USB drives have replaced DVD's some time ago already. We are beating a dead dog here. Why?
The cost of a USB drive hasn't dropped to the point where I can keep a couple dozen of them on hand and give them out willy nilly to any friends who might want a copy of something I have.
Dynamics was not built to support any particular edition of SQL server, much less 2005 and above. They previously could not rely on SQL providing the encryption.
There isn't a proven method. Everything that they are trying is something that they are trying for the first time. The well is so deep that it is beyond crush depth for many subs. There aren't any manned subs that can even go down that far, and less than half a dozen robotic / remote ones that can. Nobody has ever dealt with a catastrophe of this magnitude before. There were supposed to be safety precautions taken to prevent this kind of thing. Those safety precautions were there to insure that nobody would ever have to go through what is currently being gone through. Those precautions were ignored and diluted by "regulators" who were subserviant to the interests they were supposed to be regulating.
The obviously solution is to plug the well with the pulped bodies of everyone who was responsible for allowing the problem to occur in the first place. As others have stated, there are safety mechanisms being used RIGHT NOW in places like Brazil that are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to prevent the kind of cluster fuck that took place. The problem is that greed won out, and Congressional representatives are cheap. It's easier to donate money to a re-election campaign than it is to spend money on fail safe devices.
Whoever coded the "encryption" routine really dropped the ball. SQL Server supports AES encryption on individual fields. The first result of a Google search for "sql server field encryption" points to an MSDN article with code examples of how to use AES-256 encryption.
How do these things keep happening? There have to be mistakes on so many levels. Whoever developed the spec obviously was clueless. The person who coded the spec was probably clueless, and/or didn't have the authority to do things the right way. The tools to make these applications secure are available. You'd think that a Microsoft coder using a Microsoft database could use the Microsoft solution properly.
The more I deal with corporate America and the people who find themselves in charge of projects, the more I believe that competence really is a Bell curve with the center of the curve being INCOMPETENT, the far left is DISABLED. How do these people sleep at night? The only thing that I can figure is that they really are ignorant. If I do something half assed, it bugs me. It keeps me up at night. So either these people just don't give a rats ass and are working in a culture that lacks accountability, or they are completely ignorant and are working in a culture that lacks accountability. A friend of mine once told me, "Most people don't do the right thing because it is the right thing. They do the right thing because they fear the consequences of getting caught doing the wrong thing." Every where I look in society, there are fewer and fewer consequences.
I don't think the size of the distro is the problem. The issue is whether or not the distro properly interfaces with the ACPI and other hardware resources to properly manage power consumption.
Looking at this situation I see Microsoft warding off yet another assault on their software stack. European governments have been making some high profile conversions off of the Microsoft stack (Germany comes to mind). One of the many reasons offered for those transitions has been the transparency of OSS, especially in relation to security issues. The creation of Omega looks like another acknowledgement from Microsoft that their competitors have better offerings, and Microsoft seems to be playing catchup. It wouldn't surprise me if their sales people are getting hammered during negotiations and Omega was conceived simply to address the complaints of customers.
Given the sheer size of Microsoft, incremental changes like this are the best that anybody can hope for. Pressure from end users (when those end users are large enough) will force the organization to change. The nonstop onslaught of security issues for the last decade has finally worn down people who previously never really cared about such things. An organization smaller than Microsoft would probably crumble as people searched for and found alternatives. Microsoft benefits from their size and locked in user base. They can leverage that forced patience to change more gradually.
In the end, I think Microsoft will continue to improve and become more customer centric. They simply have to. As more and more of the population becomes tech savvy, they will lean on Microsoft. Across the entire computing landscape, from Grandma Jane who gets tired of getting her Windows machine owned and ends up switching to OSX, to Fortune 500 companies looking to cut costs and improve their operations, there will always be people looking for a better way to get things done.
You bring up a good point. I see the settlement as Microsoft validiating the enforcability of patents. They get to go on record as being okay with paying to license patented technology. In the future when they go after other companies for patent infringement, they can say something to the effect of, "We didn't make the system, and in fact it hurts us too. Remember when we paid $200 million?"
What do you think about your potential for advancement due to your degree? I'm in the unenviable position of doing what you wish you had done. Other than a couple Novell CNA classes I took in high school, and a couple of MCP/MCSE classes that I have taken since, I'm completely self taught. Despite fifteen years of experience in IT and a resume filled with major accomplishments, I've had a really hard time getting adequate compensation and advance opportunities.
How long do you think it should take to query and then export 50,000 records pulled from 15 separate tables, where each join has a minimum of three conditional modifiers on it? I'm honestly curious about how other applications would handle it.
I'm not talking about 50,000 records from a single table. These are records will full gift histories, prospect histories, limited by zip code, membership level, etc.
I've always had the feeling that Raisers Edge wasn't the best written software in the world, but I don't have anything to compare it to. The user interface is good and my users like it. It's easier to just throw hardware at the problem.
I looked at moving FROM Raisers Edge to Common Ground and found it lacking a lot of features. As much as I would like to ditch the God awful expense of Raisers Edge, it really is the best fund raising software on the market. The place where Raisers Edge really shines is the query builder. An average, not very skilled user can be trained to run some seriously complex queries in a day or two. Raisers Edge builds the kind of queries that will have skilled SQL DBAs scratching their heads and saying things like, "I never realized you could do that with SQL." It will construct cursors and arrays and other fairly complex data structures on the fly.
The downside of Raisers Edge is the cost, and the complexity. It is a complex system and Blackbaud seems to go out of their way to make it next to impossible to migrate out of the system. It is also a resource hog. Under normal load it will run fine. As soon as you throw one of the previously mentioned uber queries on it, the poor thing will grind to a halt. The other day we did a 50,000 constituent export on a dual, quad-core Xeon box and it took two and a half hours to finish. The query was complex and involved lots of joins, but stilll...
Raisers Edge is one of those programs that if you haven't gotten used to it, you probably won't know what you're missing. I'd suggest giving Common Ground a shot and if it sucks, you can always step up to the gold standard. If it gets the job done for you, then you save all of the maintenance fees that come with Raisers Edge.
Make sure that you get a GOOD demo of Common Ground though. Realize that the canned reports probably won't get the job done and that you are going to have to write your own. I had a hard time getting clear answers from Common Ground about their reporting interface. Also make sure that you have the opportunity to try to build some custom queries with their interface. The application is only worth while if you can actually get your information back out of it.
Make sure you consider how many users you are going to have on it and what the load will be. Make sure that you consider your bandwidth requirements. Consider the previously mentioned 50,000 constituent export. Can Common Ground even handle that? Will it absolutely bring the system / internet connection to its knees?
I'm sorry, but I cannot blame Sony for removing the feature.
You may not. Everyone else who understands consumer protection laws will, and when it goes to court, they will win.
I own a PS3. I bought a PS3 because I was tired of playing against hackers on the PC. I support Sony's logic about limiting access to their console in order to preserve the end user experience (sounds a lot like Apple, doesn't it?). However, despite the fact that their decision potentially benefits me, I can see how they are wrong. You simply can't sell a product with a feature and then remove the feature whenever you feel like it.
Car Analogy: General Motors sells you a car with a navigation system. You never use the navigation system because you have an uber refined direction sense. General Motors decides that terrorists are using their navigation system to drive on the freeway and that is a Bad Thing(tm). General Motors sends a repo man to your place and rips the navigation system (that you paid for) out of your car.
The level of realism and computing power available to the simulator is what sets it apart from a game. A game at D&Bs is going to be focused on fun. You'd be able to put the airplane through all sorts of fun and exciting manuveurs that would tear the wing off of a real plane. A simulator is going to be focused entirely on making a reproduction of the real thing that is as accurate as possible. The purpose of a simulator is to train a pilot to fly a multi-million dollar airplane without destroying it. The purpose of a video game is to provide some entertaiment and a momentary escape from reality.
I was an AT&T customer long before the iPhone showed up and their call quality sucked back then. The only thing that the iPhone arrival changed was that their data service fell to the save levels of suckitude as their voice service. When EDGE was the best wireless data solution available, AT&T was actually better than Verizon (in Los Angeles, CA).
Pretty much any company that produces a product has a justification for having at least some of their employees involved in social networking. I work for an organization that lives and dies by public perception and participation. A portion of our communications department is devoted to social networking.
As the person in charge of IT policy, I fought against giving people access for the longest time. I based my argument on the security considerations of social networking sites (Flash exploits, Javascript vulnerabilities, etc.) I eventually lost the battle because I can see the compelling reasons to allow access. The pros outweigh the cons in my particular organization. I had to setup an extra layer of redundency including up to date workstation images and additional security software (proxy / webfilter, etc). I'd rather block the sites entirely but in the end it wasn't my call.
It all depends on what report you've read. The initial report that caught my attention was framed as, "Obama warns students against iPads and iPhones." Upon reading the excerpts of the speech it became evident that he was warning against consuming any content on the internet. He further made the point that a "good education" is necessary to shield the mind against the distractions on the internet. It was a typical "Follow the herd and you will be okay." speech.
It is kind of worrisome that the President is taking it upon himself to "warn" students against the "dangers" of free speech and open communication on the internet. The message was framed in a way that made it seem like the internet is a dangerous waste of time that will distract students from the "important" things that their professors are trying to teach them. Heaven forbid that students should open their minds to sources of information that haven't been vetted by the educational elite and the textbook publishers.
Obama is just encouraging the graduates to do something with their lives instead of frittering them away.
How did you get that out of his speech? It came across to me as a thinly veiled attack on "alternate" media sources. He specifically mentioned the ability of unsubstantiated rumors to spread like wildfire. The "tea party" movement sprung up through the very channels that Obama is concerned about. In the digital age where people can get information from any source they choose, the controls that the media has imposed over society are breaking down. In some cases the break down of controls allows some real crack pots to get their theories out there. Yet with the free exchange of information, those crack pots can be shouted down and debunked. Given that, I do not see what Obama is so worried about.
Actually, I do see what he is concerned about. He is concerned that the media is losing control. Every day, fewer people are believing the shit being shoveled by the main stream media. Fewer and fewer people are believing the same communications channels that allowed Obama to stand up get elected by vague, feel good promises of potential for change without ever putting forward any real action plans. When the Federal Reserve and the Treasury stand up and tell people, "Fear not, everything is under control.", the people can refer to a lot of alternative sources of information that inform them of the reality of the situation. When the generals and politicans get up and say, "Everything is peachy keen in Afghanistan." People can do their own research and realize that it is a complete mess over there and the United States government bit off more than they can chew.
The manufacturing cost on a cartridge versus a disc makes the whole idea a non-starter. With a digital download service the cost if the disc disappears, but it is replaced by bandwidth and hosting costs.
I think that the best model for software distribution is what I've seen with Microsoft. If you have a license for the software you can download it directly from them. For a minimal fee you can get a media kit with the physical DVDs. I'm sure that MS isn't the only company with that model. They just happen to be the one that I'm familiar with.
If anyone has ever had anything to say on the subject, now might be the time to repeat whatever has been said to those with the potential to influence this process. It would be ashame to look back on a period of time, and realize that the moment to really influence it has passed.
My understanding is that Apple is taking steps to disallow apps that would otherwise run just fine. For all the polish of the iPhone, it is simply a microprocessor and a screen. If a developer wants to write a program that the Apple processor can handle, why is Apple going to tell the developer that they aren't allowed to do so?
I would hope that Apple has the legal ground to deny apps. If people aren't happy with the Apple experience then they can go find another one. I just hope that those people who decide to choose Apple over other products won't bitch and whine other vendors don't support Apple's program. For example, I work in IT. In the last couple years it has gotten easier to get OSX to talk to non-Apple servers, but for the last two decades, putting an Apple workstation on a network required a whole separate set of network protocols, printing protocols, file sharing protocols and the like. The Apple folks wanted to do things the Apple way, but they also expected to be treated equally.
Steve Jobs seems to have some mental issues. As soon as his products start to lose their exclusive status and get to the point where interoperability is happening, he steps in and issues decrees and establishes mandates that go against wide spread acceptance.
Slashdot Mirror
USB drives have replaced DVD's some time ago already. We are beating a dead dog here. Why?
The cost of a USB drive hasn't dropped to the point where I can keep a couple dozen of them on hand and give them out willy nilly to any friends who might want a copy of something I have.
Dynamics was not built to support any particular edition of SQL server, much less 2005 and above. They previously could not rely on SQL providing the encryption.
Fixed that for you.
There isn't a proven method. Everything that they are trying is something that they are trying for the first time. The well is so deep that it is beyond crush depth for many subs. There aren't any manned subs that can even go down that far, and less than half a dozen robotic / remote ones that can. Nobody has ever dealt with a catastrophe of this magnitude before. There were supposed to be safety precautions taken to prevent this kind of thing. Those safety precautions were there to insure that nobody would ever have to go through what is currently being gone through. Those precautions were ignored and diluted by "regulators" who were subserviant to the interests they were supposed to be regulating.
The obviously solution is to plug the well with the pulped bodies of everyone who was responsible for allowing the problem to occur in the first place. As others have stated, there are safety mechanisms being used RIGHT NOW in places like Brazil that are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to prevent the kind of cluster fuck that took place. The problem is that greed won out, and Congressional representatives are cheap. It's easier to donate money to a re-election campaign than it is to spend money on fail safe devices.
Whoever coded the "encryption" routine really dropped the ball. SQL Server supports AES encryption on individual fields. The first result of a Google search for "sql server field encryption" points to an MSDN article with code examples of how to use AES-256 encryption.
How do these things keep happening? There have to be mistakes on so many levels. Whoever developed the spec obviously was clueless. The person who coded the spec was probably clueless, and/or didn't have the authority to do things the right way. The tools to make these applications secure are available. You'd think that a Microsoft coder using a Microsoft database could use the Microsoft solution properly.
The more I deal with corporate America and the people who find themselves in charge of projects, the more I believe that competence really is a Bell curve with the center of the curve being INCOMPETENT, the far left is DISABLED. How do these people sleep at night? The only thing that I can figure is that they really are ignorant. If I do something half assed, it bugs me. It keeps me up at night. So either these people just don't give a rats ass and are working in a culture that lacks accountability, or they are completely ignorant and are working in a culture that lacks accountability. A friend of mine once told me, "Most people don't do the right thing because it is the right thing. They do the right thing because they fear the consequences of getting caught doing the wrong thing." Every where I look in society, there are fewer and fewer consequences.
Except that the "illusionary" numbers can be very easily converted into tangible assets.
I don't think the size of the distro is the problem. The issue is whether or not the distro properly interfaces with the ACPI and other hardware resources to properly manage power consumption.
You should turn that into a PowerPoint presentation and sell it to the CIA as a training program for agents looking to cover their tracks.
Looking at this situation I see Microsoft warding off yet another assault on their software stack. European governments have been making some high profile conversions off of the Microsoft stack (Germany comes to mind). One of the many reasons offered for those transitions has been the transparency of OSS, especially in relation to security issues. The creation of Omega looks like another acknowledgement from Microsoft that their competitors have better offerings, and Microsoft seems to be playing catchup. It wouldn't surprise me if their sales people are getting hammered during negotiations and Omega was conceived simply to address the complaints of customers.
Given the sheer size of Microsoft, incremental changes like this are the best that anybody can hope for. Pressure from end users (when those end users are large enough) will force the organization to change. The nonstop onslaught of security issues for the last decade has finally worn down people who previously never really cared about such things. An organization smaller than Microsoft would probably crumble as people searched for and found alternatives. Microsoft benefits from their size and locked in user base. They can leverage that forced patience to change more gradually.
In the end, I think Microsoft will continue to improve and become more customer centric. They simply have to. As more and more of the population becomes tech savvy, they will lean on Microsoft. Across the entire computing landscape, from Grandma Jane who gets tired of getting her Windows machine owned and ends up switching to OSX, to Fortune 500 companies looking to cut costs and improve their operations, there will always be people looking for a better way to get things done.
You bring up a good point. I see the settlement as Microsoft validiating the enforcability of patents. They get to go on record as being okay with paying to license patented technology. In the future when they go after other companies for patent infringement, they can say something to the effect of, "We didn't make the system, and in fact it hurts us too. Remember when we paid $200 million?"
Do you mind if I ask some questions about your organization?
What is your early budget?
How many users do you have on the system? What are the licensing and support costs?
About how many asks do you do per year?
How many constituents are in your database?
What do you think about your potential for advancement due to your degree? I'm in the unenviable position of doing what you wish you had done. Other than a couple Novell CNA classes I took in high school, and a couple of MCP/MCSE classes that I have taken since, I'm completely self taught. Despite fifteen years of experience in IT and a resume filled with major accomplishments, I've had a really hard time getting adequate compensation and advance opportunities.
How long do you think it should take to query and then export 50,000 records pulled from 15 separate tables, where each join has a minimum of three conditional modifiers on it? I'm honestly curious about how other applications would handle it.
I'm not talking about 50,000 records from a single table. These are records will full gift histories, prospect histories, limited by zip code, membership level, etc.
I've always had the feeling that Raisers Edge wasn't the best written software in the world, but I don't have anything to compare it to. The user interface is good and my users like it. It's easier to just throw hardware at the problem.
Salesforce.com is much better than leaving it to the typical NPO tech guy.
Most NPOs can't even afford a decent tech guy, much less a dedicated DBA.
I looked at moving FROM Raisers Edge to Common Ground and found it lacking a lot of features. As much as I would like to ditch the God awful expense of Raisers Edge, it really is the best fund raising software on the market. The place where Raisers Edge really shines is the query builder. An average, not very skilled user can be trained to run some seriously complex queries in a day or two. Raisers Edge builds the kind of queries that will have skilled SQL DBAs scratching their heads and saying things like, "I never realized you could do that with SQL." It will construct cursors and arrays and other fairly complex data structures on the fly.
The downside of Raisers Edge is the cost, and the complexity. It is a complex system and Blackbaud seems to go out of their way to make it next to impossible to migrate out of the system. It is also a resource hog. Under normal load it will run fine. As soon as you throw one of the previously mentioned uber queries on it, the poor thing will grind to a halt. The other day we did a 50,000 constituent export on a dual, quad-core Xeon box and it took two and a half hours to finish. The query was complex and involved lots of joins, but stilll...
Raisers Edge is one of those programs that if you haven't gotten used to it, you probably won't know what you're missing. I'd suggest giving Common Ground a shot and if it sucks, you can always step up to the gold standard. If it gets the job done for you, then you save all of the maintenance fees that come with Raisers Edge.
Make sure that you get a GOOD demo of Common Ground though. Realize that the canned reports probably won't get the job done and that you are going to have to write your own. I had a hard time getting clear answers from Common Ground about their reporting interface. Also make sure that you have the opportunity to try to build some custom queries with their interface. The application is only worth while if you can actually get your information back out of it.
Make sure you consider how many users you are going to have on it and what the load will be. Make sure that you consider your bandwidth requirements. Consider the previously mentioned 50,000 constituent export. Can Common Ground even handle that? Will it absolutely bring the system / internet connection to its knees?
I'm sorry, but I cannot blame Sony for removing the feature.
You may not. Everyone else who understands consumer protection laws will, and when it goes to court, they will win.
I own a PS3. I bought a PS3 because I was tired of playing against hackers on the PC. I support Sony's logic about limiting access to their console in order to preserve the end user experience (sounds a lot like Apple, doesn't it?). However, despite the fact that their decision potentially benefits me, I can see how they are wrong. You simply can't sell a product with a feature and then remove the feature whenever you feel like it.
Car Analogy: General Motors sells you a car with a navigation system. You never use the navigation system because you have an uber refined direction sense. General Motors decides that terrorists are using their navigation system to drive on the freeway and that is a Bad Thing(tm). General Motors sends a repo man to your place and rips the navigation system (that you paid for) out of your car.
Would you be okay with GM doing that?
They're going to create a Facebook group.
One of the popular Facebook memes is, "I bet X Facebook group can get ##,###,### followers before Y Facebook group does."
Feel free to substitute X and Y for the People and Corporations.
Perhaps X Facebook group can host the leaked PPT file of which Slide #9 is a part of... at least until they get hit with a DCMA notice.
Could they then post said DCMA as part of their group, along with links to relevant media discussions about the subject? Streissand comes to mind.
Thanks for sharing. That game looks pretty epic.
The level of realism and computing power available to the simulator is what sets it apart from a game. A game at D&Bs is going to be focused on fun. You'd be able to put the airplane through all sorts of fun and exciting manuveurs that would tear the wing off of a real plane. A simulator is going to be focused entirely on making a reproduction of the real thing that is as accurate as possible. The purpose of a simulator is to train a pilot to fly a multi-million dollar airplane without destroying it. The purpose of a video game is to provide some entertaiment and a momentary escape from reality.
I was an AT&T customer long before the iPhone showed up and their call quality sucked back then. The only thing that the iPhone arrival changed was that their data service fell to the save levels of suckitude as their voice service. When EDGE was the best wireless data solution available, AT&T was actually better than Verizon (in Los Angeles, CA).
Pretty much any company that produces a product has a justification for having at least some of their employees involved in social networking. I work for an organization that lives and dies by public perception and participation. A portion of our communications department is devoted to social networking.
As the person in charge of IT policy, I fought against giving people access for the longest time. I based my argument on the security considerations of social networking sites (Flash exploits, Javascript vulnerabilities, etc.) I eventually lost the battle because I can see the compelling reasons to allow access. The pros outweigh the cons in my particular organization. I had to setup an extra layer of redundency including up to date workstation images and additional security software (proxy / webfilter, etc). I'd rather block the sites entirely but in the end it wasn't my call.
It all depends on what report you've read. The initial report that caught my attention was framed as, "Obama warns students against iPads and iPhones." Upon reading the excerpts of the speech it became evident that he was warning against consuming any content on the internet. He further made the point that a "good education" is necessary to shield the mind against the distractions on the internet. It was a typical "Follow the herd and you will be okay." speech.
It is kind of worrisome that the President is taking it upon himself to "warn" students against the "dangers" of free speech and open communication on the internet. The message was framed in a way that made it seem like the internet is a dangerous waste of time that will distract students from the "important" things that their professors are trying to teach them. Heaven forbid that students should open their minds to sources of information that haven't been vetted by the educational elite and the textbook publishers.
Obama is just encouraging the graduates to do something with their lives instead of frittering them away.
How did you get that out of his speech? It came across to me as a thinly veiled attack on "alternate" media sources. He specifically mentioned the ability of unsubstantiated rumors to spread like wildfire. The "tea party" movement sprung up through the very channels that Obama is concerned about. In the digital age where people can get information from any source they choose, the controls that the media has imposed over society are breaking down. In some cases the break down of controls allows some real crack pots to get their theories out there. Yet with the free exchange of information, those crack pots can be shouted down and debunked. Given that, I do not see what Obama is so worried about.
Actually, I do see what he is concerned about. He is concerned that the media is losing control. Every day, fewer people are believing the shit being shoveled by the main stream media. Fewer and fewer people are believing the same communications channels that allowed Obama to stand up get elected by vague, feel good promises of potential for change without ever putting forward any real action plans. When the Federal Reserve and the Treasury stand up and tell people, "Fear not, everything is under control.", the people can refer to a lot of alternative sources of information that inform them of the reality of the situation. When the generals and politicans get up and say, "Everything is peachy keen in Afghanistan." People can do their own research and realize that it is a complete mess over there and the United States government bit off more than they can chew.
The manufacturing cost on a cartridge versus a disc makes the whole idea a non-starter. With a digital download service the cost if the disc disappears, but it is replaced by bandwidth and hosting costs.
I think that the best model for software distribution is what I've seen with Microsoft. If you have a license for the software you can download it directly from them. For a minimal fee you can get a media kit with the physical DVDs. I'm sure that MS isn't the only company with that model. They just happen to be the one that I'm familiar with.
If anyone has ever had anything to say on the subject, now might be the time to repeat whatever has been said to those with the potential to influence this process. It would be ashame to look back on a period of time, and realize that the moment to really influence it has passed.
My understanding is that Apple is taking steps to disallow apps that would otherwise run just fine. For all the polish of the iPhone, it is simply a microprocessor and a screen. If a developer wants to write a program that the Apple processor can handle, why is Apple going to tell the developer that they aren't allowed to do so?
I would hope that Apple has the legal ground to deny apps. If people aren't happy with the Apple experience then they can go find another one. I just hope that those people who decide to choose Apple over other products won't bitch and whine other vendors don't support Apple's program. For example, I work in IT. In the last couple years it has gotten easier to get OSX to talk to non-Apple servers, but for the last two decades, putting an Apple workstation on a network required a whole separate set of network protocols, printing protocols, file sharing protocols and the like. The Apple folks wanted to do things the Apple way, but they also expected to be treated equally.
Steve Jobs seems to have some mental issues. As soon as his products start to lose their exclusive status and get to the point where interoperability is happening, he steps in and issues decrees and establishes mandates that go against wide spread acceptance.