What’s not okay: To expect others to submit to rules of your worldview. Especially if others do not share this view or agree to the rule.
You have the right to believe whatever you like, but don’t expect me to follow. Because I have the same right.
This applies to acts which do not harm anybody or anything, like destroying a copy of a book which you own, without eradicating the book from existence or taking it from others.
Otherwise, we play the victim game. I can do that too! Look, I’m an atheist. This is a very serious thing for me. I feel appalled by the idea that more than 200 years after the enlightenment (just to name one of many reasons), people still believe and share religious ideas. The abrahamic scriptures are riddled with hate speech and endorsements of violence. To call these text collections ‘holy’ is an insult to everything I hold dear, like science and human rights. I’m offended by their mere existence, and perceive public displays as a personal offense to my worldview. I demand everybody in every country to respect my feelings and stop these atrocious acts.
Of course the sane alternative would be to thicken my skin, learn to deal with my emotions (which means I deal with them, not externalizing), respect differences as long as they do no harm.
These book burnings only exist because people make an unjustified fuzz about it, occasionally in a violent way. You can have your religion with all it’s rules, but you cannot expect people to apply who don’t subscribe.
Yeah book burnings are totally an affirmation of free and open discussion and in no way reflects a deeply seated intolerance. Countries with regular book burnings are bastions of freedom.
I think the difference is if it’s the State burning the books because they are “dangerous” and the State doesn’t want you to read it then that speaks of fascism. If it is citizens/civilians burning a book, that they own, because of some personal desire to express themselves then it’s their expression.
Maybe they are expressiomlns of hate, but a citizen expressing that is different than the State expressing that. One has more power over the other.
The Nazi book burnings were conducted by the German Student Union primarily, not the state. Just as it is in Florida, and just as it is here in this instance, book burnings are primarily perpetrated by ideologues, not the state.
I don’t think that they were advocating book burnings rather than trying to point out that the burnings are an act of provocation to which the best and most mature reaction would be ignoring them.
I don’t think that’s true, at least for book burnings more generally. Ignoring such acts lends them power, and implies that it is acceptable, and leaves open the possibility of further burnings. To burn a book is a profoundly anti-intellectual action, regardless of one’s set of justifications, and regardless of the content of what one is burning. To allow such acts to continue unchallenged is to allow a festering wound to poison the bloodstream of a society.
Ignoring such acts lends them power, and implies that it is acceptable, and leaves open the possibility of further burnings.
This is exactly my worry, just applied to “setting religious rules for people outside your religion”.
To burn a book is a profoundly anti-intellectual action, regardless of one’s set of justifications, and regardless of the content of what one is burning.
There exist many ways to burn a book with very different implications. Let’s look at three of them:
Nazi style: The attempt of intellectual genocide. The goal is to eradicate certain book(s) from existence, at least locally. In that logic, it ‘makes sense’ to steal these books from others, so that no private copy survives. Similarly, since you actually want to remove ideas from existence, it can ‘make sense’ to also kill people who hold ideas, because people, like books, serve as a storage medium for these ideas.
Protest: A provocative show to resist the threat to your own human rights. The goal is to demonstrate “your rights end where mine begin”. In that logic, it is necessary to respect property, rights and life of others. So you only burn what you own, and have neither intent nor make attempt to remove all copies of that book from existence. In some cases, people even create their own copies merely for destroying them (which still causes outrage). The goal is not to alter the amount of available copies.
Garbage: A task so mundane few would even think about it. We regularly destroy books without batting an eye, because someone threw them in the trash, because no one bought them, or other economic or practical reasons. In this case, they are removed not because someone cares about them, but because no one cares about them.
Wether the removal of the book is what you describe, depends entirely on intention and implementation. You are right for one specific case, and it is good to be aware of it and defend against it, to not repeat these dark chapters of history. However, all other cases have different characteristics and do not deserve the same conclusion.
There is a common ground between #1 and #2. A profoundly anti-intellectual attitude; dogma. Nazi-style book burnings are meant to force a view on others, if ‘necessary’ by brutal physical force. Some reactions to Quran burnings reveal the same mindset. One group feels so superior and entitled that they try to impose their view on others, make them submit to their rules. If necessary, by brutal physical force.
Funny, because there are over a billion Muslim people who don’t try to force their beliefs on others.
So if we can do things based on the actions of a few extremists, then given that definitively Christianity is the most violent religion in known history, both contemporary and historically, where are the Bible burnings? If they’re being consistent, singling out Islam wouldn’t be a thing. I
Or we can recognize that this is an inherently reactionary “protest” that does nothing but antagonize people who otherwise would have likely no problem with you. It’s New Atheism to the max. Thinking that one is so enlightened that being disrespectful to other groups is not only acceptable, but necessary. You catch more flies with honey than burning books.
Funny, because there are over a billion Muslim people who don’t try to force their beliefs on others.
Yes. With about 2 billion overall, it’s probably more. If I generalized I apologize for that, I didn’t mean to. Though I don’t think I have?
So if we can do things based on the actions of a few extremists, then given that definitively Christianity is the most violent religion in known history, both contemporary and historically, where are the Bible burnings?
If burning Bibles would cause violent outbursts up to burning buildings and killing people, the same logic would apply. But since there is no such reaction (as far as I know), there is no need for that provocation. People will frown and condemn and move on.
antagonize people who otherwise would have likely no problem with you.
I don’t trust a peace which only holds as long as you live by the arbitrary rules of another religion. But I understand this is subjective, and accept your opinion. We don’t need to agree.
G’morning, Your title might not match the title of the article you linked! Could you please double check, and edit your post title if it indeed does not match? article title: “Moldova cuts Russian embassy staff over ‘hostile actions’” (Similairity: ~75%).
BLEEPERDY BLOOP this action was performed semi-automatically by a bot (:
When you send a propagandist to the front line with a gun, it’s a valid target. This coming from a country that targets childrens’ playgrounds, hospitals, residential homes, and grain exports.
Thankfully the Geneva Convention doesn’t agree with your faulty logic. Your personal value judgements on the quality of journalism being produced has absolutely zero bearing on whether killing a journalist is acceptable.
Just to check if you’re applying your “logic” evenly or just cherry-picking where and how you apply it: should targeting of Russian medics be allowed, since they’re only saving the lives of Russian soldiers? If not, how is targeting a journalist (for Russia) different than targeting a medic (for Russia)?
And remember: the Geneva Convention disagrees with you. Maybe that should be motivation to check if what you’re saying is actually reasonable or not.
Instead of reading the points made and perhaps agreeing or disagreeing, you get to shortcut the whole thing by just saying “I didn’t read it, and yet I disagree!”. Why even pretend to participate?
You’ll notice I actually wrote a comment and made points of my own, and linked to a secondary comment going into more detail. You didn’t bother to address either. Must be nice to be proud of being ignorant.
“When the facts are against me, shut the whole thing down with namecalling and dismissiveness!”. Again, I guess I really shouldn’t expect any different. Only one side is even trying to have a conversation; the other is just playing a game of yelling loudly with no substance and shutting down anyone with contrary views.
I don't have to read into it because it is bs anyway. Russia has no press, it has propagandists. The Geneva convention is also something Russia did not sign into and it isn't like Ukraine targeted him specifically because he's a "reporter", he simply went to a dangerous place and paid the price for it. And why is it dangerous? Because his country illegally invaded this place. This is nothing but fake outcry to make excuses for a country that literally directly targets actual frontline reporters, and I'm talking with having them in their sights, identifying them and still pulling the trigger. Just like civilians and other actual literal war crimes. So yes, I don't care about your tankie points, at all, because you're hypocritical pieces of shit that downplay literal historical atrocities. So excuse me when I cannot find the nerve to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.
Stop bullshitting. I'm not going to provide links to some neonazi sources about immigration and expect you to read that either. You're a tankie and rashist and that's pretty evident by your various comments on those topics. That makes you an extremist and clearly irrelevant to be taken into consideration in such discussions.
These aren’t really patent trolls, though. They made a technology, patented it and produced a product. Google met with them, but decided not to pay for the patent owner’s technology and made their own instead.
Did they actually make anything, or did the CEO just patent an idea without ever putting it in production?
Because latter would be the textbook description of patent trolls. An idea is just an idea, if you can't execute it, the patent should be null and void.
On another note I have to say that such an obvious solution of "moving content from a small screen to the big screen" should hardly be patentable. It's quite literally just RPC, which has been in use in various shapes and forms for over 60 years.
A couple quick searches and a skim read, they’re offering their technology under their main brand Touchstream as well as another called Shodogg. It’s not the same as Chromecast of course, but as the patent holder they have a right to market the technology as they see fit.
I haven’t looked at the patents themselves, but I reckon it’s a bit more involved than and significantly different enough to a simple remote procedure call. It’s not like a server delivering video to a client, instead it’s switching from displaying on the server to the client. RCP is initiated by the client, while casting is initiated by the server.
This really seems more like Google trying to get away with not paying an inventor than an inventor sitting on their patent and denying society the fruits.
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition, idea or process.
This is a novel method and process. Sure, anyone could imagine putting something on one screen to another, but apparently no one came up with an implementation until 2011.
That entire patent is technobabble that means "send content to a display". There is nothing about it that's in any way innovative or that it's even possible that they were one of the first 1000 people on the planet to think of.
The entire premise of allowing people to "invent" extremely obvious, extremely simply things is an obscenely broken system. Submitting a patent application for this shouldn't just get rejected. It should get you permanently barred from ever being able to submit or own a patent until the end of time.
This goes into many details about the process of synchronising the video between devices, as well as a variety of different methods which the process can be implemented (it doesn’t just cover what Chromecast does).
I haven’t checked the other 2 patents quoted, maybe in the full article they show some differences (the figures are all the same, though).
That entire patent is technobabble that means “send content to a display”. There is nothing about it that’s in any way innovative or that it’s even possible that they were one of the first 1000 people on the planet to think of.
The figures show and the full patent describes a number of processes that define exactly how it’s done. It’s not technobabble, but a process. Overall it does “send content to a display”, but it’s the way it’s done that makes it patentable.
If you were to develop a process that was different and didn’t use the methods claimed in the patent, it wouldn’t be patent infringement. However, apparently Google’s method does use this process - they didn’t even try to argue against this, instead they claimed the patent was invalid. I haven’t seen Google’s specific arguments on this matter so I can’t really comment on it, other than to say the jury didn’t agree with Google.
The entire premise of allowing people to “invent” extremely obvious, extremely simply things is an obscenely broken system. Submitting a patent application for this shouldn’t just get rejected. It should get you permanently barred from ever being able to submit or own a patent until the end of time.
So you just have a bee in your bonnet about patents in general. I see.
The patent system is far from perfect, but it isn’t completely broken, as you might claim. For an example of it working properly, you only have to look at your phone - chip designer ARM designed almost all the processors in your phone; they patent the designs and then license them out to manufacturers such as Samsung and Qualcomm. These other companies lack the technical ability to develop processors, while ARM lack the manufacturing capability to mass produce them. Patents allow the two groups to work together to produce the product you rely on every day.
I think you should try and focus on patents that actually aren’t properly thought out, eg Apple’s design patent for a rectangle inside a rectangle with rounded corners.
You already told me what the patent was. I saw it. No part of it resembles an invention in any way. It's vague enough that anything that sends content to a display will inherently violate it. Google argued it's not valid because it's not a fucking invention and has literally nothing in common with one. It's the exact same horseshit as "a shopping cart, but online" or "volume control multiple devices, but online". Almost no software can possibly justify a patent being awarded and this is an especially offensive example of it.
ARM designed a complex instruction set and explicit hardware implementations. That't not the same as owning trivial features.
"Rounded corners" is one small element of a design patent. Design patents are an entirely different, unrelated category not connected to utility patents at all and only protect against companies deliberately ripping off your entire package of branding choices. That's not the same as pretending you can own a very basic idea that thousands of people had before you did.
Utility patents for basic software features are fundamentally broken and massively detrimental to society. If the actually innovative algorithms over time had been patented and enforced, we probably wouldn't even have an OS yet, let alone the rich ecosystem modern software is, all built on the fact that you don't own basic features, only the code of your specific implementation of it.
If you read the full patent, the claims describes a complex process with multiple explicit hardware implementations. On the high level, an ARM processor has “trivial features” - eg a memory block is made up of a specific arrangement of transistors which themselves are all defined in layers of Verilog code. To us, it’s just memory, something that stores 1s and 0s, but the patent specifies the exact way memory works. This is exactly what the patent does here, it defines a process in which various different hardware elements interact and synchronise to deliver a “trivial” function. It’s not just “this function, but online” but a detailed way of arranging and synchronising the devices to make the function work efficiently.
I think the key part of this patent is that the server provides the stream to all devices. Another, more directly apparent implementation could involve streaming from the server to your phone, then your phone to the other screen. That would achieve the same “trivial” function, but with a different method. Their patented method is to synchronise between the controller (also maybe a moderator, if multiple devices are involved) and the server, such that the server directly connects to the screen being streamed to. This method is novel. Can you provide an example of even one idea that does this, specific process? You claim there are thousands.
“Rounded corners” is literally all there was to Apple’s design patent. They drew a drawing of an iPhone, made up of solid and dashed lines, then put a note at the bottom saying “only the solid lines form this patent”. The solid lines were a 2D image of the rounded rectangle of the outline of an iPhone along with the rectangle of the display itself. That was clearly a frivilous patent. This is not so clear, and I think meets the bar of a novel implementation. You keep saying it doesn’t, but you haven’t given any solid reasons why.
“Rounded corners” is literally all there was to Apple’s design patent. They drew a drawing of an iPhone, made up of solid and dashed lines, then put a note at the bottom saying “only the solid lines form this patent”. The solid lines were a 2D image of the rounded rectangle of the outline of an iPhone along with the rectangle of the display itself. That was clearly a frivilous patent. This is not so clear, and I think meets the bar of a novel implementation. You keep saying it doesn’t, but you haven’t given any solid reasons why.
The “rounded corners” falls into a different category of patents known as “design patents” which seek to protect a non-functional design of something. The ones that we tend to be more familiar with are “utility patents”.
Also in this category of patents, Coca-cola’s bottle (from 1923) patents.google.com/patent/USD63657S/en (this is a more updated version than the one that was in the Wiki article which is the original one).
In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of an article of manufacture. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.
The elements of a design patent application should include the following:
Preamble, stating name of the applicant, title of the design, and a brief description of the nature and intended use of the article in which the design is embodied;
Cross-reference to related applications (unless included in the application data sheet).
Statement regarding federally sponsored research or development.
Description of the figure(s) of the drawing;
Feature description;
A single claim;
Drawings or photographs;
Executed oath or declaration.
All that is needed for Apple’s “rounded corners” design patent is indeed just a drawing.
From the standpoint of a design patent, the rounded rectangles is not a frivolous patent.
I did read it, and no, it does not describe a complex process. It's an obscenely broad general idea. None of the elements are 1 % of the way to novel or nonobvious.
I think the key part of this patent is that the server provides the stream to all devices.
It is unconditionally impossible for a system that enables this to be owned to possibly be a functional system that can benefit society in any way. The entirety of the existence of computer software is a product of iteration of millions of actually new ideas, every single one of them more novel than this ridiculous horseshit.
Design patents and utility patents are not the same thing and have no connection to each other.
I am more than aware of the difference between design patents and utility patents. That doesn’t make Apple’s rounded corners any less of a frivilous design patent, nor does it make Touchstream’s casting patent a frivilous utility patent. Just because an idea seems obvious after the fact does not mean someone can’t be the first to implement and patent it.
I agree after seeing the patent , there’s nothing groundbreaking or novel there.
Replace video for audio then there’s already prior art for both control and synchronization with Sonos (2005). And a plethora of Winamp web interface plugins.
For video there was already the XMBC web interface. Sure there was no “app”, but the patent is vague enough that the web-browser on the smartphone accessing the web interface can be considered the app
No offense, but I think you’re just being dazzled by patent-style writing. For whatever it’s worth on an anonymous Internet forum, I’ve written patents, and litigated patents, related to analogous compression technology.
It is not difficult to write something that sounds complex and novel in a patent, but is in fact a completely obvious, generic solution that any person of skill in the art would immediately and inevitably have upon confronting a task or problem. The patent examiners are overworked, underpaid, and every patent attorney knows this. Thousands of patents are granted that should not be granted every year, because after a few office actions and responses, high-paid attorneys inevitably make it too time-consuming for the patent examiners to fight.
And while yes, sometimes tech companies steal tech, you should also be verrrry suspicious of anything coming out of EDTX by default.
No offense taken. While I get what you mean about the language, and while I am a technical person I didn’t digest the full detail of what the patent describes, I do still think there is at the very least a hint of a solid invention in this patent. As I’ve said elsewhere, the key part that makes this novel is the synchronisation of video streams - you don’t just send your video to the TV, you don’t just tell the server to start playing on the TV, the server synchonises a stream between your device and the TV. In particular, this doesn’t just cover basic chromecasting, but the ability to synchronise and stream between a range of client devices and in a range of different topologies, particularly where one device might control the stream for others.
I agree with your statement about EDTX and would inherently be suspicious, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. In the absence of some identical technology that predates this patent, I feel like their ruling is correct in this instance.
However this is a weird patent in that it covers such a wide variety of things. It may well be that some are valid, while others aren’t, yet the nature of the patent is that all are protected as a group.
Quite literally the opposite of patent trolling. The company invented something. Acquired a patent. Tried to sell a license to google. Google left the negotiating table. And then not long after introduced a product that fulfilled all of the requirements to be protected by the patent licensing they hadn’t paid for.
I hate patent trolls. These are not patent trolls. These are people the patent system is meant to protect. These are people who developed a product and wanted compensation for all the time and money they spent developing it. And they got it 10 years later, and probably didn’t get as much total as they could have if Google hadn’t fucked them over
So they ‘invented’ moving video from a small device to a large device in 2010? That’s a dumb patent and they are trolls. I hate google, but patents like that are stupidly vague and stifle progress.
Exactly. That's not an invention, and "using" your absurdly uninnovative idea that no intelligent person could possibly consider granting a patent for doesn't make you not a patent troll.
It details a process of synchronising videos between multiple devices and a content server, as well as a few different variations of the idea - it doesn’t just cover what Chromecast does.
The telling point here is that Google didn’t even try to argue that they didn’t use this method. Instead, they tried to argue that the patent was invalid. Apparently, they did not manage to invalidate the patent.
After looking at the patent it’s clear it’s way too vague, generic and obvious. It should never have been granted. (I Am Not A patent Lawyer). For one the XMBC web interface from 2009ish is prior art.
Technically the Kodi remote control app would be in violation of the patent, except it doesn’t use any “back end server system”.
If you replace the words “display” and “video” with “speaker” and “audio” then the Spotify app would be in violation as well, as it allows changing the playback device to any of your logged in devices.
Come to think of it, if you use Firefox on mobile to access YouTube, then “send tab to other device”, and send it to a desktop computer connected to a big screen, it could be interpreted as violating the patent as it’s using Mozilla’s “back end server” to relay the message
XMBC web interface just streams to a different client. Here, we have a client requesting to stream to another client, and synchronised by the server. The key part is the synchronisation between multiple clients.
The patent also deals with a few other types of concurrent streams for other applications, beyond what Chromecast does.
Come to think of it, if you use Firefox on mobile to access YouTube, then “send tab to other device”, and send it to a desktop computer connected to a big screen, it could be interpreted as violating the patent as it’s using Mozilla’s “back end server” to relay the message
That may well also violate the patent. It would likely depend on whether the devices are synchronised, or if the desktop is just getting a link and streaming separately.
Just because lots of people use it without paying doesn’t make a patent invalid. You only have to look at what happened with the patent for WiFi.
You weren’t supposed to be able to protect the mere idea of something. Software copyright I fully support but patents are revolting. At least the expire after a while whereas copyright lasts way too long.
It makes a bit of sense for physical inventions where the process is the most important part. Whereas for software the actual code is really that process (and covered by copyright), rather than just the idea.
I think patents make some sense for software, if you patent a particular algorithm you developed for doing something useful. An example I always use for a good software patent is Google’s original PageRank algorithm - it was a specific algorithm that provided significantly better search results than existing search algorithms. But that patent just covered one specific algorithm for ranking search results, not the idea of searching the web (which was around before Google). Patents that are given for an idea, not an implementation, are bad.
This article is unclear, but it sure makes it seem like this patent was given for the idea of sending video from one device to another, not a specific algorithm for doing so. So that would be a bad patent. But I don’t think it means we should get rid of software patents altogether.
From a certain point of view, everything is mathematics. It still takes time and effort to figure out the mathematics to make new things work. Patents guarantee that the people who figure out the math will be able to profit off of it before a whole bunch of copycats steal the work. That should apply to software too - assuming that people actually figured out the math and didn’t just patent some idea without an implementation.
Yeah, I think the hardest part is that distinction though.
Like in software you have patents for one-click shopping, minigames in video game loading screens, etc. - those aren’t hard-researched algorithms, they’re ideas.
I agree that those shouldn’t be patented - they’re ideas, not implementations. If you have a particular ingenious implementation for one-click shopping, go ahead and patent it. But don’t sue people if they come up with a different way to do the same thing - that just means your implementation wasn’t particularly novel.
So yes, there have been some bad software patents given out. That just means that the process for giving software patents needs to be reformed, not that we need to get rid of software patents.
Yeah, I agree on those examples. They should be able to patent their particular implementation - like maybe it took a lot of R&D to work out how to get server response times fast enough for one-click to work, or to get loading times fast enough to have a mini-game in the loading screen etc.
But they shouldn’t be able to patent the entire concept. That’s ridiculous.
But it’s trivial to write a slightly different implementation of something.
I think one really has to consider what the effect on innovation will be - you don’t want too many protections as that will stifle innovation as it prevents people from building upon the prior ideas, but equally you don’t want no protection at all as that will discourage innovation as R&D takes money, so if you can’t recoup the investment the money simply won’t get invested into R&D and the innovation won’t happen.
Yeah, I think with software due to the low barrier to entry etc. it makes sense for it to be further towards the less protections end of the spectrum.
But still, if you’d paid a load of PhDs to come up with some really clever algorithm (think of like how Shazam had it’s music recognition algorithm long, long before modern ML) and then someone could just steal it well, it’d harm innovation and ultimately the tech industry and investment would go elsewhere and those clever PhD grads just wouldn’t find employment.
It’s a balance that depends on the properties of each industry, but I don’t think that no protections whatsoever is ever a good answer.
Why would people do anything without clear financial gain. Written on lemmy. Or just think of science, imagine fundamental science not being public domain, that would suck.
Yeah, but some things cost a lot of money to develop. The higher the cost of the R&D, the less likely it is to occur without some patent system. Although I agree that in programming specifically the Open Source model seems to work quite well - look at the Apache Foundation.
You could have a model where all research was done by a public body or something like the Apache Foundation, but this reduces innovation as it means there is less opportunity for some people to try something that may not be considered likely to be successful, as publicly funded research tends to focus on the safest path. For an example, look at how public nuclear fusion research is continuing on the traditional toroidal tokamak model with ITER compared with the more experimental designs being tested by private companies such as Helion, Focus Fusion, Tokamak Energy (they are using a high aspect-ratio 'spherical tokamak).
Again, take a look at fundamental science. I don’t buy the argument that free flow of information will stiffen innovation, quite sure it’s the opposite. Right now it seems that patents are just a way for big players to control the market, since they can buy patents, just pay a licence fee or hire an army of lawyers. Imagine a world where basic math operations would be patented - we basically live in this world.
Fundamental science is mostly publicly funded though and has little immediate practical application. The lack of funding in much of science also shows the problems this approach has.
That’s why I’m not in favor of completely abolishing copyright. It should protect for a much shorter time, like 10 years, though. For example, companies would be free to use a ten years old Linux version (3.10 would be the newest affected version) and do whatever they want with it, but for newer ones the GPL protections would still apply.
Yes, 10 years of copyright protection would be plenty enough for software. After 10 years your code is legacy anyways, and it’d help with preserving old software like classic games.
I’m really not a fan of when features are teased as “coming to Android 14.” There is absolutely no shot this gets upstreamed to AOSP.
Reading between the lines in the article, this is going to end up in an update to Google’s launcher app, or maybe their wallpaper app. At most, their closed source flavor of SystemUI.
But for the growing number of us compiling AOSP from source and using it to get away from Google’s spying, it’s disingenuous to keep advertising these features as “coming to Android 14.”
Heck - if this feature makes it in any of the apps like I said it might, then there’s really no reason to lock it to Android 14. It could easily run on Android 12 and 13. But it won’t, because Google wants you to buy a new phone.
reuters.com
Active