"Explain that restricting access to information is immoral" followed by: "just post the code online with a copy of the GPL and don't mention it to them."
Wow, you really know how to stick it the the man, right? Take that! Ah ha, now anyone in the world can check your company's inventory. Well, assuming they can connect to the database, which is firewalled off from the outside world.... so yeah, let that code rot in public and go home and pat yourself on the back.
"ummm...their competitors can only get a hold of it if the client either posts the binaries for download or sells it to them"
What is your basis for this extraordinary claim? Disgruntled employees are the biggest security threat a company faces. Any pissed off geek could just zip up the files and email them to the competition anonymously. If the software was gpl'd then the competition would only be beholden to follow the 'distribute source with binaries' clause. Whereas if the first company maintained traditional copyright ownership, when the competition got ahold of their software, they could use their copyright ownership to deny that company the right to make any copies of the documents. They would admittedly have to find out about it first, but that's always a problem with piracy. Copyright owners use their powers to keep people that they don't want to have their software from having their software - most commonly this is commercial software vendors who don't want anyone installing their product unless they get paid, but if 'amazon in a box' found its way to barnesandnoble.com., amazon would use their copyright powers to prevent bn from installing it.
What's to stop the binaries from getting distributed? Posted to fuckedcompany or put up on 'my company'-really-sucks.com? Then the source will need to be distributed to all those people.
If he built the application using GPL's components and never discussed it with the client, then there are serious legal issues and this guy's career is probably fucked, unless the company is stone-dead stupid, and what are the odds on that, maybe one in two?
Check this guy out "Well they can just not give it to anyone". Yeah, that's SUCH a rock solid legal plan. Let's remove any ability for our company to prosecute others for having our software and then just pray to god that nobody here gives it to them out of spite. Companies just make thousands and thousands of decisions just like that every day. Hey mr. 'open source' guy, have you ever noticed that management doesn't trust geeks because they don't understand technology? But they do understand the law. Then again... you've probably never dealt with management, have you?
What I can't see is the value to the open source community. I just finished coding my company's customer care application. Who the fuck in the rest of the world would want this? Would anyone else need to know how to call the specific stored procs that get called? Custom internal software is usually useless to anyone else because so many business rules are embedded in it, and it's tied so specifically to talking to THIS database on THIS box using THIS method, etc. Now I have some clever code tricks in the application, but nothing that someone else couldn't figure out themselves, and not many that apply to general cases.
Once it's open source anyone can redistribute it. Any disgruntled employee at the company could redistribute it, and we all know disgrunteld employees are the biggest security risk in any company. As do the companies themselves. Companies don't want to give angry geeks more ammunition. Anyone finding it in a shared network folder could copy it an redistribute it. A hacker who got into their system could redistribute it - you might be able to charge that person with a computer intrusion, but once they were in the system they'd be allowed to redistribute the code, the only restriction being that they'd have to redistribute the source along with the binaries. I'm not aware of any provision in the GPL that would disallow 'unauthorized' visitors from copying the code. Point it out to me if I'm missing something.
Simply hoping that nobody will redistribute it is, to put it mildly, completely retarded. Digital technology makes it incredibly simple to copy anything, and multiple copies tend to proliferate on most corporate networks I've seen. While if the code was protected by a conventional copyright, the copyright owner would be free to decree that the program could not be copied onto competitor's machines. See why they might like that legal power over pie in the sky hoping that nobody gives it to them?
Come on, luck has a lot to do with it. I work at a.com and we didn't go under, though we came close. Am I an idiot for working at a.com? Is that judgement based solely on whether the company succeeds or fails? Even though that success or failure does not always reward the best companies and does not always punish the worst companies? Those who work at the worst companies that nevertheless manage to stay in business are lucky, those in great companies that went under are unlucky. You can't predict the future, the best product and the best business model is not always a guarantee of success.
I think they're referring to the e-book readers, which are so proprietary they're locked to a specific piece of hardware reading a specific file format. The point being that on their pc tablet thingy you could open doc files, acrobat files, text files, html files, xml files - many formats. It's true that acrobat is a proprietary format. But if you're looking for a common format to read print formatted layout, what else are you going to find it in? Yes it has annoying and horrible drm crap built into it, but it also looks a lot more like print than a web page or a text file. And you will find a lot of content already out there that is in acrobat format, so anything that truly wanted to be a book-like reader would need to be able to read those files. And since the monitors are in portrait mode, one acrobat formatted page should fit exactly on one screen, making the experience fairly similar to a book. Because the one thing I hate above all else in acrobat is the freaking scrolling where you have to give up the hand grabbing the paper icon and go click on the scroll bar because it doesn't recognize that you want to go to the next page. Take out that annoyance and I really wouldn't mind using acrobat to read print formatted material, proprietary warts and all.
If you're willing to spend $900 on a graphics chip, wouldn't it be easier to just get a dual processor motherboard? Why try to co-opt the graphics chip to run sql queries? MySql is multi-threaded and can already use multiple cpu's if they're available.
Code is a set of instructions you want a machine to execute. Your goal is to get the output you want from the machine. 90% of what a lot of people would think is 'elegant' or 'highly optimized' code is, in my opinion and in a business sense, crap for its actual intended purpose because it's harder for someone else to decipher and maintain or modify. If I can write a function clearly, or write it in this really clever way where it calls itself recursively and is hard to read - what should I do? Maybe if i'm programming for myself or on an open source project doing it 'elegantly' would be an option. But if I'm writing code that belongs to my company? I should write it so that it's easily maintainable by others who have never seen it before. I have had to slog thru some of the most PAIN IN THE ASS 'highly optimized' and completely undocumented code in my time. And every time I figure out what the code is doing it just pisses me off that the person who wrote it couldn't have just done it the simple way that would maybe take 8 more lines of code. So it's not elegant? Who cares? It's not going to materially slow down the machine, whereas I end up wasting a TON of time re-doing it later.
A colleague commented the other day that he thinks the Basic family of languages (VB, VBScript, VBA, ASP, etc.) is winning the syntax war versus the C/C++/Java/JavaScript/Tcl camp (before you flame....I know JavaScript isn't Java, but it has that C-style syntax).
I have to admit that I think Basic fundamentally has a better approach. Its english sentence like qualities sure make it easier to read. Obviously if you're a Java guru and have never touched VB then the C style syntax will seem like the 'right' way, but if you're familiar with both which is your preference?
For intCounter = 0 To intMax...Next seems a lot cleaner than for (var i=0; i=k; i++){...}
All the C derived stuff just seems to me like a holdover from the 70's when you might have had to program like that, but god why would anyone want to?
Yes i'm sure you're right. My point was only that you don't get the data, you only get a compressed video stream. Missing completely will be special features, alternate audio tracks (I think), menus, subtitling, alternate angles, easter eggs, etc - which are ALL a part of the dvd content, and which you should be able to back up as well. Maybe spanish is your native language and the dvd has a spanish track? What good is this vcd copy going to do you? None of that content makes its way onto the vcd at all so it doesn't seem to me like you can call it a copy. A 'copy' of slashdot that had only the text, with all html formatting removed, including the separation of front page from article pages, wouldn't seem to be much like a copy to me.
They don't both start with christ. crystal. as in crystal clear. as in could i be any more....
You put unsupported blame on drugs for causing 'horrible things to happen'. I put much more easily supported blame for 'horrible things happening' on Christianity. I know your response - it's not christianity's fault. So you should expect mine, it's not the drugs. The problems were already in the people. Drugs are no more to blame for 'drug induced' killings than God is to blame for religious killings. Drugs don't kill people, people kill people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. God doesn't kill people - Oh, no wait, he does actually.
Man, christianity would be such a nice religion if it weren't for all the damn christians....
A lot of horrific stuff wouldn't have happened without Christianity. So much suffering and death in the name of god.
A lot of good things wouldn't have happened to me without drugs. To each his own. While I think laws forbidding religion would do a lot more to make the world a better place than laws against drugs, I think each individual should be left to their own devices.
This product does not allow you to make an archival copy of the dvd's you own, as is your legal right. You can only make a crappy vcd copy with poor image quality. If your first disc is ruined, you will NOT be happy using this as a backup. It isn't a copy of the data on the disc, it is a compressed copy of the images output to your monitor. I'm surprised the movie/music industry would have any problem with this. This is basically the same as (like I used to do back in the day) making an audio tape of something by putting a crappy tape recorder up against a speaker and hitting record. In fact you could record the sound from your dvd's just like that, and dig out your parents' home movie camera to film your tv as the dvd plays. There you go! Great quality backup to have around in case your clumsy roommate steps on the dvd and breaks it. No need to worry about the DMCA now.
While this has nothing to do with this software company, I found this on a google search for 321 Studios and found it amusing, and possibly prophetic "Adam went to London, Munich and Paris in March for a 3 week press tour. When he returned to New York, Jack Douglas had only mixed three songs before starting the Aerosmith project. The 321 studios had went bankrupt and all the studio equipment had been repossessed by their creditors. The building rent was never paid. The studio turned out to be a front for some investment scam. The master tapes were also missing and one of the studio owners had been thrown in jail."
Which is of course why it is a PERFECTLY WONDERFUL idea to prescribe it to every single 5 year old kid who misbehaves in class - despite the fact that the health effects of the drug on children aren't well known. I'm pretty cynical, but the evil of that bothers even me.
I guess they disproved the 10,000 year history of safe use that I would otherwise judge those plants by:)
No, I agree, 80% of everyone I know who got into meth fucked up their life. The better-off ones ended up in rehab. But if your friend killed someone he was already a homicidal maniac, drugs may bring things inside you to the surface that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day, but they don't create them. I never use it now, but a couple times in the past did come to work on it and did several days worth of work in one day. But the post was a joke, I'm shocked I wasn't modded -1 Troll or flamebait.
Why do you think you get several phone books? Because they can't copyright a list of publicly available facts, if you could, you would only get one phone book. It's the PUBLICLY available part that's important, not the fact that they're facts. While a printing of that book is copyrighted, that copyright DOES NOT stop someone else from compiling a similar (even EXACTLY similar) list of numbers themselves and printing their own phone book.
Sorry, I probably worded that wrong. You can copyright your list of facts, but you can't use that copyright to argue that someone else MUST have abused your copyright when the facts themselves can be derived from publicly available sources. No one owns the periodic table.
Microsoft by publishing a standard is putting something in public. You don't need to read their docs to start interacting with the system. And by reverse engineering the implementation, you can then publish your OWN documentation of that standard, even if the facts match the facts in MS's document. THIS IS NOT A DERIVATIVE WORK!!!! It IS an original work of authorship, drawn from publicly available facts and is itself entitled to the same copyright protections as MS's documents. Two phone books, mostly the same list of facts. Two copyrights - that don't interfere with each other. MS's contract can't prevent someone from doing the same with their standard. If someone will do so is open of course, but it is legally permissible. And given the open source environment, it will probably be done.
Amazingly I thought it was about the Phantom Edit of Episode I. As in the movie that came out a long time ago? All I have to whine about is people that don't read articles and then flame others....
I'm not talking about it being hot for 2 days. I'm talking about every year for the past 10 years having a 'Flood of the century' or 'Storm of the century' or 'worst drought ever'.
If you live on the east coast, and haven't noticed our weather is fucked, then you haven't been outside. Out weather is getting more erratic, and more extreme. Maybe in the long term scheme of things, it's possible that for the entire past 200 years of written records kept on the weather - that happened to be the most temperate 200 year period since the ice age. Occam's razor says that the simpler explanation, that our weather is changing, is more likely.
Did I say anything about corporations? An increase in solar radiation would fuck us as surely as a pollution driven greenhouse effect - AND would be fought with the same tactic - decreasing greenhouse gases.
In case you haven't noticed polar ice caps are melting - notice that giant sheet of ice that peeled off into the ocean recently? Think that was because it was too cold? Ever heard of Tuvalu, the country that owns the.tv extension? The expect their country to be submerged by rising ocean levels within 20 years, and have already noticed the effect. Offer a simple explanation other than the ice caps melting.
I also don't give a rat's ass that the world is doomed, I hate the winter and if I can run around outside all year long fine. BUT that doesn't mean that I don't notice what's going on, just that I think we're long long past the point where we can stop the process.
Slashdot Mirror
"Explain that restricting access to information is immoral"
followed by:
"just post the code online with a copy of the GPL and don't mention it to them."
Wow, you really know how to stick it the the man, right? Take that! Ah ha, now anyone in the world can check your company's inventory. Well, assuming they can connect to the database, which is firewalled off from the outside world.... so yeah, let that code rot in public and go home and pat yourself on the back.
You assert:
"ummm...their competitors can only get a hold of it if the client either posts the binaries for download or sells it to them"
What is your basis for this extraordinary claim? Disgruntled employees are the biggest security threat a company faces. Any pissed off geek could just zip up the files and email them to the competition anonymously. If the software was gpl'd then the competition would only be beholden to follow the 'distribute source with binaries' clause. Whereas if the first company maintained traditional copyright ownership, when the competition got ahold of their software, they could use their copyright ownership to deny that company the right to make any copies of the documents. They would admittedly have to find out about it first, but that's always a problem with piracy. Copyright owners use their powers to keep people that they don't want to have their software from having their software - most commonly this is commercial software vendors who don't want anyone installing their product unless they get paid, but if 'amazon in a box' found its way to barnesandnoble.com., amazon would use their copyright powers to prevent bn from installing it.
What's to stop the binaries from getting distributed? Posted to fuckedcompany or put up on 'my company'-really-sucks.com? Then the source will need to be distributed to all those people.
If he built the application using GPL's components and never discussed it with the client, then there are serious legal issues and this guy's career is probably fucked, unless the company is stone-dead stupid, and what are the odds on that, maybe one in two?
Check this guy out "Well they can just not give it to anyone". Yeah, that's SUCH a rock solid legal plan. Let's remove any ability for our company to prosecute others for having our software and then just pray to god that nobody here gives it to them out of spite. Companies just make thousands and thousands of decisions just like that every day. Hey mr. 'open source' guy, have you ever noticed that management doesn't trust geeks because they don't understand technology? But they do understand the law. Then again... you've probably never dealt with management, have you?
What I can't see is the value to the open source community. I just finished coding my company's customer care application. Who the fuck in the rest of the world would want this? Would anyone else need to know how to call the specific stored procs that get called? Custom internal software is usually useless to anyone else because so many business rules are embedded in it, and it's tied so specifically to talking to THIS database on THIS box using THIS method, etc. Now I have some clever code tricks in the application, but nothing that someone else couldn't figure out themselves, and not many that apply to general cases.
Once it's open source anyone can redistribute it. Any disgruntled employee at the company could redistribute it, and we all know disgrunteld employees are the biggest security risk in any company. As do the companies themselves. Companies don't want to give angry geeks more ammunition. Anyone finding it in a shared network folder could copy it an redistribute it. A hacker who got into their system could redistribute it - you might be able to charge that person with a computer intrusion, but once they were in the system they'd be allowed to redistribute the code, the only restriction being that they'd have to redistribute the source along with the binaries. I'm not aware of any provision in the GPL that would disallow 'unauthorized' visitors from copying the code. Point it out to me if I'm missing something.
Simply hoping that nobody will redistribute it is, to put it mildly, completely retarded. Digital technology makes it incredibly simple to copy anything, and multiple copies tend to proliferate on most corporate networks I've seen. While if the code was protected by a conventional copyright, the copyright owner would be free to decree that the program could not be copied onto competitor's machines. See why they might like that legal power over pie in the sky hoping that nobody gives it to them?
All the geniuses I work with?
.com and we didn't go under, though we came close. Am I an idiot for working at a .com? Is that judgement based solely on whether the company succeeds or fails? Even though that success or failure does not always reward the best companies and does not always punish the worst companies? Those who work at the worst companies that nevertheless manage to stay in business are lucky, those in great companies that went under are unlucky. You can't predict the future, the best product and the best business model is not always a guarantee of success.
Come on, luck has a lot to do with it. I work at a
I think they're referring to the e-book readers, which are so proprietary they're locked to a specific piece of hardware reading a specific file format. The point being that on their pc tablet thingy you could open doc files, acrobat files, text files, html files, xml files - many formats. It's true that acrobat is a proprietary format. But if you're looking for a common format to read print formatted layout, what else are you going to find it in? Yes it has annoying and horrible drm crap built into it, but it also looks a lot more like print than a web page or a text file. And you will find a lot of content already out there that is in acrobat format, so anything that truly wanted to be a book-like reader would need to be able to read those files. And since the monitors are in portrait mode, one acrobat formatted page should fit exactly on one screen, making the experience fairly similar to a book. Because the one thing I hate above all else in acrobat is the freaking scrolling where you have to give up the hand grabbing the paper icon and go click on the scroll bar because it doesn't recognize that you want to go to the next page. Take out that annoyance and I really wouldn't mind using acrobat to read print formatted material, proprietary warts and all.
If you're willing to spend $900 on a graphics chip, wouldn't it be easier to just get a dual processor motherboard? Why try to co-opt the graphics chip to run sql queries? MySql is multi-threaded and can already use multiple cpu's if they're available.
And what, pray tell, does armed with nasm mean?
But how much money do you get paid to write your turd reports? ;)
Does it get the job done? Does it not crash?
Sounds like good code to me.
Code is a set of instructions you want a machine to execute. Your goal is to get the output you want from the machine. 90% of what a lot of people would think is 'elegant' or 'highly optimized' code is, in my opinion and in a business sense, crap for its actual intended purpose because it's harder for someone else to decipher and maintain or modify. If I can write a function clearly, or write it in this really clever way where it calls itself recursively and is hard to read - what should I do? Maybe if i'm programming for myself or on an open source project doing it 'elegantly' would be an option. But if I'm writing code that belongs to my company? I should write it so that it's easily maintainable by others who have never seen it before. I have had to slog thru some of the most PAIN IN THE ASS 'highly optimized' and completely undocumented code in my time. And every time I figure out what the code is doing it just pisses me off that the person who wrote it couldn't have just done it the simple way that would maybe take 8 more lines of code. So it's not elegant? Who cares? It's not going to materially slow down the machine, whereas I end up wasting a TON of time re-doing it later.
A colleague commented the other day that he thinks the Basic family of languages (VB, VBScript, VBA, ASP, etc.) is winning the syntax war versus the C/C++/Java/JavaScript/Tcl camp (before you flame....I know JavaScript isn't Java, but it has that C-style syntax).
I have to admit that I think Basic fundamentally has a better approach. Its english sentence like qualities sure make it easier to read. Obviously if you're a Java guru and have never touched VB then the C style syntax will seem like the 'right' way, but if you're familiar with both which is your preference?
For intCounter = 0 To intMax...Next
seems a lot cleaner than
for (var i=0; i=k; i++){...}
All the C derived stuff just seems to me like a holdover from the 70's when you might have had to program like that, but god why would anyone want to?
I'd hope you keep your scratching away from that ass.
:)
Man.... someone who brags about their turds in public calling someone else's brags pathetic?
I personally would rather be proud of my elegant code than my firm stool, but I guess I'm just a slashdork
As a part of the anti-trust settlement, the DOJ is requiring other companies to give MS free use of their patents? Can you explain that?
I would ask you directly but you're an anonymous coward.
Yes i'm sure you're right. My point was only that you don't get the data, you only get a compressed video stream. Missing completely will be special features, alternate audio tracks (I think), menus, subtitling, alternate angles, easter eggs, etc - which are ALL a part of the dvd content, and which you should be able to back up as well. Maybe spanish is your native language and the dvd has a spanish track? What good is this vcd copy going to do you? None of that content makes its way onto the vcd at all so it doesn't seem to me like you can call it a copy. A 'copy' of slashdot that had only the text, with all html formatting removed, including the separation of front page from article pages, wouldn't seem to be much like a copy to me.
They don't both start with christ. crystal. as in crystal clear. as in could i be any more....
You put unsupported blame on drugs for causing 'horrible things to happen'. I put much more easily supported blame for 'horrible things happening' on Christianity. I know your response - it's not christianity's fault. So you should expect mine, it's not the drugs. The problems were already in the people. Drugs are no more to blame for 'drug induced' killings than God is to blame for religious killings. Drugs don't kill people, people kill people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. God doesn't kill people - Oh, no wait, he does actually.
Man, christianity would be such a nice religion if it weren't for all the damn christians....
A lot of horrific stuff wouldn't have happened without Christianity. So much suffering and death in the name of god.
A lot of good things wouldn't have happened to me without drugs. To each his own. While I think laws forbidding religion would do a lot more to make the world a better place than laws against drugs, I think each individual should be left to their own devices.
It only allows you to make low quality vcd rips.
Is this a really clever troll? Or am I getting paranoid and seeing trolls everywhere?
This product does not allow you to make an archival copy of the dvd's you own, as is your legal right. You can only make a crappy vcd copy with poor image quality. If your first disc is ruined, you will NOT be happy using this as a backup. It isn't a copy of the data on the disc, it is a compressed copy of the images output to your monitor. I'm surprised the movie/music industry would have any problem with this. This is basically the same as (like I used to do back in the day) making an audio tape of something by putting a crappy tape recorder up against a speaker and hitting record. In fact you could record the sound from your dvd's just like that, and dig out your parents' home movie camera to film your tv as the dvd plays. There you go! Great quality backup to have around in case your clumsy roommate steps on the dvd and breaks it. No need to worry about the DMCA now.
While this has nothing to do with this software company, I found this on a google search for 321 Studios and found it amusing, and possibly prophetic "Adam went to London, Munich and Paris in March for a 3 week press tour. When he returned to New York, Jack Douglas had only mixed three songs before starting the Aerosmith project. The 321 studios had went bankrupt and all the studio equipment had been repossessed by their creditors. The building rent was never paid. The studio turned out to be a front for some investment scam. The master tapes were also missing and one of the studio owners had been thrown in jail."
Which is of course why it is a PERFECTLY WONDERFUL idea to prescribe it to every single 5 year old kid who misbehaves in class - despite the fact that the health effects of the drug on children aren't well known. I'm pretty cynical, but the evil of that bothers even me.
"and also because of hashish/marijuana."
:)
I guess they disproved the 10,000 year history of safe use that I would otherwise judge those plants by
No, I agree, 80% of everyone I know who got into meth fucked up their life. The better-off ones ended up in rehab. But if your friend killed someone he was already a homicidal maniac, drugs may bring things inside you to the surface that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day, but they don't create them. I never use it now, but a couple times in the past did come to work on it and did several days worth of work in one day. But the post was a joke, I'm shocked I wasn't modded -1 Troll or flamebait.
Need I say more?
Why do you think you get several phone books? Because they can't copyright a list of publicly available facts, if you could, you would only get one phone book. It's the PUBLICLY available part that's important, not the fact that they're facts. While a printing of that book is copyrighted, that copyright DOES NOT stop someone else from compiling a similar (even EXACTLY similar) list of numbers themselves and printing their own phone book.
Sorry, I probably worded that wrong. You can copyright your list of facts, but you can't use that copyright to argue that someone else MUST have abused your copyright when the facts themselves can be derived from publicly available sources. No one owns the periodic table.
Microsoft by publishing a standard is putting something in public. You don't need to read their docs to start interacting with the system. And by reverse engineering the implementation, you can then publish your OWN documentation of that standard, even if the facts match the facts in MS's document. THIS IS NOT A DERIVATIVE WORK!!!! It IS an original work of authorship, drawn from publicly available facts and is itself entitled to the same copyright protections as MS's documents. Two phone books, mostly the same list of facts. Two copyrights - that don't interfere with each other. MS's contract can't prevent someone from doing the same with their standard. If someone will do so is open of course, but it is legally permissible. And given the open source environment, it will probably be done.
Amazingly I thought it was about the Phantom Edit of Episode I. As in the movie that came out a long time ago? All I have to whine about is people that don't read articles and then flame others....
I'm not talking about it being hot for 2 days. I'm talking about every year for the past 10 years having a 'Flood of the century' or 'Storm of the century' or 'worst drought ever'.
.tv extension? The expect their country to be submerged by rising ocean levels within 20 years, and have already noticed the effect. Offer a simple explanation other than the ice caps melting.
If you live on the east coast, and haven't noticed our weather is fucked, then you haven't been outside. Out weather is getting more erratic, and more extreme. Maybe in the long term scheme of things, it's possible that for the entire past 200 years of written records kept on the weather - that happened to be the most temperate 200 year period since the ice age. Occam's razor says that the simpler explanation, that our weather is changing, is more likely.
Did I say anything about corporations? An increase in solar radiation would fuck us as surely as a pollution driven greenhouse effect - AND would be fought with the same tactic - decreasing greenhouse gases.
In case you haven't noticed polar ice caps are melting - notice that giant sheet of ice that peeled off into the ocean recently? Think that was because it was too cold? Ever heard of Tuvalu, the country that owns the
I also don't give a rat's ass that the world is doomed, I hate the winter and if I can run around outside all year long fine. BUT that doesn't mean that I don't notice what's going on, just that I think we're long long past the point where we can stop the process.