Well.... someone could. You see there are international treaties the US and the USSR and a few other countries signed that said we wouldn't weaponize space (oops) and that we wouldn't claim the moon.
China, as far as I know, never signed such a treaty. As a consequence, any Chinese lunar program retains the legal right to claim the moon as part of China.
Oh, but it gets more interesting. Under the Treaty of London (1600) colonial lands must be defended to be considered the property of whatever state claims them (neither the US nor the Chinese signed this, but it's pretty well established... you Brits did though). Of course, the Treaty of London doesn't pretain to the moon directly, but the law extends well.
However, we're still prevented from militarizing space (though that's not stopped ol' Dubbyah)... so defending a lunar claim would seem fairly easy, at least for a country that's never signed such a document.
Of course, the whole thing is hogwash when you realize we're talking about the flippin moon here. Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns it until there's some feasable way to get there.
Tax prep software costs money. Typicaly somewhere around $50. I'm a lazy slacker and find this software makes my life easier. I also don't really want to pay that much for it.
If you buy it after April 15th it's functionaly free.
If you don't owe the government any money, no one seems to care if your return is late.
So the question is, does the potential interest on your taxes for a year outweight the discount on the tax prep software?
Americans aren't more shallow, but we're part of a culture that places less value on the small buisness. As a consequence, mass produced goods and massive marketplaces stressing materialistic objectives prevail over small buisnesses stressing community and quality.
A large part of this culture comes from the rediculous abundance of land upon which to build Super Duper Mega Walmarts. Europe's longer history and smaller land mass contributes to smaller lot sizes and denser cities, which in turn creates a demand for small buisnesses serving an area of a few blocks rather than the city serviging big box stores more common in the US.
Similar pressures allow Americans to engage in an orgy of real estate, buying up huge amounts of land and putting yet huger houses on it. Europe had a period in which this was common as well, though most of those homes have become tourist attractions.
This is a good point, but turn it on its head.... admittedly the "cool hardware shit" factor isn't really worthy of the same kind of protection as the Pentagon Papers. At the same time, whomever leaked the Pentagon Papers was divulging information not for public consumption and was violating the terms of their employment (with the US Government) as well as the law.
How do we ensure that journalists who publish important information (like the Pentagon Papers) are protected and that their sources are protected? More importantly, how can we do this while still preventing the release of information that is sensitive, but ultimately has no implications of public interest?
In the case of the print media you hold the editors responsible. That's the logical thing to do. Their job is to regulate what does and doesn't make it onto the final product. Their job is to remove this kind of information from their publications.
But with Blogers there is no editorial process. Ultimately the bloger himself is the editor. I suppose in this case the blogger must be held responsible for publishing the information. At the same time, it would seem logical to continue to protect the sources.
No, the title of Journalist does not make one above the law.
At the same time, because the United States (likes to think that it) respects the freedom of the press, there are protections laid out for journalists.
Noteably, there exists a kind of confidentiality between a journalist and his sources. A similar confidentiality exists between a doctor and patients, and between a religious officials and their parishoners.
There exist some professions that rely on the trusted exchange of information between two individuals. We protect journalists because, were we to force them to give up sources, we would effectively silence any critical ideas. This is fundamentaly not what is meant by freedom of speech.
Sure, Apple has a case against the people that leaked information. It doesn't have any buisness trying to extricate their names from the blogers in question. What is told to a journalist remains in strictist confidance. The Pentagon Papers are a perfect example of why.
0001 - [Censored - NSFW] 0002 - [Censored - NSFW] 0003 - [Censored - NSFW] . . . 4657 - Play video games
Re:Voom went down because they had no customers
on
Voom No More
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Not sure what you mean by homemade, but I can give you an explanation of how they arived at that number.
Lots of Vooms channels were "upconverted." IE, they weren't natively filmed in HD, they were filmed in SD and had the extra lines added by some hardware before broadcast.
Of course, those of us that have groaned in dismay when CSI enhances four pixils into a 1024x758 high res image of a distinctive and case busting tatoo, can easily attest to the reality that you can't create content where none existed.
Vooms content was HD in format only. It's clear and evident when you look at the final product what's native HD and what's an upconverted mockery.
Anyone paying through the nose for Vooms services should be savy enough to tell the difference and demand the real thing.
Have you ever been in Academia? Professors are bloodthirsty. Being investigated by fellow professors is like appointing a KKK jury for the trial of a gay jewish black guy.
You're right... 3rd world doesn't apply. Technicaly the term is "Highly Indebeted Poor Countries" (since they're not -=all=- in the Southern Hemisphere).
High-ly In-debt-ed Poor... wait... that's like 47 syllables!
My wife is a political science graduate student researching the Codex (and I'm going to spell this wrong) Alamantarius, which is a International Regulatory group based out of Rome dealing with food safty standards. I've been helping her edit/research her thesis a bit, so I'm in a pretty decent position to comment on this.
GM Foods - For starters, GM foods are more or less prevasive in the US right now. If you buy produce at a major supermarket, chances are 99% that it's a GM product. If it's marked "Organic" odds are that it's only partialy organic, more than likely also incorporating GM strains. Yes, that's not how it's supposed to be, but that's proving to be overwhelmingly the case.
GM foods carry a lot of risks, though not as many to the 1st world population as you've probably been lead to beleive. There is evidence that US Beef may contribute to various forms of cancer (the EU brought this evidence to light in their case before the WTO on their argiculture subsidies) but that's not a GM issue so much as it being pumped full of antibiotics and sterroids.
The real danger of GM foods is in the 3rd world (no longer an accecptable term, but a hell of a lot shorter than the real deal... and everyone knows what it means). Because GM foods are considered intelectual property, the seed stocks cost a great deal more than non-GM seed stocks. In many 3rd world countries, where 1st world corporations own a huge amount of the land, subsistance agriculture is no longer an option. In order to drive down food prices, 3rd world governments are forced to try to maximize production on non-agribuisness owned land. When offered GM crops that yeild 4-5x as much, they jump at the chance. Typicaly the first year's seed stock is free.
Unfortunatly, Thermodynamics comes into play here. You can't just create 5x as much food from the same plant without takinx 5x as much out of the soil. Doing so depletes the soil, making it all but useless for non-GM products. You can use high end fertilizers, but these very high nitrogen compounds often damage plants that have not been specificly tailored to survive them (read GM plants).
The trap is closed in year two. With feilds unable to sustain anything but GM products the faltering agricultural economy has no choice but to buy the seed stocks. Since they are IP, the stocks are priced well above those of normal seed stocks and are typicaly incapable of reproduction.
And you wonder where famine comes from.
In all honesty, the risks to you of eating a tomato grown with an extra tick skin to allow easier transport are fairly minimal... it just tases like crap. The real victims are the countries in which those tomatoes are grown to the exclusion of staple crops like corn and wheet so that you can have a Whopper meal (with tomato, lettuce, and pickles) for less than $5.00
Of course, there are a few stocks of GM corn that made it into the human food supply that were never approved for human use, just cattle. God alone knows what's in that stuff. That, by the way, does reproduce... and today we've no idea what corn is natural and what is cattle GM.
I'm just pointing out that, as always, it's a little more complex than it looks on the surface... though you seem to have encapsulated it fairly susinctly.
To be fair, the Caribs were (at the time of Colombian Contact) engaged in a genocidal war against the Arawaks.
The Arawaks were the former inhabitants of the Greater Antilles, and were (primarily) a fairly peacefull people that utilized a hybrid hunter-gathering/agrarian system of nomadic farming on the islands.
The Caribs were invaders from the mainland, probably from what is modern day Brazil. They moved up the island chain starting in modern day Trinidad, killing and eating the Arawaks.
While not canibals as a primary food source, the Carib religous thoughts about the consumption of an enemy and the rights of war weren't well received by the Europeans, who set about dispatching them with some urgency.
Yes, but all form of power generation can be converted into electricity. Some forms of power generation are clean. Most of those forms don't rely on dead trees/critters from 60+ million years ago.
It's -=always=- dirty when you burn gasoline to run your car
It's only -=sometimes=- dirty when you use electricity to run your car.
It would seem likely that in the future we'll use less in the way of geologicaly "aged to perfection" dead stuff to generate power. If we can run our cars off of a wall socket by then we'll be in a good place to improve air quality even more.
It's not that at all! I don't have a problem with licencing use of a movie on physical media and I don't have a problem with licencing use of a car.
Both of those transactions are called "rental." I can go to Blockbuster and rent a movie for a few bucks for a few days. I can rent a car for a few years and when I return it, it's not mine anymore.
No, I don't have a problem with renting, or licencing if you prefer. BUT when I licence something instead of buying it, I expect to get it for less. Go see a movie or rent one at Blockbuster -- about $5.00. Buy a DVD, about $20. If I shell out for music, say, from iTunes, and what I'm paying is about the same as I'd pay for the CD, I expect it to be DRM free. DRM reduces the value of what I get. If the price is not correspondingly reduced, it's a bad deal.
Now, if iTunes songs go at 1/2 the price of a non-DRM CD, then perhaps we've got a deal... I'd still rather buy the CD, but there should exist some price point for each individual where the DRM option is preferable (so sayith the laws of economics).
In some feilds in liberal arts professors assign their scholorly books as textbooks. This is particularly true in 300 and 400 level classes. (Multiply those course numbers by 10 if you went to a college with more than 30,000 people).
Professor Dale Copeland at the University of Virginia was one such prof I encountered who did this. To be fair, his books were worthwhile and presented fairly hard to find material. There really isn't a text book for some of the classes I took... as such the profs get to write their own or assign their own works.
It's not a deregulated market. A deregulated market is free from outside influence.
Example of a deregulated market: I want to learn something about C++. I go into a large bookstore and choose from about 57 volumes on C/C++.
Example of a regulated market: I am enrolled in a class on C++. My professor assigns a specific book. I have to buy THAT SPECIFIC BOOK or I will be unable to complete the problems for the class.
This is a regulated market, it's one in which a monopoly is being created for both the campus book store and for the publishers in question. This is doubly true of custom texts sold only to students at a specific University and thus not published nationaly. Then you're forced to buy a specific book from a specific vendor.
The publishers responsibility doesn't play a roll here. What we're talking about is the shape of a demand curve. Textbooks have a near vertical demand curve with pressures being exerted from publishers, professors, and bookstores to keep the curve that way. The publisher has a responcibility to maximize profits, but it has the responcibility to do so in a fair, equitable, and open marketplace that benefits both the consumer and the producer.
If the professor can get someone to publish his textbook, even if it has to sell at $300 a copy to post a profit, he gets to toss another publication on his resume.
If he's tenure track, he needs those publications for job security.
Further, lots of profs are aware that, if they write the text book they don't have to worry about changes in the course materials. Any new versions they put out (no matter how minor the changes) are versions they control. Thus, no being blindsided by changes in the text. In other words, it's less work to acutualy plan and teach the class once the text is out there.
Offtopic, I know, but this has always confused me.
First, why 72? Why not 73 or 75? Is there some significance to the number 72?
Second, how are 72 virgins supposed to last you for eternity? I mean.... this is -=forever=- we're talking about. How do you ration that? Even if you only bang one virgin every 100,000,000 years you're still going to run out eventualy. I mean, they're only virgins once right?
Sorry.... I'm still going to side with the little Motzart truffles you can get in the train stations.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to find those in America? I know of one shop in my state that sells them.
To be fair, America has her share of high end chocolates and they're pretty good. The difference is availability. If you go into a ritzy chocolate shop in the States you can pick up chocolates that at least compete against the European brands. What you can't do is buy those chocolates in any convenience store.
Europe has more than a supply of great chocolate... it has a market for it too. Americans are apparently happy with being able to buy a Hershey bar from a vending machine. Personaly I'd rather be hungry.
Well I did essentialy knock mine together on my coffee break. And I've also knocked some filters together on another coffee break to solve the problem.
That said, it's still obnoxious. I'd like to encourage comments and see more of them. I'd also like to spend more time writing for my blog and less time writing filters for my comments page.
I feel like having to slap those security measures in place makes people less likely to comment and takes away from time that I could be using to add more content to the site.
Slashdot Mirror
Well.... someone could. You see there are international treaties the US and the USSR and a few other countries signed that said we wouldn't weaponize space (oops) and that we wouldn't claim the moon.
China, as far as I know, never signed such a treaty. As a consequence, any Chinese lunar program retains the legal right to claim the moon as part of China.
Oh, but it gets more interesting. Under the Treaty of London (1600) colonial lands must be defended to be considered the property of whatever state claims them (neither the US nor the Chinese signed this, but it's pretty well established... you Brits did though). Of course, the Treaty of London doesn't pretain to the moon directly, but the law extends well.
However, we're still prevented from militarizing space (though that's not stopped ol' Dubbyah)... so defending a lunar claim would seem fairly easy, at least for a country that's never signed such a document.
Of course, the whole thing is hogwash when you realize we're talking about the flippin moon here. Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns it until there's some feasable way to get there.
Tax prep software costs money. Typicaly somewhere around $50. I'm a lazy slacker and find this software makes my life easier. I also don't really want to pay that much for it.
If you buy it after April 15th it's functionaly free.
If you don't owe the government any money, no one seems to care if your return is late.
So the question is, does the potential interest on your taxes for a year outweight the discount on the tax prep software?
Or they could use the money to do something that benefits you...
Maintain the roads you drive on....
Protect your investments...
Defend your shores....
Educate your children...
or, in the case of the Bush administration,
Drop high explosives on hapless civilians...
Dig big holes in Alaska....
Violate international agreements...
Americans aren't more shallow, but we're part of a culture that places less value on the small buisness. As a consequence, mass produced goods and massive marketplaces stressing materialistic objectives prevail over small buisnesses stressing community and quality.
A large part of this culture comes from the rediculous abundance of land upon which to build Super Duper Mega Walmarts. Europe's longer history and smaller land mass contributes to smaller lot sizes and denser cities, which in turn creates a demand for small buisnesses serving an area of a few blocks rather than the city serviging big box stores more common in the US.
Similar pressures allow Americans to engage in an orgy of real estate, buying up huge amounts of land and putting yet huger houses on it. Europe had a period in which this was common as well, though most of those homes have become tourist attractions.
This is a good point, but turn it on its head.... admittedly the "cool hardware shit" factor isn't really worthy of the same kind of protection as the Pentagon Papers. At the same time, whomever leaked the Pentagon Papers was divulging information not for public consumption and was violating the terms of their employment (with the US Government) as well as the law.
How do we ensure that journalists who publish important information (like the Pentagon Papers) are protected and that their sources are protected? More importantly, how can we do this while still preventing the release of information that is sensitive, but ultimately has no implications of public interest?
In the case of the print media you hold the editors responsible. That's the logical thing to do. Their job is to regulate what does and doesn't make it onto the final product. Their job is to remove this kind of information from their publications.
But with Blogers there is no editorial process. Ultimately the bloger himself is the editor. I suppose in this case the blogger must be held responsible for publishing the information. At the same time, it would seem logical to continue to protect the sources.
No, the title of Journalist does not make one above the law.
At the same time, because the United States (likes to think that it) respects the freedom of the press, there are protections laid out for journalists.
Noteably, there exists a kind of confidentiality between a journalist and his sources. A similar confidentiality exists between a doctor and patients, and between a religious officials and their parishoners.
There exist some professions that rely on the trusted exchange of information between two individuals. We protect journalists because, were we to force them to give up sources, we would effectively silence any critical ideas. This is fundamentaly not what is meant by freedom of speech.
Sure, Apple has a case against the people that leaked information. It doesn't have any buisness trying to extricate their names from the blogers in question. What is told to a journalist remains in strictist confidance. The Pentagon Papers are a perfect example of why.
Things I would do with Pamela Anderson....
0001 - [Censored - NSFW]
0002 - [Censored - NSFW]
0003 - [Censored - NSFW]
.
.
.
4657 - Play video games
Not sure what you mean by homemade, but I can give you an explanation of how they arived at that number.
Lots of Vooms channels were "upconverted." IE, they weren't natively filmed in HD, they were filmed in SD and had the extra lines added by some hardware before broadcast.
Of course, those of us that have groaned in dismay when CSI enhances four pixils into a 1024x758 high res image of a distinctive and case busting tatoo, can easily attest to the reality that you can't create content where none existed.
Vooms content was HD in format only. It's clear and evident when you look at the final product what's native HD and what's an upconverted mockery.
Anyone paying through the nose for Vooms services should be savy enough to tell the difference and demand the real thing.
Have you ever been in Academia? Professors are bloodthirsty. Being investigated by fellow professors is like appointing a KKK jury for the trial of a gay jewish black guy.
You're right... 3rd world doesn't apply. Technicaly the term is "Highly Indebeted Poor Countries" (since they're not -=all=- in the Southern Hemisphere).
High-ly In-debt-ed Poor... wait... that's like 47 syllables!
Fuck it... 3rd world....
Oh no I've gone crosseyed.
My wife is a political science graduate student researching the Codex (and I'm going to spell this wrong) Alamantarius, which is a International Regulatory group based out of Rome dealing with food safty standards. I've been helping her edit/research her thesis a bit, so I'm in a pretty decent position to comment on this.
GM Foods - For starters, GM foods are more or less prevasive in the US right now. If you buy produce at a major supermarket, chances are 99% that it's a GM product. If it's marked "Organic" odds are that it's only partialy organic, more than likely also incorporating GM strains. Yes, that's not how it's supposed to be, but that's proving to be overwhelmingly the case.
GM foods carry a lot of risks, though not as many to the 1st world population as you've probably been lead to beleive. There is evidence that US Beef may contribute to various forms of cancer (the EU brought this evidence to light in their case before the WTO on their argiculture subsidies) but that's not a GM issue so much as it being pumped full of antibiotics and sterroids.
The real danger of GM foods is in the 3rd world (no longer an accecptable term, but a hell of a lot shorter than the real deal... and everyone knows what it means). Because GM foods are considered intelectual property, the seed stocks cost a great deal more than non-GM seed stocks. In many 3rd world countries, where 1st world corporations own a huge amount of the land, subsistance agriculture is no longer an option. In order to drive down food prices, 3rd world governments are forced to try to maximize production on non-agribuisness owned land. When offered GM crops that yeild 4-5x as much, they jump at the chance. Typicaly the first year's seed stock is free.
Unfortunatly, Thermodynamics comes into play here. You can't just create 5x as much food from the same plant without takinx 5x as much out of the soil. Doing so depletes the soil, making it all but useless for non-GM products. You can use high end fertilizers, but these very high nitrogen compounds often damage plants that have not been specificly tailored to survive them (read GM plants).
The trap is closed in year two. With feilds unable to sustain anything but GM products the faltering agricultural economy has no choice but to buy the seed stocks. Since they are IP, the stocks are priced well above those of normal seed stocks and are typicaly incapable of reproduction.
And you wonder where famine comes from.
In all honesty, the risks to you of eating a tomato grown with an extra tick skin to allow easier transport are fairly minimal... it just tases like crap. The real victims are the countries in which those tomatoes are grown to the exclusion of staple crops like corn and wheet so that you can have a Whopper meal (with tomato, lettuce, and pickles) for less than $5.00
Of course, there are a few stocks of GM corn that made it into the human food supply that were never approved for human use, just cattle. God alone knows what's in that stuff. That, by the way, does reproduce... and today we've no idea what corn is natural and what is cattle GM.
I'm just pointing out that, as always, it's a little more complex than it looks on the surface... though you seem to have encapsulated it fairly susinctly.
To be fair, the Caribs were (at the time of Colombian Contact) engaged in a genocidal war against the Arawaks.
The Arawaks were the former inhabitants of the Greater Antilles, and were (primarily) a fairly peacefull people that utilized a hybrid hunter-gathering/agrarian system of nomadic farming on the islands.
The Caribs were invaders from the mainland, probably from what is modern day Brazil. They moved up the island chain starting in modern day Trinidad, killing and eating the Arawaks.
While not canibals as a primary food source, the Carib religous thoughts about the consumption of an enemy and the rights of war weren't well received by the Europeans, who set about dispatching them with some urgency.
That phrase -=used=- to mean something.
You know, the US only has four states bigger than that difference. [source]
#1 Alaska - 1,717,854 km2 (663,267 miles2)
#2 Texas - 695,621 km2 (268,581 miles2)
#3 California - 423,970 km2 (163,696 miles2)
#4 Montana - 380,838 km2 (147,042 miles2)
So yea... it's a pretty big difference.
Yes, but all form of power generation can be converted into electricity. Some forms of power generation are clean. Most of those forms don't rely on dead trees/critters from 60+ million years ago.
It's -=always=- dirty when you burn gasoline to run your car
It's only -=sometimes=- dirty when you use electricity to run your car.
It would seem likely that in the future we'll use less in the way of geologicaly "aged to perfection" dead stuff to generate power. If we can run our cars off of a wall socket by then we'll be in a good place to improve air quality even more.
A little known fact about that famous Papal quip is that Mossolini actualy didn't manage to get the trains to run on time afterall.
Yea.... like the Pope takes public transit.
It's not that at all! I don't have a problem with licencing use of a movie on physical media and I don't have a problem with licencing use of a car.
Both of those transactions are called "rental." I can go to Blockbuster and rent a movie for a few bucks for a few days. I can rent a car for a few years and when I return it, it's not mine anymore.
No, I don't have a problem with renting, or licencing if you prefer. BUT when I licence something instead of buying it, I expect to get it for less. Go see a movie or rent one at Blockbuster -- about $5.00. Buy a DVD, about $20. If I shell out for music, say, from iTunes, and what I'm paying is about the same as I'd pay for the CD, I expect it to be DRM free. DRM reduces the value of what I get. If the price is not correspondingly reduced, it's a bad deal.
Now, if iTunes songs go at 1/2 the price of a non-DRM CD, then perhaps we've got a deal... I'd still rather buy the CD, but there should exist some price point for each individual where the DRM option is preferable (so sayith the laws of economics).
In some feilds in liberal arts professors assign their scholorly books as textbooks. This is particularly true in 300 and 400 level classes. (Multiply those course numbers by 10 if you went to a college with more than 30,000 people).
Professor Dale Copeland at the University of Virginia was one such prof I encountered who did this. To be fair, his books were worthwhile and presented fairly hard to find material. There really isn't a text book for some of the classes I took... as such the profs get to write their own or assign their own works.
It's not a deregulated market. A deregulated market is free from outside influence.
Example of a deregulated market: I want to learn something about C++. I go into a large bookstore and choose from about 57 volumes on C/C++.
Example of a regulated market: I am enrolled in a class on C++. My professor assigns a specific book. I have to buy THAT SPECIFIC BOOK or I will be unable to complete the problems for the class.
This is a regulated market, it's one in which a monopoly is being created for both the campus book store and for the publishers in question. This is doubly true of custom texts sold only to students at a specific University and thus not published nationaly. Then you're forced to buy a specific book from a specific vendor.
The publishers responsibility doesn't play a roll here. What we're talking about is the shape of a demand curve. Textbooks have a near vertical demand curve with pressures being exerted from publishers, professors, and bookstores to keep the curve that way. The publisher has a responcibility to maximize profits, but it has the responcibility to do so in a fair, equitable, and open marketplace that benefits both the consumer and the producer.
Three words "publish or perish"
If the professor can get someone to publish his textbook, even if it has to sell at $300 a copy to post a profit, he gets to toss another publication on his resume.
If he's tenure track, he needs those publications for job security.
Further, lots of profs are aware that, if they write the text book they don't have to worry about changes in the course materials. Any new versions they put out (no matter how minor the changes) are versions they control. Thus, no being blindsided by changes in the text. In other words, it's less work to acutualy plan and teach the class once the text is out there.
Offtopic, I know, but this has always confused me.
First, why 72? Why not 73 or 75? Is there some significance to the number 72?
Second, how are 72 virgins supposed to last you for eternity? I mean.... this is -=forever=- we're talking about. How do you ration that? Even if you only bang one virgin every 100,000,000 years you're still going to run out eventualy. I mean, they're only virgins once right?
I should probably think less.....
Sorry.... I'm still going to side with the little Motzart truffles you can get in the train stations.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to find those in America? I know of one shop in my state that sells them.
To be fair, America has her share of high end chocolates and they're pretty good. The difference is availability. If you go into a ritzy chocolate shop in the States you can pick up chocolates that at least compete against the European brands. What you can't do is buy those chocolates in any convenience store.
Europe has more than a supply of great chocolate... it has a market for it too. Americans are apparently happy with being able to buy a Hershey bar from a vending machine. Personaly I'd rather be hungry.
Well I did essentialy knock mine together on my coffee break. And I've also knocked some filters together on another coffee break to solve the problem.
That said, it's still obnoxious. I'd like to encourage comments and see more of them. I'd also like to spend more time writing for my blog and less time writing filters for my comments page.
I feel like having to slap those security measures in place makes people less likely to comment and takes away from time that I could be using to add more content to the site.