Photographers need a way ingest photos, edit the take, organize and archive, and finally to edit the individual photo for its intended publishing vehicle (art print, magazine, book, Web, etc).
Separate tools, that work well, already exist for those needs. Photo Mechanic for ingesting and editing the take (and yes, it does a "light table/contact page" view). Extensis for organizing and archiving. Photoshop for image editing.
Apple emphasizes both the "take" editing and the lossless image editing--which to most photographers are two separate steps that don't need to be combined in one program.
I want tools to do the jobs I need to do. Is it a take sorter/editer? Is it a organizer/archiver? Is it an image editer? From the marketing it looks to me like it tries to do a bit of all three--which typically leads to an incomplete or poor job at all three. No thanks.
Your examples merely demonstrate that nature* can have a large impact on us whatever we do. But you're assuming the converse is true--that therefore we cannot have any impact on nature no matter what we do. That does not logically follow. Nature is incredibly diverse; there is little to no connection between hurricanes in the Gulf Coast and earthquakes in Thailand. You might as well be saying "I can't break this boulder with my hammer, therefore we'll never cause a species to go extinct."
More specifically, if you believe human activity cannot affect seismic activity, I encourage you to read up on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal fluid injection study. In fact, here's a good overview of the various ways in which humans affect seismic activity.
*And don't get be started on this word, which is fraught with interpretative baggage. Remember that scientifically we are part of nature too, so it's not a question of "humanity" affecting "nature," but rather one aspect of nature affecting another.
His analogies are irrelevant, becuase Bell South already does what he's talking about--you can pay for whatever speed pipe to your house or business that you want. Bell South *customers* already pay for service tiers, just like airline customers or shipping customers.
A proper analogy to what he is proposing is the airline or shipper charging destinations more for faster service. In other words unless Cleveland, OH paid up, your package is going to take 5 days to get there whether you paid for overnight service or not.
Frankly I have to believe that this treads over the line of breach of contract. Most business connectivity contracts do not specifically reserve the right of the carrier to make the type of service distinctions he's talking about. Introducing such distinctions seems to me to open a Pandora's box of liability.
Typically the laws (in the U.S. anyway) only govern disclosure and consent, not purpose. In other words legally it would not matter *why* the call was being recorded, only that both parties are *notified* that the call is being recorded and given a chance to end to the call.
Continuation of the call after notification is typically interpretted as consent, even if you are arguing about whether you can be recorded or not! The only way to deny consent is to hang up the phone.
Federal regulation E governs debit card transactions, and provides similar windows of opportunity to dispute and charge back suspicious transactions. Reg Z governs credit card transactions.
The power of credit card companies does not come completely from the federal regulations they operate under (which are primarily concerned with providing "cooling off periods" and required disclosure), but rather from the fact that you are their customer, not the store. A credit card company will always give more weight to the consumer, because the consumer is who pays their bills (not the store). It is the same thing with banks. VISA on your debit card DOES make a difference, because VISA puts their name and consumer brand behind your satisfaction, in addition to your bank.
The only disadvantage to a debit card is the lack of credit limit...so if someone steals the number, they can empty your bank account before you know anything is wrong. You're just as likely to resolve the situation as with a credit card company, but for a time you might not have any cash for food, gas, etc. But again, most major banks have the same fraud monitoring software credit card companies do, and will cut off activity that is obviously suspicious (like rapidly emptying an account on large purchases).
Blogs are editorial, not reporting. How many bloggers actually go out and gather news--hard facts that were not know previously? Hardly. The basis for the vast majority of blog posts is a link to a news story, and then the commentary begins.
BTW you've somehow missed the most essential architecture element of any newspaper--the wall between reporting and editorial. I agree that a blogger's editorial is not inherently any better or worse than a newspaper editors. But as I said above, pretty much no bloggers compete with the reporting side of newspapers. And reporting is the lifeblood and essence of newspapers, not editorial. Without reporting there is not editorial or blogging. That's not arrogance, that's a fact.
The "rules of economics" you refer to also say that in a free market, if there is money to be made doing a thing, someone will do it. A la carte channel pricing is not prohibited now--companies can do it if they want. Yet no cable company offers it. I'm therefore forced to conclude that a la carte channel pricing is simply not a competitive strategy. Regulating it into existence wouldn't change that.
We now know from our own history that the time in which a civilization broadcasts analog radio signals at high power is a very narrow window.
The power of individual radio signals has declined precipitously in the last 50 years, as more and more stakeholders have made use of the radio spectrum--the power and band spread of individual signals has decreased. This trend will only increase as the sophistication of encoding, filters, frequency hopping, and spread-spectrum useage increases. Also, as the speed and encryption sophistication of digital signals increase, the transmissions begin to sound more and more like noise to an analog receiver.
In addition, for long-range data transmission the preferred technology is now wired, not wireless. The only exception is the satellite bounce, which is used very infrequently and does not require a very high-power signal.
These trends are not capricious but result directly from the physical limitations of radio transmission. Therefore it seems likely to me that such trends would develop in any civilization that transmits information electronically. As a result, not only would we need to physically point our telescopes at the correct region of the sky to find another civilization, we would also have to be lucky enough to catch them in the "high power analog (or simple digital) broadcast" phase of their civilization. Based on our civilization so far, that window might only be a century or two wide.
The only exceptions to this that I can think of are transmissions to space probes such as Voyageur. These are of necessity higher power and simpler than other radio spectrum use (since they are locked into their technology level at launch). But these are also directional and infrequent.
When I was with USLaw.com in 2000 we looked into this type of service to connect people with lawyers directly from the site. Basically if someone browsing the site had a question about one of the articles they could click a link, enter their phone number, and they would receive a call that was then connected to one of our "ask a lawyer" staff.
Unfortunately the entire Web team was laid off before we got a chance to try to implement it.
Lots of things are possible when you posit things that cannot exist in real life, like, for instance, an infinitely long yet light and completely rigid bar. You might as well start out with "consider a super-fast method of communication that tranmits information faster than light." It's as close to (or far from) reality as your bar.
If we send a robot into the forest to cut down a tree, the tree falls even if a human intelligence does not witness or perceive it.
Likewise if we use a machine to measure the position of a particle, the superposition collapses whether or not a human intelligence ever reads the results. In QM measurement is an act with consequences, just like swinging an axe at a tree. But it doesn't require a human intelligence.
May I point out that when IE extended the abilities of the WWW, we ended up with worms and exploits up the wazoo.
XMLHttpRequest was one of those extensions and it's given us Gmail and other "AJAX" interfaces. Not all extension is bad; if it was how the heck would the industry progress?
I'm not talking about stealing, either -- they get it for free when they buy a computer.
Seriously, that is the way it appears to most consumers--they pay Dell $500 and they get a PC. The PC has Windows on it. They weren't charged for Windows and it's not itemized with a dollar amount on the bill. Therefore to all perceptions there was no cost associated with it.
So what about the retail sales of Windows? Well what about them? The retail sales of XP were shall we say less-than-stellar in the consumer space, and businesses have been just as slow to upgrade. There are still millions of people out there running Windows 95 and 98, let alone ME or 2000.
Apple gets this--people buy computers now, not operating systems. Because the hardware is so cheap and the advances continues, why bother with an OS upgrade--just buy a whole new computer. The OS is then just a free part of the computer. And if people are already getting it for free, why would they want or tolerate ads all over it?
Apple is more interested in radically changing the music industry as it exists now, than simply joining it as another big player. They see what's happening to periodical print publishing--it is being democratized. Rather than creating a new digital publishing overlord, personal computing and networking have simply laid the barriers to publishing so low that anyone with a computer and Internet connection can enter the marketplace and start competing.
Look at Apple's strategy--they sell computers that excel at recording music. The computers come with decent mixing software--GarageBand. Plus they sell to the top-end of the market to, solidifying their legitimacy. Then they create an online marketplace for music where all bands are treated the same in the search and indexing.
It's like Web sites and blogs all over again. Steve Jobs' deepest hope is that in a few years the barriers to recording, promoting, and selling music are as low as they are for print publishing now. Then anyone can be a "label"--and Apple gets their cut, hopefully at both the personal hardware (Macs) and the network (iTunes) layers.
Apple would have a "tax" on digital music creation and sales...sound familiar? Microsoft followed the same logic with Windows--make it easy to participate, easy to grow, and take a cut from every participant.
Name three rock bands who were never signed by labels and make a living that way sufficient to quit their day jobs.
Name three rock bands who made more than a meager living from recorded music even 50 years ago. Name any musician who made any money at all off of recorded music 100 years ago.
The music industry has been in tremendous flux and continues to see rapid change. The "status quo" you describe as devil's advocate is still only a few decades old. IMO it's not crazy at all to think that at some point in the next 10-20 years bands will find success without going through major record labels. In fact to answer your challenge I can think of two nationally famous acts right off the top of my head: Fugazi and Ani DiFranco. I bet there are dozens more who are not super rich, but as you say were able to "quit their day jobs."
Of course Fugazi and Ani Difranco made it work by starting their own labels. But the cost of doing so will only go continue to go down as recording, distribution and promotion move digital and online. At some point it becomes mass-affordable to "start your own label."
By analogy: name three opinion columnists who never were never signed by any newspaper and make a living that way sufficient to quit their day jobs. Or course now they are called bloggers.
According to them, the editors are often aware they are posting dupes. They do it to try to get more comments on a particular story! Many of the most knowledgable folks on any topic are too busy to surf Slashdot multiple times during the day, or to post when the story is high on the page (or on the front page at all). Posting dupes is a way to keep popular stories on the front page to try to elicit more comments.
Taco and other editors have stated several times that they know when stories are dupes most of the time, but they post them anyway because they think the community still has interesting things to say about it. Personally I like the dupes because I'm a busy guy and I don't always catch the interesting stories (or best comments) the first time around. And when it's a dupe, people are always so helpful about modding up the links to the last time it was posted, so I can read those comments too.:-)
I've been typing all my important documents on a computer since I was in high school in the late 80's. I even take notes on my laptop now. For me, writing with a pen is counterproductive. It is *so slow* and trying to up the speed really kills the per-character legibility (i.e. I can't read my own writing). Whereas typing fast only introduces spelling errors that I can usually resolve easily from context. Plus if I miss something writing, I have to try to squeeze it into the margin...when typing I can just create a new line when I need one.
Keyboard/trackpad is no good for drawing, but how often does the average person need to draw, even when taking notes? And the creative professionals who do need drawing ability likely already have nice Wacom tablets or screens.
Tablets are great for forms though, which makes them really well suited to vertical applications like inventory management. Heck most restaurants these days use touchscreens for order management, and these are a type of fixed tablet. Of course these are not the markets that Apple is interested in. And I just don't see the full-page mobile tablet taking off in their markets.
I don't care why people buy hybrids, I just want them to buy them. It's better for my clean-air-breathing, gas-using, plastics-buying lifestyle if others conserve oil.
I think Apple will put a toe in the x86 water by locking OSX to their own hardware, so they don't compete head to head with Microsoft. If it works well for them though, I suspect they'll start to sell the OS alone.
Let me get this straight--if their strategy is working well for them, they are likely to change it?
That makes no business sense. If they are successful selling Macs with Intel inside, they will continue to sell Macs with Intel inside.
Selling computers and selling OS licenses are two very different business strategies. Companies change strategies when they are not working, or when they think they are ob. When the strategy succeeds, you stick with it until it stops succeeding!
Apple has been selling integrated computers since they started...the one time they tried the licensing strategy it turned out horrible for them. I think it's pretty likely they'll stick with it in the future as long as it continues to work for them.
Most people, especially in North America, get to the Web through IE on Windows.
What does Google do--search. How hard would it be for Microsoft to put a search bar in IE and Windows Vista that hooks into their MSN search? No need to pull up a browser or a new Web site--just go to the always-there bar and type.
This is EXACTLY the same strategy that killed Netscape: develop a "good enough" competitor and then integrate it into your monopoly OS. In fact they did such a good job of it they were convicted to anti-competitive monopolist behavior. But color me shocked if the slap on the wrist they got for it fails to discourage them from doing it again.
But machinery nonetheless, designed and built by humans. As such it is not necessarily any more reliable than physical engineering--and its harder to verify.
I voted this morning on an electronic machine that did not produce a paper ballot. You better believe software security and reliability are on my mind.
Slashdot Mirror
And they are a lot less expensive--Photo Mechanic is lightning fast and it's $150.
AND unlike Aperture, it does not bother with half-assed editing tools...what light box have you ever used that had filters and sharpening on it?
If it's a light table, it's an over-priced and over-featured light table.
Photographers need a way ingest photos, edit the take, organize and archive, and finally to edit the individual photo for its intended publishing vehicle (art print, magazine, book, Web, etc).
Separate tools, that work well, already exist for those needs. Photo Mechanic for ingesting and editing the take (and yes, it does a "light table/contact page" view). Extensis for organizing and archiving. Photoshop for image editing.
Apple emphasizes both the "take" editing and the lossless image editing--which to most photographers are two separate steps that don't need to be combined in one program.
I want tools to do the jobs I need to do. Is it a take sorter/editer? Is it a organizer/archiver? Is it an image editer? From the marketing it looks to me like it tries to do a bit of all three--which typically leads to an incomplete or poor job at all three. No thanks.
Your examples merely demonstrate that nature* can have a large impact on us whatever we do. But you're assuming the converse is true--that therefore we cannot have any impact on nature no matter what we do. That does not logically follow. Nature is incredibly diverse; there is little to no connection between hurricanes in the Gulf Coast and earthquakes in Thailand. You might as well be saying "I can't break this boulder with my hammer, therefore we'll never cause a species to go extinct."
More specifically, if you believe human activity cannot affect seismic activity, I encourage you to read up on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal fluid injection study. In fact, here's a good overview of the various ways in which humans affect seismic activity.
*And don't get be started on this word, which is fraught with interpretative baggage. Remember that scientifically we are part of nature too, so it's not a question of "humanity" affecting "nature," but rather one aspect of nature affecting another.
...as is rumored, it won't matter if you have to restart--who cares about restarts if it only takes 5 seconds to get back to a working screen?
His analogies are irrelevant, becuase Bell South already does what he's talking about--you can pay for whatever speed pipe to your house or business that you want. Bell South *customers* already pay for service tiers, just like airline customers or shipping customers.
A proper analogy to what he is proposing is the airline or shipper charging destinations more for faster service. In other words unless Cleveland, OH paid up, your package is going to take 5 days to get there whether you paid for overnight service or not.
Frankly I have to believe that this treads over the line of breach of contract. Most business connectivity contracts do not specifically reserve the right of the carrier to make the type of service distinctions he's talking about. Introducing such distinctions seems to me to open a Pandora's box of liability.
...which is why the "rules of economics" lecture above doesn't hold water. That's what I was trying to point out.
Unless Digg says no--then we cut off its hand and drop it down the ventilation shaft.
Typically the laws (in the U.S. anyway) only govern disclosure and consent, not purpose. In other words legally it would not matter *why* the call was being recorded, only that both parties are *notified* that the call is being recorded and given a chance to end to the call.
Continuation of the call after notification is typically interpretted as consent, even if you are arguing about whether you can be recorded or not! The only way to deny consent is to hang up the phone.
Federal regulation E governs debit card transactions, and provides similar windows of opportunity to dispute and charge back suspicious transactions. Reg Z governs credit card transactions.
Reg E is your friend.
The power of credit card companies does not come completely from the federal regulations they operate under (which are primarily concerned with providing "cooling off periods" and required disclosure), but rather from the fact that you are their customer, not the store. A credit card company will always give more weight to the consumer, because the consumer is who pays their bills (not the store). It is the same thing with banks. VISA on your debit card DOES make a difference, because VISA puts their name and consumer brand behind your satisfaction, in addition to your bank.
The only disadvantage to a debit card is the lack of credit limit...so if someone steals the number, they can empty your bank account before you know anything is wrong. You're just as likely to resolve the situation as with a credit card company, but for a time you might not have any cash for food, gas, etc. But again, most major banks have the same fraud monitoring software credit card companies do, and will cut off activity that is obviously suspicious (like rapidly emptying an account on large purchases).
Blogs are editorial, not reporting. How many bloggers actually go out and gather news--hard facts that were not know previously? Hardly. The basis for the vast majority of blog posts is a link to a news story, and then the commentary begins.
BTW you've somehow missed the most essential architecture element of any newspaper--the wall between reporting and editorial. I agree that a blogger's editorial is not inherently any better or worse than a newspaper editors. But as I said above, pretty much no bloggers compete with the reporting side of newspapers. And reporting is the lifeblood and essence of newspapers, not editorial. Without reporting there is not editorial or blogging. That's not arrogance, that's a fact.
The "rules of economics" you refer to also say that in a free market, if there is money to be made doing a thing, someone will do it. A la carte channel pricing is not prohibited now--companies can do it if they want. Yet no cable company offers it. I'm therefore forced to conclude that a la carte channel pricing is simply not a competitive strategy. Regulating it into existence wouldn't change that.
We now know from our own history that the time in which a civilization broadcasts analog radio signals at high power is a very narrow window.
The power of individual radio signals has declined precipitously in the last 50 years, as more and more stakeholders have made use of the radio spectrum--the power and band spread of individual signals has decreased. This trend will only increase as the sophistication of encoding, filters, frequency hopping, and spread-spectrum useage increases. Also, as the speed and encryption sophistication of digital signals increase, the transmissions begin to sound more and more like noise to an analog receiver.
In addition, for long-range data transmission the preferred technology is now wired, not wireless. The only exception is the satellite bounce, which is used very infrequently and does not require a very high-power signal.
These trends are not capricious but result directly from the physical limitations of radio transmission. Therefore it seems likely to me that such trends would develop in any civilization that transmits information electronically. As a result, not only would we need to physically point our telescopes at the correct region of the sky to find another civilization, we would also have to be lucky enough to catch them in the "high power analog (or simple digital) broadcast" phase of their civilization. Based on our civilization so far, that window might only be a century or two wide.
The only exceptions to this that I can think of are transmissions to space probes such as Voyageur. These are of necessity higher power and simpler than other radio spectrum use (since they are locked into their technology level at launch). But these are also directional and infrequent.
When I was with USLaw.com in 2000 we looked into this type of service to connect people with lawyers directly from the site. Basically if someone browsing the site had a question about one of the articles they could click a link, enter their phone number, and they would receive a call that was then connected to one of our "ask a lawyer" staff.
Unfortunately the entire Web team was laid off before we got a chance to try to implement it.
Lots of things are possible when you posit things that cannot exist in real life, like, for instance, an infinitely long yet light and completely rigid bar. You might as well start out with "consider a super-fast method of communication that tranmits information faster than light." It's as close to (or far from) reality as your bar.
If we send a robot into the forest to cut down a tree, the tree falls even if a human intelligence does not witness or perceive it.
Likewise if we use a machine to measure the position of a particle, the superposition collapses whether or not a human intelligence ever reads the results. In QM measurement is an act with consequences, just like swinging an axe at a tree. But it doesn't require a human intelligence.
May I point out that when IE extended the abilities of the WWW, we ended up with worms and exploits up the wazoo.
XMLHttpRequest was one of those extensions and it's given us Gmail and other "AJAX" interfaces. Not all extension is bad; if it was how the heck would the industry progress?
I'm not talking about stealing, either -- they get it for free when they buy a computer.
Seriously, that is the way it appears to most consumers--they pay Dell $500 and they get a PC. The PC has Windows on it. They weren't charged for Windows and it's not itemized with a dollar amount on the bill. Therefore to all perceptions there was no cost associated with it.
So what about the retail sales of Windows? Well what about them? The retail sales of XP were shall we say less-than-stellar in the consumer space, and businesses have been just as slow to upgrade. There are still millions of people out there running Windows 95 and 98, let alone ME or 2000.
Apple gets this--people buy computers now, not operating systems. Because the hardware is so cheap and the advances continues, why bother with an OS upgrade--just buy a whole new computer. The OS is then just a free part of the computer. And if people are already getting it for free, why would they want or tolerate ads all over it?
Apple is more interested in radically changing the music industry as it exists now, than simply joining it as another big player. They see what's happening to periodical print publishing--it is being democratized. Rather than creating a new digital publishing overlord, personal computing and networking have simply laid the barriers to publishing so low that anyone with a computer and Internet connection can enter the marketplace and start competing.
Look at Apple's strategy--they sell computers that excel at recording music. The computers come with decent mixing software--GarageBand. Plus they sell to the top-end of the market to, solidifying their legitimacy. Then they create an online marketplace for music where all bands are treated the same in the search and indexing.
It's like Web sites and blogs all over again. Steve Jobs' deepest hope is that in a few years the barriers to recording, promoting, and selling music are as low as they are for print publishing now. Then anyone can be a "label"--and Apple gets their cut, hopefully at both the personal hardware (Macs) and the network (iTunes) layers.
Apple would have a "tax" on digital music creation and sales...sound familiar? Microsoft followed the same logic with Windows--make it easy to participate, easy to grow, and take a cut from every participant.
Name three rock bands who were never signed by labels and make a living that way sufficient to quit their day jobs.
Name three rock bands who made more than a meager living from recorded music even 50 years ago. Name any musician who made any money at all off of recorded music 100 years ago.
The music industry has been in tremendous flux and continues to see rapid change. The "status quo" you describe as devil's advocate is still only a few decades old. IMO it's not crazy at all to think that at some point in the next 10-20 years bands will find success without going through major record labels. In fact to answer your challenge I can think of two nationally famous acts right off the top of my head: Fugazi and Ani DiFranco. I bet there are dozens more who are not super rich, but as you say were able to "quit their day jobs."
Of course Fugazi and Ani Difranco made it work by starting their own labels. But the cost of doing so will only go continue to go down as recording, distribution and promotion move digital and online. At some point it becomes mass-affordable to "start your own label."
By analogy: name three opinion columnists who never were never signed by any newspaper and make a living that way sufficient to quit their day jobs. Or course now they are called bloggers.
According to them, the editors are often aware they are posting dupes. They do it to try to get more comments on a particular story! Many of the most knowledgable folks on any topic are too busy to surf Slashdot multiple times during the day, or to post when the story is high on the page (or on the front page at all). Posting dupes is a way to keep popular stories on the front page to try to elicit more comments.
:-)
Taco and other editors have stated several times that they know when stories are dupes most of the time, but they post them anyway because they think the community still has interesting things to say about it. Personally I like the dupes because I'm a busy guy and I don't always catch the interesting stories (or best comments) the first time around. And when it's a dupe, people are always so helpful about modding up the links to the last time it was posted, so I can read those comments too.
I've been typing all my important documents on a computer since I was in high school in the late 80's. I even take notes on my laptop now. For me, writing with a pen is counterproductive. It is *so slow* and trying to up the speed really kills the per-character legibility (i.e. I can't read my own writing). Whereas typing fast only introduces spelling errors that I can usually resolve easily from context. Plus if I miss something writing, I have to try to squeeze it into the margin...when typing I can just create a new line when I need one.
Keyboard/trackpad is no good for drawing, but how often does the average person need to draw, even when taking notes? And the creative professionals who do need drawing ability likely already have nice Wacom tablets or screens.
Tablets are great for forms though, which makes them really well suited to vertical applications like inventory management. Heck most restaurants these days use touchscreens for order management, and these are a type of fixed tablet. Of course these are not the markets that Apple is interested in. And I just don't see the full-page mobile tablet taking off in their markets.
I don't care why people buy hybrids, I just want them to buy them. It's better for my clean-air-breathing, gas-using, plastics-buying lifestyle if others conserve oil.
I think Apple will put a toe in the x86 water by locking OSX to their own hardware, so they don't compete head to head with Microsoft. If it works well for them though, I suspect they'll start to sell the OS alone.
Let me get this straight--if their strategy is working well for them, they are likely to change it?
That makes no business sense. If they are successful selling Macs with Intel inside, they will continue to sell Macs with Intel inside.
Selling computers and selling OS licenses are two very different business strategies. Companies change strategies when they are not working, or when they think they are ob. When the strategy succeeds, you stick with it until it stops succeeding!
Apple has been selling integrated computers since they started...the one time they tried the licensing strategy it turned out horrible for them. I think it's pretty likely they'll stick with it in the future as long as it continues to work for them.
Most people, especially in North America, get to the Web through IE on Windows.
What does Google do--search. How hard would it be for Microsoft to put a search bar in IE and Windows Vista that hooks into their MSN search? No need to pull up a browser or a new Web site--just go to the always-there bar and type.
This is EXACTLY the same strategy that killed Netscape: develop a "good enough" competitor and then integrate it into your monopoly OS. In fact they did such a good job of it they were convicted to anti-competitive monopolist behavior. But color me shocked if the slap on the wrist they got for it fails to discourage them from doing it again.
But machinery nonetheless, designed and built by humans. As such it is not necessarily any more reliable than physical engineering--and its harder to verify.
I voted this morning on an electronic machine that did not produce a paper ballot. You better believe software security and reliability are on my mind.