So any time a mother says "I'm going to kill you" in exasperation when their kid does something like spill milk all over the floor for the 50th time the police should come along and ban her from entering her house?
It is already well known, and popular. You can build yourself a hackintosh with OS X running on generic hardware with a retail copy of OS X already, and Apple doesn't really care one way or the other. They know all about it, but have yet to do anything to stop it (depending on whether you think that removing the ability for 10.6 to run on a processor that they do not sell was to prevent hackintoshes or was just coincidence).
No need for any leaks - the information is out there plain as day.
Because Apple have said "you can buy and use this software (OS X) for use on Apple branded machines only" - Psystar were not doing that.
That's the same as MS saying "we won;t sell you these copies of Windows if you also sell Linux machines" except that it then also brings into play the antitrust issue of using your monopoly position to force your vendors to not carry products you don;t approve of. If Apple did this, then the vendor would say "fair enough, we won't carry Apple products", but if MS say that, it's a little harder to justify removing a product that is going to make up a sizeable portion of your bottom line (PC with Windows preinstalled) - MS knows this and wields the fact like a big stick to push its own agenda (limit Linux exposure to the public).
That vast majority are not Apple's target market. They are quite happy with their vertically integrated system as it it right now - it is extremely profitable for Apple.
This will only be a "bad decision" if their current profitability goes down as a direct result (minus any profits from selling retail copies of OS X to Pystar in the first place)
I don't think you understand what zeroconf actually is. It's not just a replacement for DHCP.
It's amusing that you think Apple's open source contributions are "quite negligible". Compared to yours perhaps?
And nowhere did the GP assert that those open source projects that Apple has "bought out" (wtf?! so, because they contributed to them, they have somehow bought them out or 'tainted' them? If you don't like their contributions just fork it - that's what OSS is all about right) were in any way critical, just that Apple had made contributions to them, so just to make sure you cross them off your list on your anti-Apple crusade so you don;t look silly when you say "I never use anything made by Apple" in a post from a Webkit-powered browser.
And to further that, the Philips head fell out of favour when more accurate automated tools were invented that were much less prone to cam-out, being replaced by posidrive-type heads, which just so happen to be mostly compatible with Philips heads.
So which is it? Do you deliberately ignore grammar rules because you think it's "a useless convention" or to "filter out brittle minds"?
What happened to ignoring capitals being the measure of a superior writing system? Now suddenly you've instead claimed it is a "simple minds filter" to weed out people unworthy of attempting to read your words. It's interesting that you correlate a simple mind with one that has to put in a little more effort than usual to read a passage of text. It's not about understanding the content, it's about the way the brain works when it reads ahead. The capital letters do serve a purpose that you are ignoring.
I personally think it's because you're lazy and the whole "breaking with useless convention" angle is just an excuse.
Novelty in writing style is all well and good when done properly, but don't try to claim that's why you do it. Novelty in writing style is something like Portrait of the Artist by Joyce, which changes substantially as the book goes on to the point where it becomes like treacle by the end, or sticking to an iambic pentameter (love or hate either, they're merely examples). It's not just choosing to ignore capital letters. There's no novelty in that whatsoever; if I wanted to read prose with no capital letters I'd just browse livejournal or facebook for half an hour.
Again you come back to the point that people who obey the rules of grammar have nothing to offer. I beg to differ, and would not necessarily claim the opposite (since it it clear that even illiterate people can be remarkably smart).
It boils down to people judging your content based on your laziness with grammar.
Banks are good with money, and they saw huge $$$ signs by loaning a lot of money to people they knew could not afford to borrow it, but they loaned it anyway and then sold the bad debt on. Then backed other loans against this debt.
It's really as simple as that. The government is no more responsible for that than it's responsible for Ford Pintos cooking people in rear end shunts because it regulates the car industry.
The banks were reckless, and made sweeping assumptions about the nature of the economy (including ludicrous ones like 'house prices will only ever rise, never go down') and got burned when they just went too far for the system to sustain itself.
Perhaps, and it is indeed your right to ignore the grammar rules of the the language you are writing, but you also have to be aware that anyone reading it will naturally make judgements about you because of that.
Capital letters and punctuation are not just "convention", they do help with reading comprehension in the same way that paragraph breaks do. I don't think that ignoring the grammar rules just because you don't like them is an any way superior; as the GP said, it makes you look like an ass just for the sake of it.
If I'm one of the "bunch of assholes" (presumably everyone who uses capital letters correctly) then so be it. Rather be an asshole than come off looking like I don't know how to write.
Your final point jumps right back to what the original poster was talking about that you seem to have missed (hey, maybe there is a connection between people who don't write properly and low comprehension skills); you obviously want to contribute to this discussion and taken seriously, and make no attempt to actually make your posts easily readable. You're no different to the no-paragraph posters; people will just skip over your post without reading, or they'll get part way in and then dismiss it because you simply cannot write (from observation - who knows if you can or not since you don't show it). The content of your post is diminished.
You may have the opinion that good writing doesn't matter, but I'm afraid that it does.
Incidentally, the use of imperial over metric is not the same thing at all. Your bastardisation of the English language because you think it is superior is the same as going down to the hardware store and asking for a metre of timber, where you have defined a metre as the distance from your shoulder to your fingertip. Metric and imperial systems have conventions. If I say I want 1M of timber I'm not using the metric system accurately, since the SI symbol for the metre is m. If I say I want 5"6' of rope I'm also not using the imperial system correctly.
Invent your own language with its own grammar rules if you like, just don't pretend that ignoring the bits of a language you personally don't like as the superior method, and simultaneously complain that anyone who uses the rules properly is an asshole; it makes you look like a dick.
I pay less for my healthcare coverage than I would if I lived in the US precisely because I pay the same as the fat guy who smokes. The fact that everyone pays a little bit, regardless of how they choose to live their lives, means that the cost goes down for all of us.
So even if I think it's unfair that I pay the same as the fat guy who smokes, I am still better off overall, and I lead a healthy life. The cost of running universal care is X. The price for everyone is X divided by the number of people who pay NI contributions. What you then choose to do with your life is your business. The government is not going to dictate that if you eat too many pies you have to pay more. That's freedom of choice.
But universal care doesn't just give you the bare minimum - it provides the full healthcare experience if you need it. It's not just about the ER, universal care takes care of all your medical needs, and leaves you with no debts.
My father takes several prescription drugs that he pays £7.20 each for. In the US even the copay for those same drugs is much higher than that. When he gets to retirement age and stops working the drugs will then be free. If he needs another MRI that will be free, or another major heart operation, also free.
(free meaning, paid for by NHS taxes yada yada, I know it's not literally free).
The NHS will also treat you if you come over here and have an accident and end up in an ER. They just won't give you a bill afterwards.
Oh I well agree - Mr Moore is doing just as much to harm the cause as promote it as far as healthcare is concerned, but the film is an accurate representation of the NHS from my perspective (as someone who has lived and experienced it over the course of my life).
Moore is prone to hyperbole, but he's pretty much dead on with his segment on the NHS.
Or you could be like my father - a healthy individual who worked all his life, never smoked, never drank alcohol and kept himself fit who had a heart attack out of nowhere at 46 years old.
After considerable treatment (long stays in hospital, tests, imaging, operations etc etc) they sorted the problem, which had lain dormant since he was a child. Cost to him: nothing.
Real cost to him: his NI contributions from working.
If he'd gone without insurance in the states with your attitude and the same thing happened to him then sure he'd have been slightly better off over those years but I guarantee he wouldn't have enough to pay for the cost off all the medical bills he would have racked up over the course of saving his life (let alone the later operations to correct the defect and the ongoing drugs he takes, that cost him £7.20 per script).
That's what insurance is all about - managed risk. It may never happen to you, and I hope it doesn't, but where I live the choice has been made for you that for the collective health of everyone, everyone pays a tax that ensures you will have a hospital to look after you in the event you get sick, and this tax is less than the cost of every individual taking out insurance on their own.
If a universal system was introduced to the US I'm sure that some sort of system would need to be introduced to ensure that anyone who opted out through choice would never be treated under it. I mean, it't only fair right? In reality (as happens now) those who don't have insurance are treated for emergency life saving care only (car crash, heart attack, gunshot) and then turfed out with the cost being passed on to those who pay the insurance premiums. Now that's unfair! But hey, free choice!
OK, so the one choice you *don't* have in the UK system is not paying NI contributions, since it is an actual tax. However, it's one of those leaps again - by not paying them you are effectively opting out of insurance, so the choice issue presupposes that you will at least have some form of insurance rather than go uninsured.
If you choose to go uninsured in the US then good luck to you. I hope you have a big chequebook.
The future of government run health care is the future of unelected bureaucrats deciding whether or not your treatment is "cost effective". Care that may have saved your life might not be covered if it doesn't meet the cost benefit analysis.
And how is that different from private insurance now? Except that private insurance companies will either flat refuse to cover you because you're unprofitable (ie, sick, or could get sick) or they'll just deny your claims even if you are covered and pocket the premiums.
Ask someone in a country that has universal healthcare if they have to grapple with those sort of issues. Universal care has its problems in any country, but it's a long chalk ahead of the US system.
There is so much misinformation spread about what universal/government run/public care would actually mean, since the insurance companies and pharma companies have a vested interest in keeping it that way. It's the tobacco industry vs the truth all over again.
Is a fully universal system the answer? No, I don;t think it is - here in the UK we have both (you are free to chose private healthcare if you like - they have all their own hospitals and services etc), or you can use the NHS, or both. My options in the UK are much broader than they are in the US, and we spend half of much of our GDP on healthcare as the US does - a figure I think should be much higher (the NHS needs some serious de-bloating, but also some severe investment).
Universal care *does* require that you take certain leaps of human faith - like the right for everyone to be treated equally and pay equally when it comes to NI contributions (the tax that keeps the NHS running), so you pay the same as the fat guy who smokes. Is that unfair? It depends how you look at it - you pay the same as him and he is more likely to need the services of the NHS, but because everyone is paying into the system the cost for everyone overall goes down. I don't pay anywhere near the amount of money that a healthy, never smokes, never drinks American pays for their healthcare but I do pay the same as the fat guy who lives next door. Sure he'll keel over with a massive heart attack soon, but the NHS will treat him and he won't be in crippling debt for the rest of his life (or at best, uninsurable for the rest of his life).
If I'm unhappy with the NHS I can take out private insurance, be treated in private hospitals, skip the waiting lines, deal with premiums, access private clinics etc just as you would in the US.
How are my choices worse? The biggest sleight of hand the vested interests have managed to pull off in the healthcare debate is that somehow you have all this marvellous choice in the US system currently and that will all be destroyed if the government private insurance is allowed to compete with the current offerings. It just isn't so for a very large proportion of the population - sure it works well for some, but there are tens of thousands of Americans who can't afford insurance, are uninsurable, are in huge debt due to medical bills or are trapped in a job because they cannot afford to lose the health insurance.
So much for choice for all.
Again, I'm not claiming that universal healthcare is a magic bullet and that it's all fixed here in the UK, but we are much better off than average Americans when it comes to healthcare. Cubans are much better off than uninsured Americans, and slightly worse off than most insured Americans, and much worse off than a small percentage of Americans who are either very wealthy or have immaculate insurance.
I think that works if there's no inherent advantage to having the broadband over not having it.
Here in the UK if you file your tax return online you have extra time to get it in (the postal deadline is earlier), and while you don't need a broadband connection to do that you do actually need an internet connection. Government services having an advantage if done over the net is hardly a reason to subsidise internet for everyone, and we're not quite there yet with internet being required for a "standard" life, but I think it will get that way.
At the very least, those middle-of-nowhere towns do have electricity and water. If TV, radio and electronics are going to go the way of the net and become as ubiquitous as electricity then I think you at least need to provide a minimum broadband (or otherwise 'always on' connection) to the bulk of your population.
It doesn't have to be 100Mbps fibre, but it should at least allow them to download software updates and stream low-res media without hour-long delays.
There are clearly compromises to both lifestyles, but as long as you don't take it to extremes and demand a huge pipe into your population:12 town then I can't see a problem with it.
Slashdot Mirror
So any time a mother says "I'm going to kill you" in exasperation when their kid does something like spill milk all over the floor for the 50th time the police should come along and ban her from entering her house?
Convenience. You open the box, plug it in and it boots OS X.
It's otherwise identical to a hackintosh you can build yourself.
Emergency calls can be routed over any network, regardless of the phone's contract/provider.
My iPhone has tethering, and it's not even jailbroken.
Don't the blame the phone for being trapped in a country with shitty cellular providers.
I'll just shoot you..... politely.
It is already well known, and popular. You can build yourself a hackintosh with OS X running on generic hardware with a retail copy of OS X already, and Apple doesn't really care one way or the other. They know all about it, but have yet to do anything to stop it (depending on whether you think that removing the ability for 10.6 to run on a processor that they do not sell was to prevent hackintoshes or was just coincidence).
No need for any leaks - the information is out there plain as day.
I think your sig should read "Nerd Rage Games".
It would be more apt.
Microsoft 2.0? Hardly. Read some of the other replies already appended to your post - I don't want to repeat too much.
Because Apple have said "you can buy and use this software (OS X) for use on Apple branded machines only" - Psystar were not doing that.
That's the same as MS saying "we won;t sell you these copies of Windows if you also sell Linux machines" except that it then also brings into play the antitrust issue of using your monopoly position to force your vendors to not carry products you don;t approve of. If Apple did this, then the vendor would say "fair enough, we won't carry Apple products", but if MS say that, it's a little harder to justify removing a product that is going to make up a sizeable portion of your bottom line (PC with Windows preinstalled) - MS knows this and wields the fact like a big stick to push its own agenda (limit Linux exposure to the public).
That vast majority are not Apple's target market. They are quite happy with their vertically integrated system as it it right now - it is extremely profitable for Apple.
This will only be a "bad decision" if their current profitability goes down as a direct result (minus any profits from selling retail copies of OS X to Pystar in the first place)
I don't think you understand what zeroconf actually is. It's not just a replacement for DHCP.
It's amusing that you think Apple's open source contributions are "quite negligible". Compared to yours perhaps?
And nowhere did the GP assert that those open source projects that Apple has "bought out" (wtf?! so, because they contributed to them, they have somehow bought them out or 'tainted' them? If you don't like their contributions just fork it - that's what OSS is all about right) were in any way critical, just that Apple had made contributions to them, so just to make sure you cross them off your list on your anti-Apple crusade so you don;t look silly when you say "I never use anything made by Apple" in a post from a Webkit-powered browser.
*much less prone to cam-out and had more accurate torque sensing ability.
And to further that, the Philips head fell out of favour when more accurate automated tools were invented that were much less prone to cam-out, being replaced by posidrive-type heads, which just so happen to be mostly compatible with Philips heads.
So which is it? Do you deliberately ignore grammar rules because you think it's "a useless convention" or to "filter out brittle minds"?
What happened to ignoring capitals being the measure of a superior writing system? Now suddenly you've instead claimed it is a "simple minds filter" to weed out people unworthy of attempting to read your words. It's interesting that you correlate a simple mind with one that has to put in a little more effort than usual to read a passage of text. It's not about understanding the content, it's about the way the brain works when it reads ahead. The capital letters do serve a purpose that you are ignoring.
I personally think it's because you're lazy and the whole "breaking with useless convention" angle is just an excuse.
Novelty in writing style is all well and good when done properly, but don't try to claim that's why you do it. Novelty in writing style is something like Portrait of the Artist by Joyce, which changes substantially as the book goes on to the point where it becomes like treacle by the end, or sticking to an iambic pentameter (love or hate either, they're merely examples). It's not just choosing to ignore capital letters. There's no novelty in that whatsoever; if I wanted to read prose with no capital letters I'd just browse livejournal or facebook for half an hour.
Again you come back to the point that people who obey the rules of grammar have nothing to offer. I beg to differ, and would not necessarily claim the opposite (since it it clear that even illiterate people can be remarkably smart).
It boils down to people judging your content based on your laziness with grammar.
And you bought that explanation?
My goodness.
Banks are good with money, and they saw huge $$$ signs by loaning a lot of money to people they knew could not afford to borrow it, but they loaned it anyway and then sold the bad debt on. Then backed other loans against this debt.
It's really as simple as that. The government is no more responsible for that than it's responsible for Ford Pintos cooking people in rear end shunts because it regulates the car industry.
The banks were reckless, and made sweeping assumptions about the nature of the economy (including ludicrous ones like 'house prices will only ever rise, never go down') and got burned when they just went too far for the system to sustain itself.
And yes folks, I realise I have a monster run-on in the middle of that with more than two clauses. So sue me, I started this addendum with "and".
Perhaps, and it is indeed your right to ignore the grammar rules of the the language you are writing, but you also have to be aware that anyone reading it will naturally make judgements about you because of that.
Capital letters and punctuation are not just "convention", they do help with reading comprehension in the same way that paragraph breaks do. I don't think that ignoring the grammar rules just because you don't like them is an any way superior; as the GP said, it makes you look like an ass just for the sake of it.
If I'm one of the "bunch of assholes" (presumably everyone who uses capital letters correctly) then so be it. Rather be an asshole than come off looking like I don't know how to write.
Your final point jumps right back to what the original poster was talking about that you seem to have missed (hey, maybe there is a connection between people who don't write properly and low comprehension skills); you obviously want to contribute to this discussion and taken seriously, and make no attempt to actually make your posts easily readable. You're no different to the no-paragraph posters; people will just skip over your post without reading, or they'll get part way in and then dismiss it because you simply cannot write (from observation - who knows if you can or not since you don't show it). The content of your post is diminished.
You may have the opinion that good writing doesn't matter, but I'm afraid that it does.
Incidentally, the use of imperial over metric is not the same thing at all. Your bastardisation of the English language because you think it is superior is the same as going down to the hardware store and asking for a metre of timber, where you have defined a metre as the distance from your shoulder to your fingertip. Metric and imperial systems have conventions. If I say I want 1M of timber I'm not using the metric system accurately, since the SI symbol for the metre is m. If I say I want 5"6' of rope I'm also not using the imperial system correctly.
Invent your own language with its own grammar rules if you like, just don't pretend that ignoring the bits of a language you personally don't like as the superior method, and simultaneously complain that anyone who uses the rules properly is an asshole; it makes you look like a dick.
I'd love to see what would happen to Loughborough if all the silent letters were removed with no ill effect.
Or climb, muscle, handkerchief, island, salmon, right, tight, write, wrong...
I pay less for my healthcare coverage than I would if I lived in the US precisely because I pay the same as the fat guy who smokes. The fact that everyone pays a little bit, regardless of how they choose to live their lives, means that the cost goes down for all of us.
So even if I think it's unfair that I pay the same as the fat guy who smokes, I am still better off overall, and I lead a healthy life. The cost of running universal care is X. The price for everyone is X divided by the number of people who pay NI contributions. What you then choose to do with your life is your business. The government is not going to dictate that if you eat too many pies you have to pay more. That's freedom of choice.
That is universal care.
But universal care doesn't just give you the bare minimum - it provides the full healthcare experience if you need it. It's not just about the ER, universal care takes care of all your medical needs, and leaves you with no debts.
My father takes several prescription drugs that he pays £7.20 each for. In the US even the copay for those same drugs is much higher than that. When he gets to retirement age and stops working the drugs will then be free. If he needs another MRI that will be free, or another major heart operation, also free.
(free meaning, paid for by NHS taxes yada yada, I know it's not literally free).
The NHS will also treat you if you come over here and have an accident and end up in an ER. They just won't give you a bill afterwards.
Oh I well agree - Mr Moore is doing just as much to harm the cause as promote it as far as healthcare is concerned, but the film is an accurate representation of the NHS from my perspective (as someone who has lived and experienced it over the course of my life).
Moore is prone to hyperbole, but he's pretty much dead on with his segment on the NHS.
Or you could be like my father - a healthy individual who worked all his life, never smoked, never drank alcohol and kept himself fit who had a heart attack out of nowhere at 46 years old.
After considerable treatment (long stays in hospital, tests, imaging, operations etc etc) they sorted the problem, which had lain dormant since he was a child. Cost to him: nothing.
Real cost to him: his NI contributions from working.
If he'd gone without insurance in the states with your attitude and the same thing happened to him then sure he'd have been slightly better off over those years but I guarantee he wouldn't have enough to pay for the cost off all the medical bills he would have racked up over the course of saving his life (let alone the later operations to correct the defect and the ongoing drugs he takes, that cost him £7.20 per script).
That's what insurance is all about - managed risk. It may never happen to you, and I hope it doesn't, but where I live the choice has been made for you that for the collective health of everyone, everyone pays a tax that ensures you will have a hospital to look after you in the event you get sick, and this tax is less than the cost of every individual taking out insurance on their own.
If a universal system was introduced to the US I'm sure that some sort of system would need to be introduced to ensure that anyone who opted out through choice would never be treated under it. I mean, it't only fair right? In reality (as happens now) those who don't have insurance are treated for emergency life saving care only (car crash, heart attack, gunshot) and then turfed out with the cost being passed on to those who pay the insurance premiums. Now that's unfair! But hey, free choice!
OK, so the one choice you *don't* have in the UK system is not paying NI contributions, since it is an actual tax. However, it's one of those leaps again - by not paying them you are effectively opting out of insurance, so the choice issue presupposes that you will at least have some form of insurance rather than go uninsured.
If you choose to go uninsured in the US then good luck to you. I hope you have a big chequebook.
The future of government run health care is the future of unelected bureaucrats deciding whether or not your treatment is "cost effective". Care that may have saved your life might not be covered if it doesn't meet the cost benefit analysis.
And how is that different from private insurance now? Except that private insurance companies will either flat refuse to cover you because you're unprofitable (ie, sick, or could get sick) or they'll just deny your claims even if you are covered and pocket the premiums.
Ask someone in a country that has universal healthcare if they have to grapple with those sort of issues. Universal care has its problems in any country, but it's a long chalk ahead of the US system.
There is so much misinformation spread about what universal/government run/public care would actually mean, since the insurance companies and pharma companies have a vested interest in keeping it that way. It's the tobacco industry vs the truth all over again.
Is a fully universal system the answer? No, I don;t think it is - here in the UK we have both (you are free to chose private healthcare if you like - they have all their own hospitals and services etc), or you can use the NHS, or both. My options in the UK are much broader than they are in the US, and we spend half of much of our GDP on healthcare as the US does - a figure I think should be much higher (the NHS needs some serious de-bloating, but also some severe investment).
Universal care *does* require that you take certain leaps of human faith - like the right for everyone to be treated equally and pay equally when it comes to NI contributions (the tax that keeps the NHS running), so you pay the same as the fat guy who smokes. Is that unfair? It depends how you look at it - you pay the same as him and he is more likely to need the services of the NHS, but because everyone is paying into the system the cost for everyone overall goes down. I don't pay anywhere near the amount of money that a healthy, never smokes, never drinks American pays for their healthcare but I do pay the same as the fat guy who lives next door. Sure he'll keel over with a massive heart attack soon, but the NHS will treat him and he won't be in crippling debt for the rest of his life (or at best, uninsurable for the rest of his life).
If I'm unhappy with the NHS I can take out private insurance, be treated in private hospitals, skip the waiting lines, deal with premiums, access private clinics etc just as you would in the US.
How are my choices worse? The biggest sleight of hand the vested interests have managed to pull off in the healthcare debate is that somehow you have all this marvellous choice in the US system currently and that will all be destroyed if the government private insurance is allowed to compete with the current offerings. It just isn't so for a very large proportion of the population - sure it works well for some, but there are tens of thousands of Americans who can't afford insurance, are uninsurable, are in huge debt due to medical bills or are trapped in a job because they cannot afford to lose the health insurance.
So much for choice for all.
Again, I'm not claiming that universal healthcare is a magic bullet and that it's all fixed here in the UK, but we are much better off than average Americans when it comes to healthcare. Cubans are much better off than uninsured Americans, and slightly worse off than most insured Americans, and much worse off than a small percentage of Americans who are either very wealthy or have immaculate insurance.
I think that works if there's no inherent advantage to having the broadband over not having it.
Here in the UK if you file your tax return online you have extra time to get it in (the postal deadline is earlier), and while you don't need a broadband connection to do that you do actually need an internet connection. Government services having an advantage if done over the net is hardly a reason to subsidise internet for everyone, and we're not quite there yet with internet being required for a "standard" life, but I think it will get that way.
At the very least, those middle-of-nowhere towns do have electricity and water. If TV, radio and electronics are going to go the way of the net and become as ubiquitous as electricity then I think you at least need to provide a minimum broadband (or otherwise 'always on' connection) to the bulk of your population.
It doesn't have to be 100Mbps fibre, but it should at least allow them to download software updates and stream low-res media without hour-long delays.
There are clearly compromises to both lifestyles, but as long as you don't take it to extremes and demand a huge pipe into your population:12 town then I can't see a problem with it.
As an addendum, in the case of transposed words, dropping the apostrophe s would make it into a standard news headline, if a little clumsy.