Don't you see? Our ISP contracts and service could now be increased to include "piracy insurance" which is a part of your service. This insurance then ensures that any loss resulting from "piracy" will be paid for by the ISP. Therefore, the ISP has the right to demand from the people who are suing the ISP, the amount they would get, if it were successful. Therefore, the film industry can never make any money off of it!
Huzzah for contorted logic!
Though seriously, what's the likelihood of such an agreement? I have a feeling that the insurance would be labelled a second separate contract, and as such the money the film industry is liable for, does not include this amount. Damn you corporate law!
The movie title is actually a reference to who will want to see it. Since the actual movie is just a picture of Goatse for 2 hours.
You probably got duped by the trailer which was produced by another director, and included better lighting, sound, and explosions than the final. Also, the trailer had way more CGI touch ups.
However, the directors commentary on the 1080p BluRay is informative and occasionally hilarious. Matt Damon was vying for the role, but the directors decided to go with an unknown.
Yeah, I've seen this business model around heaps of late. Friends use Deal Extreme and Catch Of The Day and some other sites which don't just do things you can buy.
When ever I hear Linux as a solution to Trojans/Viruses/etc, I can't help but remember when I was a script kiddy, and how we'd run a few scripts, on a few machines, that would scan an teh internet, and root a fuckload of boxes. Seriously, it was so easy, and the scripts we had would completely root the machine, then fix the hole.
Usually it was a problem with things being misconfigured or un-updated. These weren't just trojans we'd install, they were hardcore rootkits, that you weren't getting rid of anytime soon. Hell, it was almost impossible to detect them.
We pwned nameservers, database servers, and file servers, on everything from personal boxes, to government and education department boxes.
While Linux has the potential to be secure, I would not be so sure that an average user would have the skills to lock down that sort of box.
Note: This was all done when *nix was far less user friendly than it is now, and Ubuntu might be quite secure from default.
Well I just typed into Google "estimates of the amount of people on the internet" and got ITU estimates two billion people online by end of 2010. So, they've got the possibility to grow to that, if its accurate. While we don't expect 100% market share, and given those numbers are for last year, and we'd be looking at 10-20+ years in the future, then they could grow a LOT more.
They could also grow, as you noted, by monetizing their current users better. Something they've already been doing, and quite successfully. If they did it stupid, certainly there would be a mass abandoning, but if they don't, they could make a lot of money.
This potential upside, is what enables high valuations, as the downside, with a low cost of capital, and a well diversified portfolio (an assumption of these theories), is limited, where as the upside can be almost unlimited.
I hadn't heard of Groupon, but I have now. However, I have heard of MANY other deal of the day websites, and discounters.
While market share will provide them with economies of scale, there are many warehouse companies, discount wholesalers, and similar, so that's a really competitive market. While I don't necessarily agree, I can see why they might value this less.
Facebook is generating revenue, and is monetized, so it isn't necessarily needing "someone else to pay more for it", despite the fact that ALL companies want that, I know what you mean. Given it is profitable, we can rule out the requirement of a greater fool for it to exist. But that doesn't preclude a greater fool from buying it.
While the others likely take your question in a negative tone (eg, meaning its way over valued), I take it in a possible positive tone, in that the valuation will be so subjective that it is easily possible to rationalize a high valuation.
In practicality, you look for variables which likely predict the market share/revenue/etc, and use these econometric techniques to attempt to understand what it might be. Often you measure them in comparison to proxy companies (there's a name for this, but I'm drawing a blank), or you just look to tie their to general available variables. Such as uptake of the internet, GDP, unemployment, etc.
Once you've a value, that you can measure for the company over its short lifetime, and a value you can more accurately predict, you then use this relationship to predict your estimate.
As you can see, it's immensely subjective, from the choice of variables, to the forecasting of the variables they're based on.
Valuations are often EXTREMELY sensitive to the measure of expected growth. As such, if Facebook had an high estimated growth, where as Groupon (which I've never heard of) had a low estimated growth, then this would dramatically change their valuations, given they're similar companies with similar costs of equity/capital.
At the moment Google has a market capitalization of 198.58b, and while Google has an easier monetizing job (I think) than Facebook, and a longer history, we should notice that Facebook has similar traffic to Google, possibly even more. Not sure if this is throughput or hits though.
So without more research, while $50b is high, it can be rationalized, and may not be insane. Not to say that it isn't insane, but it might not be. Especially if it occupies only a small portion of your portfolio, and the investment is syndicated amongst many investors.
I'll be the first to admit I'm studying a double degree with an honours in economics, a bachelors in finance, and I'm picking up all the courses required to be an accountant (do the CPA).
This article was reporting on 2009's revenue (assuming it means 2009-01-01 to 2009-12-31, and not an FY measure) and given Facebook was started in February 2004, and given this is money in the door, 5 years for ANY start up to be profitable, is quite extrodinary, and more so revenue that high. While you could point to other companies which had similar runs, these are extreme exceptions in this industry.
Tens of millions in the early years of a company, and additionally such high turn over, is an extremely good sign. Depending on the modelling these people are using, a valuation of tens of billions can be rationalized. Whether or not it is.
Please note valuation functions are hardly ever simple ratios, while they might be used as one input, or as estimators of other variables, but a profit ratio is unlikely, as its highly affected by different accounting treatments. People outside the company may use this, but can't use it for comparison, or as a reasonable estimator. You'd be better off with a revenue ratio instead.
A simple world, with simple math, to me is the constant growth model. Given they haven't distributed a dividend, and are high growth, we'd likely use free cash flow (but that's also probably highly subjective and unstable), a high growth (a measure of standard deviation would be simplest), and a cost of capital (given you're valuing the firm, and not the equity, something like WACC).
This is an extremely simplistic model, and yet it's immensely more complicated than yours.
If I were valuing this company, I'd be more interested in how its being run, potential future prospects, and whether it could fit in my portfolio well.
IPO's aren't the only way to go, in this instance if they are profitable, can hold on, and are willing to bare the risk, then why would they sell now? Given they didn't need an extreme amount of cash for investment. The life cycle of a company, which doesn't necessarily reflect tech companies well, but could be handy here, shows a company doing R&D, starting, growing rapidly, and smoothing off to become stable. At present they'd be in the rapid growth phase, and if they can fund it internally, they stand to make a LOT more money in the end.
Yes, losing money hand-over-fist, if by that you mean, making money hand-over-fist. In other words, they (as far as we can tell) are extremely fucking profitable.
Hopefully this will help me get through my next exam. I don't quite understand how, or why, but hopefully it does.
Seriously odd platform to develop for, though I do see the nerd attraction to it.
Are there applications which help you cheat out on the NSpire yet? Like, one that runs CAS on a non-CAS NSpire? That would be handy as fuck, as opposed to running Doom.
No, no, no. We need one size fits all solutions. We can't have specialization! If this can't be put into my iPhone, or can't be used on commercial airliners, then what fucking use is it? Exactly. None.
Then you should have tried the saltpeter and sugar smoke bomb. We smuggled quite a lot of saltpeter out from school. We also decided to throw in some match heads, and naphthalene (why not?). Cooked it on the oven, luckily in a small test quantity. All of a sudden, BAM, the room was full of smoke, from what was about a 50cent piece worth of material.
The smoke was initially red, making me think the match heads got too hot. Scared the shit out of us. A red/white cloud, that races at your face, and quickly fills the entire kitchen. Mum was shocked, and impressed.
I'd highly recommend this recipe to anyone. Given the quantities are small enough (and given we weren't extremely lucky), we had it literally blow up right in our faces, and all we got was a little smoky, and the shock of our lives.
I don't know what we did differently. Perhaps they're using a low grade KNO3, we were using lab grade stuff, and we prepared the mixtures specifically, made sure it was consistent. Also, we did a very thin, but wide mixture. Additionally, maybe the match heads (and naphthalene?) made it react quicker. Also, it reaching some temperature on the oven, might have triggered it to all ignite at once.
"The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991." Source
This doesn't sound like it was dodgy hidden under cover drums or anything like that. It sounds as if it was well regulated.
However you rationalize it, the result is the same, having absolute access, creates more value for us, and them, regardless of whether or not that access is used individually.
Additionally, I would argue that it also adds value for publishers. I NEVER buy something I haven't run for a significant amount of time, cracked. Yet, I've spent a fuck load of money on software, which I already had cracked. Mainly because I realize it has value, and want to support the developer. Additionally, there are network effects, which most software vendors recognize, and is why they turn a blind eye to piracy in certain markets, or offer dramatic discounts (such as in china, or to students).
Regardless of whether people think this is legal/moral/right or not, I know many people like it, and this is intuitively how many people think.
Ergo, a rational self profit maximizing company, would not put too much effort in attempting to stop this.
Though, I feel like this is a "Oh great, this old thread" moment, since this has been repeated over and over again on here, even by myself.
Yeah, however if they have business relationships / contracts which prohibit it, I'd be releasing a good perfect jailbreak myself, just release a "cracked" ipsw (for iPhone) for each version. A little civil disobedience. Done.
Yeah, and they also make money from them being jailbreakable. It's less direct, but it's true. Jailbreaking provides value, more for some than others. For me it's essential, I wouldn't buy one otherwise. I know this is the same for a lot of people.
Wow, this was the stupidest way to get rid of an incriminating drive. Seriously, I do this with really old drives that I can't be bothered wiping, but this is the sort of thing you should be wiping.
Additionally, it doesn't even take much. Just get Darik's Boot And Nuke then boot from it, et viola.
Also remember, while DoD level security sounds awesome, I know from experience, one random pass is enough. If you don't believe me, you can read about it here page 1, page 2. It explains electron microscopes (the boogeyman of secure wiping), and other methods, will not, in all likelihood, be able to reliably retrieve, such that it could be entered into evidence.
Seriously, so stupid. Besides that, encrypt from the get go, and you're as good as done!
This does presume that they'd be willing to tie up this resource for an entire year. Everything I've read of them so far, they were only able to tie it up for something on the order of 2 weeks to 2 months. Since there are competing uses for these machines, it would be hard to rationalize tying it up for ages.
In which case, my password is still well over 66bits of entropy, as there is a large amount of data, including extended characters, which is completely random.
I can almost bet NSA has a multi-million dollar hardware cracker that can brute-force your Linux or TrueCrypt password, assuming it has less than about 50 bits of entropy. Very few people are capable or willing to use truly safe passwords with 100bit+ entropy.
I wasn't certain about how entropy was measured, so I read this Entropy as a measure of password strength. Given we assume that the regular typeable characters still provide enough entropy (not sure about, but it's possible), then you're saying, given someone has a password under 6.25 (50 bits / 8) characters, it would be cracked. I would agree with that. That's an absurdly small password. Based on this article Real World Passwords less than 17% on average fit that criteria. Additionally, this is lowest common denominator stuff. They fell for a phishing attack, and use myspace, and based on the most common passwords, aren't geniuses.
Very few people are capable or willing to use truly safe passwords with 100bit+ entropy.
Interestingly this would imply 12.5 characters. While I looked at my old stock standard passwords, they were just under this amount. However my high security passwords (the ones on the TrueCrypt / LastPass data), are in excess of 400 bits, and I'd gather anyone who really wants to/needs to protect something, will take a similar tact.
Lastly, there have been numerous articles, and legal documents, showing the NSA/FBI/etc attempting to crack many different peoples volumes, but being unable to. Don't see them as magic, they can't just crack anything they want. While it might induce you to maintain extreme security measures, that's about the only benefit from thinking this way, that you'll get. Also, you'll likely spend too much time/money/effort on these solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
YOU HANDSOME GENIUS YOU!
Don't you see? Our ISP contracts and service could now be increased to include "piracy insurance" which is a part of your service. This insurance then ensures that any loss resulting from "piracy" will be paid for by the ISP. Therefore, the ISP has the right to demand from the people who are suing the ISP, the amount they would get, if it were successful. Therefore, the film industry can never make any money off of it!
Huzzah for contorted logic!
Though seriously, what's the likelihood of such an agreement? I have a feeling that the insurance would be labelled a second separate contract, and as such the money the film industry is liable for, does not include this amount. Damn you corporate law!
The movie title is actually a reference to who will want to see it. Since the actual movie is just a picture of Goatse for 2 hours.
You probably got duped by the trailer which was produced by another director, and included better lighting, sound, and explosions than the final. Also, the trailer had way more CGI touch ups.
However, the directors commentary on the 1080p BluRay is informative and occasionally hilarious. Matt Damon was vying for the role, but the directors decided to go with an unknown.
Ahh okay, I see.
Yeah, I've seen this business model around heaps of late. Friends use Deal Extreme and Catch Of The Day and some other sites which don't just do things you can buy.
When ever I hear Linux as a solution to Trojans/Viruses/etc, I can't help but remember when I was a script kiddy, and how we'd run a few scripts, on a few machines, that would scan an teh internet, and root a fuckload of boxes. Seriously, it was so easy, and the scripts we had would completely root the machine, then fix the hole.
Usually it was a problem with things being misconfigured or un-updated. These weren't just trojans we'd install, they were hardcore rootkits, that you weren't getting rid of anytime soon. Hell, it was almost impossible to detect them.
We pwned nameservers, database servers, and file servers, on everything from personal boxes, to government and education department boxes.
While Linux has the potential to be secure, I would not be so sure that an average user would have the skills to lock down that sort of box.
Note: This was all done when *nix was far less user friendly than it is now, and Ubuntu might be quite secure from default.
Well I just typed into Google "estimates of the amount of people on the internet" and got ITU estimates two billion people online by end of 2010. So, they've got the possibility to grow to that, if its accurate. While we don't expect 100% market share, and given those numbers are for last year, and we'd be looking at 10-20+ years in the future, then they could grow a LOT more.
They could also grow, as you noted, by monetizing their current users better. Something they've already been doing, and quite successfully. If they did it stupid, certainly there would be a mass abandoning, but if they don't, they could make a lot of money.
This potential upside, is what enables high valuations, as the downside, with a low cost of capital, and a well diversified portfolio (an assumption of these theories), is limited, where as the upside can be almost unlimited.
I don't live in America, nor do I do much work in that sector.
I hadn't heard of Groupon, but I have now. However, I have heard of MANY other deal of the day websites, and discounters.
While market share will provide them with economies of scale, there are many warehouse companies, discount wholesalers, and similar, so that's a really competitive market. While I don't necessarily agree, I can see why they might value this less.
Facebook is generating revenue, and is monetized, so it isn't necessarily needing "someone else to pay more for it", despite the fact that ALL companies want that, I know what you mean. Given it is profitable, we can rule out the requirement of a greater fool for it to exist. But that doesn't preclude a greater fool from buying it.
Exactly.
While the others likely take your question in a negative tone (eg, meaning its way over valued), I take it in a possible positive tone, in that the valuation will be so subjective that it is easily possible to rationalize a high valuation.
In practicality, you look for variables which likely predict the market share/revenue/etc, and use these econometric techniques to attempt to understand what it might be. Often you measure them in comparison to proxy companies (there's a name for this, but I'm drawing a blank), or you just look to tie their to general available variables. Such as uptake of the internet, GDP, unemployment, etc.
Once you've a value, that you can measure for the company over its short lifetime, and a value you can more accurately predict, you then use this relationship to predict your estimate.
As you can see, it's immensely subjective, from the choice of variables, to the forecasting of the variables they're based on.
Valuations are often EXTREMELY sensitive to the measure of expected growth. As such, if Facebook had an high estimated growth, where as Groupon (which I've never heard of) had a low estimated growth, then this would dramatically change their valuations, given they're similar companies with similar costs of equity/capital.
At the moment Google has a market capitalization of 198.58b, and while Google has an easier monetizing job (I think) than Facebook, and a longer history, we should notice that Facebook has similar traffic to Google, possibly even more. Not sure if this is throughput or hits though.
So without more research, while $50b is high, it can be rationalized, and may not be insane. Not to say that it isn't insane, but it might not be. Especially if it occupies only a small portion of your portfolio, and the investment is syndicated amongst many investors.
I'll be the first to admit I'm studying a double degree with an honours in economics, a bachelors in finance, and I'm picking up all the courses required to be an accountant (do the CPA).
This article was reporting on 2009's revenue (assuming it means 2009-01-01 to 2009-12-31, and not an FY measure) and given Facebook was started in February 2004, and given this is money in the door, 5 years for ANY start up to be profitable, is quite extrodinary, and more so revenue that high. While you could point to other companies which had similar runs, these are extreme exceptions in this industry.
Tens of millions in the early years of a company, and additionally such high turn over, is an extremely good sign. Depending on the modelling these people are using, a valuation of tens of billions can be rationalized. Whether or not it is.
Please note valuation functions are hardly ever simple ratios, while they might be used as one input, or as estimators of other variables, but a profit ratio is unlikely, as its highly affected by different accounting treatments. People outside the company may use this, but can't use it for comparison, or as a reasonable estimator. You'd be better off with a revenue ratio instead.
A simple world, with simple math, to me is the constant growth model. Given they haven't distributed a dividend, and are high growth, we'd likely use free cash flow (but that's also probably highly subjective and unstable), a high growth (a measure of standard deviation would be simplest), and a cost of capital (given you're valuing the firm, and not the equity, something like WACC).
This is an extremely simplistic model, and yet it's immensely more complicated than yours.
If I were valuing this company, I'd be more interested in how its being run, potential future prospects, and whether it could fit in my portfolio well.
IPO's aren't the only way to go, in this instance if they are profitable, can hold on, and are willing to bare the risk, then why would they sell now? Given they didn't need an extreme amount of cash for investment. The life cycle of a company, which doesn't necessarily reflect tech companies well, but could be handy here, shows a company doing R&D, starting, growing rapidly, and smoothing off to become stable. At present they'd be in the rapid growth phase, and if they can fund it internally, they stand to make a LOT more money in the end.
Facebook '09 revenue neared $800 million...The company also earned a solid net profit, in the tens of millions of dollars last year, one of the sources said.
Yes, losing money hand-over-fist, if by that you mean, making money hand-over-fist. In other words, they (as far as we can tell) are extremely fucking profitable.
Hopefully this will help me get through my next exam. I don't quite understand how, or why, but hopefully it does.
Seriously odd platform to develop for, though I do see the nerd attraction to it.
Are there applications which help you cheat out on the NSpire yet? Like, one that runs CAS on a non-CAS NSpire? That would be handy as fuck, as opposed to running Doom.
No, no, no. We need one size fits all solutions. We can't have specialization! If this can't be put into my iPhone, or can't be used on commercial airliners, then what fucking use is it? Exactly. None.
The prosecution rests.
Sorry, that's a figure of speech, case closed!
Then you should have tried the saltpeter and sugar smoke bomb. We smuggled quite a lot of saltpeter out from school. We also decided to throw in some match heads, and naphthalene (why not?). Cooked it on the oven, luckily in a small test quantity. All of a sudden, BAM, the room was full of smoke, from what was about a 50cent piece worth of material.
The smoke was initially red, making me think the match heads got too hot. Scared the shit out of us. A red/white cloud, that races at your face, and quickly fills the entire kitchen. Mum was shocked, and impressed.
I'd highly recommend this recipe to anyone. Given the quantities are small enough (and given we weren't extremely lucky), we had it literally blow up right in our faces, and all we got was a little smoky, and the shock of our lives.
Having a look at ones like this...
saltpeter smoke bombs inside
Smoke bomb (KNO3 + Sugar)
I don't know what we did differently. Perhaps they're using a low grade KNO3, we were using lab grade stuff, and we prepared the mixtures specifically, made sure it was consistent. Also, we did a very thin, but wide mixture. Additionally, maybe the match heads (and naphthalene?) made it react quicker. Also, it reaching some temperature on the oven, might have triggered it to all ignite at once.
Ours was more like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IZX80i4cpU
But in a confined space, with a fraction of the material, and it all went off at once.
BIG BADA BOOM! (Minus boom, just menacing hissing, and fuckloads of smoke)
"The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, and the yellowcake had not been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991."
Source
This doesn't sound like it was dodgy hidden under cover drums or anything like that. It sounds as if it was well regulated.
LOL Fair enough.
However you rationalize it, the result is the same, having absolute access, creates more value for us, and them, regardless of whether or not that access is used individually.
Additionally, I would argue that it also adds value for publishers. I NEVER buy something I haven't run for a significant amount of time, cracked. Yet, I've spent a fuck load of money on software, which I already had cracked. Mainly because I realize it has value, and want to support the developer. Additionally, there are network effects, which most software vendors recognize, and is why they turn a blind eye to piracy in certain markets, or offer dramatic discounts (such as in china, or to students).
Regardless of whether people think this is legal/moral/right or not, I know many people like it, and this is intuitively how many people think.
Ergo, a rational self profit maximizing company, would not put too much effort in attempting to stop this.
Though, I feel like this is a "Oh great, this old thread" moment, since this has been repeated over and over again on here, even by myself.
Yeah, however if they have business relationships / contracts which prohibit it, I'd be releasing a good perfect jailbreak myself, just release a "cracked" ipsw (for iPhone) for each version. A little civil disobedience. Done.
Yeah, and they also make money from them being jailbreakable. It's less direct, but it's true. Jailbreaking provides value, more for some than others. For me it's essential, I wouldn't buy one otherwise. I know this is the same for a lot of people.
They don't and never have done ID checks for R rated films either. I rented Bad Boy Bubby when I was 12, and bought Se7en when I was even younger.
The ratings are a joke, nobody takes them seriously.
Wow, this was the stupidest way to get rid of an incriminating drive. Seriously, I do this with really old drives that I can't be bothered wiping, but this is the sort of thing you should be wiping.
Additionally, it doesn't even take much. Just get Darik's Boot And Nuke then boot from it, et viola.
Also remember, while DoD level security sounds awesome, I know from experience, one random pass is enough. If you don't believe me, you can read about it here page 1, page 2. It explains electron microscopes (the boogeyman of secure wiping), and other methods, will not, in all likelihood, be able to reliably retrieve, such that it could be entered into evidence.
Seriously, so stupid. Besides that, encrypt from the get go, and you're as good as done!
This does presume that they'd be willing to tie up this resource for an entire year. Everything I've read of them so far, they were only able to tie it up for something on the order of 2 weeks to 2 months. Since there are competing uses for these machines, it would be hard to rationalize tying it up for ages.
So perhaps use something like this as your base.
Very interesting. Thanks for the response.
In which case, my password is still well over 66bits of entropy, as there is a large amount of data, including extended characters, which is completely random.
I will have to keep this in mind.
Although you said in jest... REAL security pros do write it down...
http://www.schneier.com/news-101.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/06/write_down_your.html
I can almost bet NSA has a multi-million dollar hardware cracker that can brute-force your Linux or TrueCrypt password, assuming it has less than about 50 bits of entropy. Very few people are capable or willing to use truly safe passwords with 100bit+ entropy.
I wasn't certain about how entropy was measured, so I read this Entropy as a measure of password strength. Given we assume that the regular typeable characters still provide enough entropy (not sure about, but it's possible), then you're saying, given someone has a password under 6.25 (50 bits / 8) characters, it would be cracked. I would agree with that. That's an absurdly small password. Based on this article Real World Passwords less than 17% on average fit that criteria. Additionally, this is lowest common denominator stuff. They fell for a phishing attack, and use myspace, and based on the most common passwords, aren't geniuses.
Very few people are capable or willing to use truly safe passwords with 100bit+ entropy.
Interestingly this would imply 12.5 characters. While I looked at my old stock standard passwords, they were just under this amount. However my high security passwords (the ones on the TrueCrypt / LastPass data), are in excess of 400 bits, and I'd gather anyone who really wants to/needs to protect something, will take a similar tact.
Lastly, there have been numerous articles, and legal documents, showing the NSA/FBI/etc attempting to crack many different peoples volumes, but being unable to. Don't see them as magic, they can't just crack anything they want. While it might induce you to maintain extreme security measures, that's about the only benefit from thinking this way, that you'll get. Also, you'll likely spend too much time/money/effort on these solutions.