In Computer Science, I think this reflects the value of the degrees to the populations in question. US Citizens don't need a graduate degree to get a good job. Foreigners do. All those tech companies mentioned in the article hire BS candidates in droves, but are not able to get government approval to hire foreigners with the same paperwork, so the foreigners need an MS to get the same job. It is crap for rules and I'm not defending it, but I think that is all that lies behind this difference in the CS field.
Step 2: "Looks like we've got to make a new driver for this new CPU version."
Step 3: "Done. The Windows 10 driver is great and we can release it. Yay!"
Step 4: "Do we have to make Win 7 version of this driver now?"
Step 5: "We told them we wouldn't support all the new stuff. Most of the people running old OSes are also running it on older hardware, so this won't affect that many people. Let's not do the extra work."
Step 5: Internet freaks out.
In all seriousness, I believe these chipsets were sold in machines that originally came with Windows 10 (or not with Windows). This only affects people who bought new PCs, then manually installed an old OS because they liked it more. That's low volume stuff that is only overrepresented here on Slashdot. Most of the world doesn't even notice moves like this, because their PC came with Windows, whatever version, and it still works and updates.
My kids had trouble with an eye chart. A symbol for a calculator was identified as a phone, and a symbol for a classic phone was unidentifiable.
In school testing, they asked what a key was for, and "starting cars" was deemed wrong. My kids have never seen me use a key to unlock a house door. Electronic locks and garage openers dominate. Adults often can't see how life appears to fresh eyes.
Your code that does division probably does that because division has a meaning, and you need that meaning. Trust me and everyone else here who knows math: the meaning you want does not include the case where you are dividing by zero. Dividing by zero is nonsensical in code and in life. So what went wrong with your program to get a zero into the denominator? That's the issue in your program. Is there a place where you can check user inputs to make sure they aren't insane? Is there a place where you're calculating what is supposed to be a very small number but sometimes it rounds down too low and makes your number zero by accident? Put the check there. Are you measuring or counting something that can legitimately be zero? I bet the division scenario doesn't apply in that case. Check for zero and do what does make sense. Fix your program.
As a follower, how will I know how to vote? I only vote for the apparent winner, because I don't want to waste my vote, and because I trust that everyone else puts thought into their votes so I don't have to. Without the polls to tell me who the winner is supposed to be, how will I decide?
It's time for a kickstarter to buy and donate new underwater viewing windows for the whales at SeaWorld made of this transparent aluminum. How many Trekkies would chip in for that? Lots. Yeah.
ULA. We seamlessly blend the consistency of Russian engine manufacturing with the speed of American engineering and the cost effectiveness of a government contractor. What could possibly go wrong?
In order for our proposed name to stick, we need to pick one that is both obviously insulting when viewed by those who agree with us and also seemingly-acceptable and even positive-sounding when viewed by those who love ULA.
My proposals are:
* Gold Standard
* Spruce
* Exorbital (Exorbitant + Orbital)
You all have got to be able to do better than that. Come on, float your own names...
I saw two errors so egregious in the first three pages that I can dismiss that paper immediately. First the authors claimed that stellar gasses need to be sufficiently ionized that magnetic field lines could be frozen in them. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of electromagnetism. These people could not possibly give fair treatment to an electromagnetic theory with such a basic misunderstanding. Second, they claim that obviously stars are not affected by the magnetic fields, and therefore they can falsify the opposing claim by demonstrating that gasses and stars move together. The plasma universe theories require a corresponding adjustment to our understanding of the stars themselves as strong electrically charged objects themselves, but more importantly the modeling of the flow of current is the key to understanding the electromagnetic forces acting on the gasses and stars.
It really bothers me to see quotes like this one: "There is more dark matter in the Universe than visible matter, but it is extremely elusive."
That's so matter of fact, and leaves no room for the possibility that the theory of dark matter is wrong. I feel that the certainty level around our understanding of this topic is low enough that it isn't fair to competing theories to say things like that as if they are observed fact. In fact, we've never detected dark matter. We infer its existence from a number of things that don't add up gravitationally without it, indicating we're missing something. Dark matter that interacts gravitationally allows us to model a universe that adds up, if only this invisible stuff were distributed just so.
This article shows yet another data point indicating that dark matter may not exist, because of how it continues to not react with stuff, just as it would if it weren't there at all. I don't mean to say that it's 100% wrong, but I think it's unfair to say with 100% certainty that it's true either. Shouldn't we as scientists be more careful with our words, and say that dark matter is BELIEVED to make up more of the universe than does visible matter, based on our current leading theories? I think being careful with what we know and how well we know it is important to maintaining trust with the public and with each-other.
The answer to what they're missing: Electric charge and currents.
The electric universe folks explain that galactic rotation rates do not require dark matter to make sense. The electric current through the galaxy adds forces on the charged stars and gasses that adds up to explain the observed motions. This article sheds more light on the problems with the dark matter theories. It's time to more strongly consider the possibility that dark matter isn't the answer.
I was so proud of them when they kicked IA64's ass with their amd64 architecture, beating Intel at their own game by choosing to be x86-compatible when even Intel didn't go that way. Then I was sad when amd64 started getting called x64, since it stripped AMD of the credit they deserved. Go AMD! A world without strong competition for Intel would be very bad for consumers.
Thank you for sharing your perspective like a gentleman. I respect that.
I think the core of our disagreement is with your expectation that all the things explained by LCDM must be explained by other theories. I believe it's perfectly fine for the answer to be that some things aren't connected. If we no longer assume we know the age of the universe, then predictions of element ratios no longer need to agree with observations of CMB, which may be totally disconnected from galaxy supercluster clumpiness. If red shift is seen to have some cause other than just expansion, then no unified theory has to predict how the universe got from a near-singularity to the observed state. Once you take a fixed finite timeline out of the picture, there can be different causes for different phenomena.
Reread my title, BorisTheSpider. I'm clearly talking to people like you. Your message showed exactly the unarguable hubris I'm talking about.
As for your challenges, if I'm allowed to make stuff up whenever I want to make my theory fit the model, I can do at least as well as the Lambda CDM. But then it'd be no better either. I don't want to make up dark energy when it calculations don't add up. I don't want to make up dark matter when my motions don't add up. I don't want to invent a cosmological constant that causes accelerating expansion because the timeline doesn't add up without it.
I do not assume that the universe must be expanding in the "expanding space" sense. I do not assume large scale electric charge imbalances are impossible. I do not assume dark matter exists. I do not assume that the universe must have had an identifiable beginning. I do not assume that it must fit with any religion's idea of "the moment of creation." I honestly believe that most scientists believe in the Big Bang as a religious litmus test akin to "do you believe in science?"
I do make a lot of assumptions, but when I take out the assumption of a Big Bang, I find that a lot of things don't necessarily follow supported by their own weight. And anyone who justifies one piece of the puzzle by saying it fits into the Lambda CDM, is I believe falling victim to circular logic. I remain unconvinced that Lambda CDM (or any previous Big Bang formulation) is anything more than an attempt to put a random formula together that ties together a number of different unfounded assumptions so they look like they reinforce each other.
You assume it's more than that, and I appreciate that you are working to validate aspects of the theory. Here's what I'd like you to ask yourself, even if you still think I'm an idiot: When you find something that disagrees with the theory, you try to figure out what variable needs to be tweaked to improve the agreement, but is there a point where you would ever consider reexamining the questions of the assumptions? Why haven't we reached that point yet?
Wow, these guys are way too certain of themselves. And this isn't direct evidence of anything except polarization. Anything beyond that, be it gravitational waves or what that says about the first moments after the Big Bang, are indirect.
Science is a process of discovery, and we need to be open to alternatives that are not disproven. The expansion of the universe is a great example of this. Everybody "knows" that the universe is expanding and that this indicates a Big Bang is the most likely origin story. But technically, all we have observed is that there is a correlation between distance and red shift, assuming that absorption spectra are constant over space/time and light doesn't chance frequency in travel. We have not actually observed that distant galaxies are actually moving away from us. We literally have no direct evidence that the universe is expanding. It's a theory. Not proven fact.
To put a more fine point on it, we know (can demonstrate experimentally) that relative motion is _a_ cause of red-shift, and we observe red-shift. We have not, in fact, observed this relative motion on scales large enough to demonstrate universal expansion. This is an indirect measurement believed to be reliable, but not proven. We can only observe relative motion on very close things via parallax, and we've found that some things are coming towards us, so relative motion locally is not dominated by expansion. We rely on the theory. It could be wrong.
A viable alternate theory is that light gives up some energy while traveling extremely long distances, which shows up as red-shift. Where does the energy go? It could be the source of energy for the CMBR. It could go somewhere else. In any case, as a theory, it explains the red-shift just as well as expansion.
Another viable alternate theory is that the absorption/emission spectra of atoms differs with space/time. Perhaps atoms farther away or longer ago created and absorbed light at lower frequencies, this making older light appear red-shifted by current frequency comparisons. This theory is even harder to test, but just as good at explaining the observations.
As a scientist, remember the difference between theory and proof.
Alternate title: "Man Shot To Death After Striking Retired Police Officer In Dark Room"
When you put it that way, it's not ridiculous. Probably wouldn't have received national attention either. Yes, the fight started over texting, but it was finished when one of them hit the other. Violence in public is risky. You never know how the other guy plans to defend himself. Don't be an asshole and hit strangers, and you won't get shot by the tiny percentage who carry guns.
/me wants mod points so I can mod up this correct use of "begging the question." So rare. So incredibly rare, even on Slashdot. Where are my mod points when I need them?
With so many excellent value priced entrants to the console gaming market, the big names (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) should be worried. It is becoming harder and harder to justify high price points with this kind of low priced competition.
Steam's entry seems more likely to get market share over the longer term, but all these options together make it clear that a TV-connected computer is available to run whatever you want, to any market that will pay. The financial barriers to entry are disappearing, and I think that's wonderful.
When I want to physically destroy my hard drives, I use bullets. Here's why it works:
The surface of the platters is covered in magnetic data, but in order to read it you have to be able to pass a head over it. If you bend the platters, put a few jagged holes in them, and destroy the bearing center, there is no technology that can run a read head reliably over a data track. If the platters are bent, you can't install them in a new drive or mount new heads. You also can't flatten them to the original tolerances without destroying the magnetic surface coating.
The biggest hand-waving magic people fear is the electon microscope techinques which have been shown to dig up even erased data by looking at the edges of the latest written data to see what was there before. While this is technically possible in ideal conditions, it requires that you can move the platter under the tip of the microscope with incredible precision. Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.
Pistol rounds generally dent the platters pretty seriously. Rifle rounds generally punch through leaving jagged holes. A combination of both is a fun day at the range, makes great desk art, and securely pretects your drives from ever being decoded again.
Yeah, I'm not convinced that's accurate. It's a logic thing. We know:
1 - Red shift is observed in proportion to distance
2 - Relative velocity (away from us) causes red shift
Based on these two facts, it cannot be proven that relative velocity depends on distance. That's why it's just a theory.
Relative motion is one possible cause of the observed red shift, but that does not mean it is the only possible cause. I think it is more likely that light loses energy in some form over thousands of years, and this energy loss is reflected as a red shift. This is perfectly consistent with observations, is simple, is consistent with every other physical process in nature (which cannot in general maintain perfect energy conservation over infinite time periods), and has the unfortunate side effect of causing a complete re-evaluation of everything we think we know about the universe.
Those younger than forty will probably live to see the fall of the Big Bang Theory.
Remember this mocking when that time comes. You'll have plenty of company in your camp of people who didn't see it coming, but you'll forever lose your geek cred when you find that you've been the flat-earther, mocking the true scientists who based their theories on observations, not mathematical models.
For those who understand plasma universe theory already, this makes perfect sense. The energy output of the sun is tied to the electric field strength of the surrounding galactic neighborhood, which fluctuates over time. The energy output of the sun has huge impacts on historical biodiversity and how well the biosphere thrives. Supernovae are events caused (at least in part) by stars exceeding their surface output capacity and blowing off their outer charged layer or dividing into smaller stars, which happens when the electric differential is higher than previously.
The fact that a correlation has been found between nearby supernovae and a highly sucessful biosphere on Earth is excellent news. It helps prove that solar output is tied to events outside our solar system, in our galactic neighborhood. Fascinating stuff.
(For those of you who haven't been convinced of the validity of the plasma universe theory, you are behind the times and need to get cracking. Be a scientist and stop supporting the dead Big Bang theory.)
Slashdot Mirror
In Computer Science, I think this reflects the value of the degrees to the populations in question. US Citizens don't need a graduate degree to get a good job. Foreigners do. All those tech companies mentioned in the article hire BS candidates in droves, but are not able to get government approval to hire foreigners with the same paperwork, so the foreigners need an MS to get the same job. It is crap for rules and I'm not defending it, but I think that is all that lies behind this difference in the CS field.
He said "one small step for a man". The transmission was messy.
Man, I'm glad I'm not the only one who wanted to post this correction.
I've spoken to Neil. He insists he said that "a." It's certainly obvious that he meant to.
--Jaborandy
In all seriousness, I believe these chipsets were sold in machines that originally came with Windows 10 (or not with Windows). This only affects people who bought new PCs, then manually installed an old OS because they liked it more. That's low volume stuff that is only overrepresented here on Slashdot. Most of the world doesn't even notice moves like this, because their PC came with Windows, whatever version, and it still works and updates.
--Jaborandy
My kids had trouble with an eye chart. A symbol for a calculator was identified as a phone, and a symbol for a classic phone was unidentifiable. In school testing, they asked what a key was for, and "starting cars" was deemed wrong. My kids have never seen me use a key to unlock a house door. Electronic locks and garage openers dominate. Adults often can't see how life appears to fresh eyes.
Your code that does division probably does that because division has a meaning, and you need that meaning. Trust me and everyone else here who knows math: the meaning you want does not include the case where you are dividing by zero. Dividing by zero is nonsensical in code and in life. So what went wrong with your program to get a zero into the denominator? That's the issue in your program. Is there a place where you can check user inputs to make sure they aren't insane? Is there a place where you're calculating what is supposed to be a very small number but sometimes it rounds down too low and makes your number zero by accident? Put the check there. Are you measuring or counting something that can legitimately be zero? I bet the division scenario doesn't apply in that case. Check for zero and do what does make sense. Fix your program.
--Jaborandy
Actually, I think this is literally more accurate now than phone polls are.
--Jaborandy
As a follower, how will I know how to vote? I only vote for the apparent winner, because I don't want to waste my vote, and because I trust that everyone else puts thought into their votes so I don't have to. Without the polls to tell me who the winner is supposed to be, how will I decide?
--Jaborandy
It's time for a kickstarter to buy and donate new underwater viewing windows for the whales at SeaWorld made of this transparent aluminum. How many Trekkies would chip in for that? Lots. Yeah.
ULA. We seamlessly blend the consistency of Russian engine manufacturing with the speed of American engineering and the cost effectiveness of a government contractor. What could possibly go wrong?
In order for our proposed name to stick, we need to pick one that is both obviously insulting when viewed by those who agree with us and also seemingly-acceptable and even positive-sounding when viewed by those who love ULA.
My proposals are:
* Gold Standard
* Spruce
* Exorbital (Exorbitant + Orbital)
You all have got to be able to do better than that. Come on, float your own names...
--Jaborandy
Thank you for the link, AC.
I saw two errors so egregious in the first three pages that I can dismiss that paper immediately. First the authors claimed that stellar gasses need to be sufficiently ionized that magnetic field lines could be frozen in them. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of electromagnetism. These people could not possibly give fair treatment to an electromagnetic theory with such a basic misunderstanding. Second, they claim that obviously stars are not affected by the magnetic fields, and therefore they can falsify the opposing claim by demonstrating that gasses and stars move together. The plasma universe theories require a corresponding adjustment to our understanding of the stars themselves as strong electrically charged objects themselves, but more importantly the modeling of the flow of current is the key to understanding the electromagnetic forces acting on the gasses and stars.
Those folks took down a straw man.
--Jaborandy
It really bothers me to see quotes like this one: "There is more dark matter in the Universe than visible matter, but it is extremely elusive."
That's so matter of fact, and leaves no room for the possibility that the theory of dark matter is wrong. I feel that the certainty level around our understanding of this topic is low enough that it isn't fair to competing theories to say things like that as if they are observed fact. In fact, we've never detected dark matter. We infer its existence from a number of things that don't add up gravitationally without it, indicating we're missing something. Dark matter that interacts gravitationally allows us to model a universe that adds up, if only this invisible stuff were distributed just so.
This article shows yet another data point indicating that dark matter may not exist, because of how it continues to not react with stuff, just as it would if it weren't there at all. I don't mean to say that it's 100% wrong, but I think it's unfair to say with 100% certainty that it's true either. Shouldn't we as scientists be more careful with our words, and say that dark matter is BELIEVED to make up more of the universe than does visible matter, based on our current leading theories? I think being careful with what we know and how well we know it is important to maintaining trust with the public and with each-other.
--Jaborandy
The answer to what they're missing: Electric charge and currents.
The electric universe folks explain that galactic rotation rates do not require dark matter to make sense. The electric current through the galaxy adds forces on the charged stars and gasses that adds up to explain the observed motions. This article sheds more light on the problems with the dark matter theories. It's time to more strongly consider the possibility that dark matter isn't the answer.
--Jaborandy
I was so proud of them when they kicked IA64's ass with their amd64 architecture, beating Intel at their own game by choosing to be x86-compatible when even Intel didn't go that way. Then I was sad when amd64 started getting called x64, since it stripped AMD of the credit they deserved. Go AMD! A world without strong competition for Intel would be very bad for consumers.
Thank you for sharing your perspective like a gentleman. I respect that.
I think the core of our disagreement is with your expectation that all the things explained by LCDM must be explained by other theories. I believe it's perfectly fine for the answer to be that some things aren't connected. If we no longer assume we know the age of the universe, then predictions of element ratios no longer need to agree with observations of CMB, which may be totally disconnected from galaxy supercluster clumpiness. If red shift is seen to have some cause other than just expansion, then no unified theory has to predict how the universe got from a near-singularity to the observed state. Once you take a fixed finite timeline out of the picture, there can be different causes for different phenomena.
-Jaborandy
(Last post from me on this thread.)
Reread my title, BorisTheSpider. I'm clearly talking to people like you. Your message showed exactly the unarguable hubris I'm talking about.
As for your challenges, if I'm allowed to make stuff up whenever I want to make my theory fit the model, I can do at least as well as the Lambda CDM. But then it'd be no better either. I don't want to make up dark energy when it calculations don't add up. I don't want to make up dark matter when my motions don't add up. I don't want to invent a cosmological constant that causes accelerating expansion because the timeline doesn't add up without it.
I do not assume that the universe must be expanding in the "expanding space" sense. I do not assume large scale electric charge imbalances are impossible. I do not assume dark matter exists. I do not assume that the universe must have had an identifiable beginning. I do not assume that it must fit with any religion's idea of "the moment of creation." I honestly believe that most scientists believe in the Big Bang as a religious litmus test akin to "do you believe in science?"
I do make a lot of assumptions, but when I take out the assumption of a Big Bang, I find that a lot of things don't necessarily follow supported by their own weight. And anyone who justifies one piece of the puzzle by saying it fits into the Lambda CDM, is I believe falling victim to circular logic. I remain unconvinced that Lambda CDM (or any previous Big Bang formulation) is anything more than an attempt to put a random formula together that ties together a number of different unfounded assumptions so they look like they reinforce each other.
You assume it's more than that, and I appreciate that you are working to validate aspects of the theory. Here's what I'd like you to ask yourself, even if you still think I'm an idiot: When you find something that disagrees with the theory, you try to figure out what variable needs to be tweaked to improve the agreement, but is there a point where you would ever consider reexamining the questions of the assumptions? Why haven't we reached that point yet?
--Jaborandy
Science is a process of discovery, and we need to be open to alternatives that are not disproven. The expansion of the universe is a great example of this. Everybody "knows" that the universe is expanding and that this indicates a Big Bang is the most likely origin story. But technically, all we have observed is that there is a correlation between distance and red shift, assuming that absorption spectra are constant over space/time and light doesn't chance frequency in travel. We have not actually observed that distant galaxies are actually moving away from us. We literally have no direct evidence that the universe is expanding. It's a theory. Not proven fact.
To put a more fine point on it, we know (can demonstrate experimentally) that relative motion is _a_ cause of red-shift, and we observe red-shift. We have not, in fact, observed this relative motion on scales large enough to demonstrate universal expansion. This is an indirect measurement believed to be reliable, but not proven. We can only observe relative motion on very close things via parallax, and we've found that some things are coming towards us, so relative motion locally is not dominated by expansion. We rely on the theory. It could be wrong.
A viable alternate theory is that light gives up some energy while traveling extremely long distances, which shows up as red-shift. Where does the energy go? It could be the source of energy for the CMBR. It could go somewhere else. In any case, as a theory, it explains the red-shift just as well as expansion. Another viable alternate theory is that the absorption/emission spectra of atoms differs with space/time. Perhaps atoms farther away or longer ago created and absorbed light at lower frequencies, this making older light appear red-shifted by current frequency comparisons. This theory is even harder to test, but just as good at explaining the observations.
As a scientist, remember the difference between theory and proof.
--Jaborandy
Alternate title: "Man Shot To Death After Striking Retired Police Officer In Dark Room"
When you put it that way, it's not ridiculous. Probably wouldn't have received national attention either. Yes, the fight started over texting, but it was finished when one of them hit the other. Violence in public is risky. You never know how the other guy plans to defend himself. Don't be an asshole and hit strangers, and you won't get shot by the tiny percentage who carry guns.
--Jaborandy
Come on now, that's just begging the question.
--Jaborandy
With so many excellent value priced entrants to the console gaming market, the big names (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) should be worried. It is becoming harder and harder to justify high price points with this kind of low priced competition.
Steam's entry seems more likely to get market share over the longer term, but all these options together make it clear that a TV-connected computer is available to run whatever you want, to any market that will pay. The financial barriers to entry are disappearing, and I think that's wonderful.
--Jaborandy
When I want to physically destroy my hard drives, I use bullets. Here's why it works:
The surface of the platters is covered in magnetic data, but in order to read it you have to be able to pass a head over it. If you bend the platters, put a few jagged holes in them, and destroy the bearing center, there is no technology that can run a read head reliably over a data track. If the platters are bent, you can't install them in a new drive or mount new heads. You also can't flatten them to the original tolerances without destroying the magnetic surface coating.
The biggest hand-waving magic people fear is the electon microscope techinques which have been shown to dig up even erased data by looking at the edges of the latest written data to see what was there before. While this is technically possible in ideal conditions, it requires that you can move the platter under the tip of the microscope with incredible precision. Without the platters in perfect physical shape, you'd risk destroying the electron microscope's fragile tip.
Pistol rounds generally dent the platters pretty seriously. Rifle rounds generally punch through leaving jagged holes. A combination of both is a fun day at the range, makes great desk art, and securely pretects your drives from ever being decoded again.
--Jaborandy
Yeah, I'm not convinced that's accurate. It's a logic thing.
We know:
1 - Red shift is observed in proportion to distance
2 - Relative velocity (away from us) causes red shift
Based on these two facts, it cannot be proven that relative velocity depends on distance. That's why it's just a theory.
Relative motion is one possible cause of the observed red shift, but that does not mean it is the only possible cause. I think it is more likely that light loses energy in some form over thousands of years, and this energy loss is reflected as a red shift. This is perfectly consistent with observations, is simple, is consistent with every other physical process in nature (which cannot in general maintain perfect energy conservation over infinite time periods), and has the unfortunate side effect of causing a complete re-evaluation of everything we think we know about the universe.
Those younger than forty will probably live to see the fall of the Big Bang Theory.
Remember this mocking when that time comes. You'll have plenty of company in your camp of people who didn't see it coming, but you'll forever lose your geek cred when you find that you've been the flat-earther, mocking the true scientists who based their theories on observations, not mathematical models.
Sounds like a job for the Institude of Justice.
For those who understand plasma universe theory already, this makes perfect sense. The energy output of the sun is tied to the electric field strength of the surrounding galactic neighborhood, which fluctuates over time. The energy output of the sun has huge impacts on historical biodiversity and how well the biosphere thrives. Supernovae are events caused (at least in part) by stars exceeding their surface output capacity and blowing off their outer charged layer or dividing into smaller stars, which happens when the electric differential is higher than previously.
The fact that a correlation has been found between nearby supernovae and a highly sucessful biosphere on Earth is excellent news. It helps prove that solar output is tied to events outside our solar system, in our galactic neighborhood. Fascinating stuff.
(For those of you who haven't been convinced of the validity of the plasma universe theory, you are behind the times and need to get cracking. Be a scientist and stop supporting the dead Big Bang theory.)
--Jaborandy