Re: [OT] Multiple questions in an email

[tonywr]

Yes


On Fri, Feb 26th, 2010 at 8:41 AM, David Richards 
 wrote:

> Greetings all,
> 
> Has anyone else noticed people often don't answer more than one
> question in an email?  In fact, I'll generalise that and say people
> often don't read an entire email.  I had this today (already) but
> this
> happens to me "all the time" (it's probably more like 25% of the
> time
> but I think the exaggeration is justified).
> 
> This is particularly annoying when the main question isn't the first
> one (such as today's incident).  eg, "Please tell me A and B but I
> really want to know about C" will usually just get me the answer to
> A.
> 
> I don't want to have to "twitterize" my emails into single sentences
> of a few small words.
> 
> I wonder how many people on this list didn't get past the first
> sentence :)
> 
> David
> 
> "If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes
>  will fall like a house of cards... checkmate!"
>  -Zapp Brannigan, Futurama
> 
> 
> 

ASP.Net, using ADAM for Role Providers and Membership

[tonywr]

Hi all,

Take 2.

I am using ADAM, which is lightweight Active Directory Application Mode, to 
store both users and 
roles using the role and membership providers from ASP.Net. I have created an 
Authorisation 
Store for storing the roles, and I have a user container for all the users, 
which I can see when I 
use ADSI Edit.

When I use the Web Administration Tool, I am able to create a user using the 
wizard (which 
ignores roles) and I am able to add roles successfully via the Create Role 
link. But when I try to 
create a user using the create user link, it crashes with the following 
exception:

Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation. at 
System.Web.Administration.WebAdminPage.CallWebAdminHelperMethod(Boolean 
isMembership, 
String methodName, Object[] parameters, Type[] paramTypes) at 
ASP.security_users_adduser_aspx.UpdateRoleMembership(String u, CheckBox box) in 
c:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
\ASP.NETWebAdminFiles\Security\Users\addUser.aspx:line 63 at 
ASP.security_users_adduser_aspx.UpdateRoleMembership(String u) in 
c:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
\ASP.NETWebAdminFiles\Security\Users\addUser.aspx:line 52 at 
ASP.security_users_adduser_aspx.CreatedUser(Object sender, EventArgs e) in 
c:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727
\ASP.NETWebAdminFiles\Security\Users\addUser.aspx:line 13 at 
System.Web.UI.WebControls.CreateUserWizard.OnCreatedUser(EventArgs e) at 
System.Web.UI.WebControls.CreateUserWizard.AttemptCreateUser() at 
System.Web.UI.WebControls.CreateUserWizard.OnNextButtonClick(WizardNavigationEventArgs
 e) 
at System.Web.UI.WebControls.Wizard.OnBubbleEvent(Object source, EventArgs e) 
at 
System.Web.UI.WebControls.CreateUserWizard.OnBubbleEvent(Object source, 
EventArgs e) at 
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Wizard.WizardChildTable.OnBubbleEvent(Object source, 
EventArgs 
args) at System.Web.UI.Control.RaiseBubbleEvent(Object source, EventArgs args) 
at 
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Button.OnCommand(CommandEventArgs e) at 
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Button.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) at 
System.Web.UI.WebControls.Button.System.Web.UI.IPostBackEventHandler.RaisePostBackEvent
(String eventArgument) at 
System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(IPostBackEventHandler 
sourceControl, String eventArgument) at System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent
(NameValueCollection postData) at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean 
includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) 

The User does get created, but it's the adding and removing of roles for that 
user that causes the 
problem. I believe this is because there is currently no way to reference the 
user objects from 
within the authorization store. This is the bit I'm missing - how to create a 
link between the 
authorization store and the users OU.

On further research it has been suggested that ADAM can't be used for both 
roles and users 
without writing my own custom provider. If anyone has any further info on this 
it would be helpful.

Regards,
Tony

Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed

[tonywr]

yep, exactly. So don't follow Spain then!


On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 3:24 PM, mike smith  wrote:

> Spain isn't a poster child for good economy.
> 
> On 24 February 2010 14:24,  wrote:
> 
> > Nuclear plant in Finland 3-5billion over budget
> > Siemens Areva Finish govt in law suit love triangle
> > Areva just bought Multibird wind turbines and Ausra solar thermal
> > so they're so sure of Nuclear that they're diversiftying into
> renewables
> > Spain's SENER built the successful nukes in spain -- has now
> stopped and is
> > building molten salt
> > power tower solar thermal plants 24 hour baseload solar plants
> > and when they built the nukes they didn't want to own them
> > As for some other nuke plants in Spain that failed to get
> commissioned
> > Spain lost 6 billion euro's
> > on these.
> > 6 billion euro's -- no power out the other end -- economic
> modelling not
> > required
> >
> > bad investment
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Paul Gaske 
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, mike smith
> 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 23 February 2010 21:29, Tony Wright 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>  And you don’t need to go nuclear. Nuclear as it currently
> > > stands is just
> > > >> a disgraceful option. The radioactive waste in current
> nuclear
> > > reactors with
> > > >> current technology takes 10,000 years to break down.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > That would be excluding IFR reactors?  Why exclude the best
> > > technology when
> > > > you quote figures?
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >  Even more comprehensive are systems such as the Integral Fast
> > > Reactor
> (IFR)
> > > > pyroprocessing system, which uses pools of molten
> > > cadmium and
> > > > electrorefiners to reprocess metallic fuel directly on-site at
> the
> > > reactor.
> > > > [9] 
> > > Such
> > > > systems not only commingle all the minor actinides with both
> > > uranium and
> > > > plutonium, they are compact and self-contained, so that no
> > > > plutonium-containing material ever needs to be transported
> away
> > > from the
> > > > site of the breeder reactor.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Just to add to the nuclear option; thorium reactors producing 3%
> of
> > > the
> > > waste of a traditional nuclear reactor.  Additionally, the waste
> > > produced
> > > has a half-life of 500 years.
> > >
> > > http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9820/rundown.htm#thorium
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paul Gaske (p...@codify.com)
> > > Software Engineer
> > > Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
> > > Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile:
> +61
> > > 417
> > > 791 916
> > > Address Info: http://www.codify.com/AboutUs/ContactDetails
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Meski
> 
> "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure,
> you'll
> get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
> 

Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed

[tonywr]

Nuclear plant in Finland 3-5billion over budget
Siemens Areva Finish govt in law suit love triangle
Areva just bought Multibird wind turbines and Ausra solar thermal
so they're so sure of Nuclear that they're diversiftying into renewables
Spain's SENER built the successful nukes in spain -- has now stopped and is 
building molten salt 
power tower solar thermal plants 24 hour baseload solar plants
and when they built the nukes they didn't want to own them
As for some other nuke plants in Spain that failed to get commissioned Spain 
lost 6 billion euro's 
on these.
6 billion euro's -- no power out the other end -- economic modelling not 
required

bad investment


On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Paul Gaske  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, mike smith 
> wrote:
> 
> > On 23 February 2010 21:29, Tony Wright  wrote:
> >
> >>  And you don’t need to go nuclear. Nuclear as it currently
> stands is just
> >> a disgraceful option. The radioactive waste in current nuclear
> reactors with
> >> current technology takes 10,000 years to break down.
> >>
> >
> > That would be excluding IFR reactors?  Why exclude the best
> technology when
> > you quote figures?
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
> >
> > 
> >  Even more comprehensive are systems such as the Integral Fast
> Reactor (IFR)
> > pyroprocessing system, which uses pools of molten
> cadmium and
> > electrorefiners to reprocess metallic fuel directly on-site at the
> reactor.
> > [9] 
> Such
> > systems not only commingle all the minor actinides with both
> uranium and
> > plutonium, they are compact and self-contained, so that no
> > plutonium-containing material ever needs to be transported away
> from the
> > site of the breeder reactor.
> >
> >
> Just to add to the nuclear option; thorium reactors producing 3% of
> the
> waste of a traditional nuclear reactor.  Additionally, the waste
> produced
> has a half-life of 500 years.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/scripts98/9820/rundown.htm#thorium
> 
> 
> -- 
> Paul Gaske (p...@codify.com)
> Software Engineer
> Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61
> 417
> 791 916
> Address Info: http://www.codify.com/AboutUs/ContactDetails
> 

RE: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed

[tonywr]

ah, so you don't believe weather forecasters can tell you when summer and 
winter occur? We're 
talking long term here, not what the weather is going to be like tomorrow.


On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Tiang Cheng  
wrote:

> When people talk about weather science (like climate change), I
> remember a famous (longwinded) quote from a Bob Ryan - a
> meteorologist.
> 
> In 1982 he wrote "Imagine a rotating sphere that is 12,800 kilometers
> in diameter, has a bumpy surface, is surrounded by a
> 40-kilometer-deep mixture of different gases whose concentrations
> vary both spatially and over time, and is heated, along with its
> surrounding gases, by a nuclear reactor 150 million kilometers away.
> Imagine also that this sphere is revolving around the nuclear reactor
> and that some locations are heated more during one part of the
> revolution and other locations are heated during another part of the
> revolution. And imagine that this mixture of gases continually
> receives inputs from the surface below, generally calmly but
> sometimes through violent and highly localized injections. Then,
> imagine that after watching the gaseous mixture, you are expected to
> predict its state at one location on the sphere one, two, or more
> days into the future. This is essentially the task encountered day by
> day by a weather forecaster."
> 
> Or, as we like to say, "The forecast was right, it's the weather that
> got it wrong!"
> 
> As a keen kitesurfer and weekend sailor so I check weather forecasts
> every 6 hours (so it seems :P). it boggles my mind that weather
> forecasts can be so different even in such a short period.
> 
> Any scientist can claims they can forecast a change in temperature
> better have won a nobel prize for their work before I'ld believe
> them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com
> [mailto:ausdotnet-boun...@lists.codify.com] On Behalf Of
> ton...@tpg.com.au
> Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2010 6:09 AM
> To: ausDotNet
> Subject: Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech
> miracles needed
> 
> I think you miss the point. It's not about whether or not we should
> have a debate about it. Only the
> scientifically proven facts are important, not heresay based on
> heresay based on heresay. And the
> skeptics can't simply pick and choose the points that they are going
> to argue about without looking
> at the overall picture. It all comes down to who you trust to
> interpret the data. And I put my
> money on the scientists, no matter how much mud gets thrown at them.
> 
> T.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 12:31 AM, David Connors 
> wrote:
> 
> > On 23 February 2010 21:18, Ken Schaefer 
> > wrote:
> >
> > I never label people as “deniers”, nor do I cut people
> off. If
> > you have an
> > > alternate viewpoint, I’d like to see what evidence you
> have to
> > support that
> > > viewpoint. Since you’ve put the claim out there…
> > >
> > I didn't say you did. I thought you might have found those as 'in
> > jokes'
> > from reading the UEA material. Sorry - bad assumption on my part
> and
> > I
> > apoligise.
> >
> > The 'big cut off' was a reference to the mail from Schlesinger to
> > Andy
> > Revkin of the NYT. Revkin's mail was unkind, but Schlesinger reply
> > was
> > revealing.
> >
> >
> http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-scientist-threatens-boycott-of.html
> >
> > So you need to write pro-AGW in the New York Times or we won't
> talk
> > to you.
> > Awesome.
> >
> > > I’m not aware of any issues that have been highlighted
> with the
> > WG (Working
> > > Group) 1 report, which examines the scientific basis for our
> > believe in AGW.
> > >
> > >
> > > You won't be seeing much of a scientific basis or otherwise for
> > discussing
> > > any other point of view in anything out of the IPCC by design.
> > Jones, Mann,
> > > Pachauri, et al seem to have that pretty stitched up.
> > >
> > > Science doesn’t start from preconceived notions and
> eventually
> > whatever if
> > > the theory that best describes what we are able to observe will
> win
> > out.
> > > That have been shown time and time again, whether it be
> Relativity
> > or
> > > Evolution or our model of the Universe.
> > >
> > > And again, what is produced need to be signed off by 150 odd
> > governments
> > > (some of which have a vested interest in pumping more oil, or
> > exporting more
> > > coal), and a large number of scientific bodies. It is not
> possible
> > for a
> > > handful of people to continually suppress scientific evidence to
> > the
> > > contrary.
> > >
> > Au contraire. :) Read on. How many AGW articles did william
> connelly
> > edit by
> > hand as a one man band? 5000+ wasn't it?
> >
> > >  It summarises thousands of studies, across all major scientific
> > fields,
> > > and the correlation of thousands of studies seems to present
> > fairly
> > > compelling evidence.
> > >
> > > I think the avera

Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed

[tonywr]

It's not only the IPCC that have formed these opinions. 

The Australian scientists are doing their own research. The Australian 
Antarctic Division are 
studying Antarctic ice melts, and they have come to their own conclusions about 
that topic. If the 
ice melts are happening, we have a problem, regardless of whether this is 
climate change or 
climate-continuing-along-a-pre-existing-path. 

Or are they all the same as well? 


On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 9:45 AM, David Connors  wrote:

> On 24 February 2010 08:09,  wrote:
> 
> > I think you miss the point. It's not about whether or not we should
> have a
> > debate about it.
> 
> 
> It depends on your point of view I guess. I'd argue any day of the
> week that
> debate is a healthy part of any democracy. If an ex-railroad engineer
> is
> qualified to run the IPCC, then I think my status as a software
> engineer at
> least entitles me to have an opinion. :)
> 
> 
> > Only the
> > scientifically proven facts are important,
> 
> 
> If that is the case, then you cannot draw any conclusions on AGW
> currently
> as the field is too young. Anything to come out of the field of
> dendrochronology is far from a fact by any standard definition of the
> word.
> Theories and hypotheses abound - but precious few proven facts.
> 
> 
> > not heresay based on heresay based on heresay. And the
> > skeptics can't simply pick and choose the points that they are
> going to
> > argue about without looking
> > at the overall picture. It all comes down to who you trust to
> interpret the
> > data. And I put my
> > money on the scientists, no matter how much mud gets thrown at
> them.
> >
> 
> Like I said, it depends on your point of view and I suspect that you
> and Ken
> and I would never agree at any rate. I'd probably have a different
> opinion
> if the IPCC, Hadley, GISS etc guys were the great edifice of well
> studied
> and objective science. Sitting on the outside though, they appear to
> be a
> pretty politically motivated bunch who are FAR from idealised
> objective
> scientists.
> 
> Check out the UEA mail leaks as it does not sound like you have. It
> is
> really eye popping reading. Conspiracy to delete data, fudge data
> and
> models, ensuring the deletion of mail at Hadley and uPen on
> impending
> assessment report findings, constant withholding of data and source
> code
> preventing independent verification of findings, conspiring to
> illegally
> block perfectly valid freedom of information requests - it is all
> there if
> you want to have a long read. These are not bit players on the fringe
> -
> we're talking about the core "team" - Jones, Mann, Briffa,
> Trenberth,
> Schmidt, et al.
> 
> Of course, that does not disprove the central tenants of AGW theory
> however
> I think it is naive (as I learned in reading about this stuff over a
> number
> of years) to assume that the handful of core researchers driving most
> AGW
> research are beyond reproach.
> 
> There is a LOT of heat on the citations in AR4 and almost none of it
> has
> come from within the established scientific community. Hell, even
> Greenpeace
> Britain are calling for Pachauri's head.
> 
> Anyway - this has been fun but I have a metric pant load of work to
> do over
> the next few days.
> 
> -- 
> David Connors (da...@codify.com)
> Software Engineer
> Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61
> 417
> 189 363
> V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
> Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
> 

Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed

[tonywr]

I think you miss the point. It's not about whether or not we should have a 
debate about it. Only the 
scientifically proven facts are important, not heresay based on heresay based 
on heresay. And the 
skeptics can't simply pick and choose the points that they are going to argue 
about without looking 
at the overall picture. It all comes down to who you trust to interpret the 
data. And I put my 
money on the scientists, no matter how much mud gets thrown at them.

T.


On Wed, Feb 24th, 2010 at 12:31 AM, David Connors  wrote:

> On 23 February 2010 21:18, Ken Schaefer 
> wrote:
> 
> I never label people as “deniers”, nor do I cut people off. If
> you have an
> > alternate viewpoint, I’d like to see what evidence you have to
> support that
> > viewpoint. Since you’ve put the claim out there…
> >
> I didn't say you did. I thought you might have found those as 'in
> jokes'
> from reading the UEA material. Sorry - bad assumption on my part and
> I
> apoligise.
> 
> The 'big cut off' was a reference to the mail from Schlesinger to
> Andy
> Revkin of the NYT. Revkin's mail was unkind, but Schlesinger reply
> was
> revealing.
> 
> http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-scientist-threatens-boycott-of.html
> 
> So you need to write pro-AGW in the New York Times or we won't talk
> to you.
> Awesome.
> 
> > I’m not aware of any issues that have been highlighted with the
> WG (Working
> > Group) 1 report, which examines the scientific basis for our
> believe in AGW.
> >
> >
> > You won't be seeing much of a scientific basis or otherwise for
> discussing
> > any other point of view in anything out of the IPCC by design.
> Jones, Mann,
> > Pachauri, et al seem to have that pretty stitched up.
> >
> > Science doesn’t start from preconceived notions and eventually
> whatever if
> > the theory that best describes what we are able to observe will win
> out.
> > That have been shown time and time again, whether it be Relativity
> or
> > Evolution or our model of the Universe.
> >
> > And again, what is produced need to be signed off by 150 odd
> governments
> > (some of which have a vested interest in pumping more oil, or
> exporting more
> > coal), and a large number of scientific bodies. It is not possible
> for a
> > handful of people to continually suppress scientific evidence to
> the
> > contrary.
> >
> Au contraire. :) Read on. How many AGW articles did william connelly
> edit by
> hand as a one man band? 5000+ wasn't it?
> 
> >  It summarises thousands of studies, across all major scientific
> fields,
> > and the correlation of thousands of studies seems to present
> fairly
> > compelling evidence.
> >
> > I think the average punter, and *especially* policy makers, are
> more
> > interested in the output of WG2 (the part of IPCC AR4 that deals
> with
> > *impacts* and what we are to expect).
> >
> > Since we seem to be debating the actual existence of AGW, that’s
> not in WG2
> > – it’s in WG1
> >
> I think the existence of AGW is a foregone conclusion by everyone
> else on
> this thread so I'm just along for the ride. ;)
> 
> AGW is too broad a term to be useful in discussing the world's
> climate IMO.
> More usefully:
> 
> 1. Is the world warming or cooling or staying the same?
> 2. If so by how much?
> 3. Is it unprecedented?
> 4. Given 2, how much is dangerous.
> 5. Given 2, how much is caused by man vs not.
> 6. Given 5, what can we reasonably do to offset 4.
> 
> or something like that.
> 
> >  Are you aware of any issues from WG2? :)
> >
> > Do those issues actual detract from the central messages in WG2?
> >
>  does not disprove any of the science of AGW
> is the
> catch cry of UEA etc. They wrote off the entire hack archive as such
> - but
> even a cursory reading of the material really makes you stop and
> think if
> you look at it with an open mind.
> 
> Specifically re WG2 ... we know we're only to use peer-reviewed
> science and
> Mann & co have been calling people pretty awful stuff for not quoting
> "the
> peer reviewed literature" for some time ... so citing:
> 
> - over a dozen WWF brochures/reports
> - From the synthesis report:
> 
> "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part
> of the
> world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them
> disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."
> 
> "Publicly available IPCC archives of the review process show that
> during the
> formal review, the Japanese government also questioned the 2035
> claim. It
> commented: "This seems to be a very important statement. What is the
> confidence level/certainty?" Soon afterwards, a reference to the WWF
> report
> was added to the final draft. But the statement otherwise went
> unchanged."
> 
> (Source? Ahhh ummm... 2005 report via WWF (they're not biased) - but
> don't
> worry - they did quote a 1999 article from New Scientist from a
> telephone
> interview with some guy in India)
> 
> - Climbing (a mountain climbing magazine)
> 

Re: [OT] Bill gates on our energy futures - some tech miracles needed

[tonywr]

That's probably why you should actually read them. You would understand then 
why the separation 
between sea ice and land ice was so important. And the sea ice does fluctuate 
seasonally. The 
difference is the as the land ice melts and loses mass (and height), it tends 
to spread out. The 
more land ice that moves into the sea, the bigger the problem.

I often find that people are only interested in reading articles that support 
their point of view. If 
you had read the Australian position statement, you would see that they aren't 
saying that we will 
have a 6 metre rise. Their information predicts much lower. 

T.


On Tue, Feb 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 PM, David Connors  wrote:

> On 23 February 2010 20:41, Tony Wright  wrote:
> 
> >  If anyone is interested, the Australian position statements on
> Antarctic
> > Ice Melts are at http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=36276. I
> sat
> > through the entire video presentation and thought it was very
> credible.
> >
> That is the problem with a lot of the current 'research'. Your
> citation is
> very credible - and so is this:
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice_south.php
> 
> says that Antarctica is gaining 3 x the area of tasmania a decade
> since
> satellite obs began (and of course goes on to say "Whether the small
> overall
> increase in sea ice extent is a sign of meaningful change in the
> Antarctic
> is uncertain because ice extents vary considerably from year to year
> and
> from sector to sector" ... because every silver lining has a cloud
> when you
> read this stuff). Rest assured, a -1%/decade change would have them
> waving
> their arms running in circles going "DANGER WILL ROBINSON!"
> 
> You tell me who's right out of your reference or mine (hint: f'd if I
> know!
> ... it is not a trick question ... I really don't know!! :)
> 
> David.
> 
> -- 
> David Connors (da...@codify.com)
> Software Engineer
> Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com
> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61
> 417
> 189 363
> V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors
> Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact
>