So here we have a linux distro that according to the review is very easy to use and on top off that even offers the possibility to run many Windows programs out of the box.
Now what does the average slashbot have to say to that? But I want to run my Windows(tm) games. As long as my Windows(tm) games don't work on linux, linux isn't for me.
Finally, as if this comment hadn't been dumb enough, he tells us that linux has to become more user-friendly in order to gain more market share, so that more games will be available for linux.
The funny thing is that just before that he told us that linux wouldn't gain any market share even with a userfriendly distribution (remember the review?) that runs many windows programs out of the box, because he couldn't play Everquest on it.
Needless to say that it only took seconds for the famed/. mods to mod the parent insightful.
"No matter how compliant Harmony purports to be it is still going to be different than Sun's JVM. Any sysadmin that has ever had to juggle multiple JVMs can tell you that Sun's Write Once Run Anywhere motto can quickly become Write Once Debug Everywhere."
But this is a general problem of having different JVMs. So now also having one that is open source doesn't change the situation in any way.
"It's also entirely possible that Harmony won't even try for complete compliance. Don't forget that IBM is still pushing their non-Java SWT instead of Swing. Red Hat already has its own Java stack that's good enough to run most Java Free Software (including Eclipse), but no one is pretending that it's Java."
It's possible, but not very likely considering that the statet goal of Harmony is to "create a compatible implementation of J2SE 5". As to Red Hat, it isn't Java, because it isn't mature enough and only implements parts of the Java specs. But doesn't this example show that your worries are unfounded, as Red Hat is neither trying to create something different from Java, nor to call something Java that doesn't meat the criteria?
"Sun has stated that it doesn't want to "free" its J2SE stack because it is afraid that source availability would lead to forks. However, no fork of Sun's code is likely to diverge from Sun's fold as much as a completely new Free Software Java-like implementation."
Again, you are supposing it is a free software java-like implementation, whereas the goal is to create a free java implementation. While you are of course right that having such an implementation would make it easier to fork Java, I don't see why anybody should try to do this, as the chances for the success of such a fork are minimal at best.
As Sun is still controlling what can be called Java and what not I don't see a reason why this would lead to fragmentation, as I don't see why Sun open sourcing it would have let to fragmentation.
Technology gives people who would normally be unable to interrupt you in person the great opportunity to now interrupt you using email and im.
Further there are a lot of things that are only possible with technology, for example the oh so funny emails one gets regularly. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS?????????
"We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark"
That people like the parent get modded up in every discussion about the atomic bombs is on the one hand disgusting as he is simply repeating untruth, that have been shown to be untruth again and again, like the alledegedly millions of lives that were saved (funny btw. that the number grow over the decades. While Stimpson spoke of half a million and a few years later in his autobiography Truman spoke of a million, George Bush Sr. spoke of 2 million decades later and now we finally have arrived at 10-20 millions in the new century).
On the other hand it's incredibly intersting to watch what a sore point the fact that the US used the bombs seems to be for many Americans that they feel the need to mod people up who make those wrong and outragous claims. (For example, someone modded insightful in this discussion claimed it had potentially saved a billion lives...)
I think that only shows that Americans, or a large part of the American populace, are unable to look at their country's history in anything but black or white. Even suggesting that the stories of what led up to the atomic bombs being used might have been a little more complicated than the dominant but false narrative assumes will inevitably leed to angry reactions.
The notion that America no matter what happened always were and are the good guys has to be defended no matter what and the thought that some action by the US might have been wrong, or at least debateable or in a morally grey area has to be shouted down immidiately.
Certainly disgusting but also really, really fascinating to watch.
"As a trained historian and scientist, this disturbs me."
As a trained historian disturbing you really disturbs me. And btw., a BA in history and training for a BS in computer science does sound a lot more modest than trained historian and scientist, not to mention the fact that appeal to authority is only a very bad substitute for a coherent argument.
What even disturbs me more is that you are building up a strawman argument. Nowhere did I mention that the effects of atomic bombs were fully understood. However, contrary to what you imply not fully understanding the effects doesn't mean that the people weren't aware of the special nature of the atomic bomb. This can, and I can only repeat myself here, clearly be shown by the discussion that led to using the atomic bombs. That you'd like to dismiss the historic records as irrelevant as they don't fit your agenda doesn't change that.
"Ultimately, World War II was a total war. In such a war, great powers seek to destroy each other absolutely with whatever means are within their reach. Debating the morality of the atomic bomb in such a context is a historical error called anachronism - judging the actions of the past by the political, social, and scientific mores of the present." Hm, first off, and I have to repeat myself here yet again, I didn't even debate the morality or made a moral judgement, I just pointed out that the poster I answer was making a lot of factual mistakes, to put it mildly. Further about the issue of anachronism, as I didn't judge them that is a moot point anyway, but as I repeatedly pointed out you and others are overlooking that at the time, not now, the issue was hotly debated and there were many people, Eisenhower was just one example, who in the context of the time held the opinion that using the atomic bombs was unjustifiable, unjustified and morally wrong. How is pointing this out anachronistic?
"You're a German arguing about American morality in World War II?" No, I'm a German arguing about history. If you read what I wrote again, I never gave a moral judgment about the bombings, I just pointed out that the historical narative of the parent poster was wrong. History tends to be a little more complicated.
"You don't think Japan or Germany or the USSR would have used the bomb if they had it first? Stalin would have made Germany a smoking crater." Again, I fail to see where I argued that they wouldn't have done it. But as they didn't arguing about it is pretty irrelevant.
"Hindsight is 20/20. The U.S. was in a World War that it didn't start and wanted to end as quickly as possible. The bomb didn' t yet have the stigma is has now, because it had never been used. It was seen as simply another, better weapon." Why do people feel the urge to tell a simplistic story of what happened? Claiming that the atomic bomb was seen as just an other weapon simply isn't true. This doesn't have anything to do with hindsight, this has to do with the documents of the time clearly showing that this was not the case.
"I don't know where you got your source on Japan trying to surrender, but I doubt its veracity." Sources? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hi roshima_and_Nagasaki This gives a pretty good run down of the arguments from both sides. If you really want to get into the matter: - Gar Alperovitz: The Decision to use the Atomic Bombs. - Michael J. Hogan: Hiroshima in History and Memory - Kai Bird and Lawrence Lifschultz: Hiroshima's Shadows
"And you think only thousands would have died in a mainland invasion of Japan?" Ehm, that's not what I said. I pointed out that the military estimates of how many people woud get killed were nowhere near the millions that are now frequently mentioned in the discussion.
"You may have thought the post was simplistic, but yours was hardly better." How so?
"The development of atomic and nuclear weapons was inevitable."
Says who? You? Why?
Besides:
Judge, if I hadn't done it someone else would won't get you to far in court.
"A land invasion of Japan would have have resulted in horrific casualties on both sides."
Ah, the old narative of how dropping the bomb saved lives. The only problem is that it's nowhere near certain that an invasion would have been necessary and the question of how many people such an invasion would have killed is very much up for debate, to put it mildly.
"Had the US not developed and deployed the bomb, someone else would have been the first to use it."
Ah, what a nice "argument". You can't of course know if someone else would have used it, but stating it as a fact seems such a great justification for US action, doesn't it?
Besides, I hope you never have to stand before a court of law, because believe me, these hypothetical arguments are not going to impress the judge.
"Questions about our righteousness in nuking Japan (who themselves slaughtered even more civilians in Nanking than we killed with 2 A-bombs) will never die, but I'm confident that the US getting the bomb before China, the USSR and other nations, made it possible for us to scare everyone into not using them again."
Gee, it's great that you are confident about it. I'm sure those who died because of the bombs would be delighted to hear it.
"We sure as heck could not have ended the war with harsh insults in Japanese... a direct invasion would have cost millions of lives and left Russia open to join in." Jesus, at least get your facts straight. Russia did join the war against Japan which prompted Truman to his famous words, that that meant: Finis Japan!
About the bombs saving millions of lives, this argument has been refuted so many times already that it's really embarassing to bring it up again. The first problem with your argument is that it doesn't take the situatuion at the time into account. Japan was already trying hard to find a way to surrender. This was one of the reasons that people like Eisenhower thought it was a grave mistake, to say at least, to drop the bombs.
It also doesn't take into account that the estimates on which those who decided to drop the bombs operated in no way support the notion that millions would be killed should an invasion indeed occur. It's in fact quite funny that the estimates at the time were speaking of thousands of deaths (terrible enough, but not millions), then after the war the number of half a million lives saved was the official justification, only to be extended to a million and now to several millions.
"Ask the Germans what happened when the Soviet men came into Berlin, and overlay that disaster onto Tokyo..." As I'm German myself I'm well aware of what happened when the Soviets came into Berlin and though a lot of things were terrible you can rest assured that people in Germany consider themselves very lucky to not have been subjected to the bomb.
Also, what does that have to do with the atomic bomb? Nothing?
"This isn't meant as a troll or flamebait, seriously, I think millions of lives were saved, perhaps billions." Jesus, its not often that one has to read so much bullshit in one sentence. Billions? Yeah, sure....
Thanks mods for modding parent up, it really was an impressive posting.
In case you didn't notice, yes Steve Jobs' keynotes are marketing events (very good ones btw., but still marketing).
About you not reading the article. As you piled up accusation upon accusation against the article, that in the end were totally meaningless as you only accused the article of things it didn't say there aren't many explanations left other than you not reading the article.
It's critical to understanding the switch that you not underestimate the importance of Intel's XScale to Apple's decision to leave IBM. The current iPods use an ARM chip from Texas Instruments, but we can expect to see Intel inside future versions of the iPod line. So because Apple is going to become an all-Intel shop like Dell, with Intel providing the processors that power both the Mac and the iPod, Apple will get the same kinds of steep volume discounts across its entire product line that keep Dell from even glancing AMD's way.
Why can't anyone take the announcement at face value?
First off, not taking marketing anouncments at face value is what journalists should do, so I have a hard time following you here.
Clearly IBM (and Moto/Freescale) don't want to develop new top-end chips for a small market. Who can blame them?
Clearly you didn't read the article as it doesn't claim anywhere that this isn't the case, on the contrary, a large part of it is about the exact situation you describe and how it came about.
But Intel is going to build their next generation anyway. Apple's small marketshare is meaningless in this context, they're in a race with AMD for a huge market no matter what else happens.
And again, I fail to see where the article claims otherwise.
But no, not enough of a conspiracy in that I suppose.
Nowhere is the article spelling out some conspiracy theory, it is just giving some additional background on further motives for Apple's move.
I don't really know what got you so enraged, but you are clearly fighting against windmills here.
The author seems to believe that those products cannot exist in parallel...
No he doesn't. In fact he expicitly states that in the article:
"If you read all the way to the bottom of this article, and you think that my basic thesis is that "the Mac is doomed and Apple is planning to quit selling personal computers," or some other such fatuous nonsense, then you need serious remedial help with reading comprehension. I already made my point about Apple's shift in focus from the desktop PC (as exemplefied by the Mac) to the post-PC gadget (as exemplefied by the iPod) in a previous article, where it didn't occasion nearly this much contention and idiotic, defensive ranting."
IANAL, but I guess that giving discounts for large volumes isn't in and off itself ilegal, while giving discounts only to those who don't use a competing product is.
If you consider consumer products like the ipod (and in fact the article speculates that Apple will be focusing more and more and these kinds of products) they are selling quite an impressive volume I would guess.
If it's as big as Dell, I don't know, but it probably is big enough to be awarded discounts.
Well I don't own a ThinkPad so I'm only speculating, but I think the author was suggesting that Windows itself doesn't come with fingerprint recognition, though the version installed on the ThinkPad probably does.
Now if this is indeed the case the author might be right that Linux (or rather a "normal" Linux install) might be the first OS to have such a feature "out of the box".
However, as I said, I think it's really irrelevant, because who cares as long as it works..
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, what a tremendously dumb comment.
/. mods to mod the parent insightful.
So here we have a linux distro that according to the review is very easy to use and on top off that even offers the possibility to run many Windows programs out of the box.
Now what does the average slashbot have to say to that?
But I want to run my Windows(tm) games. As long as my Windows(tm) games don't work on linux, linux isn't for me.
Finally, as if this comment hadn't been dumb enough, he tells us that linux has to become more user-friendly in order to gain more market share, so that more games will be available for linux.
The funny thing is that just before that he told us that linux wouldn't gain any market share even with a userfriendly distribution (remember the review?) that runs many windows programs out of the box, because he couldn't play Everquest on it.
Needless to say that it only took seconds for the famed
Impressive...
"No matter how compliant Harmony purports to be it is still going to be different than Sun's JVM. Any sysadmin that has ever had to juggle multiple JVMs can tell you that Sun's Write Once Run Anywhere motto can quickly become Write Once Debug Everywhere."
But this is a general problem of having different JVMs. So now also having one that is open source doesn't change the situation in any way.
"It's also entirely possible that Harmony won't even try for complete compliance. Don't forget that IBM is still pushing their non-Java SWT instead of Swing. Red Hat already has its own Java stack that's good enough to run most Java Free Software (including Eclipse), but no one is pretending that it's Java."
It's possible, but not very likely considering that the statet goal of Harmony is to "create a compatible implementation of J2SE 5".
As to Red Hat, it isn't Java, because it isn't mature enough and only implements parts of the Java specs. But doesn't this example show that your worries are unfounded, as Red Hat is neither trying to create something different from Java, nor to call something Java that doesn't meat the criteria?
"Sun has stated that it doesn't want to "free" its J2SE stack because it is afraid that source availability would lead to forks. However, no fork of Sun's code is likely to diverge from Sun's fold as much as a completely new Free Software Java-like implementation."
Again, you are supposing it is a free software java-like implementation, whereas the goal is to create a free java implementation.
While you are of course right that having such an implementation would make it easier to fork Java, I don't see why anybody should try to do this, as the chances for the success of such a fork are minimal at best.
As Sun is still controlling what can be called Java and what not I don't see a reason why this would lead to fragmentation, as I don't see why Sun open sourcing it would have let to fragmentation.
You forget something here.
Technology gives people who would normally be unable to interrupt you in person the great opportunity to now interrupt you using email and im.
Further there are a lot of things that are only possible with technology, for example the oh so funny emails one gets regularly.
HAVE YOU SEEN THIS?????????
Tux now lives in Graceland.
(Gee, I shouldn't post while I'm still on my first coffe of the day...)
It'll be called iPrOn
For example recently I discovered http://magnatune.com/ which is a whole label following the same idea.
I think people should really encourage this and btw. they have some pretty nice music there.
(No, I'm in no way affiliated to them, I just like the concept and hand a fun afternoon recently listening through their offerings.)
"True ... but you're assuming that much of the cultural production of our day has any value. Most of it does not, and can well be lived without."
I agree. However the magic words here are "much of", so what about the rest I don't want to live without?
How about actually reading the article instead of trying to get frist post?
I think the issue here is that a platform like this is the content providers wet dream come true.
So if this catches on you can of course still boycott it, however you than will be cut off from much of the cultural production of your day.
"We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark"
Truman in his diary July 25, 1945.
Nothing special?
That people like the parent get modded up in every discussion about the atomic bombs is on the one hand disgusting as he is simply repeating untruth, that have been shown to be untruth again and again, like the alledegedly millions of lives that were saved (funny btw. that the number grow over the decades. While Stimpson spoke of half a million and a few years later in his autobiography Truman spoke of a million, George Bush Sr. spoke of 2 million decades later and now we finally have arrived at 10-20 millions in the new century).
On the other hand it's incredibly intersting to watch what a sore point the fact that the US used the bombs seems to be for many Americans that they feel the need to mod people up who make those wrong and outragous claims. (For example, someone modded insightful in this discussion claimed it had potentially saved a billion lives...)
I think that only shows that Americans, or a large part of the American populace, are unable to look at their country's history in anything but black or white. Even suggesting that the stories of what led up to the atomic bombs being used might have been a little more complicated than the dominant but false narrative assumes will inevitably leed to angry reactions.
The notion that America no matter what happened always were and are the good guys has to be defended no matter what and the thought that some action by the US might have been wrong, or at least debateable or in a morally grey area has to be shouted down immidiately.
Certainly disgusting but also really, really fascinating to watch.
"As a trained historian and scientist, this disturbs me."
As a trained historian disturbing you really disturbs me. And btw., a BA in history and training for a BS in computer science does sound a lot more modest than trained historian and scientist, not to mention the fact that appeal to authority is only a very bad substitute for a coherent argument.
What even disturbs me more is that you are building up a strawman argument. Nowhere did I mention that the effects of atomic bombs were fully understood. However, contrary to what you imply not fully understanding the effects doesn't mean that the people weren't aware of the special nature of the atomic bomb. This can, and I can only repeat myself here, clearly be shown by the discussion that led to using the atomic bombs. That you'd like to dismiss the historic records as irrelevant as they don't fit your agenda doesn't change that.
"Ultimately, World War II was a total war. In such a war, great powers seek to destroy each other absolutely with whatever means are within their reach. Debating the morality of the atomic bomb in such a context is a historical error called anachronism - judging the actions of the past by the political, social, and scientific mores of the present."
Hm, first off, and I have to repeat myself here yet again, I didn't even debate the morality or made a moral judgement, I just pointed out that the poster I answer was making a lot of factual mistakes, to put it mildly.
Further about the issue of anachronism, as I didn't judge them that is a moot point anyway, but as I repeatedly pointed out you and others are overlooking that at the time, not now, the issue was hotly debated and there were many people, Eisenhower was just one example, who in the context of the time held the opinion that using the atomic bombs was unjustifiable, unjustified and morally wrong. How is pointing this out anachronistic?
"You're a German arguing about American morality in World War II?"
i roshima_and_Nagasaki
No, I'm a German arguing about history. If you read what I wrote again, I never gave a moral judgment about the bombings, I just pointed out that the historical narative of the parent poster was wrong. History tends to be a little more complicated.
"You don't think Japan or Germany or the USSR would have used the bomb if they had it first? Stalin would have made Germany a smoking crater."
Again, I fail to see where I argued that they wouldn't have done it. But as they didn't arguing about it is pretty irrelevant.
"Hindsight is 20/20. The U.S. was in a World War that it didn't start and wanted to end as quickly as possible. The bomb didn' t yet have the stigma is has now, because it had never been used. It was seen as simply another, better weapon."
Why do people feel the urge to tell a simplistic story of what happened? Claiming that the atomic bomb was seen as just an other weapon simply isn't true. This doesn't have anything to do with hindsight, this has to do with the documents of the time clearly showing that this was not the case.
"I don't know where you got your source on Japan trying to surrender, but I doubt its veracity."
Sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_H
This gives a pretty good run down of the arguments from both sides. If you really want to get into the matter:
- Gar Alperovitz: The Decision to use the Atomic Bombs.
- Michael J. Hogan: Hiroshima in History and Memory
- Kai Bird and Lawrence Lifschultz: Hiroshima's Shadows
"And you think only thousands would have died in a mainland invasion of Japan?"
Ehm, that's not what I said. I pointed out that the military estimates of how many people woud get killed were nowhere near the millions that are now frequently mentioned in the discussion.
"You may have thought the post was simplistic, but yours was hardly better."
How so?
"The development of atomic and nuclear weapons was inevitable." Says who? You? Why? Besides: Judge, if I hadn't done it someone else would won't get you to far in court. "A land invasion of Japan would have have resulted in horrific casualties on both sides." Ah, the old narative of how dropping the bomb saved lives. The only problem is that it's nowhere near certain that an invasion would have been necessary and the question of how many people such an invasion would have killed is very much up for debate, to put it mildly.
"Had the US not developed and deployed the bomb, someone else would have been the first to use it."
Ah, what a nice "argument". You can't of course know if someone else would have used it, but stating it as a fact seems such a great justification for US action, doesn't it?
Besides, I hope you never have to stand before a court of law, because believe me, these hypothetical arguments are not going to impress the judge.
"Questions about our righteousness in nuking Japan (who themselves slaughtered even more civilians in Nanking than we killed with 2 A-bombs) will never die, but I'm confident that the US getting the bomb before China, the USSR and other nations, made it possible for us to scare everyone into not using them again."
Gee, it's great that you are confident about it. I'm sure those who died because of the bombs would be delighted to hear it.
"We sure as heck could not have ended the war with harsh insults in Japanese... a direct invasion would have cost millions of lives and left Russia open to join in."
Jesus, at least get your facts straight. Russia did join the war against Japan which prompted Truman to his famous words, that that meant: Finis Japan!
About the bombs saving millions of lives, this argument has been refuted so many times already that it's really embarassing to bring it up again. The first problem with your argument is that it doesn't take the situatuion at the time into account. Japan was already trying hard to find a way to surrender. This was one of the reasons that people like Eisenhower thought it was a grave mistake, to say at least, to drop the bombs.
It also doesn't take into account that the estimates on which those who decided to drop the bombs operated in no way support the notion that millions would be killed should an invasion indeed occur. It's in fact quite funny that the estimates at the time were speaking of thousands of deaths (terrible enough, but not millions), then after the war the number of half a million lives saved was the official justification, only to be extended to a million and now to several millions.
"Ask the Germans what happened when the Soviet men came into Berlin, and overlay that disaster onto Tokyo..."
As I'm German myself I'm well aware of what happened when the Soviets came into Berlin and though a lot of things were terrible you can rest assured that people in Germany consider themselves very lucky to not have been subjected to the bomb.
Also, what does that have to do with the atomic bomb? Nothing?
"This isn't meant as a troll or flamebait, seriously, I think millions of lives were saved, perhaps billions."
Jesus, its not often that one has to read so much bullshit in one sentence. Billions? Yeah, sure....
Thanks mods for modding parent up, it really was an impressive posting.
Hm, that seems to confirm how demanding RTFA is for me. ;-D
how demanding getting an MCSE is. ;-D
Nah, only overclocking + case modding can make a computer cool (in a puberty kind of way anyway).
In case you didn't notice, yes Steve Jobs' keynotes are marketing events (very good ones btw., but still marketing).
About you not reading the article.
As you piled up accusation upon accusation against the article, that in the end were totally meaningless as you only accused the article of things it didn't say there aren't many explanations left other than you not reading the article.
It's critical to understanding the switch that you not underestimate the importance of Intel's XScale to Apple's decision to leave IBM. The current iPods use an ARM chip from Texas Instruments, but we can expect to see Intel inside future versions of the iPod line. So because Apple is going to become an all-Intel shop like Dell, with Intel providing the processors that power both the Mac and the iPod, Apple will get the same kinds of steep volume discounts across its entire product line that keep Dell from even glancing AMD's way.
First off, not taking marketing anouncments at face value is what journalists should do, so I have a hard time following you here.
Clearly IBM (and Moto/Freescale) don't want to develop new top-end chips for a small market. Who can blame them?
Clearly you didn't read the article as it doesn't claim anywhere that this isn't the case, on the contrary, a large part of it is about the exact situation you describe and how it came about.
But Intel is going to build their next generation anyway. Apple's small marketshare is meaningless in this context, they're in a race with AMD for a huge market no matter what else happens.
And again, I fail to see where the article claims otherwise.
But no, not enough of a conspiracy in that I suppose.
Nowhere is the article spelling out some conspiracy theory, it is just giving some additional background on further motives for Apple's move.
I don't really know what got you so enraged, but you are clearly fighting against windmills here.
No he doesn't. In fact he expicitly states that in the article:
"If you read all the way to the bottom of this article, and you think that my basic thesis is that "the Mac is doomed and Apple is planning to quit selling personal computers," or some other such fatuous nonsense, then you need serious remedial help with reading comprehension. I already made my point about Apple's shift in focus from the desktop PC (as exemplefied by the Mac) to the post-PC gadget (as exemplefied by the iPod) in a previous article, where it didn't occasion nearly this much contention and idiotic, defensive ranting."
IANAL, but I guess that giving discounts for large volumes isn't in and off itself ilegal, while giving discounts only to those who don't use a competing product is.
If you consider consumer products like the ipod (and in fact the article speculates that Apple will be focusing more and more and these kinds of products) they are selling quite an impressive volume I would guess. If it's as big as Dell, I don't know, but it probably is big enough to be awarded discounts.
Well I don't own a ThinkPad so I'm only speculating, but I think the author was suggesting that Windows itself doesn't come with fingerprint recognition, though the version installed on the ThinkPad probably does. Now if this is indeed the case the author might be right that Linux (or rather a "normal" Linux install) might be the first OS to have such a feature "out of the box". However, as I said, I think it's really irrelevant, because who cares as long as it works..