Going back several years, there's a lot more Sun Workstations that were used as servers than anyone at Sun cares to admit. That market got absorbed by the i386 linux market, that's why they bought Cobalt, they were trying to recuperate some customers(but customers who wouldn't admit they every bought Suns...)
Ok, I stand corrected. It just leaves me two questions:
1) Why didn't the students file a complaint, and use that for their article instead?
2) If the reason is that the network that was hacked isn't used to carry confidential information, and hence is exempt, why the heck are we making so much of a fuss about this?
It's only maladministration if the administration is warned of a potential exploit, and does nothing. However, the recent legal climate makes it MANDATORY that this warning be done in an anonymous manner. Quite simply, because it's a crime to find an exploit on someone else's network, but choosing NOT to fix a bug is not a punishable crime(that's defensible, in a way: some bugfixes have been known to the worse than what they cured before). The only problem is that if a) the network handles YOUR sensitive private confidential or financial information, and you know it's being mishandled, you have one choice, to leave the institution, since:
1) You can't force them to use secure transmission of all data 2) You can't force them to use secure transmission of YOUR data 3) You can't force them to follow best practices in the handling of all data 4) If you try to point out in a public fora, that their handling of your data is faulty in any way, you can be sued
But you can't sue them UNTIL your information is in the hand of someone who uses it illegally.
IANAL, but my understanding of copyright law was that you didn't own the file, but a copy of the file(ownership of the container versus the content). The problem being when you actually try to transfer ownership(take it from my computer, and bring it to yours), partly because of issues with destroying my copy.
If Ebay does do this, it's certainly a loss for consumers, we certainly should NOT be more restricted with online copies of music than we are with a CD we no longer want, especially in countries(like Canada) where we pay a premium on blank media because the definition of "fair use" is a little bit more stretchy.
Right now it's not an issue, but Ebay being a very large trading community for a lot of types of items, their rules tend to trickle down the road in unexpected ways. It wouldn't surprise me that enterprising politicians, looking for soundbites, wouldn't be inspired by restrictions in there, and if not stopped by the public, turning them into more restrictive interpretations of fair use. It's no immediate threat, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's certainly a concern.
You think just because you're using a web browser tool, to remotely access a web browser, to remove vermin, is a design decision on the vermin designer's part?
Hate to break it to you, but when you've got a broken arm, you don't usually use that arm to set the bone.
Ever heard of non-browser based remote access? Like VNC, pcAnywhere, NetOP or remotely possible?
It has nothing to do with this vermin's author being clever, you're just using a not very optimal tool for your removal of that vermin.
It's not technically a right, but this policy sure means the CERT and other responsible reporting groups better play the party line, or look for other employment.
This also means if an ISP or cellular provider is being incompetent, they can just blame it on the terrorists, and it won't be long before it's illegal for you to deny it's terrorists.
Unlike music and cinema, their commercial model doesn't depend on pissing off their customers, and isn't so badly on the decline that they can't afford the loss. In fact, a few smart advertisements I've seen for legit content was "provably better in way X and Y over illegitimately available content".
That a growing trend for producers in that market is to be retired actors might just be the explanation. They don't base the business on how many artists they can screw. When one of the Top Five Music or Movie studios hires some respectable, smart retired artist to manage their business, perhaps we'll see a flattening of the "middle" tier, and some innovation at the ends, not to mention more reasonable behaviour is likely.
One Word: Customs that explains the shipping restrictions(NO-ONE will guarantee next-day shipping through a border, since if customs seizes it, for any reason, and "further investigation" is indeed, a valid reason, as far as I know(but IANAL) to detain a shipment for more detailed inspection.
Local regulation might also be to blame for something else, lots of special prices, etc... only apply for a specific jurisdiction, so some larger retailers might choose not to sell to Canadians, just so they don't have to negotiate their specials twice with their suppliers, or deal with the odd case, where a special can't be offered to one client from one place, and can be to a client from another.
Just how many schools tells parents what they can do to their children? Besides, if the school mandates it, it has to pay for it. Have the school get the RFID readers installed at choke points, and make it voluntary for parents. That way:
1) Parents feel they take a meaningful step to protect their kids 2) Parents who don't believe in RFID don't have to fight the system just because you think you're better than them. 3) Parents who refused the RFID can't blame the school for their refusal.
Why is it that whenever something "better" comes along, it has to be Mandatory? Better things should be voluntary, that way we can all become better human beings by making enlightened choices.
The problem is one of trust. Windowsupdate seems like a clone of the old Oil Change, on a more limited basis. Oil change would charge consumers a nominal fees for a whole bunch of updates, and they would enter into arrangements with Software publishers on their behalf. Microsoft took the same approach, minus the fees.
The only problem is that if software X does not update properly(with drivers being autoupdated, that could be something like incompatibility, mis-detected hardware, etc...), and you pay for updates you hold the company who gets you the updates responsible. But if company X and company Y release incompatible updates, and the company selling you the updates gets caught in the middle, that's not good, both for consumer trust and fiduciary responsability.
As a user I might accept paying for getting "tested" upgrades, but I know most people who don't use computers as work tools wouldn't understand the logic. Now with firewalls/antivirus/other security tools, getting updates to the consumer in a timely fashion is essential, so much that many such software would be well advised not to sell the software, but to sell the updates, as a service, provided consumers, who are normally allergic to such things, can be convinced to overcome their allergy.
Perhaps that's why there's no single update service, at least, in the consumer world. Updates have varying impact, depending on what's updated, computers have varied uses, and the value of keeping them updated varies with use, and because that value varies, few update services can address the perceived value properly, and yet address the kinds of hardware/software combinations that exist in the real world.
That would explain why 2003 Server's update come from the hardware manufacturers come to think of it.
That also explains why so many update systems now come up for companies (Microsoft's SUS, Redhat Network Satellite, Mandrake's etc...) to allow them to keep updates for their software inventories and maximise their availability and minimise their bandwidth bills as well.
ILEC phaw! I'm talking about Ethernet-over-Fiber, not ILEC-provided-circuits.
I guess I should have written a two page article about things that weren't my point, so people who wanted to ignore the routing aspect of my post didn't have the excuse.
I'm aware of that story also, and the company we use currently supplies local loops to practically everyone around here, I intend to address that once I get the second circuit(probably by ordering the local loop seperately).
Like the fact that hand-modified config files are merged if at all possible when upgrading(they aren't just renamed/replaced like with rpm).
That and the fact that Debian has standards for the behaviour of packages, and expects you to follow them. (The existence of standards is not the advantage, their quality and applicability to the stability of the system is) Of course, that's probably why so few third parties develop for Debian, they're fine with throwing a./configure;make;make install through checkinstall to generate a package, but actually maintaining a package, and following the rules to make sure the package actually behavesis beyond most of them.
That doesn't mean it would work for cross-distro packages though. Suse/RedHat/Mandrake/etc would have to agree to package naming in a consistent manner... If gd2 is called libgd2 in redhat and gd2libs in another system, which is the correct one to specify in a dependency? If you want to install redhat's apache, and it depends on libgd2, how would your gd2libs supply the dependency? Do you need to install gd2libs and libgd2? What if they both supply/usr/share/docs/gd2/README or/usr/lib/libgd2.so.0 ??
Then there's the init scripts. Not only do each distro have a different init script method, but if somehow you replace the standard method in one distro(say you use runit or some other init replacement) not a single one of them handles that gracefully.
Then there's the real reason cross-distro doesn't exist:
1) Some distros make you pay for some "deluxe" packages, if you can replace them with packages from another distro, where it's free(setting aside the relative quality of packages, and just from a marketing standpoint), you are removing value from the deluxe package
2) Distros with the best install procedure would be afraid to be used to install a base system, and a few tweaks later, have all the "optional" packages supplied from another.
3) Third parties. If X builds a third party package in rpm format for distro X, it doesn't want to support distro Y, with a sufficiently advanced cross-distro capability, they'll never find out they were supporting distro Y either. But, more importantly, if Distro Y got into a financial arrangement with Third Party A, to supply package B that only works with Y, and X can add dependencies from Y, X can run package B.
1) 2) and 3) are political/marketing/social in nature, and have nothing to do with the superiority or inferiority of a packaging system/package tool.
Not to my knowledge, at least, I haven't seen anything SQL-based that handles this, but you know what you could do with some venture capital now, don't you?
You could also investigate poet, caché's "post-relational" offering, and perhaps typhoon or some other object-related technology.
You could also talk to the postgres people, they might be able to help out. Several of the people who do commercial support for it might be able to hack some functions for you to use.
I wonder what a SQL-based solution would give you exactly though. SQL is just a language, after all. A widely used, fourth-generation language with data orientation that's handy for many circumstances, but hardly the end-all,be-all a lot of people think it is.
It might have been simpler, but it wasn't in their specs. Most likely because the great gain of putting something in a SQL database is applying sql commands to read/modify/remove data.
Besides "replace" what sql command can I apply to your audio?
You've just proven why a music database would have made a great deal of sense, for your application, or at least, a set of sql functions/extensions like GIS, only applied to your field, with AUDIO64 types being defined, with custom fields like author, copyright, an instruments detail subquery and the like.
Best of luck, hopefully your boss isn't a dickhead and tries to sack you for insubordination. Maybe that's just it, the exec could just be trying to identify the loudest complainer, as a way to identify the next person cut. It's been tried, even in departments that needed to hire just to keep the quality of service the same...
You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm not letting people off the hook for making mistakes or saying that it's okay for Diebold to act unethically. Not at all. I'm just saying that the solution will take a long time.
Does that mean that we can't agree on what degree of security we want our evoting to have right now? and let the systems meet us when they are ready? Right now we have systems built by companies who may or may not meet guidelines for security and accountability that the voters don't know about.
It took us ten years to remind people to hide their PINs at the ATMs. The least we can do is remind the voters to keep their votes anonymous, secure, private and valid at the AVM(automated voting machine).
The problem with looking at this software from the feature side is that we haven't gotten through the requirements phase yet. And once we get the requirements done, they need to be thought in school, as a safeguard to Democracy (with a capital D), not all of them will be technical solutions to real world political problems, but ALL of them will be important in defining, defending and protecting freedoms.
Until your Grandma knows what requirements the AVM(I just hate the e-voting word) meets, she's RIGHT not to trust it, and she shouldn't GO VOTE THERE! We're not even talking about what software will RUN on the machines yet, we haven't even established whether or not we need one or multiple machines, and what safeguards we need.
That the process can be subject to gradual refinement is pretty obvious, but gradual refinement won't turn a hunk of steel into a feather. The fundamentals haven't been set yet, so we can't build.
Errr but the icon is related to AD, a network management tool. Just how much good drugs did you have to think someone would let Joe Sixpack within a parsec of a network management tool's configuration screens?
A Massachusetts presidential vote and a Florida presidential vote don't get combined for any official purpose, so there's no reason that they should be collected in the same way.
Please forgive the Devil's advocateness of the following statement but, are you saying, that: 1) The president of the United States elected by the Commonwealth of Massechusetts is different than one the elected by the state of Florida or that: 2) The votes of two or more people, among a pool of two choices, does not combine, well to get technical, they get aggregated, collated and summed, but to keep it simple: that the two votes are not combined in any shape or form? Hence two votes combined to pick one person, who can be combined again to make a single vote, is not a second-order combination? or 3) That the combination of two or more votes, to pick the largest number of them is not meaningful?
It's quite ironic, really, you can pick anyone who hasn't lived in the US before(to try to keep prior opinions out of the experiment out), explain to them the system, then try to explain the last Election to that person, and ask them "what's the first thing you'd change in the system". Do a double blind test with someone from the US, and watch how they diverge... You can do this with almost every other political system out there, and you'll get practically the same result for any system above a certain complexity.
Oddly enough, the old He-Man and the Masters of the Universe... Had a Plot! The new one doesn't, even where they could have just copied the old one, they only did it where it helped the merchandising. Out of these two, which do you think is the informercial?
Movie rights keep getting in the way of good movies don't they? The few comics I remember of Kingpin as a spidey villain certainly showed him to be the villain most in tune with the spirit of the Spiderman comic itself: a smart, ruthless, dangerous enemy both to Spiderman and innocent bystanders, on a physical level, and more importantly, on a moral level.
Slashdot Mirror
Going back several years, there's a lot more Sun Workstations that were used as servers than anyone at Sun cares to admit. That market got absorbed by the i386 linux market, that's why they bought Cobalt, they were trying to recuperate some customers(but customers who wouldn't admit they every bought Suns...)
MSN is partnering with sympatico for dsl in Canada, so it seems that a similar, yet not identical, situation will happen for MSN US than MSN CA.
Ok, I stand corrected.
It just leaves me two questions:
1) Why didn't the students file a complaint, and use that for their article instead?
2) If the reason is that the network that was hacked isn't used to carry confidential information, and hence is exempt, why the heck are we making so much of a fuss about this?
It's only maladministration if the administration is warned of a potential exploit, and does nothing. However, the recent legal climate makes it MANDATORY that this warning be done in an anonymous manner. Quite simply, because it's a crime to find an exploit on someone else's network, but choosing NOT to fix a bug is not a punishable crime(that's defensible, in a way: some bugfixes have been known to the worse than what they cured before). The only problem is that if a) the network handles YOUR sensitive private confidential or financial information, and you know it's being mishandled, you have one choice, to leave the institution, since:
1) You can't force them to use secure transmission of all data
2) You can't force them to use secure transmission of YOUR data
3) You can't force them to follow best practices in the handling of all data
4) If you try to point out in a public fora, that their handling of your data is faulty in any way, you can be sued
But you can't sue them UNTIL your information is in the hand of someone who uses it illegally.
Anyone notice how badly this deck is stacked yet?
IANAL, but my understanding of copyright law was that you didn't own the file, but a copy of the file(ownership of the container versus the content). The problem being when you actually try to transfer ownership(take it from my computer, and bring it to yours), partly because of issues with destroying my copy.
If Ebay does do this, it's certainly a loss for consumers, we certainly should NOT be more restricted with online copies of music than we are with a CD we no longer want, especially in countries(like Canada) where we pay a premium on blank media because the definition of "fair use" is a little bit more stretchy.
Right now it's not an issue, but Ebay being a very large trading community for a lot of types of items, their rules tend to trickle down the road in unexpected ways. It wouldn't surprise me that enterprising politicians, looking for soundbites, wouldn't be inspired by restrictions in there, and if not stopped by the public, turning them into more restrictive interpretations of fair use. It's no immediate threat, by any stretch of the imagination, but it's certainly a concern.
You think just because you're using a web browser tool, to remotely access a web browser, to remove vermin, is a design decision on the vermin designer's part?
Hate to break it to you, but when you've got a broken arm, you don't usually use that arm to set the bone.
Ever heard of non-browser based remote access? Like VNC, pcAnywhere, NetOP or remotely possible?
It has nothing to do with this vermin's author being clever, you're just using a not very optimal tool for your removal of that vermin.
It's not technically a right, but this policy sure means the CERT and other responsible reporting groups better play the party line, or look for other employment.
This also means if an ISP or cellular provider is being incompetent, they can just blame it on the terrorists, and it won't be long before it's illegal for you to deny it's terrorists.
Unlike music and cinema, their commercial model doesn't depend on pissing off their customers, and isn't so badly on the decline that they can't afford the loss. In fact, a few smart advertisements I've seen for legit content was "provably better in way X and Y over illegitimately available content".
That a growing trend for producers in that market is to be retired actors might just be the explanation. They don't base the business on how many artists they can screw. When one of the Top Five Music or Movie studios hires some respectable, smart retired artist to manage their business, perhaps we'll see a flattening of the "middle" tier, and some innovation at the ends, not to mention more reasonable behaviour is likely.
One Word: Customs
that explains the shipping restrictions(NO-ONE will guarantee next-day shipping through a border, since if customs seizes it, for any reason, and "further investigation" is indeed, a valid reason, as far as I know(but IANAL) to detain a shipment for more detailed inspection.
Local regulation might also be to blame for something else, lots of special prices, etc... only apply for a specific jurisdiction, so some larger retailers might choose not to sell to Canadians, just so they don't have to negotiate their specials twice with their suppliers, or deal with the odd case, where a special can't be offered to one client from one place, and can be to a client from another.
Just how many schools tells parents what they can do to their children?
Besides, if the school mandates it, it has to pay for it. Have the school get the RFID readers installed at choke points, and make it voluntary for parents. That way:
1) Parents feel they take a meaningful step to protect their kids
2) Parents who don't believe in RFID don't have to fight the system just because you think you're better than them.
3) Parents who refused the RFID can't blame the school for their refusal.
Why is it that whenever something "better" comes along, it has to be Mandatory?
Better things should be voluntary, that way we can all become better human beings by making enlightened choices.
The problem is one of trust. Windowsupdate seems like a clone of the old Oil Change, on a more limited basis. Oil change would charge consumers a nominal fees for a whole bunch of updates, and they would enter into arrangements with Software publishers on their behalf.
Microsoft took the same approach, minus the fees.
The only problem is that if software X does not update properly(with drivers being autoupdated, that could be something like incompatibility, mis-detected hardware, etc...), and you pay for updates you hold the company who gets you the updates responsible. But if company X and company Y release incompatible updates, and the company selling you the updates gets caught in the middle, that's not good, both for consumer trust and fiduciary responsability.
As a user I might accept paying for getting "tested" upgrades, but I know most people who don't use computers as work tools wouldn't understand the logic. Now with firewalls/antivirus/other security tools, getting updates to the consumer in a timely fashion is essential, so much that many such software would be well advised not to sell the software, but to sell the updates, as a service, provided consumers, who are normally allergic to such things, can be convinced to overcome their allergy.
Perhaps that's why there's no single update service, at least, in the consumer world. Updates have varying impact, depending on what's updated, computers have varied uses, and the value of keeping them updated varies with use, and because that value varies, few update services can address the perceived value properly, and yet address the kinds of hardware/software combinations that exist in the real world.
That would explain why 2003 Server's update come from the hardware manufacturers come to think of it.
That also explains why so many update systems now come up for companies (Microsoft's SUS, Redhat Network Satellite, Mandrake's etc...) to allow them to keep updates for their software inventories and maximise their availability and minimise their bandwidth bills as well.
ILEC phaw! I'm talking about Ethernet-over-Fiber, not ILEC-provided-circuits.
I guess I should have written a two page article about things that weren't my point, so people who wanted to ignore the routing aspect of my post didn't have the excuse.
I'm aware of that story also, and the company we use currently supplies local loops to practically everyone around here, I intend to address that once I get the second circuit(probably by ordering the local loop seperately).
I haven't put the "on" to our redundancy just yet, but I can assure you one thing. When I do, two different companies will be providing the circuits.
Having them in two COs, redundant everything, yet linked to the same AS(when it isn't mine) makes me nervous.
there's poet, like I said, and Raima, and basically any google search for 64 bit embedded database will return something in this field.
You neglect a few advantages of .deb
./configure;make;make install through checkinstall to generate a package, but actually maintaining a package, and following the rules to make sure the package actually behavesis beyond most of them.
/usr/share/docs/gd2/README or /usr/lib/libgd2.so.0 ??
Like the fact that hand-modified config files are merged if at all possible when upgrading(they aren't just renamed/replaced like with rpm).
That and the fact that Debian has standards for the behaviour of packages, and expects you to follow them. (The existence of standards is not the advantage, their quality and applicability to the stability of the system is) Of course, that's probably why so few third parties develop for Debian, they're fine with throwing a
That doesn't mean it would work for cross-distro packages though. Suse/RedHat/Mandrake/etc would have to agree to package naming in a consistent manner... If gd2 is called libgd2 in redhat and gd2libs in another system, which is the correct one to specify in a dependency? If you want to install redhat's apache, and it depends on libgd2, how would your gd2libs supply the dependency? Do you need to install gd2libs and libgd2? What if they both supply
Then there's the init scripts. Not only do each distro have a different init script method, but if somehow you replace the standard method in one distro(say you use runit or some other init replacement) not a single one of them handles that gracefully.
Then there's the real reason cross-distro doesn't exist:
1) Some distros make you pay for some "deluxe" packages, if you can replace them with packages from another distro, where it's free(setting aside the relative quality of packages, and just from a marketing standpoint), you are removing value from the deluxe package
2) Distros with the best install procedure would be afraid to be used to install a base system, and a few tweaks later, have all the "optional" packages supplied from another.
3) Third parties. If X builds a third party package in rpm format for distro X, it doesn't want to support distro Y, with a sufficiently advanced cross-distro capability, they'll never find out they were supporting distro Y either. But, more importantly, if Distro Y got into a financial arrangement with Third Party A, to supply package B that only works with Y, and X can add dependencies from Y, X can run package B.
1) 2) and 3) are political/marketing/social in nature, and have nothing to do with the superiority or inferiority of a packaging system/package tool.
Not to my knowledge, at least, I haven't seen anything SQL-based that handles this, but you know what you could do with some venture capital now, don't you?
You could also investigate poet, caché's "post-relational" offering, and perhaps typhoon or some other object-related technology.
You could also talk to the postgres people, they might be able to help out. Several of the people who do commercial support for it might be able to hack some functions for you to use.
I wonder what a SQL-based solution would give you exactly though. SQL is just a language, after all. A widely used, fourth-generation language with data orientation that's handy for many circumstances, but hardly the end-all,be-all a lot of people think it is.
It might have been simpler, but it wasn't in their specs. Most likely because the great gain of putting something in a SQL database is applying sql commands to read/modify/remove data.
Besides "replace" what sql command can I apply to your audio?
You've just proven why a music database would have made a great deal of sense, for your application, or at least, a set of sql functions/extensions like GIS, only applied to your field, with AUDIO64 types being defined, with custom fields like author, copyright, an instruments detail subquery and the like.
Best of luck, hopefully your boss isn't a dickhead and tries to sack you for insubordination.
Maybe that's just it, the exec could just be trying to identify the loudest complainer, as a way to identify the next person cut. It's been tried, even in departments that needed to hire just to keep the quality of service the same...
Isn't the TPC-C or some similar sql-based (like crashme) database benchmark closer to what you need?
You misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I'm not letting people off the hook for making mistakes or saying that it's okay for Diebold to act unethically. Not at all. I'm just saying that the solution will take a long time.
Does that mean that we can't agree on what degree of security we want our evoting to have right now? and let the systems meet us when they are ready? Right now we have systems built by companies who may or may not meet guidelines for security and accountability that the voters don't know about.
It took us ten years to remind people to hide their PINs at the ATMs. The least we can do is remind the voters to keep their votes anonymous, secure, private and valid at the AVM(automated voting machine).
The problem with looking at this software from the feature side is that we haven't gotten through the requirements phase yet. And once we get the requirements done, they need to be thought in school, as a safeguard to Democracy (with a capital D), not all of them will be technical solutions to real world political problems, but ALL of them will be important in defining, defending and protecting freedoms.
Until your Grandma knows what requirements the AVM(I just hate the e-voting word) meets, she's RIGHT not to trust it, and she shouldn't GO VOTE THERE! We're not even talking about what software will RUN on the machines yet, we haven't even established whether or not we need one or multiple machines, and what safeguards we need.
That the process can be subject to gradual refinement is pretty obvious, but gradual refinement won't turn a hunk of steel into a feather. The fundamentals haven't been set yet, so we can't build.
Errr but the icon is related to AD, a network management tool. Just how much good drugs did you have to think someone would let Joe Sixpack within a parsec of a network management tool's configuration screens?
A Massachusetts presidential vote and a Florida presidential vote don't get combined for any official purpose, so there's no reason that they should be collected in the same way.
Please forgive the Devil's advocateness of the following statement but, are you saying, that:
1) The president of the United States elected by the Commonwealth of Massechusetts is different than one the elected by the state of Florida
or that:
2) The votes of two or more people, among a pool of two choices, does not combine, well to get technical, they get aggregated, collated and summed, but to keep it simple: that the two votes are not combined in any shape or form? Hence two votes combined to pick one person, who can be combined again to make a single vote, is not a second-order combination?
or
3) That the combination of two or more votes, to pick the largest number of them is not meaningful?
It's quite ironic, really, you can pick anyone who hasn't lived in the US before(to try to keep prior opinions out of the experiment out), explain to them the system, then try to explain the last Election to that person, and ask them "what's the first thing you'd change in the system". Do a double blind test with someone from the US, and watch how they diverge... You can do this with almost every other political system out there, and you'll get practically the same result for any system above a certain complexity.
Oddly enough, the old He-Man and the Masters of the Universe... Had a Plot! The new one doesn't, even where they could have just copied the old one, they only did it where it helped the merchandising. Out of these two, which do you think is the informercial?
Movie rights keep getting in the way of good movies don't they?
The few comics I remember of Kingpin as a spidey villain certainly showed him to be the villain most in tune with the spirit of the Spiderman comic itself: a smart, ruthless, dangerous enemy both to Spiderman and innocent bystanders, on a physical level, and more importantly, on a moral level.