If a contract has an invalid clause, it can be ruled to be null and void in in its entirety, this is done PRECISELY to avoid what you said, try crap in your contract to see if you can get away with it and the judge will just award the case to the other side. It rarely goes this far because by that time a lawyer will advise the offending party to settle or risk getting their ass chewed out and usually companies listen.;
Most contracts have a "severability clause" that says that if any clause in the contract is invalid, the rest of the contract stands without it. And guess what, eBay does too. That might not be valid everywhere, but it's standard in the USA.
Severability
With the exception of any of the provisions in Section 1 of this Agreement to Arbitrate ("Prohibition of Class and Representative Actions and Non-Individualized Relief"), if a court decides that any part of this Agreement to Arbitrate is invalid or unenforceable, the other parts of this Agreement to Arbitrate shall still apply. If a court decides that any of the provisions in Section 1 of this Agreement to Arbitrate ("Prohibition of Class and Representative Actions and Non-Individualized Relief") is invalid or unenforceable, then the entirety of this Agreement to Arbitrate shall be null and void. The remainder of the User Agreement and its Legal Disputes Section will continue to apply.
If ebay/paypal were to begin stealing money again no contract would validate illegal activity. Does agreeing to a EULA that you will not sue imply ebay/paypal can conduct illegal activities, I'm not a lawyer but I doubt it.
Nah, but if you can't sue, what could you do about it? Convince your local DA to file criminal charges against eBay? Good luck with that.
And my mom has no idea how to configure the firewall on her router or enable port forwarding. And neither do I since I have never seen her router
Vnc is useless if mom can't get it to work
UltraVNC has a "single click server". You configure (via UVNC's website) a custom server that is a single 166K executable file that requires no installation and is hardwired to connect to your computer, and (when the time comes) you run your VNC viewer in "listen" mode and have them doubleclick the icon. Since they're the ones initiating the connection, firewall shouldn't be a problem. Works great, you can email the file to them, so long as you can explain how to save an email attachment to their desktop. There are some restrictions (Win only, you need either a fixed IP or something like dyndns to specify your address, and they need to be able to receive an executable attachment), but it works really well. Dunno what to do about the OSX, though.
What's fair? Do you know what 'fair' is? How is it at all fair under any circumstances to tax somebody's income? That means taxing their work, their labour, it means turning them into a slave. Not taxing transactions that they are involved in when they buy or sell things, taxing their labour?
Oh please, you apparently have no clue what "slavery" means. Sure it's "fair". There are lots of ways of raising money that are fair. I suppose a government could tax transactions instead. That would be fair, too, so long as they charged the same tax rate on purchases of corporate stock, options, and the like, anything to which property or contractual rights apply.
If your taxes are that high, then you wouldn't take as much money out of the company. Rather the company would spend it, which is how most of the bought politicians happen now. They are rarely bought from personal finances.
When the rich control the corporations, the distinction is without meaning.
Also, almost no rich person paid those taxes. They used loopholes to pay what they pay now.
Maybe. Though I think most of them paid far more than whatever rate Rmoney is hiding in his tax returns. Citation needed.
If you take too much from the rich, they will leave, and they'll take their jobs with them.
If the rich want to move to Botswana and let neither their persons nor their money sully the shores of America, I say let them go. But the USA is still the world's largest market, and their home, and if they can't do business here, not only will many of them will find it difficult to stay rich, but their families won't like living with a new culture and language. But they won't go, because most of them will not choose exile over money.
If the Obidiot were to be thrown out of office come the November election, it would effect some change.
True, but if he was replaced by Rmoney, it would be change for the worse.
If all 435 sitting idiots in the House of representatives were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change. If all 33 idiot senators in the Senate up for reelection were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change.
True, but if they were replaced by others from the usual crowd of suspects, it would not be significant change. And part of the problem is that while a lot of people (including me) think that Congress is idiots, those same people (including me) often think their own particular Rep is an exception.
Repeat until the elected idiots finally realize that their employ is to serve the interests of the people (those who vote them into office) rather than the corporate elites.
This will only work if we can keep the corporate elites' money out of politics. Limiting who can put money in (e.g. only persons qualified to vote) would help, as would limiting the amount they can put in (e.g. a max of $5000 per person per election for all aggregated electoral/issues advertising contributions), but there are those "corporations have rights" and "money is speech" things to overcome.
I'm interested in this, too. Sure, I could just continue using uTorrent without updating it, nor would the ads really bother me anyways since I don't keep the window open, but if there's anything leaner than uTorrent then I see no reason to keep using it. My needs are as follow: must run on Windows, must support IP-blocklists, must allow me to force encryption on and reject all unencrypted connections, and must allow me to quickly adjust speed limits.
qBittorrent. I switched to that when uTorrent started getting funky. It's the closest one I could find to what uTorrent used to be. It's cross-platform (Win/Linux/OSX/OS2/BSD), OSS, and meets all your criteria. (Until I started looking, I hadn't realized that it had native support for blocklists, I've been using PeerBlock for that.)
Chronic torrenters use a disproportionately high amount of bandwidth compared to other people. Your desire to attain every single movie released in the past 30 years in high def shouldn't affect my typical internet usage that we pay the same amount of money for.
How about your desire to watch movies via Netflix? My typical internet usage doesn't involve watching videos/movies.
Netflix accounts for 24.71 percent of Internet traffic, Add another 9.85% for Youtube. So shouldn't we be throttling all you people who consume obscene amounts of bandwidth watching video on demand? BitTorrent only 17.23 percent.
Not sure if you're aware, but wars are not contests in being selfless and giving towards your opposite. Generally the point is to win.
Yup. But the point was, this was an unnecessary war that was mostly being conducted because Lyndon Johnson couldn't figure out a way to withdraw that wouldn't result in people blaming him. And, like most wars, those who suffered were mostly civilians.
Sometimes I think that no country should be allowed to go to war, if it hasn't has a war on its own soil in the last fifty years. We (the USA, or rather the former Confedracy) last had a war on our soil in 1865 (if you don't count a few skirmishes in WW2), so we can't identify with the horror.
He should publish the name of the authors who complained. Authors are definitely vulnerable to negative press. And certainly legal threats can't be thought to be private.
Mod this up!
Names? No, publish the entire email. So that we can, for instance, write the authors and share our opinion with them.
If you know you're going to win why pay for a defense? Just represent yourself. The facts in the case are self-evident.
You never know you're going to win. It's always a crapshoot. Sure, sometimes the dice are loaded in your favor, but even loaded dice fall wrong sometimes. You didn't know the proper legal procedure? And no, it's not intuitively obvious. You're screwed. Even if you did everything legal right, dotted all the "i"s and crossed all the "t"s, it's still a crapshoot. Especially if an opinionated judge, or a jury, is involved.
"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." It's unfortunate, but true. Sometimes, if you have a sympathetic judge, you can get away with it. But don't count on it.
If it helps you, stop thinking about "corporate welfare" and think of your own, because all trade is a two-way street.
I could stop thinking about "corporate welfare", if the very existence of corporations wasn't a government-granted privilege that shielded the owners (who will reap the profits) from personal responsibility. But since it is, it would seem that they should be subject to the control of the greater society. "Corporations" have no natural existence, no natural rights, they're a creature of government, a special privilege granted to a group that should be expected to act in ways that will benefit all of society, not just their shareholders. If they don't like that, let them return to being partnerships, as they were before the invention of the corporation.
But the key thing to remember is that people WILL judge you based on what you are wearing. So don't dress on how people should act, dress on how they will act, if you care how they act toward you.
That's true. When people dress in suits, I always assume they're going to try to steal something from me, but don't want to get their hands dirty.
Some will rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen. -Woody Guthrie
It's not illegal. if the cfop that did it is not fined, has to PERSONALLY pay restitution and spend jail time, then it's not illegal.
It's time we started jailing dirty cops.
Hehe, good luck with that. You think their co-workers are going to arrest them? You think the local prosecutor (who works with them every day) is going to prosecute them? You think most judges are going to believe you, rather than them? You think most juries (composed of suburbanites and retirees who watch cop "reality" TV, people who have themselves had run-ins with the cops will be excused from jury duty) are going to believe you, rather than Officer Friendly?
Around here, we had a situation where a bunch of cops were confiscating stuff (cars, big TVs, etc.) and then taking it home, giving it to their buddies, selling it, etc. It finally got noticed and there was an investigation. The night before the investigation began (wotta coincidence!), those cops pulled an all-nighter shredding papers. So... investigate... hot potato... investigate... until finally the prosecutor says "Gee, how time flies! Will ya look at the time! It looks like the statute of limitations has expired, nothing we can do now!".
I read the article. The victim never tried to press charges. They immediately filed a lawsuit. Nothing will cause me to cast doubt on your claims more than immediately going for the cash when you're the victim of a crime (instead of, say, filing a police report).
Um... it was the police that victimized him in the first place. File a police report, and the best outcome for you will be if they laugh and throw it into the trash. But you may attract charges of obstructing an officer, riot, and whatever else they can think of. Followed by getting hassled by individual cops for years to come. Or (very rarely, but it has happened) ending up dead.
This "former pentagon analyst" is a writer for WND, a rightwing web news site with all the credibility of the National Enquirer.
Not to say that China wouldn't build backdoors into telco gear, of course they would. The US requires telcos to provide access for it to spy on calls, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if the Chinese just built it in without talking publicly about it. After WWII, many countries purchased Swiss encryption gear, and many years later it was divulged that the US had inserted a backdoor into that gear. Why would China, or telco gear, be any different?
The fact is, around the world everyone should assume that anything done over a telephone is shared with unknown parties. Unless they've got trustworthy gear to encrypt calls end-to-end.
Good point, I should go vote for the party that says I don't own my own body and censorship is a good idea! Ron Paul 2012!
Isn't Ron Paul the guy who just published a "Technology Revolution" manifesto that called for Internet freedom? That is, "freedom" for ATT, Comcast, and your local telco to be unfettered by the collectivist chains of notions such as "net neutrality" and "equal access"? Freedom from any notion that corporations should be required to act for the public good (or, rather, redefining "public good" to be, what's good for corporations)?
the 16th amendment does not authorise direct taxes upon individuals
Maybe you ought to read that amendment again. The full text is:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
They're not taxing individuals, they're taxing income.
Nobody says you have to like it, or can't try to change it, but it is constitutional.
It is of use to note that we celebrate a war every year. On the 4th of July we light off fireworks to celebrate going to war with the British and winning (technically we celebrate our declaration to be independent, but we all know damn well that had we lost or had there been no contest, there likely wouldn't be fireworks every year).
Oh, I dunno. It probably wouldn't be on 4 July. But the Brits have fireworks on Guy Fawkes day (remember, remember, the fifth of November) to celebrate the capture and execution of terrorist plotters in 1605. There would probably be another annual celebration to commemorate the capture and execution of the colonial terrorists (or is that "militants"? it's so hard to remember the correct terminology) of 1776. So there would be fireworks twice a year.
Doing things like shows lack of empathy, and is I believe is disrespectful to life.
Oh come on. But you don't think wrapping your feet in parts of dead animals and walking on them is disrespectful to life? It's not necessity because (depending on your local climate) you could go barefoot, or wear plastic or rubber shoes, or wooden clogs. There are some vegetarians who take the "pro-life" stance, and don't use leather etc. I give them high marks for integrity and consistency, though they are often pretty flakey otherwise.
If I'm ever roadkill, I wanna be reincarnated as a quadracopter. Cuz it's the only way I'm likely to be taken up to a home in the sky.
The interesting thing is, there is another group of extremists who are known for the prominence of engineers in their midst. Osama Bin Laden was himself an engineer, and he's not the only one. It's not a science thing, you don't see many botanists or physicists running amuk, just engineers. It may be an engineering mindset thing.
It seems to me that as a group engineers may not be the best possible choice for political discourse. Bring on the botanists and psychologists and chemists and entomologists (and etymologists too, what the hell), but let's not overdo the representation from engineers.
Slashdot Mirror
If a contract has an invalid clause, it can be ruled to be null and void in in its entirety, this is done PRECISELY to avoid what you said, try crap in your contract to see if you can get away with it and the judge will just award the case to the other side. It rarely goes this far because by that time a lawyer will advise the offending party to settle or risk getting their ass chewed out and usually companies listen.;
Most contracts have a "severability clause" that says that if any clause in the contract is invalid, the rest of the contract stands without it. And guess what, eBay does too. That might not be valid everywhere, but it's standard in the USA.
Severability
With the exception of any of the provisions in Section 1 of this Agreement to Arbitrate ("Prohibition of Class and Representative Actions and Non-Individualized Relief"), if a court decides that any part of this Agreement to Arbitrate is invalid or unenforceable, the other parts of this Agreement to Arbitrate shall still apply. If a court decides that any of the provisions in Section 1 of this Agreement to Arbitrate ("Prohibition of Class and Representative Actions and Non-Individualized Relief") is invalid or unenforceable, then the entirety of this Agreement to Arbitrate shall be null and void. The remainder of the User Agreement and its Legal Disputes Section will continue to apply.
If ebay/paypal were to begin stealing money again no contract would validate illegal activity. Does agreeing to a EULA that you will not sue imply ebay/paypal can conduct illegal activities, I'm not a lawyer but I doubt it.
Nah, but if you can't sue, what could you do about it? Convince your local DA to file criminal charges against eBay? Good luck with that.
And my mom has no idea how to configure the firewall on her router or enable port forwarding. And neither do I since I have never seen her router
Vnc is useless if mom can't get it to work
UltraVNC has a "single click server". You configure (via UVNC's website) a custom server that is a single 166K executable file that requires no installation and is hardwired to connect to your computer, and (when the time comes) you run your VNC viewer in "listen" mode and have them doubleclick the icon. Since they're the ones initiating the connection, firewall shouldn't be a problem. Works great, you can email the file to them, so long as you can explain how to save an email attachment to their desktop. There are some restrictions (Win only, you need either a fixed IP or something like dyndns to specify your address, and they need to be able to receive an executable attachment), but it works really well. Dunno what to do about the OSX, though.
Storming an embassy is not new. I guess you never heard about the storming of the American embassy in Tehran.
And we all know how that went off without a hitch, with no long-term repercussions.
I imagine that the UK has an embassy in Ecuador, too.
What's fair? Do you know what 'fair' is? How is it at all fair under any circumstances to tax somebody's income? That means taxing their work, their labour, it means turning them into a slave. Not taxing transactions that they are involved in when they buy or sell things, taxing their labour?
Oh please, you apparently have no clue what "slavery" means. Sure it's "fair". There are lots of ways of raising money that are fair. I suppose a government could tax transactions instead. That would be fair, too, so long as they charged the same tax rate on purchases of corporate stock, options, and the like, anything to which property or contractual rights apply.
If your taxes are that high, then you wouldn't take as much money out of the company. Rather the company would spend it, which is how most of the bought politicians happen now. They are rarely bought from personal finances.
When the rich control the corporations, the distinction is without meaning.
Also, almost no rich person paid those taxes. They used loopholes to pay what they pay now.
Maybe. Though I think most of them paid far more than whatever rate Rmoney is hiding in his tax returns. Citation needed.
If you take too much from the rich, they will leave, and they'll take their jobs with them.
If the rich want to move to Botswana and let neither their persons nor their money sully the shores of America, I say let them go. But the USA is still the world's largest market, and their home, and if they can't do business here, not only will many of them will find it difficult to stay rich, but their families won't like living with a new culture and language. But they won't go, because most of them will not choose exile over money.
If the Obidiot were to be thrown out of office come the November election, it would effect some change.
True, but if he was replaced by Rmoney, it would be change for the worse.
If all 435 sitting idiots in the House of representatives were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change. If all 33 idiot senators in the Senate up for reelection were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change.
True, but if they were replaced by others from the usual crowd of suspects, it would not be significant change. And part of the problem is that while a lot of people (including me) think that Congress is idiots, those same people (including me) often think their own particular Rep is an exception.
Repeat until the elected idiots finally realize that their employ is to serve the interests of the people (those who vote them into office) rather than the corporate elites.
This will only work if we can keep the corporate elites' money out of politics. Limiting who can put money in (e.g. only persons qualified to vote) would help, as would limiting the amount they can put in (e.g. a max of $5000 per person per election for all aggregated electoral/issues advertising contributions), but there are those "corporations have rights" and "money is speech" things to overcome.
What alternatives do you suggest?
I'm interested in this, too. Sure, I could just continue using uTorrent without updating it, nor would the ads really bother me anyways since I don't keep the window open, but if there's anything leaner than uTorrent then I see no reason to keep using it. My needs are as follow: must run on Windows, must support IP-blocklists, must allow me to force encryption on and reject all unencrypted connections, and must allow me to quickly adjust speed limits.
qBittorrent. I switched to that when uTorrent started getting funky. It's the closest one I could find to what uTorrent used to be. It's cross-platform (Win/Linux/OSX/OS2/BSD), OSS, and meets all your criteria. (Until I started looking, I hadn't realized that it had native support for blocklists, I've been using PeerBlock for that.)
Chronic torrenters use a disproportionately high amount of bandwidth compared to other people. Your desire to attain every single movie released in the past 30 years in high def shouldn't affect my typical internet usage that we pay the same amount of money for.
How about your desire to watch movies via Netflix? My typical internet usage doesn't involve watching videos/movies.
Netflix accounts for 24.71 percent of Internet traffic, Add another 9.85% for Youtube. So shouldn't we be throttling all you people who consume obscene amounts of bandwidth watching video on demand? BitTorrent only 17.23 percent.
Not sure if you're aware, but wars are not contests in being selfless and giving towards your opposite. Generally the point is to win.
Yup. But the point was, this was an unnecessary war that was mostly being conducted because Lyndon Johnson couldn't figure out a way to withdraw that wouldn't result in people blaming him. And, like most wars, those who suffered were mostly civilians.
Sometimes I think that no country should be allowed to go to war, if it hasn't has a war on its own soil in the last fifty years. We (the USA, or rather the former Confedracy) last had a war on our soil in 1865 (if you don't count a few skirmishes in WW2), so we can't identify with the horror.
He should publish the name of the authors who complained. Authors are definitely vulnerable to negative press. And certainly legal threats can't be thought to be private.
Mod this up!
Names? No, publish the entire email. So that we can, for instance, write the authors and share our opinion with them.
If you know you're going to win why pay for a defense? Just represent yourself. The facts in the case are self-evident.
You never know you're going to win. It's always a crapshoot. Sure, sometimes the dice are loaded in your favor, but even loaded dice fall wrong sometimes. You didn't know the proper legal procedure? And no, it's not intuitively obvious. You're screwed. Even if you did everything legal right, dotted all the "i"s and crossed all the "t"s, it's still a crapshoot. Especially if an opinionated judge, or a jury, is involved.
"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." It's unfortunate, but true. Sometimes, if you have a sympathetic judge, you can get away with it. But don't count on it.
If it helps you, stop thinking about "corporate welfare" and think of your own, because all trade is a two-way street.
I could stop thinking about "corporate welfare", if the very existence of corporations wasn't a government-granted privilege that shielded the owners (who will reap the profits) from personal responsibility. But since it is, it would seem that they should be subject to the control of the greater society. "Corporations" have no natural existence, no natural rights, they're a creature of government, a special privilege granted to a group that should be expected to act in ways that will benefit all of society, not just their shareholders. If they don't like that, let them return to being partnerships, as they were before the invention of the corporation.
But the key thing to remember is that people WILL judge you based on what you are wearing. So don't dress on how people should act, dress on how they will act, if you care how they act toward you.
That's true. When people dress in suits, I always assume they're going to try to steal something from me, but don't want to get their hands dirty.
Some will rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen.
-Woody Guthrie
It's not illegal. if the cfop that did it is not fined, has to PERSONALLY pay restitution and spend jail time, then it's not illegal.
It's time we started jailing dirty cops.
Hehe, good luck with that. You think their co-workers are going to arrest them? You think the local prosecutor (who works with them every day) is going to prosecute them? You think most judges are going to believe you, rather than them? You think most juries (composed of suburbanites and retirees who watch cop "reality" TV, people who have themselves had run-ins with the cops will be excused from jury duty) are going to believe you, rather than Officer Friendly?
Around here, we had a situation where a bunch of cops were confiscating stuff (cars, big TVs, etc.) and then taking it home, giving it to their buddies, selling it, etc. It finally got noticed and there was an investigation. The night before the investigation began (wotta coincidence!), those cops pulled an all-nighter shredding papers. So... investigate... hot potato... investigate... until finally the prosecutor says "Gee, how time flies! Will ya look at the time! It looks like the statute of limitations has expired, nothing we can do now!".
I read the article. The victim never tried to press charges. They immediately filed a lawsuit. Nothing will cause me to cast doubt on your claims more than immediately going for the cash when you're the victim of a crime (instead of, say, filing a police report).
Um... it was the police that victimized him in the first place. File a police report, and the best outcome for you will be if they laugh and throw it into the trash. But you may attract charges of obstructing an officer, riot, and whatever else they can think of. Followed by getting hassled by individual cops for years to come. Or (very rarely, but it has happened) ending up dead.
This "former pentagon analyst" is a writer for WND, a rightwing web news site with all the credibility of the National Enquirer.
Not to say that China wouldn't build backdoors into telco gear, of course they would. The US requires telcos to provide access for it to spy on calls, it wouldn't particularly surprise me if the Chinese just built it in without talking publicly about it. After WWII, many countries purchased Swiss encryption gear, and many years later it was divulged that the US had inserted a backdoor into that gear. Why would China, or telco gear, be any different?
The fact is, around the world everyone should assume that anything done over a telephone is shared with unknown parties. Unless they've got trustworthy gear to encrypt calls end-to-end.
Good point, I should go vote for the party that says I don't own my own body and censorship is a good idea! Ron Paul 2012!
Isn't Ron Paul the guy who just published a "Technology Revolution" manifesto that called for Internet freedom? That is, "freedom" for ATT, Comcast, and your local telco to be unfettered by the collectivist chains of notions such as "net neutrality" and "equal access"? Freedom from any notion that corporations should be required to act for the public good (or, rather, redefining "public good" to be, what's good for corporations)?
the 16th amendment does not authorise direct taxes upon individuals
Maybe you ought to read that amendment again. The full text is:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
They're not taxing individuals, they're taxing income.
Nobody says you have to like it, or can't try to change it, but it is constitutional.
Good add-on. I wonder whether Chrome and Chromium provide anything equivalent.
Ghostery is available for Firefox, Chrome(ium), Safari, Opera, IE, and iOS.
State sovereign immunity. Game over.
"Laws? We don't need no steenkin laws!"
It is of use to note that we celebrate a war every year. On the 4th of July we light off fireworks to celebrate going to war with the British and winning (technically we celebrate our declaration to be independent, but we all know damn well that had we lost or had there been no contest, there likely wouldn't be fireworks every year).
Oh, I dunno. It probably wouldn't be on 4 July. But the Brits have fireworks on Guy Fawkes day (remember, remember, the fifth of November) to celebrate the capture and execution of terrorist plotters in 1605. There would probably be another annual celebration to commemorate the capture and execution of the colonial terrorists (or is that "militants"? it's so hard to remember the correct terminology) of 1776. So there would be fireworks twice a year.
Disturbing :(
Doing things like shows lack of empathy, and is I believe is disrespectful to life.
Oh come on. But you don't think wrapping your feet in parts of dead animals and walking on them is disrespectful to life? It's not necessity because (depending on your local climate) you could go barefoot, or wear plastic or rubber shoes, or wooden clogs. There are some vegetarians who take the "pro-life" stance, and don't use leather etc. I give them high marks for integrity and consistency, though they are often pretty flakey otherwise.
If I'm ever roadkill, I wanna be reincarnated as a quadracopter. Cuz it's the only way I'm likely to be taken up to a home in the sky.
16 billion is about $18 per user. that's ridiculous.
So would that make it $54 for me, given that I have (at least, there might be a few that I've forgotten) three different accounts?
No wonder the price is sliding. I wouldn't pay $54 for me.
"Crazy" has no intellectual boundaries
The interesting thing is, there is another group of extremists who are known for the prominence of engineers in their midst. Osama Bin Laden was himself an engineer, and he's not the only one. It's not a science thing, you don't see many botanists or physicists running amuk, just engineers. It may be an engineering mindset thing.
It seems to me that as a group engineers may not be the best possible choice for political discourse. Bring on the botanists and psychologists and chemists and entomologists (and etymologists too, what the hell), but let's not overdo the representation from engineers.