Of course. I am a technologist and very very interested in technology and space exploration and have been for a log time, and always happy to put in the time and effort to make things work.
That's my definition of a Space Junkie, and if you still have a problem with it, well, that informs me of many things.
So basically, you intend to hold the dream of exploring space to ransom because you like the comedic circus which is human spaceflight. You think spectacle is more important than actual, objective advancement.
>
I intend to let politicians who control the pursestrings know what my wishes are.
At least you are honest.
could be used for space exploration and diverting it to tinned humans with webcams is just the same as taking that money and giving it to tobacco farmers, or buggy whip manufacturers, or whatever anachronistic government program designed to the purposes of nostalgia.
>
And what a magnificent and well played strawman you make. Read any other posts I've made in this story? I do support robotic space exploration. I support it as long as it is in conjunction with manned effort . You have an issue with defense department level funding? That could put one hella lot of robotic probes up there. You however do not wish human presence in space at all, according to your posts. Strange that you would throw away such largess because of your prejudices. You can't have it all your way, so you pout. I think we're about done here - I hate wasting time on dreary and small minded people.
Such an unimaginitive and so very limited person you are; then again small men have small dreams.
Why would anyone interested in space exploration care if an initial test flight around the moon has human passengers or not? What value is there in putting actual humans on a 3 week round trip? If something does fail on the trip and kills the humans, it'll delay the project for a decade or longer.
I don't have any issues at all with an unmanned first flight around the moon at all. There isn't the time pressure there was with the Apollo program, and won't be until the Chinese start pulling ahead of us, and politicians who starved NASA demand to know how we got so "far behind."
But my comments are more toward the overarching aspects of NASA and the other rocketeers. People as part of the picture are critical to the existence of the programs. The robotics are a wonderful first step and a thrilling science exploration tool. But they are along for the ride, not the reason for it's existence.
I would much rather they spend the next 10-20 years with only robots and getting that worked out completely leaving room for humans in all the designs maybe, so that one day when humans may really need to be in the ship, the robots are so good it makes the job that much easier. There is no reason to have humans along of the ride today, and all the technology that comes from working on putting the robots in space would be much more valuable here on earth as well. They can always work on new designs for humans in space during this time, and some testing, but I would say sending humans to mars for instance should come after we have landed robots there and had them setup shop for us before we ever arrive.
There is absolutely no reason at all to do this stuff at all or ever if humans aren't in the loop.
On a purely practical and pragmatic level, there is no reason to send robotic probes to anywhere. We have the technology to put satellites in orbit, and for today's technology, that is enough. No reason to go to Jupiter or Saturn, or have telescopes in space, or do one bit of science. Close down the entire space program except for necessary satellites. De-orbit the Space Station, and close most of the spaceports.
Do I believe that we should do this sort of thing? Hell no. I love all of the science we're doing. But you have ot have some over-arching reason to do it all. What happens on Pluto isn't terribly important as far as we know, but I spend hours looking at the photos. But if we didn't do the flyby, it wouldn't make much difference. So it gets tacked on with the other stuff, including the hated space station and humans on Mars projects.
Which is why I always caution the anti-human people that if they have their way, they will get other things they really don't ike with their success in keeping humans out of space. And that would be keeping their beloved robots out of space at the same time.
I've never liked picking sides in the "manned vs unmanned" space debate, as I believe a comprehensive space program requires both, although perhaps not in equal numbers.
Exactly. I am all for the deep space probes we are doing now. Just as one example, the Pluto flyby had (has) me entranced. I can't imagine doing such a thing with humans until we can get a lot more velocity to our space transports. But without the concept of human presence off earth, what would be the purpose of having any space program at all? We can bring up comm satellites, maybe GPS, but we can do without those.
The anti-human space exploration folks just don''t seem to get that the science of robot exploration is damn cool, but other than scientific reasons, there's no overriding reason at all to say - send a probe to Jupiter. Since we can piggyback those things onto the human portion of space exploration, we're getting a lot of good science we might not get otherwise.
Not loading down the spaceship with useless baggage is always a good idea. Hopefully Orion will continue to be unmanned.
Nah - you don't understand many (most) space junkies. With humans in space, I support defense department type funding. Your dream of no humans. I support a budget of exactly $0.00.
Sorry but for most of us, your useless baggage is our raison d'être for a space program.
Hearing these sorts of questions is sort of like heaing someone ask why Chevrolet exists when we already have Ford. They've only ever seen and used a PC perhaps and only vaguely know of other types of computers, and certainly have no background in computer architecture.
And we all can cut our electrical consumption a lot without affecting our quality of life.
I completely agree. Where do I sign up for this "get half as much but still pay the same" program?
Umm, way to not get it. You will be paying more for the same thing, not me. And if burning tungsten light bulbs instead of LED's which cost a hellava lot less is important to you, then pay the bill.
People who don't like to insulate their houses, or demand 8 mile per gallon vehicles or any other conserving tactics are welcome to pay for them. I've paid off all my updates, and the money that would otherwise go to the oil company or the electrical company is now sitting in the bank or in investments.
>And we all can cut our electrical consumption a lot without affecting our quality of life.
I am glad you have declared yourself overseer and know everything about everyone. Is the next step God?
Who's an overseer? And I only give counsel to Gawd. There's no force here. If you want to burn Tungsten instead of LED - or if you really want to go full bore, put arc lamps in your house - by all means do it. If you want to buy a diesel truck, and modify it so that you pump a shitload of fuel into it so you can roal coal at the smug muthafucks in their Prius, do it; and if you want to heat your house in Alaska with all the windows open all winter - hey, be my guest. just don't go whinging about it when you are broke.
Who says you pay just the same? It costs a little more than the median US average price, and a lot lower than nearly half the states. And therefore they use less, get just as much (they are, if anything, getting more: it's colder on average over all Germany than it is on average over all the USA, even including Alaska), and pay less overall.
There's no need to sign you up. You don't sign up to use less. You just use less. You sign up to get more out of what you DO use by insulating your home, avoiding wasteful use of power (the sun and wind dry clothes just fine), and not being a stupid fuck, basically.
Some folks just don't get it. As I have pointed out many times, my energy conservation tactics have resulted in a net profit for me. I use less electricity than I did 15 years ago, and my bill is only ten percent more than my neighbors, who are in town for only a few days a month - they are paying almost the same as me for a home in maintenance mode, while I even have a hot tub spa. and am home every day except when on vacation.
It's fine I suppose if a person wants a huge vehicle that gets 10 mpg or less, and is satisfied with paying a hellava lot of their hard earned money ot an oil company. I just don't have a lot of sympathy when they bitch about the obvious solutions.
Every year technology has made strides in energy generation and storage, and every year the inertia crowd's whinging has become more hollow. Coal will stay in the ground, and Oil will become feedstock. Even if we did go balls to the wall oil and coal, we'd just reduce the recoverable amounts to a level that would be too expensive and not enough supply and do it sooner.
And as a last thought, I don't know if this will be decried as cultural appropriation, but damnit, never ever bet against the Germans in matters of technology.
My point exactly. But if you want to compare the situation in Germany to the USA, they also on average use less than half the electricity per person, so that "high" cost of green energy isn't anywhere near as bad as Americans may think.
They seem to be on to something, this country that is the size of a state, and yet is the 4th largest economy in the world. Most interesting when viewed per capita.
And we all can cut our electrical consumption a lot without affecting our quality of life.
The argument is a Zestimate is a type of appraisal. And appraisals have legal requirements that must be met.
That's a rather odd argument. No one looks at the house, or goes inside. the neighbor posting on Facebook that they think the house should be valued less would be as equal a lawsuit target.
It's not an odd arguement. I've tried refinancing my house recently, and the first thing everyone does is go to zillow to see how much it's worth. This has to stop.
Are you trying to pull 100 percent of your equity, and really want more? Aside from my admonition to not ever do that, you need to go in a different direction than a bank that relies on Zillow Zestimates. The Zestimate is made from acombination of what the house originally sold for, what nearby houses have sold for recently, and doesn't know much else about it at all. The house could just be a shell. A refi appraisal hsould at least have a site visit, and a quick peek inside. This is your bank's problem, and you might do well to find one more responsible.
Zillow makes money by saying "Your home is worth this much". That's why people visit the site, so that's how Zillow is able to make money.
If Zillow isn't doing due diligence on those appraisals, they have indeed caused financial harm.
So your defense of the argument is financial? Okay - does the person have legal recourse if Zillow posts anything that can be considered negative? How about if they value a house too high, and no one looks at the house. Or a potential customer is pissed because Zillow "wasted their time" when they went to see the place.
How about if a house doesn't have the square footage as reported by the county real estate entries? This happened to us when we bought our house.
The appraised value of a house is the appraised value. An estimate is not an appraised value, it is an opinion. And last time I checked, an opinion is not a legally actionable offense.
I'm not doing efficiency upgrades, my house is 100 years old and my heat+light bill never went above 175 over the winter, and it's often under 100 during mild weather.
when the furnace craps out, I'll put in a reasonably efficient one, but I can save a lot more money and fuel by knocking down the thermostat and putting on a sweater than I can with fancy new equipment and ripping up my walls to install new insulation.
One thing I should note is that the things I did were not done at one time, and the initiating project was not all about energy savings. The house was re-sided in order to have a maintenance free vinyl miledew resisting surface, so it gets another layer of insulation. The wife wanted something cleaner than oil heat, and they were extending the gas lines past our street, and we got free install since it was easier for them to do that work while the main line was uncovered. Hell, they even replaced some uneven sidewalk with that. So the time was right for a new gas furnace, might as well get the most efficient one, and now the furnace chimney can be blocked off (no more maintenance) since the gas one's "chimney" is a 2 inch PVC pipe to the side of the house.
As for my installing a new PV roof, its just a matter of waiting for the correct price point converging with the time the asphalt shingles on there now need replaced, plus the cost of mains powe in the mix. There will be a sweet spot there some where. The PV will come down in price, the mains power will come up in price, and maintenance has to happen anyhow.
Your total electricity consumption is $50/mo? Where do you live?
I'm in Pennsylvania, and I'm only a little more than that. Most goes to the water heater and the Spa.
It actually isn't that difficult to have a low electricity bill. I have all LED lights, the heater and spa are high efficiency as well as tthe refrigerator and freezer. Even the furnace motor and AC are efficient models.
We got an electrical bill that compared our payment with our neighbors next to us. It said we pay 10 percent more than they do.Not too bad considering that they are a travelling couple, and only home about 2 days a month.
You would be amazed at how much money I lost by converting from Oil to Natural gas with an ultra efficient furnace, and insulating the heck out of the house. Paid off in only a few years. Gotta be a lie, right? There are many people I know who spend a month what I spend a year.
Even made money selling the old oil furnace - it was a good one - to the guys who installed thegas one.
So why am I telling you this shit? Because I heard the same arguments from people about that as you are giving us here, that's why. And they always tend to fail in real life.
Anyhow, Tell me what the return is on a power system that is still on when the neighbors are sitting in the dark and cold. We have a number of them every year.
I'll have one of these in a few years, when the roof needs re-done. My biggest concern is that it isn't ready to run the hot tub yet. My estimates are that it will be just as big a "mistake" as my other energy expenditure reduction solutions.
Meanwhile, I'm expecting that coalrollers will be parking in front of my place soon.
The argument is a Zestimate is a type of appraisal. And appraisals have legal requirements that must be met.
That's a rather odd argument. No one looks at the house, or goes inside. the neighbor posting on Facebook that they think the house should be valued less would be as equal a lawsuit target.
Okay, so they suck. Should they be censored over it? Because this is what is being demanded.
It does seem like a unofficial estimate would fall squarely under the "opinion" label.
It would also open the door for people to sue real appraisers or even the realtor if they don't like the estimate they get. This isn't likely to go anywhere.
As the person who knows what and who is stupid, are you actually going to say that Firing Comey had absolutely nothing to do with him heading the counterintelligence investigation of Trump?
Awaiting a person who is smarter than the rest of us to tell us exactly why this has not one thing to do with that. Use the big words tovarich, some of us here will understand.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least you are honest.
Of course. I am a technologist and very very interested in technology and space exploration and have been for a log time, and always happy to put in the time and effort to make things work.
That's my definition of a Space Junkie, and if you still have a problem with it, well, that informs me of many things.
So basically, you intend to hold the dream of exploring space to ransom because you like the comedic circus which is human spaceflight. You think spectacle is more important than actual, objective advancement.
> I intend to let politicians who control the pursestrings know what my wishes are.
At least you are honest.
could be used for space exploration and diverting it to tinned humans with webcams is just the same as taking that money and giving it to tobacco farmers, or buggy whip manufacturers, or whatever anachronistic government program designed to the purposes of nostalgia.
> And what a magnificent and well played strawman you make. Read any other posts I've made in this story? I do support robotic space exploration. I support it as long as it is in conjunction with manned effort . You have an issue with defense department level funding? That could put one hella lot of robotic probes up there. You however do not wish human presence in space at all, according to your posts. Strange that you would throw away such largess because of your prejudices. You can't have it all your way, so you pout. I think we're about done here - I hate wasting time on dreary and small minded people.
Such an unimaginitive and so very limited person you are; then again small men have small dreams.
You've never said anything clever or interesting either, but it doesn't stop you from spewing your Space Nutter fantasies every chance you get.
No one is going anywhere.
Game on?
Why would anyone interested in space exploration care if an initial test flight around the moon has human passengers or not? What value is there in putting actual humans on a 3 week round trip? If something does fail on the trip and kills the humans, it'll delay the project for a decade or longer.
I don't have any issues at all with an unmanned first flight around the moon at all. There isn't the time pressure there was with the Apollo program, and won't be until the Chinese start pulling ahead of us, and politicians who starved NASA demand to know how we got so "far behind."
But my comments are more toward the overarching aspects of NASA and the other rocketeers. People as part of the picture are critical to the existence of the programs. The robotics are a wonderful first step and a thrilling science exploration tool. But they are along for the ride, not the reason for it's existence.
I would much rather they spend the next 10-20 years with only robots and getting that worked out completely leaving room for humans in all the designs maybe, so that one day when humans may really need to be in the ship, the robots are so good it makes the job that much easier. There is no reason to have humans along of the ride today, and all the technology that comes from working on putting the robots in space would be much more valuable here on earth as well. They can always work on new designs for humans in space during this time, and some testing, but I would say sending humans to mars for instance should come after we have landed robots there and had them setup shop for us before we ever arrive.
There is absolutely no reason at all to do this stuff at all or ever if humans aren't in the loop.
On a purely practical and pragmatic level, there is no reason to send robotic probes to anywhere. We have the technology to put satellites in orbit, and for today's technology, that is enough. No reason to go to Jupiter or Saturn, or have telescopes in space, or do one bit of science. Close down the entire space program except for necessary satellites. De-orbit the Space Station, and close most of the spaceports.
Do I believe that we should do this sort of thing? Hell no. I love all of the science we're doing. But you have ot have some over-arching reason to do it all. What happens on Pluto isn't terribly important as far as we know, but I spend hours looking at the photos. But if we didn't do the flyby, it wouldn't make much difference. So it gets tacked on with the other stuff, including the hated space station and humans on Mars projects.
Which is why I always caution the anti-human people that if they have their way, they will get other things they really don't ike with their success in keeping humans out of space. And that would be keeping their beloved robots out of space at the same time.
We know you're mentally ill, but the question is, do you?
Couldn't think of anything clever or funny or even pertinent to say, but that didn't stop you now did it?
I've never liked picking sides in the "manned vs unmanned" space debate, as I believe a comprehensive space program requires both, although perhaps not in equal numbers.
Exactly. I am all for the deep space probes we are doing now. Just as one example, the Pluto flyby had (has) me entranced. I can't imagine doing such a thing with humans until we can get a lot more velocity to our space transports. But without the concept of human presence off earth, what would be the purpose of having any space program at all? We can bring up comm satellites, maybe GPS, but we can do without those.
The anti-human space exploration folks just don''t seem to get that the science of robot exploration is damn cool, but other than scientific reasons, there's no overriding reason at all to say - send a probe to Jupiter. Since we can piggyback those things onto the human portion of space exploration, we're getting a lot of good science we might not get otherwise.
Why not both? :D
Why not Zoidberg?
Not loading down the spaceship with useless baggage is always a good idea. Hopefully Orion will continue to be unmanned.
Nah - you don't understand many (most) space junkies. With humans in space, I support defense department type funding. Your dream of no humans. I support a budget of exactly $0.00.
Sorry but for most of us, your useless baggage is our raison d'être for a space program.
Hearing these sorts of questions is sort of like heaing someone ask why Chevrolet exists when we already have Ford. They've only ever seen and used a PC perhaps and only vaguely know of other types of computers, and certainly have no background in computer architecture.
And here I am, all out of mod points.
And we all can cut our electrical consumption a lot without affecting our quality of life.
I completely agree. Where do I sign up for this "get half as much but still pay the same" program?
Umm, way to not get it. You will be paying more for the same thing, not me. And if burning tungsten light bulbs instead of LED's which cost a hellava lot less is important to you, then pay the bill.
People who don't like to insulate their houses, or demand 8 mile per gallon vehicles or any other conserving tactics are welcome to pay for them. I've paid off all my updates, and the money that would otherwise go to the oil company or the electrical company is now sitting in the bank or in investments.
>And we all can cut our electrical consumption a lot without affecting our quality of life.
I am glad you have declared yourself overseer and know everything about everyone. Is the next step God?
Who's an overseer? And I only give counsel to Gawd. There's no force here. If you want to burn Tungsten instead of LED - or if you really want to go full bore, put arc lamps in your house - by all means do it. If you want to buy a diesel truck, and modify it so that you pump a shitload of fuel into it so you can roal coal at the smug muthafucks in their Prius, do it; and if you want to heat your house in Alaska with all the windows open all winter - hey, be my guest. just don't go whinging about it when you are broke.
Who says you pay just the same? It costs a little more than the median US average price, and a lot lower than nearly half the states. And therefore they use less, get just as much (they are, if anything, getting more: it's colder on average over all Germany than it is on average over all the USA, even including Alaska), and pay less overall.
There's no need to sign you up. You don't sign up to use less. You just use less. You sign up to get more out of what you DO use by insulating your home, avoiding wasteful use of power (the sun and wind dry clothes just fine), and not being a stupid fuck, basically.
Some folks just don't get it. As I have pointed out many times, my energy conservation tactics have resulted in a net profit for me. I use less electricity than I did 15 years ago, and my bill is only ten percent more than my neighbors, who are in town for only a few days a month - they are paying almost the same as me for a home in maintenance mode, while I even have a hot tub spa. and am home every day except when on vacation.
It's fine I suppose if a person wants a huge vehicle that gets 10 mpg or less, and is satisfied with paying a hellava lot of their hard earned money ot an oil company. I just don't have a lot of sympathy when they bitch about the obvious solutions.
Every year technology has made strides in energy generation and storage, and every year the inertia crowd's whinging has become more hollow. Coal will stay in the ground, and Oil will become feedstock. Even if we did go balls to the wall oil and coal, we'd just reduce the recoverable amounts to a level that would be too expensive and not enough supply and do it sooner. And as a last thought, I don't know if this will be decried as cultural appropriation, but damnit, never ever bet against the Germans in matters of technology.
My point exactly. But if you want to compare the situation in Germany to the USA, they also on average use less than half the electricity per person, so that "high" cost of green energy isn't anywhere near as bad as Americans may think.
They seem to be on to something, this country that is the size of a state, and yet is the 4th largest economy in the world. Most interesting when viewed per capita.
And we all can cut our electrical consumption a lot without affecting our quality of life.
How does that influence it? That's like saying "it won't work because we're not located next to France".
Fox New confirms - Germany is a Sunnier place than the US.
You mean SAVED and not lost, right? or else you're being sarcastic?
Sarcasm. I dip into that occasionally when I shouldn't.
The argument is a Zestimate is a type of appraisal. And appraisals have legal requirements that must be met.
That's a rather odd argument. No one looks at the house, or goes inside. the neighbor posting on Facebook that they think the house should be valued less would be as equal a lawsuit target.
It's not an odd arguement. I've tried refinancing my house recently, and the first thing everyone does is go to zillow to see how much it's worth. This has to stop.
Are you trying to pull 100 percent of your equity, and really want more? Aside from my admonition to not ever do that, you need to go in a different direction than a bank that relies on Zillow Zestimates. The Zestimate is made from acombination of what the house originally sold for, what nearby houses have sold for recently, and doesn't know much else about it at all. The house could just be a shell. A refi appraisal hsould at least have a site visit, and a quick peek inside. This is your bank's problem, and you might do well to find one more responsible.
Zillow makes money by saying "Your home is worth this much". That's why people visit the site, so that's how Zillow is able to make money.
If Zillow isn't doing due diligence on those appraisals, they have indeed caused financial harm.
So your defense of the argument is financial? Okay - does the person have legal recourse if Zillow posts anything that can be considered negative? How about if they value a house too high, and no one looks at the house. Or a potential customer is pissed because Zillow "wasted their time" when they went to see the place.
How about if a house doesn't have the square footage as reported by the county real estate entries? This happened to us when we bought our house.
The appraised value of a house is the appraised value. An estimate is not an appraised value, it is an opinion. And last time I checked, an opinion is not a legally actionable offense.
I'm not doing efficiency upgrades, my house is 100 years old and my heat+light bill never went above 175 over the winter, and it's often under 100 during mild weather. when the furnace craps out, I'll put in a reasonably efficient one, but I can save a lot more money and fuel by knocking down the thermostat and putting on a sweater than I can with fancy new equipment and ripping up my walls to install new insulation.
One thing I should note is that the things I did were not done at one time, and the initiating project was not all about energy savings. The house was re-sided in order to have a maintenance free vinyl miledew resisting surface, so it gets another layer of insulation. The wife wanted something cleaner than oil heat, and they were extending the gas lines past our street, and we got free install since it was easier for them to do that work while the main line was uncovered. Hell, they even replaced some uneven sidewalk with that. So the time was right for a new gas furnace, might as well get the most efficient one, and now the furnace chimney can be blocked off (no more maintenance) since the gas one's "chimney" is a 2 inch PVC pipe to the side of the house.
As for my installing a new PV roof, its just a matter of waiting for the correct price point converging with the time the asphalt shingles on there now need replaced, plus the cost of mains powe in the mix. There will be a sweet spot there some where. The PV will come down in price, the mains power will come up in price, and maintenance has to happen anyhow.
Your total electricity consumption is $50/mo? Where do you live?
I'm in Pennsylvania, and I'm only a little more than that. Most goes to the water heater and the Spa.
It actually isn't that difficult to have a low electricity bill. I have all LED lights, the heater and spa are high efficiency as well as tthe refrigerator and freezer. Even the furnace motor and AC are efficient models.
We got an electrical bill that compared our payment with our neighbors next to us. It said we pay 10 percent more than they do.Not too bad considering that they are a travelling couple, and only home about 2 days a month.
Nowhere can I save that amount of money from the energy saved :\
Unless you live in Hawaii, where the sun is brighter and power costs 4 times the mainland rate.
Or - believe it or not - rural Alaska. Many villages get their power from diesel generators, the most expensive large scale generation there is. (note some use wind power as well) In the Winter, running out of diesel can be a matter of life and death. https://www.adn.com/arctic/art... https://www.adn.com/arctic/art... https://solarpowerrocks.com/al...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.limesolar.com/
And if that doesn't suit slash dotters, Let's ROLL COAL!
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07...
Even made money selling the old oil furnace - it was a good one - to the guys who installed thegas one.
So why am I telling you this shit? Because I heard the same arguments from people about that as you are giving us here, that's why. And they always tend to fail in real life. Anyhow, Tell me what the return is on a power system that is still on when the neighbors are sitting in the dark and cold. We have a number of them every year.
I'll have one of these in a few years, when the roof needs re-done. My biggest concern is that it isn't ready to run the hot tub yet. My estimates are that it will be just as big a "mistake" as my other energy expenditure reduction solutions.
Meanwhile, I'm expecting that coalrollers will be parking in front of my place soon.
The argument is a Zestimate is a type of appraisal. And appraisals have legal requirements that must be met.
That's a rather odd argument. No one looks at the house, or goes inside. the neighbor posting on Facebook that they think the house should be valued less would be as equal a lawsuit target.
Okay, so they suck. Should they be censored over it? Because this is what is being demanded.
It does seem like a unofficial estimate would fall squarely under the "opinion" label.
It would also open the door for people to sue real appraisers or even the realtor if they don't like the estimate they get. This isn't likely to go anywhere.
As the person who knows what and who is stupid, are you actually going to say that Firing Comey had absolutely nothing to do with him heading the counterintelligence investigation of Trump?
Awaiting a person who is smarter than the rest of us to tell us exactly why this has not one thing to do with that. Use the big words tovarich, some of us here will understand.
That tape would be the biggest leak ever.
Oh.... piss off!
8^)