release). But for the most part, those numbers represent issues that are addressed. And that is indeed a victory (bittersweet if you contend that the flaws should never have existed).
Soylent Green doesn't get a shot at the people until later.
In reality this is why search engines like Wolfram Alpha without the broad research and knowledge of Google in the industry don't stand much of a chance unless Google drops the ball.
Yeah - but before Google was people, Yahoo was people. Google gets an advantage based on what they're doing. But it doesn't make them invulnerable. Look at the tech industry for the past several decades to see this theme played out again and again.
The name of the House Committee escapes me, but they do yearly reports on computer security and gov't agencies regularly get Ds (up from their previous Fs).
The big question is what do these grades really mean? Do they really provide any true indication as to how effective the Government is at securing their systems? Is a 'D' all that much better than a 'F'? And what does it mean if an organization manages a 'B' (mine did)?
But at the same time, I get a feeling that it sort of does give an impression as to where things are. A 'D' just isn't all that great. But it is better than a 'F'.
My little nook of the Fed world improved over the years. Infosec took on new meaning when the top of the Fed hierarchy started throwing around requirements and putting on their serious face. I would imagine things ARE getting better all in all. It's just darned hard to tell how much better.
http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/SMA/fisma/index.html demonstrate its compliance with the security requirements as opposed to how well the requirements are actually implemented.
NIST Special Publication 800-53 is what I had in mind. It's generated a ton of work for contractors to bring in auditors. And in my (limited) experience, it's a great opportunity for someone with no infosec background to "get in to security" as auditors are simply required to follow the documentation. Said documentation can be turned on it's ear by a sufficiently adept beurocrat in some cases (and avoided if your auditor isn't too technical in others). But despite my cynicism... it's something. There ARE some good practices in that document. And NIST has put out some nice automated scripts to help hash it all out (best keep an eye on what its doing though). So it's not ALL bad. Just not great.
Did you actually read my post or just use find/copy/paste ?
I used this thing called "reading comprehension" where you pay attention to what the person wrote and you understand it. It's amazing stuff.
I'm 'trying to turn that into a debate on being a good president' because the thread is focusing too closely on intelligence and comptence. What about ethics? Desire to do the right thing? Huh?
Oh. I see. You meant to reply to BitZtream where those points were put to question. (And good points they are, IMHO).
But there's more than just intelligence and competence needed to be a good president.
You might have missed the very first sentance of the post you replied to. It read:
I don't think the jury is still out on intelligent, at least.
I don't see why you're trying to turn that in to a debate on being a "good President."
Where have you been? The federal government frowns on talking about obvious security holes because doing so makes them exploitable. As long as we pretend that the DoD and other government agencies are properly securing their networks the crackers can't get in.
And where have you been? I've been inside the federal government. I've seen them (us) use all that public knowledge and tools to deal with the security issues we've had. I've attended security conferences on the Fed's dime where information from open discussions were brought back to help deal with our vulnerabilities. The Feds have benefited greatly from open security discourse. That's not to say the Fed is effective with infosec. In recent years they've woken up to the fact that they're sorely lacking. Unfortunately, their response has been to turn the issue in to an exercise in red tape that generates a lot of effort - only a fraction of which goes to actually securing the systems involved. And that's why we get agencies that think they've secured their networks when they haven't (the more redtape exists, the more loopholes there are). It's not all a case of the Emperor's New Clothes.
A phone today will break if you drop it.
At which point you run down to the store and pick from one of the several thousand phones that are available without having to resort to perpetual financing options. Or, even more horrific, you hook up a modem. Without asking permission.
Yeah. I remember those days too. :P
I think you should go with a really well thought out image that speaks to your audience with no words needed. Ok, stay with me on this one, ok? Picture this: your head ... superimposed on Chuck Norris' body ... punching Clippy ... into the fires of Mount Doom.
You might have missed the part where he said he wanted something professional (having opted to avoid the GoDaddy parking advertising). Obviously he should replace Clippy with a "PC Load Letter" printer.
I didn't know who would make my point for me - but I'm not surprised you're the one to do it. Thanks.
Sounds like you and your coworker are idiots if you can't get XP installed.
Sheesh. With that kind of attitude, no wonder Windows isn't getting anywhere.
.. I am actually happy that Microsoft dominates the market over Apple. Microsoft is bad enough, but Apple is a control-freak of a company :/
Of course, when the year of linux-on-the-desktop-comes, it will all be better. Right?
I'd be happy if neither dominated the market. Let everyone have to worry about screw-ups like this leading to real damage to the bottom line. Companies who dominate markets tend to get a buffer from these kinds of mistakes / actions.
That's what makes Linux interesting. It's not about Linux domination so much as Linux being ubiquitous. Market domination with Linux won't come along AS "Linux." It'll be something like RedHat, Ubuntu, or Android. It will be a company name and a company's product line. But if all the products are based on the same underlying technology, moving away from the bone-headed policies of one company to another's offerings won't be as painful. It is part of the power of commodity hardware platforms and is the next logical step (if you're a consumer - commodities are tough business).
I completely agree. My point was actually that game designers are simply doing what seems to them would be fun. That "fun" coincides with various psychological motivations is rather unsurprising happenstance. Unfortunately, my sarcasm got the better of me.
You obviously have never designed a game.
You've obviously never heard of sarcasm.
But game designers know that it's pretty damn easy to tap into this deep-rooted need to collect and accumulate. And like happy suckers we buy into it all the time, some to a greater degree than others.
Game designers are just out to reel in suckers. Skinner boxes, treadmills, and obsessive compulsive triggers - anything to land them a pigeon. Yup. That's it. It wouldn't ever be because someone wants to build something they think might be fun.
I hit womprats in my TI-99/4A, which had only 32K.
Those were wumpus, not womprats.
You're thinking iPhone. We're talking Apple store. I know they're related but they're not the same thing.
Your "friend" better get his act together.
When you quote "friend", are you implying that the individual is me? Or are you questioning that he is my friend? You're wrong in either case.
Nothing can ruin a person's career more than a child pornography accusation. As a network admin he should be raising hell up and down the bureaucratic ladder and using his resources as network admin to remotely block access to those machines. . When one of those "files" gets discovered, I hope he gets hauled in for aiding in the trafficking of child pornography when Professor Sixpack gets caught.
My take on it is that it's best to say "hey - I told you guys", document it in some memo or email, and then walk away. Playing around with the data is asking for trouble. But then - it's not me we're talking about. I also doubt it was some professor involved in this. I apparently failed to explain what is going on with these things and you're apparently unfamiliar with "tagging". There are groups of individuals who scan for anonymous FTP servers. They then "tag" the server with their group's name via a file or, more commonly, a directory structure that identifies the group. Said group then uses that structure to store illicit data. The nature of this data varies. There is nothing to indicate that any individual from within the university is involved in this process. I'd also note that my friend did a fair amount of bitching. Blocking access to those machines would probably get him fired. Like a lot of folks that have to deal with these kinds of bureaucracies, he lacks any authority required to force the issue.
Network security can work. It bugs me to whits end that someone knowingly lets that type of junk in.
I agree. But at the same time, one has to work within the environment one is in. I've been lucky in the past to work for some really good environments that took this kind of thing seriously. I've also had to deal with occasional brain-dead bureaucrats that let these sorts of situations develop. The blame doesn't always begin and end with the network admin.
I'd just fill the servers with data. Someone will notice then.
It's not so much that they don't notice - they don't care. Whenever the system gets full, they just go do some house cleaning. Sometimes the taggers do stupid directory naming tricks to make that more difficult and he's asked to help. I have to admit - my friend's sense of cynicism is pretty pegged. He tends to enjoy deleting only the encrypted stuff to "punish" the illicit data traders for not sharing. Of course - this comes from a few years ago. Maybe by now the university has been hit with enough crap on their network that they've started to care. I wouldn't put money on it though.