I think you misread (I wasn't terribly clear about it, sorry).
What I meant was that nearly every time I've heard extrasolar planets discussed at any length, someone makes it a point to say that the vast majority of star systems are binary or trinary, so simple and predictable planetary cycles like ours are rare. The finding that most stars don't have partners changes all that.
I can't honestly point at any negative reviews right now. It's been a long time, and those may have been engineering models that still had some bugs. As for guerilla advertising, notice that I made a point to say that I haven't used it myself and might be surprised by how well it works.
I like Nintendo. I thought the N64 controller was brilliant, by far the best console controller of its time. I don't own or know anyone who owns a Gamecube, so I've not had enough exposure to it to comment. I simply have my reservations about how effectively *any* one-handed controller will handle a game like Halo of KOTOR.
Innovation is always a good thing. That doesn't mean that everything innovative is always good, nor that what is great for one person won't be terrible for the next. I'm genuinely looking forward to trying out a revolution just to see if it lives up to its name...I just have my doubts and am expressing them. I'm sorry if that troubles you so.
...how often we have to unlearn what we've been taught for so long by scientists. This has been one of the more basic tenets of astronomy, something almost always mentioned when discussing extrasolar planets at any length. And now we're being told that two hundred years of teaching was wrong?
The longer I live, the less enamored I am with science. I was always taught that it's this great infallible thing, that science only knows fact. This is a prime example of just how wrong science can be. I suppose I'm just going to have to become a creationist now, at least they never change their stories.
The vast majority of material I've read about this thing has been negative. Can't say I've been terribly impressed by the neutral information, myself. A one-handed control seems counterintuitive and cumbersome for fast-paced games where a controller designed for two hands is far better suited.
But, I've never had occasion to try one out...maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised by it when it finally hits the shelves.
Bottom line, Vista will be Microsoft's biggest flop since BOB.
Kind of like XP was, right?
Vista won't be instantly adopted. Neither was XP. It was six months before I had a copy of it, and a lot of large organizations waited two years to migrate from 2000 to XP. I migrated one company in late 2004.
Microsoft knows that companies will eventually migrate as their budgets and systems are able. They know that more technical users will want to upgrade for the new features and (supposed) security. And they know that the average user will make the switch whenever they start running into software that requires it or they buy a new computer.
When it's all said and done, if Vista lasts as long as XP (5+ years) then the vast majority of Microsoft PCs will be running it by the end of its life.
Price: I wish they'd get over that. If I walk into Wal-Mart and buy a DVD, as much as half of what I pay goes to Wal-Mart. That covers things like the building I walked into, the cashier who checked me out, the stocker who put it on the shelf, and the entire logistical system that got it from the factory to the store. Of the remaining half, a portion of that goes to the manufacture of the DVD, case, and cover. If I buy a digital copy, I don't pay for any of those things, which means the studio is just drastically increasing its profit margin while removing the middle man.
Upload quota: All I can say is they'd better let me limit it all I want if I'm paying to download something. I don't want to have to step my Torrents down just to get bandwidth to upload a movie I *PAID FOR*.
It will be a success though, if they can make it easy to use and not too heavily restricted (if the movies can only be watched on their player, it's dead before it gets off the ground).
It seems the television networks and movie studios are learning from the record labels what not to do. A lot of networks are jumping on board with Google and iTunes, and now Warner is looking at embracing digital distribution before movie sharing becomes as commonplace as music sharing has been for the past seven years.
What I'm most excited about is Firefly Season 2. From the buzz I've been hearing, they intend on doing something really revolutionary with it: it's going to be a subscription-based show not available on any networks. If the Browncoats can fully support a show the caliber of FireFly, that's going to force the network execs to sit up and take notice.
We have long wait times for tech support. Do we:
a) Not care and make our customers wait.
b) Hire more tech support agents to help our customers.
c) Shut down the majority of our American call centers and route American tech support calls to a call center on the other side of the world in a nation that does not natively speak English.
d) Sell our stock and tank the company Enron-style.
Hmm...
I thought Dell's market share was slipping in the U.S. following their outsourcing of tech support and the frustration/language barrier it created. When are they going to be adding more jobs back in the U.S. to satisfy their customers here?
There's nothing wrong with the URL. It's probably a browser issue; try Firefox, and if that doesn't work try Opera. If politics.slashdot.org works, del.icio.us should work, too./translation
Firewalls *can* filter by URL. I suppose the device that does it may not *technically* be considered a firewall, but we have filters here (school district) that block a number of strings in the URL (nude, for example), as well as specific URLs (www.ebay.com) AND IP addresses. That way things are blocked such as a Google image search or sites that change hosts and their IPs along with them.
It would have to be one hell of a service, to convince everybody to buy Yet Another Portable Media Player.
Why not? Apple managed to do that. I can't tell you how many times I've read a post that someone owns an Ipod, Ipod Mini, Ipod Nano, Ipod Shuffle, and is thinking about getting an Ipod Video.
Look, here's a nifty media player! Now we made it smaller! Look, it's smaller again! Hey, here's an even smaller one! It's big again, but this one lets you watch movies on a 2-inch screen! Look, we just got you to spend $1,500* on portable media players in five years!
* - price is estimated as I don't remember what all the Ipods sold for. So if you were planning on chiming in just to tell me that they really _only_ cost $1,250 and I'm an idiot because I don't even know what Ipods sold for in 2001, you're wasting your time.
My Windows XP system has gone four years without a virus. My wife's Windows ME (ugh...I know...but it's hers) system has had one virus in five years, and that was a relatively harmless Alexa strain before we got married and I had better access to secure it.
I'm tired of the zealots telling me how insecure my OS is when I've gone this long without a virus.
From a "kazaa lite" search:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
That's what they're going to do in China, too. Explain to me how that's evil?
picked this up on another forum today. Search google.com for "kazaa lite". Scroll down to the bottom. There should be a note that one or two results were removed due to a request based on the DMCA. It may not work outside the US.
There's certainly precedent for Google removing something from its search results and/or cache.
What I said, emphasis added: "For those of you who simply don't comprehend why RECORD LABELS are trying to protect copyrights and prevent sharing/piracy of music..."
You're nitpicking about something I didn't even say.
It also means that an illegal copy is an inferior copy.
The best way to do it would be to offer security patches without offering any other updates. They could even tweak their DirectX installers so that a Windows PC would have to have been previously validated before they install. No service packs, no updates, just patches for security issues. Best of both worlds.
I selected "Plain Old Text". I really did. Here's the post as it SHOULD have looked (easier on the eyes):
The RIAA is saying that if I record my own song with my own equipment and host it on my own computer, I'm breaking the law? Yay for vague language. Might want to add "copyrighted" in there somewhere next time.
For those of you who simply don't comprehend why record labels are trying to protect copyrights and prevent sharing/piracy of music, I'll break it down for you. They pay talent scouts and agents to find artists they think you'll want to listen to. They buy/build/lease a building to use as a recording studio, build top-quality sets, buy high-end equipment, hire professionals to operate and maintain the equipment and buildings, often pay the artists up front, pay for the utilities used during production, pay other professionals to edit/remaster the tracks, pay artists to design the cover and disc art, and pay for the manufacture of the discs, cases, and covers. Then they pay salesmen to go out and find distributors for the albums. On top of that, you've got all the staff that support all those people, plus the overpaid executives that manage the whole shebang.
In other words, they want to stop piracy because they have a lot of money wrapped up in the production of music, and like anyone with half a brain they are seeking to protect their investment. I don't blame them...if I was investing millions of dollars into a project, I wouldn't want people making unauthorized copies of it for their friends either.
That doesn't mean I like the RIAA. I think the labels are trying to maintain a decades-old business model which simply doesn't work any more. Rather than embrace the digital age and make music easy to buy online, they spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars (ab)using the courts and Congress in an attempt to prop up a system which gives them a higher bottom line.
It comes down to control, really. In the late 90s, the record labels had it. They controlled the vast majority of the radio stations indirectly by telling them what to play. It was a coordinated effort: the stations play a song five or six times a day while the labels push the albums at music magazines and buy sign space at major record store chains across the nation. It essentially guaranteed that the majority of listeners bought whatever was put in front of them.
Then came Napster. People had access to tens of thousands of songs at the click of a button. Average people started chatting with others who shared their tastes. Indie bands suddenly found an outlet called the internet. One could literally have a song distributed to millions of people and never make a CD. The labels saw their bottom line shrinking and panicked. They *could* have developed a more modern distribution system. Instead they foolishly thought they could fight world-wide piracy and spent precious years suing everyone under the sun. Then, when they finally started to accept that consumers want digital music, they forced inflexible DRM schemes in an attempt to prevent people who legally buy music online from sharing it. They still don't get it, but at least the market is better off than it was six years ago.
I'm looking forward to it. Snow in Texas would be nice. And we'll get to hear lovely anecdotes from survivors about running down halls from air so cold it crystallizes people but won't come in a room because there's gasp a fire in the fireplace.
The RIAA is saying that if I record my own song with my own equipment and host it on my own computer, I'm breaking the law? Yay for vague language. Might want to add "copyrighted" in there somewhere next time.
For those of you who simply don't comprehend why record labels are trying to protect copyrights and prevent sharing/piracy of music, I'll break it down for you. They pay talent scouts and agents to find artists they think you'll want to listen to. They buy/build/lease a building to use as a recording studio, build top-quality sets, buy high-end equipment, hire professionals to operate and maintain the equipment and buildings, often pay the artists up front, pay for the utilities used during production, pay other professionals to edit/remaster the tracks, pay artists to design the cover and disc art, and pay for the manufacture of the discs, cases, and covers. Then they pay salesmen to go out and find distributors for the albums. On top of that, you've got all the staff that support all those people, plus the overpaid executives that manage the whole shebang.
In other words, they want to stop piracy because they have a lot of money wrapped up in the production of music, and like anyone with half a brain they are seeking to protect their investment. I don't blame them...if I was investing millions of dollars into a project, I wouldn't want people making unauthorized copies of it for their friends either.
That doesn't mean I like the RIAA. I think the labels are trying to maintain a decades-old business model which simply doesn't work any more. Rather than embrace the digital age and make music easy to buy online, they spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars (ab)using the courts and Congress in an attempt to prop up a system which gives them a higher bottom line.
It comes down to control, really. In the late 90s, the record labels had it. They controlled the vast majority of the radio stations indirectly by telling them what to play. It was a coordinated effort: the stations play a song five or six times a day while the labels push the albums at music magazines and buy sign space at major record store chains across the nation. It essentially guaranteed that the majority of listeners bought whatever was put in front of them.
Then came Napster. People had access to tens of thousands of songs at the click of a button. Average people started chatting with others who shared their tastes. Indie bands suddenly found an outlet called the internet. One could literally have a song distributed to millions of people and never make a CD. The labels saw their bottom line shrinking and panicked. They *could* have developed a more modern distribution system. Instead they foolishly thought they could fight world-wide piracy and spent precious years suing everyone under the sun. Then, when they finally started to accept that consumers want digital music, they forced inflexible DRM schemes in an attempt to prevent people who legally buy music online from sharing it. They still don't get it, but at least the market is better off than it was six years ago.
I have a sudden urge to post the O RLY owl.
In on-topic news, I can't say I find this particularly impressive. From what I know about Sundance, it's pretty easy to predict winners based on past patterns and current trends in film-making. Granted, the popularity contest known as the Grammys is easier by several miles...
I've always heard that I would "love" Macs for some reason or another. In my business it seemed prudent to own a Mac and so bought one in the late 90s.
In almost 10 years of having a Mac, I've never needed it. Now I don't even use it. I picked up a Mac laptop off eBay a few years ago for $150. It's sat unused--except for very occasional ventures into Macland to answer a customer's question--ever since.
OSX is a nifty OS and all, but even with the hefty G5s I supported at my last job I've never been so impressed by a Mac that I wanted to shelf my Windows system for it. The only Macs with performance on par with my $1,500 computer cost $3,000 and up, the OS isn't THAT impressive compared to Windows, and options are limited.
...once they've fixed this problem, I think Mac sales will really take off.
There's still the little problem of software. I know there's a lot of Mac software out there, but it's nothing like the PC market. The average user doesn't really get that, but a lot of salesmen do. Salesmen don't want to be the guys who sold a useless computer, so they'll push PCs to be safe.
IMO, we'd all be better off if Apple would release a fully x86-compatible version of OSX that supported a wide range of apps and get out of the hardware biz, even though we all know they won't.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you misread (I wasn't terribly clear about it, sorry).
What I meant was that nearly every time I've heard extrasolar planets discussed at any length, someone makes it a point to say that the vast majority of star systems are binary or trinary, so simple and predictable planetary cycles like ours are rare. The finding that most stars don't have partners changes all that.
I can't honestly point at any negative reviews right now. It's been a long time, and those may have been engineering models that still had some bugs. As for guerilla advertising, notice that I made a point to say that I haven't used it myself and might be surprised by how well it works.
I like Nintendo. I thought the N64 controller was brilliant, by far the best console controller of its time. I don't own or know anyone who owns a Gamecube, so I've not had enough exposure to it to comment. I simply have my reservations about how effectively *any* one-handed controller will handle a game like Halo of KOTOR.
Innovation is always a good thing. That doesn't mean that everything innovative is always good, nor that what is great for one person won't be terrible for the next. I'm genuinely looking forward to trying out a revolution just to see if it lives up to its name...I just have my doubts and am expressing them. I'm sorry if that troubles you so.
...how often we have to unlearn what we've been taught for so long by scientists. This has been one of the more basic tenets of astronomy, something almost always mentioned when discussing extrasolar planets at any length. And now we're being told that two hundred years of teaching was wrong?
The longer I live, the less enamored I am with science. I was always taught that it's this great infallible thing, that science only knows fact. This is a prime example of just how wrong science can be. I suppose I'm just going to have to become a creationist now, at least they never change their stories.
(that last part was a joke)
"And in a recent Freedom of Information Act, these images of Natalie Portman were released..."
Ahh crap they blacked out all the good parts...
The vast majority of material I've read about this thing has been negative. Can't say I've been terribly impressed by the neutral information, myself. A one-handed control seems counterintuitive and cumbersome for fast-paced games where a controller designed for two hands is far better suited. But, I've never had occasion to try one out...maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised by it when it finally hits the shelves.
Kind of like XP was, right?
Vista won't be instantly adopted. Neither was XP. It was six months before I had a copy of it, and a lot of large organizations waited two years to migrate from 2000 to XP. I migrated one company in late 2004.
Microsoft knows that companies will eventually migrate as their budgets and systems are able. They know that more technical users will want to upgrade for the new features and (supposed) security. And they know that the average user will make the switch whenever they start running into software that requires it or they buy a new computer.
When it's all said and done, if Vista lasts as long as XP (5+ years) then the vast majority of Microsoft PCs will be running it by the end of its life.
Price: I wish they'd get over that. If I walk into Wal-Mart and buy a DVD, as much as half of what I pay goes to Wal-Mart. That covers things like the building I walked into, the cashier who checked me out, the stocker who put it on the shelf, and the entire logistical system that got it from the factory to the store. Of the remaining half, a portion of that goes to the manufacture of the DVD, case, and cover. If I buy a digital copy, I don't pay for any of those things, which means the studio is just drastically increasing its profit margin while removing the middle man.
Upload quota: All I can say is they'd better let me limit it all I want if I'm paying to download something. I don't want to have to step my Torrents down just to get bandwidth to upload a movie I *PAID FOR*.
It will be a success though, if they can make it easy to use and not too heavily restricted (if the movies can only be watched on their player, it's dead before it gets off the ground).
What I'm most excited about is Firefly Season 2. From the buzz I've been hearing, they intend on doing something really revolutionary with it: it's going to be a subscription-based show not available on any networks. If the Browncoats can fully support a show the caliber of FireFly, that's going to force the network execs to sit up and take notice.
We have long wait times for tech support. Do we: a) Not care and make our customers wait. b) Hire more tech support agents to help our customers. c) Shut down the majority of our American call centers and route American tech support calls to a call center on the other side of the world in a nation that does not natively speak English. d) Sell our stock and tank the company Enron-style. Hmm...
I thought Dell's market share was slipping in the U.S. following their outsourcing of tech support and the frustration/language barrier it created. When are they going to be adding more jobs back in the U.S. to satisfy their customers here?
Translated from jerk:
/translation
There's nothing wrong with the URL. It's probably a browser issue; try Firefox, and if that doesn't work try Opera. If politics.slashdot.org works, del.icio.us should work, too.
Firewalls *can* filter by URL. I suppose the device that does it may not *technically* be considered a firewall, but we have filters here (school district) that block a number of strings in the URL (nude, for example), as well as specific URLs (www.ebay.com) AND IP addresses. That way things are blocked such as a Google image search or sites that change hosts and their IPs along with them.
Yes. Didn't you hear? The couple who developed FlavaCrack (TM) had an autistic kid.
Why not? Apple managed to do that. I can't tell you how many times I've read a post that someone owns an Ipod, Ipod Mini, Ipod Nano, Ipod Shuffle, and is thinking about getting an Ipod Video.
Look, here's a nifty media player! Now we made it smaller! Look, it's smaller again! Hey, here's an even smaller one! It's big again, but this one lets you watch movies on a 2-inch screen! Look, we just got you to spend $1,500* on portable media players in five years!
* - price is estimated as I don't remember what all the Ipods sold for. So if you were planning on chiming in just to tell me that they really _only_ cost $1,250 and I'm an idiot because I don't even know what Ipods sold for in 2001, you're wasting your time.
My Windows XP system has gone four years without a virus. My wife's Windows ME (ugh...I know...but it's hers) system has had one virus in five years, and that was a relatively harmless Alexa strain before we got married and I had better access to secure it.
I'm tired of the zealots telling me how insecure my OS is when I've gone this long without a virus.
Let's not forget the first virus was on an Apple.
From a "kazaa lite" search: In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org. That's what they're going to do in China, too. Explain to me how that's evil?
There's certainly precedent for Google removing something from its search results and/or cache.
See my reply to my own post.
You said that the RIAA:
What I said, emphasis added: "For those of you who simply don't comprehend why RECORD LABELS are trying to protect copyrights and prevent sharing/piracy of music..."
You're nitpicking about something I didn't even say.
It also means that an illegal copy is an inferior copy.
The best way to do it would be to offer security patches without offering any other updates. They could even tweak their DirectX installers so that a Windows PC would have to have been previously validated before they install. No service packs, no updates, just patches for security issues. Best of both worlds.
I selected "Plain Old Text". I really did. Here's the post as it SHOULD have looked (easier on the eyes):
The RIAA is saying that if I record my own song with my own equipment and host it on my own computer, I'm breaking the law? Yay for vague language. Might want to add "copyrighted" in there somewhere next time.
For those of you who simply don't comprehend why record labels are trying to protect copyrights and prevent sharing/piracy of music, I'll break it down for you. They pay talent scouts and agents to find artists they think you'll want to listen to. They buy/build/lease a building to use as a recording studio, build top-quality sets, buy high-end equipment, hire professionals to operate and maintain the equipment and buildings, often pay the artists up front, pay for the utilities used during production, pay other professionals to edit/remaster the tracks, pay artists to design the cover and disc art, and pay for the manufacture of the discs, cases, and covers. Then they pay salesmen to go out and find distributors for the albums. On top of that, you've got all the staff that support all those people, plus the overpaid executives that manage the whole shebang.
In other words, they want to stop piracy because they have a lot of money wrapped up in the production of music, and like anyone with half a brain they are seeking to protect their investment. I don't blame them...if I was investing millions of dollars into a project, I wouldn't want people making unauthorized copies of it for their friends either.
That doesn't mean I like the RIAA. I think the labels are trying to maintain a decades-old business model which simply doesn't work any more. Rather than embrace the digital age and make music easy to buy online, they spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars (ab)using the courts and Congress in an attempt to prop up a system which gives them a higher bottom line.
It comes down to control, really. In the late 90s, the record labels had it. They controlled the vast majority of the radio stations indirectly by telling them what to play. It was a coordinated effort: the stations play a song five or six times a day while the labels push the albums at music magazines and buy sign space at major record store chains across the nation. It essentially guaranteed that the majority of listeners bought whatever was put in front of them.
Then came Napster. People had access to tens of thousands of songs at the click of a button. Average people started chatting with others who shared their tastes. Indie bands suddenly found an outlet called the internet. One could literally have a song distributed to millions of people and never make a CD. The labels saw their bottom line shrinking and panicked. They *could* have developed a more modern distribution system. Instead they foolishly thought they could fight world-wide piracy and spent precious years suing everyone under the sun. Then, when they finally started to accept that consumers want digital music, they forced inflexible DRM schemes in an attempt to prevent people who legally buy music online from sharing it. They still don't get it, but at least the market is better off than it was six years ago.
I'm looking forward to it. Snow in Texas would be nice. And we'll get to hear lovely anecdotes from survivors about running down halls from air so cold it crystallizes people but won't come in a room because there's gasp a fire in the fireplace.
The RIAA is saying that if I record my own song with my own equipment and host it on my own computer, I'm breaking the law? Yay for vague language. Might want to add "copyrighted" in there somewhere next time. For those of you who simply don't comprehend why record labels are trying to protect copyrights and prevent sharing/piracy of music, I'll break it down for you. They pay talent scouts and agents to find artists they think you'll want to listen to. They buy/build/lease a building to use as a recording studio, build top-quality sets, buy high-end equipment, hire professionals to operate and maintain the equipment and buildings, often pay the artists up front, pay for the utilities used during production, pay other professionals to edit/remaster the tracks, pay artists to design the cover and disc art, and pay for the manufacture of the discs, cases, and covers. Then they pay salesmen to go out and find distributors for the albums. On top of that, you've got all the staff that support all those people, plus the overpaid executives that manage the whole shebang. In other words, they want to stop piracy because they have a lot of money wrapped up in the production of music, and like anyone with half a brain they are seeking to protect their investment. I don't blame them...if I was investing millions of dollars into a project, I wouldn't want people making unauthorized copies of it for their friends either. That doesn't mean I like the RIAA. I think the labels are trying to maintain a decades-old business model which simply doesn't work any more. Rather than embrace the digital age and make music easy to buy online, they spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars (ab)using the courts and Congress in an attempt to prop up a system which gives them a higher bottom line. It comes down to control, really. In the late 90s, the record labels had it. They controlled the vast majority of the radio stations indirectly by telling them what to play. It was a coordinated effort: the stations play a song five or six times a day while the labels push the albums at music magazines and buy sign space at major record store chains across the nation. It essentially guaranteed that the majority of listeners bought whatever was put in front of them. Then came Napster. People had access to tens of thousands of songs at the click of a button. Average people started chatting with others who shared their tastes. Indie bands suddenly found an outlet called the internet. One could literally have a song distributed to millions of people and never make a CD. The labels saw their bottom line shrinking and panicked. They *could* have developed a more modern distribution system. Instead they foolishly thought they could fight world-wide piracy and spent precious years suing everyone under the sun. Then, when they finally started to accept that consumers want digital music, they forced inflexible DRM schemes in an attempt to prevent people who legally buy music online from sharing it. They still don't get it, but at least the market is better off than it was six years ago.
Erasers.
I have a sudden urge to post the O RLY owl. In on-topic news, I can't say I find this particularly impressive. From what I know about Sundance, it's pretty easy to predict winners based on past patterns and current trends in film-making. Granted, the popularity contest known as the Grammys is easier by several miles...
I've always heard that I would "love" Macs for some reason or another. In my business it seemed prudent to own a Mac and so bought one in the late 90s.
In almost 10 years of having a Mac, I've never needed it. Now I don't even use it. I picked up a Mac laptop off eBay a few years ago for $150. It's sat unused--except for very occasional ventures into Macland to answer a customer's question--ever since.
OSX is a nifty OS and all, but even with the hefty G5s I supported at my last job I've never been so impressed by a Mac that I wanted to shelf my Windows system for it. The only Macs with performance on par with my $1,500 computer cost $3,000 and up, the OS isn't THAT impressive compared to Windows, and options are limited.
There's still the little problem of software. I know there's a lot of Mac software out there, but it's nothing like the PC market. The average user doesn't really get that, but a lot of salesmen do. Salesmen don't want to be the guys who sold a useless computer, so they'll push PCs to be safe.
IMO, we'd all be better off if Apple would release a fully x86-compatible version of OSX that supported a wide range of apps and get out of the hardware biz, even though we all know they won't.