We think we can do whole missions for less than $10 million instead of the traditional $100s of millions, and that includes the launch vehicle, the satellite, and the widget you want to test.
Am I the only one who misread this as "and the midget you want to test" ?
The Singularity is a term coined by futurists to describe that point in time when technological progress has so transformed society that predictions made in the present day, already a hit-and-miss affair, are likely to be very, very wide of the mark.
"A planet is an object that is massive enough to become spherical under its own gravity, yet not big enough to produce nuclear fusion in its core."
Sure it would make a few hundred objects in our own solar systems be planets, but so what ? Who's afraid of big numbers ? Is it that it would be a problem to keep up making new schoolbooks ? Just list the first 9 discovered planets and be done, who exactly expects anybody to learn entire catalogs of celestial objects and for what purpose anyway ? Use the opportunity to introduce the problem of classification of objects and you've got a good way of jumping into a description of various kinds of stary objects.
By a funny coincidence, I received my Icuity M920-Video monocular today, it's supposed to be giving you a 17" screen size 11 feet away.
I like it a lot, but the whole 'equivalent to N inches X feet away' is a bit misleading... Sure, if you compare sizes directly to a physical device, you'll get that size, but when you use it, it actually looks like what it is, a tiny screen looked at up close (although of course you're not focusing just a few inches away, that'd be quite unusable).
If you have a use for this kind of devices, then by all means, get one, you will not be disapointed, but if you're hoping to replace your laptop screen with it, think again, I'd watch a movie on my laptop over one with the eyewear anytime.
This being said, monocular and binoculars are quite different things, and it's probably easier to watch a movie on a binocular simply because your entire field of vision is taken by the image, rather than shared between it and the real world (which is what I needed), so perhaps this thing works great. On the other hand, if I'm going to sit down anyway, I'll use my laptop, that'll give me great picture quality and I wont be oblivious to what's happening around me. The concept of using a device that forces you to remain stationary and blocks your entire field of vision, along with a cell phone seems a bit silly to me.
lone.
I didn't really want to post anything about it so soon, given that it's not quite ready for prime time (ie, lack of documentation among other things), but XPP might be of interest to some of you. It does some of what this guys proposes, although it's not quite a "next generation programming language", more like a pre-processor on top of C++. It allows you to use external XML templates (to describe automatically written pieces of code based on the rest of your program) and inline XML comments in the cpp source (to perform higher level macros, like, for instance, calls that morph depending on the rest of the code).
It's been used in a pretty big project from a well known company we all like to hate, though unfortunately the project itself has been cancelled. Hopefully it does mean that it's useable and could be useful to others as well. I had been waiting on a rework of the site w/documentation before drawing any more attention to it, but given this article, this is as good a time as any.
Problem though is that when the real world does not match the simulation model, then the theories don't work in the real world.
Indeed. Just for kicks, here's a description of the simulation they use (from the paper here, emphasis mine):
The Simulation We implemented the methods described in the next section in NetLogo [12], a multi-agent modelling environment. We extended the "Gridlock" model [13] which is included in the NetLogo distribution. It consists of an abstract trac grid with intersections between cyclic single-lane arteries of two types: vertical or horizontal. In the first series of experiments, cars only flow in a straight line, either eastbound or southbound. Each crossroad has trac lights which allow trac flow in only one of the arteries which intersect it with a green light. Yellow or red lights stop the trac. The light sequence for a given artery is green-yellow-red-green. Cars simply try to go at a maximum speed of 1 "patch" per timestep, but stop when a car or a red or yellow light is in front of them. Time is discrete, but not space. A "patch" is the size of a car. A screenshot of the environment can be seen in Figure 1. The reader is invired to test the simulation (source code included), with the aid of a Java-enabled Internet browser, at the URL http://homepages.vub.ac.be/cgershen/sos/SOTL/SOTL. html. The user can change dierent parameters, such as the number of arteries or number of cars. Dierent statistics are presented: the number of stopped cars, the average speed of cars, and the average waiting times of cars.
You seem to be under the impression that city engineers (and their political bosses) would implement this if they thought it worked
Yes, from experience I can tell you that these people do not like traffic congestions and go to great length to reduce them, regardless of what any individual driver may think when he's sitting in his car and goes through a "red wave" (a set of consecutive road lights designed specifically to reduce speed [that may just be a french term tho]). Slower traffic here may mean smoother traffic there.
Of course that only applies to the people I've worked with, so granted, I'm generalizing.
It's nice to see a traffic signal enhancement that will actually make driving more efficient and direct rather than the opposite.
Traffic calming is often designed to make the traffic more efficient. It's not because the traffic one one road or another is faster that the traffic as a whole is more efficient. You have to take into account the impact of increasing the average driver's speed of one particular road on the other roads to which it is connected, and to which these roads are connected, and so forth. Calming traffic here often means smoother traffic there.
I guess it all comes down to what efficient means, but I suspect it's not the same thing for the driver and for the road staff:)
His simulations show that such adaptive traffic control is 30% more efficient than traditional ways of regulating traffic. However, his system has not been adopted by any large city
I'll guess that the reason why is because a simulation shows this, not a real test. Traffic simulation has been a topic of much research, but as far as I'm aware, little convincing results have emerged... Simulations based on liquid flow do not work (they do not give anything like an average traffic), and those based on drivers modelization (ie, x % of 'aggressive drivers', y % of 'sloppy drivers', z % of 'careful drivers' etc) become incresingly complex and demanding with the scale of the simulation... I'm not aware of anything practical ever done with these (feel free to correct me).
In any case, if his adaptive system does work, it's a breakthrough. I've worked a few years back with people in charge of traffic and roads around Paris, and from what I've been told, nothing like this has ever worked better than static programming (with the exception of multiple programmings for different time of the day). From what I remember, even getting such programming right demands extremely experienced people. Of course, this might be specific to Europe where intersections are rarely perpendicular and often involve "creative" solutions.
precisely to prevent the sort of situation you describe: a free shell around a proprietary core (or a proprietary shell around a free core).
I get the point you're trying to make, but this is not what I describe : the open source part can't be described away as a shell to a proprietary core, ie, the forked version does not need such a "core".
That's why I like the GPL
I prefer less restrictions than more, I prefer zlib (or the like). I know this is debatable and that it's not the topic being discussed, so I won't go into that any further:)
Might want to check the license on wasabi http://www.wasabidev.org/license.php you can't even distribute the closed source wasabi.dll with what you write using that sdk, ie it is useless and windows only.
That (old) SDK was meant to build extentions to Winamp3 and 5, which is why it was windows-only and one of the reason you couldn't redistribute the DLL (it was a part of winamp). Although some have used it to build full apps, that wasn't really what it was intended for.
Since then, wasabi has forked into a portable, fully open source effort (http://wasabi.t0x.org), whose license is zlib-like. That stuff has none of the skinning/scripting of Winamp3/5 (the DLL you talk about), that is proprietary to AOL. It will have its own in the future in a non proprietary way, leveraging other open source projects.
It is most certainly NOT open source
It was mostly open source, as the page you point to explains. Sure, those parts not in the DLL were not open source, but noone ever claimed they were. Open source does not mean compilable into standalone apps, it means the source is open : you could have taken any cpp/h file out of the open source sdk, changed it (or not), then used it in your own project (I certainly did), and you would even have had the liberty to open your modifications or not. That was legal, because the sdk was open source (zlib-like).
>"Quite honestly it's somewhat insulting to elections officials and volunteers," he said to the idea that elections officers would tamper with vote results.
Riiight, after all, if we have trust, why bother with such quaint ideas as security, accountability, checks, balances, and the like ?
I say we ditch the whole idea of encryption in communications too, after all, it's quite insulting to internet users.
Each time a dust particle hit Cassini, the impact produced a puff of plasma--a tiny cloud of ionized gas. Cassini's Radio and Plasma Wave Science (RPWS) instrument was able to count these clouds; there were as many as 680 puffs per second. "We converted these into audible sounds that resemble hail hitting a tin roof," says Gurnett, the intrument's principal investigator.
Nanoweb is an HTTP server written in PHP, designed to be small, secure, and extensible.
It is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
Nanoweb's main features are:
- HTTP/1.1 compliance - Powerful and easy configuration - Modular architecture - FastCGI, CGI and Server side includes support - Name and port based virtual hosts - Access control lists - htpasswd, MySQL, PostgreSQL and LDAP authentication support - Themes for server generated content - Apache compatible log format, MySQL logging - Directory browsing - inetd support and SSL via external helpers - Denial of Service protection - Proxy Server extension - Filters and gzip support - RBL support (mail-abuse.org) - Extension Protocols (request methods) support -... and a lot more
Now now, looks like we're all getting upset over this, but if we go and RTFA, it's clear that this is about and guaranteed reduced life expectancy, and a hope to survive as the first mars colony.
Although the debate on wether we should send people to their certain death for the sake of science is somewhat of an interesting one, this is not what the article is about, and it's unfortunate that the/. headline has been interpreted that way.
I'd go, but I know my skills wouldn't fit the scientific requirements, I'd want to have a look at the resume of the other people going first tho, after all if they picked me, it'd be a cause for concern! Anyway, does that make me an idiot ? I prefer to see it as it meaning I'm willing to take my chances.
"There are apparently some difficulties with getting the go ahead from Tolkien's son Christopher, who is executor of the estate".
Gee, I wonder why... could it be because the lord of the rings' adaption to the big screen was everything Tolkien was afraid of and his son is now starting to realize the old man was right ?
nah, they prolly just didn't offer enough money:-/
So they have predicted the success of Norah Jones (whoever she is), but how many false positives have they identified too ? How many hits have they missed ?
If you only report your successes, but not your failures, your "science" is gonna look much better than it really is, until someone comes along and check all your results. Of course, if you can patent your "science" and make it unavailable for scrutiny, then you may continue with the BS.
The real question IMO is why there is the word "science" in there. Can anybody say "cargo cult" ?
>Now when are they launching a radio controlled rocket to the moon? Obviously it's the next step.
Perhaps the next step is a round-the-world trip, I'd love to see more teams spawned motivated by the TAM team's achievement. There could be a really nice race coming up, a bit like the round-the-world baloon race, except this one may be accessible to many 'real' amateurs (as in 'having normal people budgets'). Sponsors wouldn't hurt, so let's hope the TAM5 story gets momentum. That would also give us some more details about the team and the history behind those 5 planes... the website is rather dry...
Everytime I read the term "theory of everything", I can't help but wonder, how can we ever hope to understand how a universe can arise, unless we invoke some sort of infinite regression somewhere, like postulating "parent" universes in a hierarchical multiverse. Can we sidestep the issue of how such a multiverse came to be 'simply' by defining its lifespan to be infinity and still claim that we have a TOE ?
In other words, if we found all the laws of the universe, wouldn't there remain the question of how these laws came to be ? Of course, some other laws could explain how they arose, but then where did these come from ?
Aren't such infinite regressions problematic for claims of TOEs ?
>All right then, try implementing Shorr's factorization algorithm in C.
That's actually possible, though it'll be really slow. There are a few procedural formalisms out there for quantum computing (see for instance http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~oemer/doc/qcldoc/qcldoc.h tml), most of them were written... in C. Of course it's gonna be slow if the runtime isn't quantum, but it'll work -- well sortof.
wrt "isn't this the job of the compiler" : the problem is not really the compiler, it's the language's semantics. If C had a mean to manipulate and react correctly to operations on entengled variables, then we could just 'port C to quantum computers', but it doesn't so we need a different framework altogether, although we can write a simulation of such a framework (language)... in C, C programs themselves do not have the necessary ontologies [caveat: some C++ cleverness could maybe change this -- it'd get very far architecturally from what the real thing would be, but in principle, why not].
The fact is, you don't need quantum computers to do state entenglements (tho of course classical simulations have limited eigenvector sizes), so in principle you could program Shorr's factorization in a classic computer. Of course you wouldn't benefit from quantum polynomial time (ie, it'd be very slow and use a LOT of memory, depending on the number to factor), but that's another matter: the ontological power of the language is still there, even if it is, for all intent and purpose, quite unusable:)
Slashdot Mirror
We think we can do whole missions for less than $10 million instead of the traditional $100s of millions, and that includes the launch vehicle, the satellite, and the widget you want to test.
Am I the only one who misread this as "and the midget you want to test" ?
The Singularity is a term coined by futurists to describe that point in time when technological progress has so transformed society that predictions made in the present day, already a hit-and-miss affair, are likely to be very, very wide of the mark.
Oh, the irony...
lone, dfx.
"A planet is an object that is massive enough to become spherical under its own gravity, yet not big enough to produce nuclear fusion in its core."
Sure it would make a few hundred objects in our own solar systems be planets, but so what ? Who's afraid of big numbers ? Is it that it would be a problem to keep up making new schoolbooks ? Just list the first 9 discovered planets and be done, who exactly expects anybody to learn entire catalogs of celestial objects and for what purpose anyway ? Use the opportunity to introduce the problem of classification of objects and you've got a good way of jumping into a description of various kinds of stary objects.
lone, dfx.
By a funny coincidence, I received my Icuity M920-Video monocular today, it's supposed to be giving you a 17" screen size 11 feet away.
I like it a lot, but the whole 'equivalent to N inches X feet away' is a bit misleading... Sure, if you compare sizes directly to a physical device, you'll get that size, but when you use it, it actually looks like what it is, a tiny screen looked at up close (although of course you're not focusing just a few inches away, that'd be quite unusable).
If you have a use for this kind of devices, then by all means, get one, you will not be disapointed, but if you're hoping to replace your laptop screen with it, think again, I'd watch a movie on my laptop over one with the eyewear anytime.
This being said, monocular and binoculars are quite different things, and it's probably easier to watch a movie on a binocular simply because your entire field of vision is taken by the image, rather than shared between it and the real world (which is what I needed), so perhaps this thing works great. On the other hand, if I'm going to sit down anyway, I'll use my laptop, that'll give me great picture quality and I wont be oblivious to what's happening around me. The concept of using a device that forces you to remain stationary and blocks your entire field of vision, along with a cell phone seems a bit silly to me.
lone.
I didn't really want to post anything about it so soon, given that it's not quite ready for prime time (ie, lack of documentation among other things), but XPP might be of interest to some of you. It does some of what this guys proposes, although it's not quite a "next generation programming language", more like a pre-processor on top of C++. It allows you to use external XML templates (to describe automatically written pieces of code based on the rest of your program) and inline XML comments in the cpp source (to perform higher level macros, like, for instance, calls that morph depending on the rest of the code).
It's been used in a pretty big project from a well known company we all like to hate, though unfortunately the project itself has been cancelled. Hopefully it does mean that it's useable and could be useful to others as well. I had been waiting on a rework of the site w/documentation before drawing any more attention to it, but given this article, this is as good a time as any.
Cheers,
lone.
Problem though is that when the real world does not match the simulation model, then the theories don't work in the real world.
:
. html .
Indeed. Just for kicks, here's a description of the simulation they use (from the paper here, emphasis mine)
The Simulation
We implemented the methods described in the next section in NetLogo [12],
a multi-agent modelling environment. We extended the "Gridlock" model [13]
which is included in the NetLogo distribution. It consists of an abstract trac
grid with intersections between cyclic single-lane arteries of two types: vertical
or horizontal. In the first series of experiments, cars only flow in a straight
line, either eastbound or southbound. Each crossroad has trac lights which
allow trac flow in only one of the arteries which intersect it with a green light.
Yellow or red lights stop the trac. The light sequence for a given artery is
green-yellow-red-green. Cars simply try to go at a maximum speed of 1 "patch"
per timestep, but stop when a car or a red or yellow light is in front of them.
Time is discrete, but not space. A "patch" is the size of a car. A screenshot of the
environment can be seen in Figure 1. The reader is invired to test the simulation
(source code included), with the aid of a Java-enabled Internet browser, at the
URL http://homepages.vub.ac.be/cgershen/sos/SOTL/SOTL
The user can change dierent parameters, such as the number of arteries or
number of cars. Dierent statistics are presented: the number of stopped cars,
the average speed of cars, and the average waiting times of cars.
You seem to be under the impression that city engineers (and their political bosses) would implement this if they thought it worked
Yes, from experience I can tell you that these people do not like traffic congestions and go to great length to reduce them, regardless of what any individual driver may think when he's sitting in his car and goes through a "red wave" (a set of consecutive road lights designed specifically to reduce speed [that may just be a french term tho]). Slower traffic here may mean smoother traffic there.
Of course that only applies to the people I've worked with, so granted, I'm generalizing.
It's nice to see a traffic signal enhancement that will actually make driving more efficient and direct rather than the opposite.
:)
Traffic calming is often designed to make the traffic more efficient. It's not because the traffic one one road or another is faster that the traffic as a whole is more efficient. You have to take into account the impact of increasing the average driver's speed of one particular road on the other roads to which it is connected, and to which these roads are connected, and so forth. Calming traffic here often means smoother traffic there.
I guess it all comes down to what efficient means, but I suspect it's not the same thing for the driver and for the road staff
His simulations show that such adaptive traffic control is 30% more efficient than traditional ways of regulating traffic. However, his system has not been adopted by any large city
I'll guess that the reason why is because a simulation shows this, not a real test. Traffic simulation has been a topic of much research, but as far as I'm aware, little convincing results have emerged... Simulations based on liquid flow do not work (they do not give anything like an average traffic), and those based on drivers modelization (ie, x % of 'aggressive drivers', y % of 'sloppy drivers', z % of 'careful drivers' etc) become incresingly complex and demanding with the scale of the simulation... I'm not aware of anything practical ever done with these (feel free to correct me).
In any case, if his adaptive system does work, it's a breakthrough. I've worked a few years back with people in charge of traffic and roads around Paris, and from what I've been told, nothing like this has ever worked better than static programming (with the exception of multiple programmings for different time of the day). From what I remember, even getting such programming right demands extremely experienced people. Of course, this might be specific to Europe where intersections are rarely perpendicular and often involve "creative" solutions.
precisely to prevent the sort of situation you describe: a free shell around a proprietary core (or a proprietary shell around a free core).
:)
I get the point you're trying to make, but this is not what I describe : the open source part can't be described away as a shell to a proprietary core, ie, the forked version does not need such a "core".
That's why I like the GPL
I prefer less restrictions than more, I prefer zlib (or the like). I know this is debatable and that it's not the topic being discussed, so I won't go into that any further
Cheers.
Might want to check the license on wasabi http://www.wasabidev.org/license.php you can't even distribute the closed source wasabi.dll with what you write using that sdk, ie it is useless and windows only.
That (old) SDK was meant to build extentions to Winamp3 and 5, which is why it was windows-only and one of the reason you couldn't redistribute the DLL (it was a part of winamp). Although some have used it to build full apps, that wasn't really what it was intended for.
Since then, wasabi has forked into a portable, fully open source effort (http://wasabi.t0x.org), whose license is zlib-like. That stuff has none of the skinning/scripting of Winamp3/5 (the DLL you talk about), that is proprietary to AOL. It will have its own in the future in a non proprietary way, leveraging other open source projects.
It is most certainly NOT open source
It was mostly open source, as the page you point to explains. Sure, those parts not in the DLL were not open source, but noone ever claimed they were. Open source does not mean compilable into standalone apps, it means the source is open : you could have taken any cpp/h file out of the open source sdk, changed it (or not), then used it in your own project (I certainly did), and you would even have had the liberty to open your modifications or not. That was legal, because the sdk was open source (zlib-like).
Anyway, the fork made that point moot.
>"Quite honestly it's somewhat insulting to elections officials and volunteers," he said to the idea that elections officers would tamper with vote results.
Riiight, after all, if we have trust, why bother with such quaint ideas as security, accountability, checks, balances, and the like ?
I say we ditch the whole idea of encryption in communications too, after all, it's quite insulting to internet users.
lonedfx.
Well... you might want to RTFA...
Each time a dust particle hit Cassini, the impact produced a puff of plasma--a tiny cloud of ionized gas. Cassini's Radio and Plasma Wave Science (RPWS) instrument was able to count these clouds; there were as many as 680 puffs per second. "We converted these into audible sounds that resemble hail hitting a tin roof," says Gurnett, the intrument's principal investigator.
http://nanoweb.si.kz/
:
... and a lot more
Nanoweb is an HTTP server written in PHP, designed to be small, secure, and extensible.
It is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License.
Nanoweb's main features are
- HTTP/1.1 compliance
- Powerful and easy configuration
- Modular architecture
- FastCGI, CGI and Server side includes support
- Name and port based virtual hosts
- Access control lists
- htpasswd, MySQL, PostgreSQL and LDAP authentication support
- Themes for server generated content
- Apache compatible log format, MySQL logging
- Directory browsing
- inetd support and SSL via external helpers
- Denial of Service protection
- Proxy Server extension
- Filters and gzip support
- RBL support (mail-abuse.org)
- Extension Protocols (request methods) support
-
lone, dfx.
By then, the hann section will have taken care of it.
oops, believe it or not (my guess is you wont), i did skim thru that article before asking :)
oh well, never mind, sorry about that.
lone, dfx.
I'm curious as to how this compares to the environmental cost of a car... I'm sure I'm not the only one who has several PCs, but no car at all...
lone, dfx.
Now now, looks like we're all getting upset over this, but if we go and RTFA, it's clear that this is about and guaranteed reduced life expectancy, and a hope to survive as the first mars colony.
/. headline has been interpreted that way.
Although the debate on wether we should send people to their certain death for the sake of science is somewhat of an interesting one, this is not what the article is about, and it's unfortunate that the
I'd go, but I know my skills wouldn't fit the scientific requirements, I'd want to have a look at the resume of the other people going first tho, after all if they picked me, it'd be a cause for concern! Anyway, does that make me an idiot ? I prefer to see it as it meaning I'm willing to take my chances.
lone, dfx.
"There are apparently some difficulties with getting the go ahead from Tolkien's son Christopher, who is executor of the estate".
:-/
Gee, I wonder why... could it be because the lord of the rings' adaption to the big screen was everything Tolkien was afraid of and his son is now starting to realize the old man was right ?
nah, they prolly just didn't offer enough money
lone, dfx
So they have predicted the success of Norah Jones (whoever she is), but how many false positives have they identified too ? How many hits have they missed ?
If you only report your successes, but not your failures, your "science" is gonna look much better than it really is, until someone comes along and check all your results. Of course, if you can patent your "science" and make it unavailable for scrutiny, then you may continue with the BS.
The real question IMO is why there is the word "science" in there. Can anybody say "cargo cult" ?
lone, dfx.
>Now when are they launching a radio controlled rocket to the moon? Obviously it's the next step.
Perhaps the next step is a round-the-world trip, I'd love to see more teams spawned motivated by the TAM team's achievement. There could be a really nice race coming up, a bit like the round-the-world baloon race, except this one may be accessible to many 'real' amateurs (as in 'having normal people budgets'). Sponsors wouldn't hurt, so let's hope the TAM5 story gets momentum. That would also give us some more details about the team and the history behind those 5 planes... the website is rather dry...
lone, dfx.
Hello Charles,
Everytime I read the term "theory of everything", I can't help but wonder, how can we ever hope to understand how a universe can arise, unless we invoke some sort of infinite regression somewhere, like postulating "parent" universes in a hierarchical multiverse. Can we sidestep the issue of how such a multiverse came to be 'simply' by defining its lifespan to be infinity and still claim that we have a TOE ?
In other words, if we found all the laws of the universe, wouldn't there remain the question of how these laws came to be ? Of course, some other laws could explain how they arose, but then where did these come from ?
Aren't such infinite regressions problematic for claims of TOEs ?
- lone, dfx
Neither Do I POo On Slashdot ?
lone, dfx.
>All right then, try implementing Shorr's factorization algorithm in C.
h tml), most of them were written... in C. Of course it's gonna be slow if the runtime isn't quantum, but it'll work -- well sortof.
... in C, C programs themselves do not have the necessary ontologies [caveat: some C++ cleverness could maybe change this -- it'd get very far architecturally from what the real thing would be, but in principle, why not].
:)
That's actually possible, though it'll be really slow. There are a few procedural formalisms out there for quantum computing (see for instance http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~oemer/doc/qcldoc/qcldoc.
wrt "isn't this the job of the compiler" : the problem is not really the compiler, it's the language's semantics. If C had a mean to manipulate and react correctly to operations on entengled variables, then we could just 'port C to quantum computers', but it doesn't so we need a different framework altogether, although we can write a simulation of such a framework (language)
The fact is, you don't need quantum computers to do state entenglements (tho of course classical simulations have limited eigenvector sizes), so in principle you could program Shorr's factorization in a classic computer. Of course you wouldn't benefit from quantum polynomial time (ie, it'd be very slow and use a LOT of memory, depending on the number to factor), but that's another matter: the ontological power of the language is still there, even if it is, for all intent and purpose, quite unusable
-lone, dfx.
Ahh... faith...
-f