(1) Would it degrade video quality to have cables this long? I'd probably need 50 feet.
Beats me. I've never tried it myself. Probably not too much though, if at all. What you really have to worry about is signal noise, and s-video cables are pretty good at avoiding that. (Unlike composite, svideo seperates RGB components of the signal)
(2) Anyone know offhand of an S-video out card that's an add-on, not a replacement for one's main video card?
Most tv out cards have svideo. You can pick one up for not too much.
Buy a TV out card and there ya go. No need to worry about upgrading the box (or dumping it) when DivX version x.y will be out.
Haha. Good idea. It's surprising that most people always go for the most expensive/least practical idea. Just run an s-video cable from your computer to your tv. (Use an adapter if necessary) S-video cables are sold in lengths of over 30 feet, so that wouldn't be a problem for most people.
VCDs are shitty quality for a whole movie (I'm not even sure you can put an entire movie on a VCD in PAL format). It's MPEG you see - DivX is more compressed but still looks good.
VCDs suck. About 74 minutes of VHS quality MPEG-1. SVCDs, Super Video CDs, are much better. These are MPEG2 encoded CDs (same codec as DVDs) that are playable by most all dvd playsers. SVCDs have laserdisc quality, with a full 480 lines of resolution. Very, very good quality.
However, they can only store 74 minutes per disc, so you are looking at about 2 discs for a movie, or 2 half hour shows per disc. Divx CDs would be able to hold around 7 very high quality half hour shows or one movie, on the other hand.
Yes, but to be fair, you would have to compare it against a similarly equipped dual-x86 system. Do the math on that, and I think you would be disappointed again.
Hmm. You may not get a huge performance increase with photoshop with dual x86 processors, but it would still make the performance gap between x86 and Apple worse. A single 3.06 Ghz completely and utterly kicks a dual G4's ass at Photoshop, and for less money. There are good things about the macintosh platform, but speed isn't one of them. Don't try to convince anyone that Apple is faster than x86. It just isn't.
The social impact of Kyoto, on the other hand, is vital and must be pursued at all costs. It's about levelling the playing field for all mankind.
Doesn't level the playing field for all mankind, well, actually it does. But it would create a poorer world with wealth more evenly distributed. Economies aren't in competition. A richer US or a richer China makes everyone else wealthier, as well, through trade.
You can get an 18" LCD from Dell these days for around $500 (sometimes as low as $350-$400 on special). 1280x1024 resolution.
One thing that I don't understand: Why don't desktop LCDs have higher resolution? Even the 19" ones top out at 1280x1024. Why is it that a large, expensive desktop lcd has such lo rez, while most 15" laptop displays can push 1600x1200?
If I ever was to buy an LCD, it would be a 19" model. For someone who runs 1920x1440 on his 19" CRT, 1280x1024 just doesn't cut it, expecially if it costs $500.
Could you potentially use this device with a projector? Might make a great (much cheaper) alternative to a giant HDTV.
Hmm. Why are all HDTVs so huge, with the exception of a few LCD displays? (BTW, the LCDs that I see at Best Buy still have ghosting) I either can get a gigantic and ridiculously expensive CRT, a fuzzy CRT projection tv with poorer image quality than an NTSC, or a big expensive plasma display that will wear out in 3 years.
Why can't I just get a 24" widescreen CRT HDTV? Why is that so difficult?
Certain caveats about shielding etc would obviously apply, but what about clear mice, keyboards, monitors and even printers?
Although I'd like a clear case, I don't think that they'd be too good for overclockers. Acrylic is not very thermally conductive. Worse than steel, much worse than aluminum.
Build a Log cabin. Use fresh wood that you cut down yourself. Make sure to wear thick cotton gloves that you made yourself from cotton that you grew yourself to protect you from the poisons that those nasty Axe makers used on your Axe.
Um. I wouldn't do that if I were you. The sawdust is carcinogenic. Really. Instead, I would build my house entirely out of um, um.
On a serious note, this guy seems very neurotic and fairly full of himself. He talks in his biography about how he was reading at college level by age 7. And building materials aren't "toxic", well, most of them anyway. The vast majority of the population isn't going to have problems with construction materials that we use. He's just allergic to it, (Or he imagines that he's allergic. Sounds a bit like a hypochondriac to me)
To give you an example: Is peanut butter toxic? Of course not. But a small percentage of the population will die if they eat it. Housing material isn't toxic. It's just this guy's over active immune system. He was overweight, too, as a child. This most likely contributed greatly to his asthmatic problems and allergies.
First, isn't the brain a dynamic thing? This doesn't sound like something that can adapt.
I'm not quite so optimistic about it either. But other parts of the brain may adapt to deal with it. Anyway, the hippocampus is kind of like a dvd decoder chip on a dvd player. It's just kind of hardwired.
One thing though. When you get cheaper, you don't get the full 1080p picture. (I don't know why that costs so much. My 200 dollar monitor pushes more than an hdtv)
Most smaller "hdtv" screens I see are 7020 or even 480(!!). That's not worth it. Once they get 1080p displays for under 600, I'll be interested.
How much material has been displaced because of that? A whole fucking LOT.
There's a really fucking huge difference between the mere miles of earth we displace (The Three Gorges Dam doesn't displace anywhere near a cubic mile) and millions upon millions of cubic miles of rock on the moon, most of which we wouldn't even bother taking off of the moon, because it is just rock.
A planet is has vastly larger amounts of mass than a billion strip mines.
I really don't think you're comprehending the size of the moon. Mines on earth provide us with all of our material needs. They cover an inconsequentially small amount of the earth's surface area and extend only a few miles deep, at most. The Moon has just such a vastly large volume, I don't fucking care how much you mine, it won't make a difference.
On the moon there is really no where to stick the excess dust except in space, there by creating a blanket of dust that causes LESS light to fall upon our planet.
"Excess dust." Huh? I don't see where this dust would come from. I'd kind of be under the impression that we wouldn't go through the huge trouble of rocketing trillions of tons of dust up from the surface of the moon. What do you mean by "no where to stick the excess dust"? I don't quite get that. For some reason do they have to put the dust into space, because there is no room for it on the moon? Of course the dust couldn't drift off of the surface of the moon. Since there is no atmosphere, it would fall down, accelerating at a few feet per second just like a chunk of lead would.
Yeah, a space elevator TO THE MOON. Realize something like this would take about as much material as the moon itself, not to mention the little problem of the moon rotating around the earth.
It isn't "TOO THE MOON," Einstein. It takes payloads to geosynchronous orbit, at which point it can be easily boosted to the moon. You already have almost all of the necessary speed, of course. Also, it doesn't take as much material as the entire mass of the moon. High Lift Systems has designed an elevator that uses carbon nanotube composites, and weighs only a few hundred thousand kilograms.
Please know what you are talking about before you post a vehemently critical comment. It makes you look like an idiot.
I mean, maybe we should keep the dirt there to keep our people from living underwater...
Seriously, you're joking, right? The moon is several hundred quintillion tons. In other words, the moon weighs a few hundred billion billion tons.
If we take a billion tons a year (A gigantic quantity, we'd never be able to use that much stuff.), virtually all of the stars of the universe will be dead by the time you mine it all.
I mean, maybe we should keep the dirt there to keep our people from living underwater...
Let me ask you something: Do you even know what a tide is? I don't think you have the foggiest. A tide is the rising and falling of the ocean due to the effects of gravity from Luna and the Sun. It usually varies by 6 feet or something, depending on the area, from low tide to high tide. How exactly, then would the ocean rise up and swallow everything? It seems to me that it would just stay the same all of the time, if there were no tides. BTW, the moon is slowly getting farther out. It will eventually leave earth orbit anyway.
Wow. Leave it to slashdotters to take an incorrect assumption and reach a bizarre conclusion, therefore condemning something.
I dearly hope you're joking. If you aren't, that has to rate as the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The moon weighs several hundred quintillion tons That's hundreds of billions of billions of tons. I'm sorry, but if you think mining the moon will offset our tides and somehow bring destruction to the earth because the tides don't vary as much, you are fucking stupid.
The ecosystem on Earth has spent untold eons adapting to a lunar cycle that if we were to somehow cause that affect to lessen, it could be disastrous.
Hmm. Would a deer suddenly die because the tide is lessened? Even if the moon was gone (which it will be. The moon will leave earth orbit in the distant future) how would not having tides affect anything other than beach life? Would a deer suddenly die because the tide only varies by 5 feet instead of 7? No.
VX [ilpi.com] vs. Plutonium. Yeah, VX wins, but it doesn't hang around for 26,000 years. now if you excuse me, I just did a google search for "plutonium" so I have to go wait for a knock on my door. I'll send you all a postcard from cuba.
Hmm. I was under the impression that chemically stable compounds lasted forever. I thought that plutonium was pretty good just because it decayed. In 26000 years, the VX will still be there.
Sure, that's why everyone who handles plutonium either does so wearing hazmat suits or remotely via robotic arms. 'Cause it so harmless. You are a brainless twit.
Actually, you are the brainless twit. Plutonium mostly emits alpha particles, big, heavy particles. They are blocked by most anything, including the epidermis. Therefore, holding a piece of plutonium won't do much of anything to you, unless you keep it on your person for a long time. Uranium is even less radioactive. (Uranium is less radioactive than uranium ore, which is used in fiestaware plates.)
It provides no independent references to the validity of it's claims or to the supposed challenge given to Ralph Nader. Tell you what, I'll take this "Dr." Cohen's challenge and ingest twice the amount of caffeine as his ingested plutonium. Doubt he'll take me up on the offer though.
Wow, somebody didn't check his facts before he went off. Here is the link to a web page with Dr. Cohen's Eco-Fuck Challenge. And it's a University of Wisconsin site, as well, so don't try saying it's "a half wit's pro-atomic power website."
In addition, it talks about the exposure of several workers in the 1940's to doses of Pu that are now considered above the lethal dose.
During the Manhattan Project in 1944 and 1945, 26 men accidentally ingested plutonium in quantities that far exceeded what is now considered to be a lethal dose. Since there has been a consistent interest in the health effects of this brand new substance (first discovered by Glenn Seaborg's team at the University of California in 1940), these men were closely tracked for medical studies.As of 1987, more than four decades later, only four of the workers had died and only one death was caused by cancer. The expected number of deaths in a random sample of men the age of those in the group is 10. The expected number of deaths from cancer in a similar group is between two and three.
Ok, how do you explain that? These workers had cancer rates lower than average despite ingesting larger than lethal quantities of plutonium Now how exactly is it the most lethal substance in existence?
There we go, another anti-nuclear unscientific crazy debunked. Only 500 million to go.
If a modchip can be used to circumvent copyright protections (and it can), then it's a circumvention device and therefore illegal in the States. Same as DeCSS and all that.
I just got this new cracker that can actually circumvent copyrights in books! It's called "ocr." Also, I circumvent even more copyrights with a thing called a "photcopier."
But seriously, I doubt that intel will be hurt in the long run by the x86-64. If Intel does go down, I predict the reason will be a slavish devotion to failing products (like the IA-64). Intel has made it's money by being at the sweet spot of price and performance (usually slightly above that). Intel's popular chips have never been the absolute fastest possiable. But they are always the most cost-effective.
AMD's chips have always been more cost effective. Just check pricewatch. Intel has huge corporate muscle and marketing prowess. That's how they win.
The other 97% have stopped buying them as the music sucks.
I hear ya. It's pretty sad that I don't 'pirate' much music. I've got Kazaa and a broadband connection. I can get any pop song I want by simply typing it in, and clicking on it, and waiting for it to briefly download. Very easy.
The sad thing is that that is too much work for the tripe they are pushing now. There are a few good songs. But damn few. Do they really expect me to pay $15 farking bucks for even a good cd! That's ridiculous! I have much better things to spend my money on.
On any dual-booat 2k machines I make, I say to hell with NTFS for C:, using it only for other partitions.
Bah. NTFS is so much more stable. It's journaling, doesn't corrupt and need defrags like FAT32 does, etc, etc. FAT32 is an anachronism.
Here's what I do: I have a 40 gig hard drive. I give the C: drive 3 gigabytes. I use it for Win2k. Just win2k. I install all of my programs on my D: and E: drives. That way if my OS gets douched, which actually has never happened before, the backup I have to do before reformatting is minimal. I can just reformat C:, reinstall windows, and I don't have to worry about the rest of my data. (Some programs of course, don't work when you reinstall windows-Can't handle having registry keys and such deleted. But most programs, such as UT, RtCW, Photoshop, and many others, do not need to be reinstalled at all.)
Slashdot Mirror
(1) Would it degrade video quality to have cables this long? I'd probably need 50 feet.
Beats me. I've never tried it myself. Probably not too much though, if at all. What you really have to worry about is signal noise, and s-video cables are pretty good at avoiding that. (Unlike composite, svideo seperates RGB components of the signal)
(2) Anyone know offhand of an S-video out card that's an add-on, not a replacement for one's main video card?
Most tv out cards have svideo. You can pick one up for not too much.
Buy a TV out card and there ya go. No need to worry about upgrading the box (or dumping it) when DivX version x.y will be out.
Haha. Good idea. It's surprising that most people always go for the most expensive/least practical idea. Just run an s-video cable from your computer to your tv. (Use an adapter if necessary) S-video cables are sold in lengths of over 30 feet, so that wouldn't be a problem for most people.
VCDs are shitty quality for a whole movie (I'm not even sure you can put an entire movie on a VCD in PAL format). It's MPEG you see - DivX is more compressed but still looks good.
VCDs suck. About 74 minutes of VHS quality MPEG-1. SVCDs, Super Video CDs, are much better. These are MPEG2 encoded CDs (same codec as DVDs) that are playable by most all dvd playsers. SVCDs have laserdisc quality, with a full 480 lines of resolution. Very, very good quality.
However, they can only store 74 minutes per disc, so you are looking at about 2 discs for a movie, or 2 half hour shows per disc. Divx CDs would be able to hold around 7 very high quality half hour shows or one movie, on the other hand.
Yes, but to be fair, you would have to compare it against a similarly equipped dual-x86 system. Do the math on that, and I think you would be disappointed again.
Hmm. You may not get a huge performance increase with photoshop with dual x86 processors, but it would still make the performance gap between x86 and Apple worse. A single 3.06 Ghz completely and utterly kicks a dual G4's ass at Photoshop, and for less money. There are good things about the macintosh platform, but speed isn't one of them. Don't try to convince anyone that Apple is faster than x86. It just isn't.
If the lifespan of the planet earth was the length of your arm, the time with accurate temperature data would be your fingernail.
More like the part you just cut off with the clippers.
The social impact of Kyoto, on the other hand, is vital and must be pursued at all costs. It's about levelling the playing field for all mankind.
Doesn't level the playing field for all mankind, well, actually it does. But it would create a poorer world with wealth more evenly distributed. Economies aren't in competition. A richer US or a richer China makes everyone else wealthier, as well, through trade.
You can get an 18" LCD from Dell these days for around $500 (sometimes as low as $350-$400 on special). 1280x1024 resolution.
One thing that I don't understand: Why don't desktop LCDs have higher resolution? Even the 19" ones top out at 1280x1024. Why is it that a large, expensive desktop lcd has such lo rez, while most 15" laptop displays can push 1600x1200?
If I ever was to buy an LCD, it would be a 19" model. For someone who runs 1920x1440 on his 19" CRT, 1280x1024 just doesn't cut it, expecially if it costs $500.
Could you potentially use this device with a projector? Might make a great (much cheaper) alternative to a giant HDTV.
Hmm. Why are all HDTVs so huge, with the exception of a few LCD displays? (BTW, the LCDs that I see at Best Buy still have ghosting) I either can get a gigantic and ridiculously expensive CRT, a fuzzy CRT projection tv with poorer image quality than an NTSC, or a big expensive plasma display that will wear out in 3 years.
Why can't I just get a 24" widescreen CRT HDTV? Why is that so difficult?
What about aluminum cases? They reduce the temp by quite a bit.
Certain caveats about shielding etc would obviously apply, but what about clear mice, keyboards, monitors and even printers?
Although I'd like a clear case, I don't think that they'd be too good for overclockers. Acrylic is not very thermally conductive. Worse than steel, much worse than aluminum.
Another thing, apparently aluminum doesn't qualify as adequate shielding either. It must be steel or some other magnetic material.
Make that a conductive material.
Don't buy an axe, just make adzes out of rocks.
No way dude. Many kinds of rocks are carcinogenic. Plus they have (jarring chord) CHEMICALS!!!!
Build a Log cabin. Use fresh wood that you cut down yourself. Make sure to wear thick cotton gloves that you made yourself from cotton that you grew yourself to protect you from the poisons that those nasty Axe makers used on your Axe.
Um. I wouldn't do that if I were you. The sawdust is carcinogenic. Really. Instead, I would build my house entirely out of um, um.
On a serious note, this guy seems very neurotic and fairly full of himself. He talks in his biography about how he was reading at college level by age 7. And building materials aren't "toxic", well, most of them anyway. The vast majority of the population isn't going to have problems with construction materials that we use. He's just allergic to it, (Or he imagines that he's allergic. Sounds a bit like a hypochondriac to me)
To give you an example: Is peanut butter toxic? Of course not. But a small percentage of the population will die if they eat it. Housing material isn't toxic. It's just this guy's over active immune system. He was overweight, too, as a child. This most likely contributed greatly to his asthmatic problems and allergies.
First, isn't the brain a dynamic thing? This doesn't sound like something that can adapt.
I'm not quite so optimistic about it either. But other parts of the brain may adapt to deal with it. Anyway, the hippocampus is kind of like a dvd decoder chip on a dvd player. It's just kind of hardwired.
One thing though. When you get cheaper, you don't get the full 1080p picture. (I don't know why that costs so much. My 200 dollar monitor pushes more than an hdtv)
Most smaller "hdtv" screens I see are 7020 or even 480(!!). That's not worth it. Once they get 1080p displays for under 600, I'll be interested.
How much material has been displaced because of that? A whole fucking LOT.
There's a really fucking huge difference between the mere miles of earth we displace (The Three Gorges Dam doesn't displace anywhere near a cubic mile) and millions upon millions of cubic miles of rock on the moon, most of which we wouldn't even bother taking off of the moon, because it is just rock.
A planet is has vastly larger amounts of mass than a billion strip mines.
I really don't think you're comprehending the size of the moon. Mines on earth provide us with all of our material needs. They cover an inconsequentially small amount of the earth's surface area and extend only a few miles deep, at most. The Moon has just such a vastly large volume, I don't fucking care how much you mine, it won't make a difference.
On the moon there is really no where to stick the excess dust except in space, there by creating a blanket of dust that causes LESS light to fall upon our planet.
"Excess dust." Huh? I don't see where this dust would come from. I'd kind of be under the impression that we wouldn't go through the huge trouble of rocketing trillions of tons of dust up from the surface of the moon. What do you mean by "no where to stick the excess dust"? I don't quite get that. For some reason do they have to put the dust into space, because there is no room for it on the moon? Of course the dust couldn't drift off of the surface of the moon. Since there is no atmosphere, it would fall down, accelerating at a few feet per second just like a chunk of lead would.
Yeah, a space elevator TO THE MOON. Realize something like this would take about as much material as the moon itself, not to mention the little problem of the moon rotating around the earth.
It isn't "TOO THE MOON," Einstein. It takes payloads to geosynchronous orbit, at which point it can be easily boosted to the moon. You already have almost all of the necessary speed, of course. Also, it doesn't take as much material as the entire mass of the moon. High Lift Systems has designed an elevator that uses carbon nanotube composites, and weighs only a few hundred thousand kilograms.
Please know what you are talking about before you post a vehemently critical comment. It makes you look like an idiot.
Holy kneejerk Batman!
I mean, maybe we should keep the dirt there to keep our people from living underwater...
Seriously, you're joking, right? The moon is several hundred quintillion tons. In other words, the moon weighs a few hundred billion billion tons.
If we take a billion tons a year (A gigantic quantity, we'd never be able to use that much stuff.), virtually all of the stars of the universe will be dead by the time you mine it all.
I mean, maybe we should keep the dirt there to keep our people from living underwater...
Let me ask you something: Do you even know what a tide is? I don't think you have the foggiest. A tide is the rising and falling of the ocean due to the effects of gravity from Luna and the Sun. It usually varies by 6 feet or something, depending on the area, from low tide to high tide. How exactly, then would the ocean rise up and swallow everything? It seems to me that it would just stay the same all of the time, if there were no tides. BTW, the moon is slowly getting farther out. It will eventually leave earth orbit anyway.
Wow. Leave it to slashdotters to take an incorrect assumption and reach a bizarre conclusion, therefore condemning something.
OK, Captain Kneejerk,
I dearly hope you're joking. If you aren't, that has to rate as the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The moon weighs several hundred quintillion tons That's hundreds of billions of billions of tons. I'm sorry, but if you think mining the moon will offset our tides and somehow bring destruction to the earth because the tides don't vary as much, you are fucking stupid.
The ecosystem on Earth has spent untold eons adapting to a lunar cycle that if we were to somehow cause that affect to lessen, it could be disastrous.
Hmm. Would a deer suddenly die because the tide is lessened? Even if the moon was gone (which it will be. The moon will leave earth orbit in the distant future) how would not having tides affect anything other than beach life? Would a deer suddenly die because the tide only varies by 5 feet instead of 7? No.
VX [ilpi.com] vs. Plutonium.
Yeah, VX wins, but it doesn't hang around for 26,000 years. now if you excuse me, I just did a google search for "plutonium" so I have to go wait for a knock on my door. I'll send you all a postcard from cuba.
Hmm. I was under the impression that chemically stable compounds lasted forever. I thought that plutonium was pretty good just because it decayed. In 26000 years, the VX will still be there.
Sure, that's why everyone who handles plutonium either does so wearing hazmat suits or remotely via robotic arms. 'Cause it so harmless. You are a brainless twit.
Actually, you are the brainless twit. Plutonium mostly emits alpha particles, big, heavy particles. They are blocked by most anything, including the epidermis. Therefore, holding a piece of plutonium won't do much of anything to you, unless you keep it on your person for a long time. Uranium is even less radioactive. (Uranium is less radioactive than uranium ore, which is used in fiestaware plates.)
It provides no independent references to the validity of it's claims or to the supposed challenge given to Ralph Nader. Tell you what, I'll take this "Dr." Cohen's challenge and ingest twice the amount of caffeine as his ingested plutonium. Doubt he'll take me up on the offer though.
Wow, somebody didn't check his facts before he went off. Here is the link to a web page with Dr. Cohen's Eco-Fuck Challenge. And it's a University of Wisconsin site, as well, so don't try saying it's "a half wit's pro-atomic power website."
In addition, it talks about the exposure of several workers in the 1940's to doses of Pu that are now considered above the lethal dose.
Ok, how do you explain that? These workers had cancer rates lower than average despite ingesting larger than lethal quantities of plutonium Now how exactly is it the most lethal substance in existence?
There we go, another anti-nuclear unscientific crazy debunked. Only 500 million to go.
If a modchip can be used to circumvent copyright protections (and it can), then it's a circumvention device and therefore illegal in the States. Same as DeCSS and all that.
I just got this new cracker that can actually circumvent copyrights in books! It's called "ocr." Also, I circumvent even more copyrights with a thing called a "photcopier."
But seriously, I doubt that intel will be hurt in the long run by the x86-64. If Intel does go down, I predict the reason will be a slavish devotion to failing products (like the IA-64). Intel has made it's money by being at the sweet spot of price and performance (usually slightly above that). Intel's popular chips have never been the absolute fastest possiable. But they are always the most cost-effective.
AMD's chips have always been more cost effective. Just check pricewatch. Intel has huge corporate muscle and marketing prowess. That's how they win.
The other 97% have stopped buying them as the music sucks.
I hear ya. It's pretty sad that I don't 'pirate' much music. I've got Kazaa and a broadband connection. I can get any pop song I want by simply typing it in, and clicking on it, and waiting for it to briefly download. Very easy.
The sad thing is that that is too much work for the tripe they are pushing now. There are a few good songs. But damn few. Do they really expect me to pay $15 farking bucks for even a good cd! That's ridiculous! I have much better things to spend my money on.
On any dual-booat 2k machines I make, I say to hell with NTFS for C:, using it only for other partitions.
Bah. NTFS is so much more stable. It's journaling, doesn't corrupt and need defrags like FAT32 does, etc, etc. FAT32 is an anachronism.
Here's what I do: I have a 40 gig hard drive. I give the C: drive 3 gigabytes. I use it for Win2k. Just win2k. I install all of my programs on my D: and E: drives. That way if my OS gets douched, which actually has never happened before, the backup I have to do before reformatting is minimal. I can just reformat C:, reinstall windows, and I don't have to worry about the rest of my data. (Some programs of course, don't work when you reinstall windows-Can't handle having registry keys and such deleted. But most programs, such as UT, RtCW, Photoshop, and many others, do not need to be reinstalled at all.)