Okay, it's a little off-topic, but I have to take issue with this statement:
One more thing: there's no such thing az a ZEV (Zero-Emission-Vehicle). Electric is displaced emissions -- unless your power is hydro (and "we all know how bad that is for the fishies"). The manufacture of solar cells and batteries/fuel cells require the use -- and disposal -- of tons of toxic chemicals. Nuke also involves toxic waste (nevermind it's the cleanest and safest form of electricity, it's gotten a bad rap by the actions of irresponsible people).
Solar can be clean when converted to electricity by means of a solar array used to heat water for a steam turbine (or other similar configuration). Alternatively, geo-thermal energy is, AFAIK clean, although I would grant you that there are potential negative side-effects there that we don't fully understand (similar to the effect of hydroelectric generation on fish). In any case, there is such a thing as clean electricity, it's just not that efficient or readily available in most populated areas.
Check out my other posts -- I hope you'll see that I'm not a troll. I do indeed have everything turned on, and, as an Apache user I usually find the newsbits in this section very useful (I like knowing about the latest & greatest features). Further, I agree that both ApacheCon, and the potental to save money going to such are useful to know about. What really got me about this story was the tone. It didn't sound like something written about by a geek. I mean, compare it to the stories about LinuxWorld, or the Linux Beer Hike. Now compare it to the 10 messages you got today with guarented ways to increase your, erm. . . uptime. See what I mean?
-"Zow"
Re:Nvidia and Stereovision
on
3D LCD Display
·
· Score: 2
Nvidia already has rather whoop-ass drivers for stereoscopic viewing of OpenGL or D3D under Windows.
That sounds very cool, and it makes me wonder, does anyone know of a similar solution for Linux? I did a little Googling, and it sounds like some people have cobbled together some solutions for specific applications (doing like crystal modeling and stuff), but I'm wondering if anyone can say, "Sure, you'll get stereoscopic OpenGL if you use this card, with this driver, and these glasses." I'd really like to be able to do it with my Matrox card, as its 3D, while not as slick as my nVidia, is a lot more stable (my nVidia seems to cause X to hang pretty quickly in moderately complex applications, like GLTron). And I really don't think I'd consider a non-XFree86 server -- been there, done that, more trouble than it's worth. Anyway, it's not that important, but I think it'd be awefully cool.
Besides, the Air Force is the only branch of the service that sends its officers off to do the fighting and leaves the enlisted men in the rear with the gear.
LOL -- Good point. Reminds me of my father-in-law who was an ordinance officer in the Air Force in 'nam. He was only over there a couple weeks before a couple of the enlisted guys he was supervising dropped a bomb on his knee and sent him home with a medical discharge. So it seems that it's not just the ones that the AF sends to the front, but it's always their officers that get hurt.:-)
I have to agree with the other response. I imagine many had the same response that I did: the story read like spam. I mean, I'm used to seeing stories on/. that are really just thinly veiled advertisements, but this one didn't even do that. The only thing they could have done to make it look more like spam was put the subject in all caps and add a link to be removed.
Sure it was. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. It was an honest opinion, not like a troll or anything, and some people found it inflamatory. Come to think of it, I think/. allows you to turn off the -1 for flamebait -- I should probably do that.
The training you'll get will be so dumbed down and slow paced
that it'll take you 8 times as long to learn the same thing in the real world.
In the "real world" people don't normally get shot at while at work. Yes, military training is intended to turn solders into drones, but that's based on the principle that in high-stress situations (such as combat), solders should carry out orders without question, because the time they would take to think about those orders may well get them or other members of their group killed. This principle is based on a couple hundred years of battlefield experience, so I'd put some stock in it, but that's just my opinion.
The military wants you to think that you'll gain an exciting life, a rewarding
career, valuable work experience, travel the world, be a patriot and geek out on the
highest of tech. But in reality, you'll be stripped of your individualism,
be used as muscle to expand corporate interests abroad, have a hand in killing
other human beings and quite possibly be killed yourself.
The two points are not mutually exclusive. I won't argue with the negative points you make, but that doesn't negate the existance of positive points to the job.
As for your negative comments, I'll echo a comment I heard someone else say, "Shouldn't we be asking ourselves why so many groups around the world hate the United States and want to bring harm to us?" Let's face it, if no one disliked us, a military job would probably be about as safe as they come (that goes back to the "8 times as long to learn the same thing" point - most of that is red tape for safety reasons, among others).
Personally, I think for someone interested in military service that ROTC is the way to go, as you'll get a standard university education out of it and go on to serve as an officer, where you'd be able to demonstrate more initative, have a greater potential to shape military policy, and have a greater chance to get introduced to beltway politics, should you want to go that way after serving your time (which would allow you to address most of the negative points presearch makes).
Well, I must say that I'm a bit taken aback by some of the comments here. Even for/. it seems that even the posters with something rational to say are resorting to name calling. Personally I think it's great that you're furthering your education and in something as important as software engineering. The number of comments here whining about how S.E. practices are nothing more than PHB mumbo-jumbo really demostrates to me why the general state of software today is as deplorable as it is. Listen people: if you look at the most reliable and (if appropriate) secure systems ever created, like Multics (which there was a story about, eariler today on/.) or the Space Shuttle on-board control software, you'll see that all of those teams used extremely rigorus software engineering processes. I think the main problem that people have had with software engineering is that it's being spouted off by PHBs with business degrees or yahoos who think they can learn all there is to know from a book. Well, you can't. It requires experience.
I'm getting off my rant here and to my real point. I'm currently in the grad program at UC Davis. (My employeer pays for it while I continue to work full time & collect a normal paycheck, I wouldn't recommend any other way.) Let me tell you: graduate school is not like your undergrad days. Sure, there's classwork and homework, but you're expected to work on projects of real significance. None of this, "Write a program to do X and make sure you get the same results as me." It may not be the same as the experience you get working on a real product, but then I question the utility of many experiences in the "real world."
So, to finally answer your question, I found that the core ciriculum of my graduate program really helped to either fill in holes from my undergraduate ciriculum (from Purdue, also in CS), and helped reinforce ideas that I had all but forgotten about. As an undergrad we take 4-6 classes a term, and we get hammered with work. While I did my best to actually learn the material (as opposed to cramming), I found that having it again as a grad student (where you only have a couple courses a term, so there's more time to study ideas in depth), was rather refreshing. I think some of this benefit came from going to a different school from where I did my undergrad. So while I have nothing but respect for CMU and the SEI (I have to say that, my boss went to CMU:-) , I would advise you to not reject schools simplily because they don't have a "Masters of Software Engineering" degree (do ensure that they have a strong software enginnering concentration though), and look at different schools, if for no other reason than to expand your horizons beyond the CMU mindset and any unnecessary overlap they may have between their undergraduate and graduate ciriculum (one of my classmates at Davis also did his undergrad there, and he found the repetition useless, especially since he was getting the same profs for the core subjects).
Yeah, I saw that. Seemed to me that the Tomcat was pretty impressive, but when it crashed, it crashed hard, and all your development just went up in smoke. Not to mention that it killed one of the admins. I don't think I'd want to put something like that in a production environment.
Re:Whoa: Now every little watercooling kit posted?
on
Watercooling Made Easy
·
· Score: 2
Well, first off, I only remember one other review posted on an entire kit. It was done by Tom's, and was kind of lame because some of the parts reviewed aren't even available from the US distributor for the cooling manufacturer.
Water cooling is very expensive- pumps run 40$, blocks run 30$, tubing and fittings run 20$, radiators run 50$......
Well there's something special about this kit, had you read the review: it is only $99, which puts it on par with some of the pricer fan/heatsink combos, and as the review points out, the water cooling system is an order of magnitude quieter (I would have prefered to see some actual db measurements, but I have little doubt that it would be significantly quieter, knowing how loud my box at home is).
Another thing that I noticed about this kit: it doesn't require modifying your case like half the kits I've seen do, which is a major requirement for me since I'm trying to fit a system in my rack mount case, so I'm not working with the tower form factor that most manufacturers seem to take for granted.
You know, I'm really sick of people not reading the article before posting. If you had you would have seen that this R2D2 is only 15 inches high, so instead of Kenny Baker, you'll get <DrEvil>Mini Kenny Baker</DrEvil>.
Okay, maybe someone here who has followed the Mac world more closely than I can shead some light on something I've wondered about. A few years ago, Apple came out with OS X Server that wasn't built from BSD - it used one of the other projects that tried to become "the" OS X (rhapsody?). I recall that when they announced it, it came with the caviot that it would be superceeded by the BSD based OS X, then due out in 6 to 12 months. So what I'm wondering is, was there ever a clear migration path from that system to what is now called OS X Server, or was it really a dead-end that was better to avoid? Just curious.
Wiring the Upers, eh? Well, it may be rural, but there seem to be an abundance of bars. After all, anytime you ask for directions, it's always in relation to the bars. So all you have to do is run a T1 or so to every bar (not a small expense, to be sure, but sure better than wiring everyone), and set up a wireless access point with an antenna and booster. That might not cover the whole penensula, but it should cover most of the homes & businesses, and a good deal of the hunting grounds (don't know how important that will be for a few years though given the deer elimination this year).
And if you haven't figured it out by now, I'm kidding.
Mostly out of curiosity (as I don't have a G4 on my desk anymore - it died), what does anyone know about the status of AltiVec support under LinuxPPC (as opposed to OSX, as discussed in the article)? A quick Google search indicates that Motorola made some patches for gcc a couple years ago, but that it wasn't exactly production quality.
There's a website that supposedly has tools, but you have to register for their mailing list to see what they've got (and I get enough mail as it is).
And you know, it's not like the trolls never register for an account. So it got me thinking -- what are they really doing this for? Seems pretty obvious to me: it's like the people who check your reciept at Fry's -- it's actually to avoid bad reviews by employees.
So ThinkGeek is scrolling through everyone's comments about their service on Slashdot and they see one that's bitching about how lousy their shipping is, and how they don't really care if the customer gets the product in one piece and whatnot, so they check to see who posted it. Lo and behold, it's Jen from shipping! Who'd a thunk it? (With apologies to Jen -- she's the first TG employee I could think of b/c she's actually been helpful with problems w/ my orders in the past.)
Except it's not as easy as just feeding in the file and saying "find it", partly because google only allows you to feed in a few search terms and partly because it sounds like the files have been modified from their origional form.
Another problem is that it's very likely that the source files will only be stored within tarballs, which google doesn't index (not that I've ever seen at least -- would be a nice feature though seeing as how they do decode office docs and the like). The key will probably be then, to search by the names of source files, unique looking variable names, or phrases from the comments. With luck, some of these things will manifest themselves in some sort of on-line discussion about the source, such as diffs posted to mailing lists or something of that nature.
Another thing to try -- if you know the nature of the origional program that the source was taken from, go to Freshmeat and look though projects of that type and see if you can find a match.
I used to have a similar setup at home. I just got tired of having to scramble everytime a remote root exploit in Bind was published. Otherwise I ran apache & qmail, so bind was about the only daemon that gave me trouble. I mean, after dealing with those issues at work every day (I do R&D in computer security, not system administration, at least not these days), I don't want to have to deal with them at home too. So I moved my http and dns servers over to he.net, which only costs $10/mo for the Basic Virtual Host (which handles my small vanity site just fine). They've been really cool to work with - one of my friend's hosts two sites with them, both of which are much larger than mine, and he's been really impressed with them.
The key to picking colors for a website is LOOKING AT THEM
While your reply seems intuitive, my point was that what you and I perceive when we look at the screen is not necessarily what someone else, whose vision is not quite as acute as ours, may see. In my first job out of school I worked with this one guy who is one of the best developers I've ever known, and he was legally blind. It was really insightful to take something to him asking, "What do you think of this (UI) design?" and have the response be something along the lines of, "It's all a blur. Is there any way to zoom in, or separate the elements?" That sort of thing just hadn't occured to me. I won't say that I consider it for everything these days (I've chosen the colours on my personal website more for effect than accessability), but if I've got something professional to put out the door, I certainly do what I can.
I think the key in picking colours for any website is that they have have a difference of at least X in brightness (the V in Hue-Saturation-Value unless I'm sadly mistaken - I'm not an expert in this area), where you should be able to determine X experimentally. Any decent color picker (such as those in Gimp or Photoshop) will allow you to jump between RGB or HSV. The reason I think this is the way to go is that a decently large percentage of the population (at any age) is colour blind, so while you or I may easily be able to see the difference between a blue and green, or a green and red, at the same brightness, some people (particularly males), just can't.
That should take care of you for making the site usable. At that point, the choice of which light or dark colors you use for what becomes purely stylistic (again, I'm just a stupid computer scientist - I'm sure someone with a stronger HUI, marketing, or fine arts background might have a stronger opinion on what colors are used for what).
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, it's a little off-topic, but I have to take issue with this statement:
Solar can be clean when converted to electricity by means of a solar array used to heat water for a steam turbine (or other similar configuration). Alternatively, geo-thermal energy is, AFAIK clean, although I would grant you that there are potential negative side-effects there that we don't fully understand (similar to the effect of hydroelectric generation on fish). In any case, there is such a thing as clean electricity, it's just not that efficient or readily available in most populated areas.
-"Zow"
Check out my other posts -- I hope you'll see that I'm not a troll. I do indeed have everything turned on, and, as an Apache user I usually find the newsbits in this section very useful (I like knowing about the latest & greatest features). Further, I agree that both ApacheCon, and the potental to save money going to such are useful to know about. What really got me about this story was the tone. It didn't sound like something written about by a geek. I mean, compare it to the stories about LinuxWorld, or the Linux Beer Hike. Now compare it to the 10 messages you got today with guarented ways to increase your, erm. . . uptime. See what I mean?
-"Zow"
That sounds very cool, and it makes me wonder, does anyone know of a similar solution for Linux? I did a little Googling, and it sounds like some people have cobbled together some solutions for specific applications (doing like crystal modeling and stuff), but I'm wondering if anyone can say, "Sure, you'll get stereoscopic OpenGL if you use this card, with this driver, and these glasses." I'd really like to be able to do it with my Matrox card, as its 3D, while not as slick as my nVidia, is a lot more stable (my nVidia seems to cause X to hang pretty quickly in moderately complex applications, like GLTron). And I really don't think I'd consider a non-XFree86 server -- been there, done that, more trouble than it's worth. Anyway, it's not that important, but I think it'd be awefully cool.
-"Zow"
LOL -- Good point. Reminds me of my father-in-law who was an ordinance officer in the Air Force in 'nam. He was only over there a couple weeks before a couple of the enlisted guys he was supervising dropped a bomb on his knee and sent him home with a medical discharge. So it seems that it's not just the ones that the AF sends to the front, but it's always their officers that get hurt. :-)
-"Zow"
I have to agree with the other response. I imagine many had the same response that I did: the story read like spam. I mean, I'm used to seeing stories on /. that are really just thinly veiled advertisements, but this one didn't even do that. The only thing they could have done to make it look more like spam was put the subject in all caps and add a link to be removed.
-"Zow"
Sure it was. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. It was an honest opinion, not like a troll or anything, and some people found it inflamatory. Come to think of it, I think /. allows you to turn off the -1 for flamebait -- I should probably do that.
In the "real world" people don't normally get shot at while at work. Yes, military training is intended to turn solders into drones, but that's based on the principle that in high-stress situations (such as combat), solders should carry out orders without question, because the time they would take to think about those orders may well get them or other members of their group killed. This principle is based on a couple hundred years of battlefield experience, so I'd put some stock in it, but that's just my opinion.
The two points are not mutually exclusive. I won't argue with the negative points you make, but that doesn't negate the existance of positive points to the job.
As for your negative comments, I'll echo a comment I heard someone else say, "Shouldn't we be asking ourselves why so many groups around the world hate the United States and want to bring harm to us?" Let's face it, if no one disliked us, a military job would probably be about as safe as they come (that goes back to the "8 times as long to learn the same thing" point - most of that is red tape for safety reasons, among others).
Personally, I think for someone interested in military service that ROTC is the way to go, as you'll get a standard university education out of it and go on to serve as an officer, where you'd be able to demonstrate more initative, have a greater potential to shape military policy, and have a greater chance to get introduced to beltway politics, should you want to go that way after serving your time (which would allow you to address most of the negative points presearch makes).
-"Zow"
Well, I must say that I'm a bit taken aback by some of the comments here. Even for /. it seems that even the posters with something rational to say are resorting to name calling. Personally I think it's great that you're furthering your education and in something as important as software engineering. The number of comments here whining about how S.E. practices are nothing more than PHB mumbo-jumbo really demostrates to me why the general state of software today is as deplorable as it is. Listen people: if you look at the most reliable and (if appropriate) secure systems ever created, like Multics (which there was a story about, eariler today on /.) or the Space Shuttle on-board control software, you'll see that all of those teams used extremely rigorus software engineering processes. I think the main problem that people have had with software engineering is that it's being spouted off by PHBs with business degrees or yahoos who think they can learn all there is to know from a book. Well, you can't. It requires experience.
I'm getting off my rant here and to my real point. I'm currently in the grad program at UC Davis. (My employeer pays for it while I continue to work full time & collect a normal paycheck, I wouldn't recommend any other way.) Let me tell you: graduate school is not like your undergrad days. Sure, there's classwork and homework, but you're expected to work on projects of real significance. None of this, "Write a program to do X and make sure you get the same results as me." It may not be the same as the experience you get working on a real product, but then I question the utility of many experiences in the "real world."
So, to finally answer your question, I found that the core ciriculum of my graduate program really helped to either fill in holes from my undergraduate ciriculum (from Purdue, also in CS), and helped reinforce ideas that I had all but forgotten about. As an undergrad we take 4-6 classes a term, and we get hammered with work. While I did my best to actually learn the material (as opposed to cramming), I found that having it again as a grad student (where you only have a couple courses a term, so there's more time to study ideas in depth), was rather refreshing. I think some of this benefit came from going to a different school from where I did my undergrad. So while I have nothing but respect for CMU and the SEI (I have to say that, my boss went to CMU :-) , I would advise you to not reject schools simplily because they don't have a "Masters of Software Engineering" degree (do ensure that they have a strong software enginnering concentration though), and look at different schools, if for no other reason than to expand your horizons beyond the CMU mindset and any unnecessary overlap they may have between their undergraduate and graduate ciriculum (one of my classmates at Davis also did his undergrad there, and he found the repetition useless, especially since he was getting the same profs for the core subjects).
Hope this helps!
-"Zow"
Yeah, I saw that. Seemed to me that the Tomcat was pretty impressive, but when it crashed, it crashed hard, and all your development just went up in smoke. Not to mention that it killed one of the admins. I don't think I'd want to put something like that in a production environment.
Well, first off, I only remember one other review posted on an entire kit. It was done by Tom's, and was kind of lame because some of the parts reviewed aren't even available from the US distributor for the cooling manufacturer.
Well there's something special about this kit, had you read the review: it is only $99, which puts it on par with some of the pricer fan/heatsink combos, and as the review points out, the water cooling system is an order of magnitude quieter (I would have prefered to see some actual db measurements, but I have little doubt that it would be significantly quieter, knowing how loud my box at home is).
Another thing that I noticed about this kit: it doesn't require modifying your case like half the kits I've seen do, which is a major requirement for me since I'm trying to fit a system in my rack mount case, so I'm not working with the tower form factor that most manufacturers seem to take for granted.
-"Zow"
Forget the flat panel screen -- mock up R2's hologram projector with a real LCD projector.
-"Zow"
You know, I'm really sick of people not reading the article before posting. If you had you would have seen that this R2D2 is only 15 inches high, so instead of Kenny Baker, you'll get <DrEvil>Mini Kenny Baker</DrEvil>.
Okay, maybe someone here who has followed the Mac world more closely than I can shead some light on something I've wondered about. A few years ago, Apple came out with OS X Server that wasn't built from BSD - it used one of the other projects that tried to become "the" OS X (rhapsody?). I recall that when they announced it, it came with the caviot that it would be superceeded by the BSD based OS X, then due out in 6 to 12 months. So what I'm wondering is, was there ever a clear migration path from that system to what is now called OS X Server, or was it really a dead-end that was better to avoid? Just curious.
-"Zow"
That's funny - I was just thinking:
Homer: Caffeine free coffee?!? We aren't going to stand for that, are we boys?
Lennie & Carl: No!
Homer: Let's go get them! Ouu! Pengiun Mints...
And bcrowell spoketh:
I thought you said you played the original Civ a lot, so you of all people should know: In the beginning, the world was without form, and void...
-"Zow"
Wiring the Upers, eh? Well, it may be rural, but there seem to be an abundance of bars. After all, anytime you ask for directions, it's always in relation to the bars. So all you have to do is run a T1 or so to every bar (not a small expense, to be sure, but sure better than wiring everyone), and set up a wireless access point with an antenna and booster. That might not cover the whole penensula, but it should cover most of the homes & businesses, and a good deal of the hunting grounds (don't know how important that will be for a few years though given the deer elimination this year).
And if you haven't figured it out by now, I'm kidding.
-"Zow"
Mostly out of curiosity (as I don't have a G4 on my desk anymore - it died), what does anyone know about the status of AltiVec support under LinuxPPC (as opposed to OSX, as discussed in the article)? A quick Google search indicates that Motorola made some patches for gcc a couple years ago, but that it wasn't exactly production quality.
There's a website that supposedly has tools, but you have to register for their mailing list to see what they've got (and I get enough mail as it is).
-"Zow"
But is it maintained?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
-"Zow"
I can picture it now. . .
Yeah! All my life I've wanted to conquer Mount Everest and now I will finally. . .Twack!
Or just wait at most 24 hours.
Does that mean they've stopped selling "Sandra: The tech support doll"?
And you know, it's not like the trolls never register for an account. So it got me thinking -- what are they really doing this for? Seems pretty obvious to me: it's like the people who check your reciept at Fry's -- it's actually to avoid bad reviews by employees.
So ThinkGeek is scrolling through everyone's comments about their service on Slashdot and they see one that's bitching about how lousy their shipping is, and how they don't really care if the customer gets the product in one piece and whatnot, so they check to see who posted it. Lo and behold, it's Jen from shipping! Who'd a thunk it? (With apologies to Jen -- she's the first TG employee I could think of b/c she's actually been helpful with problems w/ my orders in the past.)
-"Zow"
Except it's not as easy as just feeding in the file and saying "find it", partly because google only allows you to feed in a few search terms and partly because it sounds like the files have been modified from their origional form.
Another problem is that it's very likely that the source files will only be stored within tarballs, which google doesn't index (not that I've ever seen at least -- would be a nice feature though seeing as how they do decode office docs and the like). The key will probably be then, to search by the names of source files, unique looking variable names, or phrases from the comments. With luck, some of these things will manifest themselves in some sort of on-line discussion about the source, such as diffs posted to mailing lists or something of that nature.
Another thing to try -- if you know the nature of the origional program that the source was taken from, go to Freshmeat and look though projects of that type and see if you can find a match.
-"Zow"
I used to have a similar setup at home. I just got tired of having to scramble everytime a remote root exploit in Bind was published. Otherwise I ran apache & qmail, so bind was about the only daemon that gave me trouble. I mean, after dealing with those issues at work every day (I do R&D in computer security, not system administration, at least not these days), I don't want to have to deal with them at home too. So I moved my http and dns servers over to he.net, which only costs $10/mo for the Basic Virtual Host (which handles my small vanity site just fine). They've been really cool to work with - one of my friend's hosts two sites with them, both of which are much larger than mine, and he's been really impressed with them.
Hope this helps!
-"Zow"
While your reply seems intuitive, my point was that what you and I perceive when we look at the screen is not necessarily what someone else, whose vision is not quite as acute as ours, may see. In my first job out of school I worked with this one guy who is one of the best developers I've ever known, and he was legally blind. It was really insightful to take something to him asking, "What do you think of this (UI) design?" and have the response be something along the lines of, "It's all a blur. Is there any way to zoom in, or separate the elements?" That sort of thing just hadn't occured to me. I won't say that I consider it for everything these days (I've chosen the colours on my personal website more for effect than accessability), but if I've got something professional to put out the door, I certainly do what I can.
-"Zow"
I think the key in picking colours for any website is that they have have a difference of at least X in brightness (the V in Hue-Saturation-Value unless I'm sadly mistaken - I'm not an expert in this area), where you should be able to determine X experimentally. Any decent color picker (such as those in Gimp or Photoshop) will allow you to jump between RGB or HSV. The reason I think this is the way to go is that a decently large percentage of the population (at any age) is colour blind, so while you or I may easily be able to see the difference between a blue and green, or a green and red, at the same brightness, some people (particularly males), just can't.
That should take care of you for making the site usable. At that point, the choice of which light or dark colors you use for what becomes purely stylistic (again, I'm just a stupid computer scientist - I'm sure someone with a stronger HUI, marketing, or fine arts background might have a stronger opinion on what colors are used for what).
-"Zow"