Well, this is a rather divisive issue, isn't it. Although I agree that HD manufacturers used powers of 10 to make a buck long ago, Mrs. Cho and her lawyer, Brian R. Strange of Strange and Carpenter, are greedy so-and-so's out to make a buck TODAY. And who pays that buck? Well, now that there's a precedent, and other drive makers are likely to follow, people who buy hard drives in the future (that's us) pay it. Of all the things non-geeks have trouble understanding about computers, this is hardly the most worthy of a lawsuit. So Mr. Strange, shame on you for your horrible abuse of the legal system and unwarranted attack on an outstanding company that provides great products to the marketplace (and yes, I am a Seagate customer, not an employee, or stockholder, or P.R. rep).
For those of you who agree with me, please take the time to let Mr. Strange know what you think of his despicable actions. I couldn't find his direct email address, but the address posted under "Contact Us" on the Strange and Carpenter web site is: tjhood@strangeandcarpenter.com
Hum, 3rd-world government chooses easier to use and more widely used operating system for children's PCs after vendor offers it for free or at a substantial discount. Sounds like a good decision on Nigeria's part (unless, of course, it's Vista and their hardware can't handle it).
And don't mod me as a troll. I love Linux as much as the next./'er, but I still wouldn't recommend it to my grandmother or to Nigerian children if Windows is an option. Linux has always been free or cheap, so Linux companies can't very well whine about MS (not M$, in this case) doing the same with their OS. Turnaround is always fair play.
> That's their model of "a better Unix than Unix,"
I'm a Linux admin by profession, but to be honest, I agree with you. MS has come a long way and is as good as or better than Linux in many respects. (Plenty stable, better hardware support, easy to use GUI that works [Linux command line Just Works(TM), but GUI's are still second rate compare to Windows] giving it a financial rather than educational barrier to entry.)
However, I'm not sure Mr. Balmer believes he's got a Better Unix than Unix yet, otherwise he would have include SSH. Why did Linux kill Unix? Because it was free? No, because it was BETTER. Why has Windows command line (which is actually pretty good or at least wsh, perl, ruby, php, tcl/tk, and all sorts of other command line tools that can do almost anything) still not taken off. Because they don't make it easy to access from anywhere. If they put SSH on Windows, people would start developing a lot more command line stuff for Windows (which is easier and faster that GUI crap) and Linux would have to either get better to stay relevant or die. Honestly, Windows isn't that expensive, and I wouldn't mind paying for it if it actually let me do what I needed it to do.
The right of jury nullification has nothing to do with law or legal president (though it may exists there), but simply the "agreement" that we all have to work together as a governed nation. The reason the vast majority of people agree to have their disputes settled by a court instead of taking up arms against each other it that we trust and independent judge and jury to resolve our disputes in a fair manner. Even if we do lose the case, it's better (or should be) than sacrificing the safety and security we enjoy in a law-bound society. The government can't legislate away jury nullification without risking movements to overthrow the government.
That's precisely why this case is so dangerous and goes far beyond copyright infringement. It's clear as day that even if she is guilty that punishment doesn't fit the crime. First of all because I would bet that, despite the verdict, most people would agree that bankruptcy is to harsh a punishment for file sharing. More importantly because, according to this articel, over 2 million people use Kazaa. $222,000 x 2^6 = $444 Billion dollars. That's about 3.3% of the US GDP. I'd be willing to bet $444B is more than the entire industry makes many times over.
So, since bankruptcy can't get you out of a legal settlement, doesn't this mean she'll probably be paying for this for the foreseeable future? In this case, is it better for her to be part of legal society, or would life under anarchy have been better for her. If the later, doesn't this decision put our entire government, legal system, and way of life at great risk?
> Wouldn't it be better to just use a calendar application to handle calendar stuff?
For us tech-savvy people, it's fine to know what application does what, but others (like my father, who just recently grasped the difference between a web site and a web browser) shouldn't have to know what application does what. Everything should be in one place. Just look at office suites. They don't really make just a word processor or just a spreadsheet. You install them as one, you can embed content from one in the other. Email, Calendar, and web browsing also go together naturally.
Now what we really need is one program that does email, web browsing, calendar, word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, database, and, while we're at it, fuck the EU and throw in a media player, and OS...
Oh, wait. I guess we just have to teach everyone to use Emacs.:)
I'll start out by admitting that I haven't RTFA or reviewed the facts in the case. But, assuming someone was somehow using her internet connection (i.e. via an open wireless access point), doesn't that mean we're all at risk of paying for crimes we didn't commit.
What if my neighbor connects to my access point and starts sharing music. What if he used my last name as a username to avoid getting in trouble with the RIAA. Am I liable for that? What if I have my firewall forward RDP so I can access my computer remotely but someone guesses the weak password for my home computer (which doesn't really need to be secure, as it doesn't contain any particularly sensitive data). If they use my computer to share music and avoid getting caught, I'd be none the wiser unless I looked for it.(Say they unchecked desktop icon and start menu when installing P2P and I have a 1T HD so I didn't even notice the disk space.)
And that's just a case of the unsecured computer getting "hacked" by someone who only needs a bare minimum of know-how. Especially after this case, I assume people who want to illegally share music will be willing to go to greater lengths to hide their activity. (Maybe my neighbor breaks out kismet and wepcrack and maybe that hacker finds some RDP buffer overflow to circumvent my strong password).
I don't think I should have a responsibility to go to the trouble of securing a system if I don't need it to be secure. And what happened to innocent until proven guilty. I am saddened that an IP address and a username could be even remotely close to acceptable as proof of a crime, especially when $200K is at stake. Even if she was guilty this should be a minor infraction, like shoplifting, not bankruptcy. The RIAA has both the interested and resources to protect their property, so the burden of that protection should fall on them, not their customers or the legal system.
Yes, but if you can't come up with a meaningful naming scheme,/at least/ eliminate things like "2" and "Duo" from the names that make people/think/ the naming scheme is has meaning.
Yes, yes, thanks for the clarification, but this is slashdot. I saw an opportunity for an "insensitive clod" joke and I took it. Just mod me into oblivion, since my comment is far less useful to the discussion than the millions of repetitive "ya, science and religion don't mix" and "ya, but fundamentalist Christians are doing the same thing in America" comments that continue to follow. Or, you could mod this to +5, mod everything else to -1 and close what I'm sure is turning out to be another riveting slashdot discussion.
Is anyone else simply baffled by the names Intel chooses for it's processors? Back in the day, they were criticized for ?86 being confusing to non-nerds. Calling the 586 "Pentium" was a step in the right direction, but now they've completely hosed things again. Core 2? Is that a dual core? If so, than what the heck is a Core 2 Duo? Clearly it's not a quad-core, but the CPU from TFA, IS a quad-core, even though it's still called Core "2". Is this some sort of a sick joke by the marketing department?
That's hardly obvious to us Monera, you insensitive clod. Okay, the semipermeable membrane thing most of us get, but "intra-body cavity" and "flexible biological tube". You expect us all to know about these things. If you eukaryotic jerks would just allow patents on such things, maybe market forces could share this whole "breath" thing with the rest of us. After all, we are the majority and probably a huge untapped market. But no, instead you keep all of your fancy technology for the exclusive use of so-called "higher organisms". It's the 21st century, but clearly Imperialism never really died.
Scientific Journalism can't be done? Now that's just silly. You just have to realize that it's a sub-discipline of marketing, which is a sub-discipline of sales, which is a sub-discipline of business. It kind of goes like this:
> easily fixable through an importer thats probably gonna come along shortly with the aid of ibm developers
It wouldn't totally surprise me, but I doubt it's "easily fixable". Microsoft has spend years and billions developing office. It's no trivial task to write a program that implements all of it's features correctly. Look at HTML for example. Even with a published spec, HTML renders differently on different browsers. And there's no published spec for MS office docs.
> ditto. interface changes, more user friendliness will fix that
Again, that's not easily fixable. While it's easy to make the UI do anything you want, deciding what you want it do it/is/ difficult. You need to to make it simple enough for first time users, feature-rich enough for power users, and make the UI give people useful queue's to go from one to the other. computer-human interaction is a field of its own.
> the only good product that works was xp, and now microsoft is turning it to a backdoor/trojan. unacceptable for a business's privacy, and info.
That's exactly why XP isn't a good product. W2K was a pretty good product as far as the OS is concerned. Server 2003 is a good product (though I've still seen a blue screen or two, though they may have been hardware related). But Office is the real crown jewels that keeps people buying the shitty desktop OS specifically because it does what I describe in the previous bullet.
> now open office and variants are practically de facto office suites of future.
I think you're forgetting: #1) There are millions of MS Office documents out there, which OpenOffice doesn't always read correctly, especially powerpoint. The cost of switching is almost certainly prohibitive. Oh, wait. Office 2007 documents aren't backwards compatible without a patch, which many organizations don't allow you to download. Forget about #1.
#2) Millions of workers already know how to use MS Office. Though the differences in menu organization man seem superficial to I.T. people, they're monumental to other users. Oh, wait. Office 2007 totally reorganizes everything, making I.T. people and other users alike curse the day Bill Gates was born. Forget about #2.
#3) Say what you like about Windows and Microsoft's business practices, but Microsoft Office is actually a really good product that works. It's not perfect, but it's still faster and better than OpenOffice. Oh, wait, Office 2007 screwed all that up too.
I guess we should be thanking Microsoft, not IBM, for giving OpenOffice a chance at being a market player.
Finally, a patent that should be denied both because it's obvious and due to prior art that everyone can stand behind. If Microsoft patents this, it will keep such unwanted crap from infecting other operating systems!
The only reason why people buy hollywood movies, RIAA music, and commercial software is that its better than the free alternatives. But that's changing rapidly. We've already seen Linux destroy Unix in the server market. The Linux desktop is getting better much faster than the the Windows desktop (which, with Visa, may actually be going backwards). And it's getting cheaper and easier for artists to produce and distribute their own movies and music with better and better quality. Give it a few decades and technology will allow us to give our dollars (or maybe yuan by that point) directly to artists and creative types for their innovations instead of spending so much of the cost of information products on the mundane details of bringing it to market.
So let them take away fair use. It will just mean they have to be that much better than the free alternatives.
Widespread uptake? Did I miss something? Java is: - Slow for desktop GUI apps - Slow and not always supported for client-side web apps - Fast but uselessly complicated for J2EE server apps and used primarily by large companies "sold" on the technology (PHP, Rails, Perl.. those have widespread update)
The best thing about Java is the language itself. It's what C++ should have been and it's great when you want a strongly-typed language. Too bad they crippled it with that stupid byte code crap. Platform independence is nice, but they could have achieved the same thing by developing a JDE for all those platforms that produced fast, native executables.
I'm not saying Java was ignored. Clearly it wasn't. But the bytecode thing made the development model too complicated. J2EE has some nice features and scalability, but "Hello World" is so complicated that J2EE is only really competitive for very large scale apps. And they couldn't even decide what a fricking Java Bean is (is it an ORM, is it a UI component, what the heck is it?) If they had followed the KISS principle, the very good language could have given it true "widespread update" instead of leaving so much room in the market for PHP and Rails.
> Dr Sinclair added that the changes would help to stop children being turned off by science.
Ya, attract more stupid to science. That's just what we need, more people who think they're qualified scientists but don't understand the difference between an observed fact, and inference, and an opinion.
Obviously there's prior art, but wouldn't it make more sense for the courts to just overturn the patent as an obvious idea? Patents are meant to protect the investment of people who spend a lot of money to figure out how to do something. It seems pretty obvious that there's no need to spend much time figuring out how to automatically reply to an e-mail. Maybe if they patented an AI algorithm that interpreted emails (something more complicated than a series of regular expressions) and replied appropriately, but their patent is much simpler than that, isn't it? And even if it wasn't, how would they know about the algorithms the defendants use to process e-mails?
At least in China the government is honest about it's internet monitoring practices. Here in the US, the feds pretend that such a program doesn't exists, but we all know better.
> Furthermore, in the workplace, many people listen to music and access large files on network shares. Clearly, Vista is *broken* for these uses. Not a good indication of Vista being business ready.
Employers don't want employees listening to musing while they work. It hurts productivity. This is actually a designed-in feature from the r2 of the requirements docs developed after 3 rounds of intensive customer feedback workshops.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, this is a rather divisive issue, isn't it. Although I agree that HD manufacturers used powers of 10 to make a buck long ago, Mrs. Cho and her lawyer, Brian R. Strange of Strange and Carpenter, are greedy so-and-so's out to make a buck TODAY. And who pays that buck? Well, now that there's a precedent, and other drive makers are likely to follow, people who buy hard drives in the future (that's us) pay it. Of all the things non-geeks have trouble understanding about computers, this is hardly the most worthy of a lawsuit. So Mr. Strange, shame on you for your horrible abuse of the legal system and unwarranted attack on an outstanding company that provides great products to the marketplace (and yes, I am a Seagate customer, not an employee, or stockholder, or P.R. rep).
For those of you who agree with me, please take the time to let Mr. Strange know what you think of his despicable actions. I couldn't find his direct email address, but the address posted under "Contact Us" on the Strange and Carpenter web site is: tjhood@strangeandcarpenter.com
Hum, 3rd-world government chooses easier to use and more widely used operating system for children's PCs after vendor offers it for free or at a substantial discount. Sounds like a good decision on Nigeria's part (unless, of course, it's Vista and their hardware can't handle it).
./'er, but I still wouldn't recommend it to my grandmother or to Nigerian children if Windows is an option. Linux has always been free or cheap, so Linux companies can't very well whine about MS (not M$, in this case) doing the same with their OS. Turnaround is always fair play.
And don't mod me as a troll. I love Linux as much as the next
> That's their model of "a better Unix than Unix,"
I'm a Linux admin by profession, but to be honest, I agree with you. MS has come a long way and is as good as or better than Linux in many respects. (Plenty stable, better hardware support, easy to use GUI that works [Linux command line Just Works(TM), but GUI's are still second rate compare to Windows] giving it a financial rather than educational barrier to entry.)
However, I'm not sure Mr. Balmer believes he's got a Better Unix than Unix yet, otherwise he would have include SSH. Why did Linux kill Unix? Because it was free? No, because it was BETTER. Why has Windows command line (which is actually pretty good or at least wsh, perl, ruby, php, tcl/tk, and all sorts of other command line tools that can do almost anything) still not taken off. Because they don't make it easy to access from anywhere. If they put SSH on Windows, people would start developing a lot more command line stuff for Windows (which is easier and faster that GUI crap) and Linux would have to either get better to stay relevant or die. Honestly, Windows isn't that expensive, and I wouldn't mind paying for it if it actually let me do what I needed it to do.
Next months healine: YouTube Hacked Headline 2 Months from now: All copyrighted material ever created available via Kazaa.
The right of jury nullification has nothing to do with law or legal president (though it may exists there), but simply the "agreement" that we all have to work together as a governed nation. The reason the vast majority of people agree to have their disputes settled by a court instead of taking up arms against each other it that we trust and independent judge and jury to resolve our disputes in a fair manner. Even if we do lose the case, it's better (or should be) than sacrificing the safety and security we enjoy in a law-bound society. The government can't legislate away jury nullification without risking movements to overthrow the government.
That's precisely why this case is so dangerous and goes far beyond copyright infringement. It's clear as day that even if she is guilty that punishment doesn't fit the crime. First of all because I would bet that, despite the verdict, most people would agree that bankruptcy is to harsh a punishment for file sharing. More importantly because, according to this articel, over 2 million people use Kazaa. $222,000 x 2^6 = $444 Billion dollars. That's about 3.3% of the US GDP. I'd be willing to bet $444B is more than the entire industry makes many times over.
So, since bankruptcy can't get you out of a legal settlement, doesn't this mean she'll probably be paying for this for the foreseeable future? In this case, is it better for her to be part of legal society, or would life under anarchy have been better for her. If the later, doesn't this decision put our entire government, legal system, and way of life at great risk?> What's wrong with text file configuration?
Just wait for IIS7. It will be to Apache what IE7 is to Firefox.
> Wouldn't it be better to just use a calendar application to handle calendar stuff?
:)
For us tech-savvy people, it's fine to know what application does what, but others (like my father, who just recently grasped the difference between a web site and a web browser) shouldn't have to know what application does what. Everything should be in one place. Just look at office suites. They don't really make just a word processor or just a spreadsheet. You install them as one, you can embed content from one in the other. Email, Calendar, and web browsing also go together naturally.
Now what we really need is one program that does email, web browsing, calendar, word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, database, and, while we're at it, fuck the EU and throw in a media player, and OS...
Oh, wait. I guess we just have to teach everyone to use Emacs.
I'll start out by admitting that I haven't RTFA or reviewed the facts in the case. But, assuming someone was somehow using her internet connection (i.e. via an open wireless access point), doesn't that mean we're all at risk of paying for crimes we didn't commit.
What if my neighbor connects to my access point and starts sharing music. What if he used my last name as a username to avoid getting in trouble with the RIAA. Am I liable for that? What if I have my firewall forward RDP so I can access my computer remotely but someone guesses the weak password for my home computer (which doesn't really need to be secure, as it doesn't contain any particularly sensitive data). If they use my computer to share music and avoid getting caught, I'd be none the wiser unless I looked for it.(Say they unchecked desktop icon and start menu when installing P2P and I have a 1T HD so I didn't even notice the disk space.)
And that's just a case of the unsecured computer getting "hacked" by someone who only needs a bare minimum of know-how. Especially after this case, I assume people who want to illegally share music will be willing to go to greater lengths to hide their activity. (Maybe my neighbor breaks out kismet and wepcrack and maybe that hacker finds some RDP buffer overflow to circumvent my strong password).
I don't think I should have a responsibility to go to the trouble of securing a system if I don't need it to be secure. And what happened to innocent until proven guilty. I am saddened that an IP address and a username could be even remotely close to acceptable as proof of a crime, especially when $200K is at stake. Even if she was guilty this should be a minor infraction, like shoplifting, not bankruptcy. The RIAA has both the interested and resources to protect their property, so the burden of that protection should fall on them, not their customers or the legal system.
Yes, but if you can't come up with a meaningful naming scheme, /at least/ eliminate things like "2" and "Duo" from the names that make people /think/ the naming scheme is has meaning.
Yes, yes, thanks for the clarification, but this is slashdot. I saw an opportunity for an "insensitive clod" joke and I took it. Just mod me into oblivion, since my comment is far less useful to the discussion than the millions of repetitive "ya, science and religion don't mix" and "ya, but fundamentalist Christians are doing the same thing in America" comments that continue to follow. Or, you could mod this to +5, mod everything else to -1 and close what I'm sure is turning out to be another riveting slashdot discussion.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
> In those circumstances, scientific research becomes, at best, a kind of cataloging or 'butterfly-collecting' activity. ...you insensitive clod.
Is anyone else simply baffled by the names Intel chooses for it's processors? Back in the day, they were criticized for ?86 being confusing to non-nerds. Calling the 586 "Pentium" was a step in the right direction, but now they've completely hosed things again. Core 2? Is that a dual core? If so, than what the heck is a Core 2 Duo? Clearly it's not a quad-core, but the CPU from TFA, IS a quad-core, even though it's still called Core "2". Is this some sort of a sick joke by the marketing department?
That's hardly obvious to us Monera, you insensitive clod. Okay, the semipermeable membrane thing most of us get, but "intra-body cavity" and "flexible biological tube". You expect us all to know about these things. If you eukaryotic jerks would just allow patents on such things, maybe market forces could share this whole "breath" thing with the rest of us. After all, we are the majority and probably a huge untapped market. But no, instead you keep all of your fancy technology for the exclusive use of so-called "higher organisms". It's the 21st century, but clearly Imperialism never really died.
Scientific Journalism can't be done? Now that's just silly. You just have to realize that it's a sub-discipline of marketing, which is a sub-discipline of sales, which is a sub-discipline of business. It kind of goes like this:
1. Business
2. Sales
3. Marketing
4. ???
5. Scientific Journalism
6. Profit
See, the world make sense again.
Does anyone know why this vote required a 3/5 majority?
> easily fixable through an importer thats probably gonna come along shortly with the aid of ibm developers
/is/ difficult. You need to to make it simple enough for first time users, feature-rich enough for power users, and make the UI give people useful queue's to go from one to the other. computer-human interaction is a field of its own.
It wouldn't totally surprise me, but I doubt it's "easily fixable". Microsoft has spend years and billions developing office. It's no trivial task to write a program that implements all of it's features correctly. Look at HTML for example. Even with a published spec, HTML renders differently on different browsers. And there's no published spec for MS office docs.
> ditto. interface changes, more user friendliness will fix that
Again, that's not easily fixable. While it's easy to make the UI do anything you want, deciding what you want it do it
> the only good product that works was xp, and now microsoft is turning it to a backdoor/trojan. unacceptable for a business's privacy, and info.
That's exactly why XP isn't a good product. W2K was a pretty good product as far as the OS is concerned. Server 2003 is a good product (though I've still seen a blue screen or two, though they may have been hardware related). But Office is the real crown jewels that keeps people buying the shitty desktop OS specifically because it does what I describe in the previous bullet.
> now open office and variants are practically de facto office suites of future.
I think you're forgetting:
#1) There are millions of MS Office documents out there, which OpenOffice doesn't always read correctly, especially powerpoint. The cost of switching is almost certainly prohibitive. Oh, wait. Office 2007 documents aren't backwards compatible without a patch, which many organizations don't allow you to download. Forget about #1.
#2) Millions of workers already know how to use MS Office. Though the differences in menu organization man seem superficial to I.T. people, they're monumental to other users. Oh, wait. Office 2007 totally reorganizes everything, making I.T. people and other users alike curse the day Bill Gates was born. Forget about #2.
#3) Say what you like about Windows and Microsoft's business practices, but Microsoft Office is actually a really good product that works. It's not perfect, but it's still faster and better than OpenOffice. Oh, wait, Office 2007 screwed all that up too.
I guess we should be thanking Microsoft, not IBM, for giving OpenOffice a chance at being a market player.
Finally, a patent that should be denied both because it's obvious and due to prior art that everyone can stand behind. If Microsoft patents this, it will keep such unwanted crap from infecting other operating systems!
The only reason why people buy hollywood movies, RIAA music, and commercial software is that its better than the free alternatives. But that's changing rapidly. We've already seen Linux destroy Unix in the server market. The Linux desktop is getting better much faster than the the Windows desktop (which, with Visa, may actually be going backwards). And it's getting cheaper and easier for artists to produce and distribute their own movies and music with better and better quality. Give it a few decades and technology will allow us to give our dollars (or maybe yuan by that point) directly to artists and creative types for their innovations instead of spending so much of the cost of information products on the mundane details of bringing it to market.
So let them take away fair use. It will just mean they have to be that much better than the free alternatives.
So why can't people in the industry simply submit friend of the court briefs in support of the defense?
>...widespread uptake already enjoyed by Java...
Widespread uptake? Did I miss something? Java is:
- Slow for desktop GUI apps
- Slow and not always supported for client-side web apps
- Fast but uselessly complicated for J2EE server apps and used primarily by large companies "sold" on the technology (PHP, Rails, Perl.. those have widespread update)
The best thing about Java is the language itself. It's what C++ should have been and it's great when you want a strongly-typed language. Too bad they crippled it with that stupid byte code crap. Platform independence is nice, but they could have achieved the same thing by developing a JDE for all those platforms that produced fast, native executables.
I'm not saying Java was ignored. Clearly it wasn't. But the bytecode thing made the development model too complicated. J2EE has some nice features and scalability, but "Hello World" is so complicated that J2EE is only really competitive for very large scale apps. And they couldn't even decide what a fricking Java Bean is (is it an ORM, is it a UI component, what the heck is it?) If they had followed the KISS principle, the very good language could have given it true "widespread update" instead of leaving so much room in the market for PHP and Rails.
> Dr Sinclair added that the changes would help to stop children being turned off by science. Ya, attract more stupid to science. That's just what we need, more people who think they're qualified scientists but don't understand the difference between an observed fact, and inference, and an opinion.
Obviously there's prior art, but wouldn't it make more sense for the courts to just overturn the patent as an obvious idea? Patents are meant to protect the investment of people who spend a lot of money to figure out how to do something. It seems pretty obvious that there's no need to spend much time figuring out how to automatically reply to an e-mail. Maybe if they patented an AI algorithm that interpreted emails (something more complicated than a series of regular expressions) and replied appropriately, but their patent is much simpler than that, isn't it? And even if it wasn't, how would they know about the algorithms the defendants use to process e-mails?
At least in China the government is honest about it's internet monitoring practices. Here in the US, the feds pretend that such a program doesn't exists, but we all know better.
> Furthermore, in the workplace, many people listen to music and access large files on network shares. Clearly, Vista is *broken* for these uses. Not a good indication of Vista being business ready.
Employers don't want employees listening to musing while they work. It hurts productivity. This is actually a designed-in feature from the r2 of the requirements docs developed after 3 rounds of intensive customer feedback workshops.