How can you make that assumption? I know several Gnome users who make use of Konqueror as a web browser, in just one instance. The fact is, both desktops are inherently caught up in app sharing.. which is unfortunate because it does not make for the most coherent of user experiences.
I guess I don't see the problem here. It seems like these people want to be able to take actions, without ever having to actually take responsibility for them. They want to sign petitions, but they don't want anyone to know their political views. That's just an insane philosophy. The Internet enables others to learn about you, and that's ok by me. As long as my truly sensitive details (bank account #'s and the like) are safe and secure, I just don't see the problem with people knowing that I'm a Liberterian.
Ohh god if it was only that easy. The problem is that GTK, QT, and any other graphics toolkit have very different idea about what a toolbar is, and how big it should be. It's very difficult to get these things to look consistent, no matter if they share an API. They would need to share stylistic cues as well. Java (the platform) attempts to solve this through its layout managers, but they can be complicated and difficult to work with (most programmers fall back on using good old hard-coded coordinates, the actual toolkit be damned)... so it may be solvable, but its certainly complex.
But that's not the whole issue. What if QT has an ultra-cool widget that it wants to expose? Does the 'standard API' change? This isn't unlike what happens with graphics API's. There is 'standard' Open GL that any vendor is free to extend through extensions. The net result is, many programs begin to really on vendor specific extensions to the API and then they only work on one small specific version of GL (IE: one video card)...
Open file formats are nice, but open API's, while nice in theory, don't work well in dynamic situations. An open standard for communications (TCP/IP for example) is nice, but its a fairly static technology.
They are not banning 802.11, and nor could they if they wanted. 802.11 is a transport mechanism.. your cable modem has no IDEA what types of transport are being used downstream.
What they ARE banning is the sharing of bandwidth with whoever happens to be close your house. Totally different. You can still WiFI till your hearts content, they just do want you to provide your WiFI connection to anyone with the ability to connect to it.
What your talking about has very little to do with Object Oriented methodology, and much much more to do with language semantics.
I've used both PERL and C++ in fairly large projects (although my experience is more weighted to C++, I do feel I am fairly experienced in both). I find the loose nature of Perl to be it's biggest problem. All of the things that you mentioned are generally needed as band-aids for poor design.. you should never NEED to discover a classes methods and capabilities at runtime. The only exception to this is "component programming" which is useful, but in my experience is rarely of serious use..
To depend on run time information about an object is generally a dangerous proposition.. it eliminates your best friend (the compiler) and potentially forces quite a bit of decision making to occur at runtime.. errors that are caught by the compiler in a more static language are left to the runtime system.. and the result is more difficult maintenence. Its a trade-off.. component level programming is nice, but can lead to some radically buggy systems if not used carefully. A better idea is to use a more static language and design around your need for RTTI, which creates a more seamless and error free system long before the program is ever launched.
Enlighten me, because I've seen this kind of jab at C++ before..
But what about C++ isn't "Object Oriented".. and more importantly (at least in terms of relevance), what OO feature does PERL support that C++ does not?
Once, long ago (like '99;) ) when I worked in web development I was part of a simliar situation. One of our clients had recently dumped another designer (big nasty situation really)... The firm they had been working with was a pretty nasty bunch, but they had control of the domain being used by this company. Out of spite they pointed this domain to porn...
I realize that the company in question was really dumb in giving control of the domain to this group in the first place... but it did create a credibility problem for them..and that sucks.
Wow.. I have never seen a stream of thought that starts at "derail passenger trains" and ends at "destroy a woman's mink coat."
The fact is, free speech has to be protected in all but the most extreme of cases..or not at all. Your chain of thought that I mentioned above is a great example as to why. Do we regulate all speech that could have harmful effects for others? Or does somebody have to choose which type of ill-effects are regulated and which are not? After all cooking meth can certainly lead to some fantastic explosions, which could set your neighbors house on fire. That has ill effects.. just like selling meth does. Why shouldn't that be regulated?
And driving fast can lead to crashes.. so should any speech about how to make your car go faster be banned as well?
Even this case has an interesting free speech question. After all, the dutch magazine was using its speech about derailing trains for a "good cause" as it was dealing with the shipment of nuclear materials. Why shouldn't this be protected?
The fact is, speech is incredibly difficult to regulate and to pick and choose what can and can't be regulated is very difficult. THis is why our courts in the US have always been so reluctant to limit speech in all but the most prudent of ways (the whole yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place is one example).
Your missing the point. Everything you do has VALUE..
Your sex example. I place a high VALUE on sex.. so no, I don't regret doing for 10 minutes because I place a high value on it.
In economics money is used to provide an expression for value. It creates a stable base on which all types of economic comparisons are made. And as such, time has a certain value to it (and an associated opportunity cost). In other words if I spend an hour programming something for free... that brings me a feeling of satisfaction (lets say $80 worth of satisfcation). I could have spent that hour cooking, but that only brings me $20 in satisfaction... see?
Business place value on time. If someone spends 4 hours learning how to use Mozilla they have brought very little value to the company (After all, what does Mozilla have that IE doesn't.. and they already have sunk the cost of learning IE)...If they spend those 4 hours writing documentation, they have created value for the company.
Your example even demonstrates this. You place a certain value on your hobby... you also likely value the no-hassle pleasure you get form bringing a friend. To turn this into a business would decrease its value. An economist would put a dollar amount on this value.. and then could use it to explain your behavior.
In this sense.. everything has a value including time. Time is valuable, and how you use that time has an associated cost.
I also don't agree with their willingness to give away so much code under a non-copylefted license, handing over their 'crown jewels' to companies who then proprietarise them. It sickens me to see companies package up Apache pre-releases and sell it on without source code as "Apache 2" months before the release date, damaging the reputation of the Apache httpd and Open Source in general. But that's another can of worms.
If code is truly free shouldn't someone.. anyone.. be allowed to simply package the code up and do with it as they wish?
Simply put, I have no idea where Katz dreamed this up at.
That article he links to makes no mention of Spider-man "slaughtering" AoTC..
Spider-man is on pace to gross (at best) $461 million dollars. That's a hefty amount of change.
Yet.. and heres the important part: Attack of the Clones is actually ahead of Episode 1 in terms of sales. Episode 1 grossed $431 million. Why should we not beleive that AoTC (which is a better movie) will not do even better? That puts the new Star Wars film at $30 million short of Spider-man.. in the worst case. I bet its much closer than that.. this is hardly a "slaughter" folks.
I think Episode 2 is a good movie. Its most definitely a star wars... it feels like a star wars. For anyone who can still remember what the original Star Wars was REALLY like (as opposed to the film that people have mind-melded it into), the new Star Wars movie is a great addition to the collection.
This is almost a non-artcile as its very premise is based on what Katz so desperately (For whatever reason) WANTS to beleive is true, but anyone with a fricking calculator and two grams of sense will see it in a much different light.
I think a 0.01% false positive rate would be perfectly acceptable. I have not seen one proposal for a face scanning system that has not also included human oversight.
Its exactly the systems Casino's have sucessfully deployed to keep known "cheaters" out of their casino's. The face scanning technology merely provides POSSIBLE matches, the actual decision on further investigation rests with a human operator...
This seems perfectly reasonable to me from a technology standpoint, I'll argue the ethics of this technology some other time:)
I won't pretend to know what the hell I'm talking about, but:
"This has NOTHING to do with a state's spatial extent. Of course everything has to fit inside the universe. So what? Suppose I only cared about a 1x1 square, there are still an infinite number of ways to draw a curve from one corner to the opposite corner while staying inside the box. Likewise, you can have infinite variety in quantum states in only a limited volume."
This simply isn't true. There are NOT an infinite number of ways to draw that curve. There are a great great great many distinct ways to achieve, but at some point every physical possibility will be expended. As the original poster pointed out, this extends far beyond the limit of human comprehension (and thus we just tag it as "infinite")...
You have a post-graduate degree... Traditionally this has not been a neccesity in the U.S., and if the system is working correctly I can't see why it should be.
ALthough with the Job market the way it is (I recently conducted a fairly difficult job search after 2 months taking slightly less money than I'd really like) this might be a good time to spend some time in College.
People in the Arab world are willing to blow themselves up because.... some goofy guy in Hollywood didn't give them credit for blowing OTHER people up?
Jesus, I really thought the whole Anti-American sentiment in the Arab world was actually brought on by poverty, the conflict in Isreal, and the perception that the United States has somehow gotten rich at the expense of the entire Arab world. That's what the actual Arabs (you know, in the ARAB world) have told us..
But I'm sure it all starts with Hollywood.. after all, most of the people blowing themselves up in their Jihad against America have actually SEEN A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES..
I don't understand your logic. How can you be "good" for embracing open source??
Its quite simple, companies are embracing open standards and open source software because it makes the most business sense. They want to reduce their costs while increasing their utility... certain open source projects tend to do just that.
Ebays choice of technology does not make them good or evil, they are simply doing what they think is best for their company.. period. The concept of 'good' and 'evil' corporations is almost a laughable one.
I must say, the reaction to this stuff is unbeleivable to me.
All over this thread is the argument: "Do we really NEED a smart toaster?"
I for one, do. I saw a demonstration of the Thalia appliances (From Sunbeam) and was very impressed with what they could do. For example, they pulled up a recipe (conceivably across the Internet) for a cake. The central kitchen computer automatically uploaded the recipe to each of the appliances used in it.. for example the oven was automatically preheated and the mixer was powered on and ready to go.
The mixer prompted you to enter the ingredients at the right time. It had a scale built into it, so you could just add the ingredients to the bowl without having to use measuring cups and the like... it told you "when".
When something needed to be mixed, the mixer handled it itself... literally just took over. The only user intervention in the process occured when they entered ingredients (in a much more efficient manner) and poured the contents of the mixed ingredients into the pan and stuck in the oven. The oven (didn't actually work when I saw this, but it was "planned") would eventually know how long to cook the cake...and shut itself off. For more complicated recipes it could properly vary temperatures..
The point is, by themselves these are cool advances. But it goes farther.. how many people do you know who have several clocks in their homes that are only showing the right time about 6 months of the year (depending on whether daylight savings time is in effect).. a "smart clock" will not only properly set itself, but can handle these changes for you.. uber cool. No more oversleeping the next day because your alarm clock didn't get set.
Controlling lights via the network has important security and aesthetic concerns. I've seen home-networked based lighting schemes that make it easy to set mood lighting (no more reliance on purely off-white light).. no more plug-in light timers either.. and that's a definite positive.
The prospect of being able to take inventory of my food items while i'm at the grocery store is exciting. How often do you get the store and go "damn, do I have milk?".. To a busy person, like me, the prospect of being able to have important food items automatically ordered FOR me is super cool. Kind of like automatic bill-pay (a lifesaver) but for food....
I could go on.. the point is, by themselves these advances are not neccesarily huge (and hardly revolutionary) but taken in aggregate they are very exciting (although I would argue that it is still somethign short of a revolution).
After all, we didn't NEED the washing machine.. and when it was introduced many people simply forged on with their hand washing ways (after all, they didn't need this modern hogwash).. I bet if your reading this either A) You have or use a washing machine or B) You don't wash your clothes:)
UO2 was axed as part of larger clean up at EA... It was a top-level decision. It was less "lets focus our resources on UO" and more "Lets just get rid of UO2".. most of the developers on UO2 are now at other companies (a good deal of them are working with Richard Garriots new company.)
Another problem is that people have to both save for retirement AND have this "rainy day fund" going on... To do one is difficult, to do both means really scaling back your quality of living (as so much is going into savings...)
What happens in practice is that the retirement fund and the rainy day fund are the same thing. The scary thing is, when something like this happens.. the retirement fund basically is blown out of the water.. and that's something these people may never recover from. Its easy to say "LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS DAMMIT!!", but actually doing that is not so easy.
I work at Acxiom corporation, which underwent the same thing about a year ago. I came to work one day and *poof* I took a mandatory 5% paycut.
That sucked..
It sucked more for our bosses who took 10 and 15% paycuts in addition to having the raises they had been counting on for months simply vanish. This was done to try and avoid layoffs, but in the end a slight layoff did occur... but I suspect it was better than it would have been.
In the end (a year later) the company is really back on track and we'll be getting our pay back over the next few months.. and that's great. The company surivived more or less intact and as an employee I really can't complain to much.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought OOo had very good support for the MS formats. I can open up almost any file I care about, the damn thing even supports revisions.
How can you make that assumption? I know several Gnome users who make use of Konqueror as a web browser, in just one instance. The fact is, both desktops are inherently caught up in app sharing.. which is unfortunate because it does not make for the most coherent of user experiences.
Certain US based charities have been fronts for funding terrorism as well...
I guess I don't see the problem here. It seems like these people want to be able to take actions, without ever having to actually take responsibility for them. They want to sign petitions, but they don't want anyone to know their political views. That's just an insane philosophy. The Internet enables others to learn about you, and that's ok by me. As long as my truly sensitive details (bank account #'s and the like) are safe and secure, I just don't see the problem with people knowing that I'm a Liberterian.
Ohh god if it was only that easy. The problem is that GTK, QT, and any other graphics toolkit have very different idea about what a toolbar is, and how big it should be. It's very difficult to get these things to look consistent, no matter if they share an API. They would need to share stylistic cues as well. Java (the platform) attempts to solve this through its layout managers, but they can be complicated and difficult to work with (most programmers fall back on using good old hard-coded coordinates, the actual toolkit be damned)... so it may be solvable, but its certainly complex.
But that's not the whole issue. What if QT has an ultra-cool widget that it wants to expose? Does the 'standard API' change? This isn't unlike what happens with graphics API's. There is 'standard' Open GL that any vendor is free to extend through extensions. The net result is, many programs begin to really on vendor specific extensions to the API and then they only work on one small specific version of GL (IE: one video card)...
Open file formats are nice, but open API's, while nice in theory, don't work well in dynamic situations. An open standard for communications (TCP/IP for example) is nice, but its a fairly static technology.
Booh-fricking-hoo..
If the summerworking students don't like their salaries.. don't work. Capatalism is fun like that.
They are not banning 802.11, and nor could they if they wanted. 802.11 is a transport mechanism.. your cable modem has no IDEA what types of transport are being used downstream.
What they ARE banning is the sharing of bandwidth with whoever happens to be close your house. Totally different. You can still WiFI till your hearts content, they just do want you to provide your WiFI connection to anyone with the ability to connect to it.
What your talking about has very little to do with Object Oriented methodology, and much much more to do with language semantics.
I've used both PERL and C++ in fairly large projects (although my experience is more weighted to C++, I do feel I am fairly experienced in both). I find the loose nature of Perl to be it's biggest problem. All of the things that you mentioned are generally needed as band-aids for poor design.. you should never NEED to discover a classes methods and capabilities at runtime. The only exception to this is "component programming" which is useful, but in my experience is rarely of serious use..
To depend on run time information about an object is generally a dangerous proposition.. it eliminates your best friend (the compiler) and potentially forces quite a bit of decision making to occur at runtime.. errors that are caught by the compiler in a more static language are left to the runtime system.. and the result is more difficult maintenence. Its a trade-off.. component level programming is nice, but can lead to some radically buggy systems if not used carefully. A better idea is to use a more static language and design around your need for RTTI, which creates a more seamless and error free system long before the program is ever launched.
Enlighten me, because I've seen this kind of jab at C++ before..
But what about C++ isn't "Object Oriented".. and more importantly (at least in terms of relevance), what OO feature does PERL support that C++ does not?
Nick
Once, long ago (like '99;) ) when I worked in web development I was part of a simliar situation. One of our clients had recently dumped another designer (big nasty situation really)... The firm they had been working with was a pretty nasty bunch, but they had control of the domain being used by this company. Out of spite they pointed this domain to porn...
I realize that the company in question was really dumb in giving control of the domain to this group in the first place... but it did create a credibility problem for them..and that sucks.
Wow.. I have never seen a stream of thought that starts at "derail passenger trains" and ends at "destroy a woman's mink coat."
The fact is, free speech has to be protected in all but the most extreme of cases..or not at all.
Your chain of thought that I mentioned above is a great example as to why. Do we regulate all speech that could have harmful effects for others? Or does somebody have to choose which type of ill-effects are regulated and which are not? After all cooking meth can certainly lead to some fantastic explosions, which could set your neighbors house on fire. That has ill effects.. just like selling meth does. Why shouldn't that be regulated?
And driving fast can lead to crashes.. so should any speech about how to make your car go faster be banned as well?
Even this case has an interesting free speech question. After all, the dutch magazine was using its speech about derailing trains for a "good cause" as it was dealing with the shipment of nuclear materials. Why shouldn't this be protected?
The fact is, speech is incredibly difficult to regulate and to pick and choose what can and can't be regulated is very difficult. THis is why our courts in the US have always been so reluctant to limit speech in all but the most prudent of ways (the whole yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place is one example).
Your missing the point. Everything you do has VALUE..
Your sex example. I place a high VALUE on sex.. so no, I don't regret doing for 10 minutes because I place a high value on it.
In economics money is used to provide an expression for value. It creates a stable base on which all types of economic comparisons are made. And as such, time has a certain value to it (and an associated opportunity cost). In other words if I spend an hour programming something for free... that brings me a feeling of satisfaction (lets say $80 worth of satisfcation). I could have spent that hour cooking, but that only brings me $20 in satisfaction... see?
Business place value on time. If someone spends 4 hours learning how to use Mozilla they have brought very little value to the company (After all, what does Mozilla have that IE doesn't.. and they already have sunk the cost of learning IE)...If they spend those 4 hours writing documentation, they have created value for the company.
Your example even demonstrates this. You place a certain value on your hobby... you also likely value the no-hassle pleasure you get form bringing a friend. To turn this into a business would decrease its value. An economist would put a dollar amount on this value.. and then could use it to explain your behavior.
In this sense.. everything has a value including time. Time is valuable, and how you use that time has an associated cost.
And that whole..'Poland' country is kind of European if I remember right..
At least take the time to read a little before you post. The limit is not fixed..
I also don't agree with their willingness to give away so much code under a non-copylefted license, handing over their 'crown jewels' to companies who then proprietarise them. It sickens me to see companies package up Apache pre-releases and sell it on without source code as "Apache 2" months before the release date, damaging the reputation of the Apache httpd and Open Source in general. But that's another can of worms.
If code is truly free shouldn't someone.. anyone.. be allowed to simply package the code up and do with it as they wish?
Simply put, I have no idea where Katz dreamed this up at.
That article he links to makes no mention of Spider-man "slaughtering" AoTC..
Spider-man is on pace to gross (at best) $461 million dollars. That's a hefty amount of change.
Yet.. and heres the important part: Attack of the Clones is actually ahead of Episode 1 in terms of sales. Episode 1 grossed $431 million. Why should we not beleive that AoTC (which is a better movie) will not do even better? That puts the new Star Wars film at $30 million short of Spider-man.. in the worst case. I bet its much closer than that.. this is hardly a "slaughter" folks.
I think Episode 2 is a good movie. Its most definitely a star wars... it feels like a star wars. For anyone who can still remember what the original Star Wars was REALLY like (as opposed to the film that people have mind-melded it into), the new Star Wars movie is a great addition to the collection.
This is almost a non-artcile as its very premise is based on what Katz so desperately (For whatever reason) WANTS to beleive is true, but anyone with a fricking calculator and two grams of sense will see it in a much different light.
I think a 0.01% false positive rate would be perfectly acceptable. I have not seen one proposal for a face scanning system that has not also included human oversight.
Its exactly the systems Casino's have sucessfully deployed to keep known "cheaters" out of their casino's. The face scanning technology merely provides POSSIBLE matches, the actual decision on further investigation rests with a human operator...
This seems perfectly reasonable to me from a technology standpoint, I'll argue the ethics of this technology some other time:)
I won't pretend to know what the hell I'm talking about, but:
"This has NOTHING to do with a state's spatial extent. Of course everything has to fit inside the universe. So what? Suppose I only cared about a 1x1 square, there are still an infinite number of ways to draw a curve from one corner to the opposite corner while staying inside the box. Likewise, you can have infinite variety in quantum states in only a limited volume."
This simply isn't true. There are NOT an infinite number of ways to draw that curve. There are a great great great many distinct ways to achieve, but at some point every physical possibility will be expended. As the original poster pointed out, this extends far beyond the limit of human comprehension (and thus we just tag it as "infinite")...
You have a post-graduate degree... Traditionally this has not been a neccesity in the U.S., and if the system is working correctly I can't see why it should be.
ALthough with the Job market the way it is (I recently conducted a fairly difficult job search after 2 months taking slightly less money than I'd really like) this might be a good time to spend some time in College.
Let me get this straight..
People in the Arab world are willing to blow themselves up because.... some goofy guy in Hollywood didn't give them credit for blowing OTHER people up?
Jesus, I really thought the whole Anti-American sentiment in the Arab world was actually brought on by poverty, the conflict in Isreal, and the perception that the United States has somehow gotten rich at the expense of the entire Arab world. That's what the actual Arabs (you know, in the ARAB world) have told us..
But I'm sure it all starts with Hollywood.. after all, most of the people blowing themselves up in their Jihad against America have actually SEEN A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES..
I don't understand your logic. How can you be "good" for embracing open source??
Its quite simple, companies are embracing open standards and open source software because it makes the most business sense. They want to reduce their costs while increasing their utility... certain open source projects tend to do just that.
Ebays choice of technology does not make them good or evil, they are simply doing what they think is best for their company.. period. The concept of 'good' and 'evil' corporations is almost a laughable one.
I must say, the reaction to this stuff is unbeleivable to me.
.. To a busy person, like me, the prospect of being able to have important food items automatically ordered FOR me is super cool. Kind of like automatic bill-pay (a lifesaver) but for food....
All over this thread is the argument: "Do we really NEED a smart toaster?"
I for one, do. I saw a demonstration of the Thalia appliances (From Sunbeam) and was very impressed with what they could do. For example, they pulled up a recipe (conceivably across the Internet) for a cake. The central kitchen computer automatically uploaded the recipe to each of the appliances used in it.. for example the oven was automatically preheated and the mixer was powered on and ready to go.
The mixer prompted you to enter the ingredients at the right time. It had a scale built into it, so you could just add the ingredients to the bowl without having to use measuring cups and the like... it told you "when".
When something needed to be mixed, the mixer handled it itself... literally just took over. The only user intervention in the process occured when they entered ingredients (in a much more efficient manner) and poured the contents of the mixed ingredients into the pan and stuck in the oven. The oven (didn't actually work when I saw this, but it was "planned") would eventually know how long to cook the cake...and shut itself off. For more complicated recipes it could properly vary temperatures..
The point is, by themselves these are cool advances. But it goes farther.. how many people do you know who have several clocks in their homes that are only showing the right time about 6 months of the year (depending on whether daylight savings time is in effect).. a "smart clock" will not only properly set itself, but can handle these changes for you.. uber cool. No more oversleeping the next day because your alarm clock didn't get set.
Controlling lights via the network has important security and aesthetic concerns. I've seen home-networked based lighting schemes that make it easy to set mood lighting (no more reliance on purely off-white light).. no more plug-in light timers either.. and that's a definite positive.
The prospect of being able to take inventory of my food items while i'm at the grocery store is exciting. How often do you get the store and go "damn, do I have milk?"
I could go on.. the point is, by themselves these advances are not neccesarily huge (and hardly revolutionary) but taken in aggregate they are very exciting (although I would argue that it is still somethign short of a revolution).
After all, we didn't NEED the washing machine.. and when it was introduced many people simply forged on with their hand washing ways (after all, they didn't need this modern hogwash).. I bet if your reading this either A) You have or use a washing machine or B) You don't wash your clothes:)
UO2 was axed as part of larger clean up at EA... It was a top-level decision. It was less "lets focus our resources on UO" and more "Lets just get rid of UO2".. most of the developers on UO2 are now at other companies (a good deal of them are working with Richard Garriots new company.)
Another problem is that people have to both save for retirement AND have this "rainy day fund" going on... To do one is difficult, to do both means really scaling back your quality of living (as so much is going into savings...)
What happens in practice is that the retirement fund and the rainy day fund are the same thing. The scary thing is, when something like this happens.. the retirement fund basically is blown out of the water.. and that's something these people may never recover from. Its easy to say "LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS DAMMIT!!", but actually doing that is not so easy.
I work at Acxiom corporation, which underwent the same thing about a year ago. I came to work one day and *poof* I took a mandatory 5% paycut.
That sucked..
It sucked more for our bosses who took 10 and 15% paycuts in addition to having the raises they had been counting on for months simply vanish. This was done to try and avoid layoffs, but in the end a slight layoff did occur... but I suspect it was better than it would have been.
In the end (a year later) the company is really back on track and we'll be getting our pay back over the next few months.. and that's great. The company surivived more or less intact and as an employee I really can't complain to much.