Slashdot Mirror
DEA Hands MuckRock a $1.4 Million Estimate For Responsive Documents
An anonymous reader writes with news about what might be the largest Freedom of Information Act fee yet. "The EFF recently kicked off a contest for the 'most outrageous response to a Freedom of Information Act request' and we already have a frontrunner for the first inaugural 'Foilie.' MuckRock's loose confederation of FOIA rabblerousers has been hit with a $1.4 million price tag for John Dyer's request for documents related to the 'localization and capture' of Mexican drug lord 'El Chapo.'"
When are Bush and Cheney finally going to leave office?
[turn snark amplifier up to 11...]
Yeah, well, freedom isn't free.
[dial snark amplifier back down to 5]
...Freedom is not free.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I hate to even appear to be defending a government agency, but the request was for over 13K case files. $1.4mln divided by 13K comes to about $107 per case. If a lawyer has to (carefully) review each one — such as to black-out parts affecting privacy of innocent or other government secrets — the requested fee may even appear too small.
As TFA aknowledges:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
From the candidate field, looks like another 8 years from the 2016 elections unless we get someone certifiably crazy like Rand Paul.
the system is inherently asinine. No one wants paper documents, what they want are the PDF digital documents the DEA cross-reference, index, and search using OCR. But these cant be redacted as easily. Redaction is important in criminal FOIA requests because no government agency wants to get caught sitting on its balls with revelation of massive civil forfeiture and potential constitutional civil rights challenges to their water tight witch hu...er...delivery of justice.
and its no surprise "the war on drugs" was the most bombastically expensive subject into which inquiry could be made. We're talking about a failed 50 year policy, menacingly intertwined with cold war politics, that packs prisons with nonviolent offenders, funds CIA coups against governments, and has a truce called every time a senator or congressman admits to having smoked a joint or snorted a rail of china white with a rolled up benjamin in a posh nightclub bathroom.
Good people go to bed earlier.
At least they gave them a bill, rather than just saying "no". That's more transparent. If someone comes up with the money, then we can see what it bought. A multi-agency activity could have lots of cost in getting the documents together for a single response.
Learn to love Alaska
the only certifiably crazy people running are those who want to keep doing more of the same
people voted for obama because he "wasnt bush" , well guess what, he is bush. What next? hillary? another war hawk??? no thanks
Rand paul only seems crazy because he is talking about things others wont. REAL civil rights issues, prison reform, auditing the FED, ensuring our money is sound. I mean yeah, if you go on what we have done for the past 40 years it sounds crazy. but, maybe its time for crazy
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
yeah, that no-regulation-free-market-economics-will-save-us-all economic model that he espouses has worked so well....but only for the top 1%, who are concentrating the wealth at a rate not matched since the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th century.
And telling people that the market will decide on civil rights is just stupid. In the hundred years after the Civil War, the market didn't seem to find civil rights a compelling interest, despite the fact that the market pool was arguably smaller due to discrimination.
Rand paul only seems crazy because he is talking about things others wont. REAL civil rights issues, prison reform, auditing the FED, ensuring our money is sound. I mean yeah, if you go on what we have done for the past 40 years it sounds crazy. but, maybe its time for crazy
Sorry, he lost me with his stance on vaccinations.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Freedom of information is not free?
Would it be possible to perpetrate what would effectively be a DDOS attack via the FOIA request mechanism? If the government were required to handle every single request without question, then could an anti-government group send a large number of requests that would waste human, machine, and dollar resources to an extent that was crippling? How should the good intent of the FOIA be balanced against potential misuse?
No, Rand Paul seems crazy when you listen to what he says. And you're just buying the BS. He's not being dismissed because he rocks the boat, or because he dares speak up.
We listen, we reject.
im not a fan of his stance on vax either. but you need to look at the bigger picture. his personal beliefs on vax? or his stance on larger issues at had?
I dont agree wit him personally on vax, abortion and a few other things, but in the end he is STILL better than the alternatives.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
who said anything about the market and civil rights? rand is talking about ending the war on drugs and restoring rights to those convicted of non violent drug charges. That Is what I mean when im talking about civil rights because everyone knows the system is stacked against black people. ending the war on drugs would be the single biggest civil rights gain for many americans out there
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
his stance on the rights of the business owner and the rights of the public is also troubling. the whole snafu with him being a bit ambivalent on the enforcing of desegregation of public businesses during the civil rights era.
You really want your tax returns to be public information?
yeah, that no-regulation-free-market-economics-will-save-us-all economic model that he espouses has worked so well....but only for the top 1%, who are concentrating the wealth at a rate not matched since the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th century.
And telling people that the market will decide on civil rights is just stupid. In the hundred years after the Civil War, the market didn't seem to find civil rights a compelling interest, despite the fact that the market pool was arguably smaller due to discrimination.
Nice straw man.
We sure as hell are not experiencing a lack of regulation in our economy right now.
Which is probably why the only real job growth in the US over the past few years has come in the LEAST regulated job market - illegal immigrants. Hell, now you can hire an illegal immigrant and get out of paying for health insurance, or the Obamacare fine.
so your problem is that he is taking a constitutional stance on something that happened when he was a child??? something he had nothing to do with?
I guess thats your right but you are ignoring the fact that he is the only one who is actually talking about doing anything for civil rights today. not even obama is doing anything for civil rights today.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I mean, seriously, is there a larger issue than vaccination? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think disease has the potential of killing a lot more Americans than a foreign invasion does even if we cut our defense spending 90%.
We lose between 3k and 60k of people every year to the flu, and the flu is considered a "mild" contagious illness. Imagine if we had polio, measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, diptheria, tetanus, and that supreme horror of horrors, smallpox, back in full force.
Is there *really* a larger issue than vaccination, other than perhaps maintaining good sanitation? (Which protects us from cholera and a lot of other waterborne diseases.)
--PeterM
it speaks to his mindset if something similar were to come up again.
For example, something that i'm almost entirely sure you would have a conflict with rand paul over.
The rights of the employer to enforce drug policy of their choosing. I'm almost entirely sure that Rand paul would say that a business owner is free to hire and fire whomever he wants. you're free to find employment with someone else after all.
If his stance is so pro-business rights that he's wishy washy over enforced desegregation IN THIS DAY AND AGE, then basically he would be no obstacle to mandatory drug tests. You're free to smoke your weed, and your boss is free to fire you for it. or fire you for being catholic, or gay or black or a republican or a democrat or, or, or.
In a rand paul presidency, forget about privacy, your employer owns you. it's their money after all.
I once spoke to someone who voted for ron paul, i actually asked him about some of ron paul's most extreme libertarian ideas. His response was to shrug and say his crazier ideas would be checked by congress. I don't think i'm comfortable with my president needing to be reigned in by that madhouse.
That article was - eh - short. I'm not sure I learned anything from it, maybe I'm having a TL;TR day.
But if the requestor really wants 13k documents - let'em crowd fund it and make the case to the public.
I'd be humored to find out if the gov't would even do the work if $1.4m showed up in their bank account. Hah - pay them in cash with amounts under $10,000 to trigger the IRS monitoring of drug crimes.
well for one, I do not have a problem with a business drug testing its employees. I dont personally like the idea, but i think as a business owner, I want employees i wont worry about getting arrested on their way to work when I need them here.
Its already that way now so why would you hold this against him when its how its been for decades in america already???
I think you are buying into the fear instead of actually looking at what he wants to do. Try looking at his page and seeing what he stands for rather than listening to talking heads and other people who are only talking about what talking heads have said about him
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
According to the CDC there were less than 700 cases out of a population of over 300,000,000.
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cas...
Measles is NOT A PROBLEM. They are TERRORIZING you.
I dont personally like the idea, but i think as a business owner, I want employees i wont worry about getting arrested on their way to work when I need them here.
What about drinking? Much more likely that your employees are going to be drinking than doing drugs, so what about mandatory breathalyzer tests? How about Every morning as they walk into the front door? Are you going to do background checks too? Ex-convicts are probably more likely to get re-arrested, don't hire those guys. You shouldn't hire minorities while you are at it, because they are more likely than white people to get pulled over and arrested by the police. That would really ruin your day, if your employees where being hassled by the police because they weren't born with the right skin color and they couldn't make their shift.
Or you could you know, just hire people that seem dependable and evaluate them on their performance, which seems a whole lot simpler and less judgmental.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
But why do they want these documents? It seems like an extraordinarily large ask without some similarly large rationale behind it.
Libertarianism starts to fall apart when you realize that government is actually a pretty cool thing. Libertarians are deceiving themselves it they think our world is better run without laws or "government interference". Would you rather actually live in a place where there is complete anarchy? We don't see lines of people at our airports heading to the Sudan.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091231032205/http://merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/a/attenuvax/attenuvax_pi.pdf
Read those papers, find someone to get you access if they are paywalled. Once you start, you can't stop finding problems with this research.
Or you could you know, just hire people that seem dependable and evaluate them on their performance, which seems a whole lot simpler and less judgmental.
and you know what, Rand paul is for that as well. its not an either or thing here.
Plain and simple if I own a business, I should be able to hire anyone I want , for any reason I want. the same goes for firing a person.
I know as an employee it sucks, but if i owned a business, I would not want anyone telling me "oh, you only have X working there? thats no good, you need to hire Y, if you dont hire Y you are racist/sexist etc."
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If you had kids and read the Dr. Sears book (he is for spreading them out) you'd think totally differently. The recommended CDC schedule by age 2 is just plain nuts. Better to spread them out and prevent overwhelming the body (and there are plenty of case studies on those). Vax do work, some not much for many new strains. Some still have Thimerisol (just the FDA has decided to set levels considered trace "negligible".). The pro advocates like to compare the levels ingested rather than injected.
-- So in that light he is quite rational to let folks decide. Our kids had all their shots spread out. Better than not having them, but I respect others. One day science will figure out that bombarding kids leads to autism not a particular vax shot. And forcing everyone to get vaccinated is useless with many of those millions of illegals crossing the border who aren't immunized at all...
nice straw man and all, but libertarians are not for no government. the republicans and democrats have done a good job of confusing libertarians with anarchists, and dolts seem to keep parroting the same lies over and over.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Anarchy is a goal to strive toward (get rid of the need for any socially acceptable violent coercion), it cannot suddenly occur and may not be attainable. Failed states != Anarchy.
i think you forgot the /s tag
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
13000.... It's not that many documents... it should all fit on a single USB drive.
The government should be required to modernize, not given the ability to charge outrageous fees just to get access to public records.
Freedom Aint Free!
13,000 documents is a lot of documents, when you are considering that they each will have to be viewed by a person. There is no way that a software solution could provide the necessary level of security while preserving enough of the documents to be useful to anyone... which brings me back to my original question: What are they looking for? If they are looking for public support then they should make it more clear why this is an issue of public concern. Right now, all I know is that the government captured a Mexican cartel leader, which doesn't seem like something I should be concerned about. For all we know about this the request is from his associates looking for people to retaliate against. (If that's the case, we may find out when they pay the fee)
yeah, that no-regulation-free-market-economics-will-save-us-all economic model that he espouses has worked so well
FUCK YOU, AC, for perpetuating this asinine straw man bullshit. 87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. That’s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever. The Federal IRS tax code ALONE is a whopping 73,954 pages, and is so complicated not even IRS tax attorneys can provide consistent answers to tax questions.
But, sure, to you fucking I-love-dictatorial-and-abusive-central-government fucktards defend every ludicrous piece of shit regulation as if ANY rollback is OMG IT IS LIKE ANARCHY IN THE STREETS!
Yea, well fuck you. And the horse you rode in on. And the entourage that rode with you. And the grooms that stabled your horses.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What about people without healthy immune systems? Is your immune system healthy, or is the way to check just to see if you die of the flu? Or maybe you get a type that kills you because you have a healthy immune system, like the 1918 pandemic, who knows.
As for the MMR vaccine causing measles, what? Before vaccinations, 90%+ of children contracted measles. Now it's down to a few hundred a year. That's a very strong correlation, but not for your theory.
Shouldn't the govt. agency be responsible for maintaining the part of the information that is covered by FOIA separately, or in a way that can be easily separated for releasing? They wouldn't have had to incur the expenditure if that had been done right in the first place. What is the rationale for asking the FOIA requestor to bear the the cost of poor record keeping by the agency in the first place?
Or you could you know, just hire people that seem dependable and evaluate them on their performance, which seems a whole lot simpler and less judgmental.
And you know what? That's why it would work just fine without regulation. Because businesses that do that will be much more successful. What you do when you regulation anti-discrimination by law is you eliminate the market penalty for discrimination. I know that sounds backwards, but let me explain. I think it's easy to see what the public would do to a business that tried to discriminate against customers (just look what happened to Paula Deen). But there is a labor market penalty, too.
If you're passing up good talent for superficial racial/gender/other reasons, then you're paying a premium for talent. Women and minorities are still behind in salary, so it is sometimes beneficial to hire them, because they are likely just as good as white male counterparts, but offer their services for less. Businesses that don't reject that discount will have an advantage over those that do.
There is more to it, but Milton Friedman explains it much better than I can, describing how affirmative action and anti-discrimination in hiring policies actually harms the people it is intended to help.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Did anything else change? Did people stop spreading measles because it became less dangerous (due to better care)? Did they change the method of diagnosis from symptomology to lab tests? What lab tests are there, do those results correlate with each other? How often do the lab tests agree with the doctor's diagnosis based on symptoms used prior to their introduction? Why are there no error bars on those epidemiological charts showing decrease in diagnosed cases after the vaccine was licensed? Why is there no one who studies measles vaccines that has come up with a model to explain all the features of the timecourse of measles diagnoses over time? Why is there no blinded RCT for any measles vaccine (e.g. attenuvax), despite that Merck claims there are in it's product sheet?
He's also plenty happy to wave the cross when it suits him. And I for one have had more than enough of the republican party pandering to the religious right.
His rant against water-saving toilets was pretty cringe-worthy as well.
but you dont have a problem with the democrats pandering to the blacks, or hispanics, or women or illegals????
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
do you remember the first batch of water saving toilets? they were a disaster and you would have to flush them 4 times to flush fully. While most of those kinks have been worked out there was a good 5 year period where you were mandated to buy low flow, but they didnt work. the work around was to cut the pipe in the back allowing the tank to fill fully, but its not something that should have even happened
He is rightfully upset that the government would mandate the type of toilet one uses.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Nice non-sequitur. Well, I will tell you that only the religious right actively harms our society through anti-science rhetoric and culture, along with telling me or others how to live our private lives while also being actively engaged in limiting and restricting the rights of others. But I do thank you for your false equivalence, in spite of how distasteful I find such a childish response as yours.
everyone knows the system is stacked against black people
The system is stacked against poor people.
His stance was consistent with his position - that the government should not regulate what the free market can and should take care of.
I'm not defending it.
I'm saying that he has an ideology, and he is consistent.
More importantly, people who agree with him, and later find out just how consistent he is, learn more about themselves than about him.
Abolish the EPA, let black people, or white people, into your business, or not, cause an economic crisis, ignore all manner of shit, and it's all consistent with his platform. I believe he would have supported Hitler right up until the government mandated what color skin and/or eyes the people should have.
It's only troubling if you don't understand him. If you do understand him, then everything about him should be troubling, and the whole segregation thing is par for the course.
I'm full-on libertarian until it makes no sense any more, and he crossed that line a long time ago. Right to kill a dude? Too libertarian for me. Discriminate? Too far. Drop mercury in as fish bait? Too far. Understand where the person stands, and whether you can deal with it. Frequently, the sound bites sound better than the planks.
Comprehension. It's difficult.
we should also take into consideration his voting record. something you rarely ever hear anyone talking about is how people are actually voting on things. That would paint a clear picture of who someone is
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
you made a statement that you dont like him for pandering to X. I point out other people who pander to A,B,C, and D.
explain to me how this is a false equivalence?
If you were standing by your statement of i dont like him because he panders, you would have had no problem admitting that the other side panders to a large group of people as well.
as for childish responses, Im not sure what else to call your non response
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Didn't we have a cool action movie recently denouncing preemptive prosecution? I think, Matt Damon was in it...
When a drug user commits actual crimes, he ought to be prosecuted for them. Denying the right to pursue happiness to free citizens just in case, is totalitarian and evil.
The arguments in Colorado went around cost/benefit analysis of taxes vs. law enforcement. That the ban on drugs violates those self-evident rights of human beings, given to use by our creators, was never considered.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'll buy that anti-discrimination laws create economic drag in a healthy society, but recall that the reason most of these laws were created is because there were widespread attempts to keep large portions of the society down. If you refuse to hire a talented black man, and I then hire him, it will only give me an economic edge if I don't suffer a social backlash because half of the society refuses to do business with me, 'because I hired a nigger'. This is exactly the conditions that required legal addressing with laws.
Now, while we aren't in the same place now, discrimination still exists, and nobody knows exactly where the tipping point lies, in terms of the laws changing from a social enabler to a net economic drag. Since the economic drag is relatively low (compared to say, 10% of the population being destitute and disenfranchised), it makes sense to keep the laws until such time that we can be sure that repealing them won't cause widespread social problems.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
do you recall the outrage over the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding?
the outrage would be there if people discriminated on you for hiring a black person today as well
its not the 50s no more
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Just like gun control, agw, there is a correct answer on vaccines, you just have to go study to understand it.
You guys are very wrong about vaccines. If you can't provide a solid anti-vaccine argument, you don't know enough to have an opinion.
You can't, as shown by the fact that you don't understand yet.
This is a problem of understanding the limitations of the safety data and the very incorrect baseline CDC uses to measure safety. It certainly should not be ideology, and the fact that it is tells you quite a lot in itself.
The administration probably meant the people to be more transparent. And in that it succeeded.
The problem with this stance is that laws *should* protect employees more than employers. All else being equal, employers clearly have more power than employees. The government should be there to help level the playing field a little.
that the government should not regulate what the free market can and should take care of.
The problem with reducing someone's opinions to this degree is that this is something that most politicians agree on. The disagreements come over how effective the free market is in certain cases and what the regulations should be. From the rest of your post, it sounds like he's on the side that believes the free market will eventually fix everything (in spite of evidence to the contrary). At the opposite extreme are people who believe the free market will not fix anything (in spite of evidence to the contrary). In the middle, there's far more ambiguity in the evidence, so it's far harder to see who is actually right (and then often only with the benefit of a lot of hindsight).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I've never missed a shift in 2 years. I've stayed OT countless times to cover for employees who were too drunk or hungover to come in, and cover at least 1 extra shift per week for the regular reasons. I've volunteered to be stuck on duty for days straight while natural disasters prevented anyone else from coming in, while most employees refused. I was recognized for exceptional handling of a major fire in the building, as I handled all communication between the FD, PD, building management, and the 300+ families in the building. I take on every extra responsibility I'm offered, while most other employees barely do their own job. I'm recognized from the board down to the janitors as one of the hardest working guys there, and do the job as good or better than everyone there. I've interacted with thousands of people, not one has ever complained about any personal issue- nobody, including coworkers that are 3ft away for 8 hours a day, has ever even had the slightest suspicion that I was in any way impaired/high/hungover on the job.
Would you want me as an employee if I was otherwise qualified and experienced in the applicable position? You and most others would instead hire one of the other idiots, incompetents, drunks, and generally lazy individuals if I didn't cheat on my piss test. Just because my drug of choice is the most hated there is (despite the fact a pharmacologically equivalent drug + doctor's note, and suddenly it's a-ok no matter how hard you abuse it). And because of that, those of us that manage our use responsibly are invisible because unlike admitting to a little pot, admitting to opiates is absolute zero tolerance. Excluding people on the basis of drug tests alone is bad business... get over your stereotypes. DUI is an arrest too.
Rand Paul is anti-civil-rights, anti-women's-rights, only supports "prison reform" in that he wants to slash budgets but really doesn't give a shit about reform or human rights in any way, and by "auditing the FED and ensuring our money is sound" you mean fuck up the economy so bad that the whole country will end up destroyed and rebooted after a few decades of turmoil.
How have you still not noticed that the big-L Libertarians are just Republicans on steroids? They're the richest and whitest of them all, and literally care about nothing but grabbing a bigger chunk for themselves and their friends and ensuring that nobody else has anything, no matter how detrimental it is even to themselves.
Oh come on, there are ad hominem attacks and then there are very good personal indicators. He's so batshit insane that he's a young Earth creationist who is against vaccines.
You know, the mentally ill homeless guy down the street who shouts obscenities at passersby all day sometimes has some good political ideas too. Let's elect him! Anyone who says otherwise is clearly focusing on the man rather than his ideas...
87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. Thatâ(TM)s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever.
If companies would stop devising ever more clever ways to mislead, cheat, and defraud while remaining technically within the letter of existing rules, then government might be able to stop revising the rules.
87,282 final rules have been issued in the last 20 years. Thatâ(TM)s more than 3,500 per year or about nine per day. The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever.
If companies would stop devising ever more clever ways to mislead, cheat, and defraud while remaining technically within the letter of existing rules, then government might be able to stop revising the rules.
Right. Because we can't hold people responsible for their actions - if one person messes up, we need to make everyone pay. Typical government response.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"Sorry, he lost me with his stance on vaccinations"
You mean the stance that vaccinations should be voluntary? Which is how they have pretty much always been?
So you are for the position of forcibly strapping people down and injecting them with drugs against their will? Sickening.
:) well apparently we're at the point where we no longer need to screen the south for trying to disenfranchise black people... because you know, we got a black guy in the big seat, and the supreme court says racism is dead. I mean, MLK, that was sooooo long ago.
And obviously the states haven't done anything to make us regret us keeping an eye on them.
we got a merger every other day it seems, that are getting scrutinized for anti-trust implications. i'd say that the free market let loose, ends with monopolies. and the current state of our cable and telecomm could use a good strong dose of good strong regulation reform.
if its within the rules written, its not misleading, cheating or defrauding, by definition.
get the govt to write simple readable rules to everyone, and the issues would resolve themselves.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
look at my name... i agree with you
having said that, if a company wants to be that way why work for them to begin with, you have choices on who you work with
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It doesn't really work that way.
Racial discrimination makes a pretty lazy and easy proxy for discriminating against being poor and uneducated.
If I don't hire blacks or latinos, then statistically I'm less likely to hire poorly educated people, not because blacks or latinos are stupid or inherently ill educated, but because years of discrimination has resulted in blacks and latinos receiving worse education.
So a racist policy works to select better employees with less effort and also serves to further racial discrimination and seggregation, because: statistics.
The free market seeks to reach a natural equilibrium, it doesn't seek an unbiased equillibrium. It's just as efficient, perhaps more efficient, for the free market to select wealthy white men for positions of power and talent, and select poor black men for positions of labor. I mean why not? it's a mechanical system, it doesn't have to care about morals or human rights.
A further flaw in your argument is that companies are so ruthlessly efficient, and markets so competitive, that any small bias in their efficiency will cause them to fail. I've never seen this to be the case.