Troll? The parent comment wasn't intended to offend anyone.
For what it's worth: I found it interesting to compare the photo to this political map of the world.
Thanks to Futurepower(R) for a much better map of India and a more knowledgable explanation of the dark patch.
Also, can you find India? Western China could be mistaken for ocean.
It's interesting seeng how bright the Pakistan/India border is, and in comparison the Afghanistan/Pakistan border is undeveloped.
Anyone who knows more--Why is the north-west region of India darker than the rest? Farmland?
Not to keep bothering you, but....I just saw something today that was the latest summary of Kerry's plan. This blogger is obviously a big Kerry supporter (I'm not steering you toward some right-wing website). Here's her report.
I agree with all 4 points (who wouldn't, really?), but they're very broad. I'm glad that I agree with Kerry on this much, though, since he might be president.
Thank you for being polite and reasonable. You aren't the first to be so, but most people who respond to my.sig get pretty nasty. So, you're already head and shoulders above the average. Sorry, this ended up being pretty long.
I'm going to respond to you in order; you'll probably like the responses to 2-4 more than 1 or 5. he has a stated desire...to attack any country that might be against us. This is a part of his strategy I agree with. I think the actual attacks have been pretty poorly handled, but I don't think the strategy is bad. He could use this policy to attack a country wrongly, but I don't see that happenning. He would have to be bent on some sort of expansionist policy, and I don't see that in his character (pre-emptive invasion based on fear, yes. Empire-building, no.) I don't see the policy of America being feared by rogue nations as a worse policy than what we had before.
He seems to support various laws or ammendments designed to limit civil liberties, privacy rights, and research. I'm right there with you, dismayed at the way he pushes for the FMA and against stem-cell research. I disagree on the Patriot Act, though. I initially thought it was bad, but after reading more about the intelligence failures leading to 9/11, and how they could have been prevented, I think a temporary enactment of the Patriot Act is ok. The terrorists hit us by taking advantage of our free society. A temporary encroachment of civil liberties is reversable, but death is not. I only know the broad strokes of the Patriot Act, so I bet there are some things in there that I wouldn't like, but the damage to civil liberties hasn't been very serious/notable at this point, and several suspected groups of terrorists have been found in the US since 9/11 (I believe the Buffalo cell is no longer "suspects" but "convicted terrorists" at this point). It's an unpleasant compromise to have to make, but I'm not willing to let the terrorists slip by our law enforcement just because of what would be ideal. Law enforcement is a practical matter, and laws have to be changed to handle new situations. An analogy is how the law had to be changed to dismantle the mafia.
His plan seems to be to remove many environmental protections. Since I don't know much about the Clean Water Act and the drilling in the artic wildlife reserve, I'm suspicious of both of them. I like my environment, and if lots of people are screaming that these are bad, they may be right. They may also be the same people who oppose nuclear power plants (i.e. short-sighted nuts), but honestly, I don't know. Bush's actions on Kyoto weren't so bad, though. Dropping Kyoto was bad publicity more than bad environmental stewardship. The Senate unanimously passed resolution 98 (S. 8138) on July 25, 1997, saying they would not ratify any climate treaty that forced Developed countries to have more stringent environmental safeguards than Developing countries (I couldn't find a link for exact text this resolution on the U.S. govt's website. All I could find was the resolution reprinted on other websites (like this one). I tried to give you enough info that you could google it yourself if you wanted to). This is exactly what the Kyoto accord ended up requiring. Clinton signed the agreement anyways, because it looked good politically, even though (since the Senate had said unanimously that they wouldn't ratify it) he knew the treaty would never be ratified. All Bush did was cut the crap and admit that the Kyoto Treaty wasn't going to happen.
cutting taxes, raising spending hugely - run up a huge deficit. I don't like this very much myself. The cutting taxes part is ok, and even the spending is ok. That's just the Keynsian Economics recipe for getting stalled economies going again. But, I don't like the amount of spending the gov'ts been doing, or what they've been spending money on. The Medicare drug stuff, for example, seems lik
Sure, state's rights and electoral college and all that, but wouldn't you be mad to find out that all the votes in CA and TX were set to one candidate because of a vulnerability?
It's getting so that I'd be in favor of a constitutional ammendment along the lines of: "National elections, although still administered in accordance to state law, are required to meet standards set by congress. [insert dire consequences for failure here]" It seems that states like FL can't get their act straight, no matter how big the outcry.
grr...that was supposed to be "race, religion, or country or origin". Not that anyone reading the comment would misunderstand it, or care.
previewpreviewpreview
Would it be better if he was against people of muslim faith and if he applauded the thousands of innocent iraqis killed because of the UN sanctions and the ongoing war? Of course it wouldn't be better. Applauding the death of innocents is sickening no matter what their faith, religion, or country of origin.
Why did someone consider this an "insightful" question?
Actually, I'm not directly worried about my vote in this election, because I don't believe my area is seriously considering EVMs. I am worried that my vote will be rendered insignificant because all of the votes in an EVM region to be updated to VOTE_FOR=BUSH (or KERRY), and therefore my vote, valid and easily countable though it is, will not matter at all. (I know my vote isn't worth much, but it's worth infinitely more than nothing.)
As if this whole situation wasn't disturbing enough this same commission is exploring give the Bush administration, and Homeland Security power to postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack...
I heard a good idea on the radio yesterday about what to do in the case of a terrorist attack disrupting the elections. Just thought I'd pass it on.
A terrorist attack that doesn't actually physically prevent people from voting on election day should not effect election day. This means, because terrorists aren't all that powerful, that any attack 4 days or more before Nov. 2nd, should probably have no effect on the election. Sure, people may change their minds as a result of the attack, but if the attack doesn't get in the way of the actual physical process of voting, it shouldn't effect the day of the vote.
If a terrorist attack occurs in such a way as to actually stop people from reaching the polls on Nov. 2nd in some parts of the country, then in those areas the polls would stay open for enough days after Nov. 2nd so that the voting officials could be reasonably sure that everyone had a chance to vote.
Ancillary to this, results (including unofficial results) should not be reported until the polls are closed, however long that takes.
Most importantly, there would be no postponement of democracy because of terrorists.
I'm sure this is not a new sentiment, but...
Although I don't believe your conspiracy theory is very likely, it has enough chance of being true that it is worthwhile to have the machines be as secure as possible (which is: much more secure than today). The Nevada Gaming Commision tests mentioned in your great-grandparent and great-great-grandparent posts sound like a good starting place. It would be nice if the gov't certification could be even stricter than the NGC standards, but I think I would be assured enough if the Diebold machines were able to get the approval of the NGC.
The last elections were such a mess that I think it better that EVMs are not used in this election if the public believes they can be rigged.
I think the names are supposed to be somewhat silly because NASA doesn't want to give the impression that it is assigning official names to planet features. The names are just for humans doing the work (and those of us following along), moving from rock "Blueberry Pie" to rock "Shark Tooth" is easier to remember than moving from rock "134.12.25.235,62.35.5.987-B" to rock "134.12.25.236,62.35.5.984"
I don't block YRO but the comments on those stories tend to be more standardized and I don't feel compelled to read them (not that I necessarily disagree with the comments, but I'm busy). The YRO section is where electronic voting machine stories show up, and I think those stories are always worthy of front-page treatement until public outcry forces better standards and paper records. That's an example of where News for Nerds does legitimately intersect politics. Not in who you should vote for, but how to engineer better voting systems and democracy.
It's not that I don't like talking about politics--I've gotten in political discussions on/., and on one unpleasant occasion got in a nasty argument with someone I consider a troll. But, even though some politics is inevitable since this medium is so open-ended, that's not really the overall theme of this site. I guess it boils down to: I don't read/. for it's political insight. Mixing politics into other conversations can often have bad results overall, since politics tends to be an emotionally charged issue.
Couldn't have said it better myself. My own thoughts on a similar vein: There's an enormous amount of sentiment in the comments section already that is either anti-American, anti-Republican, anti-Bush or anti-Captialist. It's fairly easy to ignore the constant leftist venom (not to mention the occasional right-leaning polemic), and the practice is worth it because I can still get good insights on technology from people even if their political views differ wildly from my own. But, the noise-to-signal ratio is already pretty high, and I don't need people asking for a fight in the story write-up. I visit to this site largely for News for Nerds, if it's just going to be a splinter of the Democratic Underground, then there's no point in coming here.
(If you're wondering why I have a political sig, it's because I'm bothered by how lunatic some people are about politics around here. I spend most of my time on this board talking about the application of technology, not politics. And, the hope is that readers might notice that you can have political views and not cram them down other peoples' throats even if you disagree with them.)
"We" - a common tool used in passive-aggressive criticism. "We have this problem. We should fix it." In both sentances "we" means "you". The passive-aggressive critic has two goals: A) criticism B) avoidance of any ill-will as a result of said criticism.
If you focus on the fact that the criticism is in fact direct criticism of yourself, the critic will engage in sanctimonious breast-beating and spout populist pablum.
Although it's tempting and fun to turn this on it's head ("If you think that 'We' have a problem, then you, as a member of the set 'We' should take it upon yourself to fix it."), an experienced passive-aggressive critic will not fall for that trap and continue to blather venomous nicities.
I'm still confused as to how they're going to make money on this. If it is as cheap to take this flight as a regular airline, I might be willing to blow a few hundred bucks to get above the atmosphere. More than that, though, and I, personally, would probably decide it's too expensive for me. That being said, I, personally, don't make much money. Maybe there ARE enough wealthy people out there to sustain short-hop space tourism.
Of course, Rutan says he's going to keep working on the next step. My price point for orbit would be substantially higher than what I'd pay for 3 minutes of weightlessness. Thinking further into the future--I'd probably be willing to spend a quarter of a year's pay for a trip to the moon or a space station (i.e. years of saving and willing credit card indebtitude). God, by the time we're able to vacation on the moon I'll probably be deciding between a comfortable retirement or a trip to space and years as a Wal-Mart greeter. Still, even if that's the best I can hope for it's better than the future looked yesterday.
You have a much better point than the "Only Authoritarian gov'ts need non-lethal weapons" rants that got modded up.
Legitimate civilian use for these things:
1) Defend home/business from home invasion/robbery. Some people would definitely take "non-lethal" over "loaded gun" with small children in the house.
2) Defend hikers/campers from wildlife.
Although for the second use the device would have to be very portable.
Great! And I was worried about the time when Chinese-made UAVs started showing up in arms bazaars for terrorists to use as remote-controlled bombers. Silly me for being so complicated and technical in my nightmare senarios;-)
Peer review separates the nut jobs from the visionaries. I'll wait until the mark X model is tested and the FAA certifies it. Then his beliefs in cow-mutilating UFOs are of little concern to me, justified or not.
I did just hear a wooshing sound; I don't understand how Dr. Strangelove is a counter-example to HegimoH's observation. The role of the president in that movie seems to underscore his point: Gen. Buck Turgidson, and Gen. Jack D. Ripper were psycopaths, and the president was the only one able to stop them.
That movie, by the way, gets better every time I see it.
Stay safe. A lot of us are behind you all the way. The news agencies in the US are losing credibility by the day. The only way they'll change is if they get sued for libel (possible, but I don't know enough about the laws), or the start losing so much market share to Fox and bloggers that they have to change. Sure the news from AP, Reuters, and the NYTimes is bad. Those of us who are actually following the war know that's not whole picture.
A problem with this forum is that it tends to be rabidly anti-US on issues like the War on Terror and what's going on in Iraq. I, personally, don't have the interest to disputing every bastard who regurgitates lies like this wedding party crap. They are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. They will grow up eventually and realize that they live in peace because people like you understood it had to be fought for.
On the issue of your responsibilties to your sister. I may have been a little bleak. The two or three things you can do for your sister are: be there for her when she wants to talk, help her live the lifestyle that she needs to to fight the disease, help provide a good home (if you live with her). These things, while significant, pale in comparison to: What psyciatric drugs can do. They are brutal, but I don't think there is a reasonable alternative. The disease running its course. With schitzophrenia, there is a good chance her body (mind?) can beat the disease. Her learning to live with her condition. If she fights the fact that she's sick, (it is understandable, mental illness is inherently unfair) your efforts will be nearly useless.
In the short term, you will probably be most helpful to the other people in your family. And as long as the rest of you hold together, she has a much better chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Troll? The parent comment wasn't intended to offend anyone.
For what it's worth: I found it interesting to compare the photo to this political map of the world. Thanks to Futurepower(R) for a much better map of India and a more knowledgable explanation of the dark patch.
Also, can you find India? Western China could be mistaken for ocean.
It's interesting seeng how bright the Pakistan/India border is, and in comparison the Afghanistan/Pakistan border is undeveloped.
Anyone who knows more--Why is the north-west region of India darker than the rest? Farmland?
Wouldn't everyone in the airport already want to show Tom Ridge how tough their security was?
"We're on it Mr. Ridge. Even you can't get by us without scrutiny."
Now, I can see the fun in putting Ridge on the list when he's no longer head of Homeland Security...
Not to keep bothering you, but....I just saw something today that was the latest summary of Kerry's plan. This blogger is obviously a big Kerry supporter (I'm not steering you toward some right-wing website). Here's her report.
I agree with all 4 points (who wouldn't, really?), but they're very broad. I'm glad that I agree with Kerry on this much, though, since he might be president.
Thank you for being polite and reasonable. You aren't the first to be so, but most people who respond to my .sig get pretty nasty. So, you're already head and shoulders above the average.
Sorry, this ended up being pretty long.
I'm going to respond to you in order; you'll probably like the responses to 2-4 more than 1 or 5.
he has a stated desire...to attack any country that might be against us.
This is a part of his strategy I agree with. I think the actual attacks have been pretty poorly handled, but I don't think the strategy is bad. He could use this policy to attack a country wrongly, but I don't see that happenning. He would have to be bent on some sort of expansionist policy, and I don't see that in his character (pre-emptive invasion based on fear, yes. Empire-building, no.) I don't see the policy of America being feared by rogue nations as a worse policy than what we had before.
He seems to support various laws or ammendments designed to limit civil liberties, privacy rights, and research.
I'm right there with you, dismayed at the way he pushes for the FMA and against stem-cell research. I disagree on the Patriot Act, though. I initially thought it was bad, but after reading more about the intelligence failures leading to 9/11, and how they could have been prevented, I think a temporary enactment of the Patriot Act is ok. The terrorists hit us by taking advantage of our free society. A temporary encroachment of civil liberties is reversable, but death is not. I only know the broad strokes of the Patriot Act, so I bet there are some things in there that I wouldn't like, but the damage to civil liberties hasn't been very serious/notable at this point, and several suspected groups of terrorists have been found in the US since 9/11 (I believe the Buffalo cell is no longer "suspects" but "convicted terrorists" at this point). It's an unpleasant compromise to have to make, but I'm not willing to let the terrorists slip by our law enforcement just because of what would be ideal. Law enforcement is a practical matter, and laws have to be changed to handle new situations. An analogy is how the law had to be changed to dismantle the mafia.
His plan seems to be to remove many environmental protections.
Since I don't know much about the Clean Water Act and the drilling in the artic wildlife reserve, I'm suspicious of both of them. I like my environment, and if lots of people are screaming that these are bad, they may be right. They may also be the same people who oppose nuclear power plants (i.e. short-sighted nuts), but honestly, I don't know. Bush's actions on Kyoto weren't so bad, though. Dropping Kyoto was bad publicity more than bad environmental stewardship. The Senate unanimously passed resolution 98 (S. 8138) on July 25, 1997, saying they would not ratify any climate treaty that forced Developed countries to have more stringent environmental safeguards than Developing countries (I couldn't find a link for exact text this resolution on the U.S. govt's website. All I could find was the resolution reprinted on other websites (like this one). I tried to give you enough info that you could google it yourself if you wanted to). This is exactly what the Kyoto accord ended up requiring. Clinton signed the agreement anyways, because it looked good politically, even though (since the Senate had said unanimously that they wouldn't ratify it) he knew the treaty would never be ratified. All Bush did was cut the crap and admit that the Kyoto Treaty wasn't going to happen.
cutting taxes, raising spending hugely - run up a huge deficit.
I don't like this very much myself. The cutting taxes part is ok, and even the spending is ok. That's just the Keynsian Economics recipe for getting stalled economies going again. But, I don't like the amount of spending the gov'ts been doing, or what they've been spending money on. The Medicare drug stuff, for example, seems lik
Sure, state's rights and electoral college and all that, but wouldn't you be mad to find out that all the votes in CA and TX were set to one candidate because of a vulnerability?
It's getting so that I'd be in favor of a constitutional ammendment along the lines of: "National elections, although still administered in accordance to state law, are required to meet standards set by congress. [insert dire consequences for failure here]" It seems that states like FL can't get their act straight, no matter how big the outcry.
grr...that was supposed to be "race, religion, or country or origin". Not that anyone reading the comment would misunderstand it, or care.
previewpreviewpreview
Would it be better if he was against people of muslim faith and if he applauded the thousands of innocent iraqis killed because of the UN sanctions and the ongoing war?
Of course it wouldn't be better. Applauding the death of innocents is sickening no matter what their faith, religion, or country of origin.
Why did someone consider this an "insightful" question?
Actually, I'm not directly worried about my vote in this election, because I don't believe my area is seriously considering EVMs. I am worried that my vote will be rendered insignificant because all of the votes in an EVM region to be updated to VOTE_FOR=BUSH (or KERRY), and therefore my vote, valid and easily countable though it is, will not matter at all. (I know my vote isn't worth much, but it's worth infinitely more than nothing.)
As if this whole situation wasn't disturbing enough this same commission is exploring give the Bush administration, and Homeland Security power to postpone the election in the event of a terrorist attack...
I heard a good idea on the radio yesterday about what to do in the case of a terrorist attack disrupting the elections. Just thought I'd pass it on.
A terrorist attack that doesn't actually physically prevent people from voting on election day should not effect election day. This means, because terrorists aren't all that powerful, that any attack 4 days or more before Nov. 2nd, should probably have no effect on the election. Sure, people may change their minds as a result of the attack, but if the attack doesn't get in the way of the actual physical process of voting, it shouldn't effect the day of the vote.
If a terrorist attack occurs in such a way as to actually stop people from reaching the polls on Nov. 2nd in some parts of the country, then in those areas the polls would stay open for enough days after Nov. 2nd so that the voting officials could be reasonably sure that everyone had a chance to vote.
Ancillary to this, results (including unofficial results) should not be reported until the polls are closed, however long that takes.
Most importantly, there would be no postponement of democracy because of terrorists.
Vote output buffer for the keylog-very smart. It's ideas like this that make /. worth reading.
I'm sure this is not a new sentiment, but...
Although I don't believe your conspiracy theory is very likely, it has enough chance of being true that it is worthwhile to have the machines be as secure as possible (which is: much more secure than today). The Nevada Gaming Commision tests mentioned in your great-grandparent and great-great-grandparent posts sound like a good starting place. It would be nice if the gov't certification could be even stricter than the NGC standards, but I think I would be assured enough if the Diebold machines were able to get the approval of the NGC.
The last elections were such a mess that I think it better that EVMs are not used in this election if the public believes they can be rigged.
I think the names are supposed to be somewhat silly because NASA doesn't want to give the impression that it is assigning official names to planet features. The names are just for humans doing the work (and those of us following along), moving from rock "Blueberry Pie" to rock "Shark Tooth" is easier to remember than moving from rock "134.12.25.235,62.35.5.987-B" to rock "134.12.25.236,62.35.5.984"
I don't block YRO but the comments on those stories tend to be more standardized and I don't feel compelled to read them (not that I necessarily disagree with the comments, but I'm busy). The YRO section is where electronic voting machine stories show up, and I think those stories are always worthy of front-page treatement until public outcry forces better standards and paper records. That's an example of where News for Nerds does legitimately intersect politics. Not in who you should vote for, but how to engineer better voting systems and democracy.
/., and on one unpleasant occasion got in a nasty argument with someone I consider a troll. But, even though some politics is inevitable since this medium is so open-ended, that's not really the overall theme of this site. I guess it boils down to: I don't read /. for it's political insight. Mixing politics into other conversations can often have bad results overall, since politics tends to be an emotionally charged issue.
It's not that I don't like talking about politics--I've gotten in political discussions on
Couldn't have said it better myself. My own thoughts on a similar vein: There's an enormous amount of sentiment in the comments section already that is either anti-American, anti-Republican, anti-Bush or anti-Captialist. It's fairly easy to ignore the constant leftist venom (not to mention the occasional right-leaning polemic), and the practice is worth it because I can still get good insights on technology from people even if their political views differ wildly from my own. But, the noise-to-signal ratio is already pretty high, and I don't need people asking for a fight in the story write-up. I visit to this site largely for News for Nerds, if it's just going to be a splinter of the Democratic Underground, then there's no point in coming here.
(If you're wondering why I have a political sig, it's because I'm bothered by how lunatic some people are about politics around here. I spend most of my time on this board talking about the application of technology, not politics. And, the hope is that readers might notice that you can have political views and not cram them down other peoples' throats even if you disagree with them.)
The Editors should be more discerning.
"We" - a common tool used in passive-aggressive criticism. "We have this problem. We should fix it." In both sentances "we" means "you".
The passive-aggressive critic has two goals: A) criticism B) avoidance of any ill-will as a result of said criticism.
If you focus on the fact that the criticism is in fact direct criticism of yourself, the critic will engage in sanctimonious breast-beating and spout populist pablum.
Although it's tempting and fun to turn this on it's head ("If you think that 'We' have a problem, then you, as a member of the set 'We' should take it upon yourself to fix it."), an experienced passive-aggressive critic will not fall for that trap and continue to blather venomous nicities.
I'm still confused as to how they're going to make money on this. If it is as cheap to take this flight as a regular airline, I might be willing to blow a few hundred bucks to get above the atmosphere. More than that, though, and I, personally, would probably decide it's too expensive for me. That being said, I, personally, don't make much money. Maybe there ARE enough wealthy people out there to sustain short-hop space tourism.
Of course, Rutan says he's going to keep working on the next step. My price point for orbit would be substantially higher than what I'd pay for 3 minutes of weightlessness.
Thinking further into the future--I'd probably be willing to spend a quarter of a year's pay for a trip to the moon or a space station (i.e. years of saving and willing credit card indebtitude). God, by the time we're able to vacation on the moon I'll probably be deciding between a comfortable retirement or a trip to space and years as a Wal-Mart greeter. Still, even if that's the best I can hope for it's better than the future looked yesterday.
You have a much better point than the "Only Authoritarian gov'ts need non-lethal weapons" rants that got modded up.
Legitimate civilian use for these things:
1) Defend home/business from home invasion/robbery. Some people would definitely take "non-lethal" over "loaded gun" with small children in the house.
2) Defend hikers/campers from wildlife.
Although for the second use the device would have to be very portable.
Great! And I was worried about the time when Chinese-made UAVs started showing up in arms bazaars for terrorists to use as remote-controlled bombers. Silly me for being so complicated and technical in my nightmare senarios ;-)
Peer review separates the nut jobs from the visionaries. I'll wait until the mark X model is tested and the FAA certifies it. Then his beliefs in cow-mutilating UFOs are of little concern to me, justified or not.
I didn't notice that. Thanks! I may have to upgrade...
The color one just got to be wallpaper. Very nice.
I did just hear a wooshing sound; I don't understand how Dr. Strangelove is a counter-example to HegimoH's observation. The role of the president in that movie seems to underscore his point: Gen. Buck Turgidson, and Gen. Jack D. Ripper were psycopaths, and the president was the only one able to stop them. That movie, by the way, gets better every time I see it.
Stay safe. A lot of us are behind you all the way. The news agencies in the US are losing credibility by the day. The only way they'll change is if they get sued for libel (possible, but I don't know enough about the laws), or the start losing so much market share to Fox and bloggers that they have to change. Sure the news from AP, Reuters, and the NYTimes is bad. Those of us who are actually following the war know that's not whole picture.
A problem with this forum is that it tends to be rabidly anti-US on issues like the War on Terror and what's going on in Iraq. I, personally, don't have the interest to disputing every bastard who regurgitates lies like this wedding party crap. They are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. They will grow up eventually and realize that they live in peace because people like you understood it had to be fought for.
On the issue of your responsibilties to your sister. I may have been a little bleak. The two or three things you can do for your sister are: be there for her when she wants to talk, help her live the lifestyle that she needs to to fight the disease, help provide a good home (if you live with her).
These things, while significant, pale in comparison to:
What psyciatric drugs can do. They are brutal, but I don't think there is a reasonable alternative.
The disease running its course. With schitzophrenia, there is a good chance her body (mind?) can beat the disease.
Her learning to live with her condition. If she fights the fact that she's sick, (it is understandable, mental illness is inherently unfair) your efforts will be nearly useless.
In the short term, you will probably be most helpful to the other people in your family. And as long as the rest of you hold together, she has a much better chance.