Oppression is as much a part of humanity as humanity itself.
You see... that is the thing.. no. Some countries, like US, England, Spain, France, Russia have a much richer history of oppressing both citizens and other countries than others. It seems to be a trait that concentrates into some tight areas of general assholery.
Yes. Every online service should have this option. I would even require it by law. I don't mind to pay for my privacy and my time. This was my main gripe with Hulu for example. There has to be price that will make it worth it for them not to show me ads. I want them to take my money, but no... there is no option of that. So I am not customer. No service without this option would have me as a customer.
That simply sounds like some journalist does not understand that there could be a world of difference between 1.7% and 1.9% for example and rounds both to 2%.
But this would show either in the way neanderthal DNA fragments in the present day humans. If these fragmentations occurred at different times, the present day DNA would be fragmented differently in different present day samples. Since that is not the case, either it happened in one period or the second case never merged again with the current lines, rendering that irrelevant to present day humans.
What you say makes no sense. If there were multiple mixings over large periods (we talk thousands of years) there would be uneven chopping of the DNA. Parts would be chopped more than other parts. Also if there were two mixings, but the two resulting groups never met, as your hypothesis assumes, than the second group that didn't result into modern humans is irrelevant. But good try at sounding smart.:)
And a president's chief of staff is usually the same person that runs his election. The fact that he campaigned on behalf of the president is only a positive, since we are not getting a random person who's views are not known at all. But the fact that NRA cannot have an anti-NRA person even on the position of Surgeon General, where most of doctors are clearly anti-gun with 32,000 gun related deaths. There are other better arguments I could make against him, but that is not the one the opposition is making. They simply say... anti-gun, doctors for america. So much bullshit.
The only reason why he is "not qualified" is that NRA decided they will "Score" this vote. Congress critters are afraid to tarnish their 100% NRA approved record. *sigh*
Whatsapp hired 14 engineers to make the company worth $19B. They were not 14 completely replaceable, run of the mill engineers, they were each unique and probably irreplaceable. The quality of those employees at that concentration, the fact they could be a small agile group, that was the reason they created so much value. If you want to create small predictable progress and run an enterprise with steady churn of cash, you might go the Cisco way, but you will never produce anything great or even just above average.
Why is this law breaking man still at large? Will nobody put this criminal behind bars where he belongs? Or are directors of tree letter agencies above the law?
If the CIA, NSA and other secret agencies were actually effective at their job and did what they profess to do efficiently and the oversight could just tamper with that efficiency, I might,... might... buy your argument. But they do not. They are wasting resources, producing no significant results and still want their secrecy. Maybe it is time we tried it differently.
It works pretty well on garden variety missiles. But Russian's got something quite different. Those things can deploy decoys, multiple warheads, and they fly at speeds that are extremely hard to intercept, From what I know, we are still pretty far off, thankfully. Once some general decides the shield is good enough, than nothing can save us.
Actually I have heard that. Politicians say stuff, but it is only if people find the general idea acceptable and repeat it themselves when the politician gets a license to act.
As for the particular case, you mentioned, it was actually in response to US actions. First US government announced that they will start modernizing all Nuclear weapons, the Russian's announced the same a week later in response. The mention of Nuclear weapons on Russian side, at least the one I noticed, was in response to growing number of articles and statements advocating conventional war against Russia. They were simply reminding people that Russia is in fact one of the Nuclear powers and it is a Nuclear War that is at stake when attacking Russia. Seemed like a deterrent to me, but there might have been different statement I did not notice.
The anti-missile shield is nowhere close to functional. It might stop single missile by a rogue nation, maybe, but Russian ICBMs are a very different beast. There is no chance now or in reasonably close future this will be a problem. But there were treaties between Russia and US that expressly forbid development and deployment of this technology. Chief among them the one that prevented Cuban Missile Crisis. (Never understood, why that one was not called a Turkey Missile Crisis, since it started by US deploying Nuclear Warheads in Turkey). Anyway.
The chance of US invading Russia is growing though. They do all the steps that seem necessary for it. They got the 15 aircraft carries that can be used as mobile bases for air strikes. They secured full control over the Baltic Sea (to strike at Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg) and they tried through converting Ukraine and Georgia to secure full control over the Black Sea to get striking distance on Moscow. That was temporarily unsuccessful due to the Crimea issue. On top of this you got the shield project. So the moment the shield would be actually working, they might be ready for strike. Also, once you remove Russia's conventional means of defense, you leave them with ONLY the nuclear option. You could argue that with strictly conventional attack Russia might have a problem of using them first. It is a hard choice at that point. Do you let all your people die or do you try to defend conventionally and hope at least some will survive and rebuild... forcing this moral dilemma could be a way to win such strike. Despite what everyone keeps repeating about Putin, he has two soft spots. He is very nationalistic and proud of his people and he is conservative pro-life politician. I don't think he would have it in him to press the red button and start Nuclear War. So he does his very best so he would never get into a situation where he would have to make that impossible choice.
You know what is in my mind the most telling difference between Russians and Americans? Every single one of my American friends has at one point or another said something to the tune: "Let's nuke them!" in one situation or the other. I've not heard a talk like that from any of the Russians I know. Might be just my own experience, but I have plenty enough friends on both sides for it to count for something.
Uhhh, ok.... Been watching a lot of Russia Today, have we?
Please, RT is pure propaganda, most of this information comes from Reuters, AP and White House press briefings directly. But after you've seen few of these, you just know how to put information in context. If you learn how to translate text to emotionally neutral terms, the facts come out from horse's mouth. All you got to do is listen.
Ok, I was trying to be brief. Yes, right after the coup, it was Arseniy Yatsenyuk who was installed as prime minister. Petro Poroshenko indeed won election that was held in part of the country, which supported him and not in the part where he would lose as there was a civil war going. Hardly a free election. That's like saying that during the US civil war, the US had an election in confederate states and Jefferson Davis was the legitimate president of US. In a word - laughable. Here is the call where Nuland and Pyatt decide on who will be in the Ukraine government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... They agree to Yatsenyuk, but say Klitschko should stay out of it. That's exactly how it happened. Here is where they admit to finance the opposition to the tune of $5 bln USD - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... check at 7:45
But as I said, the result of this will not be apparent to many people for a while. In 2-5 years the involvement will be clear, probably well documented and in another 20-30 years, US will admit to its role. So far it's just propaganda full steam from all sides. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out.
Communism and dictatorship orthogonal to each other. One can exist without the other.
Dictatorship can exist without Communism, yes — Sulla was one example, Pinochet was another. Communism, on the other hand, can not exist without dictatorship — its economic ineptitude is such, that people revolt very quickly unless the Communists manage to gain dictatorial power.
Oh my, were to start. The earliest example of known working communism was 1415 to 1436 in Bohemia - the Husites, early protestants. They withstood and defeated 5 crusades sent against them until they eventually got defeated. There was no dictatorship, the commune was self organized, the military very well run. Everyone contributed to his ability, everyone's needs were met. There were some examples with Vikings and even earlier in other places, but not documented. You are just ignorant of those, only knowing very recent history and only from US perspective.
communism was never reached, never even tried for, in the authoritarian socialist republics. Socialism by itself is thriving and well in Europe in Sweden, Danmark, Finland, France, and others
Your attempts to distinguish between Socialism and Communism are silly — Socialism is nothing but "Communism-lite". Says so in "Das Kapital"...
Those are the countries with some of the highest standards of living.
No, they aren't — their apartments and cars are smaller, and everything (that is not subsidized) is more expensive. And what good they do have, is despite their Socialism, not thanks to it.
You can try to talk to many of the socialist democratic parties throughout Europe. Socialism is quite different from communism, as it rewards contribution. That is a major issue. It simply requires everyone to pitch in and the profits to be shared based on contribution. So it does not clash with free trade, private property, etc. There is some redistributon, aimed at social benefits, but US has taxes too. It just uses them very badly.
As for the standard of living, if you are in the bottom 50%, you will be so much better off in Europe than in US it is almost ridiculous how big the difference is. If you are a child born in the bottom 50% in EU, you got a chance on decent life, any life even the very top, in US you can just dream about it. Your chance is so small as to border on none.
The rest of your comments are similarly misinformed.
Shkolota, my knowledge of history and politics far exceeds yours — and even that of your Kremlin handlers:-)
This is so funny. I am from EU, live in US last 15 years. I've studied 3 view points on history and politics (US, EU, RU), but I've never been to Russia, spent my adult life in US. Hard to imagine how people can even debate with you, when every opinion distinct from yours has to be from agent of Kremlin:) Paranoid much?
Give it couple years. Honestly, military or covert action, the result is the same. The military came right after the covert action, there are hundreds of US "advisors" operating there right now. As for "mad" part, he's started a civil war, killed 3500 people so far and started to enact laws to oppress minorities. I'd say it qualifies. Also he's set private mercenary bands uncontrolled by the government against civilian population in the process. Many of which left mass graves in their wakes, bodies are being exhumed that died execution style with bullet to head from short distance, this spells war crimes to me.
Russia and China would very likely not object to it. Israel would very likely object to being wiped with the rest of Muslim world. Europe would object to the worst genocide in planet's history. The rest of the would would see US using Nuclear weapons at will and rise up in arms. The only alternative to US nuclear arsenal is Russia and China, so the rest of the world would turn toward them. They would immediately cease the opportunity, build a world coalition against US. Half of US citizens would raise in arms against its own government as well. In either case, whatever would the day after look like in North America, it would be interesting.
Meaningless difference — communism is bad because of the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Wherever attempted in earnest, Communism resulted in millions of dead and utter devastation for the survivors, who are left without both human rights (a given with any Collectivist ideology) and any material wealth.
This is patently untrue. Communism and dictatorship orthogonal to each other. One can exist without the other. Further, what you refer to was a socialism, communism was never reached, never even tried for, in the authoritarian socialist republics. Socialism by itself is thriving and well in Europe in Sweden, Danmark, Finland, France, and others. Those are the countries with some of the highest standards of living. The problems you describe are the result of the authoritarian rule of communist party. It is a common mistake. Most Americans make it.
Dictators can be very different. Compare Pinochet, who stepped down on his own, and left his country as Latin America's top economy, with Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez — the guys, who never step down (only carried out) and turn their countries into shitholes?
Hugo Chavez was not a dictator, he had a huge popular support throughout his rule. He also left the country in better state than he found it for its people. As for Cuba, it was made a shithole by US sanctions, not by Castro. Even though he is bad enough by himself. Look at the US supplanted dictators, there is a whole list on wikipedia. Most of them were tyrants. Saddam Hussein is one of them. He was helped to power and kept in power by US to fight Iran. Which rebelled after they threw out another US installed dictator, Reza Pahlavi. Read some about him.
What "regular basis"? We haven't done that in decades!..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... And you just did it in Ukraine last year. But that situation is still developing. In 5 years you will see what you've actually done there once the US state department will stop paying for the propaganda.
Really? So, just what land did we "grab" as a result and what sort of economic benefit did we get from it?
The only period of sustained economic growth in your country? The economic and political hegemony? Doesn't ring a bell?
Cared for what exactly? The war did only started in 1939, and we started helping soon afterwards.
Cared for defeating Hitler and the Nazis? Stopping the atrocities? Cared for your allies? Cared for the values you so profess every time you go to war? That.
You — and the other asshole — should stop ad hominems. Attack the argument, not the arguer next time.
When I make arguments, list couple articles on wikipedia, you conveniently ignore them. There is no point in making arguments with uneducated people. First go and learn history and politics, then we can have some reasonable argument.
Communism is not so bad, the dictatorship of communist party is pretty evil. But considering the US makes coups in countries to install their own dictators in them on regular basis, this would hardly be a justification. The only true justification is that you felt like it. As for the WWII, Japan sends its thank you card on regular basis. There are still no Japanese being born with straight teeth, 70 years later. As for Europe, you only went there to protect your own interest and to grab as much of Europe as possible before Russia gets there. Let's not kid ourselves. If you actually cared, you entered the war in 1938 or 1939 or 1940 or 1941... you know?
As the other guy said, you really need to at least get through high school level history before you post about these things. Start here:
You assume the rest of the world would sit idly by as you did that. It would not. The only thing you would reach is that every single nation would overnight become the best friend with Russia and China. The next day, interesting things would start to happen in North America.
Slashdot Mirror
Oppression is as much a part of humanity as humanity itself.
You see ... that is the thing.. no. Some countries, like US, England, Spain, France, Russia have a much richer history of oppressing both citizens and other countries than others. It seems to be a trait that concentrates into some tight areas of general assholery.
Yes. Every online service should have this option. I would even require it by law. I don't mind to pay for my privacy and my time. This was my main gripe with Hulu for example. There has to be price that will make it worth it for them not to show me ads. I want them to take my money, but no... there is no option of that. So I am not customer. No service without this option would have me as a customer.
If you don't pay, you are the product.
That simply sounds like some journalist does not understand that there could be a world of difference between 1.7% and 1.9% for example and rounds both to 2%.
But this would show either in the way neanderthal DNA fragments in the present day humans. If these fragmentations occurred at different times, the present day DNA would be fragmented differently in different present day samples. Since that is not the case, either it happened in one period or the second case never merged again with the current lines, rendering that irrelevant to present day humans.
What you say makes no sense. If there were multiple mixings over large periods (we talk thousands of years) there would be uneven chopping of the DNA. Parts would be chopped more than other parts. Also if there were two mixings, but the two resulting groups never met, as your hypothesis assumes, than the second group that didn't result into modern humans is irrelevant. But good try at sounding smart. :)
And a president's chief of staff is usually the same person that runs his election. The fact that he campaigned on behalf of the president is only a positive, since we are not getting a random person who's views are not known at all. But the fact that NRA cannot have an anti-NRA person even on the position of Surgeon General, where most of doctors are clearly anti-gun with 32,000 gun related deaths. There are other better arguments I could make against him, but that is not the one the opposition is making. They simply say... anti-gun, doctors for america. So much bullshit.
The only reason why he is "not qualified" is that NRA decided they will "Score" this vote. Congress critters are afraid to tarnish their 100% NRA approved record. *sigh*
Whatsapp hired 14 engineers to make the company worth $19B. They were not 14 completely replaceable, run of the mill engineers, they were each unique and probably irreplaceable. The quality of those employees at that concentration, the fact they could be a small agile group, that was the reason they created so much value. If you want to create small predictable progress and run an enterprise with steady churn of cash, you might go the Cisco way, but you will never produce anything great or even just above average.
Why is this law breaking man still at large? Will nobody put this criminal behind bars where he belongs? Or are directors of tree letter agencies above the law?
If the CIA, NSA and other secret agencies were actually effective at their job and did what they profess to do efficiently and the oversight could just tamper with that efficiency, I might, ... might... buy your argument. But they do not. They are wasting resources, producing no significant results and still want their secrecy. Maybe it is time we tried it differently.
It works pretty well on garden variety missiles. But Russian's got something quite different. Those things can deploy decoys, multiple warheads, and they fly at speeds that are extremely hard to intercept, From what I know, we are still pretty far off, thankfully. Once some general decides the shield is good enough, than nothing can save us.
Actually I have heard that. Politicians say stuff, but it is only if people find the general idea acceptable and repeat it themselves when the politician gets a license to act.
As for the particular case, you mentioned, it was actually in response to US actions. First US government announced that they will start modernizing all Nuclear weapons, the Russian's announced the same a week later in response. The mention of Nuclear weapons on Russian side, at least the one I noticed, was in response to growing number of articles and statements advocating conventional war against Russia. They were simply reminding people that Russia is in fact one of the Nuclear powers and it is a Nuclear War that is at stake when attacking Russia. Seemed like a deterrent to me, but there might have been different statement I did not notice.
The anti-missile shield is nowhere close to functional. It might stop single missile by a rogue nation, maybe, but Russian ICBMs are a very different beast. There is no chance now or in reasonably close future this will be a problem. But there were treaties between Russia and US that expressly forbid development and deployment of this technology. Chief among them the one that prevented Cuban Missile Crisis. (Never understood, why that one was not called a Turkey Missile Crisis, since it started by US deploying Nuclear Warheads in Turkey). Anyway.
The chance of US invading Russia is growing though. They do all the steps that seem necessary for it. They got the 15 aircraft carries that can be used as mobile bases for air strikes. They secured full control over the Baltic Sea (to strike at Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg) and they tried through converting Ukraine and Georgia to secure full control over the Black Sea to get striking distance on Moscow. That was temporarily unsuccessful due to the Crimea issue. On top of this you got the shield project. So the moment the shield would be actually working, they might be ready for strike. Also, once you remove Russia's conventional means of defense, you leave them with ONLY the nuclear option. You could argue that with strictly conventional attack Russia might have a problem of using them first. It is a hard choice at that point. Do you let all your people die or do you try to defend conventionally and hope at least some will survive and rebuild... forcing this moral dilemma could be a way to win such strike. Despite what everyone keeps repeating about Putin, he has two soft spots. He is very nationalistic and proud of his people and he is conservative pro-life politician. I don't think he would have it in him to press the red button and start Nuclear War. So he does his very best so he would never get into a situation where he would have to make that impossible choice.
You know what is in my mind the most telling difference between Russians and Americans? Every single one of my American friends has at one point or another said something to the tune: "Let's nuke them!" in one situation or the other. I've not heard a talk like that from any of the Russians I know. Might be just my own experience, but I have plenty enough friends on both sides for it to count for something.
Uhhh, ok.... Been watching a lot of Russia Today, have we?
Please, RT is pure propaganda, most of this information comes from Reuters, AP and White House press briefings directly. But after you've seen few of these, you just know how to put information in context. If you learn how to translate text to emotionally neutral terms, the facts come out from horse's mouth. All you got to do is listen.
Ok, I was trying to be brief. Yes, right after the coup, it was Arseniy Yatsenyuk who was installed as prime minister. Petro Poroshenko indeed won election that was held in part of the country, which supported him and not in the part where he would lose as there was a civil war going. Hardly a free election. That's like saying that during the US civil war, the US had an election in confederate states and Jefferson Davis was the legitimate president of US. In a word - laughable. Here is the call where Nuland and Pyatt decide on who will be in the Ukraine government: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... They agree to Yatsenyuk, but say Klitschko should stay out of it. That's exactly how it happened. Here is where they admit to finance the opposition to the tune of $5 bln USD - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... check at 7:45
But as I said, the result of this will not be apparent to many people for a while. In 2-5 years the involvement will be clear, probably well documented and in another 20-30 years, US will admit to its role. So far it's just propaganda full steam from all sides. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out.
Dictatorship can exist without Communism, yes — Sulla was one example, Pinochet was another. Communism, on the other hand, can not exist without dictatorship — its economic ineptitude is such, that people revolt very quickly unless the Communists manage to gain dictatorial power.
Oh my, were to start. The earliest example of known working communism was 1415 to 1436 in Bohemia - the Husites, early protestants. They withstood and defeated 5 crusades sent against them until they eventually got defeated. There was no dictatorship, the commune was self organized, the military very well run. Everyone contributed to his ability, everyone's needs were met. There were some examples with Vikings and even earlier in other places, but not documented. You are just ignorant of those, only knowing very recent history and only from US perspective.
Your attempts to distinguish between Socialism and Communism are silly — Socialism is nothing but "Communism-lite". Says so in "Das Kapital"...
No, they aren't — their apartments and cars are smaller, and everything (that is not subsidized) is more expensive. And what good they do have, is despite their Socialism, not thanks to it.
You can try to talk to many of the socialist democratic parties throughout Europe. Socialism is quite different from communism, as it rewards contribution. That is a major issue. It simply requires everyone to pitch in and the profits to be shared based on contribution. So it does not clash with free trade, private property, etc. There is some redistributon, aimed at social benefits, but US has taxes too. It just uses them very badly.
As for the standard of living, if you are in the bottom 50%, you will be so much better off in Europe than in US it is almost ridiculous how big the difference is. If you are a child born in the bottom 50% in EU, you got a chance on decent life, any life even the very top, in US you can just dream about it. Your chance is so small as to border on none.
The rest of your comments are similarly misinformed.
Shkolota, my knowledge of history and politics far exceeds yours — and even that of your Kremlin handlers :-)
This is so funny. I am from EU, live in US last 15 years. I've studied 3 view points on history and politics (US, EU, RU), but I've never been to Russia, spent my adult life in US. Hard to imagine how people can even debate with you, when every opinion distinct from yours has to be from agent of Kremlin :) Paranoid much?
Give it couple years. Honestly, military or covert action, the result is the same. The military came right after the covert action, there are hundreds of US "advisors" operating there right now. As for "mad" part, he's started a civil war, killed 3500 people so far and started to enact laws to oppress minorities. I'd say it qualifies. Also he's set private mercenary bands uncontrolled by the government against civilian population in the process. Many of which left mass graves in their wakes, bodies are being exhumed that died execution style with bullet to head from short distance, this spells war crimes to me.
Russia and China would very likely not object to it. Israel would very likely object to being wiped with the rest of Muslim world. Europe would object to the worst genocide in planet's history. The rest of the would would see US using Nuclear weapons at will and rise up in arms. The only alternative to US nuclear arsenal is Russia and China, so the rest of the world would turn toward them. They would immediately cease the opportunity, build a world coalition against US. Half of US citizens would raise in arms against its own government as well. In either case, whatever would the day after look like in North America, it would be interesting.
US supported and financed illegitimate coup d'etat, Petro Poroshenko, Ukraine, 2014.
Meaningless difference — communism is bad because of the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Wherever attempted in earnest, Communism resulted in millions of dead and utter devastation for the survivors, who are left without both human rights (a given with any Collectivist ideology) and any material wealth.
This is patently untrue. Communism and dictatorship orthogonal to each other. One can exist without the other. Further, what you refer to was a socialism, communism was never reached, never even tried for, in the authoritarian socialist republics. Socialism by itself is thriving and well in Europe in Sweden, Danmark, Finland, France, and others. Those are the countries with some of the highest standards of living. The problems you describe are the result of the authoritarian rule of communist party. It is a common mistake. Most Americans make it.
Dictators can be very different. Compare Pinochet, who stepped down on his own, and left his country as Latin America's top economy, with Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez — the guys, who never step down (only carried out) and turn their countries into shitholes?
Hugo Chavez was not a dictator, he had a huge popular support throughout his rule. He also left the country in better state than he found it for its people. As for Cuba, it was made a shithole by US sanctions, not by Castro. Even though he is bad enough by himself. Look at the US supplanted dictators, there is a whole list on wikipedia. Most of them were tyrants. Saddam Hussein is one of them. He was helped to power and kept in power by US to fight Iran. Which rebelled after they threw out another US installed dictator, Reza Pahlavi. Read some about him.
What "regular basis"? We haven't done that in decades!..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
And you just did it in Ukraine last year. But that situation is still developing. In 5 years you will see what you've actually done there once the US state department will stop paying for the propaganda.
Really? So, just what land did we "grab" as a result and what sort of economic benefit did we get from it?
The only period of sustained economic growth in your country? The economic and political hegemony? Doesn't ring a bell?
Cared for what exactly? The war did only started in 1939, and we started helping soon afterwards.
Cared for defeating Hitler and the Nazis? Stopping the atrocities? Cared for your allies? Cared for the values you so profess every time you go to war? That.
You — and the other asshole — should stop ad hominems. Attack the argument, not the arguer next time.
When I make arguments, list couple articles on wikipedia, you conveniently ignore them. There is no point in making arguments with uneducated people. First go and learn history and politics, then we can have some reasonable argument.
Actually that was not the statement that got him killed. It was his attempt to trade oil in EUR instead of USD.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/c...
http://www.monetary.org/was-th...
Communism is not so bad, the dictatorship of communist party is pretty evil. But considering the US makes coups in countries to install their own dictators in them on regular basis, this would hardly be a justification. The only true justification is that you felt like it. As for the WWII, Japan sends its thank you card on regular basis. There are still no Japanese being born with straight teeth, 70 years later. As for Europe, you only went there to protect your own interest and to grab as much of Europe as possible before Russia gets there. Let's not kid ourselves. If you actually cared, you entered the war in 1938 or 1939 or 1940 or 1941 ... you know?
As the other guy said, you really need to at least get through high school level history before you post about these things. Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
You assume the rest of the world would sit idly by as you did that. It would not. The only thing you would reach is that every single nation would overnight become the best friend with Russia and China. The next day, interesting things would start to happen in North America.
OS 10.10? :)
In a fair business environment it would probably have been the case..... :)