It is NOT aluminum foil that protects you, it is iron chain mail. If you look back in history you can clearly see that as the number of knights diminishes, the number of "so-called" schizophrenic people increases! Why you may ask?
Chain mail was invented back during the first alien invasion by the race known as the Krew. At that time the aliens only used their mind control devices upon the leading members of society, i.e. the nobles, causing them to talk to themselves. This is why the nobility adopted chain mail.
With the protection afforded by said chain mail, the nobility decided to strike back. This is where the world Cru-sades comes from as the etymology clearly shows. First we have the Cru From the latin CRU or cross. Is it a coinicidence that the cross( a symbol of protection against evil) and the Krew have the same in latin? I think not! It becomes more apparent when one looks at the second half of the word: SADE As you can clearly see, SADE in swedish is the past tense of saga, "say, tell; utter words"
So the true definition becomes clear, CRUSADE - to protect against alien influence causing one to utter words!!!
Crew? Not a chance. There is absolutely no reason to send crew on a mission like this.
Question, I assume there will only be one of these made at the time, so what happens if it BREAKS? 1.No humans = no fixing it, 2.No fixing it = End of civilization 3. E.O.C. = ???? 4. Profit!!!
You cannot say science is a belief because that presumes that there are things such as science and beliefs.
Really?
Is or is not science based upon the ASSUMPTION of a rational and explainable universe?
My issue is not with science per se, but the dogmatic teaching of science as the one and only valid truth. I do not claim that science is invalid, but too often I think those teaching "science" portray it as holy dogma.
-ID *DOES NOT* "allow" for the existence of a creator it *requires* a creator. Conversely evolution does not deny the existence of a creator it simply refutes the mythological mechanisms of various creation myths.
Really? A number of scientists I've talked to look with disdain on the whole idea of a creator, let alone those who profess belief in one. I think alot of scientists do seek to make science THE religion.
there are not a lot of sane people refuting Newtonian physics
Except for quantum physics. While the newtonian clockwork view of the universe works on a macro scale, it fails miserably upon a micro scale.
-Just because one man, or even a group of men, can not imagine the solution to scientific problems such as was there really a big bang, what was before the big bang, will there be a "big crunch" or will the universe just keep expanding, does not require or even suggest the existence of an omniscient architect. nor does it preclude the existence of one either. Many scientists dismiss the possibility outright. Thus they are just as arrogant and extreme as any fundamentalist.
Why should I believe the Abrahamic version of the creation over, say the ancient Greek or Egyptian version? IMO you should find the ethos that makes the most sense to you. On a personal level, I like the greek and/or norse gods the best, but tend towards agnostic.
Why should I pay to have schools teach this particular myth, when I need not pay to have the specially Judaic mythos taught, as those parents who find that important send their kids to a separate after hours classes.
You shouldn't. Neither should a fundamentalist parent have to pay for his/her child to be taught that god does not exist. (Which I think is a danger in many science classes.) The problem I have with science is its insistence that it has a monopoly on the truth. It is a BELIEF system. Granted one that can be tested and produce verifiable results, yet it is still based upon belief.
My child should not have the mythos of another religion taught to her at school as fact, it's really that simple. And other parents feel (wrongly or rightly) that science is a mythos(at least in part) which is attempting to replace their own. Just as you would object to islam or judiasm or christianity being taught so they object to an athiest/secular mythos being taught.
Even with all of the above, I believe in evolution, and science in general, as it makes more sense than most other ideas. Science taken as religion however has just as many pitfalls as any other religion. It removes any sort of moral framework to base life upon. If you dismiss religion/philosophy you come down to a world based upon violence where any act is justifiable as "survival of the fittest" the same is true of extremist religion acting in the "name of god".
Yes it is. SCIENCE is the BELIEF that the universe is set up with a series of laws which can be discovered, and which produce identical results when tested multiple times. Evolution is a subset of Science, and therefore is part of that BELIEF.
You may detest it, but the core of science just like any other system created by man is FAITH that said system works. Granted it explains many details of our physical existence better than "GOG the destroyer of worlds" yet it is still based on the BELIEF that the universe is rational, and explainable.
If you deny that science is based on faith, then IMO you are just as intolerant and closed minded as the fundamentalists who deny the validity of science whatsoever.
Granted. I straddle the fence as it were. I tend to think something started the universe, but I think it is impossible to either prove or disprove it. I also think that even if we could prove it, we would be unable to understand its purpose.
Either with evolution or with ID. Evolution is the belief that life adapts following a set of rules. ID should merely state nothing in evolution precludes "someone" from creating the rules to begin with.
As an Agnostic, I tend to believe creation was started by somone/something. If it was a super intelligent being, I think it would be smart enough to create a set of rules, that would allow a "hands off" approach once the process started.
I do not think science will ever answer the question of what or how the universe came into being. We will never be able to examine the evidence (pre-big bang). Thus it is silly to deny the possibility of god's existence.
An analogy: Imagine you are a self-aware computer. Without access to the physical world that programmers live in you could make an argument that your electronic world always existed, that your programs arise through an evolutionary process, thus denying the need for a "user".
We are in the same boat IMO. "Science" and "Religion" are both belief systems. As open minded as science is supposed to be you can see it IS NOT, and tends to react just like any other religion when its core beliefs are questioned. Any theory which calls into question the orthodox beliefs of the day will be viciously attacked.
Examples: Plate tectonics, Fast moving, warm blooded dinosaurs vs cold blooded sluggish ones.
I would expect that the creator writes artful code instead of spaghetti code which must be tweaked from time to time.
I'm currently fighting off a zombie attack, so I don't have time to RTFA.
Could someone please summarize the part about how to kill them?
Help desk to the rescue!
(Whips out user guide)
Congratulations! Your new Zombieplex 666 unit by Hell is durable and designed to work out of the box. Your new Zombieplex 666 does not need a power supply, as it remains in an always on state. Removing peripherals will not affect system operation. To deactivate the Zombieplex, simply smash the central processing unit. In the event of system error please call the HELL tech support hotline at (1-800-GET-SOME).
Also, how do you treat a zombie-bite wound? Band-aids, some neosporin? This one on my ankle hurts like a bitch, and it's starting to go kinda numb around it.
Corruption of system files is imminent, Followed by the Green Screen of Death. Sorry dude you'll need to reboot....
You're kinda right. Still, the current trend is demagogy (whatever it's spelled in English) rather than absolutism.
But trends can change. When any government has this power it will be abused. Is there a valid reason for the government to keep tabs on its citizens? Even if there was, is that the kind of society we would choose to live in? I say no to both questions.
If the government needs to keep watch on its citizens then there must be a MAJOR flaw within the government itself. This indicates that the government is either corrupt, unjust in its application of law or both.
I find it interesting that you looked the country up in wikipedia. I've read enough about the outside world that to know argentina has gone through some military dictatorships. I went to wiki to find the exact dates.
I would be willing to bet during your last dictatorship you had military checkpoints checking people's ID. Why are you so sure it can't happen again?
I see three periods listed since 1943 when you've been under a dictatorship. So from 1943 until today, 62 years, 29 under a dictator. Yes, a shining example of why I should trust my government to have me on file....
IMO this country is going down the tubes in a big way.
Remember history or civics class in school? The inevitable lessons about how free the US was compared to Hitler's germany or the soviet union. Back then they used to point out how free we were because we did not need papers (internal passports) to travel.
How fricking free are we when we need a driver's license to board a plane? Or when our KIDS need ID to board a plane? Or to visit a national park, or federal building? Not to mention the citizens are going to EAT the costs.
More and more it seems the only alternative is to go gulching until the country regains its "mind your own business" mentality.
From the article, it seems even private patents can be claimed under national security. I would assume with anything so claimed the inventor is basically screwed.
So here is the hypothetical question, suppose I invented a new method to decrypt information VERY fast (i.e polynomial time). If I did not apply for a patent here, but either patented it in europe, or just published it, would that be illegal?
As far as I can tell there are no requirements that you must try to patent an invention, nor any requirement that a u.s. inventor patent an invention in the US first.
1st - members of the house selected at random, just like jury duty.
The pros - No more election campaigns (i.e. corporate bribes)for congressmen.
A legislative body made up of common men. The diversity of opinions would be great enough that only the REALLY important issues that pretty much everyone could agree on would make it through.
2nd either keep the senate as an elected body or repeal the 17th amendment. This way the corporations would still have someone to buy.
3rd Change the structure of the supreme court. I'd like to see a court made up of the chief justices of every STATE supreme court. The would give the STATES back the necessary check on federal power.
4th A balanced budget amendment which says that when any passed budget contains a deficit, the shortfall will be paid by the senators. This would keep the senate at odds with the house.
I hate the UN. Why? Because it is trying to usurp national sovereignty. You may support a world government but I do not. The UN has long been trying to ban guns and create a world tax to support itself.
The UN was set up solely as a place where nations could discuss their problems. It was not supposed to have "authority" to do anything. I have enough problems with my elected officals, who supposedly represent the interests of american citizens. I do not want another layer of unelected idiots deciding what is best for me and my family, and taxing me for the privilege.
As much as I detest BUSH and Bolton, I am glad bolton is there. Hopefully he will screw up the US presence there so much that the UN decides to find another host country. (I doubt it but one can always hope)
" Never in a million billion zillion years would the licensed band network operators here tolerate that sort of conduct. Eben needs to stick to software licenses and leave radio physics alone..."
I.E. the corporations who shelled out big bucks and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the startups or hacker in his garage who did not.
Solution: one set of rules for analog broadcast and a more open set of rules for packet broadcast. E.G. any type of gear certified to do packet broadcast can be used without jumping through alot of hoops.
At least from the megacorp news networks. A perfect example was the last presidential campaign. Regardless of your political bent, nader was the only "approved" protest candidate.
I find it highly suspect that the Libertarian candidate was on the ballot in 49 states to nader's 38, yet there was almost no coverage. Especially when both he and the green party candidate got arrested trying to attend the presidential debates.
50 years ago it would have been a major media news item when a presidential candidate on the ballot in 49 states got arrested.
So yeah I'd say the corporate hacks are not journalists either...
1. Threaten internet meltdown to gain concessions 2. gain political influence over IP addresses and DNS registration. 3. Create U.N. "user fee" i.e. tax for IP and DNS 4. Profit!!
This is about censorship and taxation plain and simple. Alot of countries don't like the "wild west" say anything, find anything, freedom available now. The politicians see a very unregulated and untaxed power void....
Our Legal department has recieved your letter. Please be advised we stopped using that particular form of government in 1861. We are now using a form of governance known as the Military Industrial Complex (M.I.C.). This form of government is run by monied individuals while preserving the illusion of choice for the common citizen.
Please be advised that we would be willing to dismiss our counter claims of infringement for your use of M.I.C. in the entity known as the European Union, if you would remove and relocate the United Nations from our shores.
"In the case of the domain name system, that is payed for by the owners of domain names. Year after year they pay for it through their registrars. That doesn't entitle us to something?"
Yes, so here is a clue. Set up your own root DNS servers, then register your names through them. It all comes down to money, and I'm willing to bet the current registrars get a heck of alot more money from U.S. companies and individuals than they do from European ones. Until that changes the existing registrars won't change.
"1) some previous court cases maybe weren't decided in the way the judge would have decided, but have been the basis for so many cases, and been reviewed enough times, that they're a basic part of case law. And you don't overturn case law, because that's judicial activism. or 2) to hell with 30 years of judicial precedent, what the original writers of the consistitution intended is more important than what recent judges have said, so overturn case law"
To hell with 30 years of "precedent" if the original ruling reinterprets the orginial meaning it SHOULD be overturned. If you don't like what the constitution says, then amend it. That is the whole reason we have an amendment process.
If we allow judges,senators, etc to reinterpret the constitution according to modern standards we do a disservice to law. This is as intellectually dishonest as you reinterpreting me when I write the number 100 in decimal, by saying I REALLY wrote in binary, so my "100" is really 4.
That said, Roberts sounds like more of the pro-"big gubment" justice than a strict contructionalist.
Slashdot Mirror
It is NOT aluminum foil that protects you, it is iron chain mail. If you look back in history you can clearly see that as the number of knights diminishes, the number of "so-called" schizophrenic people increases! Why you may ask?
Chain mail was invented back during the first alien invasion by the race known as the Krew. At that time the aliens only used their mind control devices upon the leading members of society, i.e. the nobles, causing them to talk to themselves. This is why the nobility adopted chain mail.
With the protection afforded by said chain mail, the nobility decided to strike back. This is where the world Cru-sades comes from as the etymology clearly shows. First we have the Cru From the latin CRU or cross. Is it a coinicidence that the cross( a symbol of protection against evil) and the Krew have the same in latin? I think not!
It becomes more apparent when one looks at the second half of the word: SADE
As you can clearly see, SADE in swedish is the past tense of saga, "say, tell; utter words"
So the true definition becomes clear, CRUSADE - to protect against alien influence causing one to utter words!!!
Yeah but don't you think there will be a boatload of people screaming
about an unmanned mission if the fate of the world hangs in the balance?
From a political point of view I can't see anyone supporting a robot probe
mission to save the earth.
Crew? Not a chance. There is absolutely no reason to send crew on a mission like this.
Question, I assume there will only be one of these made at the time, so what happens if it BREAKS?
1.No humans = no fixing it,
2.No fixing it = End of civilization
3. E.O.C. = ????
4. Profit!!!
You cannot say science is a belief because that presumes that there are things such as science and beliefs.
Really?
Is or is not science based upon the ASSUMPTION of a rational and explainable universe?
My issue is not with science per se, but the dogmatic teaching of science as the one and only valid truth. I do not claim that science is invalid, but too often I think those teaching "science" portray it as holy dogma.
Your opinion is wrong.
LOL! very effective counter argument. Isn't that exactly the same argument the fundamentalists use against evolution?
-ID *DOES NOT* "allow" for the existence of a creator it *requires* a creator. Conversely evolution does not deny the existence of a creator it simply refutes the mythological mechanisms of various creation myths.
Really? A number of scientists I've talked to look with disdain on the whole idea of a creator, let alone those who profess belief in one. I think alot of scientists do seek to make science THE religion.
there are not a lot of sane people refuting Newtonian physics
Except for quantum physics. While the newtonian clockwork view of the universe works on a macro scale, it fails miserably upon a micro scale.
-Just because one man, or even a group of men, can not imagine the solution to scientific problems such as was there really a big bang, what was before the big bang, will there be a "big crunch" or will the universe just keep expanding, does not require or even suggest the existence of an omniscient architect. nor does it preclude the existence of one either. Many scientists
dismiss the possibility outright. Thus they are just as arrogant and extreme as any fundamentalist.
Why should I believe the Abrahamic version of the creation over, say the ancient Greek or Egyptian version? IMO you should find the ethos that makes the most sense to you. On a personal level, I like the greek and/or norse gods the best, but tend towards agnostic.
Why should I pay to have schools teach this particular myth, when I need not pay to have the specially Judaic mythos taught, as those parents who find that important send their kids to a separate after hours classes.
You shouldn't. Neither should a fundamentalist parent have to pay for his/her child to be taught that god does not exist. (Which I think is a danger in many science classes.) The problem I have with science is its insistence that it has a monopoly on the truth. It is a BELIEF system. Granted one that can be tested and produce verifiable results, yet it is still based upon belief.
My child should not have the mythos of another religion taught to her at school as fact, it's really that simple. And other parents feel (wrongly or rightly) that science is a mythos(at least in part) which is attempting to replace their own. Just as you would object to islam or judiasm or christianity being taught so they object to an athiest/secular mythos being taught.
Even with all of the above, I believe in evolution, and science in general, as it makes more sense than most other ideas. Science taken as religion however has just as many pitfalls as any other religion. It removes any sort of moral framework to base life upon. If you dismiss religion/philosophy you come down to a world based upon violence where any act is justifiable as "survival of the fittest" the same is true of extremist religion acting in the "name of god".
NO. Evolution is not a belief.
Yes it is. SCIENCE is the BELIEF that the universe is set up with a series of laws which can be discovered, and which produce identical results when tested multiple times. Evolution is a subset of Science, and therefore is part of that BELIEF.
You may detest it, but the core of science just like any other system created by man is FAITH that said system works. Granted it explains many details of our physical existence better than "GOG the destroyer of worlds" yet it is still based on the BELIEF that the universe is rational, and explainable.
If you deny that science is based on faith, then IMO you are just as intolerant and closed minded as the fundamentalists who deny the validity of science whatsoever.
Granted. I straddle the fence as it were. I tend to think something started
the universe, but I think it is impossible to either prove or disprove it.
I also think that even if we could prove it, we would be unable to understand
its purpose.
Either with evolution or with ID. Evolution is the belief that life adapts following a set of rules. ID should merely state nothing in evolution precludes "someone" from creating the rules to begin with.
As an Agnostic, I tend to believe creation was started by somone/something. If it was a super intelligent being, I think it would be smart enough to create a set of rules, that would allow a "hands off" approach once the process started.
I do not think science will ever answer the question of what or how the universe came into being. We will never be able to examine the evidence (pre-big bang). Thus it is silly to deny the possibility of god's existence.
An analogy: Imagine you are a self-aware computer. Without access to the physical world that programmers live in you could make an argument that your electronic world always existed, that your programs arise through an evolutionary process, thus denying the need for a "user".
We are in the same boat IMO. "Science" and "Religion" are both belief systems. As open minded as science is supposed to be you can see it IS NOT, and tends to react just like any other religion when its core beliefs are questioned. Any theory which calls into question the orthodox beliefs of the day will be viciously attacked.
Examples: Plate tectonics, Fast moving, warm blooded dinosaurs vs cold blooded sluggish ones.
I would expect that the creator writes artful code instead of spaghetti code which must be tweaked from time to time.
wholly new operating system under development called Singularity,
appropriate name, as the gravitational pull of bloated code will cause
the OS to implode into the black screen of death....
I'm currently fighting off a zombie attack, so I don't have time to RTFA.
Could someone please summarize the part about how to kill them?
Help desk to the rescue!
(Whips out user guide)
Congratulations! Your new Zombieplex 666 unit by Hell is durable and designed to work out of the box. Your new Zombieplex 666 does not need a power supply, as it remains in an always on state. Removing peripherals will not affect system operation. To deactivate the Zombieplex, simply smash the central processing unit. In the event of system error please call the HELL tech support hotline at (1-800-GET-SOME).
Also, how do you treat a zombie-bite wound? Band-aids, some neosporin? This one on my ankle hurts like a bitch, and it's starting to go kinda numb around it.
Corruption of system files is imminent, Followed by the Green Screen of Death. Sorry dude you'll need to reboot....
You're kinda right. Still, the current trend is demagogy (whatever it's spelled in English) rather than absolutism.
But trends can change. When any government has this power it will be abused.
Is there a valid reason for the government to keep tabs on its citizens?
Even if there was, is that the kind of society we would choose to live in? I say no to both questions.
If the government needs to keep watch on its citizens then there must be a MAJOR
flaw within the government itself. This indicates that the government is either
corrupt, unjust in its application of law or both.
I find it interesting that you looked the country up in wikipedia.
I've read enough about the outside world that to know argentina has gone through
some military dictatorships. I went to wiki to find the exact dates.
I would be willing to bet during your last dictatorship you had military checkpoints checking people's ID. Why are you so sure it can't happen again?
you mean this?
I see three periods listed since 1943 when you've been under a dictatorship.
So from 1943 until today, 62 years, 29 under a dictator. Yes, a shining example
of why I should trust my government to have me on file....
IMO this country is going down the tubes in a big way.
Remember history or civics class in school? The inevitable lessons about how free the US was compared to Hitler's germany or the soviet union. Back then they used to point out how free we were because we did not need papers (internal passports) to travel.
How fricking free are we when we need a driver's license to board a plane? Or when our KIDS need ID to board a plane? Or to visit a national park, or federal building? Not to mention the citizens are going to EAT the costs.
More and more it seems the only alternative is to go gulching until the country regains its "mind your own business" mentality.
Today's USA, The Anti-federalists worst nightmare coming true.
From the article, it seems even private patents can be claimed under national security. I would assume with anything so claimed the inventor is basically screwed.
So here is the hypothetical question, suppose I invented a new method to decrypt information VERY fast (i.e polynomial time). If I did not apply for a patent here, but either patented it in europe, or just published it, would that be illegal?
As far as I can tell there are no requirements that you must try to patent an invention, nor any requirement that a u.s. inventor patent an invention in the US first.
Thoughts?
I'd change a few things,
1st - members of the house selected at random, just like jury duty.
The pros - No more election campaigns (i.e. corporate bribes)for congressmen.
A legislative body made up of common men. The diversity of opinions would
be great enough that only the REALLY important issues that pretty much everyone
could agree on would make it through.
2nd either keep the senate as an elected body or repeal the 17th amendment.
This way the corporations would still have someone to buy.
3rd Change the structure of the supreme court. I'd like to see a court made up
of the chief justices of every STATE supreme court. The would give the STATES
back the necessary check on federal power.
4th A balanced budget amendment which says that when any passed budget contains a deficit, the shortfall will be paid by the senators. This would keep the senate at odds with the house.
I hate the UN. Why? Because it is trying to usurp national sovereignty.
You may support a world government but I do not. The UN has long been trying to
ban guns and create a world tax to support itself.
The UN was set up solely as a place where nations could discuss their problems.
It was not supposed to have "authority" to do anything. I have enough problems
with my elected officals, who supposedly represent the interests of american
citizens. I do not want another layer of unelected idiots deciding what is best
for me and my family, and taxing me for the privilege.
As much as I detest BUSH and Bolton, I am glad bolton is there. Hopefully he
will screw up the US presence there so much that the UN decides to find another
host country. (I doubt it but one can always hope)
http://www.novell.com/products/openenterpriseserve r/iscsi.html
NSS 3.0 does up to 8TB I believe. XFS does 9PB?
The key to your comment is this :
..."
" Never in a million billion zillion years would the licensed band network operators here tolerate that sort of conduct. Eben needs to stick to software licenses and leave radio physics alone
I.E. the corporations who shelled out big bucks and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, as opposed to the startups or hacker in his garage who did not.
Solution: one set of rules for analog broadcast and a more open set of rules for packet broadcast. E.G. any type of gear certified to do packet broadcast can be used without jumping through alot of hoops.
At least from the megacorp news networks. A perfect example was the last presidential campaign. Regardless of your political bent, nader was the only "approved" protest candidate.
I find it highly suspect that the Libertarian candidate was on the ballot in
49 states to nader's 38, yet there was almost no coverage. Especially when
both he and the green party candidate got arrested trying to attend the presidential debates.
50 years ago it would have been a major media news item when a presidential candidate on the ballot in 49 states got arrested.
So yeah I'd say the corporate hacks are not journalists either...
Dick Cheney is rumored to own the "ONE RING" tm in a secure and undisclosed location.
In DC where the shadows lie.....
1. Threaten internet meltdown to gain concessions
2. gain political influence over IP addresses and DNS registration.
3. Create U.N. "user fee" i.e. tax for IP and DNS
4. Profit!!
This is about censorship and taxation plain and simple. Alot of countries don't like the "wild west" say anything, find anything, freedom available now.
The politicians see a very unregulated and untaxed power void....
"This means they'll be accepting virtual money, right?"
Yeah, they're called federal reserve notes....
Dear, Old World
Our Legal department has recieved your letter. Please be advised we stopped using that particular form of government in 1861. We are now using a form of governance known as the Military Industrial Complex (M.I.C.). This form of government is run by monied individuals while preserving the illusion of choice for the common citizen.
Please be advised that we would be willing to dismiss our counter claims of infringement for your use of M.I.C. in the entity known as the European Union, if you would remove and relocate the United Nations from our shores.
"In the case of the domain name system, that is payed for by the owners of domain names. Year after year they pay for it through their registrars. That doesn't entitle us to something?"
Yes, so here is a clue. Set up your own root DNS servers, then register your names through them. It all comes down to money, and I'm willing to bet the current registrars get a heck of alot more money from U.S. companies and individuals than they do from European ones. Until that changes the existing registrars won't change.
"1) some previous court cases maybe weren't decided in the way the judge would have decided, but have been the basis for so many cases, and been reviewed enough times, that they're a basic part of case law. And you don't overturn case law, because that's judicial activism. or 2) to hell with 30 years of judicial precedent, what the original writers of the consistitution intended is more important than what recent judges have said, so overturn case law"
To hell with 30 years of "precedent" if the original ruling reinterprets the orginial meaning it SHOULD be overturned. If you don't like what the constitution says, then amend it. That is the whole reason we have an amendment process.
If we allow judges,senators, etc to reinterpret the constitution according to modern standards we do a disservice to law. This is as intellectually dishonest as you reinterpreting me when I write the number 100 in decimal, by saying I REALLY wrote in binary, so my "100" is really 4.
That said, Roberts sounds like more of the pro-"big gubment" justice than a strict contructionalist.