Considering that most work longer now, and make less money than before I find that hard to believe. Advancing technology has made work and quality of life easier, but at the same time it has also reduced the manpower needed for many things.
At this rate the best you can hope for is to be selected in a wasteland lottery to be hunted with blunderbusses by the ultra mega rich for sport, and should you survive take your place among them (but secretly you are killed by the ultra mega rich and the masses appeased).
The only good thing, is that I am pretty sure I will be dead before our blunderbuss wielding overlords skip the pretense and just take over.:)
In any case an analyst on CBC made a good point. Many of the leaders fled to Pakistan but some fled to Iran. I think they may have even been put under house arrest in Iran. However they still harbored them and apparently were able to still communicate outside of Iran. I doubt Iran as a nation or a people were really more involved (really what to they have to gain?) other than hosting some of them likely to thumb their national nose at the US... As to how much influence or coordination they could do under those conditions might be questionable. Anyway all speculation at this point. Iran may not be involved. Al Queda may not be involved. The two in question could be innocent. In consideration to some of the other screw ups made by all involved, it could be just about anything. We really don't have enough information to make any judgments at this point other than speculation.
The real problem is A) Harshness of the Moon environment and B) Earth's gravity well and the difficulty to get things out of it.
If we are really serious about starting a moon colony, the very first technology we need to look at is autonomous (by way of robots, or other similar devices) that would be able to remotely manufacture, construct, and build things using local resources. Sending "stuff" from Earth to the Moon will simply be too cost prohibitive, and human construction and resource extraction not really viable. Once the basics are down, perhaps then at some point human workers might be involved producing more complex things in situ. However the key is remote atonomous manufacturing and resource extraction, for use in power, material, water, etc... Most of that research can be done without physically going to the moon (but will have to take certain environmental things into consideration of course). When we are able to say set up a remote resource extraction and manufacturing base on Earth, we can then send a package to the Moon and see how things go. Realistically however this is a LONG way off I think given our current abilities. There is also the fact that no matter which way you spin it, there has to be political will to do it and a LOT of money. I can't see this as something being sponsored by "commercial" interests, no matter what people might say, this is a national, or more likely an international endeavor of great magnitude. Proof of concept first here on earth however.
1) Become the #1 polluter in the world, perpetuating global warming. 2) Become the largest Builder and Seller of inefficient Clean Energy products to the world. 3) PROFIT!
That leads to nothing as it is too expensive or unrealistic to work. With silly claims of efficiency etc... How many of these do we get on slashdot per year, for how many years. You would think by now we would all be running 100% solar power by now.
Not a lot of sympathy here. If you don't like it, stop doing business with Chinese companies.
American companies complain about the patents, yet turn around and contract out all their manufacturing needs there due to cheap labour, and want to sell products that because of the huge growth market.
While I believe in Canada it makes sense because we have a bunch of national political parties, in the US with their two party system, it is likely less important.
60/40 means only 40% of votes "wasted" in first past the post. 20/15/15/10/10/10/5/5/5/5 conceivably means that 80% of the vote was "wasted", and that a party with only 20% of the popular vote gets to make the decisions for everyone else. Yes this is an exaggeration, but just to illustrate the point.
With multiple party systems, first past the post makes things unbalanced. It becomes a unite the right, or unite the left, and win. It wants to push towards less parties to the point of a two party system. Currently the right wing conservatives have a majority government, yet I have no doubt that the majority of Canadians have a more leftist political view, how does that make sense? If the NDP and the Liberals united, they would win easily. Then we would just be a two party system like the US, the Conservative Party (Reform/Alliance/PC) and the New Liberal Democratic Party (Liberal/NDP) or whatever they want to call themselves. The only other parties of note is the Bloq Quebequois and the Green party. The Bloq was wiped out last election by the NDP, and the Green party have zero hope of ever winning anything without proportional representation (even less hope if left united also).
Our current politics is a joke, it is no wonder so many have voter apathy.
The only question I have about proportional representation is how representation would be selected, particularly regionally. However I am certain it is something that could be figured out. Likely X number of representatives per population voted, then have the parties vote whom they wish to send. Ultimately the parties would be accountable to the electorate, so if they make poor choices, they will simply lose the votes the next time there is an election. Not sure how this would with with independents however...
"I'm sorry that Kathy Dunderdale, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, does not understand how basic technology such as social media works. I am also sorry that her office makes knee jerk decisions based on bad information and do not take the time to validate facts before making unwarranted demands. I am sorry that Newfoundland and Labrador has such an inept government, though I am pleased that they were able to solve all the other pressing issues and problems before proceeding on this most important issue."
I think at that point it is more about Linguistics, Philosophy, Neuroscience than actual physics.
Other than in Math which can get very conceptual, human thought likes to deal with discrete things. Stuff like Infinite, Everything, Nothing, or anything that is an absolute is very difficult to process. We like to label things, we like to describe things. In describing something you are by nature encapsulating it into a known value. In many cases we describe things in absolute terms, even those things rarely are. Anytime you do this you are describing a barrier, and when we think of barriers, one of the defining elements is that there are two sides, one is separated from the other. You can't have a barrier with something on one side, and nothing on the other, there is always something on the other side. Hence if everything is contained within the big bang, where does the big bang reside, ad nauseam. My favorite example is that of a simple apple. We define an apple by its apparent observable boundary, of its skin. When in in reality, it is comprised of particles that are constantly in a state of flux vibrating and moving. At best we might be able to describe it in an equation that describes the movements of the particles in relation to each other within the apple, and visually we simply apply a threshold of what we can observe to define it more easily. However if you delve smaller and smaller, you have more to describe, much as I expect as with the Higgs. Who is to say what is beyond that to further describe to have a better understanding of the physics involved. We are limited by what we can observe. When it comes down to it, everything is everything, but that is hardly really useful information.
On top of all that there is the question of why we are limited in this way to labeling and describing things, that do not translate very well to these kinds of debates. Why can we not think in such a matter to understand these principles better. There is the debate which is a bit of a chicken or the egg argument, does how we think define our language, or does our manner of communication and language define how we think. One might argue that our ability to reason (or even basic communication of anything) is an evolutionary trait designed to pass information from one to another for the purposes of survival (and by extension procreation). This seems to be mostly the facilitation of the brain processing abstract ideas to discrete descriptions and vice versa. However as mentioned earlier there is some difficulty with that likely mostly dependent on what we can physically observe. Perhaps an apt example (maybe) might be the translation between digital and analog. It is not always exact, and is done using accepted thresholds of meaning.
Anyway one of the larger problems as I see it, is that we have disciplines like physics that generally speaking use observation and highly conceptual mathematics to try and describe the universe around us. However the further we get away from what we can physically observe, we are left with trying to use reason to explain what we cannot observe, and when trying to do so translating conceptual ideas of infinite, etc... generated by mathematics into rational arguments it is impossible to do so.
So until we are able to breach this linguistic/Neuroscience barrier of how we communicate/think, I think we will have a very hard time describing the universe past a certain point both at a macro and a micro level using physics (other than to say that math is telling us stuff we don't understand and we build physical constructs to try to explain it away).
At this point I probably need some weed or a lobotomy or something.
My primary PC is down right now (failed MB I believe last week). Last night I used my phone to to not only connect to my wifi, but to download several torrents using uTorrent, and then watch a movie wirelessly streaming from my phone, through my xbox 360 onto my TV...
If I really wanted to, I could go into IE from my xbox, go to Google docs, and using a controller with a keyboard, type out a word document (and PLEASE don't tell me that being able to run MS products your definition of "computer"). Just because I do not, doesn't mean I could not, only that I have other better options available.
As for the "custom" motherboard, I am not sure what you mean by that... exactly what makes up a custom MB? It is custom to accept the CPU designed for it, just like every MB ever made. Just like it has a custom video card. The new consoles would have custom hardware as well. I guess you don't think Macs or Apples were computers either, and yes they have moved to swapable PC HW, but they were not always. Which is exactly what is happening to the consoles, as it is much cheaper to produce to leverage the PC market. In fact they used a powerPC chip. The fact that it has a "powerpc" CPU and you are making the argument that it isn't a PC based on that, is hilarious.
Despite the name "bitcoin" I thought the intention was that they were to be a traded commodity not a monetary currency. The name I assumed was in reference to video games, where you "earn" coins using your bits (mining etc...)...
The fact that they have fluctuations would be in line with commodity speculation compounded by design limited scarcity and centralized holdings. They fact that you can in some contexts actually use them as "money" is something that is still premature as many will point out.
Sorry to break this to you, but I have owned computers that are less powerful than that over the years. I also still own and marginally use two computers for specific purposes that are less powerful than the 360.
The 360 is able to do everything a media box would do, web surfer, and is able to play decent video games, which is probably more than your bargain basement brand new desktop is able to do.
Not every computer is an i7, 32GB, 256SSD, 3TB, 7970 sort of gaming beast.
The fact that you think so, indicates that YOU are probably on the wrong website. It uses more less common PC components, and the new consoles will likely too an even greater degree. I think your definition of "computer" might be a bit narrow.
Erm. How does one spend ONE BILLION dollars unauthorized? Wouldn't the firm be at fault? Someone singularly has the ability to decide to spend a billion dollars on something?
It is not just internet access, the whole telecommunications industry is a joke. Slightly more so than even the US which is really depressing. We make fun of about the US government being in bed with big business, yet they are getting screwed slightly less somehow by their telcos. When I was overseas on a group vacation, all the other folks from various countries balked in wonderment when the Canadians and Americans told them what they pay for cell plans and service, and that none of us could use them anywhere else but our home country without outrageous fees.
I get the second fastest retail internet connection available in Ontario. I pay +80$ a month for that privilege. It is 30 MB/s with a 175GB cap (although I recently got a letter saying they were going to up my cap by 100GB which was nice). The fastest that isn't some sort of specialized business connection (which is even more $$$) is 50MB/s and 275GB cap. For perspective that Japanese service is 51$ for 2000MB/s...
Anyway, something has been wrong with our telecommunications industry in Canada for a very long time. The CRTC who are supposed to be regulating the industry need to be gutted and replaced. The Minister in charge of the file should be placed under intense pressure to answer the key question and propose a solution. Why are telecommunications so expensive in Canada relative to other countries, and how can this be addressed.
And don't give me the big country, low density BS. 1) Most of our population lives in cities, all within a very narrow strip close to the US. 2) It is not like those rural areas are getting good coverage now anyway. 3) There are plenty of examples of countries with similar population densities that are able to provide much faster and cheaper telecommunications, like Finland for example.
Not to mention that you can buy a Galaxy S3 for like 50$ which is more less a fully functional computer.
My PC recently went kaput (dunno what, MB most likely toast). I will replace it, but I am not in a huge hurry to do so. I have a Xbox 360 (also a fully function computer) that I can use to plan video games and watch netflix, or even browse the internet or youtube, though using the controller as such is a bit wonky (you can buy a texting controller however if so inclined). I also have a phone that is able to play video games, use facebook, youtube, any browser related things, even various utilities like utorrent etc... I also have a computer at work...
All of these things making buying a new desktop less urgent, and none of them have anything to do with Windows 8. The fact that it might be a pile of steaming garbage may not *help* matters much, but it is hardly the root cause. Convergence is the cause and it has been happening for more than 5 years or so. Not exactly surprising.
Agree. If disaster comes, it will be an external event, not a human one. Humans have the ability to react and produce change, or at the very least to die off until our impacts are negligible and the ecosystem slowly recovers. Civilization may have a tough go at some point if we really screw things up, but I am confident that life will go on.
However if a solar event or impact occurs of significant magnitude... well there is just no coming back from that. The end of all life. However given the variables involved, I think "1000 years" isn't a problem. It could happen tomorrow, or it could happen in several billion years. However I am inclined to think that it is potentially a very long time away. Long enough that any prediction of what we will become both as a people, a civilization, etc... would be impossible to make.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that most work longer now, and make less money than before I find that hard to believe. Advancing technology has made work and quality of life easier, but at the same time it has also reduced the manpower needed for many things.
At this rate the best you can hope for is to be selected in a wasteland lottery to be hunted with blunderbusses by the ultra mega rich for sport, and should you survive take your place among them (but secretly you are killed by the ultra mega rich and the masses appeased).
The only good thing, is that I am pretty sure I will be dead before our blunderbuss wielding overlords skip the pretense and just take over. :)
I also see the timing as curious.
In any case an analyst on CBC made a good point. Many of the leaders fled to Pakistan but some fled to Iran. I think they may have even been put under house arrest in Iran. However they still harbored them and apparently were able to still communicate outside of Iran. I doubt Iran as a nation or a people were really more involved (really what to they have to gain?) other than hosting some of them likely to thumb their national nose at the US... As to how much influence or coordination they could do under those conditions might be questionable. Anyway all speculation at this point. Iran may not be involved. Al Queda may not be involved. The two in question could be innocent. In consideration to some of the other screw ups made by all involved, it could be just about anything. We really don't have enough information to make any judgments at this point other than speculation.
Feasibility: Not good.
The real problem is A) Harshness of the Moon environment and B) Earth's gravity well and the difficulty to get things out of it.
If we are really serious about starting a moon colony, the very first technology we need to look at is autonomous (by way of robots, or other similar devices) that would be able to remotely manufacture, construct, and build things using local resources. Sending "stuff" from Earth to the Moon will simply be too cost prohibitive, and human construction and resource extraction not really viable. Once the basics are down, perhaps then at some point human workers might be involved producing more complex things in situ. However the key is remote atonomous manufacturing and resource extraction, for use in power, material, water, etc... Most of that research can be done without physically going to the moon (but will have to take certain environmental things into consideration of course). When we are able to say set up a remote resource extraction and manufacturing base on Earth, we can then send a package to the Moon and see how things go. Realistically however this is a LONG way off I think given our current abilities. There is also the fact that no matter which way you spin it, there has to be political will to do it and a LOT of money. I can't see this as something being sponsored by "commercial" interests, no matter what people might say, this is a national, or more likely an international endeavor of great magnitude. Proof of concept first here on earth however.
1) Become the #1 polluter in the world, perpetuating global warming.
2) Become the largest Builder and Seller of inefficient Clean Energy products to the world.
3) PROFIT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_turbine_manufacturers
LOL!
That leads to nothing as it is too expensive or unrealistic to work. With silly claims of efficiency etc... How many of these do we get on slashdot per year, for how many years. You would think by now we would all be running 100% solar power by now.
So put me down for skeptical.
Not a lot of sympathy here. If you don't like it, stop doing business with Chinese companies.
American companies complain about the patents, yet turn around and contract out all their manufacturing needs there due to cheap labour, and want to sell products that because of the huge growth market.
What no MOO2 references here? Disappointed Slashdot, disappointed...
It doesn't matter so much about the brick and mortar stores.
What does matter is that a large chunk of Kindle "features" are not available to Canadians, only to those living in the US.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out why the Kubo (fully featured) is popular and the Kindle (crippled outside US) is not, at least in Canada.
While I believe in Canada it makes sense because we have a bunch of national political parties, in the US with their two party system, it is likely less important.
60/40 means only 40% of votes "wasted" in first past the post.
20/15/15/10/10/10/5/5/5/5 conceivably means that 80% of the vote was "wasted", and that a party with only 20% of the popular vote gets to make the decisions for everyone else. Yes this is an exaggeration, but just to illustrate the point.
With multiple party systems, first past the post makes things unbalanced. It becomes a unite the right, or unite the left, and win. It wants to push towards less parties to the point of a two party system. Currently the right wing conservatives have a majority government, yet I have no doubt that the majority of Canadians have a more leftist political view, how does that make sense? If the NDP and the Liberals united, they would win easily. Then we would just be a two party system like the US, the Conservative Party (Reform/Alliance/PC) and the New Liberal Democratic Party (Liberal/NDP) or whatever they want to call themselves. The only other parties of note is the Bloq Quebequois and the Green party. The Bloq was wiped out last election by the NDP, and the Green party have zero hope of ever winning anything without proportional representation (even less hope if left united also).
Our current politics is a joke, it is no wonder so many have voter apathy.
The only question I have about proportional representation is how representation would be selected, particularly regionally. However I am certain it is something that could be figured out. Likely X number of representatives per population voted, then have the parties vote whom they wish to send. Ultimately the parties would be accountable to the electorate, so if they make poor choices, they will simply lose the votes the next time there is an election. Not sure how this would with with independents however...
Only allow political contributions to come from individual US citizens with a maximum of 5000$. Zero corporate contributions. Outlaw lobbyists.
The rest will just figure itself out.
When Amazon starts offering free washing machines with the purchase of a Kindle, boy are they going to feel stupid!
"I'm sorry that Kathy Dunderdale, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, does not understand how basic technology such as social media works. I am also sorry that her office makes knee jerk decisions based on bad information and do not take the time to validate facts before making unwarranted demands. I am sorry that Newfoundland and Labrador has such an inept government, though I am pleased that they were able to solve all the other pressing issues and problems before proceeding on this most important issue."
I think at that point it is more about Linguistics, Philosophy, Neuroscience than actual physics.
Other than in Math which can get very conceptual, human thought likes to deal with discrete things. Stuff like Infinite, Everything, Nothing, or anything that is an absolute is very difficult to process. We like to label things, we like to describe things. In describing something you are by nature encapsulating it into a known value. In many cases we describe things in absolute terms, even those things rarely are. Anytime you do this you are describing a barrier, and when we think of barriers, one of the defining elements is that there are two sides, one is separated from the other. You can't have a barrier with something on one side, and nothing on the other, there is always something on the other side. Hence if everything is contained within the big bang, where does the big bang reside, ad nauseam. My favorite example is that of a simple apple. We define an apple by its apparent observable boundary, of its skin. When in in reality, it is comprised of particles that are constantly in a state of flux vibrating and moving. At best we might be able to describe it in an equation that describes the movements of the particles in relation to each other within the apple, and visually we simply apply a threshold of what we can observe to define it more easily. However if you delve smaller and smaller, you have more to describe, much as I expect as with the Higgs. Who is to say what is beyond that to further describe to have a better understanding of the physics involved. We are limited by what we can observe. When it comes down to it, everything is everything, but that is hardly really useful information.
On top of all that there is the question of why we are limited in this way to labeling and describing things, that do not translate very well to these kinds of debates. Why can we not think in such a matter to understand these principles better. There is the debate which is a bit of a chicken or the egg argument, does how we think define our language, or does our manner of communication and language define how we think. One might argue that our ability to reason (or even basic communication of anything) is an evolutionary trait designed to pass information from one to another for the purposes of survival (and by extension procreation). This seems to be mostly the facilitation of the brain processing abstract ideas to discrete descriptions and vice versa. However as mentioned earlier there is some difficulty with that likely mostly dependent on what we can physically observe. Perhaps an apt example (maybe) might be the translation between digital and analog. It is not always exact, and is done using accepted thresholds of meaning.
Anyway one of the larger problems as I see it, is that we have disciplines like physics that generally speaking use observation and highly conceptual mathematics to try and describe the universe around us. However the further we get away from what we can physically observe, we are left with trying to use reason to explain what we cannot observe, and when trying to do so translating conceptual ideas of infinite, etc... generated by mathematics into rational arguments it is impossible to do so.
So until we are able to breach this linguistic/Neuroscience barrier of how we communicate/think, I think we will have a very hard time describing the universe past a certain point both at a macro and a micro level using physics (other than to say that math is telling us stuff we don't understand and we build physical constructs to try to explain it away).
At this point I probably need some weed or a lobotomy or something.
My primary PC is down right now (failed MB I believe last week). Last night I used my phone to to not only connect to my wifi, but to download several torrents using uTorrent, and then watch a movie wirelessly streaming from my phone, through my xbox 360 onto my TV...
If I really wanted to, I could go into IE from my xbox, go to Google docs, and using a controller with a keyboard, type out a word document (and PLEASE don't tell me that being able to run MS products your definition of "computer"). Just because I do not, doesn't mean I could not, only that I have other better options available.
As for the "custom" motherboard, I am not sure what you mean by that... exactly what makes up a custom MB? It is custom to accept the CPU designed for it, just like every MB ever made. Just like it has a custom video card. The new consoles would have custom hardware as well. I guess you don't think Macs or Apples were computers either, and yes they have moved to swapable PC HW, but they were not always. Which is exactly what is happening to the consoles, as it is much cheaper to produce to leverage the PC market. In fact they used a powerPC chip. The fact that it has a "powerpc" CPU and you are making the argument that it isn't a PC based on that, is hilarious.
"It looks like you are too cheap to buy real statistical software. Would you like a loan?"
Despite the name "bitcoin" I thought the intention was that they were to be a traded commodity not a monetary currency. The name I assumed was in reference to video games, where you "earn" coins using your bits (mining etc...)...
The fact that they have fluctuations would be in line with commodity speculation compounded by design limited scarcity and centralized holdings. They fact that you can in some contexts actually use them as "money" is something that is still premature as many will point out.
Sorry to break this to you, but I have owned computers that are less powerful than that over the years. I also still own and marginally use two computers for specific purposes that are less powerful than the 360.
The 360 is able to do everything a media box would do, web surfer, and is able to play decent video games, which is probably more than your bargain basement brand new desktop is able to do.
Not every computer is an i7, 32GB, 256SSD, 3TB, 7970 sort of gaming beast.
The fact that you think so, indicates that YOU are probably on the wrong website. It uses more less common PC components, and the new consoles will likely too an even greater degree. I think your definition of "computer" might be a bit narrow.
While I won't argue there. The independents are not available everywhere, and mostly just the larger cities.
Believe me, I would use Teksavvy or something were it available (and it is not, I checked).
You had me until "paradigm shift", and then I just sort of wandered away.
Erm. How does one spend ONE BILLION dollars unauthorized? Wouldn't the firm be at fault? Someone singularly has the ability to decide to spend a billion dollars on something?
It is not just internet access, the whole telecommunications industry is a joke. Slightly more so than even the US which is really depressing. We make fun of about the US government being in bed with big business, yet they are getting screwed slightly less somehow by their telcos. When I was overseas on a group vacation, all the other folks from various countries balked in wonderment when the Canadians and Americans told them what they pay for cell plans and service, and that none of us could use them anywhere else but our home country without outrageous fees.
I get the second fastest retail internet connection available in Ontario. I pay +80$ a month for that privilege. It is 30 MB/s with a 175GB cap (although I recently got a letter saying they were going to up my cap by 100GB which was nice). The fastest that isn't some sort of specialized business connection (which is even more $$$) is 50MB/s and 275GB cap. For perspective that Japanese service is 51$ for 2000MB/s...
Anyway, something has been wrong with our telecommunications industry in Canada for a very long time. The CRTC who are supposed to be regulating the industry need to be gutted and replaced. The Minister in charge of the file should be placed under intense pressure to answer the key question and propose a solution. Why are telecommunications so expensive in Canada relative to other countries, and how can this be addressed.
And don't give me the big country, low density BS. 1) Most of our population lives in cities, all within a very narrow strip close to the US. 2) It is not like those rural areas are getting good coverage now anyway. 3) There are plenty of examples of countries with similar population densities that are able to provide much faster and cheaper telecommunications, like Finland for example.
Not to mention that you can buy a Galaxy S3 for like 50$ which is more less a fully functional computer.
My PC recently went kaput (dunno what, MB most likely toast). I will replace it, but I am not in a huge hurry to do so. I have a Xbox 360 (also a fully function computer) that I can use to plan video games and watch netflix, or even browse the internet or youtube, though using the controller as such is a bit wonky (you can buy a texting controller however if so inclined). I also have a phone that is able to play video games, use facebook, youtube, any browser related things, even various utilities like utorrent etc... I also have a computer at work...
All of these things making buying a new desktop less urgent, and none of them have anything to do with Windows 8. The fact that it might be a pile of steaming garbage may not *help* matters much, but it is hardly the root cause. Convergence is the cause and it has been happening for more than 5 years or so. Not exactly surprising.
Agree. If disaster comes, it will be an external event, not a human one. Humans have the ability to react and produce change, or at the very least to die off until our impacts are negligible and the ecosystem slowly recovers. Civilization may have a tough go at some point if we really screw things up, but I am confident that life will go on.
However if a solar event or impact occurs of significant magnitude... well there is just no coming back from that. The end of all life. However given the variables involved, I think "1000 years" isn't a problem. It could happen tomorrow, or it could happen in several billion years. However I am inclined to think that it is potentially a very long time away. Long enough that any prediction of what we will become both as a people, a civilization, etc... would be impossible to make.
Computational Orienteering Map Processing Assist Simulation Service
or
Compass for short.
Not to mention MIR... which holds many records to this day.
Canada and Russia, Comrades!