Bigger wafers means less waste around the edges where the rectangular chips meet the circular wafer edge. This becomes very important for larger chips such as image sensors. (Not sure if the new process will be used for that, though.) Also, many manufacturing steps are applied to the wafer as a whole, and having wafers with over 2.25 times as many chips makes those steps cheaper on a per-chip basis. Making the boules will be hard, but I think they will find some way of providing extra support for the boule as it grows. Thinner wafers may also get more out of each boule. There will be many other problems such as maintaining alignment over the greater distance which may be harder.
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/compub.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics - National Compensation Survey - Wages The job category is likely "computer and information systems managers" or "information systems managers" (Over $53/hr in wages in Atlanta, for instance = $138,000/yr. @50hrs./wk.). You also may want to look at the different levels of regular managers to see what the pay trajectory typically is and use that to scale the number for your specialty and region.
"Doesn't every chemical have to go through thorough tests before deemed safe for human consumption?"
No, because we used to be a free country where everything was considered legal until proven otherwise. Back in the early 20th century, it took a constitutional amendment to ban a substance. It was understood that that was not within Congress' powers to do so otherwise, which gave rise to all sorts of dodges such as calling the ban an "excise tax", with outrageously high duties.
We have slid down the slippery slope to the point that agencies such as the BATF, DEA and FDA can ban substances by totally discretionary administrative action - and anyone with molecules vaguely similar can have all property seized, be prevented from making any effective legal defense and sentenced under draconian mandatory minimums to decades in prison. But they still like to pretend that they are still exercising their authority with some authentic legal basis, so they'll do a bit of hand-wringing while actually prosecuting anyone with any potentially mind-altering material, or "precursors" or even just for possessing glassware without license from our masters.
I say they never had the authority to ban anything, nor to even tax anything to a level that would remove it from regular commerce. When they try to use their power to do so, they are acting outside their delegated auhtority ultra vires, they have lost their immunity, and so are entitled to even less deference than any other band of armed thugs that invades homes, steals property and kidnaps, terrorizes and kills citizens.
No, that is an alarmist view not supported by the evidence, which shows no acceleration. The current rate of rise is about 3.3mm/yr on satellite data, about 2mm/yr on tide gauge data, with a best projection of about 3mm/yr for the next century. See Wikipedia's article"Current sea level rise". There are a range of estimates, but the high ones all seem to be informed more by political advocacy than actual research. It would be a waste to not develop all that land on the basis of mere speculation.
Piffle. Your own source notes that regular visual acuity can go to better than 20/10, (over 750 ppi, at 12" which is not at all the same as dpi, which is for print and is not convertible to ppi) and other forms of visual acuity such as alignment of lines ("vernier acuity") can go even higher even in people with average vision. Even 20/20 is for regular acuity is noted as subnormal: "The significance of the 20/20 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12."
5" is less than the distance from ear to mouth, and 3" is narrow enough to fit in any pocket easily and is a comfortable width to hold. Weight is more relevant than size for comfort in holding for long periods
That's quite insightful. We can't really define randomness, anyway, except as a quantification of ignorance, or possibly free will. Like any other organism, when carefully tested under the most precisely defined experimental conditions, even an electron will do -- well, whatever it darn well feels like. Materialism bottoms out - quanta behave nothing like bricks and beefsteak. Causality is no longer a part of fundamental physics, and hasn't been for nearly a century. The universe is alive, every bit of it is conscious and has free will - or none of it does. (see the Free Will Theorem")
Yet there is still this yearning to believe in a Newtonian universe among the vulgar bandwagon of internet atheists, to somehow clothe their ignorance in a semblance of science, to profess certainty when there is none to be had. They want to believe that they really know, that they understand the universe, that they are smart and special and superior, even if that means they have to claim that nothing is conscious, not even themselves, that there is no meaning, not even in their own thoughts, that there is no choice, not even in how to interpret the world. Try to show them that reality is so much bigger and slipperier than they think, and they won't listen. They don't know science, they certainly don't practice science, and their hooting and slavering to hunt heretics comes from unsupported belief and pack mentality just as much as the most deluded zealot of any other sect.
More to the point, these fake rationalists have only a cartoonish understanding of evolution. Here's what I posted on Slashdot six years ago:
Evolutionary theorists (at the slashdot level, at least) seem to operate with a very shallow understanding of genetic processes. The base sequence is not all that is inheirited - the whole structure of the egg (RNA, proteome, cytoskeleton, etc.)is passed on as well, and the pattern of activation or of portions of the genome depends on its cellular environment. The womb environment is largely pased on in placental mammals. "Epigenetic" effects such as methylation can have dramatic heiritable effects. The cytoskeleton seems to have the capacity for an informational and computational structure, even without the hypothesized quanum effects. (See Mershin and Nanopoulos [lanl.gov])
The problem is that people try to pretend that everything is understood despite the fact that there are huge anomalies such as the 90% of the genome that is not expressed as proteins - "introns" which in many cases are actually functional and usually highly structured. (analogous to the reverse of the "missing mass" problem in cosmology) The mechanisms of rapid speciation and of conservation of species in the face of isolated populations with changing environments are both not understood. The supposed single ancestral cell is not supported over panspermia and/or multiple ultimate ancestors. Genetic flows beween species are overlooked. Endosymbiosis and co-evolution are ignored as much as possible. Wild genetic diversity of otherwise virtually indistinguishable species is not accounted for. Probabilities are not calculated and math is discarded in favor of superficially plausible "just-so stories", which may make the some of the most glaring anomalies effectively invisible.
The physicists of 1900 may have had fewer and less troubling anomalies than biology does today - the biologists have no way of knowing since they continue to refuse to make hypotheses which can be quantified and falsified (in a Bayesian rather than Popperian sense) even after the biochemical means have become available
12" is a perfectly natural distance to hold a small device. Perhaps holding a device closer than 12" is awkward, but most people can focus closer than that. I'm over 40 and can focus both eyes from 9" to infinity. (Younger people could do better. At 10 I could focus at 1.5"-infinity.) I can also make out 1-pixel movements at 97ppi from 6 feet away. At 12 inches, that's the equivalent of over 580ppi. At 9 inches it's nearly 780ppi. The 440ppi of this device is not overkill.
And 3"x5" is not too big at all. I've had wallets bigger than that.
Interesting. After clicking through to get the real 128 pixel sizing, I can still barely see movement on my 97ppi (0.262mm pitch) monitor from 6 feet (1.82m). So I'd need about 350 ppi (0.0725mm pitch) to seem perfect from my usual 20in (0.5m) viewing distance. That would be a resolution of about 2912x4368 on a 3:2 15-inch screen, or just over 12.7 megapixels.
"If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?" You just need these 2.5x near-focus binocular spectacles. Stylish, too.
I agree with most of that, but the Mongols had the biggest and most genocides. And while the crusaders and the Spanish were big on killing Arabs, virtually all the enslaving was done by the Moslems.
I remember back in 1995 speaking with a college administrator who refused to believe that FORTRAN was still in active use. Seventeen years later, and it's got more users than it did then. It will probably outlive us all.
More specifics: 15-inch to be top model, with a 2560 x 1600 retina display. (old model was 1440 by 900) Performance will be nearly 20% higher than the old model, with a 2.7GHz 4-core Ivy Bridge processor. See the Geekbench entry for benchmarks and components. No Ethernet jack, the new model is too thin but it will have USB 3.0, and a converter dongle to Ethernet is available. Nvidia graphics chip is likely. The higher-res screen has an extra $92 parts cost which will likely be passed on, plus profit.
If you decide on Mac, it's probably worth waiting a few weeks - there will be a new MacBook Pro out soon. (The old model is already getting discounted; mid-June to early July expected ship date). It should be lighter and will have the new version of the OS (Mountain Lion) is expected to be released at the same time. OTOH the new model is rumored to not have an optical drive. (Which isn't really a practical drawback in my opinion. The extra battery space will be more useful. Get an external backup drive for extra storage instead.)
You might check out Rex Research for odd (and usually, but not always, wrong) ideas on heating and cooling (among other things).
There are many, many cranks and perpetual-motion machines on this site. There are also some workable devices mixed in. The former are sometimes entertaining and the latter are often fascinating. The ones which I can't tell if they're brilliant or just cranks are my favorites. Some relevant bits, (no guarantees, but less flaky than most): Heat / Cold [section] Appropriate / Low Technologies [section] DAVEY : Sonic Resonance Boiler SCHAEFFFER : Steam Generator [maybe just cavitation] GRIGGS : Hydrosonic Pump LEIGHTON, Tim & BIRKIN, Peter : Ultrasonic Nozzle COTTELL : Ultrasonic Fuel-Water Burner KENT, Anthony : SASER ~ Sound Amplification by Stimulation Emission of Radiation - TeraHz generator MARKS, Alvin : Aerosol Electric Generator / MagnetoThermoDynamic Power Converter LaVOIE, Eric : Burner Booster AVEDON : Thermal Equalizer CUPPETILLI : Heating System KAMEN : Power Generation / Water Purification System LINSON-SMITH : Water Flow Control System MAIER-LAXHUBER : Zeolite Adsorption Heating/Cooling MAISOTSENKO : Indirect Evaporative Cooling [++, definitely the sort of thing you're looking for]] SINGH : AirTap Water Heater HOLLIS, Tom : MileageMatrix Thermostat KALINA, Alexander : Ammonia-Steam Cycle MINTO, Wallace : Freon Power Wheel POTTER, Jared : Hydrothermal Spallation Drill RANQUE, G. : Vortex Tube ROBAR, Sheldon : Freon Engine ROSOCHA, Louis : Plasma-Assisted Combustion VATISTAS : Vortex Cooling [heat exchanger] WEBSTER / HEISE : Valve Water / Steam [section, though much nonsense here, too] ZINN : Combustor ["Coal Burns Best in Pipes that Hum", another GA Tech project] There are several other pumps and engines and improvements to conventional forms of the same in there that are workable (and hundreds that aren't). Many other interesting areas at this site also, e.g. mechanical, aircraft,
What I mean by "edge" is the extent to which the true odds are more in your favor than the odds you are offered. You can still have an edge while having a near certainty of losing - for instance, if the true chance of winning is 1% and you are offered 1000:1 odds, you have an expectation value in the long run of making a 9.99:1 return on all the money you have bet - but for there to be a long run you have to bet only a small fraction of your assets on each bet. The Kelly criterion tells you the optimum fraction of your assets to bet, in this case 0.901%. (That's a ceiling value, round down if necessary, for instance if the minimum bet is $10 and you only have $100, you should decline the bet.) On the other hand, you can have a near certainty of winning but have no edge - as with the person taking the other side of that bet.
There are extensions to investing - estimating your edge from past performance, allocating funds among a portfolio of different investments, when you should bet more than you have (leverage), determining what fraction of the Kelly optimum to use given uncertainties and risk aversion (e.g. a tolerance for no more than a certain % drawdown).
It depends on expectation value. If you don't have an edge, you shouldn't be in the game at all. If for some reason you have to be in anyway, the fewer bets the better. If you do have an edge, and you can quantify the edge, then the amount you should bet for the maximum long term rate of return is given by the Kelly Criterion.. Basically the fraction of assets you should bet goes up with your edge. The ride may be rocky, though and the edge is usually only known within wide limits, so betting a fixed fraction of the Kelly optimum amount is more usual.
See Ed Thorp's paper for more details. (He's the math professor who invented hedge funds and counting cards at blackjack. He sums up his experience applying the Kelly Criterion:
"It is now May, 1998, twenty eight and a half years since the investment program began. The partnership and its continuations have compounded at approximately 20% annually with a standard deviation of about 6% and approximately zero correlation with the market (“market neutral”). Ten thousand dollars would, tax exempt, now be worth 18million dollars. To help persuade you that this may not be luck, I estimate that during this period I have made about $80 billion worth of purchases and sales (“action”, in casino language) for my investors. This breaks down into something like one and a quarter million individual “bets” averaging about $65,000 each, with on average hundreds of “positions” in place at any one time. Over all, it would seem to be a moderately “long run” with a high probability that the excess performance is more than chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Bigger wafers means less waste around the edges where the rectangular chips meet the circular wafer edge. This becomes very important for larger chips such as image sensors. (Not sure if the new process will be used for that, though.) Also, many manufacturing steps are applied to the wafer as a whole, and having wafers with over 2.25 times as many chips makes those steps cheaper on a per-chip basis. Making the boules will be hard, but I think they will find some way of providing extra support for the boule as it grows. Thinner wafers may also get more out of each boule. There will be many other problems such as maintaining alignment over the greater distance which may be harder.
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/compub.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics - National Compensation Survey - Wages
The job category is likely "computer and information systems managers" or "information systems managers" (Over $53/hr in wages in Atlanta, for instance = $138,000/yr. @50hrs./wk.). You also may want to look at the different levels of regular managers to see what the pay trajectory typically is and use that to scale the number for your specialty and region.
Also see the NCS databases section here.
"Doesn't every chemical have to go through thorough tests before deemed safe for human consumption?"
No, because we used to be a free country where everything was considered legal until proven otherwise. Back in the early 20th century, it took a constitutional amendment to ban a substance. It was understood that that was not within Congress' powers to do so otherwise, which gave rise to all sorts of dodges such as calling the ban an "excise tax", with outrageously high duties.
We have slid down the slippery slope to the point that agencies such as the BATF, DEA and FDA can ban substances by totally discretionary administrative action - and anyone with molecules vaguely similar can have all property seized, be prevented from making any effective legal defense and sentenced under draconian mandatory minimums to decades in prison. But they still like to pretend that they are still exercising their authority with some authentic legal basis, so they'll do a bit of hand-wringing while actually prosecuting anyone with any potentially mind-altering material, or "precursors" or even just for possessing glassware without license from our masters.
I say they never had the authority to ban anything, nor to even tax anything to a level that would remove it from regular commerce.
When they try to use their power to do so, they are acting outside their delegated auhtority ultra vires, they have lost their immunity, and so are entitled to even less deference than any other band of armed thugs that invades homes, steals property and kidnaps, terrorizes and kills citizens.
No, that is an alarmist view not supported by the evidence, which shows no acceleration. The current rate of rise is about 3.3mm/yr on satellite data, about 2mm/yr on tide gauge data, with a best projection of about 3mm/yr for the next century. See Wikipedia's article"Current sea level rise". There are a range of estimates, but the high ones all seem to be informed more by political advocacy than actual research. It would be a waste to not develop all that land on the basis of mere speculation.
Piffle. Your own source notes that regular visual acuity can go to better than 20/10, (over 750 ppi, at 12" which is not at all the same as dpi, which is for print and is not convertible to ppi) and other forms of visual acuity such as alignment of lines ("vernier acuity") can go even higher even in people with average vision. Even 20/20 is for regular acuity is noted as subnormal: "The significance of the 20/20 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 to 20/12."
5" is less than the distance from ear to mouth, and 3" is narrow enough to fit in any pocket easily and is a comfortable width to hold. Weight is more relevant than size for comfort in holding for long periods
That's quite insightful. We can't really define randomness, anyway, except as a quantification of ignorance, or possibly free will. Like any other organism, when carefully tested under the most precisely defined experimental conditions, even an electron will do -- well, whatever it darn well feels like. Materialism bottoms out - quanta behave nothing like bricks and beefsteak. Causality is no longer a part of fundamental physics, and hasn't been for nearly a century. The universe is alive, every bit of it is conscious and has free will - or none of it does. (see the Free Will Theorem")
Yet there is still this yearning to believe in a Newtonian universe among the vulgar bandwagon of internet atheists, to somehow clothe their ignorance in a semblance of science, to profess certainty when there is none to be had. They want to believe that they really know, that they understand the universe, that they are smart and special and superior, even if that means they have to claim that nothing is conscious, not even themselves, that there is no meaning, not even in their own thoughts, that there is no choice, not even in how to interpret the world. Try to show them that reality is so much bigger and slipperier than they think, and they won't listen. They don't know science, they certainly don't practice science, and their hooting and slavering to hunt heretics comes from unsupported belief and pack mentality just as much as the most deluded zealot of any other sect.
More to the point, these fake rationalists have only a cartoonish understanding of evolution. Here's what I posted on Slashdot six years ago:
Evolutionary theorists (at the slashdot level, at least) seem to operate with a very shallow understanding of genetic processes. The base sequence is not all that is inheirited - the whole structure of the egg (RNA, proteome, cytoskeleton, etc.)is passed on as well, and the pattern of activation or of portions of the genome depends on its cellular environment. The womb environment is largely pased on in placental mammals. "Epigenetic" effects such as methylation can have dramatic heiritable effects. The cytoskeleton seems to have the capacity for an informational and computational structure, even without the hypothesized quanum effects. (See Mershin and Nanopoulos [lanl.gov])
The problem is that people try to pretend that everything is understood despite the fact that there are huge anomalies such as the 90% of the genome that is not expressed as proteins - "introns" which in many cases are actually functional and usually highly structured. (analogous to the reverse of the "missing mass" problem in cosmology) The mechanisms of rapid speciation and of conservation of species in the face of isolated populations with changing environments are both not understood. The supposed single ancestral cell is not supported over panspermia and/or multiple ultimate ancestors. Genetic flows beween species are overlooked. Endosymbiosis and co-evolution are ignored as much as possible. Wild genetic diversity of otherwise virtually indistinguishable species is not accounted for. Probabilities are not calculated and math is discarded in favor of superficially plausible "just-so stories", which may make the some of the most glaring anomalies effectively invisible.
The physicists of 1900 may have had fewer and less troubling anomalies than biology does today - the biologists have no way of knowing since they continue to refuse to make hypotheses which can be quantified and falsified (in a Bayesian rather than Popperian sense) even after the biochemical means have become available
The old name for mahi-mahi was, in fact, "dolphin". Unfortunately, it's hard to confuse with beef.
12" is a perfectly natural distance to hold a small device. Perhaps holding a device closer than 12" is awkward, but most people can focus closer than that. I'm over 40 and can focus both eyes from 9" to infinity. (Younger people could do better. At 10 I could focus at 1.5"-infinity.) I can also make out 1-pixel movements at 97ppi from 6 feet away. At 12 inches, that's the equivalent of over 580ppi. At 9 inches it's nearly 780ppi. The 440ppi of this device is not overkill.
And 3"x5" is not too big at all. I've had wallets bigger than that.
Interesting. After clicking through to get the real 128 pixel sizing, I can still barely see movement on my 97ppi (0.262mm pitch) monitor from 6 feet (1.82m). So I'd need about 350 ppi (0.0725mm pitch) to seem perfect from my usual 20in (0.5m) viewing distance. That would be a resolution of about 2912x4368 on a 3:2 15-inch screen, or just over 12.7 megapixels.
"If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?"
You just need these 2.5x near-focus binocular spectacles. Stylish, too.
I agree with most of that, but the Mongols had the biggest and most genocides. And while the crusaders and the Spanish were big on killing Arabs, virtually all the enslaving was done by the Moslems.
1000kWh is actually 3.6 billion Joules. (Or 3.6 milliard Joules if you're using that logical European system which no one in the US understands.)
As Nathan Hale once said, "I regret that I have but one asterisk for my country."
I remember back in 1995 speaking with a college administrator who refused to believe that FORTRAN was still in active use. Seventeen years later, and it's got more users than it did then.
It will probably outlive us all.
More specifics: 15-inch to be top model, with a 2560 x 1600 retina display. (old model was 1440 by 900) Performance will be nearly 20% higher than the old model, with a 2.7GHz 4-core Ivy Bridge processor. See the Geekbench entry for benchmarks and components. No Ethernet jack, the new model is too thin but it will have USB 3.0, and a converter dongle to Ethernet is available. Nvidia graphics chip is likely. The higher-res screen has an extra $92 parts cost which will likely be passed on, plus profit.
If you decide on Mac, it's probably worth waiting a few weeks - there will be a new MacBook Pro out soon. (The old model is already getting discounted; mid-June to early July expected ship date). It should be lighter and will have the new version of the OS (Mountain Lion) is expected to be released at the same time. OTOH the new model is rumored to not have an optical drive. (Which isn't really a practical drawback in my opinion. The extra battery space will be more useful. Get an external backup drive for extra storage instead.)
You might check out Rex Research for odd (and usually, but not always, wrong) ideas on heating and cooling (among other things).
There are many, many cranks and perpetual-motion machines on this site. There are also some workable devices mixed in. The former are sometimes entertaining and the latter are often fascinating. The ones which I can't tell if they're brilliant or just cranks are my favorites.
Some relevant bits, (no guarantees, but less flaky than most):
Heat / Cold [section]
Appropriate / Low Technologies [section]
DAVEY : Sonic Resonance Boiler
SCHAEFFFER : Steam Generator [maybe just cavitation]
GRIGGS : Hydrosonic Pump
LEIGHTON, Tim & BIRKIN, Peter : Ultrasonic Nozzle
COTTELL : Ultrasonic Fuel-Water Burner
KENT, Anthony : SASER ~ Sound Amplification by Stimulation Emission of Radiation - TeraHz generator
MARKS, Alvin : Aerosol Electric Generator / MagnetoThermoDynamic Power Converter
LaVOIE, Eric : Burner Booster
AVEDON : Thermal Equalizer
CUPPETILLI : Heating System
KAMEN : Power Generation / Water Purification System
LINSON-SMITH : Water Flow Control System
MAIER-LAXHUBER : Zeolite Adsorption Heating/Cooling
MAISOTSENKO : Indirect Evaporative Cooling [++, definitely the sort of thing you're looking for]]
SINGH : AirTap Water Heater
HOLLIS, Tom : MileageMatrix Thermostat
KALINA, Alexander : Ammonia-Steam Cycle
MINTO, Wallace : Freon Power Wheel
POTTER, Jared : Hydrothermal Spallation Drill
RANQUE, G. : Vortex Tube
ROBAR, Sheldon : Freon Engine
ROSOCHA, Louis : Plasma-Assisted Combustion
VATISTAS : Vortex Cooling [heat exchanger]
WEBSTER / HEISE : Valve
Water / Steam [section, though much nonsense here, too]
ZINN : Combustor ["Coal Burns Best in Pipes that Hum", another GA Tech project]
There are several other pumps and engines and improvements to conventional forms of the same in there that are workable (and hundreds that aren't).
Many other interesting areas at this site also, e.g. mechanical, aircraft,
It's a darn good thing they don't have to show their passports every time they cross a national boundary.
It would be hypocritical the other way around, wouldn't it? Though there are worse things than hypocrisy. Poverty, for instance.
"Cash is the most useful thing I own."
Well, if I have cutlery, I can take your cash. 8-D
Seriously, though, it is cool. Most schools freak out if you bring cutlery to class.
It's just gigawatts, not gigawatts per hour.
What I mean by "edge" is the extent to which the true odds are more in your favor than the odds you are offered. You can still have an edge while having a near certainty of losing - for instance, if the true chance of winning is 1% and you are offered 1000:1 odds, you have an expectation value in the long run of making a 9.99:1 return on all the money you have bet - but for there to be a long run you have to bet only a small fraction of your assets on each bet. The Kelly criterion tells you the optimum fraction of your assets to bet, in this case 0.901%. (That's a ceiling value, round down if necessary, for instance if the minimum bet is $10 and you only have $100, you should decline the bet.) On the other hand, you can have a near certainty of winning but have no edge - as with the person taking the other side of that bet.
There are extensions to investing - estimating your edge from past performance, allocating funds among a portfolio of different investments, when you should bet more than you have (leverage), determining what fraction of the Kelly optimum to use given uncertainties and risk aversion (e.g. a tolerance for no more than a certain % drawdown).
It depends on expectation value. If you don't have an edge, you shouldn't be in the game at all. If for some reason you have to be in anyway, the fewer bets the better. If you do have an edge, and you can quantify the edge, then the amount you should bet for the maximum long term rate of return is given by the Kelly Criterion.. Basically the fraction of assets you should bet goes up with your edge. The ride may be rocky, though and the edge is usually only known within wide limits, so betting a fixed fraction of the Kelly optimum amount is more usual.
See Ed Thorp's paper for more details. (He's the math professor who invented hedge funds and counting cards at blackjack. He sums up his experience applying the Kelly Criterion:
)
I'm prepared to forgo any further interaction with humanity if signing up for Facebook is the price.
Wrong demographic. You want conservative cat owners for that one.