THE Greek organizers of this summer's topless Olympics, which began in Athens yesterday, claim that more women athletes are competing than ever before. Women are also playing a high-profile role in making the whole enterprise, the biggest of its kind in Greek history, run as smoothly as possible. Seen from the Western world, however, the Athens game will look like a male-dominated spectacle in which women play an incidental part.
According to officials in Athens, the number of Western women participating in this year's game is the lowest since 1960. Several Western countries have sent no women athletes at all; others, such as the United States, are taking part with only one, in full clothing. And state-owned TV networks in many Western countries, including Canada and Britain, have received instructions to limit coverage of events featuring women athletes at Athens to a minimum.
A circular from the FTC in America asks TV editors to make sure that women's games are not televised live: "Images of women engaged in contests [sic] must be carefully vetted," says the letter, leaked in Tehran. "Editors must take care to prevent viewers from being confronted [sic] with uncovered parts of the female anatomy in contests."
Actually, that's an incredibly narrow view point to hold (and a dangerous one, IMHO). Censorship can be performed by any entity which has control over lines of communication. This could be the government, or it could be a giant media conglomerate. After all, what happens when the giant media conglomerate is in cahoots with the government and chooses to "select" only content that's favourable to the incumbants? I'd call that censorship...
OTOH, what's happening with the Olympics is most definitely *not* censorship, and the submitter should be severely chastised for invoking that word in this situation, as it simply serves to further confuse people regarding what does and doesn't qualify as censorship (an incredibly important issue in this day and age).
Okay, dude, you're missing the point! There are movies that are bad because they don't appeal to your taste... after all, there are those who quite enjoyed Moulin Rouge (and myself didn't mind it). OTOH, this topic is concerned with those very special movies out there that really are truly, universally, absolutely horrible.
Wow. You're pretty sheltered if that's your idea of a bad movie. Try out the recent Dungeons and Dragons movie (circa 2000 or so, IIRC) and then get back to us.
Damnit, I hate this argument. Of *course* more energy will go into hydrogen than you get out. That's called Conservation of Energy.
The point of Hydrogen is that it provides a convenient storage format for energy which can then be produced in large quantities at central generation facilities. This is very advantageous, as energy production benefits from scale. Moreover, centralized generation means that it's easy to upgrade to new, cleaner, more efficient production technologies, as we only have to upgrade thousands of plants, rather than millions of cars.
And if that wasn't enough, centralized generation also means you can take advantage of other energy generation sources that wouldn't normally be available, such as solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, etc, etc. So, you can really have your "solar powered car", at least indirectly... you use solar energy to generate hydrogen, which is then used to cleanly power your car.
So, yes, a hydrogen-based economy really is that revolutionary.
Umm... you do realize that you can bike on the road even if there aren't bike lanes, right? And yes, this is perfectly safe... I do it every day on fairly major roads.
but bigger cars vs. bigger cars (and bigger cars vs. trees, telephole poles, etc.) are MUCH safer.
Got proof for that? 'cuz it sound pretty counter-intuitive to me. See, in case you didn't know, the kinetic energy of one of these vehicles is equal to their mass times their velocity. IOW, a heavy SUV carries a great deal more energy at speed compared to a smaller vehicle. So, in an accident between two SUVs, more energy must be dissipated in the collision. Tell me again how this somehow makes the situation better?
By contrast, smaller vehicles carry less total kinetic energy, meaning that things like crumple zones, air bags, seat belts, etc, can be more effective, since there's less total energy to dissipate in the event of an accident. Moreover, it's silly to disregard rollover issues with SUVs. After all, if an SUV t-bones another SUV, and that SUV rolls over, the passengers are probably much worse off than if it had been two smaller vehicles. And I'd be surprised if you could find any SUV without an increased rollover risk, simply due to their design (the center of mass is moved up much higher than on traditional vehicles).
Sorry, but IMHO, SUVs are only designed to give the illusion of increased safety.
Actually, I disagree. In fact, Seagate could come off *really* well if WD incorporated their technology illegally, and Seagate caught them. Why? Think about it... the license fees. The money from lawsuits. Not to mention the impact on WD's stock price. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. After all, submarine patent holders have been doing this for *years*, and have been very successful at it.
If he'd signed a non-compete, Seagate is entirely in the right here.
Is that strictly true? My understanding was that the legality of non-compete agreements is somewhat vague, and likely various from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
TBH, my solution for the password problem is to keep a password protected 2048-bit private key on a small USB pen drive on my key chain (and backed up on a cdrom in a separate location). I then keep my passwords in an encrypted file on disk (also backed up). So, in order for anyone to get at my passwords, they need to 1) get my USB key, 2) brute-force that password (which is 8-character line-noise), then 3) get a hold of my password file and decrypt it. Pretty secure all the way around, and allows me to use very secure passwords everywhere I care to, since I don't feel the need to memorize them.
The handy side effect of this is I can use the same public/private key pair for signing/encrypting anything else I wish.
This should be modded insightful. These kind of forced password-change policies do one thing only: encourage people to choose easy-to-remember (and hence, likely easy-to-crack) passwords. Even worse, it encourages people to write their passwords down and store them in what is probably a very insecure location! So, in the end, you get only a marginal increase in security.
Frankly, I think the best bet is to encourage users to just select longish (>8 characters), complex password (no word substrings, more than just alphabetic characters, etc), but don't force them to change it. After all, brute-forcing a complex, 8-character password is still a fairly difficult process.
That's just plain absurd. The stories in the bible (mainly the old testament) are riddled with people who *knew* god existed because they literally witnessed acts that god himself commited after telling them he was going to commit them!. Just take Noah, for example, and that whole pesky "flood" thing. Not to mention various plagues, etc, etc. And yet no one questions Noah's faith, or David's.
Given that, IMHO, the reason God hasn't shown himself in over a thousand years (by, say, telling everyone he's going to perform some atrocity, and then doing it) is because he doesn't actually exist. But, hey, that's just MHO.:)
No, his point is that the "fair use" provision does not provide the right to back up your movies. It only gives you the right to make limited copies of movies, audio, etc, for use in research or education. And as for the right to back up software, this right is provided explicitely in law, and is thus very different from, and should not be confused with, fair use.
It is a meat packer's job to be sure they produce clean meat but when they don't we go after them... This is the same situation.
No, it's not. You must have missed that part of my post, or conveniently ignored it. The food production industry and the media industry are *NOT THE SAME*. Am I being clear? And Why? Because bad food can harm people, bad media cannot. Despite what you seem to think.
Oh, did I mention drunk driving and vehicular homicide?
You're missing my point (surprise, surprise...). There are *many* dangerous things in society which have a proven ability to harm children. Cars, Knives, Bleach, guns, etc, etc. And we realize that it's up to the parents to protect their children from these items. Why on earth is TV so different? Especially when, in the case of TV, there aren't even provable harms! As opposed to, say, cars, knives, bleach, or guns...
It may, actually. Assuming such hibernation significantly reduces the basal metabolic rate, it can be surmised that lifespan would likely be extended. For example, the lifespan of lab rats have been greatly extended by placing them on an ultra-low-calorie diet, and it is theorized that this increase in lifespan is due to the decreased basal metabolic rate resulting from such a diet.
You can't protect your kids when they go to someone else's house or go to school. Make them stay at home you say?
Not at all. Teach them to protect themselves, and how to react to potentially dangerous situations. Kinda like how people should be taught to be aware of what they're watching on TV.
I don't deny that more parents need to care (I've seen many who don't) but responsiblity is a 2 way street and there is no reason why we shouldn't keep the media producers responsible for some of the shit they produce and distribute through mass media outlets. Don't just make the parents responsible.
1. What you call shit, I call high quality entertainment. The Sopranos and CSI and very graphically violent, but many consider them to be some of the best drama on television.
2. Yes, you should make the parents responsible. They're *parents*, for christ sake! It's their *job* to be responsible! Geezuz... by your logic, we should eliminate alcohol from society too, because, hey, kids might get into that stuff! And parents can't follow their kids around everywhere.
hen people die from bad meat we don't tell them to switch brands or tell them to take up eating fish. We go after the company who had bad enough business practices to let bad meat slip into the good meat bins.
You're absolutely right. If you could show me *provable* damage being cause by the material on TV, I would absolutely entertain the idea of stricter government regulation. The problem is... there *isn't any proof!* Worse, there's proof to the *contrary!*
Prove to me violence ever HELPS.
Okay, firstly, it's *your* job as the censor to prove to *me* that violence depicted on television is bad, because unless you can do that, you have no right to curb people's freedom of expression.
Secondly, I would argue that violence can be used *very* effectively for art's sake, let alone entertainment. Programs like CSI and The Sopranos are just two good examples. And that ignores all the brilliant, violent movies out there (Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, Fight Club, etc).
Good point but it isn't impossible to set standards. oops, I said the s word, shame on me.
Sure, standards. Standards which can be changed, amended, expanded upon, reinterpreted... hell, just look at the smut laws here in Canada. Legitimate lesbian literature ended up being held at the border because people decided to reinterpret the law the way *they* saw fit. Standards aren't worth the paper their written on in the face of an hysterical, emotionally driven public.
So why exactly is no censorship at all such an end all to our problems?
Did I *say* it was? My contention is that, in this case, censorship provides no provable benefit, and hence cannot be justified, given that censorship, by definition, infringes on the rights of others, and the only time a person in a free society should be willing to infringe on the rights of another is if there is measurable damage being caused by the person exercising their rights.
If they wanted to censor the things you are worried about they would have tried by now;
They are trying. Right now! That's the whole damned point of this article!
let them censor what need to be censored.
Whatever that is.
Your kids will have plenty of time to learn about how to kill and rape eventually; no need to let them learn/see it by age 12 by watching FOX or F/X.
Okay, what part of "studies show that watching violence doesn't beget violence" don't you get? Kids *don't* "learn about how to kill and rape" by watching TV.
Besides, violence has been depicted on TV, movies, and other forms of art for a *very* long time. It's nothing new, no matter what you may believe. And yet, I'm supposed to believe that, somehow TV is now the root of all evil? Please... if anything, this is just scapegoating. After all, it sure is easy to say "see, it's t
"Please, prove to me that the moon is made of cheese. I've seen plenty of studies that prove that the moon is not, in fact, made of cheese."
Followed by:
"I don't think you'll ever see such information; it doesn't need to exist, because the argument that the moon is made of cheese is an emotional one, not based on fact."
Basically, you're missing the point he grandparent is making. His/her contention is that there is no studies which prove a link between violent TV and violent acts because you don't need that kind of information to make the argument. Why? Because that argument is an emotional rather than logical one.
Well, given that AES isn't an asymmetric cipher, and hence doesn't use products of primes, I don't see what Shor's algorithm (a prime factorization algorithm) as to do with anything.
First of all, it ain't up to the state to protect the children from idiot parenting. Otherwise, most of the children in middle class homes would probably taken away from their parents due to neglect.
Second, censorship is never the right solution. The parents should have the right to control what their children can and can't watch, while still being able to watch things *they're* interested in. Hell, technology can all but do this for them, anyway! It's called locking out channels. It's existed for years (or don't you watch the Simpsons?).
Thirdly, even if kids are watching a ton of violence, please, prove to me that it actually matters. I've seen plenty of studies which disprove any link between watching violent materials and commiting violent acts.
Fourthly, even if you want to try and censor violence, how do you define it? What about animated violence? What about live action "violence" where there is no blood? Or where there's only the "suggestion" of violence?
Fifthly, censorship is a dangerous, slippery slope, with questionable benefit. If we start censoring TV and video games, what next? When will they start censoring "inappropriate" books? Or music? After all, we need to "protect the children", lest we somehow damage society.
Personally, I'm a little tired of people trotting out the ol' "think of the children!" line every time they want to curb *my* rights.
"when you run your mouse over and then off the link, the link that it would've gone to is shown in the status bar."
Right, because as we all know, the link text is sufficient for determining the legitimacy of a web site. Yeah, I probably could manually type the damned URL in, in order to check things out for myself, but that's more than a bit of a pain, and illustrates that the test designers didn't feel that verifying the legitimacy of emailed links is a valid way of determining if an email is fraudulent (which makes the test results appear more alarming, as people who would be able to verify a website's legitimacy can't, thus making the test more difficult, while being less realistic).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you should re-read my post... particularly the first sentence.
THE Greek organizers of this summer's topless Olympics, which began in Athens yesterday, claim that more women athletes are competing than ever before. Women are also playing a high-profile role in making the whole enterprise, the biggest of its kind in Greek history, run as smoothly as possible. Seen from the Western world, however, the Athens game will look like a male-dominated spectacle in which women play an incidental part.
According to officials in Athens, the number of Western women participating in this year's game is the lowest since 1960. Several Western countries have sent no women athletes at all; others, such as the United States, are taking part with only one, in full clothing. And state-owned TV networks in many Western countries, including Canada and Britain, have received instructions to limit coverage of events featuring women athletes at Athens to a minimum.
A circular from the FTC in America asks TV editors to make sure that women's games are not televised live: "Images of women engaged in contests [sic] must be carefully vetted," says the letter, leaked in Tehran. "Editors must take care to prevent viewers from being confronted [sic] with uncovered parts of the female anatomy in contests."
because censorship is done by governments
Actually, that's an incredibly narrow view point to hold (and a dangerous one, IMHO). Censorship can be performed by any entity which has control over lines of communication. This could be the government, or it could be a giant media conglomerate. After all, what happens when the giant media conglomerate is in cahoots with the government and chooses to "select" only content that's favourable to the incumbants? I'd call that censorship...
OTOH, what's happening with the Olympics is most definitely *not* censorship, and the submitter should be severely chastised for invoking that word in this situation, as it simply serves to further confuse people regarding what does and doesn't qualify as censorship (an incredibly important issue in this day and age).
Okay, dude, you're missing the point! There are movies that are bad because they don't appeal to your taste... after all, there are those who quite enjoyed Moulin Rouge (and myself didn't mind it). OTOH, this topic is concerned with those very special movies out there that really are truly, universally, absolutely horrible.
Wow. You're pretty sheltered if that's your idea of a bad movie. Try out the recent Dungeons and Dragons movie (circa 2000 or so, IIRC) and then get back to us.
Damnit, I hate this argument. Of *course* more energy will go into hydrogen than you get out. That's called Conservation of Energy.
The point of Hydrogen is that it provides a convenient storage format for energy which can then be produced in large quantities at central generation facilities. This is very advantageous, as energy production benefits from scale. Moreover, centralized generation means that it's easy to upgrade to new, cleaner, more efficient production technologies, as we only have to upgrade thousands of plants, rather than millions of cars.
And if that wasn't enough, centralized generation also means you can take advantage of other energy generation sources that wouldn't normally be available, such as solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, etc, etc. So, you can really have your "solar powered car", at least indirectly... you use solar energy to generate hydrogen, which is then used to cleanly power your car.
So, yes, a hydrogen-based economy really is that revolutionary.
Umm... you do realize that you can bike on the road even if there aren't bike lanes, right? And yes, this is perfectly safe... I do it every day on fairly major roads.
but bigger cars vs. bigger cars (and bigger cars vs. trees, telephole poles, etc.) are MUCH safer.
Got proof for that? 'cuz it sound pretty counter-intuitive to me. See, in case you didn't know, the kinetic energy of one of these vehicles is equal to their mass times their velocity. IOW, a heavy SUV carries a great deal more energy at speed compared to a smaller vehicle. So, in an accident between two SUVs, more energy must be dissipated in the collision. Tell me again how this somehow makes the situation better?
By contrast, smaller vehicles carry less total kinetic energy, meaning that things like crumple zones, air bags, seat belts, etc, can be more effective, since there's less total energy to dissipate in the event of an accident. Moreover, it's silly to disregard rollover issues with SUVs. After all, if an SUV t-bones another SUV, and that SUV rolls over, the passengers are probably much worse off than if it had been two smaller vehicles. And I'd be surprised if you could find any SUV without an increased rollover risk, simply due to their design (the center of mass is moved up much higher than on traditional vehicles).
Sorry, but IMHO, SUVs are only designed to give the illusion of increased safety.
Doubtful. It was a *head-on* collision. Two SUVs colliding head-on would probably result in the deaths of both parties, especially at highway speeds.
Umm, how 'bout this for Perl and this for Python. You should have looked harder.
So how do you deal with the p/invoke issue? Or did you just ignore it?
Actually, I disagree. In fact, Seagate could come off *really* well if WD incorporated their technology illegally, and Seagate caught them. Why? Think about it... the license fees. The money from lawsuits. Not to mention the impact on WD's stock price. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. After all, submarine patent holders have been doing this for *years*, and have been very successful at it.
If he'd signed a non-compete, Seagate is entirely in the right here.
Is that strictly true? My understanding was that the legality of non-compete agreements is somewhat vague, and likely various from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
TBH, my solution for the password problem is to keep a password protected 2048-bit private key on a small USB pen drive on my key chain (and backed up on a cdrom in a separate location). I then keep my passwords in an encrypted file on disk (also backed up). So, in order for anyone to get at my passwords, they need to 1) get my USB key, 2) brute-force that password (which is 8-character line-noise), then 3) get a hold of my password file and decrypt it. Pretty secure all the way around, and allows me to use very secure passwords everywhere I care to, since I don't feel the need to memorize them.
The handy side effect of this is I can use the same public/private key pair for signing/encrypting anything else I wish.
This should be modded insightful. These kind of forced password-change policies do one thing only: encourage people to choose easy-to-remember (and hence, likely easy-to-crack) passwords. Even worse, it encourages people to write their passwords down and store them in what is probably a very insecure location! So, in the end, you get only a marginal increase in security.
Frankly, I think the best bet is to encourage users to just select longish (>8 characters), complex password (no word substrings, more than just alphabetic characters, etc), but don't force them to change it. After all, brute-forcing a complex, 8-character password is still a fairly difficult process.
That's just plain absurd. The stories in the bible (mainly the old testament) are riddled with people who *knew* god existed because they literally witnessed acts that god himself commited after telling them he was going to commit them!. Just take Noah, for example, and that whole pesky "flood" thing. Not to mention various plagues, etc, etc. And yet no one questions Noah's faith, or David's.
:)
Given that, IMHO, the reason God hasn't shown himself in over a thousand years (by, say, telling everyone he's going to perform some atrocity, and then doing it) is because he doesn't actually exist. But, hey, that's just MHO.
Yes... the really interesting question is, what was their strike price?
No, his point is that the "fair use" provision does not provide the right to back up your movies. It only gives you the right to make limited copies of movies, audio, etc, for use in research or education. And as for the right to back up software, this right is provided explicitely in law, and is thus very different from, and should not be confused with, fair use.
It is a meat packer's job to be sure they produce clean meat but when they don't we go after them... This is the same situation.
No, it's not. You must have missed that part of my post, or conveniently ignored it. The food production industry and the media industry are *NOT THE SAME*. Am I being clear? And Why? Because bad food can harm people, bad media cannot. Despite what you seem to think.
Oh, did I mention drunk driving and vehicular homicide?
You're missing my point (surprise, surprise...). There are *many* dangerous things in society which have a proven ability to harm children. Cars, Knives, Bleach, guns, etc, etc. And we realize that it's up to the parents to protect their children from these items. Why on earth is TV so different? Especially when, in the case of TV, there aren't even provable harms! As opposed to, say, cars, knives, bleach, or guns...
It may, actually. Assuming such hibernation significantly reduces the basal metabolic rate, it can be surmised that lifespan would likely be extended. For example, the lifespan of lab rats have been greatly extended by placing them on an ultra-low-calorie diet, and it is theorized that this increase in lifespan is due to the decreased basal metabolic rate resulting from such a diet.
You can't protect your kids when they go to someone else's house or go to school. Make them stay at home you say?
Not at all. Teach them to protect themselves, and how to react to potentially dangerous situations. Kinda like how people should be taught to be aware of what they're watching on TV.
I don't deny that more parents need to care (I've seen many who don't) but responsiblity is a 2 way street and there is no reason why we shouldn't keep the media producers responsible for some of the shit they produce and distribute through mass media outlets. Don't just make the parents responsible.
1. What you call shit, I call high quality entertainment. The Sopranos and CSI and very graphically violent, but many consider them to be some of the best drama on television.
2. Yes, you should make the parents responsible. They're *parents*, for christ sake! It's their *job* to be responsible! Geezuz... by your logic, we should eliminate alcohol from society too, because, hey, kids might get into that stuff! And parents can't follow their kids around everywhere.
hen people die from bad meat we don't tell them to switch brands or tell them to take up eating fish. We go after the company who had bad enough business practices to let bad meat slip into the good meat bins.
You're absolutely right. If you could show me *provable* damage being cause by the material on TV, I would absolutely entertain the idea of stricter government regulation. The problem is... there *isn't any proof!* Worse, there's proof to the *contrary!*
Prove to me violence ever HELPS.
Okay, firstly, it's *your* job as the censor to prove to *me* that violence depicted on television is bad, because unless you can do that, you have no right to curb people's freedom of expression.
Secondly, I would argue that violence can be used *very* effectively for art's sake, let alone entertainment. Programs like CSI and The Sopranos are just two good examples. And that ignores all the brilliant, violent movies out there (Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, Fight Club, etc).
Good point but it isn't impossible to set standards. oops, I said the s word, shame on me.
Sure, standards. Standards which can be changed, amended, expanded upon, reinterpreted... hell, just look at the smut laws here in Canada. Legitimate lesbian literature ended up being held at the border because people decided to reinterpret the law the way *they* saw fit. Standards aren't worth the paper their written on in the face of an hysterical, emotionally driven public.
So why exactly is no censorship at all such an end all to our problems?
Did I *say* it was? My contention is that, in this case, censorship provides no provable benefit, and hence cannot be justified, given that censorship, by definition, infringes on the rights of others, and the only time a person in a free society should be willing to infringe on the rights of another is if there is measurable damage being caused by the person exercising their rights.
If they wanted to censor the things you are worried about they would have tried by now;
They are trying. Right now! That's the whole damned point of this article!
let them censor what need to be censored.
Whatever that is.
Your kids will have plenty of time to learn about how to kill and rape eventually; no need to let them learn/see it by age 12 by watching FOX or F/X.
Okay, what part of "studies show that watching violence doesn't beget violence" don't you get? Kids *don't* "learn about how to kill and rape" by watching TV.
Besides, violence has been depicted on TV, movies, and other forms of art for a *very* long time. It's nothing new, no matter what you may believe. And yet, I'm supposed to believe that, somehow TV is now the root of all evil? Please... if anything, this is just scapegoating. After all, it sure is easy to say "see, it's t
Umm, that should be:
"Please, prove to me that the moon is made of cheese. I've seen plenty of studies that prove that the moon is not, in fact, made of cheese."
Followed by:
"I don't think you'll ever see such information; it doesn't need to exist, because the argument that the moon is made of cheese is an emotional one, not based on fact."
Basically, you're missing the point he grandparent is making. His/her contention is that there is no studies which prove a link between violent TV and violent acts because you don't need that kind of information to make the argument. Why? Because that argument is an emotional rather than logical one.
Good try, though.
Well, given that AES isn't an asymmetric cipher, and hence doesn't use products of primes, I don't see what Shor's algorithm (a prime factorization algorithm) as to do with anything.
First of all, it ain't up to the state to protect the children from idiot parenting. Otherwise, most of the children in middle class homes would probably taken away from their parents due to neglect.
Second, censorship is never the right solution. The parents should have the right to control what their children can and can't watch, while still being able to watch things *they're* interested in. Hell, technology can all but do this for them, anyway! It's called locking out channels. It's existed for years (or don't you watch the Simpsons?).
Thirdly, even if kids are watching a ton of violence, please, prove to me that it actually matters. I've seen plenty of studies which disprove any link between watching violent materials and commiting violent acts.
Fourthly, even if you want to try and censor violence, how do you define it? What about animated violence? What about live action "violence" where there is no blood? Or where there's only the "suggestion" of violence?
Fifthly, censorship is a dangerous, slippery slope, with questionable benefit. If we start censoring TV and video games, what next? When will they start censoring "inappropriate" books? Or music? After all, we need to "protect the children", lest we somehow damage society.
Personally, I'm a little tired of people trotting out the ol' "think of the children!" line every time they want to curb *my* rights.
"when you run your mouse over and then off the link, the link that it would've gone to is shown in the status bar."
Right, because as we all know, the link text is sufficient for determining the legitimacy of a web site. Yeah, I probably could manually type the damned URL in, in order to check things out for myself, but that's more than a bit of a pain, and illustrates that the test designers didn't feel that verifying the legitimacy of emailed links is a valid way of determining if an email is fraudulent (which makes the test results appear more alarming, as people who would be able to verify a website's legitimacy can't, thus making the test more difficult, while being less realistic).