still nothing, except for the very latest version of Acrobat, is Cocoa
That is not that big of a deal. Much of Apple's own "pro" app lineup is Carbon, as is iTunes. MS Office, Maya, and other high profile 3rd-party apps are also Carbon. Apple allocates a lot of resources to making sure Carbon works and works well. New APIs are being added all the time (HIView, better NIB support, support for Font & Spelling panels, etc). Most importantly, the infrastructure below the uppermost Carbon/Cocoa level is getting more and more unified with each release. Some parts are taken from the MacOS source base, some parts are taken from the NeXT source base, and some are completely new. If you look at the system hierarchy you'll see parts that are shared across Carbon and Cocoa (everything below the "Application enviroments" level). Much of what made up the Classic MacOS toolbox is in the ApplicationServices and CoreServices areas, and is thus shared between Carbon and Cocoa. You'd be surprised at how much of both enviornments are being pulled in when you launch an app linked against one or the other top-level frameworks.
That being said, I do agree that Adobe has forgotten its roots and has begun treating the Mac as a second class citizen. Then again, Apple encroached on Adobe's business somewhat with the release of Final Cut Express, a direct competitor to Premeire (which had its Mac version cancelled shortly thereafter). That might also have something to do with it, but I'm sure the VP you mention does too.
Can you explain why, as some of the articles say, the store at first waived the installation fee, then called him the next day demanding that he pay it after all, even threatening to call the police, despite the fact that, as he tells it, it was the first time he'd heard that he needed to pay it? That's the part of this story that really bugs me. Is that standard practice at Best Buy or something?
If a store threatened me like that, I'd be pissed, probably much more than if they called the cops because the ink smeared on a bill I gave them (a part of the story everyone seems to be missing -- it wasn't the $2 denomination alone that caused suspicion).
BTW, check out Woz's $2 bill stories. He buys them in perforated sheets from the U.S. Treasury, and leaves them on the sheets. People really have a hard time believing they are real when he pulls out the sheet.
The WORST you could do is trash your user environment. NOT the OS.
I've never understood why people tout this as though it were somehow preferable to the OS getting trashed. For a home computer, with one person using it, the user environment is the most valuable thing. The OS is disposable! You can reinstall from disk whenever you want. But if your data and/or preferences get trashed, you've got serious problems!
Video projection is very expensive ($100k per screen, as opposed to about $30k for 35mm), and lagging behind 35mm and especially 70mm in terms of quality. Contrast is not as good no matter what you use, and resolution is still lagging behind, although the latest demos are showing promise. It's getting better, but still has a ways to go.
Reliability is another factor. At ShoWest this year, there were numerous glitches during demos of digital systems. And this is during a trade show with lots of people around to help keep things running smoothly. Just imagine what it will be like in the field.
And, there is still a deadlock when it comes to who is going to pay for it. Theater owners don't want to pay for it, because they are not the ones who will reap the financial reward. Distributors and studios are the ones who will get to save all the money, but they are balking at the idea of actually making the investment. Financing still has to get hammered out.
Really, the delay is a good thing. The first demos of Star Wars in 1999 were done using 1280x1024 DLP systems. It was pretty lousy, really. Imagine if theaters had standardized on that! Right now people with decent home theater equipment can watch 1920x1080 material off satellite, cable, or D-VHS (and within a few months, HD-DVD will be added to that list). If theaters are going to attract audiences, they need to offer more than what people can get in their homes, not less.
That is not specific to digital cinema, and there is no reason why 35mm cannot meet or beat anything any other system comes up with. DTS has succcessfully separated the sound and picture in 35mm (as well as 16mm and 70mm) presentations. Their latest processor, the XD10, has support for 10 channels.
-No Flickering (the shutter runs at 24fps which is low enough to notice)
There aren't many, if any, theaters running single bladed shutters. A double-bladed shutter giving a refresh rate 48Hz is the norm. And, depending on what kind of shutter you have, the shutter is usually open a larger percentage of the time than it is closed, reducing flicker. If you really want, you can always get a triple-bladed shutter for a nice 72Hz refresh rate, but then you have to watch your light output.
if you look real hard at some text on screen you can actually see pixels.. but considering how much sharper the image is, who cares
I do. I don't go to the theater to look at visible pixels. I can get that at home. Fortunately, 4K resolution (which is enough to make the pixels invisbly small at normal viewing distance) seems to be the direction things are headed these days. Sony was demoing 4K equipment at ShoWest this year. And with digital intermediates starting to be done at 4K the source material is there.
The biggest area where video projection still falls behind film is dynamic range. Side-by-side comparsions make this abundantly clear. While projector manufacturers are sturggling to eek out a little bit more on their contrast ratios, print stocks like Kodak's 2393 (aka "Vision Premiere", used most recently for prints of "The Incredibles") can deliver 10,000:1 contrast. Yes, really. The max density is so high it's not just dark grey, it's really, truly, black. Video systems have a lot of work cut out to catch up to that.
As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between "permanent" and "long enough that I won't live to see the prices come down". And there is very little difference to me between that and "long enough that I will be extremely old before the prices come down".
Given the length of interest rate cycles, and the fact that I am already in my 30s, I think that is a real danger.
Nah, this is just a downswing in the cycle of America's love affair with the computer.
Ever see the "click and clack" guys talk about how Americans used to love their cars? In the 50s, they would get out on the weekends and polish that chrome trim by hand. The click and clack guys lament that no one seems to do that anymore. However, they fail to take into account the fact that too many people have been burned when it comes to cars.
In the 70s, cars were shit. They broke down easily, and everyone in the business was just there to rip you off. There was the not unfounded image of the crooked car salesman and the crooked car mechanic. Then, in the 80s, there was a mass shift of the market from American to Japanese cars, because those were built better. Today, the American car market is better, but people are much more wary of new cars because of past experiences. We even have "lemon laws" dealing specifically with car-related fraud, which are a direct result of bad experiences in the 70s and 80s.
Same thing is happening with computers. People, especially corporations, loved computers in the 80s and 90s. They spent vast amounts of money on them, without even doing any research to see if they were the right tool for the job. In the end, they got stuck with crappy computers, shitty custom software that cost way to much to develop, crooked consultants who overcharged and did little to improve efficency, shitty support, and so on.
America's love affair with the computer is at an end. People are sick of spending money on comptuers without getting some kind of real value in return. Now we are going to see a shakeout, and a new level of professionalism rise. In fact, we're already in the middle of it. An IT employee or consultant who is good and doesn't deceive customers into buying things they don't need can actually go really far.
It's not dying, it's just changing. It will always be needed, just like car repair, plumbing, etc. If you're a good, it's not dead end at all.
What gives me nightmares is: maybe real estate is skyrocketing because it's the only thing left of value. Maybe it will soon be priced out of everyone except the very rich's reach -- and stay there. Maybe the super-rich are deliberately talking on financial advice shows and in magazines about a "bubble" just to scare away the riff-raff from buying during their last chance to afford it, leaving all the real estate for themselves.
Seriously, I lay awake at night thinking about the above. About how I'm a chump and a stooge for not hurrying up and buying real estate before it gets permanently priced out of my grasp. A real estate "bubble"? I've seen that on the cover of magazines. It makes me suspicious. Those articles are written by analysts. When was the last time they were right about anything? If they were really so knowledgable, why do they need to write articles for a living? I just cant help but think rich people are trying to trick me into staying out of the game until they are finished buying up everything, and then I'll permanently be stuck in the lower, non-property owning class.
Ever heard about the origins of the game "Monopoly"? How the original version was deliberately designed to turn players against one anothe,r while one person ended up with all the money? The game was a tool intended to educate. Its purpose was to demonstrate the way turn-of-the century London landlords pitted tennants against each other. A person who didn't already own property in that time and place had no hope of ever being able to afford any. Non-property owners were doomed to a life of floundering and endless labor for a pittance. I fear that is the same situation that is coming in America today. After all, what else of value besides land is left? All our industry has been exported.
I keep thinking -- buy land NOW, before it's too late! But somehow I just can't bring myself to do it.
Oops, hit submit to soon. To address the point of patent searching, this is also done by the standards group, not the company that licenses the result (which is usually semi-guaranteed to be free from patent violations, which is definitely not true for grassroots open source codecs). This mitigates cost and risk.
ALAC is based on, and for all I know is just a straightforward implementation of, the MPEG-4 lossless audio codec. And Apple is a pretty big supporter MPEG-4, so it's not surprising they would use it. (The MPEG-4 lossless codec is in turn based on something called LPAC.)
Now, this is pure speculation, but I think one of the reasons why large companies avoid open source codecs like FLAC or Xvid is that they are afraid of getting sued. In today's everything-is-patented world, many open source codecs out there probably violate at least one patent somewhere, perhaps without even realizing it. Right or wrong, a company could, in the current climate, be sued for using one of those codecs. Individual users and developers of the codec are in the same boat, but they aren't as juicy a target as a large corporation, so the danger of them getting sued is a lot less. Even small companies might escape the crosshairs if they don't go around annoying the big sharks. But a patent holder who held off suing a bunch of individuals and small companies might change their mind and bring out the big guns once a large company with deep pockets made themselves a target. It's certainly a risk many large companies might shy away from. By using stuff from a consortium like MPEG, which has probably used some expensive IP lawyers to verify all their stuff as being on the up and up with respect to patents, companies can shield themselves somewhat from that risk.
Believe me, this is an improvement. Just a few years ago the entire movie industry seemed to have the "2K ought to be enough for anybody" attitude. I used to see people argue vehemently that 2K resolution was "good enough". Some people even advocated just standardizing everything on what is more or less HDTV quality and saying "done". Ugh. Not surprisingly, those people are pretty quiet these days.
I'm glad to see 4K finally starting to creep into the collective consciousness and start to become a defacto standard. Some movies are already starting to use it as their final image format. For example, Spider-Man 2 was DI'd at 4K (although SFX shots were often still only 2K). Things are definitely moving in the right direction.
And, when it comes down to it, 4K is pretty good. Even with perfect vision, a person wouldn't, under ideal viewing circumstances, be able to see much if any detail beyond that. Viewing a 2.39 "scope" image at SMPTE recommended viewing distance (2 screen heights) gives a horizontal viewing angle of 60.1 degrees, and given the 1 arcminute limit of human visual acuity, that means only 3600 pixels are required for the image to look perfectly smooth.
Oh, and the dynamic range issue is already covered by formats like Kodak's Cineon (10-bit per component logarithmic, very high dynamic range). The Snow White restoration from the 1990s was done at 4K in the Cineon format. Other formats use linear color, but at 16 bits per pixel. Cinepaint, formerly known as FilmGimp, deals with images as 16 linear bits per color.
You may be right, there may be more detail than 4K in a motion picture frame, but it's not that important. For preservation purposes, it would be good to keep that extra data, but for presentation purposes (theatrical and home exhibition), it is not going to be missed. Besides, the original negatives are still kept after one of these scans, so it's not like the info has been thrown away. It's still there if anybody wants to go get it.
Probably either MTI or something in-house. Maybe even a combination of both. Cinepaint probably wouldn't be the right tool for the job -- it's not specialized enough.
There is a really good documentary about the restoration of "Gone with the Wind" on the new 4-disc DVD boxed set. In it, you can hear some of the Warner Home Video people talk about it. They seem to have the right attitude -- don't try to "improve" things, just make them look as faithful to the original as possible. I've heard other restoration "experts" talk about making old films "better", and just cringed. The Warner folks didn't do that. I was really impressed.
People often focus too much on the digital aspects of media transfer, and don't give enough attention to the analog aspects. Wet-get is indeed a very good way to make old film look new. It's also great for keeping new films looking new. Brad Miller, the guy who runs film-tech.com, sells a wet-gate system for use in theaters that he calls "Film-Guard". It's pretty amazing stuff -- I wish more theaters would use it. It helps prevent dirt build-up and other problems, so that a carefully handled print using Film-Guard can still look brand new after being run for weeks or months. He often brags that he could run a print at his theater using for a year and have it leave looking better than when it came in.
You mean they claim it is copyrighted. If it really is pure silence (no ambient or other sounds, just a flat zero signal), any copyright they claim is not really valid, as the above poster mentioned.
BRK is one of those investments that still goes up even when the market goes down. If the market has a good year, it can beat BRK for that year. But over a longer period, the bear markets more than make up the difference.
Too expensive? That's what the "b" shares are for. BRKb is an order of magnitue cheaper than the regular, voting BRKa stock. It's well within the reach of an average investor.
Also, Buffet's comapny consistently beats the market, aside from a brief NASDAQ spike at the end of the dot-com madness in early 2000. If he's an idiot, how come his company is able to perform like that?
I think Google would have done it a long time ago too, had it not been for the fact that their toolbar's two main features -- popup blocking and quick access to google search -- are already implemented in Firefox.
Yahoo on the other hand has a lot to gain here: how many Firefox users are going to switch the default search from Google to Yahoo? How about if Yahoo gives them a cool toolbar?
That guy is a riot. On this page he complains about MS "biting" his idea, but on the Xgl page, he dismisses the pioneering work done by Apple as "cute hacks" and says it is now "our space to explore", despite the fact that it's already been explored. Who is "biting" now, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
That is not that big of a deal. Much of Apple's own "pro" app lineup is Carbon, as is iTunes. MS Office, Maya, and other high profile 3rd-party apps are also Carbon. Apple allocates a lot of resources to making sure Carbon works and works well. New APIs are being added all the time (HIView, better NIB support, support for Font & Spelling panels, etc). Most importantly, the infrastructure below the uppermost Carbon/Cocoa level is getting more and more unified with each release. Some parts are taken from the MacOS source base, some parts are taken from the NeXT source base, and some are completely new. If you look at the system hierarchy you'll see parts that are shared across Carbon and Cocoa (everything below the "Application enviroments" level). Much of what made up the Classic MacOS toolbox is in the ApplicationServices and CoreServices areas, and is thus shared between Carbon and Cocoa. You'd be surprised at how much of both enviornments are being pulled in when you launch an app linked against one or the other top-level frameworks.
That being said, I do agree that Adobe has forgotten its roots and has begun treating the Mac as a second class citizen. Then again, Apple encroached on Adobe's business somewhat with the release of Final Cut Express, a direct competitor to Premeire (which had its Mac version cancelled shortly thereafter). That might also have something to do with it, but I'm sure the VP you mention does too.
If a store threatened me like that, I'd be pissed, probably much more than if they called the cops because the ink smeared on a bill I gave them (a part of the story everyone seems to be missing -- it wasn't the $2 denomination alone that caused suspicion).
BTW, check out Woz's $2 bill stories. He buys them in perforated sheets from the U.S. Treasury, and leaves them on the sheets. People really have a hard time believing they are real when he pulls out the sheet.
Why yes. Don't they know people come to college to download movies, music, and warez? What do they expect people to do with their time ... learn?
I've never understood why people tout this as though it were somehow preferable to the OS getting trashed. For a home computer, with one person using it, the user environment is the most valuable thing. The OS is disposable! You can reinstall from disk whenever you want. But if your data and/or preferences get trashed, you've got serious problems!
Video projection is very expensive ($100k per screen, as opposed to about $30k for 35mm), and lagging behind 35mm and especially 70mm in terms of quality. Contrast is not as good no matter what you use, and resolution is still lagging behind, although the latest demos are showing promise. It's getting better, but still has a ways to go.
Reliability is another factor. At ShoWest this year, there were numerous glitches during demos of digital systems. And this is during a trade show with lots of people around to help keep things running smoothly. Just imagine what it will be like in the field.
And, there is still a deadlock when it comes to who is going to pay for it. Theater owners don't want to pay for it, because they are not the ones who will reap the financial reward. Distributors and studios are the ones who will get to save all the money, but they are balking at the idea of actually making the investment. Financing still has to get hammered out.
Really, the delay is a good thing. The first demos of Star Wars in 1999 were done using 1280x1024 DLP systems. It was pretty lousy, really. Imagine if theaters had standardized on that! Right now people with decent home theater equipment can watch 1920x1080 material off satellite, cable, or D-VHS (and within a few months, HD-DVD will be added to that list). If theaters are going to attract audiences, they need to offer more than what people can get in their homes, not less.
That is not specific to digital cinema, and there is no reason why 35mm cannot meet or beat anything any other system comes up with. DTS has succcessfully separated the sound and picture in 35mm (as well as 16mm and 70mm) presentations. Their latest processor, the XD10, has support for 10 channels.
-No Flickering (the shutter runs at 24fps which is low enough to notice)
There aren't many, if any, theaters running single bladed shutters. A double-bladed shutter giving a refresh rate 48Hz is the norm. And, depending on what kind of shutter you have, the shutter is usually open a larger percentage of the time than it is closed, reducing flicker. If you really want, you can always get a triple-bladed shutter for a nice 72Hz refresh rate, but then you have to watch your light output.
if you look real hard at some text on screen you can actually see pixels.. but considering how much sharper the image is, who cares
I do. I don't go to the theater to look at visible pixels. I can get that at home. Fortunately, 4K resolution (which is enough to make the pixels invisbly small at normal viewing distance) seems to be the direction things are headed these days. Sony was demoing 4K equipment at ShoWest this year. And with digital intermediates starting to be done at 4K the source material is there.
The biggest area where video projection still falls behind film is dynamic range. Side-by-side comparsions make this abundantly clear. While projector manufacturers are sturggling to eek out a little bit more on their contrast ratios, print stocks like Kodak's 2393 (aka "Vision Premiere", used most recently for prints of "The Incredibles") can deliver 10,000:1 contrast. Yes, really. The max density is so high it's not just dark grey, it's really, truly, black. Video systems have a lot of work cut out to catch up to that.
Slashdot isn't even one of the top 25 message boards on the net anymore. It's small time.
If I can tell it's a bittorrent packet, so can they.
As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between "permanent" and "long enough that I won't live to see the prices come down". And there is very little difference to me between that and "long enough that I will be extremely old before the prices come down".
Given the length of interest rate cycles, and the fact that I am already in my 30s, I think that is a real danger.
Ever see the "click and clack" guys talk about how Americans used to love their cars? In the 50s, they would get out on the weekends and polish that chrome trim by hand. The click and clack guys lament that no one seems to do that anymore. However, they fail to take into account the fact that too many people have been burned when it comes to cars.
In the 70s, cars were shit. They broke down easily, and everyone in the business was just there to rip you off. There was the not unfounded image of the crooked car salesman and the crooked car mechanic. Then, in the 80s, there was a mass shift of the market from American to Japanese cars, because those were built better. Today, the American car market is better, but people are much more wary of new cars because of past experiences. We even have "lemon laws" dealing specifically with car-related fraud, which are a direct result of bad experiences in the 70s and 80s.
Same thing is happening with computers. People, especially corporations, loved computers in the 80s and 90s. They spent vast amounts of money on them, without even doing any research to see if they were the right tool for the job. In the end, they got stuck with crappy computers, shitty custom software that cost way to much to develop, crooked consultants who overcharged and did little to improve efficency, shitty support, and so on.
America's love affair with the computer is at an end. People are sick of spending money on comptuers without getting some kind of real value in return. Now we are going to see a shakeout, and a new level of professionalism rise. In fact, we're already in the middle of it. An IT employee or consultant who is good and doesn't deceive customers into buying things they don't need can actually go really far.
It's not dying, it's just changing. It will always be needed, just like car repair, plumbing, etc. If you're a good, it's not dead end at all.
Seriously, I lay awake at night thinking about the above. About how I'm a chump and a stooge for not hurrying up and buying real estate before it gets permanently priced out of my grasp. A real estate "bubble"? I've seen that on the cover of magazines. It makes me suspicious. Those articles are written by analysts. When was the last time they were right about anything? If they were really so knowledgable, why do they need to write articles for a living? I just cant help but think rich people are trying to trick me into staying out of the game until they are finished buying up everything, and then I'll permanently be stuck in the lower, non-property owning class.
Ever heard about the origins of the game "Monopoly"? How the original version was deliberately designed to turn players against one anothe,r while one person ended up with all the money? The game was a tool intended to educate. Its purpose was to demonstrate the way turn-of-the century London landlords pitted tennants against each other. A person who didn't already own property in that time and place had no hope of ever being able to afford any. Non-property owners were doomed to a life of floundering and endless labor for a pittance. I fear that is the same situation that is coming in America today. After all, what else of value besides land is left? All our industry has been exported.
I keep thinking -- buy land NOW, before it's too late! But somehow I just can't bring myself to do it.
Help! Fish or cut bait...
They don't have to. They can just rewrite it slightly -- no more copyright violation.
and they don't have much of an advantage in mass production either
They don't have to. They just need a bigger marketing budget to squeeze out the little guy.
That's still competition, just dirty competition. It's actually more common than "clean" competition.
Oops, hit submit to soon. To address the point of patent searching, this is also done by the standards group, not the company that licenses the result (which is usually semi-guaranteed to be free from patent violations, which is definitely not true for grassroots open source codecs). This mitigates cost and risk.
They don't write the codec. The standards group does. They just license it. That limits their liability.
Now, this is pure speculation, but I think one of the reasons why large companies avoid open source codecs like FLAC or Xvid is that they are afraid of getting sued. In today's everything-is-patented world, many open source codecs out there probably violate at least one patent somewhere, perhaps without even realizing it. Right or wrong, a company could, in the current climate, be sued for using one of those codecs. Individual users and developers of the codec are in the same boat, but they aren't as juicy a target as a large corporation, so the danger of them getting sued is a lot less. Even small companies might escape the crosshairs if they don't go around annoying the big sharks. But a patent holder who held off suing a bunch of individuals and small companies might change their mind and bring out the big guns once a large company with deep pockets made themselves a target. It's certainly a risk many large companies might shy away from. By using stuff from a consortium like MPEG, which has probably used some expensive IP lawyers to verify all their stuff as being on the up and up with respect to patents, companies can shield themselves somewhat from that risk.
It worked -- look at all the people rushing to explain things to him.
I'm glad to see 4K finally starting to creep into the collective consciousness and start to become a defacto standard. Some movies are already starting to use it as their final image format. For example, Spider-Man 2 was DI'd at 4K (although SFX shots were often still only 2K). Things are definitely moving in the right direction.
And, when it comes down to it, 4K is pretty good. Even with perfect vision, a person wouldn't, under ideal viewing circumstances, be able to see much if any detail beyond that. Viewing a 2.39 "scope" image at SMPTE recommended viewing distance (2 screen heights) gives a horizontal viewing angle of 60.1 degrees, and given the 1 arcminute limit of human visual acuity, that means only 3600 pixels are required for the image to look perfectly smooth.
Oh, and the dynamic range issue is already covered by formats like Kodak's Cineon (10-bit per component logarithmic, very high dynamic range). The Snow White restoration from the 1990s was done at 4K in the Cineon format. Other formats use linear color, but at 16 bits per pixel. Cinepaint, formerly known as FilmGimp, deals with images as 16 linear bits per color.
You may be right, there may be more detail than 4K in a motion picture frame, but it's not that important. For preservation purposes, it would be good to keep that extra data, but for presentation purposes (theatrical and home exhibition), it is not going to be missed. Besides, the original negatives are still kept after one of these scans, so it's not like the info has been thrown away. It's still there if anybody wants to go get it.
There is a really good documentary about the restoration of "Gone with the Wind" on the new 4-disc DVD boxed set. In it, you can hear some of the Warner Home Video people talk about it. They seem to have the right attitude -- don't try to "improve" things, just make them look as faithful to the original as possible. I've heard other restoration "experts" talk about making old films "better", and just cringed. The Warner folks didn't do that. I was really impressed.
People often focus too much on the digital aspects of media transfer, and don't give enough attention to the analog aspects. Wet-get is indeed a very good way to make old film look new. It's also great for keeping new films looking new. Brad Miller, the guy who runs film-tech.com, sells a wet-gate system for use in theaters that he calls "Film-Guard". It's pretty amazing stuff -- I wish more theaters would use it. It helps prevent dirt build-up and other problems, so that a carefully handled print using Film-Guard can still look brand new after being run for weeks or months. He often brags that he could run a print at his theater using for a year and have it leave looking better than when it came in.
You mean they claim it is copyrighted. If it really is pure silence (no ambient or other sounds, just a flat zero signal), any copyright they claim is not really valid, as the above poster mentioned.
BRK is one of those investments that still goes up even when the market goes down. If the market has a good year, it can beat BRK for that year. But over a longer period, the bear markets more than make up the difference.
Also, Buffet's comapny consistently beats the market, aside from a brief NASDAQ spike at the end of the dot-com madness in early 2000. If he's an idiot, how come his company is able to perform like that?
Yahoo on the other hand has a lot to gain here: how many Firefox users are going to switch the default search from Google to Yahoo? How about if Yahoo gives them a cool toolbar?
That guy is a riot. On this page he complains about MS "biting" his idea, but on the Xgl page, he dismisses the pioneering work done by Apple as "cute hacks" and says it is now "our space to explore", despite the fact that it's already been explored. Who is "biting" now, eh?