If you really want to be told specifically what speed you'll get, feel free to offer your ISP some $$$ to send out a technician and find out the combination of umpteen factors that will give you your result. It may take quite some $$$ but you'll be able to convince them - and you will get your precious accurate values.
It would be very interesting to close off part of a disused city or even a whole city and leave it as it is to see how nature would take over without human influences.
You don't need to use a phone to upload camera pictures.
There's an SD memory card which you can put into
your digital camera that can upload images via Wi-Fi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-Fi/
If you really believe that the XO is the best thing since sliced bread then why is it that companies arent lining up to buy them for their employees? If it really was the best deal wouldnt everyone want them?
The target for the OLPC is education for children. It's not available for general sale so companies don't have anywhere to line up even if they wanted to.
The OLPC is a non-profit organization that is able to get non-profit prices from the manufacturer. They avoid much of the cost with a commercial laptop by doing bulk sales with the local ministries of education who in turn take care of the distribution. Much of the price for commercial machines is due to sales/marketing/distribution costs.
Also note that it is not just a laptop project but an educational project.
There's some more infrastructure involved such as the XS school server.
Over time I expect to see variants of the OLPC-XO laptop itself as well as commercial alternatives available using some of the interesting technologies introduced such as:
The XO has only just started to be mass-produced so be a bit patient and even though it may not have OLPC in its name there will be some products available which will contain some OLPC based innovation within them.
Open source/format is such a misunderstood term. It might be tough for some to understand. However the term single vendor lockin is
something that anyone can understand.
If your job description is Counter Intelligence and you need to wear a tinfoil
hat for a living then software backdoors should be something you need to be
worried about. For security from secret backdoors open source software is a better choice
than closed source.
There's a continuum from sweet dreams -> troubled dreams -> bad dreams -> nightmare that will vary depending on the organization and their situation.
Staying with the status quo can also cause trouble sleeping as this latest MS Word exploit shows.
Yes, doing an abrupt switch will cause disruption.
The amount varying depending on the number of.doc files that need to be converted and the amount of resistance to change from the users. As well the
network effects of dealing with external organizations/customers and remembering to convert the.odt file to a.doc file before sending out a copy.
There are a number of tools available to help with the mass conversion
from.doc to.odf file formats.
If your organization uses Lotus Notes then the next version with ODF
support can help reduce some of the support issues if you decide to use alternative file formats than MS Word.
It's hard to follow without the context of the original
Statement of Objections to compare against. Does anyone know
of a groklaw like website that is capturing all the publicly
available legal documents on this case and organizing them in
a coherent manner?
The message I get when reading it is that Microsoft says we're trying to comply but
the commission is not cooperating and is biased against us and preventing us from bringing this to the Court of First Instance ("CFI") in Luxembourg.
Here are some of the more interesting snippets taken from Microsoft's document:
1. Hundreds of Microsoft employees and contractors have worked for more
than 30,000 hours to create over 12,000 pages of detailed technical documents that are available for license today. In addition, Microsoft has offered to provide licensees with 500 hours of technical support and has made its source code related to all the relevant technologies available under a reference license.
3. The Commission continually changed its interpretation of what technical
documentation was required by the vague language in the Decision, and refused to
put its new interpretations in writing despite repeated requests from Microsoft [...]
4. The Commission has denied Microsoft's fundamental right of defence by prohibiting fair and full access to the file underlying the Statement of Objections, including correspondence between the Commission and the outside experts upon whose evidence the Commission relies.
9. The Commission refused to provide Microsoft a meaningful
written statement, apparently because it wished to demand a broad scope of documentation,
while, at the same time, preventing Microsoft from placing that fact squarely before the CFI in the appeal against the 2004 Decision (as substantiated by statements discussed in later sections of this Response). Microsoft, although dismayed by this gamesmanship, itself stated in writing that it would supply what it understood the Commission was requesting.
15. The Commission did not comment upon the 11 December 2004 draft
documentation for more than six months, and then ignored the 8 August 2005 revision for several months more. Specifically, it never challenged Microsoft's description of the scope of the documentation that was being developed and supplied to the Commission.
18. With regard to the scope of Microsoft's Technical Documentation, the Statement of Objections claims that Microsoft has provided only "on-the-wire" protocol information, that is, information relating to how the protocols communicate information between computers in a Windows network, such as how data must be formatted by the sender to be read by the recipient, and how the meaning of the information transmitted can be understood. The Statement of Objections asserts that Microsoft has refused to supply a broader range of information which would help explain why the computers in a network communicate particular information and how the communicated information is used and with what results.
20. The usability problems asserted by the Statement of Objections relate to its ease of use. According to the Statement of Objections, descriptions of the proper sequencing of messages communicated between servers are not provided in a way "consistent with the kind of description commonly used in the industry" and in some instances are not provided at all.
24. The Commission has also contested the significance of Microsoft's voluntary offer to allow licensees to use the actual source code for Windows, even though the Commission itself demanded that the Trustee must be given the same code in order to determine Microsoft's compliance.
28. The Commission cannot have it both ways. If it claims
Most programmers also don't learn from the mistakes of others.
Many programmers only write code and don't actually read code written by others. I've found that looking at someone's code reflects their personality.
For example sloppy error handling == over confident.
To see the "best" of the worst code and to learn from mistakes by others see:
... big companies with lots of resources produce most of computer innovation. I'm still waiting for something innovative to come out of Open Source. Most, if not all, of it is copying proprietary software.
Your statement hinges on your definition of innovation. I find that word often used as a buzzword, usually in the same breath as patents. I'm sure if you counted all the software patents that there are more owned by proprietary software companies. If however you use the word innovation to mean "a new device or process" then I would like to see some evidence to support your claim. Other factors are at play that can help/hinder innovation besides the type of software license such as:
competion - monopolies don't need to innovate. An example is that Microsoft had stopped development on Internet Explorer (IE) 6 SP1 as the final standalone version in June, 2003(1) since it is just part of the Operating System. Then in Feb 2005(2) they announced they changed their mind and IE 7 will be out for Windows XP. (Surely just a coincidence that Firefox 1.0 was had been released in that time frame). Capabilities like RSS based live bookmarks and tabbed browsing in Firefox may or may not be innovative by your
definition (I don't know - I'm not trying to troll or inflame) - however it has raised the bar for web browsing and helped prod Microsoft to produce a better product. Note that Microsoft sat back for years with no innovation
for IE, or even proper bug fixes for CSS support and you can't say it's because of lack of resources...
cooperation - in particular open formats/protocols - TCP/IP ultimately begat HTTP and Mosaic.
market share and network effect - IRC begat Instant Messaging but that wasn't innovative until MSN Messenger came along to patent custom emoticons. (3)
Is it possible to count all the software innovations and then make a determination of whether that innovation came from an open or proprietary
software license?Maybe Microsoft can fund a study?
Like whoever moderated your comment as Insightful?
If you take away your flamebait tone and your off-topic remarks about graphic and media software support which are not relevant for Google's server farm it sounds like the point you're making is to "use the right tool for the job". From this article for Google it looks like the right tool for their purposes is an OS that lets them make their own customizations.
If that is an annoying poke at Microsoft and other proprietary vendors then so be it. For this particular job they aren't the right tool.
When selecting any software package rather than solely
concentrating on open vs. closed source you should consider
the following factors and weigh them as appropriate for your circumstances:
does it do the job you need
are you locked in to a single vendor
are the protocols and file formats open/interoperable
customization options
market mind share (are you willing/worried to do different from most)
price and licensing mode (per CPU, user)
quality
security
support
training and documentation
other
If support is important then depending on the application in question
you may have wider choices of who you can use to support it and the
level required with Open Source. Some Open Source software packages
such as Red Hat's Enterprise level of their Linux distro, JBoss or MySQL
offer various commercial support levels for their products. As well
you can hire local expertise to come over and setup and customize for
your particular needs. Of course there are trade-offs in time and money
and flexibility. Vendors will be less likely to let you make your
own customizations if they have to provide it with 7x24 support level
agreements.
After watching the slow moving train wreck that is tSCOg I share
your feelings.
Looks like Darl has conceded their legal case is empty since why
trash-talk Linux which they want end-users to pay tSCOg $699 (hurry before
it goes up to $1399) for a mythical license.
Agreed - it just gave the union free publicity. A
contributing factor is that tensions have been running high
with cut phone lines and union pickets impeding
repairs.
Leading up to this dispute Telus has provoked the union in
a number of ways leading to the Canada Labour Relations Board
finding against Telus of "bargaining in bad faith".
From the article:
"Both platforms have a rich inventory of ISV applications, but Unix servers have traditionally gained more revenue from sales in the midrange enterprise and high-end enterprise server segments, based on their ability to support scalable workloads and high RAS levels for mission-critical-workloads," said Jean Bozman, an analyst at IDC.
RAS stands for Reliability, Availability and Serviceability. Is this just
a marketing buzzword or is there any real meaning behind this term?
Can you measure and compare what the RAS level for a server is? The Software (OS and application) and Hardware in combination would play a factor in the RAS level. I would like to see a mathematical formula based on MTBF for hardware components (especially hard drives, power supplies) and OS and application software quality quantification(1) to create a RASmark level. It would help make server buying decisions less
seat-of-the-pants so you can decide whether or not it's worth it to get the redundant power supply option and/or RAID level for a server to get to a required RAS level for your needs.
(1) It's difficult but not impossible to quantify software quality. There's
plenty of real-world usage that can be surveyed to cancel out admin
competence levels (another difficult item to measure) and other factors. Have to beware of zealots and a certain monopolist's FUD.
The C|net article referenced in this story does not do a good job of describing what git is.
From the LWN article The guts of git:
Git is not a source code management (SCM) system. It is, instead, a set of low-level utilities (Linus compares it to a special-purpose filesystem) which can be used to construct an SCM system. Much of the higher-level work is yet to be done, so the interface that most developers will work with remains unclear.
Another article, (long), about git from the kerneltrap web site with relevant
emails to/from Linux about some of the trade offs in it (fast patch
management vs. no file deltas stored in the same file impacting space
efficiency):
Managing the Kernel Source With 'git'
I'm having some difficulty wrapping my head around what git is and how
much functionality it provides that is needed to do SCM.
My take on this is that git can be thought of as a low level SCM repository kernel
that can implement a particule file structure (optimized for directory content
management) that leads to easy replication, distributed file system with no worries about file corruption (unless you are really worried about SHA1 collisions).
Git is not yet a SCM but a work in progress of the repository layer.
Anyone familiar with ClearCase (a proprietary SCM now owned by IBM) is aware
(possibly painfully so if they were invloved with administrating it) that it
uses its own proprietary file system (which it calls VOBs).
ClearCase has replication capabilities so there may be some degree of overlap in
the basic concepts between ClearCase's lower level VOB layer and git.
There's more to do on top of git to make it part of a polished SCM system. I
expect just as Linux has multiple Desktops (KDE/Gnome/xfce) there will be
multiple git front-end clients to use the git utilities (API) to manipulate
the contents of a git repository using your favourite language
(Perl/PHP/Java/...) along with utilities to provide gateways to/from other
SCM repositories such as CVS.
The weasels who don't want to leave any records
of their decisions will later deny what they said. A good defensive
tactic when dealing with those types of weasels
is to send an email, copying others, on your understanding of what was
discussed to ensure you got the correct message.
Example Scenario:
To: PointyHairBoss@corp.com From: PeeOn@corp.com Subject:Schedule Risk for Task A on project deadlines Date: Wednesday, 10:34 AM
Hi PointyHairBoss,
Because of task B which you just assigned to me today
is due next Monday there's a conflict with getting Task
A done by Tuesday which will impact our project schedule.
Can I start work on task B after task A is completed to
reduce this risk?
- - - - -
PointyHairBoss goes by PeeOn's cubicle on his way out at 3:45 PM,
golf bag in tow:
PointyHairBoss: Great job on what you're working on PeeOn. PeeOn: Thanks PointyHairBoss. PointyHairBoss: We need to work hard together as a team and I'm
glad you brought this issue to my attention [...blah blah
empty platitudes...] which is why I'm counting on you to
work hard and accomplish both Task A and Task B by the deadlines
I promised. PeeOn: I hear you boss but Task B is an internal make-work task
while Task A is on the critical path for our project. PointyHairBoss: It's important to meet our commitments. I'm sure you'll
find a way. [unspoken message: another weekend of unpaid overtime] PeeOn:: As I mentioned in my email there's not enough time available
to do both and Task B has a risk of slowing down progress on task
A which will impact our projects overall progress. PointyHairBoss: I can't spare anyone else for this; I have confidence you
can get this done. [Hurry up already; quit your whining; I'm going to
be late for my 4:30 PM tee time] PeeOn: I'm sorry but I'm planning to take this weekend off. It's our
anniversary and my wife and I have plans to go out of town. I can only
do one of Task A or Task B by their deadline and I think it should be task A. PointyHairBoss: Yes, well I promised the Grand Poobah that task B would
be done by Monday. I'm sure you'll find a way... blah blah... [How much
longer will I have to natter with this clown anyways.] PeeOn: Well so long as you realize the risk of delays for task A and
you're fine by it then I'll stop working on task A and work on task B. PointyHairBoss: I'm sure you can find a way to get both done. [Starts walking
briskly away.]
- - - - -
To: PointyHairBoss@corp.com From: PeeOn@corp.com CC: GrandPooBah@corp.com, ProjectManager@corp.com Subject:Re: Schedule Risk for Task A on project deadlines Date: Wednesday, 6:13 PM
Hi PointyHairBoss,
Just to confirm my understanding of our discussion
this afternoon. I need to work on task B as my
top priority to get it done by Monday, even if that delays progress
on task A and adds a risk to the project schedule.
Windows XP has a better security infrastructure than any UNIX knock off.
Care to cite any references to support that statement? Using loaded terms like "...UNIX knock off." doesn't add weight to your opinion.
Here's my opinion, with references to support it.
Only a criminal monopoly(1), with no consideration of their
customer's interests, could embed into their web browser "application" (2)
the security sink-hole of ActiveX vulnerabilities(3) to achieve vendor
lock-in(4). This has resulted in the mess that is "security"
in Microsoft(R) Windows(R) today.
References:
Criminal is strong language but Microsoft has a judgement against them regarding unlawful monopoly conduct: http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/
To everyone but Microsoft, Internet Explorer is an application
called a "web browser". MicroSoft testified in their anti-trust trial that
IE is not an application but an integrated part of their Microsoft(R) Windows(R)
operating system and there is no way to allow users to not have it installed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/04/ 98/microsoft/275248.stm
Concern over ActiveX vulnerabilities have been in the media for over
6 years. The issue has gotten more attention migrating from IT trade press
to mainstream media and in that time we've gone from viruses (which have not gone away) to Phishing and Spyware infestations:
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you don't need to be an Albert Einstein to know that trademarking a name in unrelated fields is wrong.
Or just click on: http://www.youtube.com/my_speed/
Here's an interesting blog entry with a number of abandoned cities/towns: http://www.dirjournal.com/info/abandoned-places-in-the-world/
or the article author is another victim of a slashdot editor mangling a submission to increase the controversy quotient.
You don't need to use a phone to upload camera pictures. There's an SD memory card which you can put into your digital camera that can upload images via Wi-Fi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye-Fi/
When the away team teleports down to the planet surface it will be the Red Shirts who won't be coming back.
The target for the OLPC is education for children. It's not available for general sale so companies don't have anywhere to line up even if they wanted to.
The OLPC is a non-profit organization that is able to get non-profit prices from the manufacturer. They avoid much of the cost with a commercial laptop by doing bulk sales with the local ministries of education who in turn take care of the distribution. Much of the price for commercial machines is due to sales/marketing/distribution costs.
Also note that it is not just a laptop project but an educational project. There's some more infrastructure involved such as the XS school server.
Over time I expect to see variants of the OLPC-XO laptop itself as well as commercial alternatives available using some of the interesting technologies introduced such as:
The XO has only just started to be mass-produced so be a bit patient and even though it may not have OLPC in its name there will be some products available which will contain some OLPC based innovation within them.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/jul0 7/07-05MSExpandVancouverPR.mspx/
http://www.digitalhomecanada.com/content/view/1278 /51/
Either way it was CADNS and not CIRA that made that determination.
- Windows backdoor
- Lotus Notes backdoor
If your job description is Counter Intelligence and you need to wear a tinfoil hat for a living then software backdoors should be something you need to be worried about. For security from secret backdoors open source software is a better choice than closed source.Yes, doing an abrupt switch will cause disruption. The amount varying depending on the number of .doc files that need to be converted and the amount of resistance to change from the users. As well the
network effects of dealing with external organizations/customers and remembering to convert the .odt file to a .doc file before sending out a copy.
There are a number of tools available to help with the mass conversion from .doc to .odf file formats.
If your organization uses Lotus Notes then the next version with ODF support can help reduce some of the support issues if you decide to use alternative file formats than MS Word.
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/02-23-06R esponsetoECSO.mspx/
It's hard to follow without the context of the original Statement of Objections to compare against. Does anyone know of a groklaw like website that is capturing all the publicly available legal documents on this case and organizing them in a coherent manner?
The message I get when reading it is that Microsoft says we're trying to comply but the commission is not cooperating and is biased against us and preventing us from bringing this to the Court of First Instance ("CFI") in Luxembourg.
Here are some of the more interesting snippets taken from Microsoft's document:
Many programmers only write code and don't actually read code written by others. I've found that looking at someone's code reflects their personality. For example sloppy error handling == over confident.
To see the "best" of the worst code and to learn from mistakes by others see:
http://thedailywtf.com/Is it possible to count all the software innovations and then make a determination of whether that innovation came from an open or proprietary software license?Maybe Microsoft can fund a study?
References:
Like whoever moderated your comment as Insightful?
If you take away your flamebait tone and your off-topic remarks about graphic and media software support which are not relevant for Google's server farm it sounds like the point you're making is to "use the right tool for the job". From this article for Google it looks like the right tool for their purposes is an OS that lets them make their own customizations.
If that is an annoying poke at Microsoft and other proprietary vendors then so be it. For this particular job they aren't the right tool.
If support is important then depending on the application in question you may have wider choices of who you can use to support it and the level required with Open Source. Some Open Source software packages such as Red Hat's Enterprise level of their Linux distro, JBoss or MySQL offer various commercial support levels for their products. As well you can hire local expertise to come over and setup and customize for your particular needs. Of course there are trade-offs in time and money and flexibility. Vendors will be less likely to let you make your own customizations if they have to provide it with 7x24 support level agreements.
Looks like Darl has conceded their legal case is empty since why trash-talk Linux which they want end-users to pay tSCOg $699 (hurry before it goes up to $1399) for a mythical license.
After the http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/15/ 162218&tid=187&tid=123&tid=130&tid=106Davidson email and the href=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2005 0731121601277Novell counterclaims
in tSCOg's Slander of title law suit where are all the usual
culprits hiding? Haven't heard much from the following lately
regarding tSCOg:
Nothing happenning at this year's SCO Forum 2005 that's news worthy so what PR spin can Darl do but issue an open letter with meaningless blather.
http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?file name=bc_telus-cable20050725
Leading up to this dispute Telus has provoked the union in a number of ways leading to the Canada Labour Relations Board finding against Telus of "bargaining in bad faith".
http://www.cirb-ccri.gc.ca/whatsnew/LD1291_e.pdf
In war truth is the first casuality. In this dispute it looks like intelligence is the one getting hurt.
Can you measure and compare what the RAS level for a server is? The Software (OS and application) and Hardware in combination would play a factor in the RAS level. I would like to see a mathematical formula based on MTBF for hardware components (especially hard drives, power supplies) and OS and application software quality quantification(1) to create a RASmark level. It would help make server buying decisions less seat-of-the-pants so you can decide whether or not it's worth it to get the redundant power supply option and/or RAID level for a server to get to a required RAS level for your needs.
(1) It's difficult but not impossible to quantify software quality. There's plenty of real-world usage that can be surveyed to cancel out admin competence levels (another difficult item to measure) and other factors. Have to beware of zealots and a certain monopolist's FUD.
From the LWN article The guts of git: Git is not a source code management (SCM) system. It is, instead, a set of low-level utilities (Linus compares it to a special-purpose filesystem) which can be used to construct an SCM system. Much of the higher-level work is yet to be done, so the interface that most developers will work with remains unclear. Another article, (long), about git from the kerneltrap web site with relevant emails to/from Linux about some of the trade offs in it (fast patch management vs. no file deltas stored in the same file impacting space efficiency): Managing the Kernel Source With 'git'
The source for git is available online at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/torI'm having some difficulty wrapping my head around what git is and how much functionality it provides that is needed to do SCM. My take on this is that git can be thought of as a low level SCM repository kernel that can implement a particule file structure (optimized for directory content management) that leads to easy replication, distributed file system with no worries about file corruption (unless you are really worried about SHA1 collisions). Git is not yet a SCM but a work in progress of the repository layer.
Anyone familiar with ClearCase (a proprietary SCM now owned by IBM) is aware (possibly painfully so if they were invloved with administrating it) that it uses its own proprietary file system (which it calls VOBs). ClearCase has replication capabilities so there may be some degree of overlap in the basic concepts between ClearCase's lower level VOB layer and git.
There's more to do on top of git to make it part of a polished SCM system. I expect just as Linux has multiple Desktops (KDE/Gnome/xfce) there will be multiple git front-end clients to use the git utilities (API) to manipulate the contents of a git repository using your favourite language (Perl/PHP/Java/...) along with utilities to provide gateways to/from other SCM repositories such as CVS.
Example Scenario:
To: PointyHairBoss@corp.com
From: PeeOn@corp.com
Subject:Schedule Risk for Task A on project deadlines
Date: Wednesday, 10:34 AM
Hi PointyHairBoss,
Because of task B which you just assigned to me today is due next Monday there's a conflict with getting Task A done by Tuesday which will impact our project schedule. Can I start work on task B after task A is completed to reduce this risk?
- - - - -
PointyHairBoss goes by PeeOn's cubicle on his way out at 3:45 PM, golf bag in tow:
PointyHairBoss: Great job on what you're working on PeeOn. ...] which is why I'm counting on you to
work hard and accomplish both Task A and Task B by the deadlines
I promised. ... blah blah ... [How much
longer will I have to natter with this clown anyways.]
PeeOn: Thanks PointyHairBoss.
PointyHairBoss: We need to work hard together as a team and I'm glad you brought this issue to my attention [...blah blah empty platitudes
PeeOn: I hear you boss but Task B is an internal make-work task while Task A is on the critical path for our project.
PointyHairBoss: It's important to meet our commitments. I'm sure you'll find a way. [unspoken message: another weekend of unpaid overtime]
PeeOn:: As I mentioned in my email there's not enough time available to do both and Task B has a risk of slowing down progress on task A which will impact our projects overall progress.
PointyHairBoss: I can't spare anyone else for this; I have confidence you can get this done. [Hurry up already; quit your whining; I'm going to be late for my 4:30 PM tee time]
PeeOn: I'm sorry but I'm planning to take this weekend off. It's our anniversary and my wife and I have plans to go out of town. I can only do one of Task A or Task B by their deadline and I think it should be task A.
PointyHairBoss: Yes, well I promised the Grand Poobah that task B would be done by Monday. I'm sure you'll find a way
PeeOn: Well so long as you realize the risk of delays for task A and you're fine by it then I'll stop working on task A and work on task B.
PointyHairBoss: I'm sure you can find a way to get both done. [Starts walking briskly away.]
- - - - -
To: PointyHairBoss@corp.com
From: PeeOn@corp.com
CC: GrandPooBah@corp.com, ProjectManager@corp.com
Subject:Re: Schedule Risk for Task A on project deadlines
Date: Wednesday, 6:13 PM
Hi PointyHairBoss,
Just to confirm my understanding of our discussion this afternoon. I need to work on task B as my top priority to get it done by Monday, even if that delays progress on task A and adds a risk to the project schedule.
[original email quoted]
This meme refuses to die. It sounds credible that more usage would lead to a more attractive target for malware but ignores other factors like:
An excellent article refuting this meme, which doesn't even mention ActiveX, can be found here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_Here's my opinion, with references to support it.
Only a criminal monopoly(1), with no consideration of their customer's interests, could embed into their web browser "application" (2) the security sink-hole of ActiveX vulnerabilities(3) to achieve vendor lock-in(4). This has resulted in the mess that is "security" in Microsoft(R) Windows(R) today.
References: