HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: LIDAR demo on Discovery Channel
Date: 20 Nov 1992 21:48:52 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.202

mpalmer@encore.com (Mike Palmer) writes:
>jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>>Depending on conditions and what you did they could get you for
>>driving to endanger.  On the highway in the fast lane with *any* other
>>cars around slamming on your brakes is *dangerous*, particularly if
>>you start to skid.  It'd be up to the judge to decide your guilt, but
>>to be quite honest if I were the judge and the cop said "I hit him
>>with my laser and he locked up his brakes, which was really dangerous
>>even if he wasn't speeding" then you'd get both tickets for being
>>stupid unless you could come up with something better than "I saw a
>>squirrel in the road."

>How can he ticket you for speeding if he doesn't get a reading?  Eyeballing
>does not count.

Eyeballing does count.  He merely needs to say that in his estimation
you were going considerably faster than the speed limit, and further
that he saw you decellerate rapidly as soon as he attempted to get an
accurate speed reading with his equipment.

That's it.

In many (probably most) areas the cop doesn't need supporting evidence
other than his word to prove you've been speeding, although it helps
to verify the extent to which you were speeding.  If you show other
signs of poor driving or actions that seem to indicate that you knew
you were breaking the law and tried to correct upon seeing the
officer, the judge is very likely to find you guilty as charged.
Braking abruptly is one such action.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:43:15 GMT

In article <24042@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
>Why do people insist on driving only with parking lights on when it is dusk?
>Why don't they just turn on their headlights?  Beside the fact that it is
>illegal in many states, it doesn't make it that much easier to see the car.

They simply don't think.  It's not dark enough for the headlights to help
them see, so they can't tell that way.  They see their dash all lit up 
as it is when their lights are on.  They just don't think about it.
-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen)
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 06:53:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.165345.12195@mips2.ma30.bull.com> K.Buck@ma30.bull.com writes:
>In article <Bxv7nD.11q@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov17.091605.4937@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>>>actually, audis in general have very good brakes.
>>That may be, but the best brakes in the world won't do any good when the
>>car is undergoing an "unintended acceleration" at the same time you're
>>trying to stop. ;-)
>of course, that's true because in most/all of the "unintended acceleration"
>cases, nobody was pressing on the brake pedal at all... :-)
>
>but if you feel adventurous, try the following test
>(though not with my car, thanks):
>   step on both the brake pedal and the gas pedal as hard as you can.
>the brakes should win every time.

i see somebody beat me to it.  car and driver did some testing with
the audi 5000.  flooring the accelerator while braking from 70-0
increased the distance by a mere 3 ft.  as ken pointed out, the
brakes will easily hold the car stationary under full throttle.  i
had a very convincing demonstration of this at an audi information session.
they selected an audi at random from the lot, revved it to over 5000 rpm
while firmly pressing on the brake pedal, and slammed it into drive.
amazingly, the transmission survived.  the car didn't budge an inch.
of course, some people claim that there was a failure in the braking
system.  in virtually all of the sudden acceleration claims, however,
the brakes were found to be fully functional afterwards.
and besides, audi wasn't the only car with lots of unintended acceleration
complaints.  some other makes were mercedes, nissan, and acura.
-teddy
Xref: sparky rec.autos.driving:6704 rec.autos:27122 rec.autos.tech:15585
From: jimf@centerline.com (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,rec.autos,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: ++WHISTLER 680/780/880++Which???!!!
Date: 18 Nov 1992 15:22:31 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.202

hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.160051.18768@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mgarber@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Max D Garber) writes:
>|> I am looking to upgrade my current radar and saw the following very appealing
>|> choices (All WHISTLER):
>|> 
>|>      680=> Tri-Band
>|>      780=> Tri-Band
>|>      880=> Tri-Band
>|> 
>|> Now, I used to have a WHISTLER 2SE and LOVED it.  Can someone give
>|> me the rundown on these three Radars.  Obviously, the 680 is the
>|> least $ and the 880 is  the most!

> The WHISTLERs finished dead last in the recent C&D Radar Detector 
> test.  Based on that, I wouldn't get either.  Get a Valentine 1, 
> if you can wait 6-8 MONTHS!  If not, get a Bell 966 or Passport 3200.

> BTW, the WHISTLERs "pollute" so much, they set other radar detectors
> off at distances up to 4800 feet.  On the other hand, that might be a
> "pain-in-the-ass" reason why to buy one.  ;)

Hmm, the 680 doesn't (my tests didn't show a problem and the docs
specifically mention that they worked to reduce emissions).  Maybe
that test was an earlier model?

I have to agree with the sensitivity though.  My 680's always picking
up bogus signals and seldom gives a lot of warning before going
completely active (particularly in the city, which isn't surprising).
That's usually enough time to coast down to a legal speed, though, so
it's not completely useless -- the detector has certainly paid for
itself -- the only ticket I've gotten was with instant-on on a nearly
deserted highway (no detector would have saved me from that).

Personally I've found that the detector is most useful on long
stretches of highway and to determine early whether or not there's a
trap in known locations on my normal commute.  It works well in these
tasks but really wouldn't be up to par with zooming around city
streets you're not familiar with -- something I don't do anyway.

A previous poster mentioned outside reflections on the curved plastic
case as a serious drawback.  I have to concur -- those lights are
unusable in most daylight situations unless the detector is mounted
very high.  I also wish it had a true mute feature rather than a "mute
for about a minute" button, and that I could permanently switch to
city mode rather than doing it every time I turn it on.

Were I to buy another detector it wouldn't be a Whistler.

jim frost
jimf@centerline.com
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: driving tips
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:53:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1992Nov19.015355.28906
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park

In article <1992Nov18.194810.13429@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou) writes:
>    Once I was driving on a hiway.  For some reason, the car started drifting
>sideways and I corrected a little too abruptly.  Then the weight started to 
>shift from side to side as the car snaked forward wider and wider.  At the time,
>I was driving at about 100kph.  I first tried "opposite lock".  No good.  THen I
>braked, lifted off the throttle, while struggling to bring the car back.  Of
>course, these were the wrong moves since the car ended up in the ditch.  What
>should I have done to address such situation?
>    Any tips you can share with me are greatly appreciated.

Twice I've had that happen to me-- both times just coming off a curve,
the first time at about 50mph (MUCH too fast) and the second at about
40MPH (should have been a reasonable speed, but the tire went out.  A
differernt curve, BTW).
In the first case I lifted off the throttle and just steered back and
forth the way the car was moving until I regained control-- the skid
marks I left seemed to show only two wheels on the ground at some
points.  In the second case I tried the same thing, but the rear end
just wouldn't come back into line and I hit the embankment on the side
of the road and flipped over.  I didn't brake in either case.

Maybe your car started drifting because a rear tire blew out?  That
would explain why it reacted so badly to your overcorrection.
Probably hard to tell AFTER the car ends up in a ditch.  
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
Some news readers expect "Disclaimer:" here.
Just say NO to police searches and seizures.  Make them use force.
(not responsible for bodily harm resulting from following above advice)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: lowry@watson.ibm.com (Andy Lowry)
Subject: Re: Night vision
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:05:05 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
	<1992Nov13.000748.22516@scott.skidmore.edu>
	<BxMtwH.4K4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1992Nov15.034445.17980@eng.umd.edu>
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Nov15.034445.17980@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes:
 > In article <BxMtwH.4K4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> stresres@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Mark Vanetten) writes:
 > >I agree that more needs to be done to keep the bad ones off the
 > >roads, from the old and unknowing, to the young and unknowing.
 > 
 > The old and unknowing are incorrigable, but the young and unknowing
 > will learn, the only way we have of learning nowadays-- by
 > experience.  Keeping them off the road just delays the problem.

Not necessarily (I don't mean to take a position here, just playing
devil's advocate).  If what the young and unknowing are lacking mostly
comes down to a matter of maturity, maybe they'll gain that maturity
through life's other traumas anyway, and they'll have become much
safer drivers in the process without having driven at all.  The road
is not necessarily the only place they can learn what they're lacking.
--
Andy Lowry, lowry@watson.ibm.com, (914) 784-7925
IBM Research, P.O. Box 704, Yorktown Heights, NY  10598
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: OK to drive 5 miles without coolant?
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:52:45 GMT


In article <1992Nov9.175640.17551@cbfsb.cb.att.com> ashaw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
(andrew.shaw) writes:
>This is a (technical) driving question, so I'll ask it here.  Sorry if
>it annoys, but I don't read the other.
>
>My wife's 4-cyl Hyundai Excel (no more jokes, please) developed a
>coolant leak in the passenger compartment.  The seal around the
>piston that goes up and down to control the coolant flow behind
>the dash (heater valve?) presumably no longer seals.  To keep this
>from flooding the interior, I drained the radiator.  Now I want
>to take it to be fixed.  Can I drive ~5 miles to the shop without
>coolant (ambient temp about 45F), or do I have to refill the radiator,
>drive it with a pan to catch the drips, and then drain it again?

The safest thing to do (apart from towing) is to refill the radiator and catch
the drips and keep the radiator topped up if necessary.  Even though you may be
able to drive it a short distance from cold without water this is much more
risky and much slower.  You might be able to go one or two miles without water
(keeping a very watchful eye on the temperature guage) but then you have to
stop and wait for half an hour or more for it to cool down.  You'd have to have
your stopping places planned in advance at conservative intervals.

Also, one thing that helps a bit if you have a cooling problem is to wire the
thermatic fan permanently on (by shorting the switch contacts on the radiator
with a piece of wire).

Chris O'Neill
Telecom Australia Research Labs
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: bcannard@hppcb36.mentorg.com (Bob Cannard)
Subject: Re: New gas sucks (flame)
Originator: bcannard@hppcb36
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:42:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: bob_cannard@mentorg.com
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corp.
Keywords: new gas
Followup-To: 


In article <1992Nov23.152321.22690@mcs.anl.gov>, hoffberg@medusa.aps.anl.gov
(Mike G. Hoffberg) writes:
|> BTW, do people realize how little car polution effects the atmosphere
|> compared to volcanic eruptions?

When was the last time the muck in the air over San Jose,
LA or wherever came from a volcano?
-- 
bob_cannard@mentorg.com			"More dynamite!" - Theron Marks
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:45:16 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <23964@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
>In article <1dnuorINNpin@bnsgd245.bnr.co.uk> drew@tcom.stc.co.uk (Scooby Doo)
>writes:

>> Does anyone know ballpark figures for 30,50,70 mph? I know it
>> depends on car weight, tyre size etc....

>The general equation in feet is (mph^2)/10
>Thus, the breaking distance for 30 mph is 900 feet, for 50 it is 250 feet,

>It is the proportional square law.

It sure is fortunate that we human beings can drive cars well despite
having the daftest ideas about the physics of motion and braking.
Hell, if being able to brake in time depended on not having totally
silly ideas about how brakes work, we'd clearly have multiple
pile-ups every time the driving conditions got a bit out of the
ordinary :-)
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: mikesteg@syclone.detroit.sgi.com (Mike Stegbauer)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:50:09 GMT
Reply-To: mikesteg@syclone.detroit.sgi.com (Mike Stegbauer)
Organization: sgi

In article <23964@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
|> In article <1dnuorINNpin@bnsgd245.bnr.co.uk> drew@tcom.stc.co.uk (Scooby Doo)  
|> writes:
|> > 
|> > Does anyone know ballpark figures for 30,50,70 mph? I know it
|> > depends on car weight, tyre size etc....
|> 
|> The general equation in feet is (mph^2)/10
|> Thus, the breaking distance for 30 mph is 900 feet

900 feet from 30mph,  what, do you drive an AUDI?


|>, for 50 it is 250 feet,
|> and for 70 it is 490 feet.
|> It is the proportional square law.
|> 
|> --
|> "It takes a big man to cry.
|> but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
|> 				Jack Handy
|> 
|> 
|> judson@watserv.ucr.edu

These numbers actually seem a little high to me.
Aren't most cars around 130-150 ft for 60mph?


mikesteg
From: hovnania@iftccu.boeing.com (Paul Hovnanian)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Re: Merkur XR4Ti
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:37:20 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

... (stuff deleted)

> 60,000 mile "bumper-to-bumper" warranty on my car. It turns out that the warra
>nty isn't really "bumper-to-bumper". I discovered that spark plug wire aren't

No. But I'll bet the bumpers are! ;-)

(Or does this cover all the stuff between yor front bumper and the rear one of
the previous car?)
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:04:11 GMT
Reply-To: judson@watserv.ucr.edu

In article <1dnuorINNpin@bnsgd245.bnr.co.uk> drew@tcom.stc.co.uk (Scooby Doo)  
writes:
> 
> Does anyone know ballpark figures for 30,50,70 mph? I know it
> depends on car weight, tyre size etc....

The general equation in feet is (mph^2)/10
Thus, the breaking distance for 30 mph is 900 feet, for 50 it is 250 feet,
and for 70 it is 490 feet.
It is the proportional square law.

--
"It takes a big man to cry.
but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man."
				Jack Handy


judson@watserv.ucr.edu
From: bugman@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Matthew Ethan Soiney)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Date: 20 Nov 1992 15:38:57 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <24042@galaxy.ucr.edu> judson@watserv.ucr.edu writes:
>Why do people insist on driving only with parking lights on when it is dusk?
>Why don't they just turn on their headlights?  Beside the fact that it is
>illegal in many states, it doesn't make it that much easier to see the car.
>Do people think that they are saving their headlights by only turning on
>their parking lights when it is dusk?  Furthermore, they are called parking
>lights and as such should be used for that purpose, not for driving.  Just
>turn those damn headlights on!!!
>
 I think it makes people fell cooooooool or something.  I have a 1965 vw
 and sometimes drive with the parking lights on.  However, it is never at
 dusk.  They look real cool because the parking lights are in the 
 headlight bucket.  The whole bucket is illuminated....looks sort
 of European.  I never drive with the parking lights on in any other
 vehicles, however, because it doesn't look real cool and, as you
 stated, serves no real purpose.

		matt--- bugman@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 
>
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: mf@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (fusco,marc)
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Organization: The House of Klatu
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 03:17:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.203420.8322@njitgw.njit.edu> crl0195@hertz.njit.edu (Curt R Lindmark) writes:
>
>2) When do I turn *JUST* my driving lights on?
>
>  b) when I believe that it is dark enough such that some drivers out there
>     may have trouble seeing my car.

	Come on!  You really think this significantly increases visibility?

>Hope this makes sense to y'all.  Also: Why don't I turn my headlights on
>when I turn my driving lights on?
>
>  a) I drive a Firebird, and the raised headlights increase wind drag

	Several folks have said this....like does this slow you 
down, decrease gas mileage significantly?.......gimme a break!

>  b) I like the way my car looks with just its driving lights on

	Sounds like the most valid answer yet!
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: Braking Distances
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:13:11 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <9FgLuB1w165w@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz> cal@codewks.nacjack.gen.nz (Cal Gulliver) writes:

>Check out some AA road tests of new cars sometime. You'll see
>stopping distances that yield coefficients of friction of
>(usually) 0.8 to 0.95. But the maximum possible coefficient is 1.0,

1.0 is not the maximum, it is simply difficult to exceed without
special materials. Modern grippy tyres, as fitted to some sports cars
and motorcycles count as special materials.

-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: maciuca@vehicle.berkeley.edu (Dragos Maciuca)
Subject: Pendulum Turn
Reply-To: maciuca@vehicle.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Dragos Maciuca)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:59:16 GMT

Someone asked earlier what a pendulum turn is.  It is a rally driving technique
where the car is given a quick "twich" in the opposite direction of the turn.
It is meant to set the car for the apex and also to keep the car as much  as 
possible on the border of the "traction circle".

Please correct me if I'm wrong (Why am I writing this?  Of course someone will
correct me if I'm wrong.  Someone will correct me even if I'm right).

dragos
maciuca@vehicle.berkeley.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |   _  _  _  _  |  University of California  |    2650 Haste St.        |
(m||'(_|(_|(_)_\  |  VDL, 2162 Etcheverry Hall |    Room 301D             |
Berkeley _|  CAL  |  Berkeley, CA  94720       |    Berkeley, CA  94720   |
                  |  (510) 643-6933            |    (510) 643-1346        |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (Khan)
Subject: Re: Braking distances.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:45:10 GMT


In article <1992Nov17.091605.4937@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.195009.12782@odin.corp.sgi.com> mikesteg@syclone.detroit.sgi.com (Mike Stegbauer) writes:
>>In article <23964@galaxy.ucr.edu>, judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Mike Judson) writes:
>>|> The general equation in feet is (mph^2)/10
>>|> Thus, the breaking distance for 30 mph is 900 feet
>>900 feet from 30mph,  what, do you drive an AUDI?
>
>actually, audis in general have very good brakes.

That may be, but the best brakes in the world won't do any good when the
car is undergoing an "unintended acceleration" at the same time you're
trying to stop. ;-)


Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: Driving with parking lights only
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:14:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.192104.18974@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, mengsoo@bnr.ca (Meng Soo) writes:
|> 
|> >Actually I do find that parking lights increase visibility alot.  Especially
|> >in overcast weather. 
|> >
|> >I also believe that some Scandanavian countries require the use of "driving
|> >lights"
|> >on cars that automatically turn on with the car's ignition.  This is due to the
|> >greatly extended dusk and dawn periods from being so far north.
|> >
|> >Any far northerners wanna give the straight scoop on this subject?
|> 
|> Here in Canada, "daytime running lights" so they're called, are required by law
|> on new cars. They turn on whenever the car is running, and are an excellent safety feature, IMHO. There have been many times which I've seen the lights of an oncoming car much earlier than I would have seen the car itself. Espically if the car is light co|> loured and blends in with the surrounding light.
|> 
|> I don't see what the big deal with turning on the headlights every time you start the car. It's become a habit, just like putting on the seatbelt.
|> 
|> What really annoys me are badly aimed headlights, or the infamous "cyclops".
|> 
|> Meng

The biggest problem with turning on your headlights everytime you turn on
your car is that you will forget they are on.  Drain that battery. I never
understood why the headlights don't go off when you turn your car off (I
know you can get cars that do, but generally cars don't).

Another problem is that I have popup lights.  Messes up the aerodynamics
and any other excuse for having popup lights.  Sure, if I had the same
kind of daytime lights that are on Canada's versions of the car, it wouldn't
be a problem.  However, I don't.  The argument is why I don't turn them on
every time I turn on the car.  I agree that simple modifications to the
car would eliminate my reasons, but I do not have those modifications.
-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com
From: zombie@EBay.Sun.COM (zombie)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving
Subject: Re: How To Drive the RIGHT way!
Date: 18 Nov 1992 18:32:29 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: zombie@redeye.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: redeye.ebay.sun.com

Remember!  When parking, 'compact' means 'please park your '70s 
Lincoln here!'.  This will prevent thieves from opening your 
neighbor's car doors and stealing anything.  Your neighbors will
thank you!
 

---
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<>			zombie@redeye.ebay.sun.com  		    <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>