obscurus

I watched it again, and I guess the other thing I noticed was that most of the light sources were pure white, and while that might be appropriate for a modern setting with flourescent lighting, a quasi-mediaeval-cyberpunk-Victorian setting would seem to me to be better off with slightly yellowish lighting. I think it would really help to make it look more natural, though I did notice that there was a bit more colour than I saw the first time through. Seriously, good stuff though, I trying to be constructive here!

TDS overdid it a bit, but in RL, the rods in your eye are more sensitive to blue and green light, so night time is not black and white, it is various shades of blue-green. Also, the cones with blue light sensitivity are the most sensitive in low light situations, so your most active cones at night are seeing blues and violets. Cinematic license is often taken to exaggerate this in films and games, to make it feel more moody. But I was more referring to the colours of the walls - there seemed to be only one wall texture, and it was all grey. I thought the video was black and white apart from a few bits. When making large maps of cities, it is important to have varying architechtural styles, different textures, i.e., variety. Old cities have buildings built on top of older buildings, old buildings next to new buildings, buildings built by different architects etc, and a good map will reflect this diversity. Thief did a good job of this... I thought Gleeful's map was very good, but lacked colour and variety. I hope I'm not being overly critical here, I just thought it was worth mentioning.

Wow, quite impressive. I couldn't help thinking that it could use a bit more colour though, and a bit more of a shift towards the blue end of the spectrum (makes it look more atmospheric and night-like). And the windows looked a bit samey, perhaps having more randomly lit windows, different sizes etc. would be a good idea? But brilliant stuff nonetheless, keep it up.

If I were in your situation, I would go to a store that has a range of monitors on display, and see if you can get a feel fow how big a monitor you really need. A twenty inch widescreen LCD would seem adequate to me, and they come with fairly decent performance ( <8ms latency, 600:1 contrast ratio). Once you go above 20", the price becomes pretty painful, and performance, as you said, diminishes. Not knowing the dimensions of the room or the intended viewing distance, I can only guess at what would suit you best, but monitors have much better image quality than TVs, due to the closer intended viewing distance. I've seen a lot of LCD TVs that have noticable latency issues, and they cost more than an equivalently sized monitor in most cases anyway. Get the monitor I say...

Regardless of what you may think of his parenting skills, Steve contributed more to conservation than any individual in history. He made millions form his show, and every cent he made he used to buy up vast tracts of wilderness in several countries, set up a foundation to protect wildlife in perpetuity, and educated about 500 million viewers about the virtues of creatures many people fear or do not consider the interests of, as well as setting up a state-of-the-art hostpital for injured wildlife. As far as I'm concerned he was a bloody legend, and when you have done something a fraction as worthwhile with your life as he did with his, then you can possibly criticise him. And as far as the crocodile incident goes, well I don't think he should have done it, but the danger to his son was perceived, not actual. Crocodiles are very predictable once you get to know them, and Steve had been dealing with crocs since childhood, so I highly doubt he would have palced his son in harm's way, though it was obviously a mistake to make a public show out of it. Interestingly, no one said a word when he did the same thing with his daughter several years earlier. It was just a big media beat up, blown out of all proportion. It is a shame there aren't more people like him in the world. People with that much honesty, integrity and dedication are truly rare. He was an exemplary Australian, one I think most of my fellow Aussies would feel rightly proud of. I've swum with stingrays quite a lot, and they are normally quite relaxed about being touched and approached, as long as you are gentle. I have never felt threatended by one in the slightest. They normally only flick the barb up if they are trodden on or hurt. I can only imagine Steve had the incredibly bad luck to get on the wrong side of an unusually irritable stingray. I always thought he'd get bitten by a taipan or something like that...

I'd avoid plasma - they have come along a bit, but they are still pretty shit, as they 1. don't last very long, so you will spend a shitload of money on something that will not last much longer than a cheap flourescent light bulb before you start losing pixels at a rate of knots(at best), 2., have very poor image quality when viewed up close due to the technical limitations on pixel size with plasma screens, 3., they do suffer from burn in if the same thing is on screen for a while, and 4., they generally have very poor contrast ratios. Regardless, the bigger the screen, the poorer the image quality unless you are willing to invest in a projection system. You need a room that you can make fairly dark, and a good sized wall to put your screen against, but if you do it right, it is the best way to have a really big screen. The next best thing is LCD. TVs don't generally make for ideal computer monitors, as they are designed for viewing from a distance, while monitors are designed for viewing up close, so regardless of what you get, you will be making a compromise.

The realtime radiosity used in the Crysis engine and others is actually very simple and not all that performance intensive. It simply uses at most only a few bounces, which, as it turns out, produces sufficient quality for realtime lighting in games - you can barely tell the difference between it and a high quality render from Maya. It sacrifices accuracy in favour of the overall effect. All nVidia cards form the 7800 up allow for full hardware acceleration of real-time radiosity, so the performance hit is actually not that bad at all, which is why the CryEngine 2 can handle fairly complex lighting situations at playable framerates. The Half-Life 2 engine is also capable of doing real-time radiosity (of sorts). It uses pre-computed radiance-transfer maps to allow a shitload of lightsources to produce the same effect in real time. The reason most people assume radiosity is very performance intensive has to do with the type of radiosity used in software 3d renderers, eg Mental Ray, which 1. uses massively higher quality (probably uneccesarily so) techniques, 2. many more bounces (iterations) and 3. is done in software, not hardware. Hardware accelerated radiosity and photon mapping is now possible (and usable) with the latest graphics cards, and works really well from what I have seen.

Agreed The thing is, the US military is primarily organised to combat enemies that can be bombed out of existence, or that are conveniently placed in a crowd, rather than enemies that live in suburban houses etc. While the Less-Lethal (there are very few weapons that are strictly non-lethal) are around, very few armed forces bother to use them. The US could easily end the conflict in the middle east with a few nukes if it wanted to, but it is constrained by the fact that that would not go down well with the majority of the worlds population. Ironically, the best way to take out a tank or armoured platoon is to use similar foam type weapons - you only have to gum up the external mechanisms of a tank to prevent it from operating, and you can then just wait for the occupants to starve to death or poke their heads out to be shot or dragged out kicking and screaming. The US has a bad track record when it comes to dealing with an enemy that thinks lateraly and doesn't follow the pattern they expect. The insurgency in Iraq is winning becasue the US is a. trying to limit civilian and infrastructural casualties, b. They have only sent in a fraction of the occupying ground forces neccessary to subdue a nation in a state of civil war (anyone who thinks Iraq is not in the grip of civil war needs to put things in perpective - 2000+ people per month are being killed in sectarian clashes, the same proportion of US casualties would be equivalent to 400,000 per month - that is a civil war in my book), c. as Saddam Husein demonstrated, Iraq is such an inherently divided, artificial country (it was cobbled together by the Brits out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire) that it can only realistically be governed by a ruthless despot - you can't expect to impose democracy overnight and have it work (not that the US idea of democracy is really very democratic). Public protests and marches do SFA. The most effective method of passive resistance is to be grossly underproductive and highly disobedient. A single individual has no power on their own to rule others - s/he does so through the compliance and cooperation of those who support them. Attack the structures that support a corrupt government (you might have to make some difficult sacrifices to acheive this) and the top will crumble down. A government can't feed its army without the citizens who produce food being on board, and what most civilians don't realise is their power to cut off supply. It is like removing the blood supply to a tumour - once the blood supply is gone, the tumour dies. This is why I despise religion so much. This is why religious organisations should not be allowed to participate in the education of children (i.e, ban religously based schools).

Well, the purpose of making a generalised statement is to uhm, ah, well, arrive at a general pattern of behaviour. Specific examples that are contrary to the generality are largely irrelevant. If you go to a big city like NY or London, or even Sydney, people there are much more likely to be so engrossed in their own little world that they will be quite willing to ignore things that people living at a more considered pace would notice and act on. Sure there are people in the US that will go out of their way to help others, but you only have to look at the social welfare policy of the US (compared to say, Sweden, which probably goes too far in the other direction) to see that the majority of people don't care enough about their fellow man to take action that will help them, even at minor inconvenience to themselves, nor do they attempt to wrest control of the political process away form special interest groups, which can only happen when a majority of people start to give a fuck. If, say, 38% of Americans gave a fuck, and the other 62% didn't, I am quite justified in saying that Americans generally don't give a fuck. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pinning this all on the US, but the US is probably one of the worst offenders as a whole. Sweeping generalisations can be highly useful when looking at things from a broad perspective. Generalisations are appropriate when discussing something in a general context, which is what I was doing.

I meant it as a general tendency of Americans (and indeed any society that worships at the altar of consumerism) to be swept up in their own self interest to a greater degree than is perhaps healthy for the society as a whole, not that people in the US won't help each other out in a crisis. Probably in smaller communites, people still look out for their neighbours as much as ever, but in big cities in the US, people can often turn a blind eye to various crimes and human suffering. And I wouldn't cite an example of an angry mob beating someone to death as an example of good neighbourly behaviour - the US is supposed to be a society where the rule of law applies, not primitive mob violence. The offending motorist should have been apprehended and charged by the police, not beaten to death by vigilantes. That is really what I'm getting at - the US is a society of extremes, where people will either ignore violent crime or participate in it as part of a vigilante mob, there is not enough middle ground, and this is the sort of behaviour that can propel a prosperous society along a shaky path towards anarchy and civil war.

Not a bad choice Komag, the Viragos are a pretty decent first bike. sounds like you got a good deal. And if you aren't riding on the highway much, you will find that smaller bikes are much better for riding in urban traffic.

I had a very minor accident where I hit a patch of oil on the road as I was going around a small roundabout at about 15KpH. I was fine, as I lowsided the bike as the front wheel lost tracktion, and I basically landed on my feet running. My bike was another story - cracked fairing, several bits bent out of shape, and a ~$1500 repair bill. My insurance only kicks in when the damage is above $2000, so I had to pay out of my own pocket. I have mates who have had much more spectacular crashes where it would have cost them more to fix the bike than to buy a new one, not to mention the medical cost of spending months in hospital having extensive skin grafts and physiotherapy because they thought they were invincible and didn't need leathers. EDIT: I don't ride so much anymore now that I have a daughter - while motorcycling can be made relatively safe if you ride intelligently, it is still too risky when you have family responsibilities, IMO (read: my wife won't let me ). So I'm taking a long break from bikes until my kid(s) are older.

Neither do I, and my working assumption (and that of most scientists) is that the laws of the universe are pretty stable and constant, except around black holes and other wierd singularities where they break down. But as a scientist, I have to leave room for doubt and uncertainty, and remember that this is a working assumption, and it is conceivable that there are pockets of the universe where the physical laws or constants are a bit different. @Domarius You can't construct a limited model of the universe using the few laws we currently know about and very limited processing power to draw firm conclusions about what sort of universes are possible. There are also plenty of other simulations that predict all kinds of wierd and wonderful universes (most of which are not compatible with life as we know it), but they still get off the ground, so to speak. If anyone claims to have done modelling to the extent that they have simulated every possible variation of the laws of physics, and then claim that there is only one possible configuration that makes us possible, then you know instantly they are bullshitting, becasue there simply isn't enough processing power in the universe to do that. Even to simulate this universe exactly would require a quantum computer with at least as many atoms as are in this universe. This sounds very much like a bunch of religious nuts trying to hijack science to advance their agenda of enforcing a version of natural history based on Christian beliefs. Unfortunately physics is the one branch of science that often declares all kinds of theories which have no experimental evidence or observations as their basis - it is pure theoretical conjecture based on mathematics. The physical laws might be able to be described by mathematics, but it doesn't follow that the universe is mathematics, and physicists should avoid getting too carried away with their ideas until they have bothered to actually test them.

Even if they had guns, the government in this scenario could just use that to bolster their claim that they were terrorists - "look, they were armed to the teeth, we had to shoot them". Realisticly, you could only make so many people "disappear" before suspicions would be aroused, and society would become increasingly destabilised. People who have neighbors, friends and family will be noticed if they are missing, and sooner or later the government making people disappear would slip up and get caught in the act. If the security forces go in expecting someone without a gun, that doesn't mean it will go down silently, as a person who notices someone unusual approaching their house might take action that would at least make the security force's job more difficult, and a fair bit noisier. Oppressive governments that employ these tactics rarely last very long, becasue they simply undermine their own power base in the end (they essentially start biting the hand that feeds them). It is gernally not in the interests of a ruling power to be too covert about things, as it creates a nervous, unproductive population that is more succeptible to chaos and anarchy if a few things go wrong. This is not to say it couldn't happen in the US - US citizens have had their freedoms so eroded over the last few years in the name of "security" that the US Government could disappear several hundred thousand US citizens before anyone caught on to them, and US citizens have a general culture of selfishness that makes it easier for people to ignore what is happening to their neighbour.

No, it proves nothing of the sort as the above posts illustrate. The problem here is people asking the question "why?", which can only apply to things that have minds. I can ask you "why did you say that?", becasue you have a mind, intentions and thought process (at least, I reasonably assume you do). I cannot ask a rock "Why do you sit there?" - the rock has no thoughts or intentions, it just is. I can ask myself, "how did this rock get here?", becasue it assumes nothing of the rock, and I can then come up with hypotheses for testing. I might then, after extensive testing, develop a theory whihc explains the position for the rock, which might still be somewhat wrong, but it would still be a useful model, and should predict the position of other rocks if it is any good. This is not evidence that the universe has a mind, intentions or deliberate planning. There is no reason "why" a particular set of physical constants generate a habitable universe. It is just that some will produce universes with properties that make life likely, most won't.

Yes, the old anthropic principle. Assuming the multiverse therory was correct, then there are an infinite (or infdefinate) number of universes, of which only a few will have the sort of physical laws that will allow things that we recognise as life to exist. Actually, you can play with some of the parameters quite a bit and still get some interesting things to happen, but they might not be anything like what we experience in this universe. The documentary you saw proves nothing about the existence or otherwise of an intelligent designer, it simply shows that, unsurprisingly, we live in one of the few possible configurations of a universe that can sustain us. And there is also no reason that different parts of the universe couldn't in principle have radically different laws - we asssume the laws of physics are uniform across the universe, becasue that is a good starting point and makes sense, but we have limited evidence to support this, beyond observations from light that was sent aeons ago. Who knows what has happend to the Andromeda galaxy in the millions of years since the light from Andromeda reached the earth? Perhaps the laws of physics there changed in some bizarre way, and we wont find out for a long, long, time.

I hope not too, safe riding!

The ironic thing in the US is, that the military is geared up and trained for one type of conflict only: bombing the enemy into oblivion. If the US was in a situation where there was a large, armed rebel uprising, their usual tactic of bombing the shit out of them would be pretty pointless, especially if the rebels were widely dispersed througout the normal population (eg, Hezbollah in Lebanon). And the US has a truly woeful record at fighing guerilla wars (where guns are less useful than knives and blunt objects in many cases). Just look at Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan - the US military has some well trained Marines and Army Rangers, but they are more for show, they never use them effectively, and the normal tactic of using lots of big bombs, tanks and general infantry would fail miserably in the face of a civil war (especially since you wouldn't be able to trust a large proportion of your troops to be on your side anymore). And the normal US troops tend to kill a ridiculous number of their own in friendly fire. The British had a running joke about the US forces in Iraq during the Gulf war - ignore the Iraqis, just watch out for the Yanks. If anyone in the US wants to start a civil war, now would be the time to do it, because the government would be pretty helpless to contain it. They might prevail in the end, but the cost would be horrendous, and given the current downward spiral of the US economy, things would be pretty grim if that were to happen.

Those prices weren't for the best stuff at all, that was in the lower middle range of what I would call acceptable quality. The really high end stuff will set you back maybe 3 times as much. Well, unfortunately, I have a wierd shaped head that only fits into expensive Shoei or Arai helmets, and prices in Australia are probably quite a bit dearer than the US, even taking into account the conversion between the dollars. Australia is probably 50% more expensive than the US for many things, especially auto-related. Here, the cheapest, nastiest helmets cost about $200AUD including GST, which would be about $130 USD, give or take. Don't know if ther is a sales tax in the US, here it is 10%. In terms of the quality to price ratio, sure the cheaper helmets are just as safe as the expensive ones (after all they have to pass the same safety standards), but for the rest of the safety gear, you mostly get what you pay for. And if you ride a lot (eg, you comute via motorcycle), a well ventilated, quality helmet is worth every cent in comfort. How much is your skin worth? If you skimp on cheaper leathers that are thinner and more poorly stiched than the more expensive quality gear, you might live to regret it. Motorcycles are not for people who don't have a fair bit of disposable income to spare. They can start off cheap, especially if you make compromises to quality safety gear, but you end up paying for it later (well, I hope you don't, but luck is not on your side). I'm not trying to disparage your enthusiasm for motorcycles, just trying to give you a reality check and make sure you are aware of what is involved - it isn't as cheap as it seems, and you need to be prepared for unexpected expenses. Motorcycles can also often be cheaper to replace than to repair after even minor prangs, and if it is your fault, don't expect an insurer to pay for it.

I think you would be surprised how expensive motorcycles are to maintain. They are not a cheap alternative form of transport by any means. I've been riding long enough to find this out the hard way: Although you might spend $7000 AUD to $16,000 AUD on a brand new motorcycle of decent quality (compared with $20,000 AUD + for a car), and although you will use much less petrol, the costs of services and tires, insurance, safety gear and crash damage (should you be unfortunate enough to have it happen to you) can be quite disproportionately expensive. Eg Motorcycle costs $12, 000, you need to get it serviced every 6-8000 Km, and services will cost just as much as a typical car service ($200 a pop, minimum), new tires every 6-12,000Km at $100 - $400 AUD each (a good set of 2 tires for a motorcycle can set you back more than a full set of 4 tires for a car in some situations, and this depends on how you ride and how soft your tires are - softer tires have more grip and are safer, but don't last as long). Insurance for motorcycles can be very expensive, as they are riskier to drive, and more likely to be involved in an accident. Good safety gear is essential unless you are an idiot aiming for a Darwin Award, so expect to spend $2000 on helmet ($250 - 1000 AUD, full leathers, boots and gloves. You will probably want some winter/wet weather gear, so there is another $800AUD if you get decent stuff. If you drop your helmet, you need to buy another one as they are single use items - you simply can't trust a dropped helmet to protect your head, it works for one impact only. Don't ever buy a second hand helmet if you value your head. If you drop a fully faired motorcycle, it can cost you $2000 or more per side to fix the damage, and even minor damage can cost you hundreds if not thousands of dollars to repair. (Don't ask me what happens to your bank balance when you drop a Ducati ) And sooner or later, you will probably have an accident - there are too many things out of your control that are too easy to happen, so you need to be prepared for the eventuality. If you have a minor accident and break some bones or end up in hospital for a while, that could cost you a lot if you don't have any sick leave available. Motorcycles are way, way more expensive than their price tag and petrol consumption might lead you to believe, and in the end, they can be just as expensive as cars. Of course, you could take risks and skimp on safety gear etc, not service your bike when it is due and so on, not insure it, but, you would be a retard for doing so. Bikes ain't cheap, I've spent more on them than I ever would have on a car, but they are worth the expense. Nothing beats the feeling of riding a bike in the country on a nice day

Oh, yes, in a round about sort of way I was doing the same thing (I was being a bit toungue in cheek, but I guess that is hard to convey in a brief text) - it is all very well to say this or that is dangerous, but you have to put the statistics into context. Smoking is bad for your health, as everyone knows, but how bad depends on the frequency and quantity of cigarettes you smoke, whether you smoke in enclosed spaces or in a well ventilated room, how aerobically fit you are, what your diet is like, whether you also drink alcohol when you smoke and so on. A statistic like "smoking kills 50% of smokers" sounds shocking (perhaps), but it doesn't really tell you all that much about any given individual's risk. For example, one person could smoke 10 cigarettes a day outdoors, but otherwise leads a very healthy lifestyle, doesn't drink, exercises frequently and so on. Another person might not smoke normally, but they might go into a poorly ventilated bar at the end of the week, chain smoke while drinking (which massively increases the damage cigarretes do), and doesn't excercise regularly, eats fatty processed food, ad generally doesn't take care of themself. While the statistics for smoking could be taken at face value for each individual and lead you to the conclusion that the regular smoker is more likely to die of heart disease or lung cancer, a closer look at all of the information should lead you to the opposite conclusion.

People can often be way off when it comes to assessing the relative safety of various modes of transport. The most dangerous mode of transport, statistically (don't ask me for figures right now, I'm going off memory form a study I read, so take the following with a grain of salt) is horseback riding, with helicopters coming in second, pushbikes are more dangerous than motorcycles, and you are more likely to be run down as a pedestrian than you are to crash your car and be seriously injured (most car accidents involving alcohol are due to a drunk pedestrian walking in front of a car nexpectedly). You also have to look at various parts of different modes of travel. for example, flying in a passenger jet is at its most dangerous during takeoff and landing, but is quite safe when you are actually cruising at altitude. The space shuttle has a 2% crash rate (approximately), and if you crash a spaceshuttle, you're fucked, so you would have to say it isn't all that safe. But cars are actually worse, so are motorcycles (something like 30% of motorcyclists have at least one serious accident). Don't ever get in a Black Hawk helicopter if you can help it - more of those have crashed for no apparent reason than have been shot down in combat. And stay away from horses.

Here in the ACT (Australia), formal training is a mandatory requirement for obtaining your motorcycle license, and the testing is very thorough - you can't pass it unless you know how to operate a motorcycle competently and safely. So we basically have 99.9% formal training. Most motorcycle accidents involve the motorcyclist going too fast around bends (single vehicle accident, rider's fault) or they are two vehicle accidents casued by drivers of cars/trucks etc that don't bother to look out for small two wheeled vehicles, especially at traffic lights and intersections. Motorcycle accidents can often be less serious than car accidents, because the rider can 'control' the accident to a greater degree than a car driver can, and they can also eject theselves clear of the motorcycle under certain types of crash conditions. But you need to be wearing adequate safety gear (helmet, full leathers, armour, back protection, gloves, proper boots), because it aint a pretty sight when human flesh hits the bitumen at 100KPH. If you ride safely according to the road conditions, don't speed excessively, and restrain yourself from using the throttle too vigorously, the only thing you have to worry about is four wheeled vehicles, black ice and oil slicks. Which is why you have to ride as though you are invisible to other vehicles. Motorcycles can be reasonably safe, but only if the rider has an attitude of safety and is aware of their vulnerability. Motorcycle crashes do more damage to your wallet than anything else, motorcycles aren't cheap to repair (I'm talking from experience here, and even the most dilligent rider is no match for an oil slick on a roundabout).

I don't think people have a right to anything, other than basic freedoms like access to clean air, water and food, healthcare, education and a say in their governance - everything else is a privelige that comes with all kinds of responsibilities attached. Guns are way into the priveliged area - no one should be able to possess one unless they can demonstrate that they can use it responsibly, and they should be subject to very extensive psychological testing and assessment before they are able to purchase guns, and even then, they should be very limited in what they can buy. A far more effective way to overthrow a government is through passive resistance - a government is simply an irrelevence if the people that it supposedly represents no longer validate it. In practise, if 80% of the population simply refused to cooperate with the government, then teh government would be powerless. Passive resistance is highly effective when there is a government that cannot use too much direct force, becasue doing so would wipe out the source of their power (the people). A government can't command troops if it has no money to pay them, no food to give them, becasue too many of the workers have stopped producing, have stopped paying taxes. Of course, this does take an immense amount of restraint, courage and will-power on the part of the resisting people, because the government will no doubt attempt to use force at first, before they back down and capitulate to the will of the people. It really comes down to numbers in the end - even a totalitarian dictatorship is a democracy in the sense that the people could overthrow it easily through mass disobedience, provided they are united in their effort. But violent resistances, where the people rise up in direct combat with the government only lead to a repeating cycle of violence. Just look at what happend to France over the last few hundred years. Sometimes passive resistance just won't cut it, it depends on what the motives are of the force you are resisiting, but generally, cutting off the purse strings of a government will do the job better than a violent civil war.

I like irony. Although, Zen is an offshoot of Bhuddism that is more a philosophy than a religion (many would argue that it is not a religion at all). While Bhuddism has had it's share of violent theocracies, it is unusual among religions in that it is atheistic - there is no god to worship, and it sees the world as a balance of opposites, rather than anthropomorphising everything and pretending that it all has a purpose. The aim of Bhuddism is to acheive nirvana, which is a state of absolute purposelessness, ignorance and oneness with the universe, obtained by voiding oneself of all selfishness and achieving perfect balance. It is about abandoning the self, the personal identity, individual desires, and becoming nothing and everything all at once. The complete opposite of all the Western religions, where the focus is on personal immortality and sycophantic self-preservation in the face of a fairly unpredictable and violent deity, so I often find it amusing when people try to claim that all major religions promote the idea of a personal God, when the majority of them don't.