I understand your point. A carpenter creates physical products, and thereby gets ownership, which is transferable to his inheritors. Doesn't a writer also create a product, and shouldn't they be able to give it to their estate just as a carpenter could?
Here's the big difference and the problem with the analogy: it's clear who nailed those nails. Either the carpenter did, or he paid someone else. No one did it for free. He paid for the nails, and for the land on which the house sits. There is a clear transfer of title to those items.
The differences is that with ideas, the original provenance is not as clear. The author added some value of his own, but largely used tools that were already in the public domain--for instance, the language in which it was written. The ideas for plots, characterizations, even the method of storytelling is hardly ever unique. The only unique thing is the particular ordering of the words into that very particular manner.
Perhaps that particular ordering should be regarded as the unique property of the creator and the creator's heirs, indefinitely. But any derivative work that changes the construction of the work should be regarded as a new work.
I don't believe that's true. If you mean the GSA, that's just search, not docs. The "docs for enterprise" stuff all mentions hosting on Google's cloud, even if you get your own domain. I'd love a link that proves me wrong.
The comments here about how collaborative editing can't possibly work beggar my experience and office reality.
Do most folks here really think that passing around versioned copies of Word docs in email is the most efficient way to work together? Or is it just what you're familiar with because you've been sucking on Microsoft's teat for 2 decades?
Docs works. It's not great as a word processor, but it's totally made up for with the collaboration that a team can do in realtime. Try it before you bag on it, because I might have to work for you next.
That's why Apple is getting out of the Enterprise market. They suck at it.
I wanted to support Apple as career. When I was ready to graduate from desktop to server support, I tried to follow them there--and failed. I gave up and moved to linux/cloud support.
Why, who knows. It can't be that hard; Red Hat does it reasonably, for less cost. I think it's just a lack of will, but they'll lose important mindshare due to it.
(and you forgot launchctl. last I looked c 10.4, it didn't always work. hint: before you replace tried and true things like cron, the replacement had better be bulletproof)
Tolkien could obviously leave his children all of they money he earned on his works during his lifetime. Also, his sons (and whoever else) has all the right to earn money on new works that they create.
At issue is the question if an inheritor should be able to earn new money on a creation that they had nothing to do with. And not for nothing, but the original creator did not wholly invent the work themselves. They used constructs of plot and form, and often tropes and characterizations, that were not developed exclusively by themselves.. They were working off of the creation of another author themselves. We should have the opportunity to do the same.
I like to think that's where the Reavers actually came from. Basically I've managed to ignore the "canon" of the movie.
I'm as big a fan of the series as you'll find, but I didn't care for the movie hardly at all. The tempo was wrong, the explanations were not credible and worst, the real strength of the show was the characters and yet in the movie the characters barely had time to talk to each other.
So: Reavers are pilgrims that have had their psyche blasted by the emptiness of space and ungrounding from Terra Firma; no one really knows how the human psyche would react after a decade in space, and there might be a profound mental effect.
And at $11,000 per incident (page view), it would quickly send Facebook into Chapter 11.
Sure it would. Facebook would simply exit Canada. Users would complain, but who gives a shit about them, right? But advertisers would also complain that they don't have access to that market anymore. And advertisers are just another word for business. Stoddard may really be anti-business, but I wonder if her bosses are, or if her new bosses would be.
Don't kid yourself. Facebook isn't going anywhere, not until the users stop using it.
Last year, it was our business to the tune of $2.5B of military aid. iirc, Israel remains the largest beneficiary of US foreign aid, although I wonder if Iraq or Afghanistan has surpassed that in recent years (non-military aid).
If Israel doesn't need that aid, as you suggest, I'd suggest that we keep it. I think it's precisely because of that aid, which is used to kill Palestinians, that we get planes flown into our buildings.
What we should be doing is hitting Islamist interests, so the rank and file Or, getting off oil so we can leave Israel to fend for itself. I do believe, and I haven't had it cogently disproven yet, that if we abandoned Israel the jihad against America would be halted. They might continue to hate us, sure; but I don't think it would continue to rise to the level of militancy. I could be wrong, but I believe that the basis of the jihad against America is because America funds Israel, and America remains a softer target than Israel. That's why I'm not sure that the terrorism is working, for we continue to fund Israel in spite of it, and in spite of the weakening our economy has taken.
just how poorly our government deals with anything more complicated than voting in their own raises.
Well, this same institution managed to fight and win a World War. I have a hard time accepting that 60 years has made that much difference. But it sure seems that if we were fighting the Germans now via Halliburton and Black Water, we'd all be a) a lot poorer, and b) speaking German.
As you conclude, the Military Industrial complex is the single biggest threat to the long term security of the US. Terrorism is just the excuse those guys are using to bleed us; and by bleed us, I mean "bleed out", not "skim". God help us if we fight in Afghanistan for another 10 years and then China takes on Taiwan. In a decade we may simply no longer have the financial resources available to fight them, and China clearly knows it. And are too happy to tie us up in regional bs skirmishes while we are our own worst enemy.
Certainly, I think the premise is true. It's why terrorism continues to be a tool, and why it's so hard to get rid of.
What's never been clear to me is how the economic impact to the target country helps towards the stated goals of the terrorists. Does Al Queda believe that if they depress our economy consistently enough, we will no longer be able to financially support Israel? History proves that not to be true.
Don't you guys have winter where you live? The advice to get "a fishing pole instead" is cute when it's 15F outside. See, I know that cause I live in the real world, informed by more than the life of a single male in California.
Especially when this advice is coming from folks that are, point of fact, not fishing themselves but are posting on Slashdot. What a bunch of pretentious fucks.
So why don't they just give up their computer line and start selling OS X for PCs? Plenty of people like it but not a lot are interested in buying overpriced Macs
Because it would be a lot harder to do, than release OS X for a platform that they control. If they did that, but only "supported" OS X on like, 6 models of Dell laptops, the bitching would never end as folks with other models would try and get OS X halfassedly working.
Plus, Jobs doesn't want to. And unless you're a shareholder of enough value to vote him off the board, he basically gets to do what he wants.
The power companies are clearly complaining about this now, because they're angling to have the Gov't step in and pay for their infrastructure upgrades. So they can "meet the needs of the new green economy, etc". Whatever, but it'll probably work. The power utilities are probably the only industry that can get away with charging the customer for the ability to sell the customer more product--most other industries require that the producer build infrastructure on spec, and then recoup that cost through sales. You think that when the Gov't does pay for this infrastructure upgrade, it will be restricted to green consumers? No. The utilities will be happy to take that payday and turn around and sell the power delivery to anyone, including polluters, and bitch about Gov't regulation of a private industry, when the Gov't attempts to legislate the delivery back to the original intent--the reason they paid for the infrastructure upgrade in the first place.
Anyways, I digress. Part of the problem of "green" energy production is that two of the favorite methods of generation, wind and solar, do not provide "base load"--neither provide for power generation all of the time, which is a problem since a consumer could want to use power all of the time. Well, one way to "flatten" out the delivery of that power is by storing the power when it's being generated, and pulling out of the storage when it's needed and the wind isn't blowing. Batteries are one form of storage.
What we have here is a group of consumers willing to purchase the most expensive part of the storage system--the battery. If the utilities were smart, they'd take advantage of this volunteerism. Perhaps by simply only charging these batteries only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining; if it takes 8 hrs to charge, but I have it plugged in for 12 hours a day, a smart sensor would opportunistically charge for those first 4 hours. If the wind is blowing during that time, fantastic. If it's not, then when it gets down to the 8 hr min charge time it starts pulling from any available resource. Or, even more aggressively, those car batteries could provide charge back to the grid during periods of unuse. They'd be opportunistically charged until full, and then provide power back to the grid when the wind stops blowing and there are other customers with demand.
The second strategy is a lot less likely to happen, at least at first. Consumers aren't going to be too happy to have a variable amount of available power in their cars at any given moment that they might want to go down to their movie rental store, so it might require some tight time zoning, etc. But I think the first is practical and reasonable--EV car owners would be a receptive demographic to agree to have their car charged only by alternative energy sources, even if that means that it might take a little longer and be a little more unpredictable, within reasonable standards. If the wind blows, on average, 30% of the time, I would be willing to wait around for the 5 hours of wind power out of the average 14 hours that I would have it plugged in.
Interesting in theory, but in practice every vote would then be unanimous. There's horse trading now, just to get laws passed--but once you have your majority, you no longer need to trade for the remaining votes. In the case where all of the votes that were cast would have an impact, every vote would be traded.
Then they'd be smarter than the average antitrust lawyer.
You assume that the anti-trust lawyer works in a vacuum. They don't. They work for whatever political party is in charge. The anti-trust lawsuit collapsed against Microsoft precisely because the judgement phase wasn't handed down until a republican was president. If the telcos own the party in control, they will not be subject to anti-trust regulation no matter what an anti-trust lawyer thinks.
At the most, the telcos will have to "negotiate" with the Republicans to the extent that the telcos agree to monitor their networks for terrism in exchange for no anti-trust prosecution. Your privacy and rights are easy enough for them to give away to protect their business interests.
Google, having forecasted this move, has already placed themselves at many peering points so they can peer themselves. They are, in a lot of respects, their own ISP.
Expect that when an ISP attempts to charge them, Google will in turn charge for peering rights with them. Probable result: stalemate. That's good for Google in particular, but still leaves a problem for the rest of the big content deliverers.
I was with you, until you cited Pirates and Iron Man as shining examples of great cinematic story quality. Both are derivative crap, frankly, and not worth owning the DVD of.
However, the point remains: movies shouldn't be about "flash", be it either CGI or long takes. Only cinema majors give a crap about that stuff. The rest of the public wants a story with unique, memorable characters who tell a story that is in some way relevant to the audience's own lives.
It was perhaps $1B / day for awhile, which stuck in my head. But according to here the cost of Iraq + Afghanistan since 2001 is $1.1T. It's an average of approximately $300M/day for the entire 10 year period. While $300M/day is less than $1B/day, the expense of $1.1T is nonetheless one of our largest expenses. A fiscally responsible budget will be impossible until those costs are accounted for, and I believe Congress is being dishonest in saying that they can accomplish a fiscally responsible budget as they have not provided a way to pay for it, or shown an inclination to dial down those expenses, either by withdrawing and cutting troops, or reining in defense spending.
And for the record, I did assume that we would collect oil profits from seized Iraq oil to pay for the war--it was advertised as a way to pay for it. What actually happened to that revenue I don't know, but I suspect it was used to rebuild the country's infrastructure.
At the end of the day, the newly elected GOP majority was elected on the platform that they would reduce government spending, but since they apparently don't have any heart to reduce military spending I don't think they'll be able to accomplish much, if any, real reduction or improvement of the US credit score.
Something I've learned as an old IT guy is that employee comfort is very under-rated.
That's very true. Moreover, as IT, it's not your decision to make those kinds of determinations wrt productivity. The best and most worthwhile things you can do: evaluate the alternatives. Reject the ones that are not feasible for good reason, eg cost too much, have security issues, data loss issues etc.
After you've sorted the crap out, you can determine the winner, and support that with training and support, etc. But it's not your job to force the other folks onto the preferred system--you should provide a federated way to communicate amongst any of the valid systems.
If the choice that you selected as primary really has benefit, the employees will migrate to it of their own accord. If cost is the biggest determinator, then it's really a problem for your financial dept or the management to require the change--and they will do it at their own speed and with their own priorities. But if you have selected a good robust system that has sufficient advantage over the others, the majority of users will migrate at their own speed, on their own terms when they finally get tired of not being able to do what they want to do.
Explain to me the effective differences in terms of actual fiscal policy between modern Democrats and Republicans.
When the GOP demonizes "tax and spend" as the other party's problem, they mean "spend on domestic social programs" and deliberately exclude US military spending. I think that's a pretty accurate summary, actually.
When you include US military spending as part of "spend", you will find that the GOP is worse on "tax and spend" than the Dems. They started a war that costs the US $1B a day, that has lasted 8 years, and provided no way to pay for it. That is a more egregious "tax and spend" program than any social program the Dems have initiated, "Obamacare" included.
If the GOP proposes a balanced budget that included the military budget and preserving Social Security, they'd be worth listening too. I expect that if they fail to produce an actual budget like that, they will again be voted out in 2012.
OTOH, if they do produce such a budget, Christ, I'll vote for them myself.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand your point. A carpenter creates physical products, and thereby gets ownership, which is transferable to his inheritors. Doesn't a writer also create a product, and shouldn't they be able to give it to their estate just as a carpenter could?
Here's the big difference and the problem with the analogy: it's clear who nailed those nails. Either the carpenter did, or he paid someone else. No one did it for free. He paid for the nails, and for the land on which the house sits. There is a clear transfer of title to those items.
The differences is that with ideas, the original provenance is not as clear. The author added some value of his own, but largely used tools that were already in the public domain--for instance, the language in which it was written. The ideas for plots, characterizations, even the method of storytelling is hardly ever unique. The only unique thing is the particular ordering of the words into that very particular manner.
Perhaps that particular ordering should be regarded as the unique property of the creator and the creator's heirs, indefinitely. But any derivative work that changes the construction of the work should be regarded as a new work.
I don't believe that's true. If you mean the GSA, that's just search, not docs. The "docs for enterprise" stuff all mentions hosting on Google's cloud, even if you get your own domain. I'd love a link that proves me wrong.
The comments here about how collaborative editing can't possibly work beggar my experience and office reality.
Do most folks here really think that passing around versioned copies of Word docs in email is the most efficient way to work together? Or is it just what you're familiar with because you've been sucking on Microsoft's teat for 2 decades?
Docs works. It's not great as a word processor, but it's totally made up for with the collaboration that a team can do in realtime. Try it before you bag on it, because I might have to work for you next.
That's why Apple is getting out of the Enterprise market. They suck at it.
I wanted to support Apple as career. When I was ready to graduate from desktop to server support, I tried to follow them there--and failed. I gave up and moved to linux/cloud support.
Why, who knows. It can't be that hard; Red Hat does it reasonably, for less cost. I think it's just a lack of will, but they'll lose important mindshare due to it.
(and you forgot launchctl. last I looked c 10.4, it didn't always work. hint: before you replace tried and true things like cron, the replacement had better be bulletproof)
Tolkien could obviously leave his children all of they money he earned on his works during his lifetime. Also, his sons (and whoever else) has all the right to earn money on new works that they create. At issue is the question if an inheritor should be able to earn new money on a creation that they had nothing to do with. And not for nothing, but the original creator did not wholly invent the work themselves. They used constructs of plot and form, and often tropes and characterizations, that were not developed exclusively by themselves.. They were working off of the creation of another author themselves. We should have the opportunity to do the same.
I like to think that's where the Reavers actually came from. Basically I've managed to ignore the "canon" of the movie.
I'm as big a fan of the series as you'll find, but I didn't care for the movie hardly at all. The tempo was wrong, the explanations were not credible and worst, the real strength of the show was the characters and yet in the movie the characters barely had time to talk to each other.
So: Reavers are pilgrims that have had their psyche blasted by the emptiness of space and ungrounding from Terra Firma; no one really knows how the human psyche would react after a decade in space, and there might be a profound mental effect.
Of course, Linux and LAMP are a strong competitors in the server space - but certainly not dominant.
How do you define dominant? Installed base, or sales? The "cloud" runs Linux. The only cloud running Windows that I'm aware of is Azure.
And at $11,000 per incident (page view), it would quickly send Facebook into Chapter 11.
Sure it would. Facebook would simply exit Canada. Users would complain, but who gives a shit about them, right? But advertisers would also complain that they don't have access to that market anymore. And advertisers are just another word for business. Stoddard may really be anti-business, but I wonder if her bosses are, or if her new bosses would be.
Don't kid yourself. Facebook isn't going anywhere, not until the users stop using it.
You have ruined Christmas for me.
Either way, it's not our business.
Last year, it was our business to the tune of $2.5B of military aid. iirc, Israel remains the largest beneficiary of US foreign aid, although I wonder if Iraq or Afghanistan has surpassed that in recent years (non-military aid).
If Israel doesn't need that aid, as you suggest, I'd suggest that we keep it. I think it's precisely because of that aid, which is used to kill Palestinians, that we get planes flown into our buildings.
What we should be doing is hitting Islamist interests, so the rank and file
Or, getting off oil so we can leave Israel to fend for itself. I do believe, and I haven't had it cogently disproven yet, that if we abandoned Israel the jihad against America would be halted. They might continue to hate us, sure; but I don't think it would continue to rise to the level of militancy. I could be wrong, but I believe that the basis of the jihad against America is because America funds Israel, and America remains a softer target than Israel. That's why I'm not sure that the terrorism is working, for we continue to fund Israel in spite of it, and in spite of the weakening our economy has taken.
just how poorly our government deals with anything more complicated than voting in their own raises.
Well, this same institution managed to fight and win a World War. I have a hard time accepting that 60 years has made that much difference. But it sure seems that if we were fighting the Germans now via Halliburton and Black Water, we'd all be a) a lot poorer, and b) speaking German.
As you conclude, the Military Industrial complex is the single biggest threat to the long term security of the US. Terrorism is just the excuse those guys are using to bleed us; and by bleed us, I mean "bleed out", not "skim". God help us if we fight in Afghanistan for another 10 years and then China takes on Taiwan. In a decade we may simply no longer have the financial resources available to fight them, and China clearly knows it. And are too happy to tie us up in regional bs skirmishes while we are our own worst enemy.
Certainly, I think the premise is true. It's why terrorism continues to be a tool, and why it's so hard to get rid of.
What's never been clear to me is how the economic impact to the target country helps towards the stated goals of the terrorists. Does Al Queda believe that if they depress our economy consistently enough, we will no longer be able to financially support Israel? History proves that not to be true.
Don't you guys have winter where you live? The advice to get "a fishing pole instead" is cute when it's 15F outside. See, I know that cause I live in the real world, informed by more than the life of a single male in California.
Especially when this advice is coming from folks that are, point of fact, not fishing themselves but are posting on Slashdot. What a bunch of pretentious fucks.
So why don't they just give up their computer line and start selling OS X for PCs? Plenty of people like it but not a lot are interested in buying overpriced Macs
Because it would be a lot harder to do, than release OS X for a platform that they control. If they did that, but only "supported" OS X on like, 6 models of Dell laptops, the bitching would never end as folks with other models would try and get OS X halfassedly working.
Plus, Jobs doesn't want to. And unless you're a shareholder of enough value to vote him off the board, he basically gets to do what he wants.
The power companies are clearly complaining about this now, because they're angling to have the Gov't step in and pay for their infrastructure upgrades. So they can "meet the needs of the new green economy, etc". Whatever, but it'll probably work. The power utilities are probably the only industry that can get away with charging the customer for the ability to sell the customer more product--most other industries require that the producer build infrastructure on spec, and then recoup that cost through sales. You think that when the Gov't does pay for this infrastructure upgrade, it will be restricted to green consumers? No. The utilities will be happy to take that payday and turn around and sell the power delivery to anyone, including polluters, and bitch about Gov't regulation of a private industry, when the Gov't attempts to legislate the delivery back to the original intent--the reason they paid for the infrastructure upgrade in the first place.
Anyways, I digress. Part of the problem of "green" energy production is that two of the favorite methods of generation, wind and solar, do not provide "base load"--neither provide for power generation all of the time, which is a problem since a consumer could want to use power all of the time. Well, one way to "flatten" out the delivery of that power is by storing the power when it's being generated, and pulling out of the storage when it's needed and the wind isn't blowing. Batteries are one form of storage.
What we have here is a group of consumers willing to purchase the most expensive part of the storage system--the battery. If the utilities were smart, they'd take advantage of this volunteerism. Perhaps by simply only charging these batteries only when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining; if it takes 8 hrs to charge, but I have it plugged in for 12 hours a day, a smart sensor would opportunistically charge for those first 4 hours. If the wind is blowing during that time, fantastic. If it's not, then when it gets down to the 8 hr min charge time it starts pulling from any available resource. Or, even more aggressively, those car batteries could provide charge back to the grid during periods of unuse. They'd be opportunistically charged until full, and then provide power back to the grid when the wind stops blowing and there are other customers with demand.
The second strategy is a lot less likely to happen, at least at first. Consumers aren't going to be too happy to have a variable amount of available power in their cars at any given moment that they might want to go down to their movie rental store, so it might require some tight time zoning, etc. But I think the first is practical and reasonable--EV car owners would be a receptive demographic to agree to have their car charged only by alternative energy sources, even if that means that it might take a little longer and be a little more unpredictable, within reasonable standards. If the wind blows, on average, 30% of the time, I would be willing to wait around for the 5 hours of wind power out of the average 14 hours that I would have it plugged in.
Those tests, when performed, regularly fail pretty spectacularly. It doesn't help the argument for TSA effectiveness.
Interesting in theory, but in practice every vote would then be unanimous. There's horse trading now, just to get laws passed--but once you have your majority, you no longer need to trade for the remaining votes. In the case where all of the votes that were cast would have an impact, every vote would be traded.
Then they'd be smarter than the average antitrust lawyer.
You assume that the anti-trust lawyer works in a vacuum. They don't. They work for whatever political party is in charge. The anti-trust lawsuit collapsed against Microsoft precisely because the judgement phase wasn't handed down until a republican was president. If the telcos own the party in control, they will not be subject to anti-trust regulation no matter what an anti-trust lawyer thinks.
At the most, the telcos will have to "negotiate" with the Republicans to the extent that the telcos agree to monitor their networks for terrism in exchange for no anti-trust prosecution. Your privacy and rights are easy enough for them to give away to protect their business interests.
Google, having forecasted this move, has already placed themselves at many peering points so they can peer themselves. They are, in a lot of respects, their own ISP.
Expect that when an ISP attempts to charge them, Google will in turn charge for peering rights with them. Probable result: stalemate. That's good for Google in particular, but still leaves a problem for the rest of the big content deliverers.
I was with you, until you cited Pirates and Iron Man as shining examples of great cinematic story quality. Both are derivative crap, frankly, and not worth owning the DVD of.
However, the point remains: movies shouldn't be about "flash", be it either CGI or long takes. Only cinema majors give a crap about that stuff. The rest of the public wants a story with unique, memorable characters who tell a story that is in some way relevant to the audience's own lives.
Have you been sending my email?
Define "worked".
It was perhaps $1B / day for awhile, which stuck in my head. But according to here the cost of Iraq + Afghanistan since 2001 is $1.1T. It's an average of approximately $300M/day for the entire 10 year period. While $300M/day is less than $1B/day, the expense of $1.1T is nonetheless one of our largest expenses. A fiscally responsible budget will be impossible until those costs are accounted for, and I believe Congress is being dishonest in saying that they can accomplish a fiscally responsible budget as they have not provided a way to pay for it, or shown an inclination to dial down those expenses, either by withdrawing and cutting troops, or reining in defense spending.
And for the record, I did assume that we would collect oil profits from seized Iraq oil to pay for the war--it was advertised as a way to pay for it. What actually happened to that revenue I don't know, but I suspect it was used to rebuild the country's infrastructure.
At the end of the day, the newly elected GOP majority was elected on the platform that they would reduce government spending, but since they apparently don't have any heart to reduce military spending I don't think they'll be able to accomplish much, if any, real reduction or improvement of the US credit score.
Something I've learned as an old IT guy is that employee comfort is very under-rated.
That's very true. Moreover, as IT, it's not your decision to make those kinds of determinations wrt productivity. The best and most worthwhile things you can do: evaluate the alternatives. Reject the ones that are not feasible for good reason, eg cost too much, have security issues, data loss issues etc.
After you've sorted the crap out, you can determine the winner, and support that with training and support, etc. But it's not your job to force the other folks onto the preferred system--you should provide a federated way to communicate amongst any of the valid systems.
If the choice that you selected as primary really has benefit, the employees will migrate to it of their own accord. If cost is the biggest determinator, then it's really a problem for your financial dept or the management to require the change--and they will do it at their own speed and with their own priorities. But if you have selected a good robust system that has sufficient advantage over the others, the majority of users will migrate at their own speed, on their own terms when they finally get tired of not being able to do what they want to do.
Let the features speak for themselves.
Explain to me the effective differences in terms of actual fiscal policy between modern Democrats and Republicans.
When the GOP demonizes "tax and spend" as the other party's problem, they mean "spend on domestic social programs" and deliberately exclude US military spending. I think that's a pretty accurate summary, actually.
When you include US military spending as part of "spend", you will find that the GOP is worse on "tax and spend" than the Dems. They started a war that costs the US $1B a day, that has lasted 8 years, and provided no way to pay for it. That is a more egregious "tax and spend" program than any social program the Dems have initiated, "Obamacare" included.
If the GOP proposes a balanced budget that included the military budget and preserving Social Security, they'd be worth listening too. I expect that if they fail to produce an actual budget like that, they will again be voted out in 2012.
OTOH, if they do produce such a budget, Christ, I'll vote for them myself.