You're entirely correct, of course. There's not enough information in TFA to say one way or another. Heck, even if it goes to trial, it's literally 'he said, she said.'
Not finding a gun is a major piece of evidence in favor of the playwright, true. Although I've known people who will use threats like that without anything whatsoever to back it up, if they thought they could get away with it; but I'm not getting that vibe. Fortunately, the trial will not be decided on vibes. =)
"I have grandchildren," she said. "The time I have left, I'd like to spend with them. I don't think it's fair to take me away from them."
All due respect to the elderly and the infirm, and to those with cancer -- a horrible ailment that regularly ravages tens of thousands of people a year -- but she is not in a position to say what is fair and what isn't. She is a criminal, she has been convicted and found to be guilty. To not punish her is an offense against justice.
Up until I read that line, I was sympathetic. Cancer, aging and ailing... no reason to put her behind bars since she's going to appeal anyway. But then she had to open her mouth and play that card. Yes, she has grandchildren. Her grandchildren can grow up knowing that Gran'ma was a con and a swindler, and to not do what she did.
*sigh* I don't know. It probably is cruel to put a con-artist of her age behind bars. And the punitive damages are being levied against the company as it is, there's not much more they can get from her.
The part of me that burned out on tech support oh so long ago is quick to jump on the side of the repair tech. I have known people who were crazy enough to do that sort of thing when they reached their breaking point.
On the other hand, it's possible that even if she was at her breaking point, the tech -- caught between the rock of the customer and the hard place of his employer's prior actions -- found he had to get out of there before the customer got REALLY angry.
On the gripping hand... I've found that in the vast majority of times that I've had internet connection problems, with the exception of Verison DSL on Staten Island, NY,* especially when I was the only one in the neighborhood with connection problems, especially after several weeks... the problem has almost invariably been with my computer.
So, wild-ass speculation here, but I think the customer vented her frustration a bit too firmly (she did say she was not going to be polite, always a bad way to start a session); the technician hit his own breaking point and rather than go off on the customer he found an excuse to flee and a story to lay on his supervisor; his story of a crazy customer with a gun who wanted to hold him hostage got blown out of proportion and the woman was taken to court...... and in the end, it really will be something wrong with her computer.
While my sympathy automatically lies with the technician, rationally I'm certain the truth is going to be somewhere between these two stories. And in a larger view, this might kick up the tension between residential end-users and technicians by a notch. While residential end-users might be a bit more inclined to be more polite to techs, it might also raise their animosity towards same and the relationship becomes more hostile as a result. At best this will fade into a footnote.
* - Kids, not much is worse in a customer sense, than a telco who sells you DSL and then moves some equipment around the central office such that you are now further from the central office than they rate DSL for. You're not actually farther from the CO, but the wiring inside the CO is now long enough that you are outside the CO's radius. And then they don't tell you. Fortunately, Verizon did the right thing and finagled something so that they returned my DSL. Part of me is pretty sure I wasn't the only one who had this happen to.
Can we at least get terminology correct? I know the original article calls it the 'monogamy gene,' but, as a bunch of geeks, we can aspire to better accuracy than that.
Monogamy: One spouse Polygamy: Multiple spice -- er, spouses
Monamory: Loving (and/or boinking) one person Polyamory: Loving (and/or boinking) many people
I think what the article is referring to is better termed 'monamory.' I don't think it's terribly wise to equate 'marriage' with 'having reproductive sex with' since the two are quite separate.
Iridium is extremely rare on Earth, and the high concentration of it at the K-T boundary in the Earth's crust is what suggests a meteor took out the dinosaurs. I am positive that the symbolism of the permanence of Iridium, the reminder that we are star-stuff, and the fact that the ring would be one-of-a-kind would really strike a chord with my girlfriend.
Not to mention the message of 'My love for you kills dinosaurs!'
Seriously, though...
The band is a nice idea, but iridium is expensive. Kudos to you for giving the diamond cartels the bird, but I would agree with some posters who have said that there's more to live than obedience to broken traditions and materialism. Think about what kind of message you want.
Well, it is the first time that a woman has been on the Repvblican VP ticket. That, I think, is the first. In the grand scheme of things the Republicans aren't too far behind the Democrats as far as that goes, but it is important to note that the Republicans have been -- or at least, have been perceived to have been -- quite strict on the gender roles. For them to put a woman on the ticket at the very least would take quite a bit for the 'old boy's clubs' to muster.
Well, there's also the stress of the office. From 'before' and 'after' shots of various former presidents, the office does not allow one to age gracefully at all, and it is extremely, emotionally hard on people. There's apparently a lot of virtually lethal stress involved in the position.
I'm not entirely sure happy-go-lucky, maverick McCain can survive eight years of the Oval Office, though I'd consider odds on four.
That's a ridiculous comparison. The bible is fictional.
Oh if only it mainly was. The problem is that there is far too much factual info in there and well the fictional/scifi elements get drowned out. I've tried to explain to my wife that of course there are huge chucks of the bible that are very factual. Why? The Jews used it as their history/moral/everything a person needed to know book and it was fairly up to date at the time. So of course all the cities/villages mentioned are likely to have actually existed. I try to explain to her its like if some one or family had been keeping a family history since the founding of the US, well in 2000 in the future they could use that family history to locate the cities/towns that said family lived. That part could be mostly factual, but that still doesn't mean everything in the book is factual. You could have a fictional story happen in a realistic setting and that doesn't make the story factual. Though 2000 years latter, if they find the setting, they may assume parts/pieces of the story are true.
I'm sorry, but that does not appear to be the case.
The Torah -- what Christians call the Pentateuch of the Old Testament -- is indeed set in the Levant, and there are many places mentioned in the Torah that have been identified with existing places. However, like any work that is not subject to rigor, you cannot take events in it as being at all factual.
An example: The bible says that after fleeing Egypt, the Israelites eventually stormed through the land of Canaan, slaughtering and conquoring in the name of G-d, (Adonai, Tetragrammaton, etc.) But there is no evidence of any tribe of people fleeing from Egypt, who eventually overthrew Canaan. In fact, archaeological evidence indicates that the royal Hyskos tribe left Egypt after being overthrown by the Upper Kingdom (sometime after the Bronze Age Collapse) and migrated eastward where they, did not conquer, but were peacefully assimilated into and in turn assimilated the Levantine civilizations, becoming the Canaanites. They eventually became monotheistic when the leaders of the cult of El' declared that there shall be no god before El', and had the poles devoted to the goddess Asherah torn down from the altars. Contrary to what one might think or what the Bible says... this did not happen overnight. It was a long, hard struggle for the high priests of El, and up until the Babylonian Captivity they never really stamped out the 'heathens.' It actually appears that they were in the dramatic minority of post-Hyskos Canaanite civilization.
In fact, further evidence shows the Torah was not contemporary to the events that took place, but was written after the Babylonian Captivity of the Hebrews, which took place in approximately the 5th Century BCE. It was sometime well after this that these writings were actually codified into the 'perpetual' Torah we're familiar with, and aside from some drift later on -- particularly in the Ashkenazi and Sephardic split and the Diaspora -- the Torah/Pentateuch known today arises from the Torah of this time, and it was this version which became the Septuagint.
Another element: There is no historical evidence that there was a United Monarchy of Israel and Judea. This is a huge issue, since the United Monarchy is emblematic of King Daud, or David, and plays a major role in Israelite history. The unification of Judea and Israel suggested by the Bible is an important part of the 'history' as it coincides with the destruction of the First Temple and immediately precedes the Babylonian Captivity.
Let's go into the New Testament. Linguistic analysis indicates that the four canonical Gospels were written at least a hundred years after the time of Christ's death, and in fact two of the Gosepls cribbed from the third. (The fourth has been traced to an earlier, now lost fragmentary document.) These are certainly not primary sources. They are at best tertiary, and college history teachers would h
I think something in what you said underlies the difference in security ethos between Linux/POSIX systems and Windows.
In Linux, you need to use sudo, you need to explicitly tell the system, 'I'm going to do root-level stuff here,' and even though you just DO it, you still are keeping in mind that you're poking a hole in security.
Windows on the other hand tries to make everything -- including security -- as transparent to the end user as possible. Or maybe the term I'm looking for is 'opaque' -- you can't see the gears turning behind the window. Poking a hole in that security is inherently difficult for MOST people, but not difficult for anyone who is approaching the 'power user' level... or who has read a web page on 'what to do to make your use of Windows more pleasant.' Unfortunately, these holes, once punched, and the inherent holes in Windows security*, stay there. They're transparent. They allow the user to do work but the security has already been bypassed. Next time a piece of malware wants to access the system, the user has already been conditioned to not think of poking such a hole as being a 'bad thing.'
In contrast, a user is acutely aware of poking a hole in their own security whenever they use sudo.
I am not a computer security expert (yet) but the way a system handles purposeful needed security holes is at least as important as how capable that security is.
* - This is not a dig at windows, every security system needs holes poked in it in order for people to Do Stuff with the computer. To paraphrase Atrocity Archive, the only trulysecure computer is the one that's buried in a vault in the middle of the Nevada desert, is disconnected from any external network, has all input devices removed and the ports physically disabled, and is turned off.
Anyone else think that China's human rights record doesn't affect them just because they're not Chinese citizens?
Consider him lucky if we hear from and about him ever again.
(Granted, going to China for the express purpose of protesting is going to get you in hot water with the Chinese authorities, but is that the sign of a healthy society?)
It's worth noting that Positech is the game company which gained some Slashdottery earlier by being the company whose developer opened a dialogue with software pirates to find out why they do what they do. And because of that, he has removed all DRM and dropped the prices of his games and made bigger and better demos... and a bunch of other things. He's worth checking out.
Heh. Okay, I'll call, even though that quote is... well, nevermind. =) The short reply I had made was meant for humorous effect, but if you really want me to get all prolific on the subject....
You are correct insofar as the US public is misinformed about the nature of the Georgia conflict. There is a great deal of concern about it, mostly because people do not fully understand the regional situation or the events earlier this month that lead to Russian intervention. Separatists in South Ossetia had just agreed to a cease-fire with federal forces when a few hours later, Saakashvilli sent troops in a lightning attack on the separatists. So, you are right in noting that Saakashvilli is responsible for the situation exploding.
However... you are incorrect in asserting that "Russia, in its short history since the breakup of the USSR, has not launched an attack on another country." Sorry, the Russian intervention was an attack, nothing more and most definitely nothing less. It might have been peacekeeping, or it might have been 'expansion of [Russia's] security sphere,' or something else entirely. But once troops cross the border and start dropping ordnance, it's an attack. Now, it is not unreasonable, from a purely nationalist point of view unaffected by realpolitik, to say that Russia was within it's rights to come to the aid of it's citizens; South Ossetia has a large number of people who claim Russian citizenship and have Russian passports, apparently, and it can be said that Russia was responding to them. To be honest, the extent of their attacks notwithstanding, that's probably the only real honest thing they could have done. It was gutsy, since this is the sort of thing that regional wars start over. But if I was a citizen of a country and I was attacked, I'd want my homeland to come to my aid, as well. In realpolitik of course, there were other reasons for Russia striking Georgia besides the citizens. What those reasons are will be studied by Western analysts in the coming weeks. With varying levels of accuracy. But the fact remains that Russia is not the quiescent puppy that saying "It has never attacked another country" makes it out to be.
I applaud your desire to expand your sources of information, and to encourage others to do so. But though one may dismiss this stance as 'mere semantics' the fact remains that while President Saakashvilli did trigger the cascade of events in Georgia through his breaking of an hours-old ceasefire, Russia crossed the borders and attacked Georgian forces.
And, for the record, I know Hussein had nothing to do with the organization called 'Al Qaeda.' =)
Interestingly, it will not be the last either as the UAV mission has become the Air Forces single most requested asset.
I have to wonder if this sticks in the craw of any old-timers in the USAF. Fighters and bombers were "teh smexay" for so long with them. The A-10 was in danger for a long time because it was a close-air support aircraft. It's my understanding that most zoomies (at least the fighterjocks and the brass) loathe CAS, which is one of the major missions of things like the Reaper, but they loathe the idea of giving the Army fixed-wing assets even more.
Personally, I think there's too much iterservice rivalry anyway, but as far as UCAVs going out there, it's fine with me. The idea of, someday, air battles being fought on both sides by UCAVs is a very appealing one. Now to replace soldiers with remotes or bots.... =)
And yeah, I know that for as long as people think that the village on the other side of the hill has greener grass, there will be war, and there will be humans involved, and there will be blood....Shed.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, yyyyyyyyeah....
You're entirely correct, of course. There's not enough information in TFA to say one way or another. Heck, even if it goes to trial, it's literally 'he said, she said.'
Not finding a gun is a major piece of evidence in favor of the playwright, true. Although I've known people who will use threats like that without anything whatsoever to back it up, if they thought they could get away with it; but I'm not getting that vibe. Fortunately, the trial will not be decided on vibes. =)
"I have grandchildren," she said. "The time I have left, I'd like to spend with them. I don't think it's fair to take me away from them."
All due respect to the elderly and the infirm, and to those with cancer -- a horrible ailment that regularly ravages tens of thousands of people a year -- but she is not in a position to say what is fair and what isn't. She is a criminal, she has been convicted and found to be guilty. To not punish her is an offense against justice.
Up until I read that line, I was sympathetic. Cancer, aging and ailing... no reason to put her behind bars since she's going to appeal anyway. But then she had to open her mouth and play that card. Yes, she has grandchildren. Her grandchildren can grow up knowing that Gran'ma was a con and a swindler, and to not do what she did.
*sigh* I don't know. It probably is cruel to put a con-artist of her age behind bars. And the punitive damages are being levied against the company as it is, there's not much more they can get from her.
The part of me that burned out on tech support oh so long ago is quick to jump on the side of the repair tech. I have known people who were crazy enough to do that sort of thing when they reached their breaking point.
On the other hand, it's possible that even if she was at her breaking point, the tech -- caught between the rock of the customer and the hard place of his employer's prior actions -- found he had to get out of there before the customer got REALLY angry.
On the gripping hand... I've found that in the vast majority of times that I've had internet connection problems, with the exception of Verison DSL on Staten Island, NY,* especially when I was the only one in the neighborhood with connection problems, especially after several weeks... the problem has almost invariably been with my computer.
So, wild-ass speculation here, but I think the customer vented her frustration a bit too firmly (she did say she was not going to be polite, always a bad way to start a session); the technician hit his own breaking point and rather than go off on the customer he found an excuse to flee and a story to lay on his supervisor; his story of a crazy customer with a gun who wanted to hold him hostage got blown out of proportion and the woman was taken to court... ... and in the end, it really will be something wrong with her computer.
While my sympathy automatically lies with the technician, rationally I'm certain the truth is going to be somewhere between these two stories. And in a larger view, this might kick up the tension between residential end-users and technicians by a notch. While residential end-users might be a bit more inclined to be more polite to techs, it might also raise their animosity towards same and the relationship becomes more hostile as a result. At best this will fade into a footnote.
* - Kids, not much is worse in a customer sense, than a telco who sells you DSL and then moves some equipment around the central office such that you are now further from the central office than they rate DSL for. You're not actually farther from the CO, but the wiring inside the CO is now long enough that you are outside the CO's radius. And then they don't tell you. Fortunately, Verizon did the right thing and finagled something so that they returned my DSL. Part of me is pretty sure I wasn't the only one who had this happen to.
Can we at least get terminology correct? I know the original article calls it the 'monogamy gene,' but, as a bunch of geeks, we can aspire to better accuracy than that.
Monogamy: One spouse
Polygamy: Multiple spice -- er, spouses
Monamory: Loving (and/or boinking) one person
Polyamory: Loving (and/or boinking) many people
I think what the article is referring to is better termed 'monamory.' I don't think it's terribly wise to equate 'marriage' with 'having reproductive sex with' since the two are quite separate.
It's possible that a man without this gene is incapable of true love.
Define 'true love,' please?
And quoting Hallmark cards doesn't count.
What you're describing seems to be, unfortunately, the whole precis behind the movie Idiocracy.
Somewhere, Dvorak is smiling upon you. =)
Iridium is extremely rare on Earth, and the high concentration of it at the K-T boundary in the Earth's crust is what suggests a meteor took out the dinosaurs. I am positive that the symbolism of the permanence of Iridium, the reminder that we are star-stuff, and the fact that the ring would be one-of-a-kind would really strike a chord with my girlfriend.
Not to mention the message of 'My love for you kills dinosaurs!'
Seriously, though...
The band is a nice idea, but iridium is expensive. Kudos to you for giving the diamond cartels the bird, but I would agree with some posters who have said that there's more to live than obedience to broken traditions and materialism. Think about what kind of message you want.
... You win. All of you win. =)
Well, it is the first time that a woman has been on the Repvblican VP ticket. That, I think, is the first. In the grand scheme of things the Republicans aren't too far behind the Democrats as far as that goes, but it is important to note that the Republicans have been -- or at least, have been perceived to have been -- quite strict on the gender roles. For them to put a woman on the ticket at the very least would take quite a bit for the 'old boy's clubs' to muster.
Well, there's also the stress of the office. From 'before' and 'after' shots of various former presidents, the office does not allow one to age gracefully at all, and it is extremely, emotionally hard on people. There's apparently a lot of virtually lethal stress involved in the position.
I'm not entirely sure happy-go-lucky, maverick McCain can survive eight years of the Oval Office, though I'd consider odds on four.
I defy anyone to continue this using Uzbekistan or Tajikistan.
I'm sorry, but that does not appear to be the case.
The Torah -- what Christians call the Pentateuch of the Old Testament -- is indeed set in the Levant, and there are many places mentioned in the Torah that have been identified with existing places. However, like any work that is not subject to rigor, you cannot take events in it as being at all factual.
An example: The bible says that after fleeing Egypt, the Israelites eventually stormed through the land of Canaan, slaughtering and conquoring in the name of G-d, (Adonai, Tetragrammaton, etc.) But there is no evidence of any tribe of people fleeing from Egypt, who eventually overthrew Canaan. In fact, archaeological evidence indicates that the royal Hyskos tribe left Egypt after being overthrown by the Upper Kingdom (sometime after the Bronze Age Collapse) and migrated eastward where they, did not conquer, but were peacefully assimilated into and in turn assimilated the Levantine civilizations, becoming the Canaanites. They eventually became monotheistic when the leaders of the cult of El' declared that there shall be no god before El', and had the poles devoted to the goddess Asherah torn down from the altars. Contrary to what one might think or what the Bible says... this did not happen overnight. It was a long, hard struggle for the high priests of El, and up until the Babylonian Captivity they never really stamped out the 'heathens.' It actually appears that they were in the dramatic minority of post-Hyskos Canaanite civilization.
In fact, further evidence shows the Torah was not contemporary to the events that took place, but was written after the Babylonian Captivity of the Hebrews, which took place in approximately the 5th Century BCE. It was sometime well after this that these writings were actually codified into the 'perpetual' Torah we're familiar with, and aside from some drift later on -- particularly in the Ashkenazi and Sephardic split and the Diaspora -- the Torah/Pentateuch known today arises from the Torah of this time, and it was this version which became the Septuagint.
Another element: There is no historical evidence that there was a United Monarchy of Israel and Judea. This is a huge issue, since the United Monarchy is emblematic of King Daud, or David, and plays a major role in Israelite history. The unification of Judea and Israel suggested by the Bible is an important part of the 'history' as it coincides with the destruction of the First Temple and immediately precedes the Babylonian Captivity.
Let's go into the New Testament. Linguistic analysis indicates that the four canonical Gospels were written at least a hundred years after the time of Christ's death, and in fact two of the Gosepls cribbed from the third. (The fourth has been traced to an earlier, now lost fragmentary document.) These are certainly not primary sources. They are at best tertiary, and college history teachers would h
I think something in what you said underlies the difference in security ethos between Linux/POSIX systems and Windows.
In Linux, you need to use sudo, you need to explicitly tell the system, 'I'm going to do root-level stuff here,' and even though you just DO it, you still are keeping in mind that you're poking a hole in security.
Windows on the other hand tries to make everything -- including security -- as transparent to the end user as possible. Or maybe the term I'm looking for is 'opaque' -- you can't see the gears turning behind the window. Poking a hole in that security is inherently difficult for MOST people, but not difficult for anyone who is approaching the 'power user' level... or who has read a web page on 'what to do to make your use of Windows more pleasant.' Unfortunately, these holes, once punched, and the inherent holes in Windows security*, stay there. They're transparent. They allow the user to do work but the security has already been bypassed. Next time a piece of malware wants to access the system, the user has already been conditioned to not think of poking such a hole as being a 'bad thing.'
In contrast, a user is acutely aware of poking a hole in their own security whenever they use sudo.
I am not a computer security expert (yet) but the way a system handles purposeful needed security holes is at least as important as how capable that security is.
* - This is not a dig at windows, every security system needs holes poked in it in order for people to Do Stuff with the computer. To paraphrase Atrocity Archive, the only trulysecure computer is the one that's buried in a vault in the middle of the Nevada desert, is disconnected from any external network, has all input devices removed and the ports physically disabled, and is turned off.
Has there yet been word that Powderly's also been taken to the airport and deported?
Anyone else think that China's human rights record doesn't affect them just because they're not Chinese citizens?
Consider him lucky if we hear from and about him ever again.
(Granted, going to China for the express purpose of protesting is going to get you in hot water with the Chinese authorities, but is that the sign of a healthy society?)
It's worth noting that Positech is the game company which gained some Slashdottery earlier by being the company whose developer opened a dialogue with software pirates to find out why they do what they do. And because of that, he has removed all DRM and dropped the prices of his games and made bigger and better demos... and a bunch of other things. He's worth checking out.
Alternatively, Operation: Mindcrime.
Heh. Okay, I'll call, even though that quote is... well, nevermind. =) The short reply I had made was meant for humorous effect, but if you really want me to get all prolific on the subject....
You are correct insofar as the US public is misinformed about the nature of the Georgia conflict. There is a great deal of concern about it, mostly because people do not fully understand the regional situation or the events earlier this month that lead to Russian intervention. Separatists in South Ossetia had just agreed to a cease-fire with federal forces when a few hours later, Saakashvilli sent troops in a lightning attack on the separatists. So, you are right in noting that Saakashvilli is responsible for the situation exploding.
However... you are incorrect in asserting that "Russia, in its short history since the breakup of the USSR, has not launched an attack on another country." Sorry, the Russian intervention was an attack, nothing more and most definitely nothing less. It might have been peacekeeping, or it might have been 'expansion of [Russia's] security sphere,' or something else entirely. But once troops cross the border and start dropping ordnance, it's an attack. Now, it is not unreasonable, from a purely nationalist point of view unaffected by realpolitik, to say that Russia was within it's rights to come to the aid of it's citizens; South Ossetia has a large number of people who claim Russian citizenship and have Russian passports, apparently, and it can be said that Russia was responding to them. To be honest, the extent of their attacks notwithstanding, that's probably the only real honest thing they could have done. It was gutsy, since this is the sort of thing that regional wars start over. But if I was a citizen of a country and I was attacked, I'd want my homeland to come to my aid, as well. In realpolitik of course, there were other reasons for Russia striking Georgia besides the citizens. What those reasons are will be studied by Western analysts in the coming weeks. With varying levels of accuracy. But the fact remains that Russia is not the quiescent puppy that saying "It has never attacked another country" makes it out to be.
I applaud your desire to expand your sources of information, and to encourage others to do so. But though one may dismiss this stance as 'mere semantics' the fact remains that while President Saakashvilli did trigger the cascade of events in Georgia through his breaking of an hours-old ceasefire, Russia crossed the borders and attacked Georgian forces.
And, for the record, I know Hussein had nothing to do with the organization called 'Al Qaeda.' =)
Russia, in its short history since the breakup of the USSR, has not launched an attack on another country.
*looks at CNN* Uhm....
And to really go into paleoslashdottery: You need a UAV with Mae Ling Mak piloting it....
"Young men think in terms of tactics. Old men think in terms of logistics."
Sounds like the 'fighter mafia' really needed to grow up... and didn't, before Gates took an atomic scythe to the Air Force staff.
Suddenly, I really want to see a bayonet on an M1A Abrams MBT, and a 7-meter-long lance on an Apache. =)
Interestingly, it will not be the last either as the UAV mission has become the Air Forces single most requested asset.
I have to wonder if this sticks in the craw of any old-timers in the USAF. Fighters and bombers were "teh smexay" for so long with them. The A-10 was in danger for a long time because it was a close-air support aircraft. It's my understanding that most zoomies (at least the fighterjocks and the brass) loathe CAS, which is one of the major missions of things like the Reaper, but they loathe the idea of giving the Army fixed-wing assets even more.
Personally, I think there's too much iterservice rivalry anyway, but as far as UCAVs going out there, it's fine with me. The idea of, someday, air battles being fought on both sides by UCAVs is a very appealing one. Now to replace soldiers with remotes or bots.... =)
And yeah, I know that for as long as people think that the village on the other side of the hill has greener grass, there will be war, and there will be humans involved, and there will be blood. ...Shed.