How is a government any better than the terrorists then? Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.
Well, for one the government is not targeting innocents deliberately. Trerorists who confine themselves to killing active-duty sodiers are not terrorists.
Secondly there appears to be a lack of context / consideration of the alternatives. As a political action: this is assassination. As a military action, this is firing weapons at the enemy.
Do you feel that dropping bombs on your enemy is illegal? We've done it in every war since WWI.
Perhaps your concern is that, rather than carpet bombing whole cities, we are bombing specifically the people who are warring with us? How is that worse?
No, indeed the "you are killing the enemy" cannot possibly be a valid argument against this... nor can any argument that would simultaniously disallow this but allow the same result from a manned airstrike (or ground action).
You seem to be arguing that machine-gun nests are OK but snipers are murders. It's a silly argument, and a non-starter as an anti-drone basis.
Have you looked at the average age of congress, the supreme court, or the only people with enough clout to get social healthcare (retirees)? He may run the country: but not before I'm gone, and not if he keeps expousing unpopular ideas for foolish reasons like "beleives they are right".
The government has my name. They took my footprints at birth, but who checks that? They issued me an ID card that tied me to a number, which was asking for others to claim it. They keep a photo of me with my driver's license since I was 15. In my case they also have fingerprints.
So what I have is a bunch of differnt things taken at different times (SSN, name, picture, birth certificate, etc): few of which can be concretely tied to a body (IOW: are easy to steal). We have people getting arrested because their are warrants on others with the same name.
And don't get me started on the credit reporting industry.
The privacy cat is out of the bad. DNA from birth just makes it far more accurate: and I believe that's a good thing. I'd love anonymity: but I can't have it. At least let my ID be something I can prove is (or isn't) me.
! I can eat a bag of M&Ms and drink coke while coding
Do you believe that is what most kids are doing in front of their computer?
How well do you do circle-strafing in a FPS with opponents trying to kill you while snacking? What does your char do while you are going to get that snack?
The premise seems reasonable. A child playing a game is both more involved (distracted from snacking), and less able (hands are busy), as a generality, than one on a couch watching TV.
Why criticize the idea that a ban on an IP segment would result in effective protection? Because it's an untrue idea.
I didn't criticize the block, I criticized the implacation that it would be an effective solution
It's really interesting to notice that someone else pointed out the same thing (had I seen that before posting, I would not have posted as I was rredundant). They got modded up, I got modded troll.
They didn't know that those things couldn't be done. Would you rather they found out during an exercise, or in a real emergency? Remember, these are not technical people.
Then there should be someone who *does* know what can be done.
But are we talking "technically" or "legally". That our lawmakers don't know what is and is not legal is a pretty disturbing thought.
With the "living constitution" idea, the wording and meaning is re-interpreted (always by those with an agenda) under the guise of allowing for flexibility when the constitution does have provisions for change--just not ones that involve linguistic shenanigans, wordplay, and semantics.
Who is the aribter of intent? Can we ignore the literal law in favor of "what they meant"? That's the worst kind of exactly what you seem to be opposing.
Best example of this is how the "general welfare" part, which does not enumerate any powers to the federal government but merely specify that laws should be beneficial to the population, somehow got translated into actual welfare.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; "
It certainly does. THe power to collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for the general welfare. Also:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So they are entitled to "make all laws" for the "general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, US constitution)
Ammending the constitution is tremendously difficult. The 19th ammendment, which passed in 1919 and gave women the vote, took almost 50 years to ratify.
So back to the previous question: should we need to repass every copyright law every time a new medium is invented? Surely updating a law would be far easier than the constitution: yet it's implausably difficult.
But where are you learning about the wrongs of these narrow-minded zealots? Other narrow-minded zealots on the opposite extreme? I can agree that there are a lot of crazy christian narrow-minded zealots, but I think there are just as many anti-religion narrow-minded zealots. Why can't we just have education books just present multiple popular theories along with the pros and cons of each?
1) Not all popular beliefs are equal. A popular belief that the holocaust never happened, or a popular belief that the president is elected by popular vote, or a popular belief that having sex "just once" can't get someone pregnant should not be taught because it's simply wrong.
2) How you teach those "popular beliefs" is itself extremenly biased. "Of People and Pandas" supposedly teached about evolution, and abstinance-only programs supposedly teach about birth control.
Yeah, "living document" was definitely a rhetorical fraud or at least a rhetorical mistake made at some point. The constitution is valueless if it can be simply interpreted into the mores and norms of whatever the current age happens to be rather than debated and amended into the modern age as the framers intended.
Which means that there's no way to understand what the constitution says in the first place.
"right to bear arms". What is an "arm"? Could the founders have intended it to cover a weapon they hadn't conceived of existing.
"right to feel secure in person and property". Does that include data on your hard-drive? What if we invent a scanner that can perform an invasive search without entering your house? Are you secure or not? The constitution doesn't mention scanners (or wire taps, or computer sniffing, or infra-red cameras, or WiFi hacking equipment, or laser mics).
It's "living" when it's applied to a new situation that did not in the past exist. The same as all laws (or do we need to make new copyright laws every time someone comes up with a new storage device?)
Not any more than any other forms of mental disease.
OK. So which is diseased? The one with belief or the one without? Support.
Which is diseased: the high-function autistic who is brilliant and focused but has trouble with social cues, or the non-autistic who cannot hope to match his concentration or intellectual accomplishment?
Are people who like space disordered, or those who like crowds?
They are just functions. They can be more or less common. They can be more or less useful to a given target/goal (say: reproduction).
So if your brain has a more active section X, that trends your personality towards A. If less active then B. There's no such thing as an objective "better".
Why would that be hard to do? Geniuses often have brain abnormalities leading to schitzophrenia, paranoia, depression, or autism. Why would religion be any different?
Also, it would be a mistake to confuse tendancies with hard-fast rules. That a part of the brain affects congnative decisions doesn't remove the role of cognition.
That "because you were a kid" explanation is used by Lucas too, and "the good-old days weren't all that good" is certainly a rant of mine.
But, as someone who at 12-ish didn't like RotJ because the Ewoks were silly: EpIV and EpI simply are not the same. The relatively sophisticated abbot-and-costello of the driods, or the interactions of Han, Chewie, and Leia are replaced with Jarjar stepping in 'camel' poop, getting farted on, and shocking his tounge numb. That's not metaphorical, all three happen and are used a jokes.
Where is the comparative piece in New Hope or ESB? They are not there. Character-based situational comedy, often with a dark edge (notice that Lucas re-edited SW to remove, for example, Han shooting first) is replaced with farting.
And for the record: I think Empire was the best. I thought it when I saw it and I think it now.
It rose to $100,000 per home during Bush's eight years (+$5,000 per year). And became $120,000 per home after just one year of Obama.
I wonder if the worst economic crash in 100 years might have had something to do with that.
The projections for deficit (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?chart=G0-total&year=1900_2014&units=p) put it back at Bush's lowest number by the end of term 1.
Of course the biggest discretionary spending is the military. Second is the Bush tax cut.
Bush was a big spender, but Obama is about 2.5 times worse.
Bush signed the TARP. What do you feel Obama has spent that you disagree with and which is in excess of Bush?
I'll hold my breth while you list a bunch of things that have not passed, some things that are actually trivial in cost, and some things that amount to "TARP lite".
First let me correct myself "the senators of 25 states". Though it would in fact be *easier* than "half the states" as half-states (single senators) would also count.
Incorrect. As many people have pointed out, senators don't work for the states anymore.
So your assertion is that the states elect state senators who do work for them, but then elect (often from the state pool) national senators who do not?
How would you support such a dualist claim?
Because the alternative (no representatives work for the people) would make the suggestion (let stae senates repeal federal laws) useless: a different path to where my argument went anyway.
The U.S. government passes a bill, then signs the bill into law, then rubberstamps it "constitutional". It is illogical to have the U.S. government self-policing itself in this fashion. It is more logical to give the task to the States, since they were the ones who created the Constitution in the first place, and also because they would stop Washington DC's out-of-control spending and growing tyranny (over the last 80 years).
Your statement contains numerous factual errors.
1) The states did not create the constitution. The constitution itself, and at least the first 10 ammendments, were created by the continental congress (the federal government) and radified by at least 2/3rds of the 13 states at the time (meaning that the remaining 37 had nothing to do with it). Later ammendments were also written by the federal government, and merely ratified by whatever states existed at the time.
2) Most states are in deficit spending of their own. I don't see how they will stop "out of control spending". I also don't see how it's possible given how budgest work.
Would you require budgets to be ratified by 50% of the staes? How long do you think that would take? What shall we do in the mean-time?
3) A bill is certainly not rubber-stamped (notice how many things have not been passed), nor is it "deemed constitution after passage", as voting in favor of a non-constitutional bill would be silly.
Also I think it's a mistake to describe State Legislators as "lazy". They are no more lazy than the U.S. Legislators, and are certainly more attune to the People's needs. Heck, my legislator lives on the same street as I do, and he is VERY attentive to my opinions.
I didn't say "more lazy", I just said "lazy".
So is the guy on your street the sole dictator of state policy? If so: what about the people in your state that live far from you. If not, how does "one person listens to me" mean that the entire state legislature serves the people?
You have the same problem on the state and national level there. A bill that puts a useless FBI office in some other state is pork, one that puts it in my state is "representing the people".
My company has several state reps in their pocket. They are cheaper than national reps.
So then 50% of states could change a constitution that required 66% of states to pass?
I envision this amendment to be very useful in overturning, for example the $2500 fine to be levied against citizens who don't have health insurance. That law, once Obama signs it, will be clearly unconsitutional and then the 25 State Legislatures can overturn it.
Or 25 state senators could vote against it in the first place and it would have never passed. This seems more like rhetoric than anything else.
Dozens of laws are compared to constitutional muster every day. Moving that to the vote of several thousand lazy people will just mean that justice doesn't happen for most. You don't seem to have a realistic understanding of the world.
THE NATIONAL DEBT will be over $200,000/U.S. home by end of Obama's 2nd term (2016). Source: OMB What's up with that??
Well we were deficit positive in 2000. How did we look when he took office?
*The government does not need to be involved.* The government should not be censoring the internet. At all. Let people censor themselves, by simply not going to sites they find objectionable.
That assumes falsely that all censorship is about obscenity. Rules against child pornography exist (ideally) to protect children from exploitation, not to control speech. Rules proscribing the publishing of, say, detailed plans for construction of a nuclear warhead are about security, not morality.
But I do agree that this ruling is wrong. It is unreasonable for someone to be aware of every law everywhere on the web when they make content. It is impossible to comply with often contradictory laws.
I live in Tampa (interestingly, much porn is made here). This is a bad ruling.
Before the government got involved, health care in the US was affordable to even the poor.
Leeching out bad humors was less expensive than an MRI is.
Of course your statement is untrue. It was a lack of available healthcare that caused medicare and medicade to be enacted to fill the gap.
There is something supremely retarded about you kids. You see government fail miserably at almost everything it does, yet you somehow believe the solution is more government control.
Perhaps because we see that non-government-controlled healthcare in the US is unaffordable, and we notice that it is private healthcare charging the government those high prices. We likely also notice that things like that law that makes it illegal for medicare to bargain for cheaper drugs was written by private healthcare companies.
More likely though, we just notice that everyone else has cheaper (often by half), more effective, universal healthcare than we do.
Please feel encouraged to mod me off-topic, right after you do the same to the parent. This isn't an article on healthcare or right-wing ranting about a time that never existed.
Generally speaking, when you are shot you don't realize it at first. It can screw with your aim, but usually because your body responds differently than you expect (if, for example, a shoulder hit).
OTOH, with all the adreneline screwing with you, aiming is a challenge. I believe that's Little Bill's point.
Slashdot Mirror
Helicopters can fly, but not because they have wings.
The license you get that allows you to pilot a helicoptor is for "rotary wing aircraft".
Those blades are indeed wings (to the same extent wings on a plane are).
Not that this is related to the actual topic at all.
How is a government any better than the terrorists then? Like many say, if such things happen where there is no due process and no care about collateral damage, then the terrorists have already won and there's no difference between us and them.
Well, for one the government is not targeting innocents deliberately. Trerorists who confine themselves to killing active-duty sodiers are not terrorists.
Secondly there appears to be a lack of context / consideration of the alternatives. As a political action: this is assassination. As a military action, this is firing weapons at the enemy.
Do you feel that dropping bombs on your enemy is illegal? We've done it in every war since WWI.
Perhaps your concern is that, rather than carpet bombing whole cities, we are bombing specifically the people who are warring with us? How is that worse?
No, indeed the "you are killing the enemy" cannot possibly be a valid argument against this... nor can any argument that would simultaniously disallow this but allow the same result from a manned airstrike (or ground action).
You seem to be arguing that machine-gun nests are OK but snipers are murders. It's a silly argument, and a non-starter as an anti-drone basis.
Have you looked at the average age of congress, the supreme court, or the only people with enough clout to get social healthcare (retirees)? He may run the country: but not before I'm gone, and not if he keeps expousing unpopular ideas for foolish reasons like "beleives they are right".
The government has my name. They took my footprints at birth, but who checks that? They issued me an ID card that tied me to a number, which was asking for others to claim it. They keep a photo of me with my driver's license since I was 15. In my case they also have fingerprints.
So what I have is a bunch of differnt things taken at different times (SSN, name, picture, birth certificate, etc): few of which can be concretely tied to a body (IOW: are easy to steal). We have people getting arrested because their are warrants on others with the same name.
And don't get me started on the credit reporting industry.
The privacy cat is out of the bad. DNA from birth just makes it far more accurate: and I believe that's a good thing. I'd love anonymity: but I can't have it. At least let my ID be something I can prove is (or isn't) me.
! I can eat a bag of M&Ms and drink coke while coding
Do you believe that is what most kids are doing in front of their computer?
How well do you do circle-strafing in a FPS with opponents trying to kill you while snacking? What does your char do while you are going to get that snack?
The premise seems reasonable. A child playing a game is both more involved (distracted from snacking), and less able (hands are busy), as a generality, than one on a couch watching TV.
Why criticize the idea that a ban on an IP segment would result in effective protection? Because it's an untrue idea.
I didn't criticize the block, I criticized the implacation that it would be an effective solution
It's really interesting to notice that someone else pointed out the same thing (had I seen that before posting, I would not have posted as I was rredundant). They got modded up, I got modded troll.
They didn't know that those things couldn't be done. Would you rather they found out during an exercise, or in a real emergency? Remember, these are not technical people.
Then there should be someone who *does* know what can be done.
But are we talking "technically" or "legally". That our lawmakers don't know what is and is not legal is a pretty disturbing thought.
I already block Large blocks of IPs from china/russia.
Then it's a good thing that hackers don't know how to use proxies or make zombie machines. You are perfectly safe!
I assume they mean "uncover", not "open".
With the "living constitution" idea, the wording and meaning is re-interpreted (always by those with an agenda) under the guise of allowing for flexibility when the constitution does have provisions for change--just not ones that involve linguistic shenanigans, wordplay, and semantics.
Who is the aribter of intent?
Can we ignore the literal law in favor of "what they meant"? That's the worst kind of exactly what you seem to be opposing.
Best example of this is how the "general welfare" part, which does not enumerate any powers to the federal government but merely specify that laws should be beneficial to the population, somehow got translated into actual welfare.
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; "
It certainly does. THe power to collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for the general welfare. Also:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
So they are entitled to "make all laws" for the "general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, US constitution)
Ammending the constitution is tremendously difficult. The 19th ammendment, which passed in 1919 and gave women the vote, took almost 50 years to ratify.
So back to the previous question: should we need to repass every copyright law every time a new medium is invented? Surely updating a law would be far easier than the constitution: yet it's implausably difficult.
But where are you learning about the wrongs of these narrow-minded zealots? Other narrow-minded zealots on the opposite extreme? I can agree that there are a lot of crazy christian narrow-minded zealots, but I think there are just as many anti-religion narrow-minded zealots. Why can't we just have education books just present multiple popular theories along with the pros and cons of each?
1) Not all popular beliefs are equal. A popular belief that the holocaust never happened, or a popular belief that the president is elected by popular vote, or a popular belief that having sex "just once" can't get someone pregnant should not be taught because it's simply wrong.
2) How you teach those "popular beliefs" is itself extremenly biased. "Of People and Pandas" supposedly teached about evolution, and abstinance-only programs supposedly teach about birth control.
Yeah, "living document" was definitely a rhetorical fraud or at least a rhetorical mistake made at some point. The constitution is valueless if it can be simply interpreted into the mores and norms of whatever the current age happens to be rather than debated and amended into the modern age as the framers intended.
Which means that there's no way to understand what the constitution says in the first place.
"right to bear arms". What is an "arm"? Could the founders have intended it to cover a weapon they hadn't conceived of existing.
"right to feel secure in person and property". Does that include data on your hard-drive? What if we invent a scanner that can perform an invasive search without entering your house? Are you secure or not? The constitution doesn't mention scanners (or wire taps, or computer sniffing, or infra-red cameras, or WiFi hacking equipment, or laser mics).
It's "living" when it's applied to a new situation that did not in the past exist. The same as all laws (or do we need to make new copyright laws every time someone comes up with a new storage device?)
Not any more than any other forms of mental disease.
OK. So which is diseased? The one with belief or the one without? Support.
Which is diseased: the high-function autistic who is brilliant and focused but has trouble with social cues, or the non-autistic who cannot hope to match his concentration or intellectual accomplishment?
Are people who like space disordered, or those who like crowds?
They are just functions. They can be more or less common. They can be more or less useful to a given target/goal (say: reproduction).
So if your brain has a more active section X, that trends your personality towards A. If less active then B. There's no such thing as an objective "better".
It begs the question anyway: which brain is right?
Does the theist have an underactive brain portion, or does the atheist have an overactive one? It's subjective.
Why would that be hard to do? Geniuses often have brain abnormalities leading to schitzophrenia, paranoia, depression, or autism. Why would religion be any different?
Also, it would be a mistake to confuse tendancies with hard-fast rules. That a part of the brain affects congnative decisions doesn't remove the role of cognition.
That "because you were a kid" explanation is used by Lucas too, and "the good-old days weren't all that good" is certainly a rant of mine.
But, as someone who at 12-ish didn't like RotJ because the Ewoks were silly: EpIV and EpI simply are not the same. The relatively sophisticated abbot-and-costello of the driods, or the interactions of Han, Chewie, and Leia are replaced with Jarjar stepping in 'camel' poop, getting farted on, and shocking his tounge numb. That's not metaphorical, all three happen and are used a jokes.
Where is the comparative piece in New Hope or ESB? They are not there. Character-based situational comedy, often with a dark edge (notice that Lucas re-edited SW to remove, for example, Han shooting first) is replaced with farting.
And for the record: I think Empire was the best. I thought it when I saw it and I think it now.
It rose to $100,000 per home during Bush's eight years (+$5,000 per year).
And became $120,000 per home after just one year of Obama.
I wonder if the worst economic crash in 100 years might have had something to do with that.
The projections for deficit (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?chart=G0-total&year=1900_2014&units=p) put it back at Bush's lowest number by the end of term 1.
Of course the biggest discretionary spending is the military. Second is the Bush tax cut.
Bush was a big spender, but Obama is about 2.5 times worse.
Bush signed the TARP. What do you feel Obama has spent that you disagree with and which is in excess of Bush?
I'll hold my breth while you list a bunch of things that have not passed, some things that are actually trivial in cost, and some things that amount to "TARP lite".
First let me correct myself "the senators of 25 states". Though it would in fact be *easier* than "half the states" as half-states (single senators) would also count.
Incorrect. As many people have pointed out, senators don't work for the states anymore.
So your assertion is that the states elect state senators who do work for them, but then elect (often from the state pool) national senators who do not?
How would you support such a dualist claim?
Because the alternative (no representatives work for the people) would make the suggestion (let stae senates repeal federal laws) useless: a different path to where my argument went anyway.
The U.S. government passes a bill, then signs the bill into law, then rubberstamps it "constitutional". It is illogical to have the U.S. government self-policing itself in this fashion. It is more logical to give the task to the States, since they were the ones who created the Constitution in the first place, and also because they would stop Washington DC's out-of-control spending and growing tyranny (over the last 80 years).
Your statement contains numerous factual errors.
1) The states did not create the constitution. The constitution itself, and at least the first 10 ammendments, were created by the continental congress (the federal government) and radified by at least 2/3rds of the 13 states at the time (meaning that the remaining 37 had nothing to do with it). Later ammendments were also written by the federal government, and merely ratified by whatever states existed at the time.
2) Most states are in deficit spending of their own. I don't see how they will stop "out of control spending". I also don't see how it's possible given how budgest work.
Would you require budgets to be ratified by 50% of the staes? How long do you think that would take? What shall we do in the mean-time?
3) A bill is certainly not rubber-stamped (notice how many things have not been passed), nor is it "deemed constitution after passage", as voting in favor of a non-constitutional bill would be silly.
Also I think it's a mistake to describe State Legislators as "lazy". They are no more lazy than the U.S. Legislators, and are certainly more attune to the People's needs. Heck, my legislator lives on the same street as I do, and he is VERY attentive to my opinions.
I didn't say "more lazy", I just said "lazy".
So is the guy on your street the sole dictator of state policy? If so: what about the people in your state that live far from you. If not, how does "one person listens to me" mean that the entire state legislature serves the people?
You have the same problem on the state and national level there. A bill that puts a useless FBI office in some other state is pork, one that puts it in my state is "representing the people".
My company has several state reps in their pocket. They are cheaper than national reps.
So then 50% of states could change a constitution that required 66% of states to pass?
I envision this amendment to be very useful in overturning, for example the $2500 fine to be levied against citizens who don't have health insurance. That law, once Obama signs it, will be clearly unconsitutional and then the 25 State Legislatures can overturn it.
Or 25 state senators could vote against it in the first place and it would have never passed. This seems more like rhetoric than anything else.
Dozens of laws are compared to constitutional muster every day. Moving that to the vote of several thousand lazy people will just mean that justice doesn't happen for most. You don't seem to have a realistic understanding of the world.
THE NATIONAL DEBT will be over $200,000/U.S. home by end of Obama's 2nd term (2016). Source: OMB What's up with that??
Well we were deficit positive in 2000. How did we look when he took office?
That assumes falsely that all censorship is about obscenity. Rules against child pornography exist (ideally) to protect children from exploitation, not to control speech. Rules proscribing the publishing of, say, detailed plans for construction of a nuclear warhead are about security, not morality.
But I do agree that this ruling is wrong. It is unreasonable for someone to be aware of every law everywhere on the web when they make content. It is impossible to comply with often contradictory laws.
I live in Tampa (interestingly, much porn is made here). This is a bad ruling.
Recall that China officially and overtly indoctrinates it's citizens to be pro-Chinese-government. It's like wondering why a Baptist is republican.
Finally, an article summary that explainings who some obscure person is, rather than assuming we know everyone in the tech universe.
Yea, but what is Linux? :P
Before the government got involved, health care in the US was affordable to even the poor.
Leeching out bad humors was less expensive than an MRI is.
Of course your statement is untrue. It was a lack of available healthcare that caused medicare and medicade to be enacted to fill the gap.
There is something supremely retarded about you kids. You see government fail miserably at almost everything it does, yet you somehow believe the solution is more government control.
Perhaps because we see that non-government-controlled healthcare in the US is unaffordable, and we notice that it is private healthcare charging the government those high prices. We likely also notice that things like that law that makes it illegal for medicare to bargain for cheaper drugs was written by private healthcare companies.
More likely though, we just notice that everyone else has cheaper (often by half), more effective, universal healthcare than we do.
Please feel encouraged to mod me off-topic, right after you do the same to the parent. This isn't an article on healthcare or right-wing ranting about a time that never existed.
Generally speaking, when you are shot you don't realize it at first. It can screw with your aim, but usually because your body responds differently than you expect (if, for example, a shoulder hit).
OTOH, with all the adreneline screwing with you, aiming is a challenge. I believe that's Little Bill's point.