I have myself read several Tom Clancy novels describing in detail several different methods of killing people. Does that make me guilty of conspiring to commit terrorism? I hope not. Yet, I feel that the methods described in the Tom Clancy novels are more reliable for effective terrorism than the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Surely this is one more step towards thought-crime? Fair enough, if a terrorist incident occurs, or the authorities believe it will occur, then question him, search his house and detain him for up to 48 hours, fine. BUT - if he's done nothing except read this book, then for God's sake, let him go. This is the sort of thing the Russian Tsars used to execute people for.
I used to work for a relatively large British hi-fi shop, and we used to sell on commission. If we could get the customer to believe that bi-wiring was better than single wiring, we'd push the bi-wiring (except on those occasions where you can make a sale by pretending that you're being frank and honest, and you're a decent guy). The truth is that bi-wiring actually makes ALMOST no difference to the quality of the sound. The same went for a lot of the products we sold. It's a bit of a racket, to be honest, because (and I admit, I don't know for sure) I reckon that we must have been handing out payments to What Hi-Fi? &c., because they raved on about it. Sure, if a mouse eats your speaker wire, you've got a fifty fifty chance of still hearing your treble, but to be honest, it's really not much more than that.
On the other hand, the actual hi-fi equipment we sold was top fucking notch, and ninety percent of the time, we were honest and fair. Did I ever feel guilty? No. If a customer can't be arsed doing the research into it themselves, then I have no problems taking their money.
HOWEVER, the point of this comment was actually to disagree. The cheapest, best bang-for-your-buck way of turning a decent hi-fi into a decent SOUNDING hi-fi is to sort out your speaker cables. And yes, gold plating DOES make a difference. The engineers on here will probably say I'm over simplifying, but basically, the principle is that every wire is a signal, and every connection is a break in that signal. Therefore, if you can improve the connection quality, then you can decrease the amount of signal lost. Gold plating is one of the most effective ways of improving the quality of a connection. Airless? I couldn't give a shit about airless cables, because the signal doesn't travel through the air. As long as the cable is properly insulated, it doesn't matter.
Actually, it's more like TPB own a car park, and then someone's car gets stolen, and appears on TPB's car park, so that person attempts to sue TPB for the theft.
I know, I'm talking about theft, but hey, you can hardly make an identical copy of a car at no cost...
Unlikely. The weapons will have identified themselves to the plane, and unless they'd been deliberately programmed to identify as a different weapon, or were not correctly attached, the crew knew exactly what they were carrying.
Even if it were to have such a clause, it would be unenforcable. You cannot get around the law using a contract. For example, imagine if I were to hold a gun to your head, and force you to sign a contract saying you agree to being forced to sign a contract, and that by signing the contract, I may kill you whenever I want. Were the contract legally enforcable, then you would be able to kill me. Unfortunately, you cannot sign something that violates the law. I am not allowed to force you to sign a contract, whether you agree to it or not. I am not allowed to kill you, whether you agree to it or not. (N.B. I'm English, and accept that the examples I have provided are not applicable in all countries)
Ahhh, now I understand. Partial [zero emissions] makes sense, whereas without any demarcation, the phrase is ridiculous. Also, of course, I hadn't factored in the legal aspect. The legal profession tends to adopt its own particular definitions of words. If Zero Emissions is a category of vehicle, then partial Zero Emissions is reasonable.
Thank you for the clarification, and my apologies for getting it wrong. (*gasp*, someone on/. admitted they were wrong!)
Still, it probably ought to be measured for the whole car. My windscreen doesn't let off emissions, but that doesn't make my car a PZEV. Just think it could be better put, that's all.
No, the car is not a partial zero emissions vehicle. When my car is sitting on the drive, it is producing 0 cu feet CO2, but that doesn't make my car a partial zero emissions vehicle. The partial zero emissions figures you are suggesting makes the vehicle produce emissions of 0.00333... cu feet CO2 per second. PARTIAL zero cannot exist.
You cannot have something that is partially zero. Zero is an absolute. This is like saying that something is "partially complete". Partially complete is management speak for incomplete, partially zero is management speak for not zero. More advertising bollocks.
Interesting. Note how the AC freely admits it's a relatively small infraction ("that is a little redundant"), yet still feels the need to call the poster a douchebag and a tool, and instruct him to die. I would conclude that he has a defective sensus of proportionus, and recommend a course of chill pills. Next patient please.
Re:HD-DVD or blue-ray over component video?
on
Blue Blu-ray
·
· Score: 1
Well, to be frank, tough. HDMI is the best quality connection you can get. Feel free to pipe your signal through component, but don't bitch about it being lower quality.
Everyone seems to be getting on the backs of the people who "exploited" the flaw. If I stood at a cash machine in the U.K., and I pressed the £20 button, and got £200, I would walk away, assuming it was MY error. I'd be pissed off that I'd pressed the wrong button, but that would be it. I probably wouldn't bother even checking my bank balance for a few days (I check my balance online roughly weekly), and by the time I'd checked it, I would almost certainly have spent about half of it, and deposited the other £100 in my account.
Now we have a problem. I have now spent money that wasn't mine to spend. I think that the bank should eat that cost, because it was their error that gave me that money to spend. So what about the other £100? How can the bank possibly take that off me? They can't prove that that's not, I don't know, birthday money or something. If my bank charges me £25 every time I make a transaction when my account is outside of its overdraft, and assuming I had £75 in the account before the accident at the cash machine, then I would assume I've been charged £25, and so I might as well spend the £200 rather than put the transaction on my card. But, a huge wad of cash burns a hole in my pocket, and my next paycheck's in two days, so I might as well blow it, after all, it's my money right? But, if I then get billed for the £200, that might REALLY put me over my limit, and then I'd pick up a lot of bank charges. My fault?
How about, rather than this levy on objects that *could* be used to hold copyrighted media, a direct deal with the RIAA/BPA/whoever the relevant body is in your country, costing maybe £50 a year, saying "Yeah, I want to download music. Give me the licence to do it, everybody wins." Then, it can be enforced in a similar way to T.V. Licensing in the U.K. If you don't have a licence, then the body can attempt to detect use of copyrighted music. I'd pay it, so I could download music if I wanted, without fear of repercussion.
However, my Dad, who uses iTunes to get all of his music shouldn't have to pay, so he could choose *not* to buy the licence, and not have to pay any kind of excess for the music he downloads legally.
I can't see the authorities finding holes in this, because at the end of the day, they'd get a list of "potential pirates", and the equivalent of 5 CD's worth of money for people who would previously have been paying nothing.
Good start, but then you go a little mad with this "memory" thing. The Universe doesn't have to remember the co-ordinates of everything, because they're THERE. The Universe just has to have the space to put everything. Imagine a FAT32 disk, but without the file allocation table. The data's all still there, it's just no-one can be really sure where it is.
Until you start performing forensic analysis on it. At which point, in essence, the territory gets a new map. We could call ourselves forensic analysers, in this context, because we have created the "allocation tables" for a very small, local subset of the larger "disk".
Just because there's no map, doesn't mean there's no territory. In my opinion, time travel into the past can never be possible, because that allows (requires?) paradoxes to be formed. On the other hand, time travel into the future creates no such paradoxes.
Tinfoil hats aside, there is, as mentioned above, a serious security risk with connecting to the internet to fetch a seed. I'd be happier to see a tiny hardware RNG built into every computer. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to implement.
just run simulations? Save everyone a bit of time and effort, if there's any kind of international dispute, run a simulation of war based on the two robot armies, and then bingo, no need to even have a robot army, you just need the potential to have a robot army.
'cos it's a bloody stupid idea. Put it like this... you can always predict the outcome of a robot-on-robot battle, given the stimuli the robot responds to, the firepower of the robot, and so on. It takes a big computer, but it's doable. The only reason any country ever goes to war is that it thinks it can win. If you were able to take out the uncertainty of human-on-human combat, then, well hell, international politics becomes a stock market. "We know it would cost you X to beat us in a war, so if you give us X/2, we'll agree with you, and save you money".
I know, this is only true of autonomous robots, which is not what the article's about, but they're being discussed enough, I thought I'd chip in. Obviously, if the robots are controlled by a human, there's still scope for human error, and therefore it becomes unpredictable again.
I didn't say it was my theory, but the theory also states that dreams are designed to be different to actual circumstances, so that you don't get reminded of the events by the dream.
Alternatively, maybe you were trying to forget an all night computer game session...
I don't know about every psychology textbook known to man, but I remember being taught it at AS level (17-18), so unless my teacher was well ahead of the game, this was pretty much known previously. It came up a few times that year, as part of the module on memories, as part of the mental illnesses module, and as part of the sleep and biorhythms module.
One theory was that one of the main functions of sleep was to deal with all this "forgetting", and dreams are a part of that. Actually, apparently it's good that we don't remember our dreams, and we should not be asked to remember them, as forgetting them is an important part of the brain "clearing up".
True... even so, I'd be loathe to dismiss any missile launch that close to me. A defense system in the UK for example, shouldn't bother the Russians, because it's far enough away that they'll have been tracking the missile already in the air, and have a reasonable idea where it's heading, and there's time to discuss it with the Americans without the immediate threat to national security that would be presented by an outpost practically on Russia's borders.
I completely agree... and I have to be honest, I support Putin. If it really is a missile defence system, then okay, fair enough, but no guarantee the US can give will be enough to convince me that they're not moving in nukes secretly. I also don't much fancy the idea of the US using Eastern Europe as any kind of launch base. Imagine if they were ever to fire those "defensive" missiles. How many red-phone calls would be needed to calm down the neighbouring countries? In order for the missiles to be launched effectively, then they would need to be launched pretty nearly immediately, and if I were Putin, I'd shit myself if I were called in the middle of the night by a security advisor telling me the US had just initiated a countdown in a facility within immediate striking distance from Moscow. Even if Bush rang up and assured me that it was a defensive launch against an Iranian missile, I'd move to a state of immediate readiness. Then, how do you think Bush would react getting a phone call saying "Sir, the entire Russian nuclear arsenal just switched to full readiness"? Before you know it, both countries would be battle-ready, and neither would be prepared to back down until the other did. I'm not a military strategist, but even so, I'm fairly confident of my assessment of the situation. Putin's doing all his posturing now to save himself a few sleepless nights later on. I genuinely think the US should back down on this one.
I have to say, I think it's perfectly acceptable. As long as iTunes doesn't suddenly start phoning home and telling Apple who's got whose files. I enjoy sharing music, I like to listen to as much music as possible, and I would never buy a CD I've not heard before (except on recommendation). I think this is ideal... it goes after the people who'll just upload shedloads of music. As an "receiver" of a file, I like to know that someone else has enjoyed it, and that they have a legal copy of it, that they chose to share because they want to get the music out there. I'm not naive enough to think that that's true, but if I enjoy a song enough I'll buy the album. My favourite band, I got into because a friend recommended I download some, so I did, had a listen, loved it, and bought all of their albums.
Watermarking a song lets people know who originally bought it... If they share that to pirate servers, then they'll get collared, but statistically, if they share it with friends (or acquaintances, ie: over a University network), then it doesn't matter. The only objection I would have would be if iTunes started piping back the information to Apple, so the end user can be prosecuted. That's probably pretty selfish, but *shrug*.
BTW: I don't use iTunes...
The difference is, if you choose to pirate software/music/films/whatever, it's a fair cop if you get caught. If you're instructed to do it by someone who is in a position of authority, then it becomes a little less fair if you get caught. Personally, I'd protest, explain that I completely disagree with the principle of installing pirated software (whether or not you do...), and if your boss refuses to accept that, leave. I wouldn't bother suing for unfair dismissal, (which it is) and instead just get a new job, and act like nothing happened, except, drop a note in to the BSA, explaining why you just left. That way, if your business ever gets audited, and the paper trail highlights you as a guy that stood up for what he believed in, and you get subpoenaed to ask for your version of events, you can honestly say, "Look, I didn't agree with it at the time, I left, I informed the authorities, but I didn't do it for personal gain. I did it as a professional, doing his job".
Obviously, it's not easy to take a decision that could end up costing you your job, but to be honest, if you kick up enough of a stink, your employer will back down, based on the fact that he is assuming you are going to sue for unfair dismissal.
A minor point though... you ARE legally obliged as soon as you become aware that the software has been installed to inform the authorities. If your employer refuses to back down, you're in a situation that will almost certainly end up with you in court. If you play your cards right though, you'll be a witness rather than a defendant.
Good luck, it's a hard decision to take, I hope you make the right choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I have myself read several Tom Clancy novels describing in detail several different methods of killing people. Does that make me guilty of conspiring to commit terrorism? I hope not. Yet, I feel that the methods described in the Tom Clancy novels are more reliable for effective terrorism than the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Surely this is one more step towards thought-crime? Fair enough, if a terrorist incident occurs, or the authorities believe it will occur, then question him, search his house and detain him for up to 48 hours, fine. BUT - if he's done nothing except read this book, then for God's sake, let him go. This is the sort of thing the Russian Tsars used to execute people for.
I used to work for a relatively large British hi-fi shop, and we used to sell on commission. If we could get the customer to believe that bi-wiring was better than single wiring, we'd push the bi-wiring (except on those occasions where you can make a sale by pretending that you're being frank and honest, and you're a decent guy). The truth is that bi-wiring actually makes ALMOST no difference to the quality of the sound. The same went for a lot of the products we sold. It's a bit of a racket, to be honest, because (and I admit, I don't know for sure) I reckon that we must have been handing out payments to What Hi-Fi? &c., because they raved on about it. Sure, if a mouse eats your speaker wire, you've got a fifty fifty chance of still hearing your treble, but to be honest, it's really not much more than that.
On the other hand, the actual hi-fi equipment we sold was top fucking notch, and ninety percent of the time, we were honest and fair. Did I ever feel guilty? No. If a customer can't be arsed doing the research into it themselves, then I have no problems taking their money.
HOWEVER, the point of this comment was actually to disagree. The cheapest, best bang-for-your-buck way of turning a decent hi-fi into a decent SOUNDING hi-fi is to sort out your speaker cables. And yes, gold plating DOES make a difference. The engineers on here will probably say I'm over simplifying, but basically, the principle is that every wire is a signal, and every connection is a break in that signal. Therefore, if you can improve the connection quality, then you can decrease the amount of signal lost. Gold plating is one of the most effective ways of improving the quality of a connection. Airless? I couldn't give a shit about airless cables, because the signal doesn't travel through the air. As long as the cable is properly insulated, it doesn't matter.
Actually, it's more like TPB own a car park, and then someone's car gets stolen, and appears on TPB's car park, so that person attempts to sue TPB for the theft.
I know, I'm talking about theft, but hey, you can hardly make an identical copy of a car at no cost...
nearly everybody on this forum uses a computer
I can guarantee you that 100% of the people on this forum have used a computer.
Unlikely. The weapons will have identified themselves to the plane, and unless they'd been deliberately programmed to identify as a different weapon, or were not correctly attached, the crew knew exactly what they were carrying.
Even if it were to have such a clause, it would be unenforcable. You cannot get around the law using a contract. For example, imagine if I were to hold a gun to your head, and force you to sign a contract saying you agree to being forced to sign a contract, and that by signing the contract, I may kill you whenever I want. Were the contract legally enforcable, then you would be able to kill me. Unfortunately, you cannot sign something that violates the law. I am not allowed to force you to sign a contract, whether you agree to it or not. I am not allowed to kill you, whether you agree to it or not. (N.B. I'm English, and accept that the examples I have provided are not applicable in all countries)
Ahhh, now I understand. Partial [zero emissions] makes sense, whereas without any demarcation, the phrase is ridiculous. Also, of course, I hadn't factored in the legal aspect. The legal profession tends to adopt its own particular definitions of words. If Zero Emissions is a category of vehicle, then partial Zero Emissions is reasonable. Thank you for the clarification, and my apologies for getting it wrong. (*gasp*, someone on /. admitted they were wrong!)
Still, it probably ought to be measured for the whole car. My windscreen doesn't let off emissions, but that doesn't make my car a PZEV. Just think it could be better put, that's all.
No, the car is not a partial zero emissions vehicle. When my car is sitting on the drive, it is producing 0 cu feet CO2, but that doesn't make my car a partial zero emissions vehicle. The partial zero emissions figures you are suggesting makes the vehicle produce emissions of 0.00333... cu feet CO2 per second. PARTIAL zero cannot exist.
You cannot have something that is partially zero. Zero is an absolute. This is like saying that something is "partially complete". Partially complete is management speak for incomplete, partially zero is management speak for not zero. More advertising bollocks.
International readers all over the world? As opposed to international readers next door?
Interesting. Note how the AC freely admits it's a relatively small infraction ("that is a little redundant"), yet still feels the need to call the poster a douchebag and a tool, and instruct him to die. I would conclude that he has a defective sensus of proportionus, and recommend a course of chill pills. Next patient please.
Well, to be frank, tough. HDMI is the best quality connection you can get. Feel free to pipe your signal through component, but don't bitch about it being lower quality.
Everyone seems to be getting on the backs of the people who "exploited" the flaw. If I stood at a cash machine in the U.K., and I pressed the £20 button, and got £200, I would walk away, assuming it was MY error. I'd be pissed off that I'd pressed the wrong button, but that would be it. I probably wouldn't bother even checking my bank balance for a few days (I check my balance online roughly weekly), and by the time I'd checked it, I would almost certainly have spent about half of it, and deposited the other £100 in my account.
Now we have a problem. I have now spent money that wasn't mine to spend. I think that the bank should eat that cost, because it was their error that gave me that money to spend. So what about the other £100? How can the bank possibly take that off me? They can't prove that that's not, I don't know, birthday money or something. If my bank charges me £25 every time I make a transaction when my account is outside of its overdraft, and assuming I had £75 in the account before the accident at the cash machine, then I would assume I've been charged £25, and so I might as well spend the £200 rather than put the transaction on my card. But, a huge wad of cash burns a hole in my pocket, and my next paycheck's in two days, so I might as well blow it, after all, it's my money right? But, if I then get billed for the £200, that might REALLY put me over my limit, and then I'd pick up a lot of bank charges. My fault?
How about, rather than this levy on objects that *could* be used to hold copyrighted media, a direct deal with the RIAA/BPA/whoever the relevant body is in your country, costing maybe £50 a year, saying "Yeah, I want to download music. Give me the licence to do it, everybody wins." Then, it can be enforced in a similar way to T.V. Licensing in the U.K. If you don't have a licence, then the body can attempt to detect use of copyrighted music. I'd pay it, so I could download music if I wanted, without fear of repercussion.
However, my Dad, who uses iTunes to get all of his music shouldn't have to pay, so he could choose *not* to buy the licence, and not have to pay any kind of excess for the music he downloads legally.
I can't see the authorities finding holes in this, because at the end of the day, they'd get a list of "potential pirates", and the equivalent of 5 CD's worth of money for people who would previously have been paying nothing.
Good start, but then you go a little mad with this "memory" thing. The Universe doesn't have to remember the co-ordinates of everything, because they're THERE. The Universe just has to have the space to put everything. Imagine a FAT32 disk, but without the file allocation table. The data's all still there, it's just no-one can be really sure where it is.
Until you start performing forensic analysis on it. At which point, in essence, the territory gets a new map. We could call ourselves forensic analysers, in this context, because we have created the "allocation tables" for a very small, local subset of the larger "disk".
Just because there's no map, doesn't mean there's no territory. In my opinion, time travel into the past can never be possible, because that allows (requires?) paradoxes to be formed. On the other hand, time travel into the future creates no such paradoxes.
Tinfoil hats aside, there is, as mentioned above, a serious security risk with connecting to the internet to fetch a seed. I'd be happier to see a tiny hardware RNG built into every computer. I can't imagine it would be that difficult to implement.
just run simulations? Save everyone a bit of time and effort, if there's any kind of international dispute, run a simulation of war based on the two robot armies, and then bingo, no need to even have a robot army, you just need the potential to have a robot army.
'cos it's a bloody stupid idea. Put it like this... you can always predict the outcome of a robot-on-robot battle, given the stimuli the robot responds to, the firepower of the robot, and so on. It takes a big computer, but it's doable. The only reason any country ever goes to war is that it thinks it can win. If you were able to take out the uncertainty of human-on-human combat, then, well hell, international politics becomes a stock market. "We know it would cost you X to beat us in a war, so if you give us X/2, we'll agree with you, and save you money".
I know, this is only true of autonomous robots, which is not what the article's about, but they're being discussed enough, I thought I'd chip in. Obviously, if the robots are controlled by a human, there's still scope for human error, and therefore it becomes unpredictable again.
You get most of your calls when you're at home, work or out and about? What about the rest?
I didn't say it was my theory, but the theory also states that dreams are designed to be different to actual circumstances, so that you don't get reminded of the events by the dream.
Alternatively, maybe you were trying to forget an all night computer game session...
I don't know about every psychology textbook known to man, but I remember being taught it at AS level (17-18), so unless my teacher was well ahead of the game, this was pretty much known previously. It came up a few times that year, as part of the module on memories, as part of the mental illnesses module, and as part of the sleep and biorhythms module.
One theory was that one of the main functions of sleep was to deal with all this "forgetting", and dreams are a part of that. Actually, apparently it's good that we don't remember our dreams, and we should not be asked to remember them, as forgetting them is an important part of the brain "clearing up".
True... even so, I'd be loathe to dismiss any missile launch that close to me. A defense system in the UK for example, shouldn't bother the Russians, because it's far enough away that they'll have been tracking the missile already in the air, and have a reasonable idea where it's heading, and there's time to discuss it with the Americans without the immediate threat to national security that would be presented by an outpost practically on Russia's borders.
I completely agree... and I have to be honest, I support Putin. If it really is a missile defence system, then okay, fair enough, but no guarantee the US can give will be enough to convince me that they're not moving in nukes secretly. I also don't much fancy the idea of the US using Eastern Europe as any kind of launch base. Imagine if they were ever to fire those "defensive" missiles. How many red-phone calls would be needed to calm down the neighbouring countries? In order for the missiles to be launched effectively, then they would need to be launched pretty nearly immediately, and if I were Putin, I'd shit myself if I were called in the middle of the night by a security advisor telling me the US had just initiated a countdown in a facility within immediate striking distance from Moscow. Even if Bush rang up and assured me that it was a defensive launch against an Iranian missile, I'd move to a state of immediate readiness. Then, how do you think Bush would react getting a phone call saying "Sir, the entire Russian nuclear arsenal just switched to full readiness"? Before you know it, both countries would be battle-ready, and neither would be prepared to back down until the other did. I'm not a military strategist, but even so, I'm fairly confident of my assessment of the situation. Putin's doing all his posturing now to save himself a few sleepless nights later on. I genuinely think the US should back down on this one.
I have to say, I think it's perfectly acceptable. As long as iTunes doesn't suddenly start phoning home and telling Apple who's got whose files. I enjoy sharing music, I like to listen to as much music as possible, and I would never buy a CD I've not heard before (except on recommendation). I think this is ideal... it goes after the people who'll just upload shedloads of music. As an "receiver" of a file, I like to know that someone else has enjoyed it, and that they have a legal copy of it, that they chose to share because they want to get the music out there. I'm not naive enough to think that that's true, but if I enjoy a song enough I'll buy the album. My favourite band, I got into because a friend recommended I download some, so I did, had a listen, loved it, and bought all of their albums. Watermarking a song lets people know who originally bought it... If they share that to pirate servers, then they'll get collared, but statistically, if they share it with friends (or acquaintances, ie: over a University network), then it doesn't matter. The only objection I would have would be if iTunes started piping back the information to Apple, so the end user can be prosecuted. That's probably pretty selfish, but *shrug*. BTW: I don't use iTunes...
The difference is, if you choose to pirate software/music/films/whatever, it's a fair cop if you get caught. If you're instructed to do it by someone who is in a position of authority, then it becomes a little less fair if you get caught. Personally, I'd protest, explain that I completely disagree with the principle of installing pirated software (whether or not you do...), and if your boss refuses to accept that, leave. I wouldn't bother suing for unfair dismissal, (which it is) and instead just get a new job, and act like nothing happened, except, drop a note in to the BSA, explaining why you just left. That way, if your business ever gets audited, and the paper trail highlights you as a guy that stood up for what he believed in, and you get subpoenaed to ask for your version of events, you can honestly say, "Look, I didn't agree with it at the time, I left, I informed the authorities, but I didn't do it for personal gain. I did it as a professional, doing his job". Obviously, it's not easy to take a decision that could end up costing you your job, but to be honest, if you kick up enough of a stink, your employer will back down, based on the fact that he is assuming you are going to sue for unfair dismissal. A minor point though... you ARE legally obliged as soon as you become aware that the software has been installed to inform the authorities. If your employer refuses to back down, you're in a situation that will almost certainly end up with you in court. If you play your cards right though, you'll be a witness rather than a defendant. Good luck, it's a hard decision to take, I hope you make the right choice.