You can't hire everyone who applies on a probationary period.
Sure, of course you can't. I'm not suggesting that all employers should suddenly stop screening resumes, interviewing, testing, taking up references, or otherwise doing basic checks on a candidate's suitability. All I'm saying is that those are not usually sufficient to confirm that you want to work with someone for the next n years. Hence everyone you do hire should be on probation, and it should be understood to be just that.
Perhaps it would be better if everyone got, say, a three-month, fixed-term contract at first. I think it should be clear that they're being hired to do real work for real money, not given a string of tests and flown around the world several times over a period of months. However, the default position is that a decision on employing them long-term will be made at the end of the probationary period, not that they would automatically carry on unless someone senior enough had the guts to "fire" them.
After three months working with them on some probationary role, the employer will be much better placed to judge the abilities (or otherwise). If they keep the new hire, they'll have a much better idea of their strengths (and so where to assign them for their first longer-term posting), their weaknesses (and so what training should be planned for them), and what they're worth (a nice little "congratulations, you made the grade" bonus never hurt anyone's employee relations).
Seeing how you're so careful about forming opinions yourself, I assume you RTFP and realized I was talking about MY candidate?
Yes, you were, but no-one else was. While your example problem was interesting, your comments about the worth of a PhD and who should apply for what type of job are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Assuming your code is meant to be C or C++, since I don't know any other language that would allow that syntax, you fail for the same two reasons as almost everyone else replying to this question:
Incorrect assumption about size of int type
Risk of undefined behaviour
You also get two all of your own:
Inventing requirements
Potential inefficiency
Sorry, no job for you!
In case anyone's wondering, neither C nor C++ requires an int to be 32-bits. Moreover, these are signed types, which means the physical representation of negative values isn't specified unambiguously. You may cause undefined behaviour if the result of the bitwise operations on two legal representations yields an illegal representation.
I think it's a bit of a daft question in the first place, but if you ever did need to do this, it's likely that the above would be rather important things to check before proceeding.
If he wants to be a researcher, then let him apply to be a researcher.
Seeing how you're so careful about forming opinions of people, I assume you R'd TFA and therefore know that Microsoft approached him? If they wanted to hire a researcher, presumably it was for a research job.
Any asshole can talk up an interviewer, however, he won't be able to fudge his way through a skill test.
Unfortunately, IME, that's not really true. I think the only way you ever know for sure whether someone will be a good hire -- competent at their own job, able to work effectively with others, a good attitude/work ethic that fits in with the company culture -- is to work with them, and for more than five minutes, or half a day. This is what probation periods are for.
IMHO, anyone who thinks they're good enough to tell a good hire from a bad hire based on a resume, a half-hour interview and an hour of "skills tests" is simply deluding themselves.
I mean, any company of that size and public exposure will want to ensure high standards by screening even the most promissing and highly reffered applicants. The fact that they contacted him, does not mean they should not run him through this screening.
Yes, it really does. The guy's highly qualified academically, and has a resume full of serious projects with serious employers that runs for decades. Idiots don't get that kind of resume without completely fabricating it.
It sounds like what they did was the equivalent of inviting Gosling to interview and asking him whether he knows anything about virtual machines, or interviewing Stroustrup and asking him whether he knows anything about systems programming. People that qualified really have better things to do with their time, and no shortage of other places who'd be happy to employ them for their expertise. If a company is arrogant enough to presume that it is more important than those other potential employers, then it will get exactly what it deserves: no top-end staff.
Yeah, the presumptive attitude of this sort of company amazes me. I don't care who they are; if they invited me to interview with them then they'd better make a sales pitch to me as part of the interview.
What these places always seem to forget is that any good candidate is going to be assessing them during the interview process as well. Are their managers practical, or doublespeak weenies? Do their technical guys know their stuff? Are their offices smart and professional-seeming? Is everyone working 10-hour-days with no focus on anything but the job, or do they actually seem to have a life and a sense of humour as well?
If I ask these things automatically, as a good but not spectacularly qualified developer, what do they think someone with a solid PhD and 20+ years of experience doing serious work for serious employers is going to do? He's certainly going to consider trivial logic puzzles a waste of his time, I'd imagine, and frankly, who'd blame him?
I don't think this stuff is really that secret. Most major infrastructure and communications firms, including mobile phone operators, TV and radio networks, London Underground, the train operating companies, etc. have contingency plans to deal with this sort of eventuality. Most staff with a significant supervisory role at these organisations are necessarily aware of the emergency procedures.
There are people in government whose job is to make sure that these procedures are available if necessary, and that they co-ordinate effectively in the event of a major incident. I'm sure those people are as sad as anyone else that their plans were needed today, but looking at how quickly and effectively the emergency and travel services in and around London reacted, the emergency planners can be very proud this evening.
Shouldn't calls to emergency servives always have a higher priority compared to normal calls?
They do, but that assumes there is spare capacity for anyone to use. In an event like this, the local choke points in the network will hit capacity near-instantly, meaning there's no space left to allocate to anyone, including the emergency services, because of all the people already making calls. The networks therefore reserve capacity on their systems to deal with this in the event of a major emergency.
If you do need to get through to someone in circumstances like this, it's a much better bet to use something like SMS. These tend to go over a control channel rather than the audio ones, so aren't usually blocked out.
Oh, what I would do to be a cab driver in London today! Cha-Ching!:-)
Given that many of the streets became either gridlocked or completely inaccessible shortly after the first explosion this morning, I don't think your day would be quite as profitable as you think.
It's good news, but I wouldn't count on the enemies of technology giving up. Software patents will be introduced in the EU parliament again and again, until they get passed.
Except that the Commission said in advance of today's vote that they wouldn't be attempting to push this through any further if it was voted down. In the absence of that, I believe there is a minimum 3 year gap before the same issue can be considered again.
Do you have a reference for that at all? It's the first I've heard of it, and as I said, the local debate has been extensive. It includes at least one MEP who's obviously been doing his homework, so I'm surprised no-one has found anything adverse at the UKPO...
If 20 or so software developers actually wanting a reasonable contract from a megacorp is enough to terrorise US management, then US management must really be worried about what they're trying to impose on everyone...
Software is already patentable in the UK*.
* possibly making an ASS out of U and ME here
I'm afraid you probably are. Here in Cambridge, a major tech centre in the UK, there's been a lot of debate about this recently, precisely because of the risk it poses to local industry. (There are several hundred small tech firms within five miles of my home.) If software patents were already legal in this country, I imagine someone would have noticed by now...
Problem #1. What if there is an idea that everyone would have, but someone out there patents it first?
Then it shouldn't be granted a patent; one of the requirements is non-obviousness. This is why things like Amazon's "one click" patent are so frowned upon; they should never have been granted in the first place.
Problem #2. What when this patent creates a monopoly. Does that mean everyone is stuck with having to pay extremely high prices, prices the market would never allow if there was competition?
Erm... yes. That's the point. If you put in the time and money for the R&D, then the patent system is supposed to grant you a major competitive advantage (a short term monopoly) so that you can take advantage of your invention. If it's good enough that people want it straight away, they'll pay your price; if it's not, they can wait a while until the patent expires, and you won't make any money. Hence you have to charge a reasonable price.
The problem, once again, isn't the principle of patents per se, it's that the period for which the monopoly is granted is excessive in a business as fast-moving as IT (and indeed several others). It doesn't take a decade to capitalise on a great technology idea in this day and age, it takes months.
And an interesting question. Why can anyone make a tire? Nobody will sue Joe Blow because he starts a tire company. Now what if Ford decided to patent tires.
Ford can't patent tyres; another requirement for granting a patent is the lack of "prior art", i.e., that no-one else has done it before.
The answer to your tyre example, once again, is that Ford shouldn't be granted the patent for a change that is "simple and easy". And if Ford really do invest a large amount of time and money to develop a safer tyre, the patent scheme is there precisely to stop some rip-off merchant cloning the thing cheaply, since he doesn't have to recoup his investment from the profits he makes in manufacturing.
What you're missing in saying that everyone should have access to those tyres at the cheap rate is that without the patent protection, they might never have been invented in the first place. The little guy certainly doesn't have the huge R&D resources Ford does, and if Ford doesn't see any competitive advantage from bringing its weight to bear on the problem, why would it do so?
Of course there are ethical dilemmas where the industry concerned makes products related to health and safety. This happens with pharma companies all the time when it comes to places like Africa, who couldn't possibly afford the going rate in the US or Europe. The solution to this is simply to charge a realistic rate everywhere, which might not be the same rate everywhere. But even in this case, again you have to remember that not many people would invest in pharamceuticals if there was no scope for a reasonable ROI, and patents are the guarantee that when significant discoveries are made, that ROI will be forthcoming. Without the catalyst, you risk losing the whole process.
In short, the principle of patents is fine. What's wrong is that they're routinely granted with inadequate checking for obviousness and prior art, they last too long for many industries, once an obvious patent is granted it can be absurdly difficult to get it thrown out, and the costs of patent lawsuits (like any other) are ludicrously prohibitive in some jurisdictions, meaning the little guy can't enforce his own patents, or defend against unjustified patent infringement claims by the big guy. Fix the system so it works properly, and the underlying principle is fine.
Yeah, I know, and I agree with you really. They pretty much did this in the UK recently as well, and all it's done is produce a mini-generation who walk up to you, swear, key the side of your car, kick your bin over spilling rotting food all over your garden, and then reply "Yeah, whatever" when you ask them what they think they're doing.
This is what happens when political correctness and a nanny state don't get stamped on forcibly and quickly by people with common sense. Just ask the teachers... if there are still any left!:-(
Ah, but he was a minor. If you're going to fry someone, fry his parents. I'll bet you that will make a difference to the supervision levels of kids using computers.
They didn't fire him. They just didn't renew his contract.
In every employment contract I've seen in the UK, the probation clause was just written into the main contract. The contract normally carries on automatically if you don't terminate it, but can be terminated more easily than usual during the probationary period.
Do you have some reason to believe this wasn't the case here?
So don't accept being a slave. Your time is your own, and you should insist on your contract acknowledging that.
At the risk of getting in trouble, since I'm posting this during my lunch hour at work, some of my colleagues and I did exactly this when our small company was bought out by a US megacorp. The original contract had clauses claiming all our IP outside of work, saying we had to get our manager's permission to take any other job, etc. We told them to stick it, pretty bluntly.
One guy doing that, admittedly, is going out on a limb. One guy leading it, with the vocal backing of several colleagues and the quiet backing of several more, is enough to make them notice.
This resulted in the (apparently unimpressed but not stupid) HR rep leading a round of Q&A to find out what it was that people really objected to, and getting the contract redrafted in a way that was acceptable to the staff. The entire "all your IP are belong to us" clause -- a whole page of legalese -- got scrapped, for example, in favour of the one we used to have that specifically excluded things that didn't use work time or resources, and weren't connected with work. The permission to get another job went, in favour of simply having to notify the employer of hours worked elsewhere so they could be sure they were complying with the European working time regulations.
We did this by being polite but honest, and standing our ground. If everyone in the industry did the same thing, it would be much better for everyone in the industry. It doesn't take rocket science, just a little integrity and a bit of backbone.
Employment contracts are infamous, being the only contract which one side can change the terms unilaterally (hence employment protection laws).
That's not true, at least not according to the legal advice I took when a new contract was being put together after my employer was bought out a few months back. There is no such thing as a contract that can automatically be changed by one party unilaterally, at least under UK law: one of the basic requirements of a legally binding contract is the understanding and consent of both parties.
What is common in the UK is to have a clause in your employment contract that says the employer can change anything at any time. This is usually argued to be a CYA manoeuvre in case the government changes employment regs and the wording needs tweaking. I've never bought this argument myself -- nor ever seen such a change being required -- but I can at least understand the perspective.
However, you have to realise that this is only possible because the contract already includes a term providing for it, to which both parties agreed, and its scope is rather limited even if it's written in an open-ended way. Even without the fact that the major employment details can't be changed unilaterally under UK employment laws anyway, changing anything in an unreasonable way using that clause could lead to a finding that the fundamental trust relationship has broken down between employer and employee. That in turn can result in a finding of constructive dismissal, which can be very costly in both financial and PR terms for the company.
In summary, the idea that an employment contract can be changed at will by one party is rather misleading, at least in the UK.
Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL, and if you're dealing with this sort of stuff relating to your own career, you do want to speak to one.
This is actually one of the few solid reasons for firing someone in the UK. Almost all employment contracts I've seen state that the company may dismiss you if you're convicted of a crime (usually with an exemption for minor motoring offences, so they don't wind up firing 1/3 of the workforce for getting caught on speed camera).
That's always struck me as slightly at odds with all the prisoner-resettlement programmes, and the simple fact that a criminal who's done their time and been released is much less likely to reoffend if they find gainful employment. There's a fine line between someone's criminal past affecting their ability to do a job/the safety of their co-workers/etc. and the right (is it a right?) of employers and coworkers to know that they're dealing with a convicted criminal who did something they shouldn't have, but has now paid the price set by the court.
Of course, if you did a straw poll among non-criminal workers, I imagine it would be pretty clear which way most of them would come down.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, of course you can't. I'm not suggesting that all employers should suddenly stop screening resumes, interviewing, testing, taking up references, or otherwise doing basic checks on a candidate's suitability. All I'm saying is that those are not usually sufficient to confirm that you want to work with someone for the next n years. Hence everyone you do hire should be on probation, and it should be understood to be just that.
Perhaps it would be better if everyone got, say, a three-month, fixed-term contract at first. I think it should be clear that they're being hired to do real work for real money, not given a string of tests and flown around the world several times over a period of months. However, the default position is that a decision on employing them long-term will be made at the end of the probationary period, not that they would automatically carry on unless someone senior enough had the guts to "fire" them.
After three months working with them on some probationary role, the employer will be much better placed to judge the abilities (or otherwise). If they keep the new hire, they'll have a much better idea of their strengths (and so where to assign them for their first longer-term posting), their weaknesses (and so what training should be planned for them), and what they're worth (a nice little "congratulations, you made the grade" bonus never hurt anyone's employee relations).
Yes, you were, but no-one else was. While your example problem was interesting, your comments about the worth of a PhD and who should apply for what type of job are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Assuming your code is meant to be C or C++, since I don't know any other language that would allow that syntax, you fail for the same two reasons as almost everyone else replying to this question:
You also get two all of your own:
Sorry, no job for you!
In case anyone's wondering, neither C nor C++ requires an int to be 32-bits. Moreover, these are signed types, which means the physical representation of negative values isn't specified unambiguously. You may cause undefined behaviour if the result of the bitwise operations on two legal representations yields an illegal representation.
I think it's a bit of a daft question in the first place, but if you ever did need to do this, it's likely that the above would be rather important things to check before proceeding.
Seeing how you're so careful about forming opinions of people, I assume you R'd TFA and therefore know that Microsoft approached him? If they wanted to hire a researcher, presumably it was for a research job.
Unfortunately, IME, that's not really true. I think the only way you ever know for sure whether someone will be a good hire -- competent at their own job, able to work effectively with others, a good attitude/work ethic that fits in with the company culture -- is to work with them, and for more than five minutes, or half a day. This is what probation periods are for.
IMHO, anyone who thinks they're good enough to tell a good hire from a bad hire based on a resume, a half-hour interview and an hour of "skills tests" is simply deluding themselves.
Yes, it really does. The guy's highly qualified academically, and has a resume full of serious projects with serious employers that runs for decades. Idiots don't get that kind of resume without completely fabricating it.
It sounds like what they did was the equivalent of inviting Gosling to interview and asking him whether he knows anything about virtual machines, or interviewing Stroustrup and asking him whether he knows anything about systems programming. People that qualified really have better things to do with their time, and no shortage of other places who'd be happy to employ them for their expertise. If a company is arrogant enough to presume that it is more important than those other potential employers, then it will get exactly what it deserves: no top-end staff.
Yeah, the presumptive attitude of this sort of company amazes me. I don't care who they are; if they invited me to interview with them then they'd better make a sales pitch to me as part of the interview.
What these places always seem to forget is that any good candidate is going to be assessing them during the interview process as well. Are their managers practical, or doublespeak weenies? Do their technical guys know their stuff? Are their offices smart and professional-seeming? Is everyone working 10-hour-days with no focus on anything but the job, or do they actually seem to have a life and a sense of humour as well?
If I ask these things automatically, as a good but not spectacularly qualified developer, what do they think someone with a solid PhD and 20+ years of experience doing serious work for serious employers is going to do? He's certainly going to consider trivial logic puzzles a waste of his time, I'd imagine, and frankly, who'd blame him?
I don't think this stuff is really that secret. Most major infrastructure and communications firms, including mobile phone operators, TV and radio networks, London Underground, the train operating companies, etc. have contingency plans to deal with this sort of eventuality. Most staff with a significant supervisory role at these organisations are necessarily aware of the emergency procedures.
There are people in government whose job is to make sure that these procedures are available if necessary, and that they co-ordinate effectively in the event of a major incident. I'm sure those people are as sad as anyone else that their plans were needed today, but looking at how quickly and effectively the emergency and travel services in and around London reacted, the emergency planners can be very proud this evening.
They do, but that assumes there is spare capacity for anyone to use. In an event like this, the local choke points in the network will hit capacity near-instantly, meaning there's no space left to allocate to anyone, including the emergency services, because of all the people already making calls. The networks therefore reserve capacity on their systems to deal with this in the event of a major emergency.
If you do need to get through to someone in circumstances like this, it's a much better bet to use something like SMS. These tend to go over a control channel rather than the audio ones, so aren't usually blocked out.
Given that many of the streets became either gridlocked or completely inaccessible shortly after the first explosion this morning, I don't think your day would be quite as profitable as you think.
Blockquoth the AC:
"That's a first."
I'll see your commenting on her hair, and raise you commenting on her shoes...
Except that the Commission said in advance of today's vote that they wouldn't be attempting to push this through any further if it was voted down. In the absence of that, I believe there is a minimum 3 year gap before the same issue can be considered again.
I believe the real crooks here are the Commission, not the Council, but your point is just as valid in that case.
Thanks. I'd mod you (+1, Informative), but...
Do you have a reference for that at all? It's the first I've heard of it, and as I said, the local debate has been extensive. It includes at least one MEP who's obviously been doing his homework, so I'm surprised no-one has found anything adverse at the UKPO...
If 20 or so software developers actually wanting a reasonable contract from a megacorp is enough to terrorise US management, then US management must really be worried about what they're trying to impose on everyone...
I'm afraid you probably are. Here in Cambridge, a major tech centre in the UK, there's been a lot of debate about this recently, precisely because of the risk it poses to local industry. (There are several hundred small tech firms within five miles of my home.) If software patents were already legal in this country, I imagine someone would have noticed by now...
Then it shouldn't be granted a patent; one of the requirements is non-obviousness. This is why things like Amazon's "one click" patent are so frowned upon; they should never have been granted in the first place.
Erm... yes. That's the point. If you put in the time and money for the R&D, then the patent system is supposed to grant you a major competitive advantage (a short term monopoly) so that you can take advantage of your invention. If it's good enough that people want it straight away, they'll pay your price; if it's not, they can wait a while until the patent expires, and you won't make any money. Hence you have to charge a reasonable price.
The problem, once again, isn't the principle of patents per se, it's that the period for which the monopoly is granted is excessive in a business as fast-moving as IT (and indeed several others). It doesn't take a decade to capitalise on a great technology idea in this day and age, it takes months.
Ford can't patent tyres; another requirement for granting a patent is the lack of "prior art", i.e., that no-one else has done it before.
The answer to your tyre example, once again, is that Ford shouldn't be granted the patent for a change that is "simple and easy". And if Ford really do invest a large amount of time and money to develop a safer tyre, the patent scheme is there precisely to stop some rip-off merchant cloning the thing cheaply, since he doesn't have to recoup his investment from the profits he makes in manufacturing.
What you're missing in saying that everyone should have access to those tyres at the cheap rate is that without the patent protection, they might never have been invented in the first place. The little guy certainly doesn't have the huge R&D resources Ford does, and if Ford doesn't see any competitive advantage from bringing its weight to bear on the problem, why would it do so?
Of course there are ethical dilemmas where the industry concerned makes products related to health and safety. This happens with pharma companies all the time when it comes to places like Africa, who couldn't possibly afford the going rate in the US or Europe. The solution to this is simply to charge a realistic rate everywhere, which might not be the same rate everywhere. But even in this case, again you have to remember that not many people would invest in pharamceuticals if there was no scope for a reasonable ROI, and patents are the guarantee that when significant discoveries are made, that ROI will be forthcoming. Without the catalyst, you risk losing the whole process.
In short, the principle of patents is fine. What's wrong is that they're routinely granted with inadequate checking for obviousness and prior art, they last too long for many industries, once an obvious patent is granted it can be absurdly difficult to get it thrown out, and the costs of patent lawsuits (like any other) are ludicrously prohibitive in some jurisdictions, meaning the little guy can't enforce his own patents, or defend against unjustified patent infringement claims by the big guy. Fix the system so it works properly, and the underlying principle is fine.
Yeah, I know, and I agree with you really. They pretty much did this in the UK recently as well, and all it's done is produce a mini-generation who walk up to you, swear, key the side of your car, kick your bin over spilling rotting food all over your garden, and then reply "Yeah, whatever" when you ask them what they think they're doing.
This is what happens when political correctness and a nanny state don't get stamped on forcibly and quickly by people with common sense. Just ask the teachers... if there are still any left! :-(
Ah, but he was a minor. If you're going to fry someone, fry his parents. I'll bet you that will make a difference to the supervision levels of kids using computers.
In every employment contract I've seen in the UK, the probation clause was just written into the main contract. The contract normally carries on automatically if you don't terminate it, but can be terminated more easily than usual during the probationary period.
Do you have some reason to believe this wasn't the case here?
So don't accept being a slave. Your time is your own, and you should insist on your contract acknowledging that.
At the risk of getting in trouble, since I'm posting this during my lunch hour at work, some of my colleagues and I did exactly this when our small company was bought out by a US megacorp. The original contract had clauses claiming all our IP outside of work, saying we had to get our manager's permission to take any other job, etc. We told them to stick it, pretty bluntly.
One guy doing that, admittedly, is going out on a limb. One guy leading it, with the vocal backing of several colleagues and the quiet backing of several more, is enough to make them notice.
This resulted in the (apparently unimpressed but not stupid) HR rep leading a round of Q&A to find out what it was that people really objected to, and getting the contract redrafted in a way that was acceptable to the staff. The entire "all your IP are belong to us" clause -- a whole page of legalese -- got scrapped, for example, in favour of the one we used to have that specifically excluded things that didn't use work time or resources, and weren't connected with work. The permission to get another job went, in favour of simply having to notify the employer of hours worked elsewhere so they could be sure they were complying with the European working time regulations.
We did this by being polite but honest, and standing our ground. If everyone in the industry did the same thing, it would be much better for everyone in the industry. It doesn't take rocket science, just a little integrity and a bit of backbone.
That's not true, at least not according to the legal advice I took when a new contract was being put together after my employer was bought out a few months back. There is no such thing as a contract that can automatically be changed by one party unilaterally, at least under UK law: one of the basic requirements of a legally binding contract is the understanding and consent of both parties.
What is common in the UK is to have a clause in your employment contract that says the employer can change anything at any time. This is usually argued to be a CYA manoeuvre in case the government changes employment regs and the wording needs tweaking. I've never bought this argument myself -- nor ever seen such a change being required -- but I can at least understand the perspective.
However, you have to realise that this is only possible because the contract already includes a term providing for it, to which both parties agreed, and its scope is rather limited even if it's written in an open-ended way. Even without the fact that the major employment details can't be changed unilaterally under UK employment laws anyway, changing anything in an unreasonable way using that clause could lead to a finding that the fundamental trust relationship has broken down between employer and employee. That in turn can result in a finding of constructive dismissal, which can be very costly in both financial and PR terms for the company.
In summary, the idea that an employment contract can be changed at will by one party is rather misleading, at least in the UK.
Obligatory disclaimer: IANAL, and if you're dealing with this sort of stuff relating to your own career, you do want to speak to one.
This is actually one of the few solid reasons for firing someone in the UK. Almost all employment contracts I've seen state that the company may dismiss you if you're convicted of a crime (usually with an exemption for minor motoring offences, so they don't wind up firing 1/3 of the workforce for getting caught on speed camera).
That's always struck me as slightly at odds with all the prisoner-resettlement programmes, and the simple fact that a criminal who's done their time and been released is much less likely to reoffend if they find gainful employment. There's a fine line between someone's criminal past affecting their ability to do a job/the safety of their co-workers/etc. and the right (is it a right?) of employers and coworkers to know that they're dealing with a convicted criminal who did something they shouldn't have, but has now paid the price set by the court.
Of course, if you did a straw poll among non-criminal workers, I imagine it would be pretty clear which way most of them would come down.