IANAL but....
It seems to me that many of their claims are to do with impending lawsuits.
Surely they could just claim that they beleived what they said. So long as they stop making the claims after they have been refuted in court they may get off.
If you were making just bogus claims based on information you knew to be false you could get done for insider trading, but so long as there is not a paper trail inside SCO stating that they don't believe what they say they can't be proved to have done nothing wrong.
Unfortunaly there are probably going to be some investors who get burned by this, but in a way it serves them right for betting on a lawsuit.
Trying to argue that China is a nice friendly government and China is great place to live is only going to make you look like (more of) an idiot.
OK they are not a friendly goverment. But I have met a couple of people who work there and they like it.
Seing as so much IT work is starting to go to India and China I am seriously considering a move in the next couple of years.
The Chinease goverment is slowly getting better and the western goverments are getting more authorotarian. So I don't think it will make much differance in a few years
With so many people it makes sense for China to research and make home grown products, they have their dragon chip, own linux distro and this is just part of that. They have their own space program too. Basicaly china seems to be going through a pahse of massive tecnolgical growth right now.
I was young and impressionable when Blake 7 first came out, I really liked it at the time, but why bother trying to revive it now.
Anyone under 25 or most Americans will have no idea what it is. I can't remember much about it myself. So it is just playing on the sentimentality of a few.
Considering the state of SF in general nowadays it would be nice to get something new rather than rehashes of old ideas, we have plenty of them already. As far as I can see this is just £7M down the pan.
Sure hubble has done great things for astronomy but it is just a hunk of metal (and other materials).
I am sure that I still have my first computer somewhere in the loft but that didn't cost me $600 M to keep.
Wouldn't be much better and more respectfull to the exsisting peice of metal to spend the money you would use preserving it to build a bigger better teliscope. (what happened to the idea of building arrays of teliscopes in orbit?)
A lot of the things in the air and space museam are replicas anyway, one more won't hurt.
Your definatly right about the air and space museam, very good place. Had goosebumps the whole time I was in there.
Also in DC there is a bizzare place called the museam of american history. It is genraly interesting for geeks, but especialy the IT and communications area. If you are older than about 25 you will be shocked to see computers you used in a museum.
I know this has whole topic has been gone over and over but still.
If SCO had a legitimate greavance with their code being in Linux, they should tell us what it is so we can remove it and stop any ligitation on SCOs part.
If SCO are trying to profit from some minor peice of code that could be removed in an instant, then they would do what they are doing now. They have no GENUNIE GREVANCE they just sense an opertunaty to profit and are trying to maxamise this rather than settle the problem.
The issue with the GPL is not as simple as it seems. If something was put into GPLed code which the owner of the code did not authorise to be there then the owner should have the right for it to be removed. It is possible that IBM did this with some jointly owned code without SCOs permision. This could meen that the person who inserted it was breaking the law when they inserted the code and therefor the code contains bits that are not covered under GPL. This does not meen that the whole thing becomes SCOs property. AFAIK there is no grevance procedure for people who beleive code they own is in the GPL.
The nice thing to do would be to authorise the code
The proper way to handle it would be to identify the code, prove your ownership of it, and get it removed.
You could say that bits were inserted iligaly and are not covered by GPL and try and licence the use of those bits. But you would still need to prove that the bits were inserted iligaly to be able to demand licence fees.
IMHO, IANAL, etc.
It is becoming fairly obvious that SCO is not going to tell anyone anything of substnace outside of court, if you really think that they don't have a leg to stand on buy some put options* before the case.
As this may well be the biggest pump and dump ever, we may as well try and profit from it. I would bet that all the major shareholders sell up and run before it gets anywhere near court.
*Put options basicaly involve you selling shares at a later date at the value you buy the put options. If shares go down you win if they go up you loose.
More likely, Congress will order the FBI to use Carnivore (or whatever it is called now) to track people downloading a particular file on Freenet, and to try and find out who they are. I don't remember how Freenet works, or how Carnivore works, but I'm sure with total control of the router infrastructure you could figure out who was downloading what, eventually..... although, every control message for freenet is encrypted, huh? Well, anyway they'd try
They may try but they would be wasting their time. Would be nearly impossible. I am sure if you had access to every packet sent and received on the whole internet for the entire duration of a Freenet session then you may eventually be able to work out what is going on.
I don't like Freenet. I think it is an awesome idea but I don't like it (like H bombs). I think that in extreme cases the Government should be able to trace what people are doing.
However with the MPAA/RIAA behaving the way they are, and government tracking becoming more commonplace, I understand why people use it (especially in China).
By treating every file trader like an international terrorist they are forcing people to use less and less traceable means of trading files. This also give paedophiles, drug dealers and even terrorists a means to communicate.
If they backed off a bit and let people use the net in peace then you would have more reason to suspect people who used clandestine methods to communicate where up to something really bad.
Patents were orgianly conceved to protect peoples inventions from being stolen and used by big companys (and to put them in the public domain).
Unfortunaly in the US the patent office tends to have a grant first and ask questions later attitude to patents. This meens that the big bussiniesses patent a lot of stuff that shoulnd't be (vague, obvious and allready done) if somone happens to write something that violates that patent (even without prior knowlege of the patent) and the company tells them that they are violating one of their patents. the person will have to go to court and pay lots of money to prove that the patent isn't valid. If you are giving away software for free or can't afford a court case you are more likly to say 'sod it' and withdraw the software.
So you end up with patents stopping inovation. This is entirly the opposit of what they were ment to do.
SCO is now trading at $11 before all of this it was 80c.
They are telling IBM to fix things wihtout saying what they want fixed.
If they were a kid I would give them a slap round the ear and tell them to grow up. But they are a multi national who could f**k up Linux and the whole OSS comunity.
Surely IBM could tell them to shut the f**k up. or at least come straight with their clames. Rather than the current 'we could tell you but then we would have to kill you' attatude they have to the evedence.
If SCO wanted it fixed they could tell us what the offending code was and we could fix it.
They are just trying to make a quick dirty buck and they don't care about what happens to do it.
Welcome to the ugly face of capatilism.
(I am pissed as I write this so apologies for typos and gibberish)
... but have not indicated any evidence of that (except for the general thought that if they knew they'd pirated it, they wouldn't be stupid enough to bring it to everyone's attention
You would think so wouldnâ(TM)t you, but it is possible that they did. They were pissed at IBM and they seem to have this unshakable belief that Linux was developing too fast to be done legally.
So some manager has a suspicion that their precious code is being copied & orders an audit. Someone else come up with some 'copied' code. Both are completely clueless as to who copied the code from whom.
I am not saying this is what has happened but it is at least a possibility. Big companies can be incredibly incompetent at times.
There are some interesting parallels between the two stories.
"Little company teams up with behemoth to work on new IP, behemoth breaks off the deal and allegedly uses the IP with another partner. Little company sues." Could sum up both of them
Why then do I find my self supporting Sendo and vilifying SCO?
I suppose it is because Sendo isn't threatening to bring down the whole mobile phone industry. It is 'reluctantly' suing Orange. Where as SCO seems quite happy to sue anyone who is willing to take them on.
The language you use and attitude you portray can make a big difference to how people react to you. Sco could have handled the PR with the IBM case much better.
Patent system is different in the US to Europe. For the moment you can't patent software in europe.
Having had a quick scan of the patent it is fairly clear that M$ is not trying to patent interacive interactive. it looks like they are patenting vod playlists with a preview function. Which to be honest I have no idea if it has been done before or not.
This is one thing that I can never work out on./
Putting a USB memory stick in a watch is cool,
Putting a PC in a toaster/playstation/other novel object is cool,
Getting a pc to do something new is cool....
but as soon as someone puts extra features into a phone it becomes excessive.
Mobile phones are becoming more and more ubiquitous, they are probably the only electronic device (other than a watch) that we are likely to have with us at all times. They are toys, fashion accessories, and PDAs'. Manufacturers are experimenting, seeing what users want and will use. Surely this is a good thing.
Remember that mobile phones are going to be soon if they are not already more common place than PCs. If you just want to use them to make calls that is fine but if you can have something as powerful as a 386* on you, it may as well allow you to do other things on it
* Crude estimate, based on the fact that both can play wolf 3d.
If anyone actually read the article they would realise that the study was done by someone who makes P2P blocking devices. The figure may be right but given the source I would treat it with a whole barrel load of salt.
The solution could be to block ports and types of traffic but that cuts down on the usefulness of broadband.
If the ISPs were aloud to house p2p servers they could cut down on their upstream bandwidth but there is no way they would be aloud to, so the media pigopolists are the ones costing the ISPs money.
Re:My favorite quote... (summed up nicely)
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 1
SCO is alleging that IBM misappropriated from SCO technologies which do not appear in SCO's own product.
On the few occasions things break they are rarely of the "blow up the server" variety, and MORE OFTEN THAN NOT *grin* they are of the "when the stars align" kind that you HEAR about in bug reports but don't experience first hand.
Lucky you.
You can keep your faith in M$ but, speaking from experience, when you install a seemingly innocuous update then get BSOD on boot and have to rebuild the box from scratch you tend to loose your trust in them. It is probly half the reason that people don't patch and end up being hacked. So either way you loose.
It depends on how good the searches are
If they are using strict filenames and checking file sizes that is OK. If they are being too fuzzy and not bothering with the file sizes then that is bad. There is a grey fuzzyness inbetween.
I own lots of CDs, my PC takes ages to rip and encode them. Is it still fair use for me to download them from someone else? I think so??
It is not a very common legitimate use of p2p but it is still there. If I run with this for a while...
If you work on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty I could assume that anyone who DLs from me must have a legitimate copy that they can't burn (especially if it came from a copy protected CD as these can vary with the territory). I have not seen their guilt proven; nobody has told me that they don't have a copy so why should I restrict their fair use.
Now if the RIAA came to me and gave me a list of people who didn't own copies of a song (as proven in a court of law) I would be duty bound to stop them otherwise I would aiding and abetting them in a criminal act. I have not received such a list so why should I stop sharing. The Law assumes people are innocent so why shouldn't I?? All IMHO, etc.
The i686 instruction problem can be gotten round with a hack to gcc and it only seems to occour in highly optomised code.
My 800 Mhz C3 can run X + mozilla fine. it can play back divix, it supposidly has HW Mpeg 2 decompression but I havn't sorted this out yet.
There is a bug in the CPU temprature sesor (or drivers) but they do still run cool (the fan broke on mine and there was no problem). Idle CPU instructions are treated as such which meens when it is not doing anything it runs very cool. (don't know if Athlon P4 do this or not)
It does take an age to encode MP3/ OGG (runs at about 1.5 X) but all in all I am very happy with My C3, if they wernt so dambd expensive I would have got one of these silent ones. If you want a low end Mini-itx solution you can get bundles pretty cheap.
Below is the MPAA lawergram, I think the important phrase in it is that they have 'good faith' that the files are copyright and being illegally distributed. So they assume that a file with the name of their property is their property.
Which is, to be honest, a fair assumption.
> > RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures > MPAA Case Name: > Reference#: > > Date of Infringement: > > > Dear abuse@myip > > The Motion Picture Association (MPA) represents the following motion picture production and distribution companies: > > Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. > Disney Enterprises, Inc. > Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. > Paramount Pictures Corporation > TriStar Pictures, Inc. > Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation > United Artists Pictures, Inc. > United Artists Corporation > Universal City Studios, LLLP > Warner Bros., a Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. > > We have received information that an individual has utilized the above reference IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of copyrighted motion picture(s) through a peer-to-peer service, including such title(s) as: >
> > The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations. > > Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following: > > 1. Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above, and > 2. Take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement. > > On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law. > > Also, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification. > > Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions. Kindly include the above noted Reference # in the subject line of all email correspondence.
I thought that Freenet uses encrypted connections? It has to be doing SOMETHING with all the CPU time it uses.
I also think splitfiles are fairly meaningless unless you get all of them.
Freenet is still fairly clunky but it is getting there, I have had success getting songs but not movies.
Unfortunately there is a LOT of very unsavoury stuff on freenet. Which has put me off using it a bit, as you don't know what you are hosting.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL but....
It seems to me that many of their claims are to do with impending lawsuits.
Surely they could just claim that they beleived what they said. So long as they stop making the claims after they have been refuted in court they may get off.
If you were making just bogus claims based on information you knew to be false you could get done for insider trading, but so long as there is not a paper trail inside SCO stating that they don't believe what they say they can't be proved to have done nothing wrong.
Unfortunaly there are probably going to be some investors who get burned by this, but in a way it serves them right for betting on a lawsuit.
OK they are not a friendly goverment. But I have met a couple of people who work there and they like it.
Seing as so much IT work is starting to go to India and China I am seriously considering a move in the next couple of years.
The Chinease goverment is slowly getting better and the western goverments are getting more authorotarian. So I don't think it will make much differance in a few years
With so many people it makes sense for China to research and make home grown products, they have their dragon chip, own linux distro and this is just part of that. They have their own space program too. Basicaly china seems to be going through a pahse of massive tecnolgical growth right now.
I was young and impressionable when Blake 7 first came out, I really liked it at the time, but why bother trying to revive it now.
Anyone under 25 or most Americans will have no idea what it is. I can't remember much about it myself. So it is just playing on the sentimentality of a few.
Considering the state of SF in general nowadays it would be nice to get something new rather than rehashes of old ideas, we have plenty of them already. As far as I can see this is just £7M down the pan.
Sure hubble has done great things for astronomy but it is just a hunk of metal (and other materials).
I am sure that I still have my first computer somewhere in the loft but that didn't cost me $600 M to keep.
Wouldn't be much better and more respectfull to the exsisting peice of metal to spend the money you would use preserving it to build a bigger better teliscope. (what happened to the idea of building arrays of teliscopes in orbit?)
A lot of the things in the air and space museam are replicas anyway, one more won't hurt.
Your definatly right about the air and space museam, very good place. Had goosebumps the whole time I was in there.
Also in DC there is a bizzare place called the museam of american history. It is genraly interesting for geeks, but especialy the IT and communications area. If you are older than about 25 you will be shocked to see computers you used in a museum.
I know this has whole topic has been gone over and over but still. If SCO had a legitimate greavance with their code being in Linux, they should tell us what it is so we can remove it and stop any ligitation on SCOs part.
If SCO are trying to profit from some minor peice of code that could be removed in an instant, then they would do what they are doing now. They have no GENUNIE GREVANCE they just sense an opertunaty to profit and are trying to maxamise this rather than settle the problem.
The issue with the GPL is not as simple as it seems. If something was put into GPLed code which the owner of the code did not authorise to be there then the owner should have the right for it to be removed. It is possible that IBM did this with some jointly owned code without SCOs permision. This could meen that the person who inserted it was breaking the law when they inserted the code and therefor the code contains bits that are not covered under GPL. This does not meen that the whole thing becomes SCOs property. AFAIK there is no grevance procedure for people who beleive code they own is in the GPL.
The nice thing to do would be to authorise the code
The proper way to handle it would be to identify the code, prove your ownership of it, and get it removed.
You could say that bits were inserted iligaly and are not covered by GPL and try and licence the use of those bits. But you would still need to prove that the bits were inserted iligaly to be able to demand licence fees.
IMHO, IANAL, etc.
It is becoming fairly obvious that SCO is not going to tell anyone anything of substnace outside of court, if you really think that they don't have a leg to stand on buy some put options* before the case.
As this may well be the biggest pump and dump ever, we may as well try and profit from it. I would bet that all the major shareholders sell up and run before it gets anywhere near court.
*Put options basicaly involve you selling shares at a later date at the value you buy the put options. If shares go down you win if they go up you loose.
I don't like Freenet. I think it is an awesome idea but I don't like it (like H bombs). I think that in extreme cases the Government should be able to trace what people are doing.
However with the MPAA/RIAA behaving the way they are, and government tracking becoming more commonplace, I understand why people use it (especially in China). By treating every file trader like an international terrorist they are forcing people to use less and less traceable means of trading files. This also give paedophiles, drug dealers and even terrorists a means to communicate. If they backed off a bit and let people use the net in peace then you would have more reason to suspect people who used clandestine methods to communicate where up to something really bad.
Patents were orgianly conceved to protect peoples inventions from being stolen and used by big companys (and to put them in the public domain). Unfortunaly in the US the patent office tends to have a grant first and ask questions later attitude to patents. This meens that the big bussiniesses patent a lot of stuff that shoulnd't be (vague, obvious and allready done) if somone happens to write something that violates that patent (even without prior knowlege of the patent) and the company tells them that they are violating one of their patents. the person will have to go to court and pay lots of money to prove that the patent isn't valid. If you are giving away software for free or can't afford a court case you are more likly to say 'sod it' and withdraw the software. So you end up with patents stopping inovation. This is entirly the opposit of what they were ment to do.
SCO is now trading at $11 before all of this it was 80c. They are telling IBM to fix things wihtout saying what they want fixed. If they were a kid I would give them a slap round the ear and tell them to grow up. But they are a multi national who could f**k up Linux and the whole OSS comunity. Surely IBM could tell them to shut the f**k up. or at least come straight with their clames. Rather than the current 'we could tell you but then we would have to kill you' attatude they have to the evedence. If SCO wanted it fixed they could tell us what the offending code was and we could fix it. They are just trying to make a quick dirty buck and they don't care about what happens to do it. Welcome to the ugly face of capatilism. (I am pissed as I write this so apologies for typos and gibberish)
ROTFL You never know it could come up in future managment text books under the heading 'listen to the techies'
I am not saying this is what has happened but it is at least a possibility. Big companies can be incredibly incompetent at times.
If sendo win this case I expect Orange could Sue M$ for selling them someone elses IP.
There are some interesting parallels between the two stories.
"Little company teams up with behemoth to work on new IP, behemoth breaks off the deal and allegedly uses the IP with another partner. Little company sues." Could sum up both of them
Why then do I find my self supporting Sendo and vilifying SCO?
I suppose it is because Sendo isn't threatening to bring down the whole mobile phone industry. It is 'reluctantly' suing Orange. Where as SCO seems quite happy to sue anyone who is willing to take them on.
The language you use and attitude you portray can make a big difference to how people react to you. Sco could have handled the PR with the IBM case much better.
Patent system is different in the US to Europe. For the moment you can't patent software in europe.
Having had a quick scan of the patent it is fairly clear that M$ is not trying to patent interacive interactive. it looks like they are patenting vod playlists with a preview function. Which to be honest I have no idea if it has been done before or not.
This is one thing that I can never work out on ./
Putting a USB memory stick in a watch is cool,
Putting a PC in a toaster/playstation/other novel object is cool,
Getting a pc to do something new is cool....
but as soon as someone puts extra features into a phone it becomes excessive.
Mobile phones are becoming more and more ubiquitous, they are probably the only electronic device (other than a watch) that we are likely to have with us at all times. They are toys, fashion accessories, and PDAs'. Manufacturers are experimenting, seeing what users want and will use. Surely this is a good thing.
Remember that mobile phones are going to be soon if they are not already more common place than PCs. If you just want to use them to make calls that is fine but if you can have something as powerful as a 386* on you, it may as well allow you to do other things on it
* Crude estimate, based on the fact that both can play wolf 3d.
If anyone actually read the article they would realise that the study was done by someone who makes P2P blocking devices. The figure may be right but given the source I would treat it with a whole barrel load of salt. The solution could be to block ports and types of traffic but that cuts down on the usefulness of broadband. If the ISPs were aloud to house p2p servers they could cut down on their upstream bandwidth but there is no way they would be aloud to, so the media pigopolists are the ones costing the ISPs money.
Lucky you.
You can keep your faith in M$ but, speaking from experience, when you install a seemingly innocuous update then get BSOD on boot and have to rebuild the box from scratch you tend to loose your trust in them. It is probly half the reason that people don't patch and end up being hacked. So either way you loose.
It depends on how good the searches are If they are using strict filenames and checking file sizes that is OK. If they are being too fuzzy and not bothering with the file sizes then that is bad. There is a grey fuzzyness inbetween.
I own lots of CDs, my PC takes ages to rip and encode them. Is it still fair use for me to download them from someone else? I think so??
It is not a very common legitimate use of p2p but it is still there.
If I run with this for a while...
If you work on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty I could assume that anyone who DLs from me must have a legitimate copy that they can't burn (especially if it came from a copy protected CD as these can vary with the territory). I have not seen their guilt proven; nobody has told me that they don't have a copy so why should I restrict their fair use.
Now if the RIAA came to me and gave me a list of people who didn't own copies of a song (as proven in a court of law) I would be duty bound to stop them otherwise I would aiding and abetting them in a criminal act. I have not received such a list so why should I stop sharing. The Law assumes people are innocent so why shouldn't I??
All IMHO, etc.
The i686 instruction problem can be gotten round with a hack to gcc and it only seems to occour in highly optomised code. My 800 Mhz C3 can run X + mozilla fine. it can play back divix, it supposidly has HW Mpeg 2 decompression but I havn't sorted this out yet. There is a bug in the CPU temprature sesor (or drivers) but they do still run cool (the fan broke on mine and there was no problem). Idle CPU instructions are treated as such which meens when it is not doing anything it runs very cool. (don't know if Athlon P4 do this or not) It does take an age to encode MP3/ OGG (runs at about 1.5 X) but all in all I am very happy with My C3, if they wernt so dambd expensive I would have got one of these silent ones. If you want a low end Mini-itx solution you can get bundles pretty cheap.
Below is the MPAA lawergram, I think the important phrase in it is that they have 'good faith' that the files are copyright and being illegally distributed. So they assume that a file with the name of their property is their property.
Which is, to be honest, a fair assumption.
>
> RE: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Motion Pictures
> MPAA Case Name:
> Reference#:
>
> Date of Infringement:
>
>
> Dear abuse@myip
>
> The Motion Picture Association (MPA) represents the following motion picture production and distribution companies:
>
> Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
> Disney Enterprises, Inc.
> Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
> Paramount Pictures Corporation
> TriStar Pictures, Inc.
> Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
> United Artists Pictures, Inc.
> United Artists Corporation
> Universal City Studios, LLLP
> Warner Bros., a Division of Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.
>
> We have received information that an individual has utilized the above reference IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of copyrighted motion picture(s) through a peer-to-peer service, including such title(s) as:
>
>
> The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.
>
> Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
>
> 1. Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above, and
> 2. Take appropriate action against the account holder under your Abuse Policy/Terms of Service Agreement.
>
> On behalf of the respective owners of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owners, their respective agents, or the law.
>
> Also, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California and under the laws of the United States, that the information in this notification is accurate and that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.
>
> Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions. Kindly include the above noted Reference # in the subject line of all email correspondence.
I thought that Freenet uses encrypted connections? It has to be doing SOMETHING with all the CPU time it uses.
I also think splitfiles are fairly meaningless unless you get all of them.
Freenet is still fairly clunky but it is getting there, I have had success getting songs but not movies.
Unfortunately there is a LOT of very unsavoury stuff on freenet. Which has put me off using it a bit, as you don't know what you are hosting.