That's what I meant about Seconds-Per-Frame as opposed to Frames-Per-Second with GPS. If that refreshed once ever three seconds, it would probably go without notice. Hell, most of the OEM installs flip to a static screensaver after a 15s or so while driving, since even watching a moving map is of questionable safety, thus effectively dropping the necessary refresh on that panel to zero.
"So while driving you can see the GPS navigation your kid at the backseat can enjoy Ace Combat on his PS2 while your wife in the passenger seat checks out tourist sites and restaurants all in full-screen view."
In that specific circumstance, it makes a great deal of sense as you have limited space, predictable viewing locations and a fairly small number of reasonable applications, few of which require full UXGA resolution and practically none of which require the full refresh available. When gfx hardware routinely spits out 80+fps, cutting it down to 24fps/view wouldn't drop any perceptible quality in a small-screen in-car context. Hell, fps for GPS might as well be measured in spf. It also makes sense that you could force the left-hand view to never display the television/dvd/game source while moving, but allow it for the right-hand view (or vice-versa depending on location). As for resolution, on a small in-car screen, cutting a 1920x1200 line output into 640x1200...that's plenty for a damned dashboard display. It's more than sufficient for GPS and better than NTSC, so for the purposes intended, it's just being more efficient with available resources in an environment where space and power are precious.
What people really don't seem to understand is the reality that it is often more efficient to replace a system wholesale than get a new group of people who have a year of "learning curve" just to figure out what the hell the existing system is doing.
So, pretend you're a department manager with a million bucks to spend on some piece of software and your vendor just ceased to exist. Your existing application is ten years old and full of bugs. Do you spend your million bucks paying the salaries of ten developers to potentially get you to square one after a year or do you spend a half million bucks on licenses and support for a new package and still keep five in-house developers on to work on the transition?
Most people choose option number two. That's just the reality on the ground, so if you're going to make the open source case, frame it in that context. Don't put all your money on "hey! you've got the code!" -- because that's the least of the worries.
The problem is that an Open Source project would quickly become a proprietary project anyway. Take, for instance, VISTA (medical records). Yes, it's open source, hell, it was even developed by the government. However, since the VA's mission is decidedly NOT to provide tech support to the rest of the government, other departments that might use that system are left holding the bag to fully support it IN HOUSE, and that includes a metric ass-load of customization.
Where "Open Source" is really competing is in vertical, single-source support and in that department, it usually doesn't have an advantage. It's not that government is averse to using the stuff, it's just that they don't want to end up with something like the VA and VISTA where they have hundreds of full-time developers devoted to keeping it alive. They'd prefer to sign a vendor on to provide it as a service so they can get on with fulfilling their mission, not pretending to be a software development company.
The benefit of open source is that you "own" the code in the sense of having unfettered access to it and can continue developing it even if the original owner ceases to exist. However, owning the responsibility of perpetual development is precisely what government agencies DON'T WANT -- and, frankly, for good reason. They're not software companies and they're very bad at pretending to be so (take a look at the FBI case management system, for instance). When people make the case for open source on those grounds, you've just presented them with the worst nightmare imaginable, so don't be surprised if they scream and run away.
Service contracts. Sell your time in blocks, recurring for small businesses. Sort of, "pre-paid user support." Everyone I've ever known who has done this sort of home support from home has been driven completely mad until they broke their time into larger chunks. It seems to instill a certain degree of respect as well as sanity.
Strange... I have a laptop still running Win2k that I use daily. There's no noticeable instability compared to my XP machine or the two linux systems I have on the same desk. I have no love for Microsoft, but from my experience a properly patched Win2k Pro system is pretty rock-solid.
Stability issues are far more often behavioral in nature.
That said, I think your assessment of petty piracy is pretty accurate. I have my suspicions about the genuineness of the OS on my laptop as I bought it from a small shop that had it preinstalled. If they had handed me a blank HD, that baby would be running Linux, because there's no way in HELL I'm going to shell out 200 bucks for an OS on a $500 machine--and I'm not a starving kid, either. I have two Linux machines basically scavanged from corporate toss-out that were wiped. No way, no how would those boxes ever be blessed with even a $100 XP Home install. Please, I got them out of the frackin' trash. That'd be like putting $5k spinny-rims on a $500 '82 Honda Civic.
Makes about as much sense as walking up to someone on the street and shooting them in the back, then laughing and pointing at them for not being more careful because, you know, there are crazy people out there who will do bad things to you.
Uh, yeah... apparently.
Frankly, he should be put on the sex offenders list. That'd learn 'im.
I ALWAYS get the extra-special treatment. I'm DEFINITELY being profiled.
Why? I often fly on one-way tickets, to multiple destinations, with multiple-class itineraries (first one way, coach the other) and I've got travel to about twenty countries on my ICE file, which is a bit high by American standards. Last time I walked through US Customs after an extended period outside the country, the official said, with extra inflection, "what DO you do for a living?"
Yes, they're profiling...but it's not on "he's a darkie." It's "this person is, as they say, 'of interest.'" I'm sure there's a bit of randomness built in, but for those that get hit all the time, you're most likely being flagged by CAPS (5-10% are, btw.), not the airport staff. If you get the scarlet letter at the ticket counter, you can be all but guaranteed that is the case. Of course, you'll never know if or why...
ALL OF YOUR OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FROM NEARLY EVERY GODDAMNED PROVIDER.
It costs about double the standard consumer rate to get a SLA account.
Deal with it, people. All of your complaints are explicitly dealt with in your contracts and if you're posting on/., you've known this since the fucking nineties, so shut the fuck up already. This is so tired.
ICANN wouldn't be reaping profits. Verisign et al would be.
So the "ICANN SUXX0RZZ!!!" troop biatches, pisses and moans about the monopoly of the original Internic, so we got NetSol's effective monopoly of.com/.net, then they biatch about that, so we start bringing market forces to the domain registries. This is just another step down that path. No big surprise.
Actually, it's considered Central Europe note least insofar as Budapest is roughly equidistant from Madrid and Moscow. I mean, would you say Omaha is part of the Eastern United States?
The parent was clearly saying that extra weight is justified in this case in terms of increased productivity. Obviously, no one in their right mind would seriously imply that VS is in any way shape or form "light."
Perhaps re-reading the statement as "compared to the other, lighter tools..." would clarify this.
The people who criticise Richard Stallman are those who are afraid of his message.
He's trying to act like the statesman and it isn't working and that makes baby Richard cry. Yes, I "get" his message and I respect his contributions. I just wish he'd drop the increasingly shrill Tiresian schtick. It is doing more damage than good. No matter how valuable his message, it is not going to fall on the necessary ears if he keeps delivering it like a lunatic self-professed prophet and religious cult leader, pulling publicity stunts trying to make his perceived opponents look evil and combative, which of course is self-fulfilling. Stomp around screaming and hollering that people are ignoring you and, hey, guess what, they'll ignore you at best tell you to shut the fuck up already.
He and his devout followers seem to miss the fact that people who oppose them are not potential converts, nor are they necessarily adversaries. It's like devout Catholics and apostates living in a country with freedom of religion. You're more than welcome to practice what you preach in your own life. I've heard the message and I understand it thoroughly -- I just disagree. Blaring your gospel to me 24/7 as if it is the ONLY way is not going to convince me, it is just going to tire me of your presence...and that doesn't do your cause much good, does it? How about dropping the proselytizing bullshit so that we can find a middle ground? The message IS getting out and people DO agree within limits. Insisting on absolutes will only alienate.
Ah, and there's the rub. Show me someone with >$5M in assets who has truly earned that through their own labor. Chances are, they have required the benefits of government, employees and capital gains (translation: other people's labor, not their own). Aside from the obvious tax benefits, people give to charity to "give back to society." That sentiment communicates quite thoroughly the fact that society has given them their wealth or that they have taken it and that they owe something in return. Whether payment is received in the form of charity or inheiritance tax, the purpose is the same: you can give back or society will take it by force. Your choice.
The alternative is hereditary aristocracy and the founding fathers of this country feared that more than anything else. Pity people forget that and instead resort to this selfish economic egotism to their own peril.
"An hereditary aristocracy... will change the form of our governments from the best to the worst in the world. To know the mass of evil which flows from this fatal source, a person must be in France; he must see the finest soil, the finest climate, the most compact State, the most benevolent character of people, and every earthly advantage combined, insufficient to prevent this scourge from rendering existence a curse to twenty-four out of twenty-five parts of the inhabitants of this country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.
Old Warren is giving them a friendly tap on the nose to the effect of "you call THAT being charitable? Try this for size--and I'm not giving it to anything with my name on it, either. THAT'S charity."
Yeah, revolutionaries. Everyone has to turn their issues into wars. Well, you may win a war, but in making wars, you generally make enemies of half the people involved and that's not a very good strategy if you have a long list of wars you're fighting. Sooner or later, everyone will be your enemy and you'll likely end up dead along with your largely forgotten cause...or you'll rule the world with an iron fist and reign supreme. Guess which is more likely?
Yes, a man in a loincloth brought down the British Empire, but I wouldn't suggest showing up at the gates of parliament in diapers if you wish to be taken seriously.
People show up to see their Reps and Senators all the time. Let me tell you how it works: You walk in the door and ask the secretary, who is generally an effete 22yo male chess-club captain of dubious sexuality in a Brooks Brothers Oxford button-down and a bad tie and worse haircut, chat briefly (these offices are generally quite devoid of visitors) and make your case for your meeting. It doesn't hurt to have an attractive 20-something Abercrombie&Fitch type tagging along, who will oh-so-inappropriately try to drag said secretary out for drinks later after you leave (this town LIVES on booze). If you're not an asshole, they'll generally be quite forthcoming about the schedule and you'll now be a face attached to a name, event and issue (and possibly the best lay of their life--these people are SOOOOO repressed, it's practically certain)--this is the most important step. You then ask said secretary for the business card of the chief of staff (NOT the senator/rep), and inquire if you might speak with them today. Probably not going to happen, so you politely leave, saying you'll follow up in a week or so. Over the next month, you lobby that chief of staff-in brief, formal style--listing all the great benefits to the constituency--and campaign--your little event will provide and how you talked to Preston, the humble secretary, who thought it was a smashing idea. It also doesn't hurt to be a gadfly at the political party said Senator/Rep belongs to, such that you can bend the ear of a prominent person (read: campaign contributor) and drop their name in this extended sales-pitch. You may succeed, you may not, but if you follow proper protocol, you'd be amazed how easy it is to succeed. Now, you may not get everything you want, but you will get attention and as you've so keenly noted, you ARE just one voice out of several hundred thousand your rep must represent, so don't get too uppity if you get 1/700,000th of his/her undivided attention.
that ensures that the status quo (and whoever owns it) rules the day.
Hmm... funny how that's essentially the definition of "democracy." This is why a great deal of protest politics aren't taken seriously. They're making an end-run around the democratic process. Take your issues to your MP and lobby them to bring it to the attention of the rest of parliament and the PM. Get a bunch of people do to that with their respective MPs and you can be assured that your message will reach the PM's desk. You're quite likely to get an appointment with YOUR MP, who is also quite likely to get an appointment with the PM. There are 577 members of the National Assembly. Think of how much more effective it would be if 285 people scheduled "town hall" meetings with their respective MPs (you know, the ones who actually write the laws?) in every department of the country. Funny how that works--and no one needs to buy plane tickets.
If they sent it via email, perhaps, but it would be automated. If they expected a formal response on letterhead, no, two weeks is not enough time for a full turn-around. These sorts of things, barring great urgency of national signficance, are scheduled MONTHS ahead of time, not weeks.
I mean, come on, people schedule theater tickets and dinner with greater advance notice.
Letters were sent a few days ago to tell the day and hour of his coming
The arrogance of that is simply astounding. "I shall arrive, you shall se me." Pardon? It doesn't help that he insists on showing up looking like Robbie Coltrane on holiday and certainly not combined with that downright papal attitude. Newsflash, Richard, the rest of the world DOES expect to be treated with respect and that includes making appointments--in reasonable time--and showing up properly attired. Oh yes, you're an eccentric genius...yeah, and he's the Prime Minister of France. Wear a fucking suit and comb your goddamned hair, you lazy slob.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I meant about Seconds-Per-Frame as opposed to Frames-Per-Second with GPS. If that refreshed once ever three seconds, it would probably go without notice. Hell, most of the OEM installs flip to a static screensaver after a 15s or so while driving, since even watching a moving map is of questionable safety, thus effectively dropping the necessary refresh on that panel to zero.
"So while driving you can see the GPS navigation your kid at the backseat can enjoy Ace Combat on his PS2 while your wife in the passenger seat checks out tourist sites and restaurants all in full-screen view."
In that specific circumstance, it makes a great deal of sense as you have limited space, predictable viewing locations and a fairly small number of reasonable applications, few of which require full UXGA resolution and practically none of which require the full refresh available. When gfx hardware routinely spits out 80+fps, cutting it down to 24fps/view wouldn't drop any perceptible quality in a small-screen in-car context. Hell, fps for GPS might as well be measured in spf. It also makes sense that you could force the left-hand view to never display the television/dvd/game source while moving, but allow it for the right-hand view (or vice-versa depending on location). As for resolution, on a small in-car screen, cutting a 1920x1200 line output into 640x1200...that's plenty for a damned dashboard display. It's more than sufficient for GPS and better than NTSC, so for the purposes intended, it's just being more efficient with available resources in an environment where space and power are precious.
What people really don't seem to understand is the reality that it is often more efficient to replace a system wholesale than get a new group of people who have a year of "learning curve" just to figure out what the hell the existing system is doing.
So, pretend you're a department manager with a million bucks to spend on some piece of software and your vendor just ceased to exist. Your existing application is ten years old and full of bugs. Do you spend your million bucks paying the salaries of ten developers to potentially get you to square one after a year or do you spend a half million bucks on licenses and support for a new package and still keep five in-house developers on to work on the transition?
Most people choose option number two. That's just the reality on the ground, so if you're going to make the open source case, frame it in that context. Don't put all your money on "hey! you've got the code!" -- because that's the least of the worries.
The problem is that an Open Source project would quickly become a proprietary project anyway. Take, for instance, VISTA (medical records). Yes, it's open source, hell, it was even developed by the government. However, since the VA's mission is decidedly NOT to provide tech support to the rest of the government, other departments that might use that system are left holding the bag to fully support it IN HOUSE, and that includes a metric ass-load of customization.
Where "Open Source" is really competing is in vertical, single-source support and in that department, it usually doesn't have an advantage. It's not that government is averse to using the stuff, it's just that they don't want to end up with something like the VA and VISTA where they have hundreds of full-time developers devoted to keeping it alive. They'd prefer to sign a vendor on to provide it as a service so they can get on with fulfilling their mission, not pretending to be a software development company.
The benefit of open source is that you "own" the code in the sense of having unfettered access to it and can continue developing it even if the original owner ceases to exist. However, owning the responsibility of perpetual development is precisely what government agencies DON'T WANT -- and, frankly, for good reason. They're not software companies and they're very bad at pretending to be so (take a look at the FBI case management system, for instance). When people make the case for open source on those grounds, you've just presented them with the worst nightmare imaginable, so don't be surprised if they scream and run away.
Service contracts. Sell your time in blocks, recurring for small businesses. Sort of, "pre-paid user support." Everyone I've ever known who has done this sort of home support from home has been driven completely mad until they broke their time into larger chunks. It seems to instill a certain degree of respect as well as sanity.
Strange... I have a laptop still running Win2k that I use daily. There's no noticeable instability compared to my XP machine or the two linux systems I have on the same desk. I have no love for Microsoft, but from my experience a properly patched Win2k Pro system is pretty rock-solid.
Stability issues are far more often behavioral in nature.
That said, I think your assessment of petty piracy is pretty accurate. I have my suspicions about the genuineness of the OS on my laptop as I bought it from a small shop that had it preinstalled. If they had handed me a blank HD, that baby would be running Linux, because there's no way in HELL I'm going to shell out 200 bucks for an OS on a $500 machine--and I'm not a starving kid, either. I have two Linux machines basically scavanged from corporate toss-out that were wiped. No way, no how would those boxes ever be blessed with even a $100 XP Home install. Please, I got them out of the frackin' trash. That'd be like putting $5k spinny-rims on a $500 '82 Honda Civic.
Makes about as much sense as walking up to someone on the street and shooting them in the back, then laughing and pointing at them for not being more careful because, you know, there are crazy people out there who will do bad things to you.
Uh, yeah... apparently.
Frankly, he should be put on the sex offenders list. That'd learn 'im.
I ALWAYS get the extra-special treatment. I'm DEFINITELY being profiled. Why? I often fly on one-way tickets, to multiple destinations, with multiple-class itineraries (first one way, coach the other) and I've got travel to about twenty countries on my ICE file, which is a bit high by American standards. Last time I walked through US Customs after an extended period outside the country, the official said, with extra inflection, "what DO you do for a living?" Yes, they're profiling...but it's not on "he's a darkie." It's "this person is, as they say, 'of interest.'" I'm sure there's a bit of randomness built in, but for those that get hit all the time, you're most likely being flagged by CAPS (5-10% are, btw.), not the airport staff. If you get the scarlet letter at the ticket counter, you can be all but guaranteed that is the case. Of course, you'll never know if or why...
This is hardly an "easter egg" someone randomly found... this is an advertising campaign.
/. for 12 hours and I'm pulling 5.1Mb/s from their site...it ain't no accident.
When it's been on
ALL OF YOUR OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FROM NEARLY EVERY GODDAMNED PROVIDER.
/., you've known this since the fucking nineties, so shut the fuck up already. This is so tired.
It costs about double the standard consumer rate to get a SLA account.
Deal with it, people. All of your complaints are explicitly dealt with in your contracts and if you're posting on
ICANN wouldn't be reaping profits. Verisign et al would be.
.com/.net, then they biatch about that, so we start bringing market forces to the domain registries. This is just another step down that path. No big surprise.
So the "ICANN SUXX0RZZ!!!" troop biatches, pisses and moans about the monopoly of the original Internic, so we got NetSol's effective monopoly of
Actually, it's considered Central Europe note least insofar as Budapest is roughly equidistant from Madrid and Moscow. I mean, would you say Omaha is part of the Eastern United States?
The parent was clearly saying that extra weight is justified in this case in terms of increased productivity. Obviously, no one in their right mind would seriously imply that VS is in any way shape or form "light."
Perhaps re-reading the statement as "compared to the other, lighter tools..." would clarify this.
Personnel to the field...
Servers to production...
Applications to servers...
Software Updates...
A day doesn't go by that someone doesn't "deploy" something.
Hell, I "deploy" about 75 times per day during testing.
We're deploying ten new sites around the country next week and yes, we have a map...on a big board...and lots of precious bodily fluids.
The people who criticise Richard Stallman are those who are afraid of his message.
He's trying to act like the statesman and it isn't working and that makes baby Richard cry. Yes, I "get" his message and I respect his contributions. I just wish he'd drop the increasingly shrill Tiresian schtick. It is doing more damage than good. No matter how valuable his message, it is not going to fall on the necessary ears if he keeps delivering it like a lunatic self-professed prophet and religious cult leader, pulling publicity stunts trying to make his perceived opponents look evil and combative, which of course is self-fulfilling. Stomp around screaming and hollering that people are ignoring you and, hey, guess what, they'll ignore you at best tell you to shut the fuck up already.
He and his devout followers seem to miss the fact that people who oppose them are not potential converts, nor are they necessarily adversaries. It's like devout Catholics and apostates living in a country with freedom of religion. You're more than welcome to practice what you preach in your own life. I've heard the message and I understand it thoroughly -- I just disagree. Blaring your gospel to me 24/7 as if it is the ONLY way is not going to convince me, it is just going to tire me of your presence...and that doesn't do your cause much good, does it? How about dropping the proselytizing bullshit so that we can find a middle ground? The message IS getting out and people DO agree within limits. Insisting on absolutes will only alienate.
Ah, and there's the rub. Show me someone with >$5M in assets who has truly earned that through their own labor. Chances are, they have required the benefits of government, employees and capital gains (translation: other people's labor, not their own). Aside from the obvious tax benefits, people give to charity to "give back to society." That sentiment communicates quite thoroughly the fact that society has given them their wealth or that they have taken it and that they owe something in return. Whether payment is received in the form of charity or inheiritance tax, the purpose is the same: you can give back or society will take it by force. Your choice.
The alternative is hereditary aristocracy and the founding fathers of this country feared that more than anything else. Pity people forget that and instead resort to this selfish economic egotism to their own peril.
"An hereditary aristocracy... will change the form of our governments from the best to the worst in the world. To know the mass of evil which flows from this fatal source, a person must be in France; he must see the finest soil, the finest climate, the most compact State, the most benevolent character of people, and every earthly advantage combined, insufficient to prevent this scourge from rendering existence a curse to twenty-four out of twenty-five parts of the inhabitants of this country." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786.
They didn't change the name to "The Warren Buffet, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," did they? Maybe I missed that part...
Old Warren is giving them a friendly tap on the nose to the effect of "you call THAT being charitable? Try this for size--and I'm not giving it to anything with my name on it, either. THAT'S charity."
Yeah, revolutionaries. Everyone has to turn their issues into wars. Well, you may win a war, but in making wars, you generally make enemies of half the people involved and that's not a very good strategy if you have a long list of wars you're fighting. Sooner or later, everyone will be your enemy and you'll likely end up dead along with your largely forgotten cause...or you'll rule the world with an iron fist and reign supreme. Guess which is more likely?
Yes, a man in a loincloth brought down the British Empire, but I wouldn't suggest showing up at the gates of parliament in diapers if you wish to be taken seriously.
People show up to see their Reps and Senators all the time. Let me tell you how it works: You walk in the door and ask the secretary, who is generally an effete 22yo male chess-club captain of dubious sexuality in a Brooks Brothers Oxford button-down and a bad tie and worse haircut, chat briefly (these offices are generally quite devoid of visitors) and make your case for your meeting. It doesn't hurt to have an attractive 20-something Abercrombie&Fitch type tagging along, who will oh-so-inappropriately try to drag said secretary out for drinks later after you leave (this town LIVES on booze). If you're not an asshole, they'll generally be quite forthcoming about the schedule and you'll now be a face attached to a name, event and issue (and possibly the best lay of their life--these people are SOOOOO repressed, it's practically certain)--this is the most important step. You then ask said secretary for the business card of the chief of staff (NOT the senator/rep), and inquire if you might speak with them today. Probably not going to happen, so you politely leave, saying you'll follow up in a week or so. Over the next month, you lobby that chief of staff-in brief, formal style--listing all the great benefits to the constituency--and campaign--your little event will provide and how you talked to Preston, the humble secretary, who thought it was a smashing idea. It also doesn't hurt to be a gadfly at the political party said Senator/Rep belongs to, such that you can bend the ear of a prominent person (read: campaign contributor) and drop their name in this extended sales-pitch. You may succeed, you may not, but if you follow proper protocol, you'd be amazed how easy it is to succeed. Now, you may not get everything you want, but you will get attention and as you've so keenly noted, you ARE just one voice out of several hundred thousand your rep must represent, so don't get too uppity if you get 1/700,000th of his/her undivided attention.
that ensures that the status quo (and whoever owns it) rules the day.
Hmm... funny how that's essentially the definition of "democracy." This is why a great deal of protest politics aren't taken seriously. They're making an end-run around the democratic process. Take your issues to your MP and lobby them to bring it to the attention of the rest of parliament and the PM. Get a bunch of people do to that with their respective MPs and you can be assured that your message will reach the PM's desk. You're quite likely to get an appointment with YOUR MP, who is also quite likely to get an appointment with the PM. There are 577 members of the National Assembly. Think of how much more effective it would be if 285 people scheduled "town hall" meetings with their respective MPs (you know, the ones who actually write the laws?) in every department of the country. Funny how that works--and no one needs to buy plane tickets.
If they sent it via email, perhaps, but it would be automated. If they expected a formal response on letterhead, no, two weeks is not enough time for a full turn-around. These sorts of things, barring great urgency of national signficance, are scheduled MONTHS ahead of time, not weeks.
I mean, come on, people schedule theater tickets and dinner with greater advance notice.
...is the Parliament, not some random collection of loonies storming the gates.
Letters were sent a few days ago to tell the day and hour of his coming
The arrogance of that is simply astounding. "I shall arrive, you shall se me." Pardon? It doesn't help that he insists on showing up looking like Robbie Coltrane on holiday and certainly not combined with that downright papal attitude. Newsflash, Richard, the rest of the world DOES expect to be treated with respect and that includes making appointments--in reasonable time--and showing up properly attired. Oh yes, you're an eccentric genius...yeah, and he's the Prime Minister of France. Wear a fucking suit and comb your goddamned hair, you lazy slob.
Duh.