Yes, it's true. I've figured out what the message they've sent is! It's 0 and 1 a whole bunch of times! Lots and lots of 0's. And 1's. Over and over again.;-)
What surprises me is that this is a fairly rich part of Penna., meaning that any DSL upgrade for the phone company here would result in an immediate ROI. But oh well
The execs at broadband companies must be morons. I also live in a fairly wealthy area (this is Connecticut, most of the state classifies as "fairly wealthy":) ) and I'm in shock that SNET has been so slow in bringing DSL to this area. Tele-media (local cable company owned by Charter) has also been saying we'll have cable internet "any day now", but it's never going to happen.
Can't help but think that part of this is due to the LACK of regulation rather than regulatory delays. Thanks to careless deregulation (read Reaganomics), the telcos have merged with the content providers, and as a consequence the new behemoths are hedging, looking to provide a utility service at luxury-good prices.
Broadband definetly falls into the range of luxury service. Sorry, but porn, games, and mp3s aren't considered necessities. It's the equivalent of whining to a Mercedes salesman that their prices are outrageous because you absolutely, positively need a vehicle that'll get you from work to home as fast as possible and with as much comfort as possible. The Mercedes salesman won't have any reason to lower his price, and neither do the companies giving out broadband access. If you don't like it, get a Kia.;)
Alright, so this'll cost me a few karma points and everyone here's going to think I'm an asshole. Screw that, I'm sick of Macs.
First of all, I'm just going to give you my opinion: that "thing" on apple.com's main page is the gaudiest, ugliest, oddest piece of plastic I've ever seen in my life. That's right, it actually managed to pull that distinguished title away from the old iMac. Call me whatever you want, but I like good 'ol rectangular computers. I like my x86 cpu and all the big, clunky, ugly hardware that goes with it. I can decide tommorow that I want a new proc and motherboard - great. I'll go buy one and throw it in the case I have now. You see, my case isn't shaped like an igloo and will therefor fit any kind of real hardware I decide to throw in there.
Even better, if I get tired of the way my PC looks I can always buy a new case for it. Or put a window on this case. Or whatever. Yes, this is why PCs rule - and that's without even mentioning the power advantage they have over Macs... which is what really matters. But I will give you this -Apples (iMacs specifically) may very well be the trendiest computers out there. But, guess what? VW Bugs and Ford Focuses are trendy too, but I won't be buying one of them anytime soon.
But wait! Before you declare me instantly off-topic at least give me a chance to comment on why the new iMac set off this PC-patriotic (PCtriotic?) rant. My biggest complaint is probably what Apple would tout as its biggest strength - Apple designs a consumer appliance, but they don't design computers. Don't get me wrong, they're fine for plenty of things and I'm sure many professionals are completely happy with their Macs, but their focus is on making the damn things as user-friendly and prettied-up as possible. Well, great... let's drop the average person's IQ a couple of more points. But I guess that's just a matter of taste...
No, here's the real problem. Macs are expensive and serve a very limited purpose. Their hardware, and this new iMac is proof of that, is overpriced and underpowered. My latest computer (AMD 1800XP w/ a GeForce3, CD-RW, and 60gb HDD), 15" LCD screen included, cost me around the same price. And not only am I free to install any version of Windows I want, but any version of Linux. Hell, I could throw OS/2 on here if I wanted. And tommorow, if I'm sick of any piece of hardware I can just as easily go out, buy a new one, and throw it in. It can do everything the iMac can do, cost less, offers more options, and can play any game I'd want to boot.
And you know what the saddest part about this all is? I like Apple. If they'd realize that their hardware is never going to compete directly with the PC market and start developing an OS (preferably Linux based) for x86's they could probably take on M$.
But if they continue this foolish strategy then they're always going to remain a big company that fails to impress anyone
Windows 2000 is stable, but had a large share of problems on release. It still suffers from the occassional driver or legacy program incompatibility. Windows XP is very good, but reminds me a bit of 2000 upon release - it seems that even though I haven't had any problems with it at least half of the people I who try to do have problems.
Don't get me wrong, I love Win2k and I'm growing to like WinXP. I also love unix and hate MacOS... but that's beside the point. Microsoft's problem is that they have a huge task and really aren't up to tackling it. MacOS designers work with a fairly limited hardware set and yet my (one and only) Macintosh using friend still complains about problems using OSX. Linux has a massive amount of hardware it needs to be able to work with, but its user-base is a lot smaller than that of windows and so is the library of programs it needs to run.
And then there's Microsoft. They need to design an operating system that runs on a near infinite number of hardware combinations, is user friendly enough that the average brain-dead teenybopper 12 year old can use it, and make it stable enough for serious business use to boot. When you really think about it, it seems damn near impossible. I'm not defending Microsoft and their never ending slew of bug-ridden software, but you have to admit that they don't have an easy job.
According to www.chud.com, Lord of The Rings has grossed $205,500,000 as of last Monday
(box office totals are updated every Monday). This is over a three week period.
Last weekend's gross was $23,000,000.
Really? At that rate it sounds like it'll easily beat out Harry Potter. Hah! Take that you pathetic fantasy-for-the-masses British piece of cra... er... ahem. What was I saying?:)
[Warning - off topic:) ]
I doubt these games would play all that great over some 56K hookup, and I do NOT put up with lag. It ruins the experience
That's too bad, because you'll still be dealing with it on DSL and Cable. I went from a great 56k service (I'd routinely get pings just above 100 in most online games) to a good DSL service (I'm down to around 40 or 50 on average now) and the difference is barely noticable. Not that I'm complaining, I just never noticed the lag much on my old connection.
In theory that sounds nice, but I think the majority of people who allow their Christian beliefs to influence their opinion of the movie at all (ie, a very small minority of people) will more than likely simply disprove of the fantasy setting in the same way they would of a Dungeons & Dragons movie.
I, for one, can say I've never heard anyone express any kind of serious interest in the religious beliefs of Tolkien outside some sort of academic debate on the subject.
The CNN article only mentions 3 awards for LoTR. Were there others, or is this just a bunch of hype over a measly 3 awards?
Eh... I don't know. CNN... hype over LotR...?
Anyway, it won best picture which is a big enough deal. And then two other awards. Assuming this is more than any other film that was up for awards this year then yeah, it is a big deal. According to the article Black Hawk Down and In the Bedroom both had the most nominations (5) and since Black Hawk Down didn't win any it stands to reason that three awards was probably the most any movie won.
I haven't upgraded my Win2K to WinXP and probably won't. My next box may in fact be an Apple OSX machine. It's sexier and Unix.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend trapping yourself into overpriced inferior hardware and a completely limited choice of OS, but it's your computer. I really don't see Apple as gaining any ground. They maybe a major company, but they're just never going to break into serious competition with the PC industry. My prediction on this for 2002? Apple will probably lose a bit of its market share. Since we're going on personal experience here, I can say that at least one or two people I know who use Macs (okay, those are about the only people I know who use Macs) are planning on switch over to PCs just because of the broader range of customizability and greater software library.
I'd choose a PS2 instead of XBox if only for the bigger library of games.
Ahem, this coming from someone who wants to switch from a PC to a Mac?;-) Seriously, though, I think this is the general consensus among a lot of people. Don't count M$ out, though. Once they get the bugs worked out the X-box will follow the same course as the PS2 - mediocre break in year (most of 2002) that'll eventually lead into a slew of above-average to good games. Unfortunetly, I don't think the prognosis for the Gamecube is as good.
What more can I say - it doesn't look rosy for Micosoft at all from my vantage point. Then again, this is only my experience, but it's the only real data I have to go by... Hey, Win2K is great to use, nice and stable and my Microsoft Wheel Mouse with the infred sensor on the bottom just plain rocks. But those were yesterday's purchases. In the coming year, I can see M$ playing much less a role in my life not more.
I'd say that you're in the extreme minority. While Windows to Linux converts may be more common these days Windows to Mac ones are still a rarity and oddity. In my opinion, there's very little reason for the average computer user to jump from Windows, with its near infinite range of available software, to an OSX or earlier MacOS. And I'd say there's just about no reason for an advanced/professional user to go from Windows to a MacOS instead of going to an x86 *nix.
Just my opinion, though.
And that's all I really see the concept of wearable computers as. There's no practical purpose for actually wearing a computer. As a matter of fact, it seems downright obtrusive and unintuitive. Take email as an example. If I use "wearable" computing devices I might have some sort of freakish pair of sunglasses that'll display the email to me, block my vision, and will probably cause me to fall on my ass...
Companies such as Xybernaut have produced wearable devices capitalizing on more traditional I/O vehicles. Xybernaut, who's core customer is Bell Canada, offers a hands-free wearable computer that includes a body-worn, voice-activated, high-power processor and a VGA color flat panel or head-mounted color display with microphone and eyepiece, through which the user sees a video display. The battery-powered central computer weighs less than 2 pounds, and clips onto a vest or belt. The 1.1-inch head-mount display has an optional miniature video camera or palm-size color touchscreen that straps onto the arm. (Bell Canada trial users claimed to have saved nearly an hour a day.)
And this... dear god, this is just plain ridiculous. Can anyone actually see themselves wearing these? It's so impractical I can't believe it. "Palm-size color touchscreen"? Uh... isn't that what most PDAs have? I suppose having the touchscreen seperated from the viewing screen might be a good idea, if only the viewing screen weren't in your face and blocking your vision. Then again, if you made the video display a seperate unit you'd really just have a multi-piece PDA...
Re:has the targeted demographic really changed?
on
Attack of the Clones
·
· Score: 1
after all, those of us who grew up loving star wars saw them originally as children.
That's true, but the target demographic was never teenage girls, which are the target audience for 'NSuck (immature? Maybe... oh, well). Star Wars just had a lot of appeal. And even though they're killed right away it seems like just another shift towards making Star Wars "kid friendly" (Jar Jar and that annoying overly-'kiddy' kid in EP1), something the original trilogy never was and never intended to be.
The whole "confidential, internal use" blah blah stuff sent up some red flags for me too. The pep talk seemed a little overdone as well. Do corporate execs actually write emails like that? I don't know, I'd expect the higher-ups in Microsoft to be a bit more professional sounding, even in emails. Then again, once the pep talk crap is over it does have a distinct business tone.
And if it is real then it's not so much the anti-Linux tone that bothers me. I find the rabidly pro-Windows tone a whole lot worse. This really shouldn't come as a surprise, but they sound less competitive and more genocidal (softwarecidal?). The theme of the letter isn't "Linux is Evil", it's "Destroy Linux anywhere and everywhere you find it!".
I don't know. There's just something disturbing about a huge corporation attempting to utterly crush free, open source software.
Alright, this is kind of off-topic. So shoot me...
Everyone buys the GBA's to play Mario, Metroid, Zelda and the 5 billion Pokemons. NOT because it's tiny and can carry it around. You just sit on your couch in front of the TV to play it anyways.
Actually, as far as I'm concerned, if you sit in front of your TV and play it you are using it because it's portable. Personally, sometimes I'd rather just sit down on the couch and watch TV while I'm playing (sometimes with a laptop nearby... I'm the ultimate couch potato!). That's the advantage of handheld gaming systems, you can play them anywhere without being tied to a specific room or the TV.
Tolkein was no Shakespeare, no Chaucer, no Hemingway, no Faulkner, etc. It's impact is a tiny fraction of that of a Bible, Quran, or Tao Te Ching. It's quality isn't nearly that of a Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, or Faulkner -- just to pick a random span of good ones. I'd say that Tolkein was a great storyteller, but no good story should be that damn long ("brevity is the soul of wit" and all that), so let's just call him a good one and leave it at that.
I'd like to sound nice and intelligent and agree with you, but I just can't. Based on reading the Hobbit I might, but when you look closely into Lord of the Rings you can see how deeply Tolkien was able to complete a totally new world and make it incredibly believable and engrossing. I'm an avid reader of classic literature as well as sci-fi and fantasy and I've never been drawn into a setting so completely. And, IMNSHO, that's one of the most important things a book can do. And if the Lord of the Rings isn't enough to convince you then read some of his unfinished work, the lost tales, or the Silmarillion. Tolkien has an incredible ability to portray worlds and characters with so much depth it's mind blowing.
And as for the length I'd say it seems appropriate. I can't imagine the story being told in less words. Without the imagery and flavorful descriptions so much would be lost, although the story could still stand on its own merits. That's my largest fear with the movie - the ability to capture the Middle-earth setting itself. I have no doubt that the story will be portrayed at least accurately enough, but if the world doesn't fit in with the vision Tolkien created (in my mind, anyway) then it's just not worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's true. I've figured out what the message they've sent is! It's 0 and 1 a whole bunch of times! Lots and lots of 0's. And 1's. Over and over again. ;-)
What surprises me is that this is a fairly rich part of Penna., meaning that any DSL upgrade for the phone company here would result in an immediate ROI. But oh well
:) ) and I'm in shock that SNET has been so slow in bringing DSL to this area. Tele-media (local cable company owned by Charter) has also been saying we'll have cable internet "any day now", but it's never going to happen.
The execs at broadband companies must be morons. I also live in a fairly wealthy area (this is Connecticut, most of the state classifies as "fairly wealthy"
Can't help but think that part of this is due to the LACK of regulation rather than regulatory delays. Thanks to careless deregulation (read Reaganomics), the telcos have merged with the content providers, and as a consequence the new behemoths are hedging, looking to provide a utility service at luxury-good prices.
;)
Broadband definetly falls into the range of luxury service. Sorry, but porn, games, and mp3s aren't considered necessities. It's the equivalent of whining to a Mercedes salesman that their prices are outrageous because you absolutely, positively need a vehicle that'll get you from work to home as fast as possible and with as much comfort as possible. The Mercedes salesman won't have any reason to lower his price, and neither do the companies giving out broadband access. If you don't like it, get a Kia.
Alright, so this'll cost me a few karma points and everyone here's going to think I'm an asshole. Screw that, I'm sick of Macs.
First of all, I'm just going to give you my opinion: that "thing" on apple.com's main page is the gaudiest, ugliest, oddest piece of plastic I've ever seen in my life. That's right, it actually managed to pull that distinguished title away from the old iMac. Call me whatever you want, but I like good 'ol rectangular computers. I like my x86 cpu and all the big, clunky, ugly hardware that goes with it. I can decide tommorow that I want a new proc and motherboard - great. I'll go buy one and throw it in the case I have now. You see, my case isn't shaped like an igloo and will therefor fit any kind of real hardware I decide to throw in there.
Even better, if I get tired of the way my PC looks I can always buy a new case for it. Or put a window on this case. Or whatever. Yes, this is why PCs rule - and that's without even mentioning the power advantage they have over Macs... which is what really matters. But I will give you this -Apples (iMacs specifically) may very well be the trendiest computers out there. But, guess what? VW Bugs and Ford Focuses are trendy too, but I won't be buying one of them anytime soon.
But wait! Before you declare me instantly off-topic at least give me a chance to comment on why the new iMac set off this PC-patriotic (PCtriotic?) rant. My biggest complaint is probably what Apple would tout as its biggest strength - Apple designs a consumer appliance, but they don't design computers. Don't get me wrong, they're fine for plenty of things and I'm sure many professionals are completely happy with their Macs, but their focus is on making the damn things as user-friendly and prettied-up as possible. Well, great... let's drop the average person's IQ a couple of more points. But I guess that's just a matter of taste...
No, here's the real problem. Macs are expensive and serve a very limited purpose. Their hardware, and this new iMac is proof of that, is overpriced and underpowered. My latest computer (AMD 1800XP w/ a GeForce3, CD-RW, and 60gb HDD), 15" LCD screen included, cost me around the same price. And not only am I free to install any version of Windows I want, but any version of Linux. Hell, I could throw OS/2 on here if I wanted. And tommorow, if I'm sick of any piece of hardware I can just as easily go out, buy a new one, and throw it in. It can do everything the iMac can do, cost less, offers more options, and can play any game I'd want to boot.
And you know what the saddest part about this all is? I like Apple. If they'd realize that their hardware is never going to compete directly with the PC market and start developing an OS (preferably Linux based) for x86's they could probably take on M$.
But if they continue this foolish strategy then they're always going to remain a big company that fails to impress anyone
Windows 2000 is stable, but had a large share of problems on release. It still suffers from the occassional driver or legacy program incompatibility. Windows XP is very good, but reminds me a bit of 2000 upon release - it seems that even though I haven't had any problems with it at least half of the people I who try to do have problems. Don't get me wrong, I love Win2k and I'm growing to like WinXP. I also love unix and hate MacOS... but that's beside the point. Microsoft's problem is that they have a huge task and really aren't up to tackling it. MacOS designers work with a fairly limited hardware set and yet my (one and only) Macintosh using friend still complains about problems using OSX. Linux has a massive amount of hardware it needs to be able to work with, but its user-base is a lot smaller than that of windows and so is the library of programs it needs to run. And then there's Microsoft. They need to design an operating system that runs on a near infinite number of hardware combinations, is user friendly enough that the average brain-dead teenybopper 12 year old can use it, and make it stable enough for serious business use to boot. When you really think about it, it seems damn near impossible. I'm not defending Microsoft and their never ending slew of bug-ridden software, but you have to admit that they don't have an easy job.
According to www.chud.com, Lord of The Rings has grossed $205,500,000 as of last Monday (box office totals are updated every Monday). This is over a three week period. Last weekend's gross was $23,000,000.
:)
Really? At that rate it sounds like it'll easily beat out Harry Potter. Hah! Take that you pathetic fantasy-for-the-masses British piece of cra... er... ahem. What was I saying?
[Warning - off topic :) ]
I doubt these games would play all that great over some 56K hookup, and I do NOT put up with lag. It ruins the experience
That's too bad, because you'll still be dealing with it on DSL and Cable. I went from a great 56k service (I'd routinely get pings just above 100 in most online games) to a good DSL service (I'm down to around 40 or 50 on average now) and the difference is barely noticable. Not that I'm complaining, I just never noticed the lag much on my old connection.
In theory that sounds nice, but I think the majority of people who allow their Christian beliefs to influence their opinion of the movie at all (ie, a very small minority of people) will more than likely simply disprove of the fantasy setting in the same way they would of a Dungeons & Dragons movie. I, for one, can say I've never heard anyone express any kind of serious interest in the religious beliefs of Tolkien outside some sort of academic debate on the subject.
The CNN article only mentions 3 awards for LoTR. Were there others, or is this just a bunch of hype over a measly 3 awards?
Eh... I don't know. CNN... hype over LotR...?
Anyway, it won best picture which is a big enough deal. And then two other awards. Assuming this is more than any other film that was up for awards this year then yeah, it is a big deal. According to the article Black Hawk Down and In the Bedroom both had the most nominations (5) and since Black Hawk Down didn't win any it stands to reason that three awards was probably the most any movie won.
I haven't upgraded my Win2K to WinXP and probably won't. My next box may in fact be an Apple OSX machine. It's sexier and Unix. Personally, I wouldn't recommend trapping yourself into overpriced inferior hardware and a completely limited choice of OS, but it's your computer. I really don't see Apple as gaining any ground. They maybe a major company, but they're just never going to break into serious competition with the PC industry. My prediction on this for 2002? Apple will probably lose a bit of its market share. Since we're going on personal experience here, I can say that at least one or two people I know who use Macs (okay, those are about the only people I know who use Macs) are planning on switch over to PCs just because of the broader range of customizability and greater software library. I'd choose a PS2 instead of XBox if only for the bigger library of games. Ahem, this coming from someone who wants to switch from a PC to a Mac? ;-) Seriously, though, I think this is the general consensus among a lot of people. Don't count M$ out, though. Once they get the bugs worked out the X-box will follow the same course as the PS2 - mediocre break in year (most of 2002) that'll eventually lead into a slew of above-average to good games. Unfortunetly, I don't think the prognosis for the Gamecube is as good.
What more can I say - it doesn't look rosy for Micosoft at all from my vantage point. Then again, this is only my experience, but it's the only real data I have to go by... Hey, Win2K is great to use, nice and stable and my Microsoft Wheel Mouse with the infred sensor on the bottom just plain rocks. But those were yesterday's purchases. In the coming year, I can see M$ playing much less a role in my life not more.
I'd say that you're in the extreme minority. While Windows to Linux converts may be more common these days Windows to Mac ones are still a rarity and oddity. In my opinion, there's very little reason for the average computer user to jump from Windows, with its near infinite range of available software, to an OSX or earlier MacOS. And I'd say there's just about no reason for an advanced/professional user to go from Windows to a MacOS instead of going to an x86 *nix.
Just my opinion, though.
And that's all I really see the concept of wearable computers as. There's no practical purpose for actually wearing a computer. As a matter of fact, it seems downright obtrusive and unintuitive. Take email as an example. If I use "wearable" computing devices I might have some sort of freakish pair of sunglasses that'll display the email to me, block my vision, and will probably cause me to fall on my ass...
Companies such as Xybernaut have produced wearable devices capitalizing on more traditional I/O vehicles. Xybernaut, who's core customer is Bell Canada, offers a hands-free wearable computer that includes a body-worn, voice-activated, high-power processor and a VGA color flat panel or head-mounted color display with microphone and eyepiece, through which the user sees a video display. The battery-powered central computer weighs less than 2 pounds, and clips onto a vest or belt. The 1.1-inch head-mount display has an optional miniature video camera or palm-size color touchscreen that straps onto the arm. (Bell Canada trial users claimed to have saved nearly an hour a day.)
And this... dear god, this is just plain ridiculous. Can anyone actually see themselves wearing these? It's so impractical I can't believe it. "Palm-size color touchscreen"? Uh... isn't that what most PDAs have? I suppose having the touchscreen seperated from the viewing screen might be a good idea, if only the viewing screen weren't in your face and blocking your vision. Then again, if you made the video display a seperate unit you'd really just have a multi-piece PDA...
after all, those of us who grew up loving star wars saw them originally as children. That's true, but the target demographic was never teenage girls, which are the target audience for 'NSuck (immature? Maybe... oh, well). Star Wars just had a lot of appeal. And even though they're killed right away it seems like just another shift towards making Star Wars "kid friendly" (Jar Jar and that annoying overly-'kiddy' kid in EP1), something the original trilogy never was and never intended to be.
The whole "confidential, internal use" blah blah stuff sent up some red flags for me too. The pep talk seemed a little overdone as well. Do corporate execs actually write emails like that? I don't know, I'd expect the higher-ups in Microsoft to be a bit more professional sounding, even in emails. Then again, once the pep talk crap is over it does have a distinct business tone. And if it is real then it's not so much the anti-Linux tone that bothers me. I find the rabidly pro-Windows tone a whole lot worse. This really shouldn't come as a surprise, but they sound less competitive and more genocidal (softwarecidal?). The theme of the letter isn't "Linux is Evil", it's "Destroy Linux anywhere and everywhere you find it!". I don't know. There's just something disturbing about a huge corporation attempting to utterly crush free, open source software.
... She's dead, Jim.
Alright, this is kind of off-topic. So shoot me... Everyone buys the GBA's to play Mario, Metroid, Zelda and the 5 billion Pokemons. NOT because it's tiny and can carry it around. You just sit on your couch in front of the TV to play it anyways. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, if you sit in front of your TV and play it you are using it because it's portable. Personally, sometimes I'd rather just sit down on the couch and watch TV while I'm playing (sometimes with a laptop nearby... I'm the ultimate couch potato!). That's the advantage of handheld gaming systems, you can play them anywhere without being tied to a specific room or the TV.
Tolkein was no Shakespeare, no Chaucer, no Hemingway, no Faulkner, etc. It's impact is a tiny fraction of that of a Bible, Quran, or Tao Te Ching. It's quality isn't nearly that of a Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, or Faulkner -- just to pick a random span of good ones. I'd say that Tolkein was a great storyteller, but no good story should be that damn long ("brevity is the soul of wit" and all that), so let's just call him a good one and leave it at that.
I'd like to sound nice and intelligent and agree with you, but I just can't. Based on reading the Hobbit I might, but when you look closely into Lord of the Rings you can see how deeply Tolkien was able to complete a totally new world and make it incredibly believable and engrossing. I'm an avid reader of classic literature as well as sci-fi and fantasy and I've never been drawn into a setting so completely. And, IMNSHO, that's one of the most important things a book can do. And if the Lord of the Rings isn't enough to convince you then read some of his unfinished work, the lost tales, or the Silmarillion. Tolkien has an incredible ability to portray worlds and characters with so much depth it's mind blowing.
And as for the length I'd say it seems appropriate. I can't imagine the story being told in less words. Without the imagery and flavorful descriptions so much would be lost, although the story could still stand on its own merits. That's my largest fear with the movie - the ability to capture the Middle-earth setting itself. I have no doubt that the story will be portrayed at least accurately enough, but if the world doesn't fit in with the vision Tolkien created (in my mind, anyway) then it's just not worth it.