Cocaine (the old stuff) is...pretty harmful. I'll certainly grant you that.
However, it's also orders of magnitude less harmful than heroin or crystal meth, and for that matter, less addictive than crack. (Essentially the same stuff in a different delivery vehicle.)
More to the point, regardless of how dangerous these drugs are, the 'legalize it' attitude generally comes from the desire to _lower_ street drug use. If crack addicts could get safe drugs and access to treatment, rather than drano-laced rocks and the threat of years in jail for trying to get clean, we might actually reduce the problem. (Also, this doesn't even touch on the effect of cutting into organized crime's biggest industry.)
I don't think anyone is encouraging coke (or crack, or speed, or horse, or...) use, but more people are coming to believe that it can be more effectively (and safely) controlled within the law, rather than without.
Seriously, everyone comes up with these elaborate schemes to physically destroy disks, as a means of destroying data. Let's say this one MORE time: Can your method provide with a consistent, known, and guaranteed level of data destruction?
Consider the terms I used here.
1) Consistent: Is this going to be the same for every drive? 2) Known: How much effort in terms of hours and dollars is required to recover some or all of the data? 3) Guaranteed: Oh, really? Prove it to me!
With a software wipe, you can calculate (and measure) residual magnetism, and also account for 'hidden' areas on the disk (recovery sectors, etc.) With a hardware destruction method, what can you guarantee me?
In fact, the gushing article from PCPro even shows the weaknesses of this method: "The Bustadrive, then, looks like it'll thwart all but the wealthiest and most determined of hard disk hackers"
Whereas, to the best of anyone's (public) knowledge, a single random overwrite will wipe data beyond any hope of recovery. A pass with DBAN will wipe it completely out, and if you pay for EBAN support, you can even get a certificate guaranteeing the data destruction.
Why are people so determined to destroy disks, rather than data? Even worse, people are eager to PAY for questionable disk destruction methods, rather than just simply destroy the data--what they want gone in the first place.
...in Gatineau is definitely worth your time. It's also within walking distance (across the river into Ottawa) from the Canadian National Gallery and the War Museum, both excellent. There's also the Aviation museum there, which has the nose cone of a CF-105 (Avro Arrow).
In Alberta, there's the Royal Tyrrell Museum, one of the finest dinosaur museums on the planet - and in the midst of some stunning landscape as well!
I rather like Boeing Field in Seattle when I was there, and the endless museums in San Diego's Balboa Park are good for a completely full week if you're so inclined. (The Air&Space museum and Car museum stuck out quite a bit in my memory.)
"You can not practically change the licensing of Linux."
Well then, I guess Linux and co. are SOL. Honestly, that's what it comes down to.
"I think much of the 'special' open source licenses like CDDL are designed to NOT be compatible with the GPL..."
I disagree on this point, although I can see where it would come from. It's not that Sun (or others) really want to block the GPL per se, but there are clauses and conditions in the GPL that are unacceptable to them. Fundamentally, the GPL is very unfriendly to business--almost ideologically opposed to for-profit companies. It's a very poor fit for most computing companies, including Sun.
According to the official working schedule, FF3.5b4 is going to be coming out in the near future--on April 24.
Some may have noticed that April 24 (and 3.5b4) has already passed. I find it sadly ironic that the weekly FF3.5 meetings have talked about branding, evangelizing, and marketing; and yet they can't be bothered to update their own schedule.
Wow, so many incorrect assumptions about me in so few lines!
I have no problems with borders, nations, and sovereignty. I'm not calling them silly per se, but silly in some contexts.
Consider: I'm a citizen of country "x", and my border with your country "y" lies along a mountain range. We are geographically isolated to some extend, our weather patterns are different, our food supplies are different, and so forth. Eventually, we develop somewhat different societies, for these reasons amongst a host of others.
Now my interactions with you are fundamentally governed by two sets of rules, mine and yours, based on the geographical location of each of us.
Now, on the internet...
First of all, the concept of geography is better defined as a combination of latency and speed. I am "neighbors" with someone who I can access quickly. Someone who is a long time away from me is a distant neighbor--even if they're actually two houses over from mine on the street. Say I find a close neighbor who happens to physically be in a different country. My travel path to get to them may go through a huge chunk of my country, some of theirs, a satellite or two, and a third country for good measure. Or, it may go directly almost directly to them. Or, it may take a different path every time!
Geography as it pertains to the internet, then, is not only unrelated (or at best, loosely coupled) to physical borders, but is also constantly in flux. It's simply not feasible to try to tie the two together in lock-step. (ESPECIALLY when the technology is imperfect to begin with. One shopping site I often browse in my own country keeps popping up a window saying, "We have detected that you are coming from outside of our home country. Would you like to choose your location?")
Now, let's look at viewing stuff online.
Your country broadcasts TV signals. I'm near the border, so I get a nice antenna, and watch your shows. This has gone back and forth endlessly in international courts, but the generally accepted answer is that if I'm not reselling them, then I'm in the clear and not breaking any laws. This is fundamentally a very similar issue.
Argh--my time's up for today. I stand by my statement, though: imposing geographical boundaries on the internet is flawed and silly.
I'm surprised at how many people are missing the point here. Pandora (and Hulu, for that matter) is blocked outside of the US. A number of/. readers are responding with, "Oh, if you're in the UK go here." "In France, you can listen on this site."
It's not (or at least shouldn't be) about what works in this region or that one or the other. It's fundamentally about the misapplication of national boundaries to an international (and nation-neutral) system. The internet restricted by borders is silly and wrongheaded.
Governments around the world are tightening the reins on their citizens. The only reason they can get away with it is because the citizens are allowing it.
I would say stay and fight your government. Fight the oppression. Fight for fundamental rights and freedoms. If people stand up for themselves, the corrupt and power-hungry politicians will have to capitulate, and the pendulum will start to swing the other way again. For now, at least--governments will always want more control over the populace, and the only way to stop them is CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!
But if you leave, then things _will_ get more restrictive, because you are letting them. Then in Germany or New Zealand or Canada or anywhere else, they will start to feel pressure from the USA, Australia, and UK to tighten things up. The US is putting pressure on Canada to tighten its "lax" laws on immigration, copyright protection, and several other issues. If you walk away from the UK (or anywhere else), then it becomes harder for the countries that are more free to stay that way.
Stay. Fight. WIN! And send a postcard from your newly open native country.
Can someone please add an "American flag" icon to this and all discussions about Hulu?
The rest of the world is blocked from watching stuff there--even Dr. Horrible is no longer available outside the US on it. (even though it was on release.)
Well, the Atari 8-bit machines had sprites in hardware too, and had it before the C-64 came out.
But that's not why I'm following up. When I read your shift-2 comment, my first thought was "well, of COURSE! Where else would it be? That's not changed in the last 20 years or...
(looking down at my keyboard)
Huh. I guess I've retrained my fingers."
I don't have any problems typing them, but if you asked me, I'd probably say "shift-2" is the location of double quotes.
OK, that's analog. How do you back up digital for 100 years?
Also, a major part of the problem with old movies is that they used a nitrocellulose backing. Cellulose acetate is more stable. (Not perfectly stable of course, but moreso.)
Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot
on
Kodak Kills Kodachrome
·
· Score: 1
Yeah. Nearly anything by Canon, and aftermarket firmware.
Check out the CHDK wiki. You can download firmware which unlocks RAW mode and a whole slew of other neat features. Something that makes it particularly neat is that you don't actually put the firmware on the camera--only the memory card, and it's optionally loaded on power-up time. If it causes problems, turn the camera off and then back on but without loading the 'firmware.'
Outside of computers, do you have any interests? Hobbies? activities?
If not, get some. Not just for the social aspect, but for the balance. Get AWAY from the computer, and do...something. Go fishing. Ride a bike. Play an instrument. Brew beer. Go to a concert. Learn to fence. Go to wine tastings. ANYTHING!!!
If you're doing something that doesn't exclusively involve computers, you can join a club or the like. Brewers guilds abound. Riding clubs (from recreational to competitive) are everywhere. Whatever your interests are, there are social structures around them. (Hell, even nerds go to comic-con!)
I'm watching the massive growth of dating companies (especially but not exclusively online) with despair, because they're only necessary when people stop being able to socialize on their own--which is exactly what is happening in North America (and other places no doubt).
Seriously, just go out. Grab a buddy and go DO something. You don't meet people through location, you meet them through activity and interaction.
One last thing--don't go looking for a mate/partner. You'll limit yourself unnecessarily, and come across as a bit creepy. Maybe not everyone you meet has girlfriend/boyfriend potential, but everyone you meet has friend potential.
1) Communicate! Clear, comprehensive, concise communication is the core of success anywhere. A marginally acceptable IT guy who communicates well is usually more valuable and more respected than a tech whiz who can't (or won't) communicate clearly. 2) be professional and polite--friendly if you can manage it. Sulky or tempermental admins are feared, disliked, and avoided. This is not the same thing as respect. 3) Solve problems, not tasks. If someone comes to you and says, "I need you to open up port on the firewall," find out what they're trying to do--maybe you can solve their problem in a better way. 4) Give timelines and priorities. This is actually part of item #1. When someone makes demands on you, find out how important it is, the timeline they need it for, and the consequences of missing the deadline. 5) Be very very good at your job. This doesn't necessarily mean being the best tech in existence! "I don't know" is an acceptable answer, as long as it's followed by, "but I can find out for you by..." 6) Document everything. 7) Don't be afraid to say no if it's the necessary answer, but be prepared to back it up with good reasons. People won't always be happy, but they'll (usually) understand. 8) Restrictions suck. Don't implement webfilters, port blocking, or the like unless you're forced to (by the CEO, for instance). Rational AUPs should give you all the ammunition you need if someone is not doing their job, or compromising systems. (An example: A policy saying "no games at work" is rational, and is sufficient to deal with someone who plays games at work. A filter blocking all games-related sites may mean that I can't access/., even though it's actually relevant to my job. All it does is piss me off and make me find ways around it.) 9) Don't be a zealot for or against any product. If your solution to everything is "More Linux!", people will stop asking, and start rolling their eyes. 10) Choose your fights. If you fight every issue, you won't win any of them. If you make your disagreements known but let the small ones slide, then when you dig your heels in, people will pay more attention. 11) Keep it up for 20 years!:-) 12) Consider your role in the company. If you're a pure tech company, you may be the core business (i.e. I work at an ISP--the company doesn't exist without my team and a few others). Most likely though, you're supporting the core business, which means that you and the computing environment are tools to get a job done. Your role is to make their jobs easier.
Ultimately, you want people to feel comfortable in coming to you for requests, and know that what they want will either be done in a reasonable timeframe, or denied (for good reasons) only if necessary.
Interestingly, someone has put up a 'side-by-side' blind test to compare Bing vs. Yahoo vs. Google.
I'm surprised at how well Yahoo has acquitted itself, although I know from past experience that it just doesn't cut it. So far, Bing has been a dismal last place in every search I've thrown at this thing.
In that theoretical headline, the police have a suspect, investigate appropriately, and find no reason to keep the person further.
Besides, the burden of proof lies on the suspect in a number of cases in the US, at least. Drug charges are explicitly guilty until innocent. Much of the homeland security nonsense is the same, at least implicitly.
Um...one of us is missing the other's point. I'm not sure which one, though.
My point was that if something isn't funny without a laugh track to prompt you, it's not funny. Physical comedy if done right (and Chaplin absolutely did it right) can be damned funny. Standup and sitcoms and movies can all be funny.
The purpose of a laugh track is to tell you when it's time to laugh at something. If you need prompting to know when to laugh, it's can't be that funny!
He has something exceedingly unusual, and the most common cause for it is evidence avoidance. Talking to him for a few hours and doing some background checking is a standard way of assuring that he has an exceedingly uncommon (and innocent) cause for his exceedingly unusual condition.
"...until we decide it's time to restore our civil liberties."
I hate to break it to you, but that's not how it works. You can only TAKE BACK your civil liberties through clear and decisive action. If you want 'em, be prepared to get out there and fight tooth and nail, because the groups in power don't want you to have them.
Slashdot Mirror
Cocaine (the old stuff) is...pretty harmful. I'll certainly grant you that.
However, it's also orders of magnitude less harmful than heroin or crystal meth, and for that matter, less addictive than crack. (Essentially the same stuff in a different delivery vehicle.)
More to the point, regardless of how dangerous these drugs are, the 'legalize it' attitude generally comes from the desire to _lower_ street drug use. If crack addicts could get safe drugs and access to treatment, rather than drano-laced rocks and the threat of years in jail for trying to get clean, we might actually reduce the problem. (Also, this doesn't even touch on the effect of cutting into organized crime's biggest industry.)
I don't think anyone is encouraging coke (or crack, or speed, or horse, or...) use, but more people are coming to believe that it can be more effectively (and safely) controlled within the law, rather than without.
Seriously, everyone comes up with these elaborate schemes to physically destroy disks, as a means of destroying data. Let's say this one MORE time: Can your method provide with a consistent, known, and guaranteed level of data destruction?
Consider the terms I used here.
1) Consistent: Is this going to be the same for every drive?
2) Known: How much effort in terms of hours and dollars is required to recover some or all of the data?
3) Guaranteed: Oh, really? Prove it to me!
With a software wipe, you can calculate (and measure) residual magnetism, and also account for 'hidden' areas on the disk (recovery sectors, etc.) With a hardware destruction method, what can you guarantee me?
In fact, the gushing article from PCPro even shows the weaknesses of this method:
"The Bustadrive, then, looks like it'll thwart all but the wealthiest and most determined of hard disk hackers"
Whereas, to the best of anyone's (public) knowledge, a single random overwrite will wipe data beyond any hope of recovery. A pass with DBAN will wipe it completely out, and if you pay for EBAN support, you can even get a certificate guaranteeing the data destruction.
Why are people so determined to destroy disks, rather than data? Even worse, people are eager to PAY for questionable disk destruction methods, rather than just simply destroy the data--what they want gone in the first place.
...in Gatineau is definitely worth your time. It's also within walking distance (across the river into Ottawa) from the Canadian National Gallery and the War Museum, both excellent. There's also the Aviation museum there, which has the nose cone of a CF-105 (Avro Arrow).
In Alberta, there's the Royal Tyrrell Museum, one of the finest dinosaur museums on the planet - and in the midst of some stunning landscape as well!
I rather like Boeing Field in Seattle when I was there, and the endless museums in San Diego's Balboa Park are good for a completely full week if you're so inclined. (The Air&Space museum and Car museum stuck out quite a bit in my memory.)
Hmm. My dog can do this, most of the time.
OK, some very concise points here.
"You can not practically change the licensing of Linux."
Well then, I guess Linux and co. are SOL. Honestly, that's what it comes down to.
"I think much of the 'special' open source licenses like CDDL are designed to NOT be compatible with the GPL..."
I disagree on this point, although I can see where it would come from.
It's not that Sun (or others) really want to block the GPL per se, but there are clauses and conditions in the GPL that are unacceptable to them. Fundamentally, the GPL is very unfriendly to business--almost ideologically opposed to for-profit companies. It's a very poor fit for most computing companies, including Sun.
Um...why?
Oh yeah--because obsessive Linuxites are unwilling to accept anything other than the GPL as Richard Stallman's One True Path.
The CDDL works for the rest of the universe. Get over yourselves.
According to the official working schedule, FF3.5b4 is going to be coming out in the near future--on April 24.
Some may have noticed that April 24 (and 3.5b4) has already passed. I find it sadly ironic that the weekly FF3.5 meetings have talked about branding, evangelizing, and marketing; and yet they can't be bothered to update their own schedule.
Wow, so many incorrect assumptions about me in so few lines!
I have no problems with borders, nations, and sovereignty. I'm not calling them silly per se, but silly in some contexts.
Consider: I'm a citizen of country "x", and my border with your country "y" lies along a mountain range. We are geographically isolated to some extend, our weather patterns are different, our food supplies are different, and so forth. Eventually, we develop somewhat different societies, for these reasons amongst a host of others.
Now my interactions with you are fundamentally governed by two sets of rules, mine and yours, based on the geographical location of each of us.
Now, on the internet...
First of all, the concept of geography is better defined as a combination of latency and speed. I am "neighbors" with someone who I can access quickly. Someone who is a long time away from me is a distant neighbor--even if they're actually two houses over from mine on the street.
Say I find a close neighbor who happens to physically be in a different country. My travel path to get to them may go through a huge chunk of my country, some of theirs, a satellite or two, and a third country for good measure. Or, it may go directly almost directly to them. Or, it may take a different path every time!
Geography as it pertains to the internet, then, is not only unrelated (or at best, loosely coupled) to physical borders, but is also constantly in flux. It's simply not feasible to try to tie the two together in lock-step. (ESPECIALLY when the technology is imperfect to begin with. One shopping site I often browse in my own country keeps popping up a window saying, "We have detected that you are coming from outside of our home country. Would you like to choose your location?")
Now, let's look at viewing stuff online.
Your country broadcasts TV signals. I'm near the border, so I get a nice antenna, and watch your shows. This has gone back and forth endlessly in international courts, but the generally accepted answer is that if I'm not reselling them, then I'm in the clear and not breaking any laws. This is fundamentally a very similar issue.
Argh--my time's up for today. I stand by my statement, though: imposing geographical boundaries on the internet is flawed and silly.
I'm surprised at how many people are missing the point here. Pandora (and Hulu, for that matter) is blocked outside of the US. A number of /. readers are responding with, "Oh, if you're in the UK go here." "In France, you can listen on this site."
It's not (or at least shouldn't be) about what works in this region or that one or the other. It's fundamentally about the misapplication of national boundaries to an international (and nation-neutral) system. The internet restricted by borders is silly and wrongheaded.
Governments around the world are tightening the reins on their citizens. The only reason they can get away with it is because the citizens are allowing it.
I would say stay and fight your government. Fight the oppression. Fight for fundamental rights and freedoms. If people stand up for themselves, the corrupt and power-hungry politicians will have to capitulate, and the pendulum will start to swing the other way again. For now, at least--governments will always want more control over the populace, and the only way to stop them is CONSTANT VIGILANCE!!!
But if you leave, then things _will_ get more restrictive, because you are letting them. Then in Germany or New Zealand or Canada or anywhere else, they will start to feel pressure from the USA, Australia, and UK to tighten things up. The US is putting pressure on Canada to tighten its "lax" laws on immigration, copyright protection, and several other issues. If you walk away from the UK (or anywhere else), then it becomes harder for the countries that are more free to stay that way.
Stay. Fight. WIN! And send a postcard from your newly open native country.
Can someone please add an "American flag" icon to this and all discussions about Hulu?
The rest of the world is blocked from watching stuff there--even Dr. Horrible is no longer available outside the US on it. (even though it was on release.)
Well, the Atari 8-bit machines had sprites in hardware too, and had it before the C-64 came out.
But that's not why I'm following up. When I read your shift-2 comment, my first thought was "well, of COURSE! Where else would it be? That's not changed in the last 20 years or...
(looking down at my keyboard)
Huh. I guess I've retrained my fingers."
I don't have any problems typing them, but if you asked me, I'd probably say "shift-2" is the location of double quotes.
You're scanning photographs?
That's the Wrong Answer. Go back to the negatives. Photographs are just the "display copy" of the source.
OK, that's analog. How do you back up digital for 100 years?
Also, a major part of the problem with old movies is that they used a nitrocellulose backing. Cellulose acetate is more stable. (Not perfectly stable of course, but moreso.)
Yeah. Nearly anything by Canon, and aftermarket firmware.
Check out the CHDK wiki. You can download firmware which unlocks RAW mode and a whole slew of other neat features. Something that makes it particularly neat is that you don't actually put the firmware on the camera--only the memory card, and it's optionally loaded on power-up time. If it causes problems, turn the camera off and then back on but without loading the 'firmware.'
Outside of computers, do you have any interests? Hobbies? activities?
If not, get some. Not just for the social aspect, but for the balance. Get AWAY from the computer, and do...something. Go fishing. Ride a bike. Play an instrument. Brew beer. Go to a concert. Learn to fence. Go to wine tastings. ANYTHING!!!
If you're doing something that doesn't exclusively involve computers, you can join a club or the like. Brewers guilds abound. Riding clubs (from recreational to competitive) are everywhere. Whatever your interests are, there are social structures around them. (Hell, even nerds go to comic-con!)
I'm watching the massive growth of dating companies (especially but not exclusively online) with despair, because they're only necessary when people stop being able to socialize on their own--which is exactly what is happening in North America (and other places no doubt).
Seriously, just go out. Grab a buddy and go DO something. You don't meet people through location, you meet them through activity and interaction.
One last thing--don't go looking for a mate/partner. You'll limit yourself unnecessarily, and come across as a bit creepy. Maybe not everyone you meet has girlfriend/boyfriend potential, but everyone you meet has friend potential.
OK, lots of things that need to be in place.
1) Communicate! Clear, comprehensive, concise communication is the core of success anywhere. A marginally acceptable IT guy who communicates well is usually more valuable and more respected than a tech whiz who can't (or won't) communicate clearly. /., even though it's actually relevant to my job. All it does is piss me off and make me find ways around it.) :-)
2) be professional and polite--friendly if you can manage it. Sulky or tempermental admins are feared, disliked, and avoided. This is not the same thing as respect.
3) Solve problems, not tasks. If someone comes to you and says, "I need you to open up port on the firewall," find out what they're trying to do--maybe you can solve their problem in a better way.
4) Give timelines and priorities. This is actually part of item #1. When someone makes demands on you, find out how important it is, the timeline they need it for, and the consequences of missing the deadline.
5) Be very very good at your job. This doesn't necessarily mean being the best tech in existence! "I don't know" is an acceptable answer, as long as it's followed by, "but I can find out for you by..."
6) Document everything.
7) Don't be afraid to say no if it's the necessary answer, but be prepared to back it up with good reasons. People won't always be happy, but they'll (usually) understand.
8) Restrictions suck. Don't implement webfilters, port blocking, or the like unless you're forced to (by the CEO, for instance). Rational AUPs should give you all the ammunition you need if someone is not doing their job, or compromising systems. (An example: A policy saying "no games at work" is rational, and is sufficient to deal with someone who plays games at work. A filter blocking all games-related sites may mean that I can't access
9) Don't be a zealot for or against any product. If your solution to everything is "More Linux!", people will stop asking, and start rolling their eyes.
10) Choose your fights. If you fight every issue, you won't win any of them. If you make your disagreements known but let the small ones slide, then when you dig your heels in, people will pay more attention.
11) Keep it up for 20 years!
12) Consider your role in the company. If you're a pure tech company, you may be the core business (i.e. I work at an ISP--the company doesn't exist without my team and a few others). Most likely though, you're supporting the core business, which means that you and the computing environment are tools to get a job done. Your role is to make their jobs easier.
Ultimately, you want people to feel comfortable in coming to you for requests, and know that what they want will either be done in a reasonable timeframe, or denied (for good reasons) only if necessary.
Interestingly, someone has put up a 'side-by-side' blind test to compare Bing vs. Yahoo vs. Google.
I'm surprised at how well Yahoo has acquitted itself, although I know from past experience that it just doesn't cut it. So far, Bing has been a dismal last place in every search I've thrown at this thing.
Check it out:
http://blindsearch.fejus.com/
Ah, OK. That's perfectly understandable then. I hate 'em too.
You had the two elements of a successful solution there in your post. You just have to put them together.
"...or carry around a Linux-on-a-stick. Or I could embed the computer in my skull."
Carry around Linux-on-a-stick, and when they ask, embed it in THEIR skulls!
A few USB sticks, and they'll stop asking.
"I fucking hate idiot web pages that try to guess who I am...
Agreed.
...and I even more hate web pages with no English option."
Um...maybe not everybody writes web pages in English. Maybe they don't know English, and don't care about you!
OK, change one word there. s/proven/determined/
In that theoretical headline, the police have a suspect, investigate appropriately, and find no reason to keep the person further.
Besides, the burden of proof lies on the suspect in a number of cases in the US, at least. Drug charges are explicitly guilty until innocent. Much of the homeland security nonsense is the same, at least implicitly.
Um...one of us is missing the other's point. I'm not sure which one, though.
My point was that if something isn't funny without a laugh track to prompt you, it's not funny. Physical comedy if done right (and Chaplin absolutely did it right) can be damned funny. Standup and sitcoms and movies can all be funny.
The purpose of a laugh track is to tell you when it's time to laugh at something. If you need prompting to know when to laugh, it's can't be that funny!
No, I'm afraid you've got it wrong.
He has something exceedingly unusual, and the most common cause for it is evidence avoidance. Talking to him for a few hours and doing some background checking is a standard way of assuring that he has an exceedingly uncommon (and innocent) cause for his exceedingly unusual condition.
"...until we decide it's time to restore our civil liberties."
I hate to break it to you, but that's not how it works. You can only TAKE BACK your civil liberties through clear and decisive action. If you want 'em, be prepared to get out there and fight tooth and nail, because the groups in power don't want you to have them.