You're right that it's all about the tradeoffs -- and effective solutions will be multi-part as well. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't anticipate and try to mitigate issues with new energy sources as well. We want to avoid adding to the sum total of woes we already face, after all.
Biofuels have at least two really significant challenges that I know of: 1) It takes a lot of cropland to produce fuel. While some of that may be established cropland, lots of it is created by destruction of existing habitats. 2) It encourages industrial-scale farming, with all the concomitant problems, including the need for large volumes of water, large quantities of toxic biocides and fertilisers that cost a lot of energy to produce and bugger up the local environment, the tendency to monoculture with all its attendant risks (remember the Irish potato famine, anyone?), etc etc.
I know that technology is a useful tool to help us solve the problems we face, but we continually seem to forget that humanity has seen dozens of societal collapses through environmental strain which technology has as often exacerbated as it has prevented.
The flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming that this is a test to decide if someone is a terrorist. It is *not*. It is a test to decide if someone is suspicious. If sensitivity:specificity / signal:noise ratios were all that mattered, there'd be no point in having *any* airport security screening, because the ratio of terrorists to innocents is so low (1:1m? 1:10m?) that it would render any single-point test (eg a baggage check) utterly useless even if it has a false positive rate of 0.1% and a false negative rate of 1%.
Consequently, security is predicated on 1) having multiple unlinked tests, and 2) identifying people who are suspicious and following up with further inquiry.
For an excellent example of how this works in practice, and acts as an effective deterrent, fly El Al.
1) You didn't RTFA where it *specifically said* the device was not just a test for general nervousness -- and that it was designed taking into account the fact that terrorists are trained to keep cool under stress (fancy that!) 2) You -- and no-one in the article -- were the one to bring up the possibility of this device *replacing* other security measures.
You would be better off if you credited people with a little intelligence. It must have taken about, oooh hour two of day one of this company's existence before someone working there thought "dang, we'd better make sure our system can catch people who've trained to appear calm even though they're terrorists". And it surely won't have even crossed their minds that the system could be a substitute for all the other deterrents that aviation security experts have developed over the years.
They don't appear simply to be attacking "planes". They look at very symbolic targets that will provide exceptionally high impact: hence, multiple planes run by US carriers travelling from the UK to the US. Not Belgium to Greece, for instance.
In answer to why they don't go for smaller targets, the prime risk to their operations is plot compromise. The more plots, the greater the risk. Sustaining a campaign of several nasty small-scale bombs a year a long way from the support base is a riskier option than infrequent large scale viciousness.
The main risk is that they find largescale targets that are low-security but provide sufficient symbolic value to still be worthwhile attacking.
To the extent that the ambiguity of everyday English is an issue, it is primarily an issue for written arguments, not oral arguments. It's also less of an issue than people think -- see the work of the Plain English Campaign on legal jargon.
Where a lawyer can be genuinely helpful is, surprise surprise, in understanding the law: precendents, statutes and the like. The question is not simply "what are the facts?", it is "what does the law have to say about the facts we've established?"
While I agree with your broad sentiment that no news reporting can escape bias entirely, I think it's still worth clinging to the idea that bias can and should be minimised. For example, if a reporter says that a government has "*admitted* it bombed the target", rather than saying it has "disclosed that it bombed the target" or "stated that it bombed the target", then they have not minimised bias.
1) While people did claim that WWI was the "war to end all wars", I'm not aware that people made the same claim for WWII. Where is your evidence that they did? 2) Are you arguing that it was a *bad thing* to have fought the Axis powers in the Second World War? That it would have been *preferable* to have let the Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese imperialists take control of Europe, North Africa and SE Asia, because at least the Allies wouldn't have had to kill any German, Italian or Japanese civilians? The Second World War didn't end all wars, but it did topple those three nasty regimes.
No, no, no. You have this arse-over-tit. A large voter fraud is one in which *one* person is able to affect *many* votes. Impersonation clearly has physical limits -- you'd be spotted pretty quickly if you repeatedly turned up to vote at the same polling booth, and there are only so many booths you can get to in a given area. Thus, large-scale impersonation fraud requires many people, each of whom can only obtain a few fraudulent votes.
By contrast, if you are able to subvert the results of a count, for instance by tampering with an EVM, then a single person is able to fraudulently alter many thousands of votes.
1. McDonalds branches, and other fast food outlets, are found all over the world, but nowhere in such densities as in the US. Europe is as close it gets, but it's still a long way off. 2. The US has the most industrialised food industry of any country in the world -- it's not just McDonalds that makes Americans fat, it's the crap they buy in Walmart et al as well. 3. The US has very low levels of physical exertion, partly because car usage far outstrips the rest of the world and consequently, walking levels are much lower. 4. A large part of the rest of the world has much stronger food cultures with much deeper roots than the US. Italians may eat in McDonalds from time to time, but they predominantly eat a home-cooked Mediterranean diet, keeping them generally healthy. Ditto for Japan, France etc. 5. The one Western European country where this applies least is my own, Britain. The UK also has a weaker food culture than other European countries (although it's improving somewhat, thanks in no small part to Jamie Oliver), more fast food outlets, and higher levels of obesity. 6. The US is a leading indicator for other countries, where obesity rates are also rising as the food chain is industrialised.
And for what it's worth, I think you're missing the point. It's not about whose fault it is that dumbass idiots gorge themselves on nasty fattening food manufactured by corporations who know damn well how bad it is. It's whether we all want to pay the price -- in terms of direct, indirect and intangible costs including hospitalisations, lost time off work etc etc -- of continuing to let this happen. We could, after all, change it: both individually, one mouthful at a time, and collectively, as societies with the sovereign power to determine laws about how food is created, sold and consumed.
"Beat your child till she eats healthily!" -- I like your style... Personally, I'd go for a clear, calm explanation and providing an enticing but healthy alternative to McDonald's, but hey, to each their own. Just try not to break the kid's arm while you "persuade" them of the evils of fast food, as they might just think you're not really interested in their welfare after all.
Um, he said "have you taken a look at the MacBook", not the MacBook Pro. He acknowledged that the latter were pricey. Go do your little comparison again but use a MacBook this time instead.
So rare? More than 7,000 ASBOs had been made by September 2005, nearly half of which were for juveniles. 35% of these children had been diagnosed with a mental disorder or had learning difficulties -- there are cases of kids with Tourette's being told not to swear! Fewer than 1% of applications for ASBOs were rejected by the courts.
What is certainly true is that it is whim and circumstance that will determine whether you receive an ASBO. The capricious nature of this "justice" is, as you say, one of the key problems with it.
What makes them popular is not that they are commonly used -- most people will have had no direct experience of them. What makes them popular is that they are "tough" (ie they are easy to impose and are sweeping in their scope) and they play fairly well in the right-wing press (although trying to satisfy the Mail on this is a fool's game).
You're absolutely right. And there's one other power that the State is attempting to grab which parallels the Soviet Union: internal passports, in the form of ID cards. These would, among many other things, restrict freedom of movement, as state officials could demand to see them as a condition of allowing you to go anywhere.
Marvellous, vigilantism. That works very well in Northern Ireland. And of course, there's no chance you'll ever get the wrong person. It's not like a bunch of idiots ever grafitti'd the front door of a paediatrician's home because they thought she was a paedophile...
If it's all the same to you, I think most of us would prefer to stick to having the state administer the criminal law and justice, thanks.
You're missing the point. Both Asbos and the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes are the symptoms of the same illness: state power not being properly fettered.
The "broken-windows" theory of policing, in which we apply zero tolerance to small infractions to prevent the development of a society plagued by more serious infractions, applies as much to the policing of our governments' powers to prevent abuse as to the policing of our streets.
Oh bollocks. ASBOs have been abused by councils up and down the land, to criminalise behaviour that someone finds undesirable but is certainly not, in itself, criminal. One woman was given an ASBO to prevent her answering her door in her underwear, for heaven's sake.
It's firmly on the right of the political spectrum (in our family, it's known as "The Daily Bigot" and its sister paper is called "The Bigot on Sunday"). It's known for being pretty vicious. However, I don't think it would have run the story if the editor wasn't fairly sure of the facts as reported.
Oh, for god's sake! Interviewing a single commentator from a pro-free-trade foundation doesn't really equate to sustainable supply chain practice. Instead, tech corporations will clearly need to use / join / set up a certification or inspection regime, like the Forestry Stewardship Council http://www.fsc.org/en/ (for wood products) or the Ethical Tea Partnership http://www.ethicalteapartnership.org/index.asp (for tea), in time. Large consumer-oriented corporations that don't worry about sustainability, stakeholder management, etc etc, are in for a rough ride in the coming years.
In answer to your question, yes, the UK remains a significant economic, political and military power. For example, the UK is currently the world's fifth largest economy (despite having a population of only ~60m). It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which is still the world's pre-eminent international decision-making body. It has a nuclear deterrent and maintains powerful armed forces. The US is, of course, much more powerful economically, politically and militarily. And the Brits are much more aware of the limits of their power, and of the importance of the outside world, than are Americans, for historical and other reasons.
"It can also be quite dangerous to criticize Jewish religion or Jewish culture... their culture is too male-centric, power-centric and money-centric...If I were in France (or Germany or Switzerland or Poland or Belgium or Austria), I would think very long and hard before I said anything like that in public."
Dangerous? Do you really mean dangerous? Do you think that you would be in danger if you said any of this? That someone would physically attack you? Or that the government would lock you up?
If you are free to make ridiculous assertions about Jews, Jews and others are free to employ social censure, debate and similar methods of speech to counter you.
I'm not a huge fan of the fact that laws may allow the government to act against you if you say those things in some countries, but given that continental Europe saw the systematic attempt to wipe out its Jewish population, along with other minorities, two generations ago, government are a bit more cautious than the US in regard to free speech. You tend to think differently about these things when you live in a charnel house.
Finally, your assertion that Jewish culture is too money-centric is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard: while Jewish culture isn't homogenous, one of the core tenets of Jewish religious practice and teaching, no matter whether liberal or Orthodox, is the importance of tzedakah -- which is translated as charity, but actually means justice. Of course, western obsession with the idea of Jewish avarice has a lengthy and ignoble history, borne out of vicious bigotry and hypocrisy.
Do you care to proffer any evidence to substantiate your claim that Jewish culture is money-obsessed? Any texts you'd like to quote? Or are you just going to point to lots of rich Jews and say "See! Rich Jews. Therefore Jews are obsessed with money"?
This is dumb. And naive. First off, companies do exploit the positive things they are doing to protect people -- nearly every major company produces environment and corporate responsibility reports, and that is usually but the tip of a large iceberg of marketing. Secondly, the one area that is specifically not included in those reports is stuff about finance. There are two reasons for that: one, it's covered in annual reports and accounts, 10Ks etc. Two, going above and beyond in this particular area would be as likely to raise suspicions (methinks the lady doth protest too much...) as to garner positive reactions.
Completely free markets don't work. For most of the world (Mises excepted), that's uncontroversial economics. Game theory suggests that at least someone will try to win by du(m)ping (on) others, whether through non-disclosure of pertinent financial facts or selling dangerous products or something else. And we might not want to let the market punish them after the fact, when the facts might be a few billion in economic damages or thousands of people with asbestos-induced cancer.
You know, your example of a car is instructive. Computer users are the equivalent of drivers, not auto mechanics. Most drivers want to be able to drive effectively, not have a "deep understanding of their car" -- and they rely on important consistencies in interface to be able to do it. For example, the accelerator, brake and clutch pedals are in the same place in virtually every car you'll ever get in to. Pissing around with a UI and then complaining that users aren't sufficiently flexible is, frankly, crackers. Most office workers are paid for the skills and expertise in something other than computers -- handling customers, analysing a market, creating a new product etc etc. Time spent mastering technology is time not spent on those core activities.
His examples aren't *that* improbable. There's a lot of people using prostitutes in the US (in the millions, I'm sure), and I doubt that many of them would want that fact publicised. There's a lot of murders too.
As for your example of calling Pakistan -- you might not be about to, but tens of thousands of calls *are* made every day to Pakistan.
The chances of unfortunate coincidence may be low, but the statistical universe is large enough to ensure false positives.
Jeez, I thought that the slashdot community could be expected to understand sensitive, specificity, S/N ratios, false negatives and positives etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right that it's all about the tradeoffs -- and effective solutions will be multi-part as well. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't anticipate and try to mitigate issues with new energy sources as well. We want to avoid adding to the sum total of woes we already face, after all.
Biofuels have at least two really significant challenges that I know of:
1) It takes a lot of cropland to produce fuel. While some of that may be established cropland, lots of it is created by destruction of existing habitats.
2) It encourages industrial-scale farming, with all the concomitant problems, including the need for large volumes of water, large quantities of toxic biocides and fertilisers that cost a lot of energy to produce and bugger up the local environment, the tendency to monoculture with all its attendant risks (remember the Irish potato famine, anyone?), etc etc.
I know that technology is a useful tool to help us solve the problems we face, but we continually seem to forget that humanity has seen dozens of societal collapses through environmental strain which technology has as often exacerbated as it has prevented.
The flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming that this is a test to decide if someone is a terrorist. It is *not*. It is a test to decide if someone is suspicious. If sensitivity:specificity / signal:noise ratios were all that mattered, there'd be no point in having *any* airport security screening, because the ratio of terrorists to innocents is so low (1:1m? 1:10m?) that it would render any single-point test (eg a baggage check) utterly useless even if it has a false positive rate of 0.1% and a false negative rate of 1%.
Consequently, security is predicated on 1) having multiple unlinked tests, and 2) identifying people who are suspicious and following up with further inquiry.
For an excellent example of how this works in practice, and acts as an effective deterrent, fly El Al.
1) You didn't RTFA where it *specifically said* the device was not just a test for general nervousness -- and that it was designed taking into account the fact that terrorists are trained to keep cool under stress (fancy that!)
2) You -- and no-one in the article -- were the one to bring up the possibility of this device *replacing* other security measures.
You would be better off if you credited people with a little intelligence. It must have taken about, oooh hour two of day one of this company's existence before someone working there thought "dang, we'd better make sure our system can catch people who've trained to appear calm even though they're terrorists". And it surely won't have even crossed their minds that the system could be a substitute for all the other deterrents that aviation security experts have developed over the years.
Sheesh.
They don't appear simply to be attacking "planes". They look at very symbolic targets that will provide exceptionally high impact: hence, multiple planes run by US carriers travelling from the UK to the US. Not Belgium to Greece, for instance.
In answer to why they don't go for smaller targets, the prime risk to their operations is plot compromise. The more plots, the greater the risk. Sustaining a campaign of several nasty small-scale bombs a year a long way from the support base is a riskier option than infrequent large scale viciousness.
The main risk is that they find largescale targets that are low-security but provide sufficient symbolic value to still be worthwhile attacking.
To the extent that the ambiguity of everyday English is an issue, it is primarily an issue for written arguments, not oral arguments. It's also less of an issue than people think -- see the work of the Plain English Campaign on legal jargon.
Where a lawyer can be genuinely helpful is, surprise surprise, in understanding the law: precendents, statutes and the like. The question is not simply "what are the facts?", it is "what does the law have to say about the facts we've established?"
While I agree with your broad sentiment that no news reporting can escape bias entirely, I think it's still worth clinging to the idea that bias can and should be minimised. For example, if a reporter says that a government has "*admitted* it bombed the target", rather than saying it has "disclosed that it bombed the target" or "stated that it bombed the target", then they have not minimised bias.
1) While people did claim that WWI was the "war to end all wars", I'm not aware that people made the same claim for WWII. Where is your evidence that they did?
2) Are you arguing that it was a *bad thing* to have fought the Axis powers in the Second World War? That it would have been *preferable* to have let the Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese imperialists take control of Europe, North Africa and SE Asia, because at least the Allies wouldn't have had to kill any German, Italian or Japanese civilians? The Second World War didn't end all wars, but it did topple those three nasty regimes.
No, no, no. You have this arse-over-tit. A large voter fraud is one in which *one* person is able to affect *many* votes. Impersonation clearly has physical limits -- you'd be spotted pretty quickly if you repeatedly turned up to vote at the same polling booth, and there are only so many booths you can get to in a given area. Thus, large-scale impersonation fraud requires many people, each of whom can only obtain a few fraudulent votes.
By contrast, if you are able to subvert the results of a count, for instance by tampering with an EVM, then a single person is able to fraudulently alter many thousands of votes.
This is blindingly obvious, surely?
Whereas a good thrashing does wonders for satisfying the appetite??
1. McDonalds branches, and other fast food outlets, are found all over the world, but nowhere in such densities as in the US. Europe is as close it gets, but it's still a long way off.
2. The US has the most industrialised food industry of any country in the world -- it's not just McDonalds that makes Americans fat, it's the crap they buy in Walmart et al as well.
3. The US has very low levels of physical exertion, partly because car usage far outstrips the rest of the world and consequently, walking levels are much lower.
4. A large part of the rest of the world has much stronger food cultures with much deeper roots than the US. Italians may eat in McDonalds from time to time, but they predominantly eat a home-cooked Mediterranean diet, keeping them generally healthy. Ditto for Japan, France etc.
5. The one Western European country where this applies least is my own, Britain. The UK also has a weaker food culture than other European countries (although it's improving somewhat, thanks in no small part to Jamie Oliver), more fast food outlets, and higher levels of obesity.
6. The US is a leading indicator for other countries, where obesity rates are also rising as the food chain is industrialised.
And for what it's worth, I think you're missing the point. It's not about whose fault it is that dumbass idiots gorge themselves on nasty fattening food manufactured by corporations who know damn well how bad it is. It's whether we all want to pay the price -- in terms of direct, indirect and intangible costs including hospitalisations, lost time off work etc etc -- of continuing to let this happen. We could, after all, change it: both individually, one mouthful at a time, and collectively, as societies with the sovereign power to determine laws about how food is created, sold and consumed.
"Beat your child till she eats healthily!" -- I like your style... Personally, I'd go for a clear, calm explanation and providing an enticing but healthy alternative to McDonald's, but hey, to each their own. Just try not to break the kid's arm while you "persuade" them of the evils of fast food, as they might just think you're not really interested in their welfare after all.
Um, he said "have you taken a look at the MacBook", not the MacBook Pro. He acknowledged that the latter were pricey. Go do your little comparison again but use a MacBook this time instead.
So rare? More than 7,000 ASBOs had been made by September 2005, nearly half of which were for juveniles. 35% of these children had been diagnosed with a mental disorder or had learning difficulties -- there are cases of kids with Tourette's being told not to swear! Fewer than 1% of applications for ASBOs were rejected by the courts.
What is certainly true is that it is whim and circumstance that will determine whether you receive an ASBO. The capricious nature of this "justice" is, as you say, one of the key problems with it.
What makes them popular is not that they are commonly used -- most people will have had no direct experience of them. What makes them popular is that they are "tough" (ie they are easy to impose and are sweeping in their scope) and they play fairly well in the right-wing press (although trying to satisfy the Mail on this is a fool's game).
You're absolutely right. And there's one other power that the State is attempting to grab which parallels the Soviet Union: internal passports, in the form of ID cards. These would, among many other things, restrict freedom of movement, as state officials could demand to see them as a condition of allowing you to go anywhere.
Marvellous, vigilantism. That works very well in Northern Ireland. And of course, there's no chance you'll ever get the wrong person. It's not like a bunch of idiots ever grafitti'd the front door of a paediatrician's home because they thought she was a paedophile...
If it's all the same to you, I think most of us would prefer to stick to having the state administer the criminal law and justice, thanks.
You're missing the point. Both Asbos and the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes are the symptoms of the same illness: state power not being properly fettered.
The "broken-windows" theory of policing, in which we apply zero tolerance to small infractions to prevent the development of a society plagued by more serious infractions, applies as much to the policing of our governments' powers to prevent abuse as to the policing of our streets.
Oh bollocks. ASBOs have been abused by councils up and down the land, to criminalise behaviour that someone finds undesirable but is certainly not, in itself, criminal. One woman was given an ASBO to prevent her answering her door in her underwear, for heaven's sake.
2 43,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-1513
It's firmly on the right of the political spectrum (in our family, it's known as "The Daily Bigot" and its sister paper is called "The Bigot on Sunday"). It's known for being pretty vicious. However, I don't think it would have run the story if the editor wasn't fairly sure of the facts as reported.
Oh, for god's sake! Interviewing a single commentator from a pro-free-trade foundation doesn't really equate to sustainable supply chain practice. Instead, tech corporations will clearly need to use / join / set up a certification or inspection regime, like the Forestry Stewardship Council http://www.fsc.org/en/ (for wood products) or the Ethical Tea Partnership http://www.ethicalteapartnership.org/index.asp (for tea), in time. Large consumer-oriented corporations that don't worry about sustainability, stakeholder management, etc etc, are in for a rough ride in the coming years.
In answer to your question, yes, the UK remains a significant economic, political and military power. For example, the UK is currently the world's fifth largest economy (despite having a population of only ~60m). It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which is still the world's pre-eminent international decision-making body. It has a nuclear deterrent and maintains powerful armed forces. The US is, of course, much more powerful economically, politically and militarily. And the Brits are much more aware of the limits of their power, and of the importance of the outside world, than are Americans, for historical and other reasons.
"It can also be quite dangerous to criticize Jewish religion or Jewish culture... their culture is too male-centric, power-centric and money-centric...If I were in France (or Germany or Switzerland or Poland or Belgium or Austria), I would think very long and hard before I said anything like that in public."
Dangerous? Do you really mean dangerous? Do you think that you would be in danger if you said any of this? That someone would physically attack you? Or that the government would lock you up?
If you are free to make ridiculous assertions about Jews, Jews and others are free to employ social censure, debate and similar methods of speech to counter you.
I'm not a huge fan of the fact that laws may allow the government to act against you if you say those things in some countries, but given that continental Europe saw the systematic attempt to wipe out its Jewish population, along with other minorities, two generations ago, government are a bit more cautious than the US in regard to free speech. You tend to think differently about these things when you live in a charnel house.
Finally, your assertion that Jewish culture is too money-centric is one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard: while Jewish culture isn't homogenous, one of the core tenets of Jewish religious practice and teaching, no matter whether liberal or Orthodox, is the importance of tzedakah -- which is translated as charity, but actually means justice. Of course, western obsession with the idea of Jewish avarice has a lengthy and ignoble history, borne out of vicious bigotry and hypocrisy.
Do you care to proffer any evidence to substantiate your claim that Jewish culture is money-obsessed? Any texts you'd like to quote? Or are you just going to point to lots of rich Jews and say "See! Rich Jews. Therefore Jews are obsessed with money"?
Go and re-read what he wrote: "the freedom of the press", not "freedom of speech".
This is dumb. And naive. First off, companies do exploit the positive things they are doing to protect people -- nearly every major company produces environment and corporate responsibility reports, and that is usually but the tip of a large iceberg of marketing. Secondly, the one area that is specifically not included in those reports is stuff about finance. There are two reasons for that: one, it's covered in annual reports and accounts, 10Ks etc. Two, going above and beyond in this particular area would be as likely to raise suspicions (methinks the lady doth protest too much...) as to garner positive reactions.
Completely free markets don't work. For most of the world (Mises excepted), that's uncontroversial economics. Game theory suggests that at least someone will try to win by du(m)ping (on) others, whether through non-disclosure of pertinent financial facts or selling dangerous products or something else. And we might not want to let the market punish them after the fact, when the facts might be a few billion in economic damages or thousands of people with asbestos-induced cancer.
You know, your example of a car is instructive. Computer users are the equivalent of drivers, not auto mechanics. Most drivers want to be able to drive effectively, not have a "deep understanding of their car" -- and they rely on important consistencies in interface to be able to do it. For example, the accelerator, brake and clutch pedals are in the same place in virtually every car you'll ever get in to. Pissing around with a UI and then complaining that users aren't sufficiently flexible is, frankly, crackers. Most office workers are paid for the skills and expertise in something other than computers -- handling customers, analysing a market, creating a new product etc etc. Time spent mastering technology is time not spent on those core activities.
His examples aren't *that* improbable. There's a lot of people using prostitutes in the US (in the millions, I'm sure), and I doubt that many of them would want that fact publicised. There's a lot of murders too.
As for your example of calling Pakistan -- you might not be about to, but tens of thousands of calls *are* made every day to Pakistan.
The chances of unfortunate coincidence may be low, but the statistical universe is large enough to ensure false positives.
Jeez, I thought that the slashdot community could be expected to understand sensitive, specificity, S/N ratios, false negatives and positives etc.