(The Dewey-Truman? election was a newspaper screw up)
In stats class they told us the Dewey/Truman fiasco was because they called potential voters. Since phones were still expensive, and poor people still voted along their self interest, most Democrats were skipped. Bad random sampling.
"Life expectancy" is an average value that takes into account the length of time that everyone lives, regardless of cause of death, and like all averages without any other context this can skew your perception. It's not that people died of "old age" at around 40 (presumably due to the harsh life they lived), they could easily live to be 60, 70, or even older. It's that a huge number of people died when they were very young, dragging down the average. What that 40 year life expectancy is really showing you is the effect of the extremely high infant mortality rate in that period.
You're right that when most people say "Life expectancy" they mean at birth. However, life expectancy changes as a person ages, as the remaining amount of time a person will live (on average). To correct for high infant mortality, the life expectancy can be taken at 5 or 10 years. In this case, the numbers indicate that 40 years was excluding the infant morality. Please note, this numbers are when the Black Plague was at its least virulent.
Just hope they're using signed ints to store that value.
Actually, I think they use floats. See, I wrote this program to - everytime there is a transaction where interest is computed, and there are millions a day, this program rounds it down to the nearest cent and puts the remainder in an account...
Yes, I was explaining about the United States. In response to your second paragraph, no I do no think states should take over those functions. My point was that we already have a national government to corrdinate activites of the several states. In fact, locking all the states together prevents the problem of richer states opting out (see the great-grandparent).
And yes, I am familiar with enumerated powers. However, there are two main issues. First, I would contend that all of the things I mentioned fall under the scopes of the commerce cause. In addition, I would contend that both social services and education are rights under the 9th amendment, which the 14th gives the federal government authority over the states to enforce.
Secondly, please remember that the Constitution, while brilliant, is not Holy Writ. Things such as slavery were allowed in order to allow disparate states to come together to form one nation. The 10th amendment is for a similar purpose. While I do agree a careful balance has to be struck between state's rights and federal rights, but I think that an expansive reading of the commerce clause is vital because of the intertwined nature of the economy.
Funny, I've never heard the Governor of a state say "We here in Hickstate are too stoopid to figure out how to lurn our kids - we need the Feds to tell us this". Instead it sounds more like "We here in Hickstate want money forcibly extracted from any state but Hickstate to help pay to educate our kids". States are free to band together to share R&D costs of education if they wish to, the Feds are not needed for that and the Constitution doesn't give them the power to IMHO.
Yes, some States could band together to share the costs of education, maybe even a whole host of other things. They could start sharing other things too, like funds for developing militias (and even training them together), social services, delegations to other countries to try to advance the collectives goals throughout the world. They could set standards for food safety and a whole host of other issues. Hmmm, I wonder what that collective entity could call themselves. They are a collection of States in America. The Collected States of America? Nah, I'll think of it later...
I understand the concept of a presidental pardon. However, you failed to address my two objections to your plan. First and foremost, I do not know whether a president can issue a pardon for a crime against a state. 2.2 says a crime against the United States. Since many drug laws are state laws, it seems a valid question. The second point is the concept that you would pardon anyone not paying taxes. While that would make what they did not a crime, and you could forgive their fines, that does not translate to forgiving their debt (and interest upon it.) In fact, since the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt, this would prevent those people from later challenging the IRS's claims of what they owe. A lot of people would get screwed over.
I would commute the sentences of all non-violent drug offenders to time served. Actually, I would give the states and federal persecutors 10 days identify any non-violent drug offenders who's sentences should _not_ be commuted and commute the sentences of the rest. To convince me the sentences should not be commuted, I will require a ten page hand written essay explaining why in each case. That will limit the exceptions to the ones persecutors really care about.
Can the president grant a pardon for a state crime?
I would publicly pledge amnesty to all individuals who decline to pay federal income tax while I am president. I expect total federal revenue to drop by 1/3 to 1/2.
The president doesn't have this power. While you could pardon them so that their jailtime was waived, and penalities, the president cannot forgive their debt or interest on their debt. You could not collect it for your term, but once that ended...
I would submit a budget to congress that only spends 1/3 to 1/2 of the 2007 budget.
What would you cut?
Labor obeys the laws of supply and demand just like every other economic transaction. When there are no more jobs for immigrants, they will stop coming on their own.
Because most immigrents have access to American unemployment stats? Or are you merely in favor of this country losing all allure to the rest of the world? Because ceasing to be (assuming we still are) the world economic powerhouse seems like a big price to pay to keep foreigners out.
Attempts to limit the work force are like any other supply or price controls. They distort the system and are inefficient by definition. I would declare amnesty for any employer who pays less than minimum wage. The minimum wage is a price control and therefore bad by definition.
This is just false. Price controls are not inefficent by definition. Numerous market failures require price controls. The law of supply and demand does not automatically lead to efficency except for in idealized Econ 101 experiments refuted in Econ 102.
Secondly, you assume that paying people very little, and then forcing other people to take care of them (churches, etc.) is somehow more efficent, merely because the company hiring them doesn't pay. Someone has to giv ethem the money so they can eat, etc.?
When was science not in the classroom? The jackasses in Kansas got booted out in the next election. I went to school in the south, and in the biology class the teacher introducing evolution had a line that went something like, "Some people, me included, believe in a divine creation of the world in 6 days. You don't have to believe the theory of evolution. But you have to learn the scientific theory of it and understand the evidence for it." End of discussion of creationism.
This one is irrelevant. The weapons the hijackers used were not sneaked onto the the plane. As far as I know, they used knives within the legal size limit. I also doubt the veraciity of your claim. It is harded to bring toiletries on a plane now though.
Yes, the locks are now in the full upright and bolted position.
This last one is the most important and entirely sufficent. Before 9/11, passengers were told to let hijackers control the plane, because a fight would prove more dangerous than giving in. Handle them on the ground was the motto. Now that SOP has changed, there is zero risk of another 9/11, absent any other changes.
The package management is horrible in Windows. I don't understand how Linux and OS X do it, but I do know that I would design a different system. How do the others handle packages? There seem to be shared resources that all packages need, e.g. fonts, codecs. There also seem to be interactions between packages (Like within the Office or Creative Suite bundles) that it would be nice to generalize. There is also the difficult process of breaking up of global information a program will need (the binary code), and the individual user settings (for each of the 8 users on this machine). I'm sure there are other concerns that have not yet occured to me.
Obviously, these are all problems with many solutions. I'm just curious how non-Windows OS's handle them.
POHM being a resistance of 10e15 ohms? The amount of voltage that will be required to power that computer, even at minute amperage, will certainly be too lethal to let children play with it.
Actually, I think the boss case falls into "vote buying" in the broad sense. The boss is providing "valuable consideration" (you keeping your job) in exchange for you voting a specific way.
Only in the same way that sexual harrassment laws are the same as solicitation laws. But in Nevada, where prostitution is legal, sexual harassment laws are still on the books. Why? Because your boss pays you for your labor, and not everything related to your life. And all that assumes that the company paying the money supports its funds going to getting your boss's brother elected mayor.
For example, the "Start" menu still puts programs into subfolders named after the company that manufactures the program. Which is a pure marketing stint and is horrible for every regular computer user who really couldn't care less what the company is named.
Ahhh... now we reach the heart of the problem. The issue is always, as Ballmer so elloquently put, developers. When you build a Windows installation, you choose what subdirectory (subfolder, whatever they call it) it is placed in by default. So you can put it under your company name (when I build installs, I am told to). You can put it under the product name. You can put it in the root. And, the user can always open the start menu and rearrange/rename the shortcuts.
The same thing with all the Vista popups. Poorly written Windows software, using Admin privledges unnecessarily.
Flash suffers from the same stigma, because many people who can "write" a Flash application cannot write a Flash application. The problem is that its what unintelligent people start playing with it, and they use the tools improperly.
I daresay, if Linux on the Desktop became a reality tomorrow, the same issues will pop up. Companies trying their best to brand your computer when you install their software. Poorly written apps thinking they "need" admin privledges. In fact, on the latter, you can thank Microsoft for taking all the PR blame while programmers around the world learn that "Hello World" doesn't need admin access.
I don't mean to imply that the Windows UI is perfect. And some ideas, such as the registry were either poorly implemented or inferior to an alternate solution. It's just that, at the OS level, I haven't really seen any advantages of OSX/Linux. With the obvious exception of how security is handled.
You do realize that term "windos" correctly only applies to Windows OS's not built on the NT kernal, that is Win followed by a number, up to 2000. XP is based on the NT kernal, and thus, while it has a command line interface, is not a GUI wrapped around a command line OS.
Maybe it's only because I am more familiar with it, but I don't see any real issues with the Windows GUI. By contrast, I find OS X nigh impossible to change any settings on. Linux made sense to me but required too much thinking. What I think is one of the strenghts of the Windows GUI as opposed to Linux or OS X is the numerous paradigms that are all concurently supported. I found one that works for me.
Since you listed your conversion experiences, here are mine:
Windows 95 -> Mac OS Something - I used both at the same, don't remember the comparison. I didn't own the Mac, so I continued the windows path.
Windows XP -> Linux (I think Redhat, I think KDE, but maybe Gnome as a GUI): GUI felt like a cheap knockoff of Windows. The functionality was nice, but I primarily used it to set up boxes I didn't have to look at all day long.
Windows XP -> Mac OS X: The opposite of Linux, I felt like it was a smooth GUI where the functionality was all hidden. Always disliked viscerally the concept of the menu at the top changing as opposed to one menu per app window. Disliked how hard it was to tell how a file would open. Also found the mounting of additional disks to be confusing. But what killed my experiments was the background defragmenting. No, bad computer. *hits box with newspaper*
In addition to the $500,000 prize, Clear will commit to a contract for the capital investment and operating costs necessary to deploy the winning checkpoint at every Clear checkpoint where the solution is accepted for installation by the airport and the TSA, the company stated.
Clear is the company. As it reads, it seems that they will purchase it from the competitor. This is confirmed with this quote from their press release accompanying the contest announcement.
Clear has promised that the winning teams technology will be purchased in bulk, once approved for use by the Transportation Security Administration at any airport where Clear operates fast pass lanes.
And I am serious. I know a few people whose first computing experiences were not windos. To a man (or woman, in some cases) when they "met" windos later on they found it horrible and hard to use.
And my first computing experience was not a Mac. And when I "met" mac OS 7 or whatever, I found it horrible and hard to use. It made sense, and was better designed in some ways, but I would have given up on it if I had not been forced to use it. Change is hard. The idea of chording the keyboard and mouse is good, but is different from what most people use.
I use a QWERTY keyboard, because I type quickly on it. If I learned to use a DVORAK keyboard, it might be faster, but learning curves are expensive.
The point I am trying to get to is that there is no "untainted" view, and to imply that people dislike something different makes it worse is a horrible argument. And a horrible argument makes it sound like you have no better ones. Surely you don't mean to imply that...
Like most government million-dollar prizes (such as for the next-generation of battery technology), the prize is a bonus. The government, or in this case the security company, also agrees to purchase X units at whatever it costs you to build (including start-up costs, and usually a profit margin of 6-10%). So, if you have a good idea, and invest your time in making it work, the company will end up giving you millions, but you know that $500,000 will be upfront as an interim reward.
The thing is, those also don't necessarily show that people are irrational because they make the some utility/money conflation that was my other point. It's entirely possible that the personal happiness people get out of not feeling ripped off or not letting someone "get one over on them" is worth more (utility-wise) to them than the monetary difference there. To its credit, the page you link discusses that possibility.
True, there may be a psychological reason why people do make that decision. After all, people don't make random decisions. However, whatever psychological need it fills people to be vindictive, it still is irrational. The point is that given the choice between having a dollar and not having a dollar, it is irrational not to want the dollar when you get no concrete benefit the other way. While people may behave rationally given irrational utility functions, the crux of the argument doesn't change.
Now, I have huge issues with other parts of Econ 101 where professors fail to recognize that their definitions are self-contradictory and/or the problems are entirely in their models. A perfect example of this is extolling the free-market while preaching privatization of natural resources to reduce externalities, ignoring other possibilities such as government intervention.
P.S. As a side note, I went beyond Econ 101, and I may be confusing that class with others.
(The whole thing is busted, and strikes me as akin to Econ 101 arguments about people being non-rational; classes often start off talking about utility functions, then switch to dollars for simplification of math, then go on to point out that people aren't rational because they won't bet their $1,000,000 life savings on a 100-to-1 shot at $100,000,001--without recognizing all the lectures they've just gone through about how the marginal value of someone's first dollar is greater than the next and that utility is not actually equal to dollars. No, people don't always behave economically rationally. But them not agreeing with your bogus definitions isn't an example of that)
No, there are other Econ arguments about people being irrational, such as the studies that show people are vindictive (are willing to impose a cost on themselves to impose a greater cost as punishment on someone else, taking into account the value to them of deterence.) But your critique is horribly wrong. The marginal value of a dollar is used to justify why people are rational about not risking their life savings. But maybe you had a shitty Econ 101 professor.
I apologize about General Relativity. I was attempting to illustrate the seeking of knowledge that offers no practical value. Obviously, I misjudged because of GPS. I suppose the satellites are moving amazing fast.
I do understand the difference between science and theology, but I believe that both are legitimite fields of study, even if one examines evidence and one examines philosophy.
While many religions list ethical norms, my point is they are far more compatible than anyone cares to admit. I don't know of any polytheistic religions that include a prohibit belief in competing religions, and I already addressed the big monotheisms. Polytheism tends to mandate various sacrifices or you risk angering the deities, which has some effect on the world, but certainly not in a predictable way.
The thing about statements that can't be falsified is that they have 0 predictive power. True or false, it doesn't matter: no reason to care.
To the best of my understanding, Newtonian mechanics are entirely sufficent to predict mechanics on earth. Why waste time examining General Relativity, true or false (and it seems true) it doesn't matter: no reason to care.
Now, General Relativity has been indicated to be true by unmanned probes, but it doesn't really affect anything on earth. So it is academic. As is theology. But some people find it interesting.
OK, let's say that God exists. Which one? We've imagined about a million of em. Pick the wrong one and you go to Hell for sure.
That's utter bullshit. Polytheistic religions typically include no punishment for religious beliefs. Judism claims any monotheism will do. Islam claims that Judism, Christianity or Islam will do. Both claim to be the correct one, but don't really have a sense of believe this or be damned. And, I am less well versed in Christianity, but Catholicism even has at least one Jewish saint, and a belief that good non-Christian people can go to heaven. Don't know about the various forms of Protesantism, Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox feel.
Hell, a lot of religions don't even have a concept of hell. If the Hindus are right, then you're just on a loop.
Slashdot Mirror
In stats class they told us the Dewey/Truman fiasco was because they called potential voters. Since phones were still expensive, and poor people still voted along their self interest, most Democrats were skipped. Bad random sampling.
You're right that when most people say "Life expectancy" they mean at birth. However, life expectancy changes as a person ages, as the remaining amount of time a person will live (on average). To correct for high infant mortality, the life expectancy can be taken at 5 or 10 years. In this case, the numbers indicate that 40 years was excluding the infant morality. Please note, this numbers are when the Black Plague was at its least virulent.
Age Remaining Total 00 31.3 31.3 10 32.2 42.2 20 25.2 45.2 30 21.8 51.8 40 16.6 56.6 60 08.3 68.3 80 03.8 83.8Actually, I think they use floats. See, I wrote this program to - everytime there is a transaction where interest is computed, and there are millions a day, this program rounds it down to the nearest cent and puts the remainder in an account...
I can get a thirty-year $250,000 loan with monthly payments of -$1,200.
Yes, I was explaining about the United States. In response to your second paragraph, no I do no think states should take over those functions. My point was that we already have a national government to corrdinate activites of the several states. In fact, locking all the states together prevents the problem of richer states opting out (see the great-grandparent).
And yes, I am familiar with enumerated powers. However, there are two main issues. First, I would contend that all of the things I mentioned fall under the scopes of the commerce cause. In addition, I would contend that both social services and education are rights under the 9th amendment, which the 14th gives the federal government authority over the states to enforce.
Secondly, please remember that the Constitution, while brilliant, is not Holy Writ. Things such as slavery were allowed in order to allow disparate states to come together to form one nation. The 10th amendment is for a similar purpose. While I do agree a careful balance has to be struck between state's rights and federal rights, but I think that an expansive reading of the commerce clause is vital because of the intertwined nature of the economy.
Yes, some States could band together to share the costs of education, maybe even a whole host of other things. They could start sharing other things too, like funds for developing militias (and even training them together), social services, delegations to other countries to try to advance the collectives goals throughout the world. They could set standards for food safety and a whole host of other issues. Hmmm, I wonder what that collective entity could call themselves. They are a collection of States in America. The Collected States of America? Nah, I'll think of it later...
I understand the concept of a presidental pardon. However, you failed to address my two objections to your plan. First and foremost, I do not know whether a president can issue a pardon for a crime against a state. 2.2 says a crime against the United States. Since many drug laws are state laws, it seems a valid question. The second point is the concept that you would pardon anyone not paying taxes. While that would make what they did not a crime, and you could forgive their fines, that does not translate to forgiving their debt (and interest upon it.) In fact, since the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt, this would prevent those people from later challenging the IRS's claims of what they owe. A lot of people would get screwed over.
Can the president grant a pardon for a state crime?
The president doesn't have this power. While you could pardon them so that their jailtime was waived, and penalities, the president cannot forgive their debt or interest on their debt. You could not collect it for your term, but once that ended...
What would you cut?
Because most immigrents have access to American unemployment stats? Or are you merely in favor of this country losing all allure to the rest of the world? Because ceasing to be (assuming we still are) the world economic powerhouse seems like a big price to pay to keep foreigners out.
This is just false. Price controls are not inefficent by definition. Numerous market failures require price controls. The law of supply and demand does not automatically lead to efficency except for in idealized Econ 101 experiments refuted in Econ 102.
Secondly, you assume that paying people very little, and then forcing other people to take care of them (churches, etc.) is somehow more efficent, merely because the company hiring them doesn't pay. Someone has to giv ethem the money so they can eat, etc.?
When was science not in the classroom? The jackasses in Kansas got booted out in the next election. I went to school in the south, and in the biology class the teacher introducing evolution had a line that went something like, "Some people, me included, believe in a divine creation of the world in 6 days. You don't have to believe the theory of evolution. But you have to learn the scientific theory of it and understand the evidence for it." End of discussion of creationism.
The package management is horrible in Windows. I don't understand how Linux and OS X do it, but I do know that I would design a different system. How do the others handle packages? There seem to be shared resources that all packages need, e.g. fonts, codecs. There also seem to be interactions between packages (Like within the Office or Creative Suite bundles) that it would be nice to generalize. There is also the difficult process of breaking up of global information a program will need (the binary code), and the individual user settings (for each of the 8 users on this machine). I'm sure there are other concerns that have not yet occured to me.
Obviously, these are all problems with many solutions. I'm just curious how non-Windows OS's handle them.
POHM being a resistance of 10e15 ohms? The amount of voltage that will be required to power that computer, even at minute amperage, will certainly be too lethal to let children play with it.
Only in the same way that sexual harrassment laws are the same as solicitation laws. But in Nevada, where prostitution is legal, sexual harassment laws are still on the books. Why? Because your boss pays you for your labor, and not everything related to your life. And all that assumes that the company paying the money supports its funds going to getting your boss's brother elected mayor.
Ahhh... now we reach the heart of the problem. The issue is always, as Ballmer so elloquently put, developers. When you build a Windows installation, you choose what subdirectory (subfolder, whatever they call it) it is placed in by default. So you can put it under your company name (when I build installs, I am told to). You can put it under the product name. You can put it in the root. And, the user can always open the start menu and rearrange/rename the shortcuts.
The same thing with all the Vista popups. Poorly written Windows software, using Admin privledges unnecessarily.
Flash suffers from the same stigma, because many people who can "write" a Flash application cannot write a Flash application. The problem is that its what unintelligent people start playing with it, and they use the tools improperly.
I daresay, if Linux on the Desktop became a reality tomorrow, the same issues will pop up. Companies trying their best to brand your computer when you install their software. Poorly written apps thinking they "need" admin privledges. In fact, on the latter, you can thank Microsoft for taking all the PR blame while programmers around the world learn that "Hello World" doesn't need admin access.
I don't mean to imply that the Windows UI is perfect. And some ideas, such as the registry were either poorly implemented or inferior to an alternate solution. It's just that, at the OS level, I haven't really seen any advantages of OSX/Linux. With the obvious exception of how security is handled.
You do realize that term "windos" correctly only applies to Windows OS's not built on the NT kernal, that is Win followed by a number, up to 2000. XP is based on the NT kernal, and thus, while it has a command line interface, is not a GUI wrapped around a command line OS.
Maybe it's only because I am more familiar with it, but I don't see any real issues with the Windows GUI. By contrast, I find OS X nigh impossible to change any settings on. Linux made sense to me but required too much thinking. What I think is one of the strenghts of the Windows GUI as opposed to Linux or OS X is the numerous paradigms that are all concurently supported. I found one that works for me.
Since you listed your conversion experiences, here are mine:
From TFA:
Clear is the company. As it reads, it seems that they will purchase it from the competitor. This is confirmed with this quote from their press release accompanying the contest announcement.
And my first computing experience was not a Mac. And when I "met" mac OS 7 or whatever, I found it horrible and hard to use. It made sense, and was better designed in some ways, but I would have given up on it if I had not been forced to use it. Change is hard. The idea of chording the keyboard and mouse is good, but is different from what most people use.
I use a QWERTY keyboard, because I type quickly on it. If I learned to use a DVORAK keyboard, it might be faster, but learning curves are expensive.
The point I am trying to get to is that there is no "untainted" view, and to imply that people dislike something different makes it worse is a horrible argument. And a horrible argument makes it sound like you have no better ones. Surely you don't mean to imply that...
So your point of view is that suicidal terrorists will somehow dislike the idea of getting into a pitched gunfight on a crowded airliner?
Won't your face be red the first time someone sneaks [insert weapon] on a plane up their bum.
Like most government million-dollar prizes (such as for the next-generation of battery technology), the prize is a bonus. The government, or in this case the security company, also agrees to purchase X units at whatever it costs you to build (including start-up costs, and usually a profit margin of 6-10%). So, if you have a good idea, and invest your time in making it work, the company will end up giving you millions, but you know that $500,000 will be upfront as an interim reward.
True, there may be a psychological reason why people do make that decision. After all, people don't make random decisions. However, whatever psychological need it fills people to be vindictive, it still is irrational. The point is that given the choice between having a dollar and not having a dollar, it is irrational not to want the dollar when you get no concrete benefit the other way. While people may behave rationally given irrational utility functions, the crux of the argument doesn't change.
Now, I have huge issues with other parts of Econ 101 where professors fail to recognize that their definitions are self-contradictory and/or the problems are entirely in their models. A perfect example of this is extolling the free-market while preaching privatization of natural resources to reduce externalities, ignoring other possibilities such as government intervention.
P.S. As a side note, I went beyond Econ 101, and I may be confusing that class with others.
Wouldn't that make glass, or at best quartz?
No, there are other Econ arguments about people being irrational, such as the studies that show people are vindictive (are willing to impose a cost on themselves to impose a greater cost as punishment on someone else, taking into account the value to them of deterence.) But your critique is horribly wrong. The marginal value of a dollar is used to justify why people are rational about not risking their life savings. But maybe you had a shitty Econ 101 professor.
I apologize about General Relativity. I was attempting to illustrate the seeking of knowledge that offers no practical value. Obviously, I misjudged because of GPS. I suppose the satellites are moving amazing fast.
I do understand the difference between science and theology, but I believe that both are legitimite fields of study, even if one examines evidence and one examines philosophy.
While many religions list ethical norms, my point is they are far more compatible than anyone cares to admit. I don't know of any polytheistic religions that include a prohibit belief in competing religions, and I already addressed the big monotheisms. Polytheism tends to mandate various sacrifices or you risk angering the deities, which has some effect on the world, but certainly not in a predictable way.
To the best of my understanding, Newtonian mechanics are entirely sufficent to predict mechanics on earth. Why waste time examining General Relativity, true or false (and it seems true) it doesn't matter: no reason to care.
Now, General Relativity has been indicated to be true by unmanned probes, but it doesn't really affect anything on earth. So it is academic. As is theology. But some people find it interesting.
That's utter bullshit. Polytheistic religions typically include no punishment for religious beliefs. Judism claims any monotheism will do. Islam claims that Judism, Christianity or Islam will do. Both claim to be the correct one, but don't really have a sense of believe this or be damned. And, I am less well versed in Christianity, but Catholicism even has at least one Jewish saint, and a belief that good non-Christian people can go to heaven. Don't know about the various forms of Protesantism, Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox feel.
Hell, a lot of religions don't even have a concept of hell. If the Hindus are right, then you're just on a loop.