I don't see how tracking everything on the internet fights childporn. If every owner of a camera had to register their camera to use it, or if anyone who hooks it up to the computer after taking pictures could be tracked, you could figure out exactly where the pictures came form.
However, if it's just about searching all ISP's in the world, I just don't think that it's believeable that it would be for child porn. Child porn comes from cameras, not the internet itself, so whoever is putting these pictures on the internet, these are the individuals who should be tracked and arrested. If you just search ISPs, how does this do any good? Every picture taken by a specific camera should have indentity information inside it. No one should be able to annonymously take a picture and post it on the internet, stop child pornography at the source, otherwise it's not going to do much good. Data retention might tell you who has looked at child porn, or even who originally uploaded it in some cases, but this does not lead anywhere unless you can get to the asshole who actually commited the crime of creating the child pornography.
So this law would be like trying to go after file sharers individually, in the end it gets no where because unless you know where the files came from you are chasing 1s and 0s. So I think the best idea is, all pictures taken by a digital camera and uploaded onto a computer, should REQUIRE indentity information, it should be encoded into the images themselves, if we have to we can make camera owners register their cameras, otherwise what good does this law do?
I think, I'd rather Gonzales just come out and say we need to have surveillance on the internet and that for national security reasons, all ISPs must have retention. I don't think the child porn is believeable enough, yes it's emotional enough but unless they can show people how this law protects children, it just does not connect.
In specific, there are issues related to the patriot act, there are also issues related to the first amendment, and the rights of a corporation. Corporations are legally persons, if this is the case, consider how this would play out in court. If persons have the ability to do spying when authorized through government agencies, how do we know HP was not authorized to do this?
Now, if the feds don't jump into the mix, then the case won't be so complicated, but if you get the federal government into the mix I don't know where it will lead, but it will be something big.
As a rhetorical question, if journalists were renamed terrorists, would the patriot act actually legalize this sort of spying?
It's not that the act of spying was illegal, it's how they choose to do it. If they would have first called the reporters terrorists, it would have been legal.
Technological spying has always been legal because most of the time when people spy in this sorta way, they never get caught. What? You think it's different when internet hackers spy on corporations, but when corporations spy on you, suddenly it's supposed to be different?
HP is a technology company, you better believe the have the most sophisticated spy technology. Corporate spying is legal when it's on individuals who cannot defend themselves. It's only illegal if HP decided to spy on AOL or some other corporation then it's illegal. Individuals do not have any rights, only corporations have rights. If you disagree then go read the patriot act, corporations are persons now, and people are atoms in big structures. A corporation see's it's atoms as all being the same at best and at worst sees you as an evil leeching consumer worthy only of a pack of cigarettes.
The simply fact is, it's good for our economy. Learn to profit from this, and make a career in business intelligence, and develop the new generation of spy technology. It's not going to stop so profit from it.
Tell me why anyone would be prosecuted for spying when the patriot act eliminates privacy? This means that spying is now officially legal.
Corporate spying has been going on forever anyway, now with the patriot act in place, it can happen legally. There is no way to prosecute this because the patriot act makes it legal. If you prosecute it will only strengthen the power of the patriot act.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I see it, what stops them from using the patriot act in their defense?
The corporate overlords and the government are the same, they are people. It's simply, spying is legal as long as you don't get caught. It's always been happening, and with technology it's just easier, but just assume that you are being spied on by everyone and always have been.
Control freak professors don't care if you learn or not, as long as you sit still, obey, and shut up while they are speaking. The control freak professor wants to control not only how you learn, but what you learn. The control freak professor considers you as something to have information programmed into, for whatever agenda. If you aren't in class then you cannot be taught to obey.
If you aren't in class you cannot be late and punished.
If you aren't in class you cannot be graded by how you look, by gender, race, etc.
If you aren't in class you cannot be told how to learn.
The first clique you have to break are the racial cliques. Then, you'll be able to break the gender cliques, because chances are the CEO is a white male.
Cliques are difficult to break, it's still possible to break them, but this requires that people start their own tribes, their own cliques, and not base them on gender, race, or any appearance. When are we going to have character cliques?
No, not 90%, but food is never going to cost that much. I'm saying, I'd be willing to pay 50%. I'd be willing to pay double or triple what we currently pay.
Costs have nothing to do with it. We have money to buy cars, so we have money for food and water. Let's be realistic, when food costs 90% of our incomes then we are more fucked than third world Africa, at that point it's time to move.
Everyone know about this movie. The problem is, just because everyone knows about it and it's hyped, does not mean it's going to be a good movie. It's the mixed reviews it got from people who saw it. If you ask your friend "what did you think of this most hyped movie", and they say "well it was funny but not really scary". It's not going to be an impression like "hey thats the best movie I've seen all year!".
Why would you care about costs if you are dead or going to die? What exactly is more important than food for your security? NOTHING. Food is the most important thing to spend money on. You should spend ANY amount of money to test your food and water.
You can ask people to do whatever, but did it work for tabacco companies? Name the ingredients in a cigar. Thats right, you can't. Did it help legalize marijuana? No. You cannot solve an issue like this through laws and regulations. Sure that's a part of any solution, thats the green solution, but the libertarian solution works in a way which does not decrease freedom.
I'm saying, you should use any political solution and all political solutions, as well as private sector, non profit, and any other solution, because this is the most basic of basic. This is food and water we are talking about here. If you cannot protect that, you are even more domesticated than a house animal, because even a domestic cat will catch the occassional mouse. Start community farms, start fishing, start hunting/fishing clubs, start farming/growing clubs, and focus on food security.
I'm a libertarian because I know that big government will not solve every problem. I understand the mindset that a lot of people have from previous generations, I understand the federal government pays financial aid, and for schools, and does a lot of important functions, but we have to accept that if the federal government stopped doing these functions that these functions would need to be done regardless, and the libertarian outlook is simply an outlook of do it yourself, do for your community, and this makes a lot of sense because you are less dependent on the federal government.
The federal government, do you want FEMA to handle the disaster relief? Most people now would rather have no relief at all than have FEMA relief, and thats due to a hurricane. Imagine how bad things would be if there were a food shortage, or if there were an energy crisis. Some of these problems are yours to solve, and you'll either solve it or you'll pay later. I say if you want to solve it, pay now so you can save later. You don't want to wait for all the food to completely run out before you decide to do something.
How exactly are you supposed to control who gets fired from the FDA and who doesnt? Do you run the FDA? No you don't. Let's face it, none of us control the FDA, so why do you want to keep paying for it? It's inefficient because you are going to end up having to protect your own food and water locally anyway regardless of what happens with the FDA.
Look, your option is to either stop eating beef, or know the farmer you buy your beef from. Your option is to either search for prions as a consumer, or get diseased. No one is going to protect you, we do not live in the sorta world where big business is going to babysit you. If you are the type of consumer who does not care about your health, they arent going to outlaw junk food, tabacco, and beef, even if there are viruses on them, prions in them, and anything else, because ultimately, the beef makers want to sell their beef and make a profit and if you don't even know which farm you are buying your beef from, you don't even know how it got to your plate.
I suggest you learn where your food comes from, from farm to plate, and then buy your food that way. If you cannot buy locally, buy from the corporation with the best reputation for selling clean food. We are past the time where you can trust big businesses to protect your health. There are businesses who don't give a shit about you, me, or anyone, because they only care about making profits. I'm saying you need to learn to make a profit while protecting yourself and consumers, or just give up and eat the beef.
Yes thats fine. Federal government can set the minimum requirements or guidelines, but thats not all the FDA does. The FDA has control over drugs, food and water, and they approve stuff which kills MILLIONS of people. One mistake by the FDA can kill tens of millions of people, because it's putting the fate of millions of people into the hands of a room full of guys in a very top down environment. The FDA acts more as food and drug control. Honestly I see no reason why we need a federal food and drug admin, as if the federal government sets drug laws to protect our safety. Are people this naive to think that the federal government cares about our health? It's not the federal governments job to protect your health, and if you want the federal government to protect you it's going to cost you a lot of money.
So lets face it, tax cuts are good. Yes there are good people in the federal government, I'm not debating about the civilians and officers who do good work in the federal government, or who have good intentions. What I'm saying is, the federal government is too big to micro-manage stuff like Food and Water, and handle all these social programs. It's just not designed for that and never really has been good at it. There is flouride in the drinking water and people are arguing about how great the water quality is, when most of us don't even drink tap water because the quality is so low. Look if we have to pay for bottled water, obviously we need to do a MUCH better job testing the water.
I'm thinking the majority of people don't care about their own lives or health and enjoy paying higher and higher taxes for less and less services. Makes no sense to me.
I'm guessing you were the only American who watched hurricane Katrina and thought that FEMA did a great job. If you think that big government can test food through the FDA, you are living on another planet. Imported food? What are you talking about? Buy locally.
Look, it's not my job to save other states. Like I said, save yourself. Should we all starve because a of a few states? Hell no. If consumers arent able to test food and water what exactly do they do? You act like consumers are zombies with no brains and like the federal government is filled with geniuses! It's the same consumers in the federal government, the state government, the city government, they all accept the same types of bribes, so I don't see your point. At least when it's local, you know the name of the guy who accepted the bribe and you knoe where he lives. He might even be a family member. When you have the federal government handle it, it becomes a lot more complicated and the chance of bribery only increases.
Since you are such a fan of closed source centralized government I'm guessing you arent a Linux user.
Hire someone to test your food. Start a business, or pay someone to start one, where the person goes into random supermarkets, buys food, and tests it in a lab. Is that too complicated?
But yes, if you don't want additives or poisons in your food, learn to test your food. Thats what the kings and queens had to do. Don't you know history?
I'm a pro business libertarian. I never said I was for big business. Anyone here who is not pro-business, how exactly do you expect to keep your job or have any job security being anti business?
I'm libertarian because look, Democrats and Republicans are the same except on social issues. Government is increased under the Democrats and under the Republicans. Why is big government good? How exactly is it helping you? You don't want more of your own money back? You don't want your freedom back? You don't want to secure your food?
The more you blame big business and whine like a cry baby, the less you accomplish. Coming on slashdot to complain about the big government and big business that YOU put in power, makes no sense. You are the consumer who put big business in place and you are the voter who voted big government in place. How the hell can you support big government as good yet view big business as bad? Big government IS big business. Big business IS big government. Do you get it now?
I'm being tough, but only because I'm trying to help you. If you look at hurricane Katrina, thats big government. Why would you expect the FDA to be run any better than FEMA? The big government, is only good at a few things, and thats protecting itself through military power, and giving more money to itself through either raising taxes, or cutting taxes for big businesses.
Like I said, you can label me whatever you want, but your food security is not going to magically increase. The big federal government will not save you. You will either save yourself, or you won't be saved. You cannot go back in time to the FDR days, we don't have the same people that we had back then, we don't have the same world, the same economy, the same population size, the same corporate entities, nothing is anything like it was back then so it's useless to keep trying to apply big government solutions. Big government simply means more government control over your food and drugs.
It's not the federal governments primary responsibility to protect your food. The federal governments primary responsibility is to protect the federal government and to keep a strong defense budget. Most money is going into defense, not food and water security, and thats why you have no food and water security.
It's people like you who support big government, but then complain about the big government you created in the first place. If you don't like big government, stop creating it. You know how governments are, you saw Katrina. The era of big government died in New Orleans. Bill Clinton himself said the era of big government is over. Accept it.
Learn to govern yourself and stop expecting other people to do it.
If one single American gets mad cow disease, yes I'm going to blame the FDA.
Did I saw state inspectors were bad? No. I never said you should lose your job. I said we should not rely on YOU to inspect our food when we can inspect it ourselves. Redundant security makes sense. Don't you get it Mr. inspector, we ARE you.
You trust big government to protect you from drug companies and bad food? It was NEVER the federal governments responsibility to do these things. The federal government by design cannot do it. Also I never mentioned drugs, but I'm a libertarian, I don't think we need nationalized drug laws, but at least the drug issue makes sense to be nationalized. Nationalized food security makes no sense, because it's impossible to do it that way. It's food and water, it's a community / local issue.
Global food security has been degrading for decades now. It's too late to save the globe. Save yourself. Save your community, and work locally. Other communities that want to live will do the same.
How many people here actually work in the science or math industry? You are programmers and scientists and you are telling me you cannot set up a private sector consumer lab?
Grow your own food and sell it to each other, buy local food, and set up a consumer testing lab. Sell the results.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how tracking everything on the internet fights childporn. If every owner of a camera had to register their camera to use it, or if anyone who hooks it up to the computer after taking pictures could be tracked, you could figure out exactly where the pictures came form.
However, if it's just about searching all ISP's in the world, I just don't think that it's believeable that it would be for child porn. Child porn comes from cameras, not the internet itself, so whoever is putting these pictures on the internet, these are the individuals who should be tracked and arrested. If you just search ISPs, how does this do any good? Every picture taken by a specific camera should have indentity information inside it. No one should be able to annonymously take a picture and post it on the internet, stop child pornography at the source, otherwise it's not going to do much good. Data retention might tell you who has looked at child porn, or even who originally uploaded it in some cases, but this does not lead anywhere unless you can get to the asshole who actually commited the crime of creating the child pornography.
So this law would be like trying to go after file sharers individually, in the end it gets no where because unless you know where the files came from you are chasing 1s and 0s. So I think the best idea is, all pictures taken by a digital camera and uploaded onto a computer, should REQUIRE indentity information, it should be encoded into the images themselves, if we have to we can make camera owners register their cameras, otherwise what good does this law do?
I think, I'd rather Gonzales just come out and say we need to have surveillance on the internet and that for national security reasons, all ISPs must have retention. I don't think the child porn is believeable enough, yes it's emotional enough but unless they can show people how this law protects children, it just does not connect.
How do you know?
Can you show me some evidence?
In specific, there are issues related to the patriot act, there are also issues related to the first amendment, and the rights of a corporation. Corporations are legally persons, if this is the case, consider how this would play out in court. If persons have the ability to do spying when authorized through government agencies, how do we know HP was not authorized to do this?
Now, if the feds don't jump into the mix, then the case won't be so complicated, but if you get the federal government into the mix I don't know where it will lead, but it will be something big.
As a rhetorical question, if journalists were renamed terrorists, would the patriot act actually legalize this sort of spying?
It's not that the act of spying was illegal, it's how they choose to do it. If they would have first called the reporters terrorists, it would have been legal.
Technological spying has always been legal because most of the time when people spy in this sorta way, they never get caught. What? You think it's different when internet hackers spy on corporations, but when corporations spy on you, suddenly it's supposed to be different?
HP is a technology company, you better believe the have the most sophisticated spy technology. Corporate spying is legal when it's on individuals who cannot defend themselves. It's only illegal if HP decided to spy on AOL or some other corporation then it's illegal. Individuals do not have any rights, only corporations have rights. If you disagree then go read the patriot act, corporations are persons now, and people are atoms in big structures. A corporation see's it's atoms as all being the same at best and at worst sees you as an evil leeching consumer worthy only of a pack of cigarettes.
The simply fact is, it's good for our economy. Learn to profit from this, and make a career in business intelligence, and develop the new generation of spy technology. It's not going to stop so profit from it.
Tell me why anyone would be prosecuted for spying when the patriot act eliminates privacy? This means that spying is now officially legal.
Corporate spying has been going on forever anyway, now with the patriot act in place, it can happen legally. There is no way to prosecute this because the patriot act makes it legal. If you prosecute it will only strengthen the power of the patriot act.
I'm not a lawyer, but as I see it, what stops them from using the patriot act in their defense?
The corporate overlords and the government are the same, they are people. It's simply, spying is legal as long as you don't get caught. It's always been happening, and with technology it's just easier, but just assume that you are being spied on by everyone and always have been.
It is legal to spy, as long as you don't get caught. If you do get caught and you have enough money it's still legal.
Control freak professors don't care if you learn or not, as long as you sit still, obey, and shut up while they are speaking. The control freak professor wants to control not only how you learn, but what you learn. The control freak professor considers you as something to have information programmed into, for whatever agenda. If you aren't in class then you cannot be taught to obey. If you aren't in class you cannot be late and punished. If you aren't in class you cannot be graded by how you look, by gender, race, etc. If you aren't in class you cannot be told how to learn.
The first clique you have to break are the racial cliques. Then, you'll be able to break the gender cliques, because chances are the CEO is a white male.
Cliques are difficult to break, it's still possible to break them, but this requires that people start their own tribes, their own cliques, and not base them on gender, race, or any appearance. When are we going to have character cliques?
No, not 90%, but food is never going to cost that much. I'm saying, I'd be willing to pay 50%. I'd be willing to pay double or triple what we currently pay.
Costs have nothing to do with it. We have money to buy cars, so we have money for food and water. Let's be realistic, when food costs 90% of our incomes then we are more fucked than third world Africa, at that point it's time to move.
Everyone know about this movie. The problem is, just because everyone knows about it and it's hyped, does not mean it's going to be a good movie. It's the mixed reviews it got from people who saw it. If you ask your friend "what did you think of this most hyped movie", and they say "well it was funny but not really scary". It's not going to be an impression like "hey thats the best movie I've seen all year!".
Why would you care about costs if you are dead or going to die? What exactly is more important than food for your security? NOTHING. Food is the most important thing to spend money on. You should spend ANY amount of money to test your food and water.
You can ask people to do whatever, but did it work for tabacco companies? Name the ingredients in a cigar. Thats right, you can't. Did it help legalize marijuana? No. You cannot solve an issue like this through laws and regulations. Sure that's a part of any solution, thats the green solution, but the libertarian solution works in a way which does not decrease freedom.
I'm saying, you should use any political solution and all political solutions, as well as private sector, non profit, and any other solution, because this is the most basic of basic. This is food and water we are talking about here. If you cannot protect that, you are even more domesticated than a house animal, because even a domestic cat will catch the occassional mouse. Start community farms, start fishing, start hunting/fishing clubs, start farming/growing clubs, and focus on food security.
I'm a libertarian because I know that big government will not solve every problem. I understand the mindset that a lot of people have from previous generations, I understand the federal government pays financial aid, and for schools, and does a lot of important functions, but we have to accept that if the federal government stopped doing these functions that these functions would need to be done regardless, and the libertarian outlook is simply an outlook of do it yourself, do for your community, and this makes a lot of sense because you are less dependent on the federal government.
The federal government, do you want FEMA to handle the disaster relief? Most people now would rather have no relief at all than have FEMA relief, and thats due to a hurricane. Imagine how bad things would be if there were a food shortage, or if there were an energy crisis. Some of these problems are yours to solve, and you'll either solve it or you'll pay later. I say if you want to solve it, pay now so you can save later. You don't want to wait for all the food to completely run out before you decide to do something.
How exactly are you supposed to control who gets fired from the FDA and who doesnt? Do you run the FDA? No you don't. Let's face it, none of us control the FDA, so why do you want to keep paying for it? It's inefficient because you are going to end up having to protect your own food and water locally anyway regardless of what happens with the FDA.
Look, your option is to either stop eating beef, or know the farmer you buy your beef from. Your option is to either search for prions as a consumer, or get diseased. No one is going to protect you, we do not live in the sorta world where big business is going to babysit you. If you are the type of consumer who does not care about your health, they arent going to outlaw junk food, tabacco, and beef, even if there are viruses on them, prions in them, and anything else, because ultimately, the beef makers want to sell their beef and make a profit and if you don't even know which farm you are buying your beef from, you don't even know how it got to your plate.
I suggest you learn where your food comes from, from farm to plate, and then buy your food that way. If you cannot buy locally, buy from the corporation with the best reputation for selling clean food. We are past the time where you can trust big businesses to protect your health. There are businesses who don't give a shit about you, me, or anyone, because they only care about making profits. I'm saying you need to learn to make a profit while protecting yourself and consumers, or just give up and eat the beef.
Yes thats fine. Federal government can set the minimum requirements or guidelines, but thats not all the FDA does. The FDA has control over drugs, food and water, and they approve stuff which kills MILLIONS of people. One mistake by the FDA can kill tens of millions of people, because it's putting the fate of millions of people into the hands of a room full of guys in a very top down environment. The FDA acts more as food and drug control. Honestly I see no reason why we need a federal food and drug admin, as if the federal government sets drug laws to protect our safety. Are people this naive to think that the federal government cares about our health? It's not the federal governments job to protect your health, and if you want the federal government to protect you it's going to cost you a lot of money.
So lets face it, tax cuts are good. Yes there are good people in the federal government, I'm not debating about the civilians and officers who do good work in the federal government, or who have good intentions. What I'm saying is, the federal government is too big to micro-manage stuff like Food and Water, and handle all these social programs. It's just not designed for that and never really has been good at it. There is flouride in the drinking water and people are arguing about how great the water quality is, when most of us don't even drink tap water because the quality is so low. Look if we have to pay for bottled water, obviously we need to do a MUCH better job testing the water.
I'm thinking the majority of people don't care about their own lives or health and enjoy paying higher and higher taxes for less and less services. Makes no sense to me.
I'm guessing you were the only American who watched hurricane Katrina and thought that FEMA did a great job. If you think that big government can test food through the FDA, you are living on another planet. Imported food? What are you talking about? Buy locally.
Look, it's not my job to save other states. Like I said, save yourself. Should we all starve because a of a few states? Hell no. If consumers arent able to test food and water what exactly do they do? You act like consumers are zombies with no brains and like the federal government is filled with geniuses! It's the same consumers in the federal government, the state government, the city government, they all accept the same types of bribes, so I don't see your point. At least when it's local, you know the name of the guy who accepted the bribe and you knoe where he lives. He might even be a family member. When you have the federal government handle it, it becomes a lot more complicated and the chance of bribery only increases.
Since you are such a fan of closed source centralized government I'm guessing you arent a Linux user.
Hire someone to test your food. Start a business, or pay someone to start one, where the person goes into random supermarkets, buys food, and tests it in a lab. Is that too complicated?
But yes, if you don't want additives or poisons in your food, learn to test your food. Thats what the kings and queens had to do. Don't you know history?
I'm a pro business libertarian. I never said I was for big business. Anyone here who is not pro-business, how exactly do you expect to keep your job or have any job security being anti business?
I'm libertarian because look, Democrats and Republicans are the same except on social issues. Government is increased under the Democrats and under the Republicans. Why is big government good? How exactly is it helping you? You don't want more of your own money back? You don't want your freedom back? You don't want to secure your food?
The more you blame big business and whine like a cry baby, the less you accomplish. Coming on slashdot to complain about the big government and big business that YOU put in power, makes no sense. You are the consumer who put big business in place and you are the voter who voted big government in place. How the hell can you support big government as good yet view big business as bad? Big government IS big business. Big business IS big government. Do you get it now?
I'm being tough, but only because I'm trying to help you. If you look at hurricane Katrina, thats big government. Why would you expect the FDA to be run any better than FEMA? The big government, is only good at a few things, and thats protecting itself through military power, and giving more money to itself through either raising taxes, or cutting taxes for big businesses.
Like I said, you can label me whatever you want, but your food security is not going to magically increase. The big federal government will not save you. You will either save yourself, or you won't be saved. You cannot go back in time to the FDR days, we don't have the same people that we had back then, we don't have the same world, the same economy, the same population size, the same corporate entities, nothing is anything like it was back then so it's useless to keep trying to apply big government solutions. Big government simply means more government control over your food and drugs.
It's not the federal governments primary responsibility to protect your food. The federal governments primary responsibility is to protect the federal government and to keep a strong defense budget. Most money is going into defense, not food and water security, and thats why you have no food and water security.
It's people like you who support big government, but then complain about the big government you created in the first place. If you don't like big government, stop creating it. You know how governments are, you saw Katrina. The era of big government died in New Orleans. Bill Clinton himself said the era of big government is over. Accept it.
Learn to govern yourself and stop expecting other people to do it.
If one single American gets mad cow disease, yes I'm going to blame the FDA.
Did I saw state inspectors were bad? No. I never said you should lose your job. I said we should not rely on YOU to inspect our food when we can inspect it ourselves. Redundant security makes sense. Don't you get it Mr. inspector, we ARE you.
You trust big government to protect you from drug companies and bad food? It was NEVER the federal governments responsibility to do these things. The federal government by design cannot do it. Also I never mentioned drugs, but I'm a libertarian, I don't think we need nationalized drug laws, but at least the drug issue makes sense to be nationalized. Nationalized food security makes no sense, because it's impossible to do it that way. It's food and water, it's a community / local issue.
You don't eat what they produce. You eat what you want to eat. Start eating food from other people or start testing it yourself.
Getting married right before you starve to death?
Global food security has been degrading for decades now. It's too late to save the globe. Save yourself. Save your community, and work locally. Other communities that want to live will do the same.
How many people here actually work in the science or math industry? You are programmers and scientists and you are telling me you cannot set up a private sector consumer lab?
Grow your own food and sell it to each other, buy local food, and set up a consumer testing lab. Sell the results.
http://www.panna.org/