samdweck
Oct 7, 04:42 PM
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
P-Worm
Sep 20, 07:13 AM
Is it possible that the cable ports on the back can be used for both input AND output? I don't see why not.
P-Worm
P-Worm
arkitect
Mar 12, 04:46 AM
Thanks Olly, I was wondering how hydrogen could explode, not exactly flammable really is it?
Eh?
:eek:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Hindenburg_burning.jpg
Eh?
:eek:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Hindenburg_burning.jpg
mommy
Sep 12, 04:13 PM
I've been coming to MacRumors since maybe but this product has finally inspired me to register. Welcome, iTV - I can't wait til you're part of our living room.
I'm posting with a request too, because there are so many excellent writers on here. Please, someone needs to write a site/blog about getting media ready for the forthcoming iTV. My iTunes and iPhoto libraries are just a mess, and I have stuff on DVD that I don't have a clear idea of how to rip and catalog. If you have a good "system," create a how-to guide, please!
I'm posting with a request too, because there are so many excellent writers on here. Please, someone needs to write a site/blog about getting media ready for the forthcoming iTV. My iTunes and iPhoto libraries are just a mess, and I have stuff on DVD that I don't have a clear idea of how to rip and catalog. If you have a good "system," create a how-to guide, please!
AP_piano295
Apr 22, 11:15 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
killr_b
Oct 25, 10:48 PM
I can't really decide what to think of an 8 core mac pro.
Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
In any case I think my mac pro isn't quite as fast as it could be sighting the activity of my cpus during a render.
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
Right now FCP barely uses all four of mine.
It seriously seems that they a) haven't updated software pending an OS update, ie; leopard, to take advavtage of them or b) more cores really only helps the multi-tasking.
In any case I think my mac pro isn't quite as fast as it could be sighting the activity of my cpus during a render.
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
jazzkids
May 6, 08:56 PM
Hopefully someone at ATT will read these posts! In the same boat, last 3-4 weeks been getting worse in R.I.
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 11:49 AM
AT&T can do whatever they want to.
The tethering charge is out there right now because of the unlimited data option. It's there to screw with the status quo.
Verizon is getting rid of their unlimited, as AT&T already did.
A fair system would be $5/GB, tethering permitted. Pay for what you eat.
But then, a competitor would come out with an unlimited option to try to attract customers; and eventually be in the same boat.
Basically it comes down to "pay for what you eat" or "fixed rate with limitations." There really isn't another viable option that I see.
The tethering charge is out there right now because of the unlimited data option. It's there to screw with the status quo.
Verizon is getting rid of their unlimited, as AT&T already did.
A fair system would be $5/GB, tethering permitted. Pay for what you eat.
But then, a competitor would come out with an unlimited option to try to attract customers; and eventually be in the same boat.
Basically it comes down to "pay for what you eat" or "fixed rate with limitations." There really isn't another viable option that I see.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:01 AM
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Got organized? Like that sad attempt at a "Fat Acceptance" movement? News flash - nobody likes fat people because they are seen as ugly and gross. Find me a single obesity related story on the news that isn't accompanied by B-roll of headless fat bodies walking around the city holding ice cream cones.
Imagine if every time a gay related story were on the news they showed B-roll of men in darkened gay theaters and closeups of prescription labels for antiretrovirals.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Got organized? Like that sad attempt at a "Fat Acceptance" movement? News flash - nobody likes fat people because they are seen as ugly and gross. Find me a single obesity related story on the news that isn't accompanied by B-roll of headless fat bodies walking around the city holding ice cream cones.
Imagine if every time a gay related story were on the news they showed B-roll of men in darkened gay theaters and closeups of prescription labels for antiretrovirals.
theheyes
May 2, 05:10 PM
I can't think of anywhere else on the internet where users are so pedantic about whether a piece of malware is a virus or not. It's completely missing the point. The amount of malware out there for Macs is very slowly increasing, which, in itself, is increasing the probability of infecting the user base and Macs can be remotely exploited just like any other operating system.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
Instead of rebuffing the emergence of Mac malware with technicalities and pointing the finger at other products, it would be more useful to think about what it means to you, the user. Do you need to run out and buy an antivirus product? No, probably not. If you're someone who keeps on top of software updates and are generally sensible in how you use a computer then you're fine to carry on.
On the other hand, if you're someone who peruses file sharing services and questionable websites for dodgy content and pirated software then it's becoming increasingly more likely that one day you'll get burned. Highly likely? No, not yet, but it would be foolish to assume immunity to computer security issues based solely on the fact that something so far has not met the strict definition of "virus".
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
toddybody
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:52 PM
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
Give me a break. Now you are just minimizing what is a violation of civil rights.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
Being able to have a "wedding ceremony" is not the issue. It's having the same rights as our heterosexual counterparts. This involves about 1000 tax benefits and simple things like hospital visitation.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
We will be equal when men are allowed to marry men and women are allowed to marry women. There was a time when a Black man and white woman didn't have the right to get married. That wrong was righted and so will this one.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
Luckily I don't recognize what the Catholic Church recognizes. So they can call themselves to chastity. As I said, they need to worry about cleaning their own house, and stay out of mine.
peharri
Sep 20, 01:51 PM
I think iTV is a waste of time and money for apple. In essence, the mac mini can do ALL OF THAT, plus more, minus the ability to go out via HDMI. If apple just upgraded FRONT ROW to the quality of the iTV user interface, you have an iTV right there on the mac mini! Just add some more ports, including HDMI, cable in for DVR recording, a massive hard drive, and you have a MAC MEDIA CENTER PC! What about connecting to other machines to share content? YOU CAN ALREADY DO THAT!!! In iTunes you say "share my media on my network" and any computer with iTunes can read that information! Come on apple...this iTV thing is a WASTE. It's a dumb down mac mini...apple will make way more money selling mac mini's with TIGER/LEOPARD on it, so not only would you get a DVR, STREAMING MOVIES, DOWNLOADABLE MOVIES TO PLAY ON YOUR TV, but you get WEB TV!!! Or edit a MOVIE ON YOUR BIG ASS TV! Sorry for the rant...I just don't know why apple doesn't merge both technologies together in one system to compete with media center pc, and convert MORE mac sales.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
The iTV is going to be $300. You're talking about ordinary users paying well over $600 for a set top box. Requiring that they get a Mac mini raises the barrier to entry but doesn't provide any significant advantage to the person who just wants iTunes on their TV.
Apple OC
Apr 22, 10:20 PM
All our money has that crap on it. Just like how UNDER GOD was added to the pledge when we were all so afraid of the communists taking over, our currency was also hi-jacked by the religious right. Pathetic example of how we do not have separation of church and state.
lol ... there are some weird things on the US currency ... what is with the floating eye on top of a Pyramid?
lol ... there are some weird things on the US currency ... what is with the floating eye on top of a Pyramid?
Multimedia
Nov 2, 07:34 PM
I wouldn't expect the Clovertowns to be a BTO option right away. Sure they are pin compatable but Apple will need to make sure that they can cool these chips well enough to be very stable. Maybe Apple has already been testing the clovertown config, but we haven't heard any rumors and who knows if they need additional cooling.
I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.
Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.The Source Article Of This Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2982349&postcount=1) Says Apple Completed Preperation For 8-Core In September. According to the Merom and Conroe release quantities, it will be a lot when they say they are shipping.
"The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown. . .
It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season."
I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.
Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.The Source Article Of This Thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2982349&postcount=1) Says Apple Completed Preperation For 8-Core In September. According to the Merom and Conroe release quantities, it will be a lot when they say they are shipping.
"The Mac Pro new system would come with two Quad-core processors and could be released after mid-November of this year. The exact timing of the release is not clear, but must wait for the official release of Clovertown. . .
It'll be strictly a marketing decision from there, say insiders, as the Mac maker wrapped up hardware preparations for this brawny beast during the tail-end of the back-to-school season."
Lepton
Oct 25, 11:00 PM
It's nice that the quad cores will drop into the Mac Pro. Will they drop into the new XServe?
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
Say, aren't the new quad cores AND the new XServes coming out at almost exactly the same time?
-Mike from myallo.com (http://www.myallo.com)
GGJstudios
May 2, 03:29 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
It can't affect the user's account if the user doesn't proceed with the installation. If the installer is closed without proceeding, nothing is affected.
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
It also scans for Mac malware.
It can't affect the user's account if the user doesn't proceed with the installation. If the installer is closed without proceeding, nothing is affected.
What's your point with ClamAV ? It's the defacto Unix anti-virus scanner that's used to scan for Windows viruses in e-mail servers usually.
It also scans for Mac malware.
bradl
Mar 18, 01:52 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
ncv
Apr 12, 10:15 PM
Great news. Pity I just did the Final Cut Pro training course.
FFTT
Jul 12, 08:48 PM
Just got Tom's Hardware Guide's publication today about Project Keifer.
Intel's projected 32 Core processor. :D
"Intel has been studying Sun's UltraSPARC T1 (Niagara) to come up with a radical processor redesign for 2010 that could perform 16 times faster than Woodcrest. This is no marketing blurb, guys; this is technical intelligence from within the Borg collective."
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/10/project_keifer_32_core/index.html
Intel's projected 32 Core processor. :D
"Intel has been studying Sun's UltraSPARC T1 (Niagara) to come up with a radical processor redesign for 2010 that could perform 16 times faster than Woodcrest. This is no marketing blurb, guys; this is technical intelligence from within the Borg collective."
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/10/project_keifer_32_core/index.html
cnorth3
Oct 7, 02:30 PM
yet all the one advantage the apple model has it killed by the fact that how difficult it is to get an app approved and no way to directly sell it to the consumer.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
Yeah, it's almost impossible to get an app approved (other than the 70k that have already been approved):rolleyes: And sure, most devs would much rather sell direct than have to put up with all the visibility and market power of the App Store. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Apple is such a nuisance!
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
Yeah, it's almost impossible to get an app approved (other than the 70k that have already been approved):rolleyes: And sure, most devs would much rather sell direct than have to put up with all the visibility and market power of the App Store. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Apple is such a nuisance!
DeepDish
Aug 29, 11:03 AM
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
Sometimes activist organizations will target big name companies just to get more attention.
Apple is more green than dell. period.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
bunch of hewwie
Sometimes activist organizations will target big name companies just to get more attention.
Apple is more green than dell. period.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
bunch of hewwie
srxtr
Apr 20, 07:10 PM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
Putting aside whether it's right or wrong to download songs for free, you do know iPhones can play free songs too?
FYI iPhone is basically an iPod except it's also a phone
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
Putting aside whether it's right or wrong to download songs for free, you do know iPhones can play free songs too?
FYI iPhone is basically an iPod except it's also a phone
NathanMuir
Mar 25, 01:37 PM
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
All Christians are not Catholics. ;)
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
This is a thread on the Vatican's position regarding homosexuality and homosexual marriage, not violence, correct? Please correct me if that's not right.
And...?
IIRC, you're the one that introduced a timeline and then could not prove what link(s) at all it had with the topic of violence and Catholicism. IIRC, you're also the one that made up a statistic about how many of the offenses on the list were by 'Christians', not even Catholics. IIRC, you're also the one that attempted to introduce the umbrella term of 'Christians' as a synonym for Catholics (which it is not).
