Honestly, don't mean to troll, but you Windows users put up with so much trouble an annoyance just so you can avoid learning how a computer actually works...
1) What trouble am I putting up with? My Windows computer doesn't have Storm on it.
(To be a snarky devil's advocate, even if my computer did have Storm on it, the entire point of viruses like Storm is to hide themselves from detection, so it wouldn't actually cause me much trouble.)
2) Do you honestly believe that the average Mac user knows more about how a computer actually works than the average Windows user?
Methinks you guys would be better off just biting the bullet and switching. Sure, Macs are more expensive, and Linux has a steep learning curve, but isn't it worth avoiding all of the frustration you're going experience over the rest of your tech lifetime?
What frustration? My Windows computer doesn't have this virus. It works exactly how it should.
Or are you one of those folks who relishes the semi-annual Windows reinstall?
Why would I do that?
Perhaps you like paying an annual license fee to keep your computer from getting infected with a virus?
Nope, I just don't do stupid shit like running programs from porn websites.
Microsoft Windows systems are easily the most expensive systems to run on the planet,
Wow, you should talk to someone who uses Sun systems.
But I guess that's why there's an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me . Microsoft fooled me once. I'm not getting fooled again.
How, exactly, did Microsoft "fool" you? Out of curiousity. Your post is almost entirely nonsense.
Thanks for the tip, but that program doesn't seem to work correctly with Vista. It complained that it couldn't add from my media server because the service it installed needed admin rights; so I changed the service's login, and it still didn't work with the same error.:(
Is this something I have to hack my Xbox to do? I'll take a look at it.
What's weird to me is that the Xbox supports playing MP4, but for some reason they never sent that memo to the people who made Windows Media Center. If WMC played MP4 files, I'd be done already.
But does anybody have any clue how to stream my existing MP4 movie files from my Windows Vista box to my Xbox 360? I can't even get Windows Media Player to import them into my playlist, and I think there might be some kind of codec download or something I need...
1) GM doesn't make Dodge vehicles. Daimler-Chrysler does, so you're an idiot. 2) Reliability is pretty consistent across-the-board now. American cars generally aren't any worse than Japanese cars (generally.)
Of course, the fact that you don't even know what company makes the car you thought was so terrible makes me wonder if you're just trolling here in the first place.
Try putting OS X on a laptop, mapping a few drives (some using WebDAV, some using regular filesharing), close your laptop to sleep it. Now move into a location where there is a wireless network connection, but it doesn't allow access to any of your shares. Watch Finder literally freeze solid for 2 minutes before you can do any file operations at all, even if the file operation has nothing to do with a network drive.
On a desktop, I didn't have any network problems. It handled laptops pathetically.
People have been breathing "clouds of genetically engineered" pollen since long before Mendel described how genes even work. It's pretty obvious that if you only grow new corn stalks from your biggest ears of corn, you'll get bigger ears of corn in general. That's genetic engineering, right there.
I don't think the number of "Vista haters" is even a small fraction of what Slashdot thinks it is. Companies aren't movin to Vista because they're conservative, not because they hate it. Consumers generally don't give half a whit, but where they have an opinion at all I wager they'd prefer Vista over XP.
I did it just a few months ago. I was getting pissed off at OS X's lousy network performance, and lack of an affordable deskop (and lack of a tablet altogether!) So I bought a Dell desktop for a third the cost of an Apple desktop, put Windows Vista Ultimate on it, and I'm quite happy with it.
Normally I would not make a post which breaks down and addresses each individual point, but in this case it seems best. It seems to me that I hit a nerve with you when it comes to Halo, as your textual tone seems to indicate quite a lot of personally inaccurate insults.
I'm not able to read your "textual tone" very well because the smug condescension seems to be overpowering everything else...
Halo very well may deserve a level of popularity, but being touting as the world's best game it does not.
That's good, because nobody in this discussion ever touted it as the world's best game. You just made that up.
Virtually every other FPS? Hardly. Just off of the top of my head, I can only think of a few. Call of Duty now features regenerating health , which like Halo, makes the experience easier than it should be in most situations. As far as a limited carrying capacity, FEAR stands out as being one. Halo's "influence" on the industry isn't necessarily because its mechanics are better. Halo sells well, so most developers will naturally try to be more like it. In the cases stated however, limiting the amount of weapons one can carry has added a nice angle to gameplay.
Yada, yada, the point is that Halo's mechanics are not "stale" as you originally stated. If they were, there would be NO innovation for Call of Duty and FEAR to rip-off at all, because stale games do not do anything new or different. (Besides the point of how popular ripping-off Halo elements is.)
Video games, and the FPS genre specifically, tend to have rather lame plots.
Yes they do, but the entire point here is that Halo doesn't have a "rather lame plot." It actually has a relatively refreshingly original and creative storyline behind it, in a not-at-all-vague internally-consistant universe. Which is a lot more than you can say for Half-Life 2 and Gears of War, for instance.
I only bring it up because people attempt to tout how great they are. While the open environments were fairly impressive (especially for a console title), I felt that most of the textures suffered from a lack of detail and almost all of the animations were hideous.
Are you talking about Halo 1 specifically here? You're speaking in the past-tense here, and not acknowleding that Halo is a series of three games (each having its own graphics engine), so I really have no clue what exactly you're referring to.
More generally speaking however, the enemies and weapons lacked a lot of visual distinguish from one another.
What game are you comparing it to, here? Compared to almost every other title I've tried, the enemies and vehicles in Halo are remarkably varied. (There's no way to be looking at an Elite and confuse it for a Hunter, for instance. Although I suppose from a distance Brutes and Elites look a bit alike.)
Animations in Halo 1 were not great, but they were on-par with other games that came out at the time. You can't fairly compare animations from Halo 1 with, say, Lost Planet.
This is where I start to suspect you haven't even played Halo 2 & 3.
I can't say that I've played it. All of the Battlefield games I have experienced have had an unfinished feel to them however. The series did start off as a World War II cash in though, so it's not surprising. I will agree that unpolished console games are typically better than unpolished PC games. I think that is more due to the nature of the hardware than anything though. You know what you're getting with a console and don't have to plan for various conflicts that might arise with differing PC configurations. Macs have this benefit as well.
Yada, yada. The point is you're admitting now that PC games can be as, or more, unpolished as console games, which pretty much nullifies your earlier point. You don't need to write this many words to communicate, "boy howdy, I said something downright stupid!"
The amount of sheer coverage and praise that Halo receives is ridiculous though, espe
Halo doesn't deserve its popular status however, thus it is overrated.
On the contrary, I think Halo deserves its popular status if only so that Bungie can be appreciated for what they accomplished with Marathon, a woefully UNDER-rated game.
I still think you're just a typical Slashdot hipster who must hate everything popular/mass media.
The gameplay is stale, the story even more contrived than usual, the graphics always sub-par, etc.
Gameplay: It's so stale, that must be why virtually every other FPS has ripped-off Halo's 'recharging shield/lifebar' design concept. And why half of those FPSes have also ripped-off Halo's 'carry two weapons only' design. If you don't think Halo has been influencial to the industry (the opposite of stale), then you're sadly mistaken.
Story: Perhaps contrived, but they're working within a medium (FPS games) in which nearly every storyline is contrived. That aside, at least it's pretty damned original, which is a lot more than you can say for, for instance, Gears of War. In addition to that, it does a pretty job of getting the player into the game, at least players who aren't as jaded as you.
Graphics: Sub-par compared to... what? Given, Halo 2 didn't exactly blow people away, but Halo 3 looks as nice as anything else on the market right now, and the original Halo definitely raised a few bars in the console world, if not necessarily the PC world.
It's a simple trend of console kiddies having never seen or played a truly polished FPS before.
Oh yeah, a "polished" FPS like Battlefield: 2142? A product so buggy that merely entering the actual game is a small miracle. There are polished console games and unpolished console games. There are very polished PC games and extremely unpolished POS PC games (like aforementioned Battlefield.) If anything, I'd say console games have the edge if only because at least the unpolished ones actually *work*, which isn't necessarily true of unpolished PC games.
But making a claim that all PC games are more polished than all console games, that's just stupid.
I do, however, hate most popular films. It's too bad your reasoning is so far off base.
Is it? Considering you've given either wrong or vague reasons to dislike Halo, and you admit that you hate popular films, I think my reasoning is dead on.
PS2 games have this on a per game basis, but nothing that requires a subscription. Microsoft definitely changed the model by offering this, but note that Sony didn't follow suit for the PS3; they still don't charge. The subscription service part of the XBox is the main reason I'm not interested.
My understanding is that the Sony "Home" Second Life-alike environment is supposed to provide this. I don't have a PS3, personally, so maybe somebody else can confirm this.
The PS2 supports 480p for some games and even 1080i (for some parts of Gran Turismo).
"Some parts?" Like your car enters the final stretch and the TV resolution changes?:)
As for the other features, I think those are a matter of choice for the console, rather than elements of a "next gen console" (or 7th generation console). We could set up other requirements that exclude the XBox 360. For example, one could say that integrated next generation media (i.e., Bluray) is a requirement, as the Xbox 360 only supports HD-DVD as an add-on.
From a "duh" viewpoint, it's pretty common sense that the Xbox 360 is in the same generation as the PS3 at least. If you define things so that it isn't, you're not going to have a lot of people using your classification. Personally, though, I think the Xbox is vastly different from the PS2/Gamecube, and it wouldn't be nearly so "duh".
Food prices have begun increasing worldwide, meaning that fewer people can afford to eat.
Then how come average calories consumed per capita has been increasing consistently for the last 50 years?
Food prices increasing, if it's even true (I'm pretty sure it's not; farming and shipping have never been more efficient), doesn't imply "more people going hungry." It could just mean that people are making more money and prices across the board are going up.
I wouldn't call a modem "network connectivity," personally. But, you could easily re-word that first point to say "broadband" or specifically "ethernet."
Ok, I know that you HAVE to declare the movie is terrible, being a fan of the books and probably having more than a little of the Slashdot hipsterism (everything popular is bad!!)
But the movie really isn't that terrible at all, if you can look past the product placement. It doesn't follow any of the stories in the novel, first of all, but it does generally outline the "evolution" of the Three Laws with the formation of the (implied, but not stated) Fourth Law where you take the first law and replace "man" with "humanity." The fact that they could present this story in a way that was accessible to the blockbuster movie-going audience is actually pretty impressive, as far as I'm concerned. It also explains away parts of the movie where the robots are actively trying to kill people: the Fourth Law over-rides all of the previous three, and so killing Will Smith to protect "humanity" is perfectly acceptable as far as the robots are concerned.
Add in some car chashes, some cool sci-fi technology (like the electro-magnetic spherical wheels on the vehicles, that was pretty cool), and killer special effects, and it actually isn't a bad film at all. Remember, Will Smith did "Wild Wild West." The worst parts of the movie were the product placement, and the weak premise that Will Smith's character "hated" robots because a robot saved his life after an accident.
Seriously, though, there's this thing called "inflation." Many games for SNES were $60 new, which means if you're buying a game today for $60, a game with dozens more programmers, super-high res textures and graphics, an actual rock band providing the music, you're basically getting a great deal.
Of course, all posts like yours can be countered with a simple, "an item is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Period." The most basic rule of economics.
Personally, I think the feature set of the Xbox should put it in the "current generation" (or generation 7 as you call it), rather than the last generation.
Like the other current-gen consoles (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii), the Xbox has: * Integrated storage, no requirement to buy memory cards * Integrated network connectivity, not a plug-in widget to provide it * Online service to assist in the hosting of multiplayer games * Online game-purchasing/download service
The Dreamcast, PS2, and Gamecube had none of those. The Xbox, Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3 have all of them. Seems like an obvious place to draw the line.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, don't mean to troll, but you Windows users put up with so much trouble an annoyance just so you can avoid learning how a computer actually works...
1) What trouble am I putting up with? My Windows computer doesn't have Storm on it.
(To be a snarky devil's advocate, even if my computer did have Storm on it, the entire point of viruses like Storm is to hide themselves from detection, so it wouldn't actually cause me much trouble.)
2) Do you honestly believe that the average Mac user knows more about how a computer actually works than the average Windows user?
Methinks you guys would be better off just biting the bullet and switching. Sure, Macs are more expensive, and Linux has a steep learning curve, but isn't it worth avoiding all of the frustration you're going experience over the rest of your tech lifetime?
What frustration? My Windows computer doesn't have this virus. It works exactly how it should.
Or are you one of those folks who relishes the semi-annual Windows reinstall?
Why would I do that?
Perhaps you like paying an annual license fee to keep your computer from getting infected with a virus?
Nope, I just don't do stupid shit like running programs from porn websites.
Microsoft Windows systems are easily the most expensive systems to run on the planet,
Wow, you should talk to someone who uses Sun systems.
But I guess that's why there's an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me . Microsoft fooled me once. I'm not getting fooled again.
How, exactly, did Microsoft "fool" you? Out of curiousity. Your post is almost entirely nonsense.
Thanks for the tip, but that program doesn't seem to work correctly with Vista. It complained that it couldn't add from my media server because the service it installed needed admin rights; so I changed the service's login, and it still didn't work with the same error. :(
At least it uninstalled cleanly.
Is this something I have to hack my Xbox to do? I'll take a look at it.
What's weird to me is that the Xbox supports playing MP4, but for some reason they never sent that memo to the people who made Windows Media Center. If WMC played MP4 files, I'd be done already.
Magazines have been tolerated for decades with this exact model. Cable TV is another example. Hell, that's half the draw of the Superbowl each year.
Not to hijack the discussion...
But does anybody have any clue how to stream my existing MP4 movie files from my Windows Vista box to my Xbox 360? I can't even get Windows Media Player to import them into my playlist, and I think there might be some kind of codec download or something I need...
Any links/help would be nice, thanks.
Are we going to post a news story everytime google adds to their storage system?
Have so far.
or microsoft adds another bloated line of code?
God yes. Slashdot has flamebait stories about Microsoft when they don't do anything at all!
or everytime the telco's build a tower?
No, instead we'll get that one about how the US has crappy broadband another 4-6 times this week.
Yeah, but they have a pretty cool catchy name. "Monsanto!" Sounds like they should sell coffee.
Oh no, the world might have to give up tomatos! Surely we'll all die.
Ok, two points here:
1) GM doesn't make Dodge vehicles. Daimler-Chrysler does, so you're an idiot.
2) Reliability is pretty consistent across-the-board now. American cars generally aren't any worse than Japanese cars (generally.)
Of course, the fact that you don't even know what company makes the car you thought was so terrible makes me wonder if you're just trolling here in the first place.
We can only hope a space race starts with China since we will only spend if it's counter a "threat" to our supremacy.
Space race is all PR now. All you need is the capability to launch nukes into space and aim them down and you've won. That means we won decades ago.
Try putting OS X on a laptop, mapping a few drives (some using WebDAV, some using regular filesharing), close your laptop to sleep it. Now move into a location where there is a wireless network connection, but it doesn't allow access to any of your shares. Watch Finder literally freeze solid for 2 minutes before you can do any file operations at all, even if the file operation has nothing to do with a network drive.
On a desktop, I didn't have any network problems. It handled laptops pathetically.
People have been breathing "clouds of genetically engineered" pollen since long before Mendel described how genes even work. It's pretty obvious that if you only grow new corn stalks from your biggest ears of corn, you'll get bigger ears of corn in general. That's genetic engineering, right there.
A tablet wouldn't hurt, either. They already have virtually all the software support needed, just no tablet hardware. Where is it, Apple!?
I don't think the number of "Vista haters" is even a small fraction of what Slashdot thinks it is. Companies aren't movin to Vista because they're conservative, not because they hate it. Consumers generally don't give half a whit, but where they have an opinion at all I wager they'd prefer Vista over XP.
I did it just a few months ago. I was getting pissed off at OS X's lousy network performance, and lack of an affordable deskop (and lack of a tablet altogether!) So I bought a Dell desktop for a third the cost of an Apple desktop, put Windows Vista Ultimate on it, and I'm quite happy with it.
I'd actually just like you to name a couple games so I could try them out.
The only real value I can see in Halo is perhaps multiplayer, and even that stands as inferior to many other first person shooters.
Like which ones?
Normally I would not make a post which breaks down and addresses each individual point, but in this case it seems best. It seems to me that I hit a nerve with you when it comes to Halo, as your textual tone seems to indicate quite a lot of personally inaccurate insults.
I'm not able to read your "textual tone" very well because the smug condescension seems to be overpowering everything else...
Halo very well may deserve a level of popularity, but being touting as the world's best game it does not.
That's good, because nobody in this discussion ever touted it as the world's best game. You just made that up.
Virtually every other FPS? Hardly. Just off of the top of my head, I can only think of a few. Call of Duty now features regenerating health , which like Halo, makes the experience easier than it should be in most situations. As far as a limited carrying capacity, FEAR stands out as being one. Halo's "influence" on the industry isn't necessarily because its mechanics are better. Halo sells well, so most developers will naturally try to be more like it. In the cases stated however, limiting the amount of weapons one can carry has added a nice angle to gameplay.
Yada, yada, the point is that Halo's mechanics are not "stale" as you originally stated. If they were, there would be NO innovation for Call of Duty and FEAR to rip-off at all, because stale games do not do anything new or different. (Besides the point of how popular ripping-off Halo elements is.)
Video games, and the FPS genre specifically, tend to have rather lame plots.
Yes they do, but the entire point here is that Halo doesn't have a "rather lame plot." It actually has a relatively refreshingly original and creative storyline behind it, in a not-at-all-vague internally-consistant universe. Which is a lot more than you can say for Half-Life 2 and Gears of War, for instance.
I only bring it up because people attempt to tout how great they are. While the open environments were fairly impressive (especially for a console title), I felt that most of the textures suffered from a lack of detail and almost all of the animations were hideous.
Are you talking about Halo 1 specifically here? You're speaking in the past-tense here, and not acknowleding that Halo is a series of three games (each having its own graphics engine), so I really have no clue what exactly you're referring to.
More generally speaking however, the enemies and weapons lacked a lot of visual distinguish from one another.
What game are you comparing it to, here? Compared to almost every other title I've tried, the enemies and vehicles in Halo are remarkably varied. (There's no way to be looking at an Elite and confuse it for a Hunter, for instance. Although I suppose from a distance Brutes and Elites look a bit alike.)
Animations in Halo 1 were not great, but they were on-par with other games that came out at the time. You can't fairly compare animations from Halo 1 with, say, Lost Planet.
This is where I start to suspect you haven't even played Halo 2 & 3.
I can't say that I've played it. All of the Battlefield games I have experienced have had an unfinished feel to them however. The series did start off as a World War II cash in though, so it's not surprising. I will agree that unpolished console games are typically better than unpolished PC games. I think that is more due to the nature of the hardware than anything though. You know what you're getting with a console and don't have to plan for various conflicts that might arise with differing PC configurations. Macs have this benefit as well.
Yada, yada. The point is you're admitting now that PC games can be as, or more, unpolished as console games, which pretty much nullifies your earlier point. You don't need to write this many words to communicate, "boy howdy, I said something downright stupid!"
The amount of sheer coverage and praise that Halo receives is ridiculous though, espe
Halo doesn't deserve its popular status however, thus it is overrated.
On the contrary, I think Halo deserves its popular status if only so that Bungie can be appreciated for what they accomplished with Marathon, a woefully UNDER-rated game.
I still think you're just a typical Slashdot hipster who must hate everything popular/mass media.
The gameplay is stale, the story even more contrived than usual, the graphics always sub-par, etc.
Gameplay: It's so stale, that must be why virtually every other FPS has ripped-off Halo's 'recharging shield/lifebar' design concept. And why half of those FPSes have also ripped-off Halo's 'carry two weapons only' design. If you don't think Halo has been influencial to the industry (the opposite of stale), then you're sadly mistaken.
Story: Perhaps contrived, but they're working within a medium (FPS games) in which nearly every storyline is contrived. That aside, at least it's pretty damned original, which is a lot more than you can say for, for instance, Gears of War. In addition to that, it does a pretty job of getting the player into the game, at least players who aren't as jaded as you.
Graphics: Sub-par compared to... what? Given, Halo 2 didn't exactly blow people away, but Halo 3 looks as nice as anything else on the market right now, and the original Halo definitely raised a few bars in the console world, if not necessarily the PC world.
It's a simple trend of console kiddies having never seen or played a truly polished FPS before.
Oh yeah, a "polished" FPS like Battlefield: 2142? A product so buggy that merely entering the actual game is a small miracle. There are polished console games and unpolished console games. There are very polished PC games and extremely unpolished POS PC games (like aforementioned Battlefield.) If anything, I'd say console games have the edge if only because at least the unpolished ones actually *work*, which isn't necessarily true of unpolished PC games.
But making a claim that all PC games are more polished than all console games, that's just stupid.
I do, however, hate most popular films. It's too bad your reasoning is so far off base.
Is it? Considering you've given either wrong or vague reasons to dislike Halo, and you admit that you hate popular films, I think my reasoning is dead on.
The PS2 has built-in Ethernet
:)
Mine doesn't... did I get ripped off?
PS2 games have this on a per game basis, but nothing that requires a subscription. Microsoft definitely changed the model by offering this, but note that Sony didn't follow suit for the PS3; they still don't charge. The subscription service part of the XBox is the main reason I'm not interested.
My understanding is that the Sony "Home" Second Life-alike environment is supposed to provide this. I don't have a PS3, personally, so maybe somebody else can confirm this.
The PS2 supports 480p for some games and even 1080i (for some parts of Gran Turismo).
"Some parts?" Like your car enters the final stretch and the TV resolution changes?
As for the other features, I think those are a matter of choice for the console, rather than elements of a "next gen console" (or 7th generation console). We could set up other requirements that exclude the XBox 360. For example, one could say that integrated next generation media (i.e., Bluray) is a requirement, as the Xbox 360 only supports HD-DVD as an add-on.
From a "duh" viewpoint, it's pretty common sense that the Xbox 360 is in the same generation as the PS3 at least. If you define things so that it isn't, you're not going to have a lot of people using your classification. Personally, though, I think the Xbox is vastly different from the PS2/Gamecube, and it wouldn't be nearly so "duh".
But oh well.
Food prices have begun increasing worldwide, meaning that fewer people can afford to eat.
Then how come average calories consumed per capita has been increasing consistently for the last 50 years?
Food prices increasing, if it's even true (I'm pretty sure it's not; farming and shipping have never been more efficient), doesn't imply "more people going hungry." It could just mean that people are making more money and prices across the board are going up.
I wouldn't call a modem "network connectivity," personally. But, you could easily re-word that first point to say "broadband" or specifically "ethernet."
Ok, I know that you HAVE to declare the movie is terrible, being a fan of the books and probably having more than a little of the Slashdot hipsterism (everything popular is bad!!)
But the movie really isn't that terrible at all, if you can look past the product placement. It doesn't follow any of the stories in the novel, first of all, but it does generally outline the "evolution" of the Three Laws with the formation of the (implied, but not stated) Fourth Law where you take the first law and replace "man" with "humanity." The fact that they could present this story in a way that was accessible to the blockbuster movie-going audience is actually pretty impressive, as far as I'm concerned. It also explains away parts of the movie where the robots are actively trying to kill people: the Fourth Law over-rides all of the previous three, and so killing Will Smith to protect "humanity" is perfectly acceptable as far as the robots are concerned.
Add in some car chashes, some cool sci-fi technology (like the electro-magnetic spherical wheels on the vehicles, that was pretty cool), and killer special effects, and it actually isn't a bad film at all. Remember, Will Smith did "Wild Wild West." The worst parts of the movie were the product placement, and the weak premise that Will Smith's character "hated" robots because a robot saved his life after an accident.
Yeah, and you could get a hamburger for a nickel!
Seriously, though, there's this thing called "inflation." Many games for SNES were $60 new, which means if you're buying a game today for $60, a game with dozens more programmers, super-high res textures and graphics, an actual rock band providing the music, you're basically getting a great deal.
Of course, all posts like yours can be countered with a simple, "an item is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Period." The most basic rule of economics.
Hate to reply to my own post, but you can also add:
* HD video quality support (HD being designed as "higher than 280p")
To that list.
Personally, I think the feature set of the Xbox should put it in the "current generation" (or generation 7 as you call it), rather than the last generation.
Like the other current-gen consoles (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii), the Xbox has:
* Integrated storage, no requirement to buy memory cards
* Integrated network connectivity, not a plug-in widget to provide it
* Online service to assist in the hosting of multiplayer games
* Online game-purchasing/download service
The Dreamcast, PS2, and Gamecube had none of those. The Xbox, Xbox 360, Wii, and PS3 have all of them. Seems like an obvious place to draw the line.