I truly feel bad for all of the people made destitute by the manufacturing industries leaving the US.
In fact, the US manufactures more today than ever before.
The trend that people are noticing (and mistakenly calling "hollowing out" or "lessening manufacturing" or whatever is actually:
other sectors of the US economy growing faster than the manufacturing sector
increasing efficient use of labor in the US manufacturing sector
manufacturing in other countries growing faster than in the US
In short: we're growing white-collar jobs faster than blue-collar stuff, we're replacing blue-collar folks with robots, and other nations that lag the US economy are moving into low-tech specialties like "making rebar".
Yourdon makes note of the oil crisis of the early 1970s and a speech that Jimmy Carter made in April 1977. Carter said "If we fail to act soon we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions."Nearly 30 years after Carter made that speech, oil is at an all-time high
Uhh, you're as economically ignorant as Carter was.
Once you control for inflation, you see that gasoline is far less expensive now than it was under Carter.
The main problem during the gas crisis was not lack of government action, but too much government action. Price controls kept prices artificially low, meaning that folks hoarded. Shipping regulations meant that trucks would drive to a destination and be unable to buy gas there for the return trip, etc.
A quarter of a century after Carter got booted out of office, we've got a minimal gasoline policy...and a good thing too!
Please don't try to apply the mistaken energy policies of the 1970's to technology today: you'll end up with lots of regulation, little creativity, and less adaptability.
Yes, starting 2006 January 1, it is proposed that Universal Time, on a 24 hour scale, be used, everywhere on earth, and
forevermore.
...because letting the people of the year 4000 AD make up their own mind about what calendar to use would be too wishy-washy; we've got to decide on a calendar - not just for the rest of our lifetimes - but for the entirety of all human history.
...an intermediate chemical used in creating pesticides. (That is, the plant was in the business of creating chemicals deadly to life.)...
Jeez, could your bias be any more obvious?
Pesticides are not "deadly to life"; they're first and foremost deadly to insects...and because of this property, they dramatically cut the losses in raising food crops, allowing more people to be fed on less farmland, which means that more land can remain uncultivated.
Next up: anti-biotics kill germs, and thus are "deadly to life".
And after that: suregons use hot water and soap in the prep room before operating...two things that are "deadly to life".
And after that: farmers use combines to harvest grains...which results in all of the plants being killed. More "deadly to life" technology!
The last one is actually threatening to turn into a full-time job: I started with a very small customer base 18 months ago, but growth has been 20% per month, compounding...(yeah, I know, exponential functions never last). I'm spending more and more time ordering inventory, working on a new mySQL backend, working on the web site redesign (I know, it sucks right now), etc.
I find all of this pretty ironic: what I *want* to be doing is getting back to devel work to implement a client-side ecommerce tool I'm hacking on...
USA went into Iraq in a unilateral action dismissing the UN
Actually, the US actions were legal under UN resolution 1441.
treated prisoners in a way that defies the Geneva Convention
Again, incorrect. Prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan are not subject to the Geneva convention because
they are not members of signatory forces
even if they were, the Geneva Convention explicitly says that troops lose certain protections when they fight in certain ways (like fighting out of uniform, pretending to be civilians, etc.) The Geneva Convention is not just a restriction on nations; it is a quid pro quo: you fight like civilized folks, and you get treated like civilized folks.
The book actually kind of stinks. It's got a typical French ooh-let's-look-at-everything-as-sociology angle, which totally obscures the valid political and engineering reasons that the project imploded.
So, maybe, don't read Aramis...but just be aware that this isn't new.
You miss the point: these people only gave their information to the government.
It was the government that
required their information
handed the info out to a third party
failed to ensure that the third party took adequate care
Surprised? You shouldn't be. There's no market pressure on the government. If you're offended at their cavalier attitude, it's not like you can go with a competitor!
One example of a government agency doing things the right way: about 15 years ago I worked on a university research project that used Census bureau data...but the data had been anonymized before we got it: some fields were removed, some were hashed, and the data had been pruned enough that you couldn't do an exhaustive match against a telephone book.
In this case, though, it looks like some California agency just handed over the entire database, raw.
It seemed quite clear to me that he was saying "the question was idiotic. I'm not going to call you an idiot, but I suggest that you reevaluate your axioms."
Seems like a reasonable response to me.
No, I think what he meant was that because slave states had greater representation in the Electoral College, their (presumably racist) opinions held more sway.
I can understand and agree with that, but the Green is arguing that the electoral college - currently - is still racist.
This is silly.
What the Electoral College is is slightly anti-direct-democracy.
Which makes sense, when you realize that the US was formed as sort of a UN or EU in North America - an organization *above* state level. Note that in the rest of the world "state" means government / nation. Spain is a state. France is a state. 200 yrs ago New York was a state, with it's own currency and defense, and so was Rhode Island.
The E.C. was a method to give each state somewhat equal power, just as Spain, France, and Iceland each have somewhat equal power in the UN.
The bureaucratic system may well be corrupt but what we really need to address is the corruption in the White House and in Congress
Sounds good to me, but why not do this at the same time as fighting corruption in the rest of the government? It's an age-old logical/rhetorical fallacy to cast things as either/or when they're not. "Well, I'd sure it would be great if the US gov used more free software, but we've got to concentrate on health care!" Huh?
There's an old political joke "sometimes the Republicans lose, and sometimes the Democrats lose, but the bureaucrats always win".
What is the Green dodging when he refuses to agree that corruption in the bureaucracy should be dealth with?
-that's who makes the laws and the decisions which support the transnational corporate empire.
Actually, Congress votes on, and the President signs, legislation that *enables* various bureaus to pass the detailed legislation. Do you think Congress specifies how many acres of BLM land are open to cattle, or how the feds should pay farmers not to grow food, or how the bidding works for military projects? No! Congress leaves all of those details to others...and, as we all know "the devil is in the details". Saying otherwise is refusing to acknowledge how government works.
Oh, yeah, one more thing "transnational corporate empire" ?!? Another "WTF" moment.
Resolved:
I do not vote for people who wear tinfoil hats
I do not vote for people who call dollars "federal reserve fiat currency"
I do not vote for people who complain about Jewish bankers
I do not vote for people who have - even once in their life - used the phrase "transnational corporate empire".
You want to be considered a serious candidate? Then put down the "Free Mumia!" level rhetoric.
The halls of Congress are filled with lobbyists representing the international profiteers who play Congress like puppets on strings.
Yep. And when the Greens control how every single acre of land is used, and you need a permit and special dispensation to spread DEET on yourself before going on a hike, all the lobbyists are going to pack up and move to Canada?
I should beleive that...what?
If we take the private money out of our public elections and away from our public officials, we'll go a long way in addressing corruption and ensuring that we truly have a government by the people.
Donations to political parties aren't a sign of corruption, they're a sign that government has power. How many of you are worried about crypto rights, free software, etc., and have given money to the EFF? How many of you have a candidate you think is dangerous, and have given money to the other guy, to help him get elected?
Saying "money is the problem" ignores the fact that people have differing views, that each of us wants some politician to win some race and some other politician to lose, and that we sometimes give money to help make this happen.
When money is outlawed, do you think that folks will stop trying to influence elections? No! It just moves into backrooms. Look at the last round of campaign finance reform we had - now instead of folks just donating to their favorite candidates, we've got a proliferation of seperate groups, all running attack ads. I can't get too upset about lots of free speech myself, but my point is that
political speech sees censorship as damage and routes around it. You can't stop it. Thinking you can is naive.
We also have to stop the revolving door between industry, Congress and the White House.
It sounds nice, but tell me how you're going to implement it? The "once you work for government you may never work for private business again" rule?
There have to be much tighter restrictions on public servants going over to private industry.
Again, sounds great, but it also sounds like this politician hasn't actually thought any of this through.
The Electoral College is... racist... remember that when it was created, slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person to determine representation, yet they couldn't vote. Therefore, slave states had greater representation in the Electoral College-as if counting any human being as a portion of person wasn't insulting enough.
By this logic, the first ammednment is racist too, because when it was passed, slaves didn't have free speech.
The 5th ammendment is likewise racist, because when it was passed slaves did not have the right to avoid testifying against themselves.
Finally, the comment "as if counting any human being as a portion of person wasn't insulting enough" displays ignorance of history: the slave-holding south *WANTED* slaves to count as full people, because it would give the slave-holders a greater say in national politics, but the slaves themselves would still be property. Abolitionists, and northern liberals pushed for less (even zero) counting of slaves - it's bad enough to enslave people, but then to count their population in order to give the slaveholders more power? Unbeleivable!
You don't like the electoral college? Fine. Say so. Personally, I think it's a final check on potential extremist movements....but reasonable folks can disagree.
Don't try to bolster your argument, though, by throwing in some ad hoc reference to "racism".
The author of the article
above had the honesty to at least label his choices conservative/libertarian. If you prefer to limit your blog reading to left-wing sites, that's cool...but be honest and label it as such.
Unfortunately, what the LP (of which I am a member) seems to gloss over, is that the Constitution mandates certain restrictions on trade. Specifically, Copyright and Patents and government issued and backed monopolies on certain goods, methods and properties.
The Constitution does not mandate the restrictions you talk about: it merely *empowers* Congress to create such restrictions, if it wants to.
The distinction is important, but sometimes a little hard to grok, given that these days it's assumed that Congress can pass any law it likes, and the President can sign any law he likes (with out reference to the strictly limited powers). In fact, though, if you look at Article I, Section 8 of the
constitution
(you're referring to clause 8 of that section), the powers enumerated are not mandatory powers, but a definition of the maximum permissible extent of Congress' power.
Congress is free to declare "there is no such thing as patents or copyrights". Now, I don't think that that would be pragmatic or utilitarian, but it could be done.
Don't socialize medicine. Socialize the legal profession.
So then all of us will have legal representation on a par with
crack heads and migrant workers? Color me extremist, but if I'm being
charged with some serious crime that I didn't commit (or even that I
did commit, but under extenuating circumstances), it's my life that's
on the line: I'd prefer to be able to shop around and use the
resources that I've worked all my life to amass to find a good lawyer,
and properly motivate him to defend me.
Let's pose a hypothetical: I run a light, hit some other car, and put
someone into a coma.
Under a socialized legal system, the prosecutor works for The State,
the judge works for the State...and my defense attorney works for the
State. Hmmm...this is already troublesome...
I tell my attorney (who doesn't work for me, and gets paid the same
unionized salary for the next 30 yrs no matter how he does on my case)
that (a) the light might have been broken: it was definitely green
when I went through it; (b) the cop who pronounced me drunk didn't
give me a breathalyzer, he merely made me touch my fingers, and I've
got a 3 DEXterity; I'm a teetotaler and have never had a drink.
My attorney has a heavy case load, because the State listens to
taxpayers and doesn't fund defense attorneys well (and why should
they? they do nothing but defend scumbag criminals!). The cop
insists that I was drunk, and the attorney doesn't have the time,
energy, or inclination to subpoena a public works guy to testify that
the light has been broken years. My attorney's best effort is to
plea-bargain my sentence down to 5 yrs in jail, and the loss of my
home.
In the free legal system, I realize that my life is at stake, I
mortgage my house and draw down my retirement account, and hire the
best attorney I can afford. He's got a 30-and-1 average in court.
His firm subpoenas not just the public works guy, but all of the
maintenance records on the light for the last 10 yrs. It turns out
that the light hasn't been serviced once, and the records contain
several other complaints. My lawyer subpoenas the cop, puts him on
the stand, and grills him: "back in police academy, you were taught
the proper way to test someone for sobriety? Did that course cover
people with poor manual dexterity? What did the course say that you
were supposed to do? You don't remember?!?! Well, let's refer to the
textbook..."
It's tragic that some folks don't produce enough assets to buy really
outstanding legal representation, just as it's tragic that some folks
don't produce enough to buy first class platinum-plated super-premium
health care...but in neither case are their lots in life going to be
improved by outlawing the free market.
When you outlaw the free market, you outlaw competition, and you
outlaw excellence. Money may be corrupting, from time to time, but in
the absence of money, the corruption is even worse, and harder to
track: things are bought and sold, just like always, but with back
room favors, etc.
In your hypothetical socialized legal system, some lawyers are still
going to be better than others. How do you think they're going to get
allocated to defendants? The local school district president's son
got stopped with a pound of pot in the trunk, but his dad knows the scheduling official at the Ministry of Law, and he can...
You get the idea.
The free market isn't perfect. It's just better than all the alternatives.
I think her negotiating position could be improved
on
The Saga of Katie.com
·
· Score: 1
I think her negotiating position could be improved if she
put a simple redirect on the katie.com page, sending it to
some really skanky porn site, then called Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com headquarters, asked for the PR department, and informed them that they were selling a book *aimed at children* that directed the kids to hardcore pornography websites. After that she should place another few calls to the NYT, WSJ, etc.
Having done that, she shouldn't threaten Penguin or ask them for anything...but on their own Penguin would probably figure out how much the problem was worth to them, and offer her a nice large check for her domain site.
"Two million dollars? Well...I guess I could let katie.com go....if you double that offer!"
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, the US manufactures more today than ever before.
The trend that people are noticing (and mistakenly calling "hollowing out" or "lessening manufacturing" or whatever is actually:
- other sectors of the US economy growing faster than the manufacturing sector
- increasing efficient use of labor in the US manufacturing sector
- manufacturing in other countries growing faster than in the US
In short: we're growing white-collar jobs faster than blue-collar stuff, we're replacing blue-collar folks with robots, and other nations that lag the US economy are moving into low-tech specialties like "making rebar".None of these are bad trends.
Uhh, you're as economically ignorant as Carter was.
Once you control for inflation, you see that gasoline is far less expensive now than it was under Carter.
See graph here.
The main problem during the gas crisis was not lack of government action, but too much government action. Price controls kept prices artificially low, meaning that folks hoarded. Shipping regulations meant that trucks would drive to a destination and be unable to buy gas there for the return trip, etc.
A quarter of a century after Carter got booted out of office, we've got a minimal gasoline policy...and a good thing too!
Please don't try to apply the mistaken energy policies of the 1970's to technology today: you'll end up with lots of regulation, little creativity, and less adaptability.
Rightttt...
Performance Limits on Chemical Computation.
Jeez, could your bias be any more obvious?
Pesticides are not "deadly to life"; they're first and foremost deadly to insects...and because of this property, they dramatically cut the losses in raising food crops, allowing more people to be fed on less farmland, which means that more land can remain uncultivated.
Next up: anti-biotics kill germs, and thus are "deadly to life".
And after that: suregons use hot water and soap in the prep room before operating...two things that are "deadly to life".
And after that: farmers use combines to harvest grains...which results in all of the plants being killed. More "deadly to life" technology!
Pfffttt.
- carpentry and plumbing for hire.
- writing a few magazine articles (Dragon Magazine, Fine Homebuilding, other random things).
- playing poker (well, OK, penny stakes: my biggest win has been $2 for an entire night...)
- running a online videorental business Technical Video Rental ("like Netflix for geeks")
The last one is actually threatening to turn into a full-time job: I started with a very small customer base 18 months ago, but growth has been 20% per month, compounding...(yeah, I know, exponential functions never last). I'm spending more and more time ordering inventory, working on a new mySQL backend, working on the web site redesign (I know, it sucks right now), etc.I find all of this pretty ironic: what I *want* to be doing is getting back to devel work to implement a client-side ecommerce tool I'm hacking on...
Actually, the US actions were legal under UN resolution 1441.
treated prisoners in a way that defies the Geneva Convention
Again, incorrect. Prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan are not subject to the Geneva convention because
Read Aramis
The book actually kind of stinks. It's got a typical French ooh-let's-look-at-everything-as-sociology angle, which totally obscures the valid political and engineering reasons that the project imploded.
So, maybe, don't read Aramis...but just be aware that this isn't new.
TJIC
Technical Video Rental - like Netflix for Geeks!
It was the government that
- required their information
- handed the info out to a third party
- failed to ensure that the third party took adequate care
Surprised? You shouldn't be. There's no market pressure on the government. If you're offended at their cavalier attitude, it's not like you can go with a competitor!One example of a government agency doing things the right way: about 15 years ago I worked on a university research project that used Census bureau data...but the data had been anonymized before we got it: some fields were removed, some were hashed, and the data had been pruned enough that you couldn't do an exhaustive match against a telephone book.
In this case, though, it looks like some California agency just handed over the entire database, raw.
Wonderful.
It seemed quite clear to me that he was saying "the question was idiotic. I'm not going to call you an idiot, but I suggest that you reevaluate your axioms." Seems like a reasonable response to me.
I don't see many green-skinned women wearing metallic bikinis around *HERE*, do you?
I mean...outside of SF cons.
Urggg...feeling...ill...
Big whoop.
amen, brother!
I can understand and agree with that, but the Green is arguing that the electoral college - currently - is still racist.
This is silly.
What the Electoral College is is slightly anti-direct-democracy.
Which makes sense, when you realize that the US was formed as sort of a UN or EU in North America - an organization *above* state level. Note that in the rest of the world "state" means government / nation. Spain is a state. France is a state. 200 yrs ago New York was a state, with it's own currency and defense, and so was Rhode Island.
The E.C. was a method to give each state somewhat equal power, just as Spain, France, and Iceland each have somewhat equal power in the UN.
Sounds good to me, but why not do this at the same time as fighting corruption in the rest of the government? It's an age-old logical/rhetorical fallacy to cast things as either/or when they're not. "Well, I'd sure it would be great if the US gov used more free software, but we've got to concentrate on health care!" Huh?
There's an old political joke "sometimes the Republicans lose, and sometimes the Democrats lose, but the bureaucrats always win".
What is the Green dodging when he refuses to agree that corruption in the bureaucracy should be dealth with?
-that's who makes the laws and the decisions which support the transnational corporate empire. Actually, Congress votes on, and the President signs, legislation that *enables* various bureaus to pass the detailed legislation. Do you think Congress specifies how many acres of BLM land are open to cattle, or how the feds should pay farmers not to grow food, or how the bidding works for military projects? No! Congress leaves all of those details to others...and, as we all know "the devil is in the details". Saying otherwise is refusing to acknowledge how government works.
Oh, yeah, one more thing "transnational corporate empire" ?!? Another "WTF" moment.
Resolved:
- I do not vote for people who wear tinfoil hats
- I do not vote for people who call dollars "federal reserve fiat currency"
- I do not vote for people who complain about Jewish bankers
- I do not vote for people who have - even once in their life - used the phrase "transnational corporate empire".
You want to be considered a serious candidate? Then put down the "Free Mumia!" level rhetoric.The halls of Congress are filled with lobbyists representing the international profiteers who play Congress like puppets on strings.
Yep. And when the Greens control how every single acre of land is used, and you need a permit and special dispensation to spread DEET on yourself before going on a hike, all the lobbyists are going to pack up and move to Canada?
I should beleive that...what?
If we take the private money out of our public elections and away from our public officials, we'll go a long way in addressing corruption and ensuring that we truly have a government by the people.
Donations to political parties aren't a sign of corruption, they're a sign that government has power. How many of you are worried about crypto rights, free software, etc., and have given money to the EFF? How many of you have a candidate you think is dangerous, and have given money to the other guy, to help him get elected?
Saying "money is the problem" ignores the fact that people have differing views, that each of us wants some politician to win some race and some other politician to lose, and that we sometimes give money to help make this happen.
When money is outlawed, do you think that folks will stop trying to influence elections? No! It just moves into backrooms. Look at the last round of campaign finance reform we had - now instead of folks just donating to their favorite candidates, we've got a proliferation of seperate groups, all running attack ads. I can't get too upset about lots of free speech myself, but my point is that political speech sees censorship as damage and routes around it. You can't stop it. Thinking you can is naive.
We also have to stop the revolving door between industry, Congress and the White House.
It sounds nice, but tell me how you're going to implement it? The "once you work for government you may never work for private business again" rule?
There have to be much tighter restrictions on public servants going over to private industry.
Again, sounds great, but it also sounds like this politician hasn't actually thought any of this through.
By this logic, the first ammednment is racist too, because when it was passed, slaves didn't have free speech.
The 5th ammendment is likewise racist, because when it was passed slaves did not have the right to avoid testifying against themselves.
Finally, the comment "as if counting any human being as a portion of person wasn't insulting enough" displays ignorance of history: the slave-holding south *WANTED* slaves to count as full people, because it would give the slave-holders a greater say in national politics, but the slaves themselves would still be property. Abolitionists, and northern liberals pushed for less (even zero) counting of slaves - it's bad enough to enslave people, but then to count their population in order to give the slaveholders more power? Unbeleivable!
You don't like the electoral college? Fine. Say so. Personally, I think it's a final check on potential extremist movements. ...but reasonable folks can disagree.
Don't try to bolster your argument, though, by throwing in some ad hoc reference to "racism".
The author of the article above had the honesty to at least label his choices conservative/libertarian. If you prefer to limit your blog reading to left-wing sites, that's cool...but be honest and label it as such.
The Constitution does not mandate the restrictions you talk about: it merely *empowers* Congress to create such restrictions, if it wants to.
The distinction is important, but sometimes a little hard to grok, given that these days it's assumed that Congress can pass any law it likes, and the President can sign any law he likes (with out reference to the strictly limited powers). In fact, though, if you look at Article I, Section 8 of the constitution (you're referring to clause 8 of that section), the powers enumerated are not mandatory powers, but a definition of the maximum permissible extent of Congress' power.
Congress is free to declare "there is no such thing as patents or copyrights". Now, I don't think that that would be pragmatic or utilitarian, but it could be done.
Two Blue Heelers, a Benelli M-1 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun, and a Sig 2340 .40 semi-auto pistol.
No robberies yet...
s/obtuse/obscure/i
How do you think the Nazis rose to power? In an election.
So then all of us will have legal representation on a par with crack heads and migrant workers? Color me extremist, but if I'm being charged with some serious crime that I didn't commit (or even that I did commit, but under extenuating circumstances), it's my life that's on the line: I'd prefer to be able to shop around and use the resources that I've worked all my life to amass to find a good lawyer, and properly motivate him to defend me.
Let's pose a hypothetical: I run a light, hit some other car, and put someone into a coma.
Under a socialized legal system, the prosecutor works for The State, the judge works for the State...and my defense attorney works for the State. Hmmm...this is already troublesome...
I tell my attorney (who doesn't work for me, and gets paid the same unionized salary for the next 30 yrs no matter how he does on my case) that (a) the light might have been broken: it was definitely green when I went through it; (b) the cop who pronounced me drunk didn't give me a breathalyzer, he merely made me touch my fingers, and I've got a 3 DEXterity; I'm a teetotaler and have never had a drink.
My attorney has a heavy case load, because the State listens to taxpayers and doesn't fund defense attorneys well (and why should they? they do nothing but defend scumbag criminals!). The cop insists that I was drunk, and the attorney doesn't have the time, energy, or inclination to subpoena a public works guy to testify that the light has been broken years. My attorney's best effort is to plea-bargain my sentence down to 5 yrs in jail, and the loss of my home.
In the free legal system, I realize that my life is at stake, I mortgage my house and draw down my retirement account, and hire the best attorney I can afford. He's got a 30-and-1 average in court. His firm subpoenas not just the public works guy, but all of the maintenance records on the light for the last 10 yrs. It turns out that the light hasn't been serviced once, and the records contain several other complaints. My lawyer subpoenas the cop, puts him on the stand, and grills him: "back in police academy, you were taught the proper way to test someone for sobriety? Did that course cover people with poor manual dexterity? What did the course say that you were supposed to do? You don't remember?!?! Well, let's refer to the textbook..."
It's tragic that some folks don't produce enough assets to buy really outstanding legal representation, just as it's tragic that some folks don't produce enough to buy first class platinum-plated super-premium health care...but in neither case are their lots in life going to be improved by outlawing the free market.
When you outlaw the free market, you outlaw competition, and you outlaw excellence. Money may be corrupting, from time to time, but in the absence of money, the corruption is even worse, and harder to track: things are bought and sold, just like always, but with back room favors, etc.
In your hypothetical socialized legal system, some lawyers are still going to be better than others. How do you think they're going to get allocated to defendants? The local school district president's son got stopped with a pound of pot in the trunk, but his dad knows the scheduling official at the Ministry of Law, and he can...
You get the idea.
The free market isn't perfect. It's just better than all the alternatives.
Having done that, she shouldn't threaten Penguin or ask them for anything...but on their own Penguin would probably figure out how much the problem was worth to them, and offer her a nice large check for her domain site.
"Two million dollars? Well...I guess I could let katie.com go....if you double that offer!"
What Unicode plane contains the-artist-formerly-known-as-Prince 's name? That would be a *great* thing to embed in a VIN.
Gentoo is a lot more sophisticated than most of my former employers, though.
They didn't get non-profitable status legally established until the bankruptcy hearings.