What sort of molecular structures are you thinking of? Klaus Schulten's people, (http://www.ks.uiuc.edu), are doing 100K - 1M atom simulations on workstation clusters, and people I know are modeling polymerization catalysts using quantum methods on clusters or fast desktops.
Of course, if you're thinking of simulating a ribosome in action, then, yes, you're right. We'll need (estimated) exoflop machines for that.
Strangely enough, the carbon-cycle in plants is optimzed to use atmospheric CO2 as the carbon source, so they don't get much, if any, from the ground. From the ground, they tend to get nitrogen compounds, after bacteria have cracked N2 into usable nitrates and nitrites.
Because they don't understand a knowledge-based economy, but they do understand extractive industries, subsidized agriculture, and heavy-manufacturing.
It's actually a general problem with staffing a government with people over a certain age; I'm sure they have days that they look out the windows and wonder where all of the fedoras on men, and tail-fins on cars, went. Then they get back to work making sure that that marvelous age never goes away. 30 years from now, when everything is bio-quantum computing, and custom nano-assembled, there will be people worrying about our surface-mounted chip and CISC computing capabilities.
Pure research is a fraction of what it was 20 years ago. Bell-labs is a shadow of its former self, PARC a wisp, and a very senior IBM fellow said in a seminar that Yorktown Heights has gone from "R&D" to "D&D". ( I think he means development and development, but I get the image of scientists with torches chasing blue-suited accountants through the halls)
Our basic research situation was bad enough 10 years ago that NEC started buying up the scientists from the other labs that were laying them off, and running it's own basic research facility at Princeton.
U.S. research used to be a three-sided affair, with the government labs, private industry, and academia, all doing some mixture of applied and basic research, and passing ideas and people between them. Every now and then an idea got loose, and became a real product. Now, we're in the grips of a mindset that believes that the world is too complicated for their undereducated minds to understand, and that a bonus today is worth the entire company tomorrow. Therefore, we're not putting money into forward-looking research, and we're not encouraging people to go into the technical fields, have dreams, and then work to make them real. We're back to the basics; entertaininment, overconsumption, dogma, and War without end.
After we finally wipe ourselves out, and the racoons evolve to replace us, I hope they're more farsighted than we.
Maybe American students could spend a little less time hitting the gym, or majoring in Business Ed., or whatever it is they're doing instead of getting and education.
I work for a moderate sized (~12K) State university, in a physical sciences department, and I went through the grad applications this year. The american students had GRE scores that were iffy in math, and no better than the foreigners in verbal. (translation: the accent may be more familiar, but they aren't any more understandable)
Would I like to hire Americans? Sure, but apparently they're all under the delusion that they're going to be middle managers, rock stars, and telephone sanitizers, and aren't learning the science/math/engineering they need for advanced work. We hire the foreigners because we need a certain staffing level of a certain competence to produce enough work to get funded and retained.
In Theory, we could pay engineers/scientists more, make their employment more stable, and reduce the number of aimless bureaucrats they report to, and this might lead to more qualified American students going into technical fields. In practice, we need a cultural shift where knowledge/skill is valued, and celebrity/faith-based certainty is not.
During the mid-90s, we heard every year, "we're bringing the troops home from Kosovo next year". Technically, this was true, but they forgot to add, "we're sending a new batch over at the same time." We're still there, with no signs we're ever leaving.
We're going to be in Afghanistan/Iraq (what are their domain addresses anyway?), for years to decades. That's the point of an open-ended war on a concept; you can use it as a justification for refusing to fund anything you don't understand.
Pesky Scientists. If you give them money, they'll just make fusion work (and put Texas out of business), fly to the heavens (and disprove my Iron-age mythology), or invent an AI that understands subject/verb agreement and can pronounce, "nuclear".
Back in college, (and the situation didn't improve later), we called ourselves, "VAX Janitors". This attitude, depressingly, is not a product of the new economy, but the Great Wheel of IT-Being coming around again.
As a Unix admin at the time this attack happened, but with Windows users who came to me rather than trust the computer center I can say:
I'd rather they reduced his punishment to writing a personal letter of apology to each and every user who was infected, and then submit to three swift kicks by steel-toed boot wearing sysadmins (* per admin *) who had to deal with their friends/family/users being infected. Heck, for that, i'd even let him leave prison after the 50,000 letters were done.
This should help the GIMP gain greater acceptance. Rather than getting a Photoshop-oriented book, and then translating the lessons into Gimpese, users can go directly. Hopefully this will encourage more people to try, use, and promote The GIMP, while producing better photos in the process.
Ob. Disclaimer: I've used the GIMP since 0.54 on SGI, and think it hit a peak of usability somewhere around 1.1. The newer features are nice, but I'm glad someone took a stand and wrote an alternative. With this interface, it's a great alternative to Elements, and will hopefully cause Free Software to be used in more environments than before.
No, but you can *PRINT*. Apple is a key supporter of CUPS, and uses it as their base printing system. If you remember old-fashioned unix print queues (such as sys-V versus BSD on SGI boxen), you can thank the CUPS team and Apple for helping them to go away.
Re:Business Our Way
on
Hacking Mac OS X
·
· Score: 3, Informative
For their business machines, i.e. the G5 XServes, this isn't a problem at all. I bought 16, and the 3yr extended warranty, and with the machines came two extra packages. One had extra HD modules for the main server, and the other the entire guts of an XServe G5. If I have one drop out, my downtime is how long it takes to open a box and swap the guts. If you're buying consumer hardware, they do tend to the control-freakish, but most of the internals are commodity, so easy to replace yourself, and probably cheaper than shipping it. With the others, you can get parts, but quite frequently, you can't really afford them.
My account rep has been helpful and responsive, including ordering custom parts for my cluster set up. Maybe they're hungrier in upstate NY, but I don't find them any different to deal with than HP or IBM. (though I've never been asked about my AIX needs by the Apple rep)
As for the facilities to back up 60GB, a couple of 80GB USB/Firewire external HD's are ~ $100 each, and you can install them to make them bootable as well. A stray Linux/BSD server running Software RAID with a terabyte shouldn't set you back much over 2K, depending on what you build it out of, or you could buy the 80GB MacMini for $600, and partition the disk into a 20GB OS and 60GB backup partition.
They aren't perfect, and they do tend to the secretive, but in my experience they're pretty much the same as any other major vendor to deal with.
The 16-bit support for most of the tools, including layer masks and adjustment layers, was a big step up. I don't know if the price from 6-7 was worth it, but the 7 - CS jump certainly was. The highlight and shadow adjustment tools were also high on the "about time" menu.
It shouldn't really be called Photoshop, but more "Entire Graphics Arts Department". Just think, "this image made with EGAD! version 9".
I've been through a few of these upgrades, and generally the pattern is, "swear for 5 minutes, then get over it". Most people who upgrade to Longhorn are going to do so by buying a new, pre=configured, DeHPIBWay, and just move their data.
As for the Linux, what needs to be done there is take a page from Apple, crack some heads so that Gnome/KDE, etc, play well together, and present a united front.
No, the code should be open so that scientists can review the code, data, and methodologies. The general public has neither the training, nor the patience, to be able to form or possess an informed opinion about whether a particular model, methodology, or program are correct and reliable.
Just add "-m64" to the compiler flags, and you'll have NetHack64 running in no time flat!
More seriously, you could always run "Folding@Home" in the background continuously, as it's based off Gromacs, which is 64-bit capable. Get some work out of those BTUs.
The issue with Author pays type systems are that when you start a lab, you have a small startup budget, from which you pay for equipment, consumables, staff, etc. You are then expected to bootstrap your research programme, go out, and get grants to continue its existance.
So far, so good, except that you need publications to get the grants, and it's possible that publishing those papers is going to prevent you from having the resources to actually do the research. A couple $4K papers on a theorist startup budget, and I'm out of business.
It may be time to admit, in an era of cheap desktop publishing,that the paper journal is an anachronism, and we'll just nicely format everything for printing in PDF, and move to virtual journals hosted by a distributed network of NSF funded sites. It would be easy to add to the stipulations in the grant process that a university of > N scientists will host a publication repository built along bittorrent lines. Authors will publish to a 'journal', and you'll receive a notice by email that a new 'issue' is available, but it will exist entirely in the ether, where you can read it there, or print it out later, if you're more traditionally minded.
Of course, we could also admit that maybe there are just too many scientists out there, everything we need to know has already been discovered, and downsize the great hordes before they discover something else that's going to challenge some long-cherished, utterly wrong, belief.
The American Chemical Society is an Insurance Holding Company masquerading as a Professional Society. The journals are tolerated because they give a veneer of legitimacy to their other financial activities, but they are expected to produce as great a profit for as little input as possible. It is doubtful that you will see such an organization lead the way in open access, given its past behaviour.
That being out of my system, at least the more inorganic/physical journals do not actually charge you to submit articles, and the web access, while expensive, does include decades of back issues.
You don't work in contemporary American Academia, do you? The sciences and engineering disciplines are expected to do research that will generate money, so that the University can skim 50% overhead to keep English afloat, or build new dorms, or have the Dean laminated. Unfunded Fire research would be closed down if you didn't have a lead on a working product, and you'd be encouraged to go partner with industry on their "edible rock" project.
Someone hacking on the Hurd, and not getting money for it, or at least for some other project that he can redirect money to his Hurd project, is not going to last long enough to make any sort of contribution. American Industry butchered its research labs, the Gov't labs are turning towards Homeland defense and weapons again, and now academia is being told to do industrially useful work, rather than blue-sky.
Frankly, the best hope for some types of research are bored grad students and undergrads, pursuing their own projects out of their advisors' sight.
That change was because they finally admitted that they might not be able to find your files and folders. The Truth in Advertising Clause was the only nice touch to WinMe.
But given some of the perspectives in the original movies, such as the long hallways with stormtroopers and Vader coming towards you, the pursuit of the Corvette by the SD at the very beginning, or the Emperor going down the tubes (so to speak), what would be wrong with rendering them in a well-done 3d? You'd get a film experience closer to a play, or (optimistically) being there.
We've been using 3d in sci/technical visualization for years now, so maybe it's time to try it for entertainment again. If you actually go to a basketball game, do you think, "this sucks! I want the players flat and out of focus just like on TV!"
Ten years from now they'll have worked out Smellovision, and you'll be complaining than the Millenium Falcon smells like WD40 instead of silicone grease and wet dog like you always thought it would.
If you then wanted the fancy, smooth-icons, latest WMP, etc, you could pay them to upgrade to full-blown XP, otherwise, you're still running an official, NT-based, Microsoft OS. $20 Win2K would be a killer app in a lot of venues. It's be like the old, non-copy-protected Wordstar. If they buy it, great, that's money; if they steal it, that's great; they're not giving money to our competitors, and they're increasing our user-base.
Heck, for $20/copy my employer might finally banish Win98 from undergrad labs.
Forbes ran an article back in '99 or '00 where they analyzed Balmer's contribution to Microsoft. The gist, backed up by considerable evidence, was that without Steve, Bill might not be sitting at the top of the Billionaire heap these days. Steve brought the P&G marketing experience, discpline, and vision to conquer the world. He's not the current problem; he's just inherited a much larger company, and has to figure out how to make it turn.
The best line from the article was along the lines of, "knows more about Napoleon than is considered healthy in an executive".
I'm running it for a cluster. LDAP was easy to set up, Kerberos a nightmare (the "you haven't connected to a domain" after you really have was a nice touch), and NFS is pretty doggy compared with AFP, while AFP makes SSH users go through gyrations to get their home directories.
Now, for what I do with it (crunch numbers and provide an office worth of desktop connectivity), it's a good system. If I were running a small web-farm, or moderate sized office, then, yes, i'd recommend it in a minute. It was leaps and bounds ahead of setting up 2003Server for the same purposes. However, in any kind of large enterprise, it needs some time to mature, or you're going to spend as much time becoming proficient in the OS-X/Next way of doing things as you would becoming a RHCE/HP-UX/AIX-jock.
Quite seriously, the question should be, do you want Linux for particular support reasons (pricing, software available, Linux-jocks in good supply, cheap hardware), or should you be looking at a more mature Unix, with more aggressive vendor-support? I know people who work at Enterprise-level sites, and they swear by HP-UX/Solaris/AIX.
IBM will happily sell them Visual Cobol, or Visual PL/I, or I'm sure they still have some LOGO for PC interpreters in a warehouse somewhere.
Seriously, how much different is the new VB.Net? It's not like the Beast announced one morning that all application programming for Windows would be Standard ML of NJ. A book from O'Reilley and a couple of afternoon workshops should bring them up to speed.
Slashdot Mirror
What sort of molecular structures are you thinking of? Klaus Schulten's people, (http://www.ks.uiuc.edu), are doing 100K - 1M atom simulations on workstation clusters, and people I know are modeling polymerization catalysts using quantum methods on clusters or fast desktops.
Of course, if you're thinking of simulating a ribosome in action, then, yes, you're right. We'll need (estimated) exoflop machines for that.
Strangely enough, the carbon-cycle in plants is optimzed to use atmospheric CO2 as the carbon source, so they don't get much, if any, from the ground. From the ground, they tend to get nitrogen compounds, after bacteria have cracked N2 into usable nitrates and nitrites.
Because they don't understand a knowledge-based economy, but they do understand extractive industries, subsidized agriculture, and heavy-manufacturing.
It's actually a general problem with staffing a government with people over a certain age; I'm sure they have days that they look out the windows and wonder where all of the fedoras on men, and tail-fins on cars, went. Then they get back to work making sure that that marvelous age never goes away. 30 years from now, when everything is bio-quantum computing, and custom nano-assembled, there will be people worrying about our surface-mounted chip and CISC computing capabilities.
Pure research is a fraction of what it was 20 years ago. Bell-labs is a shadow of its former self, PARC a wisp, and a very senior IBM fellow said in a seminar that Yorktown Heights has gone from "R&D" to "D&D". ( I think he means development and development, but I get the image of scientists with torches chasing blue-suited accountants through the halls)
Our basic research situation was bad enough 10 years ago that NEC started buying up the scientists from the other labs that were laying them off, and running it's own basic research facility at Princeton.
U.S. research used to be a three-sided affair, with the government labs, private industry, and academia, all doing some mixture of applied and basic research, and passing ideas and people between them. Every now and then an idea got loose, and became a real product. Now, we're in the grips of a mindset that believes that the world is too complicated for their undereducated minds to understand, and that a bonus today is worth the entire company tomorrow. Therefore, we're not putting money into forward-looking research, and we're not encouraging people to go into the technical fields, have dreams, and then work to make them real. We're back to the basics; entertaininment, overconsumption, dogma, and War without end.
After we finally wipe ourselves out, and the racoons evolve to replace us, I hope they're more farsighted than we.
Maybe American students could spend a little less time hitting the gym, or majoring in Business Ed., or whatever it is they're doing instead of getting and education. I work for a moderate sized (~12K) State university, in a physical sciences department, and I went through the grad applications this year. The american students had GRE scores that were iffy in math, and no better than the foreigners in verbal. (translation: the accent may be more familiar, but they aren't any more understandable) Would I like to hire Americans? Sure, but apparently they're all under the delusion that they're going to be middle managers, rock stars, and telephone sanitizers, and aren't learning the science/math/engineering they need for advanced work. We hire the foreigners because we need a certain staffing level of a certain competence to produce enough work to get funded and retained. In Theory, we could pay engineers/scientists more, make their employment more stable, and reduce the number of aimless bureaucrats they report to, and this might lead to more qualified American students going into technical fields. In practice, we need a cultural shift where knowledge/skill is valued, and celebrity/faith-based certainty is not.
During the mid-90s, we heard every year, "we're bringing the troops home from Kosovo next year". Technically, this was true, but they forgot to add, "we're sending a new batch over at the same time." We're still there, with no signs we're ever leaving.
We're going to be in Afghanistan/Iraq (what are their domain addresses anyway?), for years to decades. That's the point of an open-ended war on a concept; you can use it as a justification for refusing to fund anything you don't understand.
Pesky Scientists. If you give them money, they'll just make fusion work (and put Texas out of business), fly to the heavens (and disprove my Iron-age mythology), or invent an AI that understands subject/verb agreement and can pronounce, "nuclear".
Back in college, (and the situation didn't improve later), we called ourselves, "VAX Janitors". This attitude, depressingly, is not a product of the new economy, but the Great Wheel of IT-Being coming around again.
As a Unix admin at the time this attack happened, but with Windows users who came to me rather than trust the computer center I can say:
I'd rather they reduced his punishment to writing a personal letter of apology to each and every user who was infected, and then submit to three swift kicks by steel-toed boot wearing sysadmins (* per admin *) who had to deal with their friends/family/users being infected. Heck, for that, i'd even let him leave prison after the 50,000 letters were done.
This should help the GIMP gain greater acceptance. Rather than getting a Photoshop-oriented book, and then translating the lessons into Gimpese, users can go directly. Hopefully this will encourage more people to try, use, and promote The GIMP, while producing better photos in the process.
Ob. Disclaimer: I've used the GIMP since 0.54 on SGI, and think it hit a peak of usability somewhere around 1.1. The newer features are nice, but I'm glad someone took a stand and wrote an alternative. With this interface, it's a great alternative to Elements, and will hopefully cause Free Software to be used in more environments than before.
No, but you can *PRINT*. Apple is a key supporter of CUPS, and uses it as their base printing system. If you remember old-fashioned unix print queues (such as sys-V versus BSD on SGI boxen), you can thank the CUPS team and Apple for helping them to go away.
For their business machines, i.e. the G5 XServes, this isn't a problem at all. I bought 16, and the 3yr extended warranty, and with the machines came two extra packages. One had extra HD modules for the main server, and the other the entire guts of an XServe G5. If I have one drop out, my downtime is how long it takes to open a box and swap the guts. If you're buying consumer hardware, they do tend to the control-freakish, but most of the internals are commodity, so easy to replace yourself, and probably cheaper than shipping it. With the others, you can get parts, but quite frequently, you can't really afford them.
My account rep has been helpful and responsive, including ordering custom parts for my cluster set up. Maybe they're hungrier in upstate NY, but I don't find them any different to deal with than HP or IBM. (though I've never been asked about my AIX needs by the Apple rep)
As for the facilities to back up 60GB, a couple of 80GB USB/Firewire external HD's are ~ $100 each, and you can install them to make them bootable as well. A stray Linux/BSD server running Software RAID with a terabyte shouldn't set you back much over 2K, depending on what you build it out of, or you could buy the 80GB MacMini for $600, and partition the disk into a 20GB OS and 60GB backup partition.
They aren't perfect, and they do tend to the secretive, but in my experience they're pretty much the same as any other major vendor to deal with.
The 16-bit support for most of the tools, including layer masks and adjustment layers, was a big step up. I don't know if the price from 6-7 was worth it, but the 7 - CS jump certainly was. The highlight and shadow adjustment tools were also high on the "about time" menu.
It shouldn't really be called Photoshop, but more "Entire Graphics Arts Department". Just think, "this image made with EGAD! version 9".
I've been through a few of these upgrades, and generally the pattern is, "swear for 5 minutes, then get over it". Most people who upgrade to Longhorn are going to do so by buying a new, pre=configured, DeHPIBWay, and just move their data.
As for the Linux, what needs to be done there is take a page from Apple, crack some heads so that Gnome/KDE, etc, play well together, and present a united front.
No, the code should be open so that scientists can review the code, data, and methodologies. The general public has neither the training, nor the patience, to be able to form or possess an informed opinion about whether a particular model, methodology, or program are correct and reliable.
Just add "-m64" to the compiler flags, and you'll have NetHack64 running in no time flat!
More seriously, you could always run "Folding@Home" in the background continuously, as it's based off Gromacs, which is 64-bit capable. Get some work out of those BTUs.
The issue with Author pays type systems are that when you start a lab, you have a small startup budget, from which you pay for equipment, consumables, staff, etc. You are then expected to bootstrap your research programme, go out, and get grants to continue its existance.
,that the paper journal is an anachronism, and we'll just nicely format everything for printing in PDF, and move to virtual journals hosted by a distributed network of NSF funded sites. It would be easy to add to the stipulations in the grant process that a university of > N scientists will host a publication repository built along bittorrent lines. Authors will publish to a 'journal', and you'll receive a notice by email that a new 'issue' is available, but it will exist entirely in the ether, where you can read it there, or print it out later, if you're more traditionally minded.
So far, so good, except that you need publications to get the grants, and it's possible that publishing those papers is going to prevent you from having the resources to actually do the research. A couple $4K papers on a theorist startup budget, and I'm out of business.
It may be time to admit, in an era of cheap desktop publishing
Of course, we could also admit that maybe there are just too many scientists out there, everything we need to know has already been discovered, and downsize the great hordes before they discover something else that's going to challenge some long-cherished, utterly wrong, belief.
The American Chemical Society is an Insurance Holding Company masquerading as a Professional Society. The journals are tolerated because they give a veneer of legitimacy to their other financial activities, but they are expected to produce as great a profit for as little input as possible. It is doubtful that you will see such an organization lead the way in open access, given its past behaviour.
That being out of my system, at least the more inorganic/physical journals do not actually charge you to submit articles, and the web access, while expensive, does include decades of back issues.
They're protecting the government. While the site is slashdotted, it can't be otherwise hacked, defaced, or redirected.
You don't work in contemporary American Academia, do you? The sciences and engineering disciplines are expected to do research that will generate money, so that the University can skim 50% overhead to keep English afloat, or build new dorms, or have the Dean laminated. Unfunded Fire research would be closed down if you didn't have a lead on a working product, and you'd be encouraged to go partner with industry on their "edible rock" project.
Someone hacking on the Hurd, and not getting money for it, or at least for some other project that he can redirect money to his Hurd project, is not going to last long enough to make any sort of contribution. American Industry butchered its research labs, the Gov't labs are turning towards Homeland defense and weapons again, and now academia is being told to do industrially useful work, rather than blue-sky.
Frankly, the best hope for some types of research are bored grad students and undergrads, pursuing their own projects out of their advisors' sight.
That change was because they finally admitted that they might not be able to find your files and folders. The Truth in Advertising Clause was the only nice touch to WinMe.
But given some of the perspectives in the original movies, such as the long hallways with stormtroopers and Vader coming towards you, the pursuit of the Corvette by the SD at the very beginning, or the Emperor going down the tubes (so to speak), what would be wrong with rendering them in a well-done 3d? You'd get a film experience closer to a play, or (optimistically) being there.
We've been using 3d in sci/technical visualization for years now, so maybe it's time to try it for entertainment again. If you actually go to a basketball game, do you think, "this sucks! I want the players flat and out of focus just like on TV!"
Ten years from now they'll have worked out Smellovision, and you'll be complaining than the Millenium Falcon smells like WD40 instead of silicone grease and wet dog like you always thought it would.
If you then wanted the fancy, smooth-icons, latest WMP, etc, you could pay them to upgrade to full-blown XP, otherwise, you're still running an official, NT-based, Microsoft OS. $20 Win2K would be a killer app in a lot of venues. It's be like the old, non-copy-protected Wordstar. If they buy it, great, that's money; if they steal it, that's great; they're not giving money to our competitors, and they're increasing our user-base.
Heck, for $20/copy my employer might finally banish Win98 from undergrad labs.
Forbes ran an article back in '99 or '00 where they analyzed Balmer's contribution to Microsoft. The gist, backed up by considerable evidence, was that without Steve, Bill might not be sitting at the top of the Billionaire heap these days. Steve brought the P&G marketing experience, discpline, and vision to conquer the world. He's not the current problem; he's just inherited a much larger company, and has to figure out how to make it turn.
The best line from the article was along the lines of, "knows more about Napoleon than is considered healthy in an executive".
Look at Apple *AFTER* 10.4.
I'm running it for a cluster. LDAP was easy to set up, Kerberos a nightmare (the "you haven't connected to a domain" after you really have was a nice touch), and NFS is pretty doggy compared with AFP, while AFP makes SSH users go through gyrations to get their home directories.
Now, for what I do with it (crunch numbers and provide an office worth of desktop connectivity), it's a good system. If I were running a small web-farm, or moderate sized office, then, yes, i'd recommend it in a minute. It was leaps and bounds ahead of setting up 2003Server for the same purposes. However, in any kind of large enterprise, it needs some time to mature, or you're going to spend as much time becoming proficient in the OS-X/Next way of doing things as you would becoming a RHCE/HP-UX/AIX-jock.
Quite seriously, the question should be, do you want Linux for particular support reasons (pricing, software available, Linux-jocks in good supply, cheap hardware), or should you be looking at a more mature Unix, with more aggressive vendor-support? I know people who work at Enterprise-level sites, and they swear by HP-UX/Solaris/AIX.
IBM will happily sell them Visual Cobol, or Visual PL/I, or I'm sure they still have some LOGO for PC interpreters in a warehouse somewhere.
Seriously, how much different is the new VB.Net? It's not like the Beast announced one morning that all application programming for Windows would be Standard ML of NJ. A book from O'Reilley and a couple of afternoon workshops should bring them up to speed.