As I understand it, modern Calvinism doesn't hold that God dictates every little choice we make, but rather that God predestined whether or not any of us will become a Christian. All the other choices are up to us, but not that one.
Of course this raises a few questions: why does God choose to call some people and not others? Are people who live in countries where the Gospel is preached freely more likely to be called than people who will never hear the Gospel? Are aborted fetuses ever called? Can someone be called, but never hear the Gospel before they die, and be saved anyway?
Fascinating stuff. I've recently become interested in Calvinism, which holds (among other things) that we do NOT have a choice in the matter of whether or not to become a Christian. God made that choice before the beginning of time, and some of us ("the elect") are predestined to come to accept Christ, while others are predestined not to, and nothing anybody says or does can possibly change that outcome. Romans 8:28-30, 1 Corinthians 1 and 7, Galatians 1:15, Ephesians 1, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, and Hebrews 9:15 make mention of this idea.
The practical side of this is, while Christians are still called to proclaim the Gospel because doing so brings glory to God, it's no use trying to convert people to Christianity. Forcing one's religious beliefs on others cannot work, and should never be attempted.
All this nonsense is christian, not conservative. The christians switched to vote conservative because, faced with a choice between the liberals' anti-christian vitriol and the conservatives' good-humored tolerance, they chose conservative. Can't hardly blame them.
It's not Christian either. Plenty of bigoted asshats call themselves Christians, but do not follow the teachings of Christ, who brought a message of love, not hatred or judgment. Read Matthew 23 to get an idea what Jesus thought of the asshats in power.
I find it weird that you make a connection between Muslims and liberalism. I've never heard such a connection suggested before.
But other entities have developed reasonably compliant browsers, so it's not impossible.
Yes, but those other entities started a lot sooner. Microsoft didn't even start thinking about fixing Internet Explorer until five years ago, when it became clear that Firefox was gaining marketshare and would likely overtake IE if Microsoft continued to do nothing. Then it took them awhile to put a team together, figure out their priorities, and start cleaning up the code.
If you don't know the language, what are you doing maintaining Perl code? I consider that professionally irresponsible, at least if you're getting paid.
Oh, absolutely, no question there. I was thinking of people messing around for fun, not getting paid to maintain Perl code in a professional environment.
(Where do you look up the/g flag for the JavaScript example?)
When you look up the String.replace method, it should explain/g there. In my Perl example, you have to recognize that ~ is actually part of the =~ operator, and that s is part of the s/// operator; once you know what these are, you can look them up in perlop (and indeed,/g is explained there).
Obviously this isn't a realistic example; any Perl beginner should know the syntax I used. My point was that because other languages rely more heavily on functions to accomplish things that Perl has a unique syntax for (which makes Perl easier and more fun to write), other languages are easier to read because when you come to a function you're not familiar with you can easily look it up. With Perl, if you don't recognize the syntax, you don't know what to look up, so you're stuck (or you misinterpret what's going on).
Imagine the poor thing getting itself all moved into the SMM and then finding out it's on a mac. Um... what now?
I suspect you've got that somewhat backwards. I would think once you get the code into the SMM, if it's as low-level as you suggest, it shouldn't matter whether it's a Mac or not. However, getting the code into the SMM is probably going to rely on OS features, so unless somebody writes a Mac port, it's not happening.
I should have clarified; the part of Leviticus 18:22 I was thinking of is the part that says "that is detestable". As Christians, we are not bound by the old Law or the old Covenant, but the requirement not to wear cotton/poly blends in Leviticus 19:19 doesn't say to do so is disgusting, it just says not to do it. Christians aren't bound by the legal requirements in Leviticus, but if God says something is detestable, that might be worth paying attention to.
You don't need to understand all of Perl to understand a given Perl program - you just need to understand the subset of Perl that is being used there.
And honestly, isn't the same true for any language? Myself, for example, I know C but not C++, and if you gave me a complicated C++ program with lots of templates and whatever else C++ has in terms of advanced and arcane features, I'd be at a total loss if I tried to understand it, too.
But that wouldn't mean the program is flawed - or that C++ is flawed. I know languages like PHP have made (some) people expect that they can understand (most of) any new language in a matter of minutes and think that if they can't, the language is flawed, but that simply isn't correct.
Yes, but Perl seems to have a rather more complex syntax than most other languages. For example, JavaScript's syntax is much simpler: there are far fewer operators, strings are immutable so you don't need syntax to modify them inline, arrays are an object class so you use OOP syntax for dealing with them, etc. etc. Because the syntax is less complicated, what's left is usually pretty easy to look up in a reference book (I highly recommend O'Reilly's JavaScript: The Definitive Guide).
Consider this line in Perl: print "New: $foo\n" if($foo=~s/foo/bar/g);
Compare to a comparable line of JavaScript: if(foo.match(/foo/)) document.write('New: '+foo.replace(/foo/g,'bar')+"\n");
Clearly, the Perl code is more concise, and I would argue easier to read for anyone who knows the language, but if you don't know the language, what does the ~ do? What do the letters s and g mean? In JavaScript, as long as you know the object method syntax, you can look up String.replace() and learn about its arguments.
Perl is very difficult to read if you don't know Perl, by which I mean all of Perl.
Rather...
Perl is very difficult to read if you don't know Perl, by which I mean as much of Perl as the guy who wrote the program used.
Knowing as much of Perl as the guy who wrote the program, in terms of percentage of the language, isn't enough. You have to know the same subset of Perl that the other guy used. If you know 3/4 of the language, and he knows 2/3 of the language, there is no guarantee that your 3/4 will wholly include his 2/3. To be sure that you know his 2/3 of the language, you have to learn the whole language. That was my point.
My first question with every new release of IE is, "How well does it render valid HTML+CSS?"
Yeah, I don't really care if it's fast and has "Web Accelerators". Will it display properly written pages properly? Are developers going to have to keep putting hacks into their pages to deal with IE quirks? If they aren't adhering to standards, then it's not really worth much.
They're attempting to adhere to standards, as best they can. It's not perfect, and some would argue it's not even good, but it does pass ACID2. IE7 did not.
Gosh, it couldn't be that the notices are actually regarding the sale of counterfeit goods... counterfeit goods which would violate copyright.
Most goods aren't subject to copyright. That's why generic drugs exist - they can be patented, but once the patent expires, it's perfectly legal to sell your own copies. You just have to change the name and the packaging, in such a way that a reasonable person wouldn't be confused into thinking your product actually is the original product (that would be a trademark violation).
I have an easier rule: "it's" (with an apostrophe) is always a contraction for "it is", and is never possessive. Therefore, if you can substitute "it is" without changing the meaning, use the apostrophe in "it's". Otherwise, using an apostrophe would be wrong.
The word "kinds" implies that evil is not homogenous, and clarifies that this statement does not conflate the various kinds, but merely identifies a common root between them.
Sounds like hell to me - an eternity of boredom. The only way heaven would sound good to me is if there was still some kind of progression or something. After a week at a resort I'm ready to leave - can't imagine spending an eternity on one planet.
Yeah, actually, there will be progression. I don't know what that will look like, but it says somewhere in Revelation that we'll be given jobs to do; we'll be able to be productive and DO stuff, not just sit around.
The core tenent of Christianity is to (paraphrasing) "Love God above everything, love others as much as you love yourself."
Spot on. Matthew 22:36-40.
Now I have serious problems with pretty much all organized Christian faith. They spend all their time telling you that you're going to burn in hell if you don't do this, or don't say that,
As another poster suggested, perhaps you've been going to the wrong churches. Yes, you'll burn in hell if you aren't saved, but salvation is a free gift, not a reward; you can't earn it by doing the right things or not saying the wrong things (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christianity isn't about rules to govern our behavior (1 Corinthians 10:23), but your actions and words are a reflection of your heart (Luke 6:43-45); if you know God and love God, then your actions and words will naturally fall into line with God's will, and you won't need rules to adhere to.
or if you vote in favor of gay marriage,
That's a tricky issue; clearly God doesn't approve (Leviticus 18:22) but legislating morality generally doesn't work. The call to love our neighbors isn't restricted to just our straight neighbors, but different people have a variety of interpretations of what they think the right thing to do is.
or eat red meat on Fridays during Lent,
Lent is not a Biblical concept; it was invented by the Catholics, and most other Christians don't usually observe it. If you do observe Lent, you certainly don't have to choose red meat; whatever vice you think would be the most beneficial to give up is fine. I've heard some people are giving up texting and Facebook for Lent this year.
or use a condom
Contraception is definitely not prohibited by the Bible. Again, another screwy Catholic thing.
or Pay us 10% of your wages
The Jewish concept of setting aside 10% is rather different than the modern Christian concept of tithing; see Wikipedia.
or fail to wear your holy underwear at all times.
And that one's a Mormon thing, also not even close to Biblical.
You have the godhatesfags.com morons who obviously really fucking hate themselves if they're "loving others as much as you love yourself".
Yeah, no kidding. Assholes.
Its not my place to pass judgement on ANYONE. I live my life, believe what I believe, pass on my beliefs when appropriate, and try my best to be good natured. And I fail miserably at times:). I try to do good overall in the world, and help other people out when they need it. And quite frankly, I can do that without someone telling me the myriad of ways I'm going to go to hell.
That's a great attitude to have. Unfortunately, it won't keep you out of hell - that free gift of salvation I mentioned must be accepted, or it doesn't apply. None of us is inherently good enough to be permitted into the presence of God (Romans 3:23), no matter how good we try to be, because like you said, you fail miserably at times - we all do, and it only takes once. God doesn't recognize any difference between tiny little sins and great big huge sins, nor between one or two sins and a lifetime of constant sinning; it's all sin, and it must be paid for. Jesus died to pay for that sin, but you must turn your life over to Him in order to accept that gift (Romans 10:9-10).
But hey, if you'd rather not, that's your choice to make, not mine.
Perl is very difficult to read if you don't know Perl, by which I mean all of Perl. It's a very complex language with tons of operators and quirky syntax, which means if you encounter something you're not familiar with, you can't look it up in a reference, because you don't even know what you're looking for.
Typically, most people don't learn they entire language; they learn a subset of the language that allows them to do what they need to do. That's fine, and you should be able to read your own programs without any trouble, but since the subset of the language you learned isn't the same as the subset of the language some other guy learned, you won't be able to read his code, and he won't be able to read yours.
Once you've advanced to the point of learning the entire language and can wrap your brain around all of the syntax, only then does reading other people's code become feasible.
And then, of course, there's deliberate obfuscation.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict; use warnings;
my $q='XyLEoNgGmGjkrhPrrJtctlhe,auesenaoOmCnEfc'; for(sort split''=>substr$q,11,22,'Kfkz'){my$d=ord substr$q,0,1,'';print"\e[".(ord uc chr $d^64).chr (($d&32)/32+67)if($d<122);print}print"\n"#phroggy
Pretty soon, the networks will have no product left to sell the advertisers. Then what will they do?
If only that were true! Sadly, people still watch television. LOTS of people. And most of them prefer to pay a monthly subscription fee and put up with a severely compressed 4:3 video stream (which they stretch to fill their 16:9 screen), instead of just setting up an antenna.
(Obviously not everyone is within range of a clear ATSC signal, and many people do want cable/satellite programming. That's fine. Mangling the aspect ratio always bothers me, though.)
So, as a father of 4, working the tech sector for over a decade, early adopter in tech, when it comes to TV, I'm a horrible demographic to want? I'm not the general audience because I am a geek and a man?! WTF!? Thats f'cking sexist and rude.
It's because you're less likely to spend money in response to advertising. Everyone understands that TV networks are in business to deliver a product to their customers, but too many people are under the mistaken impression that the product is the programming and the customers are the viewers. Actually, the product is the viewers and the customers are the advertisers. The sole purpose of the content is to generate a product to sell to the advertisers, and young single males are the most valuable class of product, so the networks will try to refine their content in order to attract the most valuable products to sell.
Unfortunately, good quality science fiction shows are much more expensive than reality TV, and experience has shown that the latter is just as good at attracting high-value viewers as the former. Not the same viewers, of course, but that's not a criteria - the networks don't feel they owe us anything; we're just a product to be sold, except there are other viewers they can sell just as well as us.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, modern Calvinism doesn't hold that God dictates every little choice we make, but rather that God predestined whether or not any of us will become a Christian. All the other choices are up to us, but not that one.
Of course this raises a few questions: why does God choose to call some people and not others? Are people who live in countries where the Gospel is preached freely more likely to be called than people who will never hear the Gospel? Are aborted fetuses ever called? Can someone be called, but never hear the Gospel before they die, and be saved anyway?
Fascinating stuff. I've recently become interested in Calvinism, which holds (among other things) that we do NOT have a choice in the matter of whether or not to become a Christian. God made that choice before the beginning of time, and some of us ("the elect") are predestined to come to accept Christ, while others are predestined not to, and nothing anybody says or does can possibly change that outcome. Romans 8:28-30, 1 Corinthians 1 and 7, Galatians 1:15, Ephesians 1, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, and Hebrews 9:15 make mention of this idea.
The practical side of this is, while Christians are still called to proclaim the Gospel because doing so brings glory to God, it's no use trying to convert people to Christianity. Forcing one's religious beliefs on others cannot work, and should never be attempted.
At least a few items on that list sound like things the Republican party fully endorses.
All this nonsense is christian, not conservative. The christians switched to vote conservative because, faced with a choice between the liberals' anti-christian vitriol and the conservatives' good-humored tolerance, they chose conservative. Can't hardly blame them.
It's not Christian either. Plenty of bigoted asshats call themselves Christians, but do not follow the teachings of Christ, who brought a message of love, not hatred or judgment. Read Matthew 23 to get an idea what Jesus thought of the asshats in power.
I find it weird that you make a connection between Muslims and liberalism. I've never heard such a connection suggested before.
But other entities have developed reasonably compliant browsers, so it's not impossible.
Yes, but those other entities started a lot sooner. Microsoft didn't even start thinking about fixing Internet Explorer until five years ago, when it became clear that Firefox was gaining marketshare and would likely overtake IE if Microsoft continued to do nothing. Then it took them awhile to put a team together, figure out their priorities, and start cleaning up the code.
If you don't know the language, what are you doing maintaining Perl code? I consider that professionally irresponsible, at least if you're getting paid.
Oh, absolutely, no question there. I was thinking of people messing around for fun, not getting paid to maintain Perl code in a professional environment.
(Where do you look up the /g flag for the JavaScript example?)
When you look up the String.replace method, it should explain /g there. In my Perl example, you have to recognize that ~ is actually part of the =~ operator, and that s is part of the s/// operator; once you know what these are, you can look them up in perlop (and indeed, /g is explained there).
Obviously this isn't a realistic example; any Perl beginner should know the syntax I used. My point was that because other languages rely more heavily on functions to accomplish things that Perl has a unique syntax for (which makes Perl easier and more fun to write), other languages are easier to read because when you come to a function you're not familiar with you can easily look it up. With Perl, if you don't recognize the syntax, you don't know what to look up, so you're stuck (or you misinterpret what's going on).
Imagine the poor thing getting itself all moved into the SMM and then finding out it's on a mac. Um... what now?
I suspect you've got that somewhat backwards. I would think once you get the code into the SMM, if it's as low-level as you suggest, it shouldn't matter whether it's a Mac or not. However, getting the code into the SMM is probably going to rely on OS features, so unless somebody writes a Mac port, it's not happening.
"They're attempting to adhere to standards, as best they can"
Total BS. If MSFT wanted to adhere to standards, they would. Trouble is, they don't care.
You have a lot more faith in Microsoft's technical abilities than I do, it seems.
I should have clarified; the part of Leviticus 18:22 I was thinking of is the part that says "that is detestable". As Christians, we are not bound by the old Law or the old Covenant, but the requirement not to wear cotton/poly blends in Leviticus 19:19 doesn't say to do so is disgusting, it just says not to do it. Christians aren't bound by the legal requirements in Leviticus, but if God says something is detestable, that might be worth paying attention to.
You don't need to understand all of Perl to understand a given Perl program - you just need to understand the subset of Perl that is being used there.
And honestly, isn't the same true for any language? Myself, for example, I know C but not C++, and if you gave me a complicated C++ program with lots of templates and whatever else C++ has in terms of advanced and arcane features, I'd be at a total loss if I tried to understand it, too.
But that wouldn't mean the program is flawed - or that C++ is flawed. I know languages like PHP have made (some) people expect that they can understand (most of) any new language in a matter of minutes and think that if they can't, the language is flawed, but that simply isn't correct.
Yes, but Perl seems to have a rather more complex syntax than most other languages. For example, JavaScript's syntax is much simpler: there are far fewer operators, strings are immutable so you don't need syntax to modify them inline, arrays are an object class so you use OOP syntax for dealing with them, etc. etc. Because the syntax is less complicated, what's left is usually pretty easy to look up in a reference book (I highly recommend O'Reilly's JavaScript: The Definitive Guide).
Consider this line in Perl:
print "New: $foo\n" if($foo=~s/foo/bar/g);
Compare to a comparable line of JavaScript:
if(foo.match(/foo/)) document.write('New: '+foo.replace(/foo/g,'bar')+"\n");
Clearly, the Perl code is more concise, and I would argue easier to read for anyone who knows the language, but if you don't know the language, what does the ~ do? What do the letters s and g mean? In JavaScript, as long as you know the object method syntax, you can look up String.replace() and learn about its arguments.
Rather...
Knowing as much of Perl as the guy who wrote the program, in terms of percentage of the language, isn't enough. You have to know the same subset of Perl that the other guy used. If you know 3/4 of the language, and he knows 2/3 of the language, there is no guarantee that your 3/4 will wholly include his 2/3. To be sure that you know his 2/3 of the language, you have to learn the whole language. That was my point.
And hell yeah, Perl kicks ass. :-)
My first question with every new release of IE is, "How well does it render valid HTML+CSS?"
Yeah, I don't really care if it's fast and has "Web Accelerators". Will it display properly written pages properly? Are developers going to have to keep putting hacks into their pages to deal with IE quirks? If they aren't adhering to standards, then it's not really worth much.
They're attempting to adhere to standards, as best they can. It's not perfect, and some would argue it's not even good, but it does pass ACID2. IE7 did not.
I wonder how long it will be before people figure out that "secret questions" are such a huge security hole.
Gosh, it couldn't be that the notices are actually regarding the sale of counterfeit goods ... counterfeit goods which would violate copyright.
Most goods aren't subject to copyright. That's why generic drugs exist - they can be patented, but once the patent expires, it's perfectly legal to sell your own copies. You just have to change the name and the packaging, in such a way that a reasonable person wouldn't be confused into thinking your product actually is the original product (that would be a trademark violation).
Have you ever copied sheet music by hand? It's a pain in the ass.
Without a level of technology that permits the use of photocopy machines, everything is a pain in the ass. In Joplin's time, people were used to it.
I have an easier rule: "it's" (with an apostrophe) is always a contraction for "it is", and is never possessive. Therefore, if you can substitute "it is" without changing the meaning, use the apostrophe in "it's". Otherwise, using an apostrophe would be wrong.
The word "kinds" implies that evil is not homogenous, and clarifies that this statement does not conflate the various kinds, but merely identifies a common root between them.
Sounds like hell to me - an eternity of boredom. The only way heaven would sound good to me is if there was still some kind of progression or something. After a week at a resort I'm ready to leave - can't imagine spending an eternity on one planet.
Yeah, actually, there will be progression. I don't know what that will look like, but it says somewhere in Revelation that we'll be given jobs to do; we'll be able to be productive and DO stuff, not just sit around.
The core tenent of Christianity is to (paraphrasing) "Love God above everything, love others as much as you love yourself."
Spot on. Matthew 22:36-40.
Now I have serious problems with pretty much all organized Christian faith. They spend all their time telling you that you're going to burn in hell if you don't do this, or don't say that,
As another poster suggested, perhaps you've been going to the wrong churches. Yes, you'll burn in hell if you aren't saved, but salvation is a free gift, not a reward; you can't earn it by doing the right things or not saying the wrong things (Ephesians 2:8-9). Christianity isn't about rules to govern our behavior (1 Corinthians 10:23), but your actions and words are a reflection of your heart (Luke 6:43-45); if you know God and love God, then your actions and words will naturally fall into line with God's will, and you won't need rules to adhere to.
or if you vote in favor of gay marriage,
That's a tricky issue; clearly God doesn't approve (Leviticus 18:22) but legislating morality generally doesn't work. The call to love our neighbors isn't restricted to just our straight neighbors, but different people have a variety of interpretations of what they think the right thing to do is.
or eat red meat on Fridays during Lent,
Lent is not a Biblical concept; it was invented by the Catholics, and most other Christians don't usually observe it. If you do observe Lent, you certainly don't have to choose red meat; whatever vice you think would be the most beneficial to give up is fine. I've heard some people are giving up texting and Facebook for Lent this year.
or use a condom
Contraception is definitely not prohibited by the Bible. Again, another screwy Catholic thing.
or Pay us 10% of your wages
The Jewish concept of setting aside 10% is rather different than the modern Christian concept of tithing; see Wikipedia.
or fail to wear your holy underwear at all times.
And that one's a Mormon thing, also not even close to Biblical.
You have the godhatesfags.com morons who obviously really fucking hate themselves if they're "loving others as much as you love yourself".
Yeah, no kidding. Assholes.
Its not my place to pass judgement on ANYONE. I live my life, believe what I believe, pass on my beliefs when appropriate, and try my best to be good natured. And I fail miserably at times :). I try to do good overall in the world, and help other people out when they need it. And quite frankly, I can do that without someone telling me the myriad of ways I'm going to go to hell.
That's a great attitude to have. Unfortunately, it won't keep you out of hell - that free gift of salvation I mentioned must be accepted, or it doesn't apply. None of us is inherently good enough to be permitted into the presence of God (Romans 3:23), no matter how good we try to be, because like you said, you fail miserably at times - we all do, and it only takes once. God doesn't recognize any difference between tiny little sins and great big huge sins, nor between one or two sins and a lifetime of constant sinning; it's all sin, and it must be paid for. Jesus died to pay for that sin, but you must turn your life over to Him in order to accept that gift (Romans 10:9-10).
But hey, if you'd rather not, that's your choice to make, not mine.
Because your whole /faith directory is made up, and you don't know anything about either of them? :-P
Perl is very difficult to read if you don't know Perl, by which I mean all of Perl. It's a very complex language with tons of operators and quirky syntax, which means if you encounter something you're not familiar with, you can't look it up in a reference, because you don't even know what you're looking for.
Typically, most people don't learn they entire language; they learn a subset of the language that allows them to do what they need to do. That's fine, and you should be able to read your own programs without any trouble, but since the subset of the language you learned isn't the same as the subset of the language some other guy learned, you won't be able to read his code, and he won't be able to read yours.
Once you've advanced to the point of learning the entire language and can wrap your brain around all of the syntax, only then does reading other people's code become feasible.
And then, of course, there's deliberate obfuscation.
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my $q='XyLEoNgGmGjkrhPrrJtctlhe,auesenaoOmCnEfc';
for(sort split''=>substr$q,11,22,'Kfkz'){my$d=ord
substr$q,0,1,'';print"\e[".(ord uc chr $d^64).chr
(($d&32)/32+67)if($d<122);print}print"\n"#phroggy
...to its ATM customers using the Windows operating system.
Does Diebold have ATM customers that aren't using the Windows operating system? I thought all Diebold ATMs ran Windows; was this incorrect?
If all Diebold ATMs run Windows, then it's redundant to mention it in this way.
Pretty soon, the networks will have no product left to sell the advertisers. Then what will they do?
If only that were true! Sadly, people still watch television. LOTS of people. And most of them prefer to pay a monthly subscription fee and put up with a severely compressed 4:3 video stream (which they stretch to fill their 16:9 screen), instead of just setting up an antenna.
(Obviously not everyone is within range of a clear ATSC signal, and many people do want cable/satellite programming. That's fine. Mangling the aspect ratio always bothers me, though.)
That may be true, of course, but as long as the advertisers don't think it's true, it doesn't matter.
So, as a father of 4, working the tech sector for over a decade, early adopter in tech, when it comes to TV, I'm a horrible demographic to want? I'm not the general audience because I am a geek and a man?! WTF!? Thats f'cking sexist and rude.
It's because you're less likely to spend money in response to advertising. Everyone understands that TV networks are in business to deliver a product to their customers, but too many people are under the mistaken impression that the product is the programming and the customers are the viewers. Actually, the product is the viewers and the customers are the advertisers. The sole purpose of the content is to generate a product to sell to the advertisers, and young single males are the most valuable class of product, so the networks will try to refine their content in order to attract the most valuable products to sell.
Unfortunately, good quality science fiction shows are much more expensive than reality TV, and experience has shown that the latter is just as good at attracting high-value viewers as the former. Not the same viewers, of course, but that's not a criteria - the networks don't feel they owe us anything; we're just a product to be sold, except there are other viewers they can sell just as well as us.