in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task,
When I try something on my Mac that needs an admin to do but a regular user is logged in a window pops up asking for an admin's password that has the rights. If a password isn't typed in it won't do it. However the MS patent application says it presents "an account having a right to permit". My Mac doesn't do that though, so maybe it's novel enough.
before we scrap software patents, we need to provide developers with an alternative.
There are alternatives such as trade secrets and first mover advantage. Actually by scrapping patents you may encourage innovation, if a business wants to it's market share then it will innovate. As it is patents may discourage innovation. Tell me, why should I spend millions of dollars to invent something if I can be slapped with a lawsuit claiming infringement? Because patents are issued companies have to horde them just to use for self protection. With a thousand patents if another business comes along and threatens a patent infringement lawsuit then one of those patents may save the business because of mutually assured destruction. This forces businesses to spend more on defense than on innovation.
You do something by barring software patents, Once that's done listen to the economists who have studied patents and encourage innovation by ending patents.
single national insurance market will do exactly what state markets have done: boil down to 2-3 players.
And where did I say a single insurance market? A actually part of the bill is that market, which is not free. What I did say is that I should be able to drive across a state line and buy insurance. There are 50 states with more state lines. My state has borders with more than 2 other states.
And *then*, one day, something big hits. Bad auto accident? Cancer? MS? Doesn't matter, but it requires a lot of care. Not just in one instance, over months. Maybe years. Maybe the rest of your life. And all of the sudden, you are suddenly a very different prospect than you were to the insurance company the day before. From here on out, you're a liability that has to be managed in some way.
And we don't have that now? We most certainly do. I am one of those you describe above. More than 10 years ago I was hit while riding my bike and I survived a disability, specifically a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI. After that I was refused insurance coverage. The only reason I have insurance now, after years of not having any, is because I am on Medicare.
maybe the insurance company isn't very cooperative: every claim gets challenged, some they may relent on, but some they find an excuse and won't budge.
Ever hear of courts and lawsuits? How about corporate charter revocation? All can be used to reign in corporations, if they are not reigned in it's only because voters let then get away with it.
In a free market, here's what you'll do: nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Oh really? What did you use to make your post? Without competition you wouldn't have such a powerful computer that you're using. Competition brought it to you. Why is it so hard to believe competition can't do the same with health care and insurance? Because it doesn't fit into the socialist ideology?
copyright doesn't protect against duplicating functionality - only copying the exact binaries/source code. If I want to write my own sudo replica, copyright doesn't stop me... but a patent would.
And that's one of the problems with patents. If I invent and design a car but someone else has already patented a car then I'm out of luck. It could operate entirely differently but too bad. Or take electricity, a capacitor or resister can be made in a number of ways but if the idea of a capacitor or resister is patentable then no matter how many ways there are to make one it's too bad, all of them but the ones invented by the patent holder infringe on the patent.
Frankly, I prefer living in an industrialized country
So do I, I especially wouldn't want to spend thousands never mind millions of dollars to research something only to be slapped with a patent infringement lawsuit.
Every industrialized nation in the world has implemented a public-disclosure-in-exchange for-a-time-limited-monopoly system to specifically encourage innovation which trade secrets otherwise stifle.
And, yes, I do realize Apple stole the GUI from Xerox...
On Xerox, Apple, and Progress. Fact is in return for Xerox allowing Steve Jobs and a development team to tour PARC Jobs allowed Xerox to invest in Apple by buying 100,000 shares of stock at $10 a share. Less than a year later that $1 million investment netted Xerox $17.6 million when Apple had it's IPO.
Does that make nuclear powerplants unconstitutional?
No, the plants themselves aren't unconstitutional, there's nothing in it to make them so. However now that you brought it up and I'm thinking about it I personally consider the massive subsides unconstitutional. As I do most subsides, including those for Water, Wind, and Solar (WWS). I have repeatedly railed against all sorts of subsidies, they distort the markets. I would let them all compeat on equal footings, no government subsidies. It's pretty likely the subsidies the various energy sources get can put a dent in health care costs. Alone coal, nuclear power, and petroleum each get billions of dollars in subsidies. Biomass, fuel biofuels, get billions more.
This link does not say SCO showed code from System V they owned in Linux. One peace of code they showed is in the Berkeley Packet Filter which has a BSD license. Other code mentioned was copyrighted by ATT then released by Caldera, what SCO formerly was called, with a BSD license.
So far there's "This point is crucial to the reason that I initially came to the wrong conclusion. As it stands, the code is not System V code. In fact, as we'll see below, it is derived from System V in exactly the way I describe."..."SCO is incorrect in claiming that the code in question has been lifted from System V.4 without changes, but that doesn't change the fact that it obviously comes from System V.4."
The author, Greg Lehey, goes through SCO's claims and disputes each one. Now that's a short page so Greg Lehey probably didn't cover every SCO claim. So SCO may of disclosed some code, but do they step up to the light of day?
And that's disregarding the fact that Novell not SCO owns the System V code.
This elaboration is useful, but still doesn't recognise the fundamental flaw in the argument. The idea that we have a choice between "forwards" and "backwards" on each issue doesn't recognise that there is more than one direction on some issues.
Oh, I agree. So do others. Many people think health care needs to be reformed but they disagree with how to reform it. Some want socialized, some want single payer, and others, including myself, want a freer if not a free market in health care and insurance.
For example, in the UK we currently have a government that is stripping away individual rights as quickly as it can.
Same here. Of course they, the politicians doing it, wrap it up in platitudes such as "protect the children".
*We do have something called the Bill of Rights, but it doesn't do what you think it does. Well, not a lot of it, anyway...
The Magna Carta. My memory is bad so I'd have to read it again to remind myself exactly what it does.
Could you describe a system that counters illegal use of healthcare yet does not require constantly having id on you? I'm really interested, I can't see a solution for such a system.
Illegal use of healthcare? What's that? If you mean using health care without paying for it then immigrants don't have to enter into it at all. Not all citizens and legal residents have insurance either. I certainly didn't when I was hit while riding my bike. Despite not having any means to pay for my medical care I still was treated. My medical bills came to more than $120,000.
I was even flown by helicopter from the accident scene to the hospital. Of course being in a coma I didn't know this, I was told it.
I can't see a solution for such a system.
I don't know of a solution either, but I know I was supposedly born in and served in the armed forces of the land of the free not the land of mandates. A place where Don't Tread On Me and Give me Liberty, or give me Death! meant something.
Having said that I also believe a freer market in health care, medicine, and insurance will drive costs down.
Anyway, you're strawmanning my argument. I did not say there was no government interference in the health marketplace
Right here you said "Part of the problem here is that U.S. public policy since Reagan is dominated by the mantra, 'The marketplace can handle the problem'" as if a free market was given a chance when it has not. You're the one using a straw man argument and when that doesn't work you switch tactics.
And forcing people to pay taxes on their workplace insurance benefits wouldn't change that.
Did I say that? Hell NO!!! I did not. I said I can not get the same deductions when I buy my own insurance as employers get for offering it to employees. Straw man.
If you force everybody to buy insurance,
And where does the Constitution of the USA give the federal government the power to mandate everyone pay for health insurance? Hint, it doesn't. "Health" is found nowhere in it. And using the "General Welfare" clause does not work as has been pointed out already.
The Cato guys mention nothing of the ridiculous regulations that have been put on nuclear power over the years.
Ding dong. China, France, India, and Russia does not have those regulations but nuclear power is still not profitable in those countries. As TFA says government planners decide what's built in those countries no the market. But you ignored that just to push your agenda didn't you?
The USA's founding fathers are hardly homogeneous bunch of people, which almost makes "what the founding fathers meant" almost a moot point, especially if you simply refer to one or two people.
For the moment, let's disregard that and have a look at your quotes.
No let's not disregard the Founding Fathers. If it wasn't for them you wouldn't be enjoying your life as it is. They fought an overbearing and tyrannical government and wanted to make sure the government of the new nation would not become overbearing and tyrannical itself. And that was a homogeneous desire. There's no way around it. If they didn't believe it the then they would not have fought for independence. Instead they would have joined the Loyalists.
What they fought for was not a moot point no matter what you think.
The spending and taxing clause, however, is a fairly specific clause, it states how the Congress may attain money, and for what reasons.
And where is health or medical care mentioned? Hint, nowhere. And as I already said you can't use "General Welfare" either. If you don't like it try to amend the Constitution. I bet you and those like you don't try because you fear the people will not consent to it. So instead you use back doors and "vague phrases", which when written had specific meanings.
Guess what Nanncy Pelosy said when asked "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her answer was "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Just goes to show what she thinks of the USA Constitution. it's TP to her. And unlike you she never even mentions "General Welfare". I wonder why, perhaps because she knows it won't work.
But he is actually one of the people, which were for a more limiting meaning of the law. For a different point of view, may I refer to Alexander Hamilton
Yes let's look at what Hamilton said. His writings, including the Federalist Paper, showed he had a narrow view of the phrase General Welfare. In Federalist 83 he wrote "This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." In the Federalist Paper 78 he writes "No legislative act... contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Of course Alexander Hamilton wasn't consistent in his approach to government. In the Federalist Papers and other early writings Hamilton advocates a small and limited federal government but once he became president he sought to expand his power.
Because the thread you responded to discussed the question of "what is open source" in reference to violations of the GPL. I assumed that in asking that question of who gets to define the term Open Source you were asking who gets to define the requirements regarding making your modifications to GPLed code be themselves open source.
In the post I asked if only the OSI can define open source I posted 4 links to definitions of open source. Of them only one mentions the GNU GPL. Another one mentions other open source licenses.
Since I posted that I've been thinking about how new rules or regulations were added to the books by the USDA to define what "organic" meant. The term organic has been used in the US since the 1970s to mean something specific and here was a government agency coming along 30 years later to define what it meant "legally". That upsetted a bunch of people.
If I was wrong in assuming that, I'm very sorry I wasted your time and mine.
I try, though not always successfully, to think that as long as something was learned it wasn't a compeat waste of tyme.
its always a choice between the guy who wants change to go a little faster and the guy who wants change to go a little slower
Not quite. Some people may want fast change on one issue but slow change on another. So far for elections I'd make up a chart of the issues I cared about. I'd then mark each candidates position on those issues and I voted for the candidate that came the closest to my position on the issues. I voted for Democrats, Libertarians, Reform Party candidates, and Republicans along with others. In the same election.
if there were 3, and 2 had similar views, they would simply cannibalize each others support and the other guy would win, regardless of your voting method, political parties, etc
Not if there were instant runoff voting like we had here for the first tyme a week ago. In voting a week ago we could vote for our first choice along with our second and third choices and so on.
We had that this year for the first tyme in the elections where I live. Voters choice their 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on choices. What I'd like to added is another choice, who you do not want to win. Then subtract that from the others. All this would be better than voting for the 'lesser of two evils'.
Slashdot Mirror
in response to a task being prohibited based on a user's current account not having a right to permit the task,
When I try something on my Mac that needs an admin to do but a regular user is logged in a window pops up asking for an admin's password that has the rights. If a password isn't typed in it won't do it. However the MS patent application says it presents "an account having a right to permit". My Mac doesn't do that though, so maybe it's novel enough.
Falcon
They're trying to patent what sudo does with a GUI interface.
Systems and/or methods are described that enable a user to elevate his or her rights. My 2 plus year old Mac did that when I got it. "Sudo was first conceived and implemented by Bob Coggeshall and Cliff Spencer around 1980 at the Department of Computer Science at SUNY/Buffalo."
Falcon
before we scrap software patents, we need to provide developers with an alternative.
There are alternatives such as trade secrets and first mover advantage. Actually by scrapping patents you may encourage innovation, if a business wants to it's market share then it will innovate. As it is patents may discourage innovation. Tell me, why should I spend millions of dollars to invent something if I can be slapped with a lawsuit claiming infringement? Because patents are issued companies have to horde them just to use for self protection. With a thousand patents if another business comes along and threatens a patent infringement lawsuit then one of those patents may save the business because of mutually assured destruction. This forces businesses to spend more on defense than on innovation.
Falcon
You do something by barring software patents, Once that's done listen to the economists who have studied patents and encourage innovation by ending patents.
Falcon
single national insurance market will do exactly what state markets have done: boil down to 2-3 players.
And where did I say a single insurance market? A actually part of the bill is that market, which is not free. What I did say is that I should be able to drive across a state line and buy insurance. There are 50 states with more state lines. My state has borders with more than 2 other states.
And *then*, one day, something big hits. Bad auto accident? Cancer? MS? Doesn't matter, but it requires a lot of care. Not just in one instance, over months. Maybe years. Maybe the rest of your life. And all of the sudden, you are suddenly a very different prospect than you were to the insurance company the day before. From here on out, you're a liability that has to be managed in some way.
And we don't have that now? We most certainly do. I am one of those you describe above. More than 10 years ago I was hit while riding my bike and I survived a disability, specifically a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI. After that I was refused insurance coverage. The only reason I have insurance now, after years of not having any, is because I am on Medicare.
maybe the insurance company isn't very cooperative: every claim gets challenged, some they may relent on, but some they find an excuse and won't budge.
Ever hear of courts and lawsuits? How about corporate charter revocation? All can be used to reign in corporations, if they are not reigned in it's only because voters let then get away with it.
In a free market, here's what you'll do: nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Oh really? What did you use to make your post? Without competition you wouldn't have such a powerful computer that you're using. Competition brought it to you. Why is it so hard to believe competition can't do the same with health care and insurance? Because it doesn't fit into the socialist ideology?
The rest continued the drivel.
Falcon
copyright doesn't protect against duplicating functionality - only copying the exact binaries/source code. If I want to write my own sudo replica, copyright doesn't stop me... but a patent would.
And that's one of the problems with patents. If I invent and design a car but someone else has already patented a car then I'm out of luck. It could operate entirely differently but too bad. Or take electricity, a capacitor or resister can be made in a number of ways but if the idea of a capacitor or resister is patentable then no matter how many ways there are to make one it's too bad, all of them but the ones invented by the patent holder infringe on the patent.
Ideas should not be patentable.
Falcon
Frankly, I prefer living in an industrialized country
So do I, I especially wouldn't want to spend thousands never mind millions of dollars to research something only to be slapped with a patent infringement lawsuit.
Every industrialized nation in the world has implemented a public-disclosure-in-exchange for-a-time-limited-monopoly system to specifically encourage innovation which trade secrets otherwise stifle.
Which copyrights do, no need for patents. As it is now a number of economic studies have concluded patents may stifle innovation. Study finds patent systems may discourage innovation. Patent systems may discourage innovation. Patents Don't Promote Innovation: Study.
Falcon
And, yes, I do realize Apple stole the GUI from Xerox...
On Xerox, Apple, and Progress. Fact is in return for Xerox allowing Steve Jobs and a development team to tour PARC Jobs allowed Xerox to invest in Apple by buying 100,000 shares of stock at $10 a share. Less than a year later that $1 million investment netted Xerox $17.6 million when Apple had it's IPO.
Falcon
Copyright protects a specific implementation of software.
And patents protect a specific implementation of a physical item not what it does.
Falcon
I don't condemn all software patents. Just because it's software doesn't mean that it can't be brilliant and stunningly innovative.
I do. Software is already protected, it's called copyright. Software does not need to be patented.
Falcon
Does that make nuclear powerplants unconstitutional?
No, the plants themselves aren't unconstitutional, there's nothing in it to make them so. However now that you brought it up and I'm thinking about it I personally consider the massive subsides unconstitutional. As I do most subsides, including those for Water, Wind, and Solar (WWS). I have repeatedly railed against all sorts of subsidies, they distort the markets. I would let them all compeat on equal footings, no government subsidies. It's pretty likely the subsidies the various energy sources get can put a dent in health care costs. Alone coal, nuclear power, and petroleum each get billions of dollars in subsidies. Biomass, fuel biofuels, get billions more.
Falcon
I've said as much myself.
http://perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html
This link does not say SCO showed code from System V they owned in Linux. One peace of code they showed is in the Berkeley Packet Filter which has a BSD license. Other code mentioned was copyrighted by ATT then released by Caldera, what SCO formerly was called, with a BSD license.
http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html
So far there's "This point is crucial to the reason that I initially came to the wrong conclusion. As it stands, the code is not System V code. In fact, as we'll see below, it is derived from System V in exactly the way I describe."..."SCO is incorrect in claiming that the code in question has been lifted from System V.4 without changes, but that doesn't change the fact that it obviously comes from System V.4."
The author, Greg Lehey, goes through SCO's claims and disputes each one. Now that's a short page so Greg Lehey probably didn't cover every SCO claim. So SCO may of disclosed some code, but do they step up to the light of day?
And that's disregarding the fact that Novell not SCO owns the System V code.
Falcon
This elaboration is useful, but still doesn't recognise the fundamental flaw in the argument. The idea that we have a choice between "forwards" and "backwards" on each issue doesn't recognise that there is more than one direction on some issues.
Oh, I agree. So do others. Many people think health care needs to be reformed but they disagree with how to reform it. Some want socialized, some want single payer, and others, including myself, want a freer if not a free market in health care and insurance.
For example, in the UK we currently have a government that is stripping away individual rights as quickly as it can.
Same here. Of course they, the politicians doing it, wrap it up in platitudes such as "protect the children".
*We do have something called the Bill of Rights, but it doesn't do what you think it does. Well, not a lot of it, anyway...
The Magna Carta. My memory is bad so I'd have to read it again to remind myself exactly what it does.
Falcon
Could you describe a system that counters illegal use of healthcare yet does not require constantly having id on you? I'm really interested, I can't see a solution for such a system.
Illegal use of healthcare? What's that? If you mean using health care without paying for it then immigrants don't have to enter into it at all. Not all citizens and legal residents have insurance either. I certainly didn't when I was hit while riding my bike. Despite not having any means to pay for my medical care I still was treated. My medical bills came to more than $120,000.
I was even flown by helicopter from the accident scene to the hospital. Of course being in a coma I didn't know this, I was told it.
I can't see a solution for such a system.
I don't know of a solution either, but I know I was supposedly born in and served in the armed forces of the land of the free not the land of mandates. A place where Don't Tread On Me and Give me Liberty, or give me Death! meant something.
Having said that I also believe a freer market in health care, medicine, and insurance will drive costs down.
Falcon
Anyway, you're strawmanning my argument. I did not say there was no government interference in the health marketplace
Right here you said "Part of the problem here is that U.S. public policy since Reagan is dominated by the mantra, 'The marketplace can handle the problem'" as if a free market was given a chance when it has not. You're the one using a straw man argument and when that doesn't work you switch tactics.
And forcing people to pay taxes on their workplace insurance benefits wouldn't change that.
Did I say that? Hell NO!!! I did not. I said I can not get the same deductions when I buy my own insurance as employers get for offering it to employees. Straw man.
If you force everybody to buy insurance,
And where does the Constitution of the USA give the federal government the power to mandate everyone pay for health insurance? Hint, it doesn't. "Health" is found nowhere in it. And using the "General Welfare" clause does not work as has been pointed out already.
Falcon
You still haven't objectively shown the bill is unconstitutional.
Nor do I have to. Quite simply neither health care nor insurance is mentioned anywhere in the USA Constitution.
Falcon
The Cato guys mention nothing of the ridiculous regulations that have been put on nuclear power over the years.
Ding dong. China, France, India, and Russia does not have those regulations but nuclear power is still not profitable in those countries. As TFA says government planners decide what's built in those countries no the market. But you ignored that just to push your agenda didn't you?
Falcon
The USA's founding fathers are hardly homogeneous bunch of people, which almost makes "what the founding fathers meant" almost a moot point, especially if you simply refer to one or two people.
For the moment, let's disregard that and have a look at your quotes.
No let's not disregard the Founding Fathers. If it wasn't for them you wouldn't be enjoying your life as it is. They fought an overbearing and tyrannical government and wanted to make sure the government of the new nation would not become overbearing and tyrannical itself. And that was a homogeneous desire. There's no way around it. If they didn't believe it the then they would not have fought for independence. Instead they would have joined the Loyalists.
What they fought for was not a moot point no matter what you think.
The spending and taxing clause, however, is a fairly specific clause, it states how the Congress may attain money, and for what reasons.
And where is health or medical care mentioned? Hint, nowhere. And as I already said you can't use "General Welfare" either. If you don't like it try to amend the Constitution. I bet you and those like you don't try because you fear the people will not consent to it. So instead you use back doors and "vague phrases", which when written had specific meanings.
Guess what Nanncy Pelosy said when asked "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?" Her answer was "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Just goes to show what she thinks of the USA Constitution. it's TP to her. And unlike you she never even mentions "General Welfare". I wonder why, perhaps because she knows it won't work.
But he is actually one of the people, which were for a more limiting meaning of the law. For a different point of view, may I refer to Alexander Hamilton
Yes let's look at what Hamilton said. His writings, including the Federalist Paper, showed he had a narrow view of the phrase General Welfare. In Federalist 83 he wrote "This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended." In the Federalist Paper 78 he writes "No legislative act ... contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." Of course Alexander Hamilton wasn't consistent in his approach to government. In the Federalist Papers and other early writings Hamilton advocates a small and limited federal government but once he became president he sought to expand his power.
Of course even if Hamilton had been for an expansive General Welfare clause all along that's still your one Founder pro expansive versus my two Founders pro limited government. As the page The General Welfare Clause: The Two Most Abused Words in the Constitution.
Falcon
Because the thread you responded to discussed the question of "what is open source" in reference to violations of the GPL. I assumed that in asking that question of who gets to define the term Open Source you were asking who gets to define the requirements regarding making your modifications to GPLed code be themselves open source.
In the post I asked if only the OSI can define open source I posted 4 links to definitions of open source. Of them only one mentions the GNU GPL. Another one mentions other open source licenses.
Since I posted that I've been thinking about how new rules or regulations were added to the books by the USDA to define what "organic" meant. The term organic has been used in the US since the 1970s to mean something specific and here was a government agency coming along 30 years later to define what it meant "legally". That upsetted a bunch of people.
If I was wrong in assuming that, I'm very sorry I wasted your time and mine.
I try, though not always successfully, to think that as long as something was learned it wasn't a compeat waste of tyme.
Falcon
Then it is certainly legal for them to do, and, consequently, nothing to blame telcos for...
So the 4th Amendment means nothing?
Falcon
Same as the old. What do you expect? Just as I feared Obama is turning out to be a bad choice. I am disgusted I voted for him.
Falcon
its always a choice between the guy who wants change to go a little faster and the guy who wants change to go a little slower
Not quite. Some people may want fast change on one issue but slow change on another. So far for elections I'd make up a chart of the issues I cared about. I'd then mark each candidates position on those issues and I voted for the candidate that came the closest to my position on the issues. I voted for Democrats, Libertarians, Reform Party candidates, and Republicans along with others. In the same election.
if there were 3, and 2 had similar views, they would simply cannibalize each others support and the other guy would win, regardless of your voting method, political parties, etc
Not if there were instant runoff voting like we had here for the first tyme a week ago. In voting a week ago we could vote for our first choice along with our second and third choices and so on.
Falcon
We had that this year for the first tyme in the elections where I live. Voters choice their 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on choices. What I'd like to added is another choice, who you do not want to win. Then subtract that from the others. All this would be better than voting for the 'lesser of two evils'.
Falcon
Now, using a two-axis chart, where the top of the chart means greater freedoms and private market
You mean like the World's Smallest Political Quiz?
Falcon
What happened to the 10th amendment and all the other restrictions on the fed's power?
It along with 9th amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were thrown out a long tyme ago.
Falcon