>>"Obviously bowing to record and movie industry pressure"
I can't figure that out. Where do they mention record and movie industry involvement? It isn't obvious otherwise. Cable ISPs tend to have relatively limited capacity shared upstream channels in the "last mile", and saturating the upstream capacity quickly degrades performance even for Joe web user.
>>I don't give a fuck if you think the civilians are paying taxes to the evil government. You don't go killing people who can't defend themselves. Period.
Just so we're clear, that would include retaliatory attacks' "collateral damage" too, right?
Although Denial of Breakfast (DOB) attacks abound and are widely reported on in the mainstream press, this is somewhat of a smokescreen.
There is still a significant risk of House Arson attacks, even remote ones. And, as vendors would like us to believe that modern software engineering practices have made serious vulnerabilities impossible, they have clamped down on discussion of the subject in the fairly incestuous kitchen appliance technical press.
>>"There have been no indications that other high-speed Internet providers have taken such firm steps to prosecute for the theft of broadband theft," Mr. Shryock said.
There's a Freudian slip right there... =)
Anyway, if this particular cable internet service is marketed as an unlimited usage service, and the people uncapping their modems are paying customers, it's going to be pretty hard to claim that they're stealing service. If the uncappers are tampering with rental modems, it might qualify as vandalism, but that's pretty tenuous, since it's simple to restore the modems to their original state. And that might be moot anyway, since it's been suggested that the modems involved weren't rentals at all.
Also, I have a feeling that this case only involves traffic uncapping and has nothing to do with the actual bandwidth allocation... But would the government prosecution not knowing what the hell they're talking about actually harm their case? =)
>>So, that is why "they" attacked Australians in Bali? Is that why "they" attacked Christian Pakastanis in Pakistan? Is that why "they" attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel (while the flight of the missiles, not coincidentally, missed Jordan)?
None of these countries are really what I'd interpret "the west" to cover: North and South America and Western Europe. And, although all of these countries are relatively friendly with western countries, they're also all friendly with the US. So they don't seem to support your claim one way or the other.
So, maybe I'm a little dense today, but what do you mean by "the west"?
Are you claiming that the poster is promoting hatred of the US because they're suggesting that there are people who hate the US? That would be a bit odd.
P.S. Could you, by any chance, avoid making claims about logical assessment in posts that you're going to later make ad hominem attacks in?
>>(Well, I guess the system could have a second BIOS in ROM to load the first one from disk, but then, what would be the point of the BIOS on disk if there was already one in ROM?)
>The whole point of my post was that a) it is possible to require a hard drive to enter your system's setup, and b) that Compaq systems did not make any sense (except, I suppose, to a Compaq engineer).
Up there I was talking about the BIOS, not the BIOS setup. Of course, I mean no disrespect to your very splendid and worthwhile offtopic rant, if that's in fact what it is. =)
>Thankfully they've changed the way it works to an actual CMOS chip, with no apparent interaction with the HDD itself.
Uh... If there was ever no "CMOS" of any kind, there would be no pre-boot saved settings, and thus no need for a program to configure them at all (on the HD or otherwise). Not to mention that the system wouldn't be able to maintain the system block when powered down. Perhaps you mean that the setup program was moved to ROM?
>>CMOS stands for Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (if I remember correctly), which is a type of memory technology used in computers;
>Actually, it's a semi-conductor (chip) planted on the motherboard, which stores the system settings, date, and time.
Well, yes, as I said in the next sentence, that's what people often just call "the CMOS" in the PC world. But it could be unnecessarily confusing for some people if I don't explain the bad naming (since this strikes me as the kind of crowd that's bought its fair share of 40xx ICs, even if only at Radio Shack). Though to really nitpick, perhaps I should have said "digital logic technology".
I realized that many Compaqs don't have a BIOS setup program in ROM (since Compaq has been using disk-based BIOS setup programs here and there as far back as the 286 Deskpros). I've seen Compaq systems that have an HD setup partition, and come preinstalled with an MBR boot loader that in some cases will ignore the active parition and run stuff on the setup partition (and, let me tell you, it's fairly disturbing to see that setup program running after you've just deleted the partition it's in, but it's understandable, because the disk address of the setup partition is saved in the MBR, so it doesn't even need to look at the partition table entry), but replacing the crazy MBR bootloader with the standard one always made that problem go away pretty quickly.
I didn't think, however, that Compaq would make systems that would refuse to load the MBR bootloader from disk if there was no setup partition... That seems a just a little too crazy, even for them.
Eek... You seem to be a bit confused. What's on the HD on those Compaqs is just the BIOS setup program, a piece of software used to tweak BIOS settings and other low-level system settings. Note that that program is also often called the CMOS setup program (because it saves its settings in the CMOS), or just the BIOS (by those who aren't really paying attention).
The BIOS itself is still in ROM. If the BIOS was only on disk, you'd have a Catch-22; the BIOS would be needed to load itself from disk. (Well, I guess the system could have a second BIOS in ROM to load the first one from disk, but then, what would be the point of the BIOS on disk if there was already one in ROM?)
Anyway, while you can't "get into the BIOS [setup]" on those Compaqs without the hard drive connected, you can update the BIOS by booting from a flash-update disk. The BIOS setup program, although probably matched to the particular version of the BIOS on the ROM, doesn't need to be there just to flash the ROM.
Now, the problem with these particular IBM BIOSes is that, as soon as they're powered on, they see what they interpret to be a suspend-to-disk partition on the HD and try to load it to RAM and run it, without giving the user the opportunity to ignore the partition, or to run the bios setup program, etc. With the system in that state, not only can the user not boot off a floppy to repartition, but they can't even boot off a floppy to flash a new BIOS that doesn't try to resume like that onto the system.
Now, yes, you need a working BIOS if you want to boot off a floppy disk to flash-update your BIOS. And if for some reason the copy of the BIOS on the ROM won't work with disks anymore, the only solution is to yank the BIOS ROM chip off the motherboard and either fix it with a programmer and put it back on, or replace it with another chip.
But when you think about it, as the 2nd parent post suggests, if IBM releases a new BIOS for the malfunctioning systems that doesn't try to do the resuming, it's still possible to install it by unplugging the HD, booting off a flash-update floppy through the old BIOS (which will work fine as long as the hard drive with incompatible partitioning isn't attached) and doing the update, and then plugging in the hard drive again.
Any fairly new PC-land techies out there reading this still confused? I imagine that this particular hole exists in a lot of these peoples' backgrounds nowadays. So, it's time for:
Pre-boot PC Software Guts for Newbies
Terminology time. (Assume I'm talking about x86 "IBM-compatible" PCs, unless I say otherwise.)
BIOS stands for Basic Input-Output System, which is a fancy name for a bunch of standardized routines that can be called to do things with the hardware (everything from hard drive access to keyboard input and more), and includes the Power-On Self Test (POST), the first thing that runs when you turn on your system (the thing that, if all the tests are passed, tries to load an operating system, and if not, brings you oh-so-useful error messages like the infamous "No keyboard attached. Press [F1] to continue.") Usually the BIOS routines have minimal functionality and sacrifice performance for compatibility. Also, these routines aren't really designed with modern operating system features (like memory management and multitasking) in mind. Because of this, once the POST passes control to the operating system, virtually all post-DOS ones only use the BIOS routines for as long as it takes to load more advanced drivers from the hard disk, and then they start using those drivers to run the hardware instead. The PC BIOS spec is very crufty; it contains a lot of routines that don't make any sense for even later DOS-era systems. (e.g. Bonus points for anyone who can explain how to get their post-2001 BIOS to display a "No ROM Basic, System Halted" message, and quadruple bonus points for someone who can produce a post-2001 BIOS that has a working ROM Basic of some sort hacked on. =) ). The BIOS is typically stored on a ROM (read-only memory) chip, although in recent times it's usually a flash-updateable ROM chip, so maybe the term "ROM" is a bit misleading.
CMOS stands for Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (if I remember correctly), which is a type of memory technology used in computers; but on PCs, CMOS has also misleadingly come to refer to a particular small hunk of battery-backed CMOS used to store some system settings. This kind of system data area is much more sensibly referred to as PRAM (Parameter RAM) on Macs and NVRAM (Non-Volatile RAM) on more proprietary unix workstations.
Heh... Mandatory commentary ensues: Well, I'd have to say that the writing and acting in Antitrust was above average, as far as mainstream Hollywood movies go. Of course, the Hollywood recreation of computing (everything from software development to computer geek culture) in the movie has the same relationship to the real world equivalents as Lipton's chicken noodle soup has to actual chickens. But I'm as jaded as anyone else about that by now; and the Synapse product cum plot device still sticks out like a sore thumb... What was Synapse supposed to be, exactly? I mean how does taking over all the TVs/computers/fax machines/PDAs/Atari 2600s/toaster ovens in the world contribute to a business model? And, is that the kind of feature you want to build in to your product if the DOJ is breathing down your neck? =)
But to address your specifict comment, didn't Milo Hoffman do that already? =)
>>(5k$ after taxes, Oh Canada!) Ah, you're Canadian. I can stop saying college/university now. =) [For those outside the loop, this is because all degree-granting institutions in Canada are universities... Those that are strictly colleges only give diplomas.]
>>Ok, I agree. Now how dare you assume that the math knowledge CAN ONLY COME FROM A UNIVERSITY?
I'm not assuming that. I'm only assuming that most people aren't up to learning material that complicated (e.g. a good half a term course worth of graph theory with enough concentration on inductive proofs to really be useful for design), on their own, when most people going through a degree program have serious trouble with it, even with the help available from profs, tutors, and other students. And I don't mean to suggest that a degree program is the only way to learn this kind of thing even in an educational setting; dome 2 yr. cet/cis/mis diploma programs get to that level of complexity, and in any case employers will often (well, they should, anyway) pay for specialized training to fill important gaps in their employees' knowledge. All I mean to point out is that at least some of the things learned in a degree program that aren't learned often in shorter programs or through experience are actually useful.
You sound pretty bitter. Now, of course, you could just be letting off steam here, and at work you're the most focused level-headed person around; if so, great. It's just that "I've kicked so many engineer's asses I need new shoes" doesn't really suggest that, and when it comes down to it, that doesn't really cut it as a reason to have antipathy toward universities. I mean, grads from one kind of program, and an applied program at that (when it's pretty common knowledge that universities do theoretical programs best and applied ones horribly)? I don't think so.
I'd wager that your lack of a degree isn't holding you back unfairly nearly as much as your apparent attitude problem is. Generally there's nothing worse than an employee with a huge chip on their shoulder (typically, refusing to ask for help when they need it, arguing with other employees and being uncooperative, and otherwise trying to prove themselves at the expense of just doing the job).
Yes, it's often assumed by those hiring for technical positions that a college/university degree education is more comprehensive than it actually is, and so people without degrees are getting the short end of the stick. This really pisses you off; I can relate. But that's between you and employers who make bad hiring decisions. There's no reason to take it out on people with degrees. You may want to lose the chip, and use the effort you're spending stabbing at windmills doing something more productive.
And, as for your comments about the uselessness of a degree eductation in general, most of it is just posturing. For example, in the same way that simply going through a CS degree program doesn't make you a decent programmer, no amount of on-the-job experience can make you good at evaluating and selecting complex algorithms if you don't have the math background to do the runtime analysis properly.
Anyway, back to(ward) the topic... I have an armchair interest in the philosophy of science. And, everyone I know in biological/medical sciences, who I remember talking to about it, would agree that we know very little about the functioning of the human body when it comes right down to it, and more importantly (since we were talking about research in to the action of pain killers) embraces the scientific process as a useful tool. So, I have to wonder how you've decided that the opposite view is predominant in the academic community, having never set foot in a university as you say. Is it pure speculation? Paranoia? I can't really tell.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how limiting the upstream capacity your p2p client uses is a "ban". Could you elaborate?
>>"Obviously bowing to record and movie industry pressure"
I can't figure that out. Where do they mention record and movie industry involvement? It isn't obvious otherwise. Cable ISPs tend to have relatively limited capacity shared upstream channels in the "last mile", and saturating the upstream capacity quickly degrades performance even for Joe web user.
>>I don't give a fuck if you think the civilians are paying taxes to the evil government. You don't go killing people who can't defend themselves. Period.
Just so we're clear, that would include retaliatory attacks' "collateral damage" too, right?
But Apple is happy to support "open" standards, especially given the juicy royalties. =)
Erm... Could this be about the "not enough mouse buttons"/"too many mouse buttons" divide?
Using a general purpose hardware for routing may be slow, but that doesn't make it 'a hack'.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but what do you need good mass storage on a router for?
Although Denial of Breakfast (DOB) attacks abound and are widely reported on in the mainstream press, this is somewhat of a smokescreen.
There is still a significant risk of House Arson attacks, even remote ones. And, as vendors would like us to believe that modern software engineering practices have made serious vulnerabilities impossible, they have clamped down on discussion of the subject in the fairly incestuous kitchen appliance technical press.
>>a custom USB cable
With USB 1.x? They can't be serious. A simple crossover ethernet cable would be cheaper and faster, no?
From the article:
>>"There have been no indications that other high-speed Internet providers have taken such firm steps to prosecute for the theft of broadband theft," Mr. Shryock said.
There's a Freudian slip right there... =)
Anyway, if this particular cable internet service is marketed as an unlimited usage service, and the people uncapping their modems are paying customers, it's going to be pretty hard to claim that they're stealing service. If the uncappers are tampering with rental modems, it might qualify as vandalism, but that's pretty tenuous, since it's simple to restore the modems to their original state. And that might be moot anyway, since it's been suggested that the modems involved weren't rentals at all.
Also, I have a feeling that this case only involves traffic uncapping and has nothing to do with the actual bandwidth allocation... But would the government prosecution not knowing what the hell they're talking about actually harm their case? =)
Okay, but the only specific failure cited in the article has nothing to do with NT.
Huh? NT doesn't shut down on a divide by zero.
>>So, that is why "they" attacked Australians in Bali? Is that why "they" attacked Christian Pakastanis in Pakistan? Is that why "they" attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel (while the flight of the missiles, not coincidentally, missed Jordan)?
None of these countries are really what I'd interpret "the west" to cover: North and South America and Western Europe. And, although all of these countries are relatively friendly with western countries, they're also all friendly with the US. So they don't seem to support your claim one way or the other.
So, maybe I'm a little dense today, but what do you mean by "the west"?
Are you claiming that the poster is promoting hatred of the US because they're suggesting that there are people who hate the US? That would be a bit odd.
P.S. Could you, by any chance, avoid making claims about logical assessment in posts that you're going to later make ad hominem attacks in?
>>NVRAM is a different technology altogether
NVRAM isn't a technology, it's a descriptive name. On some workstations, the NVRAM uses EEPROMs, on some it's just battery-backed DRAM.
>Not to mention that the system wouldn't be able to maintain the system block when powered down.
Erm... I meant to say:
Not to mention that the system wouldn't be able to maintain the system time when powered down.
Not enough coffee yet. Sorry. =)
>>(Well, I guess the system could have a second BIOS in ROM to load the first one from disk, but then, what would be the point of the BIOS on disk if there was already one in ROM?)
>The whole point of my post was that a) it is possible to require a hard drive to enter your system's setup, and b) that Compaq systems did not make any sense (except, I suppose, to a Compaq engineer).
Up there I was talking about the BIOS, not the BIOS setup. Of course, I mean no disrespect to your very splendid and worthwhile offtopic rant, if that's in fact what it is. =)
>Thankfully they've changed the way it works to an actual CMOS chip, with no apparent interaction with the HDD itself.
Uh... If there was ever no "CMOS" of any kind, there would be no pre-boot saved settings, and thus no need for a program to configure them at all (on the HD or otherwise). Not to mention that the system wouldn't be able to maintain the system block when powered down. Perhaps you mean that the setup program was moved to ROM?
>>CMOS stands for Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (if I remember correctly), which is a type of memory technology used in computers;
>Actually, it's a semi-conductor (chip) planted on the motherboard, which stores the system settings, date, and time.
Well, yes, as I said in the next sentence, that's what people often just call "the CMOS" in the PC world. But it could be unnecessarily confusing for some people if I don't explain the bad naming (since this strikes me as the kind of crowd that's bought its fair share of 40xx ICs, even if only at Radio Shack). Though to really nitpick, perhaps I should have said "digital logic technology".
I realized that many Compaqs don't have a BIOS setup program in ROM (since Compaq has been using disk-based BIOS setup programs here and there as far back as the 286 Deskpros). I've seen Compaq systems that have an HD setup partition, and come preinstalled with an MBR boot loader that in some cases will ignore the active parition and run stuff on the setup partition (and, let me tell you, it's fairly disturbing to see that setup program running after you've just deleted the partition it's in, but it's understandable, because the disk address of the setup partition is saved in the MBR, so it doesn't even need to look at the partition table entry), but replacing the crazy MBR bootloader with the standard one always made that problem go away pretty quickly.
I didn't think, however, that Compaq would make systems that would refuse to load the MBR bootloader from disk if there was no setup partition... That seems a just a little too crazy, even for them.
Eek... You seem to be a bit confused. What's on the HD on those Compaqs is just the BIOS setup program, a piece of software used to tweak BIOS settings and other low-level system settings. Note that that program is also often called the CMOS setup program (because it saves its settings in the CMOS), or just the BIOS (by those who aren't really paying attention).
The BIOS itself is still in ROM. If the BIOS was only on disk, you'd have a Catch-22; the BIOS would be needed to load itself from disk. (Well, I guess the system could have a second BIOS in ROM to load the first one from disk, but then, what would be the point of the BIOS on disk if there was already one in ROM?)
Anyway, while you can't "get into the BIOS [setup]" on those Compaqs without the hard drive connected, you can update the BIOS by booting from a flash-update disk. The BIOS setup program, although probably matched to the particular version of the BIOS on the ROM, doesn't need to be there just to flash the ROM.
Now, the problem with these particular IBM BIOSes is that, as soon as they're powered on, they see what they interpret to be a suspend-to-disk partition on the HD and try to load it to RAM and run it, without giving the user the opportunity to ignore the partition, or to run the bios setup program, etc. With the system in that state, not only can the user not boot off a floppy to repartition, but they can't even boot off a floppy to flash a new BIOS that doesn't try to resume like that onto the system.
Now, yes, you need a working BIOS if you want to boot off a floppy disk to flash-update your BIOS. And if for some reason the copy of the BIOS on the ROM won't work with disks anymore, the only solution is to yank the BIOS ROM chip off the motherboard and either fix it with a programmer and put it back on, or replace it with another chip.
But when you think about it, as the 2nd parent post suggests, if IBM releases a new BIOS for the malfunctioning systems that doesn't try to do the resuming, it's still possible to install it by unplugging the HD, booting off a flash-update floppy through the old BIOS (which will work fine as long as the hard drive with incompatible partitioning isn't attached) and doing the update, and then plugging in the hard drive again.
Any fairly new PC-land techies out there reading this still confused? I imagine that this particular hole exists in a lot of these peoples' backgrounds nowadays. So, it's time for:
Pre-boot PC Software Guts for Newbies
Terminology time.
(Assume I'm talking about x86 "IBM-compatible" PCs, unless I say otherwise.)
BIOS stands for Basic Input-Output System, which is a fancy name for a bunch of standardized routines that can be called to do things with the hardware (everything from hard drive access to keyboard input and more), and includes the Power-On Self Test (POST), the first thing that runs when you turn on your system (the thing that, if all the tests are passed, tries to load an operating system, and if not, brings you oh-so-useful error messages like the infamous "No keyboard attached. Press [F1] to continue.") Usually the BIOS routines have minimal functionality and sacrifice performance for compatibility. Also, these routines aren't really designed with modern operating system features (like memory management and multitasking) in mind. Because of this, once the POST passes control to the operating system, virtually all post-DOS ones only use the BIOS routines for as long as it takes to load more advanced drivers from the hard disk, and then they start using those drivers to run the hardware instead. The PC BIOS spec is very crufty; it contains a lot of routines that don't make any sense for even later DOS-era systems. (e.g. Bonus points for anyone who can explain how to get their post-2001 BIOS to display a "No ROM Basic, System Halted" message, and quadruple bonus points for someone who can produce a post-2001 BIOS that has a working ROM Basic of some sort hacked on. =) ). The BIOS is typically stored on a ROM (read-only memory) chip, although in recent times it's usually a flash-updateable ROM chip, so maybe the term "ROM" is a bit misleading.
CMOS stands for Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor (if I remember correctly), which is a type of memory technology used in computers; but on PCs, CMOS has also misleadingly come to refer to a particular small hunk of battery-backed CMOS used to store some system settings. This kind of system data area is much more sensibly referred to as PRAM (Parameter RAM) on Macs and NVRAM (Non-Volatile RAM) on more proprietary unix workstations.
Heh... Mandatory commentary ensues: Well, I'd have to say that the writing and acting in Antitrust was above average, as far as mainstream Hollywood movies go. Of course, the Hollywood recreation of computing (everything from software development to computer geek culture) in the movie has the same relationship to the real world equivalents as Lipton's chicken noodle soup has to actual chickens. But I'm as jaded as anyone else about that by now; and the Synapse product cum plot device still sticks out like a sore thumb... What was Synapse supposed to be, exactly? I mean how does taking over all the TVs/computers/fax machines/PDAs/Atari 2600s/toaster ovens in the world contribute to a business model? And, is that the kind of feature you want to build in to your product if the DOJ is breathing down your neck? =)
But to address your specifict comment, didn't Milo Hoffman do that already? =)
Bunnies! Bunnies! It must be bunnies! ... Or maybe midgets.
Were you promised the severance package at hiring time?
Didn't Microsoft do exactly that already (around when they first started seriously making an effort in the browser war)?:
-Giving away IE
-Licensing Windows to OEMs at a certain unit price
-Licensing Windows to OEMs at a lower price if they included IE
Right, so obviously that settlement can't go through any more. So what?
>>(5k$ after taxes, Oh Canada!)
Ah, you're Canadian. I can stop saying college/university now. =) [For those outside the loop, this is because all degree-granting institutions in Canada are universities... Those that are strictly colleges only give diplomas.]
>>Ok, I agree. Now how dare you assume that the math knowledge CAN ONLY COME FROM A UNIVERSITY?
I'm not assuming that. I'm only assuming that most people aren't up to learning material that complicated (e.g. a good half a term course worth of graph theory with enough concentration on inductive proofs to really be useful for design), on their own, when most people going through a degree program have serious trouble with it, even with the help available from profs, tutors, and other students. And I don't mean to suggest that a degree program is the only way to learn this kind of thing even in an educational setting; dome 2 yr. cet/cis/mis diploma programs get to that level of complexity, and in any case employers will often (well, they should, anyway) pay for specialized training to fill important gaps in their employees' knowledge. All I mean to point out is that at least some of the things learned in a degree program that aren't learned often in shorter programs or through experience are actually useful.
Back for more later, perhaps.
You sound pretty bitter. Now, of course, you could just be letting off steam here, and at work you're the most focused level-headed person around; if so, great. It's just that "I've kicked so many engineer's asses I need new shoes" doesn't really suggest that, and when it comes down to it, that doesn't really cut it as a reason to have antipathy toward universities. I mean, grads from one kind of program, and an applied program at that (when it's pretty common knowledge that universities do theoretical programs best and applied ones horribly)? I don't think so.
I'd wager that your lack of a degree isn't holding you back unfairly nearly as much as your apparent attitude problem is. Generally there's nothing worse than an employee with a huge chip on their shoulder (typically, refusing to ask for help when they need it, arguing with other employees and being uncooperative, and otherwise trying to prove themselves at the expense of just doing the job).
Yes, it's often assumed by those hiring for technical positions that a college/university degree education is more comprehensive than it actually is, and so people without degrees are getting the short end of the stick. This really pisses you off; I can relate. But that's between you and employers who make bad hiring decisions. There's no reason to take it out on people with degrees. You may want to lose the chip, and use the effort you're spending stabbing at windmills doing something more productive.
And, as for your comments about the uselessness of a degree eductation in general, most of it is just posturing. For example, in the same way that simply going through a CS degree program doesn't make you a decent programmer, no amount of on-the-job experience can make you good at evaluating and selecting complex algorithms if you don't have the math background to do the runtime analysis properly.
Anyway, back to(ward) the topic... I have an armchair interest in the philosophy of science. And, everyone I know in biological/medical sciences, who I remember talking to about it, would agree that we know very little about the functioning of the human body when it comes right down to it, and more importantly (since we were talking about research in to the action of pain killers) embraces the scientific process as a useful tool. So, I have to wonder how you've decided that the opposite view is predominant in the academic community, having never set foot in a university as you say. Is it pure speculation? Paranoia? I can't really tell.