Please don't follow the parent's advice. It's basically misogynistic shit, and the whole diagribe is a series of fearful imaginings and baseless generalities.
There is only one way to exit a fight with a woman - by accepting your fault and apologizing, regardless of who really is guilty (if there is anyone, and if there is anything to fight over - neither of that is guaranteed.)
If that is the experience one can expect following your advice, I'd rather not.
If the "only way" to finish an argument is to admit that one is wrong every time perhaps it's time to get out of that relationship? If you are such a strong independent person, why not find someone that you don't have to play this game with?
Stuff it if you say "most women" are like what you propose. You have not met "most women". Of the ones that you have met, their interaction with you is coloured by your responses. Your bias is terribly evident so it's no suprise that their actions confirm your viewpoint. It does take two to tango, particularly to such an aberrant tune.
Relationships are a two way street./cliche If you are not getting what you need, or being hurt more than helped and communication doesn't seem to work, get out. NB: "Love hurts" is a crock, only being perpetuated by those that would want to take advantage of you.
Certainly there are going to be compromises. When is the last time you dealt with another person when there weren't? I don't see how "relationships" are, or should be, any different. If anything, they require more compromises, simply because there are magnitudes more interactions with that person that other people.
If this isn't evident to you, perhaps you should think a bit about how two strong and independent people could ever get along over where to eat lunch. Now make it an iterative game spanning multiple, multiple categories over a longer time span where the players keep history.
All in all, if you are a strong, independent person who wants to remain such, you will encounter too many fights and your relationships will fail.
Bullshit. First, a person who is actually strong and independent will have less to fight about. Second, they will be able to admit when they are actually wrong. Third, disconnecting from someone who doesn't have your best interest at heart is actually a success, not a failure.
Hans Reiser is an example; he could not break himself and switch into "Yes, Dear!"...
Hans isn't an example of a "strong independent" person, I hate to break that to you. He appears to be the classic example of an insecure and fearful person who grows a set of big ones in the hope that no one will find out his (probably imagined) weaknesses. Common story for most egomaniacs. Then, when something crushes the facade, they lash out.
Are you ready to spend your money on her clothes, clothes and clothes? Most women are bad at controlling their spending, so it stops only when your wallet is empty and your c/c is overdrawn. Are you OK with that? There will be of course need to get "many" children (as if you need any) and don't you say "no" to that. Are you ready for that too?
Why not find a woman who can control their spending? Why are you OK with anything less? Why not find a woman who has a similar viewpoint about children? Jeez, you would think this was rocket science.
Things are a little tougher when there are shifts in an established relationship (it will happen) but even then, unless the relationship is founded on tripe like this a healthy dose of communication should bring some sort of resolution beyond "I'm sorry, everythings my fault!". Yes, even if that resolution is to part ways.
I can't help but thinking that the experiences and characteristics described indicate the parent does not have a good idea what a self actualized person is like.
Yeah, men are the ones that can be strong and independent, women have issues. Right.
Do you feel the same way about the people who get ripped off by roofing contractors, like happens in hurricane prone states with regularity?
I mean, a scam is a scam, just because this one's legal doesn't mean one should blame the victim. I cannot in good conscience blame the people who fell for the scam more that the people who are preying on the gullible.
This is not to say that they don't hold some responsibility, but come on - "I don't feel the slightest bit of pity for the suckers..."
Well, perhaps people will be kinder to you if you end up in a similar situation whey you don't have all the "inside information".
Try to image what the world would look like if anyone could anonymously and securely buy any service they wanted, and tell me you want to live in that world.
Since we already live in that world, it's pretty easy to imagine.
We do have cash NOW, you know.
Your idea that we should "get used" to the government increasingly monitoring it's citizens is part of the problem, not a route to a solution.
Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole? Stop the laws of physics? The Human sensory organs are analog. At some point, you are going to have an analog signal traversing the gap from the output device to the human.
Yes, the point of music as well as movies is for humans to experience. And currently, humans only do that properly in analog.
However, the 'analog hole' is not a synonym for all analog capture and recording (which would include human viewers), just device capture and recording (this assumes that one does not define a human as a device). Unless you have a device capable of playing Spiderman II from your brain in HD. Somehow, I don't think so.
I always get a chuckle reading the responses where somehow the 'analog hole' is impossible to stop because people are analog!1!!one!!. Now, I like herring as much as the next person, just not in my conversations. While I'm sure that the content distributors would like nothing more than to ship blank disks, at this point they still expect that people will want to experience the content.
Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole?
Well, mandate that unDRM'd A/D converters are banned. Modify content or display tech to produce detectable patterns for use in the A/D converters. All new recording devices then refuse to record anything with the pattern. Very simplified, but do-able, i think.
'The significance of TextRunner is that it is scalable because it is unsupervised,' says Peter Norvig, director of research at Google,
I really wondered what he was getting at with this. It seems almost nonsensical, like something someone in marketing would come up with.
Now that the site is slashdotted I know that he means if only a few people use it, it's very scalable, but if a bunch of people are directed to use it (say, through Slashdot) then it doesn't scale very well.
Ah yes. If the government passed laws so stating then the laws would probably be thrown out.
However, currently it's a perfect environment for governments to now pressure repair shops to voluntarily "check up" on their customers, since evidence gathered in this manner appears to be legal at this point.
If their policy is to make sure playback of display software was working, surely they have a test suite of known good files in their posession that they test against?
Or are you saying that as a policy, it's okay to go rummaging around in directories looking for stuff because you "needed test documents"?
You think the publisher is going to charge significantly less for the material if it's delivered online?
No, but not for the same reasons you seem to think.
The cost of textbooks is high largely because they take a lot of time to write, you need a certain number of skills to get a complex subject across effectively and you don't have anything like the economies of scale
Yet for grade school and even high school, we don't need totally rewritten textbooks every year. Or even every 10 years. None of the basics have changed that much. High school science may vall into that category if you have advanced topics classes. Current events classes probably don't need a textbook.
How come the 29th ed of a math book costs as much as the 28th ed? Surely you aren't suggesting that the cost is high because they took "a lot of time" to rewrite it? Why does the 29th ed still have the same wrong answers to problems in the back?
I believe that you are papering over the real reason: oligopic profit margins.
High quality CC texts are the future, and I find it funny that Arnie is still shoveling money to the distribution companies while attempting to be seen as forward thinking and somehow saving money through the magic of technology, when the problem at root is not technological.
There are many different understandings that can be reached on a single topic.
It all depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them.
Reaching an understanding is first reaching an understanding about this important point.
It's not sophistry, either.
Everyone comes to a discusssion with at least one ontological basis. This is the framework of their viewpoint. In general, most questions they ask will be generated inside this framework.
However, this framework is invisible, both to self and other. It is only through a discourse on the framing questions themselves in the discussion that these can be talked about.
Oh, I think you continue to make my original point quite well. You think that using tabs is stupid and don't want to change that.
in fact, It is completely irrelevant to me if I was right. What counts is that the process brings us both more knowledge, and therefore closer to agreement.
You equate people using multiple tabs with voting for bush and torturing innocent people. Yes, these are the arguments of someone that just wants to bring more knowledge to the process and doesn't care if they are right. Right?
Hey, those are your words, not mine.
I'm here to tell you that using tabs in very unlike both of those scenarios, and in fact people who use multiple tabs are not wrong to do so, or even "stupid" as you call them.
You totally don't seem to get that. At all.
Instead, you say I'm "attacking you" when I'm merely pointing somewhat harshly that your opinions are not the end-all be-all. Where I am pointing out that YOU are attacking other people with your statements.
When I say something like that, I am *happy* if someone can come up with a good point to prove me wrong
In some cases, especially choices with no moral or ethical component, the simple fact that a lot of people do something means they have a reason, even if in your great intelligence and wisdom you don't see it or "get" it.
with the information I got, still think it's stupid. (Haven't gotten anything new from you, have I? ^^)
Yes, it is true. You completely ignored the actual content of my message. Here's a hint - it was for you, and not particularly about multiple tabs.
Yes, I know people don't like to look at their failings or change their mindset, but perhaps you could just try once and a while.
Now please come up with some point, so you do not embarrass yourself even more.
Ok, here you go:
You are overprotective of your own ego and use logic to defend it. You never think that you are wrong after having stated your opinion, in spite of your protestations about the "process". While intelligent, anything that does not fit your preconceived boxes is thrown out. The only way to convince you of anything is to follow your narrow proscribed method of discourse, so you still feel in control of the situation. You have limited imagination and little empathy because cannot feel yourself in someone else's shoes.
How's that?
It does not matter if I come up with a scenario where you agree that multiple tabs would be useful. Really. People have scenarios where they open multiple tabs. The very fact that people use it means that some people find it useful. QED.
Certainly you can call these people stupid, but really the stupidity is that you aren't open to the fact that not everyone is like you.
Actually, none of the people Microsoft claimed to be worried about not attending never attend these hearings anyway. Hearings are usually attended by staff level personell in the first place. The hearing would also be attended by the European Commissioner for Competition.
Please remove that triple negative so I can understand WTF you're trying to say
If none of the people not attending never attend, we can see that all the people not attending sometimes do attend.
A 7 stone handicap is still HUGE. I've beaten a professional (Kano 7d) with that handicap.
Sure, but it certainly puts to rest your boast:
There isn't a go program running on anything that I can't give a 9 stone handicap to and crush almost without thinking - and I'm only 2k. The day a computer beats a pro seems to be far in the distant future.
So, not only has a computer already beaten a pro, but the pro was actually one of the top at the game, having won a major tournament.
Care to wager about beating that program giving it a 9-stone handi yourself? Come on, you said that you could crush any go program running "almost without thinking" with that handicap.
Go may be complex, and the complexities of strategic thinking are really hard (including even the most basic "big" vs. "vital" concepts), but clearly Go computer programs have gotten way beyond where you thought they were.
At this point, it seems like there are at least some programs that outpace your expectations. It is entirely conceivable that Go programs could be good enough in a mid term time frame that they give stones to all but the Dans & pros.
How about not having 500 tabs open, just because you want to read them in the next 3 years or something? ^^
Basically, the only point where I can imagine that it makes sense to open enough tabs to fill the whole bar, is when you open many images, or search results. They could be displayed in a gallery-like manner.
So, "basically" everyone should use their computers the same way that you do. People who open lots of tabs just "dont make sense"? Perhaps they have a different utilization pattern where it does make sense.
Plenty of people, even people in this thread, seem to like having lots of tabs open and it seems to work for them. I guess they are just doing something wrong...
The Canadian Government surely only objects to the fact that YouTube stands to profit from videos of parliament sessions without asking permission. Had they asked it probably wouldn't have been a problem, considering the enhanced access it provides. But YouTube broke Canadian law and they reacted appropriately.quote>
No, really, they didn't. It may be lawful under Canadian law to do this, but it is surely morally bankrupt.
They don't want this material available to be *ahem* "taken out of context". Taking that quote out of context you can clearly see that they don't want to be held accountable for what they actually said on camera.
Politicians would rather lie, and continue to lie out their asses than own up to past actions. This is an easy way to shut down access to, and dissent and debate about primary historical material.
This is the Canadian government telling the Citizens to fuck off, since "we" know better how to rule than you proles.
Ok, so since you and yours have guns, and you're clearly an american, and your country seems...corrupt to the core......what do you plan to do about it?...besides quoting people on Slashdot that is?
I do not believe that you can show me a single government or large corporation that is not corrupt to the core. Including Canada's government.
So since you asked the parent, I suppose that you already have a good answer. So what is it? Or are you simply throwing stones through your own glass house?
I want my computing experience to be pleasant, not have the power turned down until I am stressed at how slowly things are going and then have it ramped up again.
Sorry, but I have enough stress as it is without artificially adding more.
It's like we are becoming monkeys jumping through flaming hoops just to satisfy the computer! Bah.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't follow the parent's advice. It's basically misogynistic shit, and the whole diagribe is a series of fearful imaginings and baseless generalities.
There is only one way to exit a fight with a woman - by accepting your fault and apologizing, regardless of who really is guilty (if there is anyone, and if there is anything to fight over - neither of that is guaranteed.)
If that is the experience one can expect following your advice, I'd rather not.
If the "only way" to finish an argument is to admit that one is wrong every time perhaps it's time to get out of that relationship? If you are such a strong independent person, why not find someone that you don't have to play this game with?
Stuff it if you say "most women" are like what you propose. You have not met "most women". Of the ones that you have met, their interaction with you is coloured by your responses. Your bias is terribly evident so it's no suprise that their actions confirm your viewpoint. It does take two to tango, particularly to such an aberrant tune.
Relationships are a two way street./cliche If you are not getting what you need, or being hurt more than helped and communication doesn't seem to work, get out. NB: "Love hurts" is a crock, only being perpetuated by those that would want to take advantage of you.
Certainly there are going to be compromises. When is the last time you dealt with another person when there weren't? I don't see how "relationships" are, or should be, any different. If anything, they require more compromises, simply because there are magnitudes more interactions with that person that other people.
If this isn't evident to you, perhaps you should think a bit about how two strong and independent people could ever get along over where to eat lunch. Now make it an iterative game spanning multiple, multiple categories over a longer time span where the players keep history.
All in all, if you are a strong, independent person who wants to remain such, you will encounter too many fights and your relationships will fail.
Bullshit. First, a person who is actually strong and independent will have less to fight about. Second, they will be able to admit when they are actually wrong. Third, disconnecting from someone who doesn't have your best interest at heart is actually a success, not a failure.
Hans Reiser is an example; he could not break himself and switch into "Yes, Dear!"...
Hans isn't an example of a "strong independent" person, I hate to break that to you. He appears to be the classic example of an insecure and fearful person who grows a set of big ones in the hope that no one will find out his (probably imagined) weaknesses. Common story for most egomaniacs. Then, when something crushes the facade, they lash out.
Are you ready to spend your money on her clothes, clothes and clothes? Most women are bad at controlling their spending, so it stops only when your wallet is empty and your c/c is overdrawn. Are you OK with that? There will be of course need to get "many" children (as if you need any) and don't you say "no" to that. Are you ready for that too?
Why not find a woman who can control their spending? Why are you OK with anything less? Why not find a woman who has a similar viewpoint about children? Jeez, you would think this was rocket science.
Things are a little tougher when there are shifts in an established relationship (it will happen) but even then, unless the relationship is founded on tripe like this a healthy dose of communication should bring some sort of resolution beyond "I'm sorry, everythings my fault!". Yes, even if that resolution is to part ways.
I can't help but thinking that the experiences and characteristics described indicate the parent does not have a good idea what a self actualized person is like.
Yeah, men are the ones that can be strong and independent, women have issues. Right.
Regards.
Do you feel the same way about the people who get ripped off by roofing contractors, like happens in hurricane prone states with regularity?
I mean, a scam is a scam, just because this one's legal doesn't mean one should blame the victim. I cannot in good conscience blame the people who fell for the scam more that the people who are preying on the gullible.
This is not to say that they don't hold some responsibility, but come on - "I don't feel the slightest bit of pity for the suckers..."
Well, perhaps people will be kinder to you if you end up in a similar situation whey you don't have all the "inside information".
Regards.
They don't need to. After all, they have the money and power.
Regards.
Try to image what the world would look like if anyone could anonymously and securely buy any service they wanted, and tell me you want to live in that world.
Since we already live in that world, it's pretty easy to imagine.
We do have cash NOW, you know.
Your idea that we should "get used" to the government increasingly monitoring it's citizens is part of the problem, not a route to a solution.
Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole? Stop the laws of physics? The Human sensory organs are analog. At some point, you are going to have an analog signal traversing the gap from the output device to the human.
Yes, the point of music as well as movies is for humans to experience. And currently, humans only do that properly in analog.
However, the 'analog hole' is not a synonym for all analog capture and recording (which would include human viewers), just device capture and recording (this assumes that one does not define a human as a device). Unless you have a device capable of playing Spiderman II from your brain in HD. Somehow, I don't think so.
I always get a chuckle reading the responses where somehow the 'analog hole' is impossible to stop because people are analog!1!!one!!. Now, I like herring as much as the next person, just not in my conversations. While I'm sure that the content distributors would like nothing more than to ship blank disks, at this point they still expect that people will want to experience the content.
Seriously, how do you stop the analog hole?
Well, mandate that unDRM'd A/D converters are banned. Modify content or display tech to produce detectable patterns for use in the A/D converters. All new recording devices then refuse to record anything with the pattern. Very simplified, but do-able, i think.
'The significance of TextRunner is that it is scalable because it is unsupervised,' says Peter Norvig, director of research at Google,
I really wondered what he was getting at with this. It seems almost nonsensical, like something someone in marketing would come up with.
Now that the site is slashdotted I know that he means if only a few people use it, it's very scalable, but if a bunch of people are directed to use it (say, through Slashdot) then it doesn't scale very well.
Ah yes. If the government passed laws so stating then the laws would probably be thrown out.
However, currently it's a perfect environment for governments to now pressure repair shops to voluntarily "check up" on their customers, since evidence gathered in this manner appears to be legal at this point.
Of course, then there is Taiwan...
Oh wait, that's another "special case".
Let me know when they run out of special cases...
Seems fairly reasonable to me.
But it's not.
Come on, have a little common sense.
If their policy is to make sure playback of display software was working, surely they have a test suite of known good files in their posession that they test against?
Or are you saying that as a policy, it's okay to go rummaging around in directories looking for stuff because you "needed test documents"?
What bullshit.
So, who else has a blanket license to all out of print books (unless you specifically opt out)?
It appears that they may hava a monopoly on this.
So, yes, as of now google is a monopoly. It's not silly, it's a fact.
Regards.
You think the publisher is going to charge significantly less for the material if it's delivered online?
No, but not for the same reasons you seem to think.
The cost of textbooks is high largely because they take a lot of time to write, you need a certain number of skills to get a complex subject across effectively and you don't have anything like the economies of scale
Yet for grade school and even high school, we don't need totally rewritten textbooks every year. Or even every 10 years. None of the basics have changed that much. High school science may vall into that category if you have advanced topics classes. Current events classes probably don't need a textbook.
How come the 29th ed of a math book costs as much as the 28th ed? Surely you aren't suggesting that the cost is high because they took "a lot of time" to rewrite it? Why does the 29th ed still have the same wrong answers to problems in the back?
I believe that you are papering over the real reason: oligopic profit margins.
High quality CC texts are the future, and I find it funny that Arnie is still shoveling money to the distribution companies while attempting to be seen as forward thinking and somehow saving money through the magic of technology, when the problem at root is not technological.
Regards.
Did you know that suicide rates and vis major are usually on the "beneficial outcome" side of the risk assessment of life insurance ...
So, it is in the best interest of insurance companies to promote suicides?
That would explain a lot.
There are many different understandings that can be reached on a single topic.
It all depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them.
Reaching an understanding is first reaching an understanding about this important point.
It's not sophistry, either.
Everyone comes to a discusssion with at least one ontological basis. This is the framework of their viewpoint. In general, most questions they ask will be generated inside this framework.
However, this framework is invisible, both to self and other. It is only through a discourse on the framing questions themselves in the discussion that these can be talked about.
And that is the true beginning of understanding.
Regards.
Or was he just bitching?
Oh, I think you continue to make my original point quite well. You think that using tabs is stupid and don't want to change that.
in fact, It is completely irrelevant to me if I was right. What counts is that the process brings us both more knowledge, and therefore closer to agreement.
You equate people using multiple tabs with voting for bush and torturing innocent people. Yes, these are the arguments of someone that just wants to bring more knowledge to the process and doesn't care if they are right. Right?
Hey, those are your words, not mine.
I'm here to tell you that using tabs in very unlike both of those scenarios, and in fact people who use multiple tabs are not wrong to do so, or even "stupid" as you call them.
You totally don't seem to get that. At all.
Instead, you say I'm "attacking you" when I'm merely pointing somewhat harshly that your opinions are not the end-all be-all. Where I am pointing out that YOU are attacking other people with your statements.
When I say something like that, I am *happy* if someone can come up with a good point to prove me wrong
In some cases, especially choices with no moral or ethical component, the simple fact that a lot of people do something means they have a reason, even if in your great intelligence and wisdom you don't see it or "get" it.
with the information I got, still think it's stupid. (Haven't gotten anything new from you, have I? ^^)
Yes, it is true. You completely ignored the actual content of my message. Here's a hint - it was for you, and not particularly about multiple tabs.
Yes, I know people don't like to look at their failings or change their mindset, but perhaps you could just try once and a while.
Now please come up with some point, so you do not embarrass yourself even more.
Ok, here you go:
You are overprotective of your own ego and use logic to defend it. You never think that you are wrong after having stated your opinion, in spite of your protestations about the "process". While intelligent, anything that does not fit your preconceived boxes is thrown out. The only way to convince you of anything is to follow your narrow proscribed method of discourse, so you still feel in control of the situation. You have limited imagination and little empathy because cannot feel yourself in someone else's shoes.
How's that?
It does not matter if I come up with a scenario where you agree that multiple tabs would be useful. Really. People have scenarios where they open multiple tabs. The very fact that people use it means that some people find it useful. QED.
Certainly you can call these people stupid, but really the stupidity is that you aren't open to the fact that not everyone is like you.
Regards.
So you disagree that in the next 40 years a Go program will be created that can win (>50% of the time) against a 1k while giving them 2 stones?
That is what I would consider the upper bounds of the limits of that statement (in my favor, I must admit, but hey, it's my statement!).
I'd like to take you up on that wager, since you "entirely disagree."
Say $1000?
I have a feature where you get $1,00,000. Unfortunately, in the implementation I have to take out a life insurance policy on you and then kill you.
Hey, the feature is great, what are you complaining about?
Actually, none of the people Microsoft claimed to be worried about not attending never attend these hearings anyway. Hearings are usually attended by staff level personell in the first place. The hearing would also be attended by the European Commissioner for Competition.
Please remove that triple negative so I can understand WTF you're trying to say
If none of the people not attending never attend, we can see that all the people not attending sometimes do attend.
I hope that clears things up.
Regards.
But I suspect that "soft" and "wang" together are not good for marketing.
and neither would "micro wang"
just sayin'
A 7 stone handicap is still HUGE. I've beaten a professional (Kano 7d) with that handicap.
Sure, but it certainly puts to rest your boast:
There isn't a go program running on anything that I can't give a 9 stone handicap to and crush almost without thinking - and I'm only 2k. The day a computer beats a pro seems to be far in the distant future.
So, not only has a computer already beaten a pro, but the pro was actually one of the top at the game, having won a major tournament.
Care to wager about beating that program giving it a 9-stone handi yourself? Come on, you said that you could crush any go program running "almost without thinking" with that handicap.
Go may be complex, and the complexities of strategic thinking are really hard (including even the most basic "big" vs. "vital" concepts), but clearly Go computer programs have gotten way beyond where you thought they were.
At this point, it seems like there are at least some programs that outpace your expectations. It is entirely conceivable that Go programs could be good enough in a mid term time frame that they give stones to all but the Dans & pros.
Regards.
How about not having 500 tabs open, just because you want to read them in the next 3 years or something? ^^
Basically, the only point where I can imagine that it makes sense to open enough tabs to fill the whole bar, is when you open many images, or search results. They could be displayed in a gallery-like manner.
So, "basically" everyone should use their computers the same way that you do. People who open lots of tabs just "dont make sense"? Perhaps they have a different utilization pattern where it does make sense.
Plenty of people, even people in this thread, seem to like having lots of tabs open and it seems to work for them. I guess they are just doing something wrong...
The Canadian Government surely only objects to the fact that YouTube stands to profit from videos of parliament sessions without asking permission. Had they asked it probably wouldn't have been a problem, considering the enhanced access it provides. But YouTube broke Canadian law and they reacted appropriately.quote>
No, really, they didn't. It may be lawful under Canadian law to do this, but it is surely morally bankrupt.
They don't want this material available to be *ahem* "taken out of context". Taking that quote out of context you can clearly see that they don't want to be held accountable for what they actually said on camera.
Politicians would rather lie, and continue to lie out their asses than own up to past actions. This is an easy way to shut down access to, and dissent and debate about primary historical material.
This is the Canadian government telling the Citizens to fuck off, since "we" know better how to rule than you proles.
Regards.
Ok, so since you and yours have guns, and you're clearly an american, and your country seems...corrupt to the core......what do you plan to do about it?...besides quoting people on Slashdot that is?
I do not believe that you can show me a single government or large corporation that is not corrupt to the core. Including Canada's government.
So since you asked the parent, I suppose that you already have a good answer. So what is it? Or are you simply throwing stones through your own glass house?
I think it's Parliment who has comtempt for the Citizens of Canada.
I want my computing experience to be pleasant, not have the power turned down until I am stressed at how slowly things are going and then have it ramped up again.
Sorry, but I have enough stress as it is without artificially adding more.
It's like we are becoming monkeys jumping through flaming hoops just to satisfy the computer! Bah.