Translation for a fellow non-American:
the Republicans are generally right of center and Dems are generally left of the Republicans, but still right of center
No. Thompson is a rare resource. Despite his borderline insanity, he still ends up on the news - people know his name. That fame, coupled with the hate he spews every now and again, should not be wasted. It should be harnessed.
Zelnick should take the letter and auction it off. He should then give the proceeds to Child's Play (or some equally ironic charity), in Thompson's name, of course. Because much as I'd like yet another quiet suit against Thompson, watching him fume helplessly as his attacks are turned against him - again - would be pure poetic justice, and that's just pure win.
Sure, they won't nuke anyone. But they are businessmen. What do businessmen do? They sell stuff to the highest bidder. I'd be scared, not of them nuking us, but selling it to someone under the table who would. Nukes aren't the sort of thing a government just sells. If they were, we'd have the USA, Russia, and China saturating the market by now. The only way their nukes are going to get into the hands of random people is if they build a bunch and then suffer some sort of collapse like the USSR did, or like the one Pakistan got close to.
So let's not destabalize or destroy their country, and then spend the next decade wondering where the scientists and the engineers and half the equipment wandered off to.
I suspect that has something to do with the President of Iran stating that his goal was to wipe Israel off the map. Some people don't take him seriously. People didn't take Hitler seriously, either. People should remember that in Iran "President" means something more like "Head of the Domestic Government", and that foreign policy and control of the military is reserved to the Supreme Leader (yes, that's the actual title), a man who has often wished for the Israeli government to fall apart or be destroyed, but who has not wished the same for the Israeli people.
And the "wiped from the map" quote is, at best, a disputed translation of Ahmedinejad misquoting a statement their Supreme Leader made about the Israeli government, and at worst it's just a bunch of random empty threats. We'd waste less of our time taking Chinese seriously when they claim all sorts of land as their own - they have a history of actually sending their army out to secure the claim.
And as far as the Hitler comment goes...come on. Show me where he's trying to usurp control of Iran for his own nefarious purposes. You don't honestly belive that he, and Khamene'i, and the councils that have some power over them, and all their advisors and assistants are all in it to blow up Jerusalem (which is actually holy to them) and then promptly die, do you? Not only that, but that they've somehow kept this a secret fom all the beurocrats that they employ to do their bidding, who would expose them in an instant if they were actually planning on getting Iran depopulated - let alone the Iranian people, who would certainly revolt if they seriously believed their leaders were out to get them killed.
All I see is a politician dancing for the cameras, trying to draw people's attention away from the fact that since their government directly controls something like half of that nation's economy (in addition to the usual stuff like education and the justice system and basic infrastructure), it is directly responsible for a huge portion of whatever domestic problems they may be having right now.
No. The nation-sized suicide bombing is top-grade bullshit. If they're building nukes they'll be using them the same way all the other countries that have nukes use theirs - as a cheap way to guarantee that nobody ever invades your territory to take your land.
And to such a tour, which is to prove that you built those nuke silos only as shelters in case some terrible terrorist bombs you away, you take along your DOD head honcho along with key missile designers, and you put them prominently into the picture so they can't be missed? Absolutely! Because (don't tell anyone) my government doesn't have the universal support I say it does, and dammit I need some really good PR right now. So the head of DoD is here to show you all what a good job we're doing to protect you all from our enemies. And just to prove that I'm not making this shit up, here's an actual rocket scientist to certify that the compound will withstand a missile assault. Look at him smiling - he approves of this completely! See! Look! I'm doing my job, and so is the government I run! Please elect me (or someone like me) next election cycle...
Maybe. I'm making this up, of course. The whole defense minister thing could go either way. It might be interesting to plot this sort of news against a list of publicised scandals, see if there's a good correlation between Ahmedinejad's grandstanding and little events he'd rather have people look away from.
They'll never run out if they manage it properly. Never is a long time. And the thought of selling even more oil must be extremely appealing as prices go up, and up, and up... Actually, speaking of hording their oil forever, can you imagine what oil-dependent nations like China or the US would do to them if they decreased their exports? Being liberated would be the least of their worries if the flow ever stopped...
Who says you can't avoid CO2 emissions, eh? Have you ever considered what a nuclear energy program costs? It must be billions upon billions of dollars. Probably. But the technology for a nuclear power plant exists now, and may be purchased from helpful nations like Russia (with the added bonus of solidifying good relations with what was once a bitter enemy). The technology for economic CO2 capture is somewhere between a dream and the drawing board right now. And concerning the billions of dollars it costs to build a plant, allow me to direct your attention to the price of oil.
Nuclear energy is a terrible investment for such a small country, where they should be diversifying their economy. Their population is around twice that of Canada. Canada has nuclear power plants. Heck, Canada sells nuclear power plants. You were saying?
I am a Canadian So am I. And while I'm not totally convinced that they'll never use their reactors to make nuclear weapons I'll at least grant that they have good reasons to develop a civillian program.
No, I am not insane, but the leadership of Iran is just insane enough to USE the bomb they are making. First off, that has nothing to do with whether their defense minister has any just cause to be there.
Second, what part of that leadership are you referring to, and what do you base your assertion on? Yes, I understand that their President is a nutcase who spouts off a lot of nonsense, but their President doesn't have the power to make good on his threats. That power rests with Seyyed Ali Khamene'i who, despite his support for Ahmedinejad, has flatly stated that he won't attack Israel, or anyone else, and who's policy towards the USA is to simply sever diplomatic and economic relations. No, he's no saint (human rights violations, he does support Ahmedinejad - though probably for his conservative policies, and not for his speaches), but he's a far cry from the lunatic the media (and apparently you) would have us believe is behind Iran's not quite yet assembled nuclear switch.
I don't think this is necessarily about either the US or Israel. Attacking either of the two would spell instant destruction for Iran, so while giving little speaches on how they must be overthrown may be a popular way of getting more votes I don't think Iran would seriously consider such an option. And when watching those little speaches it's good to keep in mind that Ahmedinejad's power is significantly different from George Bush's. Ahmedinejad can't just order the army around and start a war (that's Khamenei's job, and if you look at his stance on foreign policy it's not all that threatening).
More interesting is Iran's relationship to Russia and China. Both countries are fairly close. Both have a long history of imperialism. Both have an interest in Iran's oil. Both countries have nukes and large standing armies. They may be friendly trading partners now (in fact Russia's aiding their nuclear program, which they apparently believe to be peaceful) but Iran's leaders aren't stupid enough to believe that such relations will stay that way forever. My guess is that they're very interested in posessing some deterrence against those two, should relations deteriorate at some future date.
What? Are you insane? With the US threatening them the way it is now? If they tore down the defensive perimeter and opened it up to any inspector the UN cared to send, the first thing the US (or Israel, or whoever else may have a bone to pick with Iran) would do is claim they're lying and drop bombs on it. Not because it's the right thing to do (at that point it would be pretty clear that it's the wrong thing to do) - simply because they can. Because nobody would stop them. Iran not defending that site now would be like the USA leaving critical infrastructure unprotected during the Cold War, only on a smaller scale.
Whether it's peaceful or not, Iran has every reason to defend that site, and the alarmist comments about the defense minister do nothing but cloude any real information about Iran's intentions.
The thing that really gets me about the media coverage is that everyone just assumes that Iran could only ever possibly be interested in attacking Israel or the USA. Like there isn't anybody nearby that might be more threatening, that they might one day have to defend themselves against. Certainly they wouldn't be near any large, nuclear-armed nations with a history of invading their neighbors and...oh, wait...
As for bringing the defense minister along, well, what's strange about the defense minister inspecting a site that the President of the USA would like to turn into a crater? A site that's alredy surrounded by a heavily armed perimeter that includes anti-aircraft guns? Isn't that where you'd practically expect to see the man? And if he can go while Ahmedinejad's got the cameras there, and hang out with the president for a few hours, then he even gets a share of the (locally) good PR.
Don't be too hard on English. A lot of other languages are much harder to learn. Russian, for example, has three of four variations of every rule you find in English, and just as many exceptions (most of which read "we do X, unless the word is A1, A2, A3,..., or A26, or ends in B - you'll just have to memorize the correct form of each").
I don't remember any public vilification of Russia under Yeltsin. Russia didn't look threatening enough. We were too busy alternately making fun and pretending to take pity on of Yeltsin's drunkenness, the Russian government's fragility, the nation's poverty. Occasionally we fretted about the security of their nuclear missiles. Every now and then we patted ourselves on the back after giving poor, pathetic Russia some food aid or a loan. At least that's what I remember of the few Russia-related stories from that era.
And then Putin comes along, and their country's economy starts to recover (whether due to or despite his influence - doesn't really matter), and we don't like him but he's popular over there so suddenly it's OK for us to hate them again (even if only a little bit).
Besides, it will be a long, long time before DNA can be properly "read" and not just "compared" (which DNA analysis basically consists of at present). A DNA profile can identify you and basic traits but it can't "identify tendency to irrational behaviors" etc. So? You also can't tie an IP address to a person (without doing a lot of other investigative work), but that doesn't seem to have stopped anyone from trying...
Do the supporters of oppressive regimes actually suffer under them? That depends on how Machiavellian the regime's leaders are. I mean, if people turned their backs on their traditions to prop up my shiny new dictatorship I'd sure as hell be worried about those same people turning on me one day...
They strongly believe that by definition, whenever the executive does anything, it is legal. This takes me straight back to high school history classes, studying the origin of constitutional government in Britain (misery and civil war) and the start of the French Revolution (misery and, um, more misery - complete with the now ironically named Reign of Terror). The phrase "Divine Right of Kings" springs to mind...
Your consciousness is a computer screen (and not even a touchscreen;-) where the end results of the subconscious is displayed, and therefore NO feedback from you consciousness to your subconsciousness is possible. I'm not sure why the idea that consciousness is a reactive process precludes the presence of feedback. Your conscious mind (whatever that is, I've never really understood the distinction between conscious and subconscious thought very well) may not have made this decision, but it observes and reacts, and that process and the story it tells itself are recorded (remembered), which influences the next decision made under similar circumstances.
One has to wonder how these "no free will" pundits can explain why natural selection ever developed consciousness since it is used for nothing at all. It could be argued that "consciousness", or at least the idea of it, developed to facilitate communication and social interaction. It doesn't make any decisions, it just describes the decision-making process to itself in order to build connections between concepts and words. There's more to the idea than that, but I've tried writing this sentence eight times and I just can't find the words to express the concept.
At least that's the way I've always experienced my own mind. Maybe others are wired differently, I don't know. Feel free to dismiss me as insane, I'm often tempted to do the same myself;). And my apologies if this all came out as gibberish. It makes sense to me, but the words I know don't really fit the ideas I have in mind and I'm afraid that I've yet again lost my meaning in translation.
yeah, I think they used to use Grease Pencils (China Markers, some people called them) for stuff. Don't knwo if they still do. Yeah, that's what they originally used. Having (conductive) graphite dust floating around getting into the electronics was thought to be a bad idea. My understanding is they're now using space pens (I don't know whether they bought them, or whether the design was stolen during the Cold War).
... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circusesJuvenal
Let's skip the pedantic argument over how the Association Fallacy should be classified.
I wrote:
there's a world of difference between large groups of people and the politicians who often fail to properly represent them. Where in that sentence do you find the words "progressives" and "Democrats"? I specifically avoided using them (outside of quoting your post) because my statement applies equally well to many other groups. "Progressives" have been ignored by both Republicans and Democrats. They've gotten little more than lip service from the people they voted for. The same holds for "fiscal conservatives" (who have yet to see the government spend any less), "Evangelical Christians" (who have yet to get their way on gays and abortions), the anti-war movement (who may soon see the war expanded to Iran), and many other large groups of people in American society.
And I'm sorry if grouping large numbers of fairly diverse people under such vague and politically loaded labels frightens or confuses you. That's just the nature of political discourse; you'll have to get used to it if you want to have a meaningfull discussion.
Emphasis mine:
In the last seven years, progressives have been dismissed This doesn't really hold with the indisputable fact that the Democrats have controlled the House since the 2006 election. It's impossible to claim they have been dismissed while being in control of one of the most powerful institutions in the world, unless you're trying to destroy your own credibility. Speaking of logical fallacies, there's a world of difference between large groups of people and the politicians who often fail to properly represent them.
Soviet KGB was dissolved in 1991 and this cat was caught in US. Just nitpicking here. The KGB was renamed in 1991, when it was also stripped of its mandate to defend the Communist Revolution at all costs. It wasn't formally dissolved until 1995, at which point it was split into the FSB (security and counterintelligence service) and SVR (foreign intelligence).
KGB is not part of USA law enforcement yet. Well, unless you translate "Department of Homeland Security" into Russian (KGB literally means "Committee for State Security", but you'd get something closer to DHS if you were translating the name to reflect the the rhetoric surrounding it, rather than just doing a literal translation).
However, useless trivia aside, I agree with the parent. There's a world of difference between the two. The DHS does harm through its waste and incompetence, the KGB did harm by, well, grabbing people off the street and doing harm to them. The DHS annoys millions of people at airports and is generally used as a political tool, the KGB terrorized millions of people wherever they went and eventually took control of the government that created it. And so on.
Can we please stop with the overblown comparisons to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia every time some law-enforcement or security agency sneezes, please? All this does is destroy our ability to rationally discuss those rare few (and important) situations that do merrit such comparisons. Bah, I must be new here...
Ok. Let's drop the groupthink part of this discussion. I think we're at the point where we're just repeating ourselves and going nowhere. Actually, I'm sure we've already reached that point.
The state department doesn't directly run these devisions. They have other managers who do. That really isn't central to my argument. Nor is the Bush administration. I'm just saying I see a case of a badly run department in charge of sensitive personal information. This could be a story about a leak from social security during the Clinton (or any other) administration and I'd still hold it up as an example of why we should not trust such organizations with even more power.
And you seriously don't think Condoleezza Rice saying that these breaches were motivated by curiosity and not politically or maliciously motivated isn't the result of an investigation that already happened?
You won't be convinced they did their jobs until they hold a blank piece of paper in their hands and say "here is the proof". Do you see how silly that seems? I'm sorry, but accountants working for small firms are held to higher standards. They have to cover checklists and store all sorts of intermediate working papers to back up their work, all of which gets hauled out during any sort of audit to show that the work has been done correctly and in good faith. Where's the equivalent paper trail from the passport department? You don't seriously think they questioned the employees, consulted with their security people, double-checked with the appropriate authorities to make sure these people weren't trying to spy on the presidential candidates, and followed whatever other procedures they have without putting anything down on paper, do you?
They should have a hell of a lot more than a blank sheet to show for their trouble. Even if they release a copy of that folder with every other sentence removed for security reasons, it would be more than they've shown thus far. A set of partial memos can be checked for internal consistency, if nothing else. Here we have to take them at their word - and no authority should ever just be taken at their word, particularly when they've under scrutiny for incompetence if not malfeasance.
Most crooks only break the law when they "think" they can get away with it. Or when the cost of their crime is less than the reward. You don't think a rabidly (say) left-wing Sheriff would risk his freedom to see a right-wing politician lose his power? What about the Sheriff that's promised a massive financial reward after he's released from his few years in prison? What about the sheriff that's being blackmailed?
Anyways, the way this passport story played out, the sheriff would have been caught and dealt with accordingly. As I said earlier, it becomes far easier for the Sheriff to do whatever mischeif he has in mind, whether he's later prosecuted or not. He can access the data at the end of his workday, sell it or leak it on his way home, and be verry sorry for his actions, and more than willing to cooperate fully and pay the (reduced, for good behavior) price for his crimes by morning. And that's only if he hasn't figured out how the system works and how to do the deed without being caught.
I much prefer the scenario where he has to breach many systems over a period of time to get all the pieces he needs. It makes it harder for him to do the deed, and it also makes it far more likely that he'll be caught since he'll have to deal with multiple organizations - each of which will have its own, different, security systems in place.
You forget that in the free market the customer is at the mercy of the company. The company can do whatever it wants in order to save money; the customer is the enemy and must be prevented from doing the same, lest it lead to the company losing money. You seem to have confused free market economics with having no respect for private property. Regulating the market won't fix this particular case; taking the company to court for messing with other people's property without the owner's knowledge or consent will.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, good point. I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything - he said European, and I'm Canadian, and I just kinda left it at non-American.
No. Thompson is a rare resource. Despite his borderline insanity, he still ends up on the news - people know his name. That fame, coupled with the hate he spews every now and again, should not be wasted. It should be harnessed.
Zelnick should take the letter and auction it off. He should then give the proceeds to Child's Play (or some equally ironic charity), in Thompson's name, of course. Because much as I'd like yet another quiet suit against Thompson, watching him fume helplessly as his attacks are turned against him - again - would be pure poetic justice, and that's just pure win.
So let's not destabalize or destroy their country, and then spend the next decade wondering where the scientists and the engineers and half the equipment wandered off to.
And the "wiped from the map" quote is, at best, a disputed translation of Ahmedinejad misquoting a statement their Supreme Leader made about the Israeli government, and at worst it's just a bunch of random empty threats. We'd waste less of our time taking Chinese seriously when they claim all sorts of land as their own - they have a history of actually sending their army out to secure the claim.
And as far as the Hitler comment goes...come on. Show me where he's trying to usurp control of Iran for his own nefarious purposes. You don't honestly belive that he, and Khamene'i, and the councils that have some power over them, and all their advisors and assistants are all in it to blow up Jerusalem (which is actually holy to them) and then promptly die, do you? Not only that, but that they've somehow kept this a secret fom all the beurocrats that they employ to do their bidding, who would expose them in an instant if they were actually planning on getting Iran depopulated - let alone the Iranian people, who would certainly revolt if they seriously believed their leaders were out to get them killed.
All I see is a politician dancing for the cameras, trying to draw people's attention away from the fact that since their government directly controls something like half of that nation's economy (in addition to the usual stuff like education and the justice system and basic infrastructure), it is directly responsible for a huge portion of whatever domestic problems they may be having right now.
No. The nation-sized suicide bombing is top-grade bullshit. If they're building nukes they'll be using them the same way all the other countries that have nukes use theirs - as a cheap way to guarantee that nobody ever invades your territory to take your land.
Maybe. I'm making this up, of course. The whole defense minister thing could go either way. It might be interesting to plot this sort of news against a list of publicised scandals, see if there's a good correlation between Ahmedinejad's grandstanding and little events he'd rather have people look away from.
Second, what part of that leadership are you referring to, and what do you base your assertion on? Yes, I understand that their President is a nutcase who spouts off a lot of nonsense, but their President doesn't have the power to make good on his threats. That power rests with Seyyed Ali Khamene'i who, despite his support for Ahmedinejad, has flatly stated that he won't attack Israel, or anyone else, and who's policy towards the USA is to simply sever diplomatic and economic relations. No, he's no saint (human rights violations, he does support Ahmedinejad - though probably for his conservative policies, and not for his speaches), but he's a far cry from the lunatic the media (and apparently you) would have us believe is behind Iran's not quite yet assembled nuclear switch.
I don't think this is necessarily about either the US or Israel. Attacking either of the two would spell instant destruction for Iran, so while giving little speaches on how they must be overthrown may be a popular way of getting more votes I don't think Iran would seriously consider such an option. And when watching those little speaches it's good to keep in mind that Ahmedinejad's power is significantly different from George Bush's. Ahmedinejad can't just order the army around and start a war (that's Khamenei's job, and if you look at his stance on foreign policy it's not all that threatening).
More interesting is Iran's relationship to Russia and China. Both countries are fairly close. Both have a long history of imperialism. Both have an interest in Iran's oil. Both countries have nukes and large standing armies. They may be friendly trading partners now (in fact Russia's aiding their nuclear program, which they apparently believe to be peaceful) but Iran's leaders aren't stupid enough to believe that such relations will stay that way forever. My guess is that they're very interested in posessing some deterrence against those two, should relations deteriorate at some future date.
What? Are you insane? With the US threatening them the way it is now? If they tore down the defensive perimeter and opened it up to any inspector the UN cared to send, the first thing the US (or Israel, or whoever else may have a bone to pick with Iran) would do is claim they're lying and drop bombs on it. Not because it's the right thing to do (at that point it would be pretty clear that it's the wrong thing to do) - simply because they can. Because nobody would stop them. Iran not defending that site now would be like the USA leaving critical infrastructure unprotected during the Cold War, only on a smaller scale.
Whether it's peaceful or not, Iran has every reason to defend that site, and the alarmist comments about the defense minister do nothing but cloude any real information about Iran's intentions.
The thing that really gets me about the media coverage is that everyone just assumes that Iran could only ever possibly be interested in attacking Israel or the USA. Like there isn't anybody nearby that might be more threatening, that they might one day have to defend themselves against. Certainly they wouldn't be near any large, nuclear-armed nations with a history of invading their neighbors and...oh, wait...
As for bringing the defense minister along, well, what's strange about the defense minister inspecting a site that the President of the USA would like to turn into a crater? A site that's alredy surrounded by a heavily armed perimeter that includes anti-aircraft guns? Isn't that where you'd practically expect to see the man? And if he can go while Ahmedinejad's got the cameras there, and hang out with the president for a few hours, then he even gets a share of the (locally) good PR.
Don't be too hard on English. A lot of other languages are much harder to learn. Russian, for example, has three of four variations of every rule you find in English, and just as many exceptions (most of which read "we do X, unless the word is A1, A2, A3, ..., or A26, or ends in B - you'll just have to memorize the correct form of each").
And then Putin comes along, and their country's economy starts to recover (whether due to or despite his influence - doesn't really matter), and we don't like him but he's popular over there so suddenly it's OK for us to hate them again (even if only a little bit).
That depends on how many programmers are gullible enough to believe such a promise.
At least that's the way I've always experienced my own mind. Maybe others are wired differently, I don't know. Feel free to dismiss me as insane, I'm often tempted to do the same myself
... Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions - everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses JuvenalI wrote: there's a world of difference between large groups of people and the politicians who often fail to properly represent them. Where in that sentence do you find the words "progressives" and "Democrats"? I specifically avoided using them (outside of quoting your post) because my statement applies equally well to many other groups. "Progressives" have been ignored by both Republicans and Democrats. They've gotten little more than lip service from the people they voted for. The same holds for "fiscal conservatives" (who have yet to see the government spend any less), "Evangelical Christians" (who have yet to get their way on gays and abortions), the anti-war movement (who may soon see the war expanded to Iran), and many other large groups of people in American society.
And I'm sorry if grouping large numbers of fairly diverse people under such vague and politically loaded labels frightens or confuses you. That's just the nature of political discourse; you'll have to get used to it if you want to have a meaningfull discussion.
However, useless trivia aside, I agree with the parent. There's a world of difference between the two. The DHS does harm through its waste and incompetence, the KGB did harm by, well, grabbing people off the street and doing harm to them. The DHS annoys millions of people at airports and is generally used as a political tool, the KGB terrorized millions of people wherever they went and eventually took control of the government that created it. And so on.
Can we please stop with the overblown comparisons to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia every time some law-enforcement or security agency sneezes, please? All this does is destroy our ability to rationally discuss those rare few (and important) situations that do merrit such comparisons. Bah, I must be new here...
They should have a hell of a lot more than a blank sheet to show for their trouble. Even if they release a copy of that folder with every other sentence removed for security reasons, it would be more than they've shown thus far. A set of partial memos can be checked for internal consistency, if nothing else. Here we have to take them at their word - and no authority should ever just be taken at their word, particularly when they've under scrutiny for incompetence if not malfeasance. Most crooks only break the law when they "think" they can get away with it. Or when the cost of their crime is less than the reward. You don't think a rabidly (say) left-wing Sheriff would risk his freedom to see a right-wing politician lose his power? What about the Sheriff that's promised a massive financial reward after he's released from his few years in prison? What about the sheriff that's being blackmailed? Anyways, the way this passport story played out, the sheriff would have been caught and dealt with accordingly. As I said earlier, it becomes far easier for the Sheriff to do whatever mischeif he has in mind, whether he's later prosecuted or not. He can access the data at the end of his workday, sell it or leak it on his way home, and be verry sorry for his actions, and more than willing to cooperate fully and pay the (reduced, for good behavior) price for his crimes by morning. And that's only if he hasn't figured out how the system works and how to do the deed without being caught.
I much prefer the scenario where he has to breach many systems over a period of time to get all the pieces he needs. It makes it harder for him to do the deed, and it also makes it far more likely that he'll be caught since he'll have to deal with multiple organizations - each of which will have its own, different, security systems in place.