...on the blogger help thing that you should keep your posts short.
I don't seem to be able to do that.
Friday, 31 August 2007
Thursday, 30 August 2007
News on the Frivolous Front
If you remember the lawsuit that PZ Myers was going to go through then you should also know that nothing will happen. Through common sense and the pressure of Peter Irons in pointing out pretty much all the deficiencies in the suit.
So Pivar has dropped the suit and apparently Mr. Little, Pivar's laywer, is threatening to sue Irons for some silly reason.
All I can say is congratulations PZ Myers.
I guess that since this battle is over we should probably look at the damages for both parties:
PZ Myers
Pivar
So as we can see PZ Myers clearly won this battle nearly all his points that are there are good ones, so we can give him +4. Pivar on the other hand has many negative points (you can see the bias...) so he gets -5. So the difference is 9, which would be say, an 'Epic Victory', in a complete and arbitrary point of view.
So Pivar has dropped the suit and apparently Mr. Little, Pivar's laywer, is threatening to sue Irons for some silly reason.
All I can say is congratulations PZ Myers.
I guess that since this battle is over we should probably look at the damages for both parties:
PZ Myers
- Probably down a few dollars in legal fees
- Gained more readers (I know I have started reading his blog more)
- Held and holds the morale high ground
- Is still an excellent blogger
- Has increased the usage of the word "crackpot"
Pivar
- Most likely lost more money on a lawyer that doesn't seem to be very good
- Has now managed to get himself laughed at by the entire internet
- Would not have sold any copies of his book
- Quit the suit in a really wimpy way
- Will most likely now be known as "crackpot" for ever and ever
So as we can see PZ Myers clearly won this battle nearly all his points that are there are good ones, so we can give him +4. Pivar on the other hand has many negative points (you can see the bias...) so he gets -5. So the difference is 9, which would be say, an 'Epic Victory', in a complete and arbitrary point of view.
Tuesday, 28 August 2007
Peppered Moths
One of the finest examples of evolution is the Peppered Moth or Biston betularia. In fact it is so great that I am learning about it again in first year Biology. This is also the first post that I have written discussing Creationism so I hope I don't stuff this up.
Now I don't know if I can really say that I love Biology, I must admit that I prefer Chemistry but for me to live up my dream I need to understand something about Biology anyway.
Now for those that don't know the Peppered Moth (I prefer the common name, less italics to write in) can be found in the UK and can be found in two varieties a melanic variety (which is dark) and a lighter form.
Although the experiment undertaken by Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950's the effect started from the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.
Before the huge increase in factories the forests were clean and had light coloured lichen growing on the trees.
The lichen allowed the lighter moths to survive easier compared to the melanic ones because they could easily camouflage themselves on the trees and not get eaten by the birds that preyed on the insects.
Naturally the darker moths were easier targets and were eaten.
However the Industrial Revolution changed the rules.
The drastic increase of factories spewing out smoke created plenty of soot that killed off the lichen and covered the trees in black soot.
The colours of the moths changed. The melanic moths started to become more common, not being the rare variety anymore but the common one.
Kettlewell managed to show in his experiment that the darker moths were prevalent because the birds found it harder to find them in the soot covered forests.
After the 50's with a program that cut down pollution they found that the moths returned to their original colour diversity.
Now creationists seem to have a problem with this trying to find ways of disproving the hypothesis. The Panda's Thumb mentions them claiming that the results were "faked" and Talk Design has an article that quite thoroughly shows how first the creationists are wrong and how the book Of Moths and Men is also wrong.
This site which is probably getting more exposure then it should, says the following:
What we see here is what we can call 'a quite stupid comment'.
It isn't the worst that I have heard from a creationist. The number one thing is a tie between someone claiming that macroevolution was "a rock turning into a banana" or "the Peppered Moth isn't an example of evolution because the pollution was man made but evolution is natural"
Trying to claim that the Peppered Moths has nothing on evolution because it is "still a moth" is a moot point. What was shown here was that the moths adapted to survive, those that were born melanic in a dark environment meant that they were more likely to survive.
The evolution was not just an "oscillation of populations" it was an increase/decrease clearly in the allele frequency of the population. Which, anyway, has nothing in common with the Galapagos finches. The Galapagos finches arrived on the island, most likely from a storm on the mainland and over time they reproduced but they also filled unfilled niches in the ecosystem. The one that I can think of at the moment is the Warbler Finch which is a finch that has adapted itself into a type of warbler, but it is still a finch.
The next line of that comment is just standard creationist drivel, make it sound like a religion and somehow it becomes an idea that is characterised by a belief system but clearly shows a lack of understanding of evolution.
Random chance only affects life if it is something that does not target specific species, for example an asteroid hitting the Earth. It doesn't discriminate between a fit animal and an unfit animal it just kills and whatever manages to survive is bloody lucky.
What he calls the "jackpot" (millions of years") is not always the case. It does not take millions of years for bacteria to become resistant to types of medicine, nor does it take millions of years for various species to become immune to the effects of bacteria like Wolbachia.
To finish, what makes creationists funny (or even IDers) is that they try so hard to disprove something but they don't understand the thing they are trying to disprove, so they fall back to fallacies...
Now I don't know if I can really say that I love Biology, I must admit that I prefer Chemistry but for me to live up my dream I need to understand something about Biology anyway.
Now for those that don't know the Peppered Moth (I prefer the common name, less italics to write in) can be found in the UK and can be found in two varieties a melanic variety (which is dark) and a lighter form.
Although the experiment undertaken by Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950's the effect started from the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.
Before the huge increase in factories the forests were clean and had light coloured lichen growing on the trees.
The lichen allowed the lighter moths to survive easier compared to the melanic ones because they could easily camouflage themselves on the trees and not get eaten by the birds that preyed on the insects.
Naturally the darker moths were easier targets and were eaten.
However the Industrial Revolution changed the rules.
The drastic increase of factories spewing out smoke created plenty of soot that killed off the lichen and covered the trees in black soot.
The colours of the moths changed. The melanic moths started to become more common, not being the rare variety anymore but the common one.
Kettlewell managed to show in his experiment that the darker moths were prevalent because the birds found it harder to find them in the soot covered forests.
After the 50's with a program that cut down pollution they found that the moths returned to their original colour diversity.
Now creationists seem to have a problem with this trying to find ways of disproving the hypothesis. The Panda's Thumb mentions them claiming that the results were "faked" and Talk Design has an article that quite thoroughly shows how first the creationists are wrong and how the book Of Moths and Men is also wrong.
This site which is probably getting more exposure then it should, says the following:
IMHO...a couple of issues with the most recent peppered moth study. It's still a moth, and the evolution is an oscillation of populations, just like the finches of Galapagos. Of course, the Darwinists will appeal to the "great creators", random chance, natural selection, and the jackpot, hundreds of millions of years. Given enough time, anything can happen, right?
What we see here is what we can call 'a quite stupid comment'.
It isn't the worst that I have heard from a creationist. The number one thing is a tie between someone claiming that macroevolution was "a rock turning into a banana" or "the Peppered Moth isn't an example of evolution because the pollution was man made but evolution is natural"
Trying to claim that the Peppered Moths has nothing on evolution because it is "still a moth" is a moot point. What was shown here was that the moths adapted to survive, those that were born melanic in a dark environment meant that they were more likely to survive.
The evolution was not just an "oscillation of populations" it was an increase/decrease clearly in the allele frequency of the population. Which, anyway, has nothing in common with the Galapagos finches. The Galapagos finches arrived on the island, most likely from a storm on the mainland and over time they reproduced but they also filled unfilled niches in the ecosystem. The one that I can think of at the moment is the Warbler Finch which is a finch that has adapted itself into a type of warbler, but it is still a finch.
The next line of that comment is just standard creationist drivel, make it sound like a religion and somehow it becomes an idea that is characterised by a belief system but clearly shows a lack of understanding of evolution.
Random chance only affects life if it is something that does not target specific species, for example an asteroid hitting the Earth. It doesn't discriminate between a fit animal and an unfit animal it just kills and whatever manages to survive is bloody lucky.
What he calls the "jackpot" (millions of years") is not always the case. It does not take millions of years for bacteria to become resistant to types of medicine, nor does it take millions of years for various species to become immune to the effects of bacteria like Wolbachia.
To finish, what makes creationists funny (or even IDers) is that they try so hard to disprove something but they don't understand the thing they are trying to disprove, so they fall back to fallacies...
Sunday, 26 August 2007
Citizenship test?
I heard this on the news at work.
Australia will be introducing a citizenship test
Now we are more like the Americans and Canadians.
People will have to know something about Australia like our Capital city (Canberra) or what is on our coat of arms (Kangaroo and Emu, but I know that because we also eat them (but I haven't had Emu yet, I guess it might taste like big chicken...))
One of the funnier ones involves our national anthem.
As a semi sidetrack I will point out that our national anthem is called Advance Australia Fair.
The two verses that are sung are:
Now there are some small things that you have to note. The first is that in official events you sit and listen to them play the tune once through and then you sing the first verse.
The second is that most Australians don't know the anthem.
I know both verses because I used to sing in a Choir (when I still had that young boys voice) and at big events we would sing the anthem, both verses.
The Age has 20 of the possible 200 questions that may be asked. The test has 20 out of a possible 200 that can be asked so if you are a person trying to become a citizen maybe you should learn these ones and hope you are lucky...
Anyway number four is:
4. What is the first line of Australia's national anthem?
What makes this funny is that, unlike in the US where my understanding is that an immigrant will know more about their constitution then an American, an immigrant who wants to become an Australian will learn the part of the national anthem that most Australians know.
So we will pretty much all be equal.
When you listen to a country sing it's national anthem you can usually make out what they are saying (unless you don't understand the language that well). Lets choose a national anthem almost at random. The German one.
Germans know their national anthem, many also know the first verse, the one they aren't allowed to sing.
What the Germans use as their national anthem is the third verse which is this:
Compare that to what you would hear from the Australians. I once heard this as a joke but it is perfectly true:
I would continue but I don't know how to exactly write it down. It is more of an unintelligible drawl in tune to the music. So really an immigrant needs to know the first verse, how to sound like they are singing and know where to put the word 'girt' which most don't know what it means (surrounded/encircled/etc.) but seem to be able to sing clearly.
Probably because girt doesn't make a good drawl sound.
I think there should be an even easier citizenship test. They learn the national anthem and then have to sing it to people. If they sing it clearly and well then they aren't allowed in and if they can't sing it we welcome them into the fold.
It is like Tripod's "New Aussie Anthem"
1. In what year did Federation take place?
A: 1901, January 1st to be exact.
2. Which day of the year is Australia Day?
A: January 26th
3. Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia?
A: Edmund Barton. Not many people know that in fact more people know the first president of the US, so the government ran some commercials in 2000-1 so inform people about our first PM.
5. What is the floral emblem of Australia?
A: The Wattle if I remember correctly, that is where we get the sporting colours of green and gold.
6. What is the population of Australia?
A: Last time I checked it was about 21 million.
7. In what city is the Parliament House of the Commonwealth Parliament located?
A: Canberra, the city of too many roundabouts and not enough traffic lights.
8. Who is the Queen's representative in Australia?
A: The Governor General, but I don't know his name.
9. How are Members of Parliament chosen?
A: Election
10. Who do Members of Parliament represent?
A: I guess the correct answer is the people, but I think for many the party they are from is more apt.
11. After a federal election, who forms the new government?
A: For the last 10 years a 'coalition'. And I suspect that it will be the same again after this years election. It is whoever has the majority of seats in Parliament.
12. What are the colours on the Australian flag?
A: Blue, white, red
13. Who is the head of the Australian Government?
A: The Prime Minister, who is currently called John but if Labor is lucky the PM will be called Kevin. Could you imagine the insults? Ruddy Kevin Rudd...
14. What are the three levels of government in Australia?
A: Local, state, federal
15. In what year did the European settlement of Australia start?
A: Officially 1788, when the First Fleet arrived.
16. Serving on a jury if required is a responsibility of Australian citizenship: true or false?
A: Apparently
17. In Australia, everyone is free to practise the religion of their choice, or practise no religion: true of false?
A: True, unless you are a Muslim then you can practice your religion but will also face insults for being a Muslim by the racist yobs.
18. To be elected to the Commonwealth Parliament you must be an Australian citizen: true or false?
A: True. Which is why I am divided on the Shane Warne becoming a German thing. I mean I don't want him to become a German because he is jerk, and it will reflect badly on me here due to cricket loving bogans (Oh you're German, just like Shane Warne...) but I don't really want him to go into Australian politics which is apparently something that he wants to do.
19. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to register my baby born overseas as an Australian citizen: true or false?
A: I wouldn't know. I think that is true.
20. Australian citizens aged 18 years or over are required to enrol on the electoral register: true or false?
A: True, however in South Australia you are on;y required by law to enrol on the federal register not the state one, but we aren't given the option of not registering on the state register.
Who knows, maybe I got the 12 out of 20 to pass the test...
I think this is my first post where I have used both 'Musings' and 'Silliness' as a tag...
Australia will be introducing a citizenship test
Now we are more like the Americans and Canadians.
People will have to know something about Australia like our Capital city (Canberra) or what is on our coat of arms (Kangaroo and Emu, but I know that because we also eat them (but I haven't had Emu yet, I guess it might taste like big chicken...))
One of the funnier ones involves our national anthem.
As a semi sidetrack I will point out that our national anthem is called Advance Australia Fair.
The two verses that are sung are:
- Australians all let us rejoice,
- For we are young and free;
- We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
- Our home is girt by sea;
- Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
- Of beauty rich and rare;
- In history's page, let every stage
- Advance Australia fair!
- In joyful strains then let us sing,
- "Advance Australia fair!"
- Beneath our radiant southern Cross,
- We'll toil with hearts and hands;
- To make this Commonwealth of ours
- Renowned of all the lands;
- For those who've come across the seas
- We've boundless plains to share;
- With courage let us all combine
- To advance Australia fair.
- In joyful strains then let us sing
- "Advance Australia fair!"
Now there are some small things that you have to note. The first is that in official events you sit and listen to them play the tune once through and then you sing the first verse.
The second is that most Australians don't know the anthem.
I know both verses because I used to sing in a Choir (when I still had that young boys voice) and at big events we would sing the anthem, both verses.
The Age has 20 of the possible 200 questions that may be asked. The test has 20 out of a possible 200 that can be asked so if you are a person trying to become a citizen maybe you should learn these ones and hope you are lucky...
Anyway number four is:
4. What is the first line of Australia's national anthem?
What makes this funny is that, unlike in the US where my understanding is that an immigrant will know more about their constitution then an American, an immigrant who wants to become an Australian will learn the part of the national anthem that most Australians know.
So we will pretty much all be equal.
When you listen to a country sing it's national anthem you can usually make out what they are saying (unless you don't understand the language that well). Lets choose a national anthem almost at random. The German one.
Germans know their national anthem, many also know the first verse, the one they aren't allowed to sing.
What the Germans use as their national anthem is the third verse which is this:
Einigkeit und Recht und FreiheitNow you will pretty much understand what they are going on about here.
für das deutsche Vaterland!
Danach laßt uns alle streben
brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
Blüh im Glanze dieses Glückes,
blühe, deutsches Vaterland.
Compare that to what you would hear from the Australians. I once heard this as a joke but it is perfectly true:
Australians all let us rejoice
For we ar yun an re
Wi gowden soi an welf for toil
Our ome e girt i c
...
I would continue but I don't know how to exactly write it down. It is more of an unintelligible drawl in tune to the music. So really an immigrant needs to know the first verse, how to sound like they are singing and know where to put the word 'girt' which most don't know what it means (surrounded/encircled/etc.) but seem to be able to sing clearly.
Probably because girt doesn't make a good drawl sound.
I think there should be an even easier citizenship test. They learn the national anthem and then have to sing it to people. If they sing it clearly and well then they aren't allowed in and if they can't sing it we welcome them into the fold.
It is like Tripod's "New Aussie Anthem"
So we all need to raise our voice and say:The rest of the questions are:
(mumble mumble mumble mumble)... ay!
1. In what year did Federation take place?
A: 1901, January 1st to be exact.
2. Which day of the year is Australia Day?
A: January 26th
3. Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia?
A: Edmund Barton. Not many people know that in fact more people know the first president of the US, so the government ran some commercials in 2000-1 so inform people about our first PM.
5. What is the floral emblem of Australia?
A: The Wattle if I remember correctly, that is where we get the sporting colours of green and gold.
6. What is the population of Australia?
A: Last time I checked it was about 21 million.
7. In what city is the Parliament House of the Commonwealth Parliament located?
A: Canberra, the city of too many roundabouts and not enough traffic lights.
8. Who is the Queen's representative in Australia?
A: The Governor General, but I don't know his name.
9. How are Members of Parliament chosen?
A: Election
10. Who do Members of Parliament represent?
A: I guess the correct answer is the people, but I think for many the party they are from is more apt.
11. After a federal election, who forms the new government?
A: For the last 10 years a 'coalition'. And I suspect that it will be the same again after this years election. It is whoever has the majority of seats in Parliament.
12. What are the colours on the Australian flag?
A: Blue, white, red
13. Who is the head of the Australian Government?
A: The Prime Minister, who is currently called John but if Labor is lucky the PM will be called Kevin. Could you imagine the insults? Ruddy Kevin Rudd...
14. What are the three levels of government in Australia?
A: Local, state, federal
15. In what year did the European settlement of Australia start?
A: Officially 1788, when the First Fleet arrived.
16. Serving on a jury if required is a responsibility of Australian citizenship: true or false?
A: Apparently
17. In Australia, everyone is free to practise the religion of their choice, or practise no religion: true of false?
A: True, unless you are a Muslim then you can practice your religion but will also face insults for being a Muslim by the racist yobs.
18. To be elected to the Commonwealth Parliament you must be an Australian citizen: true or false?
A: True. Which is why I am divided on the Shane Warne becoming a German thing. I mean I don't want him to become a German because he is jerk, and it will reflect badly on me here due to cricket loving bogans (Oh you're German, just like Shane Warne...) but I don't really want him to go into Australian politics which is apparently something that he wants to do.
19. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to register my baby born overseas as an Australian citizen: true or false?
A: I wouldn't know. I think that is true.
20. Australian citizens aged 18 years or over are required to enrol on the electoral register: true or false?
A: True, however in South Australia you are on;y required by law to enrol on the federal register not the state one, but we aren't given the option of not registering on the state register.
Who knows, maybe I got the 12 out of 20 to pass the test...
I think this is my first post where I have used both 'Musings' and 'Silliness' as a tag...
Saturday, 25 August 2007
Hot Chocolate Rapist
When I first read about this today I wondered why I hadn't heard anything about it.
From what I can tell the crimes that I am about to write about happened around 10 years ago now.
I first heard about these crimes in passing on Triple J news on Friday heading to Uni, but I missed some of it and I didn't try to look up more about it.
However from what I have found it seems that this man raped 22 women and has been charged with 61 offences that involve 24 women.
He looked respectable, and would buy the women hot chocolate which he would lace with drugs.
In 1998 the case went cold until possibly July this year when two of the victims appealed for other victims to come forward.
Yesterday a man was charged with 61 charges against 24 women.
The man goes by the name of Harry William Barkas who is in remand until December 12.
The article gives the charges:
Now the problem that I have with punishing rapists is that do they really understand what they have done? How they have hurt the people that they raped?
I want to link to a thread in the Myspace forums where someone posted that they should legalise rape, but it might have been deleted.
The reason why I wanted to link to it was because this person didn't seem to understand the difference between rape and rough sex.
I wonder if rapists have the same problem, that they equate rape with having rough sex?
How could you punish someone like that? Let them be raped to see the difference?
Finally if all goes well the women who were raped will finally get to see some justice for what has happened to them. And justice after a crime is really all that matters.
From what I can tell the crimes that I am about to write about happened around 10 years ago now.
I first heard about these crimes in passing on Triple J news on Friday heading to Uni, but I missed some of it and I didn't try to look up more about it.
However from what I have found it seems that this man raped 22 women and has been charged with 61 offences that involve 24 women.
He looked respectable, and would buy the women hot chocolate which he would lace with drugs.
In 1998 the case went cold until possibly July this year when two of the victims appealed for other victims to come forward.
Yesterday a man was charged with 61 charges against 24 women.
The man goes by the name of Harry William Barkas who is in remand until December 12.
The article gives the charges:
Mr Barkas has been charged with four counts of rape, one of indecent assault, five counts of administering drugs to render a person unable to resist sexual penetration and one count each of using and trafficking cannabis.
Now the problem that I have with punishing rapists is that do they really understand what they have done? How they have hurt the people that they raped?
I want to link to a thread in the Myspace forums where someone posted that they should legalise rape, but it might have been deleted.
The reason why I wanted to link to it was because this person didn't seem to understand the difference between rape and rough sex.
I wonder if rapists have the same problem, that they equate rape with having rough sex?
How could you punish someone like that? Let them be raped to see the difference?
Finally if all goes well the women who were raped will finally get to see some justice for what has happened to them. And justice after a crime is really all that matters.
Iraq Blogs
The BBC has an updated Iraqi Blogs page.
Two blogs hit me after reading their profiles.
The first is called Days of My Life and is from a young girl who goes by the name of Sunshine, who lives in Mosul.
I have started reading through the archives, and I cannot think of anything to say at the moment. The post that I am up to at this time I think may be one referring to the Battle of Mosul which really seems to reflect the Coalition's ability to achieve an indecisive result.
The thing that I see in reading these entries is that she does not seem to give up hope. At least that is what I am reading now.
The second one that I will start reading more of is called Last of Iraqis. I have only read the little excerpt from the BBC but it sounds like another interesting thing to read.
If you will excuse me I have some reading to do...
Two blogs hit me after reading their profiles.
The first is called Days of My Life and is from a young girl who goes by the name of Sunshine, who lives in Mosul.
I have started reading through the archives, and I cannot think of anything to say at the moment. The post that I am up to at this time I think may be one referring to the Battle of Mosul which really seems to reflect the Coalition's ability to achieve an indecisive result.
The thing that I see in reading these entries is that she does not seem to give up hope. At least that is what I am reading now.
The second one that I will start reading more of is called Last of Iraqis. I have only read the little excerpt from the BBC but it sounds like another interesting thing to read.
If you will excuse me I have some reading to do...
A Review
Just to ruin my lovely long post I will post a review of a novella that I have just finished reading. So just skip down to the next post.
The story is called Stuart Pivar v. Seed Media Group LLC and Paul Z Myers and can be found in PDF format here. It is the first in the "Crackpot" series of books by the current author, the United States District Court Southern District of New York, with help from the lawyers of Stuart Pivar.
Although only 10 pages long the reader will be taken on an emotional ride of apathy, confusion, happiness, sadness and fear.
There are some funny points where the book makes reference to real facts that are distorted to represent a fantasy life of a man who feels that he has been screwed over by another and decides to sue the other and his organisation for US$15 million.
At this stage we have the opening, where the man has submitted his complaint to the court system to get the other man to shut up.
He puts forth pretend anxiety to the court so that he may get some sort of pity but then demands that if he wins that the other man will have his mouth sewn so that he may never criticise anyone ever again.
As you move through the tale you will need to look up some supplementary material which is available free off the web. Just google for it, or look on other posts here.
From a plot perspective the tale is rather bland, and contains a bias towards the character called 'Plaintiff' but I suspect that any further books in the series will be more balanced.
Overall I would give this book two stars, it just doesn't stand up on it's own.
The story is called Stuart Pivar v. Seed Media Group LLC and Paul Z Myers and can be found in PDF format here. It is the first in the "Crackpot" series of books by the current author, the United States District Court Southern District of New York, with help from the lawyers of Stuart Pivar.
Although only 10 pages long the reader will be taken on an emotional ride of apathy, confusion, happiness, sadness and fear.
There are some funny points where the book makes reference to real facts that are distorted to represent a fantasy life of a man who feels that he has been screwed over by another and decides to sue the other and his organisation for US$15 million.
At this stage we have the opening, where the man has submitted his complaint to the court system to get the other man to shut up.
He puts forth pretend anxiety to the court so that he may get some sort of pity but then demands that if he wins that the other man will have his mouth sewn so that he may never criticise anyone ever again.
As you move through the tale you will need to look up some supplementary material which is available free off the web. Just google for it, or look on other posts here.
From a plot perspective the tale is rather bland, and contains a bias towards the character called 'Plaintiff' but I suspect that any further books in the series will be more balanced.
Overall I would give this book two stars, it just doesn't stand up on it's own.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)