Talk to any chip designer and they'll tell you that digital doesn't really exist. Want to understand how to get a MOSFET to work properly in silicon? you'll need to model it as a perculiar analog device.
Unless you are trying to use this as a boot (or bootable) drive, you may not have a problem with a reasonably recent system. As far as the BIOS needs to be concerned with, it's just a USB-attached mass storage device. Let the OS worry about the size of the volume and the file system.
Using what equipment? When was the last time you took cheap, consumer-grade equipment and triangulated the location of a particular 2.4 GHz transmitter to within, say, ten meters?
I wondered about this, too. I don't think that telescope is incorrect, exactly, but it would be better perhaps to call it an Observatory.
The key feature of a telescope as I interpret the word is amplification of visual phenomena. It makes tiny things seem big. Perhaps the nitpickers would say that the main feature of a telescope is that it can resolve finer and finer details - I'd say that's the same thing. An ancillary of this is that it tends to gather a large amount of otherwise feeble light from some small field-of-view so that, when that field of view is zoomed in to occupy the whole of a sensor (a camera, the eye, etc.) there is still something there to see.
This neutrino detector doesn't have any sort of magnification in that sense. It doesn't even work in the electromagnetic spectrum! It's purpose isn't to zoom in on a phenomenon, but to detect it and tell us where it came from. It doesn't zoom in. By that token I would say that it is an observatory, not a telescope. It does, however, have light amplification through the use of photomultipliers. And, by virtue of its size, can be thought of as having better resolving power and sensitivity than its predecessors. By measuring neutron flux intensity as a function of angular position, it should be able to produce a sky map much that those from more conventional (optical, radio, IR) telescopes. Does this make it a telescope? I don't know.
For comparison, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory faced a similar challenge: it didn't have an aperture or light gathering and focusing mirrors common to "telescopes" of other wavelengths. It is not possible to do that with any materials we're familiar with - gamma rays are absorbed or pass right through; there can be no reflectance or refraction. GRO was, much like this neutrino experiment, a target that waited for gamma rays to pass through. Once they did the instruments would figure out their energy and where in the sky their originated from. Notice that they called it an "observatory", not a "telescope."
Since when is raising a legitimate warning "coming down hard" ? From this one sentence, it appears that the environmental groups (why the hell couldn't the writers actually name them, or get an attributed quote?) aren't against the project per se, but are worried about unintended consequences. It doesn't sound like a BANANA comment
This is what troubled me about the finding: Yeah, the Moon may have more water than the Great Lakes, but it is likely that most of that is very diffuse. So, you'd have to strip-mine cubic kilometers of regolith to get enough water for, say, a trip to Mars. Does that make it advantageous compared to Earth water, which despite being at the bottom of a relatively deep gravity well, has the advantage of being readily available?
My current employer and my previous employer still have the technical staff using XP, because most of the software that we rely on to do our work is still a little shaky or unproven under Windows 7. At this point we could migrate to Vista as an interim step, but why bother?
all laws must be written in a Wiki with full history
Sounds a like a do-able community project. How many laws within a particular scope change every day? Don't think all laws at first, start smaller.
Most laws go by for years without change.
If your government is not willing to do this, and it is still not happening then its just the laziness of everyone at large ; so stop complaining if you would like to see this happen.
You can get plenty of up-to-date books or online databases that contain, for instance, the complete US Legal Code. You can also get information here and there about the history and intent of a law, and what it may actually mean in plain English. For some of the really arcane and abstruse stuff (and some of it really defies simplification) hire a lawyer.
But what I think the comment in the summary was getting at was all the changes that go on while a bill is being written. Lawmakers, especially when they are going for a soundbite, carp on about last-minute changes that were made in the dead of night and buried in the text of a 1,000-page bill, giving us a billion dollar boondogle pork project in someone's district. They are right to do so - that kind of behavior is inexcusable. Lawmakers get away with it because it is so buried and unaccountable.
Wikifying the bill-writing process would allow you to know that the text of a bill has been changed, and when, and by whom. Permit only elected members and the Congressional support staff (ya know, the people actually writing things) editing powers. As far as I know, Congress has absolutely no way to track changes to a bill as it makes its dirty, sausage-making way from concept through committee, debate and amendation, to conference, and finally ratification. For all I know it's just a Word file that gets spit out into a pile of paper. This kind of change-management system is common practice in many businesses where versioning and history are important - software vaults, part databases, etc.
I can think of no place where this is more needed than Congress.
The graphs at the Ookla Net Index are totally worthless.
They demonstrate very crude trends, but without units on the time axis, who is to say if the increases are over the last day, month, year? Oh, wait, you have to read the sole paragraph of introductory text on an otherwise graphic page to learn that the graphs are rolling averages over the last 30 days. Silly me, instead of just finding it out from the graph, I was supposed to read something.
The vertical axes likewise have no units - all you are told is the maximum value (i.e., the intercept at the right-side y-axis). We have no idea what the minimum value of the y-axis is. What is more, the y-axis scaling for all the graphs isn't consistent. If the maximum value of the South Korea graph is 34 mbps, then that should be the scale factor used for all the other graphs, such that the maximum value for the Netherlands, 17 mbps, should be about half as tall. Instead, each graph is individually scaled so that the graph intersects the right-side y-axis at 90% height, making any graph-to-graph comparison impossible. Better yet, graph all the countries on a single plot, so that the relative speeds among countries are blazingly apparent along with the trends.
Without units on the graphs, the graphs add almost no value to the single number given to each country.
They should have a look at any stock quote service and learn how to convey information from that. Here's a suggestion. See how nice and labeled the axes are? Look, you can expand the axes to see not just the last month, but any segment of the total historical dataset. Want to overlay how one stock does against another, here ya go.
The 50 States map is pretty and all, but there isn't a scale that says what shade of orange/brown corresponds to what speed. Hover over a state and you get a number - but again with no units. Montana = 5.02. Whoopdie-freakin' do. 5.02 what? Mbps is the implied unit. But how do we know it's not density of internet users / sq km, or percentage of internet users that have taken their tests, or absolute number of testers, or per-capita consumption of french fries.
Perhaps, but there's still the part where the whole rover gets covered in hundreds of pounds of dry ice. Maybe an RTG could have kept it from being buried, who knows.
If RTGs get your heart going, just wait for the Mars Science Lander, scheduled for next year's launch window. It's an RTG-powered rover that should last on the surface for quite a while. How long? After 10 years, the RTG should still provide 100 watts.
The two Viking landers were also nuke-powered, and Viking 1 lasted for some six Earth years (2246 sols). Opportunityonly just passedViking 1's longevity record last week.
One other note about RTGs: it's not like you can just order them out of a catalog. They're expensive, they require a lot more intensive mission planning than solar-powered craft, and they are hard to come by. The RTGs that run on Pu-238 are in short supply, because Pu-238 is in short supply, because we aren't manufacturing nuclear weapons anymore. It is in part for this reason that the Juno mission to Jupiter will use solar panels.
As he says at the end - it's much safer than other forms of driver distraction. Which is to say: it's a much safer way to kill yourself and others.
Joking aside, and driver distraction aside, this thing is illegal as all getout. I'm pretty sure that obscuring the dash (and things like, ya know, the speedometer) isn't permitted. Making the steering wheel harder to grip (and at the ol' 10 and 2 positions, no less) makes the vehicle harder to control. Putting a relatively heavy, knife-edged*, solid object right in front of the airbag is pretty brilliant, too. Ordinarily I'd just shrug my shoulders and say "ah well, natural selection at work," except there's a pretty good chance you'll take a few people out with you. I'm hoping that he means this as a joke.
* In an accident at highway speeds, the thin edge of the iPad is as good as a knife.
Finally, joke about Windows all you want... if you do a default installation of Windows and you don't install any additional drivers or software, it is extremely stable and will just sit there for ages happy to do nothing but tick away.
Which would be fine, if the only thing I ever wanted to do with a computer was play solitaire and occassionally wonder what 2 + 2 was.
The whole purpose of having an operating system is so that you can install software and peripherals to make the computer useful for doing something. If I need to be that careful about offending my OS in the process of getting something done, I'll switch to another OS.
Using nukes to for mining purposes (and that's what this is, more or less) is nothing new.
The article mentions that the USSR used nukes some 169 times to create canals or underground chambers. Within the US there was Operation Plowshare, where Edward Teller (inventor of the hydrogen bomb) got the idea to use nukes to create large deep water harbors, open up mines, level pesky mountains, or even carve a straight and level road across the Panamanian isthmus. It was never tried other than some proof-of-concept blasts. Some folks thought it might not be such a good idea to set of nuclear weapons like demolition charges. Wimps - no sense of adventure.
Easy for you to say - you who happens to be a member of the native tribe. What do we say to all those (i.e., the majority of the entire human race) that aren't speakers of Standard English. Are they to be denied access to the internet? Because they can't spell "Google" using whatever appears on their local keyboard?
It's not like the internet doesn't already have significant fragmentation. There are whole swaths of the internet - the largest growing portion, in fact - that are conducted in languages other than English. (interesting piece on that here.) Do you think all those websites in China are using Standard English in their page content? Allowing non-latin characters in TLDs just brings website addresses up to the same level as the rest of the internet.
Besides, it's not like, if you happen to be a speaker of Arabic, you won't be able to reach those Arabic-TLD websites. How hard would it be to find what you are looking for using an arabic-domain search engine? Or to type in the arabic equivalent of "www.somedomain.co.eg"?
I'm hard pressed to imagine how listening to the senators from other districts is going to help him make a choice that represents his constituents.
If that were true, then there would never be any debates, and legislation could be done entirely by popular referendum.
Maybe it's different where you are, but around here, we vote for legislators not just for their currently held views, nor just for how well their views jive with our own, but also because they demonstrate some capacity to think, and be able to sift through thoughtful arguments and separate the insight from the crap, and then to act on our behalf.
Fine idea, except that it's a technology that has yet to be demonstrated in Earth orbit. Most of the research in this area is for Earth orbiting collectors to beam many megawatts of power. There are numerous technical difficulties that still need to be addressed. The size of the receiver, for one thing. For an orbiting solar power plant, the receiver would be many square kilometers in size. For the small power budget of a rover (100-500 W), the microwave receiver would be much larger than the rover itself. Beaming the power as a laser would require a smaller receiver, except that a laser receiver is essentially a solar panel, and would be prone to the same dust-up the rovers experience. There are issues with consistent tracking, too. All in all, it's a whole lot of complexity that, for what was billed as a 90-day mission, really doesn't win out against plain ol' solar panels.
For longer or more power-hungry missions, the preferred solution is nuclear-powered thermoelectric (RTGs), which is dirt simple, has no moving parts, a predictable and reliable power output, and high energy density.
.
collect solar energy 24.6583 by 7
As only a slightly serious question: do weeks exist on mars? Maybe every day there is Tuesday.
It is possible that, despite the sensory shortcomings of long-distance surgery, that a well-trained telesurgeon could be better at a particular procedure than anyone who is actually there at the hospital. Rather than paying for such a highly qualified surgeon to always be there on staff, the hospital could have a telesurgery suite and bring in the expertise when needed.
I find this a dubious argument personally, but it is one argument that can be made. A more likely situation is a surgeon, who is the best at a particularly tricky procedure, helps out a local surgeon do that procedure, but via telepresence.
I've considered it (and the scan-the-hardcopy suggested by another responder). The problem is that both of those only give me data with the resolution of the screen. Saving to floppy gives me the actual numerical data, which is both denser and more accurate than what appears on screen.
I've got a semi-old (ca 2001) digital oscilloscope. There are only two ways to pull data off it: export a screen shot to a printer via a parallel port, or export to 3.5" floppy (screenshot or raw data). So, I've got a couple of floppies lying around. Can't say I've actually bought any in many years - I just always seem to have a couple lying around. Maybe I ought to just to make sure I've got a supply for the future.
I suppose I could also replace the scope. Newer ones can connect to a host PC via USB, or offload to a thumb drive, or be network-attached. The specs on newer ones are, obviously, a lot better, too. But, really, why spend many thousands of dollars on new equipment just to get around using a floppy drive?
This goes far beyond traffic violations. The law allows (requires, actually), the police to ask for proof of citizenship if, in the context of any lawful interaction, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may be an illegal immigrant.
The key part of that is the "any lawful interaction" part. Traffic stop for any legitimate or trumped up reason? Lawful interaction. Interviewing a witness or victim of a crime? Lawful interaction. Police officer on the beat wants to strike up a conversation? Lawful interaction. Starting to see how sticky and open to abuse this issue is, yet?
And that "reasonable suspicion" part is quite vague now, isn't it. It's not probable cause - this is a much lower bar. Reasonable suspicion could mean just about anything. It's just asking for widespread abuse. Reasonable suspicion in a lot of cases could - despite what anyone would actually say out loud - just a shorthand for "looked hispanic." And while the law prohibits race and ethnicity from being the sole basis of the reasonable suspicion, just how difficult will it be to come up with some other reason to put on paper?
Slashdot Mirror
Talk to any chip designer and they'll tell you that digital doesn't really exist. Want to understand how to get a MOSFET to work properly in silicon? you'll need to model it as a perculiar analog device.
Unless you are trying to use this as a boot (or bootable) drive, you may not have a problem with a reasonably recent system. As far as the BIOS needs to be concerned with, it's just a USB-attached mass storage device. Let the OS worry about the size of the volume and the file system.
Using what equipment? When was the last time you took cheap, consumer-grade equipment and triangulated the location of a particular 2.4 GHz transmitter to within, say, ten meters?
Damn! posting here to undo a moderation
I wondered about this, too. I don't think that telescope is incorrect, exactly, but it would be better perhaps to call it an Observatory.
The key feature of a telescope as I interpret the word is amplification of visual phenomena. It makes tiny things seem big. Perhaps the nitpickers would say that the main feature of a telescope is that it can resolve finer and finer details - I'd say that's the same thing. An ancillary of this is that it tends to gather a large amount of otherwise feeble light from some small field-of-view so that, when that field of view is zoomed in to occupy the whole of a sensor (a camera, the eye, etc.) there is still something there to see.
This neutrino detector doesn't have any sort of magnification in that sense. It doesn't even work in the electromagnetic spectrum! It's purpose isn't to zoom in on a phenomenon, but to detect it and tell us where it came from. It doesn't zoom in. By that token I would say that it is an observatory, not a telescope. It does, however, have light amplification through the use of photomultipliers. And, by virtue of its size, can be thought of as having better resolving power and sensitivity than its predecessors. By measuring neutron flux intensity as a function of angular position, it should be able to produce a sky map much that those from more conventional (optical, radio, IR) telescopes. Does this make it a telescope? I don't know.
For comparison, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory faced a similar challenge: it didn't have an aperture or light gathering and focusing mirrors common to "telescopes" of other wavelengths. It is not possible to do that with any materials we're familiar with - gamma rays are absorbed or pass right through; there can be no reflectance or refraction. GRO was, much like this neutrino experiment, a target that waited for gamma rays to pass through. Once they did the instruments would figure out their energy and where in the sky their originated from. Notice that they called it an "observatory", not a "telescope."
But why would the EU want to invest nation building money in our poor country? Besides, the Mediterranean is a lot easier to cross than the Atlantic.
(relax, everyone, I'm being facetious)
Since when is raising a legitimate warning "coming down hard" ? From this one sentence, it appears that the environmental groups (why the hell couldn't the writers actually name them, or get an attributed quote?) aren't against the project per se, but are worried about unintended consequences. It doesn't sound like a BANANA comment
This is what troubled me about the finding: Yeah, the Moon may have more water than the Great Lakes, but it is likely that most of that is very diffuse. So, you'd have to strip-mine cubic kilometers of regolith to get enough water for, say, a trip to Mars. Does that make it advantageous compared to Earth water, which despite being at the bottom of a relatively deep gravity well, has the advantage of being readily available?
your droid is 18 inches and down at the level of your navel?
There's got to be some joke to be made from that statement.
My current employer and my previous employer still have the technical staff using XP, because most of the software that we rely on to do our work is still a little shaky or unproven under Windows 7. At this point we could migrate to Vista as an interim step, but why bother?
There.
Are.
Four.
Cults.
obscure?
You can get plenty of up-to-date books or online databases that contain, for instance, the complete US Legal Code. You can also get information here and there about the history and intent of a law, and what it may actually mean in plain English. For some of the really arcane and abstruse stuff (and some of it really defies simplification) hire a lawyer.
But what I think the comment in the summary was getting at was all the changes that go on while a bill is being written. Lawmakers, especially when they are going for a soundbite, carp on about last-minute changes that were made in the dead of night and buried in the text of a 1,000-page bill, giving us a billion dollar boondogle pork project in someone's district. They are right to do so - that kind of behavior is inexcusable. Lawmakers get away with it because it is so buried and unaccountable.
Wikifying the bill-writing process would allow you to know that the text of a bill has been changed, and when, and by whom. Permit only elected members and the Congressional support staff (ya know, the people actually writing things) editing powers. As far as I know, Congress has absolutely no way to track changes to a bill as it makes its dirty, sausage-making way from concept through committee, debate and amendation, to conference, and finally ratification. For all I know it's just a Word file that gets spit out into a pile of paper. This kind of change-management system is common practice in many businesses where versioning and history are important - software vaults, part databases, etc.
I can think of no place where this is more needed than Congress.
The graphs at the Ookla Net Index are totally worthless.
They demonstrate very crude trends, but without units on the time axis, who is to say if the increases are over the last day, month, year? Oh, wait, you have to read the sole paragraph of introductory text on an otherwise graphic page to learn that the graphs are rolling averages over the last 30 days. Silly me, instead of just finding it out from the graph, I was supposed to read something.
The vertical axes likewise have no units - all you are told is the maximum value (i.e., the intercept at the right-side y-axis). We have no idea what the minimum value of the y-axis is. What is more, the y-axis scaling for all the graphs isn't consistent. If the maximum value of the South Korea graph is 34 mbps, then that should be the scale factor used for all the other graphs, such that the maximum value for the Netherlands, 17 mbps, should be about half as tall. Instead, each graph is individually scaled so that the graph intersects the right-side y-axis at 90% height, making any graph-to-graph comparison impossible. Better yet, graph all the countries on a single plot, so that the relative speeds among countries are blazingly apparent along with the trends.
Without units on the graphs, the graphs add almost no value to the single number given to each country.
They should have a look at any stock quote service and learn how to convey information from that. Here's a suggestion. See how nice and labeled the axes are? Look, you can expand the axes to see not just the last month, but any segment of the total historical dataset. Want to overlay how one stock does against another, here ya go.
The 50 States map is pretty and all, but there isn't a scale that says what shade of orange/brown corresponds to what speed. Hover over a state and you get a number - but again with no units. Montana = 5.02. Whoopdie-freakin' do. 5.02 what? Mbps is the implied unit. But how do we know it's not density of internet users / sq km, or percentage of internet users that have taken their tests, or absolute number of testers, or per-capita consumption of french fries.
Perhaps, but there's still the part where the whole rover gets covered in hundreds of pounds of dry ice. Maybe an RTG could have kept it from being buried, who knows.
If RTGs get your heart going, just wait for the Mars Science Lander, scheduled for next year's launch window. It's an RTG-powered rover that should last on the surface for quite a while. How long? After 10 years, the RTG should still provide 100 watts.
The two Viking landers were also nuke-powered, and Viking 1 lasted for some six Earth years (2246 sols). Opportunity only just passed Viking 1's longevity record last week.
One other note about RTGs: it's not like you can just order them out of a catalog. They're expensive, they require a lot more intensive mission planning than solar-powered craft, and they are hard to come by. The RTGs that run on Pu-238 are in short supply, because Pu-238 is in short supply, because we aren't manufacturing nuclear weapons anymore. It is in part for this reason that the Juno mission to Jupiter will use solar panels.
As he says at the end - it's much safer than other forms of driver distraction. Which is to say: it's a much safer way to kill yourself and others.
Joking aside, and driver distraction aside, this thing is illegal as all getout. I'm pretty sure that obscuring the dash (and things like, ya know, the speedometer) isn't permitted. Making the steering wheel harder to grip (and at the ol' 10 and 2 positions, no less) makes the vehicle harder to control. Putting a relatively heavy, knife-edged*, solid object right in front of the airbag is pretty brilliant, too. Ordinarily I'd just shrug my shoulders and say "ah well, natural selection at work," except there's a pretty good chance you'll take a few people out with you. I'm hoping that he means this as a joke.
* In an accident at highway speeds, the thin edge of the iPad is as good as a knife.
Which would be fine, if the only thing I ever wanted to do with a computer was play solitaire and occassionally wonder what 2 + 2 was.
The whole purpose of having an operating system is so that you can install software and peripherals to make the computer useful for doing something. If I need to be that careful about offending my OS in the process of getting something done, I'll switch to another OS.
Using nukes to for mining purposes (and that's what this is, more or less) is nothing new.
The article mentions that the USSR used nukes some 169 times to create canals or underground chambers. Within the US there was Operation Plowshare, where Edward Teller (inventor of the hydrogen bomb) got the idea to use nukes to create large deep water harbors, open up mines, level pesky mountains, or even carve a straight and level road across the Panamanian isthmus. It was never tried other than some proof-of-concept blasts. Some folks thought it might not be such a good idea to set of nuclear weapons like demolition charges. Wimps - no sense of adventure.
Easy for you to say - you who happens to be a member of the native tribe. What do we say to all those (i.e., the majority of the entire human race) that aren't speakers of Standard English. Are they to be denied access to the internet? Because they can't spell "Google" using whatever appears on their local keyboard?
It's not like the internet doesn't already have significant fragmentation. There are whole swaths of the internet - the largest growing portion, in fact - that are conducted in languages other than English. (interesting piece on that here.) Do you think all those websites in China are using Standard English in their page content? Allowing non-latin characters in TLDs just brings website addresses up to the same level as the rest of the internet.
Besides, it's not like, if you happen to be a speaker of Arabic, you won't be able to reach those Arabic-TLD websites. How hard would it be to find what you are looking for using an arabic-domain search engine? Or to type in the arabic equivalent of "www.somedomain.co.eg"?
If that were true, then there would never be any debates, and legislation could be done entirely by popular referendum.
Maybe it's different where you are, but around here, we vote for legislators not just for their currently held views, nor just for how well their views jive with our own, but also because they demonstrate some capacity to think, and be able to sift through thoughtful arguments and separate the insight from the crap, and then to act on our behalf.
For longer or more power-hungry missions, the preferred solution is nuclear-powered thermoelectric (RTGs), which is dirt simple, has no moving parts, a predictable and reliable power output, and high energy density.
As only a slightly serious question: do weeks exist on mars? Maybe every day there is Tuesday.
It is possible that, despite the sensory shortcomings of long-distance surgery, that a well-trained telesurgeon could be better at a particular procedure than anyone who is actually there at the hospital. Rather than paying for such a highly qualified surgeon to always be there on staff, the hospital could have a telesurgery suite and bring in the expertise when needed.
I find this a dubious argument personally, but it is one argument that can be made. A more likely situation is a surgeon, who is the best at a particularly tricky procedure, helps out a local surgeon do that procedure, but via telepresence.
I've considered it (and the scan-the-hardcopy suggested by another responder). The problem is that both of those only give me data with the resolution of the screen. Saving to floppy gives me the actual numerical data, which is both denser and more accurate than what appears on screen.
Maybe we should talk to this guy.
I've got a semi-old (ca 2001) digital oscilloscope. There are only two ways to pull data off it: export a screen shot to a printer via a parallel port, or export to 3.5" floppy (screenshot or raw data). So, I've got a couple of floppies lying around. Can't say I've actually bought any in many years - I just always seem to have a couple lying around. Maybe I ought to just to make sure I've got a supply for the future.
I suppose I could also replace the scope. Newer ones can connect to a host PC via USB, or offload to a thumb drive, or be network-attached. The specs on newer ones are, obviously, a lot better, too. But, really, why spend many thousands of dollars on new equipment just to get around using a floppy drive?
This goes far beyond traffic violations. The law allows (requires, actually), the police to ask for proof of citizenship if, in the context of any lawful interaction, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may be an illegal immigrant.
The key part of that is the "any lawful interaction" part. Traffic stop for any legitimate or trumped up reason? Lawful interaction. Interviewing a witness or victim of a crime? Lawful interaction. Police officer on the beat wants to strike up a conversation? Lawful interaction. Starting to see how sticky and open to abuse this issue is, yet?
And that "reasonable suspicion" part is quite vague now, isn't it. It's not probable cause - this is a much lower bar. Reasonable suspicion could mean just about anything. It's just asking for widespread abuse. Reasonable suspicion in a lot of cases could - despite what anyone would actually say out loud - just a shorthand for "looked hispanic." And while the law prohibits race and ethnicity from being the sole basis of the reasonable suspicion, just how difficult will it be to come up with some other reason to put on paper?