I agree completely. The Federal Government should stay out of education. It has merely created bureaucracy.
The problems with today's schools are so far-ranging that I almost don't know where to begin: Schools are too big. Too impersonal. Layers of administration instead of teachers. Big classes staffed with multiple teachers instead of smaller classes with one teacher.
Bureaucracy is behind most of this dysfunction. In the 70s school districts were consolidated to share the cost of dealing with government regulation. As a result, schools are now run by the county instead of the town. We have big factories instead of schools.
A school should have mostly teachers, not administrators.
A school should exercise local control over its curriculum. Education is part of the community, and it should reflect the community. I am not against integration: that is another issue. I am talking about local control of the curriculum: the ability of a parent to call the principal on the phone and suggest something, instead of having to form a PAC and lobby the county government.
In a school, every teacher should know every student. That's no longer possible, thanks to these huge schools.
I agree. Keep the Federal Government out of the schools. And I would go farther: return control of the schools to the town; and reduce their size.
I have written four books. One of them was 800 pages. My most recent was 500.
I used OpenOffice for my third book (600 pages). It was a big mistake. When I was done, the publisher reminded me that they wanted the output in Word format. I converted the OpenOffice format to Word, and the result was terrible. This is because I tend to use lots of complex layout features, with nested tables, placement of text boxes in the margin, etc. These kinds of layout features are very important for book design today: the most readable and successful technical books have sophisticated layouts, and the publisher will not generally do this part for you.
OpenOffice has improved alot since then (three years ago), but even so, if you are doing a large manuscript, use the tool that the publisher wants. You can't leave layout to them anymore: use their tool and styles, and do your own layout.
By the way, I have used OpenOffice to generate PDF files, and it has many glitches. If you are generating a large manuscript as a PDF, the likelihood that you will run into a glitch or two is high. E.g., their PDF generator does not seem to render properly when images are placed at fixed positions relative to a paragraph. I had problems with that. And for a production PDF, everything must be perfect.
For my most recent book (500 pages), I used Word from the outset, and did the entire layout myself. Word is a terrible tool to use for that, but it worked. I had the layout control I needed, even though it is flaky (text boxes move suddenly if you change anything). There are lots of quirks that make Word unsuitable for a large manuscript, but it can be made to work (with lots of frustration).
I once used Framemaker to do a book (my second book, the 800 page one), and that was a good experience.
Nowadays, I wish I had a tool that allowed me to do wysiwyg layout (very important for a good layout), but that also generated DocBook XML. That way I could publish the content on the web as well. But I don't know of a tool to do that. Even better, it would be nice to have a tool that would maintain the book book as a manuscript (with print layout) and an online wiki....
OpenOffice claims to generate DocBook output, but I tried it and had problems. It was a new feature when I tried it: maybe it works now.
I am not a proponent of using the Latex tools. I must say that I am not very familiar with them, so I am not one to comment. But they seem not to be layout oriented, and as I have said, today the visual layout is very important. A book is no longer a stream of text with pictures interspersed: it is a complex mashup of text and pictures. To create that, you need a layout-centric tool.
with mixed success.
The problems are:
1. IT is project focused. Which means deadlines.
2. IT work must really be done for it to be done. Test must pass. It must be deployed. It is not like softer information professions that are document focused.
3. For every month you work as a contractor, it takes a month of sales to get that work. That means that it is hard to sustain true independence.
If you are good at budgeting, you could work for a year, and then take six months or a year off. I have done that.
As someone stated above, you also could move to a European country that has more favorable work laws.
Or you could greatly decrease your standard of living and work in some aspect of IT that is unreliable income-wise.
Or you could start your own business, such that you are an employer and not an IT worker yourself.
I agree. I am sick and tired of hearing that certain systems are not powerful enough. Seven or eight years ago I owned an 800Mhz system that ran Windows ME, and I ran Photoshop 3 on it to see how fast it would run: the program started in about a half a second - including loading of plugins. I compared that with a 20+ second startup for the current version of Photoshop at that time (5?). Photoshop 3 was a full-featured program with support for layers. So why did the new version run so slowly, when version 3 started in a fraction of a second? And I would conclude that Photoshop 3 would start in a fraction of a second on any netbook - and Photoshop 3 was designed to run on systems with 1-4Mb of RAM!!! And it was routinely used for full-page image production work! So no one can tell me that powerful programs will not run on netbooks. The problem is that the programs are not being designed to run that way and the OSs are bloated.
Commercial paper is needed: it is a financing instrument.
However, recent forms of commercial paper (swaps) were not regulated, thanks to the Bush administration. That commercial paper was over-extended: backed by assets whose value was in a bubble, and when the bubble collapsed, the paper was worthless because there was too little true equity.
BUT, the thing that is unreported in the news, is that the people at the top of the pyramid must have seen this coming. They KNEW that these instruments were unregulated. They knew that it would eventually collapse. And therefore they most likely sold their interests in the banks just around the right time, before the collapse, knowing that billions would be pumped in, at which time they will buy back those assets and ride the new rise in value, based on our tax dollars.
They must have known this would happen. Thew knew their models were not able to handle large fluctuations and that the investment banks, Freddie, Fannie, etc., would continue on this mad rush because the decisionmakers are all driven by short term goals. But the people who are TRULY at the top - wherever they are - must have seen this coming.
I disagree. I feel that the model should be server-side.
Yet I agree that MVC is often implemented incorrectly. The client can have multiple views, each a kind of 'model' in its own right (but not the 'model' as defined by MVC), depicting some aspect of the central, shared (authoritative) model. The shared model should be on a server, since it is shared. That is the only way to ensure proper concurrency control. The shared model is usually a database, or a facade provided by an app server.
What people often do wrong is they don't handle the error conditions that the server model can produce when concurrent access causes conflicts.
Another thing people do wrong is they update the client view directly in response to user actions, but in the MVC model all view updates should come from the server.
There is a slight modification to this pattern, in which updates to a client view are made immediately by the client, but on a tentative basis, and the server can veto the change, in which case the client needs to be prepared to invalidate or restore the view to the correct state, as defined by the server.
The pure MVC pattern is more of an idea, rather than a full design pattern, since there are many complex issues that must still be decided, such as what types of objects will be sent between client and server (view and model), how invalid elements will be marked as such and refreshed, how the client should be notified of changes to the model made concurrently by other users, how the client will keep track of which view objects correspond to which model (server) objects, and how to ensure that corrupt client-side objects (e.g., object changes cancelled by the user) do not propagate to the server.
Re:I.e., the community should own the infrastructu
on
Houses With Tails
·
· Score: 1
No no no. You misunderstand my friend. What I am suggesting is that the customer of the telcom companies should be the communities. Not you and me. You and I have no clout. I am not proposing lots of little ISP companies, each developing its own technology. I am proposing that the last mile be owned by the community. The last mile merely lays down technology conduits. The technology is developed by the telcos. That is what I am proposing. It is very different from the many little phone companies approach.
Non-compete law is state-specific. You should check the laws in your state. Even if there is an agreement, it might not be enforceable in court.
I.e., the community should own the infrastructure
on
Houses With Tails
·
· Score: 1
Duh. That's what I say. Not to you, but to the industry. You are absolutely right. Infrastructure should be owned by the community. Local infrastructure, such as the last mile connection, should be owned by the subdivision (homeowner's association) or town. It is absurd that we allow companies own this infrastructure, allowing us to be victimized by their self-interested deployment schedules. Communities could do it now and have success: all they need to do is become a non-profit ISP, and charge the customer the same way they charge now for water, etc. The community would be in the driver's seat, not Verizon, etc. The reason this did not work with AT&T is because it was a vast monopoly over all communities, and so it had no incentive to innovate. If the community ISPs are local, there will still be many technology providers and they will compete for community-based business.
Wikipedia clearly states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
Thus, they are NOT re-defining truth. Truth is an English language word, meaning that something is true (provably correct). Wikipedia does not claim truthfulness: they claim verifiability. Although it seems that they are re-defining "verifiability" because to verify something means to check that it is true, whereas they are implying that it means to check that someone SAYS that it is true.
I was not a comp sci major (a physics major), but I took comp sci classes, and am self-taught in compilers, language theory, and everything else I know about computers - including the hardware level, like the majority of people in the field. Looking back on the courses I did take, I feel that they left out a discussion of the flaws in the current paradigms. For example, the failure of the core von Neumann model of computing to address the problems of parallelism. The failure of procedural languages to enable intentional decomposition so that one can be sure a program is correct. The failure of OSs to be secure, and why that is. People think this technology is mature. It is anything but. The situation we are in has to be transitional, or we are in "deep sh**". While teaching them how to hack in the current languages (one can do no better than that), give them the message that this stuff is fundamentally broken, and that something better is needed.
I had the same thought. From the description it sounds like the attack is based on the existence of regularity (low entropy) in the file. Any technique such as compression that increases the entropy should defeat the attack as it is described. Since most images today are compressed, it would seem that the attack would have no practical impact. But perhaps it works differently than explained.
So antithetical to what software should be about
on
Clean Code
·
· Score: 1
It is probably a wonderful book.
But the very concept of "clean code" is, to me, a pre-occupation with the wrong things.
It is as if the designers of the Large Hadron Collider were most concerned with the neatness of the machining of parts.
What about design?
What about patterns?
Code is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to provide this. Don't you find the law peculiar? Why should the law concern itself with WHY someone uses the material? And second, given that this is about works of art (writing, music, etc.), isn't it interesting that the law is primarily concerns with market value? Art is not just about market value. Yes it is important, but it is not all about that. Again, I feel the law over-reaches. Fair use should pertain to the amount of verbatim use, and be agnostic with respect to the purpose; and I also feel that copyright should not extend to ideas, such as story characters. Don't you agree? After all, any story character is based upon other ideas that the author has encountered before in their own reading.
Hi again. I'm not defending the guy. I was just puzzled by the judge's argument - at least the snippet that I read, probably quoted out of context. The judge claimed that Rowling would have competition. Again, so what? Of course I do agree that it is not ok for the guy to plagiarize Rowling's work.
You may be right: I assume you are. I am not familiar with his site or the details of the case. I was merely reacting to the judge's argument, as reported in the slashdot snippet, that the site competed with Rowling's planned encyclopedia. My thought was "so what? what's wrong with that?". I do not understand why competition would be an issue in the case: shouldn't the issue be about whether the site copied material beyond the bounds of fair use? Based on what you claim, it sounds like it did, but I don't see what that has to do with competition with a hypothetical future site that Rowling might create.
One could say that a thesaurus contains no original content when compared with a dictionary. But the structure, method of distribution, and presentation are all contributions.
And what is wrong with competition? So what if the site competes with Rowling's planned encyclopedia? Copyright is supposed to be about form, not about ideas. You can't copyright an idea. Others should be allowed to compete with Rowling. Otherwise, what incentive does she have to create something of quality? Does she now have a monopoly on anything that has the idea of Harry Potter in it? Does this mean that when someone wrote the Great Gatsby, no one else had the right to write about the characters or mention them by name?
What nonsense that others cannot compete with her!!
If this is a vocational curriculum, you might look for books on these various topics. I am sorry I cannot recommend any that would be appropriate.
However, it this is not a vocational group, then I would really discourage you from portraying computers as a career. Technology changes rapidly, and that is accelerating. Computer languages are here today and gone tomorrow. It is not even clear that in 20 years computers will be programmed the way they are now. It would be better to teach the kids in a survey manner, looking at the history of computing, the fundamental theory, and where it is likely to go in the future (present the various predictions of experts). That will provide them with a foundation for making informed career decisions.
Because the manufacturers want us to continually buy new power cords from them (when the old ones wear out). Really, they should all standardize on one voltage (e.g., 12v), and we should be able to buy a power strip that supplies 12v DC and plug everything into that. Having separate transformers for each device is a mess.
I guess I was referring to the current community of developers that only use relational systems, as if they were the only game in town. For example, what percentage of middle-tier apps do you think use relational today? And what percent do you think would be best implemented as OO? In my own opinion, the numbers are probably something like 99% and 99%, respectively.
You are right. For ad-hoc access, relational is superior. However, for pre-defined access, OO is superior. In particular, OO is far superior for 99% of all three-tier apps (those that use an app server), because for those kinds of apps the transactions are known ahead of time.
I remember encountering a 1+ petabyte database 10 years ago: it was the database to record and analyze particle accelerator experiment data at CERN. And it was built using a commercial object database - not relational. Oh but wait - the relational vendors have told us that OO databases don't scale....
Slashdot Mirror
The problems with today's schools are so far-ranging that I almost don't know where to begin: Schools are too big. Too impersonal. Layers of administration instead of teachers. Big classes staffed with multiple teachers instead of smaller classes with one teacher.
Bureaucracy is behind most of this dysfunction. In the 70s school districts were consolidated to share the cost of dealing with government regulation. As a result, schools are now run by the county instead of the town. We have big factories instead of schools.
A school should have mostly teachers, not administrators.
A school should exercise local control over its curriculum. Education is part of the community, and it should reflect the community. I am not against integration: that is another issue. I am talking about local control of the curriculum: the ability of a parent to call the principal on the phone and suggest something, instead of having to form a PAC and lobby the county government.
In a school, every teacher should know every student. That's no longer possible, thanks to these huge schools.
I agree. Keep the Federal Government out of the schools. And I would go farther: return control of the schools to the town; and reduce their size.
I used OpenOffice for my third book (600 pages). It was a big mistake. When I was done, the publisher reminded me that they wanted the output in Word format. I converted the OpenOffice format to Word, and the result was terrible. This is because I tend to use lots of complex layout features, with nested tables, placement of text boxes in the margin, etc. These kinds of layout features are very important for book design today: the most readable and successful technical books have sophisticated layouts, and the publisher will not generally do this part for you.
OpenOffice has improved alot since then (three years ago), but even so, if you are doing a large manuscript, use the tool that the publisher wants. You can't leave layout to them anymore: use their tool and styles, and do your own layout.
By the way, I have used OpenOffice to generate PDF files, and it has many glitches. If you are generating a large manuscript as a PDF, the likelihood that you will run into a glitch or two is high. E.g., their PDF generator does not seem to render properly when images are placed at fixed positions relative to a paragraph. I had problems with that. And for a production PDF, everything must be perfect.
For my most recent book (500 pages), I used Word from the outset, and did the entire layout myself. Word is a terrible tool to use for that, but it worked. I had the layout control I needed, even though it is flaky (text boxes move suddenly if you change anything). There are lots of quirks that make Word unsuitable for a large manuscript, but it can be made to work (with lots of frustration).
I once used Framemaker to do a book (my second book, the 800 page one), and that was a good experience.
Nowadays, I wish I had a tool that allowed me to do wysiwyg layout (very important for a good layout), but that also generated DocBook XML. That way I could publish the content on the web as well. But I don't know of a tool to do that. Even better, it would be nice to have a tool that would maintain the book book as a manuscript (with print layout) and an online wiki....
OpenOffice claims to generate DocBook output, but I tried it and had problems. It was a new feature when I tried it: maybe it works now.
I am not a proponent of using the Latex tools. I must say that I am not very familiar with them, so I am not one to comment. But they seem not to be layout oriented, and as I have said, today the visual layout is very important. A book is no longer a stream of text with pictures interspersed: it is a complex mashup of text and pictures. To create that, you need a layout-centric tool.
- Cliff
1. IT is project focused. Which means deadlines.
2. IT work must really be done for it to be done. Test must pass. It must be deployed. It is not like softer information professions that are document focused.
3. For every month you work as a contractor, it takes a month of sales to get that work. That means that it is hard to sustain true independence.
If you are good at budgeting, you could work for a year, and then take six months or a year off. I have done that.
As someone stated above, you also could move to a European country that has more favorable work laws.
Or you could greatly decrease your standard of living and work in some aspect of IT that is unreliable income-wise.
Or you could start your own business, such that you are an employer and not an IT worker yourself.
Whatever you attempt, good luck!
I agree. I am sick and tired of hearing that certain systems are not powerful enough. Seven or eight years ago I owned an 800Mhz system that ran Windows ME, and I ran Photoshop 3 on it to see how fast it would run: the program started in about a half a second - including loading of plugins. I compared that with a 20+ second startup for the current version of Photoshop at that time (5?). Photoshop 3 was a full-featured program with support for layers. So why did the new version run so slowly, when version 3 started in a fraction of a second? And I would conclude that Photoshop 3 would start in a fraction of a second on any netbook - and Photoshop 3 was designed to run on systems with 1-4Mb of RAM!!! And it was routinely used for full-page image production work! So no one can tell me that powerful programs will not run on netbooks. The problem is that the programs are not being designed to run that way and the OSs are bloated.
However, recent forms of commercial paper (swaps) were not regulated, thanks to the Bush administration. That commercial paper was over-extended: backed by assets whose value was in a bubble, and when the bubble collapsed, the paper was worthless because there was too little true equity.
BUT, the thing that is unreported in the news, is that the people at the top of the pyramid must have seen this coming. They KNEW that these instruments were unregulated. They knew that it would eventually collapse. And therefore they most likely sold their interests in the banks just around the right time, before the collapse, knowing that billions would be pumped in, at which time they will buy back those assets and ride the new rise in value, based on our tax dollars.
They must have known this would happen. Thew knew their models were not able to handle large fluctuations and that the investment banks, Freddie, Fannie, etc., would continue on this mad rush because the decisionmakers are all driven by short term goals. But the people who are TRULY at the top - wherever they are - must have seen this coming.
Yet I agree that MVC is often implemented incorrectly. The client can have multiple views, each a kind of 'model' in its own right (but not the 'model' as defined by MVC), depicting some aspect of the central, shared (authoritative) model. The shared model should be on a server, since it is shared. That is the only way to ensure proper concurrency control. The shared model is usually a database, or a facade provided by an app server.
What people often do wrong is they don't handle the error conditions that the server model can produce when concurrent access causes conflicts.
Another thing people do wrong is they update the client view directly in response to user actions, but in the MVC model all view updates should come from the server.
There is a slight modification to this pattern, in which updates to a client view are made immediately by the client, but on a tentative basis, and the server can veto the change, in which case the client needs to be prepared to invalidate or restore the view to the correct state, as defined by the server.
The pure MVC pattern is more of an idea, rather than a full design pattern, since there are many complex issues that must still be decided, such as what types of objects will be sent between client and server (view and model), how invalid elements will be marked as such and refreshed, how the client should be notified of changes to the model made concurrently by other users, how the client will keep track of which view objects correspond to which model (server) objects, and how to ensure that corrupt client-side objects (e.g., object changes cancelled by the user) do not propagate to the server.
No no no. You misunderstand my friend. What I am suggesting is that the customer of the telcom companies should be the communities. Not you and me. You and I have no clout. I am not proposing lots of little ISP companies, each developing its own technology. I am proposing that the last mile be owned by the community. The last mile merely lays down technology conduits. The technology is developed by the telcos. That is what I am proposing. It is very different from the many little phone companies approach.
Non-compete law is state-specific. You should check the laws in your state. Even if there is an agreement, it might not be enforceable in court.
Duh. That's what I say. Not to you, but to the industry. You are absolutely right. Infrastructure should be owned by the community. Local infrastructure, such as the last mile connection, should be owned by the subdivision (homeowner's association) or town. It is absurd that we allow companies own this infrastructure, allowing us to be victimized by their self-interested deployment schedules. Communities could do it now and have success: all they need to do is become a non-profit ISP, and charge the customer the same way they charge now for water, etc. The community would be in the driver's seat, not Verizon, etc. The reason this did not work with AT&T is because it was a vast monopoly over all communities, and so it had no incentive to innovate. If the community ISPs are local, there will still be many technology providers and they will compete for community-based business.
Wikipedia clearly states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Thus, they are NOT re-defining truth. Truth is an English language word, meaning that something is true (provably correct). Wikipedia does not claim truthfulness: they claim verifiability. Although it seems that they are re-defining "verifiability" because to verify something means to check that it is true, whereas they are implying that it means to check that someone SAYS that it is true.
I was not a comp sci major (a physics major), but I took comp sci classes, and am self-taught in compilers, language theory, and everything else I know about computers - including the hardware level, like the majority of people in the field. Looking back on the courses I did take, I feel that they left out a discussion of the flaws in the current paradigms. For example, the failure of the core von Neumann model of computing to address the problems of parallelism. The failure of procedural languages to enable intentional decomposition so that one can be sure a program is correct. The failure of OSs to be secure, and why that is. People think this technology is mature. It is anything but. The situation we are in has to be transitional, or we are in "deep sh**". While teaching them how to hack in the current languages (one can do no better than that), give them the message that this stuff is fundamentally broken, and that something better is needed.
I had the same thought. From the description it sounds like the attack is based on the existence of regularity (low entropy) in the file. Any technique such as compression that increases the entropy should defeat the attack as it is described. Since most images today are compressed, it would seem that the attack would have no practical impact. But perhaps it works differently than explained.
It is probably a wonderful book. But the very concept of "clean code" is, to me, a pre-occupation with the wrong things. It is as if the designers of the Large Hadron Collider were most concerned with the neatness of the machining of parts. What about design? What about patterns? Code is a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to provide this. Don't you find the law peculiar? Why should the law concern itself with WHY someone uses the material? And second, given that this is about works of art (writing, music, etc.), isn't it interesting that the law is primarily concerns with market value? Art is not just about market value. Yes it is important, but it is not all about that. Again, I feel the law over-reaches. Fair use should pertain to the amount of verbatim use, and be agnostic with respect to the purpose; and I also feel that copyright should not extend to ideas, such as story characters. Don't you agree? After all, any story character is based upon other ideas that the author has encountered before in their own reading.
Hi again. I'm not defending the guy. I was just puzzled by the judge's argument - at least the snippet that I read, probably quoted out of context. The judge claimed that Rowling would have competition. Again, so what? Of course I do agree that it is not ok for the guy to plagiarize Rowling's work.
You may be right: I assume you are. I am not familiar with his site or the details of the case. I was merely reacting to the judge's argument, as reported in the slashdot snippet, that the site competed with Rowling's planned encyclopedia. My thought was "so what? what's wrong with that?". I do not understand why competition would be an issue in the case: shouldn't the issue be about whether the site copied material beyond the bounds of fair use? Based on what you claim, it sounds like it did, but I don't see what that has to do with competition with a hypothetical future site that Rowling might create.
One could say that a thesaurus contains no original content when compared with a dictionary. But the structure, method of distribution, and presentation are all contributions.
And what is wrong with competition? So what if the site competes with Rowling's planned encyclopedia? Copyright is supposed to be about form, not about ideas. You can't copyright an idea. Others should be allowed to compete with Rowling. Otherwise, what incentive does she have to create something of quality? Does she now have a monopoly on anything that has the idea of Harry Potter in it? Does this mean that when someone wrote the Great Gatsby, no one else had the right to write about the characters or mention them by name? What nonsense that others cannot compete with her!!
If this is a vocational curriculum, you might look for books on these various topics. I am sorry I cannot recommend any that would be appropriate.
However, it this is not a vocational group, then I would really discourage you from portraying computers as a career. Technology changes rapidly, and that is accelerating. Computer languages are here today and gone tomorrow. It is not even clear that in 20 years computers will be programmed the way they are now. It would be better to teach the kids in a survey manner, looking at the history of computing, the fundamental theory, and where it is likely to go in the future (present the various predictions of experts). That will provide them with a foundation for making informed career decisions.
Because the manufacturers want us to continually buy new power cords from them (when the old ones wear out). Really, they should all standardize on one voltage (e.g., 12v), and we should be able to buy a power strip that supplies 12v DC and plug everything into that. Having separate transformers for each device is a mess.
My 2005 book High-Assurance Design (website at http://www.assuredbydesign.com/haa/index.html) has a chapter (first chapter; downloadable from http://assuredbydesign.com/haa/Berg_ch01.pdf) that explains the importance of assurance in business software design.
Point well taken. The problem now is the reality that OO databases database products were decimated by their failure to explain their value to the market. However, there is a little bit of a resurgence. See http://www.service-architecture.com/products/object-oriented_databases.html
I guess I was referring to the current community of developers that only use relational systems, as if they were the only game in town. For example, what percentage of middle-tier apps do you think use relational today? And what percent do you think would be best implemented as OO? In my own opinion, the numbers are probably something like 99% and 99%, respectively.
You are right. For ad-hoc access, relational is superior. However, for pre-defined access, OO is superior. In particular, OO is far superior for 99% of all three-tier apps (those that use an app server), because for those kinds of apps the transactions are known ahead of time.
I remember encountering a 1+ petabyte database 10 years ago: it was the database to record and analyze particle accelerator experiment data at CERN. And it was built using a commercial object database - not relational. Oh but wait - the relational vendors have told us that OO databases don't scale....
That was ten years ago.