I mean, so far, in the polls, he's already being rated as the worst president since WW2.
I'm not fan of Obama, but I'm suspicious about the results of that (single) survey. 35% of respondents rated Reagan as the best president since WW2, followed by Clinton (18%), Kennedy (15%), and Obama (8%). On the other side, 33% said Obama was the worst, followed by GWB (28%), Nixon (13%), and Carter (8%). As far as "worst president" goes, it looks like recent memory plays more of a role than anything the guys actually did. Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, the 3 directly after WW2, got 0-1% of the votes. Carter is probably happy just to be included.
They aren't spending all of their oil money to gear themselves up to be a power producer and distributor. They are positioning themselves to be a financial center and tourist destination. If that fails then they have nothing to show for their oil wealth except a shiny city built on top of sand.
What the fuck? Do you call rape victims sluts and publicly humiliate them?
I sure don't, but that has no bearing on this conversation. At all.
she was clearly wronged
Yes, she was wronged. Who wronged her? Was it Pinkmeth? Was it Verisign? Was it Katz? Was it the Tor project? No, it was none of those. It was whoever she sent those pictures to, whoever stole her phone, etc. I don't see that individual listed on her lawsuit, which is the reason her lawsuit (not her personally) is deserving of ridicule. Asserting that Pinkmeth is engaged in a conspiracy with Tor is ridiculous (literally - deserving of ridicule). The reason I included links was to show that suing Pinkmeth will have no effect on whether or not people will see her pictures. Those links were within the first 8 pages of Google results for her name, and none of them point to Pinkmeth. In short, not Pinkmeth, nor Verisign, nor Katz, nor Tor are the reasons why her images are online. The person who posted the images is the reason why they are online. If she wants justice, she needs to go after that person, not useful things that plenty of other people use for completely legitimate reasons.
What's the benefit?
It's a little strange that I have to point this out, but the benefit of Tor is anonymity and the ability to not be tracked. Hopefully you understand why protection of privacy is a good thing for everyone, not just people interested in committing a crime. If you want the argument for why Tor is a good thing, read what the EFF has to say about it.
She's on quite the fishing expedition. Here is another lawsuit filed by her, from 2012, suing Pinkmeth (again), Katz Global Media (for the crime of providing anonymous hosting), and Verisign. Yeah, she sued Verisign. Maybe that suit didn't work out so well, so she thought she would try her hand against Tor. Not exactly the best way to make a name for herself as a criminal justice major. I suspect that pursuing suits like these will serve is much more of a "loss in earning capacity" than a porn picture ever would. She might also be interested that her Facebook profile is open for the world to see. Here she is.
Maybe she's just trying to clog up the Google search results for her name with information about lawsuits instead of her actual pictures. You have to go to page 4 to find this one (which is not Pinkmeth), page 6 for this one (also not Pinkmeth), and page 8 for this one (again, not Pinkmeth).
I'm assuming she has no proof that would allow her to sue the person actually responsible for distributing the pictures (you know, other than her). Life lesson learned, I suppose. Try not to clog up the justice system.
Or the Make-a-Wish Foundation felt that what they were doing was fair-use. Remember, while they dressed the kid in an off-the-shelf costume, they called him "Batkid", not "Batman"
Scroll down to the list of pictures and see if you can detect any DC-owned intellectual property.
Who is going to rob, rape, and/or murder you? The person being tracked via satellite who is specifically responding to your request for a pick up? It's not even worth it to try and rob an Uber driver. You would need a stolen phone and credit card in order to be able to do that, otherwise it's pretty easy to prove exactly who was there. It's not like with a taxi that you can anonymously hail, shoot them while they're sitting in the seat, take everything and go.
Using Tor is not the norm, and so then it becomes a matter of scrutinizing what it does, who uses it, and for what purposes.
The same could be said for any emerging technology. That argument would have applied when SSL was new. Maybe one day Tor will be standard, you buy a new computer, get online, and it's using Tor without you ever changing any settings. The EFF is already saying that everyone should use Tor. At this point, the only reason it's not the norm is because it's fairly new. I wouldn't be surprised if we see computers within a couple years marketed with privacy in mind that come with Tor already installed and configured, or ISPs adding exit nodes to their networks as a PR privacy initiative.
I remember when Patriot passed, I was very suspicious of it. It all got rammed through the system a little too easily considering the power it granted to the government. Everyone was so gung-ho at the time though. That also reminds me of when we decided to bail out all the big banks. I was the only person at the dinner table saying that they should be allowed to fail and that other, more responsible, banks would buy up the pieces and life in the free market would go on. Everyone was giving me reasons why that wouldn't work, and then years later they were trying to tell me why the banks should have been allowed to fail.
It seems that people forget about their convictions really easily in the face of extraordinary circumstances. The fact is that those circumstances are the most important time to keep your convictions. Patriot should have never been passed. The promise to repeal it was the entire reason I voted for Obama the first time. Bastard really got me, didn't he?
All right, so Adelson evades the ban by paying the Times' owners $3 billion for the paper, runs his piece - indistinguishable from a full-page ad - and then sells the paper back to the owners for $3 billion less the price of a full-page ad.
What if they don't want to buy it back for that much, what if the offer is now $2 billion? What if the stock price tanked? What if a court blocks the sale for whatever reason? There are risks to both the buyer and seller that I'm comfortable having them take if that's how they want to play the game.
You're not helping your claimed problem, you're making it worse.
I simply disagree. I'll also freely acknowledge that I should not be the person to draft any kind of law like this. Hell, I wasn't even focused on campaign finance specifically, I just got behind it because Lessig is actually doing something instead of sitting around and talking like everyone else. I see his point though. If it was up to me, I would focus on 4 issues as a starting point for a fix. That paper articulates my position, or at least what it was last November. The more time passes, the more I'm starting to believe that this system is hopelessly broken and irreversibly tilted in favor of those currently in power (I'm not just talking about politicians). Maybe the fix is to abolish all political parties completely and have everyone run on their own name, I don't know. I can promise you this though: unless a substantive push for actual reform gets off the ground in this country, as soon as I can afford it I'm going to expatriate myself. I don't want to live in a hypocritical system which claims to be free but is actually ruled by money and actively tramples on everyones' rights. This country is a far, far cry from the "land of the free and home of the brave." A lot of people living here have continually shown themselves to be neither free nor brave. The people with the money have seized power for themselves, and they are willing and able to spend vast amounts of money in order to make sure that the power and freedom stays with them, at the possible cost of everyone else.
By the way, have you been reading about all of the protesting going on in Germany over the US Federal Reserve? Because I haven't seen it in the news. I've been checking Fox, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post... it's weird though, I can't find any mention of it. Like it's not even happening. Why would virtually all American media refuse to cover a story like that, wouldn't it have some sort of interest here in the US? Or worldwide media, even. I'd almost think that media around the world are controlled by the same group of people. It's almost like when small-party candidates run for office, the media virtually ignores them. Why is that? Well, I can't think about that right now, I have to keep working because I have this mortgage to pay. After work I'll stop by Wal-Mart and pick up some food, then go home and watch entertainment and sports news until I pass out. I'm sure someone else will look out for me.
What I think? I think everyone who has been running this country for the past couple decades has been a cunt and deserves to be thrown out on their ass and locked up. That's what I think.
Their job is to weigh the benefits of government actions — like stopping terrorist threats — against violations of citizens' rights that may result from those actions.
Wait, what? All of a sudden we've decided that violating rights is OK if it makes us more secure? When did we decide that? I don't remember any court decisions that said "well, it's unconstitutional, sure, but it's OK because..."
Because of the manner in which the NSA conducts upstream collection, and the limits of its current technology, the NSA cannot completely eliminate 'about' communications from its collection without also eliminating a significant portion of the 'to/from' communications that it seeks.
Well, I guess it has to eliminate a significant portion of the "to/from" communications that it seeks, change the manner in which it conducts upstream collection, and develop better technology, then. Right? Or just stay exactly the same and ignore the unconstitutional part of everything?
There's a quote from Benjamin Franklin around here somewhere...
Seems they could have simply created some "molds" with a some 2x4s and a couple plywood sheets and just dumped the cement formula in to make the individual walls instead of this elaborate process.
How many laborers would they need to make all of those molds to allow them to build 10 buildings in 24 hours? Would your method be any cheaper than $5,000 per building?
Did anything ever come of that with other employees? Or is that a case where the company also had no idea what they were giving people to sign and aren't aware that they own all of this IP?
There's a distinct difference. In one case, someone is paying advertising money for a publication to run their ad. In the other, someone is running an unpaid opinion piece in their own publication. If that person wants to pay a dollar or $3 billion or whatever the price might be to purchase that publication, fine. But the distinction is there. The thing is that I'm not willing to say that publications are not allowed to run political opinion pieces. I'm saying that they should not be allowed to run paid political advertisements.
What is it that Javascript does that I cannot do with an alternative language just as or more effectively?
If you're asking in the context of a web browser, then Javascript is the only realistic option for a dynamic UI. If you're asking about Node.js on the server, then Javascript support on the server isn't something you can disable in the first place if you're running Node. If you're not running Node, then obviously you don't need Javascript on the server.
Because you want or need to use an application that requires it. I assume you're talking generally and not asking anyone to comment on your specific situation without giving any other details about your use patterns or needs.
Who said the employee couldn't use heart medication? The employee is still free to obtain and use heart medication on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair.
Who said the employee couldn't use a pacemaker? The employee is still free to obtain and use a pacemaker on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair.
Who said the employee couldn't use insulin? The employee is still free to obtain and use insulin on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair.
Who said the employee couldn't use chemotherapy drugs? The employee is still free to obtain and use chemotherapy drugs on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair.
None of those statements really seem all that fair. I mean, if the purpose of health insurance is to provide the insured with medication or medical devices at a reduced cost, how is it fair to exclude certain approved devices because of arbitrary personal reasons? If I have a moral objection to the implantation of machines into a body, am I allowed to decide that my company isn't going to cover pacemakers when essentially all others do? Is that really a fair thing for me to do?
It's not a difference in pronunciation, it's 2 completely different terms. One of them is "May Day", written with a space, it's 2 words, and refers to a holiday. The other one is "Mayday", without a space, 1 word, an international distress call that has nothing to do with the holiday. You see socialism because you're looking for socialism. There is no connection. It also has nothing to do with lesbians, I'm not sure what the point of even posting that was. You are making a false association where none exists. The only significance is that the PAC was launched on May 1, but they still did not call it "May Day". It is "Mayday PAC" or "MAYDAY PAC" depending on where they print it. It is never "May Day PAC", so it is disingenuous for you to say the name is "May Day". It isn't. Again, this is not a difference in pronunciation, when you typed that name out you actually pressed a key to insert a space where there shouldn't be one, thus changing the name to something that it's not.
There is NOTHING more important in our society than the freedom to speak about political issues.
I agree with that. I can speak about political issues, you can speak about political issues, that's fantastic. Look, we're doing it right now with zero threat of retaliation from the government. I do not see that as even in the same ballpark as me or you paying a hundred million dollars to have our opinion shown on prime time TV for the purpose of swaying local elections in jurisdictions that we have nothing to do with. Let those people decide who they want to elect without our influence.
If you see no difference between Sheldon Adelson buying an ad in the NYTimes and buying the NYTimes itself and ordering it to run his positions, then there is no hope for you. All banning the first and permitting the second is raising the cost of the ad.
Great. The market cap of the NY Times company is 2.28 billion dollars. If Adelson wants to pay that in order to run an ad that would really only have marginal impact, and would obviously be seen as opinion, then let him do that. I'm willing to have him pay $2 billion to run his ad instead of a few million. $2 billion might make him actually think about whether he really wants to do that, and what he is going to do with the company after he runs the ad.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, so far, in the polls, he's already being rated as the worst president since WW2.
I'm not fan of Obama, but I'm suspicious about the results of that (single) survey. 35% of respondents rated Reagan as the best president since WW2, followed by Clinton (18%), Kennedy (15%), and Obama (8%). On the other side, 33% said Obama was the worst, followed by GWB (28%), Nixon (13%), and Carter (8%). As far as "worst president" goes, it looks like recent memory plays more of a role than anything the guys actually did. Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy, the 3 directly after WW2, got 0-1% of the votes. Carter is probably happy just to be included.
Why is it called the Lovelace test?
Maybe it's because Ada envisioned that the machines that would become computers would one day be capable of all kinds of useful things, as opposed to Babbage who saw them strictly as number crunchers.
Ada Lovelace was just someone that translated a book for the worlds first programmer.
Hardly. She didn't translate the book for a programmer, she translated the book for a machine. She was the programmer.
They aren't spending all of their oil money to gear themselves up to be a power producer and distributor. They are positioning themselves to be a financial center and tourist destination. If that fails then they have nothing to show for their oil wealth except a shiny city built on top of sand.
What the fuck? Do you call rape victims sluts and publicly humiliate them?
I sure don't, but that has no bearing on this conversation. At all.
she was clearly wronged
Yes, she was wronged. Who wronged her? Was it Pinkmeth? Was it Verisign? Was it Katz? Was it the Tor project? No, it was none of those. It was whoever she sent those pictures to, whoever stole her phone, etc. I don't see that individual listed on her lawsuit, which is the reason her lawsuit (not her personally) is deserving of ridicule. Asserting that Pinkmeth is engaged in a conspiracy with Tor is ridiculous (literally - deserving of ridicule). The reason I included links was to show that suing Pinkmeth will have no effect on whether or not people will see her pictures. Those links were within the first 8 pages of Google results for her name, and none of them point to Pinkmeth. In short, not Pinkmeth, nor Verisign, nor Katz, nor Tor are the reasons why her images are online. The person who posted the images is the reason why they are online. If she wants justice, she needs to go after that person, not useful things that plenty of other people use for completely legitimate reasons.
What's the benefit?
It's a little strange that I have to point this out, but the benefit of Tor is anonymity and the ability to not be tracked. Hopefully you understand why protection of privacy is a good thing for everyone, not just people interested in committing a crime. If you want the argument for why Tor is a good thing, read what the EFF has to say about it.
Or, they can install the solar everyone else is spending a fortune developing in the plentiful sunlight they have.
I think that they'll find that selling solar power is far less profitable than selling oil.
She's on quite the fishing expedition. Here is another lawsuit filed by her, from 2012, suing Pinkmeth (again), Katz Global Media (for the crime of providing anonymous hosting), and Verisign. Yeah, she sued Verisign. Maybe that suit didn't work out so well, so she thought she would try her hand against Tor. Not exactly the best way to make a name for herself as a criminal justice major. I suspect that pursuing suits like these will serve is much more of a "loss in earning capacity" than a porn picture ever would. She might also be interested that her Facebook profile is open for the world to see. Here she is.
Maybe she's just trying to clog up the Google search results for her name with information about lawsuits instead of her actual pictures. You have to go to page 4 to find this one (which is not Pinkmeth), page 6 for this one (also not Pinkmeth), and page 8 for this one (again, not Pinkmeth).
I'm assuming she has no proof that would allow her to sue the person actually responsible for distributing the pictures (you know, other than her). Life lesson learned, I suppose. Try not to clog up the justice system.
Or the Make-a-Wish Foundation felt that what they were doing was fair-use. Remember, while they dressed the kid in an off-the-shelf costume, they called him "Batkid", not "Batman"
Scroll down to the list of pictures and see if you can detect any DC-owned intellectual property.
http://sf.wish.org/wishes/wish...
And why limit it to just passwords? There's a whole onscreen keyboard there to be watched.
Who is going to rob, rape, and/or murder you? The person being tracked via satellite who is specifically responding to your request for a pick up? It's not even worth it to try and rob an Uber driver. You would need a stolen phone and credit card in order to be able to do that, otherwise it's pretty easy to prove exactly who was there. It's not like with a taxi that you can anonymously hail, shoot them while they're sitting in the seat, take everything and go.
Using Tor is not the norm, and so then it becomes a matter of scrutinizing what it does, who uses it, and for what purposes.
The same could be said for any emerging technology. That argument would have applied when SSL was new. Maybe one day Tor will be standard, you buy a new computer, get online, and it's using Tor without you ever changing any settings. The EFF is already saying that everyone should use Tor. At this point, the only reason it's not the norm is because it's fairly new. I wouldn't be surprised if we see computers within a couple years marketed with privacy in mind that come with Tor already installed and configured, or ISPs adding exit nodes to their networks as a PR privacy initiative.
I remember when Patriot passed, I was very suspicious of it. It all got rammed through the system a little too easily considering the power it granted to the government. Everyone was so gung-ho at the time though. That also reminds me of when we decided to bail out all the big banks. I was the only person at the dinner table saying that they should be allowed to fail and that other, more responsible, banks would buy up the pieces and life in the free market would go on. Everyone was giving me reasons why that wouldn't work, and then years later they were trying to tell me why the banks should have been allowed to fail.
It seems that people forget about their convictions really easily in the face of extraordinary circumstances. The fact is that those circumstances are the most important time to keep your convictions. Patriot should have never been passed. The promise to repeal it was the entire reason I voted for Obama the first time. Bastard really got me, didn't he?
All right, so Adelson evades the ban by paying the Times' owners $3 billion for the paper, runs his piece - indistinguishable from a full-page ad - and then sells the paper back to the owners for $3 billion less the price of a full-page ad.
What if they don't want to buy it back for that much, what if the offer is now $2 billion? What if the stock price tanked? What if a court blocks the sale for whatever reason? There are risks to both the buyer and seller that I'm comfortable having them take if that's how they want to play the game.
You're not helping your claimed problem, you're making it worse.
I simply disagree. I'll also freely acknowledge that I should not be the person to draft any kind of law like this. Hell, I wasn't even focused on campaign finance specifically, I just got behind it because Lessig is actually doing something instead of sitting around and talking like everyone else. I see his point though. If it was up to me, I would focus on 4 issues as a starting point for a fix. That paper articulates my position, or at least what it was last November. The more time passes, the more I'm starting to believe that this system is hopelessly broken and irreversibly tilted in favor of those currently in power (I'm not just talking about politicians). Maybe the fix is to abolish all political parties completely and have everyone run on their own name, I don't know. I can promise you this though: unless a substantive push for actual reform gets off the ground in this country, as soon as I can afford it I'm going to expatriate myself. I don't want to live in a hypocritical system which claims to be free but is actually ruled by money and actively tramples on everyones' rights. This country is a far, far cry from the "land of the free and home of the brave." A lot of people living here have continually shown themselves to be neither free nor brave. The people with the money have seized power for themselves, and they are willing and able to spend vast amounts of money in order to make sure that the power and freedom stays with them, at the possible cost of everyone else.
By the way, have you been reading about all of the protesting going on in Germany over the US Federal Reserve? Because I haven't seen it in the news. I've been checking Fox, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post... it's weird though, I can't find any mention of it. Like it's not even happening. Why would virtually all American media refuse to cover a story like that, wouldn't it have some sort of interest here in the US? Or worldwide media, even. I'd almost think that media around the world are controlled by the same group of people. It's almost like when small-party candidates run for office, the media virtually ignores them. Why is that? Well, I can't think about that right now, I have to keep working because I have this mortgage to pay. After work I'll stop by Wal-Mart and pick up some food, then go home and watch entertainment and sports news until I pass out. I'm sure someone else will look out for me.
What I think? I think everyone who has been running this country for the past couple decades has been a cunt and deserves to be thrown out on their ass and locked up. That's what I think.
Or juuuuuuuuust anothaaaaaaaa cuntrie.
Their job is to weigh the benefits of government actions — like stopping terrorist threats — against violations of citizens' rights that may result from those actions.
Wait, what? All of a sudden we've decided that violating rights is OK if it makes us more secure? When did we decide that? I don't remember any court decisions that said "well, it's unconstitutional, sure, but it's OK because..."
Because of the manner in which the NSA conducts upstream collection, and the limits of its current technology, the NSA cannot completely eliminate 'about' communications from its collection without also eliminating a significant portion of the 'to/from' communications that it seeks.
Well, I guess it has to eliminate a significant portion of the "to/from" communications that it seeks, change the manner in which it conducts upstream collection, and develop better technology, then. Right? Or just stay exactly the same and ignore the unconstitutional part of everything?
There's a quote from Benjamin Franklin around here somewhere...
Seems they could have simply created some "molds" with a some 2x4s and a couple plywood sheets and just dumped the cement formula in to make the individual walls instead of this elaborate process.
How many laborers would they need to make all of those molds to allow them to build 10 buildings in 24 hours? Would your method be any cheaper than $5,000 per building?
But not this method of printing half walls in a factory which are then assembled on-site, I'm not sure what they're gaining by doing it this way.
I assume you missed the part about building 10 single-room buildings in a day for $5,000 each.
Did anything ever come of that with other employees? Or is that a case where the company also had no idea what they were giving people to sign and aren't aware that they own all of this IP?
There's a distinct difference. In one case, someone is paying advertising money for a publication to run their ad. In the other, someone is running an unpaid opinion piece in their own publication. If that person wants to pay a dollar or $3 billion or whatever the price might be to purchase that publication, fine. But the distinction is there. The thing is that I'm not willing to say that publications are not allowed to run political opinion pieces. I'm saying that they should not be allowed to run paid political advertisements.
People who hear the word "mayday" and think "socialism" instead of "distress" are probably not exactly the target audience here.
without looking into it, fight against it
and they're also willfully ignorant, and probably relatively stupid.
What is it that Javascript does that I cannot do with an alternative language just as or more effectively?
If you're asking in the context of a web browser, then Javascript is the only realistic option for a dynamic UI. If you're asking about Node.js on the server, then Javascript support on the server isn't something you can disable in the first place if you're running Node. If you're not running Node, then obviously you don't need Javascript on the server.
Why is it I need Javascript?
Because you want or need to use an application that requires it. I assume you're talking generally and not asking anyone to comment on your specific situation without giving any other details about your use patterns or needs.
Who said the employee couldn't use heart medication? The employee is still free to obtain and use heart medication on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair.
Who said the employee couldn't use a pacemaker? The employee is still free to obtain and use a pacemaker on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair.
Who said the employee couldn't use insulin? The employee is still free to obtain and use insulin on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair.
Who said the employee couldn't use chemotherapy drugs? The employee is still free to obtain and use chemotherapy drugs on their own or through a provision - it just isn't forced upon the company to purchase it which seems equally fair.
None of those statements really seem all that fair. I mean, if the purpose of health insurance is to provide the insured with medication or medical devices at a reduced cost, how is it fair to exclude certain approved devices because of arbitrary personal reasons? If I have a moral objection to the implantation of machines into a body, am I allowed to decide that my company isn't going to cover pacemakers when essentially all others do? Is that really a fair thing for me to do?
Potato patahto. Tomato Tomahto.
It's not a difference in pronunciation, it's 2 completely different terms. One of them is "May Day", written with a space, it's 2 words, and refers to a holiday. The other one is "Mayday", without a space, 1 word, an international distress call that has nothing to do with the holiday. You see socialism because you're looking for socialism. There is no connection. It also has nothing to do with lesbians, I'm not sure what the point of even posting that was. You are making a false association where none exists. The only significance is that the PAC was launched on May 1, but they still did not call it "May Day". It is "Mayday PAC" or "MAYDAY PAC" depending on where they print it. It is never "May Day PAC", so it is disingenuous for you to say the name is "May Day". It isn't. Again, this is not a difference in pronunciation, when you typed that name out you actually pressed a key to insert a space where there shouldn't be one, thus changing the name to something that it's not.
The name isn't "May Day", it's Mayday.
There is NOTHING more important in our society than the freedom to speak about political issues.
I agree with that. I can speak about political issues, you can speak about political issues, that's fantastic. Look, we're doing it right now with zero threat of retaliation from the government. I do not see that as even in the same ballpark as me or you paying a hundred million dollars to have our opinion shown on prime time TV for the purpose of swaying local elections in jurisdictions that we have nothing to do with. Let those people decide who they want to elect without our influence.
If you see no difference between Sheldon Adelson buying an ad in the NYTimes and buying the NYTimes itself and ordering it to run his positions, then there is no hope for you. All banning the first and permitting the second is raising the cost of the ad.
Great. The market cap of the NY Times company is 2.28 billion dollars. If Adelson wants to pay that in order to run an ad that would really only have marginal impact, and would obviously be seen as opinion, then let him do that. I'm willing to have him pay $2 billion to run his ad instead of a few million. $2 billion might make him actually think about whether he really wants to do that, and what he is going to do with the company after he runs the ad.