You tried to be polite but still could not understand the guy. I will explain to you: He noticed that some physicists bumping into something that is different from what was predicted in the calculations, and then they decided to ignore that they may have assumed wrong things in creating the calculations because these assumed things are much like "sacred dogmas from Physics".
No, they are not sacred dogmas in physics. My point is that many people believe that you have to decide on something, then come hell or high water, you believe that until the day you die. That is not how a scientist's mind works. Here is a for instance. At one time, many years ago, I believed in the Steady State Universe. But after seeing much evidence that contradicted my views, I abandoned it. Just like that. No existential crisis, just accepting the new evidence.
And that is the difference between many people. I won't mean anyone any disrespect, but let us shift to say, a creationist. A person who believes that the world was created in 4004 b.c.e, and that all the earth's inhabitants were created at that time and in their present and unalterable for is welcome to that belief, but there is an amazing mountain of evidence shared across many disciplines like biology, and physics that shows that unless there is some act of divine and purposeful obfuscation going on, creationism as espoused by fundamentalist Christians has almost zero probability of being a fact.
But they have every right to have that belief. And short of an existential crisis of losing their faith, they will likely take that belief to the grave.
I have no idea if NonAlphaCharsHere has any of that sort of fundamentalist belief, but I can gather from his post that he is much more comfortable with proven facts than the needed guesswork and placeholders and slow advancement and discarding of old theories and conjecture that is required in cosmology. That is just a fact. Even for technically minded people, there are those who prefer dealing in the concrete, like civil engineers.
Its in the way different people's minds work. And its actually all good. I've had many interesting conversations with fundamentalist friends, including one who is a NucE, mainly because it takes incredible twists and turns of logic to work with half-lives and the other aspects that agree with other physics fields when you believe that the earth is only a bit over 6000 years old. But we respect each other, and enjoy each other's company. And since we travelled a lot with each other, that's a darn good thing.
The thing that blows my mind is not that one measurement is higher and another lower, it's just how closely they agree: to less than 10%. This despite the fact that they were arrived at from different instruments and lines of inquiry.
Exactly. Which is why this is clickbait stuff. People who hate science can get excited because they are hoping it proves their world outlook, people who don't hold any particular cosmological ideas, but demand absolute stasis will get uncomfortable.
Meanwhile scientists and cosmologists are thinking "hmmm, why this little bit of difference, and how might we fine tune it"? Good times.
Because of dispersion (different frequencies) inside dynamically polarizable materials. Not in a vacuum. In a vacuum, the speed of light is predicted to be -- the speed of light.
Light can be bent by gravitational fields, but the thought is that the bent trajectories are geodesics in bent spacetime, not actual lenses which bend light by slowing it down due to the susceptibility of space.
A real world example of this is in radio. In free space, as noted, EM radiation travels unhindered around 186,000 mps.
Getting the signal to the antenna typically uses coaxial cable. And that slows the signal down quite a bit. It can vary a bit by cable, but typically it is 66 percent of the free space speed of light. The term we use is velocity factor.
Even in a wire antenna, there is a marked difference in the VF between insulated and un-insulated wire. Which means that for a resonant antenna, there is a definite difference in needed length of wire.
Indeed. When I'm debugging a program and feed it new data and something completely unexpected (and obviously off-the-wall) comes out the other side, I always ask myself "Wait, what am I assuming?".
This is what drives me absolutely batshit about modern cosmology:
I believe you. What this points out however is that you are completely unsuited for modern cosmology. That isn't trying to be insulting, as not many people are not.
The problem with cosmology is that we are not "there". We are not present at the birth of the universe, we are not in an early galaxy, we do not have people across the universs who can communicate with us to inform us of just what is what.
So there has to be assumptions. Otherwise we are left with the idea that the sky is a upside down bowl with holes in it, or that the stars are the souls of our ancestors looking down on us (I'll return to that in a minute)
So now these assumptions. Wild-ass guesses, some of them. In fact, that upside down bowl and ancestors concept was indeed cosmology, and two wild-ass guesses. Assumptions long since proven untrue. And cosmology is littered with this:
Ptolemaic system, Geocentric universe, Heliocentric Universe, Copernican system, Newtonian Gravity, Steady State Universe. In the middle of this there was the concept of luminiferous aether, which comes closest to a modern wild ass guess.
As each model was superseded by knowledge learned, it was abandoned. It doesn't mean that the people of science who did all the previous work were idiots. It was just that we learned more. In earlier times, there were so many more assumptions. And facts were slow coming in. But when a fact destroyed an assumption, the assumption had to go.
side note: I want to approach this delicately, but there are many real world cases of people and groups of people who demand to hold on to earlier assumptions in the face of facts.
And in the world of cosmology, the previous and wrong cosmology is not bad, or even useless. It becomes a placeholder, a basis to do further research. If we just threw up our hands and gave up at every thing we do not know, there would be no research. So we'd be praying to those little dots of light in the sky - maybe, because that is a cosmological assumption as well. Or may just looking at them with no thoughts of any kind. Is that what you would prefer?
When someone used most of their mod points to go through and mod me sdown, it is a validation of two things 1, is that the tool cannot stand an opinion other than his own, and is trying to self validate in reverse.
The other is that it is a backhand way of acknowledgement that I am right. Thank you troll moderator, good work!
Get m down to -1 and quickly! You'll feel much better.
I think it's less that they don't want to move where jobs are (partly that though, yes) and more that they don't have the skills for those jobs and don't have the accumulated capital to move. Moving is expensive, especially if you're moving to a place like a city where the cost of living is substantially higher.
I should have included that. There is not a huge point in uprooting yourself and family to move to another town where you wil be competing for a minimum wage job. And while some of these places make a big deal out of it when they hire an older person, like WalMart putting greeters out front, we have to face it, they are window dressing, not trend. If you are in your 50's, and your job is sent off to China or Mexico, you're probably never going to work again.
As well, what are we going to do with these folks? Some of the ramifications are seriously unpleasant. A depop movement?
Because somewhere along the line in the US, pecuniary accumulation became the only objective. Civic responsibility does not even register. I can imagine modern day corporatist Americans screaming in rage when Ebenezer scrooge has his epiphany in "A Christmas Carol".
When in fact, a company with a longer range outlook might realize that people need to be working and making money in order to buy the stuff the company produces.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
— Lyndon B. Johnson
That line is as true today as it was then.
Yes, it is. The politics of hate that have been stoked, seldom have a happy ending. Then again, Germany and Japan had a few rough years back in the 1940's, and they are pretty nice places today.
You might even note that I wrote "Consumer", which is a bit more specific. Let's see what Mirriam Webster has to say about that....:
"one that utilizes economic goods "https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumer
So while we seldom use the word "consume" for the act of watching a movie, it is definitely an economic good that consumers derive entertainment from. A consumer does not by definition destroy the things that he or she consumes. That is another definition, as in when say, a fire consumes something.
Any other thoughts on this weird foray into commonly used dictionary definitions that suddenly become null because someone on Slashdot decides they are no longer correct? Here is the link to contact Mirriam Webster to inform them that they are wrong https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Sadly a lot of people don't understand that you should take everything you read/hear/watch with a grain of salt, they tend to focus on news that fits their own opinion on things and disregard any counter report or such.
Absolutely. You can make a pretty good guess of what a person watches if you talk to them for 10 minutes.
There are more rural white people on food stamps and welfare than there are black people. They rationalize it by believing they "deserve" welfare while non-whites don't deserve it because reasons. But when the programs get cut, they get cut across the board. So they just played themselves.
And many of them will tell you to your face that they never got a penny from the government. They ar enot going to like the next 4 years very much. But at this moment, it's going to be really difficult to blame those fukin leeburls.
He got better support than previous Republicans did though. Particularly in small towns formerly built around industry (i.e., the Rust Belt). Do poor rural voters use much in the way of food stamps?
Quite a few do. The issue with many rural places is that there aren't that many jobs. Which is a damn pity. But many of the people there do not want to move to places where jobs are, and being a mountain man doesn't work that well for any but the talented. As well, there can be issues of training and ability. Many of these folk might have been working at a factory at one time, making a living at a semi-skilled position. But the Factory moved offshore, and if they are going to get a job now, it might involve traveling 50 miles each way. And it might be a job at say McDonald's or Walmart, where even if you have a job, you are often still eligible for social programs like food Stamps and Day care. Totally and senselessly fucked up.
One of the things that is so amusing in today's age is that People tend to characterize anyone that disagrees with them as the farther fringe group they can come up with. That's why I can make a statement, and some will connect me with Feminist SJW's, and others with White Robed KKK members. It's not like there isn't any middle ground. We're just manipulated into acting that way.
I actually agree with many of the complaints about how things are fucked up that the Trumpists make. Things like the Wall, putting all the coal miners back to work are silly stupid, but people do need to have gainful employment, or at least some way to eat, sleep and some pursuit of happiness.
What was the whack-a-doodle thing was electing a person who is the poster child for how badly fucked up things are, based onnothing more than him saying what they want to hear. Simultaneously disbelieving everyone else.
Sorry, who the FUCK was the sane candidate? Because it wasn't Trump or Clinton.
We hear that a lot. Sanders was obviously the least dislikable. I watched him on a few talk shows, and he's a real charming guy. Probably would have made a great President. A little too socialist for my liking, but he understands how to make things work. But there was a choice, and it was pretty clear. A minority of the 49 percent of eligible voters that bothered to show up chose Trump, and he won by a weird quirk of our election system. I hope he gives us everything he promised, and that his party succeeds in averything they attempt to do. My biggest hope is that his supporters lose their Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Social Security. Fortunately I don't need any of those, so it is no skin off my nose. It's kind of funny, the old folk supporters of his who frequent the eatery I go to for breakfast were really loud and cheerful the day after the election. Now they are very quiet, very quiet indeed. Whispering and worried.
But what we had was what we had. If you didn't vote for Clinton, or voted for anyone else, you got Trump. We get the leaders we deserve.
The link allowed you to select how deep you made the wall below ground. That being said, I agree that it is a waste of money, particularly if your trying to stop the drug trade. There is too much profit to be stopped by Trump's ego.
All that being said, if Trump's American's want a wall, then Trump's American's should pay for it.
Maybe by using the coal mining money.
This will probably work as well as the Berlin Wall which operated on the same ideology. And as likely as not will beet the same end.
As well, this will probably work as well as the Maginot line, another fine wall time system. Walls just don't work that well.
If he also scraps the regulations that forbid communities from running their own co-op ISP I'll believe it.
He doesn't have the POWER to "scrap" those "regulations", because they are laws enacted by individual states restricting those states' own municipalities.
Yeah, I bet the Trump administration will make that a priority.
That's the thing. Just being able to get the service is enough. From there even if local or federal governments will not help subsidize network fees, private groups can and will.
Just like they have all along - right?. Why - especially after many states banning municipal broadband, have not the private suppliers with the freer market of no allowed interference solve this problem years ago? Wide open market, zero competition from the socialists, seems like we would be seeing the free market in action, with private entities producing better internet service to more people for less money than in the socialist states that allow the Guvmint to compete with them.
Surely you have the cites that prove the extra free (I don't know what else to call it) market in action. Surely their internet service is faster, cheaper, and in more places.
But how are we going to afford all this if we are going to borrow another $38 billion for a semi useless wall?
Sorry to reply again, but anyone that thinks we can build an almost 2000 mile wall that extends into the ert so them imgrunts can't dig tunnels under it for 38 billion dollars is laughingly uneducated.
We couldn't build it for that much if we used illegal immigrants to build it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a meaningless metric. There is no such thing as doomsday. The World is not a clock. You are OK. Breathe out.
We really do need a cleansing of poor people though. They use up so many resources, the lazy assholes.
You tried to be polite but still could not understand the guy. I will explain to you: He noticed that some physicists bumping into something that is different from what was predicted in the calculations, and then they decided to ignore that they may have assumed wrong things in creating the calculations because these assumed things are much like "sacred dogmas from Physics".
No, they are not sacred dogmas in physics. My point is that many people believe that you have to decide on something, then come hell or high water, you believe that until the day you die. That is not how a scientist's mind works. Here is a for instance. At one time, many years ago, I believed in the Steady State Universe. But after seeing much evidence that contradicted my views, I abandoned it. Just like that. No existential crisis, just accepting the new evidence.
And that is the difference between many people. I won't mean anyone any disrespect, but let us shift to say, a creationist. A person who believes that the world was created in 4004 b.c.e, and that all the earth's inhabitants were created at that time and in their present and unalterable for is welcome to that belief, but there is an amazing mountain of evidence shared across many disciplines like biology, and physics that shows that unless there is some act of divine and purposeful obfuscation going on, creationism as espoused by fundamentalist Christians has almost zero probability of being a fact.
But they have every right to have that belief. And short of an existential crisis of losing their faith, they will likely take that belief to the grave.
I have no idea if NonAlphaCharsHere has any of that sort of fundamentalist belief, but I can gather from his post that he is much more comfortable with proven facts than the needed guesswork and placeholders and slow advancement and discarding of old theories and conjecture that is required in cosmology. That is just a fact. Even for technically minded people, there are those who prefer dealing in the concrete, like civil engineers.
Its in the way different people's minds work. And its actually all good. I've had many interesting conversations with fundamentalist friends, including one who is a NucE, mainly because it takes incredible twists and turns of logic to work with half-lives and the other aspects that agree with other physics fields when you believe that the earth is only a bit over 6000 years old. But we respect each other, and enjoy each other's company. And since we travelled a lot with each other, that's a darn good thing.
In a land where tornadoes are wormholes to alternate dimensions, you've got to have all kinds of weird physics going on.
Like any time someone pops a boner outside of the sanctity of marriage, God levels a city with a hurricane?
The thing that blows my mind is not that one measurement is higher and another lower, it's just how closely they agree: to less than 10%. This despite the fact that they were arrived at from different instruments and lines of inquiry.
Exactly. Which is why this is clickbait stuff. People who hate science can get excited because they are hoping it proves their world outlook, people who don't hold any particular cosmological ideas, but demand absolute stasis will get uncomfortable.
Meanwhile scientists and cosmologists are thinking "hmmm, why this little bit of difference, and how might we fine tune it"? Good times.
Because of dispersion (different frequencies) inside dynamically polarizable materials. Not in a vacuum. In a vacuum, the speed of light is predicted to be -- the speed of light.
Light can be bent by gravitational fields, but the thought is that the bent trajectories are geodesics in bent spacetime, not actual lenses which bend light by slowing it down due to the susceptibility of space.
A real world example of this is in radio. In free space, as noted, EM radiation travels unhindered around 186,000 mps.
Getting the signal to the antenna typically uses coaxial cable. And that slows the signal down quite a bit. It can vary a bit by cable, but typically it is 66 percent of the free space speed of light. The term we use is velocity factor.
Even in a wire antenna, there is a marked difference in the VF between insulated and un-insulated wire. Which means that for a resonant antenna, there is a definite difference in needed length of wire.
Indeed. When I'm debugging a program and feed it new data and something completely unexpected (and obviously off-the-wall) comes out the other side, I always ask myself "Wait, what am I assuming?".
This is what drives me absolutely batshit about modern cosmology:
I believe you. What this points out however is that you are completely unsuited for modern cosmology. That isn't trying to be insulting, as not many people are not.
The problem with cosmology is that we are not "there". We are not present at the birth of the universe, we are not in an early galaxy, we do not have people across the universs who can communicate with us to inform us of just what is what.
So there has to be assumptions. Otherwise we are left with the idea that the sky is a upside down bowl with holes in it, or that the stars are the souls of our ancestors looking down on us (I'll return to that in a minute)
So now these assumptions. Wild-ass guesses, some of them. In fact, that upside down bowl and ancestors concept was indeed cosmology, and two wild-ass guesses. Assumptions long since proven untrue. And cosmology is littered with this:
Ptolemaic system, Geocentric universe, Heliocentric Universe, Copernican system, Newtonian Gravity, Steady State Universe. In the middle of this there was the concept of luminiferous aether, which comes closest to a modern wild ass guess.
As each model was superseded by knowledge learned, it was abandoned. It doesn't mean that the people of science who did all the previous work were idiots. It was just that we learned more. In earlier times, there were so many more assumptions. And facts were slow coming in. But when a fact destroyed an assumption, the assumption had to go.
side note: I want to approach this delicately, but there are many real world cases of people and groups of people who demand to hold on to earlier assumptions in the face of facts.
And in the world of cosmology, the previous and wrong cosmology is not bad, or even useless. It becomes a placeholder, a basis to do further research. If we just threw up our hands and gave up at every thing we do not know, there would be no research. So we'd be praying to those little dots of light in the sky - maybe, because that is a cosmological assumption as well. Or may just looking at them with no thoughts of any kind. Is that what you would prefer?
The Earth certainly looks flat from my back yard (and even more so from a back yard in Kansas),
Many people in Kansas know that the earth is flat.
The other is that it is a backhand way of acknowledgement that I am right. Thank you troll moderator, good work!
Get m down to -1 and quickly! You'll feel much better.
I saw a fossil of a half-meter long dragonfly when I was a little kid, and the first thing that came to my mind was I WANT!!!
"Alexa, send the giant dragonfly to bring me a beer."
Humans would have found it very interesting among the humongous bugs back in the day.
I'm saying it's 50/50 we gonna do this baby! Popcorn and Tequila for all!
I think it's less that they don't want to move where jobs are (partly that though, yes) and more that they don't have the skills for those jobs and don't have the accumulated capital to move. Moving is expensive, especially if you're moving to a place like a city where the cost of living is substantially higher.
I should have included that. There is not a huge point in uprooting yourself and family to move to another town where you wil be competing for a minimum wage job. And while some of these places make a big deal out of it when they hire an older person, like WalMart putting greeters out front, we have to face it, they are window dressing, not trend. If you are in your 50's, and your job is sent off to China or Mexico, you're probably never going to work again.
As well, what are we going to do with these folks? Some of the ramifications are seriously unpleasant. A depop movement?
Because somewhere along the line in the US, pecuniary accumulation became the only objective. Civic responsibility does not even register. I can imagine modern day corporatist Americans screaming in rage when Ebenezer scrooge has his epiphany in "A Christmas Carol".
When in fact, a company with a longer range outlook might realize that people need to be working and making money in order to buy the stuff the company produces.
"Scientific payloads" . . . or nano-size nuclear weapon payloads . . . Edward Teller and Johnny von Neumann would have loved this . . .
Of course, it's going to be a problem to get enough mass into an insect to detonate fissionable material.
Maybe we can clone some of those carboniferous age insects. Those bastards were huge!
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." — Lyndon B. Johnson
That line is as true today as it was then.
Yes, it is. The politics of hate that have been stoked, seldom have a happy ending. Then again, Germany and Japan had a few rough years back in the 1940's, and they are pretty nice places today.
"Consume" implies destruction. I "consume" an orange and it is no longer an orange. I do not "consume" a movie, I watch it.
Consume, when used as an intransitive verb, as in utilizing economic goods, as per Mirriam Webster. Just like we have for years.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
You might even note that I wrote "Consumer", which is a bit more specific. Let's see what Mirriam Webster has to say about that....: "one that utilizes economic goods "https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumer
So while we seldom use the word "consume" for the act of watching a movie, it is definitely an economic good that consumers derive entertainment from. A consumer does not by definition destroy the things that he or she consumes. That is another definition, as in when say, a fire consumes something.
Any other thoughts on this weird foray into commonly used dictionary definitions that suddenly become null because someone on Slashdot decides they are no longer correct? Here is the link to contact Mirriam Webster to inform them that they are wrong https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Sadly a lot of people don't understand that you should take everything you read/hear/watch with a grain of salt, they tend to focus on news that fits their own opinion on things and disregard any counter report or such.
Absolutely. You can make a pretty good guess of what a person watches if you talk to them for 10 minutes.
There are more rural white people on food stamps and welfare than there are black people. They rationalize it by believing they "deserve" welfare while non-whites don't deserve it because reasons. But when the programs get cut, they get cut across the board. So they just played themselves.
And many of them will tell you to your face that they never got a penny from the government. They ar enot going to like the next 4 years very much. But at this moment, it's going to be really difficult to blame those fukin leeburls.
He got better support than previous Republicans did though. Particularly in small towns formerly built around industry (i.e., the Rust Belt). Do poor rural voters use much in the way of food stamps?
Quite a few do. The issue with many rural places is that there aren't that many jobs. Which is a damn pity. But many of the people there do not want to move to places where jobs are, and being a mountain man doesn't work that well for any but the talented. As well, there can be issues of training and ability. Many of these folk might have been working at a factory at one time, making a living at a semi-skilled position. But the Factory moved offshore, and if they are going to get a job now, it might involve traveling 50 miles each way. And it might be a job at say McDonald's or Walmart, where even if you have a job, you are often still eligible for social programs like food Stamps and Day care. Totally and senselessly fucked up.
One of the things that is so amusing in today's age is that People tend to characterize anyone that disagrees with them as the farther fringe group they can come up with. That's why I can make a statement, and some will connect me with Feminist SJW's, and others with White Robed KKK members. It's not like there isn't any middle ground. We're just manipulated into acting that way.
I actually agree with many of the complaints about how things are fucked up that the Trumpists make. Things like the Wall, putting all the coal miners back to work are silly stupid, but people do need to have gainful employment, or at least some way to eat, sleep and some pursuit of happiness.
What was the whack-a-doodle thing was electing a person who is the poster child for how badly fucked up things are, based onnothing more than him saying what they want to hear. Simultaneously disbelieving everyone else.
Sorry, who the FUCK was the sane candidate? Because it wasn't Trump or Clinton.
We hear that a lot. Sanders was obviously the least dislikable. I watched him on a few talk shows, and he's a real charming guy. Probably would have made a great President. A little too socialist for my liking, but he understands how to make things work. But there was a choice, and it was pretty clear. A minority of the 49 percent of eligible voters that bothered to show up chose Trump, and he won by a weird quirk of our election system. I hope he gives us everything he promised, and that his party succeeds in averything they attempt to do. My biggest hope is that his supporters lose their Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Social Security. Fortunately I don't need any of those, so it is no skin off my nose. It's kind of funny, the old folk supporters of his who frequent the eatery I go to for breakfast were really loud and cheerful the day after the election. Now they are very quiet, very quiet indeed. Whispering and worried.
But what we had was what we had. If you didn't vote for Clinton, or voted for anyone else, you got Trump. We get the leaders we deserve.
The link allowed you to select how deep you made the wall below ground. That being said, I agree that it is a waste of money, particularly if your trying to stop the drug trade. There is too much profit to be stopped by Trump's ego.
All that being said, if Trump's American's want a wall, then Trump's American's should pay for it.
Maybe by using the coal mining money.
This will probably work as well as the Berlin Wall which operated on the same ideology. And as likely as not will beet the same end.
As well, this will probably work as well as the Maginot line, another fine wall time system. Walls just don't work that well.
He doesn't have the POWER to "scrap" those "regulations", because they are laws enacted by individual states restricting those states' own municipalities.
State's rights don't matter in alternate USA.
Yeah, I bet the Trump administration will make that a priority.
That's the thing. Just being able to get the service is enough. From there even if local or federal governments will not help subsidize network fees, private groups can and will.
Just like they have all along - right?. Why - especially after many states banning municipal broadband, have not the private suppliers with the freer market of no allowed interference solve this problem years ago? Wide open market, zero competition from the socialists, seems like we would be seeing the free market in action, with private entities producing better internet service to more people for less money than in the socialist states that allow the Guvmint to compete with them.
Surely you have the cites that prove the extra free (I don't know what else to call it) market in action. Surely their internet service is faster, cheaper, and in more places.
Given how much support he got from poor rural voters? I think you're missing the mark here.
They get to keep their guns, but they won't be too happy about their Medicaid and food stamps demise though.
Poor rural voters have voted Republican ever since the Dixicrats abandoned the Democrat party. Means nothing to the man of gold.
First, I reject the assumption it will cost a lot more.
Comcast, meet SuperKendall. Your innocence is charming, but your alternative truth isn't.
But how are we going to afford all this if we are going to borrow another $38 billion for a semi useless wall?
Sorry to reply again, but anyone that thinks we can build an almost 2000 mile wall that extends into the ert so them imgrunts can't dig tunnels under it for 38 billion dollars is laughingly uneducated.
We couldn't build it for that much if we used illegal immigrants to build it.
But how are we going to afford all this if we are going to borrow another $38 billion for a semi useless wall?
Run the printing presses - DUH!