If I could believe for a nanosecond that they wouldn't go after the small timer, then I'd actually almost support this. People who are out making money, and significant amounts of it, can and should be prosecuted. You really thought that "$250,000 fine and x years in jail" on every DVD was meant for you and me? Hell no. It's for the "big time" pirates--the ones who are profiting from it.
The problem is, the laws are so vaguely worded that almost any offense becomes prosecutable. You wouldn't think that a US law could apply to a Russian citizen, and yet Skylarov sat in jail for how long? It's crap like that that makes IP laws and their enforcement so sleazy.
The reason I said "almost support" is because while it's good in theory, having the government further fund the enforcement of music and movie industry agendas would be like the mafia having the fbi help out on debt collection, or a bank having the irs help collect on deadbeats. It's legally wrong, but it's not the government's job to go looking for it. When a complaint is filed, they should investigate. Going on fishing expeditions or conducting year long sting operations is well outside reasonable boundaries.
Don't shop there. Better yet, buy your copy protected CD's there, and when they sound like crap in your computer, dvd-rom based dvd player, or anything else that will choke on it, take it back and demand your money back. By being the RIAA's face to the customers, they get to directly feel what happens from moving in lockstep with them.
He hasn't just been a major backer. Over the past decade, he's given over $15 million to various initiatives. It's too bad all billionaires can't be more like him.
Congratulations. You've met Alan Ralsky. Not one of the most prolific spammers, but definitely one of the most annoying ones.
His typical MO lately is to use asymmetrical routing, with his sites hosted on dialup connections. Through his own DNS servers which seemingly cannot be removed from the net, combined with joker.com not particularly caring that domain registration information is totally fraudulent, he's not going to be going anywhere anytime soon. The Registry of Known Spam Operators has more and more detailed info on him, including his various criminal convictions and civil judgements. This guy is a crook, flat-out.
As have I. For a lot of movies included, their position is arguable at best. Something like Usual Suspects (#15), or LA Confidential (#33), or Run Lola Run (#72). Are these good films? Yes, quite good. Top 100 films of all time? Not a chance. Films such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Full Metal Jacket, Brazil, and many others are rated lower. All of them, and many others, are quite arguably better examples of film as art.
THe last place I worked at, we had a microsoft select agreement. Boy is that a deal. (Hahah). We got 150 incedents for $50,000.
Dude.. 150 incidents, 150 users, 5 IT people? You got FUCKED. Either that, or it wasn't clearly explained that just because one person is a contact, they can't open an incident on behalf of anyone and have all followups sent to that person.
Sure, a TAM is cool and all, but even I, working upper echelon development for a Fortune 500 MS shop (1.5k IT, 35k employees), only see cause for a premier support incident about once every 3-6 months.
One assumes there was slightly more to their theories than this!
There's more. A lot more. The best "dumbed down" explanation is that of a used car sale. There's a buyer and a seller. Typically, the seller will know a lot more about the vehicle than the buyer. If the seller offers to sell a $15,000 car for $10,000, is this because the seller knows something the buyer doesn't, is the seller looking to unload it quickly, or is the seller just an idiot?
It's a relatively simple concept, but one with profound impacts as far as markets go. Consider the dotcom bubble. Was it because the companies were really worth it, was it "irrational exuberance", or was it asymmetric information? The basic theory is that there's always going to be a certain degree of asymmetric information, but that in the extreme, the market breaks down.
Maybe someone should pick one of the thousands of expired-but-not-released names, register it as a trademark, and file a complaint.
I think that'd be a great idea too. Don't think that my dislike of domain disputes only comes down on the side of the squatters. NICs registering names and holding them is a somewhat dicey proposition, legally speaking. They're entrusted with the orderly disbursement of a resource. By holding names, they breach the trust given to them.
Here is clue. It's about who makes the money. If the corporation end up with the money it's OK. If a poor slob does then it's not OK.
If the poor slob took something that shouldn't have been his in the first place, it's not okay. All of the examples you outlined are different in that there is a buyer and a seller in the transaction. In the case of domains, there is no "seller", only a near-infinite number of combinations of letters and numbers from which to draw.
Business.com? Good grab. X.com? Another good call. Those were speculators--they paid their money and they got it back. It's assclowns like this, registering all sorts of domains for which not only do they not have rights, but someone else already has the legal right to, that give domain speculators a bad name.
Regardless of jurisdiction, he has an untenable case. The First Circuit Court of Appeals didn't rule on the merits of the case, simply ruling that the US courts have jursidiction, something that both US law and ICANN's UDRP agree on.
For background on the case, see this article on slashdot, or thesecases on WIPO's site. In a nutshell, he registered domains for two Brazillian soccer teams, Cruizero and Corinthians. He approached Corinthians about selling the domain, they sent him a notice to hand it over. He then put up bible quotes, and claimed that they were stomping on his first amendment and freedom of religion rights, but lost in UDRP proceedings.. It doesn't help his case that the registrant for his domains was "prestige domains (for sale)", nor does it paint a good picture that he registered dowjonesupdate.com and tonimorrison.com, though he handed over both of those without ICANN interceding.
This guy is a domain speculator, pure and simple. He (rightfully) lost two cases to the trademark holders, and he's not happy that he didn't get paid for being first to register the domains. Personally, I'm surprised the low-life found the nickles to rub together to retain a lawyer to put it to the courts.
Sure thing. I've sued and won before. Last time was when AT&T called me three times in four days. Best way to do it is to play along until they give you enough to identify them. Even if it's a contracted company doing the company, it's the company they're calling on behalf of that is responsible.
To them, pro-active computer security is like flushing money down the toilet.
In order to change this, in the context of this discussion, are you suggesting that congress legislate free clues?
A Stanford law professor has already theorized that owners of hacked sites could be held liable. While I'm not aware of any cases having been brought, it will happen. Right now, it's just credit card number gets stolen, script kiddie buys pr0n, owner reports fraud, credit card company charges back. It would fall to the porn site to seek recourse, and I can think of few less sympathetic plaintiffs than a porn site. One of these days, this will change. Remember: It's always easier to count the money spent doing something than the money lost by not doing it.
Why you encrypt data being offered to the world
on
Future Of IDS
·
· Score: 2
Why encrypt data you're offering out to the whole world?
Just because it goes over the internet doesn't mean it's no private. Financial, insurance, and login information, among many others. All of these things go through "public" web sites. I work for a bank. Most of our web traffic travels under the covers of SSL.
Right now, we're implementing an SSL terminator near the front door. SSL doesn't have to terminate on the web server. If it doesn't, you have the ability to let your SSL move across the web farm, not being server-bound anymore, never mind the overhead SSL imposes on a web server. Does moving SSL traffic unencrypted across the network between firewall and server squick me? You betcha. Does it squick me as much as not seeing IDS on the majority of our traffic? No way.
Even with IPv6 and IPsec, IDS isn't going away anytime soon, for exactly the reason outlined above.
Lemonade Stand... Not only was that my first hack, but also my first group programming project. We decided it'd be more interesting to learn about the economics of running a whorehouse. Who says computers can't teach kids anything?
Actually, I did. Largest single campus in the US at the time as well. I'm glad I didn't receive student aid--Seeing the line stretching 1/4 mile from the office was amusing for someone not standing in it.
When Ashcroft decides the "emergency" requires him to cut off your internet access, you're gonna get snipped whether the gummit is your ISP or not.
It's a lot more difficult for John to go and cut off all the backbone providers today than it would be if the FCC owned the backbone. For all the complaining that went around when the NSF backed out of the net, I have to say it's a far more interesting, lively, and safer place for it.
I will grudgingly agree with you that some regulation may be required for equitable access. There are some critical differences though. First, broadband access to the home, beyond ISDN, has only been available for less than five years now. I haven't dug up the answer, but I have to believe that telegraphs and telephones were around a lot longer before they acheived the penetration that home broadband has in its short lifetime.
I agree with you that the market is still too immature to see whether or not intervention would help or hinder it.
Living in a rural area comes with its drawbacks, however. You're off the sewer line, off the gas line, deal with flaky phone lines, etc. Simply because you're out of reach of the CO and your cable company doesn't offer cable modem does NOT mean that you're without broadband. Dedicated circuits have a longer signalling lenght, repeaters can be put on a DSL line, and there's always satellite internet. Not ideal, but you live in the styx, you make some sacrifices re: the societal umbilicus.
About the unserved businesses, businesses don't run on cable modems or DSL. They run either colo or dedicated lines. One thing you started in on, but didn't explore, is that it's going to take universal access before the net becomes the medium everyone (or at least, the commercial everyone) wants it to become. One day, the Sears catalog will be no more. That day will only come when there truly is universal broadband access.
I'd like to see how many reports they recieved compared to how large their network is. It doesn't mean much without that.
I believe one of the articles I saw said some 3.5 million customers. They've received 4,252 reports in the past week, and that's just ones that were sent through spamcop. One spamcop-generated report for every 823 customers. Every one of them summarily ignored. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.
Did it ever occur to you, you little shit ball, that if conditions during a war ever got so bad that the DOT had to take over a road that maybe just maybe your little petty concerns just wouldn't fucking matter?
You're right. Silly, stupid, me. I care about things like rights, freedoms, and civil liberties. Instead, you took an example and missed the point. The 'net is government done right. Do the research, build the proof of concept, incubate it, and then get the hell out of the way.
I never said I wish they'd kick every @home user off the net without chance of parole. I simply said that since @home has been unresponse to spam complaints for quite some time now, I'm not going to shed any tears for them. I can only hope that all the newly homeless spammers go and sign up with a provider like Speakeasy, Earthlink, RCN, or any other provider that happily abuses spammers back.
Spamcop, at its core, is an automated spam processing system. It comes in a free and a pay flavor. Basically, you either cut and paste your spam into a form on their website, headers included, or you forward it as an attachment to your submission address. It slices and dices, looks for links, parses headers, records statistics, and sends notices to appropriate parties, be they ARIN contacts for IPs or abuse.net contacts for domains. There's all sorts of nifty stuff for making sure that your real email address doesn't end up in spammers' hands, instead creating a ReportID@spamcop.net address for each report (my most recent one is in the 4.75 million range). Still though, it's not perfect. Sometimes it's fooled by the mta chain, sometimes it does let an identifying bit of information slip through, and it DOES NOT parse reply-to addresses (grumble). Still though, it does do a pretty good job overall, and lets me send out reports about spam in a fraction of the time it would take to manually parse them.
For spamcop vs. @home, @home bounces anything with an @spamcop.net address, whether it's an automated report or whether it is someone using their @spamcop.net address (each paying member gets an email account that is spam-filtered, which can be used for everyday usage). Myself, I prefer Sneakemail for my mail management. Anyway, not only do they block spamcop reports, but they generally ignore even manual reports from non spamcop.net addresses. Just today, they started sending an auto-acknowledgement with a case ID of something like 1001 for every case (non-incrementing), indicating that they simply don't care anymore.
All in all, SpamCop, despite its problems, is an incredible service. It's open source too, with the code being available on SourceForge. You can use it for free, or pay $36/yr or $1/mb of mail for a lot of advanced features, such as the filtered email address, IMAP/POP3 access, black/whitelists, et al.
The ensuing clamor might be enough to motivate the gubment to monopolize Internet provision and bring it to everyone for a reasonable fee.
This is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to even begin. First of all, the government is the last entity I think of when I consider responsive, efficient organizations. I don't know about you, but I like both of those qualities in my internet connection.
This is ignoring the fact that Carnivore would go by the wayside. Who needs Carnivore when you just own the whole thing?
You thought that the interstate highway system was yours because of gasoline taxes? In times of war the DOT has the authority to take over whatever roads the military needs to move troops/supplies. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the idea of getting kicked off the net for any reason, let alone some religious nutjob.
It's not all "trolls and Nimda spreaders" who happen to be on @home, and could be screwed.
You're absolutely right! It's spammers too. They're in the top ten sources of spam on spam reported through SpamCop. This is even more impressive considering that they send anything from spamcop, whether it's an automated report or a manual email with an @spamcop.net address, to Dave Null, prompting many SpamCop users to send a manual report
While I feel bad about the legitimate customers, seeing a provider who is utterly unresponsive to spam complaints disappear down the drain after circling a while isn't exactly breaking my heart.
Slashdot Mirror
If I could believe for a nanosecond that they wouldn't go after the small timer, then I'd actually almost support this. People who are out making money, and significant amounts of it, can and should be prosecuted. You really thought that "$250,000 fine and x years in jail" on every DVD was meant for you and me? Hell no. It's for the "big time" pirates--the ones who are profiting from it.
The problem is, the laws are so vaguely worded that almost any offense becomes prosecutable. You wouldn't think that a US law could apply to a Russian citizen, and yet Skylarov sat in jail for how long? It's crap like that that makes IP laws and their enforcement so sleazy.
The reason I said "almost support" is because while it's good in theory, having the government further fund the enforcement of music and movie industry agendas would be like the mafia having the fbi help out on debt collection, or a bank having the irs help collect on deadbeats. It's legally wrong, but it's not the government's job to go looking for it. When a complaint is filed, they should investigate. Going on fishing expeditions or conducting year long sting operations is well outside reasonable boundaries.
"CHiPs" (1977) [TV-Series: 1977-1983]
Don't shop there. Better yet, buy your copy protected CD's there, and when they sound like crap in your computer, dvd-rom based dvd player, or anything else that will choke on it, take it back and demand your money back. By being the RIAA's face to the customers, they get to directly feel what happens from moving in lockstep with them.
You know.. If he was running Windows, autocorrect could take care of that for him.
He hasn't just been a major backer. Over the past decade, he's given over $15 million to various initiatives. It's too bad all billionaires can't be more like him.
www.poxteam2001.com
Congratulations. You've met Alan Ralsky. Not one of the most prolific spammers, but definitely one of the most annoying ones.
His typical MO lately is to use asymmetrical routing, with his sites hosted on dialup connections. Through his own DNS servers which seemingly cannot be removed from the net, combined with joker.com not particularly caring that domain registration information is totally fraudulent, he's not going to be going anywhere anytime soon. The Registry of Known Spam Operators has more and more detailed info on him, including his various criminal convictions and civil judgements. This guy is a crook, flat-out.
I've been following the imdb top 250 for years
As have I. For a lot of movies included, their position is arguable at best. Something like Usual Suspects (#15), or LA Confidential (#33), or Run Lola Run (#72). Are these good films? Yes, quite good. Top 100 films of all time? Not a chance. Films such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Full Metal Jacket, Brazil, and many others are rated lower. All of them, and many others, are quite arguably better examples of film as art.
THe last place I worked at, we had a microsoft select agreement. Boy is that a deal. (Hahah). We got 150 incedents for $50,000.
Dude.. 150 incidents, 150 users, 5 IT people? You got FUCKED . Either that, or it wasn't clearly explained that just because one person is a contact, they can't open an incident on behalf of anyone and have all followups sent to that person.
Sure, a TAM is cool and all, but even I, working upper echelon development for a Fortune 500 MS shop (1.5k IT, 35k employees), only see cause for a premier support incident about once every 3-6 months.
He should be able to sue for something. Damned if I can think what, though.
Malicious prosecution.
More than likely though, as part of dropping him from the complaint, he agreed to not seek redress.
One assumes there was slightly more to their theories than this!
There's more. A lot more. The best "dumbed down" explanation is that of a used car sale. There's a buyer and a seller. Typically, the seller will know a lot more about the vehicle than the buyer. If the seller offers to sell a $15,000 car for $10,000, is this because the seller knows something the buyer doesn't, is the seller looking to unload it quickly, or is the seller just an idiot?
It's a relatively simple concept, but one with profound impacts as far as markets go. Consider the dotcom bubble. Was it because the companies were really worth it, was it "irrational exuberance", or was it asymmetric information? The basic theory is that there's always going to be a certain degree of asymmetric information, but that in the extreme, the market breaks down.
Maybe someone should pick one of the thousands of expired-but-not-released names, register it as a trademark, and file a complaint.
I think that'd be a great idea too. Don't think that my dislike of domain disputes only comes down on the side of the squatters. NICs registering names and holding them is a somewhat dicey proposition, legally speaking. They're entrusted with the orderly disbursement of a resource. By holding names, they breach the trust given to them.
Here is clue. It's about who makes the money. If the corporation end up with the money it's OK. If a poor slob does then it's not OK.
If the poor slob took something that shouldn't have been his in the first place, it's not okay. All of the examples you outlined are different in that there is a buyer and a seller in the transaction. In the case of domains, there is no "seller", only a near-infinite number of combinations of letters and numbers from which to draw.
Business.com? Good grab. X.com? Another good call. Those were speculators--they paid their money and they got it back. It's assclowns like this, registering all sorts of domains for which not only do they not have rights, but someone else already has the legal right to, that give domain speculators a bad name.
Regardless of jurisdiction, he has an untenable case. The First Circuit Court of Appeals didn't rule on the merits of the case, simply ruling that the US courts have jursidiction, something that both US law and ICANN's UDRP agree on.
For background on the case, see this article on slashdot, or these cases on WIPO's site. In a nutshell, he registered domains for two Brazillian soccer teams, Cruizero and Corinthians. He approached Corinthians about selling the domain, they sent him a notice to hand it over. He then put up bible quotes, and claimed that they were stomping on his first amendment and freedom of religion rights, but lost in UDRP proceedings.. It doesn't help his case that the registrant for his domains was "prestige domains (for sale)", nor does it paint a good picture that he registered dowjonesupdate.com and tonimorrison.com, though he handed over both of those without ICANN interceding.
This guy is a domain speculator, pure and simple. He (rightfully) lost two cases to the trademark holders, and he's not happy that he didn't get paid for being first to register the domains. Personally, I'm surprised the low-life found the nickles to rub together to retain a lawyer to put it to the courts.
Has anyone else had any success?
Sure thing. I've sued and won before. Last time was when AT&T called me three times in four days. Best way to do it is to play along until they give you enough to identify them. Even if it's a contracted company doing the company, it's the company they're calling on behalf of that is responsible.
To them, pro-active computer security is like flushing money down the toilet.
In order to change this, in the context of this discussion, are you suggesting that congress legislate free clues?
A Stanford law professor has already theorized that owners of hacked sites could be held liable. While I'm not aware of any cases having been brought, it will happen. Right now, it's just credit card number gets stolen, script kiddie buys pr0n, owner reports fraud, credit card company charges back. It would fall to the porn site to seek recourse, and I can think of few less sympathetic plaintiffs than a porn site. One of these days, this will change. Remember: It's always easier to count the money spent doing something than the money lost by not doing it.
Why encrypt data you're offering out to the whole world?
Just because it goes over the internet doesn't mean it's no private. Financial, insurance, and login information, among many others. All of these things go through "public" web sites. I work for a bank. Most of our web traffic travels under the covers of SSL.
Right now, we're implementing an SSL terminator near the front door. SSL doesn't have to terminate on the web server. If it doesn't, you have the ability to let your SSL move across the web farm, not being server-bound anymore, never mind the overhead SSL imposes on a web server. Does moving SSL traffic unencrypted across the network between firewall and server squick me? You betcha. Does it squick me as much as not seeing IDS on the majority of our traffic? No way.
Even with IPv6 and IPsec, IDS isn't going away anytime soon, for exactly the reason outlined above.
Lemonade Stand... Not only was that my first hack, but also my first group programming project. We decided it'd be more interesting to learn about the economics of running a whorehouse. Who says computers can't teach kids anything?
Never went to the university, did you?
Actually, I did. Largest single campus in the US at the time as well. I'm glad I didn't receive student aid--Seeing the line stretching 1/4 mile from the office was amusing for someone not standing in it.
When Ashcroft decides the "emergency" requires him to cut off your internet access, you're gonna get snipped whether the gummit is your ISP or not.
It's a lot more difficult for John to go and cut off all the backbone providers today than it would be if the FCC owned the backbone. For all the complaining that went around when the NSF backed out of the net, I have to say it's a far more interesting, lively, and safer place for it.
I will grudgingly agree with you that some regulation may be required for equitable access. There are some critical differences though. First, broadband access to the home, beyond ISDN, has only been available for less than five years now. I haven't dug up the answer, but I have to believe that telegraphs and telephones were around a lot longer before they acheived the penetration that home broadband has in its short lifetime.
I agree with you that the market is still too immature to see whether or not intervention would help or hinder it.
Living in a rural area comes with its drawbacks, however. You're off the sewer line, off the gas line, deal with flaky phone lines, etc. Simply because you're out of reach of the CO and your cable company doesn't offer cable modem does NOT mean that you're without broadband. Dedicated circuits have a longer signalling lenght, repeaters can be put on a DSL line, and there's always satellite internet. Not ideal, but you live in the styx, you make some sacrifices re: the societal umbilicus.
About the unserved businesses, businesses don't run on cable modems or DSL. They run either colo or dedicated lines. One thing you started in on, but didn't explore, is that it's going to take universal access before the net becomes the medium everyone (or at least, the commercial everyone) wants it to become. One day, the Sears catalog will be no more. That day will only come when there truly is universal broadband access.
I'd like to see how many reports they recieved compared to how large their network is. It doesn't mean much without that.
I believe one of the articles I saw said some 3.5 million customers. They've received 4,252 reports in the past week, and that's just ones that were sent through spamcop. One spamcop-generated report for every 823 customers. Every one of them summarily ignored. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.
Did it ever occur to you, you little shit ball, that if conditions during a war ever got so bad that the DOT had to take over a road that maybe just maybe your little petty concerns just wouldn't fucking matter?
You're right. Silly, stupid, me. I care about things like rights, freedoms, and civil liberties. Instead, you took an example and missed the point. The 'net is government done right. Do the research, build the proof of concept, incubate it, and then get the hell out of the way.
I never said I wish they'd kick every @home user off the net without chance of parole. I simply said that since @home has been unresponse to spam complaints for quite some time now, I'm not going to shed any tears for them. I can only hope that all the newly homeless spammers go and sign up with a provider like Speakeasy, Earthlink, RCN, or any other provider that happily abuses spammers back.
Spamcop, at its core, is an automated spam processing system. It comes in a free and a pay flavor. Basically, you either cut and paste your spam into a form on their website, headers included, or you forward it as an attachment to your submission address. It slices and dices, looks for links, parses headers, records statistics, and sends notices to appropriate parties, be they ARIN contacts for IPs or abuse.net contacts for domains. There's all sorts of nifty stuff for making sure that your real email address doesn't end up in spammers' hands, instead creating a ReportID@spamcop.net address for each report (my most recent one is in the 4.75 million range). Still though, it's not perfect. Sometimes it's fooled by the mta chain, sometimes it does let an identifying bit of information slip through, and it DOES NOT parse reply-to addresses (grumble). Still though, it does do a pretty good job overall, and lets me send out reports about spam in a fraction of the time it would take to manually parse them.
For spamcop vs. @home, @home bounces anything with an @spamcop.net address, whether it's an automated report or whether it is someone using their @spamcop.net address (each paying member gets an email account that is spam-filtered, which can be used for everyday usage). Myself, I prefer Sneakemail for my mail management. Anyway, not only do they block spamcop reports, but they generally ignore even manual reports from non spamcop.net addresses. Just today, they started sending an auto-acknowledgement with a case ID of something like 1001 for every case (non-incrementing), indicating that they simply don't care anymore.
All in all, SpamCop, despite its problems, is an incredible service. It's open source too, with the code being available on SourceForge. You can use it for free, or pay $36/yr or $1/mb of mail for a lot of advanced features, such as the filtered email address, IMAP/POP3 access, black/whitelists, et al.
The ensuing clamor might be enough to motivate the gubment to monopolize Internet provision and bring it to everyone for a reasonable fee.
This is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to even begin. First of all, the government is the last entity I think of when I consider responsive, efficient organizations. I don't know about you, but I like both of those qualities in my internet connection.
This is ignoring the fact that Carnivore would go by the wayside. Who needs Carnivore when you just own the whole thing?
We see what happens in other countries when the government runs the internet. Why, just this week, we've had 17k internet cafes shut down in China and Saudi Arabia looking to build an even bigger firewall.
You thought that the interstate highway system was yours because of gasoline taxes? In times of war the DOT has the authority to take over whatever roads the military needs to move troops/supplies. I don't know about you, but I don't relish the idea of getting kicked off the net for any reason, let alone some religious nutjob.
It's not all "trolls and Nimda spreaders" who happen to be on @home, and could be screwed.
You're absolutely right! It's spammers too. They're in the top ten sources of spam on spam reported through SpamCop. This is even more impressive considering that they send anything from spamcop, whether it's an automated report or a manual email with an @spamcop.net address, to Dave Null, prompting many SpamCop users to send a manual report
While I feel bad about the legitimate customers, seeing a provider who is utterly unresponsive to spam complaints disappear down the drain after circling a while isn't exactly breaking my heart.