Nope. Wrong syntax. String variables required $ AFTER the variable name (which could only be one or two characters; any more characters were ignored. This made BANANA and BALL the same variable.). Integer variables had a % after them. Floating point variables were unqualified.
Also, a comma in a PRINT statement inserted a tab. A semicolon inserted nothing.
The correct syntax should be:
10 B = 9 * 9
20 PRINT "9 times 9 is ";B;".:D"
The math error did happen, though.
Yes, I did this from memory. You never forget your first programming language...
So, how do you feel about the "Nuremburg Files?" That was the web site that gave personal information on Abortion doctors in America. As they were murdered, their pictures were drawn over with a red X.
Is this protected speech? What is the difference between this and websites that organize violent protests? Do you just like the politics of one better than the other?
I think you misunderstanding the beauty of expressing the Golden Rule in the negative. The Jesus version, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", is a positive action. Therefore, if I like being whipped, than I should whip other people. Hillel's version encourages a lack of action. Therefore, if I don't like something, I shouldn't do it to someone else. It says nothing about actually doing something to or for someone else.
The former encourages people to do things to someone else "for their own good." This is the root of much of the evil in the world (the path to hell being paved with good intentions). The latter encourages people to leave each other alone. Personally, I'll take the latter.
We're better off trying to encourage democratic initiatives in these places.
Spain is a democracy, you fuckwit. And so is Israel. Israel has been trying to give back the West Bank and Gaza since August, 1967. Look it up. Problem is, the Arabs don't want peace; they want to kill Jews. Jews are tired of being killed whenever someone in the world is looking for a scapegoat, and are fighting back. This makes the Arabs mad and confuses the Europeans, who want to know what happened to their favorite punching bags.
You are suffering under the all-to-common belief that terrorists are some sort of misguided Robin Hoods, out to redress wrongs. They're not. They are cold-blooded murdering thugs who want to impose their beliefs on a world that would never voluntarily agree to their insane ideas. So they intimidate fools like you into believing that if you just give in to their demands, then they'll go away.
the real goal should be to eliminate the conditions that make so many people sympathetic to terrorists.
Shutting down Berkeley would be a good first step.
If the US wants to stop Hezbollah and Hamas (who have no designs on the US, but that's another story)
The US wants to stop ETA, the Basque separatists in Spain. ETA has no designs on the US. They are officially a terrorist group according to the State Dept., and giving money to them is a felony. So, is there some massive Spanish conspiracy to secretly control the US? Or do you have a double standard when it comes to terrorist groups that threaten Jews rather than Europeans?
Unless you can redesign that Rage 128 Pro by yourself, and add support for T&L and textures that aren't powers of two in length or width, Quartz Extreme isn't going to work on your computer.
Unfortunately, people have gotten their brains stuck on the amount of VRAM a card has. It's not so much the VRAM as it is the functionality of the video card (well, more VRAM does help, of course. But it's not the limiting reagent).
But there was no need for Apple to add this itself. Instead it created an open API for iPhoto, to let anyone write their own tools. Several people have done so (for example, the Toast guys have a tool to burn a CD of images with the click of a button, and another tool generates better and more flexible web pages than the built-in HTML export).
If some email client wants to add support for mailing images via iPhoto, let it do so. It's not up to Apple to write hacks that might break in the future in order to support third parties, especially when there's a clean API to allow third parties to integrate properly.
Clearly you know nothing about retail. Large supermarket chains SELL shelf space to companies. They sell floor display space to companies. Big companies will buy excess shelf space just to keep smaller competitors out of the stores. Most of these "new" soft drinks are actually produced by one of the already-existing big companies. It's nearly impossible to break in with a new drink without a big company behind you.
Learn something about business and then I'll give your views a smidgen of respect.
So a market with two competitors a little scope for others is better than a market with one player, but it is not correct according to the holy free market theory.
Well, yes.
You don't seem to understand that the focus of antitrust law isn't helping other COMPANIES, it's helping CONSUMERS.
If you have two large companies in a market competing with each other, the consumers are going to win. If you have two (or more) companies in a market who are working as a cartel, or if you have one company in a market, you have a monopoly situation, and consumers aren't going to benefit.
If you are stupid enough to go into an established market and try to compete, the government isn't going to bail you out if you are unable to compete. For example, if you start a soft drink company and fail, you have no recourse if you feel cheated by the fact that Coke and Pepsi combined own over 90% of the market.
There is the occasional exception to the iApps "just" being stand-alone and models for developers. For instance, iPhoto ignores the email client setting in OS X, only offering to use Apple's Mail. (There are hacks to change this, but that's not the point.) This perhaps is an example of Microsoft-like, or at least dumb, behavior.
The problem is scripting, not monopoly behavior; iPhoto works with Mail by using AppleEvents. There is no standard suite of AppleEvents for mail programs, and even if there was, Apple has no way to know if a given mail program does support this hypothetical scripting suite.
The patcher was written by a guy who figured out the scripting commands for a bunch of third-party mail programs, and from what I can tell, it's not a 100% emulation of what iPhoto can do with Apple's own Mail program.
Like the President's response on SALT talks "Trust, but verify."
OK, fine. How do you plan to verify? The source of the information on government wiretaps is...the government! If they wanted to lie, how are you going to get the real numbers? Trust a whistleblower? How do you know the whistleblower is telling the truth?
In short, how can you be scared of the potential for abuse, when you are trusting the potential abuser to tell you if he is guilty?
My ultimate point is -- we have three branches of gov't for a reason. Oversight of one by the others is a critical part of our gov'ts design. We do NOT need to loosen the rules for spying on our own citizens. Judicial oversight is NECESSARY to protect the freedoms of Americans.
I don't think anyone is arguing about that; I certainly am not. I like the three branches of government, and I like judicial oversight. I just don't think that wiretaps are this awful threat to the rights of Americans and that scare numbers are being used to make it seem like they are. Your implication that anyone who isn't scared by wiretaps is in favor of an opressive government is insulting.
And for a more amazing thing, the official federal numbers say 1139 wiretaps in 2000, while the watchdog report says 1190, which explains why I have one number at the top of my post and another at the bottom. I think the feds might be right on this one.
So I went to the site you suggested, and it pretty much contradicts what you are saying.
First of all, the number of wire taps DROPPED from 1350 to 1190 between 1999 and 2000. What happened, did Big Brother give everyone time off for subservient behavior?
Secondly, despite your claim that there' s a lot of concern about "non-targets", virtally no wire taps were refused between 1996 and 2000 (3; 2 in 1998 and 1 in 1996). Only 23% of the conversations taped were "incriminating" and 196 people were intercepted on the average wire tap. Whose concern are you talking about, exactly?
Now, as for the number of people who are targets of these wire taps. Well, I can't find an exact number, but there is an interesting table that shows the arrests and convictions that came from the use of wire taps. While the number of wire taps has gone up, more or less, the number of convictions is sorta going up, but not so convincingly. The number of convictions from wire taps have gone (from 1990 to 2000) 1734, 2084, 2234, 2358, 2535, 2910, 2302, 2395, 2721, 1977, 736. The figures are tricky to work with, because as time goes on, you can get more arrests and convictions; for example, one person was arrested in 2000 based on a wire tap in 1990.
The data also shows a ratio of more than one conviction per wire tap (except in 2000, presumably because many of these cases were still in trial when the statistics were being collected). Now we need to take the above numbers, compare them to the number of overall wiretap, figure in population growth, and we'll get an idea of what's going on with the use of wire tapping.
You can find this table at http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap00/table900.pdf and many other wiretaps statistics at http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap00/contents.html
Another chart breaks out the types of wiretaps issued. Unfortunately, cell phones aren't broken out from other kinds of phones, but oral and electronic (pager, fax, email) are. There were 71 "combination" wire taps, which means a wire tap that fell into more than one of the three categories.
And, as a final bit of info, in 2000, of the 1139 wiretaps requested, only 472 were by the feds. So everyone worried about John Ashcroft and the FBI should really be looking at their friendly cop on the beat.
And I don't buy your figures. Court orders for wire taps on cell phones (and pagers and email) are increasing rapidly:
Wiretaps on cell phones, pagers, e-mail and other electronic communication devices nearly tripled in 1998 and, for the first time, wiretaps on cellular phones outnumbered wiretaps on conventional phones. (USA Today)
Pagers might have been common in 1988, but not cell phones. That means you might get 2 wire taps per person. But now, you'd get at least 4, with little fear of "non-targets"; after all, a cell phone and an email address are considered pretty personal items.
What you're talking about is putting a wire tap on a family member's phone. This is problematic. On a cell phone? Not an issue.
Until you tell me how many PEOPLE wiretaps were issued for, I'm going to not put any creedance in those numbers. If you do and the figures show some sort of impressive jump, then I'll be worried.
See, that's called being rational. When people start mumbling about "Big Brother" then I start doubting their rationality.
First question: how many PEOPLE were those wiretaps approved for? After all, a single person often has more than one phone, and every phone line requires another wiretap request. Back in the day (pre AT&T breakup, which quite possibly happened before most slashdotters were alive), getting a new phone line took a hell of a long time. Now, I can get a new land line in a week, and a new cell phone in an hour. Each one would require a new wiretap request. If I know this, so do drug dealers, mafioso, and terrorists.
Second question: Is the number of PEOPLE getting wiretaps going up RELATIVE TO THE POPULATION of the country? There are something like 20 million more people in the US than there were when Regan started his presidency.
Once we have normalized the data, we can properly evaluate the hysteria. My guess is that you'll get far different results when you think about what the raw numbers mean, but that doesn't advance the "government bad" agenda of some people, so scare numbers are used instead.
This is horseshit. As Steve himself wrote back to Fortune, his options are underwater; they are, in effect, worthless. He even offered to sell them to Forture at face value. Fortune declined.
That said, Steve is still probably a billionaire. But get your freaking facts straight.
According to the CS dept. web site, the curriculum for a CS major is: Core Computer Science Curriculum (28 credits) This includes the following courses: Computer Science I Computer Science II Data Structures and Algorithms Computer Organization Programming Languages Models of Computation Software Design and Documentation * Computer Science Options (12 credits) Chosen from courses such as the following: Computer Algorithms Operating Systems Computer Architecture Microprocessor Systems Numerical Computing Graphical Human-Machine Interfaces Computer Communication Networks Computer Graphics Computability Artificial Intelligence Graph Theory Database Fundamentals Compiler Design Network Programming Computer Aided Design Computer Hardware Design * Mathematics (16 credits) The following courses are required: Calculus I Calculus II Discrete Structures one additional math course * Science (8 credits) two of the following: physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and earth science. * Humanities and Social Sciences (24 credits) * Free electives (36 credits)
There are more free electives than when I was there. CS majors had to take Calc I, II, III, Intro to Dif Eq, and one more math class. Discrete Structures used to count as a CS class, not a math class. There was also more science: I was required to take Physics I (mechanics), II (E&M), III (a survey of modern physics), and Chem I. I also took Astronomy I.
Of course, with all those free electives (and RPI not having very many easy classes), you'd probably end up taking some extra science along the way.
If you want a good education, RPI is a great place to go. If you're looking for a great social life, RPI may not be so great. It was 80% men when I was there, and I don't know if that has changed, either. And unlike Olin, RPI is a very expensive place to get an education. Almost everyone is on financial aid, and it's all need based (or once again, was when I was there).
The anti-humanities yahoos produced by most computer science "curricula" are proud of their ignorance of history, literature, and the proper usage of their native language. This sickens me.
You're not talking about me, because I have a minor in Lit to go with my BS and MS in Computer Science. And I went to a school that required CS majors to take physics, chem, and multiple semesters of calculus.
Now, how many people have graduated with degrees in Liturature and have minors in CS? And how many of those Lit majors have taken college-level courses in Mechanics, E&M, Chemistry, Optics, or Calculus? I bet you even cracked a smile when I described that background, because virtually everyone with a Lit degree thinks that entering a classroom that teaches science or math will cause a raging case of the cooties.
Well-educated computer geeks vastly outnumber well-educated humanities majors. Accept it.
The idea of a liberal arts education is often presented as being the opposite of an engineering or scientific education, but let's just review what the seven liberal arts actually were, shall we? Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. Science and math were strongly represented; enough said.
And in light of the corruption of the meaning of "Liberal Arts", we should remember that they were intended to be the things that "every free man should know." Note that they are not the ONLY thing a free man should know.
The anti-science yahoos produced by most liberal arts "schools" are proud of their lack of practical knowledge. This sickens me.
So by your arguement, AOL TW can and should stop all traffic it deems unacceptable. And that would be free speech.
Yes, yes it is.
AOW/TW has nothing even close to resembling a monopoly on internet access, so government oversight isn't going to kick in.
Freedom of speech also means that you can choose what NOT to say. If you owned a newspaper (or maybe a web site), would you like it if you were forced to include items you don't want?
Passing and understanding a course on civics should be a requirement before using the phrases "free speech" or "constitutional" in a post.
I thought of that, but I'm not sure that you're right (hence my posting). Again, I'm a bit rusty on my Bayesian work, but I don't think it's quite that simple.
If you are doing real Bayesian analysis, you need to keep track of which words (token, really) appear TOGETHER in a message, and if those words all appear, then is that message spam or not spam what percent of the time? You also need to evaluate sub-sets of the list of tokens. Since there are quite a lot of tokens per message, you hit a combinatorial explosion for even a short message. That's a lot of info to keep around.
I think that Graham is using a short-cut, and is simply multiplying frequency analysis of single tokens (no combinations of tokens) together.
Or, as I said before, I could be completely forgetting my statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, a comma in a PRINT statement inserted a tab. A semicolon inserted nothing.
The correct syntax should be:
10 B = 9 * 9
20 PRINT "9 times 9 is ";B;". :D"
The math error did happen, though.
Yes, I did this from memory. You never forget your first programming language...
-jon
Is this protected speech? What is the difference between this and websites that organize violent protests? Do you just like the politics of one better than the other?
-jon
Apple's iDisks are just WebDAV folders. Apple isn't going to sue anyone over offering WebDAV.
-jon
The former encourages people to do things to someone else "for their own good." This is the root of much of the evil in the world (the path to hell being paved with good intentions). The latter encourages people to leave each other alone. Personally, I'll take the latter.
-jon
Do unto others as others would reasonably have you do unto them.
And the correct version of it is the one given by Hillel (75BC - 15AD, give or take a few years): "Do not do to others what is hateful to yourself."
Phrasing it as a negative makes it possible and moral.
-jon
Spain is a democracy, you fuckwit. And so is Israel. Israel has been trying to give back the West Bank and Gaza since August, 1967. Look it up. Problem is, the Arabs don't want peace; they want to kill Jews. Jews are tired of being killed whenever someone in the world is looking for a scapegoat, and are fighting back. This makes the Arabs mad and confuses the Europeans, who want to know what happened to their favorite punching bags.
You are suffering under the all-to-common belief that terrorists are some sort of misguided Robin Hoods, out to redress wrongs. They're not. They are cold-blooded murdering thugs who want to impose their beliefs on a world that would never voluntarily agree to their insane ideas. So they intimidate fools like you into believing that if you just give in to their demands, then they'll go away.
the real goal should be to eliminate the conditions that make so many people sympathetic to terrorists.
Shutting down Berkeley would be a good first step.
-jon
The US wants to stop ETA, the Basque separatists in Spain. ETA has no designs on the US. They are officially a terrorist group according to the State Dept., and giving money to them is a felony. So, is there some massive Spanish conspiracy to secretly control the US? Or do you have a double standard when it comes to terrorist groups that threaten Jews rather than Europeans?
-jon
Unfortunately, people have gotten their brains stuck on the amount of VRAM a card has. It's not so much the VRAM as it is the functionality of the video card (well, more VRAM does help, of course. But it's not the limiting reagent).
-jon
If some email client wants to add support for mailing images via iPhoto, let it do so. It's not up to Apple to write hacks that might break in the future in order to support third parties, especially when there's a clean API to allow third parties to integrate properly.
-jon
Learn something about business and then I'll give your views a smidgen of respect.
-jon
Well, yes.
You don't seem to understand that the focus of antitrust law isn't helping other COMPANIES, it's helping CONSUMERS.
If you have two large companies in a market competing with each other, the consumers are going to win. If you have two (or more) companies in a market who are working as a cartel, or if you have one company in a market, you have a monopoly situation, and consumers aren't going to benefit.
If you are stupid enough to go into an established market and try to compete, the government isn't going to bail you out if you are unable to compete. For example, if you start a soft drink company and fail, you have no recourse if you feel cheated by the fact that Coke and Pepsi combined own over 90% of the market.
-jon
The problem is scripting, not monopoly behavior; iPhoto works with Mail by using AppleEvents. There is no standard suite of AppleEvents for mail programs, and even if there was, Apple has no way to know if a given mail program does support this hypothetical scripting suite.
The patcher was written by a guy who figured out the scripting commands for a bunch of third-party mail programs, and from what I can tell, it's not a 100% emulation of what iPhoto can do with Apple's own Mail program.
-jon
OK, fine. How do you plan to verify? The source of the information on government wiretaps is...the government! If they wanted to lie, how are you going to get the real numbers? Trust a whistleblower? How do you know the whistleblower is telling the truth?
In short, how can you be scared of the potential for abuse, when you are trusting the potential abuser to tell you if he is guilty?
-jon
I don't think anyone is arguing about that; I certainly am not. I like the three branches of government, and I like judicial oversight. I just don't think that wiretaps are this awful threat to the rights of Americans and that scare numbers are being used to make it seem like they are. Your implication that anyone who isn't scared by wiretaps is in favor of an opressive government is insulting.
-jon
And for a more amazing thing, the official federal numbers say 1139 wiretaps in 2000, while the watchdog report says 1190, which explains why I have one number at the top of my post and another at the bottom. I think the feds might be right on this one.
-jon
First of all, the number of wire taps DROPPED from 1350 to 1190 between 1999 and 2000. What happened, did Big Brother give everyone time off for subservient behavior?
Secondly, despite your claim that there' s a lot of concern about "non-targets", virtally no wire taps were refused between 1996 and 2000 (3; 2 in 1998 and 1 in 1996). Only 23% of the conversations taped were "incriminating" and 196 people were intercepted on the average wire tap. Whose concern are you talking about, exactly?
Now, as for the number of people who are targets of these wire taps. Well, I can't find an exact number, but there is an interesting table that shows the arrests and convictions that came from the use of wire taps. While the number of wire taps has gone up, more or less, the number of convictions is sorta going up, but not so convincingly. The number of convictions from wire taps have gone (from 1990 to 2000) 1734, 2084, 2234, 2358, 2535, 2910, 2302, 2395, 2721, 1977, 736. The figures are tricky to work with, because as time goes on, you can get more arrests and convictions; for example, one person was arrested in 2000 based on a wire tap in 1990.
The data also shows a ratio of more than one conviction per wire tap (except in 2000, presumably because many of these cases were still in trial when the statistics were being collected). Now we need to take the above numbers, compare them to the number of overall wiretap, figure in population growth, and we'll get an idea of what's going on with the use of wire tapping.
You can find this table at http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap00/table900.pdf and many other wiretaps statistics at http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap00/contents.html
Another chart breaks out the types of wiretaps issued. Unfortunately, cell phones aren't broken out from other kinds of phones, but oral and electronic (pager, fax, email) are. There were 71 "combination" wire taps, which means a wire tap that fell into more than one of the three categories.
And, as a final bit of info, in 2000, of the 1139 wiretaps requested, only 472 were by the feds. So everyone worried about John Ashcroft and the FBI should really be looking at their friendly cop on the beat.
Amazing things, numbers.
-jon
Wiretaps on cell phones, pagers, e-mail and other electronic communication devices nearly tripled in 1998 and, for the first time, wiretaps on cellular phones outnumbered wiretaps on conventional phones. (USA Today)
Pagers might have been common in 1988, but not cell phones. That means you might get 2 wire taps per person. But now, you'd get at least 4, with little fear of "non-targets"; after all, a cell phone and an email address are considered pretty personal items.
What you're talking about is putting a wire tap on a family member's phone. This is problematic. On a cell phone? Not an issue.
Until you tell me how many PEOPLE wiretaps were issued for, I'm going to not put any creedance in those numbers. If you do and the figures show some sort of impressive jump, then I'll be worried.
See, that's called being rational. When people start mumbling about "Big Brother" then I start doubting their rationality.
-jon
First question: how many PEOPLE were those wiretaps approved for? After all, a single person often has more than one phone, and every phone line requires another wiretap request. Back in the day (pre AT&T breakup, which quite possibly happened before most slashdotters were alive), getting a new phone line took a hell of a long time. Now, I can get a new land line in a week, and a new cell phone in an hour. Each one would require a new wiretap request. If I know this, so do drug dealers, mafioso, and terrorists.
Second question: Is the number of PEOPLE getting wiretaps going up RELATIVE TO THE POPULATION of the country? There are something like 20 million more people in the US than there were when Regan started his presidency.
Once we have normalized the data, we can properly evaluate the hysteria. My guess is that you'll get far different results when you think about what the raw numbers mean, but that doesn't advance the "government bad" agenda of some people, so scare numbers are used instead.
-jon
That said, Steve is still probably a billionaire. But get your freaking facts straight.
-jon
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY.
According to the CS dept. web site, the curriculum for a CS major is:
Core Computer Science Curriculum (28 credits) This includes the following courses:
Computer Science I
Computer Science II
Data Structures and Algorithms
Computer Organization
Programming Languages
Models of Computation
Software Design and Documentation
* Computer Science Options (12 credits) Chosen from courses such as the following:
Computer Algorithms
Operating Systems
Computer Architecture
Microprocessor Systems
Numerical Computing
Graphical Human-Machine Interfaces
Computer Communication Networks
Computer Graphics Computability
Artificial Intelligence
Graph Theory
Database Fundamentals
Compiler Design
Network Programming
Computer Aided Design
Computer Hardware Design
* Mathematics (16 credits) The following courses are required:
Calculus I
Calculus II
Discrete Structures
one additional math course
* Science (8 credits) two of the following: physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and earth science.
* Humanities and Social Sciences (24 credits)
* Free electives (36 credits)
There are more free electives than when I was there. CS majors had to take Calc I, II, III, Intro to Dif Eq, and one more math class. Discrete Structures used to count as a CS class, not a math class. There was also more science: I was required to take Physics I (mechanics), II (E&M), III (a survey of modern physics), and Chem I. I also took Astronomy I.
Of course, with all those free electives (and RPI not having very many easy classes), you'd probably end up taking some extra science along the way.
If you want a good education, RPI is a great place to go. If you're looking for a great social life, RPI may not be so great. It was 80% men when I was there, and I don't know if that has changed, either. And unlike Olin, RPI is a very expensive place to get an education. Almost everyone is on financial aid, and it's all need based (or once again, was when I was there).
-jon
Damn it. I need a spell checker. Of course, that should be Literature.
-jon
You're not talking about me, because I have a minor in Lit to go with my BS and MS in Computer Science. And I went to a school that required CS majors to take physics, chem, and multiple semesters of calculus.
Now, how many people have graduated with degrees in Liturature and have minors in CS? And how many of those Lit majors have taken college-level courses in Mechanics, E&M, Chemistry, Optics, or Calculus? I bet you even cracked a smile when I described that background, because virtually everyone with a Lit degree thinks that entering a classroom that teaches science or math will cause a raging case of the cooties.
Well-educated computer geeks vastly outnumber well-educated humanities majors. Accept it.
-jon
And in light of the corruption of the meaning of "Liberal Arts", we should remember that they were intended to be the things that "every free man should know." Note that they are not the ONLY thing a free man should know.
The anti-science yahoos produced by most liberal arts "schools" are proud of their lack of practical knowledge. This sickens me.
-jon
Yes, yes it is.
AOW/TW has nothing even close to resembling a monopoly on internet access, so government oversight isn't going to kick in.
Freedom of speech also means that you can choose what NOT to say. If you owned a newspaper (or maybe a web site), would you like it if you were forced to include items you don't want?
Passing and understanding a course on civics should be a requirement before using the phrases "free speech" or "constitutional" in a post.
-jon
If you are doing real Bayesian analysis, you need to keep track of which words (token, really) appear TOGETHER in a message, and if those words all appear, then is that message spam or not spam what percent of the time? You also need to evaluate sub-sets of the list of tokens. Since there are quite a lot of tokens per message, you hit a combinatorial explosion for even a short message. That's a lot of info to keep around.
I think that Graham is using a short-cut, and is simply multiplying frequency analysis of single tokens (no combinations of tokens) together.
Or, as I said before, I could be completely forgetting my statistics.
-jon