I worked at UIUC as a graduate assistant when I went to library school. Missing volumes or articles ripped from journals aren't that uncommon. In fact, they subscribe to a document delivery service that is designed to address this very issue.
Practically every academic library doesn't lend out serials because of the fact that many of the journals a library subscribes to are irreplaceable should they be lost or stolen. No opportunity to try out the, "Oh, I lost it" option. So, people would need to make a concerted effort to steal this volume - and then deal with all the other issues such needing to have a way to mask its origins.
Of course, people that would steal it in the first place wouldn't necessarily think out all these issues. So, if they actually got it out in the first place, they would likely dump it when they realized they couldn't do anything with it - or Intel referred them to the police.
Technically, you mean marketing campaign. An advertising campaign would need to run in one in of the traditional advertising mediums - i.e., tv, print, radio, outdoor and so forth. $10,000 wouldn't cover the production costs for the simplest of print ads - (art director's time, photographer or licensing of stock photography, time to get client approval, legal clearance, etc.) much less the cost of the media to run the ad in.
From a public relations stand-point, this is very effective. It probably cost Intel more to have their public relations firm - or their internal corporate affairs people - dream this up and put it out there than the $10,000 bounty.
I agree with your point. You can ask someone for a Kleenex or a tissue. However, Kimberly-Clark would have your head the second you tried to use their trademarks to sell tissue as Kleenex.
Inputs from a variety of people are going to lead - on average - to a more creative solution than a solution devised by a single person. Of course, there are genius programmers, just as there are genius users. But, they aren't the norm.
Although, I would agree with you if I had to select one or another, I'd probably leave it to the programer to solve the problem. But this isn't an OR situation. It is an AND where users work together with programers. It is also a situation where there may not be a defined problem until the user identifies it.
I don't despise it, but I do find it unfortunate that prejudices like those you express here are as common as they are: Poor people are lazy? Rich people are over-achievers? Money somehow defines your level?
Hey Marie Antoinette! I thought you would have figured out by now that the "Let Them Eat Cake" mentality is the surest way to lose everything you have - including your head.
Progressive tax, by definition, is a tax the has different rates based on total income. Thus, a sales tax is not progressive. It's a regressive tax.
A regressive tax, in contrast, is a tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people.
Example: If I make $1,000,000 a year, and you make $75,000. If we both spend $75,000 on however we define sales, we both have to pay the same in taxes. You are being taxed on 100% of your income. I am being taxed on only.075% of mine.
While a regressive tax such as this one that is focused on consumption has benefits, it does not help address income inequities or have any built in system that recognizes the responsibility of people in fortunate circumstnaces have to the larger society and for people not as well off as they are - such as those that make below the poverty line.
Ever hear of Deep Throat and Watergate? It doesn't take much imagination to think of scenarios where disclosiing your name is not an option and the alternative to being anonymous is being silent. You appear to be in confortable circumstances where this isn't an issue. Not everyone is so fortunate.
I agree in large part with your post. However, I think there are a few dimension that is missing - e.g., heirarchy, environment, etc.
For example, I'm trained as a librarian. My role in my company is to help people research business problems and point them in the right direction in terms of solving those problems. The job is complex, and I work with more than 50 offices around the world.
I work with every level from interns to the CEO. The people that know me respect my work and where I don't get respect - I let people do more of the work so that they can fail and have an appreciation for how difficult it is to do what they need to do without my help. If necessary, I demand it.
This covers pretty much what you said. However, the problem is that because I'm in a role that is outside the typical heirarchies, the fact that I work with everyone and that I work with everyone sporatically - I am constantly having to earn and demand respect. It's ongoing and never ending.
I accept that this is part of the job and because it is essentially a support position, you get respected less than if your ass is on the line. Still, it is tiring to not only be good at your job but have to establish it each and every time you interact with someone.
I think you need to think about the position - I know "respect" isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I hear technician which is probably the same problem I have in my role - and the company culture too when you talk about this issue.
Reminds me of King Solomon. It's a logistical nightmare. Half a baby or 20% of an idea - it would be madness to do it that way.
Re:One of my favorites is "Scotland Yard"
on
Fun Tabletop Games?
·
· Score: 1
I played this as a kid too. The only problem is that if you are Mr. X you have to have time to look at the board without other players watching. Players try to get clues by watching where you spend more time looking at the board and it is hard to look elsewhere when you are looking at your options.
While it may be true that "most men live quiet lives of desperation", doing something no one has done before can be as desperate and shallow as any trust fund baby travelling the world on her yacht or doing something you hate for the money.
Don't get me wrong. I think this is a great accomplishment. I just think we need to be careful of hero-worship - because there is a fine, often imperceptible line between living your life to its fullest potential and being on Jackass.
You illustrate the ALA president's point nicely. If you don't understand that all information cannot be found on Google, you are likely one of the people his comment is directed toward.
If finding information was as easy as you think it is, corporations wouldn't be spending billions of dollars a year annually buying information. In fact, we have never been more relevant to our organization's than we are today.
To use Zerzan as an example, I'm interested in reading his books - not reading about him. Perhaps you can tell me where I can read the full text of his books online? Is that a Google search?Ha!
I'm a librarian. I've said it before here and I imagine that I'll say it again: Librarians are - in many respects - editors of whole collections. Just as an editor for a single work can make it more lucid, readable or relevant for a particular purpose, a librarian can make an entire collection more lucid, readable or relevant for a particular purpose.
I think there are three issues at play here.
First, you are correct that blogs are outside of the "filters" librarians are involved with - at this point. However, librarians aren't threatened by blogs. Quite the opposite because the more prevalent blogs become the more people will need someone to filter the collection. If blogs are going to be relevant at all, it will make more jobs for librarians.
You may be one of the people that thinks that you are all for democracy and don't want any filters - and I applaud your enthusiasm. Most people, do not share it though. It takes a lot of time and a lot of smarts to do that work and most people do not want to focus their efforts in that way - which is where a librarian comes in. They are essentially paid to do that work for you - so it is easier to find what you need.
Some of that hiring out of that work means the person making choices might make different choices than you would. I'd argue that this is both a good and bad thing. It is good because it might expose you to something you would have not thought to look at on your own. It is bad in so far as prevents you from getting access to something you want. For example, try to find books from the primitive anarchist John Zerzan outside an Oregan library. It simply isn't available, but then again, most people aren't particularly interested in Zerzan and the librarian has to make choices about the best way to use their limited book purchasing funds.
Which brings us to the second point, selection of what is good is subjective. If I were to guess, the reason that there is a several bookcases devoted to Marxism is because it is culturally significant in ways that Benjamin Franklin is not. For example, can you tell me in what ways Benjamin Franklin has impacted the development of feminism or the formation of governments? Can you talk to what impact Benjamin Franklin has had internationally?
I think the example you use is probably justified in an academic environment. I do not know how many dissertations were written on Benjamin Franklin over the last ten years compared to Marxism - but I'm certain that a great deal more research went into Marxism.
However, one thing that might bolster your argument would be to talk about access. It is almost a joke in librarian circles about how easy it is to apply subject headings to books on homosexuality. Librarians - as a class - probably have higher proportions of homosexuals than the general public so this reveals a genuine bias. However, it swings other ways too in that librarians tend to be middle-class and white. Sandy Berman has been one of the most persistent and vocal critics of subject heading bias and has done what he can to move subject headings more to the vernacular (I'm still waiting on Cookery into Cooking Sandy!).
The third issue is more of an internal one among librarians. There are librarians like Gerry McKiernan. He used to post all kinds of things about new technology and how they are going to change everything librarians do. How is the Podcasting going to revolutionize librarianship? How can librarians use blogs to better serve people?
Gerry represents a sub-class of librarians that think that technology is going to change everything and often wants to posts things in forums where it is of questionable relevance. I disagree with Gerry. I think Podcasting will have little if any relevance to librarianship. This isn't to say that technology like RFID won't drastically change things in libraries - but Gerry rarely talks about more concrete issues.
I'm frankly tired of that type of discussion. Technology doesn't fundamentally change the principles
While I am tempted to agree with you, little details like the fact that more people were put in jail by Clinton than either Reagon or Bush or the fact that treaties like NAFTA were signed by Clinton with bi-partisan support make you wonder where the real difference are between the two parties.
Or to make it more current: Can you tell me who was the peace candidate in the last election?
I have to agree that Bush's program or remaking the world according to some strange notion of "freedom" that doesn't match up with my definition of the term is bad. However when you start looking at the details both parties leave a great deal to be desired.
To quote an old saying: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."
Or in other words, adventures like Iraq and tough talk from Bush, Rice and others leads to the proliferation of weapons and increased likelihood of conflict. Less freedom, less security - double plus good?
It doesn't seem you understand RMS and his theory of freeness.
From the site: "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."
Using your argument, the supplier would have to product not decent software - but perfect, unimprovable software that met every concievable need, both now and in the future. Something that cannot happen.
So, now that we have eliminated one side of your EITHER/OR and we are left with RMS (and everyone else involved with free software) hacking. Thank God.
As a parting shot, can you tell me who the userbase is for a OS that - just this week - started working to the point it warrants a mention on Slashdot? Maybe they should change the name to HNL (Hurd's Not Linux) so that it can help people that are confused on that point.
There is a tool that does do this called TVEyes. It is used by PR Agencies and politicians to track how they are talked about in the covered broadcasts. From what I understand, they basically have a program transcribed and searchable in about 30 seconds after airing. Pretty cool stuff. But as with most things worthwhile, it is expensive and not available for free on the Internet - just as Factiva and a whole host of other services aren't.
I disagree with your basic assumption that laws are based on what the state has an interest in outlawing. The state exists at our sufferance and for our purposes, not the other way around.
In theory. When was the last time you saw a state abolished because it wasn't serving the interest of the populace? Where has this occurred where it didn't involve bloodshed? It seems to me that it doesn't really work this way in the real world.
If you are going to cut hairs for Libertarians, you should do the same for anarchists. Anarchy often gets described as the abscense of government. However, anarchism is more accurately described as a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs.
Anarchists can see the value of laws and regulations - but they also see the associated negative aspects such as the quasi-military forces (and the inevitable abuse of the powers of this force) required to support them. Anarchism is the belief that there are better strategies - which seems like there is some overlap with Libertarians in this regard because there are many things that authority will impose its will on - because it can and wants to subjugate, not because it is right or better for society or the individuals that live in that society.
The secret prison at Guantanamo is an interesting example. What happens when the force used to enforce the law, when there is no law? Does this not reveal something to us about the law itself?
Well, I don't think it is fair to ask you for a plan or a magic bullet. I don't have one either. I don't know enough about how the present system works (and other options available when you talk about a system as big as Social Security) to suggest improvements.
With that said, I think it is fairly intuitive to understand that privatizing social security is a radical departure from the current system that -if tried - would be real easy to mess up and leave society in a worse situation than if you did nothing.
On a personal level, I don't think privatization is the right way to address society's problems. However, this is a philosophical perspective on what is right - a perspective upon which reasonable people can disagree.
I can agree that if you can improve Social Security so that it is better for everyone involved, you should do so. Few things in this world have reached a state of perfection where they cannot be made better. Social Security is obviously not one of those exceptions.
The question is: what is to be done? And this question should be asked with an eye toward what will make things better in the long term - not how I can get more money paid to me as a contributor, right now. We both seem to agree on that point.
It is not clear to me what your argument actually is because you haven't fully presented one.
Your conclusion seems to be that privatizing social security is a good idea because it makes retirement more financially secure. How? In what ways is it better than the current system?
You claim that privatizing social security will remove the "burden" from children. How does it do it?
My guess is your argument probably goes along the same lines on how people argued for 401(k) plans. It removed the burden of having to pay pensions and retirement for corporations by enabling people to "take control" of their retirement - while at the same time relieving businesses of this responsibility and making other people's money more readily available to them for investment.
I won't argue that 401(k) plans are good for business and helped funnel money into stock markets. I will argue that they do not make retirments benefits more secure for workers. Nor will privatizing social security.
Privatizing social security will, in fact, undermine the financial security of the elderly and funnel more money into the pockets of the rich and powerful - following the same pattern that has been in place since Reagan of concentrating wealth into few hands - a practice that undermines our republic. It will do this while it impoverishes seniors that rely upon the current system.
Simply put, privatizing social security is bad policy. It's not a matter or what I like or don't like or whether I like change or not (which frankly, you aren't in a position to speculate upon).
Slashdot Mirror
I worked at UIUC as a graduate assistant when I went to library school. Missing volumes or articles ripped from journals aren't that uncommon. In fact, they subscribe to a document delivery service that is designed to address this very issue.
Practically every academic library doesn't lend out serials because of the fact that many of the journals a library subscribes to are irreplaceable should they be lost or stolen. No opportunity to try out the, "Oh, I lost it" option. So, people would need to make a concerted effort to steal this volume - and then deal with all the other issues such needing to have a way to mask its origins.
Of course, people that would steal it in the first place wouldn't necessarily think out all these issues. So, if they actually got it out in the first place, they would likely dump it when they realized they couldn't do anything with it - or Intel referred them to the police.
Technically, you mean marketing campaign. An advertising campaign would need to run in one in of the traditional advertising mediums - i.e., tv, print, radio, outdoor and so forth. $10,000 wouldn't cover the production costs for the simplest of print ads - (art director's time, photographer or licensing of stock photography, time to get client approval, legal clearance, etc.) much less the cost of the media to run the ad in.
From a public relations stand-point, this is very effective. It probably cost Intel more to have their public relations firm - or their internal corporate affairs people - dream this up and put it out there than the $10,000 bounty.
I agree with your point. You can ask someone for a Kleenex or a tissue. However, Kimberly-Clark would have your head the second you tried to use their trademarks to sell tissue as Kleenex.
Inputs from a variety of people are going to lead - on average - to a more creative solution than a solution devised by a single person. Of course, there are genius programmers, just as there are genius users. But, they aren't the norm.
Although, I would agree with you if I had to select one or another, I'd probably leave it to the programer to solve the problem. But this isn't an OR situation. It is an AND where users work together with programers. It is also a situation where there may not be a defined problem until the user identifies it.
I don't despise it, but I do find it unfortunate that prejudices like those you express here are as common as they are: Poor people are lazy? Rich people are over-achievers? Money somehow defines your level?
I'm glad I don't live in that world.
Hey Marie Antoinette! I thought you would have figured out by now that the "Let Them Eat Cake" mentality is the surest way to lose everything you have - including your head.
Progressive tax, by definition, is a tax the has different rates based on total income. Thus, a sales tax is not progressive. It's a regressive tax.
A regressive tax, in contrast, is a tax that takes a larger percentage of the income of low-income people than of high-income people.
Example: If I make $1,000,000 a year, and you make $75,000. If we both spend $75,000 on however we define sales, we both have to pay the same in taxes. You are being taxed on 100% of your income. I am being taxed on only .075% of mine.
While a regressive tax such as this one that is focused on consumption has benefits, it does not help address income inequities or have any built in system that recognizes the responsibility of people in fortunate circumstnaces have to the larger society and for people not as well off as they are - such as those that make below the poverty line.
Ever hear of Deep Throat and Watergate? It doesn't take much imagination to think of scenarios where disclosiing your name is not an option and the alternative to being anonymous is being silent. You appear to be in confortable circumstances where this isn't an issue. Not everyone is so fortunate.
I agree in large part with your post. However, I think there are a few dimension that is missing - e.g., heirarchy, environment, etc.
For example, I'm trained as a librarian. My role in my company is to help people research business problems and point them in the right direction in terms of solving those problems. The job is complex, and I work with more than 50 offices around the world.
I work with every level from interns to the CEO. The people that know me respect my work and where I don't get respect - I let people do more of the work so that they can fail and have an appreciation for how difficult it is to do what they need to do without my help. If necessary, I demand it.
This covers pretty much what you said. However, the problem is that because I'm in a role that is outside the typical heirarchies, the fact that I work with everyone and that I work with everyone sporatically - I am constantly having to earn and demand respect. It's ongoing and never ending.
I accept that this is part of the job and because it is essentially a support position, you get respected less than if your ass is on the line. Still, it is tiring to not only be good at your job but have to establish it each and every time you interact with someone.
I think you need to think about the position - I know "respect" isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I hear technician which is probably the same problem I have in my role - and the company culture too when you talk about this issue.
Reminds me of King Solomon. It's a logistical nightmare. Half a baby or 20% of an idea - it would be madness to do it that way.
I played this as a kid too. The only problem is that if you are Mr. X you have to have time to look at the board without other players watching. Players try to get clues by watching where you spend more time looking at the board and it is hard to look elsewhere when you are looking at your options.
While it may be true that "most men live quiet lives of desperation", doing something no one has done before can be as desperate and shallow as any trust fund baby travelling the world on her yacht or doing something you hate for the money.
Don't get me wrong. I think this is a great accomplishment. I just think we need to be careful of hero-worship - because there is a fine, often imperceptible line between living your life to its fullest potential and being on Jackass.
You illustrate the ALA president's point nicely. If you don't understand that all information cannot be found on Google, you are likely one of the people his comment is directed toward.
If finding information was as easy as you think it is, corporations wouldn't be spending billions of dollars a year annually buying information. In fact, we have never been more relevant to our organization's than we are today.
To use Zerzan as an example, I'm interested in reading his books - not reading about him. Perhaps you can tell me where I can read the full text of his books online? Is that a Google search?Ha!
I'm a librarian. I've said it before here and I imagine that I'll say it again: Librarians are - in many respects - editors of whole collections. Just as an editor for a single work can make it more lucid, readable or relevant for a particular purpose, a librarian can make an entire collection more lucid, readable or relevant for a particular purpose.
I think there are three issues at play here.
First, you are correct that blogs are outside of the "filters" librarians are involved with - at this point. However, librarians aren't threatened by blogs. Quite the opposite because the more prevalent blogs become the more people will need someone to filter the collection. If blogs are going to be relevant at all, it will make more jobs for librarians.
You may be one of the people that thinks that you are all for democracy and don't want any filters - and I applaud your enthusiasm. Most people, do not share it though. It takes a lot of time and a lot of smarts to do that work and most people do not want to focus their efforts in that way - which is where a librarian comes in. They are essentially paid to do that work for you - so it is easier to find what you need.
Some of that hiring out of that work means the person making choices might make different choices than you would. I'd argue that this is both a good and bad thing. It is good because it might expose you to something you would have not thought to look at on your own. It is bad in so far as prevents you from getting access to something you want. For example, try to find books from the primitive anarchist John Zerzan outside an Oregan library. It simply isn't available, but then again, most people aren't particularly interested in Zerzan and the librarian has to make choices about the best way to use their limited book purchasing funds.
Which brings us to the second point, selection of what is good is subjective. If I were to guess, the reason that there is a several bookcases devoted to Marxism is because it is culturally significant in ways that Benjamin Franklin is not. For example, can you tell me in what ways Benjamin Franklin has impacted the development of feminism or the formation of governments? Can you talk to what impact Benjamin Franklin has had internationally?
I think the example you use is probably justified in an academic environment. I do not know how many dissertations were written on Benjamin Franklin over the last ten years compared to Marxism - but I'm certain that a great deal more research went into Marxism.
However, one thing that might bolster your argument would be to talk about access. It is almost a joke in librarian circles about how easy it is to apply subject headings to books on homosexuality. Librarians - as a class - probably have higher proportions of homosexuals than the general public so this reveals a genuine bias. However, it swings other ways too in that librarians tend to be middle-class and white. Sandy Berman has been one of the most persistent and vocal critics of subject heading bias and has done what he can to move subject headings more to the vernacular (I'm still waiting on Cookery into Cooking Sandy!).
The third issue is more of an internal one among librarians. There are librarians like Gerry McKiernan. He used to post all kinds of things about new technology and how they are going to change everything librarians do. How is the Podcasting going to revolutionize librarianship? How can librarians use blogs to better serve people?
Gerry represents a sub-class of librarians that think that technology is going to change everything and often wants to posts things in forums where it is of questionable relevance. I disagree with Gerry. I think Podcasting will have little if any relevance to librarianship. This isn't to say that technology like RFID won't drastically change things in libraries - but Gerry rarely talks about more concrete issues.
I'm frankly tired of that type of discussion. Technology doesn't fundamentally change the principles
The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara
I think he was talking about the bicameral legislative structure. Although, it is hard to tell.
While I am tempted to agree with you, little details like the fact that more people were put in jail by Clinton than either Reagon or Bush or the fact that treaties like NAFTA were signed by Clinton with bi-partisan support make you wonder where the real difference are between the two parties.
Or to make it more current: Can you tell me who was the peace candidate in the last election?
I have to agree that Bush's program or remaking the world according to some strange notion of "freedom" that doesn't match up with my definition of the term is bad. However when you start looking at the details both parties leave a great deal to be desired.
To quote an old saying: "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way."
Or in other words, adventures like Iraq and tough talk from Bush, Rice and others leads to the proliferation of weapons and increased likelihood of conflict. Less freedom, less security - double plus good?
It doesn't seem you understand RMS and his theory of freeness.
From the site: "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software."
Using your argument, the supplier would have to product not decent software - but perfect, unimprovable software that met every concievable need, both now and in the future. Something that cannot happen.
So, now that we have eliminated one side of your EITHER/OR and we are left with RMS (and everyone else involved with free software) hacking. Thank God.
As a parting shot, can you tell me who the userbase is for a OS that - just this week - started working to the point it warrants a mention on Slashdot? Maybe they should change the name to HNL (Hurd's Not Linux) so that it can help people that are confused on that point.
There is a tool that does do this called TVEyes. It is used by PR Agencies and politicians to track how they are talked about in the covered broadcasts. From what I understand, they basically have a program transcribed and searchable in about 30 seconds after airing. Pretty cool stuff. But as with most things worthwhile, it is expensive and not available for free on the Internet - just as Factiva and a whole host of other services aren't.
If you are going to cut hairs for Libertarians, you should do the same for anarchists. Anarchy often gets described as the abscense of government. However, anarchism is more accurately described as a political theory opposed to all forms of government and governmental restraint and advocating voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups in order to satisfy their needs.
Anarchists can see the value of laws and regulations - but they also see the associated negative aspects such as the quasi-military forces (and the inevitable abuse of the powers of this force) required to support them. Anarchism is the belief that there are better strategies - which seems like there is some overlap with Libertarians in this regard because there are many things that authority will impose its will on - because it can and wants to subjugate, not because it is right or better for society or the individuals that live in that society.
The secret prison at Guantanamo is an interesting example. What happens when the force used to enforce the law, when there is no law? Does this not reveal something to us about the law itself?
Let me think of a counter-example: Ramanujan comes to mind.
Well, I don't think it is fair to ask you for a plan or a magic bullet. I don't have one either. I don't know enough about how the present system works (and other options available when you talk about a system as big as Social Security) to suggest improvements.
With that said, I think it is fairly intuitive to understand that privatizing social security is a radical departure from the current system that -if tried - would be real easy to mess up and leave society in a worse situation than if you did nothing.
On a personal level, I don't think privatization is the right way to address society's problems. However, this is a philosophical perspective on what is right - a perspective upon which reasonable people can disagree.
I can agree that if you can improve Social Security so that it is better for everyone involved, you should do so. Few things in this world have reached a state of perfection where they cannot be made better. Social Security is obviously not one of those exceptions.
The question is: what is to be done? And this question should be asked with an eye toward what will make things better in the long term - not how I can get more money paid to me as a contributor, right now. We both seem to agree on that point.
It is not clear to me what your argument actually is because you haven't fully presented one.
Your conclusion seems to be that privatizing social security is a good idea because it makes retirement more financially secure. How? In what ways is it better than the current system?
You claim that privatizing social security will remove the "burden" from children. How does it do it?
My guess is your argument probably goes along the same lines on how people argued for 401(k) plans. It removed the burden of having to pay pensions and retirement for corporations by enabling people to "take control" of their retirement - while at the same time relieving businesses of this responsibility and making other people's money more readily available to them for investment.
I won't argue that 401(k) plans are good for business and helped funnel money into stock markets. I will argue that they do not make retirments benefits more secure for workers. Nor will privatizing social security.
Privatizing social security will, in fact, undermine the financial security of the elderly and funnel more money into the pockets of the rich and powerful - following the same pattern that has been in place since Reagan of concentrating wealth into few hands - a practice that undermines our republic. It will do this while it impoverishes seniors that rely upon the current system.
Simply put, privatizing social security is bad policy. It's not a matter or what I like or don't like or whether I like change or not (which frankly, you aren't in a position to speculate upon).