The megatons to megawatts program was put in place because the USSR had fallen apart and the existing nuclear stockpiles of the old Soviet Union were in the hands of increasingly suspect generals in an increasingly corrupt and desperate situation.
It was in that context that the US offered to buy the nuclear fuel and give Russia money.
Compared to today... The US for all its troubles is not on the brink of civil war. Our nuclear weapons are not in danger of falling into the hands of terrorists.
I'm not saying one person writing a letter is going to get an entrenched politician to change a core political platform. That's silly.
What I am saying, is that it is MORE effective then filing a petition on the white house's petition board.
Your congressman might not actually read your letter but he'll be informed of the "numbers" of people and letter that comment for or against a given issue. The president of the United States spend ZERO time with that petition system. None. It is 100 percent driven by staffers and the ONLY it is there is to cherry pick issues people petition for that the white house ACTUALLY wants to do and then they will cite that petition as the reason they're doing something. When in fact, they wanted to do it anyway and probably would have done around the same time but its sound better if they have the petition.
What is more, the president is not supposed to be petitioned by people like some king holding a common council. That is the job of your REPRESENTATIVES. Who are also have a lot more sway over federal policy then you're likely to get.
Can you influence it completely? No. Which is ONE of many reasons why limited government is superior. In limited government, if the government does something you don't like you can usually avoid them or ignore them without it impacting your life much. With expansive government you cannot avoid the consequences of bad legislation. The ACA would be a good example of that. You can't escape it. Its like a giant black sucking hole of money and stupidity.
We'll see if there are any survivors from that one... but so far its looking pretty much like the most idiotic thing the US federal government has ever done. Not the most evil or destructive... just the most stupid.
By which I do not mean putting some off the shelf software or hardware between your network and the federal ACA system. Rather, have an isolated system distinct from the rest of your network which interacts with the ACA. Give that system no access to the rest of your network or vice versa except through very tightly controlled protocols. Effectively, assume that machine is compromised or at least in extreme danger of being compromised.
Then carry on. Worst case, that isolated system will be infiltrated. But since the Federal ACA system is compromised that's nothing special. Your internal network will remain safe from that vector and you can continue to comply with this federal boondoggle.
Government... we only take them seriously because they threaten to shoot us. No really. Absent threats of violence who would be complying with the ACA at this point? No one. That's all that keeps this bullshit going.
A cable in the ground can be installed fairly quickly and once there is an easement for cable as well as actual poles to string the cable on it is no great struggle to lay a second cable beside the first.
No they weren't. Practically all of them had on government agency or another complicit in forcing people to not compete.
So no. It was never tried.
Except the way it always was tried. The way it is now. Companies are and have been in competition for thousands of years. Its only when your ilk gets involved that everything goes south.
And in some markets in the US there are as many as three cable companies though they seem to be in less developed parts of the country. Since having that many cable companies in one area is LESS viable in a less developed area we can assume there is something preventing such companies from competing with each other in more developed areas.
That is interesting.
Can we at least agree that the situation would be improved if cable companies had to compete against each other? That if in every major market customers could choose between a couple different entirely separate companies?
Or are you going to keep clinging to irrationality?
Which is why toilet paper is ruled by a cartel and heavily regulated by the US government.
Or you are clueless.
Rhetorical... I point that out because you're clueless.
If you were right there would be underpants monopolies. There aren't.
It only happens in two cases that I laid out previously.
The first is government backed monopolies. Where the government got greedy and took money to give one company power over everyone else.
The second would be something like IBM's computers in the 70s or briefly microsoft there after... one company was doing something better then its rivals and CUSTOMERS chose one product overwhelmingly over another.
As to your rights... you have every right to your own opinions. You do not however have a right to your own facts.
You arguments are baseless and fallacious. That is not an opinion. This isn't kindergarten. I don't care what your feelings are and feel no need to coddle your ego. Your opinions are based on nothing and therefore are about as valid as people that think bigfoot lives in their left nostril. For the record, that would be worthless. Also not an opinion. You base your opinion on nothing and it is worth nothing.
As to respect, I only mentioned that if you had that it might cause me to moderate my comments to some extent... to be kinder. I was bored with you so I started musing on the social and intellectual effects of anonymity.
As to what I want... well... to be amused for one thing. Neither of us are getting paid to be here. I also like to learn. I like to learn about issues, about what people think about things, and I when those are exhausted, I find it interesting to explore my own thoughts by writing them down. I find it structures the thought process and clarifies arguments to be forced to actually write them down. And so I got what I want.
As to the last word... I give that up all the time. If you say something I don't feel I need to comment on... I'll let it end there if that's what you want.
As to your boast about getting paid while you waste time on the internet... that doesn't make me mad. It vindicates my argument. That said, I'm sure there are lots of employees at companies that surf the internet on company time as well. So that's nothing special.
Do you want to know what I really want... it isn't the last word. I want to be right.
Actually, truly, in reality... Right.
And what you just said there made me sound more right then I did before.
You gave me more of what I want. It isn't the last word. That's meaningless to me. No... what I want is far more precious.
Thank you for further validating my position. It is but one more brick in a sturdy foundation of thought.
circular logic is not an argument or worthy of respect... mine or anyone's...
I could lie to you and pretend otherwise but that is one of the things that is so liberating about the internet. The freedom from having to deal with the consequences of your words.
Which means your words can be what you REALLY think rather then what is politically correct or nice or expedient. Rather, I can just say what I think and if you don't like that then I have to measure that against what I think of you. No offense, but you've done nothing to make me respect you. As such, I really feel no restrictions what so ever at just telling you what I think.
You disagree? Who cares. Your arguments thus far have been baseless and fallacious. So your disagreement itself is probably a product of your own misconceptions. You've confused yourself into thinking you disagree when in fact you really don't know what you think in the first place.
Now are we done here or would you like to ply me with more school room fallacies that any 6th grader should know better then to invoke.
I never said corporations weren't corrupt. In fact, I assume they are just as I assume government is corrupt. In fact, I assume that they're equally corrupt.
Why? They both suffer from the same flaw. They're made of people. The same people. Just like you and me. We humans aren't so much corrupt as we are opportunists. Its our nature. We are not herbivores or carnivores. We are not grazers or predators. We are omnivores... opportunists. We find what is at hand and use or consume it. We are also tool users. We are practiced at the using of thing to get another. We are also social creatures that understand that to get what we want we must also work together on occasion to achieve common goals. Such as getting rich. Who can say no to an untraceable paper sack full of money? The mouth waters at the thought of it.
Would you trust me with lots of governmental power over you? Everything from the petty power to change your internet speed for some reason to the more direct threat of kicking your door down at 2 am and filling your home with FBI agents?
I should hope not... just as I naturally wouldn't trust you. That's only rational.
However, what if I weren't a government with authority over you but a corporation that had to compete for your business? You don't like my product or service? Buy it from my competitor instead.
That forces me as a corporation to at least make an attempt at being competent and competitive.
Government agencies by their nature are under no such pressure. You can't compete with them by law. Try and they'll shoot you. What happens if your local police force is incompetent? Can you hire a competing institution? Not really. You can possibly fire the chief of police. But even so the whole organization would remain largely unchanged. And if you tried to make systemic changes the police union would probably throw a fit. And how many politicians can stand up to an upset police union? The very idea is so scary that when they went after government unions in Wisconsin they specifically omitted police unions from the reforms. Why is that? The police unions scare the politicians. As in they fear literally for their personal safety in the event that those unions became angry. I have an uncle that is a police officer... he tells me lots of stories about how the union gets what it wants from local politicians in San Francisco. Its all good cop/bad cop. They come to these guys and offer them money for their campaign on the one hand... and then insinuate bad things should they not get what they want. They always get what they want.
That is your system in a nut shell... You believe the world would be a better place if more people had guns shoved in their faces and were told what to do...
Where as I think the world would be a better place if we had less of that thuggish idiocy. You won't agree because I suspect you don't believe in democracy, freedom, individual rights, or really just about anything that has contributed to the improvement of the human condition over the last 400 years.
That sort of intrenched ignorance is probably impossible for me to bridge.
In any case... Breakfast cereal, soda pop, underwear, dishwasher detergent, sanitary napkins, automobiles, computers, etc etc etc.
They compete far more often then they don't. And they only don't when small minded nitwits get confused into thinking that because the government got greedy or corrupt enough to cut immoral deals that somehow that is the corporation's fault. Sorry if you see that as a cheap crack at your expense... but you did call me a religious fanatic and I do believe in tit for tat... it annoys people but it also teaches respect.;)
Corporations are just people. People are opportunists. Put a low hanging melon in front of a man and he's going to reach for it.
Here's another news flash for you... Government is people too. Same people. We're all the same people.
What you want to do is put all our eggs in one basket. Put all the power in one place.
What could possibly go wrong.
Come on... you've got to be smarter then that.
You put all that power in one place with no accountability and no transparency and no means for anyone to have any effect over it besides a few faceless bureaucrats. Deals will be cut in the dark and there will be nothing you can do to stop it. Because the only way to fire those people is to vote your congressmen or senator or mayor out of office. And you won't... because doing that would mean voting for the other party. Which means you'll just sit there and let some greasy political machine bend you over and have its way.
I like corporations because I want to break the power up and I don't want to give people that make things and provide services to ALSO be able to send men with guns after me. Which it just so happens is something the government can do.
I want the government to do and be responsible for as little as possible because what they must be responsible for... police and the military is already pretty frakking scary (BSG reference:D ). Simply having control over the US military, the police, the national guard, the FBI, the court system, etc... that's already terrifying. On top of that you want me to give them control over internet infrustructure?
Why would I do that? You might as well have them write our newspapers. Hell, you people are determined to have the government provide all education never seeming to realize that it provides a perfect platform to propagandize young people.
I don't trust government because I understand people. Make something easy with a big pay off and no risk... they're going to do it.
Your whole system ensures that they have all the power at their finger tips... that they can exploit it to live as richly as they desire... and that even if caught dead to rights they'll probably not spend a day in jail so long as their political connections are tight.
As to some guy that doesn't want a pole on his property. Go around him or respond by denying him access to the network. If he wants the fiber network he needs to let the cable go through his land.
Obviously there will be people that don't want it and so don't care.
But we're talking about a faction of a percent at this point. Go around them. Its a big world.
As to government's controlling where roads are built... so now your argument is that these things aren't dynamic because they are made static by law.
very well... now you've surrendered the logistical argument and are now saying that running redundant cable should be illegal because it has been in the past.
Its circular logic at best.
Look, I'm not saying people should be forced to do anything. I am instead saying people should have the right to do it if they want.
You feel you have the right to tell someone they can't run fiber in an area for some arbitrary reason you can't seem to articulate. Fine.
I think you're full of beans. There's no reason to stop people besides a love for regressive reactionary stagnation.
If there is competition then the savings are often passed on to the consumer because if you don't your competitor will sacrifice some of his profits to lure away your customers.
Eventually things balance out when no one is willing to give up more then X percent of their profit margin. Then the game becomes seeing if you can do things more efficiently or simply better. That allows you to keep your profit margin without sacrificing anything or offering a higher quality service thus justifying a higher price.
Market forces. You can't argue against them. Its like denying the sun in the sky.
You're blaming corporations for the corruption of government when in fact it is the government that permits itself to be corrupted.
Furthermore, you are suggesting simply giving the government control over everything after just admitting that they're inherently corruptible and untrustworthy.
Make sense please.
Is the government corruptible and therefore unworthy of that power or are they not and therefore there is no danger of being bought off.
Its interesting, people are reporting that many small towns have 2 or 3 providers of cable. If anything the economics would make more sense in cities for two or three providers. So there must be some non-logistical factor holding back these companies.
I assume there are leases or rental fees to lay cable that might be unpleasant. There might be something else going on. I don't know. But it seems like there is something in cities that is preventing this... and it can't be natural because if anything the towns would have less incentive for this sort of activity.
Slashdot Mirror
It was economical for the Russians. It was security for the US.
We paid them for the uranium. If it were security on both sides they would have not wanted the money.
We paid them. It was economical for them.
We have never given nuclear weapons to Israel. And the Israelis are very far from terrorists in any case.
The megatons to megawatts program was put in place because the USSR had fallen apart and the existing nuclear stockpiles of the old Soviet Union were in the hands of increasingly suspect generals in an increasingly corrupt and desperate situation.
It was in that context that the US offered to buy the nuclear fuel and give Russia money.
Compared to today... The US for all its troubles is not on the brink of civil war. Our nuclear weapons are not in danger of falling into the hands of terrorists.
So the program has no point.
ah, that makes more sense. So you heat the wire and it relaxes... cool it and tightens up?
And therefore cannot be any sustained energy output. Oh sure, there's doubtless energy in the taught cables... but not enough to call it a muscle.
What they have here is a plastic spring. It can hold large weights? Amazing... Fishing line does that especially if you use a lot of it.
Am I missing something here? It seems like its just a spring to me. A spring is not a muscle.
Computers are very bad at judging these things. It isn't their strength.
I'm not saying one person writing a letter is going to get an entrenched politician to change a core political platform. That's silly.
What I am saying, is that it is MORE effective then filing a petition on the white house's petition board.
Your congressman might not actually read your letter but he'll be informed of the "numbers" of people and letter that comment for or against a given issue. The president of the United States spend ZERO time with that petition system. None. It is 100 percent driven by staffers and the ONLY it is there is to cherry pick issues people petition for that the white house ACTUALLY wants to do and then they will cite that petition as the reason they're doing something. When in fact, they wanted to do it anyway and probably would have done around the same time but its sound better if they have the petition.
What is more, the president is not supposed to be petitioned by people like some king holding a common council. That is the job of your REPRESENTATIVES. Who are also have a lot more sway over federal policy then you're likely to get.
Can you influence it completely? No. Which is ONE of many reasons why limited government is superior. In limited government, if the government does something you don't like you can usually avoid them or ignore them without it impacting your life much. With expansive government you cannot avoid the consequences of bad legislation. The ACA would be a good example of that. You can't escape it. Its like a giant black sucking hole of money and stupidity.
We'll see if there are any survivors from that one... but so far its looking pretty much like the most idiotic thing the US federal government has ever done. Not the most evil or destructive... just the most stupid.
By which I do not mean putting some off the shelf software or hardware between your network and the federal ACA system. Rather, have an isolated system distinct from the rest of your network which interacts with the ACA. Give that system no access to the rest of your network or vice versa except through very tightly controlled protocols. Effectively, assume that machine is compromised or at least in extreme danger of being compromised.
Then carry on. Worst case, that isolated system will be infiltrated. But since the Federal ACA system is compromised that's nothing special. Your internal network will remain safe from that vector and you can continue to comply with this federal boondoggle.
Government... we only take them seriously because they threaten to shoot us. No really. Absent threats of violence who would be complying with the ACA at this point? No one. That's all that keeps this bullshit going.
You'll get farther writing your congressmen.
Obviously people are not going to violate people's property rights to run cable where it is not wanted. Get real.
Then you must take responsibility for the corruption. It is your fault.
A cable in the ground can be installed fairly quickly and once there is an easement for cable as well as actual poles to string the cable on it is no great struggle to lay a second cable beside the first.
No they weren't. Practically all of them had on government agency or another complicit in forcing people to not compete.
So no. It was never tried.
Except the way it always was tried. The way it is now. Companies are and have been in competition for thousands of years. Its only when your ilk gets involved that everything goes south.
And in some markets in the US there are as many as three cable companies though they seem to be in less developed parts of the country. Since having that many cable companies in one area is LESS viable in a less developed area we can assume there is something preventing such companies from competing with each other in more developed areas.
That is interesting.
Can we at least agree that the situation would be improved if cable companies had to compete against each other? That if in every major market customers could choose between a couple different entirely separate companies?
Or are you going to keep clinging to irrationality?
Which is why toilet paper is ruled by a cartel and heavily regulated by the US government.
Or you are clueless.
Rhetorical... I point that out because you're clueless.
If you were right there would be underpants monopolies. There aren't.
It only happens in two cases that I laid out previously.
The first is government backed monopolies. Where the government got greedy and took money to give one company power over everyone else.
The second would be something like IBM's computers in the 70s or briefly microsoft there after... one company was doing something better then its rivals and CUSTOMERS chose one product overwhelmingly over another.
As to your rights... you have every right to your own opinions. You do not however have a right to your own facts.
You arguments are baseless and fallacious. That is not an opinion. This isn't kindergarten. I don't care what your feelings are and feel no need to coddle your ego. Your opinions are based on nothing and therefore are about as valid as people that think bigfoot lives in their left nostril. For the record, that would be worthless. Also not an opinion. You base your opinion on nothing and it is worth nothing.
As to respect, I only mentioned that if you had that it might cause me to moderate my comments to some extent... to be kinder. I was bored with you so I started musing on the social and intellectual effects of anonymity.
As to what I want... well... to be amused for one thing. Neither of us are getting paid to be here. I also like to learn. I like to learn about issues, about what people think about things, and I when those are exhausted, I find it interesting to explore my own thoughts by writing them down. I find it structures the thought process and clarifies arguments to be forced to actually write them down. And so I got what I want.
As to the last word... I give that up all the time. If you say something I don't feel I need to comment on... I'll let it end there if that's what you want.
As to your boast about getting paid while you waste time on the internet... that doesn't make me mad. It vindicates my argument. That said, I'm sure there are lots of employees at companies that surf the internet on company time as well. So that's nothing special.
Do you want to know what I really want... it isn't the last word. I want to be right.
Actually, truly, in reality... Right.
And what you just said there made me sound more right then I did before.
You gave me more of what I want. It isn't the last word. That's meaningless to me. No... what I want is far more precious.
Thank you for further validating my position. It is but one more brick in a sturdy foundation of thought.
circular logic is not an argument or worthy of respect... mine or anyone's...
I could lie to you and pretend otherwise but that is one of the things that is so liberating about the internet. The freedom from having to deal with the consequences of your words.
Which means your words can be what you REALLY think rather then what is politically correct or nice or expedient. Rather, I can just say what I think and if you don't like that then I have to measure that against what I think of you. No offense, but you've done nothing to make me respect you. As such, I really feel no restrictions what so ever at just telling you what I think.
You disagree? Who cares. Your arguments thus far have been baseless and fallacious. So your disagreement itself is probably a product of your own misconceptions. You've confused yourself into thinking you disagree when in fact you really don't know what you think in the first place.
Now are we done here or would you like to ply me with more school room fallacies that any 6th grader should know better then to invoke.
I never said corporations weren't corrupt. In fact, I assume they are just as I assume government is corrupt. In fact, I assume that they're equally corrupt.
Why? They both suffer from the same flaw. They're made of people. The same people. Just like you and me. We humans aren't so much corrupt as we are opportunists. Its our nature. We are not herbivores or carnivores. We are not grazers or predators. We are omnivores... opportunists. We find what is at hand and use or consume it. We are also tool users. We are practiced at the using of thing to get another. We are also social creatures that understand that to get what we want we must also work together on occasion to achieve common goals. Such as getting rich. Who can say no to an untraceable paper sack full of money? The mouth waters at the thought of it.
Would you trust me with lots of governmental power over you? Everything from the petty power to change your internet speed for some reason to the more direct threat of kicking your door down at 2 am and filling your home with FBI agents?
I should hope not... just as I naturally wouldn't trust you. That's only rational.
However, what if I weren't a government with authority over you but a corporation that had to compete for your business? You don't like my product or service? Buy it from my competitor instead.
That forces me as a corporation to at least make an attempt at being competent and competitive.
Government agencies by their nature are under no such pressure. You can't compete with them by law. Try and they'll shoot you. What happens if your local police force is incompetent? Can you hire a competing institution? Not really. You can possibly fire the chief of police. But even so the whole organization would remain largely unchanged. And if you tried to make systemic changes the police union would probably throw a fit. And how many politicians can stand up to an upset police union? The very idea is so scary that when they went after government unions in Wisconsin they specifically omitted police unions from the reforms. Why is that? The police unions scare the politicians. As in they fear literally for their personal safety in the event that those unions became angry. I have an uncle that is a police officer... he tells me lots of stories about how the union gets what it wants from local politicians in San Francisco. Its all good cop/bad cop. They come to these guys and offer them money for their campaign on the one hand... and then insinuate bad things should they not get what they want. They always get what they want.
That is your system in a nut shell... You believe the world would be a better place if more people had guns shoved in their faces and were told what to do...
Where as I think the world would be a better place if we had less of that thuggish idiocy. You won't agree because I suspect you don't believe in democracy, freedom, individual rights, or really just about anything that has contributed to the improvement of the human condition over the last 400 years.
That sort of intrenched ignorance is probably impossible for me to bridge.
Good day, sir.
Is that a farscape reference?
In any case... Breakfast cereal, soda pop, underwear, dishwasher detergent, sanitary napkins, automobiles, computers, etc etc etc.
They compete far more often then they don't. And they only don't when small minded nitwits get confused into thinking that because the government got greedy or corrupt enough to cut immoral deals that somehow that is the corporation's fault. Sorry if you see that as a cheap crack at your expense... but you did call me a religious fanatic and I do believe in tit for tat... it annoys people but it also teaches respect. ;)
Corporations are just people. People are opportunists. Put a low hanging melon in front of a man and he's going to reach for it.
Here's another news flash for you... Government is people too. Same people. We're all the same people.
What you want to do is put all our eggs in one basket. Put all the power in one place.
What could possibly go wrong.
Come on... you've got to be smarter then that.
You put all that power in one place with no accountability and no transparency and no means for anyone to have any effect over it besides a few faceless bureaucrats. Deals will be cut in the dark and there will be nothing you can do to stop it. Because the only way to fire those people is to vote your congressmen or senator or mayor out of office. And you won't... because doing that would mean voting for the other party. Which means you'll just sit there and let some greasy political machine bend you over and have its way.
I like corporations because I want to break the power up and I don't want to give people that make things and provide services to ALSO be able to send men with guns after me. Which it just so happens is something the government can do.
I want the government to do and be responsible for as little as possible because what they must be responsible for... police and the military is already pretty frakking scary (BSG reference :D ). Simply having control over the US military, the police, the national guard, the FBI, the court system, etc... that's already terrifying. On top of that you want me to give them control over internet infrustructure?
Why would I do that? You might as well have them write our newspapers. Hell, you people are determined to have the government provide all education never seeming to realize that it provides a perfect platform to propagandize young people.
I don't trust government because I understand people. Make something easy with a big pay off and no risk... they're going to do it.
Your whole system ensures that they have all the power at their finger tips... that they can exploit it to live as richly as they desire... and that even if caught dead to rights they'll probably not spend a day in jail so long as their political connections are tight.
Its disgusting.
Good day, sir.
As to some guy that doesn't want a pole on his property. Go around him or respond by denying him access to the network. If he wants the fiber network he needs to let the cable go through his land.
Obviously there will be people that don't want it and so don't care.
But we're talking about a faction of a percent at this point. Go around them. Its a big world.
As to government's controlling where roads are built... so now your argument is that these things aren't dynamic because they are made static by law.
very well... now you've surrendered the logistical argument and are now saying that running redundant cable should be illegal because it has been in the past.
Its circular logic at best.
Look, I'm not saying people should be forced to do anything. I am instead saying people should have the right to do it if they want.
You feel you have the right to tell someone they can't run fiber in an area for some arbitrary reason you can't seem to articulate. Fine.
I think you're full of beans. There's no reason to stop people besides a love for regressive reactionary stagnation.
If there is competition then the savings are often passed on to the consumer because if you don't your competitor will sacrifice some of his profits to lure away your customers.
Eventually things balance out when no one is willing to give up more then X percent of their profit margin. Then the game becomes seeing if you can do things more efficiently or simply better. That allows you to keep your profit margin without sacrificing anything or offering a higher quality service thus justifying a higher price.
Market forces. You can't argue against them. Its like denying the sun in the sky.
Just talked to a guy that said his town has two redundant cable lines... one for each cable company.
He could be wrong. But there is no way to tell from this remove.
You're blaming corporations for the corruption of government when in fact it is the government that permits itself to be corrupted.
Furthermore, you are suggesting simply giving the government control over everything after just admitting that they're inherently corruptible and untrustworthy.
Make sense please.
Is the government corruptible and therefore unworthy of that power or are they not and therefore there is no danger of being bought off.
Rhetorical of course...
Its interesting, people are reporting that many small towns have 2 or 3 providers of cable. If anything the economics would make more sense in cities for two or three providers. So there must be some non-logistical factor holding back these companies.
I assume there are leases or rental fees to lay cable that might be unpleasant. There might be something else going on. I don't know. But it seems like there is something in cities that is preventing this... and it can't be natural because if anything the towns would have less incentive for this sort of activity.
The price is passed on to the consumer.
What... did you think the corporation actually paid that?
Come now. Anything you charge the company gets passed on to the consumer.
YOU. So, bub... riddle me this... do you want to pay more or less for internet access.
Take your time.
I swear... I don't know if people are stupid or they just don't literally know how to form thoughts.
No offense... but I shouldn't have had to point the above out to you.