On the other hand, PEI had every right to pay a premium for those search results to pop up one of their own banners. (Provided they thought of doing it before someone else did.) But it doesn't appear that they exercised that right.
In this context, we have to understand that the search results and the resulting ads are two separate things...or at least should be. If the engine returns a hustler ad when someone types in playboy playmate, and *presents it as a search results*, then I think PEI has legitimate cause for complaint about consumer confusion in regards to trademark. If, however, relevant context results list PEI and their subsidiaries as primary hits (based on context) but clearly show a separate 'Ad' for hustler (because hustler bought the rights to have Excite show their ad when those keywords were searched on, then I don't see a case.
I think it would severely infringe on a 3rd party's (excite, google, etc) right to conduct business if the courts ruled that, by default, they couldn't show clearly labelled ads based on whatever trigger they choose.
Excite/google/yahoo etc. have a clearly illustrated business model, in that they return search results to a consumer for 'free', by selling ad space to companies in a targeted manner. That means a company can purchase the right to have their ad popup when a consumer enters a phrase that they (the advertiser) consider relevant to their product, and thus they can get their ad in front of a more likely potential customer.
I don't see how that is much different than, say, a beer company buying advertising time on the superbowl, when they know they can reach a significant percentage of their primary demographic.
I don't think Excite was doing anything that would materially hurt PEI, or cause any substantial confusion on the part of the consumer. The consumer knows that they put in, and if they are shown an ad above all the relevant search results, what of it? If they want playboy and not hustler, they aren't going to click on the ad. Or, at the most, they might compare the two. If they then choose hustler over playboy, well...then that's a product decision made by the consumer. In this context it sounds like PEI would want all competitors intentionally obscured by a search engine. They could *try* to do this, but it can and should cost them $$...in other words, pay the premium to have the search engine reserve keywords as triggers for their own ads. Sounds like a pretty solid business model (on all parts) to me.
The problem is that cost is not sent directly to the originator. Perhaps it's time to create legislation that confers civil and criminal penalties upon someone who uses an uninformed person's equipment as a relay for unsolicited commercial communications...say...$.03 per offense?
How long do you think it would take for not only OS/App vendors to lock their stuff down tighter than mother Theresa, but that someone (many someones) would come out with 'free' software for the average Joe to install on his computer to track and log spammers trying to send/use him as an open relay (letting said spammer do it for , oh, say...a few million emails first?)
How then does a black hole trap light? The article I read listed the massive gravity of the sun as the reason (being that as you approach the center of mass, the force exerted by gravity increases at an exponential rate..i.e. 1/r^2)
In fact, there was just recently an article on/. about researchers slowing a photon to an (almost?) standstill using lasers and such.
I'll admit I am not a physicist...but I am an amateur hobbyist.
I'd be far more concerned about the earth abruptly ceasing its spin. It wouldn't be the modest weight gain...it would be the fact that we would all suddenly be heading east at a pretty nasty velocity. I think even the airplanes in flight would be in for some nasty shock due to the turbulence created.
Still...a pretty cool question...
I remember reading somehwere that light from the actual center of the Sun takes (several)thousands of years to reach the surface of the Sun, the last few kilometers of which force it to undergo massive acceleration until it bursts forth at c.
..would this obviate the need for a Fed tap on VoIP, if they assumed everyone who opened the page was guilty?
(dons pointy tinfoil hat)
(realizes he donned said hat too late...and doffs it.)
I, for one, welcome our new VoIP overlords. ( I feel terrible about this...but I lost my train of thought...really...it has nothing to do with the jack-booted thugs at my door demanding I hand over my lapto......
Re:Look at it from the other way, though.
on
Feds Want to Tap VoIP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What do i expect authorities to do?
I expect them to execute their duties within, and constrained by, the charter I have given them as my *elected* officials...to wit: to protect *my* interests without infringing on my rights to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
This 'protect me at my own expense' crap simply does not fly with me.
Speaking of risk...if you want to see my real opinion on this, I updated my thoughts a couple of days ago at www.frennzy.net, which is my own website....no sponsors...no reg required...just my own thought process. It's crap...but it's MY crap.
Perhaps you should question your government's motives, instead of their methods.
We rarely had dinner at the 'table', and I'm a child of the 70's/80's. I liked it that way. Honestly, I love my mom, but I really don't care to spend that much time with my family anyway. We don't share the same interests. We bore each other to tears...really the only thing we have in common is genetics...and fondness for the occasional glass of whiskey.
The government already uses wireless links for data. Ever heard of satellite communications?
Back to the point, 802.11 networks are inherently insecure.
WEP is fairly trivial to crack for someone determined to break in. The problem lies in the init vector of the key, not the length of the key.
SSID 'hiding' achieves nothing...the first time your box associates or reassociates, a listener has your SSID.
WPA is not as secure as people think either, even with a PSK. This was covered on/. a week or so ago (or was that Ars?)
MAC filtering is beyond trivial...most NIC drivers nowdays allow you to set your MAC...which you could easily see on a target network while hunting.
You can make your home network more effort than it's worth to hijack...but for business use, make damned sure you want that traffic exposed...because you simply have to assume it will be. I wouldn't install wireless client access in a work environment without the use of VPN. I've heard some interesting theories about getting past even *that*, but I've never seen or heard a practical way to do it.
Unless and until I see some more thorough reviews of the newer 802.11 security standards (EAP and it's variants) I wouldn't implicitly trust them...however I do get the feeling they are going to be far more difficult to compromise.
As mentioned in a previous post, there are a number of problems with wireless that many people don't think about, especially in a corporate environment. One of the worst is the rogue AP. I've found no less than three unauthorized WAPs on networks I've run in the last three years. Each time it was a (l)user who brought it and just plugged it into their switch port so they could 'use their laptop'. Each time, the AP was completely wide open. So much for the quarter-million-dollar security infrastructure of firewall, VPN, IDS, etc. They might as well have run a wire outside the building and hooked up a PC with a sign that said 'Free Corporate Access!'
There is yet another problem with rogue access points. Someone who brings one into close proximity with your wireless users. Guess what information the blackhat can get in that scenario?
802.11g (54Mbit) is backwards compatible with 802.11b (11Mbit), since they both run in the same frequencies (2.4GHZ)(thus can use the same antenna/chipsets on the WAP). 802.11a (also 54Mbit) runs in the 5GHz range, requires different antenna and chipsets. There are some WAP's that include both antennas/chipsets, thus you could support a/b/g.
It is my understanding, however, that most b/g AP's will negotiate down to the least common denominator (all connections will drop to the speed of the slowest connection when multiple connections are present.) I haven't researched that, though, so googling would be appropriate.
Version 0.3.9 des RootFS verfugbar
What has been done? First, there are many changes in the LR101 Scripts; second, IP-Tables has been updated to 1.2.9 and a configuration interface, start it with command lrconfig , is available, now. DHCP has been tested, unfortunately PPPoE and PPtP not yet. If somebody could test this, please do so!... please set the DEBUG Level in/etc/LR101/ppp/options.pppox0 to 9 and send the log (/var/log/messages ) to support_at_linux-it-solutions.de. Thank you!
...but not rooted in any realistic expectation.
There are a number of things that could actually destroy the planet (well, make it much less spheroid and put it into a great many more number of pieces) such as catastrophic impact from a foreign body (large asteroid, rogue planet with a huge orbit that we haven't seen yet, etc), our sun going supernova, some unpredictable cosmic chain reaction which consumes all known matter, and what have you.
What can we do to stop those? Not a whole heck of a lot.
Short of something on that level, the planet has very little to fear from us. We could simultaneously detonate every nuclear weapon on earth, and the planet would continue serenely falling around the sun. I suppose one could argue we could *try* to alter its orbit, but that's just silly. The amount of energy required simply isn't controllable (if even available).
Now, if you're talking about saving the planet *as it is today*, then that's just silly as well. Complex climatic and biological systems simply aren't static. Stasis is death.
Humans are integrally intertwined with the earth's massive climatic and biological systems, and therfore will always contribute to changes (regardless of how minor or major). But these chagnes are, in fact, natural. To paraphrase George Carlin, "Save the earth? Gimme a fuckin break. The earth will be fine. Maybe we'll all get wiped out, but the earth ain't goin no where. Maybe we're all part of earth's master plan to acquire a little more plastic."
Great. Now some wise guy from king's college in Wilkes Barre is spoofing headers. I knew I shouldn't have said anything./. What a wonderful crowd. I do have full headers, and will be sending them to abuse@kings.edu
This brings to mind another thought, which I'm sure someone has already said. A lot of thought and effort goes into getting the spammers, but little goes into hammering the companies that use them. It may be hard to trace a spammer, but it's durned easy to track down a commercial website owner. The wording of the new law makes it look to me like the feds can go after the companies who are advertising product, not just the spammer.
While there are obviously ways to avoid prosecution as a commercial provider (move business offshore to non-recriprocal countries), it would at least reduce some of the mortgage/pills/jobsearch spams.
I just got a spam from BankOne. They claim it's because I 'opted-in', but I have had absolutely no dealings with them or any of their affiliates in over a year, and I *always* look for the opt-in/opt-out crap when registering an email online. Furthermore, this spam was the first to my private email, which I *never* use for registering with anyone. It's solely for personal communications with family and friends. Strangely, it had a weird variation of my name in the header, which has me wondering how they got it. (it's a variation I use on occasion to help track spam, but which I have never associated with that particular email address).
This still doesn't prevent the spam from sucking up your bandwidth. By the time the packets hit your firewall, *all your BW are belong to spammer.* It also eats cycles on your firewall. Both of these things still cost you money, and does not discourage them from continuing.
I knew I shouldn't have spent the extra money for the 'nice' pair of Revos.
Wait...I don't beleive in the science of this. Until we build a time machine, and go back and *accurately* measure with the same instruments, I'm going to believe that light levels remain constant, global warming causes cloud cooling, and Swamp coolers are better than AC, because they just sound cooler.
Good point...I was unaware of the commercial limitations.
It's too bad, really. Perhaps we could reclaim some spectrum from the vast swaths that are currently (and from what I hear, extremely inefficiently) being used by military?
It's a good point about not wanting to clutter ham BW with internet traffic, though. Spam alone would make it almost unusable, without some really tricky filtering going on at any IP-ham gateway.
Hmm...where did I put that IP-neutrino gateway...I know it's around here somewhere...man...I probably should have patented that thing...
Instead of hampering hams with BPL, why not encourage and support IPoHR (IP over ham radio?). I'd bet with enough tweaking, modulation schemes could provide fairly decent bandwidth to rural areas via ham, which could be wire-distibuted locally. Even better, get some folks to setup 'time share' systems.
Let's get the hams involved, and provide incentive to 'make it work', which they already have a history of doing. I'd betcha there is more than one ham-fisted-geek out there who wants to build a ham-IP gateway.
I recall reading something about this in the dim, dark, past...but I'm too lazy to google it.
Interesting, and well spoken. (wait, can I get a bad mod for courtesy here?) anyway...
I see what you are saying, but you still omit some facts. The fact is, it's trivial for someone with time and money (I'm talking a few days and a few thousand $$) to get a DDoS script engineered (or even reverse engineered, if need be) by the current community.
It doesn't take a mastermind, or a Moriarity. All it takes is Occam, and a very thin razor.
Again...ask yourself who has the most to gain if SCO is DDoS'd?
Now, take that statement, and boil it down from general to specific. Who, specifically, inside SCO could/would have done this? Who, specifically, outside SCO could/would have done this? Who, among them, had more to gain? Who, among them, had more to lose?
I posit (and I have been wrong before, and it certainly won't be the last time) that the particular *obvious* enemy of SCO had far less to gain, and far more to lose, if they were to do this type of attack. I further posit that SCO, with the skills of their employees, could easily have spoofed such an attack.
Combine both of those facts with the current legal climate surrounding SCO, and Occam's Razor Becomes pretty clear.
I'm am still not saying I'm right, I'm saying that, in my mind, the preponderance of evidence points against an actual orchestrated attack on sco.com from its purported 'enemies'
Slashdot Mirror
Rock gets flipped. Hundreds of cockroaches go scurrying out past the rover.
I'm vacillating on this.
On the one hand, you make some good points.
On the other hand, PEI had every right to pay a premium for those search results to pop up one of their own banners. (Provided they thought of doing it before someone else did.) But it doesn't appear that they exercised that right.
In this context, we have to understand that the search results and the resulting ads are two separate things...or at least should be. If the engine returns a hustler ad when someone types in playboy playmate, and *presents it as a search results*, then I think PEI has legitimate cause for complaint about consumer confusion in regards to trademark. If, however, relevant context results list PEI and their subsidiaries as primary hits (based on context) but clearly show a separate 'Ad' for hustler (because hustler bought the rights to have Excite show their ad when those keywords were searched on, then I don't see a case.
I think it would severely infringe on a 3rd party's (excite, google, etc) right to conduct business if the courts ruled that, by default, they couldn't show clearly labelled ads based on whatever trigger they choose.
Excite/google/yahoo etc. have a clearly illustrated business model, in that they return search results to a consumer for 'free', by selling ad space to companies in a targeted manner. That means a company can purchase the right to have their ad popup when a consumer enters a phrase that they (the advertiser) consider relevant to their product, and thus they can get their ad in front of a more likely potential customer.
I don't see how that is much different than, say, a beer company buying advertising time on the superbowl, when they know they can reach a significant percentage of their primary demographic.
I don't think Excite was doing anything that would materially hurt PEI, or cause any substantial confusion on the part of the consumer. The consumer knows that they put in, and if they are shown an ad above all the relevant search results, what of it? If they want playboy and not hustler, they aren't going to click on the ad. Or, at the most, they might compare the two. If they then choose hustler over playboy, well...then that's a product decision made by the consumer. In this context it sounds like PEI would want all competitors intentionally obscured by a search engine. They could *try* to do this, but it can and should cost them $$...in other words, pay the premium to have the search engine reserve keywords as triggers for their own ads. Sounds like a pretty solid business model (on all parts) to me.
You misspelled 'Re-education', comrade.
It already costs to money send spam.
The problem is that cost is not sent directly to the originator. Perhaps it's time to create legislation that confers civil and criminal penalties upon someone who uses an uninformed person's equipment as a relay for unsolicited commercial communications...say...$.03 per offense?
How long do you think it would take for not only OS/App vendors to lock their stuff down tighter than mother Theresa, but that someone (many someones) would come out with 'free' software for the average Joe to install on his computer to track and log spammers trying to send/use him as an open relay (letting said spammer do it for , oh, say...a few million emails first?)
How then does a black hole trap light? The article I read listed the massive gravity of the sun as the reason (being that as you approach the center of mass, the force exerted by gravity increases at an exponential rate..i.e. 1/r^2) In fact, there was just recently an article on /. about researchers slowing a photon to an (almost?) standstill using lasers and such.
I'll admit I am not a physicist...but I am an amateur hobbyist.
I'm probably one of those ignorant and arrogant folks too...and I have a stupid question:
If gravity exhibits the property of a wave, wouldn't we eventually observe a nodal point where it is cancelled out?
I'd be far more concerned about the earth abruptly ceasing its spin. It wouldn't be the modest weight gain...it would be the fact that we would all suddenly be heading east at a pretty nasty velocity. I think even the airplanes in flight would be in for some nasty shock due to the turbulence created.
Still...a pretty cool question...
I remember reading somehwere that light from the actual center of the Sun takes (several)thousands of years to reach the surface of the Sun, the last few kilometers of which force it to undergo massive acceleration until it bursts forth at c.
Anyone else remember this?
..would this obviate the need for a Fed tap on VoIP, if they assumed everyone who opened the page was guilty?
(dons pointy tinfoil hat)
(realizes he donned said hat too late...and doffs it.)
I, for one, welcome our new VoIP overlords. ( I feel terrible about this...but I lost my train of thought...really...it has nothing to do with the jack-booted thugs at my door demanding I hand over my lapto......
What do i expect authorities to do?
I expect them to execute their duties within, and constrained by, the charter I have given them as my *elected* officials...to wit: to protect *my* interests without infringing on my rights to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
This 'protect me at my own expense' crap simply does not fly with me.
Speaking of risk...if you want to see my real opinion on this, I updated my thoughts a couple of days ago at www.frennzy.net, which is my own website....no sponsors...no reg required...just my own thought process. It's crap...but it's MY crap.
Perhaps you should question your government's motives, instead of their methods.
Bravo. Well done. Constructive, fair, and well written. I'd mod you up if I had points.
We rarely had dinner at the 'table', and I'm a child of the 70's/80's. I liked it that way. Honestly, I love my mom, but I really don't care to spend that much time with my family anyway. We don't share the same interests. We bore each other to tears...really the only thing we have in common is genetics...and fondness for the occasional glass of whiskey.
The government already uses wireless links for data. Ever heard of satellite communications?
/. a week or so ago (or was that Ars?)
Back to the point, 802.11 networks are inherently insecure.
WEP is fairly trivial to crack for someone determined to break in. The problem lies in the init vector of the key, not the length of the key.
SSID 'hiding' achieves nothing...the first time your box associates or reassociates, a listener has your SSID.
WPA is not as secure as people think either, even with a PSK. This was covered on
MAC filtering is beyond trivial...most NIC drivers nowdays allow you to set your MAC...which you could easily see on a target network while hunting.
You can make your home network more effort than it's worth to hijack...but for business use, make damned sure you want that traffic exposed...because you simply have to assume it will be. I wouldn't install wireless client access in a work environment without the use of VPN. I've heard some interesting theories about getting past even *that*, but I've never seen or heard a practical way to do it.
Unless and until I see some more thorough reviews of the newer 802.11 security standards (EAP and it's variants) I wouldn't implicitly trust them...however I do get the feeling they are going to be far more difficult to compromise.
As mentioned in a previous post, there are a number of problems with wireless that many people don't think about, especially in a corporate environment. One of the worst is the rogue AP. I've found no less than three unauthorized WAPs on networks I've run in the last three years. Each time it was a (l)user who brought it and just plugged it into their switch port so they could 'use their laptop'. Each time, the AP was completely wide open. So much for the quarter-million-dollar security infrastructure of firewall, VPN, IDS, etc. They might as well have run a wire outside the building and hooked up a PC with a sign that said 'Free Corporate Access!'
There is yet another problem with rogue access points. Someone who brings one into close proximity with your wireless users. Guess what information the blackhat can get in that scenario?
(Martian with a shotgun:) "aluhgt!" (xlation: Pull!)
(a few minutes later, back in the UK,ESA launch director:) "Launch!"
(several days later, surface of Mars:) KA-BLAM! (xlation: KA-BLAM!)
(Beagle pieces gently drift down toward the Martian surface...)
You're slightly misinformed.
802.11g (54Mbit) is backwards compatible with 802.11b (11Mbit), since they both run in the same frequencies (2.4GHZ)(thus can use the same antenna/chipsets on the WAP). 802.11a (also 54Mbit) runs in the 5GHz range, requires different antenna and chipsets. There are some WAP's that include both antennas/chipsets, thus you could support a/b/g.
It is my understanding, however, that most b/g AP's will negotiate down to the least common denominator (all connections will drop to the speed of the slowest connection when multiple connections are present.) I haven't researched that, though, so googling would be appropriate.
From TFA:
... please set the DEBUG Level in /etc/LR101/ppp/options.pppox0 to 9 and send the log ( /var/log/messages ) to support_at_linux-it-solutions.de. Thank you!
Version 0.3.9 des RootFS verfugbar What has been done? First, there are many changes in the LR101 Scripts; second, IP-Tables has been updated to 1.2.9 and a configuration interface, start it with command lrconfig , is available, now. DHCP has been tested, unfortunately PPPoE and PPtP not yet. If somebody could test this, please do so!
...but not rooted in any realistic expectation. There are a number of things that could actually destroy the planet (well, make it much less spheroid and put it into a great many more number of pieces) such as catastrophic impact from a foreign body (large asteroid, rogue planet with a huge orbit that we haven't seen yet, etc), our sun going supernova, some unpredictable cosmic chain reaction which consumes all known matter, and what have you.
What can we do to stop those? Not a whole heck of a lot.
Short of something on that level, the planet has very little to fear from us. We could simultaneously detonate every nuclear weapon on earth, and the planet would continue serenely falling around the sun. I suppose one could argue we could *try* to alter its orbit, but that's just silly. The amount of energy required simply isn't controllable (if even available).
Now, if you're talking about saving the planet *as it is today*, then that's just silly as well. Complex climatic and biological systems simply aren't static. Stasis is death.
Humans are integrally intertwined with the earth's massive climatic and biological systems, and therfore will always contribute to changes (regardless of how minor or major). But these chagnes are, in fact, natural. To paraphrase George Carlin, "Save the earth? Gimme a fuckin break. The earth will be fine. Maybe we'll all get wiped out, but the earth ain't goin no where. Maybe we're all part of earth's master plan to acquire a little more plastic."
Great. Now some wise guy from king's college in Wilkes Barre is spoofing headers. I knew I shouldn't have said anything. /. What a wonderful crowd. I do have full headers, and will be sending them to abuse@kings.edu
I thought it was spelled 'biotch'. Move along, nothing to see here. Apologies. My bad. I take it back.
This brings to mind another thought, which I'm sure someone has already said. A lot of thought and effort goes into getting the spammers, but little goes into hammering the companies that use them. It may be hard to trace a spammer, but it's durned easy to track down a commercial website owner. The wording of the new law makes it look to me like the feds can go after the companies who are advertising product, not just the spammer.
While there are obviously ways to avoid prosecution as a commercial provider (move business offshore to non-recriprocal countries), it would at least reduce some of the mortgage/pills/jobsearch spams. I just got a spam from BankOne. They claim it's because I 'opted-in', but I have had absolutely no dealings with them or any of their affiliates in over a year, and I *always* look for the opt-in/opt-out crap when registering an email online. Furthermore, this spam was the first to my private email, which I *never* use for registering with anyone. It's solely for personal communications with family and friends. Strangely, it had a weird variation of my name in the header, which has me wondering how they got it. (it's a variation I use on occasion to help track spam, but which I have never associated with that particular email address).
This still doesn't prevent the spam from sucking up your bandwidth. By the time the packets hit your firewall, *all your BW are belong to spammer.* It also eats cycles on your firewall. Both of these things still cost you money, and does not discourage them from continuing.
I knew I shouldn't have spent the extra money for the 'nice' pair of Revos.
Wait...I don't beleive in the science of this. Until we build a time machine, and go back and *accurately* measure with the same instruments, I'm going to believe that light levels remain constant, global warming causes cloud cooling, and Swamp coolers are better than AC, because they just sound cooler.
Good point...I was unaware of the commercial limitations.
It's too bad, really. Perhaps we could reclaim some spectrum from the vast swaths that are currently (and from what I hear, extremely inefficiently) being used by military?
It's a good point about not wanting to clutter ham BW with internet traffic, though. Spam alone would make it almost unusable, without some really tricky filtering going on at any IP-ham gateway.
Hmm...where did I put that IP-neutrino gateway...I know it's around here somewhere...man...I probably should have patented that thing...
Instead of hampering hams with BPL, why not encourage and support IPoHR (IP over ham radio?). I'd bet with enough tweaking, modulation schemes could provide fairly decent bandwidth to rural areas via ham, which could be wire-distibuted locally. Even better, get some folks to setup 'time share' systems.
Let's get the hams involved, and provide incentive to 'make it work', which they already have a history of doing. I'd betcha there is more than one ham-fisted-geek out there who wants to build a ham-IP gateway.
I recall reading something about this in the dim, dark, past...but I'm too lazy to google it.
Interesting, and well spoken. (wait, can I get a bad mod for courtesy here?) anyway...
I see what you are saying, but you still omit some facts. The fact is, it's trivial for someone with time and money (I'm talking a few days and a few thousand $$) to get a DDoS script engineered (or even reverse engineered, if need be) by the current community.
It doesn't take a mastermind, or a Moriarity. All it takes is Occam, and a very thin razor.
Again...ask yourself who has the most to gain if SCO is DDoS'd?
Now, take that statement, and boil it down from general to specific. Who, specifically, inside SCO could/would have done this? Who, specifically, outside SCO could/would have done this? Who, among them, had more to gain? Who, among them, had more to lose?
I posit (and I have been wrong before, and it certainly won't be the last time) that the particular *obvious* enemy of SCO had far less to gain, and far more to lose, if they were to do this type of attack. I further posit that SCO, with the skills of their employees, could easily have spoofed such an attack.
Combine both of those facts with the current legal climate surrounding SCO, and Occam's Razor Becomes pretty clear.
I'm am still not saying I'm right, I'm saying that, in my mind, the preponderance of evidence points against an actual orchestrated attack on sco.com from its purported 'enemies'
Err...I'm from the US, and I stretch my plastic every holiday season.
Or at least my ability to pay it off..