From a distance, the lights on a single house will blur into essentially a single pixel. The angle will be small enough that the eye won't differentiate between sources.
If enough houses were bright enough "pixels", seen from high enough, you really could make the world's largest electronic billboard. Remember, the eye doesn't see gaps as well as it sees light sources, so you don't need every house in an entire district to do this. From, say, an aircraft at 35,000 feet, three or four houses with 80,000+ lights over an area of ten square miles should be a sufficiently high density.
Now to work on getting enough uber-rich geeks for next Christmas who are strategically placed to spell out "Bah! Humbug!" and are close enough to a major air corridor to be seen...
I noticed that too. Curious, given it was their satellites that observed it, according to the reference I found. Apparently, their right webmaster knoweth not what their left webmaster doeth. With their infrared telescopes, anyways.
The reference discusses systems in general, but does include a brief section on the Earth's rings. The text of interest is at the start of page 4. Ignoring the stuff about the IRAS and COBE satellites, which imaged it, we have the following comment:
The Earth's ring corresponds to Case I in Figure 1, a circular ring with a gap at the location of the planet. However, the Earth's low mass means that it traps relatively few particles; the ring represents a density enhancement of only a few percent. This effect would scarcely appear in an image of the solar system seen from afar.
The rings are unstable and constantly evaporating, so only relatively young gas giants OR gas giants in relatively crowded solar systems should have rings. Uranus' inner moons, which are likely shepharding moons, are in unstable orbits and will likely collide in the next million years. If the rings were to survive that long, I doubt they could survive much longer without the inner moons being there.
Jupiter has thin rings, despite being bombarded a great deal more than Uranus or Saturn, though you'd need to talk to an expert in planetary physics if you have much of a hope of finding out why.
Of the rocky planets, Earth is the only one I know of that has a (natural) ring. It is extremely thin and usually ignored, but does exist. My guess, based on the theory that the moon is a result of a collision between an original Earth and some planet of comparable size, is that the ring is debris that was launched by the collision but did not congeal into the moon as it now is.
The multitude of rings of space junk launched by humans is stupid. That which cannot be retrieved for space museum purposes should be swept up and removed, before it becomes impossible to get into space at all.
Going back to the discoveries - I think it less of a surprise that the discoveries have occured (just think of how many new rings and moons have been discovered around Jupiter and Saturn) than it is a surprise that people haven't found anything before now for Uranus. Its rotation is so strange and its properties so bizare that I would have thought that planetary astronomers would have concentrated extra effort onto it. Discoveries do not come from studying the mundane, they come from studying the exceptions and understanding why and how they have become such.
Actually, Firefox didn't sleep in late that day. That's a cover story. It was embedded on the grassy knoll, in disguise.
The expert knowledge I want...
on
Firefox Secrets
·
· Score: 1
How to get Firefox to work nicely with the beta version of Yahoo mail. The javascript is TOTALLY broken. Actually, it's not the only site with broken javascript, but it is one of the worse examples and it is popular enough to be important.
How to get Firefox to work with sites that deliberately target IE and intentionally break Firefox.
How to import all of the cool easter eggs from earlier versions of Netscape's browser.
I know for a fact that Archie (the original FTP search engine) predates 1995, but it is arguable as to whether it could be said to be driven by a global server. The NIS/YP password/account system is also most definitely older and was designed to be run with a database replicated off a global server, but that might be considered too trivial an example.
Your best bet might be some of the early X.??? protocols, as many of these are pre-Internet - Europe ran off the International Packet Switch Stream in the stone age of computing, which was X.25-based and used its own databases for handling name resolution and other directories.
The Gopher and WAIS information servers were only ever Open Source, as far as I know. I know of no commercial servers for either.
The first web server was from CERN and was also Open Source, but as the web was really just a refinement on Gopher and WAIS, it is arguable as to how much that was really innovation.
TeX and Metafont - the first markup languages for typesetting and font creation, respectively - were and are Open Source.
ReiserFS and Lustre - Novel high-performance filesystems that arguably have predecessors, but introduced concepts and ideas that certainly did not exist in earlier systems.
PVM - Pretty much the original clustering technology.
OpenMOSIX - In many ways, this is derived from MOSIX, which in turn was inspired by Bproc from the Beowulf software. However, OpenMOSIX allows thread migration, not just process migration, which was an important leap forward and does not exist in prior technology.
I'd make a crappy libertarian. The closest I can think of in television would be Blake's 7, but many books are along that theme. I'd call Neuromancer fairly libertarian, along with a decent percentage of Arthur C. Clarke's works. An interesting 60's sci-fi novel "Seven Keys to Eden" in which most of the real power was held by a 100% libertarian group, the "Extrapolators", was one of the few stories that really held itself together for me.
In general, I dislike sci-fi that says "this is utopian" and/or "this is despotic". Sci-fi, for me, is about projecting ahead. Extrapolating. (No wonder I liked that novel.) If I want to listen to worshipful praise, there are plenty of channels that specialize in that. As for demonizing, there's always CSPAN. If the far distant future is a rehash of a Nader speech, it might be a good thing nobody has perfected cryogenics.
Oh, I expect that the far distant future really will have elements of libertarian thought. It'll also have elements of socialist thought, communist thought, feudal thought, conservative thought, etc. Same as our politics of today have elements of the political systems of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and elements of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. We tend to build on what we have, which means not only will we still keep what we have (or how would we build on it?) but what we have will not keep still (we're a species of sub-creators, impermanence is the essence of our being, change is the only constant).
Few things are wholly wrong, even less is wholly right, black-and-white thinking is a greater source of evil than any specific system. Any system can be made to work, with sufficient effort. Rigid thinking and bipolar societies are incapable of long-term survival, no matter what the effort.
Modular code is easier to maintain, so expect fewer bugs and a rapid explosion in the number of features. It is also (generally) easier for binary-only extensions, so expect more hardware vendors to support it.
Modular code means that the compiler cannot take advantage of any knowledge of other files when optimizing the code, but this doesn't matter much as the original tree didn't do that either. Commercially optimized versions of X might be fractionally larger and/or slower, though.
Gentoo users are in for an looooong run-up to Christmas. Especially if there is a bug in the e-build.
Fedora Core users will suffer greatly, unless the RPM specs correctly instruct RPM to deinstall legacy components from the old structure. Fedora users will also need to be careful about any RPM files that refer specifically to the old X11 RPMs. The same is true for other package-based distributions - package dependencies may not be tracked correctly, leading to outdated dependencies. At best, updates might fail unexpectedly.
Netcraft also confirms that the mammoth is dead.:)
Actually, I'm hoping that they'll put the sequence up on an FTP site. You can download mtDNA and nDNA sequences from a number of places. Even though I have absolutely no use for it, it would be cool - in a geeky kind of way - to have the data files on CD.
IANALSTOAOEKOTS (I Am Not A Lawyer, Stock Trader Or Anyone Else Knowledgable On The Subject), but I would assume it depends. I would assume a comment by a typical Joe Average would fall into the slander vs. first amendment category, even if they planned to buy ten stocks after the price dropped by a tenth of a cent. On the other hand, if this were done for the express purpose and expectation of making Juniper vulnerable to a hostile takeover, then I imagine the courts would treat it very differently. The "worst case" would be if it were shown that a rival network equiptment manufacturer had paid these people to make the statements.
I also believe that the first amendment is treated differently between "commercial" and "individual" speech, with individuals getting a LOT more protection. Well, in theory, at least. I imagine that if the intent was to profit, then the speech could be regarded as commercial and treated under the commercial interpretation.
Also, trading laws are convoluted to say the least. Insiders can't make trades based on information that isn't public, for example. Since these are supposed to be people who are former Juniper folks, there may be additional rules on what they can and cannot say which would not apply to others.
SHA-1 is not used to encrypt, but digest algorithms are often used in block encryption as part of the chaining algorithm. Generally, the key used for encryption is varied between blocks. The algorithm used - the "mode" - is a significant determinant of the speed and strength of the encryption. Digests are often used in strong encryption modes to adjust the key between each block, essentially signing every block.
RSA and ECC are not used for bulk encryption because they are computationally too expensive. If they were computationally cheap enough, nobody would use two-stage encryption. It adds vulnerability risks. Rather, RSA and ECC are used to encrypt keys for block and stream algorithms, which increases the risks (you now have to contend with the possibility of flaws in ANY of the algorithms used) and increases overhead (you have to have the code for every algorithm stored somewhere AND you have to contend with having a multi-layer system). It doesn't help that keys are going to be changed every so often, which means you also have to pick the right algorithm for every packet.
My point? I'd have thought that obvious. The entire process is unnecessarily slow and unnecessarily at risk of vulnerabilities.
You are correct, but only as far as you go. It is possible to compress first and then encrypt. Indeed, this is generally regarded as the superior method, precisely because the compression will disguise a lot of the information that cryptography will leave behind.
Secondly, cryptography is generally expensive on the CPU but cryptographic processors exist. Motorola's processor unit (before they spun it off) had a very nice unit called the S1, which could encrypt or decrypt four streams in parallel. They had a very nice manual, describing the complete protocol to communicate with it. Despite this, I never have yet seen a Linux driver for it. A pity, regardless of what you think of the S1, simply because it would have been a good opportunity to win over those who do use such chips.
TCP offload engines are also beginning to come into the picture. When TCP stacks didn't do a whole lot, it cost more to offload than you'd gain by having a co-processor. These days, a glance at the multitude of QoS protocols defined in papers, the staggering range of TCP algorithms in Linux, and the complex interleaving of the Netfilter layers -- it almost has to be better to have all that shoved onto a network processor.
(Notice that I'm including more than just the basic operations here. It's the ENTIRE multitude of layers that is expensive. Linux supports Layer 7 filtering, virtual servers, DCCP. There's even an MPLS patch, if anyone cares to forward-port it to a recent kernel. IGMPv3 isn't cheap, cycle-wise. Nor is IPSec.)
There is also the crypto method to consider, too. RSA is expensive but ECC and NTRU are considerably cheaper. SHA-1 is much slower than TIGER and is not clearly better. Whirlpool is also better than SHA-1 on speed and strength.
I'll also mention that OpenSSH is sub-optimal on the implementation, that there are patches out there to make it faster. I mentioned those the last time OpenSSH became a hot topic. Even if the patches themselves aren't "good enough", they must surely be evidence that it is possible to tighten the code a great deal in places. If nothing else, slow code is more vulnerable to DoS attacks.
...they then discover a "fair and balanced" gene which only existed in right-handed DNA.
Seriously, though, trademarks (supposedly) only apply if you've sufficient overlap to create the possibility of genuine confusion. I believe the burger chain lost its case against the McDonald clan, for example, and Apple Computers only escaped because they didn't (at the time) overlap in any way with Apple Music.
Furthermore, "pokemon" (which translates to Pocket Monster) might not even be a valid trademark. If there was a past history of the phrase in any form of "common usage", then it is a term in the public domain. I don't believe it matters how archaic the usage is. You probably couldn't run through a dictionary of pre-Imperial Roman words for objects and then trademark those exact objects with their corresponding words.
Hmmm. That's a thought. Let's try that. Everyone on Slashdot should find a dozen archaic words and trademark them. One of two things could happen. Either the trademark namespace becomes so polluted, the entire system grinds to a halt and a saner system is introduced; or someone realizes that words and phrases in the public domain can't be trademarked anyway, and all the crap already in the trademark system is kicked out.
Or the fifth. One of them, anyway. I'm pretty sure I submitted the title with mtDNA, not just DNA, but I could have missed that off. Either way, the paragraph of text does specify that it is mitochondrial DNA (which is still DNA - not my fault if someone else thinks nucleic).
I would agree, except for two important points. First, the President had specifically stated that wiretaps required court approval, and had NOT specifically gone to Congress' intelligence committee to get the whole proposed strategy approved. (By all accounts, there was no consultation, the information to the committee was extremely minimal, concerns were not addressed and secrecy prevented anything that might have led to exposure of the proposal.)
By implication, the action was taken without ensuring it was above-board. It seems to have been assumed that the President had the authority. However, early reports indicated that there were resignations from senior NSA officials, suggesting that even the NSA had deep concerns about the legality. And they aught to know the best, given that they have to comply to truly amazing standards.
Indeed, the President being "economic with the truth" (those from the UK or Australia might remember that phrase) would indicate that he was sufficiently unsure of the legality that even at the height of his popularity and power, he preferred to hedge his bets. All he would have needed to say was that the PATRIOT act did not give the powers suggested, and he would have been fine. He would have been honest AND would have avoided compromising his policy. By suggesting that the powers being asked about didn't exist - at all - he said something that he knew to be untrue.
Now, no sane person is going to expect people to be honest all of the time about classified matters, but as I noted, the deception was unnecessary. Whatever happens here on out, it won't be because of the actions (per se), any more than the flak Clinton suffered was because of the actions. People would probably be sympathetic on matters where no avenue of honest escape was possible - they usually are. When the public feels unnecessarily lied to (regardless of the reasons, motives, etc), it is much less likely to be tolerant.
It should also be considered that we're in the run-up to mid-term elections and politicians avoid Bad Publicity like the plague. (Actually more. A politician generally feels they can be cured of the plague.) At this point, renewal of the PATRIOT Act is seriously in question simply because those up for re-election who are too vocal about supporting it risk being chewed up and spit out. It is irrelevent as to how useful the act is or how important it is, because those aren't the concerns of the people who have the vote on the Senate floor. Their minds are solely occupied on the task of remaining on the Senate floor.
Either the issue had to be intentionally leaked at a time it would have been inconsequential - after an election, for example - or it had to be so totally watertight that the consequences could have been easily overcome. As it stands, the authority is unclear. Cheney has specifically stated that he feels that the War Powers Act and other such laws take too much power from the President, but that is a tacit acceptance that the laws are in direct conflict with what the President wants to do.
Again, that in itself was never a problem. After 9/11 or at the height of his power, he could have had such bills repealed. He could have had the laws governing intelligence gathering specifically amended to cover contingencies that were clearly well-enough defined. (If they weren't, then the spying could have been on anyone, even totally domestic. We're told that the spying was only on international communications and only on specified individuals. Someone, somewhere, had the specific instructions needed to decide if these criteria were being met. And if such instructions could exist in some office somewhere, they could also have existed on a bill to ammend one of the existing acts governing national security.)
I am trying really, really hard here not to bash anyone and to accept that some things I personally don't agree with may, in fact, be necessary for the good of the country. Necessary evil happens. I don't have to li
Slashdot Mirror
If enough houses were bright enough "pixels", seen from high enough, you really could make the world's largest electronic billboard. Remember, the eye doesn't see gaps as well as it sees light sources, so you don't need every house in an entire district to do this. From, say, an aircraft at 35,000 feet, three or four houses with 80,000+ lights over an area of ten square miles should be a sufficiently high density.
Now to work on getting enough uber-rich geeks for next Christmas who are strategically placed to spell out "Bah! Humbug!" and are close enough to a major air corridor to be seen...
It was because I was 2/3rds elf. No, no, it was because I discovered the Karma Chameleon. (Yeah, bad joke, I know...)
I noticed that too. Curious, given it was their satellites that observed it, according to the reference I found. Apparently, their right webmaster knoweth not what their left webmaster doeth. With their infrared telescopes, anyways.
The Earth's ring corresponds to Case I in Figure 1, a circular ring with a gap at the location of the planet. However, the Earth's low mass means that it traps relatively few particles; the ring represents a density enhancement of only a few percent. This effect would scarcely appear in an image of the solar system seen from afar.
It's the name of the discoverer, and no, it is NOT pronounced that way.
Jupiter has thin rings, despite being bombarded a great deal more than Uranus or Saturn, though you'd need to talk to an expert in planetary physics if you have much of a hope of finding out why.
Of the rocky planets, Earth is the only one I know of that has a (natural) ring. It is extremely thin and usually ignored, but does exist. My guess, based on the theory that the moon is a result of a collision between an original Earth and some planet of comparable size, is that the ring is debris that was launched by the collision but did not congeal into the moon as it now is.
The multitude of rings of space junk launched by humans is stupid. That which cannot be retrieved for space museum purposes should be swept up and removed, before it becomes impossible to get into space at all.
Going back to the discoveries - I think it less of a surprise that the discoveries have occured (just think of how many new rings and moons have been discovered around Jupiter and Saturn) than it is a surprise that people haven't found anything before now for Uranus. Its rotation is so strange and its properties so bizare that I would have thought that planetary astronomers would have concentrated extra effort onto it. Discoveries do not come from studying the mundane, they come from studying the exceptions and understanding why and how they have become such.
Actually, Firefox didn't sleep in late that day. That's a cover story. It was embedded on the grassy knoll, in disguise.
...would anyone read a book while eating kipper? Branding is easy, provided you stick the branding iron in the fire first.
Your best bet might be some of the early X.??? protocols, as many of these are pre-Internet - Europe ran off the International Packet Switch Stream in the stone age of computing, which was X.25-based and used its own databases for handling name resolution and other directories.
In general, I dislike sci-fi that says "this is utopian" and/or "this is despotic". Sci-fi, for me, is about projecting ahead. Extrapolating. (No wonder I liked that novel.) If I want to listen to worshipful praise, there are plenty of channels that specialize in that. As for demonizing, there's always CSPAN. If the far distant future is a rehash of a Nader speech, it might be a good thing nobody has perfected cryogenics.
Oh, I expect that the far distant future really will have elements of libertarian thought. It'll also have elements of socialist thought, communist thought, feudal thought, conservative thought, etc. Same as our politics of today have elements of the political systems of ancient Greece, ancient Rome and elements of the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. We tend to build on what we have, which means not only will we still keep what we have (or how would we build on it?) but what we have will not keep still (we're a species of sub-creators, impermanence is the essence of our being, change is the only constant).
Few things are wholly wrong, even less is wholly right, black-and-white thinking is a greater source of evil than any specific system. Any system can be made to work, with sufficient effort. Rigid thinking and bipolar societies are incapable of long-term survival, no matter what the effort.
However, if you want to set the background colors, you can now practice safe hex.
Maybe that explains the origin of accountants. Stone-age man had to use lossy encoding to fit the data onto the side of the cave wall.
...but it says later on that the mammoth was in the salad bar. Which makes sense, mammoths being vegetarian.
Actually, I'm hoping that they'll put the sequence up on an FTP site. You can download mtDNA and nDNA sequences from a number of places. Even though I have absolutely no use for it, it would be cool - in a geeky kind of way - to have the data files on CD.
I also believe that the first amendment is treated differently between "commercial" and "individual" speech, with individuals getting a LOT more protection. Well, in theory, at least. I imagine that if the intent was to profit, then the speech could be regarded as commercial and treated under the commercial interpretation.
Also, trading laws are convoluted to say the least. Insiders can't make trades based on information that isn't public, for example. Since these are supposed to be people who are former Juniper folks, there may be additional rules on what they can and cannot say which would not apply to others.
RSA and ECC are not used for bulk encryption because they are computationally too expensive. If they were computationally cheap enough, nobody would use two-stage encryption. It adds vulnerability risks. Rather, RSA and ECC are used to encrypt keys for block and stream algorithms, which increases the risks (you now have to contend with the possibility of flaws in ANY of the algorithms used) and increases overhead (you have to have the code for every algorithm stored somewhere AND you have to contend with having a multi-layer system). It doesn't help that keys are going to be changed every so often, which means you also have to pick the right algorithm for every packet.
My point? I'd have thought that obvious. The entire process is unnecessarily slow and unnecessarily at risk of vulnerabilities.
Secondly, cryptography is generally expensive on the CPU but cryptographic processors exist. Motorola's processor unit (before they spun it off) had a very nice unit called the S1, which could encrypt or decrypt four streams in parallel. They had a very nice manual, describing the complete protocol to communicate with it. Despite this, I never have yet seen a Linux driver for it. A pity, regardless of what you think of the S1, simply because it would have been a good opportunity to win over those who do use such chips.
TCP offload engines are also beginning to come into the picture. When TCP stacks didn't do a whole lot, it cost more to offload than you'd gain by having a co-processor. These days, a glance at the multitude of QoS protocols defined in papers, the staggering range of TCP algorithms in Linux, and the complex interleaving of the Netfilter layers -- it almost has to be better to have all that shoved onto a network processor.
(Notice that I'm including more than just the basic operations here. It's the ENTIRE multitude of layers that is expensive. Linux supports Layer 7 filtering, virtual servers, DCCP. There's even an MPLS patch, if anyone cares to forward-port it to a recent kernel. IGMPv3 isn't cheap, cycle-wise. Nor is IPSec.)
There is also the crypto method to consider, too. RSA is expensive but ECC and NTRU are considerably cheaper. SHA-1 is much slower than TIGER and is not clearly better. Whirlpool is also better than SHA-1 on speed and strength.
I'll also mention that OpenSSH is sub-optimal on the implementation, that there are patches out there to make it faster. I mentioned those the last time OpenSSH became a hot topic. Even if the patches themselves aren't "good enough", they must surely be evidence that it is possible to tighten the code a great deal in places. If nothing else, slow code is more vulnerable to DoS attacks.
They have enough trouble deciding whether BBQ sauce should have ketchup in it or not for pork. Besides, the hairs would singe.
Seriously, though, trademarks (supposedly) only apply if you've sufficient overlap to create the possibility of genuine confusion. I believe the burger chain lost its case against the McDonald clan, for example, and Apple Computers only escaped because they didn't (at the time) overlap in any way with Apple Music.
Furthermore, "pokemon" (which translates to Pocket Monster) might not even be a valid trademark. If there was a past history of the phrase in any form of "common usage", then it is a term in the public domain. I don't believe it matters how archaic the usage is. You probably couldn't run through a dictionary of pre-Imperial Roman words for objects and then trademark those exact objects with their corresponding words.
Hmmm. That's a thought. Let's try that. Everyone on Slashdot should find a dozen archaic words and trademark them. One of two things could happen. Either the trademark namespace becomes so polluted, the entire system grinds to a halt and a saner system is introduced; or someone realizes that words and phrases in the public domain can't be trademarked anyway, and all the crap already in the trademark system is kicked out.
Human DNA is a mammoth problem, right? Which means mammoth DNA must be a human problem.
Or the fifth. One of them, anyway. I'm pretty sure I submitted the title with mtDNA, not just DNA, but I could have missed that off. Either way, the paragraph of text does specify that it is mitochondrial DNA (which is still DNA - not my fault if someone else thinks nucleic).
By implication, the action was taken without ensuring it was above-board. It seems to have been assumed that the President had the authority. However, early reports indicated that there were resignations from senior NSA officials, suggesting that even the NSA had deep concerns about the legality. And they aught to know the best, given that they have to comply to truly amazing standards.
Indeed, the President being "economic with the truth" (those from the UK or Australia might remember that phrase) would indicate that he was sufficiently unsure of the legality that even at the height of his popularity and power, he preferred to hedge his bets. All he would have needed to say was that the PATRIOT act did not give the powers suggested, and he would have been fine. He would have been honest AND would have avoided compromising his policy. By suggesting that the powers being asked about didn't exist - at all - he said something that he knew to be untrue.
Now, no sane person is going to expect people to be honest all of the time about classified matters, but as I noted, the deception was unnecessary. Whatever happens here on out, it won't be because of the actions (per se), any more than the flak Clinton suffered was because of the actions. People would probably be sympathetic on matters where no avenue of honest escape was possible - they usually are. When the public feels unnecessarily lied to (regardless of the reasons, motives, etc), it is much less likely to be tolerant.
It should also be considered that we're in the run-up to mid-term elections and politicians avoid Bad Publicity like the plague. (Actually more. A politician generally feels they can be cured of the plague.) At this point, renewal of the PATRIOT Act is seriously in question simply because those up for re-election who are too vocal about supporting it risk being chewed up and spit out. It is irrelevent as to how useful the act is or how important it is, because those aren't the concerns of the people who have the vote on the Senate floor. Their minds are solely occupied on the task of remaining on the Senate floor.
Either the issue had to be intentionally leaked at a time it would have been inconsequential - after an election, for example - or it had to be so totally watertight that the consequences could have been easily overcome. As it stands, the authority is unclear. Cheney has specifically stated that he feels that the War Powers Act and other such laws take too much power from the President, but that is a tacit acceptance that the laws are in direct conflict with what the President wants to do.
Again, that in itself was never a problem. After 9/11 or at the height of his power, he could have had such bills repealed. He could have had the laws governing intelligence gathering specifically amended to cover contingencies that were clearly well-enough defined. (If they weren't, then the spying could have been on anyone, even totally domestic. We're told that the spying was only on international communications and only on specified individuals. Someone, somewhere, had the specific instructions needed to decide if these criteria were being met. And if such instructions could exist in some office somewhere, they could also have existed on a bill to ammend one of the existing acts governing national security.)
I am trying really, really hard here not to bash anyone and to accept that some things I personally don't agree with may, in fact, be necessary for the good of the country. Necessary evil happens. I don't have to li