According to MSNBC, the novel is already finished. He wrote it in the 80's but never published it due to similarities it bears to "Little Shop of Horrors." It isn't a question of him "finishing" the book, but of him releasing the rest. I have a hard time believing he would take what will amount to at least several tens-of-thousands of dollars (it's already made >$32,000 today alone) without ultimately releasing the whole thing. That would be a sure way to piss off your paying fans.
So far, 78% of the people who've downloaded have paid for it. It looks as thought the naysayers in this case are wrong.
According to MSNBC, of the 41,000 downloads for the first installment so far, 32,000 (~78%) have already paid via credit card. Kinda shoots to hell the theory that people won't pay. -Vercingetorix
You forget to deal with the fact that people often do not act rationally. If the first two installments are good enough that people *really* want to read the conclusion, the money will pour in. I think this strategy is brilliant. It's sort of a "cliff-hanger" marketing scheme. You can bet that the second installment will end with an extremely tantalizing cliff-hanger.
To look at it from another perspective, how many people do you think would send in $1 if King announced that the next novel in the Dark Tower series would be published next week if only people would send in $1 to indicate reader interest? If enough people didn't respond the book wouldn't be published. A whole lot of people would be sending in a buck.
The unfortunate part of this is that it only works for wildly popular authors like King. Joe Q. Author could probably not rely on such a strategy to make a livable income. -Vercingetorix
If the US government is abiding by the ideals spelled out in the constitution, there should technically be no reason for a reasonable person to call for a civil war (the US government is not imposed from above, it is of the people, and technically cannot be repressive, since a people cannot repress themselves - the government we have is a direct result of who you voted into office). The provisions of the constitution provide for peaceful change. Incitement to war which directly leads to violence, absence evidence of oppression, would be a criminal act. However, if the situation became such that a great many people are calling for civil war, the constitution has probably become irrelevant, since constitutional government would have been usurped by an illegitimate power. -Vercingetorix
The point I took the original poster to be making was that Linux is not much used in the graphics industry, not necessarily that it has a pretty interface. I was pointing out that, in fact, Linux is used in the industry, and its use is on the rise. Irix's GUI isn't any better than Linux's, but you'll never hear someone complaining about SGI stuff not being "graphical." -Vercingetorix
"If are for restrictions, of *any* kind, than you are *not* for Free Speech, end of story."
I'm as much of a free speech advocate as anyone, but this is simply BS. There's a reason yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. You can't incite people to riot, and you can't say things which can reasonably be expected to result in the immediate harm of others. Slander and libel are also restricted forms of speech, and rightly so. Also, just try saying the word "bomb" next time you are waiting in line for the metal detectors at an airport. The constitutional freedom of speech does not mean you can say any old thing you want. With that right comes great responsibility. -Vercingetorix
Wasn't there this little arthouse movie that came out a while back that was rendered on a Linux rennder farm? Hmm...what was it..."Manic"...no..."My Panic"...no, that's not it....maybe..."Titanic?" Yeah, that was it I think. But as the other poster said. Linux people aren't that "graphical."
"This means making sure that if you create something, you have sole license to exploit it. I cannot understand any possible reason to let things lapse into the "public domain" -- you created it, why does the government have to take it away from you?"
Because the whole point of copyright law was to encourage innovation. Authors and innovators were granted a *limited* monopoly for a short period of time, to encourage them them to create more. It would essentially give them a few years to stay one jump ahead of the competition. After that those ideas were supposed to enter the public domain so others could *freely* use those ideas and build upon them. The notion that the author of something would enjoy lifelong control over it is utterly anathema to the concepts behind of copyright. They way it was supposed to work is that something like, say Windows 3.1, should have entered the public domain by now, and anyone would be free to improve upon it or incorporate it into their own works. By the time this happened, M$ would have had an opportunity to build upon the original work themselves, or come up with something totally new, without having to worry about competition. -Vercingetorix
I think all states should have the right to tax all internet purchases, regardless of where the buyer and/or seller reside. If you live in Ohio and buy something from a company in Arizona, shouldn't California be able to collect something? Seems to me like their the ones getting screwed, since the buyer and seller both chose to be located someplace else. Who knows, the packet confirming the sale might have gone through a routed in California, so the sale might actually have been concluded there! I think all states should just divide up the money equally amongst themselves, and then at the end of the year a subsidy would be paid to the company that sold the item. And then they could pay federal taxes on that.
"Just put up a bunch of bogus content, but interestingly named files. When someone tries to download it from you, you get the sucker's IP address."
And then what? The person hasn't done anything illegal, since the content was bogus. The person hasn't actually infringed on anything. If you buy a bag of oregano from an undercover cop who tells you it's pot, you can't be arrested for anything. You actually have to commit the crime you intended to commit to be held liable for anything.
This raises an interesting point. To actually convict someone of pirating mp3s, it strikes me that you would have to have direct evidence that the file you put up for download was, in fact, an illegitimate file. You would also have to strongly link the IP address to the actual person. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to take any legal action against anyone using evidence such as a list of user names, IP addresses, and alledged song files they made available for downloading. It would take a serious investigation involving searches, stakeouts, time, and money to really get the necessary evidence to make a piracy charge stand up in court. The only people the police would go after to that extent would be real "pirates" who actively distribute illegal copies en masse, and who charge for it. I don't think there is any reason to believe that the government would or could go after individuals trading files for fun.
I disagree. Things like this only hurt free software. People, in general, don't care about the 'control' they have over software. They only care if it works and does what they want with as little hassle as possible. The only way free software will make strong inroads on the desktop is if it can do everything the proprietary stuff does as easily as the proprietary stuff does it. The problem is that corporations are hell-bent on trying to get ownership over the obvious, so if you made software that does everything as easily as the proprietary stuff, you'd probably be infringing on a number of patents and various copyrights. You couldn't give it away without facing a host of lawsuits.
Every day, I come closer and closer to believing that the only way to rectify this situation is hacktivism. I used to believe the legal pendulum would eventually swing the other direction and provide balance. I now think this may never happen as our government sinks deeper and deeper into the pockets of corporate interests. Perhaps the only way we can stop this is to make it effectively impossible for anyone to control IP. "Velevet" terrorism, where the only harm is in the corporate bottom-line might be the only way. Unlike other usurpations of the rights of the individual in the past, WE hold enormous power in this instance. The weapons with which to fight are easily obtained, unlike firearms and explosives.
"I'd like to see someone suggest a real solution of balance which would 1) Not be Draconian to legal consumers 2)be fair to the Companies' rights and 3) somehow prevent the pirates from illegally stealing software."
Easy. Limit the length of copyright to something more reasonable, say the framer's original 14 years (actually, In order to keep up with the times, I think it should be less than that - the pace of innovation has increased, so the rate at which IP enters the public domain should increase as well). After that time the IP enters into the public domain. Voila, the public gets to use those ideas and information to innovate, while companies have an incentive to create new things since they can't simply rely on selling old stuff to make money. Things get more lively. Lots more innovation. Of course, it will probably mean that companies won't make as much profit as before, but last time I checked there wasn't a legal guarantee of a certain profit margin. Those companies that cannot create new things will likely fail. Oh well. Those that remain will be making genuine contributions to the overall improvement of society.
I am sick and tired of my government working to protect corporations when they should be trying to protect me. The rights of the public should ALWAYS take precedence over the rights of a corporation. Period. Copyright should apply to individuals and not corporate entities.
I believe the article states that plasma engines could be used to move satellites around once they are in orbit. For a mission to Mars, the plasma engine itself would have to be lifted by chemical rockets to Earth orbit, along with everything else. Plasma engines just aren't practical within the atmosphere.
Try this. Go up to your typical computer user and ask them who owns the copy of MS Office installed on their computer. Or ask them who owns the video they bought last week. 99.99999% of the time they will respond that they own it. You will be met with laughter if you try to convince them that they actually don't own it at all; that MS can pretty much revoke their right to use it at any time.
I'll tell you this, I think most people have an understanding that copying software or a video is wrong, but that belief is based on copyright ideas, and the notion that the creator of a piece of software or a video has the right to profit from their work. I would argue that most people would totally reject the idea that MS or whoever actually owns a piece of software that they bought and can dictate the terms of how it's used. Copyright is understandable and relatively intuitive. Licensing is counterintutitve and kind of silly when you think about it. It certainly does not benefit the consumer.
Another thing, I think notions of copyright are only skin deep among the general populace. If it is very easy to copy something and get it for free, they will, regardless of the moral implications (witness Napster). If they really like what they copied, they are also likely to purchase a legal, original copy in order to have a nice "unsullied" copy.
Face it, the numbers companies throw around about how much $$$ piracy costs them are silly. The typical pirate wouldn't have bought the product anyway. If they couldn't get it for free, the wouldn't get it at all, therefore no one really lost any money. There was no potential revenue there to begin with. I say let things be copied freely. Make money on the partnerships that can be built on distribution and content delivery.
"Nobody reads the license agreement before they hit 'OK'"
Therein lies the root of the problem. The whole notion of "licensing" is flawed. When you pay money for something, you expect that you own what you paid for, and can do with it what you wish. Licensing is counterintuitive. I'll bet 90% of the population doesn't really grok the concept of a software license. When they buy a copy of MS Office, most people think they own it and can use it however they wish (most people do have a basic grasp of copyright, in that they understand you shouldn't distribute copies of software, but the idea that that don't actually own what they paid for is lost on them).
The same goes for music and video. I have a feeling that when consumers start to understand what licensing really means, there will be a huge backlash against the industries which seek to exploit them. Just look how angry the technically savvy crowd has gotten over this issue. When it starts to affect consumers more directly through lawsuits and other actions by corporations seeking to limit how consumers use the products they purchased, then we might see some changes.
But then again, most people are sheep and will accept whatever you shove down their throats.
"A free and open Internet is impossible to prevent, I thought. But it's not. All the government has to do is go to some buildings somewhere in the country and take over, and they can cut links to the outside world -- not easily, but they can."
However, this case almost seems to be evidence in favor of a government-run and regulated internet (at least in the U.S.). Private businesses are, for the most part, not subject to constitutional prohibitions against censorship, so an ISP can pretty much ban you for any reason whatsoever, and censor your speech in any fashion they choose. At least there are legal protections against government censorship and, despite what a lot of people think, the U.S. has a pretty good record in protecting speech. At least there are some checks and balances in place. In the corporate realm, you're pretty much at the mercy of the corporate overlord.
The real problem seems to be that all of the new legislation is targeted toward protecting corporations from consumers (DMCA, UCITA, etc.) rather than protecting consumers from corporations. This is ass-backwards IMO.
So is the heat generated by the cluster taken into account for the weather calculations? Or maybe you'd need another cluster for that? But then that one generates heat, so you'd have to have another cluster to calculate that, and then, well, I guess you'd need another one to take into account the heat generated from that one and...oh dear.
"In the past, war was something both sides did not take lightly." Rubbish. In the past, war was something viewed as glorious and infused with honor. Witness the thousands of young men eagerly tromping off to fight in the American Civil War, or the mad rush to be a part of WWI. Millions of deaths were acceptable in the pursuit of victory. It really wasn't until after the industrialized death and destruction of WWI did people start to gain a distaste for war. We now live in a country where war has become so repugnant that we will spend billions of dollars developing technology that allows us to avoid casualties to our own troops at all costs, while still inflicting damage on our oponents. I for one see this as a good thing. I honestly think that at the rate technology is advancing, we may one day make war obsolete. When there exist systems that allow coutries to shoot down every missile launched at them, to detect and destroy every aircraft coming across their borders, to render all battlefield communication useless, at that point there will be nothing left to do but sit down and figure out how to get along with each other.
But then again, maybe we'll just blow each other to bits.
Re:Jon, corporations are not the danger
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
"Corporations have no intrinsic power to harm freedom..." Sure they do. Corporations are almost directly responsible for the freedom-inhibiting laws under question. So long as money drives the political process in this country, corporations will continue to be the most potent political force, since they have by far the most money. There are two very dangerous situations arising in this country: 1) corporate $$$ is the most influential lobby, and 2) large corporations are consolidating ownership of the media. If these trends ae not reversed I have a very real fear that we will eventually exist in a state where the governement is largely a puppet of corporate interests, and the citizenry is fed a steady diet of inane, mind-numbing entertainment. In short, we are on the road to an AOL Hell more stultifying and pernicious than anything previously imagined. And the sad part is, outside of a small minority, no one will really care.
Not to mention listening to the first 30 seconds of the song isn't enough. How do they know they haven't gotten ahold of a legitimate, fair-use parody that begins with a sample of a Metallica song, but the rest is something else entirely? To prove that copyright infringement has taken place, they have to prove that the defendant actually made an illegal copy available. The only way to do that, it seems to me, is to demonstrate that the majority of the actual song is in fact available for download from the defendant. To do so you would have to download the whole file to determine if it consists of at least half of the copyrighted work.
My question is, why doesn't NASA *reuse* the things that work? Pathfinder was a blazing success, yet the very next lander used a totally different landing mechanism. I understand the one that crashed was already in development and it would have been costly to reengineer it, but now they should be basing subsequent science missions on the proven design. Launch the exact same lander with some different instruments. Build ten of them and send them to different locations. You could reuse all that engineering in making things that work. Every probe we've sent has been a one-off design. If they really want "faster, better, cheaper, then start cranking out spacecraft assembly-line fashion.
Slashdot Mirror
So far, 78% of the people who've downloaded have paid for it. It looks as thought the naysayers in this case are wrong.
-Vercingetorix
Bzzzzt! According to MSNBC, ~78% of the 41,000 downloads so far have paid.
-Vercingetorix
According to MSNBC, of the 41,000 downloads for the first installment so far, 32,000 (~78%) have already paid via credit card. Kinda shoots to hell the theory that people won't pay.
-Vercingetorix
You forget to deal with the fact that people often do not act rationally. If the first two installments are good enough that people *really* want to read the conclusion, the money will pour in. I think this strategy is brilliant. It's sort of a "cliff-hanger" marketing scheme. You can bet that the second installment will end with an extremely tantalizing cliff-hanger.
To look at it from another perspective, how many people do you think would send in $1 if King announced that the next novel in the Dark Tower series would be published next week if only people would send in $1 to indicate reader interest? If enough people didn't respond the book wouldn't be published. A whole lot of people would be sending in a buck.
The unfortunate part of this is that it only works for wildly popular authors like King. Joe Q. Author could probably not rely on such a strategy to make a livable income.
-Vercingetorix
If the US government is abiding by the ideals spelled out in the constitution, there should technically be no reason for a reasonable person to call for a civil war (the US government is not imposed from above, it is of the people, and technically cannot be repressive, since a people cannot repress themselves - the government we have is a direct result of who you voted into office). The provisions of the constitution provide for peaceful change. Incitement to war which directly leads to violence, absence evidence of oppression, would be a criminal act. However, if the situation became such that a great many people are calling for civil war, the constitution has probably become irrelevant, since constitutional government would have been usurped by an illegitimate power.
-Vercingetorix
The point I took the original poster to be making was that Linux is not much used in the graphics industry, not necessarily that it has a pretty interface. I was pointing out that, in fact, Linux is used in the industry, and its use is on the rise. Irix's GUI isn't any better than Linux's, but you'll never hear someone complaining about SGI stuff not being "graphical."
-Vercingetorix
I'm as much of a free speech advocate as anyone, but this is simply BS. There's a reason yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. You can't incite people to riot, and you can't say things which can reasonably be expected to result in the immediate harm of others. Slander and libel are also restricted forms of speech, and rightly so. Also, just try saying the word "bomb" next time you are waiting in line for the metal detectors at an airport. The constitutional freedom of speech does not mean you can say any old thing you want. With that right comes great responsibility.
-Vercingetorix
Wasn't there this little arthouse movie that came out a while back that was rendered on a Linux rennder farm? Hmm...what was it..."Manic"...no..."My Panic"...no, that's not it....maybe..."Titanic?" Yeah, that was it I think. But as the other poster said. Linux people aren't that "graphical."
-Vercingetorix
Because the whole point of copyright law was to encourage innovation. Authors and innovators were granted a *limited* monopoly for a short period of time, to encourage them them to create more. It would essentially give them a few years to stay one jump ahead of the competition. After that those ideas were supposed to enter the public domain so others could *freely* use those ideas and build upon them. The notion that the author of something would enjoy lifelong control over it is utterly anathema to the concepts behind of copyright. They way it was supposed to work is that something like, say Windows 3.1, should have entered the public domain by now, and anyone would be free to improve upon it or incorporate it into their own works. By the time this happened, M$ would have had an opportunity to build upon the original work themselves, or come up with something totally new, without having to worry about competition.
-Vercingetorix
I think all states should have the right to tax all internet purchases, regardless of where the buyer and/or seller reside. If you live in Ohio and buy something from a company in Arizona, shouldn't California be able to collect something? Seems to me like their the ones getting screwed, since the buyer and seller both chose to be located someplace else. Who knows, the packet confirming the sale might have gone through a routed in California, so the sale might actually have been concluded there! I think all states should just divide up the money equally amongst themselves, and then at the end of the year a subsidy would be paid to the company that sold the item. And then they could pay federal taxes on that.
And then what? The person hasn't done anything illegal, since the content was bogus. The person hasn't actually infringed on anything. If you buy a bag of oregano from an undercover cop who tells you it's pot, you can't be arrested for anything. You actually have to commit the crime you intended to commit to be held liable for anything.
This raises an interesting point. To actually convict someone of pirating mp3s, it strikes me that you would have to have direct evidence that the file you put up for download was, in fact, an illegitimate file. You would also have to strongly link the IP address to the actual person. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to take any legal action against anyone using evidence such as a list of user names, IP addresses, and alledged song files they made available for downloading. It would take a serious investigation involving searches, stakeouts, time, and money to really get the necessary evidence to make a piracy charge stand up in court. The only people the police would go after to that extent would be real "pirates" who actively distribute illegal copies en masse, and who charge for it. I don't think there is any reason to believe that the government would or could go after individuals trading files for fun.
I didn't know they spoke Swedish in Finland.
Charging $300 a pop will certainly drive developer acceptance. I'm rushing right out to get my copy.
Wait. Linux is *free* you say?!?!? Never mind.
I disagree. Things like this only hurt free software. People, in general, don't care about the 'control' they have over software. They only care if it works and does what they want with as little hassle as possible. The only way free software will make strong inroads on the desktop is if it can do everything the proprietary stuff does as easily as the proprietary stuff does it. The problem is that corporations are hell-bent on trying to get ownership over the obvious, so if you made software that does everything as easily as the proprietary stuff, you'd probably be infringing on a number of patents and various copyrights. You couldn't give it away without facing a host of lawsuits.
Every day, I come closer and closer to believing that the only way to rectify this situation is hacktivism. I used to believe the legal pendulum would eventually swing the other direction and provide balance. I now think this may never happen as our government sinks deeper and deeper into the pockets of corporate interests. Perhaps the only way we can stop this is to make it effectively impossible for anyone to control IP. "Velevet" terrorism, where the only harm is in the corporate bottom-line might be the only way. Unlike other usurpations of the rights of the individual in the past, WE hold enormous power in this instance. The weapons with which to fight are easily obtained, unlike firearms and explosives.
Easy. Limit the length of copyright to something more reasonable, say the framer's original 14 years (actually, In order to keep up with the times, I think it should be less than that - the pace of innovation has increased, so the rate at which IP enters the public domain should increase as well). After that time the IP enters into the public domain. Voila, the public gets to use those ideas and information to innovate, while companies have an incentive to create new things since they can't simply rely on selling old stuff to make money. Things get more lively. Lots more innovation. Of course, it will probably mean that companies won't make as much profit as before, but last time I checked there wasn't a legal guarantee of a certain profit margin. Those companies that cannot create new things will likely fail. Oh well. Those that remain will be making genuine contributions to the overall improvement of society.
I am sick and tired of my government working to protect corporations when they should be trying to protect me. The rights of the public should ALWAYS take precedence over the rights of a corporation. Period. Copyright should apply to individuals and not corporate entities.
FWIW, I just DL'd the Quantum Project film from SightSound at a whopping 190 KB/s (with a BIG B). Not too shabby.
Try this. Go up to your typical computer user and ask them who owns the copy of MS Office installed on their computer. Or ask them who owns the video they bought last week. 99.99999% of the time they will respond that they own it. You will be met with laughter if you try to convince them that they actually don't own it at all; that MS can pretty much revoke their right to use it at any time.
I'll tell you this, I think most people have an understanding that copying software or a video is wrong, but that belief is based on copyright ideas, and the notion that the creator of a piece of software or a video has the right to profit from their work. I would argue that most people would totally reject the idea that MS or whoever actually owns a piece of software that they bought and can dictate the terms of how it's used. Copyright is understandable and relatively intuitive. Licensing is counterintutitve and kind of silly when you think about it. It certainly does not benefit the consumer.
Another thing, I think notions of copyright are only skin deep among the general populace. If it is very easy to copy something and get it for free, they will, regardless of the moral implications (witness Napster). If they really like what they copied, they are also likely to purchase a legal, original copy in order to have a nice "unsullied" copy.
Face it, the numbers companies throw around about how much $$$ piracy costs them are silly. The typical pirate wouldn't have bought the product anyway. If they couldn't get it for free, the wouldn't get it at all, therefore no one really lost any money. There was no potential revenue there to begin with. I say let things be copied freely. Make money on the partnerships that can be built on distribution and content delivery.
Therein lies the root of the problem. The whole notion of "licensing" is flawed. When you pay money for something, you expect that you own what you paid for, and can do with it what you wish. Licensing is counterintuitive. I'll bet 90% of the population doesn't really grok the concept of a software license. When they buy a copy of MS Office, most people think they own it and can use it however they wish (most people do have a basic grasp of copyright, in that they understand you shouldn't distribute copies of software, but the idea that that don't actually own what they paid for is lost on them).
The same goes for music and video. I have a feeling that when consumers start to understand what licensing really means, there will be a huge backlash against the industries which seek to exploit them. Just look how angry the technically savvy crowd has gotten over this issue. When it starts to affect consumers more directly through lawsuits and other actions by corporations seeking to limit how consumers use the products they purchased, then we might see some changes.
But then again, most people are sheep and will accept whatever you shove down their throats.
However, this case almost seems to be evidence in favor of a government-run and regulated internet (at least in the U.S.). Private businesses are, for the most part, not subject to constitutional prohibitions against censorship, so an ISP can pretty much ban you for any reason whatsoever, and censor your speech in any fashion they choose. At least there are legal protections against government censorship and, despite what a lot of people think, the U.S. has a pretty good record in protecting speech. At least there are some checks and balances in place. In the corporate realm, you're pretty much at the mercy of the corporate overlord.
The real problem seems to be that all of the new legislation is targeted toward protecting corporations from consumers (DMCA, UCITA, etc.) rather than protecting consumers from corporations. This is ass-backwards IMO.
So is the heat generated by the cluster taken into account for the weather calculations? Or maybe you'd need another cluster for that? But then that one generates heat, so you'd have to have another cluster to calculate that, and then, well, I guess you'd need another one to take into account the heat generated from that one and...oh dear.
But then again, maybe we'll just blow each other to bits.
"Corporations have no intrinsic power to harm freedom..." Sure they do. Corporations are almost directly responsible for the freedom-inhibiting laws under question. So long as money drives the political process in this country, corporations will continue to be the most potent political force, since they have by far the most money. There are two very dangerous situations arising in this country: 1) corporate $$$ is the most influential lobby, and 2) large corporations are consolidating ownership of the media. If these trends ae not reversed I have a very real fear that we will eventually exist in a state where the governement is largely a puppet of corporate interests, and the citizenry is fed a steady diet of inane, mind-numbing entertainment. In short, we are on the road to an AOL Hell more stultifying and pernicious than anything previously imagined. And the sad part is, outside of a small minority, no one will really care.
Not to mention listening to the first 30 seconds of the song isn't enough. How do they know they haven't gotten ahold of a legitimate, fair-use parody that begins with a sample of a Metallica song, but the rest is something else entirely? To prove that copyright infringement has taken place, they have to prove that the defendant actually made an illegal copy available. The only way to do that, it seems to me, is to demonstrate that the majority of the actual song is in fact available for download from the defendant. To do so you would have to download the whole file to determine if it consists of at least half of the copyrighted work.
My question is, why doesn't NASA *reuse* the things that work? Pathfinder was a blazing success, yet the very next lander used a totally different landing mechanism. I understand the one that crashed was already in development and it would have been costly to reengineer it, but now they should be basing subsequent science missions on the proven design. Launch the exact same lander with some different instruments. Build ten of them and send them to different locations. You could reuse all that engineering in making things that work. Every probe we've sent has been a one-off design. If they really want "faster, better, cheaper, then start cranking out spacecraft assembly-line fashion.