Take a civics course, to understand the real roles of each government agency
Take an advanced English course and/or a speed-reading course, to learn how to read laws (and every other formal text, for that matter)
Spend a few decades around people with different views than your own. When you start to agree with them, go somewhere else, until you've acquired an understanding of different perspectives and needs.
When trying something new that has any likelihood of being illegal, check the law yourself. Ask a librarian or a lawyer for assistance if needed.
That's ridiculous. Most college freshmen enter without a declared major. Those that do know their general field are unlikely to know what specialty they'll go into, and college-bound or not, very few high-school students know what they'll be doing for a career when leaving. It's impossible to predict what they'll be doing, so it's certainly impossible to know "all laws that might affect them".
Interesting point... I'll run with it, if you don't mind (and even if you do).
Code bloat also affects legislation. In code, managers insist on a rewrite. In law, the public insists on same. In both cases, usually the result is no more functional than the last system, but it carries a whole new set of bugs yet to be discovered. Ultimately, the only people happy with the rewrite are the ones who called for it in the first place, because it's their system now...
Simple laws are good for oral traditions, where one person must remember everything, or primitive written systems, where every letter is expensive. Now we have this modern "printing press" technology, so we can afford to be precise. Thanks to the Internet, all that precise text is now readily available, too, if you're willing to actually put forth the effort to understand what you need.
Nobody, not even lawmakers or lawyers, needs to know all the laws at once. Nobody, not even lawmakers or lawyers, is doing everything covered by all the laws. It is part of your civic duty to seek out the laws that affect you, and it it the government's duty to make them available. Check your local library.
Once you have the law's text, read it. If you are a programmer, consider that this process is the same as for debugging a large program you didn't write. You can expect to skip over large sections that aren't related to your case, and while you can assume that most terms are exactly what they look like, the important functions should still be double-checked for sanity.
For example, I occasionally build small explosives and set them off. Understandably, I was curious about the legality of such things, so I looked it up. Local law was the easiest, because I'm in a small community with fairly few laws. A trip to the library got me a nice list of local ordinances in effect, the most relevant of which was "No noises of unreasonable volume will be permitted after 10:00 PM without prior written permission". County laws (as found on the county website) also had no laws that really affect me. State (also per their website) laws were the first to directly deal with explosives, and the most complicated.
First, in clause 1 of the first section, there was a blanket ban on all explosives... or so it appeared. The exact term used was defined elsewhere (hooray for search functions), to cover only devices larger than a certain size or using certain high explosives that are far beyond my desire for making things go boom. The next few clauses just clarified that first clause (identified by saying "in clause 1"), so I didn't bother trying to understand them too much - just a cursory check to see if they added more things to the ban list.
The next section dealt with transporting explosives. I assemble everything on-site, so I'm never transporting anything. Just to be sure, I checked the definition of "transport", and it applies only to public roads. Again, the subsequent clauses all obviously just modify the main clause, so they're irrelevant to me, as well. Most of the other sections were similarly irrelevant, covering some of the many things that people do with explosives. Demolition, excavation, professional pyrotechnics... but no section for "sitting back and watching the big boom". There was a section covering use on public land, but my location is private property.
Finally, there was a section covering any "explosive material" that harms other people or property. If I'm breaking any law, it's probably this one. See, the law never defines "harm", not even leaving it up to a court to determine whether it's reasonable or not. The term "explosive material" isn't eve defined. That clause, though much simpler than one of more precision, has a loophole. Any sound at any level can damage hearing, and gasoline could be considered an explosive, so driving a car could be a constant misdemeanor. All it takes is one pissed-off officer who's aware of the law's imprecision, and anybody driving in the state could be charged. Of course, it's obvious what the law means - don't injure anybody with a malicious bomb - but as written, it's practically useless. Now much harm is harm? Do I need a full-cover blast shield to protect onlookers? Is my own land considered "other property"? Am I harming the value to future landowners? From a planning perspective, the law does nothing to tell me what I need to do to stay legal while practicing my hobby.
Apart from that one clause, nothing impacted the legality of what
...which I'm not making. My point is only that people have different perspectives. I'm arguing that it's possible for someone to be in favor of guns in general, but still be concerned enough about plastic ones to warrant a ban.
A) You think it is likely to be needed...
...but if I'm carrying it on the way to the firing range, or to the shop for repair, or on any other gun-related business, it's definitely needed.
B) That you don't care about bystander casualties
or C) that you have any other reason to carry it, like personal comfort. I know a woman who started carrying a pistol openly after being assaulted in an alleyway. She doesn't even own any ammunition for it, but knowing that it's there and visible helps to counter the irrational fear she feels walking down the street. It's a psychological crutch to deal with the fact that an extremely rare event actually happened to her.
...the answer to some questions can give a hell of a lot of insight to how they think
...at this particular time about this particular issue.
By "re-education", I assume you mean "they should be able to interpret the law exactly how I feel at the time, putting my interests ahead of everybody else with a different perspective or preference".
3 - Let's just get rid of stuff I don't understand
The majority of every long legal text is there to be explicitly precise about every detail of how it's supposed to work. As new loopholes are found in existing terms, new language is used in future texts to avoid them.
For example, a hundred years ago, it might have been fine to say "buy" in a contract to refer to someone getting something, but thanks to the last hundred years of legal cases, there are many ways to avoid that particular term. You could trade for goods other than money. You could arrange a sequence of gifts. The exchange could be interrupted by a sudden death. Part of the exchange could be specified in a will. Once the trade is made, the items bought could come with attached expectations or conditions, or it could be part of a package deal.
Consider law as a program for illogical machines. Just as any other programming language requires verbosity (or a significant amount of definitions) to achieve precision, so must law. Humans are just particularly good at exploiting bugs.
While I'm sure there are some businessmen who don't really care about the nature of their business, there's also folks who think that guns should be widespread among responsible people in responsible circumstances - A nutjob with an undetectable pistol is riskier than a responsible person carrying an assault rifle. Then there's the pro-gun-business types who see 3d-printed guns as a boon. Sure, somebody might print a gun instead of buying one, but the businesses make the real thing, ripe for collectors who are willing to pay more to have a metal original, rather than a plastic copy. Of course, we also can't discount the political folks who will support or oppose the law just because it came from the Democrats.
I'm terribly sorry, but people are different and have different opinions. Their response to one idea does not characterize them.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew that if they were caught, they'd be found guilty of treason and executed. Nathan Hale met exactly that fate a few months later. Much of the civil rights movement was fought in courtrooms, with people being used as pawns just to get an argument in front of a judge. Activists today are routinely arrested for minor crimes during protests to get better media coverage.
America idolizes its heroes for their courage. Today's hacktivists are noisy, but their anonymous message carries no conviction.
a) Nonviolent crimes are often repeated, and their sentences are added together. Committing 17 counts of fraud is a Tuesday afternoon in Las Vegas, but 17 counts of murder is rare even in Detroit.
c) Anonymous' only real goal is to ignore rules and social standards while hiding behind a mask and a proxy. LulzSec's goal is to gain infamy while carrying popular support. There's no reason why someone can't gain infamy and popular support while ignoring rules and hiding.
Yes. People (specifically the finger joints of people) are weak. After learning that the silent button may not register with a light tough, but a hard smash certainly will, the people will learn that smashing the button is the only way to be sure of a click.
As injuries mount, a few companies will start putting audible and tactile indicators in their devices, so there is feedback when the contact is made, but before the button is fully depressed. Then people will begin to trust the indicators, rather than just smashing. Since this also allows for a smoother acceleration cycle, people's typing and clicking speed will increase. Finally, everyone will realize that they have multiple senses for a good reason, and they will come to love their multiple-sense interface devices!
Exactly my thoughts. My M will easily drown out the rest of a conversation. From my audio background, I also know that it's going to be a pain to actually cut. It has a wide frequency range, and the sound varies from when the key is struck - the Model M doesn't "click" so much as it "rattles quickly". I expect fast fingers will be able to easily overwhelm the software, but I'll be happy if I'm wrong.
Depends how it's spun. If it's presented as a censorship issue, where Big Bad Gubment could have replaced the Slashdot stories with their own, then the media's more likely to talk about it. As the story goes now, it's James Bond using a clever bit of infiltration to get intelligence on a highly-specific enemy. Nobody's going to get properly outraged about it, and it certainly won't sell more dead trees.
And that's a good reason why they don't actually do such things often these days.
1961 was in the middle of the Cold War. The armed B-52 was not in the air for practice - it was on an actual mission, waiting for the Soviets to strike first before it'd fly off to strike Soviet targets. Since there are no enemies today that have the Soviet's first-strike capability that we feared so much, there's no real need to keep live weapons in the air.
It sounds to me like you're worried that the developers understand the technology as little as you do.
No, images arrive at our retina through means the human body has been using for thousands of years.
Having a piece of technology draw it directly onto your retina is different. And anybody who has ever seen screen burn-in on a monitor will know why it's different.
It's no different at all though. In everyday natural means, light passes through the eyeball to arrive at the retina. In this display, it also passes through the eyeball to arrive at the retina. Naturally, our pupils adjust to allow a comfortable amount of light through. That doesn't change here, either - the pupil can still adjust to suit the viewer's preference.
If too much natural light gets through the pupil, we instinctively blink or squint to avoid burning. That only fails when the viewer intentionally keeps their eyes open (such as kids staring at the sun), when too much energy gets through in the time it takes to execute the blink (such as powerful lasers), or when the energy being absorbed is outside the range of human perception (IR or UV damage).
Fortunately, we actually have a pretty good idea of how much energy is required to burn the retina, and we can easily make LEDs that stay under that threshold. Since the wavelength of an LED is uniform, there's very little risk of any IR or UV damage, as well.
The biggest hazard to this thing is that some idiot might try to wear it while walking, and be hit by a car. That proves that walking is horribly dangerous compared to safer alternatives like being inside the car, even though feet are the locomotive means the human body has been using for thousands of years.
If Slashdot had any journalistic integrity, the story would be delayed until any lawsuit has at least passed its initial stages, where a judge decides whether it has merit or not, and all the details become public. Until then, we have only a partial story presented with a heavy bias... but that's the norm for this place, I guess.
As far as giving power to the government, that's correct - there is no need for amendments to add additional powers. That's why almost immediately after the Articles were ratified, a bunch of amendments were added to denote a few key freedoms that the government wouldn't be able to touch. Almost all* of the amendments since then have been to refine the political process or clarify further rights the government will not be able to affect. Since then, practically everything the federal government has done has been authorized under Section 8.
* The 16th Amendment establishes that the government can create a federal tax on income that is not uniform to everyone. The Supreme Court had previously determined that Congress didn't have that power, as it was limited by the clause I quoted to being uniform.
You deleted everything in the clause excep the general welfare part...
Yes, for brevity and clarity. Taxes weren't a part of the discussion until afterward. The question was whether the government has the power, and the answer is "yes, under Article 1, Section 8".
But, the aca will fail on the tax clause too.
...But it didn't when it was already examined. The opinion of the Court was that the Taxing Clause allows the government to tax behaviors, and "not buying health insurance" is a taxable behavior. Other taxable behaviors are things like smoking tobacco, burning fuel, and importing foreign goods - things that Congress has determined to be detrimental to the general welfare of the United States.
as soon as someone is actually penalized- if they do not recieve a fair trial and due process, the challenge to its constitutionaliy will be made... [Such a challenge] cannot be made until someone is actually fined.
...but there is no "fine". Failing to buy insurance isn't a crime. You have the choice whether to buy insurance or not, and no law enforcement personnel will likely ever know or care about your choice. Rather, the tax is applied along with income and other taxes by the IRS. If you don't pay the tax, the IRS can do approximately nothing. They can withhold the amount from your refund, but the ACA tax itself has no provision for enforcement. The only way I know of offhand to actually be "fined" relating to the ACA is if you explicitly claim that you have insurance to avoid the penalty when you really do not. That's either fraud or tax evasion depending on circumstances, and that routinely goes through a courtroom. There's your chance for due process, where you can argue that you don't need to pay the tax because it's unconstitutional......except as mentioned before, the Supreme Court determined that not buying health insurance is taxable.
In fairness, for others it's saving money, even if it hurts others.
That's why Congress is given the power. Ideally, Congress changes its opinions about what's good every few generations, as the impulsive and optimistic youth mature into politicians who can balance their morality with the realities of managing a large country.
Slashdot Mirror
That's ridiculous. Most college freshmen enter without a declared major. Those that do know their general field are unlikely to know what specialty they'll go into, and college-bound or not, very few high-school students know what they'll be doing for a career when leaving. It's impossible to predict what they'll be doing, so it's certainly impossible to know "all laws that might affect them".
Interesting point... I'll run with it, if you don't mind (and even if you do).
Code bloat also affects legislation. In code, managers insist on a rewrite. In law, the public insists on same. In both cases, usually the result is no more functional than the last system, but it carries a whole new set of bugs yet to be discovered. Ultimately, the only people happy with the rewrite are the ones who called for it in the first place, because it's their system now...
Let's also abolish all those road signs and traffic lights to make driving more understandable.
Simple laws are good for oral traditions, where one person must remember everything, or primitive written systems, where every letter is expensive. Now we have this modern "printing press" technology, so we can afford to be precise. Thanks to the Internet, all that precise text is now readily available, too, if you're willing to actually put forth the effort to understand what you need.
Nobody, not even lawmakers or lawyers, needs to know all the laws at once. Nobody, not even lawmakers or lawyers, is doing everything covered by all the laws. It is part of your civic duty to seek out the laws that affect you, and it it the government's duty to make them available. Check your local library.
Once you have the law's text, read it. If you are a programmer, consider that this process is the same as for debugging a large program you didn't write. You can expect to skip over large sections that aren't related to your case, and while you can assume that most terms are exactly what they look like, the important functions should still be double-checked for sanity.
For example, I occasionally build small explosives and set them off. Understandably, I was curious about the legality of such things, so I looked it up. Local law was the easiest, because I'm in a small community with fairly few laws. A trip to the library got me a nice list of local ordinances in effect, the most relevant of which was "No noises of unreasonable volume will be permitted after 10:00 PM without prior written permission". County laws (as found on the county website) also had no laws that really affect me. State (also per their website) laws were the first to directly deal with explosives, and the most complicated.
First, in clause 1 of the first section, there was a blanket ban on all explosives... or so it appeared. The exact term used was defined elsewhere (hooray for search functions), to cover only devices larger than a certain size or using certain high explosives that are far beyond my desire for making things go boom. The next few clauses just clarified that first clause (identified by saying "in clause 1"), so I didn't bother trying to understand them too much - just a cursory check to see if they added more things to the ban list.
The next section dealt with transporting explosives. I assemble everything on-site, so I'm never transporting anything. Just to be sure, I checked the definition of "transport", and it applies only to public roads. Again, the subsequent clauses all obviously just modify the main clause, so they're irrelevant to me, as well. Most of the other sections were similarly irrelevant, covering some of the many things that people do with explosives. Demolition, excavation, professional pyrotechnics... but no section for "sitting back and watching the big boom". There was a section covering use on public land, but my location is private property.
Finally, there was a section covering any "explosive material" that harms other people or property. If I'm breaking any law, it's probably this one. See, the law never defines "harm", not even leaving it up to a court to determine whether it's reasonable or not. The term "explosive material" isn't eve defined. That clause, though much simpler than one of more precision, has a loophole. Any sound at any level can damage hearing, and gasoline could be considered an explosive, so driving a car could be a constant misdemeanor. All it takes is one pissed-off officer who's aware of the law's imprecision, and anybody driving in the state could be charged. Of course, it's obvious what the law means - don't injure anybody with a malicious bomb - but as written, it's practically useless. Now much harm is harm? Do I need a full-cover blast shield to protect onlookers? Is my own land considered "other property"? Am I harming the value to future landowners? From a planning perspective, the law does nothing to tell me what I need to do to stay legal while practicing my hobby.
Apart from that one clause, nothing impacted the legality of what
that would be a fine argument...
...which I'm not making. My point is only that people have different perspectives. I'm arguing that it's possible for someone to be in favor of guns in general, but still be concerned enough about plastic ones to warrant a ban.
A) You think it is likely to be needed...
...but if I'm carrying it on the way to the firing range, or to the shop for repair, or on any other gun-related business, it's definitely needed.
B) That you don't care about bystander casualties
or C) that you have any other reason to carry it, like personal comfort. I know a woman who started carrying a pistol openly after being assaulted in an alleyway. She doesn't even own any ammunition for it, but knowing that it's there and visible helps to counter the irrational fear she feels walking down the street. It's a psychological crutch to deal with the fact that an extremely rare event actually happened to her.
...the answer to some questions can give a hell of a lot of insight to how they think
...at this particular time about this particular issue.
By "re-education", I assume you mean "they should be able to interpret the law exactly how I feel at the time, putting my interests ahead of everybody else with a different perspective or preference".
Allow me to rephrase that for you:
1 - I don't understand law
2 - We shouldn't make stuff I don't understand
3 - Let's just get rid of stuff I don't understand
The majority of every long legal text is there to be explicitly precise about every detail of how it's supposed to work. As new loopholes are found in existing terms, new language is used in future texts to avoid them.
For example, a hundred years ago, it might have been fine to say "buy" in a contract to refer to someone getting something, but thanks to the last hundred years of legal cases, there are many ways to avoid that particular term. You could trade for goods other than money. You could arrange a sequence of gifts. The exchange could be interrupted by a sudden death. Part of the exchange could be specified in a will. Once the trade is made, the items bought could come with attached expectations or conditions, or it could be part of a package deal.
Consider law as a program for illogical machines. Just as any other programming language requires verbosity (or a significant amount of definitions) to achieve precision, so must law. Humans are just particularly good at exploiting bugs.
Hardly.
While I'm sure there are some businessmen who don't really care about the nature of their business, there's also folks who think that guns should be widespread among responsible people in responsible circumstances - A nutjob with an undetectable pistol is riskier than a responsible person carrying an assault rifle. Then there's the pro-gun-business types who see 3d-printed guns as a boon. Sure, somebody might print a gun instead of buying one, but the businesses make the real thing, ripe for collectors who are willing to pay more to have a metal original, rather than a plastic copy. Of course, we also can't discount the political folks who will support or oppose the law just because it came from the Democrats.
I'm terribly sorry, but people are different and have different opinions. Their response to one idea does not characterize them.
I do know a lawyer friend who's looking for some good unusual marketing...
The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew that if they were caught, they'd be found guilty of treason and executed. Nathan Hale met exactly that fate a few months later. Much of the civil rights movement was fought in courtrooms, with people being used as pawns just to get an argument in front of a judge. Activists today are routinely arrested for minor crimes during protests to get better media coverage.
America idolizes its heroes for their courage. Today's hacktivists are noisy, but their anonymous message carries no conviction.
a) Nonviolent crimes are often repeated, and their sentences are added together. Committing 17 counts of fraud is a Tuesday afternoon in Las Vegas, but 17 counts of murder is rare even in Detroit.
b) That's because when politics get involved, people demand a perception of justice more than they demand actual justice.
c) Anonymous' only real goal is to ignore rules and social standards while hiding behind a mask and a proxy. LulzSec's goal is to gain infamy while carrying popular support. There's no reason why someone can't gain infamy and popular support while ignoring rules and hiding.
Yes. People (specifically the finger joints of people) are weak. After learning that the silent button may not register with a light tough, but a hard smash certainly will, the people will learn that smashing the button is the only way to be sure of a click.
As injuries mount, a few companies will start putting audible and tactile indicators in their devices, so there is feedback when the contact is made, but before the button is fully depressed. Then people will begin to trust the indicators, rather than just smashing. Since this also allows for a smoother acceleration cycle, people's typing and clicking speed will increase. Finally, everyone will realize that they have multiple senses for a good reason, and they will come to love their multiple-sense interface devices!
The Model M shall rise again!
Exactly my thoughts. My M will easily drown out the rest of a conversation. From my audio background, I also know that it's going to be a pain to actually cut. It has a wide frequency range, and the sound varies from when the key is struck - the Model M doesn't "click" so much as it "rattles quickly". I expect fast fingers will be able to easily overwhelm the software, but I'll be happy if I'm wrong.
Depends how it's spun. If it's presented as a censorship issue, where Big Bad Gubment could have replaced the Slashdot stories with their own, then the media's more likely to talk about it. As the story goes now, it's James Bond using a clever bit of infiltration to get intelligence on a highly-specific enemy. Nobody's going to get properly outraged about it, and it certainly won't sell more dead trees.
...Unless the reason it lost communication was because of hardware failure, in which case such software would do nothing.
And that's a good reason why they don't actually do such things often these days.
1961 was in the middle of the Cold War. The armed B-52 was not in the air for practice - it was on an actual mission, waiting for the Soviets to strike first before it'd fly off to strike Soviet targets. Since there are no enemies today that have the Soviet's first-strike capability that we feared so much, there's no real need to keep live weapons in the air.
Check the law. I once lived in a jurisdiction where "emotional distress" was legally sufficient for a DUI.
It sounds to me like you're worried that the developers understand the technology as little as you do.
No, images arrive at our retina through means the human body has been using for thousands of years.
Having a piece of technology draw it directly onto your retina is different. And anybody who has ever seen screen burn-in on a monitor will know why it's different.
It's no different at all though. In everyday natural means, light passes through the eyeball to arrive at the retina. In this display, it also passes through the eyeball to arrive at the retina. Naturally, our pupils adjust to allow a comfortable amount of light through. That doesn't change here, either - the pupil can still adjust to suit the viewer's preference.
If too much natural light gets through the pupil, we instinctively blink or squint to avoid burning. That only fails when the viewer intentionally keeps their eyes open (such as kids staring at the sun), when too much energy gets through in the time it takes to execute the blink (such as powerful lasers), or when the energy being absorbed is outside the range of human perception (IR or UV damage).
Fortunately, we actually have a pretty good idea of how much energy is required to burn the retina, and we can easily make LEDs that stay under that threshold. Since the wavelength of an LED is uniform, there's very little risk of any IR or UV damage, as well.
The biggest hazard to this thing is that some idiot might try to wear it while walking, and be hit by a car. That proves that walking is horribly dangerous compared to safer alternatives like being inside the car, even though feet are the locomotive means the human body has been using for thousands of years.
So in other words, it's flamebait.
If Slashdot had any journalistic integrity, the story would be delayed until any lawsuit has at least passed its initial stages, where a judge decides whether it has merit or not, and all the details become public. Until then, we have only a partial story presented with a heavy bias... but that's the norm for this place, I guess.
As far as giving power to the government, that's correct - there is no need for amendments to add additional powers. That's why almost immediately after the Articles were ratified, a bunch of amendments were added to denote a few key freedoms that the government wouldn't be able to touch. Almost all* of the amendments since then have been to refine the political process or clarify further rights the government will not be able to affect. Since then, practically everything the federal government has done has been authorized under Section 8.
* The 16th Amendment establishes that the government can create a federal tax on income that is not uniform to everyone. The Supreme Court had previously determined that Congress didn't have that power, as it was limited by the clause I quoted to being uniform.
I guess it's a good thing those exemptions don't actually exist, then.
News for nerds, stuff that matters, and the latest outrageous flamebait gossip to stir up ad-watching lynch mobs!
You deleted everything in the clause excep the general welfare part...
Yes, for brevity and clarity. Taxes weren't a part of the discussion until afterward. The question was whether the government has the power, and the answer is "yes, under Article 1, Section 8".
But, the aca will fail on the tax clause too.
...But it didn't when it was already examined. The opinion of the Court was that the Taxing Clause allows the government to tax behaviors, and "not buying health insurance" is a taxable behavior. Other taxable behaviors are things like smoking tobacco, burning fuel, and importing foreign goods - things that Congress has determined to be detrimental to the general welfare of the United States.
as soon as someone is actually penalized- if they do not recieve a fair trial and due process, the challenge to its constitutionaliy will be made ... [Such a challenge] cannot be made until someone is actually fined.
...but there is no "fine". Failing to buy insurance isn't a crime. You have the choice whether to buy insurance or not, and no law enforcement personnel will likely ever know or care about your choice. Rather, the tax is applied along with income and other taxes by the IRS. If you don't pay the tax, the IRS can do approximately nothing. They can withhold the amount from your refund, but the ACA tax itself has no provision for enforcement. The only way I know of offhand to actually be "fined" relating to the ACA is if you explicitly claim that you have insurance to avoid the penalty when you really do not. That's either fraud or tax evasion depending on circumstances, and that routinely goes through a courtroom. There's your chance for due process, where you can argue that you don't need to pay the tax because it's unconstitutional... ...except as mentioned before, the Supreme Court determined that not buying health insurance is taxable.
For some, it's healthcare for all.
In fairness, for others it's saving money, even if it hurts others.
That's why Congress is given the power. Ideally, Congress changes its opinions about what's good every few generations, as the impulsive and optimistic youth mature into politicians who can balance their morality with the realities of managing a large country.
I said "ideally".