thegman1234
Jan 3, 01:09 AM
I love reading this, suddenly half of the forum is a network specialist and knows what Apple will and will not do. Of course you can't forget the Verizon's network will fail just because all you specialists say so. Oh and the LTE network is only available in limited areas...gotta start somewhere...
I actually claimed to know little to nothing technical about LTE or cell networks. I was stating what I had been told and was making opinionated judgements based on my own logic.
I actually claimed to know little to nothing technical about LTE or cell networks. I was stating what I had been told and was making opinionated judgements based on my own logic.
smitty97
Apr 29, 04:22 PM
btw- does anyone know why the current version is named Windows 7? Why 7?
major kernel version
1,2: 1.0 and 2.0
3: 3.0, WfW3.11, NT 3.51
4: 95, 98, NT4
5: 2000, XP
6: Vista
7: Windows 7 (but really 6.1):confused:
So the answer is, "marketing"
major kernel version
1,2: 1.0 and 2.0
3: 3.0, WfW3.11, NT 3.51
4: 95, 98, NT4
5: 2000, XP
6: Vista
7: Windows 7 (but really 6.1):confused:
So the answer is, "marketing"
Warbrain
Sep 12, 07:51 AM
Isn't today the start of the Paris expo? So let's see...6 hours ahead of me here in Chicago...1 PM! They're updating it for the fact that the expo is up and running.
rdowns
Apr 21, 12:05 PM
Could have been worse guys, they could have put in a Facebook "Like" button. :D
srl7741
Apr 13, 12:22 PM
As much as I disagree with everything TSA they are not the problem "we" are for allowing them to do what they do everyday. We continue to lower the bar and I don't see it going back up. It's difficult to reverse such a large thing after we have accepted it. Next up Saturday/Sunday sporting events or other places with very large numbers of people.
DavisCollins
Jan 8, 12:09 AM
BTW, I had to laugh when they demoed FMV used as a wallpaper in Vista, and the crowd ooohed and awwed and clapped. :)
yeah i watched it to. everything they "revealed" i was like yep. tiger has that. but when they started to talk about reverting to previous versions of files with "ShadowCopy" the wise-ass speaker said "Its even better than time travel" and a couple of people who got the joke giggled. what an ass.
and yeah i am deffinatly gonna put that link to use, because ill be at school. and when i get home im not gonna want to go straight to apple like i do everyday. (ill probly get one one of my teachers computers and look anyway)
yeah i watched it to. everything they "revealed" i was like yep. tiger has that. but when they started to talk about reverting to previous versions of files with "ShadowCopy" the wise-ass speaker said "Its even better than time travel" and a couple of people who got the joke giggled. what an ass.
and yeah i am deffinatly gonna put that link to use, because ill be at school. and when i get home im not gonna want to go straight to apple like i do everyday. (ill probly get one one of my teachers computers and look anyway)
logandzwon
Mar 17, 08:39 AM
KARMA DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
Anyway, if you actually care about the morality of your action, (or technically lack of action,) only you can decide if you did the right thing or not. If you sleep soundly at night then it wasn't immoral.
Ethically, your probably going to heat if you tell people about it. Modern-day ethics say stealing form an individual by a corporation is fine. An individual stealing from a corporation is bad.
Eitherway, it will not come out of his paycheck. However, if he is new he might be fired. If he has done it multiple times he might be fired. Realistically, if it wasn't you it would have been someone else though. We all make mistakes, but apparently that isn't the correct job for him.
BTW... I love all the post by people suggesting that to "fix" the issue by going back and lying about what happened.
Anyway, if you actually care about the morality of your action, (or technically lack of action,) only you can decide if you did the right thing or not. If you sleep soundly at night then it wasn't immoral.
Ethically, your probably going to heat if you tell people about it. Modern-day ethics say stealing form an individual by a corporation is fine. An individual stealing from a corporation is bad.
Eitherway, it will not come out of his paycheck. However, if he is new he might be fired. If he has done it multiple times he might be fired. Realistically, if it wasn't you it would have been someone else though. We all make mistakes, but apparently that isn't the correct job for him.
BTW... I love all the post by people suggesting that to "fix" the issue by going back and lying about what happened.
CodeRaven
Apr 7, 09:41 PM
This and all 100 games.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 17, 11:25 AM
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
And once an app that gets by with security risk is found, it is removed. Compare this to getting an app off of site X. Does site X remove the app because it was found to be a security risk? And should an appear turn out to be stealing information, which is easier to trace to the source, one that went through the app store registration process with apple or on on site X residing somewhere in Russia?
You're narrowly defining the methods of security that Apple's app store can provide.
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
And once an app that gets by with security risk is found, it is removed. Compare this to getting an app off of site X. Does site X remove the app because it was found to be a security risk? And should an appear turn out to be stealing information, which is easier to trace to the source, one that went through the app store registration process with apple or on on site X residing somewhere in Russia?
You're narrowly defining the methods of security that Apple's app store can provide.
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 08:23 PM
Of course I like help Dejo and I know you have help a lot people, you have even helped me before this thread and I appreciate it a lot. I said that because so many seasoned developers just throw that bomb at newbies so often when they try to find answers in forums (not just this one), it happens not only in Programming but in many other professional environments, people just shoot to kill when some new guy makes a basic mistake, but luckily not all, some people do like to help (or enjoy) and have the patience to explain even the dumbest detail. But hey, it's cool.. We're all here to share and learn after all. I'll be glad to see you contribute to my threads, but you know.. that is up to you.
Yakuza
Apr 18, 07:51 AM
Anyone to comment on the iPhone pics at engadget.com
what??? On this one you can change the battery? lol
iiii don't know, hard to tell. even though it's a full assembled mobile, it just doesn't has that Apple touch!
I like most of the first early photos
what??? On this one you can change the battery? lol
iiii don't know, hard to tell. even though it's a full assembled mobile, it just doesn't has that Apple touch!
I like most of the first early photos
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
balamw
Oct 10, 07:15 PM
I think Apple should keep the name "True Video iPod," just as a salute to all the rumor mongering.
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
Do you think it's a coinkidink that the acronym for True Video iPod just so happens to be TVi? TVi, iTV, what's the difference.:p
B
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
Do you think it's a coinkidink that the acronym for True Video iPod just so happens to be TVi? TVi, iTV, what's the difference.:p
B
Meandmunch
May 4, 12:27 AM
Thinner and Faster dammit!
I am already tired of my iPad 2, I look at her and she's all like chubby and lazy. The magic just isn't there anymore, I need a new girl.
I am already tired of my iPad 2, I look at her and she's all like chubby and lazy. The magic just isn't there anymore, I need a new girl.
tristangage
Apr 22, 03:41 AM
Essentially just like Facebook's "Like" feature, then? People seem to like it on Facebook; would it be useful here?
But then people on Facebook just complain about how there's no Dislike button. I think it'd be interesting to see how the current state works, rather than tweak it from speculation on how things might turn out.
But then people on Facebook just complain about how there's no Dislike button. I think it'd be interesting to see how the current state works, rather than tweak it from speculation on how things might turn out.
Ensoniq
Sep 12, 08:41 AM
I am not sure if the pricing reported earlier for the videos is correct, but I did want to comment on one thing...
If the pricing IS correct ($9.99 for iPod version, $14.99 for TV version, $19.99 for both) then the movie studios who didn't sign on because they didn't feel those prices were fair can go and "F" themselves. :)
Essentially $20 bucks for 2 electronic versions with no DVD packaging, manufacturing and shipping to deal with could make a lot of money for the studios. To say that price is "not good enough" on their behalf just smacks of greed.
Whether $20 a pop is a good price for the consumer is debatable...it depends on their tech level. Those of us reading these forums mostly would rather go buy a new DVD in the store for $20 and then rip it ourselves for our own use. But many others don't want to be bothered, and would be happy to have pre-ripped versions for download and avoid ammassing an even larger collection of DVD boxes taking up space in their bookshelves.
Just like with new Mac computer releases...Apple comes up with options designed for the entire base they plan to sell to, not solely based on "power-user" needs/desires. $20 a pop is NOT "too expensive" for pricing for many...it's not a DISCOUNTED price, but it's a fair price and if the movies need to sell for $20 to get all the studios on board (in the future, if not now), that is more important than trying to be an uber-discount movie sales site.
Those who've mentioned Netflix are missing the point...doesn't matter what Netflix costs vs. iTunes movies because Netflix is a rental-based system and iTunes is purchases you own. If you don't WANT/NEED to own the movies, Netflix is awesome. You can't compare iTunes movies to that market though.
If the pricing IS correct ($9.99 for iPod version, $14.99 for TV version, $19.99 for both) then the movie studios who didn't sign on because they didn't feel those prices were fair can go and "F" themselves. :)
Essentially $20 bucks for 2 electronic versions with no DVD packaging, manufacturing and shipping to deal with could make a lot of money for the studios. To say that price is "not good enough" on their behalf just smacks of greed.
Whether $20 a pop is a good price for the consumer is debatable...it depends on their tech level. Those of us reading these forums mostly would rather go buy a new DVD in the store for $20 and then rip it ourselves for our own use. But many others don't want to be bothered, and would be happy to have pre-ripped versions for download and avoid ammassing an even larger collection of DVD boxes taking up space in their bookshelves.
Just like with new Mac computer releases...Apple comes up with options designed for the entire base they plan to sell to, not solely based on "power-user" needs/desires. $20 a pop is NOT "too expensive" for pricing for many...it's not a DISCOUNTED price, but it's a fair price and if the movies need to sell for $20 to get all the studios on board (in the future, if not now), that is more important than trying to be an uber-discount movie sales site.
Those who've mentioned Netflix are missing the point...doesn't matter what Netflix costs vs. iTunes movies because Netflix is a rental-based system and iTunes is purchases you own. If you don't WANT/NEED to own the movies, Netflix is awesome. You can't compare iTunes movies to that market though.
jonnysods
Apr 8, 05:28 PM
This is funny. Welp, glad I don't buy stuff at Best Buy.
It's my 'try before I buy store', as we don't have an Apple Store in our city.
It's my 'try before I buy store', as we don't have an Apple Store in our city.
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 11:43 AM
400 pre-splits shares?
My God, man. That's some profit!! :cool:
I believe that translates roughly into a 1,900% return on investment.
I could tell, my broker thought I was certifiable when I put in the buy orders. BTW, he didn't have a computer at home in those days. Now he's got an iMac. ;)
My God, man. That's some profit!! :cool:
I believe that translates roughly into a 1,900% return on investment.
I could tell, my broker thought I was certifiable when I put in the buy orders. BTW, he didn't have a computer at home in those days. Now he's got an iMac. ;)
arn
Sep 12, 01:18 AM
I really don't care anymore...tomorrow will probably follow a familiar formula - some disappointments, some bullseyes.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
Apple already did that design. It's called the Apple G4 Cube.
http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=g4cube
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
Apple already did that design. It's called the Apple G4 Cube.
http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=g4cube
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
Clive At Five
Oct 3, 03:42 PM
Merrom MBP ;p
Man... the Merom MBP has become the new PowerBook G5
-Clive
Man... the Merom MBP has become the new PowerBook G5
-Clive
miles01110
Apr 22, 06:13 AM
On IE7 whenever I click either the "up" or "down" arrow I get taken back to the forum index.
leekohler
Apr 25, 07:26 PM
I agree they are idiots and I already stated they should call the cops.
OP, I clicked on the article and the title is different from this thread. I do agree that the employees on duty at McDonald's be held responsible in the beating of a trans woman.
I know. Sloppy on my part, but I had to shorten the title. It would not fit.
OP, I clicked on the article and the title is different from this thread. I do agree that the employees on duty at McDonald's be held responsible in the beating of a trans woman.
I know. Sloppy on my part, but I had to shorten the title. It would not fit.
m-dogg
Nov 24, 09:01 AM
I buy my annual .mac subscription today when it's on sale. Doesn't actually renew until January...
No comments:
Post a Comment