Seriously? It really gets you going that someone you don't even know would suggest that Perl is much easier to write than to read? I have never heard in my life anyone say that they saw a project which was written in Perl and the code was beautiful. I've heard it about C and Python... and, yes, about Java. I've even heard it about Bash scripting framework. But never about Perl. I guess your experience may be different, but if it is, I assure you that it is fairly unique.
Why would JPL not wipe any sensitive info from phone cache after it gets locked (or worse gets put in a plane mode). If nothing else, if there is lost luggage or a plane crash, wouldn't they want to make sure that national-secret level info is not in the wrong hands? And after the phone is unlocked, why isn't there a separate security handshake before any sensitive data is populated in the phone's apps from the network?
Oh, and I guess I forgot to mention that it has all the constructs one would expect in a mature functional language (map, filter, lambda, reduce). But I forgot about it because they were so obviously there from the beginning.
Learn more about what 'yield' keyword does in it. And then learn what the 'with' keyword does in it (deterministic RAII within a gc-based language). Then read and fully understand what is a 'namedtuple'. And then you'll realize that it is pretty far from a standard OO language. Just as a function is a generalization of the concept of a stack, yield-based generators (closures) are a generalization of the concept of a queue. 'namedtuple' makes visitor pattern obsolete. So a lot of the hoops which people are forced to jump through in OO languages are naturally swept away by Python's native constructs. And because the white spaces are used for scope delineation, it is imminently readable.
Doing new stuff in a different language would be ok, but ditching the old code and rewriting it?
Well, rewriting old Perl code... Yeah, I guess. Of course, if it were old Python code, it wouldn't be an issue. Perl, as the saying goes, is a write-only language.
kloc is an acronym for "thousand lines of code". This was generally the way to describe complexity of code at some point (just as the number of transistors on a chip used to be a bragging point about its complexity).
Counting the most commits is only a step above counting kloc's. Or is it just the new kloc? If a language is at the point where it finally has it together (good std library support, intuitive syntax, etc.) one might expect projects in that language to get to stable condition much faster with fewer commits. The more messy and error-inducing a language is, the more the projects in it need to be fixed. So it would see more commits (assuming enough people are conned into using it).
They tried to put a lot of poison pills in Java 8 (9?) with multiple inheritance and such. And, as a result, most people stopped updating from Java 7 and some of the largest projects switched to OpenJDK (which targets JDK 7 compatibility). Now that they have decided to completely dismantle all the IP they bought from Sun (effectively end of lifing Solaris by removing future versions from roadmap and such), I guess they decided it's time to write off what they can and try to extort someone else for the losses. They haven't been a leader in anything in a very, very, very long time (effectively since they won the market mindshare against Sybase). Their only strategy is leveraged buy outs and jacking up the price. So it's going to be only Microsoft Server standing in the end, after all. The king is dead. Long live the King.
Are you now contending that RICO's objective was to solely stop conspiracy criminal activity rather than breaking up organized-crime-as-a-business?
As for this:
*cough* Ooookaaaaaaaaay, buddy.
They made a number of similar moves within their last week. So the shoe fits.
Grinding wheel. Used for sharpening axes and other blades. From the phrase "An axe to grind".
Yes, but "sharpen your mind" (as I assume you are suggesting) is not one of this phrase's common usages.
And -if you look closely-, you'll discover that United States v. Microsoft Corporation was settled (and part of that settlement was a Consent Decree)... just like those two cases I mentioned.:)
The government already had a verdict at that point. The settlement was a decision by Microsoft not to pursue appeals. So the litigation was, in fact, finished. You still haven't shown a case where FTC litigated until reaching a successful verdict a case in which monopoly abuse stemmed from renegotiating licensing fees (even if the original fees was established (F)RAND rates.
"Oh, but those cases ended in a Consent Decree, that's not successful litigation!" I hear you saying. Again, that's you speaking from ignorance. Look to FTC v. Rambus, Inc for an example of what it looks like when the FTC has a case dismissed.
And I would point out that when the government actually has a case (as it did in the case of Microsoft), it litigates it. And yet, you haven't shown a single case which the government successfully litigated and which also resulted from a government-granted monopoly. You argue that I may not like the, but that's the law. Well, I say to that if you don't like the fact that government is granting monopolies, then take it up with the legislature -- not with the courts. I don't actually mind the law. I just disagree with you how broadly it applies. And the fact that the FTC was sitting on this for years and only filed 2 days before the change of guard (as is the case with many other actions which the previous administration took) is a clear indication that the purpose of this action is to derail detract the current administration from its agenda more than it is to litigate this case in earnest.
That's Federal law. You might not like it, but that's the law. What's more, that has been the law for right around a hundred years.
So your contention is that "from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" is to be interpreted literally for the purposes of inferring legislative intent of that phrase? If that were the case, why did we ever need RICO statutes? Certainly racketeering would have qualified as "unfair acts" "affecting commerce" if these words were taken in their broad plain-English interpretation. I am not gonna do case law research, but there is no way these were not narrowed down significantly by courts (or RICO, at least its civil penalties part, would have been simply unnecessary). And again, I am not about to do your case law research for you.
It's not part of your background. If you don't get a job because of this, it's a very good indication that you'll be nickel and dimed by the company after you start working there. The "salary history" is remnant from the time when we had a robust inflation. During the times of 0% interest rate, salaries don't go up all the time. They go up and down depending on the type of work you do at your job, how "close to the money" you are on the job and how many hours you actually work. The up and down jumps can be as high as 50% for people in tech fields. And if you are going for a job which requires higher qualifications than your previous job, then your previous salary has nothing to do with the compensation you should be requesting. If they are looking to instill some sort of inferiority complex in you from the start, it's a good indication that they will try to overwork you and underpay you in the future. Leave it blank. If they don't like it, you will be lucky because you'll avoid taking a job you would regret taking otherwise.
Read the FTC's complaint; it's only ~45 pages, and I linked to it above. You're just embarrassing yourself with your proclamations from ignorance.
Section I (NATURE OF THE CASE), paragraph 4 (page 3):
Qualcomm’s “no license-no chips” policy dramatically increases customers’ costs
of challenging Qualcomm’s preferred license terms before a court or other neutral arbiter—
including on the basis that those terms are non-FRAND—or to negotiate royalties in the shadow
of such a challenge. This leaves Qualcomm’s customers in a markedly different position than
they would be in a typical patent licensing negotiation. As a result, Qualcomm’s customers have
accepted elevated royalties and other license terms that do not reflect an assessment of terms that
a court or other neutral arbiter would determine to be fair and reasonable.
This is clearly an indication that FTC is taking up itself to seek relief for harm resulting from violation of a contract -- not from violation of a statue.
Section II.A (Jurisdiction), paragraph 12 (page 4):
Qualcomm’s general business practices, and the unfair methods of competition
alleged herein, are activities in or affecting “commerce” within the meaning of Section 4 of the
FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 44.
Analysis (mine): this is absurd. They claim jurisdiction because violating a contract "affects" "commerce"? This gives them power to sue anyone whoever breached a contract for the purposes of renegotiating it for higher licensing fees. The fact that FRAND happens to be the contract in question (in this case) makes no difference. If they had this broad power, they would be able to sue anyone withdrawing from a deal in order ask for more money from the other parties in the deal. And the reason why FTC would be able to sue them is that withdrawing from a deal "affects commerce"? Bunk. Their powers are not that broad. Claiming that an action (adversely) "affects commerce" does not justify claiming that the same action is monopoly "abuse". Even less so when the monopoly in question is a legally obtained patent. Their power to regulate monopoly abuse is limited to monopolies which are naturally occurring (utilities, other infrastructure pieces which become dominant in the marketplace through sheer market forces).
It's _far_ from the first time the FTC has brought antitrust violation charges against a company who violated their RAND licensing agreements.
Please, list 2 others (which were successfully litigated rather than brought up and dismissed).
The fact that the immediately affected (the family/heirs) can seek relief in court for the slaying has absolutely no bearing on whether or not The State has separate charges that it can bring against the lawbreaker for the same act.
These are different aggrieved parties. The state seeks justice for the slayed. The relatives seek relief for themselves (due to loss they themselves suffered as a result of losing a relative -- not on the aggrieved relative's behalf). Honestly, I can just help you out there. If you can demonstrate that fraud victims can both get justice in criminal court and redress in civil court, then that would be a far better example.
Absolutely not. Consider -for example- the crime of manslaughter. The relatives of the slain can often press civil charges against the killer for his conduct. That fact has _absolutely no bearing_ on the criminal charges available to and evidentiary standards for The State's criminal case against the killer.
That's an entirely different situation. In a case of man slaughter, the victim is dead (so he cannot seek relief). The state does not brings criminal charges to correct the wrong done to the relatives. It does it to correct the wrong done to the victim.
It actually _does_ mean that.
That would mean that by agreeing to a "reasonable compensation" they agree to not have any say in what is or isn't "reasonable." "Non-Discriminatory" is also difficult to parse because it has to mean like compensation in like situations. But every company's business model is different so it would be hard (although not impossible) to find 2 "like" situations.
You should also read at least the first few sections of the law that establishes the FTC's mandate to understand what it can and cannot do.
I am fairly sure this would be the 1st time that FTC brings monopoly abuse charges against someone trying to re-negotiate licensing of a granted patent.
Let's be clear. Just because they agreed to accept payments by licensing under RAND does not mean they gave up their to determining how much is owed under RAND. And if some parties were to shortchange them, they would be within their rights to refuse licensing. And until those parties sued for breach and won, FTC has no business jumping to the conclusion that market-wide harm was caused. In fact, even if some parties won a claim of breach, FTC still would have shaky standing because IP ownership of patent holders is unquestionable and absolute while SEP participation is voluntary (and may or may not be argued to be revocable with no penalties other than the ones explicitly outlined when entering into the SEP agreement). Certainly the fact that the "harmed" parties already have means of redress makes the bar to prove that market place was harmed much higher.
Not in court. My point remains that the parties which were purportedly damaged have a way to redress their grievances through court without FTC. And only the damaged parties have standing to ask for redress. FTC cannot claim damage to overall marketplace until after a court has ruled that there were some parties damaged through a breach of a contract.
It says right in the summary that the investigation has been going on for years already. And the timing makes little difference here, and if Trump gets involved it would be a scandal for many reasons unrelated to race.
Well, by all means, then they must be appalled (appalled!) that there is gambling... I mean DISCRIMINATION going on there. Clearly, they had enough evidence create a sham, but not enough to charge, and they had it a while ago and just decided to deploy it at the very moment when it would be most politically damaging to the incoming administration.
If they filed before the election instead of the day before inauguration of a President from the opposing party. Once again, if Trump drops the suit, he is racist. If Trump wins the suit, it's Trump persecuting the tech sector while Obama protected minority rights. Who are these jokers kidding?
Had Qualcomm not entered into an agreement to license its SEPs at RAND rates, in exchange for the inclusion of its tech in widely-used telecom standards; had they simply kept their patents to themselves and forced the standards body to make due without Qualcomm's patented tech, FedGov would not have a case.
Is it common practice for FTC to sue to enforce contracts? Shouldn't the suit be brought by the parties which suffered because of the breach? Unless, FTC is a party to SEP agreement, then it should have not standing to sue for the breach. Even if it were a party, FTC would not be able to demonstrate damages to the FTC, so it would not have standing to sue. The only standing it can show in this case is as an entity entrusted with ensuring that monopoly power is not abused. But using government-granted limited-time monopolies for bargaining purposes is not an abuse of a monopoly. It is the intended purpose of patents.
This is FedGov suing an inventor that has lied, cheated, and violated both contracts and trust in order to advance its own position at the expense of others and do serious damage to the market in the process.
Wouldn't some of the parties damaged by the breach of trust have to show that the breach has occurred before a claim can be made that the marketplace as a whole was damaged?
God dislikes injustice. And has a special place in hell for those who voted to put criminal Hillary Clinton in charge of a country based on the rule of law.
But patents, as such, are government-granted monopolies. It is a bit (just a bit) mind-boggling that the government would grant monopolies and then sue the inventors whose monopolies are successful. Ownership (of anything) is the right to deny use. It's the only bargaining power an owner has with those to whom he rents the right to use. If they should not try to profit from it, then what's the point of granting these ownership rights?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously? It really gets you going that someone you don't even know would suggest that Perl is much easier to write than to read? I have never heard in my life anyone say that they saw a project which was written in Perl and the code was beautiful. I've heard it about C and Python... and, yes, about Java. I've even heard it about Bash scripting framework. But never about Perl. I guess your experience may be different, but if it is, I assure you that it is fairly unique.
Why would JPL not wipe any sensitive info from phone cache after it gets locked (or worse gets put in a plane mode). If nothing else, if there is lost luggage or a plane crash, wouldn't they want to make sure that national-secret level info is not in the wrong hands? And after the phone is unlocked, why isn't there a separate security handshake before any sensitive data is populated in the phone's apps from the network?
Oh, and I guess I forgot to mention that it has all the constructs one would expect in a mature functional language (map, filter, lambda, reduce). But I forgot about it because they were so obviously there from the beginning.
Learn more about what 'yield' keyword does in it. And then learn what the 'with' keyword does in it (deterministic RAII within a gc-based language). Then read and fully understand what is a 'namedtuple'. And then you'll realize that it is pretty far from a standard OO language. Just as a function is a generalization of the concept of a stack, yield-based generators (closures) are a generalization of the concept of a queue. 'namedtuple' makes visitor pattern obsolete. So a lot of the hoops which people are forced to jump through in OO languages are naturally swept away by Python's native constructs. And because the white spaces are used for scope delineation, it is imminently readable.
Doing new stuff in a different language would be ok, but ditching the old code and rewriting it?
Well, rewriting old Perl code... Yeah, I guess. Of course, if it were old Python code, it wouldn't be an issue. Perl, as the saying goes, is a write-only language.
kloc is an acronym for "thousand lines of code". This was generally the way to describe complexity of code at some point (just as the number of transistors on a chip used to be a bragging point about its complexity).
There is no way that there is still 3000 people who wouldn't switch from Perl to Python in the entire world. Are you working with aliens.?
Counting the most commits is only a step above counting kloc's. Or is it just the new kloc? If a language is at the point where it finally has it together (good std library support, intuitive syntax, etc.) one might expect projects in that language to get to stable condition much faster with fewer commits. The more messy and error-inducing a language is, the more the projects in it need to be fixed. So it would see more commits (assuming enough people are conned into using it).
They tried to put a lot of poison pills in Java 8 (9?) with multiple inheritance and such. And, as a result, most people stopped updating from Java 7 and some of the largest projects switched to OpenJDK (which targets JDK 7 compatibility). Now that they have decided to completely dismantle all the IP they bought from Sun (effectively end of lifing Solaris by removing future versions from roadmap and such), I guess they decided it's time to write off what they can and try to extort someone else for the losses. They haven't been a leader in anything in a very, very, very long time (effectively since they won the market mindshare against Sybase). Their only strategy is leveraged buy outs and jacking up the price. So it's going to be only Microsoft Server standing in the end, after all. The king is dead. Long live the King.
Are you now contending that RICO's objective was to solely stop conspiracy criminal activity rather than breaking up organized-crime-as-a-business?
As for this:
*cough* Ooookaaaaaaaaay, buddy.
They made a number of similar moves within their last week. So the shoe fits.
Grinding wheel. Used for sharpening axes and other blades. From the phrase "An axe to grind".
Yes, but "sharpen your mind" (as I assume you are suggesting) is not one of this phrase's common usages.
And -if you look closely-, you'll discover that United States v. Microsoft Corporation was settled (and part of that settlement was a Consent Decree)... just like those two cases I mentioned. :)
The government already had a verdict at that point. The settlement was a decision by Microsoft not to pursue appeals. So the litigation was, in fact, finished. You still haven't shown a case where FTC litigated until reaching a successful verdict a case in which monopoly abuse stemmed from renegotiating licensing fees (even if the original fees was established (F)RAND rates.
"Oh, but those cases ended in a Consent Decree, that's not successful litigation!" I hear you saying. Again, that's you speaking from ignorance. Look to FTC v. Rambus, Inc for an example of what it looks like when the FTC has a case dismissed.
And I would point out that when the government actually has a case (as it did in the case of Microsoft), it litigates it. And yet, you haven't shown a single case which the government successfully litigated and which also resulted from a government-granted monopoly. You argue that I may not like the, but that's the law. Well, I say to that if you don't like the fact that government is granting monopolies, then take it up with the legislature -- not with the courts. I don't actually mind the law. I just disagree with you how broadly it applies. And the fact that the FTC was sitting on this for years and only filed 2 days before the change of guard (as is the case with many other actions which the previous administration took) is a clear indication that the purpose of this action is to derail detract the current administration from its agenda more than it is to litigate this case in earnest.
That's Federal law. You might not like it, but that's the law. What's more, that has been the law for right around a hundred years.
So your contention is that "from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" is to be interpreted literally for the purposes of inferring legislative intent of that phrase? If that were the case, why did we ever need RICO statutes? Certainly racketeering would have qualified as "unfair acts" "affecting commerce" if these words were taken in their broad plain-English interpretation. I am not gonna do case law research, but there is no way these were not narrowed down significantly by courts (or RICO, at least its civil penalties part, would have been simply unnecessary). And again, I am not about to do your case law research for you.
. Give the grinding wheel an hour's rest.
You flatter me. I couldn't possibly spend any of my time in hopes of making money as a stripper.
This really isn't difficult to understand, dude.
Nothing is. It's only time consuming. And at this point, I get the feeling that you are just trying to get me to do legal research for you.
It's not part of your background. If you don't get a job because of this, it's a very good indication that you'll be nickel and dimed by the company after you start working there. The "salary history" is remnant from the time when we had a robust inflation. During the times of 0% interest rate, salaries don't go up all the time. They go up and down depending on the type of work you do at your job, how "close to the money" you are on the job and how many hours you actually work. The up and down jumps can be as high as 50% for people in tech fields. And if you are going for a job which requires higher qualifications than your previous job, then your previous salary has nothing to do with the compensation you should be requesting. If they are looking to instill some sort of inferiority complex in you from the start, it's a good indication that they will try to overwork you and underpay you in the future. Leave it blank. If they don't like it, you will be lucky because you'll avoid taking a job you would regret taking otherwise.
Read the FTC's complaint; it's only ~45 pages, and I linked to it above. You're just embarrassing yourself with your proclamations from ignorance.
Section I (NATURE OF THE CASE), paragraph 4 (page 3):
Qualcomm’s “no license-no chips” policy dramatically increases customers’ costs of challenging Qualcomm’s preferred license terms before a court or other neutral arbiter— including on the basis that those terms are non-FRAND—or to negotiate royalties in the shadow of such a challenge. This leaves Qualcomm’s customers in a markedly different position than they would be in a typical patent licensing negotiation. As a result, Qualcomm’s customers have accepted elevated royalties and other license terms that do not reflect an assessment of terms that a court or other neutral arbiter would determine to be fair and reasonable.
This is clearly an indication that FTC is taking up itself to seek relief for harm resulting from violation of a contract -- not from violation of a statue.
Section II.A (Jurisdiction), paragraph 12 (page 4):
Qualcomm’s general business practices, and the unfair methods of competition alleged herein, are activities in or affecting “commerce” within the meaning of Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 44.
Analysis (mine): this is absurd. They claim jurisdiction because violating a contract "affects" "commerce"? This gives them power to sue anyone whoever breached a contract for the purposes of renegotiating it for higher licensing fees. The fact that FRAND happens to be the contract in question (in this case) makes no difference. If they had this broad power, they would be able to sue anyone withdrawing from a deal in order ask for more money from the other parties in the deal. And the reason why FTC would be able to sue them is that withdrawing from a deal "affects commerce"? Bunk. Their powers are not that broad. Claiming that an action (adversely) "affects commerce" does not justify claiming that the same action is monopoly "abuse". Even less so when the monopoly in question is a legally obtained patent. Their power to regulate monopoly abuse is limited to monopolies which are naturally occurring (utilities, other infrastructure pieces which become dominant in the marketplace through sheer market forces).
It's _far_ from the first time the FTC has brought antitrust violation charges against a company who violated their RAND licensing agreements.
Please, list 2 others (which were successfully litigated rather than brought up and dismissed).
The fact that the immediately affected (the family/heirs) can seek relief in court for the slaying has absolutely no bearing on whether or not The State has separate charges that it can bring against the lawbreaker for the same act.
These are different aggrieved parties. The state seeks justice for the slayed. The relatives seek relief for themselves (due to loss they themselves suffered as a result of losing a relative -- not on the aggrieved relative's behalf). Honestly, I can just help you out there. If you can demonstrate that fraud victims can both get justice in criminal court and redress in civil court, then that would be a far better example.
Absolutely not. Consider -for example- the crime of manslaughter. The relatives of the slain can often press civil charges against the killer for his conduct. That fact has _absolutely no bearing_ on the criminal charges available to and evidentiary standards for The State's criminal case against the killer.
That's an entirely different situation. In a case of man slaughter, the victim is dead (so he cannot seek relief). The state does not brings criminal charges to correct the wrong done to the relatives. It does it to correct the wrong done to the victim.
It actually _does_ mean that.
That would mean that by agreeing to a "reasonable compensation" they agree to not have any say in what is or isn't "reasonable." "Non-Discriminatory" is also difficult to parse because it has to mean like compensation in like situations. But every company's business model is different so it would be hard (although not impossible) to find 2 "like" situations.
You should also read at least the first few sections of the law that establishes the FTC's mandate to understand what it can and cannot do.
I am fairly sure this would be the 1st time that FTC brings monopoly abuse charges against someone trying to re-negotiate licensing of a granted patent.
Let's be clear. Just because they agreed to accept payments by licensing under RAND does not mean they gave up their to determining how much is owed under RAND. And if some parties were to shortchange them, they would be within their rights to refuse licensing. And until those parties sued for breach and won, FTC has no business jumping to the conclusion that market-wide harm was caused. In fact, even if some parties won a claim of breach, FTC still would have shaky standing because IP ownership of patent holders is unquestionable and absolute while SEP participation is voluntary (and may or may not be argued to be revocable with no penalties other than the ones explicitly outlined when entering into the SEP agreement). Certainly the fact that the "harmed" parties already have means of redress makes the bar to prove that market place was harmed much higher.
They -uh- have?
Not in court. My point remains that the parties which were purportedly damaged have a way to redress their grievances through court without FTC. And only the damaged parties have standing to ask for redress. FTC cannot claim damage to overall marketplace until after a court has ruled that there were some parties damaged through a breach of a contract.
It says right in the summary that the investigation has been going on for years already. And the timing makes little difference here, and if Trump gets involved it would be a scandal for many reasons unrelated to race.
Well, by all means, then they must be appalled (appalled!) that there is gambling... I mean DISCRIMINATION going on there. Clearly, they had enough evidence create a sham, but not enough to charge, and they had it a while ago and just decided to deploy it at the very moment when it would be most politically damaging to the incoming administration.
If they filed before the election instead of the day before inauguration of a President from the opposing party. Once again, if Trump drops the suit, he is racist. If Trump wins the suit, it's Trump persecuting the tech sector while Obama protected minority rights. Who are these jokers kidding?
Had Qualcomm not entered into an agreement to license its SEPs at RAND rates, in exchange for the inclusion of its tech in widely-used telecom standards; had they simply kept their patents to themselves and forced the standards body to make due without Qualcomm's patented tech, FedGov would not have a case.
Is it common practice for FTC to sue to enforce contracts? Shouldn't the suit be brought by the parties which suffered because of the breach? Unless, FTC is a party to SEP agreement, then it should have not standing to sue for the breach. Even if it were a party, FTC would not be able to demonstrate damages to the FTC, so it would not have standing to sue. The only standing it can show in this case is as an entity entrusted with ensuring that monopoly power is not abused. But using government-granted limited-time monopolies for bargaining purposes is not an abuse of a monopoly. It is the intended purpose of patents.
This is FedGov suing an inventor that has lied, cheated, and violated both contracts and trust in order to advance its own position at the expense of others and do serious damage to the market in the process.
Wouldn't some of the parties damaged by the breach of trust have to show that the breach has occurred before a claim can be made that the marketplace as a whole was damaged?
God dislikes injustice. And has a special place in hell for those who voted to put criminal Hillary Clinton in charge of a country based on the rule of law.
But patents, as such, are government-granted monopolies. It is a bit (just a bit) mind-boggling that the government would grant monopolies and then sue the inventors whose monopolies are successful. Ownership (of anything) is the right to deny use. It's the only bargaining power an owner has with those to whom he rents the right to use. If they should not try to profit from it, then what's the point of granting these ownership rights?
FTC.. not FCC.