the capital cities for the Dark Elf, High Elf, Orc, and Dwarf factions will not be in the game at launch.
I didn't know Orcs even had a capital city. And isn't the Dwarven empire in ruins? High Elves have Ulthuan ofcourse, but nobody else ever goes there, and whatever the Dark Elf capital is is on the other side of the world, so who cares?
What I'd like to know is if Bretonnia, Marienburg and Kislev are in it.
Somehow I don't think it's going to be my kind of game...
If you have to worry about ajax and browser compatibility, you're using the wrong framework. Good web frameworks hide the ugly ajax stuff from you and simply allow you to use an AjaxLink or put ajax="true" in a form or something. If that's not good enough for you, use GWT. But developing your own ajax libraries is stupid. There's plenty of perfectly good libraries to choose from already.
The only reason to do it yourself is if the existing libraries do it wrong or not good enough, and you're enough of an expert to do it better. In which case, please share so we can turn your new library into the next big standard.
Ruby is an excellent choice. Java is still king, so if you want an easy time finding a job, Java would probably the best choice right now, but Java is getting quite hard to learn and use lately: there are tons of frameworks, and all of them come with quite a bit of architecture you need to learn. Ruby is (rumoured to be) much easier to learn, and lots of Java people (and many others, probably) are starting to look in the direction of Ruby right now. Ruby may not be the best right now, but it is the rising star, and could very well turn out to be the future.
If nothing else, experienced die-hard Java experts are claiming to be 5 times as productive when using Ruby, and that has to be worth something.
I think it's quite normal that there are so many technologies and frameworks. It's new technology, and nobody has figured out the best way to do it yet. If we had to settle on a single web framework, everybody would be doing JSP and Struts and wasting ridiculous amounts of time on hard to write and even harder to maintain web applications.
Instead, we've got dozens of options, some state of the art, others old but well-established. Some alround and okay for most people, others revolutionary. I don't know if the future is going to look like Wicket, Tapestry, Ruby on Rails or GWT (I hope it's not going to be JSF), but it's definitely good that people are investing time into developing newer and better systems. If people didn't do that, we'd still be using C or Cobol (and yes, I know some people still do).
A lot of Christians make too much noise about a minor sin like homosexuality that is none of their damned business (and none of mine) while ignoring major sins like malicious lying, adultery, war, wanting others' possessions, stealing, execution of criminals, etc.
Well, if you're neocon, those things are perfectly behaviour for a christian.
No, but the bible DOES say that the universe, Earth, all life on it, all the water, etc. were created within the span of less than a week. And all the animals beside us were created in one day.
Evolution does not work that way.
Neither does the bible. There are two creation stories in the bible, and if you take them overly literal, they contradict each other. That should be a pretty big clue as to how literally these creation stories are meant to be.
If you ask me, it's blindingly obvious that the message of Genesis 2 is that God created all humans and animals, and the message of (the much more recent) Genesis 1 is that he didn't just create that, he created the entire universe, all planets and stars, light and darkness, and presumably the laws of physics themselves.
Once you accept that, the idea that God must have created the process of evolution just like all other laws and mechanisms of this universe, should be really very obvious.
I don't understand why so many people have a problem with this.
Why can't people recognize that "God" is a metaphorical reference to the universe which science is dedicated to studying?
Because it's not true. Most of those who use the term use it to mean a man with a beard who wears a white dress, lives in the sky, and can do magic.
Not really. Quite a lot of people use the term to mean the creator of the universe (as opposed to the universe itself). Sexuality and outward appearances are not particularly relevant for such a being, and the magic he works inside this universe is comparable to the magic a programmers works inside a computer.
Also, this way they can take their rulers out and show how powerful they are! "Look, we beat science! God is on our side! Yay!"
And the sad thing is that there's nothing anti-christian about science. And there should be nothing anti-science about christianity. If God created this universe, its laws and all the processes and mechanisms working in it, then science is the study of God's creation. And fundamentally, that's what they're denying here: that God created the entire universe.
I recently decided to define a distinction between "the big view of God" and "the small view of God". According to the big view, God created the entire universe, its laws, and yes, evolution (evolution being an amazing tool for generating massive complexity with no need for outside interference). According to the small view, God is a powerful alien living inside this universe, who shaped the earth and molded planets, animals and humans.
People who claim God's creation is at odds with the theory of evolution have a small view of God. This includes IDers, but also quite a lot of atheists (they may not believe in God, but that's generally the definition of God they use to deny he exists). A lot of scientists and science-minded people (christian ones, but also many others, especially among cosmologists) have a big view of God, defining him (if he exists at all) as the origin of the entire universe and its many laws and constants, which resulted in stuff like the Big Bang and evolution.
I think this is a very useful distinction to throw in the face of IDers. Even if only to suggest that they're less christian than people who accept God as the creator of the entire universe including evolution.
Interestingly, Bioshock is rated MA15+, because apparently harvesting your recreational stimulants from little girls' bodies isn't anywhere near as bad as paying money for them.
The first thing I thought when I read this was: they just refused classification, right? That's not the same thing as banning. While mainstream shops won't sell it, surely it's still legally possible to buy it in some other way? Apparently not. From the Classification website:
Computer games that have been Refused Classification (RC) cannot be sold, hired or demonstrated in Australia.
Sounds like Australians are out of luck. (Unless Fallout 3 turns into an Oblivion clone, in which case nobody cares.)
Consider the GPL - it's approved by both. But Red Hat doesn't publish Free Software, it publishes Open Source - and software written by Richard Stallman isn't Open Source - it's Free Software, and RMS is happy to explain the difference.
I'll grant you that not all Open Source software may meet all the requirements of Free Software, but it seems to me the reverse is most definitely true.
Software is Open is the source is availlable and you can modify it if you like. I can't see any way in which a piece of Free Software would not meet those very simple requirements.
You see, the distinction isn't the license - it's the purpose behind making the project either Open or Free.
The purpose the maker had has no impact on what you can do with the software. The license does.
As Stallman explains, Open Source is about efficiency - volunteer coders, and "many eyeballs" finding and correcting bugs and security holes. Free Software is about creating a community
And so is Open Source. What do you think those volunteers and eyeballs are?
Thus I long ago gave up trying to describe Ogg Frog as Free Software in casual conversation. I only say that when speaking to others who will likely understand. Most of the time I describe it as Open Source, but feel guilty in doing so.
Don't feel guilty. Free Software is Open Source. It's a special kind of Open Source.
Both the GPL and BSD licenses have their weaknesses - but if I'm starting a new end-user project and want all the community to benefit from it, I'd chose the GPL license without thinking it twice.
It would depend on the project. If it's for a final end-user product, I'd use GPL to keep others from running away with my work, but if it's for some kind of (web?)framework, I'd use Apache. In the case of evolving frameworks, there's plenty of incentive for developers to give code back to the project (because then it will be supported and expanded upon by others), so those kind of projects don't need the restrictions of GPL, whereas those restrictions may be too restrictive for some business users. And you need paying customers for a framework to take off.
- BSD ensures freedom of the *producer* of the code to do what they want. - GPL ensures freedom of the *recipient* of the code to do what they want.
Almost; - BSD ensures the freedom of the producer of derived code to do what they want. - GPL ensures the freedom of the recipient of derived code to do what they want.
BSD is about giving to the world. GPL is about changing the world.
This is the most insightful post about this topic I've seen in a long time. BSD wants to share, GPL wants to change the world. And they're both quite successful at it.
Then don't use it, and deal with it. It is also impractical for me to build a Ferrari, I don't steal them.
Ofcourse you can decide what license your code has. You can make it closed source if you like. But then you can't claim your code is more free, can you? You restrict others with your choices.
I know you're not talking about closed source but about GPL, but when I read your post, I realised that this exact same argument works for both. BSD grants freedom to people who want to use your code in their project. GPL and Closed source restrict that freedom. Closed source does it to keep freedom only to the original creator of the code, and GPL restricts freedom of derivative projects (to a much lesser degree, obviously) in order to ensure freedom for everybody else.
But either way, your "deal with it" means that derivative projects have to deal with a limited freedom.
As to the language, we recommend that one be chosen for "prototyping/scripting" and another for "enterprise" development.
Everything the submitter asks about, but particularly language and framework, depends first and foremost on the nature of the projects. If you're building websites, you need different language and framework than if you're building hardware drivers. If the company does both, then using a single standard is a terrible idea.
If the company does only websites, then standardisation makes a lot more sense, but even then you need to ask: what kind of websites? Some frameworks are better for highly interactive websites, others are better for efficiently caching large amounts of dynamic content. If you're company does only one of those, you can standardise on one of them, but if not, you'd be seriously restricting developers.
Also, if the company wants to be innovative, it's important that programmers are free to try new things.
In short: standardise on what projects and programmers need, not on what management thinks is cool.
Wow, what pompous, righteous indignation over 190W! You have no idea what this person's lifestyle is, whether they do lots of other things to help the environment and keep their energy costs low. My PC is on 24/7 too, for several reasons:
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to keep your PC on 24/7, but if you do so, it'd be nice if you made sure your machine idled at less than 190W. A modern, well-designed PC should be able to idle at less than 100W. A good CPU (like the latest 45nm processors from Intel) can idle at 3W, an efficient harddisk (the WD GP line) at 5W, an efficient GPU (ATI HD3x50) at 10-20W (I'm not sure about motherboards, though).
A power hungy GPU on the other hand (like the 8800GTX or even worse, the 2900XT) can draw nearly 100W on its own. And produce a corresponding amount of heat, all of which needs to be cooled somehow.
Note that he uses Vista and he says his computer doesn't need more watts when playing games compared to normal usage. Maybe this is because Vista's 3D interface already taxes the video card and forces it to draw a lot of power?
That could deifinitely be the case. 3D rendering often costs a lot of power. Although some high-performance graphics cards still draw a surprisingly large amount of power to draw a simple 2D desktop. As far as I know, the ATI HD3xxx line is the only one that seriously cuts down of power use while not doing any 3D.
While I have not tested out my machine thouroughly (I do not have it on much anymore) on Idle i was spending 450 watts.
Idling at 450W? Most PCs shouldn't even reach that kind of power draw under heavy load. Only serious heavy-duty server or gaming machines with ridiculously heavy graphics cards should idle anywhere near that.
Now, this was between the power supply and the wall, so maybe the machine was using less power, but ultimately thats what it was drawing (the power supply is 450 watts so this makes sense to me).
That's true. It's also possible that you've got an extremely inefficient power supply. The rated power of your power supply is the maximum total power it should be able to supply to the components of the PC, and power supplies tend to be most efficient at about 50% of that. Bad power supplies are rarely able to provide their rated power under real-world conditions, however, so a 450W PSU drawing 450W from the socket sounds a bit worrying to me.
My advice would be to borrow a known efficient (80+) power supply and see how much that lowers your power draw at idle and at load. Substract 25% to find the approximate power draw from the components of your machine, and make sure the power use at idle and the one at load are at either side of the 50% mark of the rated power of the new 80+ power supply you're going to buy.
But regardless, wouldnt the power supply dictate the amount of power used regardless of what the computer actually uses?
If the computer doesn't use it, the PSU doesn't have to supply it. Efficient low-power components (an Intel core 2 duo CPU, an ATI HD3x50 GPU, Western Digital Green Power drive, no overclocking, etc) will mean low power consumption by the system as a whole, unless your power supply is crap.
Used to be a huge Fantasy Roleplay fan, as well as some of their other games like the old Blood Bowl and Necromunda.. but anything that doesnt make them a crapload of cash gets axed.
Mostly, yes. The Living Rulebook for Bloodbowl was a small miracle in that light.
An open network is no different than a house with an open door. A house with an open door and a big sign saying "please come in!", and a guy at the door who shows you in.
An open wifi network is not advertised as a shop or other business enterprise. The analogy doesn't make sense. No, it advertises itself as an open network. Just like a shop uses an "open" sign to let people know they can come in, an "open" sign of a wifi network tells people they're free to use it.
BUSINESS INVITEE. A wifi network is not a shop. It is private property. A shop is private property too, but it's property that tells people they can come in. Just like open wifi tells people they can use it.
The "open" sign in a shop window was intentionally placed there by the owner to alert business invitees that the shop is open for business. The presence or absence of such a sign does not count as sufficient reason to assume you've got permission. The actual status of the store does. An "open" sign on locked door doesn't change the fact that the business is closed and that you do not have permission to enter. And similarly, if an open wifi denies you an IP, or refuses to handle your traffic, or anything else like that, it's apparently not so open as it claims to be.
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:
the capital cities for the Dark Elf, High Elf, Orc, and Dwarf factions will not be in the game at launch.
I didn't know Orcs even had a capital city. And isn't the Dwarven empire in ruins? High Elves have Ulthuan ofcourse, but nobody else ever goes there, and whatever the Dark Elf capital is is on the other side of the world, so who cares?
What I'd like to know is if Bretonnia, Marienburg and Kislev are in it.
Somehow I don't think it's going to be my kind of game...
If you have to worry about ajax and browser compatibility, you're using the wrong framework. Good web frameworks hide the ugly ajax stuff from you and simply allow you to use an AjaxLink or put ajax="true" in a form or something. If that's not good enough for you, use GWT. But developing your own ajax libraries is stupid. There's plenty of perfectly good libraries to choose from already.
The only reason to do it yourself is if the existing libraries do it wrong or not good enough, and you're enough of an expert to do it better. In which case, please share so we can turn your new library into the next big standard.
Ruby is an excellent choice. Java is still king, so if you want an easy time finding a job, Java would probably the best choice right now, but Java is getting quite hard to learn and use lately: there are tons of frameworks, and all of them come with quite a bit of architecture you need to learn. Ruby is (rumoured to be) much easier to learn, and lots of Java people (and many others, probably) are starting to look in the direction of Ruby right now. Ruby may not be the best right now, but it is the rising star, and could very well turn out to be the future.
If nothing else, experienced die-hard Java experts are claiming to be 5 times as productive when using Ruby, and that has to be worth something.
I think it's quite normal that there are so many technologies and frameworks. It's new technology, and nobody has figured out the best way to do it yet. If we had to settle on a single web framework, everybody would be doing JSP and Struts and wasting ridiculous amounts of time on hard to write and even harder to maintain web applications.
Instead, we've got dozens of options, some state of the art, others old but well-established. Some alround and okay for most people, others revolutionary. I don't know if the future is going to look like Wicket, Tapestry, Ruby on Rails or GWT (I hope it's not going to be JSF), but it's definitely good that people are investing time into developing newer and better systems. If people didn't do that, we'd still be using C or Cobol (and yes, I know some people still do).
>And the sad thing is that there's nothing anti-christian about science. And there should be nothing anti-science about christianity.
how do you interpret genesis?
Sensibly.
Well, I wouldn't call the Black Sea a small inland lake.
It was before the flood.
A lot of Christians make too much noise about a minor sin like homosexuality that is none of their damned business (and none of mine) while ignoring major sins like malicious lying, adultery, war, wanting others' possessions, stealing, execution of criminals, etc.
Well, if you're neocon, those things are perfectly behaviour for a christian.
No, but the bible DOES say that the universe, Earth, all life on it, all the water, etc. were created within the span of less than a week. And all the animals beside us were created in one day.
Evolution does not work that way.
Neither does the bible. There are two creation stories in the bible, and if you take them overly literal, they contradict each other. That should be a pretty big clue as to how literally these creation stories are meant to be.
If you ask me, it's blindingly obvious that the message of Genesis 2 is that God created all humans and animals, and the message of (the much more recent) Genesis 1 is that he didn't just create that, he created the entire universe, all planets and stars, light and darkness, and presumably the laws of physics themselves.
Once you accept that, the idea that God must have created the process of evolution just like all other laws and mechanisms of this universe, should be really very obvious.
I don't understand why so many people have a problem with this.
Because it's not true. Most of those who use the term use it to mean a man with a beard who wears a white dress, lives in the sky, and can do magic.
Not really. Quite a lot of people use the term to mean the creator of the universe (as opposed to the universe itself). Sexuality and outward appearances are not particularly relevant for such a being, and the magic he works inside this universe is comparable to the magic a programmers works inside a computer.
Also, this way they can take their rulers out and show how powerful they are! "Look, we beat science! God is on our side! Yay!"
And the sad thing is that there's nothing anti-christian about science. And there should be nothing anti-science about christianity. If God created this universe, its laws and all the processes and mechanisms working in it, then science is the study of God's creation. And fundamentally, that's what they're denying here: that God created the entire universe.
I recently decided to define a distinction between "the big view of God" and "the small view of God". According to the big view, God created the entire universe, its laws, and yes, evolution (evolution being an amazing tool for generating massive complexity with no need for outside interference). According to the small view, God is a powerful alien living inside this universe, who shaped the earth and molded planets, animals and humans.
People who claim God's creation is at odds with the theory of evolution have a small view of God. This includes IDers, but also quite a lot of atheists (they may not believe in God, but that's generally the definition of God they use to deny he exists). A lot of scientists and science-minded people (christian ones, but also many others, especially among cosmologists) have a big view of God, defining him (if he exists at all) as the origin of the entire universe and its many laws and constants, which resulted in stuff like the Big Bang and evolution.
I think this is a very useful distinction to throw in the face of IDers. Even if only to suggest that they're less christian than people who accept God as the creator of the entire universe including evolution.
From the screenplay blog http://blogs.theage.com.au/screenplay/archives//009975.html
[snip]
Interestingly, Bioshock is rated MA15+, because apparently harvesting your recreational stimulants from little girls' bodies isn't anywhere near as bad as paying money for them.
The first thing I thought when I read this was: they just refused classification, right? That's not the same thing as banning. While mainstream shops won't sell it, surely it's still legally possible to buy it in some other way? Apparently not. From the Classification website:
Computer games that have been Refused Classification (RC) cannot be sold, hired or demonstrated in Australia.
Sounds like Australians are out of luck. (Unless Fallout 3 turns into an Oblivion clone, in which case nobody cares.)
Consider the GPL - it's approved by both. But Red Hat doesn't publish Free Software, it publishes Open Source - and software written by Richard Stallman isn't Open Source - it's Free Software, and RMS is happy to explain the difference.
I'm squarely in Stallman's camp; my audio project Ogg Frog is definitely Free Software, not Open Source.
How the hell can software bee Free but not Open?!
I'll grant you that not all Open Source software may meet all the requirements of Free Software, but it seems to me the reverse is most definitely true.
Software is Open is the source is availlable and you can modify it if you like. I can't see any way in which a piece of Free Software would not meet those very simple requirements.
You see, the distinction isn't the license - it's the purpose behind making the project either Open or Free.
The purpose the maker had has no impact on what you can do with the software. The license does.
As Stallman explains, Open Source is about efficiency - volunteer coders, and "many eyeballs" finding and correcting bugs and security holes. Free Software is about creating a community
And so is Open Source. What do you think those volunteers and eyeballs are?
Thus I long ago gave up trying to describe Ogg Frog as Free Software in casual conversation. I only say that when speaking to others who will likely understand. Most of the time I describe it as Open Source, but feel guilty in doing so.
Don't feel guilty. Free Software is Open Source. It's a special kind of Open Source.
Both the GPL and BSD licenses have their weaknesses - but if I'm starting a new end-user project and want all the community to benefit from it, I'd chose the GPL license without thinking it twice.
It would depend on the project. If it's for a final end-user product, I'd use GPL to keep others from running away with my work, but if it's for some kind of (web?)framework, I'd use Apache. In the case of evolving frameworks, there's plenty of incentive for developers to give code back to the project (because then it will be supported and expanded upon by others), so those kind of projects don't need the restrictions of GPL, whereas those restrictions may be too restrictive for some business users. And you need paying customers for a framework to take off.
- BSD ensures freedom of the *producer* of the code to do what they want.
- GPL ensures freedom of the *recipient* of the code to do what they want.
Almost;
- BSD ensures the freedom of the producer of derived code to do what they want.
- GPL ensures the freedom of the recipient of derived code to do what they want.
BSD is about giving to the world.
GPL is about changing the world.
This is the most insightful post about this topic I've seen in a long time. BSD wants to share, GPL wants to change the world. And they're both quite successful at it.
Then don't use it, and deal with it.
It is also impractical for me to build a Ferrari, I don't steal them.
Ofcourse you can decide what license your code has. You can make it closed source if you like. But then you can't claim your code is more free, can you? You restrict others with your choices.
I know you're not talking about closed source but about GPL, but when I read your post, I realised that this exact same argument works for both. BSD grants freedom to people who want to use your code in their project. GPL and Closed source restrict that freedom. Closed source does it to keep freedom only to the original creator of the code, and GPL restricts freedom of derivative projects (to a much lesser degree, obviously) in order to ensure freedom for everybody else.
But either way, your "deal with it" means that derivative projects have to deal with a limited freedom.
After all, he killed the girl, not her lower. As he should have, but hey that's just my personal opinion.
The lover wasn't the one that was being unfaithful. Killing him doesn't stop her being unfaithful. Killing her does.
(Ofcourse my opinion is that nobody should kill anyone, no matter what.)
As to the language, we recommend that one be chosen for "prototyping/scripting" and another for "enterprise" development.
Everything the submitter asks about, but particularly language and framework, depends first and foremost on the nature of the projects. If you're building websites, you need different language and framework than if you're building hardware drivers. If the company does both, then using a single standard is a terrible idea.
If the company does only websites, then standardisation makes a lot more sense, but even then you need to ask: what kind of websites? Some frameworks are better for highly interactive websites, others are better for efficiently caching large amounts of dynamic content. If you're company does only one of those, you can standardise on one of them, but if not, you'd be seriously restricting developers.
Also, if the company wants to be innovative, it's important that programmers are free to try new things.
In short: standardise on what projects and programmers need, not on what management thinks is cool.
Wow, what pompous, righteous indignation over 190W! You have no idea what this person's lifestyle is, whether they do lots of other things to help the environment and keep their energy costs low. My PC is on 24/7 too, for several reasons:
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to keep your PC on 24/7, but if you do so, it'd be nice if you made sure your machine idled at less than 190W. A modern, well-designed PC should be able to idle at less than 100W. A good CPU (like the latest 45nm processors from Intel) can idle at 3W, an efficient harddisk (the WD GP line) at 5W, an efficient GPU (ATI HD3x50) at 10-20W (I'm not sure about motherboards, though).
A power hungy GPU on the other hand (like the 8800GTX or even worse, the 2900XT) can draw nearly 100W on its own. And produce a corresponding amount of heat, all of which needs to be cooled somehow.
Note that he uses Vista and he says his computer doesn't need more watts when playing games compared to normal usage.
Maybe this is because Vista's 3D interface already taxes the video card and forces it to draw a lot of power?
That could deifinitely be the case. 3D rendering often costs a lot of power. Although some high-performance graphics cards still draw a surprisingly large amount of power to draw a simple 2D desktop. As far as I know, the ATI HD3xxx line is the only one that seriously cuts down of power use while not doing any 3D.
While I have not tested out my machine thouroughly (I do not have it on much anymore) on Idle i was spending 450 watts.
Idling at 450W? Most PCs shouldn't even reach that kind of power draw under heavy load. Only serious heavy-duty server or gaming machines with ridiculously heavy graphics cards should idle anywhere near that.
Now, this was between the power supply and the wall, so maybe the machine was using less power, but ultimately thats what it was drawing (the power supply is 450 watts so this makes sense to me).
That's true. It's also possible that you've got an extremely inefficient power supply. The rated power of your power supply is the maximum total power it should be able to supply to the components of the PC, and power supplies tend to be most efficient at about 50% of that. Bad power supplies are rarely able to provide their rated power under real-world conditions, however, so a 450W PSU drawing 450W from the socket sounds a bit worrying to me.
My advice would be to borrow a known efficient (80+) power supply and see how much that lowers your power draw at idle and at load. Substract 25% to find the approximate power draw from the components of your machine, and make sure the power use at idle and the one at load are at either side of the 50% mark of the rated power of the new 80+ power supply you're going to buy.
But regardless, wouldnt the power supply dictate the amount of power used regardless of what the computer actually uses?
If the computer doesn't use it, the PSU doesn't have to supply it. Efficient low-power components (an Intel core 2 duo CPU, an ATI HD3x50 GPU, Western Digital Green Power drive, no overclocking, etc) will mean low power consumption by the system as a whole, unless your power supply is crap.
never gonna happen. GW is run by money whores.
Used to be a huge Fantasy Roleplay fan, as well as some of their other games like the old Blood Bowl and Necromunda.. but anything that doesnt make them a crapload of cash gets axed.
Mostly, yes. The Living Rulebook for Bloodbowl was a small miracle in that light.
If GW did this with their outdated books, that would make alot of us fans of not only the game, but the fluff as well, very happy.
Oh definitely! The original Realms of Chaos books? I believe they cost a fortune on eBay. A free download would be fantastic!
I don't think it'll ever happen, though.
So far, the analogy still works fine.