So what exactly is it? Is the iPad a media platform? Then why have the virtual keyboard or have the possibility to hook up an external keyboard. Why no camera for teleconferencing? That might have been handy. For that matter, it won't support Flash either. So exactly what is this Frankenstein from Apple supposed to be? It's a blown up iTouch.
The iPhone was able to tap the market for phones that delivered media (music and video) well, which is something that no one on the market took advantage of at the time. Windows Mobile is a mess...I despise it with a passion. Regardless, the iPad still doesn't fit anywhere. It's not a netbook as with a netbook you would expect it to do more than it currently does. The iPad is a larger iTouch which I'll note is the bastard child of Apple. Not cool enough to be an iPhone and yet with a few more capabilities of an iPod. If Apple can come up with something truly groundbreaking or at least functional out of this, then I'll be pleasantly surprised. Till then, there isn't anything here to get excited about.
Of course, with a name like "macs4all", I can expect you to be objective.
A quick Google search turns up this. DRM here, Multi-task here and underpowered for me is an extension of the fact that it cannot multitask. Having a large iTouch able to do one thing at a time does not really mean that it's blazing fast. Either it can't multitask because it doesn't have the specs for it or something is wrong with the iPhone OS (yeah, it's not running OS X).
Oh, but people have said plenty about it. I'm not going to link to all of it (you would expect people to Google these things), but here is a link to one article that links to several.
And for sake of clarity, I have and iPhone, own an iMac, spent many years working support on Apple products. I don't call them out just because I'm a "hater" because I like some of their products. But honestly, look at this thing and its specs and try to tell me what there is to get excited about this.
I'm going to posit that the success of the iPod, which was not instantaneous, is really tied to the Apple store and their ability to deliver songs, especially individual songs at a reasonable price point. That was the piece that was missing from the scene at the time which led to other players (Amazon, mostly) trying to imitate the store. The iPhone delivered more functionality than the other phone manufacturers were willing to dole out to us (secretly because phone companies hate their customers). Unless Apple somehow comes up with a really revolutionary idea with the iPad, there's nothing to get excited about here. There's not a single feature here that isn't already on another Apple product or netbook.
Of course, some people will buy it because it's Apple, but you could hardly call them technologists. Early adopters and Apple fanboys will eat it up, but really, is there anything to get excited about here?
Say what you will about Tivo or cable DVRs, but they get the job done. The iPad hasn't exactly had fawning reviews and it starts hitting the price point where people start to second guess their purchases unless they know exactly what it is. Is it an e-reader? Not really with a backlit display and likely a criminally short battery life. Is it a netbook? No, especially if you have to choose between an awkward virtual keyboard or lug a physical keyboard around to type--not to mention the lack of multi-tasking. It's essentially a enlarged iTouch without phone or a camera and still tied to the ever-so-shaky AT&T network. It is the multi-function object that doesn't really do any particular function well.
Maybe it's because Joss Whedon hates you. Although I do find it absolutely hilarious that I find Whedon fans defend the offing of both Book and Wash in the movie when one would have served but both seem ridiculous.
I'm not selling the writing short. I find it sloppy writing when you have to kill off more than one "major" character to get a visceral reaction from your audience. Just because it's Mal's story doesn't mean as a storyteller that you should have carte blanche to shit on the other characters. Give them a heroic send off if you're going to off them. My theory on this? Whedon knew this was the end of Firefly and thought fuck it, I'm going to kill my baby.
And, minor point here, why the hell did Mr. Universe get buried at the same place as Book and Wash? The guy wasn't in the TV series, has a few minutes of screen time in the movie and gets the nice plot at the end with two of the show mainstays? Who'd he blow to get that to work for him?
I looked up the War of Jessie Wall and found that you mis-characterized it to justify your rant against liberals. Jessie was the zone where a bunch of players from WWII Online decided to set up shop, many of the players with a conservative bent. They weren't really interested in finding a spot and fitting in rather than carving out a section for themselves. You portray it more as "poor conservatives with pro-war views being harassed by the evil liberals". In the pieces I read, it seemed there were dicks on both sides of the fence who kept on ratcheting up the rhetoric. Jessie wasn't locked down because of views, it was locked down because LL didn't want player killing to spread beyond that zone.
Here, have a read. Not as one sided as you portrayed it.
Sad thing is that at one time, Geek Squad actually had a great reputation for being good techs. They were the guys you called if things had really got FUBAR. Then Best Buy bought them, pimped them out and started filling their ranks with salesmen and not techs. If someone asks me about them now, I tell them to not even try GS. Better off just to burn your money.
I guess what I was trying to say is that it didn't take active processes and slow them down or degrade the performance of the PC, as the article implies. Also, if the PCs are running overnight, then your issue is not controlling the on/off switch, not if a minor process is stealing a few precious ticks off your CPU.
Hello sir! Might I point you out to this geek tidbit in order for you to enjoy the hilarity of the above posts. At the end of the re-training, we'll stamp your geek card and you can be fully admitted again into the magical Geekdom!
Having worked in an academic medical center and having a bit of exposure to doctors, I can say this...they may be able to patch you up but most doctors don't know shit about computers. It's the reason that most of them still scribble things down in some incomprehensible handwriting--they either don't have the time or don't want to learn a different system for keeping records.
Actual savings probably won't be realized until everyone in the system starts to use it and have information that is easily transferable between clinics/doctors/hospitals. Another hoop to jump through are the HIPPA requirements, not only on the federal level but on individual states as well.
The other thing I looked for but didn't find in the surprisingly short study (only 7 page PDF) is any type of linking the potential administrative gains which were offset by IT costs. The study glances at this question, but admits it doesn't know why the costs had not decreased. Not that this isn't the case, but it's just guesswork which takes a fair amount of bite out of the report. If they could definitely say that yes, IT costs are eating up the savings, then that's something. But with the way our health system is run here in the States, I wouldn't say that our system couldn't be improved upon...of course, that's a whole different discussion.
Well then here: IPCC FAQ for your perusal. Not the whole report, mind you, seeing as I'm sure that you don't have the time or patience to sort through the information. I'm guessing that you're referring to CBS as being the "obviously politically motivated" party here? You don't actually say, so I have to assume this.
I have no problem with science education. We don't do nearly enough of it, mostly because parents don't actually do enough about it, directly in their own school districts where they should be doing something about it.
Cool. Something we're on the same page.
What I'm pointing out is that his (Obama's) party always involves itself with the education system - especially at the federal leve - by throwing money at it... money which always props up the politicized unions that vote his way, and which never have the students' actual interests at heart. For examples, note the trouble that science-oriented charter schools have surviving when the public education system is highly influenced in that district by by the teachers' unions.
I'd need to see numbers on this to even entertain this idea...and even then, I'm not sure this is convincing.
I'm not going to disagree that unions do not have their bad sides, but I would hesitate to say that they're the only or even primary cause of bad education. Personally, I feel that teachers are woefully underpaid in this country. If we had teachers that were well paid, maybe we could start drawing better people into the profession rather than the mediocre. I agree with your point that there should be changes here...but unions exist for a reason and that reason is that they, as a group, have been taken advantage of by their employers. Gripe about the union as much as you want, but today's teachers do not have it easy. Long hours coupled with odd mandates and made worse by poor pay and ungrateful parents...it's a miracle we have the teachers we do have now.
Where I'm weary about in terms of government is bait and switch tactics. For example, the state I grew up in wanted to get video lottery/gambling as well as state lottery revenue. The promise is that this extra revenue would be put into the education coffers. Politically, it was very successful because it got the bill passed--think of the kids, don't you know. Then later, in a down economic year, the revenues got rolled into the state general fund and education started to take hits for being too costly. Suddenly, the school districts were demonized for their expenses and cuts had to be made.
So while you might complain that teacher's unions are the devil, I would say the issue of education, particularly in science, math and the Arts, is not as black and white as you are painting it. The proposed plan is not a handover of money, and from what I've read of it, it's certainly not handed over to the schools to do with as they please. That would seem to contradict your opposition to the plan. Unless you're seeing something I'm not.
That expression goes back way before she trotted it out, and it's still being used, ad nauseum. Google it.
Of course this is true, but context is everything. Seeing that you threw this in during your general rant against liberals and then capitalized the words, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what you're implying.
More to the point of your question though is that you never do address the very thought of what you think is wrong with science education, which is the only way to have proper science education is get the parents involved. So how do you propose to do this, pray tell? Wave some magic wand to make parents who are too set in their ways to somehow imbue them with the necessary curiosity and objectivity to pass it on to their kids?
But the government proposes a plan to spur science education and your fault is with the people who proposed it. Might as well throw up your hands and admit you either 1) don't think there is anything wrong with science education today or 2) admit that we cannot possibly change the status quo and give up. Seriously, I would love to hear your proposal to get all parents more involved with their children's education. I don't think you have any idea on how that can be accomplished, but if you have something, I'm all ears.
Really? You stop being interested when you're reminded that your current president's only executive experience prior to his current OTJT, was his holding of that title? Yeah, I can see why you'd rather not be reminded of that.
Seriously? This doesn't have a thing to do with the topic. And who cares about this unless you have some sort of cognitive dissonance about who got elected into office. Obviously, this weak argument didn't hold enough water during the campaign, you think I give a shit about it now?
I stop paying attention when I see a post littered with the following phrases:
Nanny State
Community Organizing or Organizer
group-think
Spin that with your broad generalizations about the left and a hilariously old reference to Hillary Clinton's book just shows that you're hopelessly mired in ideological cliches with no objective reasoning whatsoever...something I might add is important when discussing science.
I, on the other hand, am actually happy that government is actually paying attention to science and not making an enemy of it.
If you some years to wait it out, you could try to really build up the IT industry to a younger relative (maybe a nephew or a niece) about how awesome it is. Once they're convinced that this is the job for them, encourage them to start practicing! Route any and all requests to said younger relative saying "they could use the practice" and convince your parents (or other relatives that call on you) that you're just not that on top of the current trends any more.
Hear hear. I've been reading this story over on Ars the last couple of days (here) and the title of the article on Ars is very appropriate.
I've cut kdawson a lot of slack in the past, sometimes just shaking my head and just letting the detractors do what they do, but this title is just fucking wrong. Have you seen what BlueBeat is trying to pull off legally here? Another Ars link to explain their confusing legal defense. This is under the same parent company who threatened to sue a bunch of multinationals because supposedly their DRM schemes weren't compliant with the DMCA and tried to get them all to license MRT's product.
kdawson...what the hell? The title is wrong at best, you cherry-picked the article to frame this so that there is some ambiguity here and make it seem like EMI is the big bad picking on the little company. Seriously, this whole article is trying to stir shit up. BlueBeat is not the good guy here. Let me be clear that I'm no supporter of what the RIAA does or generally the music companies behind it. This time though, EMI is not in the wrong here. Whoever is running BlueBeat seems to be fucking insane and that's how the story should be framed.
So, 1/3 of people eh? Hardly a damning assessment when your sampling size is 16 people. Besides, most people I know including myself have some sort of hearing damage from the past or don't really know what to listen for when presented with different types of sound.
What? That's not so bad. I mean if you really wanted a conspiracy theory you could surmise that MS bought Danger with some knowledge of how in bed they were with T-Mobile. AND seeing that one of the major carriers that Google's Android is T-Mobile, MS purposefully destroyed data to strike out against T-Mobile for partnering with their sworn enemy. Right now, Ballmer is sitting in his evil lair over an active volcano, cackling fitfully while stroking a white cat. Now THAT is a conspiracy theory.
Now that I said it, it doesn't seem unpossible. I better call Hollywood.
I agree that blind worship of a news source is bad. But there's something about using international sources for national news that seems to strip away much of the crap we get in America that passes for news. You'll note that I mentioned the BBC World Service, which I listen to on radio. Much less fluff than what the televised news would deliver.
Charlie Brooker actually did a pretty good (and scary) show on what televised news can do to a public psyche. Wish I could remember the link for it, but I think I saw it on You Tube.
IYou have to collect news from multiple sources and weigh the actual facts, not the commentary.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. That's why I tend to trust international sources for perspective on national news as they're not necessarily beholden to report bias to the perspective of the parent company. Also, I tend to like reporting that gives me facts, some analysis and treats me like an adult.
Something went wrong here in America when all of the sudden we needed to provide "equal time" to some truly fucked up perspectives. I don't need to hear talking heads spin a situation to their advantage. I want facts, analysis by experts and the time for me to think it through.
Slashdot Mirror
So what exactly is it? Is the iPad a media platform? Then why have the virtual keyboard or have the possibility to hook up an external keyboard. Why no camera for teleconferencing? That might have been handy. For that matter, it won't support Flash either. So exactly what is this Frankenstein from Apple supposed to be? It's a blown up iTouch.
The iPhone was able to tap the market for phones that delivered media (music and video) well, which is something that no one on the market took advantage of at the time. Windows Mobile is a mess...I despise it with a passion. Regardless, the iPad still doesn't fit anywhere. It's not a netbook as with a netbook you would expect it to do more than it currently does. The iPad is a larger iTouch which I'll note is the bastard child of Apple. Not cool enough to be an iPhone and yet with a few more capabilities of an iPod. If Apple can come up with something truly groundbreaking or at least functional out of this, then I'll be pleasantly surprised. Till then, there isn't anything here to get excited about.
Of course, with a name like "macs4all", I can expect you to be objective.
A quick Google search turns up this. DRM here, Multi-task here and underpowered for me is an extension of the fact that it cannot multitask. Having a large iTouch able to do one thing at a time does not really mean that it's blazing fast. Either it can't multitask because it doesn't have the specs for it or something is wrong with the iPhone OS (yeah, it's not running OS X).
Oh, but people have said plenty about it. I'm not going to link to all of it (you would expect people to Google these things), but here is a link to one article that links to several.
And for sake of clarity, I have and iPhone, own an iMac, spent many years working support on Apple products. I don't call them out just because I'm a "hater" because I like some of their products. But honestly, look at this thing and its specs and try to tell me what there is to get excited about this.
I'm going to posit that the success of the iPod, which was not instantaneous, is really tied to the Apple store and their ability to deliver songs, especially individual songs at a reasonable price point. That was the piece that was missing from the scene at the time which led to other players (Amazon, mostly) trying to imitate the store. The iPhone delivered more functionality than the other phone manufacturers were willing to dole out to us (secretly because phone companies hate their customers). Unless Apple somehow comes up with a really revolutionary idea with the iPad, there's nothing to get excited about here. There's not a single feature here that isn't already on another Apple product or netbook.
Of course, some people will buy it because it's Apple, but you could hardly call them technologists. Early adopters and Apple fanboys will eat it up, but really, is there anything to get excited about here?
Say what you will about Tivo or cable DVRs, but they get the job done. The iPad hasn't exactly had fawning reviews and it starts hitting the price point where people start to second guess their purchases unless they know exactly what it is. Is it an e-reader? Not really with a backlit display and likely a criminally short battery life. Is it a netbook? No, especially if you have to choose between an awkward virtual keyboard or lug a physical keyboard around to type--not to mention the lack of multi-tasking. It's essentially a enlarged iTouch without phone or a camera and still tied to the ever-so-shaky AT&T network. It is the multi-function object that doesn't really do any particular function well.
A DRM riddled, unable to multi-task, underpowered tablet with no ability to expand? Lord, I hope not.
Maybe it's because Joss Whedon hates you. Although I do find it absolutely hilarious that I find Whedon fans defend the offing of both Book and Wash in the movie when one would have served but both seem ridiculous.
I'm not selling the writing short. I find it sloppy writing when you have to kill off more than one "major" character to get a visceral reaction from your audience. Just because it's Mal's story doesn't mean as a storyteller that you should have carte blanche to shit on the other characters. Give them a heroic send off if you're going to off them. My theory on this? Whedon knew this was the end of Firefly and thought fuck it, I'm going to kill my baby.
And, minor point here, why the hell did Mr. Universe get buried at the same place as Book and Wash? The guy wasn't in the TV series, has a few minutes of screen time in the movie and gets the nice plot at the end with two of the show mainstays? Who'd he blow to get that to work for him?
I looked up the War of Jessie Wall and found that you mis-characterized it to justify your rant against liberals. Jessie was the zone where a bunch of players from WWII Online decided to set up shop, many of the players with a conservative bent. They weren't really interested in finding a spot and fitting in rather than carving out a section for themselves. You portray it more as "poor conservatives with pro-war views being harassed by the evil liberals". In the pieces I read, it seemed there were dicks on both sides of the fence who kept on ratcheting up the rhetoric. Jessie wasn't locked down because of views, it was locked down because LL didn't want player killing to spread beyond that zone.
Here, have a read. Not as one sided as you portrayed it.
Sad thing is that at one time, Geek Squad actually had a great reputation for being good techs. They were the guys you called if things had really got FUBAR. Then Best Buy bought them, pimped them out and started filling their ranks with salesmen and not techs. If someone asks me about them now, I tell them to not even try GS. Better off just to burn your money.
I guess what I was trying to say is that it didn't take active processes and slow them down or degrade the performance of the PC, as the article implies. Also, if the PCs are running overnight, then your issue is not controlling the on/off switch, not if a minor process is stealing a few precious ticks off your CPU.
I used to run SETI years ago and from what I remember, it ran as a screen saver, not as an active process.
Hello sir! Might I point you out to this geek tidbit in order for you to enjoy the hilarity of the above posts. At the end of the re-training, we'll stamp your geek card and you can be fully admitted again into the magical Geekdom!
Well, then we should be able to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow and get this thing back up and running in a jiffy.
Having worked in an academic medical center and having a bit of exposure to doctors, I can say this...they may be able to patch you up but most doctors don't know shit about computers. It's the reason that most of them still scribble things down in some incomprehensible handwriting--they either don't have the time or don't want to learn a different system for keeping records.
Actual savings probably won't be realized until everyone in the system starts to use it and have information that is easily transferable between clinics/doctors/hospitals. Another hoop to jump through are the HIPPA requirements, not only on the federal level but on individual states as well.
The other thing I looked for but didn't find in the surprisingly short study (only 7 page PDF) is any type of linking the potential administrative gains which were offset by IT costs. The study glances at this question, but admits it doesn't know why the costs had not decreased. Not that this isn't the case, but it's just guesswork which takes a fair amount of bite out of the report. If they could definitely say that yes, IT costs are eating up the savings, then that's something. But with the way our health system is run here in the States, I wouldn't say that our system couldn't be improved upon...of course, that's a whole different discussion.
Well then here: IPCC FAQ for your perusal. Not the whole report, mind you, seeing as I'm sure that you don't have the time or patience to sort through the information. I'm guessing that you're referring to CBS as being the "obviously politically motivated" party here? You don't actually say, so I have to assume this.
I have no problem with science education. We don't do nearly enough of it, mostly because parents don't actually do enough about it, directly in their own school districts where they should be doing something about it.
Cool. Something we're on the same page.
What I'm pointing out is that his (Obama's) party always involves itself with the education system - especially at the federal leve - by throwing money at it... money which always props up the politicized unions that vote his way, and which never have the students' actual interests at heart. For examples, note the trouble that science-oriented charter schools have surviving when the public education system is highly influenced in that district by by the teachers' unions.
I'd need to see numbers on this to even entertain this idea...and even then, I'm not sure this is convincing.
I'm not going to disagree that unions do not have their bad sides, but I would hesitate to say that they're the only or even primary cause of bad education. Personally, I feel that teachers are woefully underpaid in this country. If we had teachers that were well paid, maybe we could start drawing better people into the profession rather than the mediocre. I agree with your point that there should be changes here...but unions exist for a reason and that reason is that they, as a group, have been taken advantage of by their employers. Gripe about the union as much as you want, but today's teachers do not have it easy. Long hours coupled with odd mandates and made worse by poor pay and ungrateful parents...it's a miracle we have the teachers we do have now.
Where I'm weary about in terms of government is bait and switch tactics. For example, the state I grew up in wanted to get video lottery/gambling as well as state lottery revenue. The promise is that this extra revenue would be put into the education coffers. Politically, it was very successful because it got the bill passed--think of the kids, don't you know. Then later, in a down economic year, the revenues got rolled into the state general fund and education started to take hits for being too costly. Suddenly, the school districts were demonized for their expenses and cuts had to be made.
So while you might complain that teacher's unions are the devil, I would say the issue of education, particularly in science, math and the Arts, is not as black and white as you are painting it. The proposed plan is not a handover of money, and from what I've read of it, it's certainly not handed over to the schools to do with as they please. That would seem to contradict your opposition to the plan. Unless you're seeing something I'm not.
That expression goes back way before she trotted it out, and it's still being used, ad nauseum. Google it.
Of course this is true, but context is everything. Seeing that you threw this in during your general rant against liberals and then capitalized the words, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what you're implying.
More to the point of your question though is that you never do address the very thought of what you think is wrong with science education, which is the only way to have proper science education is get the parents involved. So how do you propose to do this, pray tell? Wave some magic wand to make parents who are too set in their ways to somehow imbue them with the necessary curiosity and objectivity to pass it on to their kids?
But the government proposes a plan to spur science education and your fault is with the people who proposed it. Might as well throw up your hands and admit you either 1) don't think there is anything wrong with science education today or 2) admit that we cannot possibly change the status quo and give up. Seriously, I would love to hear your proposal to get all parents more involved with their children's education. I don't think you have any idea on how that can be accomplished, but if you have something, I'm all ears.
Really? You stop being interested when you're reminded that your current president's only executive experience prior to his current OTJT, was his holding of that title? Yeah, I can see why you'd rather not be reminded of that.
Seriously? This doesn't have a thing to do with the topic. And who cares about this unless you have some sort of cognitive dissonance about who got elected into office. Obviously, this weak argument didn't hold enough water during the campaign, you think I give a shit about it now?
Spin that with your broad generalizations about the left and a hilariously old reference to Hillary Clinton's book just shows that you're hopelessly mired in ideological cliches with no objective reasoning whatsoever...something I might add is important when discussing science.
I, on the other hand, am actually happy that government is actually paying attention to science and not making an enemy of it.
If you some years to wait it out, you could try to really build up the IT industry to a younger relative (maybe a nephew or a niece) about how awesome it is. Once they're convinced that this is the job for them, encourage them to start practicing! Route any and all requests to said younger relative saying "they could use the practice" and convince your parents (or other relatives that call on you) that you're just not that on top of the current trends any more.
Rinse and repeat. Hey, it works!
Hear hear. I've been reading this story over on Ars the last couple of days (here) and the title of the article on Ars is very appropriate.
I've cut kdawson a lot of slack in the past, sometimes just shaking my head and just letting the detractors do what they do, but this title is just fucking wrong. Have you seen what BlueBeat is trying to pull off legally here? Another Ars link to explain their confusing legal defense. This is under the same parent company who threatened to sue a bunch of multinationals because supposedly their DRM schemes weren't compliant with the DMCA and tried to get them all to license MRT's product.
kdawson...what the hell? The title is wrong at best, you cherry-picked the article to frame this so that there is some ambiguity here and make it seem like EMI is the big bad picking on the little company. Seriously, this whole article is trying to stir shit up. BlueBeat is not the good guy here. Let me be clear that I'm no supporter of what the RIAA does or generally the music companies behind it. This time though, EMI is not in the wrong here. Whoever is running BlueBeat seems to be fucking insane and that's how the story should be framed.
So, 1/3 of people eh? Hardly a damning assessment when your sampling size is 16 people. Besides, most people I know including myself have some sort of hearing damage from the past or don't really know what to listen for when presented with different types of sound.
What? That's not so bad. I mean if you really wanted a conspiracy theory you could surmise that MS bought Danger with some knowledge of how in bed they were with T-Mobile. AND seeing that one of the major carriers that Google's Android is T-Mobile, MS purposefully destroyed data to strike out against T-Mobile for partnering with their sworn enemy. Right now, Ballmer is sitting in his evil lair over an active volcano, cackling fitfully while stroking a white cat. Now THAT is a conspiracy theory.
Now that I said it, it doesn't seem unpossible. I better call Hollywood.
I agree that blind worship of a news source is bad. But there's something about using international sources for national news that seems to strip away much of the crap we get in America that passes for news. You'll note that I mentioned the BBC World Service, which I listen to on radio. Much less fluff than what the televised news would deliver.
Charlie Brooker actually did a pretty good (and scary) show on what televised news can do to a public psyche. Wish I could remember the link for it, but I think I saw it on You Tube.
IYou have to collect news from multiple sources and weigh the actual facts, not the commentary.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. That's why I tend to trust international sources for perspective on national news as they're not necessarily beholden to report bias to the perspective of the parent company. Also, I tend to like reporting that gives me facts, some analysis and treats me like an adult.
Something went wrong here in America when all of the sudden we needed to provide "equal time" to some truly fucked up perspectives. I don't need to hear talking heads spin a situation to their advantage. I want facts, analysis by experts and the time for me to think it through.