The original article conflates two very different things: screen-based play, and hi-tech toys.
I'm not worried about toys being too hi-tech. I'm worried about too many kids reduced to a gaze-at-a-screen and inputting-fingers as their mode of play.
LEGO is a good counterexample. It isn't screen-based, it involves physical manipulation of real things. It's analog (more or less), and it can be social in real- (rather than virtual) space.
I do agree that the absence of open spaces where children can engage in self-structured, unsupervised play is a problem, nonetheless. We have society of children with uncut umbilical cords.
Re:Should Congressional Action Be Warranted?
on
UnBox Calls Home, A Lot
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There's something that's neither strictly "personal" responsibility (the call for "personal responsibility" is often a form of blaming the victim) and simple whining: it's collective action. Despite its utopian, hippie-esque ring, it can mean a class action lawsuit, a public information campaign leading to a boycott or increased awareness of alternatives, advocating a change in public policy, or other activities. Standing up for "oneself" in this situation means just not buying it. Outside of anything else, this is at best feckless, and at worst self-destructive.
Alternatives enter the market place because mass markets are created. Investment in alternatives occurs because of a perception of the possibility of that market. Not all collective action is simply whining and asking for a hand-me-down, and much "personal" action is.
I think what protects Microsoft's dominance is what I call the "last 1%" - that little bit of extra functionality that we get from the ubiquity of MS products. In my case, it is the integration of EndNote with Microsoft Word ("Cite as you write.") The productivity boost that little feature gives me keeps me away from Writely, OpenOffice, etc; it keeps.doc as the standard format for my documents. For other people, it is different things - add-ons and plugins for MS products that aren't available for non-MS alternatives.
Google contributes to that "1%" phenomenon. It integrates its web-only apps with desktop apps like Google Earth that are Windows-only. Picasa and Picasa Web Albums are another Windows-enhancer.
Those statements weren't statements of standing fact: they were actually attempts to unify national policy with the interests of (some) companies. IBM managed to maintain business relationships with the Nazi regime long after the diplomatic relationship betweeen the US and Germany fell apart; national relationships are very cozy between nations which host hotly competing companies (eg., Boeing and Airbus). French economic policy is torn between nationalistic small-businesses and farmers and multinational corporations (and different groups of consumers, some of whom want locally produced, non-GMO foods, and others who want prices as low as possible.)
Different industries have very different ideal policy environments, too: consider the differences between hardware, software, and content industries regarding DRM and IP.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy into the evil Microsoft thing. They are about as unethical as any other software company out there, and, as far as I'm concerned, the software industry is a bit more ethical than most.
I'm not saying that your analysis is wrong, mind you: it's mutual self-interest all around (cooperating with Apple ensures that Office remains a standard product across platforms; cooperating with Mozilla ensures that Windows Live will work across platforms - that benefits them far more than having someone us IE.) But you seem to think that this is something particularly sinister about MS, when it is simply the type of calculation that any successful business will engage in.
My point is that enmity as we usually understand it has nothing to do with the relationships between these companies. It is competition, and more importantly, it is first and foremost a quest for enrichment, and if they enrich themselves more by cooperating than competing in certain sectors, they will cooperate.
Long before WhiteWolf, RuneQuest was an entirely skill-based RPG, which was developed into a generic RPG framework. WhiteWolf came rather late to the table.
Your ontology presumes what you conclude, and it is flawed.
You assume that business interests are a subset of national interests, and that simply isn't the case. The relationship between the state and different industries is complicated, contested.
What is "an enemy" in this case? Is Ford doing business in Canada a case of the American state pursuing its national interests behind enemy lines? What is the enemy in the Middle East - is it the governments dominated by people with connections to business interests, or the Islamist movements largely dominated by people outside of those governments?
Governments do try to serve constinuencies, it is true, and pursue certain types of advantage. Really, the state and other apparata are mechanisms by which blocs of interest wield power. Any analysis that sees these institutions are the units of analysis by themselves is flawed from the outset - you really need to check, as I said in the outset, your ontology.
There's such a misunderstanding of the nature of (most) business competition. It's very much to be expected that two businesses will compete in one market or context and turn around and cooperate in another, and it certainly does not mean that there is no chance for a merger that would end that cooperation. The metaphors of total war notwithstanding, it isn't as if business was about the formation of simple alliances against allied enemies.
Yahoo and Ebay are cooperating in the US market, but Ebay is cooperating with Google in other markets. Microsoft competes with Apple and, to some extent, Mozilla, but goes to some pains to ensure a certain amount of interoperability.
The shorthand version: competition for markets is not the same thing as war. Business-as-war is just a metaphor, and like many metaphors, it doesn't always fit.
Apparently, you are a little bit on the outside of these discourses, looking in, because there are two very distinct approaches to cultural material that you seem to be confusing, and "postmodernism" is only tangentially related to both of them.
An intentional indifference to the question of the "quality" of a work is the hallmark of cultural studies as developed by British academics in the 70's and 80's, and it is one of two ongoing approaches to popular culture (and insofar as cultural practices are pretty much pervasively tied up with questions of markets, all culture can be seen as "popular;" it's just a question of who the people that use that culture are.) This approach takes as a given that culture is being produced by a culture-industry, and then sees what people do with that fact. A lot of the focus on fan communities, on "subversive" readings, on the role that audiences play in communicating their desires to the market, comes from this tradition.
The other approach is the critical theory approach identified with the Frankfurt School, which pretty much sees the consumers of popular culture as dupes, and sees Star Trek and such as commodities which reinforce the dependent position of the audience; that if you unpack these media products, you find that they ultimately comply with the assumptions and ideology which dominates the modern world. Theorists like Theodor Adorno were very much of the view that very few works were of enough aesthetic value to resist being reduced to a commodity: he largely shares your apparent view.
But you don't recognize this as a current argument within academia. And you characterization of academics in the humanities is simply incorrect - the hardest working scholars that I know are in the humanities. I went back for a humanities PhD after a career in the software industry, with a technical background and the ability to program. I know how to do calculus. And in my experience, it's as easy, or easier, to "fake it" or cruise by with a minimal effort in the sciences as in the humanities. For every Sokal hoax, there is a Bogdanov affair. The difference is that no one awarded Sokal a PhD in the humanities.
My impression of the the dissertation is actually that it is thin; saying that "Star Trek borrows from mythology" is really kind of jejune. A more interesting historicization of popular culture is Angela Ndalianis' "Neobaroque Aesthetics and Popular Entertainment."
The tests to which you linked are irrelevant: they are testing outbound traffic, and Windows Firewall is not designed to block outbound traffic. It is a perfectly adequate software firewall for inbound traffic.
Outbound traffic is best controlled at the router, particularly for working networks. The only real use I can think of for outbound software firewalls on the client is if you have a home computer being used by a number of people, and you want to control their internet access.
But they were still members of the culture. Just not typical ones.
Part of American culture is a fondness for junk food. I know many Americans who do not like junk food. Are they not part of American culture? Will American culture cease to exist if there is a widespread move to healthier food?
In a sense, this is a version of the old "substance vs. accident" debate.
The problem you're having is with ontology: what is the "thing," the culture, and what is a property of the culture? Is the work ethic something that Protestant culture developed, or was it a feature that defines Protestant culture? If the latter, wouldn't that mean that a single exception would negate membership in the category?
Your definition of innate is incorrect, incidentally.
Don't attribute to "culture" what should be attributed to history. Every cultural feature is the product of a historical process, and there's nothing "innate" about them.
Without belaboring the point, I'd note that at one time, the work ethic was referred to as the Protestant work ethic. Mass leisure society is something more recent.
A win for Linux that isn't a win for open source isn't a win for me. It's a win, perhaps, for the manufacturer. I'm not a fan of one OS or another - I'm someone with a certain vision of where technology and research should go. If Windows went open source, I'd prefer its adoption (if not every instance of it) over an increasingly closed Linux.
Availability matters. If the availability of locked-in devices is much greater than that of non-locked-in devices, then fewer people have a practical choice.
The creation of software which is anti-DRM helps increase the availablity of non-DRM hardware, by increasing the appeal of that hardware, and thus motivating the channel to order and stock it.
You have an idea of agency that is limited to the last link in the chain: the consumer. Considering the complexity of network effects, this is almost a "blame the victim" approach. Why do people choose Windows or Office? Because of the network of other people and objects: IT departments, possible employers, people with whom they will share documents, 3rd party software that runs with Office (e.g., EndNote, in the case of my community of work). You have to generate pressure for alternatives farther "up the chain" to overcome these network effects.
Yup. GPLv3 is just plain dumb. It "addresses" a non-existent problem. People have a choice between DRM and non-DRM platforms and software. They can and do vote with their wallets.
GPLv3 gives developers the option to vote with their time and effort, as well.
As a matter of fact, the survival of our whole species is relatively unimportant.
Importance is a feature of cognition, not of things. We don't have access to a non-human category of "importance." Insofar as the term is meaningful at all, it is meaningful to humans. (When we have access to the epistemology of a dolphin, we can start to "translate" the idea of importance to its dolphin-equivalent.)
So, if the survival of our species, the very precondition for anything being "important" as we understand it, isn't important, then nothing is.
The category of importance, in pragmatic terms, isn't to describe some eternal, neutral fact of the universe: it is to generate priorities.
Having more than one way to communicate is not always ideal. Organizations (and a rural village with a fairly unified economy and shared markets/infrastructure can be considered an "organization") often do better to keep communications fairly simple: anyone who has implemented Sarbanes-Oxley compliance can attest to that. Think about your own desktop" how many IM protocols do you want? Is it really easier to monitor several voice-mailboxes, multiple protocols, paper and electronic media? Is it really better that your task bar have a Yahoo, MSN, AIM, and Jabber client? By trying to unify clients (with Jabber transports, Trilian, etc.) it seems we're trying to undo the effect of having more ways to communicate with each other.
OLPC can be seen as an external intervention into local processes, and a fairly top-down driven one, rather than a bottom-up one. I look at these things through the filter of actor-network theory: what are the current boundary objects that people are using to get things done with each other? If you actually think of the laptop as an agent, that actively shapes human practices, what are its effects going to be? There is a long history of well-meaning, failed interventions: distributing free medication and putting local pharmacies out of business, for example, or moving to cash crops that either fail, or have a market collapse (see the history of the Irish potato famine).
There's also the question of network effects: the shoes that an African villager might learn how to make on the internet might not be the ones most appropriate to his environment, and the reliance on the laptop could, in fact, reduce the amount of local cultural transfer by which he could actually learn how to make shoes from a neighbor.
I think that technology can be helpful and integrated well: it's just that the very OLPC model is so wrapped up in a myopic view of culture and society, that I think it is at best destined to fail, at worst could cause more harm than good.
In many such communities, people already communicate with each other quite well: the members of many villages are in mutual communication far more than, say, the residents of a typical urban flat or condo.
The law of unintended consequences may come into play: electronic communications technologies can erode social/cultural practices that already exist. Is it really an improvement that a few people IM each other the location of a "food drop" (or, more accurately, a food distribution site - though this is not a very common scenario) rather than having a people congregate and discuss it verbally? Wouldn't, perhaps, a kiosk/internet cafe model fit into the use patterns of people in remote villages better?
Your point is really a reductio ad absurdum: low costs of living in non-coastal ("red state") areas apply to housing and, to some lesser extent, food alone; consumer goods are the same price as elsewhere.
One unspoken advantage to living in high-cost/high-wage regions is the ability to travel easily, both in the sense that one is likely to be living near a hub airport, and because one's greater income in absolute terms means more buying power overseas and elsewhere.
Don't apply the same model to food that you apply to shelter. Your core insight, that well-meaning infusions of charity can have unexpected and unpleasant consequences, is well taken. But not all markets work the same: housing is sui generis (particularly when it is land and location that is the cost-driver.)
Also, education is not a panacea. You can over-educate a population past its economic opportunities and create a variety of problems, from the widescale loss of the best-and-brightest to other countries, to a population of resentful, overeducated people who are only able to find jobs in the lower ranks of the agricultural and industrial sectors (this is much of what happened in parts of Latin America - the Sendero Luminoso of Peru was largely officered by a generation of well-educated poor youth who found no job opportunities awaiting for them after their much-vaunted education was finished.)
England did not have the most widely educated population back when it was the richest, most powerful nation in the world. I think you might find the correlation between education and prosperity, historically, to have a number of suprises.
Slashdot Mirror
They could fix the mistake, as a last resort, by giving refunds. That should have been their first instinct, upon realizing the game was unpatchable.
They did not. Even if they change their minds later, it will be as a result of public pressure, not from any consideration for their customers.
If you do not write them off, I'm afraid that you are a slavish dupe.
The original article conflates two very different things: screen-based play, and hi-tech toys.
I'm not worried about toys being too hi-tech. I'm worried about too many kids reduced to a gaze-at-a-screen and inputting-fingers as their mode of play.
LEGO is a good counterexample. It isn't screen-based, it involves physical manipulation of real things. It's analog (more or less), and it can be social in real- (rather than virtual) space.
I do agree that the absence of open spaces where children can engage in self-structured, unsupervised play is a problem, nonetheless. We have society of children with uncut umbilical cords.
There's something that's neither strictly "personal" responsibility (the call for "personal responsibility" is often a form of blaming the victim) and simple whining: it's collective action. Despite its utopian, hippie-esque ring, it can mean a class action lawsuit, a public information campaign leading to a boycott or increased awareness of alternatives, advocating a change in public policy, or other activities. Standing up for "oneself" in this situation means just not buying it. Outside of anything else, this is at best feckless, and at worst self-destructive.
Alternatives enter the market place because mass markets are created. Investment in alternatives occurs because of a perception of the possibility of that market. Not all collective action is simply whining and asking for a hand-me-down, and much "personal" action is.
Goople.
I think what protects Microsoft's dominance is what I call the "last 1%" - that little bit of extra functionality that we get from the ubiquity of MS products. In my case, it is the integration of EndNote with Microsoft Word ("Cite as you write.") The productivity boost that little feature gives me keeps me away from Writely, OpenOffice, etc; it keeps .doc as the standard format for my documents. For other people, it is different things - add-ons and plugins for MS products that aren't available for non-MS alternatives.
Google contributes to that "1%" phenomenon. It integrates its web-only apps with desktop apps like Google Earth that are Windows-only. Picasa and Picasa Web Albums are another Windows-enhancer.
Those statements weren't statements of standing fact: they were actually attempts to unify national policy with the interests of (some) companies. IBM managed to maintain business relationships with the Nazi regime long after the diplomatic relationship betweeen the US and Germany fell apart; national relationships are very cozy between nations which host hotly competing companies (eg., Boeing and Airbus). French economic policy is torn between nationalistic small-businesses and farmers and multinational corporations (and different groups of consumers, some of whom want locally produced, non-GMO foods, and others who want prices as low as possible.)
Different industries have very different ideal policy environments, too: consider the differences between hardware, software, and content industries regarding DRM and IP.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy into the evil Microsoft thing. They are about as unethical as any other software company out there, and, as far as I'm concerned, the software industry is a bit more ethical than most.
I'm not saying that your analysis is wrong, mind you: it's mutual self-interest all around (cooperating with Apple ensures that Office remains a standard product across platforms; cooperating with Mozilla ensures that Windows Live will work across platforms - that benefits them far more than having someone us IE.) But you seem to think that this is something particularly sinister about MS, when it is simply the type of calculation that any successful business will engage in.
My point is that enmity as we usually understand it has nothing to do with the relationships between these companies. It is competition, and more importantly, it is first and foremost a quest for enrichment, and if they enrich themselves more by cooperating than competing in certain sectors, they will cooperate.
Long before WhiteWolf, RuneQuest was an entirely skill-based RPG, which was developed into a generic RPG framework. WhiteWolf came rather late to the table.
Your ontology presumes what you conclude, and it is flawed.
You assume that business interests are a subset of national interests, and that simply isn't the case. The relationship between the state and different industries is complicated, contested.
What is "an enemy" in this case? Is Ford doing business in Canada a case of the American state pursuing its national interests behind enemy lines? What is the enemy in the Middle East - is it the governments dominated by people with connections to business interests, or the Islamist movements largely dominated by people outside of those governments?
Governments do try to serve constinuencies, it is true, and pursue certain types of advantage. Really, the state and other apparata are mechanisms by which blocs of interest wield power. Any analysis that sees these institutions are the units of analysis by themselves is flawed from the outset - you really need to check, as I said in the outset, your ontology.
There's such a misunderstanding of the nature of (most) business competition. It's very much to be expected that two businesses will compete in one market or context and turn around and cooperate in another, and it certainly does not mean that there is no chance for a merger that would end that cooperation. The metaphors of total war notwithstanding, it isn't as if business was about the formation of simple alliances against allied enemies.
Yahoo and Ebay are cooperating in the US market, but Ebay is cooperating with Google in other markets. Microsoft competes with Apple and, to some extent, Mozilla, but goes to some pains to ensure a certain amount of interoperability.
The shorthand version: competition for markets is not the same thing as war. Business-as-war is just a metaphor, and like many metaphors, it doesn't always fit.
Apparently, you are a little bit on the outside of these discourses, looking in, because there are two very distinct approaches to cultural material that you seem to be confusing, and "postmodernism" is only tangentially related to both of them.
An intentional indifference to the question of the "quality" of a work is the hallmark of cultural studies as developed by British academics in the 70's and 80's, and it is one of two ongoing approaches to popular culture (and insofar as cultural practices are pretty much pervasively tied up with questions of markets, all culture can be seen as "popular;" it's just a question of who the people that use that culture are.) This approach takes as a given that culture is being produced by a culture-industry, and then sees what people do with that fact. A lot of the focus on fan communities, on "subversive" readings, on the role that audiences play in communicating their desires to the market, comes from this tradition.
The other approach is the critical theory approach identified with the Frankfurt School, which pretty much sees the consumers of popular culture as dupes, and sees Star Trek and such as commodities which reinforce the dependent position of the audience; that if you unpack these media products, you find that they ultimately comply with the assumptions and ideology which dominates the modern world. Theorists like Theodor Adorno were very much of the view that very few works were of enough aesthetic value to resist being reduced to a commodity: he largely shares your apparent view.
But you don't recognize this as a current argument within academia. And you characterization of academics in the humanities is simply incorrect - the hardest working scholars that I know are in the humanities. I went back for a humanities PhD after a career in the software industry, with a technical background and the ability to program. I know how to do calculus. And in my experience, it's as easy, or easier, to "fake it" or cruise by with a minimal effort in the sciences as in the humanities. For every Sokal hoax, there is a Bogdanov affair. The difference is that no one awarded Sokal a PhD in the humanities.
My impression of the the dissertation is actually that it is thin; saying that "Star Trek borrows from mythology" is really kind of jejune. A more interesting historicization of popular culture is Angela Ndalianis' "Neobaroque Aesthetics and Popular Entertainment."
The tests to which you linked are irrelevant: they are testing outbound traffic, and Windows Firewall is not designed to block outbound traffic. It is a perfectly adequate software firewall for inbound traffic.
Outbound traffic is best controlled at the router, particularly for working networks. The only real use I can think of for outbound software firewalls on the client is if you have a home computer being used by a number of people, and you want to control their internet access.
Well, if you attach a television tower to your access hub, the question is, do you think you can go mano-a-mano with 50 angry neighbors?
I'll let you know next week.
But they were still members of the culture. Just not typical ones.
Part of American culture is a fondness for junk food. I know many Americans who do not like junk food. Are they not part of American culture? Will American culture cease to exist if there is a widespread move to healthier food?
In a sense, this is a version of the old "substance vs. accident" debate.
The problem you're having is with ontology: what is the "thing," the culture, and what is a property of the culture? Is the work ethic something that Protestant culture developed, or was it a feature that defines Protestant culture? If the latter, wouldn't that mean that a single exception would negate membership in the category?
Your definition of innate is incorrect, incidentally.
Don't attribute to "culture" what should be attributed to history. Every cultural feature is the product of a historical process, and there's nothing "innate" about them.
Without belaboring the point, I'd note that at one time, the work ethic was referred to as the Protestant work ethic. Mass leisure society is something more recent.
A win for Linux that isn't a win for open source isn't a win for me. It's a win, perhaps, for the manufacturer. I'm not a fan of one OS or another - I'm someone with a certain vision of where technology and research should go. If Windows went open source, I'd prefer its adoption (if not every instance of it) over an increasingly closed Linux.
Availability matters. If the availability of locked-in devices is much greater than that of non-locked-in devices, then fewer people have a practical choice.
The creation of software which is anti-DRM helps increase the availablity of non-DRM hardware, by increasing the appeal of that hardware, and thus motivating the channel to order and stock it.
You have an idea of agency that is limited to the last link in the chain: the consumer. Considering the complexity of network effects, this is almost a "blame the victim" approach. Why do people choose Windows or Office? Because of the network of other people and objects: IT departments, possible employers, people with whom they will share documents, 3rd party software that runs with Office (e.g., EndNote, in the case of my community of work). You have to generate pressure for alternatives farther "up the chain" to overcome these network effects.
Yup. GPLv3 is just plain dumb. It "addresses" a non-existent problem. People have a choice between DRM and non-DRM platforms and software. They can and do vote with their wallets.
GPLv3 gives developers the option to vote with their time and effort, as well.
As a matter of fact, the survival of our whole species is relatively unimportant.
Importance is a feature of cognition, not of things. We don't have access to a non-human category of "importance." Insofar as the term is meaningful at all, it is meaningful to humans. (When we have access to the epistemology of a dolphin, we can start to "translate" the idea of importance to its dolphin-equivalent.)
So, if the survival of our species, the very precondition for anything being "important" as we understand it, isn't important, then nothing is.
The category of importance, in pragmatic terms, isn't to describe some eternal, neutral fact of the universe: it is to generate priorities.
Having more than one way to communicate is not always ideal. Organizations (and a rural village with a fairly unified economy and shared markets/infrastructure can be considered an "organization") often do better to keep communications fairly simple: anyone who has implemented Sarbanes-Oxley compliance can attest to that. Think about your own desktop" how many IM protocols do you want? Is it really easier to monitor several voice-mailboxes, multiple protocols, paper and electronic media? Is it really better that your task bar have a Yahoo, MSN, AIM, and Jabber client? By trying to unify clients (with Jabber transports, Trilian, etc.) it seems we're trying to undo the effect of having more ways to communicate with each other.
OLPC can be seen as an external intervention into local processes, and a fairly top-down driven one, rather than a bottom-up one. I look at these things through the filter of actor-network theory: what are the current boundary objects that people are using to get things done with each other? If you actually think of the laptop as an agent, that actively shapes human practices, what are its effects going to be? There is a long history of well-meaning, failed interventions: distributing free medication and putting local pharmacies out of business, for example, or moving to cash crops that either fail, or have a market collapse (see the history of the Irish potato famine).
There's also the question of network effects: the shoes that an African villager might learn how to make on the internet might not be the ones most appropriate to his environment, and the reliance on the laptop could, in fact, reduce the amount of local cultural transfer by which he could actually learn how to make shoes from a neighbor.
I think that technology can be helpful and integrated well: it's just that the very OLPC model is so wrapped up in a myopic view of culture and society, that I think it is at best destined to fail, at worst could cause more harm than good.
In many such communities, people already communicate with each other quite well: the members of many villages are in mutual communication far more than, say, the residents of a typical urban flat or condo.
The law of unintended consequences may come into play: electronic communications technologies can erode social/cultural practices that already exist. Is it really an improvement that a few people IM each other the location of a "food drop" (or, more accurately, a food distribution site - though this is not a very common scenario) rather than having a people congregate and discuss it verbally? Wouldn't, perhaps, a kiosk/internet cafe model fit into the use patterns of people in remote villages better?
Your point is really a reductio ad absurdum: low costs of living in non-coastal ("red state") areas apply to housing and, to some lesser extent, food alone; consumer goods are the same price as elsewhere.
One unspoken advantage to living in high-cost/high-wage regions is the ability to travel easily, both in the sense that one is likely to be living near a hub airport, and because one's greater income in absolute terms means more buying power overseas and elsewhere.
Don't apply the same model to food that you apply to shelter. Your core insight, that well-meaning infusions of charity can have unexpected and unpleasant consequences, is well taken. But not all markets work the same: housing is sui generis (particularly when it is land and location that is the cost-driver.)
Also, education is not a panacea. You can over-educate a population past its economic opportunities and create a variety of problems, from the widescale loss of the best-and-brightest to other countries, to a population of resentful, overeducated people who are only able to find jobs in the lower ranks of the agricultural and industrial sectors (this is much of what happened in parts of Latin America - the Sendero Luminoso of Peru was largely officered by a generation of well-educated poor youth who found no job opportunities awaiting for them after their much-vaunted education was finished.)
England did not have the most widely educated population back when it was the richest, most powerful nation in the world. I think you might find the correlation between education and prosperity, historically, to have a number of suprises.