you let the private interests get their way that much, and they aggregate that much power, they are not staying within your borders, but spreading their filth elsewhere.
....excuse me, but we, as the rest of the world, cant allow that shit to continue in your country. your country has been the equivalent of the radical islamist countries at the other end of spectrum. you are breeding equally dangerous shit, but just on the other side of the spectrum....
after some point, when the government sufficiently cracked down on your private interests for the good or for worse, you can start...
So you believe that rather than organizing your country to police corporate interests as you see fit within your own borders the better solution is to force your views upon our country through...what, war? I mean, any actions you took to start a war in the first place would seem to pretty much require the ability to completely take over or shut off any American Corporate interests in your country anyways, so why don't you spare the bloodshed and just do that if you really believe what your saying?
Or are you just looking for someone to blame and lash out at in order to avoid dealing with the actual problems you have, and America seems like a convenient target? I mean, how in the hell did you get from the legality of the FCC's actions over p2p throttling to Turkey forming an alliance to declare war on America anyways? Does Comcast even have any foreign holdings or offer foreign services? Last I knew they only served like 40 or so states in the US.
What does the change of Presidents have to do with the FCC taking action outside the bounds of written law? Yea, their mandate is to regulate telecommunications, that's kind of implied in their name, thanks. But the problem here is that regulating implies the actual presence of regulations or laws. Again, they were asked to cite said regulations or laws under which they were punishing Comcast and could not do so. They do not have the power to go around punishing companies for things they haven't regulated, because no one can know the rules, or approve them, if they don't exist!
That would be giving them unbridled/unchecked power, the existence of which our entire system of government has been created from the ground up to attempt to prevent, whether the wielder of such power thinks they are acting for 'good' or not.
Good, I'm glad your happy in Turkey. That's the beauty of democratically elected nations, we can each have our country run as we like it. As an American, because of our history and heritage I like many of my country men have an innate fear of giving government too much power, and I expect a high level of individual responsibility out of my fellow countrymen. I see things differently then you, but I'm not going to shove my American ways down your throat or insult your country's economic abilities because you have a different viewpoint so I'll ignore your vague attacks on our deceptive abusive bullshit blood sucking American ways and cut back to the chase:.......
Oh wait, there's absolutely nothing in your post having anything to do with the issue at hand which is the FCC punishing Comcast for throttling without having any law on the books to do so. It's all just bunch of hand waving about the recession in an attempt to magically justify giving an agency that regulates communication unbridled power to act however they see fit. And this would have prevented the recession your saying? Giving the FCC absolute power? But as long as their acting for good? If they do something bad we have some sort of absolute power take away clause? What exactly is your point in relating the FCC punishing Comcast without written law allowing them to do so with the recession. Are you claiming because a government agency acted in a "good" illegal manner that we should therefore trust the rest of the government to regularly do the same?
There is not a 'long and arduous process' for making rules and laws that don't exist. That's the entire problem in this case. They were asked to cite the law that gave them the ability to do what they did and they failed to do so.
I didn't say there was no checks and balances, I said there was little recourse directly from citizens. That is specifically why such organizations don't have a blank check to go around doing whatever they decide is for the 'public good' without laws and regulations on the books written or approved by our directly elected officials giving them the power to do so. And if they cannot point out the law that gave them the power and the reason to do what they did then clearly they were in the wrong.
Because who defines 'good'? Giving a branch of government unbridled power to do 'good' one day gives them that same unbridled power to do something you vehemently oppose the next, and now they would have the legal precedent to do so.
You can't have a short term view of the law as a judge, and while it might not make them popular in the short run I'd rather our freedom be protected by forcing us to have our elected representatives pass a law for something we want (their entire job), rather then give a branch of our government unbridled power because they happen to be acting in our favor today.
Think about this, the FCC decided on their policy with little to no input from the citizens, and little to no recourse from the citizens. You can't vote FCC workers out of office. What would your view of the legality of what they just did be if they had come down on the completely other side of the issue and were punishing companies that didn't throttle p2p networks in the name of stopping piracy for 'public interest' but had no written law mandated or approved by our representatives to tell them or give them the power to do so?
You can't judge legality of a government organization's actions based on whether you think what they are doing is good, you judge legality based on whether they have the legal right to acting in the way they are according to the constitutions and laws set forth by congress.
I think most people in the US would prefer that government NOT be given the power to interfere in how any business runs its affairs in the name of 'public interest' just because there isn't a law either giving them said power or expressly revoking it. The 'policy' is fine, the FCC can make all the policy it wants. But it needs to have a law voted on by our elected representatives to give them the power to enforce it before it can go around punishing and fining companies.
Really? He stereotypes North Dakota as redneck republicans that listen to Limbaugh and gets modded insightful and I say I see them as apolitical and joke that there's not much population there anyways and I get marked troll?
That's actually a much more plausible suggestion then turnstiles, and fun. No one would object to the added security of waterslides! Think of the children! They'd love it!
Don't you think your argument of show me the pictures of terrorists being caught before you try to catch terrorists with this technology might be a tad, shall we say, circuitous? Not to mention that, like metal detectors, they are supposed to act as deterrents.
Unless your joking, in which case *whoosh*, I think that's exactly the point. Your trading radiation that if those numbers are correct is far less harmful then the actual plane trip itself will be to try to avoid a bomb blowing up in the plane which will be clearly much more harmful then the radiation from the machine. If you can't handle the health risks of 2 minutes at cruising altitude then you shouldn't go through security and board a public airplane in the first place as you'll be stranded away from health professionals.
Interesting choice of state, North Dakota. As an American I don't imagine people from North Dakota having political views, or more accurately, I don't imagine there being people that live in North Dakota =P
Oh totally, just like everyone in Israel completely stopped eating when Hamas and company were blowing up cafes. There's a psychological effect to blowing up an airplane because deep down on a primal level people are already scared of flying because it just aint natural. Plus the view of an airplane falling out of the sky is much more enthralling and attention grabbing then a simple explosion.
They don't want to attack you where you know you can be attacked, they want to attack you somewhere you're already afraid of, and where the government is trying to tell you is safe and protected to prove they can get to you anywhere, and instill fear.
Does ballpark mean a 75 point range to you because you seem to be struggling with the concept of an average across a population. If I told you the AVERAGE salary in my state was $90,000 would you scoff at this because you just happen to be one of the few in your state that makes around that?
2, looks are not terrible important, and load time less so... in the win9x days when you had to reboot constantly and reload all your apps it mattered a lot, these days people will leave it running all day.
Yea, no customer or user anywhere was ever turned off from a software product because of it's first impression made by a long load time and a poor looking UI. And "Don't close it, just keep it running all day" is definitely what you want to tell the already irritated customer.
My University (NC State) used Open Office and I liked it all right, but I think the MS alternative is still a step ahead and if the developers of Open Office think along the same lines as you just outlined they're unfortunately going to stay that way. You can't underestimate the impact speed and UI has on the average user experience.
Then seems like you'd request help in the form of money, equipment and training like many countries have and are receiving. But if you don't have the ability to do anything about it and aren't interested in any way to solve the problem while standing in the way of solutions then your providing them aid in the form of safe harbor.
That aside, if a country wants to harbor and army with the intent of attacking another country, that's there business all the way up to their border.
And in that case they are clearly against the country that army intends to attack. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.
If your fixing dinner calmly chatting with some guys sitting at your kitchen table as they load their guns guns and get their noose ready to go kill your neighbor it seems to me that your neighbor has every reason to consider you against him and has no reason to respect your property rights when those guys take a step back onto your yard after attacking him.
Then how do you explain all the terrorists that come from wealthy affluent families and are well educated? This is not a "Well i don't have anything so I might as well go blow a bunch of people up" problem we're fighting. If that was the heart of the matter you'd see a lot more home grown American Terrorists from the Appalachian Mountains. It's an influential and drawing (distorted) religious ideology that causes people to do this. Usually due to spending time with friends of like mindedness and then radicalizing in a sort of feedback loop until they reach the point where they decide they want to act and they all think it's a good idea. These are not dumb people. We've been fighting this war for 8 years, most of the dumb ones are dead.
It must be so relieving that while there is such an obscene concentration of power that there are only two car companies that matter,
Only two car companies that matter? Which of the "Big Three" is no longer in operation? And when did Nissan, Honda, and Toyota stop operating any plants or selling any cars in the US making them "not matter"?
two phone companies that matter,
Um, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon would be four MAJOR carriers plus all the regional ones. How many wireless companies do you think are going to have the pooled resources capable of providing nation-wide coverage?
two airlines that matter,
So which three of our five major airlines no longer count? US Airway? American Airlines? Delta? Continental? United?
And then we start with the Hitler analogies, great. Yep, 'cause that was the first step in rounding up all the jews and gassing them: Giving them only 4 choices of Major country-wide cellphone networks.
I'd go with censor or censorship. It doesn't have as much of an impact and all the connotations but I believe that in and of itself is one of our biggest problems. One should be feared just as much as the other.
What would you consider middle ground when it comes to harboring and/or supporting terrorists who plan to kill civilians in mass? Your government either allows them to base themselves in your country and protects them because they want them there or they do not want them there, and tries to remove them and asks for help if they are not capable of doing so.
If you have to bold a specific section of a definition so your readers will gloss over all the other constraints that don't fit then you've probably selected the wrong word for the situation at hand. Also I thought "regimenting industry" means the Government takes over private industry, whereas what you have here is closer to the industry taking control of, or at least influencing the government. Perhaps you should try a second thought and choose a new word?;)
Both, one crime doesn't erase another, especially when their hardly related. Even if some dude kills your brother you can't go kill him, let alone his brother, without the full force of the law coming down on you and it's the same with theft.
Yea, I don't know why those crazy fundamentalists would want to replace that lovely secular government that was in bed with Russia that executed around 27,000 people while attempting to implement their "modern" Marxist reforms. And after all, Russia was just there at this government's request to protect them from their own people, even if part of this protection involved having Spetsnaz forces assassinate the president of Afghanistan because he seemed like he couldn't be trusted. All under the "Treaty of Friendship" of course. Cause you know, go ahead and assassinate our leader if you don't trust them is a common provision in such treaties.
So we gave afghan fighters the ability to take their country back from a foreign power and then at the end of it our supposedly heinous crime is letting them alone to run their own country as they see fit rather then substituting our power and influence for Russia's? If that's your big complaint then you must have been ecstatic that we went back in and are now staying there and funding rebuilding.
And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.
Now, who decided that Britain's imperial claim to whatever they wanted was moral? Because if all you need to justify taking the lives of foreign nationals is the desire to have their stuff, then apparently you do not subscribe to any sort of value system, other than might makes right.
Ummmm...I'm not aware that anyone did, let alone I. I mean, did you honestly read that single sentence about the ridiculous foresight it would take to see the Revolution during the French and Indian Wars and somehow glean a position on my entire value system and my perception on the morality of the actions of the British Empire? Or are you just making up an untrue position, saying I subscribe to it, and then arguing against it to discredit me, which is an actual strawman, unlike simply pointing out apt historical examples whose frequency show that any time you help someone militarily at one point it's likely to come back to you at another and it's ludicrous to expect the foresight to ignore a current danger and not help a supposed ally in the fear that they may one day turn against you.
Must have missed the part where we betrayed the Mujaheddin to the Soviets as well as the part where any of those Afghani fighters were involved in the events of 9/11. Unless by 'betrayed' you mean the war ended, most of the foreign fighters left Afghanistan, we were no longer needed so stopped training, and the groups of foreign fighters began to self-radicalize as only the more radical members interested in fighting foreign powers rather than defending Islamic lands remained while the rest went home.
The 'your own fault for ever having helped them' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but doesn't really hold water. You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals. Or blame the German invasion of Russia solely on Russian's steel trade with Germany up until the morning of rather than even note Hitler is doing anything wrong in wanting to take over the world. And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.
What excellent non-US news organizations don't have to worry about people buying/reading their products or receiving funding and/or keeping their jobs under the current administration? I'm not trying to be snide, I'd actually be interested in knowing if such environments exist and how they are established and operate in order to avoid these problems.
Slashdot Mirror
you let the private interests get their way that much, and they aggregate that much power, they are not staying within your borders, but spreading their filth elsewhere.
....excuse me, but we, as the rest of the world, cant allow that shit to continue in your country. your country has been the equivalent of the radical islamist countries at the other end of spectrum. you are breeding equally dangerous shit, but just on the other side of the spectrum....
after some point, when the government sufficiently cracked down on your private interests for the good or for worse, you can start...
So you believe that rather than organizing your country to police corporate interests as you see fit within your own borders the better solution is to force your views upon our country through...what, war? I mean, any actions you took to start a war in the first place would seem to pretty much require the ability to completely take over or shut off any American Corporate interests in your country anyways, so why don't you spare the bloodshed and just do that if you really believe what your saying?
Or are you just looking for someone to blame and lash out at in order to avoid dealing with the actual problems you have, and America seems like a convenient target? I mean, how in the hell did you get from the legality of the FCC's actions over p2p throttling to Turkey forming an alliance to declare war on America anyways? Does Comcast even have any foreign holdings or offer foreign services? Last I knew they only served like 40 or so states in the US.
What does the change of Presidents have to do with the FCC taking action outside the bounds of written law? Yea, their mandate is to regulate telecommunications, that's kind of implied in their name, thanks. But the problem here is that regulating implies the actual presence of regulations or laws. Again, they were asked to cite said regulations or laws under which they were punishing Comcast and could not do so. They do not have the power to go around punishing companies for things they haven't regulated, because no one can know the rules, or approve them, if they don't exist!
That would be giving them unbridled/unchecked power, the existence of which our entire system of government has been created from the ground up to attempt to prevent, whether the wielder of such power thinks they are acting for 'good' or not.
Good, I'm glad your happy in Turkey. That's the beauty of democratically elected nations, we can each have our country run as we like it. As an American, because of our history and heritage I like many of my country men have an innate fear of giving government too much power, and I expect a high level of individual responsibility out of my fellow countrymen. I see things differently then you, but I'm not going to shove my American ways down your throat or insult your country's economic abilities because you have a different viewpoint so I'll ignore your vague attacks on our deceptive abusive bullshit blood sucking American ways and cut back to the chase: .......
Oh wait, there's absolutely nothing in your post having anything to do with the issue at hand which is the FCC punishing Comcast for throttling without having any law on the books to do so. It's all just bunch of hand waving about the recession in an attempt to magically justify giving an agency that regulates communication unbridled power to act however they see fit. And this would have prevented the recession your saying? Giving the FCC absolute power? But as long as their acting for good? If they do something bad we have some sort of absolute power take away clause? What exactly is your point in relating the FCC punishing Comcast without written law allowing them to do so with the recession. Are you claiming because a government agency acted in a "good" illegal manner that we should therefore trust the rest of the government to regularly do the same?
There is not a 'long and arduous process' for making rules and laws that don't exist. That's the entire problem in this case. They were asked to cite the law that gave them the ability to do what they did and they failed to do so.
I didn't say there was no checks and balances, I said there was little recourse directly from citizens. That is specifically why such organizations don't have a blank check to go around doing whatever they decide is for the 'public good' without laws and regulations on the books written or approved by our directly elected officials giving them the power to do so. And if they cannot point out the law that gave them the power and the reason to do what they did then clearly they were in the wrong.
Because who defines 'good'? Giving a branch of government unbridled power to do 'good' one day gives them that same unbridled power to do something you vehemently oppose the next, and now they would have the legal precedent to do so.
You can't have a short term view of the law as a judge, and while it might not make them popular in the short run I'd rather our freedom be protected by forcing us to have our elected representatives pass a law for something we want (their entire job), rather then give a branch of our government unbridled power because they happen to be acting in our favor today.
Think about this, the FCC decided on their policy with little to no input from the citizens, and little to no recourse from the citizens. You can't vote FCC workers out of office. What would your view of the legality of what they just did be if they had come down on the completely other side of the issue and were punishing companies that didn't throttle p2p networks in the name of stopping piracy for 'public interest' but had no written law mandated or approved by our representatives to tell them or give them the power to do so?
You can't judge legality of a government organization's actions based on whether you think what they are doing is good, you judge legality based on whether they have the legal right to acting in the way they are according to the constitutions and laws set forth by congress.
I think most people in the US would prefer that government NOT be given the power to interfere in how any business runs its affairs in the name of 'public interest' just because there isn't a law either giving them said power or expressly revoking it. The 'policy' is fine, the FCC can make all the policy it wants. But it needs to have a law voted on by our elected representatives to give them the power to enforce it before it can go around punishing and fining companies.
Really? He stereotypes North Dakota as redneck republicans that listen to Limbaugh and gets modded insightful and I say I see them as apolitical and joke that there's not much population there anyways and I get marked troll?
That's actually a much more plausible suggestion then turnstiles, and fun. No one would object to the added security of waterslides! Think of the children! They'd love it!
Don't you think your argument of show me the pictures of terrorists being caught before you try to catch terrorists with this technology might be a tad, shall we say, circuitous? Not to mention that, like metal detectors, they are supposed to act as deterrents.
Unless your joking, in which case *whoosh*, I think that's exactly the point. Your trading radiation that if those numbers are correct is far less harmful then the actual plane trip itself will be to try to avoid a bomb blowing up in the plane which will be clearly much more harmful then the radiation from the machine. If you can't handle the health risks of 2 minutes at cruising altitude then you shouldn't go through security and board a public airplane in the first place as you'll be stranded away from health professionals.
Interesting choice of state, North Dakota. As an American I don't imagine people from North Dakota having political views, or more accurately, I don't imagine there being people that live in North Dakota =P
Oh totally, just like everyone in Israel completely stopped eating when Hamas and company were blowing up cafes. There's a psychological effect to blowing up an airplane because deep down on a primal level people are already scared of flying because it just aint natural. Plus the view of an airplane falling out of the sky is much more enthralling and attention grabbing then a simple explosion.
They don't want to attack you where you know you can be attacked, they want to attack you somewhere you're already afraid of, and where the government is trying to tell you is safe and protected to prove they can get to you anywhere, and instill fear.
Does ballpark mean a 75 point range to you because you seem to be struggling with the concept of an average across a population. If I told you the AVERAGE salary in my state was $90,000 would you scoff at this because you just happen to be one of the few in your state that makes around that?
2, looks are not terrible important, and load time less so... in the win9x days when you had to reboot constantly and reload all your apps it mattered a lot, these days people will leave it running all day.
Yea, no customer or user anywhere was ever turned off from a software product because of it's first impression made by a long load time and a poor looking UI. And "Don't close it, just keep it running all day" is definitely what you want to tell the already irritated customer.
My University (NC State) used Open Office and I liked it all right, but I think the MS alternative is still a step ahead and if the developers of Open Office think along the same lines as you just outlined they're unfortunately going to stay that way. You can't underestimate the impact speed and UI has on the average user experience.
Then seems like you'd request help in the form of money, equipment and training like many countries have and are receiving. But if you don't have the ability to do anything about it and aren't interested in any way to solve the problem while standing in the way of solutions then your providing them aid in the form of safe harbor.
That aside, if a country wants to harbor and army with the intent of attacking another country, that's there business all the way up to their border.
And in that case they are clearly against the country that army intends to attack. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.
If your fixing dinner calmly chatting with some guys sitting at your kitchen table as they load their guns guns and get their noose ready to go kill your neighbor it seems to me that your neighbor has every reason to consider you against him and has no reason to respect your property rights when those guys take a step back onto your yard after attacking him.
Then how do you explain all the terrorists that come from wealthy affluent families and are well educated? This is not a "Well i don't have anything so I might as well go blow a bunch of people up" problem we're fighting. If that was the heart of the matter you'd see a lot more home grown American Terrorists from the Appalachian Mountains. It's an influential and drawing (distorted) religious ideology that causes people to do this. Usually due to spending time with friends of like mindedness and then radicalizing in a sort of feedback loop until they reach the point where they decide they want to act and they all think it's a good idea. These are not dumb people. We've been fighting this war for 8 years, most of the dumb ones are dead.
It must be so relieving that while there is such an obscene concentration of power that there are only two car companies that matter,
Only two car companies that matter? Which of the "Big Three" is no longer in operation? And when did Nissan, Honda, and Toyota stop operating any plants or selling any cars in the US making them "not matter"?
two phone companies that matter,
Um, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon would be four MAJOR carriers plus all the regional ones. How many wireless companies do you think are going to have the pooled resources capable of providing nation-wide coverage?
two airlines that matter,
So which three of our five major airlines no longer count? US Airway? American Airlines? Delta? Continental? United?
And then we start with the Hitler analogies, great. Yep, 'cause that was the first step in rounding up all the jews and gassing them: Giving them only 4 choices of Major country-wide cellphone networks.
I'd go with censor or censorship. It doesn't have as much of an impact and all the connotations but I believe that in and of itself is one of our biggest problems. One should be feared just as much as the other.
What would you consider middle ground when it comes to harboring and/or supporting terrorists who plan to kill civilians in mass? Your government either allows them to base themselves in your country and protects them because they want them there or they do not want them there, and tries to remove them and asks for help if they are not capable of doing so.
What would you describe as the middle ground?
If you have to bold a specific section of a definition so your readers will gloss over all the other constraints that don't fit then you've probably selected the wrong word for the situation at hand. Also I thought "regimenting industry" means the Government takes over private industry, whereas what you have here is closer to the industry taking control of, or at least influencing the government. Perhaps you should try a second thought and choose a new word? ;)
Both, one crime doesn't erase another, especially when their hardly related. Even if some dude kills your brother you can't go kill him, let alone his brother, without the full force of the law coming down on you and it's the same with theft.
Yea, I don't know why those crazy fundamentalists would want to replace that lovely secular government that was in bed with Russia that executed around 27,000 people while attempting to implement their "modern" Marxist reforms. And after all, Russia was just there at this government's request to protect them from their own people, even if part of this protection involved having Spetsnaz forces assassinate the president of Afghanistan because he seemed like he couldn't be trusted. All under the "Treaty of Friendship" of course. Cause you know, go ahead and assassinate our leader if you don't trust them is a common provision in such treaties.
So we gave afghan fighters the ability to take their country back from a foreign power and then at the end of it our supposedly heinous crime is letting them alone to run their own country as they see fit rather then substituting our power and influence for Russia's? If that's your big complaint then you must have been ecstatic that we went back in and are now staying there and funding rebuilding.
And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.
Now, who decided that Britain's imperial claim to whatever they wanted was moral? Because if all you need to justify taking the lives of foreign nationals is the desire to have their stuff, then apparently you do not subscribe to any sort of value system, other than might makes right.
Ummmm...I'm not aware that anyone did, let alone I. I mean, did you honestly read that single sentence about the ridiculous foresight it would take to see the Revolution during the French and Indian Wars and somehow glean a position on my entire value system and my perception on the morality of the actions of the British Empire? Or are you just making up an untrue position, saying I subscribe to it, and then arguing against it to discredit me, which is an actual strawman, unlike simply pointing out apt historical examples whose frequency show that any time you help someone militarily at one point it's likely to come back to you at another and it's ludicrous to expect the foresight to ignore a current danger and not help a supposed ally in the fear that they may one day turn against you.
Must have missed the part where we betrayed the Mujaheddin to the Soviets as well as the part where any of those Afghani fighters were involved in the events of 9/11. Unless by 'betrayed' you mean the war ended, most of the foreign fighters left Afghanistan, we were no longer needed so stopped training, and the groups of foreign fighters began to self-radicalize as only the more radical members interested in fighting foreign powers rather than defending Islamic lands remained while the rest went home.
The 'your own fault for ever having helped them' adage is certainly drawing psychologically but doesn't really hold water. You might as well blame the Cold War on us helping the Soviets fight the Germans rather than any sort of clash of political and economic ideals. Or blame the German invasion of Russia solely on Russian's steel trade with Germany up until the morning of rather than even note Hitler is doing anything wrong in wanting to take over the world. And I suppose we fought the British solely because they trained us how to fight during the French and Indian war and like us should have had the decades of foresight to know they'd be better off not providing aid and letting their enemy take over those lands.
What excellent non-US news organizations don't have to worry about people buying/reading their products or receiving funding and/or keeping their jobs under the current administration? I'm not trying to be snide, I'd actually be interested in knowing if such environments exist and how they are established and operate in order to avoid these problems.