With an open subscription model you can't precent evil people from getting on the system even if you squash the account. A random ascii string can be generated for a username each time. Quite effective.
Really simply you can kick some animal ass with a nice highly avaible weapon. And there's always the ever popular argument that bigger guns are for taking out superanimals.
Both my mother and I are fully armed and fully capable of shooting poisoned bullets at anyone. Strongarm tactics are utterly futile against a person who has superior training with a gun. I still don't see any point. My point unless something (in this case a post) has logic then it's worthless.
To kill the most ammount of people without possible proof use chemical/biological agents. Metal detectors don't work against any of these attacks. Relatively harmless when anyone tries to take a casual look. For example a remotely operated can of sarin or another nerve gas could be the perfect crime perhaps hidden in a ventiliation duct. Potentially thousands dead and it even works in countries where guns are banned.
Perhaps in an area where food is being distributed a nice innocent bulged can of beans or a small vial of concentrated botulism could kill at least several hundred if eating is spread nearly simultaneous.
I know of at least several people who can assemble handguns in under 20s flat. That's pretty good for a human being. What about having a voice activated unlocking mechanism for a gun? Take a voice activation chip and implant it into a trigger jamming device. Then you say something in your own voice it checks it and unlocks the gun (ala Millenium).
Guns are not that bad. Again only a person with a weak mind is going to actually go on a shooting rampage with a gun. Also it's far easier to defend yourself with a gun than without. All other forms of self defense are put to shame with the gun. All the martial arts in the world cannot compare to the usefulness of a gun against a foe. I am wondering has any person made a functioning letahl weapon capable of firing projectiles that are lethal with plastic? Is it portable and use say perhaps ice bullets or maybe something poison based? That would rock as a weapon.
See netscape used to be a soverign company for a while and there's always lynx, and emacs's browser, and KDE's and the like. There's always choice. Also given the choice I would choose Netscape over anything microsoft simply because I like netscape better, it's more cross platform, I can look at the code, the company dosn't control the world, dosn't make my operating system (crappily), etc.
I think people underestimate children with any information. In general people must think kids are the stupidest people in the universe. I mean saying that thinking that one cannot distinguish a logical argument from a foolish one is silly. Tell me what is defined as "inappropriate" and what is not. How is this destinction reached? Didn't the natzi's get so many children because the children weren't that well educated? Why don't we just let people look at any content they want and make their own opinions themselves. Gaining information is essential to survival and enlightenment.
Now all we need is Dual Head support for the G400 MAX DH
That implies that having two monitors is extremely important.
From what I know most of the dual headed cards out there only worked in WinNT but I may be mistaken. The only ones I have seen are in trade journals and they said that windows basically had drivers for them.
Yeah I guess I don't really know about that. See most companies like to betray people with massive inefficient code that breaks almost all computers. What exactly is Half Life about? What makes it so good? What about online play is any different from the usual fare about having things where you see how quickly you can kill your fellow players and the like. Playing online has never been very fun for me at all (when I can find a computer that isn't mine that can actually do anything). The whole idea makes me sick. I am tired of playing people who kick my ass 700 times before I fall to the ground. To me the concept of playing against others is a rather bad idea. I don't want to play a game I can't win. I don't want to fight a game that I never can do anything with. A good example for you: Starcraft. Ok I get the shareware version and play the entire thing all the way through in a college cumputer lab. That was somewhat challenging and I rather enjoyed it. Next I decide to try to play some multiplayer stuff on the net. Well after several days I hadn't won a single game with large ammounts of time dedicated to this. I didn't win a damn one. Not only this but I wasn't enjoying it much at all (you should know how it feels to loose). I tried almost every conceivable military tactical strategy that I had heard published and some of the stuff from the Art of War. Nothing helps. I almost never win anything. Second example: Quake III arena. This game obviously was on a better machine that I didn't own as well. I started playing the damn thing and for the life of me I never seemed to avoid death or deliver any death to almost anyone. Nothing worked at all. Seemed that it was an impossibility.
Now maybe I am "ignorant" but this dosn't seem like something I would want to do for free and especially not for a fee.
"At last the console manufacturers seem to be catching onto the idea of online gaming. Everyone and their online dog know the future is broadband so it's not difficult to see how Sony can exploit this with their Playstation. Welcome news indeed - let's just hope someone can produce some decent games."
Online gaming is something that really isn't a terribly good idea for several reasons:
1. Point of control/failure. I don't like the idea of someone else holding my "game" and having to have control over it. I want to access my game from anywhere and without a net connection of any sort. If their server goes down, they go out of business, or make another product that superceedes the current one your our of luck.
2. Cost When I buy a game I want to have that game for the rest of my life without extra cost. With these things they will most likely cost and I don't want that.
3. Interactivity dosn't take the place of a real isolated program that is done well.
Just because you can't code your way out of a paper bag dosn't mean that I have to look at some shitty program that just has multiplayer capabilities built into it.
"What am I going to do with a modem in a house with no phone line? (But full ethernet connectivity) "
You know there was once a time when games didn't need to connect to the damn net to do anything. There's something called isolated programming that works quite well and dosn't have any problem.
I don't want all of my games to be network required so that I have to pay massive ammounts of money just to play a game.
I predict people are going to loose a lot of money on this little thing if that's what they're trying to pull.
then explain why more consumer level devices are not using them? And why the acorn died. Also explain why Intel and AMD (both American companies) are controlling the computer market with some of the fastest microprocessors in the world.
One of my main problems and ideas that I have with processors like these that seem to be largely geared to "low power" systems and that are "cheap" (these are both relative words) never seem to make it into standard desktop computers, Crusoe and this are both working on "embedded systems " and "portable devices". Why hasn't anyone created a real sit down and run linux computer with one of these? Is there any problem with actually doing this? Maybe I just dont' get it. If it's cheap, and if' it's more efficient then why don't they have them in computers that average people would be using?
A distribution is unlikely because no one really uses embedded apps on a daily basis except developers. The reason distributions liek Red Hat actually work is because of a large base of normal users who actually use the stuff and desire changes and like to happen. The most I have seen in this regard are usally projects that almost never make it at all and that are extremely obselete.
Netbooting is important why? I doubt there is any need to do anything like that because hardware dosn't cost your firstborn anymore. Realistically most machines have access to at least enough RAM and hd space that they can easily boot on their own. After the machine has booted the you can monkey around with many different network options. Plus most of those computers cost a pretty penny and can't be had in most locations easily or without significant hassles. Also I would see the only reason that would happen would be as a failover mechanism in case the machine looses say the bootloader on the hard drive.
having a computer withotu fixed disks or the like is a bad thing engineers have been working hard getting more power in an individual's hands and there are the ungrateful few who want said power to be taken away so they can rule
How are you supposed to justify doing something like this? How the hell do you get all these obscure parts? Who would sell you such things? And most likely for a price far and above what an acrtual manufacturer could easily do. Plus aren't almost all other processors not terribly common? When was the last time they had a desktop system that was selling in any major computer store with a strongarm processor in it?
"you turd, think about it. Linux may get certified, but that will be only one specific distribution. Since all "linuxes" are different, they can't all have the same security rating. "
Actually I think anything about C1 has to get evaluated on a case by case basis by a certified DoD contractor. So even if you think you have a secure OS you may in fact not.
I am interested in when for example the various distros will impliment this. I already have taken the first step. Namely not having an internet connection as most humans know it. So exactly what is out there. A while ago Trusted BSD came out. I would really like to get my machine to a B1 raiting so perhaps I can get bragging rights for something.
"Couple of BITS? Try dozens of e-mails a week. Have you ever set up a brand new AOL or Hotmail account, and just let it sit there, without using that e-mail address or publishing it anywhere? You can end up with dozens, if not hundreds of pieces of mail a month in those accounts, and all you ever have to do is open your inbox and check it once in a while. "
I set up a mailandnews account that I never sent the address of to anyone. I never got one piece of spam that I didn't specifically ask for.
"Also, if you ever take a laptop on the road, even with a good modem, you're going to start getting pretty annoyed with those 'couple of bits' of junk e-mail when you dial in through a hotel PBX and get, at best, a 30K connection, then have to pull all that crap through along with the two or three pieces of real e-mail that you want to read. "
A problem. Yes I think tat would be it. That's why you can select the messages you want to download with most IMAP clients.
"And yes, junk mail in real life is annoying, because 1) I have to sort through all of it to make sure I want it, and 2) it's a waste of natural resources. "
Ahh. My mailbox is boring and I usually like the fact that I can get some mail that I didn't/hadn't thought of before. Over the internet it's just stupid. Bulk mailers at least have to think about what they do.
"Now, did you really mean that, or was that the kind of reaction you were trolling for? "
I doubt he was trolling. I largely share the same opinion. But that's because I usually have means of making sure that the messages don't do anything horrible.
Ok considering you get billed massive quantities of money for all this is there an effective means of prosecuting the people who send you things like this? Unmetered net access makes traditional e-mail solicitation almost harmless. However you cold theoretically screw you favorite target with all sorts of crap and make him pay. Quite nasty.
""I see an inexorable movement towards dispossessionism, both coming from the "right," with UCITA, secured digital rights, anti-crypto-tampering in the DMCA, and ASP subscription models, and coming from the "left", with ideas that we should give our writing up into free collectivist projects. ""
"Whoah. That paragraph alone deserves an article."
Perhaps a John Katz piece?
"Geeks, in their attempts to free themselves from society, gave away their work for free, not realizing it's almost the same thing the other side is clamoring for... nobody owns anything anymore."
An intriguing concept. However people do own things. I can buy something and I then have that something. Nothing changes just perceptions of it. The idea of yours and mine are as old as cavemen. Only some very small societies can actually impliment collectivist owning of goods.
"Isn't it a rule of engineering to mistrust extremes because the answer usually lies somwhere in the middle? "
I am not in engineering so I don't know. What I think is the case is that most likely a workable solution that can allow for changing values of various elements would be best served with such an approach.
"I wish we could have had an interview of you on philosophy instead of AI.. it would have been much more interesting.. "
Depends on who you are. I like a good philosophy debate. However I would love to know more about AI without being a professor in it.
"What the hell?! I spent countless hours trying to get Gimp Perl to work for an industrial application."
Doh!
"I needed to batch process and manipulate a ton of images for a print project."
go on
"It turns out that Perl for Gimp 1.0.x is not terribly supported, while Gimp 1.1.19 was just too damn unstable."
I am running I think version 1.1.14 or.15 which was when I first noticed it. How "unsupported" is unsupported?
"After much experimentation, frustration, trial and error: the only conclusion was that as it currently stands... Gimp sucks."
No the logical colclusion is that the perl support for gimp sucks. Also they have python I think.
"Now I hear about this!!"
pretty impressive huh?
"How is it being done?"
I remember discussion about batch and remote processing using the gimp for a while just a natural evolution.
"Does the guy have his own custom-hacked version of Gimp?"
Maybe some tweaks. If he one of the leaders of the gimp project perhaps something more far reaching.
"So why aren't the modifications being redistributed under the GPL?"
Most likely because they haven't found the time or thought that their code was ready yet. Sounds like the perl support you tinkered with should have also been better tested.
"Hey, I can't wait until all my computationally expensive projects can be done on someone elses computer. "
Woah there cowboy. I really don't think that's such a good idea. I think that running things on your own computer is a much better idea. Better control, better access, and faster development for all concerned. Distributing things to others and not having them yourself is a rather shoddy idea.
"Having to upload/download images can be annoying, though, even if you have a fast connection."
quite
"Has anyone developed a secure way that a webserver could mount a local directory? What about an insecure way?"
There are linux utilities that can allow you to access files from a remote location without the need of authentication.
The only similar type of thing I have seen is something for windows called X-drive or similar. You have a little addition to explorer that allows for a drive X: that is actually space on a remote machine. However I haven't seen anything for linux like that. Perhaps NFS?
"So they've tied GIMP to a web server, and made it look pretty. Sounds like quite a good idea to me."
People are too preoccupied with making things look pretty today. Function is the best course.
"And anyone can upload their snaps to use it, so you don't need to be a linux guru to get it to work, which is always a bonus."
All you have to do is install a program onto your computer. Learning the interface and the skill is the tough part no matter the status of the person.
"But, wouldn't it make more sense for them to also offer the webified gimp for people to download and run on their own servers?"
I think you are overestimating the speed of progress on various work projects.
"It wouldn't have to be open source, just available."
My theory is that the source is comming it's just that they have to keep their servers from being slashdotted and get some functional aspects of the site ready for production level use (aka a 1.0 or similar release).
Slashdot Mirror
With an open subscription model you can't precent evil people from getting on the system even if you squash the account. A random ascii string can be generated for a username each time. Quite effective.
Really simply you can kick some animal ass with a nice highly avaible weapon.
And there's always the ever popular argument that bigger guns are for taking out superanimals.
Both my mother and I are fully armed and fully capable of shooting poisoned bullets at anyone.
Strongarm tactics are utterly futile against a person who has superior training with a gun.
I still don't see any point.
My point unless something (in this case a post) has logic then it's worthless.
To kill the most ammount of people without possible proof use chemical/biological agents.
Metal detectors don't work against any of these attacks. Relatively harmless when anyone tries to take a casual look.
For example a remotely operated can of sarin or another nerve gas could be the perfect crime perhaps hidden in a ventiliation duct.
Potentially thousands dead and it even works in countries where guns are banned.
Perhaps in an area where food is being distributed a nice innocent bulged can of beans or a small vial of concentrated botulism could kill at least several hundred if eating is spread nearly simultaneous.
I know of at least several people who can assemble handguns in under 20s flat.
That's pretty good for a human being.
What about having a voice activated unlocking mechanism for a gun? Take a voice activation chip and implant it into a trigger jamming device. Then you say something in your own voice it checks it and unlocks the gun (ala Millenium).
Guns are not that bad. Again only a person with a weak mind is going to actually go on a shooting rampage with a gun. Also it's far easier to defend yourself with a gun than without. All other forms of self defense are put to shame with the gun.
All the martial arts in the world cannot compare to the usefulness of a gun against a foe.
I am wondering has any person made a functioning letahl weapon capable of firing projectiles that are lethal with plastic? Is it portable and use say perhaps ice bullets or maybe something poison based? That would rock as a weapon.
See netscape used to be a soverign company for a while and there's always lynx, and emacs's browser, and KDE's and the like.
There's always choice. Also given the choice I would choose Netscape over anything microsoft simply because I like netscape better, it's more cross platform, I can look at the code, the company dosn't control the world, dosn't make my operating system (crappily), etc.
I think people underestimate children with any information.
In general people must think kids are the stupidest people in the universe. I mean saying that thinking that one cannot distinguish a logical argument from a foolish one is silly.
Tell me what is defined as "inappropriate" and what is not. How is this destinction reached? Didn't the natzi's get so many children because the children weren't that well educated? Why don't we just let people look at any content they want and make their own opinions themselves. Gaining information is essential to survival and enlightenment.
Now all we need is Dual Head support for the G400 MAX DH
That implies that having two monitors is extremely important.
From what I know most of the dual headed cards out there only worked in WinNT but I may be mistaken. The only ones I have seen are in trade journals and they said that windows basically had drivers for them.
Yeah I guess I don't really know about that. See most companies like to betray people with massive inefficient code that breaks almost all computers.
What exactly is Half Life about? What makes it so good? What about online play is any different from the usual fare about having things where you see how quickly you can kill your fellow players and the like.
Playing online has never been very fun for me at all (when I can find a computer that isn't mine that can actually do anything). The whole idea makes me sick. I am tired of playing people who kick my ass 700 times before I fall to the ground. To me the concept of playing against others is a rather bad idea. I don't want to play a game I can't win. I don't want to fight a game that I never can do anything with.
A good example for you:
Starcraft. Ok I get the shareware version and play the entire thing all the way through in a college cumputer lab. That was somewhat challenging and I rather enjoyed it. Next I decide to try to play some multiplayer stuff on the net. Well after several days I hadn't won a single game with large ammounts of time dedicated to this.
I didn't win a damn one. Not only this but I wasn't enjoying it much at all (you should know how it feels to loose).
I tried almost every conceivable military tactical strategy that I had heard published and some of the stuff from the Art of War. Nothing helps. I almost never win anything.
Second example:
Quake III arena. This game obviously was on a better machine that I didn't own as well. I started playing the damn thing and for the life of me I never seemed to avoid death or deliver any death to almost anyone. Nothing worked at all. Seemed that it was an impossibility.
Now maybe I am "ignorant" but this dosn't seem like something I would want to do for free and especially not for a fee.
"At last the console manufacturers seem to be catching onto the idea of online gaming. Everyone and their online dog know the future is broadband so it's not difficult to see how Sony can exploit this with their Playstation. Welcome
news indeed - let's just hope someone can produce some decent games."
Online gaming is something that really isn't a terribly good idea for several reasons:
1. Point of control/failure.
I don't like the idea of someone else holding my "game" and having to have control over it. I want to access my game from anywhere and without a net connection of any sort. If their server goes down, they go out of business, or make another product that superceedes the current one your our of luck.
2. Cost
When I buy a game I want to have that game for the rest of my life without extra cost. With these things they will most likely cost and I don't want that.
3. Interactivity dosn't take the place of a real isolated program that is done well.
Just because you can't code your way out of a paper bag dosn't mean that I have to look at some shitty program that just has multiplayer capabilities built into it.
"What am I going to do with a modem in a house
with no phone line? (But full ethernet connectivity) "
You know there was once a time when games didn't need to connect to the damn net to do anything. There's something called isolated programming that works quite well and dosn't have any problem.
I don't want all of my games to be network required so that I have to pay massive ammounts of money just to play a game.
I predict people are going to loose a lot of money on this little thing if that's what they're trying to pull.
then explain why more consumer level devices are not using them? And why the acorn died. Also explain why Intel and AMD (both American companies) are controlling the computer market with some of the fastest microprocessors in the world.
One of my main problems and ideas that I have with processors like these that seem to be largely geared to "low power" systems and that are "cheap" (these are both relative words) never seem to make it into standard desktop computers, Crusoe and this are both working on "embedded systems " and "portable devices". Why hasn't anyone created a real sit down and run linux computer with one of these? Is there any problem with actually doing this? Maybe I just dont' get it. If it's cheap, and if' it's more efficient then why don't they have them in computers that average people would be using?
A distribution is unlikely because no one really uses embedded apps on a daily basis except developers. The reason distributions liek Red Hat actually work is because of a large base of normal users who actually use the stuff and desire changes and like to happen.
The most I have seen in this regard are usally projects that almost never make it at all and that are extremely obselete.
Netbooting is important why? I doubt there is any need to do anything like that because hardware dosn't cost your firstborn anymore. Realistically most machines have access to at least enough RAM and hd space that they can easily boot on their own. After the machine has booted the you can monkey around with many different network options.
Plus most of those computers cost a pretty penny and can't be had in most locations easily or without significant hassles.
Also I would see the only reason that would happen would be as a failover mechanism in case the machine looses say the bootloader on the hard drive.
having a computer withotu fixed disks or the like is a bad thing engineers have been working hard getting more power in an individual's hands and there are the ungrateful few who want said power to be taken away so they can rule
How are you supposed to justify doing something like this? How the hell do you get all these obscure parts? Who would sell you such things? And most likely for a price far and above what an acrtual manufacturer could easily do.
Plus aren't almost all other processors not terribly common? When was the last time they had a desktop system that was selling in any major computer store with a strongarm processor in it?
"you turd, think about it. Linux may get certified, but that will be only one specific distribution. Since all "linuxes" are different, they can't all have the same security rating. "
Actually I think anything about C1 has to get evaluated on a case by case basis by a certified DoD contractor. So even if you think you have a secure OS you may in fact not.
I am interested in when for example the various distros will impliment this. I already have taken the first step. Namely not having an internet connection as most humans know it. So exactly what is out there. A while ago Trusted BSD came out. I would really like to get my machine to a B1 raiting so perhaps I can get bragging rights for something.
Will this ever happen?
"Couple of BITS? Try dozens of e-mails a week. Have you ever set up a brand new AOL or Hotmail account, and just let it sit there, without using that e-mail address or publishing it anywhere? You can end up with dozens, if not
hundreds of pieces of mail a month in those accounts, and all you ever have to do is open your inbox and check it once in a while. "
I set up a mailandnews account that I never sent the address of to anyone. I never got one piece of spam that I didn't specifically ask for.
"Also, if you ever take a laptop on the road, even with a good modem, you're going to start getting pretty annoyed with those 'couple of bits' of junk e-mail when you dial in through a hotel PBX and get, at best, a 30K connection,
then have to pull all that crap through along with the two or three pieces of real e-mail that you want to read. "
A problem. Yes I think tat would be it. That's why you can select the messages you want to download with most IMAP clients.
"And yes, junk mail in real life is annoying, because 1) I have to sort through all of it to make sure I want it, and 2) it's a waste of natural resources. "
Ahh. My mailbox is boring and I usually like the fact that I can get some mail that I didn't/hadn't thought of before. Over the internet it's just stupid. Bulk mailers at least have to think about what they do.
"Now, did you really mean that, or was that the kind of reaction you were trolling for? "
I doubt he was trolling. I largely share the same opinion. But that's because I usually have means of making sure that the messages don't do anything horrible.
Ok considering you get billed massive quantities of money for all this is there an effective means of prosecuting the people who send you things like this? Unmetered net access makes traditional e-mail solicitation almost harmless. However you cold theoretically screw you favorite target with all sorts of crap and make him pay. Quite nasty.
""I see an inexorable movement towards dispossessionism, both coming from the "right," with UCITA, secured digital rights, anti-crypto-tampering in the DMCA, and ASP subscription models, and coming from the "left", with ideas
that we should give our writing up into free collectivist projects. ""
"Whoah. That paragraph alone deserves an article."
Perhaps a John Katz piece?
"Geeks, in their attempts to free themselves from society, gave away their work for free, not realizing it's almost the same thing the other side is clamoring for... nobody owns anything
anymore."
An intriguing concept. However people do own things. I can buy something and I then have that something. Nothing changes just perceptions of it. The idea of yours and mine are as old as cavemen. Only some very small societies can actually impliment collectivist owning of goods.
"Isn't it a rule of engineering to mistrust extremes because the answer usually lies somwhere in the middle? "
I am not in engineering so I don't know. What I think is the case is that most likely a workable solution that can allow for changing values of various elements would be best served with such an approach.
"I wish we could have had an interview of you on philosophy instead of AI.. it would have been much more interesting.. "
Depends on who you are. I like a good philosophy debate. However I would love to know more about AI without being a professor in it.
"What the hell?! I spent countless hours trying to get Gimp Perl to work for an industrial application."
.15 which was when I first noticed it. How "unsupported" is unsupported?
Doh!
"I needed to batch process and manipulate a ton of images for a print project."
go on
"It turns out that Perl for Gimp 1.0.x is not terribly supported, while Gimp 1.1.19 was just too damn unstable."
I am running I think version 1.1.14 or
"After much experimentation, frustration, trial and error: the only conclusion was that as it currently stands... Gimp sucks."
No the logical colclusion is that the perl support for gimp sucks. Also they have python I think.
"Now I hear about this!!"
pretty impressive huh?
"How is it being done?"
I remember discussion about batch and remote processing using the gimp for a while just a natural evolution.
"Does the guy have his own custom-hacked version of Gimp?"
Maybe some tweaks. If he one of the leaders of the gimp project perhaps something more far reaching.
"So why aren't the modifications being redistributed under the GPL?"
Most likely because they haven't found the time or thought that their code was ready yet. Sounds like the perl support you tinkered with should have also been better tested.
"Hey, I can't wait until all my computationally expensive projects can be done on someone elses computer. "
Woah there cowboy. I really don't think that's such a good idea. I think that running things on your own computer is a much better idea. Better control, better access, and faster development for all concerned. Distributing things to others and not having them yourself is a rather shoddy idea.
"Having to upload/download images can be annoying, though, even if you have a fast connection."
quite
"Has anyone developed a secure way that a webserver could mount a local directory? What about an insecure way?"
There are linux utilities that can allow you to access files from a remote location without the need of authentication.
The only similar type of thing I have seen is something for windows called X-drive or similar. You have a little addition to explorer that allows for a drive X: that is actually space on a remote machine. However I haven't seen anything for linux like that. Perhaps NFS?
"So they've tied GIMP to a web server, and made it look pretty. Sounds like quite a good idea to me."
People are too preoccupied with making things look pretty today. Function is the best course.
"And anyone can upload their snaps to use it, so you don't need to be a linux guru to get it to work, which is always a bonus."
All you have to do is install a program onto your computer. Learning the interface and the skill is the tough part no matter the status of the person.
"But, wouldn't it make more sense for them to also offer the webified gimp for people to download and run on their own servers?"
I think you are overestimating the speed of progress on various work projects.
"It wouldn't have to be open source, just available."
My theory is that the source is comming it's just that they have to keep their servers from being slashdotted and get some functional aspects of the site ready for production level use (aka a 1.0 or similar release).