Re:no encryption that YOU didn't write is safe
on
Is Hushmail Still Safe?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
if I may:
"Is AES full of back doors for the NSA? Almost certainly not, since these could also be used by any resourceful group of cryptographers, including the Boogey Man."
TFA says Internet2 is "donating" bandwitdth to this project? Can we please focus if we're going to be serious about it? Can't BBN join Internet2 just like the 70 other corporations "leading the way to a new Internet"?
Oh sorry, these people all consider themselves CIO's and so this is the Second Management Unit coming up to speed. Excellent. Internet 2 should finally be complete in one more Mythical Man Month. Just wait!
-Matt
P.S. Where did these guys rematerialize from? They got eaten and re-eaten back in the 90's! BBN has been shat out from the telecom industry like a seed from a bird. (And that bird seems to have diarrhea.)
Yes, including all those things, I do not consider that the market has changed significantly....and if it has, should that make us prefer merger more? I think not. The ipod phenom has nothing to do with the broadcast market, btw - it's an adjunct product, that's all. You're trying to say XM is competing with Apple. LOL.
Both companies (and their assets and libilities) did not start out as what they're known as today - both have origins and commitments dating to the late 80's. Get googling.
So what? So that was a feeble attempt to ignore the fact that satellites are f*****g expensive and have to be replaced with (to me) an alarming frequency. Fifteen years cited for the Hughes versions they use. That puts a huge floor in their cost structure compared to terrestrial broadcasters. Add to that the network of terrestrial stations they have to run in order to provide decent service and it's a deal breaker. I don't see how they can run without continued subsidies, higher fees, or more advertising - or maybe the consumer's trifecta: ALL THREE. And from the point of view of capital, I still don't see why entertainment satellite radio is happening at all.
I say it's a flawed business model and should be allowed to sink or swim on its own merits and capabilities - I don't see it as a public interest. (I.e. If GM & co want to keep infusing cash into the company for new satellites then I guess that's OK.)
Funny after reading all the commentary, but I seem to remember using TeX on my Atari 16-bit because it was a nice GUI editor compared to the other options and made the printouts - even on my dot matrix Panasonic - look much nicer. Am I misremembering the GUI editing and it just gave me a fully rendered print preview or something? I remember it being amazing at the time either way. -Matt
I wouldn't deny any of the true fans their puzzle games, but I never understood the point of them myself. They fit no definition of fun that I'm familiar all of which many other kinds of games did better with. TFA didn't even attempt to give a reasonable explanation - I suspect an explanation's not possible because those games weren't really fun.
FWIW, everyone I know who solved Myth did so with cheating (and many times even then having difficulty). I think the puzzle-game "trend" TFA is talking about was little more than a marketing effort to publish more cheat books. That or the games were intended for small children that have time to do nothing but digest a game all day every day....maybe that was the plan?
I dunno....when the best the developers can come up with is ways to make me not able to figure out how to play the game, I feel I'm at odds with them. How much of my (or anyone's) time is going to be spent just trying to open a door in a game yet we still call it "fun"?
Meanwhile, we can still do a better job of teaching science (mostly in making kids interested in science).
I agree other than this observation - minor correction to offer:
I don't think much needs to be done to instigate interest in kids - especially in science, but neither in most other areas I suspect. What we need is to not work so hard at turning kids off. It may go back to politics or whatever else, but the way science (and social studies, etc) are taught are without a doubt the most boring ways imaginable. This is even somewhat true at the collegiate level where things are supposedly so muh better!
It's truly no wonder that there is a lack of interest. What's the lesson in learning (e.g.) a bunch of names and dates? Zippo. Teach the stuff worth learning and the relevant names and dates come (to the extent of their importance) automatically.
To me science should be the easy one to teach -you don't even need to reach to get past the names and dates.
It's a good thing if you're deluding yourself that inefficiency is "the wave of the future".;-)
Really, it's neither. If a company's stakeholders are OK with a lower profit, there are certainly things worth doing in this world that don't offer the best pay. That view however relies on the ability to see the world in grays instead of black and white. Not very common trait on Wall St or in life.
The only evidence we have of what Apple is like without Jobs is the ouster in '85. I think everyone learned valuable lessons from that screw-up. AAPL's stakeholders learned that Apple is not microsoft, or compaq, etc,etc. Jobs learned how to deal (successfully) with people like those stakeholders that ousted him. All of that shows in the business and its products today. Not to say Jobs (or anyone, really) can put off dealing with "eventualities" like this....I just have confidence in all parties at this point. It's not 1985 anymore.
On a side, but semi-related, note:
It's sad to see VMware (and that industry, by extension) getting its air supply choked off in the old MSFT two-step. We should all hope that MSFT's virtual machine implementation is crap and get's a solid reputation as such....otherwise... IANAL so could be off base, but in principle at least I'd like the Justice Department to prevent MSFT from extending their Monopoly again and killing yet another branch of the computer industry. As well, it's sad to see their management having a mid-80's Apple reaction to their old CEO. Didn't help Apple then, I doubt it'll help VMware now.:( Sadly, I'm not sure VM's in as good a position to survive today as Apple was in the 90's. Different market, different time....neither as strong now IME.
Advice to commercial software developers: (caveat, IA-also-NAD) Unless your plan is to stay small, or be a me-too developer, or peddle crapware and/or stay well off the radar (and even that mightn't help) don't bother making your software run on Windows. This piece of MSFT history has been repeated so many times it's hard to believe it's still happening. One may as well set up your business next to a Black Hole. OTOH, there's always the Open Source model. As a developer you can cut your costs (tho not guaranteed) and you can be 90% sure that MSFT isn't going to come along one day and make all your hard-earned customers disappear. Same can generally be said of the market of Mac users, at least in terms of being healthier. While it's true that Apple has transgressed a few times as well, it's never been in the scope or scale of a full application suite like Wordperfect or Netscape (etc, etc, etc) though. (BTW, was Borland/developers tools possibly the first major company/industry that MSFT "did a MSFT on"?)
"FREE"....I don't think that word means what you think it means.;-) $15/month is closer to free than what you're talking about. You're just not considering the real costs aside from simply monetary.
FWIW, I'm anti-merger on principal. If the satellite companies aren't making money, they have a few options in my book: Charge their customer's enough to make money; Increase their number of customers so they make money; Go non-profit so making money isn't the target. For crap's sake, their competition has hardly changed since they came out with their product - radio and TV aren't getting any "more free" after all and my internet bill has yet to go down. Did these fools even have a business plan??
I also have a hard time believing that satellite broadcasting can be cost efficient for entertainment at all - in terms of being a good business investment. They have and will continue to spend in-siz-nane amounts of money on satellites and the respective maintenance. Considering the massive floor that puts into their cost structure I don't see how they can ever fully compete with ground-based services.
To me higher prices are inevitable - in dollars from their subscribers, more advertising, or maybe more welfare from the government or their peers (GM, Hughes, et al) since they've been unusually good at that. If the business model is as bad as it seems from the industry's performance they should have been allowed to fail before they expended resources to start flying more satellites. Someone else likely could have put the resources to better use. I suppose that may still be true.
Last, from TFA: "The companies said they would introduce radios that receive both XM and Sirius channels." If memory serves, they said the same 10+ years ago. Can someone tell me why companies are allowed (seemingly encouraged) so often to act like petulant 5 year olds?
Sorry for being wordy.:)
-Matt
P.S. Can't resist one more word on their costs. The company that makes their satellites (SS/L) claims in their literature they have 48 of the satellites XM and Sirius use in orbit and separately that their satellites have 1100 years of successful on-orbit time. Assuming they've done their unleveled best to use the numbers to make themselves look good, that gives their satellites a top estimated average lifespan of only 20 years, probably less. Correct me if I'm wrong, but translated that means in at most another 10 years, SeriousExcem is already going to have to start replacing these satellites. Of course, none of the existing satellites will have a problem in the mean time.
True, but if you want to see what could be an impetus for change, flip that link over to the stock chart, overlay with AAPL and switch to the 10-year view.
I leave it you the reader to do that....and I hope you're not afraid of heights.
Marketshare has nearly doubled to about 9%, 40+% increase in Mac unit sales for the quarter compared with same quarter last year (all time record for the company); 3rd largest reseller behind the recently merged Gateway/Acer. Why are they merged? Maybe Apple is eating their lunch.
Has nothing to do with Linux - they don't sell computers. Duh!;)
It may be not looking good today, but as soon as they start seeing supporting OpenID as a mean of authentication means opening the business to potentially many more people, they will make a change someday.
Who is going to see that OpenID will "bring them more business"? It's something that so far as I can tell nobody wants.
Is it possible that as a administrator of a SAN/Network, he saw some significant security issues, and when he presented them to his supervisors was slammed for reporting the problem -- including being fired? I know from experience the feeling: Management does not like to know that they've screwed up, and will fight kicking and screaming rather that admit that they've done something wrong.
Not that you need it, but I'll second this from my own experience. Still job hunting for that matter. Grr.
Most folks aren't familiar with WAN management, so they probably still don't get what you're saying.
People: Installing backdoors in a WAN saves you a 1+ (sometimes much more than 1+) hour trip somewhere to check a stat or reset a device. Installing backdoors in a LAN is lazy. In other words, the difference is geography. As a WAN manager if you don't have what's called an "out of band" management plan, you're an idiot. (Or you have a micro-sized WAN.) It's also not something that's left secretly, it's planned and secured like any other WAN exposure.
Check out some of the results of a Google for "reef+phosphates" and see the problems even a tiny increase in the ppm of phophate can cause in a salt-water reef aquarium. Even just one additional ppm above "normal" can be pretty extreme.
Multiply those effects by the size of our collective phosphate-largesse and the size of the oceans and I guess you get full-on dead zones instead of just a tank of nasty algae and bacteria.
Eh...I don't doubt your experience, but i do think you have too little experience in the private sector if you think things are "all better" there.
The retreads "in charge" of government are the same as the retreads "in charge" of business. They're all humans that have an above average levels of ambition. Sadly for the rest of us, ambition is not a strong indicator of character, intelligence nor many other positive qualities. Still it's about the only real qualification.
So, it's a question of expectations and regulation in the end. As a society are we prepared for these retreads or are we going to continue saying "it's politics'/business' fault" to ourselves?
Keep in mind about California that their legislature voted unanimously for that "deregulation" plan.
A unanimous vote like that in a public body like that on anything should be (as least for US'ians) the first sign that you (as a citizen) are about to be screwed. With a system as corrupt as ours, it's a fairly safe assumption that a unanimous vote just indicates all the lobbyists agree on the vote. Extreme public scrutiny should ensue immediately and persistently.
Based on our own history here in the US we should be able to watch out for these things and to see them coming. Sometimes we do, but usually it seems we don't. Memory hole?
No, the point is that the more people get on board, the less consistent the solution will be. It's just nature. That lack of consistency will (as it always does) show up partly as corruption of the system. Probably as a lack of regulation, but maybe in lots of ways. (That's how we like to do it here in the US anyway - we like our corruption double stacked if possible.)
To bring it up again, conservation would be a much better way to spend money vs. almost any kind of centralized improvements like you're talking about.
Makes no sense to support and add on to a system with so much abject waste in it that's so easy and absolutely non-controversial and even inexpensive vs the benefits to remove. Supporting it and fixing it is far more sensible.
Further, privatizing always means that someone just has figured a way to take money out of a given system as profit -- means nothing for the efficiency or longevity of the system. (They never turn into non-profit enterprises - what I think would be a much more logical transition if efficiency and longevity were the true goals of any such effort.)
Based on history and the exceptions like AUS that prove the rule, I call B.S. with extreme prejudice on "privatization" efforts. It's not impossible for them to work, but it may be easier (if I can reach for a well-used metaphor) for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
First, a decade is little more than a spot in time - even in one human lifetime.
Even so, I wouldn't keep you from your nicely implemented private electric (never been to Australia before and don't know anyone from there so you get the benefit of the doubt), but you're in a country the size of the US with a population around the size of Florida's. Hardly comparable I'd say.
Having said that, you're right about the lack of public regulation on private business here. We've learned plenty of lessons on that over the years - particularly prior to World War II - but the memory hole is always hard at work so we're a lot more free-wheeling than we used to be. Yes the results are (still) mostly predictable.
Slashdot Mirror
if I may:
"Is AES full of back doors for the NSA? Almost certainly not, since these could also be used by any resourceful group of cryptographers, including the Boogey Man."
Correction: It's only the exploitable ones they've interest in.
http://www.internet2.edu/about/
TFA says Internet2 is "donating" bandwitdth to this project? Can we please focus if we're going to be serious about it? Can't BBN join Internet2 just like the 70 other corporations "leading the way to a new Internet"?
Oh sorry, these people all consider themselves CIO's and so this is the Second Management Unit coming up to speed. Excellent. Internet 2 should finally be complete in one more Mythical Man Month. Just wait!
-Matt
P.S. Where did these guys rematerialize from? They got eaten and re-eaten back in the 90's! BBN has been shat out from the telecom industry like a seed from a bird. (And that bird seems to have diarrhea.)
Don't you mean:
"They didn't come for me; so I didn't care."
-Matt
Yes, including all those things, I do not consider that the market has changed significantly....and if it has, should that make us prefer merger more? I think not. The ipod phenom has nothing to do with the broadcast market, btw - it's an adjunct product, that's all. You're trying to say XM is competing with Apple. LOL.
Both companies (and their assets and libilities) did not start out as what they're known as today - both have origins and commitments dating to the late 80's. Get googling.
So what? So that was a feeble attempt to ignore the fact that satellites are f*****g expensive and have to be replaced with (to me) an alarming frequency. Fifteen years cited for the Hughes versions they use. That puts a huge floor in their cost structure compared to terrestrial broadcasters. Add to that the network of terrestrial stations they have to run in order to provide decent service and it's a deal breaker. I don't see how they can run without continued subsidies, higher fees, or more advertising - or maybe the consumer's trifecta: ALL THREE. And from the point of view of capital, I still don't see why entertainment satellite radio is happening at all.
I say it's a flawed business model and should be allowed to sink or swim on its own merits and capabilities - I don't see it as a public interest. (I.e. If GM & co want to keep infusing cash into the company for new satellites then I guess that's OK.)
-Matt
Funny after reading all the commentary, but I seem to remember using TeX on my Atari 16-bit because it was a nice GUI editor compared to the other options and made the printouts - even on my dot matrix Panasonic - look much nicer. Am I misremembering the GUI editing and it just gave me a fully rendered print preview or something? I remember it being amazing at the time either way.
-Matt
WISSYWIG - What You See Say You What I Get
Duh!!
I wouldn't deny any of the true fans their puzzle games, but I never understood the point of them myself. They fit no definition of fun that I'm familiar all of which many other kinds of games did better with. TFA didn't even attempt to give a reasonable explanation - I suspect an explanation's not possible because those games weren't really fun.
FWIW, everyone I know who solved Myth did so with cheating (and many times even then having difficulty). I think the puzzle-game "trend" TFA is talking about was little more than a marketing effort to publish more cheat books. That or the games were intended for small children that have time to do nothing but digest a game all day every day....maybe that was the plan?
I dunno....when the best the developers can come up with is ways to make me not able to figure out how to play the game, I feel I'm at odds with them. How much of my (or anyone's) time is going to be spent just trying to open a door in a game yet we still call it "fun"?
-Matt
Meanwhile, we can still do a better job of teaching science (mostly in making kids interested in science).
I agree other than this observation - minor correction to offer:
I don't think much needs to be done to instigate interest in kids - especially in science, but neither in most other areas I suspect. What we need is to not work so hard at turning kids off. It may go back to politics or whatever else, but the way science (and social studies, etc) are taught are without a doubt the most boring ways imaginable. This is even somewhat true at the collegiate level where things are supposedly so muh better!
It's truly no wonder that there is a lack of interest. What's the lesson in learning (e.g.) a bunch of names and dates? Zippo. Teach the stuff worth learning and the relevant names and dates come (to the extent of their importance) automatically.
To me science should be the easy one to teach -you don't even need to reach to get past the names and dates.
-Matt
There is no Firewire for servers or workstations.
There's just Firewire like there's just USB. He's talking about Firewire support in VMware like there's USB support in VMware.
-Matt
It's a good thing if you're deluding yourself that inefficiency is "the wave of the future". ;-)
Really, it's neither. If a company's stakeholders are OK with a lower profit, there are certainly things worth doing in this world that don't offer the best pay. That view however relies on the ability to see the world in grays instead of black and white. Not very common trait on Wall St or in life.
-Matt
Duh.
The only evidence we have of what Apple is like without Jobs is the ouster in '85. I think everyone learned valuable lessons from that screw-up. AAPL's stakeholders learned that Apple is not microsoft, or compaq, etc ,etc. Jobs learned how to deal (successfully) with people like those stakeholders that ousted him. All of that shows in the business and its products today. Not to say Jobs (or anyone, really) can put off dealing with "eventualities" like this....I just have confidence in all parties at this point. It's not 1985 anymore.
On a side, but semi-related, note:
It's sad to see VMware (and that industry, by extension) getting its air supply choked off in the old MSFT two-step. We should all hope that MSFT's virtual machine implementation is crap and get's a solid reputation as such....otherwise... IANAL so could be off base, but in principle at least I'd like the Justice Department to prevent MSFT from extending their Monopoly again and killing yet another branch of the computer industry. As well, it's sad to see their management having a mid-80's Apple reaction to their old CEO. Didn't help Apple then, I doubt it'll help VMware now. :( Sadly, I'm not sure VM's in as good a position to survive today as Apple was in the 90's. Different market, different time....neither as strong now IME.
Advice to commercial software developers: (caveat, IA-also-NAD) Unless your plan is to stay small, or be a me-too developer, or peddle crapware and/or stay well off the radar (and even that mightn't help) don't bother making your software run on Windows. This piece of MSFT history has been repeated so many times it's hard to believe it's still happening. One may as well set up your business next to a Black Hole. OTOH, there's always the Open Source model. As a developer you can cut your costs (tho not guaranteed) and you can be 90% sure that MSFT isn't going to come along one day and make all your hard-earned customers disappear. Same can generally be said of the market of Mac users, at least in terms of being healthier. While it's true that Apple has transgressed a few times as well, it's never been in the scope or scale of a full application suite like Wordperfect or Netscape (etc, etc, etc) though. (BTW, was Borland/developers tools possibly the first major company/industry that MSFT "did a MSFT on"?)
YMMV, yada yada..
-Matt
"FREE"....I don't think that word means what you think it means. ;-) $15/month is closer to free than what you're talking about. You're just not considering the real costs aside from simply monetary.
FWIW, I'm anti-merger on principal. If the satellite companies aren't making money, they have a few options in my book: Charge their customer's enough to make money; Increase their number of customers so they make money; Go non-profit so making money isn't the target. For crap's sake, their competition has hardly changed since they came out with their product - radio and TV aren't getting any "more free" after all and my internet bill has yet to go down. Did these fools even have a business plan??
I also have a hard time believing that satellite broadcasting can be cost efficient for entertainment at all - in terms of being a good business investment. They have and will continue to spend in-siz-nane amounts of money on satellites and the respective maintenance. Considering the massive floor that puts into their cost structure I don't see how they can ever fully compete with ground-based services.
To me higher prices are inevitable - in dollars from their subscribers, more advertising, or maybe more welfare from the government or their peers (GM, Hughes, et al) since they've been unusually good at that. If the business model is as bad as it seems from the industry's performance they should have been allowed to fail before they expended resources to start flying more satellites. Someone else likely could have put the resources to better use. I suppose that may still be true.
Last, from TFA: "The companies said they would introduce radios that receive both XM and Sirius channels." If memory serves, they said the same 10+ years ago. Can someone tell me why companies are allowed (seemingly encouraged) so often to act like petulant 5 year olds?
Sorry for being wordy. :)
-Matt
P.S. Can't resist one more word on their costs. The company that makes their satellites (SS/L) claims in their literature they have 48 of the satellites XM and Sirius use in orbit and separately that their satellites have 1100 years of successful on-orbit time. Assuming they've done their unleveled best to use the numbers to make themselves look good, that gives their satellites a top estimated average lifespan of only 20 years, probably less. Correct me if I'm wrong, but translated that means in at most another 10 years, SeriousExcem is already going to have to start replacing these satellites. Of course, none of the existing satellites will have a problem in the mean time.
True, but if you want to see what could be an impetus for change, flip that link over to the stock chart, overlay with AAPL and switch to the 10-year view.
I leave it you the reader to do that....and I hope you're not afraid of heights.
-Matt
Marketshare has nearly doubled to about 9%, 40+% increase in Mac unit sales for the quarter compared with same quarter last year (all time record for the company); 3rd largest reseller behind the recently merged Gateway/Acer. Why are they merged? Maybe Apple is eating their lunch.
Has nothing to do with Linux - they don't sell computers. Duh! ;)
-Matt
It may be not looking good today, but as soon as they start seeing supporting OpenID as a mean of authentication means opening the business to potentially many more people, they will make a change someday.
Who is going to see that OpenID will "bring them more business"? It's something that so far as I can tell nobody wants.
-Matt
So sayeth we all!!
Is it possible that as a administrator of a SAN/Network, he saw some significant security issues, and when he presented them to his supervisors was slammed for reporting the problem -- including being fired? I know from experience the feeling: Management does not like to know that they've screwed up, and will fight kicking and screaming rather that admit that they've done something wrong.
Not that you need it, but I'll second this from my own experience. Still job hunting for that matter. Grr.
-Matt
Most folks aren't familiar with WAN management, so they probably still don't get what you're saying.
People: Installing backdoors in a WAN saves you a 1+ (sometimes much more than 1+) hour trip somewhere to check a stat or reset a device. Installing backdoors in a LAN is lazy. In other words, the difference is geography. As a WAN manager if you don't have what's called an "out of band" management plan, you're an idiot. (Or you have a micro-sized WAN.) It's also not something that's left secretly, it's planned and secured like any other WAN exposure.
Good luck!
-Matt
Check out some of the results of a Google for "reef+phosphates" and see the problems even a tiny increase in the ppm of phophate can cause in a salt-water reef aquarium. Even just one additional ppm above "normal" can be pretty extreme.
Multiply those effects by the size of our collective phosphate-largesse and the size of the oceans and I guess you get full-on dead zones instead of just a tank of nasty algae and bacteria.
Hope this helps.
-Matt
Eh...I don't doubt your experience, but i do think you have too little experience in the private sector if you think things are "all better" there.
The retreads "in charge" of government are the same as the retreads "in charge" of business. They're all humans that have an above average levels of ambition. Sadly for the rest of us, ambition is not a strong indicator of character, intelligence nor many other positive qualities. Still it's about the only real qualification.
So, it's a question of expectations and regulation in the end. As a society are we prepared for these retreads or are we going to continue saying "it's politics'/business' fault" to ourselves?
-Matt
Keep in mind about California that their legislature voted unanimously for that "deregulation" plan.
A unanimous vote like that in a public body like that on anything should be (as least for US'ians) the first sign that you (as a citizen) are about to be screwed. With a system as corrupt as ours, it's a fairly safe assumption that a unanimous vote just indicates all the lobbyists agree on the vote. Extreme public scrutiny should ensue immediately and persistently.
Based on our own history here in the US we should be able to watch out for these things and to see them coming. Sometimes we do, but usually it seems we don't. Memory hole?
-Matt
No, the point is that the more people get on board, the less consistent the solution will be. It's just nature. That lack of consistency will (as it always does) show up partly as corruption of the system. Probably as a lack of regulation, but maybe in lots of ways. (That's how we like to do it here in the US anyway - we like our corruption double stacked if possible.)
To bring it up again, conservation would be a much better way to spend money vs. almost any kind of centralized improvements like you're talking about.
Makes no sense to support and add on to a system with so much abject waste in it that's so easy and absolutely non-controversial and even inexpensive vs the benefits to remove. Supporting it and fixing it is far more sensible.
Further, privatizing always means that someone just has figured a way to take money out of a given system as profit -- means nothing for the efficiency or longevity of the system. (They never turn into non-profit enterprises - what I think would be a much more logical transition if efficiency and longevity were the true goals of any such effort.)
Based on history and the exceptions like AUS that prove the rule, I call B.S. with extreme prejudice on "privatization" efforts. It's not impossible for them to work, but it may be easier (if I can reach for a well-used metaphor) for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
Good luck!
-Matt
First, a decade is little more than a spot in time - even in one human lifetime.
Even so, I wouldn't keep you from your nicely implemented private electric (never been to Australia before and don't know anyone from there so you get the benefit of the doubt), but you're in a country the size of the US with a population around the size of Florida's. Hardly comparable I'd say.
Having said that, you're right about the lack of public regulation on private business here. We've learned plenty of lessons on that over the years - particularly prior to World War II - but the memory hole is always hard at work so we're a lot more free-wheeling than we used to be. Yes the results are (still) mostly predictable.
Good luck.
-Matt