The military is our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers -- they do not want to shoot a single US citizen. Most will follow orders so long as they do not include shooting and harming US citizens
I agree with most of what you said except that when the enemy is not your immediate family or someone you know very well, I'd be willing to bet many military members would give their commanders the benefit of the doubt as that relationship is closer and more immediately important to them.
Yes I think there would be public outcry that would dampen the will of the military, but I also think it would take a LOT for military people to give up their careers, freedom, lives, etc. for some anonymous "terrorist" (which is what I must assume citizen targets would be called).
I agree with you mostly except I would add something to the last part about applying himself in school. I actually think it would be better to meet in the middle there.
If we had an education system that provided for other areas of learning such as what he was doing by himself already (along with some broad based study), that would amplify his natural interests and probably be much more productive for everyone involved than what is available to him.
I was going to write something like that, but well said!
To add a somewhat farcical (hopefully) example, remember Starship Troopers? It doesn't take incredible intelligence to flourish. It just takes being able to get your DNA/reproductive material from planet A to planet B and kick ass. I know there were some brain bugs, but ignore them for this example:)
Interesting. I had never read that as a formal philosophy. In general, I tend to agree with the basic tenet. I seems to me that it is an inescapable truth that our "thoughts/brain" are separated from the world by our senses. Some exceptions would be getting your brains shaken up in a concussion, an aneurysm, brain surgery, etc. But those are not really perceivable by us except as disruptions to our normal brain function.
Independent of this illusion discussion, if you don't mind, could you tell me if there is some reason to doubt what I wrote above? Sorry I'm obviously no expert in this area. I think I must be missing the point:)
There may be a lot of profit keeping / hoarding. I don't have any numbers, but that seems correct to me. However in the long term, companies/societies doing things for less and reinvesting more profits will have an inherent advantage. Thus I think the profit hoarding will self-regulate itself assuming force/war is not brought into play (even then possibly).
On another of your points, I agree about government needing to regulate corporations to serve the benefit of society rather than the other way around. I do not think that detailed regulation like wage/job stratification is a job for regulation though. Government needs to set large scale incentive type regulations and businesses will figure it out. I don't know the solution, but your proposals sound to me like a recipe for giant government bureaucracy which is another beast we want to keep tamed.
1) H-1Bs are not immigrants, they are here on temporary work visas. You are of course correct here. It is not immigration, but freedom to work where you want is a closely related issue.
2) H-1B are not the "best and brightest." If that were true, H-!Bs would be nobel-prize winners and the like. In fact H-1Bs are very average people, usually right out of college. And the random lottery nature of the system insures that employers have no idea what they are getting. H-1Bs do nothing except replace displace equally qualified US IT workers. How does that make the US greater? You touch on several points here.
I never claimed that they were the best and the brightest, and I think that argument misses the point anyway. I think it's more an issue of the value of work. Work is done by all kinds of people with all kinds of IQ's. If a person is willing and capable of doing a job for $5 instead of $50, $5 is probably closer to the real value of the work if they can survive on that.
On the randomness, I think we agree. It's silly mostly any way you look at it.
Finally, how does freedom of work make the US greater? Because the US is supposed to be all about competition and being the best (whether that's a good thing or not is another story). Sticking our heads in the sand and imagining/insisting that our time is worth so much more than other people of similar talent makes us into victims rather than recognizing the situation and competing on merits.
Do you look at our outrageous agriculture subsidies and think we are greater for it? I don't.
3) Many of Americans have invested an awful lot in their IT careers. To lose your job, just so a company can save a few bucks on cheap foreign labor, hurts - a lot. Agreed. However, in another's words (maybe a stretch, but not too much), "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In this case, I think hiding behind protectionist walls is temporary safety that will get us in trouble in the long run.
4) H-1Bs are absolutely not needed. According to the US-DOL, there is a glut of IT workers. There have been huge layoffs all over. That depends on your perspective. As you also mentioned, if a job can be done for less, then a company would have the opposite perspective.
5) According to Dr. Ron Hira, an expert on the subjust, the real reason of H-1B is to make it easier to send US development jobs offshore - where the pay is $5 an hour instead of $50 an hour. That would be one possibility. The other is simply to depress wages within the US. Is it "evil"? Maybe "bad"? Maybe so. But again, I don't think hiding from it will do any good in the long term. It will reduce our competitiveness and slow down our drive to move into more profitable / valuable areas.
...... All of this is kind of cold, but I think it is true for the most part. I know that someone else could have done work I have done (maybe what I am doing now as well) for less. Rather than thinking that is "how it should be" I recognize that there is a lucky party and an unlucky party in the picture. I happen to be on the lucky side. If we put our heads too deep in the sand, we will eventually be on the other side.
Many businesses believe that employees (here, programmers, etc) are overpaid in the US and more controversially that there are not even enough capable programmers for the business that needs to be done.
Many (here US) programmers believe they are undervalued and can do better quality work than the H1-B types and thus deserve better pay.
Is either one totally correct? No I don't think so. Certainly Americans are paid more in some (many?) cases for the same job so it is understandable that companies want to get the work done by the person who will do it for less.
Can programmers in the US really do more advanced / quality work than their H1-B counterparts who will work for less? Maybe in some cases.
Personally, I think the small number and random-luck H1-B system is just another protectionist wall like farm subsidies that keep us competitive in the short term but hurt us in the long term. The US is great in many ways because of its immigrants, not in spite of them. I am often surprised to see the slashdot crowd supporting more strict H1-B limits.
I think you are overstating your case and playing with semantics a bit. How do you know so definitively the point of vision which I think is itself a shaky concept evolutionarily speaking since it is emergent. I think your statements make a lot of sense, but I don't see how they are contradictory with the article or how they missed any big point.
In fact, it seems to me that your "purpose" of vision fits quite well with their basic idea of "perception is only a representation of reality."
I think there is a lot to what you said. It may not be necessarily the "twilight" of the USA or Japan (it could be a temporary lull), but I can attest to seeing and meeting plenty of glitzy young people in Japan who just don't have that hunger that you mentioned as their parents do.
Compounding the issue is the fact that some/many younger adults in Japan (20s and 30s) live at home due to cultural norms, convenience, etc. I don't think they fully realize how little money they are making in their job and how it won't support their lifestyle when the parents are gone. Engineers in Japan are actually paid quite little, but more than the part time jobs many young people in Japan are opting for recently.
Good post. I think I can correct/clarify it just a bit.
It's probably more like waning interest in working like a slave Agreed.
and being managed by incompetent managers with no little/no engineering background. Probably not this reason. The advancement structure in Japanese companies usually runs people up the management structure of their department primarily by years of experience (with some other factors thrown in as well) so actually engineers often end up as managers of engineers.
I would guess (as the article suggests also) that young people are more turned off by the dirt cheap salaries paid to engineers. Back in the day, engineers were a dime a dozen in Japan (relatively speaking compared to the US at least) and so companies could pay them as such. Now the situation has changed, and as is sadly common, Japanese companies are adapting too slowly.
Wow you have been all over this article! Well said from what I have seen so far. I especially liked this post and think it is the heart of the matter for any of these surveilance issues.
The parent may be funny to some (enough to get +5??) but I didn't find it funny at all and also believe it is wrong. so I think it is worth trying to refute it with some googled evidence at least.
The gist of what I found and what makes sense to me is this quote from the research paper summary that is linked later:
"Participants who were poor at recognizing black faces appear to code blackness as a visual feature while they may not code whiteness at all," says Dr. Levin. "The problem is not that we can't code the details of cross-race faces; it's that we don't. Instead, we substitute group information, or information about the race, for information about the features that help us tell individual people apart.... (that's a Black man") rather than individual recognition ("that's a man with a mustache and a down-turned mouth")"
This old post on reddit says it pretty well. Mostly only the first part of the post is directly related to refuting the logic behind this kind of joke.
That post also links to this press release summary (same as first link of this comment) of an article on the topic in the Journal of Experimental Psychology that backs up that post.
I have a little experience with earthquakes, and I know one person very well who lived through the 1995 Kobe-Hanshin earthquake. There is no way that the video was anywhere close to the center of the earthquake.
Close to the center of an earthquake that powerful, you wouldn't be able to walk or even stand up, much less file out of the building like you see in the video.
So if you're taking notes for how to deal with a bad earthquake, don't use that video as a measuring stick. One way or another that goldfish would have flown across the room and smashed into the wall (or perhaps even the ceiling in a vertically moving quake).
They bring their political worldviews and bias to the research and interpretations just like the rest of us bring to our work. Science acknowledges this inherent bias with techniques like double blinding and control groups that seek to remove these biases.
Scientific consensus has a history of being wrong on many fronts at any given time. Given time, the scientific method gets it right, because it is constantly changing to fit new observations. But at times, people have had everything from bleedings to thyroid irradiation, to hysterectomies based on scientific consensus that is later proven incorrect.
The hot-button issues are hot buttons for a reason. I am an atheist and agree with Dawkins on the blind watchmakers and other facts of evolution point away from an intelligent creator, but I no longer believe science will ever prove atheists are correct. I now understand that spirituality is a response to a nihilistic, pointless existence. Some people will always fill that void with some form of religion no matter how much science may prove that point.
Already posted so I can't mod but... well said! I hope you are wrong about the pointless nihilistic reality of the universe, but I happen to think you are probably right.
I want lots of people to understand the basic principles of science also. However, it is possible that a maximum number of people understanding science is not beneficial to our survival. It could be, but I wouldn't take it as a given.It may actually be more beneficial for scienctific principles, methods and results (or some combinations) to be understood and employed to different degrees by different people in society.
So although I don't agree with the apparent direction of the grandparent's reasoning, there may be a valid point there.
Agreed on all points except the last. The punitive boycott against their attacker seems more appropriately done without the endorsement of their site, although as you said it is not far from normal. As someone else said, I think they will be more effective activists in any case simply by posting the information as usual.
I don't think the two are quite so independent since they are using the platform that they have created specifically to take this action. I can understand that this is the natural thing to do (and what do I know?? perhaps it IS the best strategy), but when someone uses a somewhat public service they have created to accomplish a personal result (punitive boycott of their attacker) or otherwise jumps into the fray, then I think it does bring up issues of conflict of interest.
I really don't think one thing like this reflects on the veracity of their information, but if they start to do it on a regular basis, it would change my perception of WL from being a collection of extremely valuable information about corruption and being somewhat above the fray to being another player in the game.
Ah, good point. It would have been more correct to say "I wish wikileaks would exclusively let/encourage others to fight using their facts..."
I guess I can understand they are reacting to an attack on their existence, though as others have said I don't think the method they have chosen is the best.
Perhaps it doesn't fit with what the wikileaks people intended when they started it, but I wish that wikileaks would let/encourage others to fight using their facts (however much is fact) rather than wikileaks themselves doing it. Somehow their active stance makes me more wary of the information on the site.
I think perhaps you are romanticizing those time periods. I would be willing to bet that the majority of people in the majority of those time periods / places you mentioned would not be so thrilled to be associated with philosophers, alchemists, etc. But both of us are speculating unless you have some evidence to back up your assertions (I don't:)
I think more likely that as the grandparent and others have said, only the cream of the crop survives in the historical record. Therefore it only looks like the period was more enlightened. People probably didn't want to stand out too much from their social group or risk being cast out, and the day to day reality was probably as mundane and banal as today, adjusted for changes due to communication technology.
While I agree that "business" is often ruthlessly self-interested, what you said is not really a symmetrical argument. You and all other employees at the company are (assuming you live in the US or at least the states I know of) completely within your ruthless, self-interested rights to quit at any time. Think that wouldn't kill the company? Think companies are not afraid of that kind of thing (not in that extreme probably)? Would it be "right" for all of you to do that?
The problem as others have said is the assymetrical power that companies have compared to individuals. However, this is the current reality, and it may even be an unavoidable reality that organized, specialized groups carry more clout than individuals (ask any bacteria you use antibacterial soap on:)
Agreed. I think it depends on where you live. I bet all the points listed above would go off very well if a program like that were implemented in Japan.
After moving to Japan, I had a lot of assumptions that I thought were universal turned upside down. One of the surprises was that people here tend to take much better care of public/semi-public property. Shopkeepers often clean the sidewalks in front of their businesses, people don't generally throw trash on the ground (even though in the cities I have lived, trashcans have been mostly removed), public transportation is clean, vending machines are not vandalized, etc.
No place is perfect, but the particular assumption I used to have about people trashing public/outdoor property is not generally true here.
I don't know enough detail to say whether this is rigorous defense of fair play in politics, but the skeptic in me says it is probably more of a push to keep politics/politicians isolated to influenceable channels.
Also on the level playing field argument, I can tell you that for every election season, the politicians with money (and whatever permits which are almost certainly hard to get) are driving around my street, neighborhood, etc.. with loudspeakers and entourages blasting their platforms and trying to sound good. That kind of activity plus tv advertisements of the large parties (who then endorse the lower level politicians / vice versa) does not come cheap.
It is probably a bit of both, but being politics, I suggest assuming it is about control more than fairness.
Slashdot Mirror
The military is our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers -- they do not want to shoot a single US citizen. Most will follow orders so long as they do not include shooting and harming US citizens
I agree with most of what you said except that when the enemy is not your immediate family or someone you know very well, I'd be willing to bet many military members would give their commanders the benefit of the doubt as that relationship is closer and more immediately important to them.
Yes I think there would be public outcry that would dampen the will of the military, but I also think it would take a LOT for military people to give up their careers, freedom, lives, etc. for some anonymous "terrorist" (which is what I must assume citizen targets would be called).
I agree with you mostly except I would add something to the last part about applying himself in school. I actually think it would be better to meet in the middle there.
If we had an education system that provided for other areas of learning such as what he was doing by himself already (along with some broad based study), that would amplify his natural interests and probably be much more productive for everyone involved than what is available to him.
I was going to write something like that, but well said!
:)
To add a somewhat farcical (hopefully) example, remember Starship Troopers? It doesn't take incredible intelligence to flourish. It just takes being able to get your DNA/reproductive material from planet A to planet B and kick ass. I know there were some brain bugs, but ignore them for this example
Interesting. I had never read that as a formal philosophy. In general, I tend to agree with the basic tenet. I seems to me that it is an inescapable truth that our "thoughts/brain" are separated from the world by our senses. Some exceptions would be getting your brains shaken up in a concussion, an aneurysm, brain surgery, etc. But those are not really perceivable by us except as disruptions to our normal brain function.
:)
Independent of this illusion discussion, if you don't mind, could you tell me if there is some reason to doubt what I wrote above? Sorry I'm obviously no expert in this area. I think I must be missing the point
There may be a lot of profit keeping / hoarding. I don't have any numbers, but that seems correct to me. However in the long term, companies/societies doing things for less and reinvesting more profits will have an inherent advantage. Thus I think the profit hoarding will self-regulate itself assuming force/war is not brought into play (even then possibly).
On another of your points, I agree about government needing to regulate corporations to serve the benefit of society rather than the other way around. I do not think that detailed regulation like wage/job stratification is a job for regulation though. Government needs to set large scale incentive type regulations and businesses will figure it out. I don't know the solution, but your proposals sound to me like a recipe for giant government bureaucracy which is another beast we want to keep tamed.
2) H-1B are not the "best and brightest." If that were true, H-!Bs would be nobel-prize winners and the like. In fact H-1Bs are very average people, usually right out of college. And the random lottery nature of the system insures that employers have no idea what they are getting. H-1Bs do nothing except replace displace equally qualified US IT workers. How does that make the US greater? You touch on several points here.
I never claimed that they were the best and the brightest, and I think that argument misses the point anyway. I think it's more an issue of the value of work. Work is done by all kinds of people with all kinds of IQ's. If a person is willing and capable of doing a job for $5 instead of $50, $5 is probably closer to the real value of the work if they can survive on that.
On the randomness, I think we agree. It's silly mostly any way you look at it.
Finally, how does freedom of work make the US greater? Because the US is supposed to be all about competition and being the best (whether that's a good thing or not is another story). Sticking our heads in the sand and imagining/insisting that our time is worth so much more than other people of similar talent makes us into victims rather than recognizing the situation and competing on merits.
Do you look at our outrageous agriculture subsidies and think we are greater for it? I don't.
3) Many of Americans have invested an awful lot in their IT careers. To lose your job, just so a company can save a few bucks on cheap foreign labor, hurts - a lot. Agreed. However, in another's words (maybe a stretch, but not too much), "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." In this case, I think hiding behind protectionist walls is temporary safety that will get us in trouble in the long run.
4) H-1Bs are absolutely not needed. According to the US-DOL, there is a glut of IT workers. There have been huge layoffs all over. That depends on your perspective. As you also mentioned, if a job can be done for less, then a company would have the opposite perspective.
5) According to Dr. Ron Hira, an expert on the subjust, the real reason of H-1B is to make it easier to send US development jobs offshore - where the pay is $5 an hour instead of $50 an hour. That would be one possibility. The other is simply to depress wages within the US. Is it "evil"? Maybe "bad"? Maybe so. But again, I don't think hiding from it will do any good in the long term. It will reduce our competitiveness and slow down our drive to move into more profitable / valuable areas.
Many businesses believe that employees (here, programmers, etc) are overpaid in the US and more controversially that there are not even enough capable programmers for the business that needs to be done.
Many (here US) programmers believe they are undervalued and can do better quality work than the H1-B types and thus deserve better pay.
Is either one totally correct? No I don't think so. Certainly Americans are paid more in some (many?) cases for the same job so it is understandable that companies want to get the work done by the person who will do it for less.
Can programmers in the US really do more advanced / quality work than their H1-B counterparts who will work for less? Maybe in some cases.
Personally, I think the small number and random-luck H1-B system is just another protectionist wall like farm subsidies that keep us competitive in the short term but hurt us in the long term. The US is great in many ways because of its immigrants, not in spite of them. I am often surprised to see the slashdot crowd supporting more strict H1-B limits.
I think you are overstating your case and playing with semantics a bit. How do you know so definitively the point of vision which I think is itself a shaky concept evolutionarily speaking since it is emergent. I think your statements make a lot of sense, but I don't see how they are contradictory with the article or how they missed any big point.
In fact, it seems to me that your "purpose" of vision fits quite well with their basic idea of "perception is only a representation of reality."
I think there is a lot to what you said. It may not be necessarily the "twilight" of the USA or Japan (it could be a temporary lull), but I can attest to seeing and meeting plenty of glitzy young people in Japan who just don't have that hunger that you mentioned as their parents do.
Compounding the issue is the fact that some/many younger adults in Japan (20s and 30s) live at home due to cultural norms, convenience, etc. I don't think they fully realize how little money they are making in their job and how it won't support their lifestyle when the parents are gone. Engineers in Japan are actually paid quite little, but more than the part time jobs many young people in Japan are opting for recently.
It's probably more like waning interest in working like a slave
Agreed.
and being managed by incompetent managers with no little/no engineering background.
Probably not this reason. The advancement structure in Japanese companies usually runs people up the management structure of their department primarily by years of experience (with some other factors thrown in as well) so actually engineers often end up as managers of engineers.
I would guess (as the article suggests also) that young people are more turned off by the dirt cheap salaries paid to engineers. Back in the day, engineers were a dime a dozen in Japan (relatively speaking compared to the US at least) and so companies could pay them as such. Now the situation has changed, and as is sadly common, Japanese companies are adapting too slowly.
Wow you have been all over this article! Well said from what I have seen so far. I especially liked this post and think it is the heart of the matter for any of these surveilance issues.
The parent may be funny to some (enough to get +5??) but I didn't find it funny at all and also believe it is wrong. so I think it is worth trying to refute it with some googled evidence at least.
... (that's a Black man") rather than individual recognition ("that's a man with a mustache and a down-turned mouth")"
The gist of what I found and what makes sense to me is this quote from the research paper summary that is linked later:
"Participants who were poor at recognizing black faces appear to code blackness as a visual feature while they may not code whiteness at all," says Dr. Levin. "The problem is not that we can't code the details of cross-race faces; it's that we don't. Instead, we substitute group information, or information about the race, for information about the features that help us tell individual people apart.
This old post on reddit says it pretty well. Mostly only the first part of the post is directly related to refuting the logic behind this kind of joke.
That post also links to this press release summary (same as first link of this comment) of an article on the topic in the Journal of Experimental Psychology that backs up that post.
I have a little experience with earthquakes, and I know one person very well who lived through the 1995 Kobe-Hanshin earthquake. There is no way that the video was anywhere close to the center of the earthquake.
Close to the center of an earthquake that powerful, you wouldn't be able to walk or even stand up, much less file out of the building like you see in the video.
So if you're taking notes for how to deal with a bad earthquake, don't use that video as a measuring stick. One way or another that goldfish would have flown across the room and smashed into the wall (or perhaps even the ceiling in a vertically moving quake).
Already posted so I can't mod but... well said! I hope you are wrong about the pointless nihilistic reality of the universe, but I happen to think you are probably right.
I want lots of people to understand the basic principles of science also. However, it is possible that a maximum number of people understanding science is not beneficial to our survival. It could be, but I wouldn't take it as a given.It may actually be more beneficial for scienctific principles, methods and results (or some combinations) to be understood and employed to different degrees by different people in society.
So although I don't agree with the apparent direction of the grandparent's reasoning, there may be a valid point there.
Agreed on all points except the last. The punitive boycott against their attacker seems more appropriately done without the endorsement of their site, although as you said it is not far from normal. As someone else said, I think they will be more effective activists in any case simply by posting the information as usual.
I don't think the two are quite so independent since they are using the platform that they have created specifically to take this action. I can understand that this is the natural thing to do (and what do I know?? perhaps it IS the best strategy), but when someone uses a somewhat public service they have created to accomplish a personal result (punitive boycott of their attacker) or otherwise jumps into the fray, then I think it does bring up issues of conflict of interest. I really don't think one thing like this reflects on the veracity of their information, but if they start to do it on a regular basis, it would change my perception of WL from being a collection of extremely valuable information about corruption and being somewhat above the fray to being another player in the game.
Ah, good point. It would have been more correct to say "I wish wikileaks would exclusively let/encourage others to fight using their facts..." I guess I can understand they are reacting to an attack on their existence, though as others have said I don't think the method they have chosen is the best.
Perhaps it doesn't fit with what the wikileaks people intended when they started it, but I wish that wikileaks would let/encourage others to fight using their facts (however much is fact) rather than wikileaks themselves doing it. Somehow their active stance makes me more wary of the information on the site.
Please mod parent funny of the year since I don't have points for it :)
I think perhaps you are romanticizing those time periods. I would be willing to bet that the majority of people in the majority of those time periods / places you mentioned would not be so thrilled to be associated with philosophers, alchemists, etc. But both of us are speculating unless you have some evidence to back up your assertions (I don't :)
I think more likely that as the grandparent and others have said, only the cream of the crop survives in the historical record. Therefore it only looks like the period was more enlightened. People probably didn't want to stand out too much from their social group or risk being cast out, and the day to day reality was probably as mundane and banal as today, adjusted for changes due to communication technology.
While I agree that "business" is often ruthlessly self-interested, what you said is not really a symmetrical argument. You and all other employees at the company are (assuming you live in the US or at least the states I know of) completely within your ruthless, self-interested rights to quit at any time. Think that wouldn't kill the company? Think companies are not afraid of that kind of thing (not in that extreme probably)? Would it be "right" for all of you to do that?
:)
The problem as others have said is the assymetrical power that companies have compared to individuals. However, this is the current reality, and it may even be an unavoidable reality that organized, specialized groups carry more clout than individuals (ask any bacteria you use antibacterial soap on
Agreed. I think it depends on where you live. I bet all the points listed above would go off very well if a program like that were implemented in Japan.
After moving to Japan, I had a lot of assumptions that I thought were universal turned upside down. One of the surprises was that people here tend to take much better care of public/semi-public property. Shopkeepers often clean the sidewalks in front of their businesses, people don't generally throw trash on the ground (even though in the cities I have lived, trashcans have been mostly removed), public transportation is clean, vending machines are not vandalized, etc.
No place is perfect, but the particular assumption I used to have about people trashing public/outdoor property is not generally true here.
I don't know enough detail to say whether this is rigorous defense of fair play in politics, but the skeptic in me says it is probably more of a push to keep politics/politicians isolated to influenceable channels.
Also on the level playing field argument, I can tell you that for every election season, the politicians with money (and whatever permits which are almost certainly hard to get) are driving around my street, neighborhood, etc.. with loudspeakers and entourages blasting their platforms and trying to sound good. That kind of activity plus tv advertisements of the large parties (who then endorse the lower level politicians / vice versa) does not come cheap.
It is probably a bit of both, but being politics, I suggest assuming it is about control more than fairness.