It's not just that. Take a look at Lucas's first big movie, THX-1138. How many lines were spoken in that move?
Lucas is all about visuals, and that's it. If he'd realize that and confine himself to that, he could make a great visual art director in a big-budget movie.
No, 4-6 were good popcorn movies. They weren't high art by any means, but they were far better than the Prequels which were trash. The reason is simple: in 4-6, other people were able to cover for George's inability. The prequels suffered for bad direction and horrible dialog (/script). In 4, his (now ex-)wife edited the script. If it weren't for her, 4 would have the same utterly horrible dialog as the prequels, and 5 and 6 might not have happened. George was also a better director back then, because his ego wasn't as big. 5 was great because it had different writers (Brackett/Kasdan) and a different director (Kershner). 6 was OK because it too had a different writer (Kasdan/Lucas) and a different director (Marquand).
With the Prequels, Lucas did everything, and no one wanted to say anything to him because his ego was so big and he had put himself in charge of everything, so the results are predictably bad. Lucas was never much good at writing a script or even directing actors, but he refuses to admit it.
Natalie Portman and (by most accounts) Hayden Christenson are actually good actors, but you wouldn't know it from the Star Wars prequels. When you have direction that lousy and a script/dialog that lousy, even the most talented actor is going to look bad. According to TFS, Portman even complained that after the Prequels, everyone thought she was a bad actress.
You can't judge an actor by a single movie. Cruise really is a good actor, that's one reason he's had such a long career. Too bad he's also badshit insane with that Scientology crap.
Schwarzenegger can't act but was perfect in the role of an emotionless machine that can't act.
Schwarzenegger was a good fit for several of his parts only because of his body, nothing else. His thick Austrian accent (esp. on a time-traveling robot) didn't exactly add to the realism.
From what I've seen in recent years on TV and in Hollywood movies, getting a part seems to require not so much talent, but a LOT of $$$ for dental work. Getting all your teeth re-capped and made perfectly shaped and white like that isn't cheap. And you'll need that to get any major part on even a low-budget TV show.
Pay attention when you're watching some TV show at the actors' teeth. Then look around you at the teeth on everyone you know.
But if you see.net as having some sort of technological benefit, and you see the war as having been fought and lost by the enemy who has capitulated by releasing.net as open source (I know, I know, with strings attached...) then there's no longer any need to keep fighting the war.
Is your name Priam? He thought the war was over too, and that this big wooden horse left as a gift by his enemy would be perfectly safe to bring into his city. He didn't pay much attention to the strings attached.
Wow, what a convenient, sweeping generalization you just made there. Unfortunately, there are extremists in every group, however, the extremists in the Republican party have taken over and are an ever growing faction of ignorant rubes.
While I do admit there are people far to the left that take things too far, none of them have the power to really threaten the rights of the everyone
Well, the "extremists" here won in these school districts, and they even won the case at the SCOTUS level (since the court refused to hear the case). It's now a judicial precedent. So how is this "extreme" when it's the law of the land, and upheld by multiple courts?
So it's "hostile" to express a possibly unpopular opinion? What about the students celebrating Cinco de Mayo? How are their actions not hostile to someone who doesn't like that holiday? It's all a matter of perspective. Anything you do is going to offend someone, somewhere. What about if the school has a dance or prom with dancing? That's going to highly offend someone (some Christian sects think dancing is "from the devil"). Should we ban dancing in schools because some wackos are offended by it? They're going to claim that having this dance is "being hostile" to them, and they're right: it is. Having that dance is openly insulting their religious beliefs. The only way you can avoid offending these people is to kowtow to their beliefs. I sure as hell don't want to do that, to limit myself to please some moralistic assholes, do you?
What if the students have a music appreciation class and get to bring in their own music, and a student brings in some kind of innocuous pop music (I dunno, maybe some Michael Jackson, obviously not new)? Some religious nuts complain that this is "being hostile" to their religious beliefs that music shouldn't have drumbeats (I'm pretty sure there's some wacky Christians out there who believe this). Or that even having the class is "being hostile" to their beliefs because it isn't solely religious music, or that they even have music because their religion says music is evil. Now you're not providing an "inclusive learning experience" because you're offending a bunch of religious people. Obviously, limiting peoples' expression because of some minority is not serving the majority who think music and dancing are OK and worthwhile parts of school.
So why should these students wearing flags limit their expression?
A hate crime is when you hate someone so much that you go and beat the crap out of them or kill them not because of something they did to you but because of things about themselves that they cannot control.
Um, last time I checked, assault and murder are illegal, and have been for centuries. Why exactly do we need new laws against these things? It doesn't matter why you murder someone; they're still dead, and if the law is working correctly, you'll still go to prison for it (with sentencing based on whether it was pre-meditated or not, or an accident or negligence). If you decide you hate black people and want to go kill one, and you do so, that's "murder 1" and the punishment is already rather harsh for that. So why do we need a new law?
You are more than likely bright enough to realize the students were making a political statement with those t-shirts. They even freely admit it.
So what? Are other students allowed, at other times, to make political statements? If the answer is "no", then sure, not allowing flag t-shirts is fine. However, if other students are allowed to make political statements, then you can't tell them they can't make political speech. A "hostile learning environment" is irrelevant: any political speech of any kind is going to offend someone, so if you're allowing some political speech but not others, then you're discriminating and playing favorites. It's not the school's job to select which political opinions are OK and which aren't.
the American flag was little different than a slogan saying "deport anchor babies."
So are you suggesting that t-shirts bearing that slogan should be censored by the government? I find that offensive. This is a matter of free speech, nothing more. Teenagers should enjoy the same free-speech protections that the rest of us enjoy, even if it offends some people. I saw plenty of teenagers in my high school wearing religious t-shirts; those, to me, are offensive (and even moreso today considering how extremist American Christianity has become). Why should they be allowed to wear those, but not anti-immigration t-shirts?
If a school wants to avoid this stuff, maybe they should just have a blanket policy, in effect on *all* school days, that explicitly describes the allowed dress code. Then they could just forbid all clothing with slogans or flags of any kind.
Finally, I have to disagree that a US flag is somehow like making a political statement about immigration. It's the flag of this nation; if wearing it is offensive to someone, regardless of the day, that seems rather ridiculous.
Exactly. If you try to avoid offending people, you're merely stifling expression and creativity, and in effect oppressing people. The problem is that people on both sides want to do this, though they want to oppress different people: on the right, they want to censor anything that offends Christians; on the left, they want to censor anything that offends minorities, even when the minorities have even worse views than the Christians they dislike so much.
Personally, I like the values that France has as a society, with one of them being secularism. Why this word wasn't written into our Constitution, I don't know, but it should have been. As soon as you start pandering to religions and religious values, you get all kinds of horrible anti-human-rights side effects, since most religions are all about oppressing people and denying them their human rights if they don't kowtow to the religion.
They're not eager to push diversity. They're eager to find a selling point which can be leveraged to expand their own level of power and/or wealth.
That would explain the motivation of the politicians and others at the top. However, it doesn't explain all the lower-middle-class 20-something liberals who buy into all this stuff. My guess is that they're just parroting what their "leaders" have fed them, just like people on the right parrot everything that their leaders (like Pat Robertson, Rand Paul, etc.) feed them.
I agree with the AC who responded here. I will point out, however, that the BSDs were around before Linux, yet Linux (kernel) is the one which now powers most of the world's smartphones, countless embedded devices, and countless servers (including most webservers), plus a fair number of desktop computers. By contrast, I've never actually seen FreeBSD in use anywhere personally. I know Hotmail used to run on it more than a decade ago, and that's all I can think of; I sure don't see it in any embedded systems like I do with Linux. The permissive license didn't help its adoption, it seems.
However, on the flip side, the technically best and probably 2nd most popular FOSS database, PostgreSQL, has a permissive license (BSD I'm pretty sure), and it's doing great, and in fact it seems that a slow but steady stream of people are abandoning MySQL for it.
Wearing a flag is not discriminatory. Wearing a flag is speech, and should be protected under the First Amendment. Not allowing someone to wear a flag (any flag) is a violation of the First Amendment. It's quite simple.
Thank you, AC. It amazes me how if you criticize one "side" in this country, unthinking morons will assume you must obviously be on the other "side". sjbe's response shows this perfectly.
No, American left-wingers would obviously not support these "religious freedom" laws, because they're obviously aimed at letting Christians discriminate against people they don't like (mainly homosexuals).
However, these same left-wingers are certainly *not* the ones who want to keep kids from wearing American flags to school because they'd "offend" Hispanics. I don't think I need to prove that it's the leftists who are behind this one. Right-wingers are up in arms about stuff like this (though not necessarily for the right reason, which is freedom of speech).
Honestly, I really think that if someone tried to push a law that banned "insulting Islam" in the US, a good number of left-wingers would support this, because they're so big on "celebrating diversity" that they compromise true liberal values (equal rights, secularism, etc.) just so they can cozy up with "oppressed" minorities like Hispanics and Muslims.
There's nothing stopping the copyright holders of a GPL'd project from taking it proprietary. It's not much different than if the people running a permissive licensed project (BSD/MIT) decided to take it proprietary. Everything up to that point will still be available barring any patent issues.
Two points:
1) As you said, this doesn't remove the actual project from accessibility in the FOSS-sphere. You just can't have any new versions that the copyright owners decide to publish under a proprietary license. You can still use the existing code all you want, and you can fork it too if you want.
2) This isn't really a big fear among people. Honestly, how many times has this happened? The advantage of GPL over BSD licenses is that with GPL, only the actual copyright holder can do such a thing. With BSD, anyone can do this, so you have cases like Kerberos, where a giant company with lots of resources grabs some FOSS code, "extends" it with proprietary extensions, and then pushes the new version so it's effectively been hijacked. This can't happen with GPL; there, the big corp would have to buy the copyrights from the original holders (which may be very difficult if there's a lot of contributors; with Linux (kernel), for instance, it's probably impossible to get all the contributors to agree to selling or even to a license change to GPLv3), before they could pull such a move.
Unfortunately, it's not just the right that wants to silence "offensive" speech; the left wants to as well: the SCOTUS refused to hear a case about high school students who wore t-shirts with the American flag to school on Cinco de Mayo and got in trouble because the school said this could "incite violence" among Hispanic students who apparently are offended by the US flag. This case was even supported by the students who had worn black armbands back in the 60s to protest the Vietnam war, and won the SCOTUS case, the decision of which said that free speech rights do not end at the schoolhouse door (these former students supported the flag-wearing teenagers' right to free speech).
It's weird how some on the left are so eager to push "diversity" that they'll compromise our own liberal western values in the process of pandering to people who do not share these values. These values are under assault from both sides: the wacky Christian religionists on the right, and the leftists who denounce right-wing Christians (for good reason) and then back up people with the same or worse values just because they're non-Western.
Um, Jeb AFAIK has never held a Congressional seat at the Federal level, so it's not like he had a chance to vote on it. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have voted for it.
But yeah, Hillary is basically a Republican with a "(D)" next to her name, except maybe for the HillaryCare thing she tried.
He's probably unelectable thanks to some stupid moves he's made -- he voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
Walker is still in his first term and he dropped out of college, which is a big negative (in my view). He was only one semester short of a degree, but he's never bothered to finish? Something's not quite right there.
Christy is a corrupt New Jersey politician.
What makes you think these people are unelectable based on these factors? I think you're vastly overestimating the competence of Republican voters.
My prediction is that we're going to have a Republican president elected in 2016, and it'll be Jeb Bush. He's going to run against Hillary Clinton. After Obama disillusioning the progressives and blacks, turnout on the Democrat side is going to be weak because no one except middle-aged and up white women are excited about Clinton. Bush is going to win the Republican nomination somehow. Bush speaks fluent Spanish and is married to a Mexican-American woman. Republican voters are going to vote for him just because he's Republican, and the Latinos are all going to vote for him too because of the above factors, and because he'll appeal to their religious sensibilities with his anti-abortion rhetoric, plus his positive views on immigration reform.
I don't think he's calling all banks everywhere evil, he's really talking about the big banks. They are evil: they wrecked the economy, then got paid for it with taxpayer dollars.
There are other banks that aren't so bad, but they're usually much smaller, confined to one state or local area usually. Credit unions are also usually pretty good.
But banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and worst of all HSBC are evil through-and-through.
As for regulation, that'd be nice, wouldn't it? Too bad we can't have that.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget, for Episode 4, his (now ex-)wife helped edit the original script. With the Prequels, he didn't get any kind of criticism whatsoever.
It's not just that. Take a look at Lucas's first big movie, THX-1138. How many lines were spoken in that move?
Lucas is all about visuals, and that's it. If he'd realize that and confine himself to that, he could make a great visual art director in a big-budget movie.
No, 4-6 were good popcorn movies. They weren't high art by any means, but they were far better than the Prequels which were trash. The reason is simple: in 4-6, other people were able to cover for George's inability. The prequels suffered for bad direction and horrible dialog (/script). In 4, his (now ex-)wife edited the script. If it weren't for her, 4 would have the same utterly horrible dialog as the prequels, and 5 and 6 might not have happened. George was also a better director back then, because his ego wasn't as big. 5 was great because it had different writers (Brackett/Kasdan) and a different director (Kershner). 6 was OK because it too had a different writer (Kasdan/Lucas) and a different director (Marquand).
With the Prequels, Lucas did everything, and no one wanted to say anything to him because his ego was so big and he had put himself in charge of everything, so the results are predictably bad. Lucas was never much good at writing a script or even directing actors, but he refuses to admit it.
Natalie Portman and (by most accounts) Hayden Christenson are actually good actors, but you wouldn't know it from the Star Wars prequels. When you have direction that lousy and a script/dialog that lousy, even the most talented actor is going to look bad. According to TFS, Portman even complained that after the Prequels, everyone thought she was a bad actress.
You can't judge an actor by a single movie. Cruise really is a good actor, that's one reason he's had such a long career. Too bad he's also badshit insane with that Scientology crap.
Schwarzenegger can't act but was perfect in the role of an emotionless machine that can't act.
Schwarzenegger was a good fit for several of his parts only because of his body, nothing else. His thick Austrian accent (esp. on a time-traveling robot) didn't exactly add to the realism.
From what I've seen in recent years on TV and in Hollywood movies, getting a part seems to require not so much talent, but a LOT of $$$ for dental work. Getting all your teeth re-capped and made perfectly shaped and white like that isn't cheap. And you'll need that to get any major part on even a low-budget TV show.
Pay attention when you're watching some TV show at the actors' teeth. Then look around you at the teeth on everyone you know.
But if you see .net as having some sort of technological benefit, and you see the war as having been fought and lost by the enemy who has capitulated by releasing .net as open source (I know, I know, with strings attached...) then there's no longer any need to keep fighting the war.
Is your name Priam? He thought the war was over too, and that this big wooden horse left as a gift by his enemy would be perfectly safe to bring into his city. He didn't pay much attention to the strings attached.
Wow, what a convenient, sweeping generalization you just made there. Unfortunately, there are extremists in every group, however, the extremists in the Republican party have taken over and are an ever growing faction of ignorant rubes.
While I do admit there are people far to the left that take things too far, none of them have the power to really threaten the rights of the everyone
Well, the "extremists" here won in these school districts, and they even won the case at the SCOTUS level (since the court refused to hear the case). It's now a judicial precedent. So how is this "extreme" when it's the law of the land, and upheld by multiple courts?
It is about being hostile to other students.
So it's "hostile" to express a possibly unpopular opinion? What about the students celebrating Cinco de Mayo? How are their actions not hostile to someone who doesn't like that holiday? It's all a matter of perspective. Anything you do is going to offend someone, somewhere. What about if the school has a dance or prom with dancing? That's going to highly offend someone (some Christian sects think dancing is "from the devil"). Should we ban dancing in schools because some wackos are offended by it? They're going to claim that having this dance is "being hostile" to them, and they're right: it is. Having that dance is openly insulting their religious beliefs. The only way you can avoid offending these people is to kowtow to their beliefs. I sure as hell don't want to do that, to limit myself to please some moralistic assholes, do you?
What if the students have a music appreciation class and get to bring in their own music, and a student brings in some kind of innocuous pop music (I dunno, maybe some Michael Jackson, obviously not new)? Some religious nuts complain that this is "being hostile" to their religious beliefs that music shouldn't have drumbeats (I'm pretty sure there's some wacky Christians out there who believe this). Or that even having the class is "being hostile" to their beliefs because it isn't solely religious music, or that they even have music because their religion says music is evil. Now you're not providing an "inclusive learning experience" because you're offending a bunch of religious people. Obviously, limiting peoples' expression because of some minority is not serving the majority who think music and dancing are OK and worthwhile parts of school.
So why should these students wearing flags limit their expression?
A hate crime is when you hate someone so much that you go and beat the crap out of them or kill them not because of something they did to you but because of things about themselves that they cannot control.
Um, last time I checked, assault and murder are illegal, and have been for centuries. Why exactly do we need new laws against these things? It doesn't matter why you murder someone; they're still dead, and if the law is working correctly, you'll still go to prison for it (with sentencing based on whether it was pre-meditated or not, or an accident or negligence). If you decide you hate black people and want to go kill one, and you do so, that's "murder 1" and the punishment is already rather harsh for that. So why do we need a new law?
What are you talking about? How is it "not discriminating" to prohibit free speech?
You are more than likely bright enough to realize the students were making a political statement with those t-shirts. They even freely admit it.
So what? Are other students allowed, at other times, to make political statements? If the answer is "no", then sure, not allowing flag t-shirts is fine. However, if other students are allowed to make political statements, then you can't tell them they can't make political speech. A "hostile learning environment" is irrelevant: any political speech of any kind is going to offend someone, so if you're allowing some political speech but not others, then you're discriminating and playing favorites. It's not the school's job to select which political opinions are OK and which aren't.
the American flag was little different than a slogan saying "deport anchor babies."
So are you suggesting that t-shirts bearing that slogan should be censored by the government? I find that offensive. This is a matter of free speech, nothing more. Teenagers should enjoy the same free-speech protections that the rest of us enjoy, even if it offends some people. I saw plenty of teenagers in my high school wearing religious t-shirts; those, to me, are offensive (and even moreso today considering how extremist American Christianity has become). Why should they be allowed to wear those, but not anti-immigration t-shirts?
If a school wants to avoid this stuff, maybe they should just have a blanket policy, in effect on *all* school days, that explicitly describes the allowed dress code. Then they could just forbid all clothing with slogans or flags of any kind.
Finally, I have to disagree that a US flag is somehow like making a political statement about immigration. It's the flag of this nation; if wearing it is offensive to someone, regardless of the day, that seems rather ridiculous.
Exactly. If you try to avoid offending people, you're merely stifling expression and creativity, and in effect oppressing people. The problem is that people on both sides want to do this, though they want to oppress different people: on the right, they want to censor anything that offends Christians; on the left, they want to censor anything that offends minorities, even when the minorities have even worse views than the Christians they dislike so much.
Personally, I like the values that France has as a society, with one of them being secularism. Why this word wasn't written into our Constitution, I don't know, but it should have been. As soon as you start pandering to religions and religious values, you get all kinds of horrible anti-human-rights side effects, since most religions are all about oppressing people and denying them their human rights if they don't kowtow to the religion.
They're not eager to push diversity. They're eager to find a selling point which can be leveraged to expand their own level of power and/or wealth.
That would explain the motivation of the politicians and others at the top. However, it doesn't explain all the lower-middle-class 20-something liberals who buy into all this stuff. My guess is that they're just parroting what their "leaders" have fed them, just like people on the right parrot everything that their leaders (like Pat Robertson, Rand Paul, etc.) feed them.
I agree with the AC who responded here. I will point out, however, that the BSDs were around before Linux, yet Linux (kernel) is the one which now powers most of the world's smartphones, countless embedded devices, and countless servers (including most webservers), plus a fair number of desktop computers. By contrast, I've never actually seen FreeBSD in use anywhere personally. I know Hotmail used to run on it more than a decade ago, and that's all I can think of; I sure don't see it in any embedded systems like I do with Linux. The permissive license didn't help its adoption, it seems.
However, on the flip side, the technically best and probably 2nd most popular FOSS database, PostgreSQL, has a permissive license (BSD I'm pretty sure), and it's doing great, and in fact it seems that a slow but steady stream of people are abandoning MySQL for it.
Wearing a flag is not discriminatory. Wearing a flag is speech, and should be protected under the First Amendment. Not allowing someone to wear a flag (any flag) is a violation of the First Amendment. It's quite simple.
See my response to the AC who responded to you.
Thank you, AC. It amazes me how if you criticize one "side" in this country, unthinking morons will assume you must obviously be on the other "side". sjbe's response shows this perfectly.
No, American left-wingers would obviously not support these "religious freedom" laws, because they're obviously aimed at letting Christians discriminate against people they don't like (mainly homosexuals).
However, these same left-wingers are certainly *not* the ones who want to keep kids from wearing American flags to school because they'd "offend" Hispanics. I don't think I need to prove that it's the leftists who are behind this one. Right-wingers are up in arms about stuff like this (though not necessarily for the right reason, which is freedom of speech).
Honestly, I really think that if someone tried to push a law that banned "insulting Islam" in the US, a good number of left-wingers would support this, because they're so big on "celebrating diversity" that they compromise true liberal values (equal rights, secularism, etc.) just so they can cozy up with "oppressed" minorities like Hispanics and Muslims.
There's nothing stopping the copyright holders of a GPL'd project from taking it proprietary. It's not much different than if the people running a permissive licensed project (BSD/MIT) decided to take it proprietary. Everything up to that point will still be available barring any patent issues.
Two points:
1) As you said, this doesn't remove the actual project from accessibility in the FOSS-sphere. You just can't have any new versions that the copyright owners decide to publish under a proprietary license. You can still use the existing code all you want, and you can fork it too if you want.
2) This isn't really a big fear among people. Honestly, how many times has this happened? The advantage of GPL over BSD licenses is that with GPL, only the actual copyright holder can do such a thing. With BSD, anyone can do this, so you have cases like Kerberos, where a giant company with lots of resources grabs some FOSS code, "extends" it with proprietary extensions, and then pushes the new version so it's effectively been hijacked. This can't happen with GPL; there, the big corp would have to buy the copyrights from the original holders (which may be very difficult if there's a lot of contributors; with Linux (kernel), for instance, it's probably impossible to get all the contributors to agree to selling or even to a license change to GPLv3), before they could pull such a move.
Unfortunately, it's not just the right that wants to silence "offensive" speech; the left wants to as well: the SCOTUS refused to hear a case about high school students who wore t-shirts with the American flag to school on Cinco de Mayo and got in trouble because the school said this could "incite violence" among Hispanic students who apparently are offended by the US flag. This case was even supported by the students who had worn black armbands back in the 60s to protest the Vietnam war, and won the SCOTUS case, the decision of which said that free speech rights do not end at the schoolhouse door (these former students supported the flag-wearing teenagers' right to free speech).
It's weird how some on the left are so eager to push "diversity" that they'll compromise our own liberal western values in the process of pandering to people who do not share these values. These values are under assault from both sides: the wacky Christian religionists on the right, and the leftists who denounce right-wing Christians (for good reason) and then back up people with the same or worse values just because they're non-Western.
Um, Jeb AFAIK has never held a Congressional seat at the Federal level, so it's not like he had a chance to vote on it. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have voted for it.
But yeah, Hillary is basically a Republican with a "(D)" next to her name, except maybe for the HillaryCare thing she tried.
He's probably unelectable thanks to some stupid moves he's made -- he voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
Walker is still in his first term and he dropped out of college, which is a big negative (in my view). He was only one semester short of a degree, but he's never bothered to finish? Something's not quite right there.
Christy is a corrupt New Jersey politician.
What makes you think these people are unelectable based on these factors? I think you're vastly overestimating the competence of Republican voters.
My prediction is that we're going to have a Republican president elected in 2016, and it'll be Jeb Bush. He's going to run against Hillary Clinton. After Obama disillusioning the progressives and blacks, turnout on the Democrat side is going to be weak because no one except middle-aged and up white women are excited about Clinton. Bush is going to win the Republican nomination somehow. Bush speaks fluent Spanish and is married to a Mexican-American woman. Republican voters are going to vote for him just because he's Republican, and the Latinos are all going to vote for him too because of the above factors, and because he'll appeal to their religious sensibilities with his anti-abortion rhetoric, plus his positive views on immigration reform.
I don't think he's calling all banks everywhere evil, he's really talking about the big banks. They are evil: they wrecked the economy, then got paid for it with taxpayer dollars.
There are other banks that aren't so bad, but they're usually much smaller, confined to one state or local area usually. Credit unions are also usually pretty good.
But banks like Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and worst of all HSBC are evil through-and-through.
As for regulation, that'd be nice, wouldn't it? Too bad we can't have that.