Maybe there's something wrong with it; tell the developers if there is. But don't say it doesn't exist, because it does.
It really is NOT CMYK support, sorry. It is basically a conversion of RGB files to a 4-channel multichannel document that may or may not be approximately what some CMYK channels would look like. There's no conception within the GIMP application of what those channels represent, so it isn't really supporting anything about the color space.
To put it in perspective, it's a bit like saying your hex editor can also be a word processor. Yes, it can open the files and be readable, but there's several fundamental concepts missing.
True, but working in RGB requires good support for color profiles, calibration, and quality conversion to other color spaces. if all you're doing is web graphics and can do everything by RGB or hex value, the gimp may be all that's needed (though I'd say there are simpler programs that would meet those minimal needs).
When fiction is written it can and often does have a real world impact on the world.
indeed it can, and does. But I've come across far too many followers of Ayn rand who seem -- for whatever reason -- to treat her books as works of historical documentary and argue political truths from them as if the actions of characters and groups in the book were, in fact, proof of her arguments. There's plenty of real historical fact to draw from to make political arguments -- works of fiction can be great for imagining worst-case scenarios or possible outcomes of certain social choices, but they are just thought exercises meant to spur our own thinking and imagine how different speculations match with what we've seen in real history and in our own lives.
I enjoy her writing. I think it's a fantastic body of work, certainly influential on a lot of people and it makes for a fascinating point of view from someone who escaped what was arguably one of the most oppressive governments/societies in history. It's completely understandable given her background that she was batshit insane reactionary against any sort of centralized control, in much the same way it would be completely understandable for someone raised in a disastrous anarchy to be batshit insane reactionary against any percieved threat to law and order, no matter the personal cost.
I have no problems with libertarians or libertarianism (I consider myself to be one), but I do have a problem with ludicrous responses such as the one from the poster who said straight out that if nobody was pointing a gun at the story subject's head when he agreed to the contract, it must have been his fully informed choice to agree to every term in it. That's the sort of 1-dimensional thinking on the use of force that is espoused in Rand's books and which annoys me to see people echoing without any caveats or indication that they've seen life outside the imaginary playground of her books.
You missed out the bit where they were a physical threat. How does honesty figure into your moral compass? Or is deceit ok if it gives you the chance to mock something you don't like?
No, I ignored the part where you speculated without any reason that they might have been a threat, seeing as how there's no indication in the text that it was the case. Even in apologist literature there is no argument that Elisha was merely being physically defended by God, much less in the text itself.
It's a story about respect -- the kids were mocking the messenger, mocking his faith and by implication questioning the power of a God who would send such a bald (cursed) man as his messenger.
And no, my moral compass does not condone murdering 42 people because they shouted disrespectful insults and even curses (in the biblical sense) at a man who certainly deserved more respect.
Government is all about the organized and authorized use of violence, by definition.
It is?
I'm not sure how an "ultra-liberal" could hold the idea that the only purpose of government is to force people to do things with guns. I really am not sure in what way your professor could be ultra-liberal in a traditional political sense if he genuinely believed governments had no legitimate function -- political liberalism generally relies heavily on the notion of collective action for greater good. Are you sure he wasn't libertarian, most are socially very liberal but have a distrustful view of government (indeed I consider myself a libertarian of that stripe, just not the crazy Ayn Rand/von Mises kind).
I'd suggest though being less quick to pronounce judgment... or are you the sort that if someone sounded cheap you'd call em a jew? If they sounded lazy you'd call them a Mexican? If they said something nice about the president you'd call them a neocon? If they were good at math and science you'd call them an Asian? If they expressed a like for fried chicken and orange drink you'd call em black? If they said something nice about Windows they'd be a cool-aid drinking Microsoft fanboy? The list goes on of such prejudices.
Wow, i think you need to examine some of your views of the world even outside politics. You seem to have far more issues than economic ones.
And yes, when you ask "Did he point a gun at you to make you sign the contract? No, then you did it voluntarily, idiot, and deserve to get ripped off!", you are clearly implying that if there is no gun, there is no coercion.
they could eat of the Tree of Life, the only command was they not eat of the Tree of Good and Evil. The fruit they ate, it is argued, made them mortal, and thus eating of it would make them die. This is why the serpent lies to them, to make them mortal. Once they disobey God, they are kicked out of the Garden so that they can no longer eat of the tree of life, it is a punishment for not following one very simple rule.
So eating the tree of good and evil makes you mortal, but the tree of life makes you immortal? This is getting crazy close to "immovable object/unstoppable force" territory -- what if they had eaten both? What if they had eaten neither? The implication is clear (indeed, you echo it) that they were NOT mortal before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge good and evil, which means that the tree of life was basically pointless to even exist. But it can't be, because God worries that they'll eat of it.
The story is far from clear or sensible if you actually read it to be literal the way fundamentalists insist.
And how are Adam and Eve to even know what "will surely die" means? Nothing in the universe had ever died. It was a threat they had no possibility to comprehend.
And how are Adam and Eve supposed to know that disobeying God is wrong? They haven't learned about good and evil yet. God punishes them for something they did that they didn't know was wrong and whose consequences were as meaningless as telling them they would gerisdlab if they dared to asakde!
I can only go by what you write. If you say that the use of a gun is the only form of force, then your display of inexperience can only be judged by your own words.
If you believe that firearms are the only way to force anyone to do anything, then you're the one who is ill-informed.
I was merely being optimistic that you are in junior high or high school and recently read Ayn Rand to be clinging so dearly to such a naive view of power dynamics. That your views happen to coincide exactly with her fictional libertarian utopian ideals -- and not with any form of economic, political or social reality in world history -- was me giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have simply led a sheltered life, secure in the nurturing NERF cocoon that is modern western society.
but what does your reply have to do with the post you are responding to? There is a lot of sense in saying that you shouldn't sign contracts without reading and understanding them before agreeing to them.
Indeed there is, but that's not what he said.
He was providing the standard party line of Ayn Rand fans everywhere, that only through the use of guns is anyone ever forced to do anything. If there were no guns involved, then obviously everyone involved was on an equal negotiating footing and everything was completely voluntary and well-informed.
Anyone who has lived or traveled outside the modern western world (or heck, even thought about economic history for a few minutes) knows that there are plenty of forms of "persuasion" that don't involve the use of firearms, but can be sufficiently coercive and threatening to survival.
but never were firearms involved... in those cases I felt the contract's terms were 'unfair'... I simply refused to sign.
It's a great thing to grow up in a modern western society where you're so wealthy and protected that you can't even conceive of anything existing outside your utopian libertarian ideals. I hope you aren't too disappointed when you get out of high school and realize Ayn Rand was a writer of fiction, and the people in power dynamics she discussed had little relationship to reality.
It's become pedestrian, with basically climbing "tourists" being led up the mountain by guides making big bucks while the Sherpas do most of the hard work of actually summiting.
This is a popular meme, but it simply is not true. Everest is called a "walk-up" in the sense that it is not technically challenging, so you don't have to be a world-class CLIMBER to get to the summit, but to suggest that makes it either easy or safe is just wrong. It has a ridiculously high death rate, and most of the prime physical danger is right at the "base" (20,000 ft) of the mountain in the Khumbu icefall, which you might traverse dozens of times while there. It's kind of like walking across a minefield in an earthquake-prone area. you can prepare all you like, but in the end you're doing a certain amount of crossing your fingers and praying.
The challenge of Everest is primarily a mental one. Anyone can learn technical skills, but to be somewhere you are quite literally dying (its just a question of how quickly) and decide to push on for no reason other than desire is something not many people really have in them.
Certainly there have been folks there who shouldn't have been, but the idea that you just show up with a check and get your ticket validated at the summit is ridiculous. If you are not absolutely passionate about getting to the top, you won't. Physical conditioning is not enough to get there, technical skills are not enough to get there.
I know I posted on Slashdot from Everest back in 1999, I suspect it was frist. It probably had nothing to do with Everest -- it's a place with lots of hurry up and wait (and I do know they rejected my story on our mission, bastards!).
It would be foolish to make any new technology that touches so many other applications and parts of the OS the default when you don't have to.
But they do "have to" if features of ZFS are fundamental to major new features of the OS that they advertise (such as Time Machine).
Having a Mac commercial where a user plugs in a hard drive and has the space automagically added to his existing "drive" is EXACTLY the sort of "it just works" feature that Apple has banked billions of dollars on. "Step one: plug in your new drive. Step two: there is no step two!"
Apple has never been shy about saying "as of tomorrow, all of our systems will use this new technology, because it's just better. If you used the documented APIs, it should work, if not, then you're screwed. You'd better fix anything you did wrong or prepare to have your switchboard explode." Indeed, Apple has broken many many apps with every release of OS X and continually said that the APIs were still not finalized so companies shouldn't be outsmarting themselves using existing but undocumented features in hopes they would be supported in the future. If it wasn't official, it could change at any moment, and often DID.
You are aware that the term was coined by the Neoconservatives themselves, right? I find myself constantly running into people who think the "liberal media" came up with "neoconservative" and "neocon" as some sort of pejorative, when it's what the necons decided to call themselves for several decades before coming to their current prominence in American politics. You may as well consider it "biased" to use the word "Green" for someone actively involved in environmental policy or "Pro-Life" for someone against legalized abortion.
If you're serious that CMYK printing is one of the goals you want to accomplish, you've really no choice but to pony up for professional applications. Printing is not cheap, you'll spend hundreds of dollars per job at the printer, any money you "save" on software is guaranteed to be paid many times over to the printer for fixing your files and getting them ready for press. Making software that works for prepress requires spending lots of money on paper and ink experiments, money that GIMP and Scribus simply cannot spend unless a sponsor steps up.
If all you're trying to do is educate the users about CMYK, then of course you can use pretty much any software that works nicely with a desktop inkjet printer that can do CMYK proofing (in a pinch Photoshop can be used as a RIP for this purpose assuming you have one copy of it). Of course no proof is ever the same as a real print, so eventually people will hit a wall in their real knowledge until big $$$ is spent on real jobs that you get back from the printer and realize were not quite as good as they thought they'd be.
And every printing company worth dealing with should be able to use them as a source.
And every printing company will charge you a small fortune for the hours and hours such files would spend processing in the RIP.
And for spending that small fortune, you'd still wind up with substandard results for a myriad of technical and procedural reasons.
If you're spending money to send stuff to a printer, either use professional software, or pay them (or someone else) to create the files in professional software.
Moral of the story: it is very, very important that you be able to prove the existence or nonexistence of your data.
You haven't proven, or even argued, anything relating to your original statement, which was that to anyone skilled in cryptanalysis could prove the existence of a hidden TrueCrypt volume by its structure.
All you've shown is that hidden TrueCrypt volumes are essentially removed from negotiations as leverage, both for good and for evil. And that's exactly the point of the hidden volumes. If anything, all your argument shows is that TrueCrypt does exactly what it claims to do -- nobody claims it is a magical get out of jail free card, only that it prevents any ability for the existence of the volume to be used against you (in any fair court proceedings).
Jury trial - the DA only has to get 12 of your peers to believe his story beyond a _reasonable_ doubt.
Not entirely true, the DA also has to show the Judge that he has met his legal burden under the law. You might be able to sway 12 people off the streets with emotional arguments, but if there is not enough actual evidence of guilt then the judge should overturn the verdict. Obviously it's not something you want to rely on to keep you out of jail, but it is there.
I watched the majority of episodes of the show. Yes, they explained Hawkins role in the attacks, which really answered nothing but the mechanics of how he got from DC to Jericho and got back together with his ex-wife. We already knew he had the bomb, that he was involved in the attacks, and that he was working for someone else. He seems content to just sit around with all the answers to everything that is happening and not do anything about it until a crisis happens, when he comes riding in on a white horse and solves the problem.
Nothing else I mentioned was covered. The kid with the grocery store is the only one who has actually made any tough choices and changed at all through the season. Everyone else is exactly the same as they were before the bombs went off (well, the new Mayor very recently started realizing things were no longer about politics, but he hasn't been put in any situations to test that).
Dreamhost, I paid about $15 for the first year after discounts. It's a lousy web host, and I'm not exactly storing critical stuff there, but as an offsite backup for things I also have backed up on a USB drive, it's a good deal. I have my truly important files backed up to several different hosts, but that set is only about 10 Gigs so it's easily in the limits of pretty much every online service.
I'm currently trying out Mozy.com, as well (though their Mac service is still in Beta and doesn't yet support true incremental backup so I'm only doing the smaller set). Once they finish the Mac client, I'll happily buy their unlimited service, I've been pleased so far.
What about online backup services? They're growing in popularity as bandwidth comes down in price. I have 200 gigs of music included in my encrypted remote backup set. Nobody can get at it but me, it is just random data as far as the host is concerned.
I can't imagine a nation as technically literate as Japan would essentially make it illegal for people to do remote backup (since 99.9% of people have SOME music on their hard drive, if only the windows startup sound or whatever other audio files come with your OS and applications).
So I'm supposed to feel better that God is unfair because millennia later he offers an equally unfair deal to fix his original unfairness? Even the most backwards societies on Earth no longer visit the sins of the father upon the son. It makes no sense to any thinking being. Why should I care if God offers to "forgive" me for something I didn't do?
If my next door neighbor treated his dog the way the literal Biblical God treated Man I'd call the SPCA and report him.
Slashdot Mirror
It really is NOT CMYK support, sorry. It is basically a conversion of RGB files to a 4-channel multichannel document that may or may not be approximately what some CMYK channels would look like. There's no conception within the GIMP application of what those channels represent, so it isn't really supporting anything about the color space.
To put it in perspective, it's a bit like saying your hex editor can also be a word processor. Yes, it can open the files and be readable, but there's several fundamental concepts missing.
True, but working in RGB requires good support for color profiles, calibration, and quality conversion to other color spaces. if all you're doing is web graphics and can do everything by RGB or hex value, the gimp may be all that's needed (though I'd say there are simpler programs that would meet those minimal needs).
indeed it can, and does. But I've come across far too many followers of Ayn rand who seem -- for whatever reason -- to treat her books as works of historical documentary and argue political truths from them as if the actions of characters and groups in the book were, in fact, proof of her arguments. There's plenty of real historical fact to draw from to make political arguments -- works of fiction can be great for imagining worst-case scenarios or possible outcomes of certain social choices, but they are just thought exercises meant to spur our own thinking and imagine how different speculations match with what we've seen in real history and in our own lives.
I enjoy her writing. I think it's a fantastic body of work, certainly influential on a lot of people and it makes for a fascinating point of view from someone who escaped what was arguably one of the most oppressive governments/societies in history. It's completely understandable given her background that she was batshit insane reactionary against any sort of centralized control, in much the same way it would be completely understandable for someone raised in a disastrous anarchy to be batshit insane reactionary against any percieved threat to law and order, no matter the personal cost.
I have no problems with libertarians or libertarianism (I consider myself to be one), but I do have a problem with ludicrous responses such as the one from the poster who said straight out that if nobody was pointing a gun at the story subject's head when he agreed to the contract, it must have been his fully informed choice to agree to every term in it. That's the sort of 1-dimensional thinking on the use of force that is espoused in Rand's books and which annoys me to see people echoing without any caveats or indication that they've seen life outside the imaginary playground of her books.
No, I ignored the part where you speculated without any reason that they might have been a threat, seeing as how there's no indication in the text that it was the case. Even in apologist literature there is no argument that Elisha was merely being physically defended by God, much less in the text itself.
It's a story about respect -- the kids were mocking the messenger, mocking his faith and by implication questioning the power of a God who would send such a bald (cursed) man as his messenger.
And no, my moral compass does not condone murdering 42 people because they shouted disrespectful insults and even curses (in the biblical sense) at a man who certainly deserved more respect.
It is?
I'm not sure how an "ultra-liberal" could hold the idea that the only purpose of government is to force people to do things with guns. I really am not sure in what way your professor could be ultra-liberal in a traditional political sense if he genuinely believed governments had no legitimate function -- political liberalism generally relies heavily on the notion of collective action for greater good. Are you sure he wasn't libertarian, most are socially very liberal but have a distrustful view of government (indeed I consider myself a libertarian of that stripe, just not the crazy Ayn Rand/von Mises kind).
Wow, i think you need to examine some of your views of the world even outside politics. You seem to have far more issues than economic ones.
And yes, when you ask "Did he point a gun at you to make you sign the contract? No, then you did it voluntarily, idiot, and deserve to get ripped off!", you are clearly implying that if there is no gun, there is no coercion.
Wow, so making fun of someone means you should be murdered greusomely? I'm so glad to have such an inspiring moral compass to teach my children with.
So eating the tree of good and evil makes you mortal, but the tree of life makes you immortal? This is getting crazy close to "immovable object/unstoppable force" territory -- what if they had eaten both? What if they had eaten neither? The implication is clear (indeed, you echo it) that they were NOT mortal before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge good and evil, which means that the tree of life was basically pointless to even exist. But it can't be, because God worries that they'll eat of it.
The story is far from clear or sensible if you actually read it to be literal the way fundamentalists insist.
And how are Adam and Eve to even know what "will surely die" means? Nothing in the universe had ever died. It was a threat they had no possibility to comprehend.
And how are Adam and Eve supposed to know that disobeying God is wrong? They haven't learned about good and evil yet. God punishes them for something they did that they didn't know was wrong and whose consequences were as meaningless as telling them they would gerisdlab if they dared to asakde!
I can only go by what you write. If you say that the use of a gun is the only form of force, then your display of inexperience can only be judged by your own words.
If you believe that firearms are the only way to force anyone to do anything, then you're the one who is ill-informed.
I was merely being optimistic that you are in junior high or high school and recently read Ayn Rand to be clinging so dearly to such a naive view of power dynamics. That your views happen to coincide exactly with her fictional libertarian utopian ideals -- and not with any form of economic, political or social reality in world history -- was me giving you the benefit of the doubt that you have simply led a sheltered life, secure in the nurturing NERF cocoon that is modern western society.
Indeed there is, but that's not what he said.
He was providing the standard party line of Ayn Rand fans everywhere, that only through the use of guns is anyone ever forced to do anything. If there were no guns involved, then obviously everyone involved was on an equal negotiating footing and everything was completely voluntary and well-informed.
Anyone who has lived or traveled outside the modern western world (or heck, even thought about economic history for a few minutes) knows that there are plenty of forms of "persuasion" that don't involve the use of firearms, but can be sufficiently coercive and threatening to survival.
It's a great thing to grow up in a modern western society where you're so wealthy and protected that you can't even conceive of anything existing outside your utopian libertarian ideals. I hope you aren't too disappointed when you get out of high school and realize Ayn Rand was a writer of fiction, and the people in power dynamics she discussed had little relationship to reality.
This is a popular meme, but it simply is not true. Everest is called a "walk-up" in the sense that it is not technically challenging, so you don't have to be a world-class CLIMBER to get to the summit, but to suggest that makes it either easy or safe is just wrong. It has a ridiculously high death rate, and most of the prime physical danger is right at the "base" (20,000 ft) of the mountain in the Khumbu icefall, which you might traverse dozens of times while there. It's kind of like walking across a minefield in an earthquake-prone area. you can prepare all you like, but in the end you're doing a certain amount of crossing your fingers and praying.
The challenge of Everest is primarily a mental one. Anyone can learn technical skills, but to be somewhere you are quite literally dying (its just a question of how quickly) and decide to push on for no reason other than desire is something not many people really have in them.
Certainly there have been folks there who shouldn't have been, but the idea that you just show up with a check and get your ticket validated at the summit is ridiculous. If you are not absolutely passionate about getting to the top, you won't. Physical conditioning is not enough to get there, technical skills are not enough to get there.
I know I posted on Slashdot from Everest back in 1999, I suspect it was frist. It probably had nothing to do with Everest -- it's a place with lots of hurry up and wait (and I do know they rejected my story on our mission, bastards!).
But they do "have to" if features of ZFS are fundamental to major new features of the OS that they advertise (such as Time Machine).
Having a Mac commercial where a user plugs in a hard drive and has the space automagically added to his existing "drive" is EXACTLY the sort of "it just works" feature that Apple has banked billions of dollars on. "Step one: plug in your new drive. Step two: there is no step two!"
Apple has never been shy about saying "as of tomorrow, all of our systems will use this new technology, because it's just better. If you used the documented APIs, it should work, if not, then you're screwed. You'd better fix anything you did wrong or prepare to have your switchboard explode." Indeed, Apple has broken many many apps with every release of OS X and continually said that the APIs were still not finalized so companies shouldn't be outsmarting themselves using existing but undocumented features in hopes they would be supported in the future. If it wasn't official, it could change at any moment, and often DID.
Normal users are not case-sensitive, so systems targeting normal users will continue to be case insensitive (but preserving).
You are aware that the term was coined by the Neoconservatives themselves, right? I find myself constantly running into people who think the "liberal media" came up with "neoconservative" and "neocon" as some sort of pejorative, when it's what the necons decided to call themselves for several decades before coming to their current prominence in American politics. You may as well consider it "biased" to use the word "Green" for someone actively involved in environmental policy or "Pro-Life" for someone against legalized abortion.
If you're serious that CMYK printing is one of the goals you want to accomplish, you've really no choice but to pony up for professional applications. Printing is not cheap, you'll spend hundreds of dollars per job at the printer, any money you "save" on software is guaranteed to be paid many times over to the printer for fixing your files and getting them ready for press. Making software that works for prepress requires spending lots of money on paper and ink experiments, money that GIMP and Scribus simply cannot spend unless a sponsor steps up.
If all you're trying to do is educate the users about CMYK, then of course you can use pretty much any software that works nicely with a desktop inkjet printer that can do CMYK proofing (in a pinch Photoshop can be used as a RIP for this purpose assuming you have one copy of it). Of course no proof is ever the same as a real print, so eventually people will hit a wall in their real knowledge until big $$$ is spent on real jobs that you get back from the printer and realize were not quite as good as they thought they'd be.
And every printing company will charge you a small fortune for the hours and hours such files would spend processing in the RIP.
And for spending that small fortune, you'd still wind up with substandard results for a myriad of technical and procedural reasons.
If you're spending money to send stuff to a printer, either use professional software, or pay them (or someone else) to create the files in professional software.
You haven't proven, or even argued, anything relating to your original statement, which was that to anyone skilled in cryptanalysis could prove the existence of a hidden TrueCrypt volume by its structure.
All you've shown is that hidden TrueCrypt volumes are essentially removed from negotiations as leverage, both for good and for evil. And that's exactly the point of the hidden volumes. If anything, all your argument shows is that TrueCrypt does exactly what it claims to do -- nobody claims it is a magical get out of jail free card, only that it prevents any ability for the existence of the volume to be used against you (in any fair court proceedings).
Not entirely true, the DA also has to show the Judge that he has met his legal burden under the law. You might be able to sway 12 people off the streets with emotional arguments, but if there is not enough actual evidence of guilt then the judge should overturn the verdict. Obviously it's not something you want to rely on to keep you out of jail, but it is there.
I watched the majority of episodes of the show. Yes, they explained Hawkins role in the attacks, which really answered nothing but the mechanics of how he got from DC to Jericho and got back together with his ex-wife. We already knew he had the bomb, that he was involved in the attacks, and that he was working for someone else. He seems content to just sit around with all the answers to everything that is happening and not do anything about it until a crisis happens, when he comes riding in on a white horse and solves the problem.
Nothing else I mentioned was covered. The kid with the grocery store is the only one who has actually made any tough choices and changed at all through the season. Everyone else is exactly the same as they were before the bombs went off (well, the new Mayor very recently started realizing things were no longer about politics, but he hasn't been put in any situations to test that).
Dreamhost, I paid about $15 for the first year after discounts. It's a lousy web host, and I'm not exactly storing critical stuff there, but as an offsite backup for things I also have backed up on a USB drive, it's a good deal. I have my truly important files backed up to several different hosts, but that set is only about 10 Gigs so it's easily in the limits of pretty much every online service.
I'm currently trying out Mozy.com, as well (though their Mac service is still in Beta and doesn't yet support true incremental backup so I'm only doing the smaller set). Once they finish the Mac client, I'll happily buy their unlimited service, I've been pleased so far.
What about online backup services? They're growing in popularity as bandwidth comes down in price. I have 200 gigs of music included in my encrypted remote backup set. Nobody can get at it but me, it is just random data as far as the host is concerned.
I can't imagine a nation as technically literate as Japan would essentially make it illegal for people to do remote backup (since 99.9% of people have SOME music on their hard drive, if only the windows startup sound or whatever other audio files come with your OS and applications).
So I'm supposed to feel better that God is unfair because millennia later he offers an equally unfair deal to fix his original unfairness? Even the most backwards societies on Earth no longer visit the sins of the father upon the son. It makes no sense to any thinking being. Why should I care if God offers to "forgive" me for something I didn't do?
If my next door neighbor treated his dog the way the literal Biblical God treated Man I'd call the SPCA and report him.