Do you think Microsoft would have allowed Google to flourish?
Yes, in exactly the same way that they did now. What difference would it make to Google if Microsoft had started with source code from Netscape rather than Spyglass Mosaic?
Every hotel I've stayed at in the last 2-3 years just about has had an alarm clock with an Apple dock connector, so, I'm actually getting more utility out of the proprietary connector than you are with a standard (I've never even seen an alarm clock that has a USB plug).
Well, clocks with USB ports did exist. As did ports on car radios, stereo systems, DVD players etc. Then along comes Apple's non-standard connector and now you can play your iPod in your hotel, but I can't play my MP3 player. My player will never be able to work in a hotel because Apple owns the patents on the connector.
That is just downright rude. If it were Microsoft doing this, then people wouldn't stand for it.
Microsoft is explicitly not supporting Win32 on ARM.
That is just what was misreported when it became known that x86 applications will not be supported on the ARM version of the OS. Win32 is still powering the Windows 8.
It would be a major rewrite to the operating system to remove such a critical part of the system. It would take longer to code than the changes they made to Vista. Microsoft would definitely NOT go down that path again, and why should they anyway? Windows has been ported to other architectures before, so the API has definitely been coded to work on non-Intel chips.
Wasn't strongly tying the browser to the OS one of the reasons they stuck with IE6 for 5 years?
Not at all. The fact that you can upgrade IE on XP shows that this is not the case.
The reason why IE stagnated was that there was no real opposition to compete against Microsoft's browser, and MS stupidly rested on their laurels and virtually disbanded their browser development department.
Actually, Bing did bring some new ideas to the table that Google managed to borrow. For a while I used Google for my text searches and Bing for image searches because of extra features that Bing had. Google has all those features now so I stick with Google for everything again.
More importantly for this story, this shows that patents can actually be used properly for good reasons. I have long been a critic of patents, but I think that Microsoft deserves some credit in this case. They have done an excellent job in patenting this concept to ensure that such a stupid idea will never be seen in public again.
It is possible that Bing will implement it, but I think that counts as not being seen in public.
People play less these days (lack of time - damn, we get older!), and those who play the most (teenagers) usually pirate, so they want it free.
The only problem with that theory is that it does not match the evidence. The games industry keeps making more and more money every year. A lot of that increase is due to games costing way more than they used to, but it shows that there are still a lot of people paying for games.
Most startup companies business plans include a goal of being bought out.
Citation required.
What Apple does is create something larger than the sum of its parts.
No, it destroyed a product on Blackberry and Android. The technology world is less than it was before because this innovation is now locked away with one brand.
Actually what is? There was a lot in that post, so I don't know to which part you refer.
Are you suggesting that Apple is in fact the only company in the world that innovates with good ideas? If your evidence is that other companies with innovative products just hope to be bought out Apple then that directly contradicts your assertion.
And you think Apple is the only one who does that?
No, I do not. In fact, I even mentioned another company by name that acts the same way. I also did not say that it was a bad thing to do (although I would rather they licensed the technology rather than gave themselves a monopoly on it). The point of my post was to show that Apple didn't invent the technology themselves to show which proves that they are not the only company to innovate in the tech market.
But I expect that you know that they're not alone in that behavior and you're holding Apple to a different standard... bashing them for their perceived wrongs while ignoring the exact same behavior from.. say... Google.
Actually, my point was exactly that we should not hold Apple to a different standard; we should not elevate the company to god-like status (like the original poster did) and blindly ignore their faults (or at least the faults in the products made by that company), and we should not attribute inventions to them that they did not invent. I do not have a beef with Apple, just with their evangelistic users.
I do have a beef with Google for some of their practices in the area of privacy, especially given their slogan. But that does not stop me from recognising that they have made some pretty nice products too.
Microsoft have employed some crappy practices (especially in the early days of the PC), but that does not mean that everything that they do is wrong like a lot of people around here state. And they do have good products too.
So I would like to think that I am pretty even handed with the companies.
Because startup companies produce products with the goal of being bought out, like say, by Apple.
This may be true for companies that develop technology that they cannot afford to commercialize (assuming that they do not want to license the technology to others), but this was not the case with Siri. They were actively developing a product for sale on multiple platforms. There is no indication that they were looking to be bought out by anyone. That is just speculation on your part.
This isn't the discussion about who invents things. The actual invention is the least important aspect of technology.
What matters is this: "Who is going to pay to make sure people actually end up using it?"
No it isn't. That is the first time anyone has brought up the distinction between inventing something and paying for it. The sentence "It's staggering how much they've advanced society on their own and all their profound technical achievements" sounds more like it is about invention to me.
It was Apple that took a risk to market it to normal people instead of Defense contractors.
What makes you think that an application targeted to iOS, Blackberry and Android was only going to be sold to defense contractors? It seems to me like they were planning to make this available to the general public, and by making it cross platform they wanted it to have a large audience.
These things don't happen on their own, and success wasn't guaranteed, especially when you have so many people that were against their ideas.
Who is on record as being against Siri? The concepts behind it are not new. Phones have had voice commands for over a decade and computer interaction using natural language has been a goal even longer than that. Siri is not a controversial or radical idea that only Apple could try, anymore than Bing using Wolfram Alpha to do natural language searches is controversial or radical.
Apple thought that natural voice interation would be a good idea, they waited until someone came up with a quality implementation and then they bought them. Simple. It was not a stroke of genius, nor an example of their "profound technical achievements". It was just good business strategy.
Did you not read the post to which I replied? It starts off by saying that "Siri does look amazing, and will become really useful in a couple of years as developers outside of Apple operate on it" and yet Apple have deliberately prevented developers outside Apple from being able to use this on their platforms.
It suggests that Apple is the only company that innovates in terms of creating intuitive user interfaces, and asks "Are there absolutely NO actual designers at any other tech company?". My point was that obviously other companies "get human interaction" because it was another company that created this very technology under discussion, and that Apple just bought it out.
The original poster was seeing the tech world through Apple-shaped, rose-coloured glasses. I am not saying that Apple have done anything wrong. Nor do I claim that Apple do not innovate themselves at all. I am just correcting the misperception that it is the only company in the world that innovates with good ideas.
Really, is Apple going to be the only company in the world that gets human interaction? It's staggering how much they've advanced society on their own and all their profound technical achievements
I guess that you are not aware that Apple purchased the company that made Siri and then immediately stopped the development of the Blackberry and Android versions. They basically did a Microsoft.
Actually, that is not fair - you could say they did an Apple. The question of whether Siri is a revolutionary as the Mac is telling as both of these products were based on groundwork made by other companies. This is not to say that Apple didn't add the pizzazz to them though, but even those pizzazz elements can be found elsewhere (so many of iOS's user interface ideas that people love can be found in other people's work). Apple's great trait is that they can commercialize the ideas of others. Want another example:
Maybe learn painting or drawing or something. Maybe start liking turtles. (remember Apple LOGO??)
Logo was created in 1967 - 15 years before Apple Logo came on the scene. Did you think that Apple invented it?
By what mechanism can a browser know when the memory it has reserved is needed elsewhere in the system?
On Windows, it could call CreateMemoryResourceNotification(), which was made for this exact reason. I imagine that there must be something similar on other platforms.
Can you point to a time... any time in history when earth was NOT experiencing "Climate Change"?
Can you point to a time... any time in history when the earth experience warming on the scale that it is now when it should have actually been cooling.
The people who spend their lives studying the climate are quite familiar with the way it changes over time. You didn't really surprise them with this stunning revelation. The problem is not that it is changing, but the rate of change.
But then you knew that, because it has been pointed out to you time and time again and yet you still spew out the same uninformed one-liners that are supposed to counter the volumes of research that has been done on this subject. But you might as well keep it up, because the surveys show that it is actually working. It appears that stupidity is catching after all.
We can deal with only one problem at a time. And Carbon won by popular vote.
Actually, the ozone layer won, because we actually did something about it back in the 70s and 80s. But you are right, the next problem came along and everybody thought the hole in the ozone layer was solved.
How much are you willing to bet that this will be used to try to debunk global warming because there is an area that has colder then average weather.
I would not bet a thing. This bozo already beat you to it!
Or you could try Windows + Right + Enter = Shutdown
I have only tested this on Vista, but I am sure that Windows 7 is the same.
On Windows 8 you simply keep clicking around everywhere until the tears rolling off your face eventually short out your computer. It is a fairly intuitive interface, although it does require counselling after using it.
Vanuatu? Texas? Any other data you would like to cherry-pick to use as proof of global climate change? Let me try. Half the planet is in darkness right now so therefore all the of planet is in darkness. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SUN!?!??!
Humans are responsible for only 4% of CO2 emitted? Well the levels are not increasing by that much per year, so therefore the entire increase fits into that 4%. Greenhouse gases are only 2% of the atmosphere? The scientists know what the makeup of the atmosphere is, and yet thet still claim it will get hotter. And they keep getting proven right.
Except you think that it has been getting colder since 1998, and yet 2005 and 2010 were the hottest years on record. How does that work? And why did you choose 1998 for comparison? It was a El Nino year, and this increases temperatures to abnormal levels. 2010 was a La Nina year, which pushes the temperatures down. And yet, it was still the hottest year on record. Imagine how high it would have been if it had not been for La Nina.
Oh my God, there is more! You keep pushing out the arguments that gets consistantly refuted every single time they get brought up. How boring. Luckily you posted this anonymously, so next time you bring up the same crap nobody can show you up to be deliberately misinforming people.
And he also seems to forget that scientists will lean to where the money is (left or right, up or down).
If you want to deal in facts, then perhaps you should try showing us evidence for this assertion. The idea that we have been mislead on a massive scale by grant-loving scientists is entirely from the imagination of people who dislike the findings, or from crackpots who had their unscientific papers rejected.
Regulation is what got us in the financial mess to begin with.
Yes, never let the facts get in the way of an ideology!
Yes, I know hindsight is 20/20, but really, Fukushima was designed to withstand the vast majority of earthquakes, it was only a freak disaster that caused this.
Microsoft soon said, 'we can't be letting you do that'.
They introduced a slimline XP plus putting limits on the CPU, RAM etc that could go into a Netbook and qualify for the almost free XP licenses.
How exactly did Microsoft say that they could not "be letting you do that", and to whom did they say it? Or did they effectively do this just by releasing XP cheaply. I can see your point there: how can Linux compete when their opposition virtual give away their OS?
Fast forward to 2011.
Actually, let's not. I think that you are making far too much out of this announcement. It is normal for Nokia to be using multiple phone operating systems at the same time. They usually have a wide variety of phones on offer from the high end smartphone to the bucket end dumb phone. And you can't act surprised when a company that has a history of developing Linux products announces that they will be using Linux in another product.
This is just business as usual. I think that it is a wise thing for Nokia not to have all their eggs in one basket.
The guys behind ODF are actively trying to fix their flaws (hence this story)
And Office 2010 has better support for their standardised file format than 2007. Everybody tries to improve.
The guys behind OpenOffice aim for compatibility instead of blindly implementing a spec that is flawed and noone else follows
And if they are not aiming for the standard, who are the guys behind OpenOffice attempting to be compatible with? They are the trendsetters with the ODF format. Other office packages are expected to be compatible with it.
They all play by the Open Source License rules. You make a change to FOSS code, AND RE-RELEASE THE PROGRAM, you must provide the source code when requested.
When have Microsoft not adhered to the license terms for releasing the source code?
That's why they have always treated FOSS like the Gods Damned Plague.
Yes, there is no doubt that they have done scare tactics against FOSS, but then they have also done things like create http://www.codeplex.com/ to host open source projects (which they contribute a great many themselves).
I would love to have MS come play with Linux. As long as they follow the rules and play in good faith.
And yet Microsoft do contribute to Linux. I imagine a lot of those changes were to fix interoperability with their products, but it still does show that they do contribute and play by the rules.
Is it really? Excel's problem with their existing ODF support was that it strictly adhered to the specification, rather than supporting the extensions that were used by OpenOffice. The common denominator is actually the useless specs of the previous standard that did not completely include everything that was required (mainly the fomulas).
It is similar to the useless standard of OOXML which is not representative of what MS-Office actually uses. If OpenOffice provided a complete implementation of the strict version of OOXML, they would not be compatible with Microsoft's product. Would you consider the common denominator to be Office or OpenOffice there?
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think Microsoft would have allowed Google to flourish?
Yes, in exactly the same way that they did now. What difference would it make to Google if Microsoft had started with source code from Netscape rather than Spyglass Mosaic?
Every hotel I've stayed at in the last 2-3 years just about has had an alarm clock with an Apple dock connector, so, I'm actually getting more utility out of the proprietary connector than you are with a standard (I've never even seen an alarm clock that has a USB plug).
Well, clocks with USB ports did exist. As did ports on car radios, stereo systems, DVD players etc. Then along comes Apple's non-standard connector and now you can play your iPod in your hotel, but I can't play my MP3 player. My player will never be able to work in a hotel because Apple owns the patents on the connector.
That is just downright rude. If it were Microsoft doing this, then people wouldn't stand for it.
Microsoft is explicitly not supporting Win32 on ARM.
That is just what was misreported when it became known that x86 applications will not be supported on the ARM version of the OS. Win32 is still powering the Windows 8.
It would be a major rewrite to the operating system to remove such a critical part of the system. It would take longer to code than the changes they made to Vista. Microsoft would definitely NOT go down that path again, and why should they anyway? Windows has been ported to other architectures before, so the API has definitely been coded to work on non-Intel chips.
Wasn't strongly tying the browser to the OS one of the reasons they stuck with IE6 for 5 years?
Not at all. The fact that you can upgrade IE on XP shows that this is not the case.
The reason why IE stagnated was that there was no real opposition to compete against Microsoft's browser, and MS stupidly rested on their laurels and virtually disbanded their browser development department.
You are correct that FAT is not covered by patents, but VFAT is. It is the use of the long filename addition to FAT that Microsoft licences.
Beats the hell out of copying Google's results.
Actually, Bing did bring some new ideas to the table that Google managed to borrow. For a while I used Google for my text searches and Bing for image searches because of extra features that Bing had. Google has all those features now so I stick with Google for everything again.
More importantly for this story, this shows that patents can actually be used properly for good reasons. I have long been a critic of patents, but I think that Microsoft deserves some credit in this case. They have done an excellent job in patenting this concept to ensure that such a stupid idea will never be seen in public again.
It is possible that Bing will implement it, but I think that counts as not being seen in public.
People play less these days (lack of time - damn, we get older!), and those who play the most (teenagers) usually pirate, so they want it free.
The only problem with that theory is that it does not match the evidence. The games industry keeps making more and more money every year. A lot of that increase is due to games costing way more than they used to, but it shows that there are still a lot of people paying for games.
Most startup companies business plans include a goal of being bought out.
Citation required.
What Apple does is create something larger than the sum of its parts.
No, it destroyed a product on Blackberry and Android. The technology world is less than it was before because this innovation is now locked away with one brand.
Actually it is.
Actually what is? There was a lot in that post, so I don't know to which part you refer.
Are you suggesting that Apple is in fact the only company in the world that innovates with good ideas? If your evidence is that other companies with innovative products just hope to be bought out Apple then that directly contradicts your assertion.
And you think Apple is the only one who does that?
No, I do not. In fact, I even mentioned another company by name that acts the same way. I also did not say that it was a bad thing to do (although I would rather they licensed the technology rather than gave themselves a monopoly on it). The point of my post was to show that Apple didn't invent the technology themselves to show which proves that they are not the only company to innovate in the tech market.
But I expect that you know that they're not alone in that behavior and you're holding Apple to a different standard... bashing them for their perceived wrongs while ignoring the exact same behavior from.. say... Google.
Actually, my point was exactly that we should not hold Apple to a different standard; we should not elevate the company to god-like status (like the original poster did) and blindly ignore their faults (or at least the faults in the products made by that company), and we should not attribute inventions to them that they did not invent. I do not have a beef with Apple, just with their evangelistic users.
I do have a beef with Google for some of their practices in the area of privacy, especially given their slogan. But that does not stop me from recognising that they have made some pretty nice products too.
Microsoft have employed some crappy practices (especially in the early days of the PC), but that does not mean that everything that they do is wrong like a lot of people around here state. And they do have good products too.
So I would like to think that I am pretty even handed with the companies.
Because startup companies produce products with the goal of being bought out, like say, by Apple.
This may be true for companies that develop technology that they cannot afford to commercialize (assuming that they do not want to license the technology to others), but this was not the case with Siri. They were actively developing a product for sale on multiple platforms. There is no indication that they were looking to be bought out by anyone. That is just speculation on your part.
This isn't the discussion about who invents things. The actual invention is the least important aspect of technology. What matters is this: "Who is going to pay to make sure people actually end up using it?"
No it isn't. That is the first time anyone has brought up the distinction between inventing something and paying for it. The sentence "It's staggering how much they've advanced society on their own and all their profound technical achievements" sounds more like it is about invention to me.
It was Apple that took a risk to market it to normal people instead of Defense contractors.
What makes you think that an application targeted to iOS, Blackberry and Android was only going to be sold to defense contractors? It seems to me like they were planning to make this available to the general public, and by making it cross platform they wanted it to have a large audience.
These things don't happen on their own, and success wasn't guaranteed, especially when you have so many people that were against their ideas.
Who is on record as being against Siri? The concepts behind it are not new. Phones have had voice commands for over a decade and computer interaction using natural language has been a goal even longer than that. Siri is not a controversial or radical idea that only Apple could try, anymore than Bing using Wolfram Alpha to do natural language searches is controversial or radical.
Apple thought that natural voice interation would be a good idea, they waited until someone came up with a quality implementation and then they bought them. Simple. It was not a stroke of genius, nor an example of their "profound technical achievements". It was just good business strategy.
So?
Did you not read the post to which I replied? It starts off by saying that "Siri does look amazing, and will become really useful in a couple of years as developers outside of Apple operate on it" and yet Apple have deliberately prevented developers outside Apple from being able to use this on their platforms.
It suggests that Apple is the only company that innovates in terms of creating intuitive user interfaces, and asks "Are there absolutely NO actual designers at any other tech company?". My point was that obviously other companies "get human interaction" because it was another company that created this very technology under discussion, and that Apple just bought it out.
The original poster was seeing the tech world through Apple-shaped, rose-coloured glasses. I am not saying that Apple have done anything wrong. Nor do I claim that Apple do not innovate themselves at all. I am just correcting the misperception that it is the only company in the world that innovates with good ideas.
Really, is Apple going to be the only company in the world that gets human interaction? It's staggering how much they've advanced society on their own and all their profound technical achievements
I guess that you are not aware that Apple purchased the company that made Siri and then immediately stopped the development of the Blackberry and Android versions. They basically did a Microsoft.
Actually, that is not fair - you could say they did an Apple. The question of whether Siri is a revolutionary as the Mac is telling as both of these products were based on groundwork made by other companies. This is not to say that Apple didn't add the pizzazz to them though, but even those pizzazz elements can be found elsewhere (so many of iOS's user interface ideas that people love can be found in other people's work). Apple's great trait is that they can commercialize the ideas of others. Want another example:
Maybe learn painting or drawing or something. Maybe start liking turtles. (remember Apple LOGO??)
Logo was created in 1967 - 15 years before Apple Logo came on the scene. Did you think that Apple invented it?
By what mechanism can a browser know when the memory it has reserved is needed elsewhere in the system?
On Windows, it could call CreateMemoryResourceNotification(), which was made for this exact reason. I imagine that there must be something similar on other platforms.
Can you point to a time... any time in history when earth was NOT experiencing "Climate Change"?
Can you point to a time... any time in history when the earth experience warming on the scale that it is now when it should have actually been cooling.
The people who spend their lives studying the climate are quite familiar with the way it changes over time. You didn't really surprise them with this stunning revelation. The problem is not that it is changing, but the rate of change.
But then you knew that, because it has been pointed out to you time and time again and yet you still spew out the same uninformed one-liners that are supposed to counter the volumes of research that has been done on this subject. But you might as well keep it up, because the surveys show that it is actually working. It appears that stupidity is catching after all.
We can deal with only one problem at a time. And Carbon won by popular vote.
Actually, the ozone layer won, because we actually did something about it back in the 70s and 80s. But you are right, the next problem came along and everybody thought the hole in the ozone layer was solved.
How much are you willing to bet that this will be used to try to debunk global warming because there is an area that has colder then average weather.
I would not bet a thing. This bozo already beat you to it!
Windows + TAB + TAB + Enter = Shutdown
Or you could try Windows + Right + Enter = Shutdown
I have only tested this on Vista, but I am sure that Windows 7 is the same.
On Windows 8 you simply keep clicking around everywhere until the tears rolling off your face eventually short out your computer. It is a fairly intuitive interface, although it does require counselling after using it.
Vanuatu? Texas? Any other data you would like to cherry-pick to use as proof of global climate change? Let me try. Half the planet is in darkness right now so therefore all the of planet is in darkness. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE SUN!?!??!
NOAA say that the sea level is rising.
Humans are responsible for only 4% of CO2 emitted? Well the levels are not increasing by that much per year, so therefore the entire increase fits into that 4%. Greenhouse gases are only 2% of the atmosphere? The scientists know what the makeup of the atmosphere is, and yet thet still claim it will get hotter. And they keep getting proven right.
Except you think that it has been getting colder since 1998, and yet 2005 and 2010 were the hottest years on record. How does that work? And why did you choose 1998 for comparison? It was a El Nino year, and this increases temperatures to abnormal levels. 2010 was a La Nina year, which pushes the temperatures down. And yet, it was still the hottest year on record. Imagine how high it would have been if it had not been for La Nina.
Oh my God, there is more! You keep pushing out the arguments that gets consistantly refuted every single time they get brought up. How boring. Luckily you posted this anonymously, so next time you bring up the same crap nobody can show you up to be deliberately misinforming people.
And he also seems to forget that scientists will lean to where the money is (left or right, up or down).
If you want to deal in facts, then perhaps you should try showing us evidence for this assertion. The idea that we have been mislead on a massive scale by grant-loving scientists is entirely from the imagination of people who dislike the findings, or from crackpots who had their unscientific papers rejected.
Regulation is what got us in the financial mess to begin with.
Yes, never let the facts get in the way of an ideology!
Yes, I know hindsight is 20/20, but really, Fukushima was designed to withstand the vast majority of earthquakes, it was only a freak disaster that caused this.
But it was not hindsight. Prior to the tsunami there were already experts warning about safety of nuclear power plants in Japan and of the type of plant used at Fukushima specifically. A freak disaster was exactly the thing that you should be planning for.
Microsoft soon said, 'we can't be letting you do that'.
They introduced a slimline XP plus putting limits on the CPU, RAM etc that could go into a Netbook and qualify for the almost free XP licenses.
How exactly did Microsoft say that they could not "be letting you do that", and to whom did they say it? Or did they effectively do this just by releasing XP cheaply. I can see your point there: how can Linux compete when their opposition virtual give away their OS?
Fast forward to 2011.
Actually, let's not. I think that you are making far too much out of this announcement. It is normal for Nokia to be using multiple phone operating systems at the same time. They usually have a wide variety of phones on offer from the high end smartphone to the bucket end dumb phone. And you can't act surprised when a company that has a history of developing Linux products announces that they will be using Linux in another product.
This is just business as usual. I think that it is a wise thing for Nokia not to have all their eggs in one basket.
The guys behind ODF are actively trying to fix their flaws (hence this story)
And Office 2010 has better support for their standardised file format than 2007. Everybody tries to improve.
The guys behind OpenOffice aim for compatibility instead of blindly implementing a spec that is flawed and noone else follows
And if they are not aiming for the standard, who are the guys behind OpenOffice attempting to be compatible with? They are the trendsetters with the ODF format. Other office packages are expected to be compatible with it.
They all play by the Open Source License rules. You make a change to FOSS code, AND RE-RELEASE THE PROGRAM, you must provide the source code when requested.
When have Microsoft not adhered to the license terms for releasing the source code?
That's why they have always treated FOSS like the Gods Damned Plague.
Yes, there is no doubt that they have done scare tactics against FOSS, but then they have also done things like create http://www.codeplex.com/ to host open source projects (which they contribute a great many themselves).
I would love to have MS come play with Linux. As long as they follow the rules and play in good faith.
And yet Microsoft do contribute to Linux. I imagine a lot of those changes were to fix interoperability with their products, but it still does show that they do contribute and play by the rules.
the common denominator here is excel
Is it really? Excel's problem with their existing ODF support was that it strictly adhered to the specification, rather than supporting the extensions that were used by OpenOffice. The common denominator is actually the useless specs of the previous standard that did not completely include everything that was required (mainly the fomulas).
It is similar to the useless standard of OOXML which is not representative of what MS-Office actually uses. If OpenOffice provided a complete implementation of the strict version of OOXML, they would not be compatible with Microsoft's product. Would you consider the common denominator to be Office or OpenOffice there?