Establish yourself, and you can bill them for the time you aren't working, but still carry the pager. Of course, this implies that you will actually answer your pager. If you're on the can and miss the 10 minute limit, you're fired. It's great when you can shoehorn such an clause into your contract -- your side job is now sleeping at 25% of your base pay.
Never have I had such an opportunity, but I know some people that have (VMS systems analysts are aparantly hard to come by).
I do not own an SUV. I do not want to kill people. I do not live in fear. I hope I never change this. It's just to make a point. I could have chosen a cadillac, or a BMW sedan. I drive a Jetta, I get 30 mpg. You get more safety in these cars. Go to the dealership and close the door on one. Notice how heavy the door feels. How much metal is in there to absorb the crash and not let the other guy into your car. I never stated that SUVs are the solution, just that a person wouldn't want to have a run-in with one if driving a smart car.
If I remember correctly, another problem with the cars of the day were that the hard, angular dashboards and windshields were within striking distance of the passenger, and that the steering wheel was too stiff. Deadly injuries were caused by the stuff in front of you not deforming in the collision. Padded dashes, more flexible steering wheels, and airbags all came out as a result of the corvair and other cars like this. The corvair is oft singled out to this day because of it's popularity, but the book was just using it as an example of the cars of the day. Your post should read: NHTSA performed a study in 1971 to test Nader's claims and found that the Corvair performed just as poorly as any of [its] contemporaries. That said, the plush suspension probably didn't help the handeling when trying to avoid the crash.
Nader's career was kick-started because he wrote a viable book and lobbied for the cause at a time when automobiles were unsafe in general. IMHO this is how we want people to get into politics -- push something you believe in, something in the public's best interest, and get results doing it. The same can't be said for most other politicians.
I'm not an american, I'm as far outside their political world as anyone can be these days, and I don't know enough about Nader to like or dislike him. I do know that cars are safer today than they were back then, fueled in part by Nader's book and subsequent efforts. I just can't see being irk'd by something that so benefits you today. I would like to know the real reason he irks you.
1. stiff frames that simply fold like taco shells: How stiff is a frame that folds like a taco shell. For future reference, taco shells are brittle, they don't fold. Ductility is your friend.
2. bounces off: I'm sure we'd all be better off completely reversing our direction rather than absorbing some of that kinetic energy. Impulse be damned. Ductility is your friend.
3. Stupid? Yes.: Stereotyping is fun. Especially when you are a member of the club. Perhaps you are just in denial.
Please pay no attention to point 3, it's inflammatory -- I'm just bitter about points 1 and 2.
If you make sure you have valid arguments, I can be made to change my mind. I'm a flexible person. Ductility is your friend.
I agree with you somewhat, but that "weight means dick" is not realistic. The preveous post about the Freightliner is funny because it's true -- exaggerativly so.
The crumple zone on the front is non-exisent, a foot in and your bumper is on my kneecaps. The rear is just as bad, maybe two feet? And the sides... my chest is at bumper-height. I sat in one of these at a car show, it felt light when I sat down and it swayed. The door was far too light to have any significant reinforcement. Weight is important, it means that there is actually a big piece of tube steel in there to keep the baddies out of my cab.
So yea, weight isn't everything, but when I change lanes in my Jetta without looking, the SMART car is in the ditch and all I get is a scratch on my quarter-panel.
That the collision would be between two very different cars is the important thing. It would be important in america, more and more people there are buying bigger and bigger cars. This is different from europe -- people there are more likely to own smaller cars.
You assume I am American, I am not. I also don't get satisfaction from killing others, regardless of what I'm driving. If I didn't care about others on the road, I would advocate this vehicle -- it's safer for me that way.
Crumple zones are meaningless if the other guy is just gonna mow right through you anyway. Plus, the front crumple zone, which needs to be the largest, looks to be no more than a foot before the other vehicle is in the passenger compartment. The only collision at 60mph one might have a hope of surviving is a rear-ending, where the crumple-zone looks to be the largest.
I like your.sig, by the way. I used to keep a list of all the people who said 'For all intensive purposes' to me.
Here's a fun fact: This car is half the weight of some the lightest other cars on the road (the Honda Civic, for instance, is nearly double the weight at 2700lbs). Just wait until someone gets in a head on collision with an SUV (most of them are nearly 3 times the weight of these cars -- The driver of the SUV feels almost nothing, the accident investigators wonder what kind of car was even in the crash.
Yeah, you'd have to be real "SMART" to drive one of these. This is what I call "natural selection". Unless everybody else on the road is driving a 1588lb car, I wouldn't bother. More expensive on gas is more than worth the safety of myself, let alone my family.
Sir, I challenge you to a duel in my 3000lb jetta. Now, thats fab.
I see, so now I can go out and buy a casette that barely plays anymore from the used record store, and then rightfully download that album so that I can actually listen to it? </sardonism>
I am in complete agreement, they already do this with DVDs, why should I PAY for the DVD and then not be able to fast-forward, skip, or otherwise do whatever I want to do with the disc while it's in my player. I'm not copying it, distributing it, or anything that is even remotely illegal.
I would be much more likely to buy a DVD if there was a big label on the front that said they didn't add their shit flags and take away from my movie enjoyment. I always love those DVDs that just start right into the movie, no bullshit, and give me the option of going to the menu to see all that extraneous stuff later through the "menu" button.
I pop in a dvd because I most often want to watch the movie, not because I want to watch the trailers or the ubiquitous interpol warning (that belongs at the end, where it always used to be on VHS). That isn't to say that I don't like all the other stuff, but if I pay money for the movie and the player, why shouldn't I be in control of my experience?
When I installed firefox back in 0.9, it asked to be the default browser, as soon as I said so, the shotcut on the top of the start menu turned to the firefox icon.
All was good, the right-click menu showed "Firefox options" as one of the choices. It was also interesting to note that the name of the link did not change, only the icon (it says "Internet", and underneath in smaller type it says Mozilla Firefox"). The same thing happenned to the IE icon on the desktop.
I can't remember if it required a restart or not after I installed, but it has remained that way to this day, even after multiple launches of internet explorer to use Windows update and other such services that don't work on Firefox. I have run into very few things that open IE preferentially without consulting the default browser setting. I couldn't be happier that Windows was so happier to give up top-spot to the new browser so easily.
I like your reasoning and there will certainly be many cases where this apply, though there must still be some way to separate those cases...
My reasoning seems a little off lately, but I would make this suggestion: The algorythm could be made to account for this by lowering the priority of accounts which recieved mail from other accounts that were logged in from the same IP. How often do you send yourself emails from one webmail account to another (especially when you have so much space to work with)? Other algorythms could also be used that further analyse the content of the emails and adjust accordingly.
The algorythm could include the click-through rates of that user. I can't imagine Google alienating a user that is making them money, but I can see how they would want to cancel user accounts who are using extra email addresses just to recieve junk mail that they never read, hence not generating any advertising profit for Google. The send/recieve ratio of an account could also be added to this. An account that sends no mail but recieves all the latest spam may be targeted.
Those details would be for someone smarter than I to work out, someone with the algorymic expertise of say, Google. Of course, having attempted to reason out all of the above, it is now unreasonable to expect just a grunt to do the work. The economics of such a program may be infeasable when the email system goes live to the general public without the invite system. Storage is cheap these days, and it will only get cheaper, and I imagine that all of this was factored in when they decided to give users the Gig of space in the first place.
Of course, my initial post was fairly facetious. The tinfoil hat thing generally means somebody is being far too anal for their own good; commenting on things that are not impossible, but often very improbable.
Now permit me to put on my thinking cap for a second.
[ON foil thinking cap]
They being the proprieters of servers and algorythms probably already have a method that does this. I, being no expert, would propose the following: 1. IP addresses that are logged with usernames and time/datestamps. 2. Any IP's that repeat login within x seconds of logout (or before the preveous logout occurrs) are flagged. 3. Statistics are generated that puts the most reused accounts at the top. 4. Inspect those more closely from the top-down.
This would only take but a low paid grunt to check.
[OFF foil thinking cap]
Point out any problems with the above logic -- I think somebody may have tampered with my hat. That never would have happened if I wore it all the time; I just can't seem to find any dates with the same fasion sense.
Being from Canada, my comments here are about Future Shop. Don't worry though , they are the same company.
1. iPod
I once saved up a whole load of money to buy an iPod. Having recieved a few gift cards over christmas, I tried to use them in the first weeks of February to get my new toy. My conversation with the salesman went something like this:
Salesman: Apple cannot meet the demand for iPods right now, they are 2 months behind, and our waiting list is closer to 3 months, would you like me to add you to the list?
Me: How is it that I can walk into the store down the street and get one off the shelves?
Salesman: I guarantee you wont find any there either.
Me: I would like to exchange these gift cards for cash so that I can go elsewhere
Salesman: I'm sorry, we don't exchange gift cards for cash
Me, Having had bad experiences before with this sort of thing, armed myself with the receipts for the cards I got: I have the original receipts here:
Salesman: Im sorry, we can't do that, Its store policy.
Me: Can I please speak to your manager?
Salesman: I am a manager.
Me: YOUR supervisor please.
Following the above conversation was about a half hour wait for the actual manager, and then a 15 conversation with her, and finally $350 dollars (canadian) to go out and spend whatever. Suffice it to say, the next day I had my iPod from the local apple dealer who had to order it from Apple. I wonder how they got past that 2 month wait.
The above brings me to another point of irritation. Why is it that stores promote every delinquent turd to "Manager" and give 'em a dimes pay raise for it after only 2 months of servitude.
2. DVD player
I went into the Future shop to buy a DVD player. To begin, I picked up about 5 DVDs from the front of the store that caught my eye.
Next, I mosied on back to the electronics section where I found a saleswoman to grab the model player I wanted.
I explained to the Saleswoman that I wanted a player to replace my old player, since it was not up to par with my sound system any more. I asked her for a specific model, and she of course tried to sell me on a different model (it was a lower price, but I'm convinced that it has a higher profit margin). After I thwarted her efforts to the contrary, she grabbed the model I was interested in and I asked her if she'd like to bring it to the till, since I was finally having a good experience with the sale.
When we got up to the till I whipped out the old credit card to make the purchase. This is when it all went to $hit... This is when it always goes to $hit for me (I always refuse to give my personal information to places that don't need it, just out of principal).
Here are just a few arguments that I can recall:
(Cashier / Me)
It's for security purposes Who's security, mine or yours? What if you lose the receipt? How will you return the item I don't lose my receipts.
But what if you did? More profit for you, if it breaks, i'll need a new one, and I'll come to you.
In case there's a problem with your credit card First of all, you'll know that right away, second, you have to call them anyways
I'm sorry, it's store policy, I have to get it from you Its against the law for you to collect information that you don't NEED to provide the service.
There's nothing I can do about it Yes, but I can, Nice to meet you.
I just picked up my card off the counter and left the store. No doubt the "Manager" that I asked to be there so she could get that "its not comission, its a bonus at the end of the month, based on how much we sell" (exact words from her) was happy that a customer
1. Remove groceries from cart. 2. Lift cart over your head, wheels up & walk across painted line/transmitting antenna. 3. Place groceries back into cart.
You seem to have forgotten the two steps most important to a slashdotter:
>> i would think "burn in" would once again be a serious issue.
I decided after reading this that I should stare at the post for about 10 minutes. My retinas seem to have lived through the experience, even though I bombarded them with a static and sustained stream of everyday-intensity photons. Glad I'm not condemned to reading the above quoted nonsense for an eternity.
The collective intensity of this device will most certainly representative of everyday life. There would be no market for virtual-unreality.
I can see the ease-of-use factor, and the fact that people want to keep with the status quo, but why are we using a music app to sync our photos?
I like how streamlined the iTunes interface is already. Keep the music app for music; why add exta bloat? The ease of use, to me, is both the reason that I use iTunes and why I recommend it to others. Although I'm sure Apple put a lot of effort into maintaining the interface when they added this in, the iPod is obviously still evolving and I'm sure they have even bigger plans than photos in the future.
Development of an outside utility that could be used to sync just seems like a good plan to me: a springboard to provide scalable expansion in the future. How difficult would it be to extend this functionality to an app like iSync? After that, a Windows version of this would not need to be as feature-intensive and could serve only those purposes needed by the iPod line. The iTunes music store is becoming available in more and more countries all the time, and now the "iTunes is a dual-platform iPod sync'er" could easily be replaced by "iTunes is a capital-generating music store." The iPod is needed to play the music anyway (not that I favor this fact, it annoys me to no end) -- voila, both are made to serve each other.
Maybe though I'm getting ahead of things; maybe Apple is already thinking of this and iTunes is just a quick fix in the meantime. I use both Windows and Mac platforms equally and I can see a big opportunity for improvement on both sides of the fence. I'm also a little biased by my use of both platforms in the following respect: I wish it were easier to sync my calendar, contacts, and notes directly to and from my iPod instead of using other more complicated methods (bi-directional music/photo syncing in unnecessary for my purposes, but would be an added bonus). Right now I use my old Palm m125, but I do very little actual data entry on my Palm since I'm in front of a computer all day anyway. I like the easy interface of the iPod for browsing my calendar and contacts. The only reason I even carry my Palm around is that its the only thing that syncs both ways on both platforms and therefore always has the most current data. Then again, this could all just be a pipe dream. Thoughts?
I completely agree with this. Why would you blame a softare product that CONFORMS to the standards for not rendering properly?
Blame M$ for saying "Hey, now that they have a 95% share of the browser market, why don't we enhance the user experience by introducing propriatary features." "Bonus," says Bill, "We'll flush out the last 5% and make another cool billion off the people who cant view a site without our product!"
Blame the webmaster who doesn't put in the effort, and it's not that much effort, to make a compliant website so that all may enjoy his or her creation.
Obviously people need to re-evaluate their thought process when they run across a site that doesn't display properly. Those who think "this browser sucks" should instead look deeper into the problem; don't take the easy way out and switch back. Nobody ever affects change by just letting it slide.
Slashdot Mirror
if I do it in M$ Paint?
it sounded good in my head.
Establish yourself, and you can bill them for the time you aren't working, but still carry the pager. Of course, this implies that you will actually answer your pager. If you're on the can and miss the 10 minute limit, you're fired. It's great when you can shoehorn such an clause into your contract -- your side job is now sleeping at 25% of your base pay.
Never have I had such an opportunity, but I know some people that have (VMS systems analysts are aparantly hard to come by).
I do not own an SUV. I do not want to kill people. I do not live in fear. I hope I never change this. It's just to make a point. I could have chosen a cadillac, or a BMW sedan. I drive a Jetta, I get 30 mpg. You get more safety in these cars. Go to the dealership and close the door on one. Notice how heavy the door feels. How much metal is in there to absorb the crash and not let the other guy into your car. I never stated that SUVs are the solution, just that a person wouldn't want to have a run-in with one if driving a smart car.
If I remember correctly, another problem with the cars of the day were that the hard, angular dashboards and windshields were within striking distance of the passenger, and that the steering wheel was too stiff. Deadly injuries were caused by the stuff in front of you not deforming in the collision. Padded dashes, more flexible steering wheels, and airbags all came out as a result of the corvair and other cars like this. The corvair is oft singled out to this day because of it's popularity, but the book was just using it as an example of the cars of the day. Your post should read: NHTSA performed a study in 1971 to test Nader's claims and found that the Corvair performed just as poorly as any of [its] contemporaries. That said, the plush suspension probably didn't help the handeling when trying to avoid the crash.
Nader's career was kick-started because he wrote a viable book and lobbied for the cause at a time when automobiles were unsafe in general. IMHO this is how we want people to get into politics -- push something you believe in, something in the public's best interest, and get results doing it. The same can't be said for most other politicians.
I'm not an american, I'm as far outside their political world as anyone can be these days, and I don't know enough about Nader to like or dislike him. I do know that cars are safer today than they were back then, fueled in part by Nader's book and subsequent efforts. I just can't see being irk'd by something that so benefits you today. I would like to know the real reason he irks you.
1. stiff frames that simply fold like taco shells: How stiff is a frame that folds like a taco shell. For future reference, taco shells are brittle, they don't fold. Ductility is your friend.
2. bounces off: I'm sure we'd all be better off completely reversing our direction rather than absorbing some of that kinetic energy. Impulse be damned. Ductility is your friend.
3. Stupid? Yes.: Stereotyping is fun. Especially when you are a member of the club. Perhaps you are just in denial.
Please pay no attention to point 3, it's inflammatory -- I'm just bitter about points 1 and 2.
If you make sure you have valid arguments, I can be made to change my mind. I'm a flexible person. Ductility is your friend.
I agree with you somewhat, but that "weight means dick" is not realistic. The preveous post about the Freightliner is funny because it's true -- exaggerativly so.
The crumple zone on the front is non-exisent, a foot in and your bumper is on my kneecaps. The rear is just as bad, maybe two feet? And the sides... my chest is at bumper-height. I sat in one of these at a car show, it felt light when I sat down and it swayed. The door was far too light to have any significant reinforcement. Weight is important, it means that there is actually a big piece of tube steel in there to keep the baddies out of my cab.
So yea, weight isn't everything, but when I change lanes in my Jetta without looking, the SMART car is in the ditch and all I get is a scratch on my quarter-panel.
You assume I am American, I am not. I also don't get satisfaction from killing others, regardless of what I'm driving. If I didn't care about others on the road, I would advocate this vehicle -- it's safer for me that way.
Crumple zones are meaningless if the other guy is just gonna mow right through you anyway. Plus, the front crumple zone, which needs to be the largest, looks to be no more than a foot before the other vehicle is in the passenger compartment. The only collision at 60mph one might have a hope of surviving is a rear-ending, where the crumple-zone looks to be the largest.
I like your .sig, by the way. I used to keep a list of all the people who said 'For all intensive purposes' to me.
Here's a fun fact: This car is half the weight of some the lightest other cars on the road (the Honda Civic, for instance, is nearly double the weight at 2700lbs). Just wait until someone gets in a head on collision with an SUV (most of them are nearly 3 times the weight of these cars -- The driver of the SUV feels almost nothing, the accident investigators wonder what kind of car was even in the crash.
Yeah, you'd have to be real "SMART" to drive one of these. This is what I call "natural selection". Unless everybody else on the road is driving a 1588lb car, I wouldn't bother. More expensive on gas is more than worth the safety of myself, let alone my family.
Sir, I challenge you to a duel in my 3000lb jetta.
Now, thats fab.
I see, so now I can go out and buy a casette that barely plays anymore from the used record store, and then rightfully download that album so that I can actually listen to it?
</sardonism>
I am in complete agreement, they already do this with DVDs, why should I PAY for the DVD and then not be able to fast-forward, skip, or otherwise do whatever I want to do with the disc while it's in my player. I'm not copying it, distributing it, or anything that is even remotely illegal.
I would be much more likely to buy a DVD if there was a big label on the front that said they didn't add their shit flags and take away from my movie enjoyment. I always love those DVDs that just start right into the movie, no bullshit, and give me the option of going to the menu to see all that extraneous stuff later through the "menu" button.
I pop in a dvd because I most often want to watch the movie, not because I want to watch the trailers or the ubiquitous interpol warning (that belongs at the end, where it always used to be on VHS). That isn't to say that I don't like all the other stuff, but if I pay money for the movie and the player, why shouldn't I be in control of my experience?
When I installed firefox back in 0.9, it asked to be the default browser, as soon as I said so, the shotcut on the top of the start menu turned to the firefox icon.
All was good, the right-click menu showed "Firefox options" as one of the choices. It was also interesting to note that the name of the link did not change, only the icon (it says "Internet", and underneath in smaller type it says Mozilla Firefox"). The same thing happenned to the IE icon on the desktop.
I can't remember if it required a restart or not after I installed, but it has remained that way to this day, even after multiple launches of internet explorer to use Windows update and other such services that don't work on Firefox. I have run into very few things that open IE preferentially without consulting the default browser setting. I couldn't be happier that Windows was so happier to give up top-spot to the new browser so easily.
I like your reasoning and there will certainly be many cases where this apply, though there must still be some way to separate those cases...
My reasoning seems a little off lately, but I would make this suggestion:
The algorythm could be made to account for this by lowering the priority of accounts which recieved mail from other accounts that were logged in from the same IP. How often do you send yourself emails from one webmail account to another (especially when you have so much space to work with)? Other algorythms could also be used that further analyse the content of the emails and adjust accordingly.
The algorythm could include the click-through rates of that user. I can't imagine Google alienating a user that is making them money, but I can see how they would want to cancel user accounts who are using extra email addresses just to recieve junk mail that they never read, hence not generating any advertising profit for Google. The send/recieve ratio of an account could also be added to this. An account that sends no mail but recieves all the latest spam may be targeted.
Those details would be for someone smarter than I to work out, someone with the algorymic expertise of say, Google. Of course, having attempted to reason out all of the above, it is now unreasonable to expect just a grunt to do the work. The economics of such a program may be infeasable when the email system goes live to the general public without the invite system. Storage is cheap these days, and it will only get cheaper, and I imagine that all of this was factored in when they decided to give users the Gig of space in the first place.
Of course, my initial post was fairly facetious. The tinfoil hat thing generally means somebody is being far too anal for their own good; commenting on things that are not impossible, but often very improbable.
Now permit me to put on my thinking cap for a second.
[ON foil thinking cap]
They being the proprieters of servers and algorythms probably already have a method that does this. I, being no expert, would propose the following:
1. IP addresses that are logged with usernames and time/datestamps.
2. Any IP's that repeat login within x seconds of logout (or before the preveous logout occurrs) are flagged.
3. Statistics are generated that puts the most reused accounts at the top.
4. Inspect those more closely from the top-down.
This would only take but a low paid grunt to check.
[OFF foil thinking cap]
Point out any problems with the above logic -- I think somebody may have tampered with my hat.
That never would have happened if I wore it all the time; I just can't seem to find any dates with the same fasion sense.
Being from Canada, my comments here are about Future Shop. Don't worry though , they are the same company.
1. iPod
The above brings me to another point of irritation. Why is it that stores promote every delinquent turd to "Manager" and give 'em a dimes pay raise for it after only 2 months of servitude.
2. DVD player
You seem to have forgotten the two steps most important to a slashdotter:
4. ??????
5. Profit!!
I decided after reading this that I should stare at the post for about 10 minutes. My retinas seem to have lived through the experience, even though I bombarded them with a static and sustained stream of everyday-intensity photons. Glad I'm not condemned to reading the above quoted nonsense for an eternity.
The collective intensity of this device will most certainly representative of everyday life. There would be no market for virtual-unreality.
Sounds to me like slashdotters might have an unfair advantage at those haloween pumpkin carving contests...
I like how streamlined the iTunes interface is already. Keep the music app for music; why add exta bloat? The ease of use, to me, is both the reason that I use iTunes and why I recommend it to others. Although I'm sure Apple put a lot of effort into maintaining the interface when they added this in, the iPod is obviously still evolving and I'm sure they have even bigger plans than photos in the future.
Development of an outside utility that could be used to sync just seems like a good plan to me: a springboard to provide scalable expansion in the future. How difficult would it be to extend this functionality to an app like iSync? After that, a Windows version of this would not need to be as feature-intensive and could serve only those purposes needed by the iPod line. The iTunes music store is becoming available in more and more countries all the time, and now the "iTunes is a dual-platform iPod sync'er" could easily be replaced by "iTunes is a capital-generating music store." The iPod is needed to play the music anyway (not that I favor this fact, it annoys me to no end) -- voila, both are made to serve each other.
Maybe though I'm getting ahead of things; maybe Apple is already thinking of this and iTunes is just a quick fix in the meantime. I use both Windows and Mac platforms equally and I can see a big opportunity for improvement on both sides of the fence. I'm also a little biased by my use of both platforms in the following respect: I wish it were easier to sync my calendar, contacts, and notes directly to and from my iPod instead of using other more complicated methods (bi-directional music/photo syncing in unnecessary for my purposes, but would be an added bonus). Right now I use my old Palm m125, but I do very little actual data entry on my Palm since I'm in front of a computer all day anyway. I like the easy interface of the iPod for browsing my calendar and contacts. The only reason I even carry my Palm around is that its the only thing that syncs both ways on both platforms and therefore always has the most current data. Then again, this could all just be a pipe dream. Thoughts?
I predict this post gets modded down (Score:-1, Village Idiot) within 1 hour.
I completely agree with this. Why would you blame a softare product that CONFORMS to the standards for not rendering properly?
Blame M$ for saying "Hey, now that they have a 95% share of the browser market, why don't we enhance the user experience by introducing propriatary features."
"Bonus," says Bill, "We'll flush out the last 5% and make another cool billion off the people who cant view a site without our product!"
Blame the webmaster who doesn't put in the effort, and it's not that much effort, to make a compliant website so that all may enjoy his or her creation.
Obviously people need to re-evaluate their thought process when they run across a site that doesn't display properly. Those who think "this browser sucks" should instead look deeper into the problem; don't take the easy way out and switch back. Nobody ever affects change by just letting it slide.
19 of every 20 bugs is an Eristalis gatesi.