The qualities you mention could be summarized as active vs. passive entertainment. While the 'active participation' is one of *the* strengths of the 'net, it can also be a downside. It challenges people intellectually, and while I enjoy that, it can also be tiresome.
When you have infinate choices to make, you need to think about what to choose, continuously. If there's only 20 channels to zap between, just hitting "next" on your remote requires 0 mental effort. Add the low content-vs.-crap ratio of TV, compared with interesting feed-your-brain stuff found on the net. Recently, internet connection to my home was out of order for over a week, and that made it extra noticable how hard it is to find quality content on TV these days.
But sometimes, people just *want* to be passive, and soak in the experience without providing any input. That's why we have cinema's, and why TV still serves a purpose. Choosing between the two, I think I could easily do without TV, but would be very reluctant to give up internet access.
Recent Submissions:
Ask Slashdot: Do you still need a TV? - Rejected
Unbelievable... practically all software includes lots of license info, some of it changes from time to time, so why should this be a problem? I thought/. crowd was very capable of spotting a comment that aims for the "funny" mark. But no, multiple readers that took my comment seriously... *sigh*
Good, so maybe you can shine your light on this, I quote from the draft license itself:
"4.1. New Versions.
Sun Microsystems, Inc. is the initial license steward and may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number."
So, besides distributing patches to software, we can start distributing patches to licenses as well?
IBM would be essentially saying "well, we're going to buy generic white box PCs from China instead of supplying our quality systems from now on."
It seems like you're implying that the 'generic white box PCs from China' are inferior to IBM-supplied boxes. That may be true, but need not necessarily so.
I think you could read IBM's move as: "we just can't/won't keep up with the price/performance of generic white boxes coming from China, so therefore there's no point in continuing to produce our own line". And there's also their customers, who may just be saying to IBM: "look, we're sorry, but we'll be getting our generic desktops from China now on, they're cheaper, but good enough to do the job".
That wouldn't stop IBM from cutting a deal with a quality supplier, put "IBM" labels on the boxes, and offer those to their customers. It seems IBM just feels it isn't worth it anymore to produce those desktops themselves. Makes sense, if you ask me. Plenty suppliers out there to choose from.
Aging is a built-in process, but what is a useful lifespan? Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' hints at it. For a single creature it might help to live 1000 years, but not for a species as a group. The core of the matter: adaptation to the environment.
With each generation, genes are remixed, and that gives an opportunity to adjust those genes to better match requirements. If creatures live short & reproduce quickly, then there are frequent opportunities to remix those genes, and the genetic package can quickly adapt to a changing environment (like in the case of bacteria). But if an environment is very static or isolated, it makes sense to remix the genes not too often, and have (or evolve towards) a long lifespan.
So what's a useful lifespan? A period that is long enough to reproduce, and short enough, so that the re-mixing of genes can keep pace with the changing environment.
If people would live 1000 years, it would also mean that human kind as a species would evolve at a much slower pace. That may not be a good idea. That is, if we disregard the option of genetic engineering to speed up the process...
And so are the paedos - the one reason I would never run a node.
Every technology has its downside(s)
Guaranteeing certain freedoms *always* goes hand in hand with a certain level of crime. The only way to avoid that, is to get rid of those freedoms. I'm sure you could get crime rates pretty low by setting up a police state, and monitoring every single person 24/7, with a central government deciding what people should do each day. But do you want to live like that? I sure as hell don't.
For the rest it's just compromises, finding a proper balance between pro's & cons. P2P networks happen to be quite useful, and sometimes there are good reasons for sharing information, even if illegal. Think Chinese government censorship, sharing TV show episodes, whistleblowers who bring abuses of power out into the open, etc. etc. I don't like paedos either, but "illegal" isn't automatically the same as "wrong".
So it's time to switch to a serverless network under an open-source project?
A network with no central servers or even 'supernodes' reduces the effect of DoS-attacks, and leaves no single person or company to attack with a lawsuit. But that alone isn't enough. Other problems remain, like the privacy issue. Many P2P networks reveal IP addresses of nodes on 'the other end'. Thus, after retrieval of a file, you know from what IP address(es) the file came from. That leaves the network vulnerable for attacks or legal steps against individual users.
To prevent this, it must be impossible to find out who/where a retrieved file (or search query) actually came from (IP, geographical location or otherwise).
Besides the well known Freenet, there's another promising one called ANts. From what I can tell, it works by passing data between nodes, without passing info on the endpoints where data is coming from/going to. Each node passes data on, but doesn't know if the next node will keep it, or in turn pass it on to yet another node in a path. IP addresses are replaced with a virtual 'network ID' (regularly discarded), and combined with encryption, a single node can't tell what it's passing on, where it came from, or where it's going. IP addresses are only known for a few neighbours it contacts directly. For an analogy, think anonymous remailers. The project page also mentions something similar called MUTE. I guess you could call projects like this 3rd generation P2P networks. Looking forward to it! (and please add if you know more like these)
Just wondering: given a certain design, isn't the fuel consumption very dependent on speed? From what I understand, there's some exponential relation between speed and air drag. Like, go 2x as fast, 2^something more drag.
When you fly around the world on one tank of gas, I'd think a crucial issue is to maximise the distance/fuel ratio. Given above exponential relation, it seems to me, flying slow would help. I remember NASA built some solar-powered, high-flying plane once, that could stay airborne for very long (effectively indefinite if parts kept working). I also remember that thingie was flying at relative low speed, presumably for same reason.
If you go too slow, you'll drop out of the sky (duhhh...). If you go fast, you need less time but burn fuel like crazy. Also, for slow flying you might need more wing surface, read: increase the weight of the aircraft. So where's an optimum here? Anyone got some (informed) insights?
Let me make the distinction between "Our constitution gives Congress the right.." (the law itself), and "to serve the public interest" (the effect the law has).
I'd say that allowing a copyright owner the ability to exercise dog-in-the-manger style control, by intent or by apathy, is clearly unconstitutional.
With above distinction, your view reads to me as: "because the law doesn't have the intended effect, it should be declared unconstitutional". Newsflash: this happens all the time, and laws aren't unconstitutional because of it. I read court decisions like this as saying: "Yes, maybe the law doesn't have its intended effect, but we don't deal with that. We only deal with (whether Congress has the right to put that law in place). We (the court) decide that Congress has that right".
A pity, but I can accept that. It just means that Congress/lawmaking is the place to fix this, not the courts.
For a suggestion, I quote from the Stanford article: "For the first 186 years of our Republic, copyright laws established an "opt-in" system, one in which copyrights were secured only to those who took steps to claim them. In 1976 and 1989, Congress inverted this regime, transforming copyright law into an "opt-out" system, one in which rights are granted automatically and indiscriminately unless disclaimed." (anyone know an important reason why this change was made?). Me thinks it would really serve the public to revert that change, back to an opt-in policy, where authors have to take active steps to secure copyrights. That would solve the orphaned-works problem in an instant.
Too bad, the copyright-profit industry clearly has better lobbyist teams working the Congress than the public has.
The things that are installed within the 4 minute period mentioned, are just the most critical security updates for your system, including but not limited to:
Pop-up enabler
Firewall manager
IE extensions helper utility
self-configuring remote control support
keyboard performance monitor
free on-line registration, and ofcourse:
automatic updates (no user configuration required)
Should any of these updates cause unexpected issues, then please contact your vendor for additional support.
DISCLAIMER: This message has been prepared with great care by our customer support department. Despite our efforts, we cannot guarantee full accuracy of this notice. Our company assumes no liability for any loss of data, damages or lost revenue resulting from the use of this information.
If you can't baffle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bullshit.
Please give me a way to explain what a telegram is..
WTF? Telegrams I understand, but I'm still struggling to use that e-mail thingie everyone talks about. And now you hear about MSN, SMS (something with cordless phone from what I understand),...I'm going crazy with all this new stuff!
Back in the days, there'd be some new invention every 10 years or so, parents could tell their kids that they had watched the first landing on the moon, but that was it. Now in these modern times... pffff...
I'm getting too old for this.. oh please don't take/. so seriously...
"More likely, the NSA were only appearing to contribute to the Linux kernel, while they were actually introducing subtle and cleverly obfuscated bugs that will allow them to read Osama's email, and tell on him to his mother if he blows things up."
Note to moderators: both "funny" and "insightful" apply to parent post! Stranger things have happened. Just a thought: maintain public-readonly source repository, use internal subtle-but-evil-injecting-filter and compile, and distribute clean-looking-but-subtle-screwed binaries. Just out of curiosity, I checked NSA site, but it looks they don't even distribute binaries, source code only, and nicely sorted into different packages.
/me thinks SELinux is nice demonstration of the power of open source, showing that contributions can be useful to anyone, competitors/enemies included (and vice versa!), regardless of hidden agendas. Just check if a modification suits you, and apply (or not) as you wish.
With prices ranging from $25-$50, I can't help the obvious thought: what needs to be inside such a WiFi finder, and... what should a simple thingie like this cost?
Duhh.. antenna (cheap), plastic box (cents), couple of LED's/switches (cents), batteries (included?), small PCB (cheap), some dedicated IC's (???, anyone got some info here?), design/packaging/retail etc. (large portion of street price?)
Easy to build yourself as hobby project? Estimated price a couple of years from now?
.. passage that might sound kind of scary: "Intellectual property surrounds us in nearly everything we do (..)"
I don't care shit if IP is everywhere. So is water, air or electromagnetic waves. What I DO care about is:
The annoying habit of using the term "property". As if it's the same as a house, book or car. Everybody knows it isn't. For some purposes, it may be convenient to treat it the same, but there is fundamental difference between ordinary property, and "IP". Let's make that distinction, shall we? Finding another term to describe "IP" would be a good start.
Less annoying is the view of property in general as a natural right, like something that people are born with, or a law of nature. It isn't. "Property" is just an agreement between people ("I was here first, this plot of land is mine"), a legal concept. One that is useful in practice, and feels natural to most people.
All the troubles it causes (examples in top of this document), barriers it creates to actually getting work done. The need to include copyright statements with everything you write, lawsuits, the hassle of going through EULA's, slowing down innovation, etc, etc, etc. (the list is long)
I wonder if it's possible to live in an IP-free environment
Nope, if you belong to the human race. It's only a matter of time before plants with patented genes are growing in the Brazilian rainforest (if they aren'talready), and once out, there's no seperating these from wild plants. Given time, it won't really be possible to grow crops that don't have geneticly modified/patented genes in them. Ofcourse, this is only one example.
Ideally, I think we need a whole new *physical* layer Internet, separate from the existing Internet or Internet2 and devoid of participation by any and all governmental agents and (..) Oh well, I can dream of a freer world, can't I?
Already in place. It's called "mouth-to-mouth", "face to face", "meeting in person". 6 billion users worldwide, very scalable, accessible to anyone who speaks the local lingo, free as in beer and free as in freedom, anonymous if desired (you don't know me, I don't know you, or secretly slip a note in someone's pocket), tamper-proof, available 24/7, works without electric power, earthquake and flood resistant, and can be secured very well against wiretapping.
Drawbacks: moderate efficiency, high latency, low bandwidth, machine-readability stinks. Use when non-machine readable information exchange is desired, or when all else fails.
It's worth noting that massive amount of Air Force computing needs are not "critical shit".
Please give some examples of 'non-critical' knowing it's used to run Air Force day-to-day operations. Pick any army: frontline soldiers & systems, a huge logistics operation, training facilities, some research/development, command/control. When not at war, a breakdown may be a nuisance, but at war, logistics or training facilities can be just as crucial to the outcome of a conflict as anything else.
Some piece of software may not be guiding a cruise missile to its target, but what if a parts ordering system fucks up? Frontline soldiers run shit out of luck when supplies don't come in time. Same with maintenance/repair tasks. When your fancy computer-aided training system breaks down, that can cause an army to run out of personnel that has the right skills for a particular job.
Consolidation of software may streamline this whole machinery (good), but at the same time provide more centralised points of attack (bad).
If a terrorist could take out a single data center, they could essentially take out the whole Air Force.
"Cripple" would be a better description, but just as effective. The upside? (sorry, my opinion, I'm not too happy with US military deployments lately). Maybe this improves other countries' chances when facing US forces. Heck, if you're a small guerilla force: train hackers instead of soldiers, and your army's effect on US forces may increase swiftly. A piece of malware injected in the right place may be mighty effective if all desktops run the exact same software.
Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. -Ani DiFranco
No, first the US has to send troops to liberate the aliens on Mars from their evil dictator, and help protect the aliens oil reserves. Then all will be peaceful again.
Re: So, they really are out to get me...
on
Tin Foil Passports?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
They laughed when I wore my tinfoil hat.
Maybe then you can put your new passport on your head? Or no, that wouldn't work, because... "they" put the tinfoil on that passport, so *that* tinfoil would surely allow mind-control rays to pass through.
(For uninformed/. readers: for good shielding from "them", you need to make your own tinfoil from raw material)
Now they all want to buy my sporty Faraday Cagewear (TM) line of geek clothing..
Where can I buy some? I need some new underwear, and a couple of T-shirts. Have them in black? Oh yeah, and some socks too. Strange... never seen that brand in a shop... "they" had it removed from the shelves, I suppose?
Slashdot Mirror
The qualities you mention could be summarized as active vs. passive entertainment. While the 'active participation' is one of *the* strengths of the 'net, it can also be a downside. It challenges people intellectually, and while I enjoy that, it can also be tiresome.
When you have infinate choices to make, you need to think about what to choose, continuously. If there's only 20 channels to zap between, just hitting "next" on your remote requires 0 mental effort. Add the low content-vs.-crap ratio of TV, compared with interesting feed-your-brain stuff found on the net. Recently, internet connection to my home was out of order for over a week, and that made it extra noticable how hard it is to find quality content on TV these days.
But sometimes, people just *want* to be passive, and soak in the experience without providing any input. That's why we have cinema's, and why TV still serves a purpose. Choosing between the two, I think I could easily do without TV, but would be very reluctant to give up internet access.
Recent Submissions:
Ask Slashdot: Do you still need a TV? - Rejected
Please go here now.
Good, so maybe you can shine your light on this, I quote from the draft license itself:
"4.1. New Versions.
Sun Microsystems, Inc. is the initial license steward and may publish revised and/or new versions of this License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number."
So, besides distributing patches to software, we can start distributing patches to licenses as well?
Great. Just what everyone needed.
Where is it?
It seems like you're implying that the 'generic white box PCs from China' are inferior to IBM-supplied boxes. That may be true, but need not necessarily so.
I think you could read IBM's move as: "we just can't/won't keep up with the price/performance of generic white boxes coming from China, so therefore there's no point in continuing to produce our own line". And there's also their customers, who may just be saying to IBM: "look, we're sorry, but we'll be getting our generic desktops from China now on, they're cheaper, but good enough to do the job".
That wouldn't stop IBM from cutting a deal with a quality supplier, put "IBM" labels on the boxes, and offer those to their customers. It seems IBM just feels it isn't worth it anymore to produce those desktops themselves. Makes sense, if you ask me. Plenty suppliers out there to choose from.
eXtreme Programming: Comment early, read often, reply frequently, moderate mercilessly.
Aging is a built-in process, but what is a useful lifespan? Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' hints at it. For a single creature it might help to live 1000 years, but not for a species as a group. The core of the matter: adaptation to the environment.
With each generation, genes are remixed, and that gives an opportunity to adjust those genes to better match requirements. If creatures live short & reproduce quickly, then there are frequent opportunities to remix those genes, and the genetic package can quickly adapt to a changing environment (like in the case of bacteria). But if an environment is very static or isolated, it makes sense to remix the genes not too often, and have (or evolve towards) a long lifespan.
So what's a useful lifespan? A period that is long enough to reproduce, and short enough, so that the re-mixing of genes can keep pace with the changing environment.
If people would live 1000 years, it would also mean that human kind as a species would evolve at a much slower pace. That may not be a good idea. That is, if we disregard the option of genetic engineering to speed up the process...
eXtreme Programming: comment early, read often, reply frequently, moderate mercilessly.
For the rest it's just compromises, finding a proper balance between pro's & cons. P2P networks happen to be quite useful, and sometimes there are good reasons for sharing information, even if illegal. Think Chinese government censorship, sharing TV show episodes, whistleblowers who bring abuses of power out into the open, etc. etc. I don't like paedos either, but "illegal" isn't automatically the same as "wrong".
The number of domain names used for hosting adult content, was reported to have hit the 50 million mark.
A network with no central servers or even 'supernodes' reduces the effect of DoS-attacks, and leaves no single person or company to attack with a lawsuit. But that alone isn't enough. Other problems remain, like the privacy issue. Many P2P networks reveal IP addresses of nodes on 'the other end'. Thus, after retrieval of a file, you know from what IP address(es) the file came from. That leaves the network vulnerable for attacks or legal steps against individual users.
To prevent this, it must be impossible to find out who/where a retrieved file (or search query) actually came from (IP, geographical location or otherwise).
Besides the well known Freenet, there's another promising one called ANts. From what I can tell, it works by passing data between nodes, without passing info on the endpoints where data is coming from/going to. Each node passes data on, but doesn't know if the next node will keep it, or in turn pass it on to yet another node in a path. IP addresses are replaced with a virtual 'network ID' (regularly discarded), and combined with encryption, a single node can't tell what it's passing on, where it came from, or where it's going. IP addresses are only known for a few neighbours it contacts directly. For an analogy, think anonymous remailers. The project page also mentions something similar called MUTE. I guess you could call projects like this 3rd generation P2P networks. Looking forward to it! (and please add if you know more like these)
Simple: just program it to pick a strategic location. What's this rubble doing he....$#!*&@^
Too bad she won't live... But then again, who does?
And on Slashdot, readers are 0wned by all these endless "in Korea/Russia..." jokes!
When you fly around the world on one tank of gas, I'd think a crucial issue is to maximise the distance/fuel ratio. Given above exponential relation, it seems to me, flying slow would help. I remember NASA built some solar-powered, high-flying plane once, that could stay airborne for very long (effectively indefinite if parts kept working). I also remember that thingie was flying at relative low speed, presumably for same reason.
If you go too slow, you'll drop out of the sky (duhhh...). If you go fast, you need less time but burn fuel like crazy. Also, for slow flying you might need more wing surface, read: increase the weight of the aircraft. So where's an optimum here? Anyone got some (informed) insights?
I'd say that allowing a copyright owner the ability to exercise dog-in-the-manger style control, by intent or by apathy, is clearly unconstitutional.
With above distinction, your view reads to me as: "because the law doesn't have the intended effect, it should be declared unconstitutional". Newsflash: this happens all the time, and laws aren't unconstitutional because of it. I read court decisions like this as saying: "Yes, maybe the law doesn't have its intended effect, but we don't deal with that. We only deal with (whether Congress has the right to put that law in place). We (the court) decide that Congress has that right".
A pity, but I can accept that. It just means that Congress/lawmaking is the place to fix this, not the courts.
For a suggestion, I quote from the Stanford article: "For the first 186 years of our Republic, copyright laws established an "opt-in" system, one in which copyrights were secured only to those who took steps to claim them. In 1976 and 1989, Congress inverted this regime, transforming copyright law into an "opt-out" system, one in which rights are granted automatically and indiscriminately unless disclaimed." (anyone know an important reason why this change was made?). Me thinks it would really serve the public to revert that change, back to an opt-in policy, where authors have to take active steps to secure copyrights. That would solve the orphaned-works problem in an instant.
Too bad, the copyright-profit industry clearly has better lobbyist teams working the Congress than the public has.
Should any of these updates cause unexpected issues, then please contact your vendor for additional support.
DISCLAIMER: This message has been prepared with great care by our customer support department. Despite our efforts, we cannot guarantee full accuracy of this notice. Our company assumes no liability for any loss of data, damages or lost revenue resulting from the use of this information.
If you can't baffle them with brilliance, dazzle them with bullshit.
WTF? Telegrams I understand, but I'm still struggling to use that e-mail thingie everyone talks about. And now you hear about MSN, SMS (something with cordless phone from what I understand), ...I'm going crazy with all this new stuff!
Back in the days, there'd be some new invention every 10 years or so, parents could tell their kids that they had watched the first landing on the moon, but that was it. Now in these modern times... pffff...
I'm getting too old for this.. oh please don't take /. so seriously...
Note to moderators: both "funny" and "insightful" apply to parent post! Stranger things have happened. Just a thought: maintain public-readonly source repository, use internal subtle-but-evil-injecting-filter and compile, and distribute clean-looking-but-subtle-screwed binaries. Just out of curiosity, I checked NSA site, but it looks they don't even distribute binaries, source code only, and nicely sorted into different packages.
$1000.. that even's less than the $2000 figure for a trained rat that sniffs out landmines...
From the summary: "We're also looking into including more advanced cameras and other types of sensors .."
Rats.. sniffing.. any electronic smell sensors included on the vehicle?
Duhh.. antenna (cheap), plastic box (cents), couple of LED's/switches (cents), batteries (included?), small PCB (cheap), some dedicated IC's (???, anyone got some info here?), design/packaging/retail etc. (large portion of street price?)
Easy to build yourself as hobby project? Estimated price a couple of years from now?
I don't care shit if IP is everywhere. So is water, air or electromagnetic waves. What I DO care about is:
- The annoying habit of using the term "property". As if it's the same as a house, book or car. Everybody knows it isn't. For some purposes, it may be convenient to treat it the same, but there is fundamental difference between ordinary property, and "IP". Let's make that distinction, shall we? Finding another term to describe "IP" would be a good start.
- Less annoying is the view of property in general as a natural right, like something that people are born with, or a law of nature. It isn't. "Property" is just an agreement between people ("I was here first, this plot of land is mine"), a legal concept. One that is useful in practice, and feels natural to most people.
- All the troubles it causes (examples in top of this document), barriers it creates to actually getting work done. The need to include copyright statements with everything you write, lawsuits, the hassle of going through EULA's, slowing down innovation, etc, etc, etc. (the list is long)
I wonder if it's possible to live in an IP-free environmentNope, if you belong to the human race. It's only a matter of time before plants with patented genes are growing in the Brazilian rainforest (if they aren't already), and once out, there's no seperating these from wild plants. Given time, it won't really be possible to grow crops that don't have geneticly modified/patented genes in them. Ofcourse, this is only one example.
if you're pretty enough...
Already in place. It's called "mouth-to-mouth", "face to face", "meeting in person". 6 billion users worldwide, very scalable, accessible to anyone who speaks the local lingo, free as in beer and free as in freedom, anonymous if desired (you don't know me, I don't know you, or secretly slip a note in someone's pocket), tamper-proof, available 24/7, works without electric power, earthquake and flood resistant, and can be secured very well against wiretapping.
Drawbacks: moderate efficiency, high latency, low bandwidth, machine-readability stinks. Use when non-machine readable information exchange is desired, or when all else fails.
Doing that (editing a link collection in this case) != being member or supporting PKK
Please give some examples of 'non-critical' knowing it's used to run Air Force day-to-day operations. Pick any army: frontline soldiers & systems, a huge logistics operation, training facilities, some research/development, command/control. When not at war, a breakdown may be a nuisance, but at war, logistics or training facilities can be just as crucial to the outcome of a conflict as anything else.
Some piece of software may not be guiding a cruise missile to its target, but what if a parts ordering system fucks up? Frontline soldiers run shit out of luck when supplies don't come in time. Same with maintenance/repair tasks. When your fancy computer-aided training system breaks down, that can cause an army to run out of personnel that has the right skills for a particular job.
Consolidation of software may streamline this whole machinery (good), but at the same time provide more centralised points of attack (bad).
If a terrorist could take out a single data center, they could essentially take out the whole Air Force.
"Cripple" would be a better description, but just as effective. The upside? (sorry, my opinion, I'm not too happy with US military deployments lately). Maybe this improves other countries' chances when facing US forces. Heck, if you're a small guerilla force: train hackers instead of soldiers, and your army's effect on US forces may increase swiftly. A piece of malware injected in the right place may be mighty effective if all desktops run the exact same software.
Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right. -Ani DiFranco
No, first the US has to send troops to liberate the aliens on Mars from their evil dictator, and help protect the aliens oil reserves. Then all will be peaceful again.
Maybe then you can put your new passport on your head? Or no, that wouldn't work, because... "they" put the tinfoil on that passport, so *that* tinfoil would surely allow mind-control rays to pass through.
(For uninformed /. readers: for good shielding from "them", you need to make your own tinfoil from raw material)
Now they all want to buy my sporty Faraday Cagewear (TM) line of geek clothing..
Where can I buy some? I need some new underwear, and a couple of T-shirts. Have them in black? Oh yeah, and some socks too. Strange... never seen that brand in a shop... "they" had it removed from the shelves, I suppose?