"Which also means doing just about anything with images and video - or even file operations"
Not really. Remember that going from a 32bit to 64bit OS means going from 32bit to 64bit addressing. Running under a 32bit OS doesn't limit you to working on 32bit data, x86 processor manufacturers started introducing 64bit instructions some 10 years ago, which can even be used from the 16bit addressing mode (eg, under DOS), with more registers and more instructions being added with each new generation (we'll ignore the 80bits registers that have been on the processor even longer than they as their speed and stack based operation meant you'd only wanna use those if you had to - ie, for floating point ops).
The new 64bit processors do have more going for them than just the 64bit addressing over previous processors, obviously, but the system would fly so much more if you could use those while sticking to a 32bit address mode for most cases. My point is, that in the majority cases, the 64bit address mode (and thus, 64bit operating system) is the least important feature, whatever marketing would have you believe, and even adds bloat in many places where it's used but not needed.
I guess it depends on what you're doing. The system I'm developing/using is very pointer heavy, doubling to 64bits would nearly double those data structures. It's not as simple as saying "you need 64bits to handle the increased memory need", when a chunk of that increased memory need is taken by using 64bits for things you previously only needed 32. Not just larger pointers, but extra layer in virtualreal memory lookups and all sorts of other memory management structures that eat through your cache so much more than otherwise.
I'm not saying that 64bits doesn't have advantages when your data crunching, but there are many places where 32, 16, and even 8 bit processors are suitable for their jobs. Moving up because it's there doesn't really prove anything. A 32bit OS really is fine for most users.
"What does the program look for to determine if a copy is genuine or not?"
The hologram on the bottom of the computer. Unfortunately it's usually dark under the computer, so it has to use some guesswork, and holograms only really work when you move them around and have two eyes to perceive depth, so it's really not too reliable. Aww, but bless 'em for trying.
Woah you sure put all us slashdotters who was gonna ask you for a keygen off google in our place! Damn do I feel silly and incompetent now.
"why don't you stop by and install a real 64 bit OS on your machine?"
Because I don't want to be storing and pushing around 64 bits of address pointer when half that's enough, it's a waste of memory, bandwidth, power... I don't attempt MMIO on multi-gig files or mapping more than 4gig virtual memory to a single process. If I need values extending 32 bits, I use on of the >32bit registers that have existed on "32bit" x86 processors for years.
But on the other hand, a 64 bit OS for the hell of it does prove you have a bigger dick...
Reasons that you are wrong, #8: Generalising From Self. Specifics: this "EVERYONE" you speak of isn't made of copies of you. They have different needs, and different "best tools" to suit them.
Also, I had to switch over storage to using Windows, because I got hit by the file trashing race condition bug in recent kernels. I'm in the process of recompiling the latest kernel release as the team say the issue is resolved (details on the cause here) but I'm definitely not going to trust it until I've done some test runs with dummy data. Whatever can go wrong with your system, losing your data is an extremely bad thing that breaks all sorts of trust. You can firewall, encrypt, all sorts to protect against data theft, something that involves a human coming in and taking your data. But when the system loses it all by itself?
I'm still going back to linux as soon as my files make it to disk ALL the time, but I'm not getting rid of windows. They're both imperfect in different ways, but between the two of them, I can do everything I need to.
You're just being picky for the sake of it. So they've picked a word that isn't entirely accurate on its own due to its marketing skew, but the meaning is still there and conveyed just fine. It doesn't take big leaps to get from not licenced to not authorised, from not authorised to not authentic, from not authentic to not geniune.
"Who cares if it is pirated"
Can you really not think of anyone who might care? I mean, I personally don't, but that doesn't mean I can't think of anyone who would do. If even 1% of windows users owed ME money, I'd care.
"I'm curious to understand how they determine that 22 percent of the pirated software in the world is pirated in the US"
Or could have meant that the global average piracy rate is 35%, but america is below this average, at 22%. It wouldn't surprise me if the world average was above the US average, as people in most other places in the world have less money that they could spend on software.
Looks like SCO have managed to wangle some mod points on slashdot... anyone with a sense of humour and mod points like to mod that the way it should be?
The hint's in the word 'continuous'; it wasn't a discrete/discreet confusion at all. Look up the word 'discrete', you might feel the need to be discreet about your stupidity yourself.
The law grants ownership, but the law also says when ownership gets transferred to public domain, at which point it's no longer stealing. Law also defines in many places (such as here) things like mediashifting as illegal. Changes to the law (such as time before ownership transference and fair use) would then obviously change what and when the word stealing could apply.
I'm not going to keep defending "contradictions" because you're unable to understand the difference in things I've said, twist words, and ignore the context of things I've said. It's all in the thread, and you're just getting me to repeat things now because you haven't understood what I've actually said and the things they mean in the overall picture.
So you make any 'last post' to anyone who may read it, I'll just assume it'll misunderstand and/or take things I've said out of context, twist things, basically be more of what all your other posts, which I'm really bored of reading, so goooodbye!
Yep - quite easy when you take sections of what I've said and ignore the context. Stealing is not defined as "that which is covered by law", as in, something can be stealing whether it is defined by law or not. The dictionary defines stealing, there's no need for the law to.
In the case of copyright (and other IP laws), what the law defines is the ownership. Because of ownership and other rights granted under the law, copyright violations can then fall under the language definition of "stealing", despite the fact that the word "stealing" does not directly include or reference copyright laws.
Simple. It's like saying, just because being hit by a fast moving car will kill you, doesn't mean that being killed means that you've been hit by a car.
"The wording of the constitution clearly states that copyrights are implemented only to secure a desired outcome. Therefore it is certainly appropriate, when deciding how to view copyrights, to consider the consequences of the viewpoint taken"
Copyright laws come from congress, not from the constitution. The constitution is what grants congress the power to do this. The laws do exist, and it'll take more than saying "it's not stealing" to repeal them. Because of the laws in place, and everything else I'm not going to keep repeating, it is stealing. This is absolute truth. If you repeal the laws based on them no longer being effective in the promotion of the arts and sciences, then you can look at whether the word 'stealing' still applies. Until then, it does. Absolute truth, however you want to twist the constitution, or the dictionary.
"And each mirror pixel can pick up light from a wider area compared to using a CCD, because with CCD the focal point has to be where the sensor is, ie the pixel is, whereas with mirrors, it's not"
Sorry ignore that bit, jumped between writing replies and carried on typing in the wrong window *lol* wanted to quickly finish it as a friend arrived
"And since serial methods of gathering data are slower than parallel methods of gathering data at the same clock speed"
This is assuming you're moving the same amount of data. The whole point of this is that you're not, but the mirror method requires moving a lot less information from the sensor than the current method, and as the single sensor can be made a LOT better than any single sensor on a CCD array, both by improved sensitivity, and capturing light from/to a wider area, so can respond a lot quicker to the light, and so won't need the same exposure time per reading as the CCD array, making a like-for-like comparison meaningless.
"limiting your input sensor to a serial device will *always* create some blur"
On a moving scene, sure, the blur will be of size movement speed * exposure time. The lower they get, the smaller the blur, and if the scene movement speed is zero throughout the exposure, the blur size is also zero. Any non-zero blur width is purely down to implementation inperfections; inaccurate focus (standard camera you only have to get the lenses right, with this, there's millions of mirrors that all need to face/focus accurately), or diffusion, through lens clouding for example (applies to all cameras). They're technological challenges, not physical limits (that I can think of any, am open to being pointed to something I've missed. All I can think of is quantum waves theory, but this wouldn't be an issue until you tried to make the mirrors smaller/closer than the photons wavelength, as variation of where the photon lands would be the size of its wave. Microprocessors are hitting this limit (can't cut into the silicon smaller than the wavelength of light being used, but it's hard to keep increasing light frequency) - but we don't need that kind of density of resolution for a camera, and using a ccd array wouldn't change the problem here either).
Totally, although a lot of it flops, proving that p2p's "not commercially viable, and 99% used illegally" - although in reality, they actually flop because the content or quality of the content is real poor compared to what you can get "for free". MS will join in when they're "giving customers what they want", at the moment, they'd be "being daring and risky".
Free software's a huge driving force though, with p2p being an excellent delivery mechanism for projects not making the money to cover bandwidth costs. Sharing also gives people the feeling of contributing when they can no other way. Will be interesting to see if this can create a visible contrast that other $oftware becomes noticable as not doing. Something like a p2p client built into an app manager for KDE. You need latest office suite update? Double click, and update is pulled over p2p networks, and installed. Meh, not that great, but with a little thought, could form the basis of a nice killer feature:-)
The MPAA and RIAA don't exist here, there's no other organisations making anywhere near a big an issue of it as over there, yet it still common use, showing it's nothing to do with '*AA brainwashing'.
"[demonstrate] that it's not theft, using the MPAA's own examples"
It's very easy to prove to people outside of slashdot that it is stealing, using the dictionaries' examples. Between those and the MPAA, I know which I'd rather pay attention to, but you go with the MPAAs examples if you think they're more authoritive.
I think you'll also find that while a lot of people may not believe they're hurting anyone by downloading tracks/movies/etc off the internet, that doesn't affect their belief on whether it's stealing or not. It's stealing only because it has been made unlawful, but as we all know, legal status doesn't necessarily reflect whether something's right or wrong. Like if someone grows some cannabis and smokes it in their own home to relax at the end of a long day, as many would have a glass of wine for the same reason. They know it's illegal, but they're not causing anyone harm, and believe the law is what's wrong, not their actions. Legally, you're supposed to declare all of your income, but the majority of people don't have a problem with doing the odd job cash in hand without declaring it. It's small, it's victimless (well, if you look really hard, you might find a victim, but no more really than most other actions, illegal or otherwise) - and so is accepted as one of those 'discretions' that come with being a responsible adult, that we all make. But unless the law changes, it's still stealing, and as many people you can convince otherwise to escape the stigma attached to the word 'stealing' and all preconceptions it brings, guess what... it's still stealing.
The way to change that fact is not by breeding ignorance and denial, or by obfuscating the language, but to campaign for legal reform. Why put all that effort into changing how people describe reality, when you can put that effort into changing the reality where the faults actually lie?
No... they know it'll hit p2p networks anyway, the only difference them releasing it officially on p2p is the statement they'll be making. You can see it everywhere, bought up in court cases against file sharers and networks, "even MS uses p2p, the most commonly bought OS at this moment is distributed through p2p means". People who'd like to see p2p networks shut down would fall out with MS. Politically, it'd be a rather unwise move to make.
Anyway, on here you'd just get the usual "I'm paying for the OS, why should I be giving MS my bandwidth too?" thing that springs up to prove unequivocally that when it comes to slashdot, it doesn't matters what you do, you're in the wrong! Oh yeah, and itsatrap!:-)
okay... if you sell copies of something, done up to make them look like original authentic/legal copies, under the pretense that they are authentic (the buyer is deceived), that would be classed as fraud, and the copies would be counterfeit copies.
If you wish to use the archaic meaning, ALL copies of something, legal or otherwise, would be considered a counterfiet. This makes it irrelevant to a discussion about piracy, as counterfeit would describe the item whether it was authentic or pirated; the word carries no additional meaning. But mostly - the meaning is archaic! Wanna throw in some latin meaning of some words too?
None of this changes the fact that saying that it isn't stealing, simply isn't true (real meaning of true, not your meaning based on whether it's convenient). It is stealing, both by dictionary definition, and outside of slashdot and the people like it it attracts, in common use, and common understanding, from kids to adults. That's not choosing what to believe, that's experience and knowledge of the real world.
"if the mirror happens to be sending white light (say 0xffffff), subtracting that from the results for the other mirrors is going to give you a black image, except for one pixel"
No cuz each reading is going to be of a lot of pixels on at a time, so the sensor has to be capable of the maximum amount of light you'd get from *all* of those pixels being brightest, which lets face it, ain't gonna happen much.
And each mirror pixel can pick up light from a wider area compared to using a CCD, because with CCD the focal point has to be where the sensor is, ie the pixel is, whereas with mirrors, it's not.
"I would never take a pict of my wife and baby with a camera that made them look like a image made out of bathroom tile"
Not all of us have such pretty wives, you insensitive clod!
And the burns my baby suffered from an "accident" we had will actually mean it gets teased LESS in school, and we can actually begin to love it a little.
Slashdot Mirror
"and I imagine anyone even vaguely familiar with the language understands what you are trying to get across"
I thought so too before I read your post
"Which also means doing just about anything with images and video - or even file operations"
Not really. Remember that going from a 32bit to 64bit OS means going from 32bit to 64bit addressing. Running under a 32bit OS doesn't limit you to working on 32bit data, x86 processor manufacturers started introducing 64bit instructions some 10 years ago, which can even be used from the 16bit addressing mode (eg, under DOS), with more registers and more instructions being added with each new generation (we'll ignore the 80bits registers that have been on the processor even longer than they as their speed and stack based operation meant you'd only wanna use those if you had to - ie, for floating point ops).
The new 64bit processors do have more going for them than just the 64bit addressing over previous processors, obviously, but the system would fly so much more if you could use those while sticking to a 32bit address mode for most cases. My point is, that in the majority cases, the 64bit address mode (and thus, 64bit operating system) is the least important feature, whatever marketing would have you believe, and even adds bloat in many places where it's used but not needed.
even the name, Windows, is a word stolen from the dictionary, made purely with letters stolen from the alphabet!
I guess it depends on what you're doing. The system I'm developing/using is very pointer heavy, doubling to 64bits would nearly double those data structures. It's not as simple as saying "you need 64bits to handle the increased memory need", when a chunk of that increased memory need is taken by using 64bits for things you previously only needed 32. Not just larger pointers, but extra layer in virtualreal memory lookups and all sorts of other memory management structures that eat through your cache so much more than otherwise.
I'm not saying that 64bits doesn't have advantages when your data crunching, but there are many places where 32, 16, and even 8 bit processors are suitable for their jobs. Moving up because it's there doesn't really prove anything. A 32bit OS really is fine for most users.
Ah okay, original wording was gave the impression you took your ex-employers bought CD, so I take it back :-)
"What does the program look for to determine if a copy is genuine or not?"
The hologram on the bottom of the computer. Unfortunately it's usually dark under the computer, so it has to use some guesswork, and holograms only really work when you move them around and have two eyes to perceive depth, so it's really not too reliable. Aww, but bless 'em for trying.
Woah you sure put all us slashdotters who was gonna ask you for a keygen off google in our place! Damn do I feel silly and incompetent now.
"why don't you stop by and install a real 64 bit OS on your machine?"
Because I don't want to be storing and pushing around 64 bits of address pointer when half that's enough, it's a waste of memory, bandwidth, power... I don't attempt MMIO on multi-gig files or mapping more than 4gig virtual memory to a single process. If I need values extending 32 bits, I use on of the >32bit registers that have existed on "32bit" x86 processors for years.
But on the other hand, a 64 bit OS for the hell of it does prove you have a bigger dick...
Reasons that you are wrong, #8: Generalising From Self.
Specifics: this "EVERYONE" you speak of isn't made of copies of you. They have different needs, and different "best tools" to suit them.
Also, I had to switch over storage to using Windows, because I got hit by the file trashing race condition bug in recent kernels. I'm in the process of recompiling the latest kernel release as the team say the issue is resolved (details on the cause here) but I'm definitely not going to trust it until I've done some test runs with dummy data. Whatever can go wrong with your system, losing your data is an extremely bad thing that breaks all sorts of trust. You can firewall, encrypt, all sorts to protect against data theft, something that involves a human coming in and taking your data. But when the system loses it all by itself?
I'm still going back to linux as soon as my files make it to disk ALL the time, but I'm not getting rid of windows. They're both imperfect in different ways, but between the two of them, I can do everything I need to.
You're just being picky for the sake of it. So they've picked a word that isn't entirely accurate on its own due to its marketing skew, but the meaning is still there and conveyed just fine. It doesn't take big leaps to get from not licenced to not authorised, from not authorised to not authentic, from not authentic to not geniune.
"Who cares if it is pirated"
Can you really not think of anyone who might care? I mean, I personally don't, but that doesn't mean I can't think of anyone who would do. If even 1% of windows users owed ME money, I'd care.
"I can see some company making a Windows-clone"
You wouldn't have to look far
"I'm curious to understand how they determine that 22 percent of the pirated software in the world is pirated in the US"
Or could have meant that the global average piracy rate is 35%, but america is below this average, at 22%. It wouldn't surprise me if the world average was above the US average, as people in most other places in the world have less money that they could spend on software.
Looks like SCO have managed to wangle some mod points on slashdot... anyone with a sense of humour and mod points like to mod that the way it should be?
"Oh, and apart from Windows: I don't pirate anything else"
That's not pirated, that's plain old 100% classic stolen.
The hint's in the word 'continuous'; it wasn't a discrete/discreet confusion at all. Look up the word 'discrete', you might feel the need to be discreet about your stupidity yourself.
Seperate from the chipset on the motherboard to be more precise, it could still exist on the motherboard as a discrete chip.
The law grants ownership, but the law also says when ownership gets transferred to public domain, at which point it's no longer stealing. Law also defines in many places (such as here) things like mediashifting as illegal. Changes to the law (such as time before ownership transference and fair use) would then obviously change what and when the word stealing could apply.
I'm not going to keep defending "contradictions" because you're unable to understand the difference in things I've said, twist words, and ignore the context of things I've said. It's all in the thread, and you're just getting me to repeat things now because you haven't understood what I've actually said and the things they mean in the overall picture.
So you make any 'last post' to anyone who may read it, I'll just assume it'll misunderstand and/or take things I've said out of context, twist things, basically be more of what all your other posts, which I'm really bored of reading, so goooodbye!
"Maybe I've misunderstood"
Yep - quite easy when you take sections of what I've said and ignore the context. Stealing is not defined as "that which is covered by law", as in, something can be stealing whether it is defined by law or not. The dictionary defines stealing, there's no need for the law to.
In the case of copyright (and other IP laws), what the law defines is the ownership. Because of ownership and other rights granted under the law, copyright violations can then fall under the language definition of "stealing", despite the fact that the word "stealing" does not directly include or reference copyright laws.
Simple. It's like saying, just because being hit by a fast moving car will kill you, doesn't mean that being killed means that you've been hit by a car.
"The wording of the constitution clearly states that copyrights are implemented only to secure a desired outcome. Therefore it is certainly appropriate, when deciding how to view copyrights, to consider the consequences of the viewpoint taken"
Copyright laws come from congress, not from the constitution. The constitution is what grants congress the power to do this. The laws do exist, and it'll take more than saying "it's not stealing" to repeal them. Because of the laws in place, and everything else I'm not going to keep repeating, it is stealing. This is absolute truth. If you repeal the laws based on them no longer being effective in the promotion of the arts and sciences, then you can look at whether the word 'stealing' still applies. Until then, it does. Absolute truth, however you want to twist the constitution, or the dictionary.
"And each mirror pixel can pick up light from a wider area compared to using a CCD, because with CCD the focal point has to be where the sensor is, ie the pixel is, whereas with mirrors, it's not"
Sorry ignore that bit, jumped between writing replies and carried on typing in the wrong window *lol* wanted to quickly finish it as a friend arrived
"And since serial methods of gathering data are slower than parallel methods of gathering data at the same clock speed"
This is assuming you're moving the same amount of data. The whole point of this is that you're not, but the mirror method requires moving a lot less information from the sensor than the current method, and as the single sensor can be made a LOT better than any single sensor on a CCD array, both by improved sensitivity, and capturing light from/to a wider area, so can respond a lot quicker to the light, and so won't need the same exposure time per reading as the CCD array, making a like-for-like comparison meaningless.
"limiting your input sensor to a serial device will *always* create some blur"
On a moving scene, sure, the blur will be of size movement speed * exposure time. The lower they get, the smaller the blur, and if the scene movement speed is zero throughout the exposure, the blur size is also zero. Any non-zero blur width is purely down to implementation inperfections; inaccurate focus (standard camera you only have to get the lenses right, with this, there's millions of mirrors that all need to face/focus accurately), or diffusion, through lens clouding for example (applies to all cameras). They're technological challenges, not physical limits (that I can think of any, am open to being pointed to something I've missed. All I can think of is quantum waves theory, but this wouldn't be an issue until you tried to make the mirrors smaller/closer than the photons wavelength, as variation of where the photon lands would be the size of its wave. Microprocessors are hitting this limit (can't cut into the silicon smaller than the wavelength of light being used, but it's hard to keep increasing light frequency) - but we don't need that kind of density of resolution for a camera, and using a ccd array wouldn't change the problem here either).
Totally, although a lot of it flops, proving that p2p's "not commercially viable, and 99% used illegally" - although in reality, they actually flop because the content or quality of the content is real poor compared to what you can get "for free". MS will join in when they're "giving customers what they want", at the moment, they'd be "being daring and risky".
:-)
Free software's a huge driving force though, with p2p being an excellent delivery mechanism for projects not making the money to cover bandwidth costs. Sharing also gives people the feeling of contributing when they can no other way. Will be interesting to see if this can create a visible contrast that other $oftware becomes noticable as not doing. Something like a p2p client built into an app manager for KDE. You need latest office suite update? Double click, and update is pulled over p2p networks, and installed. Meh, not that great, but with a little thought, could form the basis of a nice killer feature
The MPAA and RIAA don't exist here, there's no other organisations making anywhere near a big an issue of it as over there, yet it still common use, showing it's nothing to do with '*AA brainwashing'.
"[demonstrate] that it's not theft, using the MPAA's own examples"
It's very easy to prove to people outside of slashdot that it is stealing, using the dictionaries' examples. Between those and the MPAA, I know which I'd rather pay attention to, but you go with the MPAAs examples if you think they're more authoritive.
I think you'll also find that while a lot of people may not believe they're hurting anyone by downloading tracks/movies/etc off the internet, that doesn't affect their belief on whether it's stealing or not. It's stealing only because it has been made unlawful, but as we all know, legal status doesn't necessarily reflect whether something's right or wrong. Like if someone grows some cannabis and smokes it in their own home to relax at the end of a long day, as many would have a glass of wine for the same reason. They know it's illegal, but they're not causing anyone harm, and believe the law is what's wrong, not their actions. Legally, you're supposed to declare all of your income, but the majority of people don't have a problem with doing the odd job cash in hand without declaring it. It's small, it's victimless (well, if you look really hard, you might find a victim, but no more really than most other actions, illegal or otherwise) - and so is accepted as one of those 'discretions' that come with being a responsible adult, that we all make. But unless the law changes, it's still stealing, and as many people you can convince otherwise to escape the stigma attached to the word 'stealing' and all preconceptions it brings, guess what... it's still stealing.
The way to change that fact is not by breeding ignorance and denial, or by obfuscating the language, but to campaign for legal reform. Why put all that effort into changing how people describe reality, when you can put that effort into changing the reality where the faults actually lie?
No... they know it'll hit p2p networks anyway, the only difference them releasing it officially on p2p is the statement they'll be making. You can see it everywhere, bought up in court cases against file sharers and networks, "even MS uses p2p, the most commonly bought OS at this moment is distributed through p2p means". People who'd like to see p2p networks shut down would fall out with MS. Politically, it'd be a rather unwise move to make.
:-)
Anyway, on here you'd just get the usual "I'm paying for the OS, why should I be giving MS my bandwidth too?" thing that springs up to prove unequivocally that when it comes to slashdot, it doesn't matters what you do, you're in the wrong! Oh yeah, and itsatrap!
tho tha's less about the number and more about the content :-)
okay... if you sell copies of something, done up to make them look like original authentic/legal copies, under the pretense that they are authentic (the buyer is deceived), that would be classed as fraud, and the copies would be counterfeit copies.
If you wish to use the archaic meaning, ALL copies of something, legal or otherwise, would be considered a counterfiet. This makes it irrelevant to a discussion about piracy, as counterfeit would describe the item whether it was authentic or pirated; the word carries no additional meaning. But mostly - the meaning is archaic! Wanna throw in some latin meaning of some words too?
None of this changes the fact that saying that it isn't stealing, simply isn't true (real meaning of true, not your meaning based on whether it's convenient). It is stealing, both by dictionary definition, and outside of slashdot and the people like it it attracts, in common use, and common understanding, from kids to adults. That's not choosing what to believe, that's experience and knowledge of the real world.
"if the mirror happens to be sending white light (say 0xffffff), subtracting that from the results for the other mirrors is going to give you a black image, except for one pixel"
No cuz each reading is going to be of a lot of pixels on at a time, so the sensor has to be capable of the maximum amount of light you'd get from *all* of those pixels being brightest, which lets face it, ain't gonna happen much.
And each mirror pixel can pick up light from a wider area compared to using a CCD, because with CCD the focal point has to be where the sensor is, ie the pixel is, whereas with mirrors, it's not.
"I would never take a pict of my wife and baby with a camera that made them look like a image made out of bathroom tile"
Not all of us have such pretty wives, you insensitive clod!
And the burns my baby suffered from an "accident" we had will actually mean it gets teased LESS in school, and we can actually begin to love it a little.