QuoteTwo passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on board the Air France flight that crashed in the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 on board, it has emerged.
French secret servicemen established the connection while working through the list of those who boarded the doomed Airbus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on May 31.
Agents are now trying to establish dates of birth for the two dead passengers, and family connections.
There is a possibility that the name similarities are simply a "macabre coincidence," the source added, but the revelation is still being "taken very seriously."
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Terror-Names-Linked-To-Doomed-Flight-AF-447-Two-Passengers-Shared-Names-Of-Radical-Muslims/Article/200906215300405?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15300405_Terror_Names_Linked_To_Doomed_Flight_AF_447%3A_Two_Passengers_Shared_Names_Of_Radical_Muslims
Caliga = Sherlock Holmes
:bowler:
Impossible, internet and tv told me so.
Surely the screening process of making fat middleaged Americans remove their shoes and belts and searching European grandma's hasn't failed :(?
Appealingly absolute. :mad:
Phew. I guess we don't have to worry about stuff like thunderstorms any more - just keep people with Islamic sounding names off of airplanes, and they will not crash. :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:21:31 AMjust keep people with Islamic sounding names off of airplanes, and they will not crash. :P
I wonder if the two names they found were "Mohammed" and "Ali" or something like that. A clear match between the terrorist list and the passenger list!
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:21:31 AM
Phew. I guess we don't have to worry about stuff like thunderstorms any more - just keep people with Islamic sounding names off of airplanes, and they will not crash. :P
The experts I heard thought the actual chances of a thunderstorm taking down a plane were incredibly unlikely. I don't really think we have that much to fear from thunderstorms or, you know, planes would be going down all the time.
That is not to say these two dudes had anything to do with it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:29:01 AM
The experts I heard thought the actual chances of a thunderstorm taking down a plane were incredibly unlikely. I don't really think we have that much to fear from thunderstorms or, you know, planes would be going down all the time.
The actual chance of a plane going down is also incredibly unlikely, so that proves nothing.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:29:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:21:31 AM
Phew. I guess we don't have to worry about stuff like thunderstorms any more - just keep people with Islamic sounding names off of airplanes, and they will not crash. :P
The experts I heard thought the actual chances of a thunderstorm taking down a plane were incredibly unlikely. I don't really think we have that much to fear from thunderstorms or, you know, planes would be going down all the time.
That is not to say these two dudes had anything to do with it.
From what I read that isn't the case at all. More like that experienced pilots in a modern airplane had the tools to
avoid thunderstorms.
Violent or extreme turbulence caused by thunderstorms is considered extremely dangerous if rare, and pilots are supposed to avoid them for that very reason:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/06/01/f-turbulence-air-travel-altitude.html
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 11:40:06 AM
The actual chance of a plane going down is also incredibly unlikely, so that proves nothing.
Presumably there are different degrees of unlikeliness...:unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 11:40:06 AM
The actual chance of a plane going down is also incredibly unlikely, so that proves nothing.
Well I hardly claim to be an expert on planes. I merely saw an interview on the Lehrer News Hour.
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 10, 2009, 11:28:13 AM
I wonder if the two names they found were "Mohammed" and "Ali" or something like that. A clear match between the terrorist list and the passenger list!
:lol: I've always thought the list of "names" used for that stuff is a complete joke for that reason... there have got to be, what, like 50 million people named Muhammad Hussein, for example?
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 11:47:03 AMthere have got to be, what, like 50 million people named Muhammad Hussein, for example?
None of whom should be allowed on planes.
Wait until we have a list for the Chinese
Yang Yang #1 thru 35 millions.
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2009, 11:44:17 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 11:40:06 AM
The actual chance of a plane going down is also incredibly unlikely, so that proves nothing.
Presumably there are different degrees of unlikeliness...:unsure:
Of course. I'm merely pointing out that the original statement contains statistical fallacy (called prosecutor's fallacy, to be exact).
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 12:11:20 PM
Of course. I'm merely pointing out that the original statement contains statistical fallacy (called prosecutor's fallacy, to be exact).
Well I hope Valmy recognizes that it is very unlikely for a plane to crash...and thus I assumed that his statement used the low likelihood of an airplane crash as a reference base.
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2009, 12:14:39 PM
Well I hope Valmy recognizes that it is very unlikely for a plane to crash...and thus I assumed that his statement used the low likelihood of an airplane crash as a reference base.
I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself. It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 12:17:36 PM
I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself. It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.
What he said was basically that it was almost impossible for a plane to go down by being struck by lightening alone. They are designed to be struck by lightening, as all metal things that fly through clouds should be.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 12:17:36 PM
I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself. It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.
Since it makes no difference to me, I'm content with accepting Valmy's report. You know, dGul, there's no need to take the opposing view all the time. Makes you look a bit pompous (rather like Carrot). :(
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2009, 12:22:55 PM
Since it makes no difference to me, I'm content with accepting Valmy's report. You know, dGul, there's no need to take the opposing view all the time. Makes you look a bit pompous (rather like Carrot). :(
It's hard to not look pompous when you are smarter and more knowledgeable than the vast majority of people.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 12:19:48 PM
What he said was basically that it was almost impossible for a plane to go down by being struck by lightening alone. They are designed to be struck by lightening, as all metal things that fly through clouds should be.
Few plane crashes happen from just one factor. It's almost always an unfortunate mix of several unlikely events coming together. At least that's what I learned on the Discovery Channel. :smarty:
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 12:25:12 PM
It's hard to not look pompous when you are smarter and more knowledgeable than the vast majority of people.
I'd actually suggest that it takes effort to be a condescending prick. Besides you ain't that bright (the people present into evidence: New Jersey).
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2009, 12:28:35 PM
I'd actually suggest that it takes effort to be a condescending prick. Besides you ain't that bright (the people present into evidence: New Jersey).
Is NJ so bad if you live one block from the Hudson River?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 10, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
Caliga = Sherlock Holmes
Caliga jumped to a conclusion of what happened as soon as he read of the incident. Maybe he is right, and maybe he is even touched by genious, but he is still the anti-Sherlock Holmes. :(
Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2009, 12:40:36 PM
Is NJ so bad if you live one block from the Hudson River?
Sure. Even worse than living in Williamsburg, NY.
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 12:17:36 PM
I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself. It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.
What he said was basically that it was almost impossible for a plane to go down by being struck by lightening alone. They are designed to be struck by lightening, as all metal things that fly through clouds should be.
The problem is not lightning, but rather the strong turbulence that is associated with such storms.
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 01:15:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 12:19:48 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 12:17:36 PM
I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself. It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.
What he said was basically that it was almost impossible for a plane to go down by being struck by lightening alone. They are designed to be struck by lightening, as all metal things that fly through clouds should be.
The problem is not lightning, but rather the strong turbulence that is associated with such storms.
Yes, and how close to a stall passenger jets actually fly at cruise altitude.
If the plane stalled, wouldn't it have plenty of time to at least send out a mayday or something?
Quote from: garbon on June 10, 2009, 12:58:19 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 10, 2009, 12:40:36 PM
Is NJ so bad if you live one block from the Hudson River?
Sure. Even worse than living in Williamsburg, NY.
Can you explain your reasoning?
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:20:10 PM
If the plane stalled, wouldn't it have plenty of time to at least send out a mayday or something?
Don't planes fly a lot lower when they're experiencing turbulence?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2009, 01:32:45 PMDon't planes fly a lot lower when they're experiencing turbulence?
Not necessarily. You can also try to fly above the turbulence.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2009, 01:32:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:20:10 PM
If the plane stalled, wouldn't it have plenty of time to at least send out a mayday or something?
Don't planes fly a lot lower when they're experiencing turbulence?
The problem appears to be that the type of turbulence produced by thunderstorms on occasion "extreme turbulence" - isn't something you gradually fly into, but more like a sudden, catestrophic event.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/why-did-flight-447-head-into-a-monster/article1172656/
QuoteThe inside of a thunderstorm can produce what is called extreme turbulence – which bears no relation to the stomach-churning bounces that has passengers white-knuckling the arm rests.
Extreme turbulence can flip an aircraft out of control. It is defined by aviation regulators as having the potential to cause "structural damage and prolonged loss of control of the aircraft."
I know almost nothing about aviation engineering, but you'd think an airplane acts like a Faraday cage in a thunderstorm (just like a car does).
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2009, 11:29:01 AM
The experts I heard thought the actual chances of a thunderstorm taking down a plane were incredibly unlikely.
This is true. They are looking at incorrect speed (due to those stick thingys) combined with the severe storm conditions. Plane flying at 310 mph would stall if a 75 mph down/up draft hit it.
A dozen aircraft flew through that sector almost at the same time as AF447.
Are my Euro friends hearing amymore from the pilots and the passenger of that Lima-Lisboa flight who said they saw a bright flash (then it fell to Sea)? That sub-story has been silent this side of the Atlantic.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2009, 01:51:59 PM
I know almost nothing about aviation engineering, but you'd think an airplane acts like a Faraday cage in a thunderstorm (just like a car does).
I read in an article on this crash that it does work as a Faraday cage as long as it is not damaged and its internal electric systems are suitably shielded. However, if it is damaged and a lightening strikes through the fuel tanks for example, they can apparently ignite. Which would lead to an immediate loss of the aircraft.
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:20:10 PM
If the plane stalled, wouldn't it have plenty of time to at least send out a mayday or something?
Yes, and that's what happens 99.999999% of the time... they might not report a mayday (mayday is for when loss of life/aircraft is deemed highly possible), but they generally report turbulence, if for no other reason than to warn other pilots in the area.
Also, just to clarify, I never said "this was a bomb" but rather "it seems like a strong possibility to me".... I was confused as to why the media/French/Brazilian governments at first seemed to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 10, 2009, 04:57:37 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2009, 01:51:59 PM
I know almost nothing about aviation engineering, but you'd think an airplane acts like a Faraday cage in a thunderstorm (just like a car does).
I read in an article on this crash that it does work as a Faraday cage as long as it is not damaged and its internal electric systems are suitably shielded. However, if it is damaged and a lightening strikes through the fuel tanks for example, they can apparently ignite. Which would lead to an immediate loss of the aircraft.
There have been cases of airliners being damaged by lightning, but IIRC the last time one actually crashed as a result was circa 1972, and there have presumably been hundreds of thousands of lightning strikes vs. airliners since then with no fatalities.
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 10, 2009, 11:28:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 10, 2009, 11:21:31 AMjust keep people with Islamic sounding names off of airplanes, and they will not crash. :P
I wonder if the two names they found were "Mohammed" and "Ali" or something like that. A clear match between the terrorist list and the passenger list!
Wasn't there a story a while ago about some guy named Mohammed with a bomb in his turban?
So quick to pin it on Muslims.
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 05:10:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:20:10 PM
If the plane stalled, wouldn't it have plenty of time to at least send out a mayday or something?
Yes, and that's what happens 99.999999% of the time.
The lack of any cockpit communication is what troubles me.
Quote from: Jaron on June 10, 2009, 05:23:17 PM
So quick to pin it on Muslims.
I can drum up something to incriminate the idol worshipping Papists if you'd prefer? :pope:
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 05:10:19 PM
Also, just to clarify, I never said "this was a bomb" but rather "it seems like a strong possibility to me".... I was confused as to why the media/French/Brazilian governments at first seemed to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Exactly. When combined with the eyewitness accounts of a bright flash that fell into the sea at or near that location, this would seem to be the prime suspect, rather than not on the radar.
Sounds like a desperate attempt to rationalize away the fear of random events. :P
Quote from: Martinus on June 10, 2009, 05:57:22 PM
Sounds like a desperate attempt to rationalize away the fear of random events. :P
:unsure: Not in my case, no. The vast majority of plane crashes have been due to mechanical failure or pilot error, or sometimes a combination of both, which I guess is what you might call random. I recognize that. :contract:
Doesn't a terrorist attack have to be known as such in order to spread terror? There has been no claim of responsibility thus making this a terror attack less likely.
Quote from: citizen k on June 10, 2009, 06:07:00 PM
Doesn't a terrorist attack have to be known as such in order to spread terror? There has been no claim of responsibility thus making this a terror attack less likely.
Indeed. That is the greatest argument against a bomb. However, not all airliner bombings
have to be acts of terror. The nombing of the PA flight over Lockerbee (sp?) was not terrorism per se.
Quote from: grumbler on June 10, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
The nombing of the PA flight over Lockerbee (sp?) was not terrorism per se.
Mass assassination?
Quote from: grumbler on June 10, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
Indeed. That is the greatest argument against a bomb. However, not all airliner bombings have to be acts of terror. The nombing of the PA flight over Lockerbee (sp?) was not terrorism per se.
Correct. Also, there was a domestic US airliner downed by a bombing in the 1950s or 60s, and in the end it turned out the bomber took out an insurance policy on some relative (wife or mother or something) and downed the plane so he could collect on it. :menace:
Quote from: citizen k on June 10, 2009, 06:07:00 PM
Doesn't a terrorist attack have to be known as such in order to spread terror? There has been no claim of responsibility thus making this a terror attack less likely.
If noone had claimed responsibility, I would be shocked. Whether or not they actually did it, that's another matter.
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 07:21:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 10, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
Indeed. That is the greatest argument against a bomb. However, not all airliner bombings have to be acts of terror. The nombing of the PA flight over Lockerbee (sp?) was not terrorism per se.
Correct. Also, there was a domestic US airliner downed by a bombing in the 1950s or 60s, and in the end it turned out the bomber took out an insurance policy on some relative (wife or mother or something) and downed the plane so he could collect on it. :menace:
Talk about an overkill.
Quote from: citizen k on June 10, 2009, 06:52:08 PM
Mass assassination?
Not necessarily. Could easily be a protestant.
The dude who was 3rd in line to the Brazilian throne was onboard that flight... :shifty:
My theory is that someone is trying to seize the Brazilian crown, Crusader Kings style.
I find it hilarious that Brazil ever even had an emperor in the first place. 'Emperor Pedro' sounds like a taco stand or something. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 08:32:49 PM
I find it hilarious that Brazil ever even had an emperor in the first place. 'Emperor Pedro' sounds like a taco stand or something. :cool:
:yes: Or one of those odd little Chinese-Mexican hybrid places...
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 10, 2009, 08:47:23 PM:yes: Or one of those odd little Chinese-Mexican hybrid places...
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 08:32:49 PM
I find it hilarious that Brazil ever even had an emperor in the first place. 'Emperor Pedro' sounds like a taco stand or something. :cool:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi45.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ff51%2FHallick5%2Fthats_racist_animated.gif&hash=9cc1568d825e56d78426cd30f7a64805d8ddc64a)
:rolleyes: Dude, admit Emperor Pedro sounds funny... like King Ralph or Doctor Detroit or something.
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 11:47:03 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 10, 2009, 11:28:13 AM
I wonder if the two names they found were "Mohammed" and "Ali" or something like that. A clear match between the terrorist list and the passenger list!
:lol: I've always thought the list of "names" used for that stuff is a complete joke for that reason... there have got to be, what, like 50 million people named Muhammad Hussein, for example?
A Polish colleague of mine, with an inconspicuous Polish name, was delayed at Paris airport for over an hour (missing her plane) because there was an arrest warrant out for someone with the same name. She recently married and used the opportunity to change her last name.
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 09:17:46 PM
:rolleyes: Dude, admit Emperor Pedro sounds funny... like King Ralph or Doctor Detroit or something.
King Jolly? (http://pharmexec.findpharma.com/pharmexec/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=333311)
LULZ, is Final Destination: real? Or is it a Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy? :tinfoil:
QuoteWoman who missed Flight 447 is killed in car crash
(Brazil Air Force/AP)
Philippe Naughton
An Italian woman who arrived late for the Air France plane flight that crashed in the Atlantic last week has been killed in a car accident.
Johanna Ganthaler, a pensioner from Bolzano-Bozen province, had been on holiday in Brazil with her husband Kurt and missed Air France Flight 447 after turning up late at Rio de Janeiro airport on May 31.
All 228 people aboard lost their lives after the plane crashed into the Atlantic four hours into its flight to Paris.
The ANSA news agency reported that the couple had managed to pick up a flight from Rio the following day.
It said that Ms Ganthaler died when their car veered across a road in Kufstein, Austria, and swerved into an oncoming truck. Her husband was seriously injured.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 07:41:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 07:21:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 10, 2009, 06:23:22 PM
Indeed. That is the greatest argument against a bomb. However, not all airliner bombings have to be acts of terror. The nombing of the PA flight over Lockerbee (sp?) was not terrorism per se.
Correct. Also, there was a domestic US airliner downed by a bombing in the 1950s or 60s, and in the end it turned out the bomber took out an insurance policy on some relative (wife or mother or something) and downed the plane so he could collect on it. :menace:
Talk about an overkill.
There was also a drug lord in Colombia that blew up a plane to assassinate someone on the plane.
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 08:32:49 PM
I find it hilarious that Brazil ever even had an emperor in the first place. 'Emperor Pedro' sounds like a taco stand or something. :cool:
:huh:
Why?
Because any Hispanic sounding name must surely be associated with a taco or burrito stand?
Quote from: Jaron on June 11, 2009, 01:34:38 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2009, 08:32:49 PM
I find it hilarious that Brazil ever even had an emperor in the first place. 'Emperor Pedro' sounds like a taco stand or something. :cool:
:huh:
Why?
Because any Hispanic sounding name must surely be associated with a taco or burrito stand?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.open.salon.com%2Ffiles%2Fthatsracistgm751224856460.gif&hash=aede67c31e4a5936fb5ee0c7f34ac4252e226846)
Quote from: Jaron on June 11, 2009, 01:34:38 PM
Because any Hispanic sounding name must surely be associated with a taco or burrito stand?
Or some sort of menial labour.
Quote from: Jaron on June 11, 2009, 01:34:38 PM:huh:
Why?
Because any Hispanic sounding name must surely be associated with a taco or burrito stand?
Am I a: closet racidist :(
Quote from: Caliga on June 11, 2009, 12:34:26 PM
LULZ, is Final Destination: real? Or is it a Protocols of the Elders of Zion conspiracy? :tinfoil:
QuoteWoman who missed Flight 447 is killed in car crash
(Brazil Air Force/AP)
Philippe Naughton
An Italian woman who arrived late for the Air France plane flight that crashed in the Atlantic last week has been killed in a car accident.
Johanna Ganthaler, a pensioner from Bolzano-Bozen province, had been on holiday in Brazil with her husband Kurt and missed Air France Flight 447 after turning up late at Rio de Janeiro airport on May 31.
All 228 people aboard lost their lives after the plane crashed into the Atlantic four hours into its flight to Paris.
The ANSA news agency reported that the couple had managed to pick up a flight from Rio the following day.
It said that Ms Ganthaler died when their car veered across a road in Kufstein, Austria, and swerved into an oncoming truck. Her husband was seriously injured.
:face:
Hubby blew up the plane thinking they would both be on it in an effort to end her nagging. Then he drove the car into traffic when that didn't work.
Seems obvious.
Stop projecting berkie.
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2009, 12:28:32 PM
Few plane crashes happen from just one factor. It's almost always an unfortunate mix of several unlikely events coming together. At least that's what I learned on the Discovery Channel. :smarty:
Somebody just watched the show on the Tenerife crash. :P
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 10, 2009, 04:57:37 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2009, 01:51:59 PM
I know almost nothing about aviation engineering, but you'd think an airplane acts like a Faraday cage in a thunderstorm (just like a car does).
I read in an article on this crash that it does work as a Faraday cage as long as it is not damaged and its internal electric systems are suitably shielded. However, if it is damaged and a lightening strikes through the fuel tanks for example, they can apparently ignite. Which would lead to an immediate loss of the aircraft.
The Faraday cage effect will be present as long as there is a continuous conductive surface on the outside. Not continuous in the sense of JP5 wouldn't be any more prone to explosion than gasoline in a car.
That said, it could royally fuck with the avionics. I know personally of a couple incidents where aircraft have been hit by lightning without loss, though the avionics in those birds are much older than in this Airbus.
Quote from: vonmoltke on June 11, 2009, 09:41:56 PM
That said, it could royally fuck with the avionics. I know personally of a couple incidents where aircraft have been hit by lightning without loss, though the avionics in those birds are much older than in this Airbus.
Well, it's worth nothing that the Airbus is in fact a fly-by-wire aircraft, so theoretically if the avionics were knocked out, the plane would be impossible to control. I was surprised to learn a year or so ago that there were no emergency mechanical controls. That seems like a very poor design decision.
Does any reasonably new plane have mechanical controls?
Quote from: Zanza2 on June 12, 2009, 01:29:37 AM
Does any reasonably new plane have mechanical controls?
Hmmm... dunno for sure. :huh:
Looks like the plane sent a message about trouble with it's rudder before it crashed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31345727/ns/world_news-americas/
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 13, 2009, 10:42:04 PM
Looks like the plane sent a message about trouble with it's rudder before it crashed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31345727/ns/world_news-americas/
Oh those cunning terrorists.
:huh: