The best bet for long term preservation is digital storage by a third party that is focused on preserving the data that is put in its care. Yeah, I'm talking cloud here.
The other part of this is to put the images into a lossless format that will be around for a few decades, and is so broadly used that you can be sure there will be a means to migrate the images to the next format when the one you are currently using becomes obsolete. For most photos, that means converting to.png (portable network graphics) format (.jpg is lossy and lacks a few useful features). Pros and high end amateurs should explore the.tiff format. I don't think anyone would consider.raw a suitable long term archival format.
The.xcf format might become the format of choice for archiving, it offers a lot of advantages. But it is probably 5 years too soon to judge its staying power.
It is another type of photoshopping. And I mean this in a good way.
A perfect photo does not need any help, but how many of them have you, or anyone you have known-- even the professionals-- ever taken? All other photos can benefit from a little post work.
Printing to canvas or some other texture can make an almost-good photograph look wonderful, and a would-be-perfect-except-for-something look exceptional. We are talking art here, not a precisely accurate reproduction of reality.
Using Photoshop or the Gnu Image Manipulation Program to do the post work really well is not an option for hobbyists with thousands of photos to process and no time to devote to learning all the techniques. Printing to a textured surface is a quick and easy way to often get better results than what comes straight out of the camera.
What has been spent on these has probably been well spent. We now have 180+ F-22 fighters that are more than a match for anything that China or any other nation can put into production in the next 30 years.
But as anyone who bothered to RTFA would know, the remainder of the F-22 program, to build the fleet to 600 planes, has been canceled. Which makes perfect sense, as there is no need for any more of them within the service life of the existing fleet.
Some money is still being spent on developing the fighters that will become the F-22 replacements. Most of these future fighter planes will likely be drones capable of mid air refueling by other drones, and with no finicky O2 systems to worry about. Oh, and drone pilots are very well protected from the perils of blackouts, hypoxia, and such, and are much better at keeping a cool head and making good decisions in the midst of aerial combat.
Keep practicing on them video games. You just might become a USAF ace fighter pilot when you grow up.... without ever having to leave your basement or go into the big room with the blue ceiling.
The loss of efficiency of using a pusher prop will be mostly offset by the gain in efficiency in using a canard wing. Traditional tails adjust the angle of attack of the lifting wing by exerting negative lift to pivot the plane around its center of lift. Canards use positive lift to adjust the angle of attack of the primary wing. IIRC, in a standard airplane on take off, the tail increases drag by something like 15%, enough to require a bigger engine than is needed for level flight. But a canard wing increases lift by usually around 20%, and putting the two together you can get a lot more performance out of a much smaller engine.
Not to mention the safety factor: canards can be designed to stall before the main wing does, resulting in porpoising rather than making like an auger.
Also IIRC, the main difficulty with canard designs has always been managing the control systems, which has required much more complex mechanical linkages than a traditional plane. But if you go to fly by wire, the computers would handle all of that (naturally you would have redundant computers).
I'd also like to see a comparison of amenities between this plane and its competition. With an electric motor and pusher prop, it probably cruises in silence. The pusher prop configuration probably also allows a more comfortable cabin. This might be the first luxury yacht of air travel.
I don't know that a person would necessarily "experience" RFI between components on a rack that were not properly shielded from each other. Moving a cheap portable AM radio around the rack might reveal a very bad problem, but would not rule out a milder problem that could still be causing corrupted signals. The computer users would not necessarily realize things were not right since the protocols are pretty much self-healing. It would just be that all that money put into a fancy system might be buying no better throughput than a cheap system would provide, as the system would be operating at much lower than 100% of its specified efficiencies as packets and data streams are rejected and repeated, etc.
It would be really nice if someone who knew a thing or two about signal processing in a noisy environment would jump here.
In the meantime, I would suggest that persons interested in putting bare MBs on a rack look into the reasons why standards compliant computer cases are built to be Faraday boxes.
This is a part of the technology I don't know and have no desire to learn. So maybe my question is stupid (there are stupid questions and I have asked them before).
How can you possibly manage RF interference between the MBs and components in an open rack system like PP describes? Chicken wire Faraday cages?? WTF???
"Now with this, you can CLEARLY see the glass is TWICE AS BIG AS IT NEEDS TO BE."
FTFY. (Original post, while somewhat humorous, was in the context of the optimist - pessimist continuum; correction recasts this into the engineering context of the rest of this discussion.)
That seems like consistent behavior to me. The problem with whistleblowers is that they won't necessarily limit themselves to mundane things like bribes and corruption, they might just as easily start giving out details on the clerical ecstasy of introducing young boys into the Sacred Mysteries.
This will be the Italian Inquisition. We should expect it to be much like the Spanish Inquisition, but instead of burning books there will be zapping Blackberries and iPads with staff weapons.
Oh, the humor will be different, too. Less wry; more pratfalls.
what happens if they make the delay like 5seconds and Alice and Bob actually tell Victor what their results are and Victor does the opposite?
This question is a variant of "What happens if the speed of light in a vacuum is only 1,500 miles per hour?"
In the physical universe, these and similar questions have no meaning; no meaning at all. In the realm of imagination, they can mean whatever you want them to mean. Parent poster has a good imagination. If he also has some skills with story telling, he might become a good scifi author. We can always use another of those.
PP's first point is undeniable. Slashdot has become home to a lot of high school know-it-alls, and of course geekdom has always had a large number of persons who retain their prepubescent inflated ego problems into their twenties and later.
The second point is not valid. With several nations now discussing lunar bases, Mars expeditions, middling high Earth orbit habitiations, etc, there is a lot of very common stuff that could be mined from asteroids very profitably. Ice in lunar orbit will be worth a great deal. Any oxides that could release O2 in solar furnaces would make a miner wealthy. An ounce of frozen methane Up There would be worth much more than an ounce of gold down here.
Asteroid miners are betting that China, India, the USA, or Russia-- or some private corporations-- will continue to move into space; that a market will develop for their goods near their point of sales. To me, this seems like a reasonable bet for a wealthy man. For if something disrupts human progress into space, it is going to disrupt any other investments a truly wealthy man could make.
A serious problem with these kinds of experimental structures is that they fail to take into account the indeterminate time of the observations.
It is not just that the states of the particles are indeterminate until they are observed; it is also true that the exact timing of the observations that collapse the probability waves are also indeterminate. The most we can say with any accuracy is that the observation occurred sometime before the article was published. But did each observation occur when it was recorded by an instrument, or at some moment after that, when the observer first saw the record? Until the record itself is seen, the recording is pretty much just another cat, isn't it? Or maybe the actual observation occurs some indeterminate time after the photons from the recording device were processed through the retina, the optic nerve, the visual cortex, and finally recognized by the observer's consciousness? Or perhaps the true observations do not happen until Alice, Bob, and Victor get together to talk it over; perhaps until then there is only uncertainty about what has happened / is happening since only until that time can each of the three be certain that no glitches interfered with the others' work.
So if we cannot accurately determine when the observations were actually made, nothing can be said about the order in which the events "really" occurred. "Really" most definitely in quotes here, since this whole discussion is about a region where reality is plastic, possibly fluid, and possibly not even there.
These kinds of experiments do not do QM justice; they are merely parlor trick exercises in trying to exclude the observer from the process so that QM could be treated like another simple model of levers and pulleys like all the best that classical physics has given to us. But the core of QM is that the consciousness of the observer is inherently bound up with the observation.
Physics needs to know a lot more about the process of observation before it can talk sensibly about a cat in a box, or whether the chicken preceded the egg.
Thanks for such an insightful summation of the problem!
I would have worded it a bit differently. I would have said that the problem is that UF is using a business model rather than the academic model you would normally expect from an institution that calls itself a University.
It is true that UF has given the world Gator Ade, but then it is also true that Gator Ade is now full of HFCS, which is not a very good thing to pour into the body of someone who is doing heavy exercise. UF has developed the faint, sweet odor of early corruption, like that emanating from a dead body that is not yet quite rotted enough to call carrion.
Right. And all of television is produced by 15 to 20 year old kids.
By and large, and excluding hiphop, culture is produced and distributed by middle aged persons. Kids are just consumers, and in general not very good in that role, either.
In the human species, there is a lot more to inheritance than mere genetics. You can lump together all the rest of it under the name "culture". It is cultural inheritance that allows groups of humans to thrive, even when individual members might be genetically crippled. And culture is both developed and passed on mostly by persons between the ages of 30 and 80.
Fah. Fortran is only good for abstract science stuff. To do anything in the real world, like managing the business end of a fleet of nuclear submarines, you need Cobol.
I learned Fortran the hard way: had to punch the cards myself. And empty the bit bucket at the end class (last period of the day).
Oh, for all the kiddies out there: FORTRAN for FORmula TRANslation: first compiled language, circa 1955. COBOL for COmmon Business Oriented Language: first real compiled language, circa 1960, developed with speed typists in mind. (Hence arithmetic operations were spelled out: "ADD", "MULTIPLY" rather than "+", "*". The bottlenecks were different back then.) Bit bucket: the tray under the punch card machine that caught the little bits that were punched out of the Hollerith cards. Later on, a guy named Chadless developed pre-perfed cards where the holes were made by folding back the tabs rather than punching through the card; these were called Chadless cards. So naturally the stuff that accumulated in the bit buckets of the older Hollerith punch machines became known as chad. (Loose chad was not good, it would get into the guts of the punch card machines and cause jams, or worse, get carried into the computer room itself in card decks, and break card readers and high speed tape machines.)
The One True, Right, and Only Way to do good programming is hand printing, not writing. On Cobol coding sheets. With every glyph properly in its own little box.
Do it right or the wrath of Grace will fall on you. Like maybe a whole millisecond of 10 gauge copper wire; that will weigh you down for sure.
Shouldn't there be a particle for height, width, depth?
Yeah, they exist, but they are in the realm of mathematicians, not particle physicists. Specifically in the mathematical subdomain of analytical geometry, where these particles are typically called "vectors". Any complex vector of arbitrary direction and length has been shown to be composed of three elemental vectors that, in informal discussions, are called "taller", "wider", and "thicker". (And there are also the anti-elementals of "shorter", "narrower", and "thinner"). It is conjectured that these elemental geometric particles are sufficient for modeling everything in Known Space. And also everything in all the best 3D games, too, for that matter.
Confabulistic nomenclature: it isn't just for particle physicists any more.
I RTFA for the same reason, and obtained the same result. But when I got deeper into TFA, I found that Cape Horn had mysteriously moved to Africa, and now I am confused. About how that could possibly have happened. And about whether any of the new knowledge I had gained could be trusted.
It takes a REALLY BIG wave to move that much geography that far, I guess.
I favor javascript as well for a first language. There will be trade-offs no matter which language he starts with. Javascript offers trade-offs that favor kids and new programmers at the expense of the rigor and formal approaches that the something like C would require. If he stays with programming, then he will need to learn more than can easily be done in javascript, but that is down the road and around the bend. If he never goes any further than javascript, he will still know a thing or two about tricking out a web site, etc, that will help him more clearly present himself in college, etc.
The best first language, though, is going to be the one being used by some project that he has gotten involved with. For example, Blender is a FOSS 3D modeler and animation package that has standardized on Python. There are some music - MIDI - mixing packages that use Perl. Some websites he might want to contribute to run on Rails. These all offer kid-accessible APIs that are like virtual Lego sets (for that matter, Lego's robotics are pretty cool, I think they use Forth). So maybe he should be encouraged to select a project and get his feet wet with whatever that project is using. If he ends up switching languages a few times as his interests change, so much the better. Learning how to quickly learn a programming language is a major skill set of its own.
If "open source" meant what you appear to think it means, you might have an argument. But since "open source" means the work is copyrighted and licensed for use in a very particular way, your argument is an attempt to carry water in an imaginary bucket.
That word does not mean what you think it means. Googling will help you improve your vocabulary. That will help you understand a little more about the world you live in.
There are mechanisms that have been in place for a long time that could be used to handle this.
One is barratry (wikipedia is fine for an intro, use its references to go deeper). This should be used more widely and more often right now.
Another is the process of disbarring lawyers who fashion suits that impede justice rather than seeking it. Make corporate lawyers personally responsible for the actions they take on behalf of their employers. They are supposed to be officers of the Court, and as such are supposed to put certain lawyerly ethics above their duties to their employers. If the worst 5% were permanently disbarred (and ideally tarred feathered, too) that would go along way toward getting the rest of them to grow a pair and tell the CEO where the line has to be drawn.
Slashdot Mirror
The best bet for long term preservation is digital storage by a third party that is focused on preserving the data that is put in its care. Yeah, I'm talking cloud here.
The other part of this is to put the images into a lossless format that will be around for a few decades, and is so broadly used that you can be sure there will be a means to migrate the images to the next format when the one you are currently using becomes obsolete. For most photos, that means converting to .png (portable network graphics) format (.jpg is lossy and lacks a few useful features). Pros and high end amateurs should explore the .tiff format. I don't think anyone would consider .raw a suitable long term archival format.
The .xcf format might become the format of choice for archiving, it offers a lot of advantages. But it is probably 5 years too soon to judge its staying power.
It is another type of photoshopping. And I mean this in a good way.
A perfect photo does not need any help, but how many of them have you, or anyone you have known-- even the professionals-- ever taken? All other photos can benefit from a little post work.
Printing to canvas or some other texture can make an almost-good photograph look wonderful, and a would-be-perfect-except-for-something look exceptional. We are talking art here, not a precisely accurate reproduction of reality.
Using Photoshop or the Gnu Image Manipulation Program to do the post work really well is not an option for hobbyists with thousands of photos to process and no time to devote to learning all the techniques. Printing to a textured surface is a quick and easy way to often get better results than what comes straight out of the camera.
What has been spent on these has probably been well spent. We now have 180+ F-22 fighters that are more than a match for anything that China or any other nation can put into production in the next 30 years.
But as anyone who bothered to RTFA would know, the remainder of the F-22 program, to build the fleet to 600 planes, has been canceled. Which makes perfect sense, as there is no need for any more of them within the service life of the existing fleet.
Some money is still being spent on developing the fighters that will become the F-22 replacements. Most of these future fighter planes will likely be drones capable of mid air refueling by other drones, and with no finicky O2 systems to worry about. Oh, and drone pilots are very well protected from the perils of blackouts, hypoxia, and such, and are much better at keeping a cool head and making good decisions in the midst of aerial combat.
Keep practicing on them video games. You just might become a USAF ace fighter pilot when you grow up.... without ever having to leave your basement or go into the big room with the blue ceiling.
Good points.
The loss of efficiency of using a pusher prop will be mostly offset by the gain in efficiency in using a canard wing. Traditional tails adjust the angle of attack of the lifting wing by exerting negative lift to pivot the plane around its center of lift. Canards use positive lift to adjust the angle of attack of the primary wing. IIRC, in a standard airplane on take off, the tail increases drag by something like 15%, enough to require a bigger engine than is needed for level flight. But a canard wing increases lift by usually around 20%, and putting the two together you can get a lot more performance out of a much smaller engine.
Not to mention the safety factor: canards can be designed to stall before the main wing does, resulting in porpoising rather than making like an auger.
Also IIRC, the main difficulty with canard designs has always been managing the control systems, which has required much more complex mechanical linkages than a traditional plane. But if you go to fly by wire, the computers would handle all of that (naturally you would have redundant computers).
I'd also like to see a comparison of amenities between this plane and its competition. With an electric motor and pusher prop, it probably cruises in silence. The pusher prop configuration probably also allows a more comfortable cabin. This might be the first luxury yacht of air travel.
I don't know that a person would necessarily "experience" RFI between components on a rack that were not properly shielded from each other. Moving a cheap portable AM radio around the rack might reveal a very bad problem, but would not rule out a milder problem that could still be causing corrupted signals. The computer users would not necessarily realize things were not right since the protocols are pretty much self-healing. It would just be that all that money put into a fancy system might be buying no better throughput than a cheap system would provide, as the system would be operating at much lower than 100% of its specified efficiencies as packets and data streams are rejected and repeated, etc.
It would be really nice if someone who knew a thing or two about signal processing in a noisy environment would jump here.
In the meantime, I would suggest that persons interested in putting bare MBs on a rack look into the reasons why standards compliant computer cases are built to be Faraday boxes.
This is a part of the technology I don't know and have no desire to learn. So maybe my question is stupid (there are stupid questions and I have asked them before).
How can you possibly manage RF interference between the MBs and components in an open rack system like PP describes? Chicken wire Faraday cages?? WTF???
"Now with this, you can CLEARLY see the glass is TWICE AS BIG AS IT NEEDS TO BE."
FTFY. (Original post, while somewhat humorous, was in the context of the optimist - pessimist continuum; correction recasts this into the engineering context of the rest of this discussion.)
That seems like consistent behavior to me. The problem with whistleblowers is that they won't necessarily limit themselves to mundane things like bribes and corruption, they might just as easily start giving out details on the clerical ecstasy of introducing young boys into the Sacred Mysteries.
And most of slashdot has read the Da Vinci Code, too. So the current activities of Opus Dei are of some interest to the community.
This will be the Italian Inquisition. We should expect it to be much like the Spanish Inquisition, but instead of burning books there will be zapping Blackberries and iPads with staff weapons.
Oh, the humor will be different, too. Less wry; more pratfalls.
what happens if they make the delay like 5seconds and Alice and Bob actually tell Victor what their results are and Victor does the opposite?
This question is a variant of "What happens if the speed of light in a vacuum is only 1,500 miles per hour?"
In the physical universe, these and similar questions have no meaning; no meaning at all. In the realm of imagination, they can mean whatever you want them to mean. Parent poster has a good imagination. If he also has some skills with story telling, he might become a good scifi author. We can always use another of those.
PP's first point is undeniable. Slashdot has become home to a lot of high school know-it-alls, and of course geekdom has always had a large number of persons who retain their prepubescent inflated ego problems into their twenties and later.
The second point is not valid. With several nations now discussing lunar bases, Mars expeditions, middling high Earth orbit habitiations, etc, there is a lot of very common stuff that could be mined from asteroids very profitably. Ice in lunar orbit will be worth a great deal. Any oxides that could release O2 in solar furnaces would make a miner wealthy. An ounce of frozen methane Up There would be worth much more than an ounce of gold down here.
Asteroid miners are betting that China, India, the USA, or Russia-- or some private corporations-- will continue to move into space; that a market will develop for their goods near their point of sales. To me, this seems like a reasonable bet for a wealthy man. For if something disrupts human progress into space, it is going to disrupt any other investments a truly wealthy man could make.
A serious problem with these kinds of experimental structures is that they fail to take into account the indeterminate time of the observations.
It is not just that the states of the particles are indeterminate until they are observed; it is also true that the exact timing of the observations that collapse the probability waves are also indeterminate. The most we can say with any accuracy is that the observation occurred sometime before the article was published. But did each observation occur when it was recorded by an instrument, or at some moment after that, when the observer first saw the record? Until the record itself is seen, the recording is pretty much just another cat, isn't it? Or maybe the actual observation occurs some indeterminate time after the photons from the recording device were processed through the retina, the optic nerve, the visual cortex, and finally recognized by the observer's consciousness? Or perhaps the true observations do not happen until Alice, Bob, and Victor get together to talk it over; perhaps until then there is only uncertainty about what has happened / is happening since only until that time can each of the three be certain that no glitches interfered with the others' work.
So if we cannot accurately determine when the observations were actually made, nothing can be said about the order in which the events "really" occurred. "Really" most definitely in quotes here, since this whole discussion is about a region where reality is plastic, possibly fluid, and possibly not even there.
These kinds of experiments do not do QM justice; they are merely parlor trick exercises in trying to exclude the observer from the process so that QM could be treated like another simple model of levers and pulleys like all the best that classical physics has given to us. But the core of QM is that the consciousness of the observer is inherently bound up with the observation.
Physics needs to know a lot more about the process of observation before it can talk sensibly about a cat in a box, or whether the chicken preceded the egg.
Thanks for such an insightful summation of the problem!
I would have worded it a bit differently. I would have said that the problem is that UF is using a business model rather than the academic model you would normally expect from an institution that calls itself a University.
It is true that UF has given the world Gator Ade, but then it is also true that Gator Ade is now full of HFCS, which is not a very good thing to pour into the body of someone who is doing heavy exercise. UF has developed the faint, sweet odor of early corruption, like that emanating from a dead body that is not yet quite rotted enough to call carrion.
Right. And all of television is produced by 15 to 20 year old kids.
By and large, and excluding hiphop, culture is produced and distributed by middle aged persons. Kids are just consumers, and in general not very good in that role, either.
In the human species, there is a lot more to inheritance than mere genetics. You can lump together all the rest of it under the name "culture". It is cultural inheritance that allows groups of humans to thrive, even when individual members might be genetically crippled. And culture is both developed and passed on mostly by persons between the ages of 30 and 80.
Fah. Fortran is only good for abstract science stuff. To do anything in the real world, like managing the business end of a fleet of nuclear submarines, you need Cobol.
I learned Fortran the hard way: had to punch the cards myself. And empty the bit bucket at the end class (last period of the day).
Oh, for all the kiddies out there: FORTRAN for FORmula TRANslation: first compiled language, circa 1955. COBOL for COmmon Business Oriented Language: first real compiled language, circa 1960, developed with speed typists in mind. (Hence arithmetic operations were spelled out: "ADD", "MULTIPLY" rather than "+", "*". The bottlenecks were different back then.) Bit bucket: the tray under the punch card machine that caught the little bits that were punched out of the Hollerith cards. Later on, a guy named Chadless developed pre-perfed cards where the holes were made by folding back the tabs rather than punching through the card; these were called Chadless cards. So naturally the stuff that accumulated in the bit buckets of the older Hollerith punch machines became known as chad. (Loose chad was not good, it would get into the guts of the punch card machines and cause jams, or worse, get carried into the computer room itself in card decks, and break card readers and high speed tape machines.)
Amateur slashdotters discuss memes. Professional slashdotters make memes.
Just taking this thread to its logical conclusion.
("Oh, him? He's a real meme-maker, he is. He got karma out the wazoo.")
Dang youngsters who think they know something...
The One True, Right, and Only Way to do good programming is hand printing, not writing. On Cobol coding sheets. With every glyph properly in its own little box.
Do it right or the wrath of Grace will fall on you. Like maybe a whole millisecond of 10 gauge copper wire; that will weigh you down for sure.
Shouldn't there be a particle for height, width, depth?
Yeah, they exist, but they are in the realm of mathematicians, not particle physicists. Specifically in the mathematical subdomain of analytical geometry, where these particles are typically called "vectors". Any complex vector of arbitrary direction and length has been shown to be composed of three elemental vectors that, in informal discussions, are called "taller", "wider", and "thicker". (And there are also the anti-elementals of "shorter", "narrower", and "thinner"). It is conjectured that these elemental geometric particles are sufficient for modeling everything in Known Space. And also everything in all the best 3D games, too, for that matter.
Confabulistic nomenclature: it isn't just for particle physicists any more.
I RTFA for the same reason, and obtained the same result. But when I got deeper into TFA, I found that Cape Horn had mysteriously moved to Africa, and now I am confused. About how that could possibly have happened. And about whether any of the new knowledge I had gained could be trusted.
It takes a REALLY BIG wave to move that much geography that far, I guess.
I have not looked at codeacademy.com, but I will.
I favor javascript as well for a first language. There will be trade-offs no matter which language he starts with. Javascript offers trade-offs that favor kids and new programmers at the expense of the rigor and formal approaches that the something like C would require. If he stays with programming, then he will need to learn more than can easily be done in javascript, but that is down the road and around the bend. If he never goes any further than javascript, he will still know a thing or two about tricking out a web site, etc, that will help him more clearly present himself in college, etc.
The best first language, though, is going to be the one being used by some project that he has gotten involved with. For example, Blender is a FOSS 3D modeler and animation package that has standardized on Python. There are some music - MIDI - mixing packages that use Perl. Some websites he might want to contribute to run on Rails. These all offer kid-accessible APIs that are like virtual Lego sets (for that matter, Lego's robotics are pretty cool, I think they use Forth). So maybe he should be encouraged to select a project and get his feet wet with whatever that project is using. If he ends up switching languages a few times as his interests change, so much the better. Learning how to quickly learn a programming language is a major skill set of its own.
If "open source" meant what you appear to think it means, you might have an argument. But since "open source" means the work is copyrighted and licensed for use in a very particular way, your argument is an attempt to carry water in an imaginary bucket.
That word does not mean what you think it means. Googling will help you improve your vocabulary. That will help you understand a little more about the world you live in.
There are mechanisms that have been in place for a long time that could be used to handle this.
One is barratry (wikipedia is fine for an intro, use its references to go deeper). This should be used more widely and more often right now.
Another is the process of disbarring lawyers who fashion suits that impede justice rather than seeking it. Make corporate lawyers personally responsible for the actions they take on behalf of their employers. They are supposed to be officers of the Court, and as such are supposed to put certain lawyerly ethics above their duties to their employers. If the worst 5% were permanently disbarred (and ideally tarred feathered, too) that would go along way toward getting the rest of them to grow a pair and tell the CEO where the line has to be drawn.