Messages

301

Announce Your Software/Service/Product / Re: xkcdDownloader

« on: September 14, 2010, 12:04 PM »

That's cool. I've got a suggestion:

Store the image's ALT text into file as well. Sometimes this is as funny as the comic itself.

302

Living Room / Forum registration explosion

« on: September 14, 2010, 09:39 AM »

Has anybody else running an online forum noticed a recent explosion in the number of people registering?

I have a blog and forum that's targeted at a fairly local interest. For two years the membership has been stable, gaining perhaps one additional registrant per month. But over the last month or two, registrations have exploded.

I'm now getting 2-3 dozen per day. These registrations aren't bots. I'm pretty sure they're human, as the additional CAPTCHA mechanisms I've added have not even slowed down the flow. These are coming from IP addresses all over the world: America, but also Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa.

What I really don't understand is what they're trying to accomplish. They almost never posted spam messages, even before I changed registrations to require approval. Only a few of them had spammy links in their signature, or even a URL in their profile.

So why are people taking the effort to go through the registration? I could understand if it was a botnet that was just building up resources for future forum spam, but since this appears to be real humans, that doesn't make sense to me.

Anybody out there have more insight?

303

General Software Discussion / Re: Portable apps suites - is there a good one?

« on: September 09, 2010, 12:41 PM »

what i'd really like to do is come up with something so that LBC and FARR can parse the portable-app-collection formats, so that you can use LBC and FARR as a drop-in replacement for those portable app menu launchers without doing any special configuration.

-mouser (September 07, 2010, 07:32 PM)

That's an incredibly good idea!

I use WinPenPack, and from what I know about the way they store their launcher data (it's all in an XML file), it should be pretty straightforward to do it for this case.

304

General Software Discussion / Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?

« on: August 26, 2010, 08:26 AM »

a measure which is based on internet connection speed can not be used to judge how good an achieve[sic] program is.

-tslim (August 26, 2010, 08:19 AM)

This is false. You seem to believe that there is a single best program for everyone, that they can be judged in absolute terms.

Really, the only valid measure is how well a given program meets its user's needs. Since each of us are trying to accomplish different things in different ways, it's likely that there will be a range of programs that excel, with some of us choosing different ones as the optimum.

Shades has explained quite clearly (at the risk of belaboring a sub-thread that I think is already a dead horse) that total time to move a chunk of data is his greatest criteria, so obviously the best for him is the program that can compress the greatest. On the other hand, when I'm compressing I'm generally doing it as a backup; with this cumbersome task, I'm much happier when the time of the compression and decompression is optimal, even if it costs me a bit more space. So Shades and I have opposite "best archiver" conclusions, but neither of us is wrong.

And by the way, please take some time to spell-check your posts. Your repeated substitution of "achieve" instead of "archive" took me several reads to figure out.

305

General Software Discussion / Re: What is the currently best Desktop Search software?

« on: August 26, 2010, 08:18 AM »

I had been using Copernic + Xobni for some time. But Xobni started killing Outlook, and Copernic just got too annoying in demanding to upgrade to a new version that has fewer features.

So now I'm just using WDS. This works well enough on the indexing side. However, the UI is pure evil. To do any sophisticated queries you need to know their query syntax. I've made up a cheat sheet that I've got tacked to my wall.

306

General Software Discussion / Re: Windows 7 + NAS drive := major suckage

« on: August 25, 2010, 11:35 AM »

I have a DNS-321. I'm not home to test this problem, but in general...

I don't think it's correct to say that the drive is NTFS. At least with my unit, and I think with anything that's doing Samba-type drive sharing, the actual file system is a black box. In the case of my DNS-321, the data is tored on the box in Ext2 format. My Windows installation has no idea how to read Ext2, and the NAS box, since it's running Linux internally, certainly has no clue about NTFS. All of the I/O happens at a logical level above the file system.

307

General Software Discussion / Re: Kingsoft Office

« on: August 24, 2010, 12:28 PM »

maybe it is merely because the company is Chinese. So they don't know about the typos, because they can't read English!

-Curt (August 24, 2010, 03:45 AM)

I'm currently working on a French translation of my company's web site. We've contracted out the translation of the text, and my understanding of that language is barely good enough to figure out which menu option is which. I have very little way to know if there are mistakes.

308

Developer's Corner / Re: Embeding content on your web pages -- iframes vs native content?

« on: August 16, 2010, 01:31 PM »

On the web site that I'm responsible for at work, I'll go to the ends of the Earth to avoid an IFRAME. A client-side script to pull in content from a foreign site is slightly preferable, but still not good.

The thing is, I'm responsible for ensuring the security of my users. When retrieving IFRAME content from a foreign server, I'm surrendering all control to that foreign server, but my users don't know where it's coming from, nor how trustworthy they are.

The AJAX solution is better, because it's not taking raw HTML. But at a minimum, it's still a privacy exposure in that it reveals to the foreign server who my customers are, and what content they're interested in.

Of course the "do the right thing", wanting to protect my customers, is the main thing. But even if it were not, some of our customers have placed restrictions in our contract that prevent me from doing this. So when it does occur on our site, I need to have behavioral switches in our code to disable it for customers that won't allow it. And where it can be allowed, I need NDAs and indemnification from the foreign server to keep me and my customers safe.

My preferred solution is for you to give me a web service. I can call your service from our web servers, acting as a proxy for the user, and expecting back data as opposed to raw HTML. I can then embed that into the pages as I see fit, with a much greater feeling of safety.

Of course, your users may not be so exacting, or have so much to protect. But without knowing what content you'll be dealing with, who knows...

309

Living Room / Re: On the Web: Google net neutrality stance gives Net’s future to corporations

« on: August 13, 2010, 03:31 PM »

Does not mandate that the phone have a bunch of usless buttons that control 7 different flavors of GPS MAPING Software

-Stoic Joker (August 13, 2010, 03:23 PM)

Huh? I've never seen any phone that has actual buttons to control the GPS features. I think you're hanging onto your argument by your fingernails.

310

Living Room / Re: On the Web: Google net neutrality stance gives Net’s future to corporations

« on: August 13, 2010, 01:47 PM »

Now do you think I can go into a phone store and fine a (unicorn) plain god damn phone? No. Best I can do is a clamshell with GPS - as if anybody can find (or even see) anything on a 1 inch map. It's a stupid pointless gimmick - that will probably get you killed if you ever actually try to use it.

-Stoic Joker (August 13, 2010, 01:02 PM)

You've just proven my point.

The reason your phone has a GPS in it, is not that the manufacturer thinks it's a nifty gimmick that they can foist on you. It's because of government regulation. The FCC's regulation for E911 service require that cell phone providers be able to locate a phone geographically. You're being forced to buy a GPS because some government regulators decided that your personal values are not important, and that their own ideas should determine how you spend your money.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. We give the government control of something, and initially they've got the best of intentions. But sooner or later, lobbyists get in, people retire from the industry and get jobs in the regulatory agencies, and so on. And before you know it, the agency is no longer trying to work in your best interest, but is instead trying to guarantee the ongoing livelihood of the corporations in the industry.

Now, we don't know today what kind of regulations will be forcing us into such nonsense with our Internet access. If we could know those kinds of things ahead of time, then you wouldn't be stuck with a GPS you don't want. But without exception, this is the lifecycle of all regulatory agencies. If you give the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet, then I can say with absolute certainty that they'll be protecting the service providers, within a matter of a few years.

Before someone disagrees with me: I think that any refutation of my claim must include an actual example of a mature industry whose regulation is free of protections for those corporations. We've got a cultural meme where "common sense" tells us that seeking a profit is inherently evil, and that regulation is necessary before we all fall into the pit of despair. If your response is to advocate regulation based on this meme, please be prepared to show how it is that the regulation won't be worse than the corporations.

And since I'm showing you real, historical examples of how regulation has made things worse, I think it would be helpful if you could provide *real* (not hypothetical) examples of how an ISP's management of their network really is (not *could*, mind you, but *is*) making things worse for customers.

311

Living Room / Re: On the Web: Google net neutrality stance gives Net’s future to corporations

« on: August 13, 2010, 12:17 PM »

Sorry man, but you've already hit the wall coming out of the gate. You have Want and Need confused - They are not synonyms.

-Stoic Joker (August 13, 2010, 11:53 AM)

Mr. Joker, you're wrong for two reasons.

First of all, even if a product (say, those stupid wristbands that come in goofy shapes, that seem to be everywhere lately) has no objective purpose, they can still improve a person's situation if that's what they want. Consider this can of Mountain Dew in front of me. I certainly don't need it. I could have gotten a cup of water instead, at no cost to myself. But I like Mountain Dew, darn it, and it's worth $0.50 to me to have it even if it doesn't do anything objective for me.

The economic thinking behind this is called the utility function. Everybody has a set of values, how much a given thing is worth to them. Even if you can't measure the value of a product (because it's purely subjective, like the stupid wristbands), an economist would still say that a person ascribes some value to it, and that value is obviously communicated by how much they're willing to pay.

The fundamental point of economics is the choices that people make: why are they willing to forgo one option in favor of a second (see opportunity cost). The fifty cents I spend on my Mt. Dew I could have used on a cookie for dessert, and instead had a cup of water. But I value the citrus bite of the soda, and how it clears the chewed sandwich out of my mouth. I could even have saved it for a larger purpose, but the marginal utility of half a buck is tiny for me. The person who bought the stupid wristband thing is wasting her money according to my values, but the decoration on her wrist perhaps makes her feel better about herself, and so provides value to her in excess of its purchase price, according to her utility function.

Thus, you can see that even if we don't see a practical application of something, the fact remains that a product's purchaser somehow values it more than the money he spent to acquire it. And thus, the producer of idiotic wristbands is indeed providing value to that hypothetical girl.

Second, who are you to say what's a gimmick and what has value? As I alluded to above, we each have our own values, our own utility function. Just because something has no value to you (nor to me, for that matter) does not mean that it has no value to anyone. And you and I aren't in a position to understand why the purchaser values it (indeed, frequently even the purchaser doesn't know; the utility function isn't necessarily arrived at rationally or even consciously, it can be, and probably is, largely emotional).

Once again, the fact that someone valued the wristband more than she valued the money to pay for it is prima facie proof that the product does have that much value. If you disagree with that, you're setting yourself up as Big Brother, as someone who claims to know better than any of us how to run our own lives.

312

General Software Discussion / Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?

« on: August 13, 2010, 09:24 AM »

I'm not sure if "smallest archive size" is the only way to find the "best archiving utility". I think RAR's compression time/size ratio is quite OK.

-wr975 (August 13, 2010, 09:04 AM)

It certainly is ... for applications where its compression/speed tradeoff is appropriate. Every application has a unique requirement.

I recently had to change from ZIP to 7Z for an application here at work. The archive file size exceeded 2GB, and the limitations of some of the software involved (including our embedded ZIP archive code, if not the ZIP format itself) forced us to hold the file size below that limit. RAR was out of the question, since the compression code requires a commercial license. We had little choice but to pick 7Z in this case.

On the other hand, we've done a fair amount of experimentation on compression of data to be transmitted through web services. Again using the same embedded ZIP compressor, we found that maximal compression only achieved a marginal improvement over high compression (for the type of data we were compressing, at least), but required many times the computation resources. It seemed like the best tradeoff for the scalability of our web services was to go with just high compression, and let the CPUs and RAM have a lighter load.

313

Living Room / Re: On the Web: Google net neutrality stance gives Net’s future to corporations

« on: August 13, 2010, 09:16 AM »

Too many people are getting way too rich these days by gimmicks instead of providing a service that people need.

-superboyac (August 12, 2010, 03:07 PM)

I'm sorry. I see that other people are agreeing vehemently with this idea. But it's poppycock. You don't get rich without providing something that people want.

The only way to make money is to get people to buy your product. People are only going to buy it if it's something that they want [1], at least to the degree that they value it more than the money that they're paying. Thus, someone making, say, a million dollars is prima facia evidence that they have provided value to others of at least a million dollars.

Of course, you might say that there are ways they could have built their product better, such that it would have been even more valuable to their customers. This is true, but in this case they would also be charging more, extracting, say, two million from customers now because that's how much the improved product is worth (i.e., how much value it provides to customers).

[1] I over simplify. There is another way to get people to fork over money, and that's to get the government to force them to do so. For example, I'm not interested in medical insurance that covers psychiatric and drug abuse conditions, but the New Jersey government says that all medical insurance must cover this, so I am (or really, my employer is) forced to waste money on it.

The thing is, this "loophole" supports my argument. In a free market, the only way to get rich is to provide value. It's government regulation that perverts this. And what all you guys seem to be advocating (or at least decrying the lack of) is additional government regulation. The end result of these regulations, a few years down the road when all the dust settles, is that you will be forced to pay for things you don't want, and the existing corporations will be entrenched in a way that guarantees they'll live forever, thanks to government regulation/protection. See Rent Seeking and Regulatory Capture.

314

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Review/Tips: "Scanning - VueScan and Associates" Pt.I: Intro & Bookscanning

« on: August 12, 2010, 11:24 AM »

That was a truly excellent review and guide.

I have one point of confusion. Can you explain the difference between "batch mode" and "auto-repeat"? Not so much the difference in what's available to each, but more fundamentally -- what are they?

315

General Software Discussion / Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?

« on: August 12, 2010, 10:34 AM »

So is there anybody out there that would really object if archives were delivered in .7z format?

316

Living Room / Re: On the Web: Google net neutrality stance gives Net’s future to corporations

« on: August 11, 2010, 12:45 PM »

Please forgive me if this comment sounds over-the-top, but some of the terminology has connotations that I didn't attach to them.

Wireless spectrum and the fiberoptic lines that carry Internet traffic are fundamentally different. The "airwaves" are, given technology currently in use, a very finite resource. Short of putting all wireless spectrum into private hands for effective management (see Coase's Theorem), there needs to be some way to handle traffic so that it doesn't get polluted to the point of uselessness. In contrast, one can add more fiber bandwidth nearly ad infinitum, and can do so without government interference (for example, buying the right to do so along train rights-of-way).

Thus there may be good reason to enforce neutrality over wireless, but not over the Internet as a whole.

Additionally, because of practical considerations with "last-mile" ISP service (there's generally at most 2 choices for any given consumer: at most, you can choose Cable or DSL), similar arguments may apply for enforced neutrality for ISPs. This should be a temporary state: once technologies allow for more competition, these controls should be relaxed. However, (a) when was the last time you saw federal regulations being relaxed? and (b) given the precedent of governmental controls limiting profitability, who is going to invest in that new technology to improve competition?

Google, and large long-haul backbone carriers like ATT or Qwest, have invested incredibly large amounts of money in building an effective network. Thanks to their investment we've got a whole world of information at our fingertips, quite literally. It seems to me that those who made those giant investments deserve to reap the benefits of their investment.

Net neutrality is the government telling these carriers that they can no longer manage their networks (that they built with their own investments, and at their own risk), that the government can direct how these putatively-private resources must be used. While stopping a good deal short of outright nationalization of the communications industry, this certainly qualifies as economic fascism:

An inherent aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigisme[12], meaning an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.
(See https://secure.wikim...iki/Economic_fascism )

From a moral perspective, I can't fathom why so many people believe that forcing the communications providers to surrender their property to government control is the right thing to do. It seems that we've simply gotten so used to having completely open access, that we are entitled to it. But by what moral law do we gain control over another's property?

From a practical perspective, I am equally worried. It seems to me that many people are exhibiting a knee-jerk response to large corporations, jumping on the "quest for profits is evil" bandwagon. The thing is, in fighting the battle you're giving to the government yet another tool that they can use against us. You're giving more powers to the same entity that brought us the war in Iraq, the IRS, subsidies for giant corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, and countless encroachments on our fundamental freedoms. Quoting again from the wikipedia article economic fascism:

One significant fascist economic belief was that prosperity would naturally follow once the nation has achieved a cultural and spiritual re-awakening. ... Once in power, fascists usually adopted whatever economic program they believed to be most suitable for their political goals.

In over two centuries of American history, I can only think of a single major government initiative that has been significantly beneficial in the big picture (that is, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System). Most all turn into monsters, suffering regulatory capture so that the government turns into the servants of those they intended to regulate (e.g., the petroleum industry). I think you'll be hard pressed to name any significant government initiative that is as good as "not terrible".

In that context, it just boggles my mind that people would be so agitated to take such a risk with something that's so important -- all over something that is, so far, purely abstract and hasn't been shown to really be a problem.

EDIT: add link explaining "regulatory capture"

EDIT #2: Here's a worthwhile alternate point-of-view. The author starts with the fundamental Internet value that the network must allow bits to flow freely, period, and develops that into an idea that service providers ought to be able to add services with greater value, so long as they don't interfere with that fundamental philosophy of the Internet. This isn't entirely in agreement with my above post, but seems a pretty compelling viewpoint.

317

General Software Discussion / Re: Which archive software are we using in 2010 (and why)?

« on: August 10, 2010, 07:53 AM »

Another similar vote.

I primarily use 7-Zip. It handles standard zip files as well as anything when I need to distribute something. It extracts RAR for when I download something. And for my own personal use, I'll use .7z as the format. On the rare occasions that I need to create a RAR, of course I need to use WinRAR.

Do we have enough critical mass, at least in this community, so that 7z is a viable standard? It does have a number of advantages over zip.

318

General Software Discussion / Re: Recommendations for home mail server

« on: August 09, 2010, 08:12 PM »

Sorry it didn't work out for you. I didn't find SmarterMail particularly difficult to use

-40hz (August 08, 2010, 09:30 PM)

Thanks just the same. Hopefully it goes without saying that the chance to experiment is still valuable. In this case, they had just released a major upgrade, so I think the UI I was dealing with is different than what had been out there in the past.

Anyway, I've got the basic setup of hMailServer working now, including the features that were important to me. It looks like this is going to be successful. However, I've decided not to use the default SQL CE database that ships with it. I'm installing MS SQL Server right now, so I can switch over to a "real" database before going live with it.

319

Announce Your Software/Service/Product / Re: Sort OneNote 2010 Sections

« on: August 09, 2010, 03:24 PM »

That sounds useful, I'm going to take a look.

Thanks!

320

General Software Discussion / Re: Recommendations for home mail server

« on: August 08, 2010, 03:09 PM »

I tried SmarterMail (suggested by 40Hz), as it gives the impression of being well-polished, and the web page makes it sound like it has all the features I need.

However, once I installed it, I couldn't -- even with the online help -- actually configure a site with it. It took about 10 rounds of messages on their forum before I figured out the problem: there are two different things in the UI labeled "Maintain", and I had been concentrating on one (which generated an error in the web browser) without noticing the other. Even after getting this set up, I find that I haven't the slightest clue how to set up a SmartPop-like arrangement to retrieve via POP3 mail from an external server, and to set up outgoing mail to forward through my hosting provider. Online reviews were glowing about how easy this is to use, but for me, with many years of experience, running my own servers and even understanding the protocols, I was completely befuddled. I don't like software to make me feel stupid, so SmarterMail goes on the trash heap.

I'm about to go back to hMailServer to give that I try. I'll report back on my success (or lack thereof).

321

General Software Discussion / Recommendations for home mail server

« on: July 15, 2010, 02:05 PM »

My home server is in its death throes, and I'm working on building up a new one. I bought a refurb Dell PowerEdge 1850 server (which now makes my office sound like I'm next to a jet engine, but that's a different story), and I'm outfitting it with the necessary software.

One of the server's primary purposes (other than being a domain controller -- so it has to be Windows) is acting as a small mail server. It retrieves email from my ISP accounts via POP3, and routes them to the corresponding internal mailboxes. My desktops then retrieve that via POP3. When I send mail it goes to this internal server, which hands it off to my ISP (which requires authenticated SMTP).

For about 10 years I've been using FTGate as the mail server. What it does, it does pretty well. However, there are two problems. First, it doesn't support authentication when it does the SMTP sends, so I have this ugly hack of handing the messages through a proxy that does the authentication for me. Second, there's a problem where, if an outgoing message has a problem, the entire outgoing queue stalls until I notice there's a problem and restart the service. I think the newer versions are greatly improved, but the newer prices are also greatly inflated, so I'm looking for an alternate solution.

So my key features are:

• Windows service
• Retrieve incoming mail via POP3
• Send mail using authenticated SMTP
• Remote administration, preferably by a web page
• Free or very low cost

Right now, the top of my list is hMailServer. Does anyone have experience with that? Does anyone have other suggestions for me to look at?

322

Post New Requests Here / Re: Idea - Return *new* lines from a text file (w/ example)

« on: July 08, 2010, 12:05 PM »

You just need the common tail utility.

I frequently use a Windows GUI-based version called BareTail, which is free and recommended.

323

Living Room / Re: How can we fix government? (U.S.)

« on: July 02, 2010, 11:33 AM »

I suggest that this weekend we all remember that we're not just celebrating the "Fourth of July" as it says on the calendar. We're celebrating Independence Day. I hope everyone can spend at least a moment reflecting on what that independence means.

A bit of quotation from The Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Read the whole thing yourself, it will only take a few minutes. I think you'll find a lot in there that will strike a chord today.

324

Living Room / Re: How can we fix government? (U.S.)

« on: June 30, 2010, 01:10 PM »

Fixing the way representation works, or anything else really about the democratic process, will not fix it (although I am partial to doing away with gerrymandering). Improving democracy is a red herring. As long as people can vote themselves a ride on the backs of the minority, a government by the majority is destined to failure.

Although we're taught that America was a brave and innovative experiment in self-government, it ain't true. The Pilgrims ran away from the Netherlands -- which was already a representative democracy. Ages before 1776, even pirate ships were run according to democratic principles. Heck, the ancient Greeks had a pure democracy. Nothing new or interesting on that front.

The *only* reason the USA is still a going concern (and arguably the stongest and most stable in the world) is that its Constitution is constructed based on a philosophy of a limited government built of strictly enumerated powers.

We (the Americans) dig ourselves deeper into trouble every time we cede to the government greater authority. They always tell us that a given power is necessary to fix a given problem, and they may even be sincere. However, in the end, these powers always wind up being subverted. Indeed, there's a whole branch of economics (Public Choice Theory) that deals with this. There's a phenomena called "regulatory capture", manifested in things like rent seeking, that describes how the regulated eventually become the regulators -- not through corruption, but through perfectly natural and rational progression.

If you think that things in America are broken, the way to fix it is not to give the government more power to deal with the issues -- that's just digging a deeper hole. The solution is to strip the government of its power, so all those powers that have been co-opted by interest groups are returned back to the people.

325

General Software Discussion / Re: Truecrypt defeats FBI

« on: June 29, 2010, 11:44 AM »

I may be misunderstanding something -- I'm not an expert on cryptography. But from what I understand, I believe that

Since encryption algorithms depend on every byte in the encrypted file being correct, any change anywhere in the file makes decryption impossible.

-40hz (June 28, 2010, 02:29 PM)

Is not true. I believe that the cypher's block size describes chunks of data for which this is true, but corrupting one block won't affect the decryption of the others.

Indeed, something at least similar to this must be true for SSL to work: you can decrypt the beginning of the stream without knowing the end (since it hasn't been received yet), and a transmission error early on doesn't force the connection to be discarded and reestablished because it's become corrupt.

However, trashing the header of your truecrypt archive may make it so that truecrypt is unable to open and mount the file.

That said, it still doesn't ensure your security in the most extreme conditions. Just because TC itself can't open it doesn't mean that the spooks can't accomplish the same thing. If they can access every other block successfully, then what they've got probably looks like a (virtual) disk with a corrupt MBR, which isn't going to be too much of an impediment.

Really, what you're proposing is only a simple additional layer of security that, once the bad guys discover, offers you no protection at all. Your accomplice could rat you out and you'd never know it. You could probably more easily achieve the same effect just by storing your data in some non-traditional way (say, using SoftMaker or KingSoft native file formats rather than Microsoft's), so that the bad guys don't recognize it. It's not much protection, but makes it a bit harder for them.