> There is no other way for a person to make enough money doing photography full time without this business model.
I do not dispute that this business model works, but believing it is the obnly possible business model is at least extremely close minded.
The first rule if you want to stay in business is to keep your eyes and mind open and accomodate changes in the market. Exluding any other business model precludes that.
> To be fair, you still end up buying OSes while on the Apple way.
The argument was that you did not have a choice in buyign Windows, well, you do, even if it means comming with an entirely different computer.
The price is an obstacle for many, but it is not like there is no choice, and its also not like Apple's stuff doesn't work.
So no, his line is entirely wrong. It would be correct to say that the large majority of people does not realize they have a choice.
> People don't have a say in data formats, the companies do. Companies that have a vested interest in making it difficult for you to switch to a competitor's program. If they can lock you in, they think they can get untold software upgrade charges out of you.
I am completely aware why software providers want those data formats, I have been workign in the software industry for soem 15 years now, and really, I do know why they do it. My comment however had nothign whatsoever to do with why makers of software woudl do this, but with WHY THE CUSTOMER ACCEPTS IT.
You have no say in that? I call bullshit. You tell MS that unless they use competely documented and freely implementable file formats, you won't use their software, and go use OOo instead.
Now, it may make little of a difference when you do that alone, but if everyone who has the theoretical capability to understand why it is a bad idea to USE such formats as a customer would do the same, I am pretty sure MS will care (replace MS with any other company that has similar practises btw)
You can ignore the alternatives and keep screaming there is no alternative... or you go use the alternative and stop screaming..
Which solution do you think gets you more of a result?
> Now imagine Microsoft adopting a policy of releasing patches on a known day of the month. Imagine coming up with a corporate plan to handle those patches on a predetermined schedule.
> You decide which is better.
That depends on your goal..
If yoru goal is to get as many patches installed in as little time as possible, the planning oppertunities that MS gives are very nice..
When you are just interested in keeping your machines secure, and somehow you must run windows on them, then this policy is simply unusable since it will leave a much larger timeframe for exploitation.
Your boss may be interested in statistics when thigns work, but will still get pissed off about that one major security compromise regardless of those statistics.
> The mass market must buy an OS, and that OS must be Windows. To dispute this is to cast your lot with the flat-Earthers.
And you call the parent naive?
I suggest you go look for a company called Apple. You may not have heard of them, but they sell computers with operating system on the mass market, and reportedly, they turn a proffit and have happy users (oh, and they were already doing that when MS had to buy its first OS still.
Alsom at some point in history, a company called Word Perfect made a word processor by the same name.. it ended up havin such a market share that it was unthinkable that anyone would ever take over... yet it did take MS a few years at best to completely change the landscape.. such changes are very possible, and provided the established provider messes up badly enough (MS seems rather capable of that) and a viable alternative does exist, there is no reason why it wouldn't happen again.
Cost of migration you say?? If cost of migration was an argument in anything, people would have dropped proprietary data formats a long time ago.
> this box is a p3 500 with 375 megs of ram. it IS insane use of memory.
As someone else pointed out in this thread, it is not insane, and depends almost entirely on how much memory you have installed.
Have you for example ever tried what happens when you remove 128mb memory? or add 128mb? Chances are it will run just as smoothly with 256mb, and maybe even less.
Now, try to get XP to boot with less then 256MB, let alone running any application whatsoever.
> linux can run on a decade-old computer in shell mode no problem, but don't even think of running X on it (i tried, it "run" but, like running windows xp on a 486, you won't do much with it
And that is complete and utter rubbish, sorry.
First of all, windows versions starting with win2k simply do not support the 486, and actually support nothing lower then a 686 class cpu (pentium-pro and up), so no, you can't even try booting it on such hardware.
Next, people are running Linux + X on 486 and early pentium class machines. It does require having enough memory, sure, but depending on what you are doing, enough can be anywhere between 32mb and 2gb on such hardware. For running X + firefox you will definitely get away with 128mb, 256 will really make things go tho. Why? because of the caching it allows.
I do use a only slightly more recent machine myself as I already pointed out, and I do run X on it (you can read, can't you?). I don't know which percentage of memory Firefox uses on that machine, but I do know that it is never ever swapping, and feels more then snappy enough to use for browsing. I don't run a java vm on that machine tho, that is the one way in which to get that machine to swap like hell if I want it together with X.
Anyway, the p200 is mostly used as a browser and an X terminal. When running non browser and non multi media stuff (ie: OOo) it runs on a server, which is doing that job for upto 4 concurrent users currently. Machine is a dual cpu pII 333 with 512mb memory. Despite the fact that this machine runs upto 4x OOo, 3 virtual machines with apache2 with php, a mysql server, squid and some mail related stuff, this machine is still never ever swapping.
Ah well, all you seem to be able to convince me of is that you have little clue what the numbers mean that you are seeing.
Sadly enough, this is exactly why the old 'windows' way of just saying x% of the resources are in use makes sense, it is perfect for people who are clueless as to how to interpret actual information, and/or clueless about the workings of an operating system.
For example: > now that's some of the lowest numbers i've ever seen. it isn't rare the X process is around 40-50% along with firefox. that doesn't leave much for the rest of my applications to run, especially since the X process can't be swapped out (always being used).
First of all, the fact that the X server is always used doesn't mean that all memory it may have allocated for a zillion different reasons is always being used and can't be swapped. The days where Unix like systems would swap entire processes only are long gone, and Linux is able to *gasp* do what for example Windows can do as well.. swap memory in/out by memory page (4k for traditional x86 systems, tho nowadays pagesize can be set to different values depending on requirements).
It does so depending on a few conditions, one of which is if the memory has been used recently or is likely to be referenced in the very near future . How busy or not the process is that its part of however plays no direct role in this.
You may also find that when starting a new application, the OS can all of a sudden find available memory by dumping some cached data, and unmapping some not recently used files from memory.
As said before by someone else, Linux (and the same applies to for example FreeBSD) tries to make optimal use of available memory instead of trying to keep as much of it free as possible.
So do yourself a favor, and learn what the numbers mean and how the underlying system works before even trying to make sense of them.
> Prudent people might be willing to risk blowing up their pre-release browser for functionality and security, while not be willing to risk blowing up their entire OS with a pre-release patch just to get their browser updated.
Prudent people would eb runnign a stable enough OS that isn't so insanely and cluelessly integrated.
I upgraded my FreeBSD workstation and server last night. Including recompiling the entire operating system and 2 kernels, that took less then 2 hours. I was quite able to do it in such a way that the upgrade was tested, and that a complete rollback woudl be possibe till the very last moment (and is still pssoible now untill I tell the system to throw away the data needed for it)
OS ipgrades that FIX things instead of introiducing tons of new stuff should never ever cause such problems as you are scared of. WHen they do, it points at one of the following:
- the underlying design was so horribly flawed that it was impossible to fix it without breakign the system - the upgrade installs new functionality that interfers with your installed software - the upgrade is broken
Only the first one is not always preventable, but should be very easy to document, the peopel creatign the upgrade KNOW they are changing the design or interface instead of fixing something so it behaves as designed.
I know that what you say is reality when using Windows, but why not try to get to a technically correct conclusion? All you do now is accepting the BS that is being thrown at you since people who do care happened to provide a workaround for the problem instead of actually fixing the problem. Result? you will run into the problem again within some time. Unless you are extremely short sighted, it is very easy to see which costs the most.
> though linux (the whole deal, whichever distro you use, not just the kernel) in general tend to consume insane amounts of ram, firefox/mozilla is the worst so far
Then explain to me how my old p200mmx with 96MB memory runs Linux (slackware with a 2.6 kernel) + X + Windowmaker + Firefox while anywhere recent windows versions (2000, XP) do not even boot on it (don't support the CPU, too little memory)
You, like many out there, are seeing the effects of KDE 3.x and think it is a Linux problem.. well, simple solution, don't install KDE 3 if you don't have the hardware for it.
On Linux that is actually an option you know... you have choice in such things, and can 'tune down' a configuration to fit well within the limits of your hardware, even when that is hardware from more then half a decade ago.
Yep, and yet you want to be as 'loud' as possible.. FM radio was a lot of fun to do:)
I have operated it quite a bit without limiter but with taking lots of care with regards to modulation.. but thats not something you can do very well in the middle of makign a program:)
Don't try this without some limiter (a role taken by the pre-amp in aguitar amp normally), the difference between touching that guitar string and the vibrating of it is rather huge, and you have a decent chance of turning the voice coils of your speakers into missiles or not getting any sound from the vibration of the string.
I have used this a few times when lackign any form of guitar amp, and with help of some generic effects equipment its quite possible to vreate a managable sound.
I'm pretty sure the 24bit 96k samples/sec a/d conversion and processing works very well for the sound thats just comming from my nice capacitor mic Its only used for 'acoustic simulations' tho, the 'main' sound path is analog from mic to speaker here..
No, they better reproduce the sound of the amplifiers used at the live event. Optionally, you can also add artificial ambience to the sound, tho it is still far from perfect..
Heh.. we are currently renovating my girlfriends house, and I'm strongly considering putting in 12V DC (well, actually 13.5 - 13.8V) outlets in part of the house.. mostly for runnign soem tools like a small soldering iron and drill and such, but ideal also for my radio transmitter:)
> This trend really only came to light in the 90s, particularly the mid- to late-90s. Compression is used to squeeze all the dynamics out of the music in order to make it sound "louder" than the other songs on the radio. It's different from just loud rock instruments. This has to do with the wretched trend of signal compression.
I ran a local radio station in the mid 80s and we used to run everything through an expander/limiter combination for compression. Not to make things sound louder, but to achieve 2 things: - let non techies operate the mixer in their own program if they want to - ensure people don't have to turn up/down the volume all the time.
Of course that was a radio station doing it, not the recordings already beign made that way.. on the other hand, I have no doubt that similar hardware was used for recording back then.
> After that, it's been downhill really. I haven't really been involved in the RISC OS field since 1997, so I'm not the sort of person to ask about RISC OS after that.
> The ARM1 was available as an add-on for Acorn's old BBC series computers. By the time the first Archimedes shipped (The A305 in 1987 IIRC), it used the ARM2.
Ah:) Hmm.. Archimedes' history has always escaped me.. tho I have played with the machines a few times when they first appeared..
Acorn made some pretty unusual machines in general.. Happen to have a working Electron here still (with joystick, tape and floppy interfaces.. but no floppy drive)
Which is why I have a simple phone that can make calls, has grps support and links to my PDA with bluetooth.. For the rest it doesn't have games, web clients or a way to install software on it (other then updates to the flash rom).. It doesn't have a color screen either.. its simple and it just works. (oh, and it does have a calendar and a mail client, but those are too bothersome to use anyway when you have a better alternative..
Any client software for data communications runs on my PDA which I also use for SMS and as a phonebook and such..
Another nice thing is that I can upgrade my PDA without consequences for my phone, and I can still use my phone after having drained the batteries of my pda by watching a movie on it or such;P
Phone has been an Ericsson T39m for a few years now, and seeing how I have some spare batteries for it still it will likely last another few years.. PDA is currently a Palm T3
The initial software for the T39m had a few bugs with regards to memory management, those have been solved by a flash update for a long time tho, and the phone never crashed or gave up unexpectedly since.
> Following on from her success with BBC Basic, Sophie Wilson was asked to help with the instruction set, testing it by hand, on paper.
Heh... BBC basic....
Amazingly fast... too bad it also didn't do any garbage collection or freeing of memory of no longer used variables and such... I recall wondering for a while how they got it as fast as they did.. untill I got my hands on the basic roms.
For that matter.. the ARM was first used in the Acorn Archimedes wasn't it?
> but does anybody know the names of ARM's competitors?
Nowadays mostly Hitachi, and in elder days, MIPS. Theres some overlap to Transmeta also in the market for handheld devices if I go by Transmeta's story, but I never encountered them as such in the marketplace.
> If I had any mod points I would mod this (Score:-1, Dumbest Fucking Idea I've Ever Read). But I don't so I won't.
In order to obtain and use mod points, you must be logged on as a user.
I'm seriously saddened that you did not logon as user and used possible mod points you might have had, your contribution to the discussion would have been even more valuable!
Slashdot Mirror
> There is no other way for a person to make enough money doing photography full time without this business model.
I do not dispute that this business model works, but believing it is the obnly possible business model is at least extremely close minded.
The first rule if you want to stay in business is to keep your eyes and mind open and accomodate changes in the market. Exluding any other business model precludes that.
vsz 56908K rss 47772K here.. and?
> To be fair, you still end up buying OSes while on the Apple way.
The argument was that you did not have a choice in buyign Windows, well, you do, even if it means comming with an entirely different computer.
The price is an obstacle for many, but it is not like there is no choice, and its also not like Apple's stuff doesn't work.
So no, his line is entirely wrong. It would be correct to say that the large majority of people does not realize they have a choice.
> People don't have a say in data formats, the companies do. Companies that have a vested interest in making it difficult for you to switch to a competitor's program. If they can lock you in, they think they can get untold software upgrade charges out of you.
I am completely aware why software providers want those data formats, I have been workign in the software industry for soem 15 years now, and really, I do know why they do it. My comment however had nothign whatsoever to do with why makers of software woudl do this, but with WHY THE CUSTOMER ACCEPTS IT.
You have no say in that? I call bullshit.
You tell MS that unless they use competely documented and freely implementable file formats, you won't use their software, and go use OOo instead.
Now, it may make little of a difference when you do that alone, but if everyone who has the theoretical capability to understand why it is a bad idea to USE such formats as a customer would do the same, I am pretty sure MS will care (replace MS with any other company that has similar practises btw)
You can ignore the alternatives and keep screaming there is no alternative... or you go use the alternative and stop screaming..
Which solution do you think gets you more of a result?
> Now imagine Microsoft adopting a policy of releasing patches on a known day of the month. Imagine coming up with a corporate plan to handle those patches on a predetermined schedule.
> You decide which is better.
That depends on your goal..
If yoru goal is to get as many patches installed in as little time as possible, the planning oppertunities that MS gives are very nice..
When you are just interested in keeping your machines secure, and somehow you must run windows on them, then this policy is simply unusable since it will leave a much larger timeframe for exploitation.
Your boss may be interested in statistics when thigns work, but will still get pissed off about that one major security compromise regardless of those statistics.
> The mass market must buy an OS, and that OS must be Windows. To dispute this is to cast your lot with the flat-Earthers.
And you call the parent naive?
I suggest you go look for a company called Apple. You may not have heard of them, but they sell computers with operating system on the mass market, and reportedly, they turn a proffit and have happy users (oh, and they were already doing that when MS had to buy its first OS still.
Alsom at some point in history, a company called Word Perfect made a word processor by the same name.. it ended up havin such a market share that it was unthinkable that anyone would ever take over... yet it did take MS a few years at best to completely change the landscape.. such changes are very possible, and provided the established provider messes up badly enough (MS seems rather capable of that) and a viable alternative does exist, there is no reason why it wouldn't happen again.
Cost of migration you say??
If cost of migration was an argument in anything, people would have dropped proprietary data formats a long time ago.
> this box is a p3 500 with 375 megs of ram. it IS insane use of memory.
As someone else pointed out in this thread, it is not insane, and depends almost entirely on how much memory you have installed.
Have you for example ever tried what happens when you remove 128mb memory? or add 128mb?
Chances are it will run just as smoothly with 256mb, and maybe even less.
Now, try to get XP to boot with less then 256MB, let alone running any application whatsoever.
> linux can run on a decade-old computer in shell mode no problem, but don't even think of running X on it (i tried, it "run" but, like running windows xp on a 486, you won't do much with it
And that is complete and utter rubbish, sorry.
First of all, windows versions starting with win2k simply do not support the 486, and actually support nothing lower then a 686 class cpu (pentium-pro and up), so no, you can't even try booting it on such hardware.
Next, people are running Linux + X on 486 and early pentium class machines. It does require having enough memory, sure, but depending on what you are doing, enough can be anywhere between 32mb and 2gb on such hardware. For running X + firefox you will definitely get away with 128mb, 256 will really make things go tho. Why? because of the caching it allows.
I do use a only slightly more recent machine myself as I already pointed out, and I do run X on it (you can read, can't you?). I don't know which percentage of memory Firefox uses on that machine, but I do know that it is never ever swapping, and feels more then snappy enough to use for browsing. I don't run a java vm on that machine tho, that is the one way in which to get that machine to swap like hell if I want it together with X.
Anyway, the p200 is mostly used as a browser and an X terminal. When running non browser and non multi media stuff (ie: OOo) it runs on a server, which is doing that job for upto 4 concurrent users currently. Machine is a dual cpu pII 333 with 512mb memory. Despite the fact that this machine runs upto 4x OOo, 3 virtual machines with apache2 with php, a mysql server, squid and some mail related stuff, this machine is still never ever swapping.
Ah well, all you seem to be able to convince me of is that you have little clue what the numbers mean that you are seeing.
Sadly enough, this is exactly why the old 'windows' way of just saying x% of the resources are in use makes sense, it is perfect for people who are clueless as to how to interpret actual information, and/or clueless about the workings of an operating system.
For example:
> now that's some of the lowest numbers i've ever seen. it isn't rare the X process is around 40-50% along with firefox. that doesn't leave much for the rest of my applications to run, especially since the X process can't be swapped out (always being used).
First of all, the fact that the X server is always used doesn't mean that all memory it may have allocated for a zillion different reasons is always being used and can't be swapped.
The days where Unix like systems would swap entire processes only are long gone, and Linux is able to *gasp* do what for example Windows can do as well.. swap memory in/out by memory page (4k for traditional x86 systems, tho nowadays pagesize can be set to different values depending on requirements).
It does so depending on a few conditions, one of which is if the memory has been used recently or is likely to be referenced in the very near future . How busy or not the process is that its part of however plays no direct role in this.
You may also find that when starting a new application, the OS can all of a sudden find available memory by dumping some cached data, and unmapping some not recently used files from memory.
As said before by someone else, Linux (and the same applies to for example FreeBSD) tries to make optimal use of available memory instead of trying to keep as much of it free as possible.
So do yourself a favor, and learn what the numbers mean and how the underlying system works before even trying to make sense of them.
> Prudent people might be willing to risk blowing up their pre-release browser for functionality and security, while not be willing to risk blowing up their entire OS with a pre-release patch just to get their browser updated.
Prudent people would eb runnign a stable enough OS that isn't so insanely and cluelessly integrated.
I upgraded my FreeBSD workstation and server last night. Including recompiling the entire operating system and 2 kernels, that took less then 2 hours.
I was quite able to do it in such a way that the upgrade was tested, and that a complete rollback woudl be possibe till the very last moment (and is still pssoible now untill I tell the system to throw away the data needed for it)
OS ipgrades that FIX things instead of introiducing tons of new stuff should never ever cause such problems as you are scared of. WHen they do, it points at one of the following:
- the underlying design was so horribly flawed that it was impossible to fix it without breakign the system
- the upgrade installs new functionality that interfers with your installed software
- the upgrade is broken
Only the first one is not always preventable, but should be very easy to document, the peopel creatign the upgrade KNOW they are changing the design or interface instead of fixing something so it behaves as designed.
I know that what you say is reality when using Windows, but why not try to get to a technically correct conclusion? All you do now is accepting the BS that is being thrown at you since people who do care happened to provide a workaround for the problem instead of actually fixing the problem. Result? you will run into the problem again within some time. Unless you are extremely short sighted, it is very easy to see which costs the most.
> though linux (the whole deal, whichever distro you use, not just the kernel) in general tend to consume insane amounts of ram, firefox/mozilla is the worst so far
Then explain to me how my old p200mmx with 96MB memory runs Linux (slackware with a 2.6 kernel) + X + Windowmaker + Firefox while anywhere recent windows versions (2000, XP) do not even boot on it (don't support the CPU, too little memory)
You, like many out there, are seeing the effects of KDE 3.x and think it is a Linux problem.. well, simple solution, don't install KDE 3 if you don't have the hardware for it.
On Linux that is actually an option you know... you have choice in such things, and can 'tune down' a configuration to fit well within the limits of your hardware, even when that is hardware from more then half a decade ago.
Heh, just like it seems to think mine is runnign Apache 1.. which hasn't been true for some 1 1/2 years at least...
Yep, and yet you want to be as 'loud' as possible.. FM radio was a lot of fun to do :)
:)
I have operated it quite a bit without limiter but with taking lots of care with regards to modulation.. but thats not something you can do very well in the middle of makign a program
Hmm, I bet that mixer had valve pre-amps tho..
Don't try this without some limiter (a role taken by the pre-amp in aguitar amp normally), the difference between touching that guitar string and the vibrating of it is rather huge, and you have a decent chance of turning the voice coils of your speakers into missiles or not getting any sound from the vibration of the string.
I have used this a few times when lackign any form of guitar amp, and with help of some generic effects equipment its quite possible to vreate a managable sound.
I'm pretty sure the 24bit 96k samples/sec a/d conversion and processing works very well for the sound thats just comming from my nice capacitor mic
Its only used for 'acoustic simulations' tho, the 'main' sound path is analog from mic to speaker here..
It all depends on what you are doing..
No, they better reproduce the sound of the amplifiers used at the live event. Optionally, you can also add artificial ambience to the sound, tho it is still far from perfect..
Heh.. we are currently renovating my girlfriends house, and I'm strongly considering putting in 12V DC (well, actually 13.5 - 13.8V) outlets in part of the house.. mostly for runnign soem tools like a small soldering iron and drill and such, but ideal also for my radio transmitter :)
> This trend really only came to light in the 90s, particularly the mid- to late-90s. Compression is used to squeeze all the dynamics out of the music in order to make it sound "louder" than the other songs on the radio. It's different from just loud rock instruments. This has to do with the wretched trend of signal compression.
I ran a local radio station in the mid 80s and we used to run everything through an expander/limiter combination for compression. Not to make things sound louder, but to achieve 2 things:
- let non techies operate the mixer in their own program if they want to
- ensure people don't have to turn up/down the volume all the time.
Of course that was a radio station doing it, not the recordings already beign made that way.. on the other hand, I have no doubt that similar hardware was used for recording back then.
> After that, it's been downhill really. I haven't really been involved in the RISC OS field since 1997, so I'm not the sort of person to ask about RISC OS after that.
:)
Well, thanks for this bit
> The ARM1 was available as an add-on for Acorn's old BBC series computers. By the time the first Archimedes shipped (The A305 in 1987 IIRC), it used the ARM2.
:)
Ah
Hmm.. Archimedes' history has always escaped me.. tho I have played with the machines a few times when they first appeared..
Acorn made some pretty unusual machines in general.. Happen to have a working Electron here still (with joystick, tape and floppy interfaces.. but no floppy drive)
Which is why I have a simple phone that can make calls, has grps support and links to my PDA with bluetooth.. For the rest it doesn't have games, web clients or a way to install software on it (other then updates to the flash rom).. It doesn't have a color screen either.. its simple and it just works. (oh, and it does have a calendar and a mail client, but those are too bothersome to use anyway when you have a better alternative..
;P
Any client software for data communications runs on my PDA which I also use for SMS and as a phonebook and such..
Another nice thing is that I can upgrade my PDA without consequences for my phone, and I can still use my phone after having drained the batteries of my pda by watching a movie on it or such
Phone has been an Ericsson T39m for a few years now, and seeing how I have some spare batteries for it still it will likely last another few years.. PDA is currently a Palm T3
The initial software for the T39m had a few bugs with regards to memory management, those have been solved by a flash update for a long time tho, and the phone never crashed or gave up unexpectedly since.
I can't say the same of the PDA however..
1. Archimedes
2. Bankrupsy
3. ???
4. Proffit!
> Following on from her success with BBC Basic, Sophie Wilson was asked to help with the instruction set, testing it by hand, on paper.
Heh... BBC basic....
Amazingly fast... too bad it also didn't do any garbage collection or freeing of memory of no longer used variables and such... I recall wondering for a while how they got it as fast as they did.. untill I got my hands on the basic roms.
For that matter.. the ARM was first used in the Acorn Archimedes wasn't it?
> but does anybody know the names of ARM's competitors?
Nowadays mostly Hitachi, and in elder days, MIPS.
Theres some overlap to Transmeta also in the market for handheld devices if I go by Transmeta's story, but I never encountered them as such in the marketplace.
> If I had any mod points I would mod this (Score:-1, Dumbest Fucking Idea I've Ever Read). But I don't so I won't.
In order to obtain and use mod points, you must be logged on as a user.
I'm seriously saddened that you did not logon as user and used possible mod points you might have had, your contribution to the discussion would have been even more valuable!
One should never tax the emans to get rich but the fruits of those.
While income tax feels bad, it seems the least unfair of the possible solutions.
> Is there a better way than GIFs to show these animations on the web?
:P
Not when you want to support virtually all browsers
> You are saying that advertisements is a legitimate practical use?
Yes, that is indeed what I am saying.
We can argue a lot about improper advertisement and such, but meanwhile advertisements are paying for the fact that we can discuss here at all.
So no, I didn't ignore your question I think.