Thanks for the link! I'm using Phoenix now. I love the fact that cut and paste etc. work as they're suppose to. The only browser on MacOS X that does, to my knowledge at least. If Phoenix had spell checking like OmniWeb -- well then -- NIRVANA!
One of my pet peeves is the obsession that folks have with zeros. An example is the year 2000. In base 10 you get beaucoup zeros whereas with hex you get 7D0, or 11A6 (base 12), or 3720 (octal), or 11111010000 (binary). Zeros are an artifice of both the base, and numeral system used to represent a pure number. Thus, the fact that most humans use the decimal Indo-Arabic numeral system to represent it is the only reason for all those zeros. Use another base, or numeral system to represent 2000, you don't get beaucoup zeros.
The real properties of pure numbers are the relationships that they have with other numbers, and not the symbology used to represent them.
The Carpenters, Badfinger, Duke Ellington, Roy Clark, Yes, Tracy Ullman, The Moody Blues, Hanson, John Denver, Tony Douglas & The Shrimpers, The Oneders, Wierd Al Yankovic, The Cowsills, Don Williams, Stillwater, Ray Charles, Johnny Horton...
"Can anyone put forward a well-reasoned argument why the Internet should be exempt to sales tax?"
The complexity of current systems of sales tax in the US are so complex that only larger retailers would be able to justify the use of online sales. Smaller retailers would be forced out of the market. In the event of some sort of simplified "internet tax" system, there still is the problem of submitting the taxes to the various states, no small headache.
Because, many of the most interesting, innovative, and creative products offered online are from small businesses, including mom & pop internet retailers, those products would disappear from the internet in the event of internet taxation of the sort mention in the original post.
An example: I'm very into bass fishing. Fisherman often develop a preference for certain lures that have become their favorites. New lures are introduced to the market, and become the hot bait of that year, season, etc.. It's not uncommon that the new hot lure, or an old favorite will not be available from local tackle shops. Local tackle shops have limited space, indeed even the biggest names in the mail order fishing tackle such as Bass Pro Shops, and Cabela's don't have the space to carry ever model, of lure, in every size, and color. (1k of models, 10 different colors on average, and lets say 5 sizes on average yields 50,000 different lures, and this is a conservative estimate.) Thus, I have on many occasions ordered lures direct from small manufactures, though, I prefer to do business with local tackle shops. Often these manufactures are ran out of a garage, or the shed in the back 40. As such they are quite capable of selling online to anyone in the US give the current tax structure. However, if these small manufactures were to be subjected to the complexity of having to determine, charge, and submit sales taxes to umpteen different taxing authorities in 50 different states the paperwork would overwhelm them. Even under a simplified system they would still have to submit taxes to 50 different states. Thus, in either case they would then only be able to sell wholesale, and/or retail only within their local taxation district.
Not being able to sell to the fisherman directly would deprive such companies of the ability to be profitable, and the consumer of a broader choice of merchandise.
Ergo, the consumer is harmed, and both local economies, and the national economy is diminished.
I would also point out that catalog sales have always been "tax free" as the purchaser was responsible for state, and local taxes. So this sort of tax "problem" has been around for quite a while. I've been ordering from Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, L.L. Bean etc. since at least 1976. I clearly recall that in the early 80's there were calls for taxing catalog sales. Such calls occurred with a fair amount of frequency for 15 years, or more. With the advent of the internet such calls morphed from "tax catalog sales" to "tax internet sales." This whole thing is nothing new, not unlike the push to prevent music, and video coping. First it was cassette decks, then VCRs, and now it's mp3 etc.. Same song, somewhat different lyrics.
'AND' is a logical conjunction when used in digital electronics, and computer science, where as 'and' is both a logical, and grammatical conjunction when used in colloquial English.
Judge Jackson does in fact get it, as can be seen in the following paragraph...
"...but if there ever was an era in which lower court judges could rely upon the majesty of the office and the aura of omniscience to inspire confidence in their decisions, that age is long past. People expect other public officials to earn their respect in part by displaying a willingness to answer good-faith questions about actions taken and decisions reached. Judges should be no exception. I know of no good reason why a judge who has made a decision, in a case of obvious interest and concern to many people, should not at least be willing, if not expected, to respond to legitimate inquiries about it from responsible interlocutors, whether they are lawyers, academics, students, journalists, historians or the local garden club."
Well said indeed, Judge Jackson!
The geek community is not the only facet of American society that is apprehensive of the US legal system in its current condition, and of that systems inscrutable machinations. If the members of the bar, and the judiciary do not soon get their collective act together then they ought to expect an onslaught of criticism from the public. If then, such criticisms are not taken to heart, and heeded; then the bar, and the judiciary can only expect the public to energetically seek remedy through legislative action, and/or constitutional amendment.
The era of the judicial imperium is coming to an end.
"Be it sight, sound, smell, or touch, There's something inside, that we need so much. The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sound, Or the strength of an oak, with roots, deep in the ground. The wonder of flowers, to be covered, and then to burst up, Through tarmac, to the sun again, or to fly to the sun, Without burning a wing, to lie in a meadow, And hear the grass sing. To have all these things, In our memories hoard, and to use them, To help us, to find the lost chord... " --The Moody Blues, In Search of the Lost Chord
Function: noun Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief Date: before 12th century 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property 2 obsolete : something stolen 3 : a stolen base in baseball
You'll note the part in 1a "with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."
Note the part about "...with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it."
The word steal has numerous definitions that vary in both kind, and degree. I don't think that stealing a base in baseball, nor stealing a kiss is illegal, immoral, or unethical.
Stealing is illegal, immoral, or unethical only when such an act is done with intent of permanent deprivation. Usage of the word 'steal' in other contexts does not bare consideration within the parameters of the subject under discussion in this thread.
"Okay, I see the bone of contention here: you think that 'copyright infringement' is a much less serious offense than theft. I disagree; I believe that they are essentially equivalent, since their practical outcomes are the same (in this instance,) and hence I have no problem equating the two."
You are once again, wrong. The practical outcomes are *not* essentially the same. The issue here is that one, theft, leads to dispossession, whereas the other, infringement, does not.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." -- Thomas Jefferson, 13 Aug. 1813 in a letter to Isaac McPherson.
The second sentence in the above quote goes to the heart of moral, and ethical difference between theft, and infringement. You will note that in the last sentence that Jefferson clearly states that the issue is not one of property. His basis for this conclusion is derived from the next to the last sentence.
"For example, whether you download Britney's latest album, or you steal one from the distributor, the upshot is the same: you now have something for which you have not paid. The worth of the physical item is negligible; it is the content that holds the value. Whether it's called stealing or 'illegal copying' is irrelevant outside of the legal arena."
Here you are being 'hyper-capitalistic' and thus miss the point. That point being that everything is not owned exclusively, nor privately held. There are some things that are held in *common* by the whole of humanity. Jefferson's use of air in the previous quote is a prime example of such common property. Again I quote from Jefferson's letter to McPherson-- "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society,..."
You'll note that the reason that copyrights, and patents are *granted*, i.e. given, is for the benefit of society as a whole not for the benefit of an individual, or some sub-set of society. In fact Jefferson points this out in the following quote...
"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."
Indeed, it is the "...profits arising form them..."(the them being inventions) and not control of an invention, and certainly not ownership that is being *granted* exclusively to the inventors/s.
To conclude: The right to property is an innately held natural right, and given that theft is the deprivation of an individual of his/her property, then theft is necessarily a violation of an individuals natural rights. Copyrights, and patents are granted. A natural right is not granted, but is innately held by an individual. Therefore, infringement is not a violation of a natural right, whereas theft is.
"In the sense that you are illegally obtaining for free something that you would otherwise have had to pay for, it is stealing. Perhaps not in the precise legal definition, but close enough in discussing the moral and ethical ramifications."
On the contrary.
The paramount legal raison d'être for making the distinction between theft, and copyright infringement is the moral, and ethical basis of this distinction.
Theft involves the commandeering of an object, or objects such that the rightful 'owner/s' of the object are deprived of its use. Steal my horse, and I am deprived of transportation. Copyright infringement does not deprive the 'owner/s' of the use of the object. Copy my video tape of The Mummy and I (the 'owner') am not deprived of the use of my copy of The Mummy. It is the 'owners' deprivation of use that defines theft.
A Copyright is the monopolistic license granted to the holder to control the reproduction, and use of a work of art, and/or science. Copyright infringement is a usurpation of a work of art, and/or science that has been copyrighted. That is to say a copyrighted work has been used, or copied with out permission of the copyright holder.
The distinction is clear; theft deprives the 'owner' of the use of something, whereas infringement alone does not, but only uses something without permission to do so.
" Then all these students get out into the workplace and say "Uhh... where's the Macs?"
Speaking as a died in the wool Mac user:
--The number of viruses that Windows is suseptable to is at least an order of magnitude greater that for the Mac. Thus, Macs are much easier to adminster than Windows boxes when it comes to viruses, t-horses, ect..
--I have over the course of the last seven years found that Mac users have little problem working in Win95 and later when it comes to office type software, web browesers, e-mail, and the like. That's not to say they don't have problems with system level snafu etc. in Windows, but then again most Windows have problems with system level issues.
--That many workplaces don't have Macs is a shortcoming of said workplaces. (I think that with the advent of Jaguar more workplaces will start *seriously* looking at the Mac as solution to their computing needs, and IT issues.)
You might try six semester hours at a local college, or university for a semester. Kinda get your feet wet...
The down side of this is that the subjects that you take might not be those which 'flip your switch.' It's also possible that the profs, or instructors that you happen to get don't operate at anything like the same wavelength that you do. Of course the flip side of this is that you might luck out and take courses that really jingle your bells and have facility members that are very much on your wavelength.
The upshot of these caveats is that not taking a full course load your first time at bat might leave you with a false impression, either good, or bad, of what college is like. Then again even if you do decide to take a full academic load you still might either bomb out, or luck out on your courses, though it's a lower probility.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, what comes after "peta-"?
exa as in 10^18, then
zetta as in 10^21, then
yotta as in 10^24
Thanks for the link! I'm using Phoenix now. I love the fact that cut and paste etc. work as they're suppose to. The only browser on MacOS X that does, to my knowledge at least. If Phoenix had spell checking like OmniWeb -- well then -- NIRVANA!
Thought that I'd throw out a few links on the subject of quark stars. Here's a few useful, and informative links:
5 -1 .htmlh tml. shtml ?tid=1602 574.stm
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2002/split/58
http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q1401.
http://slashdot.org/science/02/04/10/1840222
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/192
http://www.fi.uib.no/~nyiri/thesis.html
The ability to model white dwarfs, and neutron stars! He, he, he!
This is the kind of thing that got me into physics. LASERs, exotic astronomical objects, cool labs,and semi-mysterious doings.
It's enough to make a Vulcan giddy!
Pavlov?
Reminds me of a dog...
One of my pet peeves is the obsession that folks have with zeros. An example is the year 2000. In base 10 you get beaucoup zeros whereas with hex you get 7D0, or 11A6 (base 12), or 3720 (octal), or 11111010000 (binary). Zeros are an artifice of both the base, and numeral system used to represent a pure number. Thus, the fact that most humans use the decimal Indo-Arabic numeral system to represent it is the only reason for all those zeros. Use another base, or numeral system to represent 2000, you don't get beaucoup zeros.
The real properties of pure numbers are the relationships that they have with other numbers, and not the symbology used to represent them.
Now let's discuss real talent...
The Carpenters, Badfinger, Duke Ellington, Roy Clark, Yes, Tracy Ullman, The Moody Blues, Hanson, John Denver, Tony Douglas & The Shrimpers, The Oneders, Wierd Al Yankovic, The Cowsills, Don Williams, Stillwater, Ray Charles, Johnny Horton...
"Can anyone put forward a well-reasoned argument why the Internet should be exempt to sales tax?"
The complexity of current systems of sales tax in the US are so complex that only larger retailers would be able to justify the use of online sales. Smaller retailers would be forced out of the market. In the event of some sort of simplified "internet tax" system, there still is the problem of submitting the taxes to the various states, no small headache.
Because, many of the most interesting, innovative, and creative products offered online are from small businesses, including mom & pop internet retailers, those products would disappear from the internet in the event of internet taxation of the sort mention in the original post.
An example:
I'm very into bass fishing. Fisherman often develop a preference for certain lures that have become their favorites. New lures are introduced to the market, and become the hot bait of that year, season, etc.. It's not uncommon that the new hot lure, or an old favorite will not be available from local tackle shops. Local tackle shops have limited space, indeed even the biggest names in the mail order fishing tackle such as Bass Pro Shops, and Cabela's don't have the space to carry ever model, of lure, in every size, and color. (1k of models, 10 different colors on average, and lets say 5 sizes on average yields 50,000 different lures, and this is a conservative estimate.) Thus, I have on many occasions ordered lures direct from small manufactures, though, I prefer to do business with local tackle shops. Often these manufactures are ran out of a garage, or the shed in the back 40. As such they are quite capable of selling online to anyone in the US give the current tax structure. However, if these small manufactures were to be subjected to the complexity of having to determine, charge, and submit sales taxes to umpteen different taxing authorities in 50 different states the paperwork would overwhelm them. Even under a simplified system they would still have to submit taxes to 50 different states. Thus, in either case they would then only be able to sell wholesale, and/or retail only within their local taxation district.
Not being able to sell to the fisherman directly would deprive such companies of the ability to be profitable, and the consumer of a broader choice of merchandise.
Ergo, the consumer is harmed, and both local economies, and the national economy is diminished.
I would also point out that catalog sales have always been "tax free" as the purchaser was responsible for state, and local taxes. So this sort of tax "problem" has been around for quite a while. I've been ordering from Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, L.L. Bean etc. since at least 1976. I clearly recall that in the early 80's there were calls for taxing catalog sales. Such calls occurred with a fair amount of frequency for 15 years, or more. With the advent of the internet such calls morphed from "tax catalog sales" to "tax internet sales." This whole thing is nothing new, not unlike the push to prevent music, and video coping. First it was cassette decks, then VCRs, and now it's mp3 etc.. Same song, somewhat different lyrics.
'AND' is a logical conjunction when used in digital electronics, and computer science, where as 'and' is both a logical, and grammatical conjunction when used in colloquial English.
What about RADAR, SONAR,COMSAT, M*A*S*H, DEFCON, POTUS, FLOTUS, RAM, ROM, USAF...
Then there are those logical operations: AND, OR XOR, NOR, NAND, etc....
"The popcorn is great, and the portions huge."
Maybe so, but ya'll put suger on your popcorn. Blech!
Of course you folks also consume warm beer, and jellied eels...
SAY NO MORE!
Thanks for the link.
Judge Jackson does in fact get it, as can be seen in the following paragraph...
"...but if there ever was an era in which lower court judges could rely upon the majesty of the office and the aura of omniscience to inspire confidence in their decisions, that age is long past. People expect other public officials to earn their respect in part by displaying a willingness to answer good-faith questions about actions taken and decisions reached. Judges should be no exception. I know of no good reason why a judge who has made a decision, in a case of obvious interest and concern to many people, should not at least be willing, if not expected, to respond to legitimate inquiries about it from responsible interlocutors, whether they are lawyers, academics, students, journalists, historians or the local garden club."
Well said indeed, Judge Jackson!
The geek community is not the only facet of American society that is apprehensive of the US legal system in its current condition, and of that systems inscrutable machinations. If the members of the bar, and the judiciary do not soon get their collective act together then they ought to expect an onslaught of criticism from the public. If then, such criticisms are not taken to heart, and heeded; then the bar, and the judiciary can only expect the public to energetically seek remedy through legislative action, and/or constitutional amendment.
The era of the judicial imperium is coming to an end.
"Be it sight, sound, smell, or touch,
There's something inside, that we need so much.
The sight of a touch, or the scent of a sound,
Or the strength of an oak, with roots, deep in the ground.
The wonder of flowers, to be covered, and then to burst up,
Through tarmac, to the sun again, or to fly to the sun,
Without burning a wing, to lie in a meadow,
And hear the grass sing. To have all these things,
In our memories hoard, and to use them,
To help us, to find the lost chord... " --The Moody Blues, In Search of the Lost Chord
Bananna anna bo bana etc.
How about Bio-Physical Cybernautics?
Don't moon me with Uranus...
Just thought that I'd add to the groans...
"If you have a moon in uranus... youd better wo to the doctor... maybe you have hemorroids!"
Not hemorroids, assteroids...
from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
Date: before 12th century
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball
You'll note the part in 1a "with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it."
The offence of dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another*** with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it.*** The property need not be tangible. The earlier offence of larceny involved "taking and carrying away" the goods and was until 1827 divided into Grand Larceny, which originally carried the death penalty or transportation, and Petty Larceny, when the value of the stolen property was less than a shilling. It was replaced by theft as defined by the Theft Act (1968). --The Macmillan Encyclopedia 2001, © Market House Books Ltd 2000
1 the act or an instance of stealing.
2 Law dishonest appropriation of another's property ***with intent to deprive him or her of it permanently.***
[OE thiefth, theofth, later theoft, f. Gmc (as thief)]
The Oxford English Reference Dictionary, © Oxford University Press 1996
Note the part about "...with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it."
The word steal has numerous definitions that vary in both kind, and degree. I don't think that stealing a base in baseball, nor stealing a kiss is illegal, immoral, or unethical.
Stealing is illegal, immoral, or unethical only when such an act is done with intent of permanent deprivation. Usage of the word 'steal' in other contexts does not bare consideration within the parameters of the subject under discussion in this thread.
No.
"Okay, I see the bone of contention here: you think that 'copyright infringement' is a much less serious offense than theft. I disagree; I believe that they are essentially equivalent, since their practical outcomes are the same (in this instance,) and hence I have no problem equating the two."
You are once again, wrong. The practical outcomes are *not* essentially the same. The issue here is that one, theft, leads to dispossession, whereas the other, infringement, does not.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." -- Thomas Jefferson, 13 Aug. 1813 in a letter to Isaac McPherson.
The second sentence in the above quote goes to the heart of moral, and ethical difference between theft, and infringement. You will note that in the last sentence that Jefferson clearly states that the issue is not one of property. His basis for this conclusion is derived from the next to the last sentence.
"For example, whether you download Britney's latest album, or you steal one from the distributor, the upshot is the same: you now have something for which you have not paid. The worth of the physical item is negligible; it is the content that holds the value. Whether it's called stealing or 'illegal copying' is irrelevant outside of the legal arena."
Here you are being 'hyper-capitalistic' and thus miss the point. That point being that everything is not owned exclusively, nor privately held. There are some things that are held in *common* by the whole of humanity. Jefferson's use of air in the previous quote is a prime example of such common property. Again I quote from Jefferson's letter to McPherson-- "Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society,..."
You'll note that the reason that copyrights, and patents are *granted*, i.e. given, is for the benefit of society as a whole not for the benefit of an individual, or some sub-set of society. In fact Jefferson points this out in the following quote...
"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody."
Indeed, it is the "...profits arising form them..."(the them being inventions) and not control of an invention, and certainly not ownership that is being *granted* exclusively to the inventors/s.
To conclude:
The right to property is an innately held natural right, and given that theft is the deprivation of an individual of his/her property, then theft is necessarily a violation of an individuals natural rights. Copyrights, and patents are granted. A natural right is not granted, but is innately held by an individual. Therefore, infringement is not a violation of a natural right, whereas theft is.
"In the sense that you are illegally obtaining for free something that you would otherwise have had to pay for, it is stealing. Perhaps not in the precise legal definition, but close enough in discussing the moral and ethical ramifications."
On the contrary.
The paramount legal raison d'être for making the distinction between theft, and copyright infringement is the moral, and ethical basis of this distinction.
Theft involves the commandeering of an object, or objects such that the rightful 'owner/s' of the object are deprived of its use. Steal my horse, and I am deprived of transportation. Copyright infringement does not deprive the 'owner/s' of the use of the object. Copy my video tape of The Mummy and I (the 'owner') am not deprived of the use of my copy of The Mummy. It is the 'owners' deprivation of use that defines theft.
A Copyright is the monopolistic license granted to the holder to control the reproduction, and use of a work of art, and/or science. Copyright infringement is a usurpation of a work of art, and/or science that has been copyrighted. That is to say a copyrighted work has been used, or copied with out permission of the copyright holder.
The distinction is clear; theft deprives the 'owner' of the use of something, whereas infringement alone does not, but only uses something without permission to do so.
" Then all these students get out into the workplace and say "Uhh... where's the Macs?"
Speaking as a died in the wool Mac user:
--The number of viruses that Windows is suseptable to is at least an order of magnitude greater that for the Mac. Thus, Macs are much easier to adminster than Windows boxes when it comes to viruses, t-horses, ect..
--I have over the course of the last seven years found that Mac users have little problem working in Win95 and later when it comes to office type software, web browesers, e-mail, and the like. That's not to say they don't have problems with system level snafu etc. in Windows, but then again most Windows have problems with system level issues.
--That many workplaces don't have Macs is a shortcoming of said workplaces. (I think that with the advent of Jaguar more workplaces will start *seriously* looking at the Mac as solution to their computing needs, and IT issues.)
This post needs to be moded up to a 10!
shimmin nailed it!
Here are some nice fisssshess... Now go away
You might try six semester hours at a local college, or university for a semester. Kinda get your feet wet...
The down side of this is that the subjects that you take might not be those which 'flip your switch.' It's also possible that the profs, or instructors that you happen to get don't operate at anything like the same wavelength that you do. Of course the flip side of this is that you might luck out and take courses that really jingle your bells and have facility members that are very much on your wavelength.
The upshot of these caveats is that not taking a full course load your first time at bat might leave you with a false impression, either good, or bad, of what college is like. Then again even if you do decide to take a full academic load you still might either bomb out, or luck out on your courses, though it's a lower probility.
FWIW
http://espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmaster