If there wasn't government intervention there'd be even less free market in the ISP market than there is now.
The only reason you have a choice of phone companies is because the government forces them to share the infrastructure, without that, only really large companies could afford to offer you phone service at all because they'd either have to build their own infrastructure(which is prohibitively expensive) or hire it out from Bell(they're back if you hadn't noticed) at whatever price they choose to charge, which by very definition cannot lead to any sort of real competition.
As for cable, I've gotten cable from a number of different companies, but I've never lived anywhere which had more than one you could choose from. Cable is pretty much a single provider kind of thing and has close to zero competition.
The only way in which any sort of free market can exist is when there is a minimal barrier to entry into the market. Net Neutrality, government owned infrastructure, and general government regulation, at least in the telecommunication arena if not in other areas, serve to maintain this minimal barrier to entry. Sometimes you need government regulation to have a free market because if you don't the big guys regulate the market themselves and squeeze the little guys out.
If you think that government regulation has hurt the internet then you really have no idea how it all works, or what it'd be like without it.
Well yes, you could also look at it from the point of view of. "I have a really clever idea, which will probably take off, and which if it does take off will require a lot of resources. I don't have a lot of money, but I can scrape together the cash for a small cloud investment and if my idea takes off I can afford as many servers as I want. I could buy a couple of regular servers and be unable to meet demand for several weeks while I order new equipment and possibly lose my start because people got sick of my site not being up, I could sell my idea to some venture capital people who, if they invest at all will take half my profits, or I can use the cloud, expand in ten minutes, and maybe make a lot of money without having to give it all to someone else".
That's the strength of the cloud my friend, being able to start an idea without having to promise 90% of it to someone else to get funding.
That said, that doesn't mean the guy writing the kernel isn't trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, or isn't doing things because it's the way they've always done them and he can't remember why anymore, or the code is bad, but changing it would be too much work.
I know too many developers(and mechanics) to believe they're always right either.
Plus with JavaFX the difference between Java and Javascript is going to get a whole lot more confusing. Yay!!
While that's technically true, what the poster is asking isn't "What is paging and why does it exist?", but more "Why am I paging when I don't need to?".
To use your metaphor, why would you borrow money when you have plenty of cash to do what you need to do and the interest rate on your loans is substantially higher than anything you might gain by keeping that money in the bank.
Personally I have a rather cynical belief that all the monkeys who believe in ram defragmentation and freak out when their RAM is fully utilized for cache have essentially forced Microsoft to maintain "free" memory at pretty much any cost.
Yeah, and get the sack because you hung up on 90% of your callers. People treat tech support like shit. Sometimes it's because they're assholes and sometimes it's because the policies at the place they're calling mean you can't do anything else. I treated Dell tech support people like dirt not because I wanted to, but because it was the only way to bypass the "I'm paid to not send a tech out" policy Dell had put in place. I didn't want their help, or their support knowledge, I wanted them to send a tech out to replace the part that had broken, or to send me a new part so I can do it myself, I'd already done all the diagnostics.
I didn't say it was perfect, I just said there was probably some more thought required to go into that sort of thing because sometimes it takes a while to get yourself out there in the first place, and as books can take quite some time to write you'd have to sort out exactly where the copyright started from if you were looking at a really short period.
I agree, though copyright in the sense of attribution should be perpetual(you can publish my book but you can't claim credit for it without making substantial modifications), and that some provision has to be taken into account for ideas which are not immediately marketable(if you can't find a publisher for 5 years your books is already worth half as much, which isn't really right).
Well that's true, but when you make a penny, you're not making a penny's worth of value. The penny doesn't disappear after you spent it, it gets spent again and again and again.
A penny represents 1 cent, but that's not what it's worth.
There's plenty of internet left for everyone and a whole lot of others.
What there isn't is a lot of space left for old style search engines and content aggregators like Yahoo.
For better or worse, google has that sector pretty well locked up tight.
That doesn't mean that yahoo can't pull a rabbit out of their hat, that's always possible. If the economy hadn't tanked I'd even say it was likely, but they, like a whole host of IT(and other) companies which have fairly good long term prospects, but serious short term difficulties, have a fairly high chance of not being able to realize those prospects before they go down.
I'm not really all the optimistic about AMD's prospects either for the very same reasons.
It doesn't work that way. Microsoft are not a "convicted monopolist". They were found guilty of ceertain anti-competetive practices in regards specifically to using their position as the market leader in Operating Systems to push Internet Explorer(along with some other things.)
That conviction was mostly fluff because even the people who brought the suit in the first place don't have any actual resolution to the underlying problem short of "make Microsoft stop making Operating Systems so we can be a monopoly instead".
This does not make them a convicted monopolist because there is no such thing. Nor does even being found guilty of anti-competetive practices in a certain arena have anything to do with another arena where they are not a monopoly. Being told you can't do something in one area does not mean "they can't purchase any companies whatsoever"
Microsoft do not have a monopoly on web search, or on any of the other services that Yahoo might provide them. Even Yahoo and Microsoft combined would yield a distant second to Google. Google would not be allowed to make this purchase(and in fact an advertising deal between google and yahoo was struck down for this very reason).
I know everyone on slashdot would just love it if Microsoft were just shut down and put out of business, but that's not how this works. They did some things that were illegal, they got caught, ended up with a slap on the wrist because there was no feasible solution and moved on. They certainly get some pretty intense scrutiny when they try to buy things, but only where they might create a vertical or horizontal monopoly. So long as google exists, Microsoft buying Yahoo isn't going to do that.
Well given that even 20 billion is more than the shares are currently worth, I'd say the drop is pretty understandable.
Realistically, if Microsoft don't buy yahoo, they're probably going to go under anyway. About the only thing they've got left is selling API's so people can data mine anything you've got in Yahoo.
is to decide whether it really wants a year of the linux desktop.
If it does, it needs to wake up, smell the coffee, and work on some serious standards.
If it doesn't, it can keep doing all the stuff it does now.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way linux works, there's nothing wrong with only working with other free software, changing every interface whenever it's convenient to do so and forking every five minutes. Absolutely nothing, it's part of what makes Linux great.
However, it's also the reason there will never be a year of the linux desktop.
Neither do free speech, the right to bear arms, police protection, or any number of other rights.
The only right which exists in nature is the right to take whatever you want from anyone who can't stop you, which is in complete contradiction to an ordered society(and society in general).
Nature doesn't give you any sort of rights at all other than those afforded to you by the law of the jungle. I'm going to make a pretty broad(but probably accurate) assumption and say that almost no one who regularly posts on slashdot would do particularly well under the law of the jungle.
I didn't say I wanted them to. I said that's the way it works.
The government in a democratic republic represents the people. The people want Lori Drew punished because they believe that what she did was wrong. The government, as the duly elected representatives of the people are attempting to enforce the people's will and punish her.
They could always say "oops we don't have a law for that", but Lori Drew wouldn't be any better off because the people would quickly become a mob and punish her anyway.
It would have been nice to get her for what she actually did, but for whatever reasons(I think it had something to do with the fact that they couldn't charge someone for a state crime when they commited it in another state, but I could be wrong), but they were going to have to try and get her anyway.
That's neither good nor bad, it's just how life works. If society in general thinks what you're doing or have done is wrong, no protection of law short of armed guards is going to save you. Law is a social contract, it works because the majority of people agree with it, you can't make something illegal that most people don't think is wrong(file sharing) and you can't make something legal that the most people think is so horrible it overrides their general inclination to follow the law.
I didn't say it was a good thing, I said that it's what happens.
Democratically elected governments don't have the luxury of saying "oh well, we can't do anything" they have to try. It won't get through, but that's really not the point.
This isn't just socially unacceptable either, it's morally reprehensible.
Unfortunately, the thing she's guilty of wasn't actually illegal when she did it. It was immoral, indefensible, and even if she gets off on these charges(which she probably will) she's going to be punished for the rest of her life and she deserves it.
She, as an adult who should have known better, created a false identity to harrass a minor, and that minor commited suicide, at least partially as a result. She set out to hurt that little girl, and the fact that this kid was mentally ill does not excuse that.
As in all cases like this, the government had to show both the victim's family and society at large that they'd go after this sort of thing. The case will probably be overturned because the case they could put together was pretty tenuous(because there wasn't a crime for what she did), but they've shown people that they're serious about this shit.
The crime they've charged her with may not be the one she's guilty of, but she's still guilty, and she deserves everything that's coming to her and more. She's an adult, she should have known better.
Personally tailgating is my biggest pet peeve in the entire world. It's not as bad here in Australia as it was back in the US, mostly because there's real speed limits here(as opposed to the pretend ones in the US). That doesn't mean that some asshole won't tailgate you, but it does mean that if you're driving the speed limit there are a lot fewer people who will try to get you to go faster in most places. That said, death to tail gaters.
There's nothing wrong with downloading (legal) software, but in most business environments, only a specified subset of people should be doing it, not every tom, dick and harry. Even then there are usually other ways to get the data, and since most corporate firewalls make P2P difficult, P2P is rarely used in business.
I recall her getting third degree burns, which is why I said third. They may have been second, but it still wasn't pretty. I always comment on this story because it's always used as an example of out of control lawsuits, when it's actually not. A company was negligent, provided something dangerously hot which was intended for immediate consumption and in an inadequate container. They then acted like asshats and treated the woman like dirt, so they got sued. That's what lawsuits are for. The sisters who sued a few years ago because they felt McDonalds was addictive and that it was Ronald's fault they were fat cows, that was a lawsuit out of control. They didn't win though.
I don't drink McDonald's coffee because it is(or at least used to be before the new McCafe thing, but that's not the kind of coffee we're talking about) crap, that doesn't change the fact that nothing sold for the purposes of oral consumption should be hot enough to cause third degree burns on external tissue, even in one's sensitive nether regions, let alone in a 3 cent cup with a 1 cent lid. There's a substantial difference between luke warm and capable of causing third degree burns, you can't drink coffee that hot, and if you wanted coffee that hot because it'll be cold by the time you get to work otherwise, then the solution is a better container not hotter coffee.
No, I'm suggesting that what you're talking about isn't applicable to the discussion. Tape drives and hard drives are not used for the same purpose. A discussion about solid state drives has absolutely nothing to do with tape drives. No one is going to replace tape drives with SSD's, and no one is likely to start using HDD's for long term storage(at least not if they're serious and not a complete nutter). This whole thread has been about how HDD's will survive in servers (due to large data volume) for a while, but that smaller drives in local machines will be replaced with SSD's rather quickly.
Tape drives are for backups, and that's about it, because they're orders of magnitude slower than anything you'd ever want to randomly access data from, and seek times on a tape are what you might all horrendous.
Realistically they're not all that cheap either unless you're looking at seriously high volume data.
if the quality and functionality of the network was something that the people involved in it care about.
They don't, they care about their own profits and more precisely how those profits affect the salary bonuses of the people making the decisions.
A non neutral internet probably is sub-optimal, but so long as it's sub-optimal in a way which maximizes the salary packages of the execs who run the backbone ISPs that won't matter.
Actually they do have common carrier protections. One of the upsides of the fact that the US has ridden roughshod all over the world and forced everyone to match their copyright laws is that safe harbour applies as well.
The argument is that safe harbour doesn't apply anymore because filtering is possible(a couple of schmucks from both sides of kazaa are selling a hash based filtering system and the government is buying it or at least pretending to). This is the general gist of the lawsuit, the guys from the kazaa case say that filtering is possible(with their filter of course) and so the ISP's are legally required to filter.
The ISPs say that it's not possible(iiNet has been pretty open about the fact that they are only joining the trial to break it, and no one else has volunteered).
It probably won't come to anything only the australian film industry is actually suing(not the record industry) and they don't really have a case because no one would actually want to download or watch any of the depressing crap they make in the first place. The industry only survives because the government gives big tax breaks for investing in local film. Anyone with any talent leaves for the US where they can make more money and with rare exceptions(Kenny was good) everything they make is grim and depressing.
It's more than likely most of it is just revenge because iiNet keeps saying that this filtering system won't work and will slow the internet to more of a crawl than it already is down here and the guys making the software know it won't work but want to make a few hundred million dollars selling it anyway.
The IRS doesn't give a rats about who embeds what search bar. They're not technically supposed to care if you make your living as a contract killer, drug dealer, freelance child rapist.
What the IRS cares about is whether you're paying enough tax, and they seem to think that having a for profit entity siphoning off money into a not for profit entity and presumably writing it off on their taxes, when that not for profit entity is essentially a dependent subsidiary of the for profit company and is providing the for profit company with a direct financial return is kind of dodgy.
Who knows what they'll find when they investigate.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is a charity, not a non profit, and it isn't pretending to be an independent enttity either, there's a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
If there wasn't government intervention there'd be even less free market in the ISP market than there is now.
The only reason you have a choice of phone companies is because the government forces them to share the infrastructure, without that, only really large companies could afford to offer you phone service at all because they'd either have to build their own infrastructure(which is prohibitively expensive) or hire it out from Bell(they're back if you hadn't noticed) at whatever price they choose to charge, which by very definition cannot lead to any sort of real competition.
As for cable, I've gotten cable from a number of different companies, but I've never lived anywhere which had more than one you could choose from. Cable is pretty much a single provider kind of thing and has close to zero competition.
The only way in which any sort of free market can exist is when there is a minimal barrier to entry into the market. Net Neutrality, government owned infrastructure, and general government regulation, at least in the telecommunication arena if not in other areas, serve to maintain this minimal barrier to entry. Sometimes you need government regulation to have a free market because if you don't the big guys regulate the market themselves and squeeze the little guys out.
If you think that government regulation has hurt the internet then you really have no idea how it all works, or what it'd be like without it.
Well yes, you could also look at it from the point of view of. "I have a really clever idea, which will probably take off, and which if it does take off will require a lot of resources. I don't have a lot of money, but I can scrape together the cash for a small cloud investment and if my idea takes off I can afford as many servers as I want. I could buy a couple of regular servers and be unable to meet demand for several weeks while I order new equipment and possibly lose my start because people got sick of my site not being up, I could sell my idea to some venture capital people who, if they invest at all will take half my profits, or I can use the cloud, expand in ten minutes, and maybe make a lot of money without having to give it all to someone else".
That's the strength of the cloud my friend, being able to start an idea without having to promise 90% of it to someone else to get funding.
That said, that doesn't mean the guy writing the kernel isn't trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, or isn't doing things because it's the way they've always done them and he can't remember why anymore, or the code is bad, but changing it would be too much work.
I know too many developers(and mechanics) to believe they're always right either.
Plus with JavaFX the difference between Java and Javascript is going to get a whole lot more confusing. Yay!!
To use your metaphor, why would you borrow money when you have plenty of cash to do what you need to do and the interest rate on your loans is substantially higher than anything you might gain by keeping that money in the bank.
Personally I have a rather cynical belief that all the monkeys who believe in ram defragmentation and freak out when their RAM is fully utilized for cache have essentially forced Microsoft to maintain "free" memory at pretty much any cost.
Yeah, and get the sack because you hung up on 90% of your callers.
People treat tech support like shit. Sometimes it's because they're assholes and sometimes it's because the policies at the place they're calling mean you can't do anything else.
I treated Dell tech support people like dirt not because I wanted to, but because it was the only way to bypass the "I'm paid to not send a tech out" policy Dell had put in place. I didn't want their help, or their support knowledge, I wanted them to send a tech out to replace the part that had broken, or to send me a new part so I can do it myself, I'd already done all the diagnostics.
I didn't say it was perfect, I just said there was probably some more thought required to go into that sort of thing because sometimes it takes a while to get yourself out there in the first place, and as books can take quite some time to write you'd have to sort out exactly where the copyright started from if you were looking at a really short period.
I agree, though copyright in the sense of attribution should be perpetual(you can publish my book but you can't claim credit for it without making substantial modifications), and that some provision has to be taken into account for ideas which are not immediately marketable(if you can't find a publisher for 5 years your books is already worth half as much, which isn't really right).
A penny represents 1 cent, but that's not what it's worth.
There's plenty of internet left for everyone and a whole lot of others.
What there isn't is a lot of space left for old style search engines and content aggregators like Yahoo.
For better or worse, google has that sector pretty well locked up tight.
That doesn't mean that yahoo can't pull a rabbit out of their hat, that's always possible. If the economy hadn't tanked I'd even say it was likely, but they, like a whole host of IT(and other) companies which have fairly good long term prospects, but serious short term difficulties, have a fairly high chance of not being able to realize those prospects before they go down.
I'm not really all the optimistic about AMD's prospects either for the very same reasons.
It doesn't work that way. Microsoft are not a "convicted monopolist". They were found guilty of ceertain anti-competetive practices in regards specifically to using their position as the market leader in Operating Systems to push Internet Explorer(along with some other things.)
That conviction was mostly fluff because even the people who brought the suit in the first place don't have any actual resolution to the underlying problem short of "make Microsoft stop making Operating Systems so we can be a monopoly instead".
This does not make them a convicted monopolist because there is no such thing. Nor does even being found guilty of anti-competetive practices in a certain arena have anything to do with another arena where they are not a monopoly. Being told you can't do something in one area does not mean "they can't purchase any companies whatsoever"
Microsoft do not have a monopoly on web search, or on any of the other services that Yahoo might provide them. Even Yahoo and Microsoft combined would yield a distant second to Google. Google would not be allowed to make this purchase(and in fact an advertising deal between google and yahoo was struck down for this very reason).
I know everyone on slashdot would just love it if Microsoft were just shut down and put out of business, but that's not how this works. They did some things that were illegal, they got caught, ended up with a slap on the wrist because there was no feasible solution and moved on. They certainly get some pretty intense scrutiny when they try to buy things, but only where they might create a vertical or horizontal monopoly. So long as google exists, Microsoft buying Yahoo isn't going to do that.
Well given that even 20 billion is more than the shares are currently worth, I'd say the drop is pretty understandable.
Realistically, if Microsoft don't buy yahoo, they're probably going to go under anyway. About the only thing they've got left is selling API's so people can data mine anything you've got in Yahoo.
is to decide whether it really wants a year of the linux desktop.
If it does, it needs to wake up, smell the coffee, and work on some serious standards.
If it doesn't, it can keep doing all the stuff it does now.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way linux works, there's nothing wrong with only working with other free software, changing every interface whenever it's convenient to do so and forking every five minutes. Absolutely nothing, it's part of what makes Linux great.
However, it's also the reason there will never be a year of the linux desktop.
Neither do free speech, the right to bear arms, police protection, or any number of other rights.
The only right which exists in nature is the right to take whatever you want from anyone who can't stop you, which is in complete contradiction to an ordered society(and society in general).
Nature doesn't give you any sort of rights at all other than those afforded to you by the law of the jungle. I'm going to make a pretty broad(but probably accurate) assumption and say that almost no one who regularly posts on slashdot would do particularly well under the law of the jungle.
I didn't say I wanted them to. I said that's the way it works.
The government in a democratic republic represents the people. The people want Lori Drew punished because they believe that what she did was wrong. The government, as the duly elected representatives of the people are attempting to enforce the people's will and punish her.
They could always say "oops we don't have a law for that", but Lori Drew wouldn't be any better off because the people would quickly become a mob and punish her anyway.
It would have been nice to get her for what she actually did, but for whatever reasons(I think it had something to do with the fact that they couldn't charge someone for a state crime when they commited it in another state, but I could be wrong), but they were going to have to try and get her anyway.
That's neither good nor bad, it's just how life works. If society in general thinks what you're doing or have done is wrong, no protection of law short of armed guards is going to save you. Law is a social contract, it works because the majority of people agree with it, you can't make something illegal that most people don't think is wrong(file sharing) and you can't make something legal that the most people think is so horrible it overrides their general inclination to follow the law.
I didn't say it was a good thing, I said that it's what happens. Democratically elected governments don't have the luxury of saying "oh well, we can't do anything" they have to try. It won't get through, but that's really not the point. This isn't just socially unacceptable either, it's morally reprehensible.
without question.
Unfortunately, the thing she's guilty of wasn't actually illegal when she did it. It was immoral, indefensible, and even if she gets off on these charges(which she probably will) she's going to be punished for the rest of her life and she deserves it.
She, as an adult who should have known better, created a false identity to harrass a minor, and that minor commited suicide, at least partially as a result. She set out to hurt that little girl, and the fact that this kid was mentally ill does not excuse that.
As in all cases like this, the government had to show both the victim's family and society at large that they'd go after this sort of thing. The case will probably be overturned because the case they could put together was pretty tenuous(because there wasn't a crime for what she did), but they've shown people that they're serious about this shit.
The crime they've charged her with may not be the one she's guilty of, but she's still guilty, and she deserves everything that's coming to her and more. She's an adult, she should have known better.
Personally tailgating is my biggest pet peeve in the entire world.
It's not as bad here in Australia as it was back in the US, mostly because there's real speed limits here(as opposed to the pretend ones in the US). That doesn't mean that some asshole won't tailgate you, but it does mean that if you're driving the speed limit there are a lot fewer people who will try to get you to go faster in most places.
That said, death to tail gaters.
There's nothing wrong with downloading (legal) software, but in most business environments, only a specified subset of people should be doing it, not every tom, dick and harry.
Even then there are usually other ways to get the data, and since most corporate firewalls make P2P difficult, P2P is rarely used in business.
I recall her getting third degree burns, which is why I said third. They may have been second, but it still wasn't pretty.
I always comment on this story because it's always used as an example of out of control lawsuits, when it's actually not. A company was negligent, provided something dangerously hot which was intended for immediate consumption and in an inadequate container.
They then acted like asshats and treated the woman like dirt, so they got sued. That's what lawsuits are for.
The sisters who sued a few years ago because they felt McDonalds was addictive and that it was Ronald's fault they were fat cows, that was a lawsuit out of control. They didn't win though.
I don't drink McDonald's coffee because it is(or at least used to be before the new McCafe thing, but that's not the kind of coffee we're talking about) crap, that doesn't change the fact that nothing sold for the purposes of oral consumption should be hot enough to cause third degree burns on external tissue, even in one's sensitive nether regions, let alone in a 3 cent cup with a 1 cent lid.
There's a substantial difference between luke warm and capable of causing third degree burns, you can't drink coffee that hot, and if you wanted coffee that hot because it'll be cold by the time you get to work otherwise, then the solution is a better container not hotter coffee.
No, I'm suggesting that what you're talking about isn't applicable to the discussion.
Tape drives and hard drives are not used for the same purpose. A discussion about solid state drives has absolutely nothing to do with tape drives.
No one is going to replace tape drives with SSD's, and no one is likely to start using HDD's for long term storage(at least not if they're serious and not a complete nutter).
This whole thread has been about how HDD's will survive in servers (due to large data volume) for a while, but that smaller drives in local machines will be replaced with SSD's rather quickly.
Tape drives are for backups, and that's about it, because they're orders of magnitude slower than anything you'd ever want to randomly access data from, and seek times on a tape are what you might all horrendous.
Realistically they're not all that cheap either unless you're looking at seriously high volume data.
if the quality and functionality of the network was something that the people involved in it care about.
They don't, they care about their own profits and more precisely how those profits affect the salary bonuses of the people making the decisions.
A non neutral internet probably is sub-optimal, but so long as it's sub-optimal in a way which maximizes the salary packages of the execs who run the backbone ISPs that won't matter.
Actually they do have common carrier protections. One of the upsides of the fact that the US has ridden roughshod all over the world and forced everyone to match their copyright laws is that safe harbour applies as well.
The argument is that safe harbour doesn't apply anymore because filtering is possible(a couple of schmucks from both sides of kazaa are selling a hash based filtering system and the government is buying it or at least pretending to). This is the general gist of the lawsuit, the guys from the kazaa case say that filtering is possible(with their filter of course) and so the ISP's are legally required to filter.
The ISPs say that it's not possible(iiNet has been pretty open about the fact that they are only joining the trial to break it, and no one else has volunteered).
It probably won't come to anything only the australian film industry is actually suing(not the record industry) and they don't really have a case because no one would actually want to download or watch any of the depressing crap they make in the first place. The industry only survives because the government gives big tax breaks for investing in local film. Anyone with any talent leaves for the US where they can make more money and with rare exceptions(Kenny was good) everything they make is grim and depressing.
It's more than likely most of it is just revenge because iiNet keeps saying that this filtering system won't work and will slow the internet to more of a crawl than it already is down here and the guys making the software know it won't work but want to make a few hundred million dollars selling it anyway.
What the IRS cares about is whether you're paying enough tax, and they seem to think that having a for profit entity siphoning off money into a not for profit entity and presumably writing it off on their taxes, when that not for profit entity is essentially a dependent subsidiary of the for profit company and is providing the for profit company with a direct financial return is kind of dodgy.
Who knows what they'll find when they investigate.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is a charity, not a non profit, and it isn't pretending to be an independent enttity either, there's a difference.