The fact that you fail to see how the fall of a major arabic tyranny that has threatened middle eastern peace for centuries
Iraq's government hasn't been around for centuries. It was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, then the British Empire until the 1940s.
caused the death of millions helps to make the world [...] a safer place is disturbing.
But will it make the world a safer place? Historically speaking, we've frequently placed our interests over that of those of Iraq and other nations. Including giving him weapons to carry out his war against Iran, which achieved nothing but to distract Iraq and Iran and kill millions of Iraqis and Iranians. Will the US put a stable, peaceful government into power in Iraq, or will it be a constant fight between Iraqi interests and US interests until another Ayatollah appears and kicks out the US?
the original copyright gained in Japan by way of Berne should still be legitimate not only in Japan, but in just about every other Berne signatory
Not all of them; many countries have a rule wherein an Fooish work that is no longer protected by copyright in Foo is no longer protected in that country. Since the US registration requirement only applied American works (actually, it applied to all works, but non-US works were retroactively granted copyright), this is a US work not protected by US copyright and hence not protected in the UK and other places.
This would mean an interesting situation that you could be considered in infringing copyright if you take your work outside the USA, or if anyone downloads your work from outside the USA
It's not like it's unique. Much of Project Gutenberg is in copyright someplace in the world. And the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen couldn't use the Invisible Man from the comic books, because he was still in copyright in the UK (but not in the US).
There's no way a will can have legal value or validity.
Wills are there to facilitate the smooth transfer of property from a deceased person, and so a dying person doesn't go giving away their property, which would be more complex and hassling, especially if they don't die. Notice that wills are extremely limited compared to normal contracts. Oral and unnotarized wills aren't accepted in most cases. Who you can leave property to is limited; your immediate family frequently has a statutory claim to a large part of your property, no matter what your opinion is in the manner.
I guess we could sit around second-guessing what dead authors would want. Think of how many fun cases we could get, with the Royal Shakespearean Society suing Paramount to stop them from distributing a film based on a Shakespearean play that shows a Jew in a good light, which, they would claim, the good Bard wouldn't have liked. Oh, imagine the fun we could have.
You might think that looking at the charset used would be enough but 'taint so! Frequency of letters isn't good enough either, two good ways is checking for the most frequent words or the most frequent letter trigrams.
Try looking at mguesser (http://mnogosearch.org). It's been quite accurate for me, but I've never tried it on spam.
You're dead. Furthermore, you died a great author author that someone actually published the book you had sitting in your closet half done. If you want to spin in your grave over it, that's fine, but you'll really be remembered for two or three works, and that won't be one of them.
In any case, again, you're dead. Really, who cares about your wishes in the matter? Why should they?
I thought that here on/. we disliked huge evil monopolies throwing their weight around to ensure everything goes their way, and when things don't go their way, tell all to Fuck Off?
"evil" monopolies? The US is far from an "evil" monopolies. The problem in this case is it's a pair of out of control monopolies wrestling with each other; the only sane thing is to side with the one who is doing what you like in this field at this time.
You mean the one that has universal suffrage over 15? For men and women? They may have a lot of despotic parts of their government, but they are more democratic then most of the nations south of them, the ones that we support. More democratic then the US-installed government they had before this one, too.
More likely the US looked at Napeleon and Hitler and figured that Antarctica would be worse, and the Russians looked at Napeleon and Hitler and figured that if we learned how to fight in Antarctica, we'd have no problems with a Russian winter.
People will seek out sources of information that *reinforce* their world-view. We will build these feedback loops and vertical chimneys where every group becomes more isolated from reasonable, objective opinion that they become convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is grossly misinformed and stupid.
Looking at world history, it looks like that is the norm. You can travel much of the world and say "There is no God" or "Praise Allah" or "Jesus is dead" and not get killed. That wasn't true a hundred years ago. Whatever you may do on the Internet, sooner or later you go to work or to a the bar or to a club and run into someone who thinks different from you, which wasn't true in the groupthink a few hundred years ago, and still isn't true in the insular societies (Amish, for example) that still exist.
Re:Missing the point of the article
on
Real Security?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If I'm in charge of security (not just the IT portion of it) and management won't let me put in place a policy that spells out what will happen to employees that subvert the security implementation and back me up when I have to apply the policy's warning and penalty portions, then I'm out of there!
The doctor is one of twelve people in the world with a degree in orthorhinocolonoscopy. He makes $120,000 a year. You really think they're going to let you punish him?
More to the point, discouraging employees from writing down passwords may be a good idea in some places, but these people are trying to get their jobs done. If they can't get their jobs done, you don't get paid. Every time they forget their password and have to wait for an IT person to fix it, every time they have to run five flights of stairs to check their data, the less likely the department turns a profit and the more likely you get fired.
if allowed to get to a third offence, it is either them or me - and I'm betting it is them, and damn the unions and labour relations - they're unfit for the job.
Who cares if they have a 172 IQ, two doctorates and know more about their field then any other person in the world? If they can't jump through your hoops, then of course they aren't fit for the job.
Let me guess; you have no concept of the state of criminal justice in the US. A country with the highest rate of people in jails (430 per 100,000 in '93). A country that can't keep people in jails because there's not enough room.
And why is the news trying to shore up sympathy for this guy????
What would you do if you couldn't get a job? If any place you lived was vandalised and your life threatened? People who cannot live in the legal world will be forced to rob and steal to feed themselves and shelter themselves. No matter what he did, he still has to live somehow.
Farmers have been selling oranges for centuries while at the same time anyone equipped with a single orange could grow their own tree.
Those of us living in a desert who plan to move to a place where it snows in the winter can't grow their own orange tree. In any case, the time and trouble to grow a tree for a small crop of oranges that have to be harvested or they will disappear in a few weeks is far from free, and neither is the land to grow it on.
Well, what happens when you sell or give away a computer with Windows?
That's all shrink-wrap.
In the case of a computer with Linux, if you give it away you fall under 3(c) of the GPL
Under US law, you can sell a book in open defience of any rules the book's copyright owner wants to in force, and I believe that applies to all copyrighted material. The only thing that could bind you to the GPL is if you copied it. So if your machine came preinstalled with Linux, you wouldn't have to provide source, because you never had to agreed to the licenses. (Again, under copyright law, copying a program into memory is exempt from restrictions on copying.)
And even in modern times pure republics have been both unable and unwilling to grant minority interests any degree of autonomy.
Governments (in general) have been so unable and unwilling.
On the other hand our federal system, by recognizing the imortance of government of, by and for a specific people, has given us Maine, Vermont and (to an extent) West Virginia, none of whom felt they were treated fairly by the republican governments of Boston, Albany and Richmond respectively
But they haven't given us Northern California, they refused to give Indian Territory any form of statehood (before filling it with whites), and they refused to give the Cherokee even the basic rights to live on their land, much less any degree of autonomy. Since Vermonters speak the same language as New Yorkers, I think there are much stronger counterexamples.
[Supreme Court doesn't] have any term limits beyond "good behavior."
Arguably this (combined with the fact they are judges) dictates their actions, more then the fact they are appointed.
Let's note also that the Supreme Court found against Dred Scott, saying that a black man has no rights, no matter where he lives in the US.
By your logic of the importance of direct popular elections and the ability of it to protect the rights of the minority and the ability of direct popular election to ensure the rights of the people,
In any direct election, the elected person is likely to be one of the majority - that is, a white heterosexual Christian. But the black and gay and atheist votes still make up their 10% of their vote, which canidates ignore at their risk. But in an indirect election, the vast majority of the voters--way out of proportion with the population--are white heterosexual Christians. What leverage does the black and gay and atheist communities have over that person? What political motivation does that person have to respect their rights?
our national government [...] is able to propose constitutional amendments that would deny the states the right to marry gay couples
Which wouldn't be an issue if the states didn't have to respect marriages made in other states. Arguably, the problem is by that clause, the federal government gave any state the ability to define marriage for the Union. Note this is a problem because of increased transportation; anyone can fly up to Massachutes and get married.
Before the Seventeenth Amendment, states jealous of their own power wouldn't let such a bill get anywhere near the United States Senate
Historically, states rights have only been an issue when a state disagreed with the federal government. The Confederates who were chanting states rights in '61 were thrilled by the Dred Scott decision in '59 which deprived states of the ability to give rights to the black man.
And if you think the Bolsheviks became popular by "despising the rights of the people," you obviously aren't familiar with Karl Marx's writings.
Karl Marx never promotes what we think of as the rights of the people; he promotes what the rights of the People, of the masses taken as a whole.
limit our choices only to those the political parties see fit to give us,
In a system using a straight majority vote, not runoffs or Concordate systems, you're going to get two real canidates. There'd be no more reason for your senator to vote for a canidate that can't win then there is for you to. I doubt there's many presidential canidates who can't get through primaries in a political party, but could get voted for by electors.
do you think it mere conicidence the way political power has consolidated into the so-called "federal" government with the amendment's ratification moreso than even in 1787?
The federal government was invented in 1787, because the framers of the articles of confederation didn't realize how small a world was and how small each state was, in a geopolitical sense. Since that time, with mass communications and high-speed transit, the effective size of the world has shrunk, and with it the importance of one government instead of fifty.
The 14th Amendment was a powerful blow for fedralism, in taking many powers away from the states, sometimes vesting them in the court system (like defining due process.) I don't want to live in a US where if you're black or not Christian, or both, you really shouldn't go south of the Mason-Dixon line. Federalism has given us a country where you don't have to worry about that.
Then you seem to be forgetting how both Hitler and Mussolini came to power to begin with: By direct popular vote.
Not quite. Hitler got appointed chancellor long before he got elected to anything.
Ochidore gets 346, including the references to the OED and the Lemmings cheat codes. You don't need millions of uses to make something common usage, and the fact that virii has almost 10% of the count of viruses shows that there's a significant body of users.
<i>John Gray, author of Straw Dogs, one of the best books you could read this year, suggests that the Latin alphabet, with its complete abstraction from physical objects, has been the basis of western philosophical models, mainly to the detriment of our view of the world. He suggests that Chinese iconography, in contrast, helped the establishment of a worldview in which humans played less of a central role.</i>
How is "book" less icongraphic than U+4E66 (ASCII art below)? Chinese is in no real sense icongraphic; at best, there's a few characters where you can imagine how they might have originally been drawings. Furthermore, the worldview which is less centered around humans, is largely a result of the reincarnation beliefs of the Buddhists, based of the similar beliefs of the Hindus, both of which originated in India; and India invariably uses alphabetic writing systems, just like the west.
It's easy to take the differences between China and Europe and blame any random difference. But this random difference from the Chinese is also shared by the Indians, the Thai and Koreans.
We get obsessed with the technology that's changing how we do things and then we completely ignore the effects of that technology until we are well into the change. IMHO, that's because we're always trying to get new technology to do the same old things "faster" and "easier".
IMO, it's because we can't see the future. A lot of people make a lot of lame guesses at what a technology might do, and a few get it right, but no one can truly see what's going on until it's behind us. However, "faster" and "easier" doesn't require Gypsy blood and training in the dark arts, nor does it require your customers to believe you have that.
(A) dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. [...]
In this century, both the Nazis and the Bolshiviks came to power openly despising the rights of the people. Mussulini is famous for making the trains run on time, not giving rights to the people. Furthermore, the authors of your quote didn't approve of the popular election of the president or senators; as they set it up, appointed electors chose everything. Their distrust of popular democracy have proven largely baseless.
Only geeks who want to feel clever use it. You'll never hear a biologist talk about virii...
So? A biologist is talking about folded bits of organic matter; computer geeks are talking about malicious pieces of code. Sometimes words with two meanings evolve into two different words. At the very least, this could be considered a dialectal difference.
Yes, virus is in common usage. Virii is not.
There are many, many users of the word "virii". Google gets 325,000 hits. Considering "ochidore" got a OED listing for one use, virii certainly deserves a note.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you fail to see how the fall of a major arabic tyranny that has threatened middle eastern peace for centuries
Iraq's government hasn't been around for centuries. It was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, then the British Empire until the 1940s.
caused the death of millions helps to make the world [...] a safer place is disturbing.
But will it make the world a safer place? Historically speaking, we've frequently placed our interests over that of those of Iraq and other nations. Including giving him weapons to carry out his war against Iran, which achieved nothing but to distract Iraq and Iran and kill millions of Iraqis and Iranians. Will the US put a stable, peaceful government into power in Iraq, or will it be a constant fight between Iraqi interests and US interests until another Ayatollah appears and kicks out the US?
the original copyright gained in Japan by way of Berne should still be legitimate not only in Japan, but in just about every other Berne signatory
Not all of them; many countries have a rule wherein an Fooish work that is no longer protected by copyright in Foo is no longer protected in that country. Since the US registration requirement only applied American works (actually, it applied to all works, but non-US works were retroactively granted copyright), this is a US work not protected by US copyright and hence not protected in the UK and other places.
This would mean an interesting situation that you could be considered in infringing copyright if you take your work outside the USA, or if anyone downloads your work from outside the USA
It's not like it's unique. Much of Project Gutenberg is in copyright someplace in the world. And the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen couldn't use the Invisible Man from the comic books, because he was still in copyright in the UK (but not in the US).
There's no way a will can have legal value or validity.
Wills are there to facilitate the smooth transfer of property from a deceased person, and so a dying person doesn't go giving away their property, which would be more complex and hassling, especially if they don't die. Notice that wills are extremely limited compared to normal contracts. Oral and unnotarized wills aren't accepted in most cases. Who you can leave property to is limited; your immediate family frequently has a statutory claim to a large part of your property, no matter what your opinion is in the manner.
I guess we could sit around second-guessing what dead authors would want. Think of how many fun cases we could get, with the Royal Shakespearean Society suing Paramount to stop them from distributing a film based on a Shakespearean play that shows a Jew in a good light, which, they would claim, the good Bard wouldn't have liked. Oh, imagine the fun we could have.
(2) He saw the girl on the hill with the telescope.
where "saw" could be past of "to see" or have another (more morbid) interpretation.
No, it couldn't. I saw, you saw, but he saws. Proper verb conjugation won't allow your alternate interpretation.
You might think that looking at the charset used would be enough but 'taint so! Frequency of letters isn't good enough either, two good ways is checking for the most frequent words or the most frequent letter trigrams.
Try looking at mguesser (http://mnogosearch.org). It's been quite accurate for me, but I've never tried it on spam.
You're dead. Furthermore, you died a great author author that someone actually published the book you had sitting in your closet half done. If you want to spin in your grave over it, that's fine, but you'll really be remembered for two or three works, and that won't be one of them.
In any case, again, you're dead. Really, who cares about your wishes in the matter? Why should they?
I thought that here on /. we disliked huge evil monopolies throwing their weight around to ensure everything goes their way, and when things don't go their way, tell all to Fuck Off?
"evil" monopolies? The US is far from an "evil" monopolies. The problem in this case is it's a pair of out of control monopolies wrestling with each other; the only sane thing is to side with the one who is doing what you like in this field at this time.
their[Iran's] extremly democratic society.
You mean the one that has universal suffrage over 15? For men and women? They may have a lot of despotic parts of their government, but they are more democratic then most of the nations south of them, the ones that we support. More democratic then the US-installed government they had before this one, too.
the International Labor Organization. It was formed as part of a burst of post WWI Wilsonian idealism
Don't blame it on Wilson. Wilson did everything he could to destroy those "communist" labor unions.
No other diplomats are elected, and they routinely sign treaties and other foreign agreements.
US diplomats act with the authority of the President in doing so, and can be vetoed by the President.
An early example of detante.
More likely the US looked at Napeleon and Hitler and figured that Antarctica would be worse, and the Russians looked at Napeleon and Hitler and figured that if we learned how to fight in Antarctica, we'd have no problems with a Russian winter.
So which do I use most often? My 1.44 megabyte floppy drive.
So have you completed your first hard drive backup yet? Only 20,000 disks to go . . .
People will seek out sources of information that *reinforce* their world-view. We will build these feedback loops and vertical chimneys where every group becomes more isolated from reasonable, objective opinion that they become convinced that anyone who disagrees with them is grossly misinformed and stupid.
Looking at world history, it looks like that is the norm. You can travel much of the world and say "There is no God" or "Praise Allah" or "Jesus is dead" and not get killed. That wasn't true a hundred years ago. Whatever you may do on the Internet, sooner or later you go to work or to a the bar or to a club and run into someone who thinks different from you, which wasn't true in the groupthink a few hundred years ago, and still isn't true in the insular societies (Amish, for example) that still exist.
If I'm in charge of security (not just the IT portion of it) and management won't let me put in place a policy that spells out what will happen to employees that subvert the security implementation and back me up when I have to apply the policy's warning and penalty portions, then I'm out of there!
The doctor is one of twelve people in the world with a degree in orthorhinocolonoscopy. He makes $120,000 a year. You really think they're going to let you punish him?
More to the point, discouraging employees from writing down passwords may be a good idea in some places, but these people are trying to get their jobs done. If they can't get their jobs done, you don't get paid. Every time they forget their password and have to wait for an IT person to fix it, every time they have to run five flights of stairs to check their data, the less likely the department turns a profit and the more likely you get fired.
if allowed to get to a third offence, it is either them or me - and I'm betting it is them, and damn the unions and labour relations - they're unfit for the job.
Who cares if they have a 172 IQ, two doctorates and know more about their field then any other person in the world? If they can't jump through your hoops, then of course they aren't fit for the job.
"WHY THE HELL IS THIS GUY OUT OF JAIL?!?!?!?!"
Let me guess; you have no concept of the state of criminal justice in the US. A country with the highest rate of people in jails (430 per 100,000 in '93). A country that can't keep people in jails because there's not enough room.
And why is the news trying to shore up sympathy for this guy????
What would you do if you couldn't get a job? If any place you lived was vandalised and your life threatened? People who cannot live in the legal world will be forced to rob and steal to feed themselves and shelter themselves. No matter what he did, he still has to live somehow.
If some people refuse to ever trust you again, tough. Find people that do and make damn sure you never break that trust again.
And what do you do when someone who doesn't trust you comes after you with a baseball bat?
Farmers have been selling oranges for centuries while at the same time anyone equipped with a single orange could grow their own tree.
Those of us living in a desert who plan to move to a place where it snows in the winter can't grow their own orange tree. In any case, the time and trouble to grow a tree for a small crop of oranges that have to be harvested or they will disappear in a few weeks is far from free, and neither is the land to grow it on.
Well, what happens when you sell or give away a computer with Windows?
That's all shrink-wrap.
In the case of a computer with Linux, if you give it away you fall under 3(c) of the GPL
Under US law, you can sell a book in open defience of any rules the book's copyright owner wants to in force, and I believe that applies to all copyrighted material. The only thing that could bind you to the GPL is if you copied it. So if your machine came preinstalled with Linux, you wouldn't have to provide source, because you never had to agreed to the licenses. (Again, under copyright law, copying a program into memory is exempt from restrictions on copying.)
And even in modern times pure republics have been both unable and unwilling to grant minority interests any degree of autonomy.
Governments (in general) have been so unable and unwilling.
On the other hand our federal system, by recognizing the imortance of government of, by and for a specific people, has given us Maine, Vermont and (to an extent) West Virginia, none of whom felt they were treated fairly by the republican governments of Boston, Albany and Richmond respectively
But they haven't given us Northern California, they refused to give Indian Territory any form of statehood (before filling it with whites), and they refused to give the Cherokee even the basic rights to live on their land, much less any degree of autonomy. Since Vermonters speak the same language as New Yorkers, I think there are much stronger counterexamples.
[Supreme Court doesn't] have any term limits beyond "good behavior."
Arguably this (combined with the fact they are judges) dictates their actions, more then the fact they are appointed.
Let's note also that the Supreme Court found against Dred Scott, saying that a black man has no rights, no matter where he lives in the US.
By your logic of the importance of direct popular elections and the ability of it to protect the rights of the minority and the ability of direct popular election to ensure the rights of the people,
In any direct election, the elected person is likely to be one of the majority - that is, a white heterosexual Christian. But the black and gay and atheist votes still make up their 10% of their vote, which canidates ignore at their risk. But in an indirect election, the vast majority of the voters--way out of proportion with the population--are white heterosexual Christians. What leverage does the black and gay and atheist communities have over that person? What political motivation does that person have to respect their rights?
our national government [...] is able to propose constitutional amendments that would deny the states the right to marry gay couples
Which wouldn't be an issue if the states didn't have to respect marriages made in other states. Arguably, the problem is by that clause, the federal government gave any state the ability to define marriage for the Union. Note this is a problem because of increased transportation; anyone can fly up to Massachutes and get married.
Before the Seventeenth Amendment, states jealous of their own power wouldn't let such a bill get anywhere near the United States Senate
Historically, states rights have only been an issue when a state disagreed with the federal government. The Confederates who were chanting states rights in '61 were thrilled by the Dred Scott decision in '59 which deprived states of the ability to give rights to the black man.
And if you think the Bolsheviks became popular by "despising the rights of the people," you obviously aren't familiar with Karl Marx's writings.
Karl Marx never promotes what we think of as the rights of the people; he promotes what the rights of the People, of the masses taken as a whole.
limit our choices only to those the political parties see fit to give us,
In a system using a straight majority vote, not runoffs or Concordate systems, you're going to get two real canidates. There'd be no more reason for your senator to vote for a canidate that can't win then there is for you to. I doubt there's many presidential canidates who can't get through primaries in a political party, but could get voted for by electors.
do you think it mere conicidence the way political power has consolidated into the so-called "federal" government with the amendment's ratification moreso than even in 1787?
The federal government was invented in 1787, because the framers of the articles of confederation didn't realize how small a world was and how small each state was, in a geopolitical sense. Since that time, with mass communications and high-speed transit, the effective size of the world has shrunk, and with it the importance of one government instead of fifty.
The 14th Amendment was a powerful blow for fedralism, in taking many powers away from the states, sometimes vesting them in the court system (like defining due process.) I don't want to live in a US where if you're black or not Christian, or both, you really shouldn't go south of the Mason-Dixon line. Federalism has given us a country where you don't have to worry about that.
Then you seem to be forgetting how both Hitler and Mussolini came to power to begin with: By direct popular vote.
Not quite. Hitler got appointed chancellor long before he got elected to anything.
Ochidore gets 346, including the references to the OED and the Lemmings cheat codes. You don't need millions of uses to make something common usage, and the fact that virii has almost 10% of the count of viruses shows that there's a significant body of users.
<i>John Gray, author of Straw Dogs, one of the best books you could read this year, suggests that the Latin alphabet, with its complete abstraction from physical objects, has been the basis of western philosophical models, mainly to the detriment of our view of the world. He suggests that Chinese iconography, in contrast, helped the establishment of a worldview in which humans played less of a central role.</i>
How is "book" less icongraphic than U+4E66 (ASCII art below)? Chinese is in no real sense icongraphic; at best, there's a few characters where you can imagine how they might have originally been drawings. Furthermore, the worldview which is less centered around humans, is largely a result of the reincarnation beliefs of the Buddhists, based of the similar beliefs of the Hindus, both of which originated in India; and India invariably uses alphabetic writing systems, just like the west.
It's easy to take the differences between China and Europe and blame any random difference. But this random difference from the Chinese is also shared by the Indians, the Thai and Koreans.
I \
--I-I
I I
--I---I
I I
I
We get obsessed with the technology that's changing how we do things and then we completely ignore the effects of that technology until we are well into the change. IMHO, that's because we're always trying to get new technology to do the same old things "faster" and "easier".
IMO, it's because we can't see the future. A lot of people make a lot of lame guesses at what a technology might do, and a few get it right, but no one can truly see what's going on until it's behind us. However, "faster" and "easier" doesn't require Gypsy blood and training in the dark arts, nor does it require your customers to believe you have that.
(A) dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. [...]
In this century, both the Nazis and the Bolshiviks came to power openly despising the rights of the people. Mussulini is famous for making the trains run on time, not giving rights to the people. Furthermore, the authors of your quote didn't approve of the popular election of the president or senators; as they set it up, appointed electors chose everything. Their distrust of popular democracy have proven largely baseless.
Only geeks who want to feel clever use it. You'll never hear a biologist talk about virii...
So? A biologist is talking about folded bits of organic matter; computer geeks are talking about malicious pieces of code. Sometimes words with two meanings evolve into two different words. At the very least, this could be considered a dialectal difference.
Yes, virus is in common usage. Virii is not.
There are many, many users of the word "virii". Google gets 325,000 hits. Considering "ochidore" got a OED listing for one use, virii certainly deserves a note.