You could couple the idea of RFIDs with 3D printers and pretty much put an RFID in any mass-produced electronic device. It could be embedded in the housing and you'd never be able to get to it.
I've never had a good experience with Philips or their products. Software for their products is frequently buggy, poorly documented and very proprietary- only runs on one version of Windows and nary an upgrade in sight. The additional requirement that often their drivers/interface software requires the use or purchase of 3rd party software is also extremely annoying; in this case, MusicMatch Jukebox, in others, things like RealPlayer, and an old/unsupported version at that!
Their tech support is also about the worst I've ever dealt with, and that's saying something. Once you buy their product, they really don't give a damn about you, because they've got your money.
Bottom line: I bought something from Philips once, and I never will again. There are better, cheaper, properly supported alternatives for just about anything Philips makes.
I can't speak to that particular law, but often these weird laws are a side-effect of a law that wasn't intended.
For example, in Washington it's illegal to attach a vending machine to a telephone pole without the permission of the utility company. Even if you have their permission, you can't put it more than 12 feet in the air. So essentially the law says that you can't attach vending machines to telephone poles higher than 12 feet up.
But this is a silly by-product of a law that says you can't attach a whole list of things, mostly signage of one type or another, that happens to include vending machines (I assume it was for newspaper vending machines, which can be attached to utility poles to prevent theft). The part about 12 feet in the air obviously was meant to apply to the signs, but the vending machines got caught too. So you end up with a law that can be construed in a really strange way.
Apparently it's also illegal in Seattle to have a concealed weapon that is longer than 6 feet. I have no idea what that means, but it's probably another unintended consequence of an oddly-worded law.
There's also the matter of context. If you put something on a public web server, the context (the WWW) is a different one than your phone number, and the expectations surrounding it are different.
Also, there's a difference in the way you have to respond to such things. As pointed out elsewhere, answering phone calls, email, or door-to-door solicitors requires you to react, one-on-one, with the caller or visitor. HTTP servers don't work that way.
The context and expectations are not analogous to phones and/or your residential address. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. If you put something on a public HTTP server (public meaning accessible from the Internet without a password protection scheme or some other authorization setup) then you have provided that data to anyone who wishes to obtain it. If someone else links to your site in a way you don't like, tough; that's the way the protocol works.
You can place your resources behind an authorization scheme, you can accept the way things work, or you can take your resources offline. The Web may be a free-for-all in a lot of respects, but it does have some rules, if only by dint of the way the technology was designed to work.
If you don't want people to read/obtain data on your web server, take it offline or put it behind some kind of access restriction. If it's a "public" web site, then I think the assumption should be that you want people to read it. The biggest difference is that for people to read your web site doesn't require your personal attention; you don't have to answer every HTTP/GET request individually, but you do have to answer your phone or let the machine get it.
It's can hardly be seen as hypocrisy when you consider the difference between your personal phone line and private residential address and a web site ostensibly for providing information to the public.
It gets even more silly to make this comparison when you look at how the WWW is intended to operate- the word "hypertext" isn't just fast words, it's about links. Requiring licenses to link is totally against the entire basis of the technology, and has been pointed out, patently absurd, as restrictions on linking are totally unenforceable in any meaningful sense.
One more thing to add. The person that you so gleefully dumped on because he was "so dreadfully out of touch as to not know the basic plot of LOTR", as a direct result of your actions, may very well never read the books now.
Or he might go and read them. Who knows? Certainly not you, and not I. The series has been around for 50 years or more, and I don't really care that people haven't read it, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to tiptoe around what to my mind is common knowledge. These things aren't revelations, they're not surprises, and I'm tired of hearing people carp about how the ending of a movie that was written 50+ years ago was spoiled for them because someone dared to discuss it openly on a bulletin board! The world does not revolve around the ignorant.
You think that you have made a brilliant contribution to the discourse contained herein.
No, I actually don't. I think I simply spoke my opinion- oh wait, I guess I'm not allowed to do that if it offends you, right? Piss off; I'm not the one with the smug, elitist attitude, sparky.
Not to mention wasting the past ten minutes of *my* life.
Now this is arrogance of the first water. You want to mod me down, go for it- but you take time to reply, you live with it. If you don't agree, great- disagree. But don't whine about *me* wasting *your* time. You want to talk, cool. You don't, then move the hell along.
Oh, please do spare me. I'll be damned if I'm taken to task on Slashdot for being immature or inconsiderate. I personally think it's the height of arrogance to expect the vast majority to tiptoe around the illiterate morons who can't be bothered to PICK UP A BOOK. And I stand by my position: I have no sympathy for, nor any real inclination to accomodate, anyone who hasn't read LOTR. I'm not really trying to be an ass, although I'm probably coming off that way. I don't think you *have* to read it, I just don't want to hear the bitching when you (inevitably) hear about the things that happen in the book.
And as far as Citizen Kane goes, once again, if you haven't heard about it, get out from under the rock. I really don't think that the vanishingly small number of people who a) haven't seen it and b) might see it someday who are startled by this earth-shaking revelation on Slashdot are going to concern me unduly.
And furthermore, if the movie can't be enjoyed even if you know the "twist" then it's not worth watching.
None taken. However, given how LOTR is one of the most important pieces of western fiction written in the 20th century, and that it has existed for well over 50 years, I don't really feel too badly about spoiling the moviegoing experience for people who haven't taken the time to read the damn thing.
Further, in my opinion, you can't really enjoy the movie fully unless you've read the book, because so much is left out of the movie. Just as a single example, the movie never even touches on just why the city of Osgiliath is a destroyed ruin even though several major scenes take place there.
And really, people bitching about the movie being spoiled for them because they didn't know the plot of the book really is just plain irksome.
Just to be clear: Rosebud is a sled. The fucking boat sinks. The guy's really dead from the beginning. And Gollum is actually the one responsible for destroying the ring, albeit by accident. None of these things should be a surprise to anyone who hasn't lived in a hole for the last 20 years.
I'm not trying to be an ass (or maybe I am) but I really don't have much patience for anyone who is so dreadfully out of touch as to not know the basic plot of LOTR. I'm actually surprised that even people who haven't read the book don't know at least the high points.
Look, if you aren't familiar with the story, or haven't read it, I don't have much sympathy for you. It's not a surprise to anyone who's read a book in the last 50 years. The plot is hardly a mystery.
Sorry you haven't read the books, but you really should- and before you see the (last) movie. Believe me, you'll enjoy the movie more. Don't expect the majority who are familiar with the plot to go out of their way to avoid a "rosebud moment".
I might have to look into these, or a variation on the idea... I have 9 machines in a 9x10 room, along with two RAID chassis that have about 10 drives each, plus UPS, a CD tower, etc...
It gets so hot in there you can't really function without the AC running. I had to buy a window-mount air conditioner that runs 24/7 to keep the heat down, and even then it's still about 10 degrees warmer in there than the rest of the house. I can really crank the AC and get it cold- I went in there one morning and could see my breath - but that chews up a boatload of power, not to mention sometimes freezes up the AC when it's foggy outside. Oh, and it puts a strain on my residential wiring to push the AC any further than I do.
I've been trying to come up with ideas for venting the heat that didn't involve major renovations. One thought I had was putting some quiet fans in the floor and blowing the warm air under the house- no basement. Of course, I could also blow cold air up... might be better; it stays fairly consistent cool under there.
As a fan of Harry Harrison's work (as you seem to be as well), I'd have to say that some of it is fairly fanciful; however, not being a scientist myself, I can't really say if the development of fire is an absolute requirement for sentience.
But, I did use the word "digits" in place of "fingers", as I agree with you that it wouldn't have to be fingers as we have them, but rather something capable of manipulating the environment in a sophisticated fashion- tentacles or trunks would work as well. re: your comment about elephants, did you know that an elephant can pick up a sewing needle with its trunk? Of course, elephants also mourn their dead and "bury" them, so maybe they're the candidates for the next civilization.:)
Heh. While my wife and I were watching this show, they cut to commercial after showing a short teaser segment of the squids. My wife's comment was something like "So they're saying that Cthulhu gets the planet in 200 million years?"
I think that in order to evolve into a "civilization" as we understand it, a species would have to be able to produce fire, then machines... Kind of hard to do in an aquatic environment with limited ability to affect it (no opposable thumbs or even digits).
I'm not saying dolphins aren't smart, but I don't see how they can make the next step up that ladder without leaving the sea. And growing digits of some type.
The earliest birds (thought to be descended from dinosaurs) very likely started off as gliders. I don't see any particular reason why a fish couldn't evolve into something that could fly.
After all, if you accept that evolution is what produced us, your ultimate mammalian anscestor is most likely a shrew-like creature from way back in the dim and misty. Hardly an auspicious beginning. Who knew they'd get opposable thumbs?;)
Perhaps I should clarify something- I believe fervently in the concept of secure computing, in that I think that no system can be trusted entirely without extraordinary precautions.
Personally, my own systems run behind a custom-made firewall box, with a DMZ for my exposed servers, physically seperated from my 802.11 and internal networks by NAT firewalls. Nothing is allowed to talk to anything unless I have given the OK.
Even with all these precautions, the best I can say for myself is that I've made my network a harder target to go after, which in turn makes it less likely when there are so many softer ones to attack. I also have done what I can to ensure the reliability of my systems so I can recover in case of either a crash or a compromise.
The "cautionary" attitude is a good idea, but there is a certain hysteria that surrounds these issues, which is where FUD comes into play, in my opinion. The FUD-drums are usually beaten most heavily by those who have a buck to make.
The majority of security professionals I know would prefer to be able to secure a system to an "acceptable" level, acceptable being defined as the level appropriate to the risk and the resources available to secure that system. Hype and hyperbole do little to enhance security and everything to enhance fear.
Just because your girlfriend's computer got compromised doesn't make the article's position incorrect. Even a few hundred zombies on some script kiddy IRC channel doesn't invalidate the contention.
I really don't think you can use your indivdual experience as a barometer for the world at large. Being cracked isn't a unique experience, but it's not as common as the FUD-mongers would have us believe.
The original GUI was invented at Xerox PARC. When Douglas Engelbart invented the mouse, he envisioned it being part of a "graphical windowed interface" and actually invented something called a "windowed GUI", mostly as a proof of concept, I think.
This URL has some interesting background. Others here will probably cite more reference material.
The cat in question was a clone, and did have the exact same genetic makeup. It would have to, otherwise it would not be a clone, by definition.
However, it did go to show how much of the appearance of a cat is related to diet, environment, etc. I recall that even before it was born, scientists were saying that it wouldn't look identical to its "parent" (what's the word for the original of a clone with respect to the copy?) because of differences in diet of the cat carrying the fetus to term, as well as a multitude of other environmental factors.
Actually, one thing that cloning could do for us is finally resolve the nature/nurture debate.
I'm in my 30's now and I remember watching Star Blazers when I was a kid- I'd get up around 6 AM, grab a bowl of cheerios and park it on the living room floor about 2 feet from the TV with my sleeping shirt pulled over my knees to watch Star Blazers and whatever else was on the local station in the AM. But Star Blazers was definitely the reason I got out of bed that early.
It'd probably be terrible now (most of the shows I watched as a kid seem peurile when I see them as an adult) but I'd love to see Star Blazers again. Seriously old-school.
Re:Can someone explain Star Trek V
on
Critics Pan Nemesis
·
· Score: 4, Funny
People loathe it for many reasons, several of which include Sybok, Spock's supposed half-brother. But it's just a terrible film overall- the scene with Uhura dancing on the ridge was probably the nadir as far as I'm concerned.
However, Star Trek V did have what I thought was the best line ever delivered in a Star Trek film (well, there's a few contenders for the title, but I've always liked it): "Excuse me, but what does God need with a starship?"
In general, they're already paying for it (at least the goverments are, and I don't know how bad the piracy problem is in India...)
I think what's got Microsoft talking opening their source to the Indian government is that India and some other nations have been making noises about switching to open-source OSes. Maybe this is the first of several overtures to fractious governments.
Microsoft, after all, can offer some pretty tasty carrots with their sticks...
Well, I reread the article, and it doesn't say whether they're thinking about opening the whole thing up to this agency or just select portions... they've given up parts of their code before to big corps and some educational institutions before, but I don't think they've ever given anyone the whole shebang.
Given how MS has protected its source in the past, I wouldn't count on any leaks, even if they do strike some kind of deal. I just don't see it happening.
Slashdot Mirror
You could couple the idea of RFIDs with 3D printers and pretty much put an RFID in any mass-produced electronic device. It could be embedded in the housing and you'd never be able to get to it.
I've never had a good experience with Philips or their products. Software for their products is frequently buggy, poorly documented and very proprietary- only runs on one version of Windows and nary an upgrade in sight. The additional requirement that often their drivers/interface software requires the use or purchase of 3rd party software is also extremely annoying; in this case, MusicMatch Jukebox, in others, things like RealPlayer, and an old/unsupported version at that!
Their tech support is also about the worst I've ever dealt with, and that's saying something. Once you buy their product, they really don't give a damn about you, because they've got your money.
Bottom line: I bought something from Philips once, and I never will again. There are better, cheaper, properly supported alternatives for just about anything Philips makes.
Would this be a Von Neumann printer?
I can't speak to that particular law, but often these weird laws are a side-effect of a law that wasn't intended.
For example, in Washington it's illegal to attach a vending machine to a telephone pole without the permission of the utility company. Even if you have their permission, you can't put it more than 12 feet in the air. So essentially the law says that you can't attach vending machines to telephone poles higher than 12 feet up.
But this is a silly by-product of a law that says you can't attach a whole list of things, mostly signage of one type or another, that happens to include vending machines (I assume it was for newspaper vending machines, which can be attached to utility poles to prevent theft). The part about 12 feet in the air obviously was meant to apply to the signs, but the vending machines got caught too. So you end up with a law that can be construed in a really strange way.
Apparently it's also illegal in Seattle to have a concealed weapon that is longer than 6 feet. I have no idea what that means, but it's probably another unintended consequence of an oddly-worded law.
There's also the matter of context. If you put something on a public web server, the context (the WWW) is a different one than your phone number, and the expectations surrounding it are different.
Also, there's a difference in the way you have to respond to such things. As pointed out elsewhere, answering phone calls, email, or door-to-door solicitors requires you to react, one-on-one, with the caller or visitor. HTTP servers don't work that way.
The context and expectations are not analogous to phones and/or your residential address. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. If you put something on a public HTTP server (public meaning accessible from the Internet without a password protection scheme or some other authorization setup) then you have provided that data to anyone who wishes to obtain it. If someone else links to your site in a way you don't like, tough; that's the way the protocol works.
You can place your resources behind an authorization scheme, you can accept the way things work, or you can take your resources offline. The Web may be a free-for-all in a lot of respects, but it does have some rules, if only by dint of the way the technology was designed to work.
If you don't want people to read/obtain data on your web server, take it offline or put it behind some kind of access restriction. If it's a "public" web site, then I think the assumption should be that you want people to read it. The biggest difference is that for people to read your web site doesn't require your personal attention; you don't have to answer every HTTP/GET request individually, but you do have to answer your phone or let the machine get it.
It's can hardly be seen as hypocrisy when you consider the difference between your personal phone line and private residential address and a web site ostensibly for providing information to the public.
It gets even more silly to make this comparison when you look at how the WWW is intended to operate- the word "hypertext" isn't just fast words, it's about links. Requiring licenses to link is totally against the entire basis of the technology, and has been pointed out, patently absurd, as restrictions on linking are totally unenforceable in any meaningful sense.
One more thing to add. The person that you so gleefully dumped on because he was "so dreadfully out of touch as to not know the basic plot of LOTR", as a direct result of your actions, may very well never read the books now.
Or he might go and read them. Who knows? Certainly not you, and not I. The series has been around for 50 years or more, and I don't really care that people haven't read it, but as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to tiptoe around what to my mind is common knowledge. These things aren't revelations, they're not surprises, and I'm tired of hearing people carp about how the ending of a movie that was written 50+ years ago was spoiled for them because someone dared to discuss it openly on a bulletin board! The world does not revolve around the ignorant.
You think that you have made a brilliant contribution to the discourse contained herein.
No, I actually don't. I think I simply spoke my opinion- oh wait, I guess I'm not allowed to do that if it offends you, right? Piss off; I'm not the one with the smug, elitist attitude, sparky.
Not to mention wasting the past ten minutes of *my* life.
Now this is arrogance of the first water. You want to mod me down, go for it- but you take time to reply, you live with it. If you don't agree, great- disagree. But don't whine about *me* wasting *your* time. You want to talk, cool. You don't, then move the hell along.
Oh, please do spare me. I'll be damned if I'm taken to task on Slashdot for being immature or inconsiderate. I personally think it's the height of arrogance to expect the vast majority to tiptoe around the illiterate morons who can't be bothered to PICK UP A BOOK. And I stand by my position: I have no sympathy for, nor any real inclination to accomodate, anyone who hasn't read LOTR. I'm not really trying to be an ass, although I'm probably coming off that way. I don't think you *have* to read it, I just don't want to hear the bitching when you (inevitably) hear about the things that happen in the book.
And as far as Citizen Kane goes, once again, if you haven't heard about it, get out from under the rock. I really don't think that the vanishingly small number of people who a) haven't seen it and b) might see it someday who are startled by this earth-shaking revelation on Slashdot are going to concern me unduly.
And furthermore, if the movie can't be enjoyed even if you know the "twist" then it's not worth watching.
None taken. However, given how LOTR is one of the most important pieces of western fiction written in the 20th century, and that it has existed for well over 50 years, I don't really feel too badly about spoiling the moviegoing experience for people who haven't taken the time to read the damn thing.
Further, in my opinion, you can't really enjoy the movie fully unless you've read the book, because so much is left out of the movie. Just as a single example, the movie never even touches on just why the city of Osgiliath is a destroyed ruin even though several major scenes take place there.
And really, people bitching about the movie being spoiled for them because they didn't know the plot of the book really is just plain irksome.
Just to be clear: Rosebud is a sled. The fucking boat sinks. The guy's really dead from the beginning. And Gollum is actually the one responsible for destroying the ring, albeit by accident. None of these things should be a surprise to anyone who hasn't lived in a hole for the last 20 years.
I'm not trying to be an ass (or maybe I am) but I really don't have much patience for anyone who is so dreadfully out of touch as to not know the basic plot of LOTR. I'm actually surprised that even people who haven't read the book don't know at least the high points.
Look, if you aren't familiar with the story, or haven't read it, I don't have much sympathy for you. It's not a surprise to anyone who's read a book in the last 50 years. The plot is hardly a mystery.
Sorry you haven't read the books, but you really should- and before you see the (last) movie. Believe me, you'll enjoy the movie more. Don't expect the majority who are familiar with the plot to go out of their way to avoid a "rosebud moment".
I might have to look into these, or a variation on the idea... I have 9 machines in a 9x10 room, along with two RAID chassis that have about 10 drives each, plus UPS, a CD tower, etc...
It gets so hot in there you can't really function without the AC running. I had to buy a window-mount air conditioner that runs 24/7 to keep the heat down, and even then it's still about 10 degrees warmer in there than the rest of the house. I can really crank the AC and get it cold- I went in there one morning and could see my breath - but that chews up a boatload of power, not to mention sometimes freezes up the AC when it's foggy outside. Oh, and it puts a strain on my residential wiring to push the AC any further than I do.
I've been trying to come up with ideas for venting the heat that didn't involve major renovations. One thought I had was putting some quiet fans in the floor and blowing the warm air under the house- no basement. Of course, I could also blow cold air up... might be better; it stays fairly consistent cool under there.
As a fan of Harry Harrison's work (as you seem to be as well), I'd have to say that some of it is fairly fanciful; however, not being a scientist myself, I can't really say if the development of fire is an absolute requirement for sentience.
But, I did use the word "digits" in place of "fingers", as I agree with you that it wouldn't have to be fingers as we have them, but rather something capable of manipulating the environment in a sophisticated fashion- tentacles or trunks would work as well. re: your comment about elephants, did you know that an elephant can pick up a sewing needle with its trunk? Of course, elephants also mourn their dead and "bury" them, so maybe they're the candidates for the next civilization. :)
Heh. While my wife and I were watching this show, they cut to commercial after showing a short teaser segment of the squids. My wife's comment was something like "So they're saying that Cthulhu gets the planet in 200 million years?"
My response- "If the stars are right."
I did find the HPL connection amusing, though.
I think that in order to evolve into a "civilization" as we understand it, a species would have to be able to produce fire, then machines... Kind of hard to do in an aquatic environment with limited ability to affect it (no opposable thumbs or even digits).
I'm not saying dolphins aren't smart, but I don't see how they can make the next step up that ladder without leaving the sea. And growing digits of some type.
The earliest birds (thought to be descended from dinosaurs) very likely started off as gliders. I don't see any particular reason why a fish couldn't evolve into something that could fly.
After all, if you accept that evolution is what produced us, your ultimate mammalian anscestor is most likely a shrew-like creature from way back in the dim and misty. Hardly an auspicious beginning. Who knew they'd get opposable thumbs? ;)
Perhaps I should clarify something- I believe fervently in the concept of secure computing, in that I think that no system can be trusted entirely without extraordinary precautions.
Personally, my own systems run behind a custom-made firewall box, with a DMZ for my exposed servers, physically seperated from my 802.11 and internal networks by NAT firewalls. Nothing is allowed to talk to anything unless I have given the OK.
Even with all these precautions, the best I can say for myself is that I've made my network a harder target to go after, which in turn makes it less likely when there are so many softer ones to attack. I also have done what I can to ensure the reliability of my systems so I can recover in case of either a crash or a compromise.
The "cautionary" attitude is a good idea, but there is a certain hysteria that surrounds these issues, which is where FUD comes into play, in my opinion. The FUD-drums are usually beaten most heavily by those who have a buck to make.
The majority of security professionals I know would prefer to be able to secure a system to an "acceptable" level, acceptable being defined as the level appropriate to the risk and the resources available to secure that system. Hype and hyperbole do little to enhance security and everything to enhance fear.
Just because your girlfriend's computer got compromised doesn't make the article's position incorrect. Even a few hundred zombies on some script kiddy IRC channel doesn't invalidate the contention.
I really don't think you can use your indivdual experience as a barometer for the world at large. Being cracked isn't a unique experience, but it's not as common as the FUD-mongers would have us believe.
The original GUI was invented at Xerox PARC. When Douglas Engelbart invented the mouse, he envisioned it being part of a "graphical windowed interface" and actually invented something called a "windowed GUI", mostly as a proof of concept, I think.
This URL has some interesting background. Others here will probably cite more reference material.
http://www.webmasterbase.com/article/511/45
Suffice to say, Microsoft didn't invent the idea of using the term "windows" to refer to a GUI with what we now think of as windowing effects.
The cat in question was a clone, and did have the exact same genetic makeup. It would have to, otherwise it would not be a clone, by definition.
However, it did go to show how much of the appearance of a cat is related to diet, environment, etc. I recall that even before it was born, scientists were saying that it wouldn't look identical to its "parent" (what's the word for the original of a clone with respect to the copy?) because of differences in diet of the cat carrying the fetus to term, as well as a multitude of other environmental factors.
Actually, one thing that cloning could do for us is finally resolve the nature/nurture debate.
Woah... is this for real? I haven't heard anything about it. Wish I read Japanese. :)
When's it supposed to come out?
Wow, now *there's* a blast from the past.
I'm in my 30's now and I remember watching Star Blazers when I was a kid- I'd get up around 6 AM, grab a bowl of cheerios and park it on the living room floor about 2 feet from the TV with my sleeping shirt pulled over my knees to watch Star Blazers and whatever else was on the local station in the AM. But Star Blazers was definitely the reason I got out of bed that early.
It'd probably be terrible now (most of the shows I watched as a kid seem peurile when I see them as an adult) but I'd love to see Star Blazers again. Seriously old-school.
People loathe it for many reasons, several of which include Sybok, Spock's supposed half-brother. But it's just a terrible film overall- the scene with Uhura dancing on the ridge was probably the nadir as far as I'm concerned.
However, Star Trek V did have what I thought was the best line ever delivered in a Star Trek film (well, there's a few contenders for the title, but I've always liked it): "Excuse me, but what does God need with a starship?"
In general, they're already paying for it (at least the goverments are, and I don't know how bad the piracy problem is in India...)
I think what's got Microsoft talking opening their source to the Indian government is that India and some other nations have been making noises about switching to open-source OSes. Maybe this is the first of several overtures to fractious governments.
Microsoft, after all, can offer some pretty tasty carrots with their sticks...
Well, I reread the article, and it doesn't say whether they're thinking about opening the whole thing up to this agency or just select portions... they've given up parts of their code before to big corps and some educational institutions before, but I don't think they've ever given anyone the whole shebang.
Given how MS has protected its source in the past, I wouldn't count on any leaks, even if they do strike some kind of deal. I just don't see it happening.