Well, there are many good reasons not to use police force where it's not needed. Economics, efficiency, etc. This notion that anything that turns a profit is worth doing is baloney. If somebody's job were making bombs in a garage it is technically part of the GNP, but due to collateral damage/destruction/injury/opportunity cost of the maker's time, and the time of his clients, it's still a net minus, in most cases. Locking people in prisons (or hiring them as prison guards/police/soldiers/weapon manufacturers/sellers/developers) instead of rehabilitating is just another example of the same thing.
I guess the "peace dividend" that Reagan promised after the USSR's "economic collapse" just never panned out? That was Clinton's boom..possibly. I have no problem cediting that with a Republican; I have a problem with presidential policy that initiates unprovoked wars, imprisons people without due process and seeks to dismantle the Bill of Rights.
It looks to me as if Bush has been hell bent on getting the budget redirected to more war/prisons, training the U.S. army to shoot at armed civilians, etc. His foreign policy, if you ask me, has been a total nightmare.
Who knows, perhaps it's just a geographical phenomenon, but here in California I can't say I've met a single person who supports Bush's policies.
I guess after the florida thing I'm not entirely convinced he even won the first election, much less the second.
There was a time when I would have made most of your arguments myself. However, given my experiences, it would be foolish of me to believe them now. I was, at one point in time, a very vigilant agnostic. There was no way I ever would have granted credence to the things I'm telling you now, and I guess you might have to find things out for yourself.
There were people who even told me about similar things when I was agnostic, and I never thought their statements were more than a passing moment's wonder, and then I'd go right back to thinking about things the old way again.
I really don't know how or why it would have to work that way, but perhaps that's just the way it works.
I guess the Lord reveals Himself in His own due time, and until then you're just doing whatever you would have done without Him.
The best advice I can give, if you really don't believe in the Lord, is to seriously live your life as if He were watching you, regardless, and to have reverance for the Lord (in the abstract, if that's the best you can muster). If you can get yourself to pray (even once) it could do wonders. One day you'll see, there really is no such thing as a moment alone, or a sin unobserved, and the good deeds of today (and the sin avoided) is as good as gold, tomorrow.
"If your enemy strikes your cheek, turn the other, that he may strike it, as well.".. "Make no effort to resist evil.".. "If they ask you to walk with them a mile, walk with them two miles.".. "If they sue you at the law and ask for your shirt, give them your cloak, as well, and don't ask for it back."
It could well be argued that not securing your networks is the Christian thing to do. (applying the "turn the other cheek" to "hackers" and "network piggybackers") It could also be argued that "turn the other cheek" would have the RIAA not suing, but it would also have their victims giving twice the amount asked for, if they were sued.
It seems to me that there is a good counterpunch, in this case, and it's really time that the true civil libertarians raise the town alarm. In Bush's wake, I think a libertarian backlash would be quite reasonable; I don't think people are that easily fooled.
"Save the children" just doesn't work that much, and they've exhausted their list, quite honestly: commies, drug dealers, criminals, cultists, child molesters, terrorists. None of those are serious national concerns, anymore. They've flat out run out of reasons to erode our rights.
There are tens? hundreds? of thousands more original recorded music CD's in existance today than there were back then.
If a user goes to the store he now has tens/hundreds of thousands more things to choose from. If you say that supply and demand applies to the market, I don't see any good reason to say that the music market shold be exempt.
In fact, it seems to me that if the music market were obeying supply and demand without any monopolistic behavior that the prices would probably be even lower than they are today. They'd probably be down in the $2-3 per CD range.
Rather than complaining about that, consider that AOL was mailing burnt CD's for free (are they still doing that?) for YEARS. They were so plentiful that I even saw artwork made of AOL cd's. Sure, their business model was banking on people isntalling those cd's to pay them, and that's a different business model from the music industry, but AOL wouldn't have done it if those CD's were so expensive to burn.
Anyhow, to rephrase the main argument: If there were hundreds of thousands of bands (each with their own record label) competing for my attention (me, with my limited music budget), under competetive market conditions some of them might break rank and sell their CD's for less; they might obey the "law" of supply and demand. Working through the record houses, though, that free market competition has been suppressed for my entire life. It seems to me that the music industry might have been violating U.S. laws against monopoly.
Supposedly the advantage of a free market system is competition. If I can legally provide a quality good or service for a lower price than somebody else, then I'm bound to attract the interested customers, and sell my good or service at that competetive price. In the case of the music industry, scarcity is artificial, since they've (allegedly) been cornering the market & means of production on music for such a long time.
As somebody already said, computers have made it extremely easy to make your own music at home, and not just lousy music; it's possible to record at studio quality on a shoestring budget.
The music industry has truly lost its corner on the market.
Sure, they're bound to get more votes on that one:
"Vote for us, and we'll take away more of your privacy"
Does anyone in the republican party think about the fact that most of their original constituents (in places like texas, at least) are ardent civil libertarians, and hate government intrusion into their privacy / private lives?
In fact, that's the turf that liberals and conservatives seem to agree on.
The repubs are burning away their own support base.
I assert the opposite -- to do them right you need to NOT pray.
I enjoy a good debate, but systematically gainsaying for-it's-own-sake does not group into that category.
I've seen a double concentric rainbow all the way around the sun, at high noon when there wasn't a cloud in the sky. I saw the same phenomenon a second time 3 days later.
Sounds more like you have a vision problem. But I'm not convinced it proves anything other than you saw something you didn't investigate well enough to understand.
Then I guess it was a group vision problem, since there were 3 other people there seeing the same thing on the first occasion, and there was one other witness (and not from those first 3) on the second occasion. I guess you might stipulate that they weren't there, either..? And that when I talked with them about it in the months that followed, that those were imaginary conversations, as well? That I hallucinated the witnisses to the event, as well as the event itself..and then all that followed? You're asking me to put faith in science over things that I've seen with my own eyes. You could search google images, if that would comfort you.
The LORD answers my prayers, and you'd have thousands of things to refute, if you wanted to play that game, but I know what I've seen. You seem to be claiming that to pray is to open the mind up to delusion, but in fact you are debating against the truth, and to keep your mind closed to the practice of prayer is a considerable mistake. Go ahead. Pray and ask for help in this debate. Pray and ask the LORD to help give us an accurate outcome.
So? You had a 50/50 chance each time. Streaks occur. Look it up.
As I told you, I knew I was going to get them right, each time, and it was only one of thousands of miracles/marvels, etc, that I've seen in my lifetime.
And if you had been wrong, you would have remembered the fact that you got 14 in a row.
The 16th one, I missed, but I knew I was going to miss it. In that sense it counts as another success. In any event, if I'd only gotten 14 of them right the odds were still less than 1/16000.
pray for peace in the Middle East.
I wouldn't stake my faith on peace in the Middle East, but it's not a bad thing to ask for.
what two consenting adults of the same gender do is of no consequence to me
Sure..Even if those two consenting adults are are your wife and your neighbor's husband? The spilloff of sexual immorality in the United States is staggaring: High divorce rates, single parent children (with all that that entails), STD's, people who sleep around until they are 40 and then realize they've just used up their youth for a series of meaningless flings, and that they aren't as "marketable" as they used to be, and must face the prospect of growing old alone. I presume that a divorced family is more likely to have two cars, two houses, two of everything, and that is a problem in and of itself, since (in some cases) it could amount to a 50% reduction in economic efficiency: half-families working twice as hard to pay for things they would already have paid for as a single family. (until they find new spouses, and then there's the whole kid juggling phenomenon)
I've prayed and asked the LORD if He will reach out to you. I certainly hope that you will subject everything to a strong degree of scrutiny, since there is such a thing as a false prophet. If you haven't ever seen any signs, it could be mind boggling when it first starts happening for you. It certainly was for me, before I had discovered that not every omen is from the LORD.
If you do start getting signs (as I once started getting them), just remember to pray and ask God for guidance asap.
Perhaps you could read the list to yourself and explain why I need to believe in the LORD or FAIRYTALES about the RED SEA to do 2, 4, 6, 7, or 8?
You don't. On the other hand, you do need to do 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 in order to keep in line with the teachings of Christ, and to do them the right way you'll need to pray, and to pray it helps if you have the faith that the LORD will answer your prayers. You could pray without that faith, but i spent 15 years as an agnostic, and I really never felt an urge or interest in prayer until I had my eyes opened in a place full of demons.
REASON is much more RELIABLE [than faith].
Your argument contains a flawed assumption, since reason and faith are not at odds with one another.
Well, I could ask you to explain some things; I've called a coin toss 15 times in a row. The odds of that are 1/2^15. One in 32768. Ok, fine, there are lottery winners in this world, but I knew I was going to get them all right. I've seen a double concentric rainbow all the way around the sun, at high noon when there wasn't a cloud in the sky. I saw the same phenomenon a second time 3 days later. I've seen miracles in daily life. My prayers have been answered on a consistent basis ever since I began praying. They have not been answered in a cheesy stereotypical "astrology column vaugeness" way; they've been answered in an unmistakable way.
Life is filled with significance and a richness of meaning that could not be replaced by anything of this world. Prayer is answered in a wonderful way. To ignore that makes even less sense than ignoring a gold mine in your own back yard.
FAITH can BLIND people and cause them do DUMB things
The structure of your argument (aversion to "dumb things") suggests that you never drink alcohol, or do any drugs, or fall in love, or get spring fever, etc..?
Some of the accomplishments of Christ, and/or of the prophets and/or of the LORD include: liberating the tribes of israel from slavery, raising the dead, healing lepers & the blind, feeding thousands of people with a single basket of loaves and fishes. Those things don't sound dumb to me. It's actually your statement that is completely backwards, since Jesus healed the blind with faith.
5 requires a DEFINITION of IMMORALITIES, which I doubt we can AGREE ON
Well, it sounds as if we agree that molesting is wrong. That's a good start, but it's not enough. The cities of sodom and gomorrha wouldn't have agreed on a definition either, but the LORD edified their mistake.
If you're still sitting there denying the LORD's existance, well, I can ask the LORD to show you a sign, but, honestly, I don't control the LORD, and how/when He reveals Himself is His own decision to make. Your own attitude and reverence could be a deciding factor, but eventually you'll be sure the LORD exists. The main question you'll have, on that day, is what you were doing in between now and then.
Perhaps you could read the list and identify to yourself what you found to be so objectionable:
(1) Love the LORD as much as you can. (2) Love your neighbor as yourself. (3) Keep the 10 commandments & the Law; live righteously. (4) Love your enemy, always forgive, and return kindness in exchange for evil. (5) Refrain from sexual immoralities. (6) Help the poor and recognize that the love of money is the root of all evil. (7) Give to those who ask; lend to those who ask; be a good samaritan for those in need. (8) Don't go around thinking you're totally wise and all-knowing, or totally holier than your neighbor. (9) Do not judge other people, and remain aware that whatever they're doing that is wrong, there was a time when you made your own mistakes, as well, and IF you've been living more righteously it's due to the LORD's own grace, and NOT b/c you're a better person than they are. (10) Faith can move mountains, ask and you'll receive, knock and it will be opened to you. Think about that. Jesus raised Lazarus from the DEAD. The LORD parted the entire RED SEA for the Hebrews to walk that sea's floor.
The thing that bothers me most is that the ones who evangelize in a non-intrusive way get lumped in with those who are complete jerks. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, if I remember the expression correctly.
Well I've also seen them going too far, but there is such a thing as not far enough:
The Church at Laodicea: Revelation 3:14
14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write, 'These things says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God: 15 "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 Therefore, since you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, 'I am wealthy, and have become rich, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked, 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold having been tried by fire, so that you may become rich; and white robes, so that you may be clothed, and the shame of your nakedness may not appear; and eye salve, so that you may anoint your eyes, in order that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and discipline. Be zealous therefore, and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him and I will dine with him, and he with Me.
Those "threatening" Christians are just trying to give you the advice you need to be in good grace with the LORD.
You'd better pay the LORD the respect he deserves. He gave you life, he's given you everything you have in life, and he could take it all away in the blink of an eye. He hasn't asked anything OF you, and yet you speak of HIM as if HE were the evil one. There's not a person in this world who could ever have given you more, not even your own parents, and, as they say in catholic mass, "it is right to give thanks and praise."
One day, you're going to have to answer for your sins. I'm not going to tell you that you have to accept salvation, since you might not. After all, Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. If Judaeism is false religion then Jesus was a false prophet. On the other hand, if Judaeism is a true religion, then Christianity is optional.
That's how I see it, but Jesus still taught some very important and valuable things, and to ignore them would be a substantial mistake.
You speak as if Christians were threatening people with their faith, but if you took the time to examine the teachings of Christ, you'd see that they aren't asking you to do anything offensive:
(1) Love the LORD as much as you can. (2) Love your neighbor as yourself. (3) Keep the 10 commandments & the Law; live righteously. (4) Love your enemy, always forgive, and return kindness in exchange for evil. (5) Refrain from sexual immoralities. (6) Help the poor and recognize that the love of money is the root of all evil. (7) Give to those who ask; lend to those who ask; be a good samaritan for those in need. (8) Don't go around thinking you're totally wise and all-knowing, or totally holier than your neighbor. (9) Do not judge other people, and remain aware that whatever they're doing that is wrong, there was a time when you made your own mistakes, as well, and IF you've been living more righteously it's due to the LORD's own grace, and NOT b/c you're a better person than they are. (10) Faith can move mountains, ask and you'll receive, knock and it will be opened to you. Think about that. Jesus raised Lazarus from the DEAD. The LORD parted the entire RED SEA for the Hebrews to walk that sea's floor.
Stop and think about the role prayer could play in your life if you'd give it a chance. The LORD is someone you WANT to be ON YOUR SIDE, and HE is kind, loving and helpful. He answers prayers, and helps those in need.
Now your claim is that Christians are trying to PUSH the idea that if you don't take their way you're going to hell, but look at their way, then mentally negate it and picture the life you'd be living if you did such a thing. It is clear to see, then, that the Christian way IS a good way.
Now ask yourself whether they're "threatening" you, or whether the LORD is threatening you, or whether by choosing against the LORD, it is you who are positioning yourself into the role of the unrighteous, unrepentant individual who richly deserves that punishment.
Choose well; choose wisely; pray BEFORE making your choices. Pray AFTER making your choices. Pray. Pray. Pray. Give thanks to the LORD when things go well for you, and count your blessings even if they aren't.
Second, "beyond reasonable doubt" is the criminal standard. The civil standard is "preponderance of evidence."
My understanding is that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is, in fact, the standard to convict in civil cases, and that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is the standard to convict in criminal cases. I don't know where the phrase "preponderance of evidence" comes from. Isn't that just what a DA needs to prosecute the case? Preponderance of evidence should not be sufficient to convict, since there could be a preponderance of evidence pointing in both directions (in favor of, as well as against, the defendent).
I sincerely doubt that any American judge is going to accept the right to replace music via P2P.
Well, I suppose you never know until it leaves the courtroom, what they would rule. But the civil case judge isn't supposed to give a ruling, they are only there to preside and keep the rules of the court. In most cases, reaching a verdict is the role of the jury, right? The defendant gets to choose jury trial (as opposed to judge trial), and I believe the public appeal is the right counter to RIAA style legal attacks.
I tell you what, if I were on that jury, listening to a corporate conglomerate prosecuting the family of some 11 year old kid [for naively downloading copyrighted music files], and they were asking for the value of a house mortgage [in spite of the fact that his family had already bought the rights to the music], I'd listen very carefully to every single argument in the countersuit.
The next step is to ask whether a person who shares copies to someone [i.e., who shares to someone who already has rights to the music] is guilty of anything. My answer, as a potential jury member, is a flat "no".
Next, we must ask if that possibility opens [in the case of each and every file download] a window of reasonable doubt, and I must claim that I believe it does.
The only exception is the case of the RIAA downloading straight from the source, but in that case it may very well be argued that, unless they had the rights to the downloaded content, that they, and only they can be proved to have broken the law, since, in fact they downloaded the music illegally, and they swore it under oath when they submitted their actions as part of the evidence. And if, on the other hand, the RIAA did have a right to the content, then the uploader wasn't causing any harm, since they only uploaded to someone who already had the rights to the file.
Even in the case of uploads, in all but the rarest case, the RIAA cannot prove that the uploader knew that the downloader didn't have rights to the material.
To prosecute in civil court they must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff is guilty of the offense.
However, it is entirely possible that the plaintiff(s) made the friendly assumption that nobody without a right to own the CD would download it, and that their role in the process is not that of a pirate, but that of a friendly format converter who shares to those who don't want to hassle with converting CD's to MP3's, but who already have a legal right to own the material he reformatted.
Before you jump on that, consider it. The presumption should not automatically go to the prosecution, nor should it go to making negative assumptions about everyday people.
Now, perhaps those people are, by and large, guilty of that which they are accused, but if the RIAA cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the uploader knew they were sharing to people who didn't have a legal right to the content, hey, it's America, and we're innocent until (the possibly never-occuring event of being) proven guilty.
I can personally cite a real life anecdote: my house was once burglarized, and over 100 music & software cd's were stolen. A police report was filed, but it did not contain a list of the specific material that was taken. Afterwards, I took to downloading in order to replace what was lost. I never replaced all that they took. Legally speaking, I have rights to things that I don't have copies of. The RIAA was not about to replace the stolen material, so I can thank Heaven that Napster & P2P networks were available at that time.
Would that work in court? I'm not sure, but it sure sounds reasonable to me, and I believe that the people who uploaded replacement files (to me) were not guilty of anything, since I did in fact have rights to those files.
Now the RIAA is going to have a hell of a time trying to counter that argument, since it's their own constituent's policy (of not replacing lost / stolen materials) that leads to "underground" methods being more upright and righteous than their own.
Personally I think there are enough of those fringe cases to justify the claim of reasonable doubt (required to acquit, in civil cases) in a courtroom.
He was 11 when it happened, and the statute of limitations is up. Furthermore, his sister already had rights to everything he downloaded, since she owned the CD's.
I think the RIAA is going to lose this case, and it's going to set the stage for how the RIAA's patterned lawsuits start failing, time after time.
The last argument, in particular, should be able to defeat any RIAA lawsuit in court, since people buy and sell CD's all the time, and the RIAA can't prove what the person owned the rights to at the time they downloaded copyrighted music.
"His defenses to the industry's lawsuit include that he never sent copyrighted music to others, that the recording companies promoted file sharing before turning against it, that average computer users were never warned that it was illegal, that the statute of limitations has passed, and that all the music claimed to have been downloaded was actually owned by his sister on store-bought CDs."
Every time someone is killed by a US soldier (or even UN peacekeeper for that matter), more enemies of the United States are bred. It doesn't matter what the conditions were or the whether or not the rule of engagement were followed....
... Re:
It is much easier, more effective and cheaper to kill humans than to render them unable to continue combat but still alive. Afterward, corpses don't sue or raise a human rights ruckus. And remember, we're talking about Singapore, not the U.S.
...
Remember the Ten Commandments. Killing is a sin. In most people that makes a difference, since Muslims, Christians and Jews are all supposed to keep them, and that accounts for more than half the world.
I would expect Hindus and Buddists to be averse to it, as well, given their believe in Karma.
Most of the atheists, agnostics, "theists" & secular humanists I've met wouldn't develop weapons, either.
Consulting the pie chart, that still leaves "primal-indiginous," Sikh and "Chinese Traditional". I don't think we need to worry about them developing any such weapons.
That accounts for most of the world. I guess the category for "no God, no rules, no conscience" was too slim to put on the pie chart.
Of course there's another pie chart: The pie chart of who goes to Heaven vs who goes to Hell. If you give hand grenades to monkeys and use them to manage crowd control, you might find yourself on the losing side of that pie chart. (sure, LAUGH, it's FUNNY. you might be greeted into Heaven by a monkey...with a hand grenade):) Is giving autonomous killer robots to the police and military any better?
Do you think an autonomous killer robot would be cabable of differentiating a plumber with a piece of pipe from partisan infantry with a bazooka?
FYI, about that reward they offered: a Singapore Dollar is worth 65 U.S. Cents.
Perhaps, yea, I can see that being done, but I don't understand why people would pay money for the capacity to watermark their content when it doesn't do anything to protect their copyrights in court. Recognition, perhaps? OR, perhaps, as you say, there are other practical uses.
But the world contains billions of people, millions of computers, and I guess I'm just used to the idea that - one way or another - eventually the content is just going to leak.
Being first to provide the content or being well-organized about making it available in the long-haul, and with full legal sanction, (like libraries and movie rental stores) is the best strategy to living in the world where piracy occurs. Fighting it directly just doesn't strike me as a practical element of the content business model. I guess they might be hoping for enough deterrance, or perceived deterrance, to deter.
Perhaps that's just enough, in most cases, to give them what they [seem to] want: The appearance that some additional enforcement could be linked to the person who copies & distributes content.
OK, so lets consider a few examples that prove the flaws in the watermarking method:
(1) a person sells their used computer/disk, and it has watermarked content. (2) a person makes a CD/DVD/floppy/tape backup of their content, and it is lost/stolen. (3) a hacker hacks their system and downloads it. (4) a houseguest makes a duplicate without the owner's knowledge or approval. (5) pirates watermark their content with a fake name, and/or the actual name of a third party. (6) etc, etc, etc. There are limitless ways it could happen.
I don't think it will be easy to use that watermark as evidence in court. Not unless their is alot of other corroberating evidence. I don't see the watermark, in and of itself, as sufficient to prove anything in court.
This link explained alot for me. Too bad it's a secret court, but it's better than no court, and at least it's a court within the judicial branch of the federal government.
Congress in 1978 established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate seven federal district court judges to review applications for warrants related to national security investigations. Judges serve for staggered, non-renewable terms of no more than seven years, and must be from different judicial circuits. The provisions for the court were part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (92 Stat. 1783), which required the government, before it commenced certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations within the United States, to obtain a judicial warrant similar to that required in criminal investigations. The legislation was a response to a report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the "Church Committee"), which detailed allegations of executive branch abuses of its authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance in the interest of national security. Congress also was responding to the Supreme Court's suggestion in a 1972 case that under the Fourth Amendment some kind of judicial warrant might be required to conduct national security related investigations. Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel's Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General's certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a "foreign power" or "the agent of a foreign power" and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime. The judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court travel to Washington, D.C., to hear warrant applications on a rotating basis. To ensure that the court can convene on short notice, at least one of the judges is required to be a member of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The act of 1978 also established a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, presided over by three district or appeals court judges designated by the Chief Justice, to review, at the government's request, the decisions the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Because of the almost perfect record of the Department of Justice in obtaining the surveillance warrants and other powers it requested from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the review court had no occasion to meet until 2002. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (115 Stat. 272) expanded the time periods for which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can authorize surveillance and increased the number of judges serving the court from seven to eleven.
installing new software... also from the graphical installer yea but I told you, I was not installing off the CD. I was installing downloaded software.
You just said it took three hours to figure out RPM. Actually I'm not sure how we got fixed on that number. I doubt it took me that long to find the right switch. It's silly that I HAD to look up a switch at all, but I did know I was looking for a standard combination and that downlaodin it should be easy. It was, but then getting the software to gel with the system was not.
what order of logic I installed rh 7.0 in the year 2006, then installed firefox, and it didn't work. FF wouldn't bring up a window, AND it gave no reason for not working. So I thought to myself, "My o.s. is really dated. Perhaps the kernel is too old for the software, on some level or another, since it is 5-6 years older than the software." You might say that was a bad guess, but I didn't have much else to point at. Perhaps the version of xServer? Or the version of kde? That would have been a totally different can of worms. I didn't want to mess with that either.
Again I can't undestand the difficulty, As a test I installed an apache web server locally I didn't say anything about apache other than I had a plan to install it on linux and I didn't bother once I had as much adversity as I did, from getting a simple web browser to work. You COULD say "by what order of logic," HERE, but I'd reinstalled the OS 4 or 5 times to get it installed/configured and working with the machine, and then I'd gone through package config many times over.
When FF didn't work, I lost interest in linux. I said to myself "I've wasted 2 or 3 days on this. windows 2000 will install in 2 hours with no hassles, +2 more with all the software that I need it to run (http/smtp/java/mysql). This machine is just for a demonstration of the server, and the sooner it has a workign o.s. the sooner I can get back to WRITING that server, which is the only reason I'm making a new server box in the first place".
So.oo.o.oo, Windows won the rapid deployment race, and that is why I used it.
what have i been doing for twenty six years if that could be summed up in this little textbox it wouldn't be WORTH summing up in this text box.:-)
vacuum the floor and unplugs the server. LOL. no worries. the floor in this room hasn't been vacuumed in 2 years.
Slashdot Mirror
People after the apocalypse can't be too picky.
If all we have are doomsday seeds then we grow doomsday plants and eat doomsday fruit (bitter at first, but you'll get used to it).
And even if those doomsday seeds don't grow, we'll still have cockroaches and dandilions, right?
Well, there are many good reasons not to use police force where it's not needed. Economics, efficiency, etc. This notion that anything that turns a profit is worth doing is baloney. If somebody's job were making bombs in a garage it is technically part of the GNP, but due to collateral damage/destruction/injury/opportunity cost of the maker's time, and the time of his clients, it's still a net minus, in most cases. Locking people in prisons (or hiring them as prison guards/police/soldiers/weapon manufacturers/sellers/developers) instead of rehabilitating is just another example of the same thing.
I guess the "peace dividend" that Reagan promised after the USSR's "economic collapse" just never panned out? That was Clinton's boom..possibly. I have no problem cediting that with a Republican; I have a problem with presidential policy that initiates unprovoked wars, imprisons people without due process and seeks to dismantle the Bill of Rights.
It looks to me as if Bush has been hell bent on getting the budget redirected to more war/prisons, training the U.S. army to shoot at armed civilians, etc. His foreign policy, if you ask me, has been a total nightmare.
Who knows, perhaps it's just a geographical phenomenon, but here in California I can't say I've met a single person who supports Bush's policies.
I guess after the florida thing I'm not entirely convinced he even won the first election, much less the second.
There was a time when I would have made most of your arguments myself. However, given my experiences, it would be foolish of me to believe them now. I was, at one point in time, a very vigilant agnostic. There was no way I ever would have granted credence to the things I'm telling you now, and I guess you might have to find things out for yourself.
There were people who even told me about similar things when I was agnostic, and I never thought their statements were more than a passing moment's wonder, and then I'd go right back to thinking about things the old way again.
I really don't know how or why it would have to work that way, but perhaps that's just the way it works.
I guess the Lord reveals Himself in His own due time, and until then you're just doing whatever you would have done without Him.
The best advice I can give, if you really don't believe in the Lord, is to seriously live your life as if He were watching you, regardless, and to have reverance for the Lord (in the abstract, if that's the best you can muster). If you can get yourself to pray (even once) it could do wonders. One day you'll see, there really is no such thing as a moment alone, or a sin unobserved, and the good deeds of today (and the sin avoided) is as good as gold, tomorrow.
I wish you well as well.
How very Christian:
.. "Make no effort to resist evil." .. "If they ask you to walk with them a mile, walk with them two miles." .. "If they sue you at the law and ask for your shirt, give them your cloak, as well, and don't ask for it back."
"If your enemy strikes your cheek, turn the other, that he may strike it, as well."
It could well be argued that not securing your networks is the Christian thing to do. (applying the "turn the other cheek" to "hackers" and "network piggybackers") It could also be argued that "turn the other cheek" would have the RIAA not suing, but it would also have their victims giving twice the amount asked for, if they were sued.
You mean to say "woman defends right to criticize surgeon on website." She cannot win what she already had.
It seems to me that there is a good counterpunch, in this case, and it's really time that the true civil libertarians raise the town alarm. In Bush's wake, I think a libertarian backlash would be quite reasonable; I don't think people are that easily fooled.
"Save the children" just doesn't work that much, and they've exhausted their list, quite honestly: commies, drug dealers, criminals, cultists, child molesters, terrorists. None of those are serious national concerns, anymore. They've flat out run out of reasons to erode our rights.
There are tens? hundreds? of thousands more original recorded music CD's in existance today than there were back then.
If a user goes to the store he now has tens/hundreds of thousands more things to choose from. If you say that supply and demand applies to the market, I don't see any good reason to say that the music market shold be exempt.
In fact, it seems to me that if the music market were obeying supply and demand without any monopolistic behavior that the prices would probably be even lower than they are today. They'd probably be down in the $2-3 per CD range.
Rather than complaining about that, consider that AOL was mailing burnt CD's for free (are they still doing that?) for YEARS. They were so plentiful that I even saw artwork made of AOL cd's. Sure, their business model was banking on people isntalling those cd's to pay them, and that's a different business model from the music industry, but AOL wouldn't have done it if those CD's were so expensive to burn.
Anyhow, to rephrase the main argument: If there were hundreds of thousands of bands (each with their own record label) competing for my attention (me, with my limited music budget), under competetive market conditions some of them might break rank and sell their CD's for less; they might obey the "law" of supply and demand. Working through the record houses, though, that free market competition has been suppressed for my entire life. It seems to me that the music industry might have been violating U.S. laws against monopoly.
Supposedly the advantage of a free market system is competition. If I can legally provide a quality good or service for a lower price than somebody else, then I'm bound to attract the interested customers, and sell my good or service at that competetive price. In the case of the music industry, scarcity is artificial, since they've (allegedly) been cornering the market & means of production on music for such a long time.
As somebody already said, computers have made it extremely easy to make your own music at home, and not just lousy music; it's possible to record at studio quality on a shoestring budget.
The music industry has truly lost its corner on the market.
Sure, they're bound to get more votes on that one:
"Vote for us, and we'll take away more of your privacy"
Does anyone in the republican party think about the fact that most of their original constituents (in places like texas, at least) are ardent civil libertarians, and hate government intrusion into their privacy / private lives?
In fact, that's the turf that liberals and conservatives seem to agree on.
The repubs are burning away their own support base.
The LORD answers my prayers, and you'd have thousands of things to refute, if you wanted to play that game, but I know what I've seen. You seem to be claiming that to pray is to open the mind up to delusion, but in fact you are debating against the truth, and to keep your mind closed to the practice of prayer is a considerable mistake. Go ahead. Pray and ask for help in this debate. Pray and ask the LORD to help give us an accurate outcome. As I told you, I knew I was going to get them right, each time, and it was only one of thousands of miracles/marvels, etc, that I've seen in my lifetime. The 16th one, I missed, but I knew I was going to miss it. In that sense it counts as another success. In any event, if I'd only gotten 14 of them right the odds were still less than 1/16000. I wouldn't stake my faith on peace in the Middle East, but it's not a bad thing to ask for. Sure..Even if those two consenting adults are are your wife and your neighbor's husband? The spilloff of sexual immorality in the United States is staggaring: High divorce rates, single parent children (with all that that entails), STD's, people who sleep around until they are 40 and then realize they've just used up their youth for a series of meaningless flings, and that they aren't as "marketable" as they used to be, and must face the prospect of growing old alone. I presume that a divorced family is more likely to have two cars, two houses, two of everything, and that is a problem in and of itself, since (in some cases) it could amount to a 50% reduction in economic efficiency: half-families working twice as hard to pay for things they would already have paid for as a single family. (until they find new spouses, and then there's the whole kid juggling phenomenon)
I've prayed and asked the LORD if He will reach out to you. I certainly hope that you will subject everything to a strong degree of scrutiny, since there is such a thing as a false prophet. If you haven't ever seen any signs, it could be mind boggling when it first starts happening for you. It certainly was for me, before I had discovered that not every omen is from the LORD.
If you do start getting signs (as I once started getting them), just remember to pray and ask God for guidance asap.
Well, I could ask you to explain some things; I've called a coin toss 15 times in a row. The odds of that are 1/2^15. One in 32768. Ok, fine, there are lottery winners in this world, but I knew I was going to get them all right. I've seen a double concentric rainbow all the way around the sun, at high noon when there wasn't a cloud in the sky. I saw the same phenomenon a second time 3 days later. I've seen miracles in daily life. My prayers have been answered on a consistent basis ever since I began praying. They have not been answered in a cheesy stereotypical "astrology column vaugeness" way; they've been answered in an unmistakable way.
Life is filled with significance and a richness of meaning that could not be replaced by anything of this world. Prayer is answered in a wonderful way. To ignore that makes even less sense than ignoring a gold mine in your own back yard. The structure of your argument (aversion to "dumb things") suggests that you never drink alcohol, or do any drugs, or fall in love, or get spring fever, etc..?
Some of the accomplishments of Christ, and/or of the prophets and/or of the LORD include: liberating the tribes of israel from slavery, raising the dead, healing lepers & the blind, feeding thousands of people with a single basket of loaves and fishes. Those things don't sound dumb to me. It's actually your statement that is completely backwards, since Jesus healed the blind with faith. Well, it sounds as if we agree that molesting is wrong. That's a good start, but it's not enough. The cities of sodom and gomorrha wouldn't have agreed on a definition either, but the LORD edified their mistake.
If you're still sitting there denying the LORD's existance, well, I can ask the LORD to show you a sign, but, honestly, I don't control the LORD, and how/when He reveals Himself is His own decision to make. Your own attitude and reverence could be a deciding factor, but eventually you'll be sure the LORD exists. The main question you'll have, on that day, is what you were doing in between now and then.
Perhaps you could read the list and identify to yourself what you found to be so objectionable:
(1) Love the LORD as much as you can.
(2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
(3) Keep the 10 commandments & the Law; live righteously.
(4) Love your enemy, always forgive, and return kindness in exchange for evil.
(5) Refrain from sexual immoralities.
(6) Help the poor and recognize that the love of money is the root of all evil.
(7) Give to those who ask; lend to those who ask; be a good samaritan for those in need.
(8) Don't go around thinking you're totally wise and all-knowing, or totally holier than your neighbor.
(9) Do not judge other people, and remain aware that whatever they're doing that is wrong, there was a time when you made your own mistakes, as well, and IF you've been living more righteously it's due to the LORD's own grace, and NOT b/c you're a better person than they are.
(10) Faith can move mountains, ask and you'll receive, knock and it will be opened to you. Think about that. Jesus raised Lazarus from the DEAD. The LORD parted the entire RED SEA for the Hebrews to walk that sea's floor.
The Church at Laodicea: Revelation 3:14
14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write, 'These things says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God:
15 "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot.
16 Therefore, since you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of My mouth.
17 Because you say, 'I am wealthy, and have become rich, and have need of nothing'--and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked,
18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold having been tried by fire, so that you may become rich; and white robes, so that you may be clothed, and the shame of your nakedness may not appear; and eye salve, so that you may anoint your eyes, in order that you may see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and discipline. Be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him and I will dine with him, and he with Me.
Those "threatening" Christians are just trying to give you the advice you need to be in good grace with the LORD.
You'd better pay the LORD the respect he deserves. He gave you life, he's given you everything you have in life, and he could take it all away in the blink of an eye. He hasn't asked anything OF you, and yet you speak of HIM as if HE were the evil one. There's not a person in this world who could ever have given you more, not even your own parents, and, as they say in catholic mass, "it is right to give thanks and praise."
One day, you're going to have to answer for your sins. I'm not going to tell you that you have to accept salvation, since you might not. After all, Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. If Judaeism is false religion then Jesus was a false prophet. On the other hand, if Judaeism is a true religion, then Christianity is optional.
That's how I see it, but Jesus still taught some very important and valuable things, and to ignore them would be a substantial mistake.
You speak as if Christians were threatening people with their faith, but if you took the time to examine the teachings of Christ, you'd see that they aren't asking you to do anything offensive:
(1) Love the LORD as much as you can.
(2) Love your neighbor as yourself.
(3) Keep the 10 commandments & the Law; live righteously.
(4) Love your enemy, always forgive, and return kindness in exchange for evil.
(5) Refrain from sexual immoralities.
(6) Help the poor and recognize that the love of money is the root of all evil.
(7) Give to those who ask; lend to those who ask; be a good samaritan for those in need.
(8) Don't go around thinking you're totally wise and all-knowing, or totally holier than your neighbor.
(9) Do not judge other people, and remain aware that whatever they're doing that is wrong, there was a time when you made your own mistakes, as well, and IF you've been living more righteously it's due to the LORD's own grace, and NOT b/c you're a better person than they are.
(10) Faith can move mountains, ask and you'll receive, knock and it will be opened to you. Think about that. Jesus raised Lazarus from the DEAD. The LORD parted the entire RED SEA for the Hebrews to walk that sea's floor.
Stop and think about the role prayer could play in your life if you'd give it a chance. The LORD is someone you WANT to be ON YOUR SIDE, and HE is kind, loving and helpful. He answers prayers, and helps those in need.
Now your claim is that Christians are trying to PUSH the idea that if you don't take their way you're going to hell, but look at their way, then mentally negate it and picture the life you'd be living if you did such a thing. It is clear to see, then, that the Christian way IS a good way.
Now ask yourself whether they're "threatening" you, or whether the LORD is threatening you, or whether by choosing against the LORD, it is you who are positioning yourself into the role of the unrighteous, unrepentant individual who richly deserves that punishment.
Choose well; choose wisely; pray BEFORE making your choices. Pray AFTER making your choices. Pray. Pray. Pray. Give thanks to the LORD when things go well for you, and count your blessings even if they aren't.
I tell you what, if I were on that jury, listening to a corporate conglomerate prosecuting the family of some 11 year old kid [for naively downloading copyrighted music files], and they were asking for the value of a house mortgage [in spite of the fact that his family had already bought the rights to the music], I'd listen very carefully to every single argument in the countersuit.
The next step is to ask whether a person who shares copies to someone [i.e., who shares to someone who already has rights to the music] is guilty of anything. My answer, as a potential jury member, is a flat "no".
Next, we must ask if that possibility opens [in the case of each and every file download] a window of reasonable doubt, and I must claim that I believe it does.
The only exception is the case of the RIAA downloading straight from the source, but in that case it may very well be argued that, unless they had the rights to the downloaded content, that they, and only they can be proved to have broken the law, since, in fact they downloaded the music illegally, and they swore it under oath when they submitted their actions as part of the evidence. And if, on the other hand, the RIAA did have a right to the content, then the uploader wasn't causing any harm, since they only uploaded to someone who already had the rights to the file.
Even in the case of uploads, in all but the rarest case, the RIAA cannot prove that the uploader knew that the downloader didn't have rights to the material.
To prosecute in civil court they must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff is guilty of the offense.
However, it is entirely possible that the plaintiff(s) made the friendly assumption that nobody without a right to own the CD would download it, and that their role in the process is not that of a pirate, but that of a friendly format converter who shares to those who don't want to hassle with converting CD's to MP3's, but who already have a legal right to own the material he reformatted.
Before you jump on that, consider it. The presumption should not automatically go to the prosecution, nor should it go to making negative assumptions about everyday people.
Now, perhaps those people are, by and large, guilty of that which they are accused, but if the RIAA cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the uploader knew they were sharing to people who didn't have a legal right to the content, hey, it's America, and we're innocent until (the possibly never-occuring event of being) proven guilty.
I can personally cite a real life anecdote: my house was once burglarized, and over 100 music & software cd's were stolen. A police report was filed, but it did not contain a list of the specific material that was taken. Afterwards, I took to downloading in order to replace what was lost. I never replaced all that they took. Legally speaking, I have rights to things that I don't have copies of. The RIAA was not about to replace the stolen material, so I can thank Heaven that Napster & P2P networks were available at that time.
Would that work in court? I'm not sure, but it sure sounds reasonable to me, and I believe that the people who uploaded replacement files (to me) were not guilty of anything, since I did in fact have rights to those files.
Now the RIAA is going to have a hell of a time trying to counter that argument, since it's their own constituent's policy (of not replacing lost / stolen materials) that leads to "underground" methods being more upright and righteous than their own.
Personally I think there are enough of those fringe cases to justify the claim of reasonable doubt (required to acquit, in civil cases) in a courtroom.
He was 11 when it happened, and the statute of limitations is up. Furthermore, his sister already had rights to everything he downloaded, since she owned the CD's.
I think the RIAA is going to lose this case, and it's going to set the stage for how the RIAA's patterned lawsuits start failing, time after time.
The last argument, in particular, should be able to defeat any RIAA lawsuit in court, since people buy and sell CD's all the time, and the RIAA can't prove what the person owned the rights to at the time they downloaded copyrighted music.
"His defenses to the industry's lawsuit include that he never sent copyrighted music to others, that the recording companies promoted file sharing before turning against it, that average computer users were never warned that it was illegal, that the statute of limitations has passed, and that all the music claimed to have been downloaded was actually owned by his sister on store-bought CDs."
But my shower curtain isn't moldy.
Re:
Remember the Ten Commandments. Killing is a sin. In most people that makes a difference, since Muslims, Christians and Jews are all supposed to keep them, and that accounts for more than half the world.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.h
I would expect Hindus and Buddists to be averse to it, as well, given their believe in Karma.
Most of the atheists, agnostics, "theists" & secular humanists I've met wouldn't develop weapons, either.
Consulting the pie chart, that still leaves "primal-indiginous," Sikh and "Chinese Traditional". I don't think we need to worry about them developing any such weapons.
That accounts for most of the world. I guess the category for "no God, no rules, no conscience" was too slim to put on the pie chart.
Of course there's another pie chart: The pie chart of who goes to Heaven vs who goes to Hell. If you give hand grenades to monkeys and use them to manage crowd control, you might find yourself on the losing side of that pie chart. (sure, LAUGH, it's FUNNY. you might be greeted into Heaven by a monkey...with a hand grenade)
Do you think an autonomous killer robot would be cabable of differentiating a plumber with a piece of pipe from partisan infantry with a bazooka?
FYI, about that reward they offered: a Singapore Dollar is worth 65 U.S. Cents.
I recommend that you pray and ask the LORD for help and advice.
Perhaps, yea, I can see that being done, but I don't understand why people would pay money for the capacity to watermark their content when it doesn't do anything to protect their copyrights in court. Recognition, perhaps? OR, perhaps, as you say, there are other practical uses.
But the world contains billions of people, millions of computers, and I guess I'm just used to the idea that - one way or another - eventually the content is just going to leak.
Being first to provide the content or being well-organized about making it available in the long-haul, and with full legal sanction, (like libraries and movie rental stores) is the best strategy to living in the world where piracy occurs. Fighting it directly just doesn't strike me as a practical element of the content business model. I guess they might be hoping for enough deterrance, or perceived deterrance, to deter.
Perhaps that's just enough, in most cases, to give them what they [seem to] want: The appearance that some additional enforcement could be linked to the person who copies & distributes content.
OK, so lets consider a few examples that prove the flaws in the watermarking method:
(1) a person sells their used computer/disk, and it has watermarked content.
(2) a person makes a CD/DVD/floppy/tape backup of their content, and it is lost/stolen.
(3) a hacker hacks their system and downloads it.
(4) a houseguest makes a duplicate without the owner's knowledge or approval.
(5) pirates watermark their content with a fake name, and/or the actual name of a
third party.
(6) etc, etc, etc. There are limitless ways it could happen.
I don't think it will be easy to use that watermark as evidence in court. Not unless their is alot of other corroberating evidence. I don't see the watermark, in and of itself, as sufficient to prove anything in court.
This link explained alot for me. Too bad it's a secret court, but it's better than no court, and at least it's a court within the judicial branch of the federal government.
! OpenDocument&Click=
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/fisc_bdy
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Congress in 1978 established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as a special court and authorized the Chief Justice of the United States to designate seven federal district court judges to review applications for warrants related to national security investigations. Judges serve for staggered, non-renewable terms of no more than seven years, and must be from different judicial circuits. The provisions for the court were part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (92 Stat. 1783), which required the government, before it commenced certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations within the United States, to obtain a judicial warrant similar to that required in criminal investigations. The legislation was a response to a report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (the "Church Committee"), which detailed allegations of executive branch abuses of its authority to conduct domestic electronic surveillance in the interest of national security. Congress also was responding to the Supreme Court's suggestion in a 1972 case that under the Fourth Amendment some kind of judicial warrant might be required to conduct national security related investigations.
Warrant applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are drafted by attorneys in the General Counsel's Office at the National Security Agency at the request of an officer of one of the federal intelligence agencies. Each application must contain the Attorney General's certification that the target of the proposed surveillance is either a "foreign power" or "the agent of a foreign power" and, in the case of a U.S. citizen or resident alien, that the target may be involved in the commission of a crime.
The judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court travel to Washington, D.C., to hear warrant applications on a rotating basis. To ensure that the court can convene on short notice, at least one of the judges is required to be a member of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The act of 1978 also established a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, presided over by three district or appeals court judges designated by the Chief Justice, to review, at the government's request, the decisions the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Because of the almost perfect record of the Department of Justice in obtaining the surveillance warrants and other powers it requested from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the review court had no occasion to meet until 2002. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (115 Stat. 272) expanded the time periods for which the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court can authorize surveillance and increased the number of judges serving the court from seven to eleven.
http://www.uh.edu/infotech/news/story.php?story_i
Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
installing new software... also from the graphical installer
:-)
yea but I told you, I was not installing off the CD. I was installing downloaded software.
You just said it took three hours to figure out RPM.
Actually I'm not sure how we got fixed on that number. I doubt it took me that long to find the right switch. It's silly that I HAD to look up a switch at all, but I did know I was looking for a standard combination and that downlaodin it should be easy. It was, but then getting the software to gel with the system was not.
what order of logic
I installed rh 7.0 in the year 2006, then installed firefox, and it didn't work. FF wouldn't bring up a window, AND it gave no reason for not working. So I thought to myself, "My o.s. is really dated. Perhaps the kernel is too old for the software, on some level or another, since it is 5-6 years older than the software." You might say that was a bad guess, but I didn't have much else to point at. Perhaps the version of xServer? Or the version of kde? That would have been a totally different can of worms. I didn't want to mess with that either.
Again I can't undestand the difficulty, As a test I installed an apache web server locally
I didn't say anything about apache other than I had a plan to install it on linux and I didn't bother once I had as much adversity as I did, from getting a simple web browser to work. You COULD say "by what order of logic," HERE, but I'd reinstalled the OS 4 or 5 times to get it installed/configured and working with the machine, and then I'd gone through package config many times over.
When FF didn't work, I lost interest in linux. I said to myself "I've wasted 2 or 3 days on this. windows 2000 will install in 2 hours with no hassles, +2 more with all the software that I need it to run (http/smtp/java/mysql). This machine is just for a demonstration of the server, and the sooner it has a workign o.s. the sooner I can get back to WRITING that server, which is the only reason I'm making a new server box in the first place".
So.oo.o.oo, Windows won the rapid deployment race, and that is why I used it.
what have i been doing for twenty six years
if that could be summed up in this little textbox it wouldn't be WORTH summing up in this text box.
vacuum the floor and unplugs the server.
LOL. no worries. the floor in this room hasn't been vacuumed in 2 years.