More than just that. One of the causes of aging appears to be "tired mitochondria". So you need to make sure that the mitochondira of the cell line is in good shape. Difficult, as (AFAIK) we don't know how to tell when mitochondria aren't acting efficiently in a single cell, only in an organ. And mitochondria are subject to a high rate of mutation, so if you grow a clone*, you want to ensure that all cells in that clone have efficient mitochondria.
*A clone is a cluster of cells grown from a single cell. This would cover an organ as well as an organism. Say, e.g., a new liver or kidney.
That may be Wikipedia, but it doesn't match standard usage. In neither Norway nor Sweden are the means of production owned by the state...except for some of them, and that's true in the US, too. (E.g., the state owns the Hoover Dam, which is definitely a "means of production".)
And in almost EVERY nation "some sectors of an economy " are "run in a socialist manner, while others" are "run in a capitalist way". Including the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, etc.
Yes, I am claiming that in every state to the extent that social services are supplied by the state, that state is socialist. And it is not one dimensional. Some states cover some areas, other states cover other areas. A few just leave you to die if you can't make it on your own.
Sample areas of coverage: 1) unemployment coverage. 2) minimal housing 3) minimal heat supply 4) minimal food supply 5) clean air 6) clean water etc. I notice that I left out health care, but it's just one of many areas I left out. I also, e.g., left out public defenders, police protection, emergency rescue, and many others. Note that every one I've explicitly mentioned is provided, at least to an extent, by the US govt. (sometimes indirectly).
I would also disagree with your definiton of capitalism, though that's certainly a lot closer to being accurate. I think Adam Smith might agree with your definition, but to me the ownership is irrelevant. What's relevant is control and personal reward. Thus to me it would make no difference whether the stock in a corporation were owned by private groups or by a collection of states...what matters is that the control is vested in an individual who is not the representative of a government, and is at most an indirect agent of one. (Adam Smith didn't consider such scenarios, because he disliked corporations, though he did admit that they were occasionally needed...e.g., it would have been difficult to come to another means of dealing with the situation handled by "The Lord Mayor and Corporation of London".)
If you accept quantum theory (and just try to disprove it) then the perceptible universe is cannonically isomorphic to a subset of mathematics. If cannonically isomorphic isn't close enough to identity for you, I'd like an explanation of why not. (Well, except that several different things can have aspects that are cannonically isomorphic to the same thing...but perhaps that's just a way of saying that they have certain features that are essentially identical.)
I don't think that's an educated guess. MS took a basically secure operating system and redesigned it by taking out all the secure features. True, this was done before the web was common, but they were the ones that did it. Starting to reimplement them in later versions of MSWind doesn't sufficiently mitigate their creating the problem in the first place.
I don't think you understand the justification for the existence of copyright. The grant of a temporary monopoly is not the purpose, it's the payment. And the word temporary should be strongly emphasized. Originally it was, IIRC, 17 years, and there are many arguements that this is now too long a period of time.
If people could get a fair trial, then the law wouldn't need to change. But how, pray tell, are you going to accomplish that? One of the purposes of the civil forfeiture laws is to prevent you from being able to hire a decent lawyer. (Mind you, even if you could get a decene lawyer, a fair trial would mean that if you were found not guilty not only would all your expenses be recompensed, but also you would be paid at a fair rate for all the time you were compelled to spend and the personal endangerment that you endured.)
So, yes, the law needs to change. But that is not nearly sufficient. The entire court system needs to be altered so that the accused does not unfairly bear the burden of a corrupt legal system. And somehow this needs to be done without creating a perverse incentive against finding someone innocent.
I think you need to look a bit closer at the history of the US. The persecution of minorities and less powerful is something that has a very long history in the US. They don't tend to cover it in grade school history, but if you read the actual histories, you'll see it.
OTOH, those who romanticize the Indians are equally wrong. They were more done to than doing, but they also weren't innocents. They were, however, less powerful, so they couldn't enforce treaties. You could also investigate how the Chinese and Irish immigrants were treated. Or the Italian, or Spanish, or...well, anyone who wasn't northern European. Also look into the history of child labor (although, to be fair, nobody had decent treatment of poor children near the top of their social concerns...though some claimed to do so, what they meant was religious instruction happened as well as economic bondage).
One benefit of this ruling is that when (if?) a work goes out of copyright, it will still be available, even though the publisher refuses to sell copies.
That said, current copyright law is so irresponsibly excessive that I have my doubts that (in the US, at least) anything will ever go out of copyright that isn't already out of copyright.
Being incompatible with Marxism doesn't mean it's not socialism. Fascism isn't necessarily socialistic, but it can be. As defined by Mussolini (who coined the word) Fascism is the state working together with the corporations. "The corporate state" for short. IIRC both the Nazis and the Fascisti claimed to be socialists. They seem, to me, to have had a better claim to the term than Stalin's Russia had to being either communist or Marxist.
Basically a Socialist state is one where the state assumes the role of emergency service provider that was previously held by the village. The village failed in this role when the mobility of the population increased. The Socialist state, however, cannot really fill the role because the village worked by everyone knowing everyone, and so they knew who was suffering ill-fortune, who needed material help, and how much, and who needed emotional support, and what kind. It wasn't perfect, but in many ways it was better than the replacement. But it depended on everyone knowing everyone else, and having known them as they grew up together. This is INDEPENDENT of any other economic axis. You can have capitalist socialist countries, fascist socialist countries, marxist socialist countries, and even free-market socialist countries. (Note that I distinguish between free-market countries and capitalist countries. I don't think the first has ever existed, but it is a logical possibility.)
You left out Stalin. Arguably the worst of the tyrants of the 20th century. I do not believe that he has any claim to being a communist.
OTOH, I don't think that genuine communism scales effectively. On an extremely small scale it's one of the most humane systems. A healthy family operates this way. Scaled up to a village, there needs to be a strong ideology backing it. Usually religious, but not always. Even so, the cracks start showing. Larger than a village and there is generally an increasing requirement for force to hold things in place.
Note that communism is not (necessarily) Marxism, and the most successful forms (lasting more than a decade) are NOT Marxism. Marxism wants to be applied at a large scale, where communism does not work without extreme force, and such an application of force tends to lead to tyrants of one stripe or another at the top. Lennin, I believe, was a genuine Communist. (Note the capital C...that denotes Marxist flavored communism.) I did need to use an increasing amount of force, because that's the nature of the beast, but he also used ideology, which reduced the need...though not enough. He did, however, create a situation that was ripe for a non-ideological tyrant to take over. And this was probably unavoidable. Communism of either flavor doesn't work on a large scale. (I don't know about Anarcho-Syndicalism. I have my doubts, but perhaps it could scale to a small country.)
Please note, it's not clear that Democracy (in the US style) is stable when scaled to a large country. It worked pretty well when the power was held by the states, but with the feds holding the power it seems to be rapidly devolving into a plutocratic tyranny. How long the plutocrats will hold power over the tyrant isn't clear, but in Rome it worked for a reasonable while before a tryant seized power. It did cause a few civil wars as the citizenry rebelled against the plutocrats, but the plutocrats won...so when the tyrant seized power, the citizenry didn't care, and were actually hopeful that things would improve. And they, sort of, did. The tyrants didn't oppress the common people as much as the plutocrats had. (Most of the violence was at the upper layers.) OTOH, the romans didn't have robots and didn't have a police force. ISTM that the development of robot soldiers is specifically aimed at making civil war only winnable by the government. Similar considerations may go to the distribution of military equipment to the local police forces. Also the establishment of police checkpoints at such places as the entrances to hospitals, airports, etc. (I was shocked the last time I went to the Emergency Room to find that a checkpoint had been established at the entrance.) Currently many of them seem to be more security theater than real, but such things can, once in place, be tightened at will.
So ISTM that Democracy is currently failing in the US, and steps are already being taken to win an expected civil war. (I'm not commenting on the farce that elections have become. That's an old story by now, except at the very local level.)
ISTM that ALL the prisoners in Gitmo are political prisoners. Clearly the ones held without trial are such. Possibly in some cases there are valid reasons, but that has not be publicly proven, so the defalut position is that they are innocent. I feel that I'm understating the case, but don't know how to properly put it more strongly. Let me try this....
If they have committed a crime, they should be brought to trial. If they have not committed a crime, they should never have been held captive.
Presuming that you are serious rather and trying for funny...
I know that *I've* made errors in proofs. I know that at various times articles have been recalled from mathematical journals because of errors in the proof. IIRC there was a proof recalled 6 mo.s after it had been published just a year or two ago.
Math is a lot more secure at it's foundations than any other physical science, basically because the foundations are of the form "If we assume...". This doesn't mean any proofs derived from those foundations are unassailable. Errors in reasoning happen, and can be quite difficult to detect.
More, any particular god is a hypothesis. It doesn't rise to the level of a theory until you can use it to make verifiable predictions that are then tested.
FWIW, there are several gods that I have tested, some of them gave weakly positive results. None of them matched the gods of any standard religion, which religions have so defined their gods that emperical tests are impossible. N.B.: This does not prove that they are incorrect, it proves that there is no reasonable way to chose between them, and the null hypothesis is a member of every set.
Many people have an emotional need for the presumed eternal correctness of "a law of science", even though no such thing can exist. And they are incompetent to rate the relative stability of various different theories.
Well, everyone is incompetent to rate the relative stability of various different theories except, perhaps, in their own small area of expertise. That's why we are forced to depend on experts. Then we need to decide how much to trust each expert. It's not a simple problem, and it's probably intrinsicly insoluble if you have a NEED for correctness. (Making a best-guess choice is fairly easy, though, but figuring what your error bars are can be difficult.)
It's not basically a problem with the educational system, though that clearly makes things worse than they need to be, largely by instilling a belief in "correct answers" rather than in "probably correct answers"...which is the best that one can ever do.
I don't think he's doing anything dangerous, just expensive.
And you could sue you State Authorized and controlled ISP in the US. It wouldn't be dangerous, just expensive.
You can also use the government in the US, and probably in China. The government may tell you to piss off in either country, but as long as you follow legal channels I don't expect it to be anything more than expensive.
N.B.: *IF* he were trying to initiate a mass action, then I expect that he would be in significant trouble in China. Moreso than in the US. China has shown itself to be quite touchy about that kind of thing. (The US has shown itself to be quite touchy in other areas.)
OTOH, it's quite likely that your closing line is correct. But that's also not certain. My real expectation is that robotics will develop fast enough that there won't BE any corporate serfs. What there will be instead is anybody's guess, and it depends on decisions not yet made.
This is probably (my guess) a safe thing for him to do. The result of the suit, however, will probably not be to his liking.
I expect that the court will decide that the ISP was acting in the interests of the country, and they he is not entitled to any refund. He may well pay court costs and his ISP's attorneys fees.
The current evidence seems to indicate that criticizing individual officials or agencies is accepted within China, what is forbidden is anything that calls for group action, even in support of the government. (I've got my suspicions about how safe it is to criticize top government officials, but no evidence.)
I meant the 5, and actually I'm only considering a copycat for after the papers had started sensationalizing. Say after #3. (You clearly know more about it than I do.) I *expect* that there was only one perpetrator, but if someone is going to claim to have a proven solution, then one of the things that needs proving is that there was only one perpetrator.
FWIW, I'm surprized that there were only five. ISTM that some more-recent serial killers have had a larger number of victims, and yet "Jack" lingers as the exemplar of the type.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are talking about one incident. I'm proposing that several indepent individuals separately perpetrated the crimes that were attribted to one single individual rather than to one individual and a few copycats.
FWIW, the current notes seem to say that systemd is still optional in Debain Jessie (currently testing), though I think it gets installed by default, and I'm not sure how to avoid it.
I understand your reasoning, but statistics seem to show that rural areas experience as much violent crime as large cities. (My memory actually says more, but I can't believe that, and can't remember the original source to check.)
FWIW, I do remember specifically that violence that results in injuries is higher among the Kalahari bushmen than among the slums of Detroit. Of course, that was a couple of decades ago.
Sorry, but you're wrong. In rural areas anyone new is foreign. I went to 5th grade in a rural area...and we weren't even actual outsiders, my mother had lived there as a young adult. Her father lived there much of the time.
It was the most miserable year of my life. I was regularly chased around the school yard by gangs, and "hid out" at the top of the jungle gyn until recess was over. My "crime" was that I hadn't gone to school with the the previous four years.
Slashdot Mirror
More than just that. One of the causes of aging appears to be "tired mitochondria". So you need to make sure that the mitochondira of the cell line is in good shape. Difficult, as (AFAIK) we don't know how to tell when mitochondria aren't acting efficiently in a single cell, only in an organ. And mitochondria are subject to a high rate of mutation, so if you grow a clone*, you want to ensure that all cells in that clone have efficient mitochondria.
*A clone is a cluster of cells grown from a single cell. This would cover an organ as well as an organism. Say, e.g., a new liver or kidney.
OK. Sorry. Make that "canonically isomorphic".
That may be Wikipedia, but it doesn't match standard usage. In neither Norway nor Sweden are the means of production owned by the state...except for some of them, and that's true in the US, too. (E.g., the state owns the Hoover Dam, which is definitely a "means of production".)
And in almost EVERY nation "some sectors of an economy " are "run in a socialist manner, while others" are "run in a capitalist way". Including the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia, etc.
Yes, I am claiming that in every state to the extent that social services are supplied by the state, that state is socialist. And it is not one dimensional. Some states cover some areas, other states cover other areas. A few just leave you to die if you can't make it on your own.
Sample areas of coverage:
1) unemployment coverage.
2) minimal housing
3) minimal heat supply
4) minimal food supply
5) clean air
6) clean water
etc. I notice that I left out health care, but it's just one of many areas I left out. I also, e.g., left out public defenders, police protection, emergency rescue, and many others. Note that every one I've explicitly mentioned is provided, at least to an extent, by the US govt. (sometimes indirectly).
I would also disagree with your definiton of capitalism, though that's certainly a lot closer to being accurate. I think Adam Smith might agree with your definition, but to me the ownership is irrelevant. What's relevant is control and personal reward. Thus to me it would make no difference whether the stock in a corporation were owned by private groups or by a collection of states...what matters is that the control is vested in an individual who is not the representative of a government, and is at most an indirect agent of one. (Adam Smith didn't consider such scenarios, because he disliked corporations, though he did admit that they were occasionally needed...e.g., it would have been difficult to come to another means of dealing with the situation handled by "The Lord Mayor and Corporation of London".)
If you accept quantum theory (and just try to disprove it) then the perceptible universe is cannonically isomorphic to a subset of mathematics. If cannonically isomorphic isn't close enough to identity for you, I'd like an explanation of why not. (Well, except that several different things can have aspects that are cannonically isomorphic to the same thing...but perhaps that's just a way of saying that they have certain features that are essentially identical.)
You've been trolled by the GP.
I don't think that's an educated guess. MS took a basically secure operating system and redesigned it by taking out all the secure features. True, this was done before the web was common, but they were the ones that did it. Starting to reimplement them in later versions of MSWind doesn't sufficiently mitigate their creating the problem in the first place.
I've gotten one of them, but I'm afraid I was too impatient to hold him long. Eventually I told him I'd just been reading about them.
If they're cold calling, they're scammers. 90%+ certainty. Some of them may not know it. Perhaps.
I don't think you understand the justification for the existence of copyright. The grant of a temporary monopoly is not the purpose, it's the payment. And the word temporary should be strongly emphasized. Originally it was, IIRC, 17 years, and there are many arguements that this is now too long a period of time.
If people could get a fair trial, then the law wouldn't need to change. But how, pray tell, are you going to accomplish that? One of the purposes of the civil forfeiture laws is to prevent you from being able to hire a decent lawyer. (Mind you, even if you could get a decene lawyer, a fair trial would mean that if you were found not guilty not only would all your expenses be recompensed, but also you would be paid at a fair rate for all the time you were compelled to spend and the personal endangerment that you endured.)
So, yes, the law needs to change. But that is not nearly sufficient. The entire court system needs to be altered so that the accused does not unfairly bear the burden of a corrupt legal system. And somehow this needs to be done without creating a perverse incentive against finding someone innocent.
I think you need to look a bit closer at the history of the US. The persecution of minorities and less powerful is something that has a very long history in the US. They don't tend to cover it in grade school history, but if you read the actual histories, you'll see it.
OTOH, those who romanticize the Indians are equally wrong. They were more done to than doing, but they also weren't innocents. They were, however, less powerful, so they couldn't enforce treaties. You could also investigate how the Chinese and Irish immigrants were treated. Or the Italian, or Spanish, or...well, anyone who wasn't northern European. Also look into the history of child labor (although, to be fair, nobody had decent treatment of poor children near the top of their social concerns...though some claimed to do so, what they meant was religious instruction happened as well as economic bondage).
There is not such thing as "proper DRM".
One benefit of this ruling is that when (if?) a work goes out of copyright, it will still be available, even though the publisher refuses to sell copies.
That said, current copyright law is so irresponsibly excessive that I have my doubts that (in the US, at least) anything will ever go out of copyright that isn't already out of copyright.
Being incompatible with Marxism doesn't mean it's not socialism. Fascism isn't necessarily socialistic, but it can be. As defined by Mussolini (who coined the word) Fascism is the state working together with the corporations. "The corporate state" for short. IIRC both the Nazis and the Fascisti claimed to be socialists. They seem, to me, to have had a better claim to the term than Stalin's Russia had to being either communist or Marxist.
Basically a Socialist state is one where the state assumes the role of emergency service provider that was previously held by the village. The village failed in this role when the mobility of the population increased. The Socialist state, however, cannot really fill the role because the village worked by everyone knowing everyone, and so they knew who was suffering ill-fortune, who needed material help, and how much, and who needed emotional support, and what kind. It wasn't perfect, but in many ways it was better than the replacement. But it depended on everyone knowing everyone else, and having known them as they grew up together. This is INDEPENDENT of any other economic axis. You can have capitalist socialist countries, fascist socialist countries, marxist socialist countries, and even free-market socialist countries. (Note that I distinguish between free-market countries and capitalist countries. I don't think the first has ever existed, but it is a logical possibility.)
You left out Stalin. Arguably the worst of the tyrants of the 20th century. I do not believe that he has any claim to being a communist.
OTOH, I don't think that genuine communism scales effectively. On an extremely small scale it's one of the most humane systems. A healthy family operates this way. Scaled up to a village, there needs to be a strong ideology backing it. Usually religious, but not always. Even so, the cracks start showing. Larger than a village and there is generally an increasing requirement for force to hold things in place.
Note that communism is not (necessarily) Marxism, and the most successful forms (lasting more than a decade) are NOT Marxism. Marxism wants to be applied at a large scale, where communism does not work without extreme force, and such an application of force tends to lead to tyrants of one stripe or another at the top. Lennin, I believe, was a genuine Communist. (Note the capital C...that denotes Marxist flavored communism.) I did need to use an increasing amount of force, because that's the nature of the beast, but he also used ideology, which reduced the need...though not enough. He did, however, create a situation that was ripe for a non-ideological tyrant to take over. And this was probably unavoidable. Communism of either flavor doesn't work on a large scale. (I don't know about Anarcho-Syndicalism. I have my doubts, but perhaps it could scale to a small country.)
Please note, it's not clear that Democracy (in the US style) is stable when scaled to a large country. It worked pretty well when the power was held by the states, but with the feds holding the power it seems to be rapidly devolving into a plutocratic tyranny. How long the plutocrats will hold power over the tyrant isn't clear, but in Rome it worked for a reasonable while before a tryant seized power. It did cause a few civil wars as the citizenry rebelled against the plutocrats, but the plutocrats won...so when the tyrant seized power, the citizenry didn't care, and were actually hopeful that things would improve. And they, sort of, did. The tyrants didn't oppress the common people as much as the plutocrats had. (Most of the violence was at the upper layers.) OTOH, the romans didn't have robots and didn't have a police force. ISTM that the development of robot soldiers is specifically aimed at making civil war only winnable by the government. Similar considerations may go to the distribution of military equipment to the local police forces. Also the establishment of police checkpoints at such places as the entrances to hospitals, airports, etc. (I was shocked the last time I went to the Emergency Room to find that a checkpoint had been established at the entrance.) Currently many of them seem to be more security theater than real, but such things can, once in place, be tightened at will.
So ISTM that Democracy is currently failing in the US, and steps are already being taken to win an expected civil war. (I'm not commenting on the farce that elections have become. That's an old story by now, except at the very local level.)
ISTM that ALL the prisoners in Gitmo are political prisoners. Clearly the ones held without trial are such. Possibly in some cases there are valid reasons, but that has not be publicly proven, so the defalut position is that they are innocent. I feel that I'm understating the case, but don't know how to properly put it more strongly. Let me try this....
If they have committed a crime, they should be brought to trial. If they have not committed a crime, they should never have been held captive.
Presuming that you are serious rather and trying for funny...
I know that *I've* made errors in proofs. I know that at various times articles have been recalled from mathematical journals because of errors in the proof. IIRC there was a proof recalled 6 mo.s after it had been published just a year or two ago.
Math is a lot more secure at it's foundations than any other physical science, basically because the foundations are of the form "If we assume...". This doesn't mean any proofs derived from those foundations are unassailable. Errors in reasoning happen, and can be quite difficult to detect.
More, any particular god is a hypothesis. It doesn't rise to the level of a theory until you can use it to make verifiable predictions that are then tested.
FWIW, there are several gods that I have tested, some of them gave weakly positive results. None of them matched the gods of any standard religion, which religions have so defined their gods that emperical tests are impossible.
N.B.: This does not prove that they are incorrect, it proves that there is no reasonable way to chose between them, and the null hypothesis is a member of every set.
Many people have an emotional need for the presumed eternal correctness of "a law of science", even though no such thing can exist. And they are incompetent to rate the relative stability of various different theories.
Well, everyone is incompetent to rate the relative stability of various different theories except, perhaps, in their own small area of expertise. That's why we are forced to depend on experts. Then we need to decide how much to trust each expert. It's not a simple problem, and it's probably intrinsicly insoluble if you have a NEED for correctness. (Making a best-guess choice is fairly easy, though, but figuring what your error bars are can be difficult.)
It's not basically a problem with the educational system, though that clearly makes things worse than they need to be, largely by instilling a belief in "correct answers" rather than in "probably correct answers"...which is the best that one can ever do.
I don't think he's doing anything dangerous, just expensive.
And you could sue you State Authorized and controlled ISP in the US. It wouldn't be dangerous, just expensive.
You can also use the government in the US, and probably in China. The government may tell you to piss off in either country, but as long as you follow legal channels I don't expect it to be anything more than expensive.
N.B.: *IF* he were trying to initiate a mass action, then I expect that he would be in significant trouble in China. Moreso than in the US. China has shown itself to be quite touchy about that kind of thing. (The US has shown itself to be quite touchy in other areas.)
OTOH, it's quite likely that your closing line is correct. But that's also not certain. My real expectation is that robotics will develop fast enough that there won't BE any corporate serfs. What there will be instead is anybody's guess, and it depends on decisions not yet made.
This is probably (my guess) a safe thing for him to do. The result of the suit, however, will probably not be to his liking.
I expect that the court will decide that the ISP was acting in the interests of the country, and they he is not entitled to any refund. He may well pay court costs and his ISP's attorneys fees.
The current evidence seems to indicate that criticizing individual officials or agencies is accepted within China, what is forbidden is anything that calls for group action, even in support of the government. (I've got my suspicions about how safe it is to criticize top government officials, but no evidence.)
I meant the 5, and actually I'm only considering a copycat for after the papers had started sensationalizing. Say after #3. (You clearly know more about it than I do.) I *expect* that there was only one perpetrator, but if someone is going to claim to have a proven solution, then one of the things that needs proving is that there was only one perpetrator.
FWIW, I'm surprized that there were only five. ISTM that some more-recent serial killers have had a larger number of victims, and yet "Jack" lingers as the exemplar of the type.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you are talking about one incident. I'm proposing that several indepent individuals separately perpetrated the crimes that were attribted to one single individual rather than to one individual and a few copycats.
FWIW, the current notes seem to say that systemd is still optional in Debain Jessie (currently testing), though I think it gets installed by default, and I'm not sure how to avoid it.
I understand your reasoning, but statistics seem to show that rural areas experience as much violent crime as large cities. (My memory actually says more, but I can't believe that, and can't remember the original source to check.)
FWIW, I do remember specifically that violence that results in injuries is higher among the Kalahari bushmen than among the slums of Detroit. Of course, that was a couple of decades ago.
Sorry, but you're wrong. In rural areas anyone new is foreign. I went to 5th grade in a rural area...and we weren't even actual outsiders, my mother had lived there as a young adult. Her father lived there much of the time.
It was the most miserable year of my life. I was regularly chased around the school yard by gangs, and "hid out" at the top of the jungle gyn until recess was over. My "crime" was that I hadn't gone to school with the the previous four years.