Why only use the solar sail? Use the sail to get up to speed, then disengage it and switch over to using a Bussard ramjet. Use of the ramjet should provide ample power for guidance corrections using a vectored thrust system.
Of course, the article may be leaving out a point like using gravity boosts for the sail on its way out, in which case a thousand kilometers would be a very drastic course deviance.
This isn't really anything new. This functionality has existed as a patch for a while. It's still nice to see that it's finally being integrated into the main tree, though.
A friend had rewired his power supply leads into his motherboard. Plugged in the CPU and it promptly started smoking. Take out the CPU, and the ZIF actually has burn marks on it. We put the CPU in another machine, works like a charm. Hook another power supply up to the MB, swap the CPU back, works like a charm.
AMD - takes a burning, keeps on churning.
WRONG - Defining Source legally is not so easy.
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 1
People are replacing the text of the GPL with the phrase "human readable". The key line in the GPL in this instance is "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Hex code, no matter how good the programmer is, is never the preferred form of the work for making modifications.
That means, if the obfuscated code becomes the true development source, it has become the "preferred form of the work for making modifications", hence the legal source. If they modify the original source, then obfuscate it, the preferred form is the original. It all depends on what version of the source is maintained.
Note that IANAL either, but it seems like clear english to me. It just depends on where the modifications are made.
How come when people of color complain about a descriptive term, no matter how common it is (eg. black vs. African American), the media immediately begins to use the suggested alternative term? Or people with disabilities - they are no longer "handicapped", they are "physically challenged". They don't check a dictionary before proceeding. They don't check for common usage. They do it to appease the special interests.
If the media is willing to change terminology for special interest groups, why can't they change terminology for the hackers out there? I am offended when the term Hacker is used to describe a crack or an act of vandalism.
Additionally, the "hack" in "Hacker" is probably derived from the "hacking of wood" definition. A wood hacker hacks apart the wood, than builds something useful with it. A computer hacker hacks apart code, than builds something useful with it.
"Cracker", in my definition, is a subset of the "Hacker" community. It is someone who hacks apart code, then exploits it. Same skill sets, different objectives.
Are a locksmith and a thief synonymous? Both know how to pick a lock. Both are familiar with the inner workings of a tumbler. However, one uses that knowledge to construct new locks, better locks, the other exploits the knowledge for personal gain.
And, in reference to the actual article, a "hack" is a type of journalist. Hence, by the logic of the author, a truly crappy article can be attributed to a journalist, even though journalists may refer to it as being written by a hack.
Hacker and Cracker are used to differentiate between motives and goals. The skill set may be the same, but the objective is what matters.
Remember, Elvis is still alive. By the logic of the book, since there is still one survivor of Earth, an alternate Earth is still in existence, hence the characters aren't really dead! Unless, of course, Elvis is really an ET.
Because the topology of the network and the working model is changing from stand alone systems to clusters of systems to distributed systems, does not mean it is the death of existing OS's. OS's, such as UNIX, which are well suited for heavy loads and accesses, will thrive as servers in this new world.
Currently where I work, we are looking to install IBM Network Computers. We're using RS/6000's running AIX and NT boxes as servers, and the kernel for the NC's is NetBSD. And, the really cool thing is that IBM actually has a page on their web site for installing a Linux kernel instead!
UNIX is not dying with the change. It is adapting to fit viable roles on both sides, the client and server, as any good OS should.
You forgot to mention that Pitch Black was driven by coincidences.
They just "happen" to be knocked off course (reason is never explained), they just "happen" to crash into this planet, they just "happen" to crash near the settlement, and it just "happens" to be on the day of the eclipse!
Will these chips use a standard mainboard, or will they be developed via proprietary means from the various laptop companies? How about prices on these? What architecture is expected - caching, memory addressing limits, etc, etc.
Has anybody thought that the online hostility may be a direct result of the pent up frustrations and aggressions most geeks have had to endure growing up?
When someone is repeatedly beaten up or degraded for the simple infraction of being smart, it tends to breed hostility. This hostility can't be expressed in the outside world due to the physical repercussions, but online, these feelings can be worked out and expressed.
The same things happens in RL. A parent beats their child. The child beats up on those weaker than them because that's the heirarchy they've been taught. Prey on the weak. Only, in the case of most geeks, society is the teacher, and it teaches us to be subservient unless we know we can get away with it.
Online, were the most severe repercussion of a flame war is being ejected from a thread, you can effectively "get away with it".
I think this aspect of the 'Net was accepted early because of the common backgrounds of everybody involved, but with the increasing popularity of the Web, and the proliferation of "mundanes", it is becoming an issue as these people are not used to people being able to talk back at someone and get away with it.
In Jon's article, he speculated about the flattening of organizational heirarchies. Well, this flattening isn't just occuring in corporations. It's happening in the society heirarchy as well. The former kings and queens that we all had to pay homage to in school are now the outsiders, the people who are new, who are different, who don't "fit in". And they pay the price for being different just like we did growing up.
The tables are turning, and it's pissing people off. That's the reason for legislation for controlling the internet. The powers that be are afraid of this change, because it undermines their power bases and communications channels.
The problem is the physical world can being physical threats. The online world is just words. They say the pen is mightier than the sword, but we'll see in the long run if this translates to the bit is mightier than the fist.
These are just my opinions. Ignore them if you want.
Jon may be posting in reference to his own articles, and on other articles as well, but to protect himself from additional flame, he may post under a pseudonym or as AC.
Further, Jon's articles are typically a posting of his own opinions on the way he sees the world. He may be trying to get people to open up their minds a bit to look at a particular issue from another angle. By posting followups to his own piece, the article would lose quite a bit of potency. It would appear Jon is trying to push his opinions instead of just presenting them. This tends to piss people off.
These are my opinions and observations from my particular angle. If you flame me, give me a warning first - I'll get the marshmallows ready.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with nationalism - it's zealots that are the problem. When you have a bunch of people who are so deadset with "This is my country. Love it or leave it.", there is no room for growth. It is the sign of a closed mind that knows nothing of the rights and freedoms they supposedly are defending. It is also a sign of ignorance. The inability, not to mention unwillingness, to look at other cultures and governments to see how they are operating, what their successes are, what their failures are, and use those to examine your own is a major flaw with the zealot.
When Clinton tried to get universal health care, it wasn't just the Health Insurance business up in arms about it. Everyday people were because they viewed it as Socialist, which must mean it's Communist, which is distinctly "Un-American", and therefore inherently wrong.
People in this country are victims of their own closed minds and narrow points of view. If it doesn't change, it will be the end of this country. The lack of challenge and the willingness to accept whatever the government and corporate powers hand down is much too common today, IMHO. My parents anger me because of their inability to accept people with different views and lifestyles than their own. My wife angers me with her unwillingness to acknowledge corporate greed and indifference. (She did most of her holiday shopping with Amazon, despite my protests against doing so due to the patent fiasco.)
If people don't begin to wake up and question their surroundings, the soldiers will be fighting for no reason. No rights to defend, no freedom to experience. Total conformity.
Though, on the plus side, people wouldn't be pissed at one another for what they've said or done.
In theory, cyberterrorism is very plausible, yet in reality it is difficult to conduct anything beyond simple 'script-kiddy' DoS attacks. Terrorists attempting to sway a populace by fear would therefore be less interested in such an attack unless they could carry out an extremely damaging one on a repeatable basis or unless they used it to augment the effects of a physical attack.
This is all well and good to say "There isn't a real problem, unless 'they' dedicate men and material for an attack at the same time", yet earlier it was stated:
Whilst alarmist, precedents do exist, as evidenced by Gail Thackaray, recognised as one of the premier cracker-catchers in the business: "One hacker shut down a Massachusetts airport, 911 emergency service and the air traffic control system while playing with the municipal phone network, and another hacker in Phoenix invaded the computer systems of one of the public energy utilities, attaining 'root' level privileges on the system controlling the gates to all the water canals from the Grand Canyon south.".
Doesn't the ability to open all the water canals from the Grand Canyon south, thereby flooding out a lot of land (potentially residential areas as well), constitute a physical attack achieved via cracking? And doesn't the fact that "These examples involved individuals rather than organised groups" show just how vulnerable the systems are to a terrorist organization intent on creating damage and loss of life?
What about an attack on a nuclear reactor or a directed assault on air traffic computers?
The potential for physical attacks via a computer is very real.
Oh, and the editor for this article should be covered in walnuts, chained to a tree, then eaten to death by a group of rabid squirrels.
I agree with the additional "benefits" that can be provided, like "advertising dollars". In an article posted last week regarding Microsoft's accounting practices, they already play this game by advertising with MSN to cheat on the taxes.
However, by offering the flat rate (with only deductions possible through "advertising"), the technology cannot be hoarded or directed only to those companies that will play ball with Microsoft.
To completely sum up my view, the whole licensing scheme needs to be examined. I'm personally against government intervention, but I am not against government restrictions. The fact that the government is getting involved in the Microsoft case is proof that A) the existing restrictions aren't working, or B) Microsoft flagrantly broke the law. IMHO, it's a combination of the two.
No competition, no free market. Fix the market restrictions to force competition, not reinforce the old boys network.
My question is how much do the current laws regarding business practices have to do with the creation of the M$ monopoly?
In particular, the whole licensing deal. This is where M$ has been doing all the wheeling and dealing. "This company gets to pay this much, thic company pays that much, and this company doesn't get to buy it at all." IMHO, I think the licensing scheme should be changed to an open method. Now, I'm not talking Open Source.
For example, technology A is opened for licensing. It should have a set pricing scheme (1 license, 100 licenses, 1000 licenses, etc), and be available to all comers. True, this would radically change the industry, but it would offer some true "innovation", instead of a series of sycophant companies that only profit through being a "preferred partner". If the technology is for sale, it should be able to be purchased by everyone. By using a set pricing scheme, it would prevent exclusion of potential competitors through exhorbant prices.
A corporation is not a private citizen. Additionally, this law applies only to antitrust situations. Where this occurs, the company is rich - very rich from prospering from the monopoly status. If they were able to tie it up in courts, there would never be any legal action against these titans. They would eventually manage to buy their way out of it, or diversify enough that the original ruling would have little or no effect on the whole.
Additionally, the Bill of Rights and Constitution are in respect to people - not corporations. Suing/filing charges against a state sanctioned entity (a company) is not the same as bringing charges against the CEO of said company.
I don't think they can drag it out for 10 years based on the vagueness of "final judgement". Interpretation of the law is the business of the courts. A judge would simply make a decision on what final judgement entails. Personally, I don't think "final judgement" is vague at all.
Yes, it would be expensive for the established companies, but what about something like Cyrix that is clawing for marketshare? All that's needed is the threat of one company doing this, and the rest will automatically begin development to keep up.
Yes, I realize that it is statistics. However, it deals with determining what seemingly random events are most likely to happen everywhere, not in a single closed environment. Statistics are compilations of data. How that data is used is not statistics. "1 out of 10 blah blah blah" is spouting of statistics. What causes that 1 out of 10 is not statistics. That's the gist of this article.
The reason I spoke of Psychohistory is because it is supposed to be using the statistics on an advanced probability engine. This is a step toward that equation. The more refined we get to deciding that "1 out of 10 blah blah blah because [insert reason]" is the closer we get to figuring out the universe and how humanity acts as a whole.
It sounds like something out of an Asimov novel, actually. A common formula that can be used to judge seemingly random events when large masses are considered - the individual is random, but the collective is predictable.
I wonder if I should take this back to school and demand they raise my grades for all those times I "created the bell curve".
Here's the thing I see with this - they want you to scan e-mail for pornography, which I am assuming refers to images.
Now, my question for everybody is: How much pornographic stuff is trafficked via e-mail? Most of it is web related. (You're free image mailed to you weekly is just a link to a web page).
Now, I can see the occasional pornographic joke images, but I really think these are in the minority, and most people I know don't keep them in their mailbox - they delete them after looking, laughing and forwarding - or they save them to their workstation so the mailbox doesn't get full.
My advise is to get it documented, then run it. There won't be many hits, if at all. I can see them not wanting to advertise the fact that checks are going to be made, hoping to catch as many people as they can, but pass word along to your buddies, who in turn will pass it along.
Slashdot Mirror
Why only use the solar sail? Use the sail to get up to speed, then disengage it and switch over to using a Bussard ramjet. Use of the ramjet should provide ample power for guidance corrections using a vectored thrust system.
Of course, the article may be leaving out a point like using gravity boosts for the sail on its way out, in which case a thousand kilometers would be a very drastic course deviance.
Multi-tasking is not the same thing as multi-threading.
This isn't really anything new. This functionality has existed as a patch for a while. It's still nice to see that it's finally being integrated into the main tree, though.
A friend had rewired his power supply leads into his motherboard. Plugged in the CPU and it promptly started smoking. Take out the CPU, and the ZIF actually has burn marks on it. We put the CPU in another machine, works like a charm. Hook another power supply up to the MB, swap the CPU back, works like a charm.
AMD - takes a burning, keeps on churning.
People are replacing the text of the GPL with the phrase "human readable". The key line in the GPL in this instance is "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." Hex code, no matter how good the programmer is, is never the preferred form of the work for making modifications.
That means, if the obfuscated code becomes the true development source, it has become the "preferred form of the work for making modifications", hence the legal source. If they modify the original source, then obfuscate it, the preferred form is the original. It all depends on what version of the source is maintained.
Note that IANAL either, but it seems like clear english to me. It just depends on where the modifications are made.
-NYFreddie
How come when people of color complain about a descriptive term, no matter how common it is (eg. black vs. African American), the media immediately begins to use the suggested alternative term? Or people with disabilities - they are no longer "handicapped", they are "physically challenged". They don't check a dictionary before proceeding. They don't check for common usage. They do it to appease the special interests.
If the media is willing to change terminology for special interest groups, why can't they change terminology for the hackers out there? I am offended when the term Hacker is used to describe a crack or an act of vandalism.
Additionally, the "hack" in "Hacker" is probably derived from the "hacking of wood" definition. A wood hacker hacks apart the wood, than builds something useful with it. A computer hacker hacks apart code, than builds something useful with it.
"Cracker", in my definition, is a subset of the "Hacker" community. It is someone who hacks apart code, then exploits it. Same skill sets, different objectives.
Are a locksmith and a thief synonymous? Both know how to pick a lock. Both are familiar with the inner workings of a tumbler. However, one uses that knowledge to construct new locks, better locks, the other exploits the knowledge for personal gain.
And, in reference to the actual article, a "hack" is a type of journalist. Hence, by the logic of the author, a truly crappy article can be attributed to a journalist, even though journalists may refer to it as being written by a hack.
Hacker and Cracker are used to differentiate between motives and goals. The skill set may be the same, but the objective is what matters.
-NYFreddie
Remember, Elvis is still alive. By the logic of the book, since there is still one survivor of Earth, an alternate Earth is still in existence, hence the characters aren't really dead! Unless, of course, Elvis is really an ET.
But, where's the fun in that?
Actually, talking about the creatures on the planet, they reminded me a lot of the Zerg in StarCraft. Anybody else?
Because the topology of the network and the working model is changing from stand alone systems to clusters of systems to distributed systems, does not mean it is the death of existing OS's. OS's, such as UNIX, which are well suited for heavy loads and accesses, will thrive as servers in this new world.
Currently where I work, we are looking to install IBM Network Computers. We're using RS/6000's running AIX and NT boxes as servers, and the kernel for the NC's is NetBSD. And, the really cool thing is that IBM actually has a page on their web site for installing a Linux kernel instead!
UNIX is not dying with the change. It is adapting to fit viable roles on both sides, the client and server, as any good OS should.
You forgot to mention that Pitch Black was driven by coincidences.
They just "happen" to be knocked off course (reason is never explained), they just "happen" to crash into this planet, they just "happen" to crash near the settlement, and it just "happens" to be on the day of the eclipse!
Wow. Talk about bad luck.
Will these chips use a standard mainboard, or will they be developed via proprietary means from the various laptop companies? How about prices on these? What architecture is expected - caching, memory addressing limits, etc, etc.
Has anybody thought that the online hostility may be a direct result of the pent up frustrations and aggressions most geeks have had to endure growing up?
When someone is repeatedly beaten up or degraded for the simple infraction of being smart, it tends to breed hostility. This hostility can't be expressed in the outside world due to the physical repercussions, but online, these feelings can be worked out and expressed.
The same things happens in RL. A parent beats their child. The child beats up on those weaker than them because that's the heirarchy they've been taught. Prey on the weak. Only, in the case of most geeks, society is the teacher, and it teaches us to be subservient unless we know we can get away with it.
Online, were the most severe repercussion of a flame war is being ejected from a thread, you can effectively "get away with it".
I think this aspect of the 'Net was accepted early because of the common backgrounds of everybody involved, but with the increasing popularity of the Web, and the proliferation of "mundanes", it is becoming an issue as these people are not used to people being able to talk back at someone and get away with it.
In Jon's article, he speculated about the flattening of organizational heirarchies. Well, this flattening isn't just occuring in corporations. It's happening in the society heirarchy as well. The former kings and queens that we all had to pay homage to in school are now the outsiders, the people who are new, who are different, who don't "fit in". And they pay the price for being different just like we did growing up.
The tables are turning, and it's pissing people off. That's the reason for legislation for controlling the internet. The powers that be are afraid of this change, because it undermines their power bases and communications channels.
The problem is the physical world can being physical threats. The online world is just words. They say the pen is mightier than the sword, but we'll see in the long run if this translates to the bit is mightier than the fist.
These are just my opinions. Ignore them if you want.
-NYFreddie
Jon may be posting in reference to his own articles, and on other articles as well, but to protect himself from additional flame, he may post under a pseudonym or as AC.
Further, Jon's articles are typically a posting of his own opinions on the way he sees the world. He may be trying to get people to open up their minds a bit to look at a particular issue from another angle. By posting followups to his own piece, the article would lose quite a bit of potency. It would appear Jon is trying to push his opinions instead of just presenting them. This tends to piss people off.
These are my opinions and observations from my particular angle. If you flame me, give me a warning first - I'll get the marshmallows ready.
:)
-NYFreddie
Back to the Future II and III were filmed simultaneously.
Funny, I thought this was slashdot.org.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with nationalism - it's zealots that are the problem. When you have a bunch of people who are so deadset with "This is my country. Love it or leave it.", there is no room for growth. It is the sign of a closed mind that knows nothing of the rights and freedoms they supposedly are defending. It is also a sign of ignorance. The inability, not to mention unwillingness, to look at other cultures and governments to see how they are operating, what their successes are, what their failures are, and use those to examine your own is a major flaw with the zealot.
When Clinton tried to get universal health care, it wasn't just the Health Insurance business up in arms about it. Everyday people were because they viewed it as Socialist, which must mean it's Communist, which is distinctly "Un-American", and therefore inherently wrong.
People in this country are victims of their own closed minds and narrow points of view. If it doesn't change, it will be the end of this country. The lack of challenge and the willingness to accept whatever the government and corporate powers hand down is much too common today, IMHO. My parents anger me because of their inability to accept people with different views and lifestyles than their own. My wife angers me with her unwillingness to acknowledge corporate greed and indifference. (She did most of her holiday shopping with Amazon, despite my protests against doing so due to the patent fiasco.)
If people don't begin to wake up and question their surroundings, the soldiers will be fighting for no reason. No rights to defend, no freedom to experience. Total conformity.
Though, on the plus side, people wouldn't be pissed at one another for what they've said or done.
Just my $0.02.
-NYFreddie
The article states:
In theory, cyberterrorism is very plausible, yet in reality it is difficult to conduct anything beyond simple 'script-kiddy' DoS attacks. Terrorists attempting to sway a populace by fear would therefore be less interested in such an attack unless they could carry out an extremely damaging one on a repeatable basis or unless they used it to augment the effects of a physical attack.
This is all well and good to say "There isn't a real problem, unless 'they' dedicate men and material for an attack at the same time", yet earlier it was stated:
Whilst alarmist, precedents do exist, as evidenced by Gail Thackaray, recognised as one of the premier cracker-catchers in the business: "One hacker shut down a Massachusetts airport, 911 emergency service and the air traffic control system while playing with the municipal phone network, and another hacker in Phoenix invaded the computer systems of one of the public energy utilities, attaining 'root' level privileges on the system controlling the gates to all the water canals from the Grand Canyon south.".
Doesn't the ability to open all the water canals from the Grand Canyon south, thereby flooding out a lot of land (potentially residential areas as well), constitute a physical attack achieved via cracking? And doesn't the fact that "These examples involved individuals rather than organised groups" show just how vulnerable the systems are to a terrorist organization intent on creating damage and loss of life?
What about an attack on a nuclear reactor or a directed assault on air traffic computers?
The potential for physical attacks via a computer is very real.
Oh, and the editor for this article should be covered in walnuts, chained to a tree, then eaten to death by a group of rabid squirrels.
Just my $0.02.
-NYFreddie
I agree with the additional "benefits" that can be provided, like "advertising dollars". In an article posted last week regarding Microsoft's accounting practices, they already play this game by advertising with MSN to cheat on the taxes.
However, by offering the flat rate (with only deductions possible through "advertising"), the technology cannot be hoarded or directed only to those companies that will play ball with Microsoft.
To completely sum up my view, the whole licensing scheme needs to be examined. I'm personally against government intervention, but I am not against government restrictions. The fact that the government is getting involved in the Microsoft case is proof that A) the existing restrictions aren't working, or B) Microsoft flagrantly broke the law. IMHO, it's a combination of the two.
No competition, no free market. Fix the market restrictions to force competition, not reinforce the old boys network.
-NYFreddie
My question is how much do the current laws regarding business practices have to do with the creation of the M$ monopoly?
In particular, the whole licensing deal. This is where M$ has been doing all the wheeling and dealing. "This company gets to pay this much, thic company pays that much, and this company doesn't get to buy it at all." IMHO, I think the licensing scheme should be changed to an open method. Now, I'm not talking Open Source.
For example, technology A is opened for licensing. It should have a set pricing scheme (1 license, 100 licenses, 1000 licenses, etc), and be available to all comers. True, this would radically change the industry, but it would offer some true "innovation", instead of a series of sycophant companies that only profit through being a "preferred partner". If the technology is for sale, it should be able to be purchased by everyone. By using a set pricing scheme, it would prevent exclusion of potential competitors through exhorbant prices.
Just my thoughts - any other ideas?
-NYFreddie
A corporation is not a private citizen. Additionally, this law applies only to antitrust situations. Where this occurs, the company is rich - very rich from prospering from the monopoly status. If they were able to tie it up in courts, there would never be any legal action against these titans. They would eventually manage to buy their way out of it, or diversify enough that the original ruling would have little or no effect on the whole.
Additionally, the Bill of Rights and Constitution are in respect to people - not corporations. Suing/filing charges against a state sanctioned entity (a company) is not the same as bringing charges against the CEO of said company.
Just my $.02 worth.
I don't think they can drag it out for 10 years based on the vagueness of "final judgement". Interpretation of the law is the business of the courts. A judge would simply make a decision on what final judgement entails. Personally, I don't think "final judgement" is vague at all.
Yes, it would be expensive for the established companies, but what about something like Cyrix that is clawing for marketshare? All that's needed is the threat of one company doing this, and the rest will automatically begin development to keep up.
Yes, I realize that it is statistics. However, it deals with determining what seemingly random events are most likely to happen everywhere, not in a single closed environment. Statistics are compilations of data. How that data is used is not statistics. "1 out of 10 blah blah blah" is spouting of statistics. What causes that 1 out of 10 is not statistics. That's the gist of this article.
The reason I spoke of Psychohistory is because it is supposed to be using the statistics on an advanced probability engine. This is a step toward that equation. The more refined we get to deciding that "1 out of 10 blah blah blah because [insert reason]" is the closer we get to figuring out the universe and how humanity acts as a whole.
-NYFreddie
It sounds like something out of an Asimov novel, actually. A common formula that can be used to judge seemingly random events when large masses are considered - the individual is random, but the collective is predictable.
I wonder if I should take this back to school and demand they raise my grades for all those times I "created the bell curve".
-NYFreddie
Here's the thing I see with this - they want you to scan e-mail for pornography, which I am assuming refers to images.
Now, my question for everybody is: How much pornographic stuff is trafficked via e-mail? Most of it is web related. (You're free image mailed to you weekly is just a link to a web page).
Now, I can see the occasional pornographic joke images, but I really think these are in the minority, and most people I know don't keep them in their mailbox - they delete them after looking, laughing and forwarding - or they save them to their workstation so the mailbox doesn't get full.
My advise is to get it documented, then run it. There won't be many hits, if at all. I can see them not wanting to advertise the fact that checks are going to be made, hoping to catch as many people as they can, but pass word along to your buddies, who in turn will pass it along.
My 2 cents worth.
-NYFreddie