And 250GB is a reasonable limit for the price. That's roughly 100KB/s 24/7. Exactly. Comcast is starting to see the possibility of having their cable TV service hurt because people are starting to figure out that they can just stream television over IP. At first glance this 250GB limit sounds reasonable because people are thinking of it as 250GB that is downloaded and stored indefinitely on their disk. The limit is being put in place to prevent STREAMING media I.E. stuff that you DON'T keep around after you're finished watching it.
Now, that 250GB sounds fair if you're talking 1 computer, but what happens when MythTV gets their hulu.com plugin figured out and I stick a mythbox at every TV in my house? That is going to shift dollars away from comcast and towards hulu.
They're trying to future-proof their model. The limit sets a dangerous precendent. When fiber optic becomes that standard they can start selling people 20,30,40,50 whatever Mbps service, but since they have already established that 250GB limit as standard operating procedure, good luck actually usuing it.
I've been telling my liberal friends something along the same lines for YEARS. If you want to sit at the big kid's table, you're going to have to stop acting like a child, stop with the stupid, inflammatory bumper stickers, the "IMPEACH BUSH!" bullshit, all of it. Just STOP!
Start arguing like an adult and people might take you seriously. People like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore are betraying their own cause by allowing themselves to be a public face for the party, and using the stage to act like a jackass.
We NEED to have serious discussions right now or those 20 something kids with too much time and no real cause to get behind are going to start looking for SOMEBODY they can disagree with enough to start a fight.
Thats all great, and video-blogging is what seems to have sparked the current trend (commercial television studios started noticing that you can make MONEY on the internet). Just don't confuse home-made, low-budget free video-blogs that are distributed over the internet with the multi-million-dollar-making behemoths that are found on NBC.
Thing about the difference between systm and The Office. While YOU might enjoy systm (or whatever they call it now), it isn't really in the same category as something like 24, or 30 rock.
Have you noticed a new trend in digital media? NBC has most of their shows online for free. South Park has all of their online for free. Hulu.com hosts more TV shows that most people would want to watch in a lifetime online for FREE!
The problem with all of these services is that you have to put sitting in front of a computer to use them. IF these media companies can figure out a way to put their content (and with it, their ads) onto a portable device...well, then DRM be damned, I'm buying whatever device that IS.
This is a strategic, relationship building move by microsoft. NOthing more.
1: You can copy music on and off an iPod with great ease. There is no magic DRM preventing this *at all*. YOu're right, they would never Intentionally take measures to prevent third parties from writing software that allows for transfer to and from the ipod.
2: Apple are quite happy to let you rip their music to cd, and then to mp3. It's no different, and sounds no different from ripping a bought music cd. You're right! How gracious of apple to ALLOW you to transfer a piece of your property to another piece of your property! Its almost like we're PAYING thing for this or something.
3: The iPod only has DRM on it because Apple new they would get sued to fuck if they didn't, or if they went around allowing direct circumvention. By allowing copying to audio cd they avoid this via the fair use claim. Please cite at least 1 example of a company being sued for creating a device that allows people to play MP3s. You might want to let Justin Frankel know that he should have been "sued to fuck" (whatever that meansd) for creating winamp instead of chilling in his multi-million dollar home studio.
4: A *lot* of available iPod content is not DRM'd anyway. Right AGAIN! How GRACIOUS of apple to allow you to play the music that you purchased on anything other than their blessed device!
The problem is that I think it is much much MUCH more that a 51% majority that doesn't think gay-marriage is okay.
As much as i really WANT it to be true that gay marriage doesn't effect straight couples, I really think it does. Straight couples feel threatened by gay ones. Because of this, marriage can be looked at (by them) as something that is THEIRS. It is their own special little club, and only they are invited.
Some people are old school. Some people hate turning on the TV and seeing 20 something MTV real-worlders sleeping with everything that moves because to some people, that is something that is supposed to be "special" (although, I think sentiment is a concept that is pretty much dead in the eyes of most people). These are the people that hate seeing couples divorce and having it just be "no big deal, yeah we just separated", or having intimacy reduced to things like swingers clubs. I know, I know mod -1 "Catholic"..but its just who I am.
To these people, marriage is a way of separating themselves from everyone else. Its a way of making them feel like their relationship is "real", not just empty, physical thing.
So when you allow gays to marry, yes, you ARE taking something away from them. Its not a completely harmless act.
I know that sucks, but thats where the anti-gay-marriage group is coming from.
Then there is me....I don't agree with gay marriage (like I said, i'm catholic, yes you're allowed to hate me for that if you want to), but I certainly don't want the government telling me what I can do in my bedroom, and similarly don't think it has any place telling anyone else what they can do in theirs. I also don't think that it is the government's place to tell a group of people that they aren't allowed to marry. So yeah, gay marriage seems weird to me, and I don't like it. However, I will completely respect a gay couple's right to marry, and I think that everyone else should to. Just because I disagree with it, doesn't mean that my views should be FORCED upon anyone else.
I know this doesn't make much sense, but I'm about 2 gin an tonics between "awake" and "asleep".
I don't see how that's "stepping on somebody's toes" any more than American Christians are "stepping on the toes" of Muslim theocrats in the Middle East by not converting to Islam. Its not. Its the same thing.
My point is that mandating that gays be allowed to marry would be the same as forcing American Christians to convert to Islam. YOu're pissing off one group of people to appease another.
By mandating that gays be allowed to marry, you are forcing the anti-gay group to accept homosexual marriage. By NOT allowing gay marriage, you are forcing homosexuals to accept that they are not allowed to marry.
Currently the anti-gay group has the majority, and because of this gay marriage is not allowed. If the anti-gay group ever LOSES the majority and gays are allowed to marry, then they have two choices: A) Live in a country which accepts gay marriage B) Leave.
Gays currently have the same choices.
Are you suggesting that we should force the majority to accept your views simply because YOU think they're right? It should be (and currently IS) up to the people to decide.
My point is that it isn't the place of the government to tell people that their views are wrong.
Take a racist, ku klux klan asshole. You (hopefully) and I both agree that he is a jackass, but it is his RIGHT to be a jackass. That is what people seem to be losing touch with here. The people who are anti-gay are jerks, but it is their right to BE jerks.
Ah slashdot.:) Look, I'm not anti-gay marriage. At all. I don't agree with it, i don't LIKE it, but I also don't think that it is my, or any other person's place to dictate to somebody whether or not they're "married". I'm also not naive enough to think that allowing gays to marry would not have an effect on straight couples. They might be bigoted, they might have their head up their ass, they might be ignorant, but that doesn't change the fact that they feel the way they do about it. The anti-gay people DO think that homosexuality is wrong. They DO. They might not be right, but in their own minds, they are. So, if you pass legislation that gays MUST be allowed to marry, you ARE effecting the people who are anti-gay. You obviously don't like their right to disagree, and I can understand that, but what you need to understand is that the rest of the planet does not share your views. Change something and you are going to be stepping on somebody's toes.
Whereas "pro gay" legislation would allow homosexuals to marry, and has no impact whatsoever on the marriages of heterosexuals. So it is not in any way "anti" anything. Yes it is. Not all of us look at marriage as some prize that can be won on a reality show, or some tool that should be manipulated to pursue an agenda.
The guy's defense is pretty good. Basically its something along the lines of:
"Look, when I was in high school me and some friends used to trade video games with one another after school. Yes, it was stupid. Yes, it was illegal. No, I haven't been a part of that for a 20 years.".
As far as his email still being @fairlight, that is also pretty easily defendable. "Me and some friends bought our first domain name way back in the early nineties. It was a bit of a novelty and *chuckle* we were kindof a bunch of nerds. I can assure you that I keep that old email address around for purely nostalgic reasons".
TO those who think the guy should hang for this: How many of you would love the opportunity to make a difference by working in politics? Now how many of you can say that you've never logged into an IRC channel that exists for not-so-copyright-friendly reasons? Or downloaded some files from an FTP that you knew you weren't supposed to have. Howabout even set the date on your computer back a few years to use some shareware that was all the rage in the mid 90s?
Even if this guy still *IS* an active member of fairlight, try explaining what the "warez-scene" is to any non-geek and see how far you get.
And honestly, don't you all think its kindof nice to have somebody on the inside that is pretty clearly a technical person? Do you think this guy is going to have any trouble understand WHY net neutrality should even be a question? Do you think it would be hard to explain to this guy why what the RIAA and MPAA are doing is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money?
So when was the last time you drove a two-seater roadster with extremely limited storage space more than 100 miles away from your home? Better yet, when was the last time *you* drove 100 miles away from your home? My point being, it doesn't happen every day for most people. Even so, you can charge the Tesla from a standard outlet if you're away from home. But a roadster (electric or otherwise) isn't exactly the best choice for a road trip anyway. Who says you need to go on a roadtrip to drive over 100 miles? I work about 30 Miles from my house. So a commute is 60 miles every day. After I get home and decide that I want to go out, I can easily see driving another 20 miles from my house to wherever I'm going and back. That will put me over the 100 mile limit.
And if you've never taken a roadtrip in a sports car I really recommend it. Its weird, but for some reason cars that are a lot of fun to drive end up being...well....a lot of fun to drive.
Lets face it, the concept of a SSN being a positive identification needs to just stop. Do I have a solution? No, but the fact that somebody can walk into a bank and open an account in my name simply by possessing My publicly available address, and a 9 digit number needs to be looked at as an absolute failure. The tin foil hat wearing crowd will object until the very end, but IMHO biometrics need to become the standard. A retina scan, is something that is not easily forged (i'm not saying its not possible, but i don't know of any existing tech. that does it). Smart card technology is only going to get better and, as encryption gets stronger, people need to start trusting it more. I would absolutely not be opposed to an ID with my photo, and a retina scan embedded onto a smart card as a form of positive id. Should I have to submit to a retina scan in order to buy a drink? Absolutely not, but the credit system is about to die. It simply isn't something that can be trusted anymore. It is far far far FAR too easy to snatch somebody's identity.
And that is exactly where the problem is. Anything that has been CREATED by a computer can be reverse engineered by a computer. I know that there were some really HUGE databases created a few years ago that were trying to create artificial intelligence (one of them was called CYC, another was called GAC, there is a wired article about them here) the idea was that people would answer hundreds of thousands of questions like "are purples round?" or similarly silly questions. The hope was that we could programs some sort of "sense" into the computer. As far as I know it failed horribly. BUT!, maybe we can resurrect it for captcha use: "Answer these 8 questions" or "which one of these questions is true"
The point is that in any industry (and in the technology especially) ideas get passed around, bought, stolen, exchanged, traded, collaborated on etc. all the time. You point the finger at Microsoft for shipping a Data center in a Shipping Container because sun brought it to market first. Well, incremental backups have been around for YEARS before mac came along and started shipping software that does it and claiming it as their own, same thing with the "Dock" it existed in KDE wayyy before they did it in mac, the BSD kernel as well...none of these things were invented by apple, they're all just obvious evolutions in the technology industry. Nobody should fault apple for using these concepts, and similarly nobody should fault Microsoft for putting some servers in a shipping container.
There was a captcha a while ago that pulled pictures and "hottness" information from hotornot.com, then asked the user to select three of the 9 people that were "hott". link
While this approach probably wouldn't be very appropriate for "serious" companies to use (think IBM, microsoft, usbank, etc.) as protection from bots, I feel like it is a step in the right direction. There are things that humans are really good at and captcha builders need to start using them. For instance: show somebody 5 pictures of similarly sized and colored dogs, and ask them which one is a Golden Retriever, or show them 5 pictures of cars (like 4 ford Tauruses and 1 ferrari) and ask them to identify which one is the most expensive. or 5 pictures of people and ask which one is the oldest, 4 mopeds and 1 ducatti and which one is the fastest.
I could keep going, but the point is that we have evolved to be good at determining things that computers still have trouble with (like attractiveness).
So you're a Mac user, huh? You might want to look into a Windowing System known as "KDE", and then possibly something called "BSD", maybe even "RSYNC", or "THE NOKIA 770" before you start pointing fingers at anyone for buying/stealing ideas.
I know that sun was the first to bring it to market (I remember drooling over the pictures of it when it came out). My point was that to say that Microsoft somehow "stole" this idea is a little ignorant considering how obvious it is. The demand has been there for a long time (mostly from the military), the fact that Sun was the first company to ship one is irrelevant.
Data center in a shipping container is hardly an original idea. Its one of those things that everybody thinks of on their own at some point. Not to mention the fact that just about every single spy movie ever made has got some scaled down version of one lodged into the back of a van at some point.
This really feels like a neat piece of tech just LOOKING for a market. The linked website doesn't say anything about fitting a laptop hardrive or anything inside of it. It just says "flash card". So it can't store much, but it DOES have ethernet ports.
So is this thing pointing itself at the Soekris or W.R.A.P boards then (these devices are both aimed at embedded firewalls, and wireless access points)? It really doesn't look that way.
So you've basically got yourself a little box, with a flash card slot in it, and some ethernet ports on it. It doesn't have a very big Processor, or a much RAM.
Admitted newbie question here, but why do people even RUN MS IIS? Is there something that it does that can't be done on Apache? Windows XP makes a great desktop environment for the office, but where does Microsoft have any business making server software other than Domain Controllers for telling their desktop machines what to do?
It works pretty well for me on linux. The only reason that I ever got flock is because photobucket doesn't offer their own upload client for linux, and their web based one wouldn't work. If you're trying to upload 1000 pictures to photobucket via their standard upload interface then you fail. Get flock.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, that 250GB sounds fair if you're talking 1 computer, but what happens when MythTV gets their hulu.com plugin figured out and I stick a mythbox at every TV in my house? That is going to shift dollars away from comcast and towards hulu.
They're trying to future-proof their model. The limit sets a dangerous precendent. When fiber optic becomes that standard they can start selling people 20,30,40,50 whatever Mbps service, but since they have already established that 250GB limit as standard operating procedure, good luck actually usuing it.
Its a strategic move.
Thank you for saying this.
I've been telling my liberal friends something along the same lines for YEARS.
If you want to sit at the big kid's table, you're going to have to stop acting like a child, stop with the stupid, inflammatory bumper stickers, the "IMPEACH BUSH!" bullshit, all of it. Just STOP!
Start arguing like an adult and people might take you seriously. People like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore are betraying their own cause by allowing themselves to be a public face for the party, and using the stage to act like a jackass.
We NEED to have serious discussions right now or those 20 something kids with too much time and no real cause to get behind are going to start looking for SOMEBODY they can disagree with enough to start a fight.
Thats all great, and video-blogging is what seems to have sparked the current trend (commercial television studios started noticing that you can make MONEY on the internet). Just don't confuse home-made, low-budget free video-blogs that are distributed over the internet with the multi-million-dollar-making behemoths that are found on NBC.
Thing about the difference between systm and The Office. While YOU might enjoy systm (or whatever they call it now), it isn't really in the same category as something like 24, or 30 rock.
Have you noticed a new trend in digital media? NBC has most of their shows online for free. South Park has all of their online for free. Hulu.com hosts more TV shows that most people would want to watch in a lifetime online for FREE!
The problem with all of these services is that you have to put sitting in front of a computer to use them. IF these media companies can figure out a way to put their content (and with it, their ads) onto a portable device...well, then DRM be damned, I'm buying whatever device that IS.
This is a strategic, relationship building move by microsoft. NOthing more.
I'm glad you get what I'm saying.
The problem is that I think it is much much MUCH more that a 51% majority that doesn't think gay-marriage is okay.
As much as i really WANT it to be true that gay marriage doesn't effect straight couples, I really think it does. Straight couples feel threatened by gay ones. Because of this, marriage can be looked at (by them) as something that is THEIRS. It is their own special little club, and only they are invited.
Some people are old school. Some people hate turning on the TV and seeing 20 something MTV real-worlders sleeping with everything that moves because to some people, that is something that is supposed to be "special" (although, I think sentiment is a concept that is pretty much dead in the eyes of most people). These are the people that hate seeing couples divorce and having it just be "no big deal, yeah we just separated", or having intimacy reduced to things like swingers clubs.
I know, I know mod -1 "Catholic"..but its just who I am.
To these people, marriage is a way of separating themselves from everyone else. Its a way of making them feel like their relationship is "real", not just empty, physical thing.
So when you allow gays to marry, yes, you ARE taking something away from them. Its not a completely harmless act.
I know that sucks, but thats where the anti-gay-marriage group is coming from.
Then there is me....I don't agree with gay marriage (like I said, i'm catholic, yes you're allowed to hate me for that if you want to), but I certainly don't want the government telling me what I can do in my bedroom, and similarly don't think it has any place telling anyone else what they can do in theirs. I also don't think that it is the government's place to tell a group of people that they aren't allowed to marry.
So yeah, gay marriage seems weird to me, and I don't like it. However, I will completely respect a gay couple's right to marry, and I think that everyone else should to.
Just because I disagree with it, doesn't mean that my views should be FORCED upon anyone else.
I know this doesn't make much sense, but I'm about 2 gin an tonics between "awake" and "asleep".
My point is that mandating that gays be allowed to marry would be the same as forcing American Christians to convert to Islam. YOu're pissing off one group of people to appease another.
By mandating that gays be allowed to marry, you are forcing the anti-gay group to accept homosexual marriage. By NOT allowing gay marriage, you are forcing homosexuals to accept that they are not allowed to marry.
Currently the anti-gay group has the majority, and because of this gay marriage is not allowed. If the anti-gay group ever LOSES the majority and gays are allowed to marry, then they have two choices: A) Live in a country which accepts gay marriage B) Leave.
Gays currently have the same choices.
Are you suggesting that we should force the majority to accept your views simply because YOU think they're right?
It should be (and currently IS) up to the people to decide.
Yes, exactly.
My point is that it isn't the place of the government to tell people that their views are wrong.
Take a racist, ku klux klan asshole. You (hopefully) and I both agree that he is a jackass, but it is his RIGHT to be a jackass. That is what people seem to be losing touch with here. The people who are anti-gay are jerks, but it is their right to BE jerks.
Ah slashdot. :)
Look, I'm not anti-gay marriage. At all. I don't agree with it, i don't LIKE it, but I also don't think that it is my, or any other person's place to dictate to somebody whether or not they're "married". I'm also not naive enough to think that allowing gays to marry would not have an effect on straight couples. They might be bigoted, they might have their head up their ass, they might be ignorant, but that doesn't change the fact that they feel the way they do about it. The anti-gay people DO think that homosexuality is wrong. They DO. They might not be right, but in their own minds, they are. So, if you pass legislation that gays MUST be allowed to marry, you ARE effecting the people who are anti-gay. You obviously don't like their right to disagree, and I can understand that, but what you need to understand is that the rest of the planet does not share your views. Change something and you are going to be stepping on somebody's toes.
Not all of us look at marriage as some prize that can be won on a reality show, or some tool that should be manipulated to pursue an agenda.
The guy's defense is pretty good. Basically its something along the lines of:
"Look, when I was in high school me and some friends used to trade video games with one another after school. Yes, it was stupid. Yes, it was illegal. No, I haven't been a part of that for a 20 years.".
As far as his email still being @fairlight, that is also pretty easily defendable. "Me and some friends bought our first domain name way back in the early nineties. It was a bit of a novelty and *chuckle* we were kindof a bunch of nerds. I can assure you that I keep that old email address around for purely nostalgic reasons".
TO those who think the guy should hang for this: How many of you would love the opportunity to make a difference by working in politics? Now how many of you can say that you've never logged into an IRC channel that exists for not-so-copyright-friendly reasons? Or downloaded some files from an FTP that you knew you weren't supposed to have. Howabout even set the date on your computer back a few years to use some shareware that was all the rage in the mid 90s?
Even if this guy still *IS* an active member of fairlight, try explaining what the "warez-scene" is to any non-geek and see how far you get.
And honestly, don't you all think its kindof nice to have somebody on the inside that is pretty clearly a technical person? Do you think this guy is going to have any trouble understand WHY net neutrality should even be a question? Do you think it would be hard to explain to this guy why what the RIAA and MPAA are doing is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money?
I thought they were in response to This
Even still, a limit of 220 Miles is a bit silly for this to much more than a toy.
And if you've never taken a roadtrip in a sports car I really recommend it. Its weird, but for some reason cars that are a lot of fun to drive end up being...well....a lot of fun to drive.
One of us is failing hard at the funny.
Lets face it, the concept of a SSN being a positive identification needs to just stop. Do I have a solution? No, but the fact that somebody can walk into a bank and open an account in my name simply by possessing My publicly available address, and a 9 digit number needs to be looked at as an absolute failure. The tin foil hat wearing crowd will object until the very end, but IMHO biometrics need to become the standard. A retina scan, is something that is not easily forged (i'm not saying its not possible, but i don't know of any existing tech. that does it). Smart card technology is only going to get better and, as encryption gets stronger, people need to start trusting it more. I would absolutely not be opposed to an ID with my photo, and a retina scan embedded onto a smart card as a form of positive id. Should I have to submit to a retina scan in order to buy a drink? Absolutely not, but the credit system is about to die. It simply isn't something that can be trusted anymore. It is far far far FAR too easy to snatch somebody's identity.
or "When littlefoot's mother died in the original land before time, did you feel sad?"
;-) xkcd, obviously
bots, no lying!
i'll even provide a link
And that is exactly where the problem is. Anything that has been CREATED by a computer can be reverse engineered by a computer. I know that there were some really HUGE databases created a few years ago that were trying to create artificial intelligence (one of them was called CYC, another was called GAC, there is a wired article about them here) the idea was that people would answer hundreds of thousands of questions like "are purples round?" or similarly silly questions. The hope was that we could programs some sort of "sense" into the computer. As far as I know it failed horribly. BUT!, maybe we can resurrect it for captcha use: "Answer these 8 questions" or "which one of these questions is true"
The point is that in any industry (and in the technology especially) ideas get passed around, bought, stolen, exchanged, traded, collaborated on etc. all the time. You point the finger at Microsoft for shipping a Data center in a Shipping Container because sun brought it to market first. Well, incremental backups have been around for YEARS before mac came along and started shipping software that does it and claiming it as their own, same thing with the "Dock" it existed in KDE wayyy before they did it in mac, the BSD kernel as well...none of these things were invented by apple, they're all just obvious evolutions in the technology industry. Nobody should fault apple for using these concepts, and similarly nobody should fault Microsoft for putting some servers in a shipping container.
There was a captcha a while ago that pulled pictures and "hottness" information from hotornot.com, then asked the user to select three of the 9 people that were "hott". link
While this approach probably wouldn't be very appropriate for "serious" companies to use (think IBM, microsoft, usbank, etc.) as protection from bots, I feel like it is a step in the right direction. There are things that humans are really good at and captcha builders need to start using them. For instance: show somebody 5 pictures of similarly sized and colored dogs, and ask them which one is a Golden Retriever, or show them 5 pictures of cars (like 4 ford Tauruses and 1 ferrari) and ask them to identify which one is the most expensive. or 5 pictures of people and ask which one is the oldest, 4 mopeds and 1 ducatti and which one is the fastest.
I could keep going, but the point is that we have evolved to be good at determining things that computers still have trouble with (like attractiveness).
So you're a Mac user, huh? You might want to look into a Windowing System known as "KDE", and then possibly something called "BSD", maybe even "RSYNC", or "THE NOKIA 770" before you start pointing fingers at anyone for buying/stealing ideas.
I know that sun was the first to bring it to market (I remember drooling over the pictures of it when it came out). My point was that to say that Microsoft somehow "stole" this idea is a little ignorant considering how obvious it is.
The demand has been there for a long time (mostly from the military), the fact that Sun was the first company to ship one is irrelevant.
Data center in a shipping container is hardly an original idea. Its one of those things that everybody thinks of on their own at some point. Not to mention the fact that just about every single spy movie ever made has got some scaled down version of one lodged into the back of a van at some point.
But thanks for the well thought out comment!
This really feels like a neat piece of tech just LOOKING for a market. The linked website doesn't say anything about fitting a laptop hardrive or anything inside of it. It just says "flash card". So it can't store much, but it DOES have ethernet ports.
So is this thing pointing itself at the Soekris or W.R.A.P boards then (these devices are both aimed at embedded firewalls, and wireless access points)? It really doesn't look that way.
So you've basically got yourself a little box, with a flash card slot in it, and some ethernet ports on it. It doesn't have a very big Processor, or a much RAM.
So what, really, is the point of this thing?
Admitted newbie question here, but why do people even RUN MS IIS? Is there something that it does that can't be done on Apache? Windows XP makes a great desktop environment for the office, but where does Microsoft have any business making server software other than Domain Controllers for telling their desktop machines what to do?
It works pretty well for me on linux.
The only reason that I ever got flock is because photobucket doesn't offer their own upload client for linux, and their web based one wouldn't work.
If you're trying to upload 1000 pictures to photobucket via their standard upload interface then you fail.
Get flock.