If the shareholders beat Gates down it could be a win for Linux. Consider: they beat Gates and Balmer down so all they do is come up with a multitude of schemes that cycle short term gains that look good to the shareholders and screws them in the long run. Then they go bankrupt like AIG or Lehman Brothers and it's year of the Linux desktop all of a sudden. Or maybe not.
Agreed... sometimes starting from scratch is easier than fixing old code. But IF they could buy Via, it wouldn't mean they HAVE to use the existing code-base. They could buy Via just for the licenses and build from scratch anyway.
Hmmmm... it causes the wind to slow down, but not all energy contained in the wind is converted to electricity... what happens to it then... hmmmmm.... conservation of energy... hold it, it is converted to heat!!! Wind turbines contribute to global warming. Now what?:p
Not necessarily. One client I worked at implementing an enterprise ordering and billing app used a kind of thin client terminal specifically meant to connect to Citrix servers for the customer service representatives. It struck me that we had come full circle from mainframes and dumb terminals to essentially mainframes and dumb terminals. Except the mainframe is now a Unix server and you had windows instead of text interfaces.
I always find this argument interesting. How many anecdotes does it take to become a truth or near truth. I could talk about stories I've hear about people getting hit by cars because they didn't look both ways before crossing the street. Enough anecdotes like that and a truth emerges that if you don't pay attention in traffic, you can be killed, especially if you are a pedestrian. So how many is enough? Or do we now need some sort of scientist to gather them up and publish the anecdotes and his or her conclusion before the general public should pay heed to it. Common sense is indeed, not so common. Please, no more dogmatic arguments. Hitler. There I said it. Now you can invoke Godwin's stupid law too.
This is exactly right and can be pushed even further. About 15 or 20 years ago my mother, who is now 85, didn't have a microwave oven and stated flatly that it was because she didn't need or want one even if we told her we'd buy it for her. So we bought her one anyway. Two weeks after she told us she would never use it, she was using it every day for something or other. Lately she has even expressed regret about not taking a basic computer course a number of years ago; now that she realizes how useful it would have been to keep in touch with friends and family. So yes, if people don't realize what they are missing, they won't miss it. Some times this is good, some times this is bad. This could go either way in this case... maybe we'd be better off if instead of watching a youtube video of a person mountain biking, we go out ourselves and get some exercise and talk to real people in person.;) Now... back to work!
I didn't see anything in that Wikipedia article talking about magnetic fields. I would think it would be more important for a planet closer to the sun than earth (i.e. Venus) to have a strong magnetic field to protect us weak Earthlings from the stronger solar radiation that Venus would have to have (being closer to the sun and all). I think that particular article is more wishful thinking than anything else (gasp!!! on Wikipedia???).;)
buried in a horizontal plane at about 10' to 20' deep.
This made me think of Winnipeg where I used to live. It gets so cold there in the winter they bury the water mains around 14 or 15 feet down to avoid frost heave. And then they still sometimes have breaks in the line. When it is 35 or 40 below zero (f or c... not much difference at that temperature) and water is bubbling up from the ground from a major water main... an ugly thing. I guess they can make the horizontal plane for those tubes another 20 feet deeper there.:)
I can't make any money writing open source code. Once I market it, other people come in and legally make their own version and dilute the market. I can't recoup the money paid for hardware and office supplies, as well as housing and food and other expenses, all with no income being generated because someone else benefited from my R&D. I have no qualms if that is how others want to live, but the paradigm for making money with open source used by Red Hat, MySQL, and other large supportable server software vendors, is the exception rather than the rule. So it is not a programmer's livelihood being impacted. Companies will buy commercial software for small software packages that are what most business buy (e.g. productivity suites, etc). It is easier and cheaper than paying a developer to fix bugs and add enhancements because it doesn't work right or doesn't do what is needed; mainly because the open source developer built it in his/her free time because they needed to work a day job to pay their bills. Your argument while good intentioned is mythical. However don't get me wrong, I like the idea of sharing, I just can't make my livelihood doing stuff for free.
The reality is that most people are not even knowledgeable enough about their computers to even understand what free software is all about, why it matters, and why they should care. ... computer users who do not know anything about their computers, and do not care to know.
This is exactly the point. Why should people care if they don't need or want to modify code? The only thing most people care about is if the tool does the job it is intended to do. If it can't, they will find a tool that will. If you as a programmer want to cripple your code by not allowing other programs to link to your libraries, no matter what the reason (including license issues like the GPL), and if that impacts usability, then expect the end user to look elsewhere to find a tool that elegantly and completely does the job they need it to do. Don't expect them to modify the code to do the job. They just want to use the tool. And that is all a computer program is; a tool.
The GPL has to learn to get along with other licenses, or programs licensed under it will always find itself on the fringes in terms of users. Yes, Linux is a major player in the server market. But in terms of the number of total installs regardless of purpose (desktop or server), it is a fringe player. As the GPL becomes more stringent in its restrictions (e.g. GPL2 to GPL3), this will only increase. Thank goodness for the LGPL.
Personally, I use a computer as a tool. I am O/S agnostic. I use MS desktops (and occasionally Linux/Gnome/KDE), and am a former C/Unix programmer who can still code Perl and ksh scripts with the best of them. Better than many Java developers I see now-a-days whose target platform for deployment is on Unix or Linux (it puzzles me why so many know so little about their target deployment platform). I work in a company that uses Linux servers and open source databases. So don't think I am coming off as a MS troll. My bottom line is the best tool for the job. But I am sick of seeing the GPL shooting Linux and its associated programs in the foot.
I agree, my Kensington Expert Mouse (really a big track ball) saved me from carpal tunnel. And it is very precise for any graphics or anything else like that. And it moves as fast as anything else out there too... as needed.
I am curious, what is the motivation for askimet or mollum to provide this service? This has to cost them bandwidth etc. which is money out of their pockets. So there has to be a definite benefit to them in some way. What is their gain? I don't trust companies that do things for the 'general good'. Churches maybe, they're a little crazy (sometimes in a good way), but not companies.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Politically correct fuckwad. Your kind will never end any issues just propagate them because you are afraid to go after the root of the real issues for fear of offending someone. Get over it. You are among those who will only ever talk and never take action, since that is the only way not to offend someone. But your specious mouthing off and lack of action is in its own form an action in its own. The action of status quo: doing nothing. Nothing of action. That offends ME. The world needs more people willing to pull the skeletons out of the closets, not leave them in there to fester. Your kind of thinking will lead to more problems than not.
And even before the Europeans came, the various native American nations used to fight each other and take each other's lands and steal neighbouring 'nations' wealth (and sometimes eating the losers). So the fact that another better army came from overseas and beat them all is not even really anything different than business as usual. Except that the Europeans so far managed to keep everything they took. Now we are all here. Everyone get a job and stop bitching and asking for payback. History is history, let's live today. I'm tired of politically correct apologists trying to get me to wear a hairshirt and wring my hands over my great great great great grandparents coming to North America (well one of my four grandparent's lines go back that far in North America).
You have no logical argument stating anyone stole any land from a Palestinian. Unless of course you want to point that accusation at Jordan or Egypt. You don't have any argument. Your statement is pure bullshit.
Of course subscription = revenue. BUT revenue does NOT mean Cover All Operating Costs.
I used to work for a software vendor writing and implementing enterprise circulation systems for medium and large newspapers. For the greatest majority of all print media (and I would be surprised if there were more than a handful of exceptions) MOST revenue is derived from advertising. (How much did it cost to buy that one full page Firefox ad in the New York Times a few years ago?) In all cases, the cost of a subscription for a direct to home subscriber (if this is offered by the newspaper), and wholesale revenue to distributors, stores, etc. only covers a part of the distribution costs. Having your own experienced reporters in key areas of the world is very expensive. While most individual newspapers do not have the financial resources field reporters on their own, their publishers who own groups of papers can combine the revenue and pay for this quality reporting.
In the U.S.A. the papers offer what is called 'Total Market Coverage'. They have extensive and verified address lists for whole regions. They know who they deliver to on the main days where advertising goes out (usually Sundays in the U.S.A... could be Saturday or Sunday in Canada). They know the addresses they deliver Sunday papers to with all those adverts. They then also know the households that don't get the adverts. The paper then snail mails the advertisements and fliers to the remaining households that do not subscribe to the paper. The work they do verifying the addresses reduces the mailing costs but still it is expensive. They also have demographic information for the areas to make sure they don't sell ads for Cadillacs to areas that can only afford Kias.
The amount they can charge for advertising is based on numbers collected for the 'Audit Bureau of Circulation' (ABC); the 'Nelson Rating' of newspaper circulation. The most important numbers are ones reflecting 'paid circulation' as it is assumed those who pay for a newspaper actually read it. The higher the ABC number for paid subscriptions, the more a newspaper can charge for advertising... just like T.V.... more people watching means better revenue. When less newspapers are sold, less money is made. Ads may be mailed out to everyone, but you know the people who read the papers are more likely to see the ads and use them (or at least see them before they throw them out!).
In 1999 one of the big publishers (it might have been the one owning USA Today) successfully pushed to get unpaid circulation numbers into the ABC audit figures as well. This was to push up their numbers to be relatively high because they are the papers that show up at every hotel door in America every morning (but are not necessarily read). This gives a sort of bragging right: "look how big our circulation is". Even though many hotel guests just step over the paper on the way out the door. This is also an indication that subscription revenue doesn't really cover much when they can give away the paper for nothing (and in these cases most of the content is light weight news feed work where they don't have their own reporters stationed around the world).
The bottom line is that if papers can't keep their revenue stream up, and it is sliding like a runaway toboggan, they won't be able to function much longer. We won't have reliable and quality reporting any more. Sorry, but I don't believe some guy with no credentials or anyone to vouch for him personally, who writes something on the internet under an assumed blogger name, is trustworthy (but why not? if you read it on the internet it must be true... right?). Yes we can try to sell advertisements on newspaper web sites and charge by how many hits the paper gets as a rating mechanism. But with adblock and mostly unreliable hit counters (unreliable for basing expensive economic models on), it is an extremely steep uphill battle that I for one, am uncertain can be overcome.
Where there is a need, yes there will be someone to sell y
I would also like to see a similar employment scourge killed off: There are some big companies (and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the companies mentioned in this topic are among them) who in behind the scenes deals, blackmail headhunters from hiring away employees for better pay.
Employer: "You contract out one of our employees who wants to leave us, and we will never hire another one of your contractors who wants to work for us... ever." (Sounds kind of stupid, but really, that is what it works out to.)
Headhunter: "Understood."
I know for a fact that a telecom software vendor I worked at in Saint Louis had these agreements. I would get a call from a headhunter and when they would find out I was still working for this company they would tell me they couldn't work with me until I quit or was laid off (and this would happen for real jobs, not just their prospecting calls). I heard this from a good number of my workmates too. That is when personal networking becomes very important. I eventually quit for a contracting gig in a different city where my former employer had less sway. I ended up working on the client side of one of their implementations where I could help combat their equally obnoxious manners with their customers (they have a strangle hold on the market).
Yeah... that was my experience when getting my visa the last time. Coupled with the photograph and finger printing, it seemed to really intend to make you feel like an outsider and not welcome. So I take that to heart.
I credit any other country that is doing this (and especially EU countries and Canada) to forced paranoia spreading from the U.S. These countries have to do business with the U.S. (you can't change economic patterns over night). They need to softly assuage America's fears by saying "see, we're being safe too... stop holding up our travellers and shipments and causing economic chaos."
I will give you that. Canadian border (so called) guards are really a pain in the ass. Really, they are glorified tax collectors who will rip your car apart looking for something they can apply a duty to. They grill Canadians to see if you might look guilty and they can then have an excuse to search your vehicle. "Where are you going, whey are you going there", etc. etc. etc. My brother one time finally lost it and asked said to them, "look I'm a Canadian coming back to Canada, you can't deport me, so why are you giving me such a hard time." They searched his car for three hours in retaliation. They won't say it was retaliation, but we all know what happens when you step on a rent-a-cop's ego. And they are rent-a-cops. When they get word that bad guys might be trying to cross the border (like suspected murderers on the run), the Canadian border guards run away. This happened a couple of times in 2006 at the Peace Arch Crossing in British Columbia/Washington State (Highway 99/I-5 respectively). But at least you know they are after money and not treating anyone any different. Up until the last time I went to the U.S.A. I hated crossing into Canada more. But now, the U.S. wins the 'onerous prize'.
Slashdot Mirror
If the shareholders beat Gates down it could be a win for Linux. Consider: they beat Gates and Balmer down so all they do is come up with a multitude of schemes that cycle short term gains that look good to the shareholders and screws them in the long run. Then they go bankrupt like AIG or Lehman Brothers and it's year of the Linux desktop all of a sudden. Or maybe not.
Agreed... sometimes starting from scratch is easier than fixing old code. But IF they could buy Via, it wouldn't mean they HAVE to use the existing code-base. They could buy Via just for the licenses and build from scratch anyway.
Where did you get your information from? All the articles I read on this said they built it from scratch.
Hmmmm... it causes the wind to slow down, but not all energy contained in the wind is converted to electricity... what happens to it then... hmmmmm.... conservation of energy... hold it, it is converted to heat!!! Wind turbines contribute to global warming. Now what? :p
Not necessarily. One client I worked at implementing an enterprise ordering and billing app used a kind of thin client terminal specifically meant to connect to Citrix servers for the customer service representatives. It struck me that we had come full circle from mainframes and dumb terminals to essentially mainframes and dumb terminals. Except the mainframe is now a Unix server and you had windows instead of text interfaces.
I always find this argument interesting. How many anecdotes does it take to become a truth or near truth. I could talk about stories I've hear about people getting hit by cars because they didn't look both ways before crossing the street. Enough anecdotes like that and a truth emerges that if you don't pay attention in traffic, you can be killed, especially if you are a pedestrian. So how many is enough? Or do we now need some sort of scientist to gather them up and publish the anecdotes and his or her conclusion before the general public should pay heed to it. Common sense is indeed, not so common. Please, no more dogmatic arguments. Hitler. There I said it. Now you can invoke Godwin's stupid law too.
This is exactly right and can be pushed even further. About 15 or 20 years ago my mother, who is now 85, didn't have a microwave oven and stated flatly that it was because she didn't need or want one even if we told her we'd buy it for her. So we bought her one anyway. Two weeks after she told us she would never use it, she was using it every day for something or other. Lately she has even expressed regret about not taking a basic computer course a number of years ago; now that she realizes how useful it would have been to keep in touch with friends and family. So yes, if people don't realize what they are missing, they won't miss it. Some times this is good, some times this is bad. This could go either way in this case... maybe we'd be better off if instead of watching a youtube video of a person mountain biking, we go out ourselves and get some exercise and talk to real people in person. ;) Now... back to work!
I didn't see anything in that Wikipedia article talking about magnetic fields. I would think it would be more important for a planet closer to the sun than earth (i.e. Venus) to have a strong magnetic field to protect us weak Earthlings from the stronger solar radiation that Venus would have to have (being closer to the sun and all). I think that particular article is more wishful thinking than anything else (gasp!!! on Wikipedia???). ;)
I don't care as long as they got good curry!
This made me think of Winnipeg where I used to live. It gets so cold there in the winter they bury the water mains around 14 or 15 feet down to avoid frost heave. And then they still sometimes have breaks in the line. When it is 35 or 40 below zero (f or c... not much difference at that temperature) and water is bubbling up from the ground from a major water main... an ugly thing. I guess they can make the horizontal plane for those tubes another 20 feet deeper there. :)
I can't make any money writing open source code. Once I market it, other people come in and legally make their own version and dilute the market. I can't recoup the money paid for hardware and office supplies, as well as housing and food and other expenses, all with no income being generated because someone else benefited from my R&D. I have no qualms if that is how others want to live, but the paradigm for making money with open source used by Red Hat, MySQL, and other large supportable server software vendors, is the exception rather than the rule. So it is not a programmer's livelihood being impacted. Companies will buy commercial software for small software packages that are what most business buy (e.g. productivity suites, etc). It is easier and cheaper than paying a developer to fix bugs and add enhancements because it doesn't work right or doesn't do what is needed; mainly because the open source developer built it in his/her free time because they needed to work a day job to pay their bills. Your argument while good intentioned is mythical. However don't get me wrong, I like the idea of sharing, I just can't make my livelihood doing stuff for free.
This is exactly the point. Why should people care if they don't need or want to modify code? The only thing most people care about is if the tool does the job it is intended to do. If it can't, they will find a tool that will. If you as a programmer want to cripple your code by not allowing other programs to link to your libraries, no matter what the reason (including license issues like the GPL), and if that impacts usability, then expect the end user to look elsewhere to find a tool that elegantly and completely does the job they need it to do. Don't expect them to modify the code to do the job. They just want to use the tool. And that is all a computer program is; a tool.
The GPL has to learn to get along with other licenses, or programs licensed under it will always find itself on the fringes in terms of users. Yes, Linux is a major player in the server market. But in terms of the number of total installs regardless of purpose (desktop or server), it is a fringe player. As the GPL becomes more stringent in its restrictions (e.g. GPL2 to GPL3), this will only increase. Thank goodness for the LGPL.
Personally, I use a computer as a tool. I am O/S agnostic. I use MS desktops (and occasionally Linux/Gnome/KDE), and am a former C/Unix programmer who can still code Perl and ksh scripts with the best of them. Better than many Java developers I see now-a-days whose target platform for deployment is on Unix or Linux (it puzzles me why so many know so little about their target deployment platform). I work in a company that uses Linux servers and open source databases. So don't think I am coming off as a MS troll. My bottom line is the best tool for the job. But I am sick of seeing the GPL shooting Linux and its associated programs in the foot.
I agree, my Kensington Expert Mouse (really a big track ball) saved me from carpal tunnel. And it is very precise for any graphics or anything else like that. And it moves as fast as anything else out there too... as needed.
I am curious, what is the motivation for askimet or mollum to provide this service? This has to cost them bandwidth etc. which is money out of their pockets. So there has to be a definite benefit to them in some way. What is their gain? I don't trust companies that do things for the 'general good'. Churches maybe, they're a little crazy (sometimes in a good way), but not companies.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Politically correct fuckwad. Your kind will never end any issues just propagate them because you are afraid to go after the root of the real issues for fear of offending someone. Get over it. You are among those who will only ever talk and never take action, since that is the only way not to offend someone. But your specious mouthing off and lack of action is in its own form an action in its own. The action of status quo: doing nothing. Nothing of action. That offends ME. The world needs more people willing to pull the skeletons out of the closets, not leave them in there to fester. Your kind of thinking will lead to more problems than not.
Ummmm. No. Arabs attacked when Israel was mandated by the U.N. That would make the cause of the bullshit to be on the Arabs heads.
Moderators are dorks. The post I replied to specifically mentioned European settlement of North America. How is my reply off topic?
And even before the Europeans came, the various native American nations used to fight each other and take each other's lands and steal neighbouring 'nations' wealth (and sometimes eating the losers). So the fact that another better army came from overseas and beat them all is not even really anything different than business as usual. Except that the Europeans so far managed to keep everything they took. Now we are all here. Everyone get a job and stop bitching and asking for payback. History is history, let's live today. I'm tired of politically correct apologists trying to get me to wear a hairshirt and wring my hands over my great great great great grandparents coming to North America (well one of my four grandparent's lines go back that far in North America).
I have a spare bedroom and am in Canada. Just in case you are interested. :-p
Read this post: A Brief Politically Incorrect But Truthful History.
You have no logical argument stating anyone stole any land from a Palestinian. Unless of course you want to point that accusation at Jordan or Egypt. You don't have any argument. Your statement is pure bullshit.
Of course subscription = revenue. BUT revenue does NOT mean Cover All Operating Costs.
I used to work for a software vendor writing and implementing enterprise circulation systems for medium and large newspapers. For the greatest majority of all print media (and I would be surprised if there were more than a handful of exceptions) MOST revenue is derived from advertising. (How much did it cost to buy that one full page Firefox ad in the New York Times a few years ago?) In all cases, the cost of a subscription for a direct to home subscriber (if this is offered by the newspaper), and wholesale revenue to distributors, stores, etc. only covers a part of the distribution costs. Having your own experienced reporters in key areas of the world is very expensive. While most individual newspapers do not have the financial resources field reporters on their own, their publishers who own groups of papers can combine the revenue and pay for this quality reporting.
In the U.S.A. the papers offer what is called 'Total Market Coverage'. They have extensive and verified address lists for whole regions. They know who they deliver to on the main days where advertising goes out (usually Sundays in the U.S.A... could be Saturday or Sunday in Canada). They know the addresses they deliver Sunday papers to with all those adverts. They then also know the households that don't get the adverts. The paper then snail mails the advertisements and fliers to the remaining households that do not subscribe to the paper. The work they do verifying the addresses reduces the mailing costs but still it is expensive. They also have demographic information for the areas to make sure they don't sell ads for Cadillacs to areas that can only afford Kias.
The amount they can charge for advertising is based on numbers collected for the 'Audit Bureau of Circulation' (ABC); the 'Nelson Rating' of newspaper circulation. The most important numbers are ones reflecting 'paid circulation' as it is assumed those who pay for a newspaper actually read it. The higher the ABC number for paid subscriptions, the more a newspaper can charge for advertising... just like T.V.... more people watching means better revenue. When less newspapers are sold, less money is made. Ads may be mailed out to everyone, but you know the people who read the papers are more likely to see the ads and use them (or at least see them before they throw them out!).
In 1999 one of the big publishers (it might have been the one owning USA Today) successfully pushed to get unpaid circulation numbers into the ABC audit figures as well. This was to push up their numbers to be relatively high because they are the papers that show up at every hotel door in America every morning (but are not necessarily read). This gives a sort of bragging right: "look how big our circulation is". Even though many hotel guests just step over the paper on the way out the door. This is also an indication that subscription revenue doesn't really cover much when they can give away the paper for nothing (and in these cases most of the content is light weight news feed work where they don't have their own reporters stationed around the world).
The bottom line is that if papers can't keep their revenue stream up, and it is sliding like a runaway toboggan, they won't be able to function much longer. We won't have reliable and quality reporting any more. Sorry, but I don't believe some guy with no credentials or anyone to vouch for him personally, who writes something on the internet under an assumed blogger name, is trustworthy (but why not? if you read it on the internet it must be true... right?). Yes we can try to sell advertisements on newspaper web sites and charge by how many hits the paper gets as a rating mechanism. But with adblock and mostly unreliable hit counters (unreliable for basing expensive economic models on), it is an extremely steep uphill battle that I for one, am uncertain can be overcome.
Where there is a need, yes there will be someone to sell y
I would also like to see a similar employment scourge killed off: There are some big companies (and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the companies mentioned in this topic are among them) who in behind the scenes deals, blackmail headhunters from hiring away employees for better pay.
Employer: "You contract out one of our employees who wants to leave us, and we will never hire another one of your contractors who wants to work for us... ever." (Sounds kind of stupid, but really, that is what it works out to.)
Headhunter: "Understood."
I know for a fact that a telecom software vendor I worked at in Saint Louis had these agreements. I would get a call from a headhunter and when they would find out I was still working for this company they would tell me they couldn't work with me until I quit or was laid off (and this would happen for real jobs, not just their prospecting calls). I heard this from a good number of my workmates too. That is when personal networking becomes very important. I eventually quit for a contracting gig in a different city where my former employer had less sway. I ended up working on the client side of one of their implementations where I could help combat their equally obnoxious manners with their customers (they have a strangle hold on the market).
Yeah... that was my experience when getting my visa the last time. Coupled with the photograph and finger printing, it seemed to really intend to make you feel like an outsider and not welcome. So I take that to heart.
I credit any other country that is doing this (and especially EU countries and Canada) to forced paranoia spreading from the U.S. These countries have to do business with the U.S. (you can't change economic patterns over night). They need to softly assuage America's fears by saying "see, we're being safe too... stop holding up our travellers and shipments and causing economic chaos."
I will give you that. Canadian border (so called) guards are really a pain in the ass. Really, they are glorified tax collectors who will rip your car apart looking for something they can apply a duty to. They grill Canadians to see if you might look guilty and they can then have an excuse to search your vehicle. "Where are you going, whey are you going there", etc. etc. etc. My brother one time finally lost it and asked said to them, "look I'm a Canadian coming back to Canada, you can't deport me, so why are you giving me such a hard time." They searched his car for three hours in retaliation. They won't say it was retaliation, but we all know what happens when you step on a rent-a-cop's ego. And they are rent-a-cops. When they get word that bad guys might be trying to cross the border (like suspected murderers on the run), the Canadian border guards run away. This happened a couple of times in 2006 at the Peace Arch Crossing in British Columbia/Washington State (Highway 99/I-5 respectively). But at least you know they are after money and not treating anyone any different. Up until the last time I went to the U.S.A. I hated crossing into Canada more. But now, the U.S. wins the 'onerous prize'.