I sure as hell can, because my ToS with Time-Warner Cable says nothing about agreeing to watch advertising. I pay for them to put a signal into my home, if they subsidize the signal with ads, that's their problem. If I don't watch the ads, they can't do anything about it.
If businesses decide ads aren't working and they stop running them, the cable company can feel free to change their rates, then I can decide if I still want their service.
Y'all act like HBO doesn't put out Grammy winning shows. Shows that, unsurprisingly, are BETTER than shows on regular TV. Shows with NO COMMERCIALS. You just have to pay for the channel if you want to pay for it. Digital TV should make that easier, there are channels I'd subscribe to, and channels I don't give a flip about. I don't NEED a hundred channels when I currently only watch 20. I KNOW I only watch 20 because that's how many different channels I have a show set to record on MythTV, which I currently use to time shift shows, as well as watch them without commercials.
Don't you hate it when you are argueing and you discover you are in agreement? The original poster was saying the FDA clearly shouldn't have the right to regulate tobacco. Obviously, rationally they should, they just don't because it's a cash cow.
The point is that if I want to attach a device to my television that translates every third word into Algonquin once the signal comes into my device it's none of their business. If I write a module for MythTV that allows me to change all the commercials in my LiveTV programming into mpegs of dancing midgets throwing pickles at a naked woman it's none of their business.
Their revenue stream and rights to artistic integrity end when they reach the consumer. At that point it's my signal in my device and as long as I don't rebroadcast it they need to leave me the hell alone.
I'm going out on a limb here and say that's why he needed more clean (edible) animals than unclean (inedible). God only told him to put them ON the Ark, getting OFF "Noah's Floating Buffet" is their problem.
I believe the point you are missing is the vast majority of people, despite claims to the contrary, don't have a bit of problem with paying for something they perceive as having value. What they object to is paying more than they feel it's worth as well as not being able to use it the way they want to.
iTunes does great and it would appear rival services are making money as well. People just don't want to pay for the distribution services when the distrobution service is unneeded at this point.
All you are doing is arguing why A) Tobacco pays off the government and B) Tobacco should be under the FDA.
All I'm doing is pointing out the FDA SHOULD have control over tobacco, they had to specifically exempt it for them not to. It then follows the reason they exempted them is because people want tobacco and because tobacco pumps a lot of money into government coffers. Lobbyists aside, tobacco revenue and taxation are what make it very hard to ban tobacco.
As an aside, I grew up in North Carolina, when I got my tuition bill from NC State, it said right on it "The government of North Carolina has paid XXXX of your tuition, the amount you owe is XXXX" There was no allusion that a large part of the source of that money was tobacco taxes. That said, it still boggles my mind that we pay people to grow a product that isn't profitable to make it profitable so they can provide us with something most of the country doesn't want, that bothers people that aren't using it, that will likely sicken the people that do use it, and that destroys the soil to the point you practically need to replace it in order to regrow it the next year.
Farm subsidies are a stupid idea, we should be encouraging farmers to grow products that DO grow well in the area they are without all the chemicals and irrigation. There's just no reason why they should be growing cotton in the desert in the west because the farmers in the east are busy growing tobacco and complaining they can't make a profit doing it.
With Eisner intending to step down, Disney may have a chance to get back to the role they played of wholesome fun. Right now they are cliched and trite. They went from inspiring imagination to the poster children of proving that trademarks don't spark innovation.
I don't recall Walt ever drawing Mickey Mouse as a dirty dirty whore, but that's what he's become, pimped out around the world.
Correct sir, which is why you are precisely wrong.
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact1.htm FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT CHAPTER II - DEFINITIONS SEC. 201. [321] (g)(1) The term ''drug'' means
(C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and
So I say again, other than the exceptions bought with tobacco money, why exactly should tobacco not be under the purvue of the FDA?
I think you've got to accept that tobacco is either a food or a drug? It's at the very least a conduit for the intake of chemicals for the reactions they produce in your body, in other words a medical device, which the FDA also regulates. What reasoning says that the FDA should NOT be in charge of tobacco and tobacco products?
Nonsense, if they are following applicable laws, either people are willing to work for them or they aren't. The slippery slope case just falls apart because it requires people to be willing to take these contracts. If a company starts offering people these contracts and they don't take them, the company goes out of business. The rush to follow them won't exactly be great.
I notice, though, I get modded "Troll" no doubt for speaking ill of tech workers. I, myself, hate my job so I quit. My wife and I moved, taught school for a little while to make ends meet, until I could get another job for a company that I like.
It's doable, but it took us being willing to sacrifice lifestyle for a while and relocate until I got a job that made me happy. It's sad that advice like that is considered trolling.
While I agree that we have laws for this sort of thing, we also have contracts for this sort of thing. Has it ever occured to quitting a job is ONLY not an option for people who make their decisions entirely on the criterion of lifestyle? People generally have two options in life, live within your means or adjust your means to your lifestyle.
If the company is breaking the law, they should be punished. If the company is simply enforcing contracts that people agreed to when the dollar signs overrode their common sense, the employees should shut up or consider a career change.
You either do what you need to do or you shut up about it. That includes changing lifestyle or changing careers.
I own a pair of Minature Pinschers which certainly qualify high on the list of "Most Neurotic Creatures Alive" and that description makes me seriously consider getting one JUST for that effect.
Maybe this is too TV movie, but are you telling me there has never been a police/military life saved when he was disarmed and someone else managed to get a hold of their gun and protect them?
I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be that guy that kicks the gun into a ditch. I'm going to pick it up and try to return fire, ESPECIALLY if I see a cop being shot at.
No no you silly person. If Apple has it, Apple was first. It's just the way it is, and the sooner we can all accept that, the happier we all will be. It's like Microsoft being evil, Linux being secure, and the government trying to exploit the masses. Other possible explanations are really just a waste of time once you acknowledge the truth.
Interesting. I wonder if that seemed too racists for us at the time. It was launched here in 1949, with the correct spelling of "Mr Boddy", according to Hasboro's Clue Game History. Or maybe we just appreciate cheesy puns more.
No, the right to bear arms is supposed to...
Why do you assume I think attacks can only come from the outside? The country is not the government, the country is the people and the concept.
No, the right of free speech adds to right to NOT defend the right to speak words that offend you.
But it obligates the government to protect both equally. Your right ends where mine begins. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that as defending my right to speech, is, of course, your right.
No, freedom of religion means that we can believe in a persecuting Freedom of religion is a protection of the church/mosque/synagogue/shrine from the government, not the other way around.
my forefathers died for my right to do that Not exactly. Your forefathers died for the right to chose representatives for themselves. They wrote it into the constitution in the form of electors, they gave the states the right to choose the electors. Your STATE gave you the right to vote as opposed to chosing them directly, which they did for many years. You, naturally, have the ability to ignore the responsibilities that come with voting, but you do have to suffer the consequences of it. That's the difference between a responsibility and a requirement. The more people that ignore the responsibility to be informed, the worse our government gets. Eventually we may have to go back up to point one, the right to bear arms, in order to fix the rampant corruption and stupidity we've put in power.
If you think anyone would ever believe themselves to be a blind follower Fortunately for you there is an easy check, do you believe the facts and figures based any citations? Outside observers? First hand reports? Books? Polls? Studies? Did you at LEAST google for the statistic before you cited it as your reason to vote because a candidate mentioned it in the debate? Do you know where your candidate is wrong as well as right? Do you know that Kerry's $200 billion number SPENT is wrong and so is Bush's "government controls healthcare"? If you are dumb enough to believe everything said in a debate by either side, I personally believe you may be too dumb to vote. See point two about free speech.
If you think CNN is the opposite of Fox, it shows how far we've got to go. CNN appears to be liberal Actually, CNN was probably a bad choice. ABC would probably a better choice, what with the memo about Kerry lies being acceptable but Bush lies being dangerous, and so only report on Bush lies.
That they only pay 67% means they really do have a lesser tax burden. Staggering. Just staggering. The fact they pay more means they pay less. Or are you just saying the fact we don't tax them back into poverty is good enough and they should thank their lucky stars for it? They didn't really EARN that money anyway right? They must have gotten it on the backs of the oppressed. No one can come from a lower class income, work hard, make good choices, and end up rich right? So since they must have gotten it through ill means, it's okay to take a disporportionate amount back from them? Screw the rich, they don't drive the economy, the government does. you've gotta admit Kerry's better for stopping outsourcing. I actually disagree entirely. From what Kerry has stated, he doesn't understand at all why companies outsource. He seems to believe, or at least he wants the country to believe that some piddly tax break that amounts to a couple hundred dollars a person a year will cause a multmillion or billion dollar a year company to stop saving thirty to forty thousand a year per person by outsourcing.
People have been getting slammed recently for mentioning there are very valid reasons not to vote. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. The right to bear arms is supposed to come with the responsibility to take up those arms to defend this country against attack. The right of free speach adds the responsibility to defend the right to speak words that offend you. Freedom of religion makes us responsible to defend all against persecution as well as using our religion to strengthen and comfort the poor, weak, and downtrodden. The right to vote comes with the responsibility to educate yourselves. Quite frankly some people ignore this responsibility to the point they really should forfeit their right to vote.
If you blindly believe everything EITHER candidate says, stay home today.
If you think CNN is the word from on high and Fox is the devil, or the other way around, please stay home.
If you believe either candidate is A) planning on using the draft or B) unwilling to use the draft if they have to, stay home today.
If you think Kerry plans on only taxing the rich, or Bush plans on only taxing the poor, stay home today.
If you believe Kerry that the top 20% paying 67% of the governments tax revenue constitutes "the middle class paying the highest burden", please stay home today.
If you believe Bush that Kerry voting against tax breaks is the same as Kerry voting for raising taxes, please stay home today. If you think Bush is right in making a political issue of a religious commitment to marriage, for no other reason than it's wrong for gays to get married, please stay home today.
If you think you should vote for Kerry because Edwards is young and Cheney is old, please stay home today.
If you think you should vote democrat because they somehow care about your ethnic group without any specific plans on what they will do to help you personally, please stay home today.
If you think you should vote republican because they somehow care about your ethnic group without any specific plans on what they will do to help you personally, please stay home today.
If you think the "major tax break" of not having to pay FICA on overseas workers is the reason that companies save millions of dollars a year paying Achmed 12k a year over paying John 60k a year, please stay home today.
Finally, if you think T. H. Kerry is an attractive women, please gouge your eyes out.
Wrong, the argument is precisely opposite. He stated 2 does not equal 4. You are the one that wants him to qualify, it CAN equal 4 if you add another 2 to it.
I do agree that we may never convince you, willful ignorance will over look cognitive dissonance.
Let's compare directly. 2.......... does not equal.... 4 (without adding 2) Congress... can not amend.... the Constitution (without states)
You'll find both statements are true with and without the parentheticals.
See above. It is often debatable whether or not unique features (in this case size) represent a continum or a distinct species. It is not an exact science, and we may never know for sure. However, there is no other example of an adult human being so small.
Bullshit. Tom Thumb was undeniably human and only grew to approx 40 inches, which is almost exactly the height they are talking about. It's not unthinkable that a general predisposition coupled with inbreeding could have produced a family of little people this size.
If you say that PT Barnum exagerated, look up the world record for height. You'll find the people fighting for the title are comfortably under a meter. According to Guiness, the world record is a 36 year old person who stood a scant 57 cm.
Of course they are involved in it, he didn't say they weren't. He said they couldn't amend it, which is true. With out additional support from the states the Constitution stays exactly the way it is short of military uprising.
He can't convince you because you are choosing to be wrong. The states CAN ammend without the Congress, Congress CAN NOT ammend without the states. Easy to understand.
Thank you for playing "Defend the Mispoken", but I'm afraid you'll find the answer was C: Parent was right. As evidence I point to the grandparent you are defending: Or of some worm taking out a bank's system, or some other breach of data storage..
It's not that funny. They did a pretty solid job of running the provinces they were put in charge of, releasing US Marines to be used elsewhere. That's a pretty useful role, and it's exactly the one Kerry promises to get other countries to do if he's elected. The jibe was a fair one, don't piss on allies when you're about to ask them to do the exact same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I sure as hell can, because my ToS with Time-Warner Cable says nothing about agreeing to watch advertising. I pay for them to put a signal into my home, if they subsidize the signal with ads, that's their problem. If I don't watch the ads, they can't do anything about it.
If businesses decide ads aren't working and they stop running them, the cable company can feel free to change their rates, then I can decide if I still want their service.
Y'all act like HBO doesn't put out Grammy winning shows. Shows that, unsurprisingly, are BETTER than shows on regular TV. Shows with NO COMMERCIALS. You just have to pay for the channel if you want to pay for it. Digital TV should make that easier, there are channels I'd subscribe to, and channels I don't give a flip about. I don't NEED a hundred channels when I currently only watch 20. I KNOW I only watch 20 because that's how many different channels I have a show set to record on MythTV, which I currently use to time shift shows, as well as watch them without commercials.
Of course, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a law making something illegal, not companies refusing service.
Don't you hate it when you are argueing and you discover you are in agreement? The original poster was saying the FDA clearly shouldn't have the right to regulate tobacco. Obviously, rationally they should, they just don't because it's a cash cow.
How does this make it less wrong?
The point is that if I want to attach a device to my television that translates every third word into Algonquin once the signal comes into my device it's none of their business. If I write a module for MythTV that allows me to change all the commercials in my LiveTV programming into mpegs of dancing midgets throwing pickles at a naked woman it's none of their business.
Their revenue stream and rights to artistic integrity end when they reach the consumer. At that point it's my signal in my device and as long as I don't rebroadcast it they need to leave me the hell alone.
I'm going out on a limb here and say that's why he needed more clean (edible) animals than unclean (inedible). God only told him to put them ON the Ark, getting OFF "Noah's Floating Buffet" is their problem.
I believe the point you are missing is the vast majority of people, despite claims to the contrary, don't have a bit of problem with paying for something they perceive as having value. What they object to is paying more than they feel it's worth as well as not being able to use it the way they want to.
iTunes does great and it would appear rival services are making money as well. People just don't want to pay for the distribution services when the distrobution service is unneeded at this point.
All you are doing is arguing why A) Tobacco pays off the government and B) Tobacco should be under the FDA.
All I'm doing is pointing out the FDA SHOULD have control over tobacco, they had to specifically exempt it for them not to. It then follows the reason they exempted them is because people want tobacco and because tobacco pumps a lot of money into government coffers. Lobbyists aside, tobacco revenue and taxation are what make it very hard to ban tobacco.
As an aside, I grew up in North Carolina, when I got my tuition bill from NC State, it said right on it "The government of North Carolina has paid XXXX of your tuition, the amount you owe is XXXX" There was no allusion that a large part of the source of that money was tobacco taxes. That said, it still boggles my mind that we pay people to grow a product that isn't profitable to make it profitable so they can provide us with something most of the country doesn't want, that bothers people that aren't using it, that will likely sicken the people that do use it, and that destroys the soil to the point you practically need to replace it in order to regrow it the next year.
Farm subsidies are a stupid idea, we should be encouraging farmers to grow products that DO grow well in the area they are without all the chemicals and irrigation. There's just no reason why they should be growing cotton in the desert in the west because the farmers in the east are busy growing tobacco and complaining they can't make a profit doing it.
With Eisner intending to step down, Disney may have a chance to get back to the role they played of wholesome fun. Right now they are cliched and trite. They went from inspiring imagination to the poster children of proving that trademarks don't spark innovation.
I don't recall Walt ever drawing Mickey Mouse as a dirty dirty whore, but that's what he's become, pimped out around the world.
Correct sir, which is why you are precisely wrong.
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdcact1.htm
FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
CHAPTER II - DEFINITIONS
SEC. 201. [321]
(g)(1) The term ''drug'' means
(C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and
So I say again, other than the exceptions bought with tobacco money, why exactly should tobacco not be under the purvue of the FDA?
How do you figure?
I think you've got to accept that tobacco is either a food or a drug? It's at the very least a conduit for the intake of chemicals for the reactions they produce in your body, in other words a medical device, which the FDA also regulates. What reasoning says that the FDA should NOT be in charge of tobacco and tobacco products?
Nonsense, if they are following applicable laws, either people are willing to work for them or they aren't. The slippery slope case just falls apart because it requires people to be willing to take these contracts. If a company starts offering people these contracts and they don't take them, the company goes out of business. The rush to follow them won't exactly be great.
I notice, though, I get modded "Troll" no doubt for speaking ill of tech workers. I, myself, hate my job so I quit. My wife and I moved, taught school for a little while to make ends meet, until I could get another job for a company that I like.
It's doable, but it took us being willing to sacrifice lifestyle for a while and relocate until I got a job that made me happy. It's sad that advice like that is considered trolling.
While I agree that we have laws for this sort of thing, we also have contracts for this sort of thing. Has it ever occured to quitting a job is ONLY not an option for people who make their decisions entirely on the criterion of lifestyle? People generally have two options in life, live within your means or adjust your means to your lifestyle.
If the company is breaking the law, they should be punished. If the company is simply enforcing contracts that people agreed to when the dollar signs overrode their common sense, the employees should shut up or consider a career change.
You either do what you need to do or you shut up about it. That includes changing lifestyle or changing careers.
I own a pair of Minature Pinschers which certainly qualify high on the list of "Most Neurotic Creatures Alive" and that description makes me seriously consider getting one JUST for that effect.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/n ews/local/10134626.htm
Maybe this is too TV movie, but are you telling me there has never been a police/military life saved when he was disarmed and someone else managed to get a hold of their gun and protect them?
I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be that guy that kicks the gun into a ditch. I'm going to pick it up and try to return fire, ESPECIALLY if I see a cop being shot at.
Or you could just wait until tomorrow. If you didn't know the release was imminent, do you REALLY need those features RIGHT NOW?
No no you silly person. If Apple has it, Apple was first. It's just the way it is, and the sooner we can all accept that, the happier we all will be. It's like Microsoft being evil, Linux being secure, and the government trying to exploit the masses. Other possible explanations are really just a waste of time once you acknowledge the truth.
Interesting. I wonder if that seemed too racists for us at the time. It was launched here in 1949, with the correct spelling of "Mr Boddy", according to Hasboro's Clue Game History. Or maybe we just appreciate cheesy puns more.
No, the right to bear arms is supposed to...
Why do you assume I think attacks can only come from the outside? The country is not the government, the country is the people and the concept.
No, the right of free speech adds to right to NOT defend the right to speak words that offend you.
But it obligates the government to protect both equally. Your right ends where mine begins. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge that as defending my right to speech, is, of course, your right.
No, freedom of religion means that we can believe in a persecuting
Freedom of religion is a protection of the church/mosque/synagogue/shrine from the government, not the other way around.
my forefathers died for my right to do that
Not exactly. Your forefathers died for the right to chose representatives for themselves. They wrote it into the constitution in the form of electors, they gave the states the right to choose the electors. Your STATE gave you the right to vote as opposed to chosing them directly, which they did for many years. You, naturally, have the ability to ignore the responsibilities that come with voting, but you do have to suffer the consequences of it. That's the difference between a responsibility and a requirement. The more people that ignore the responsibility to be informed, the worse our government gets. Eventually we may have to go back up to point one, the right to bear arms, in order to fix the rampant corruption and stupidity we've put in power.
If you think anyone would ever believe themselves to be a blind follower
Fortunately for you there is an easy check, do you believe the facts and figures based any citations? Outside observers? First hand reports? Books? Polls? Studies? Did you at LEAST google for the statistic before you cited it as your reason to vote because a candidate mentioned it in the debate? Do you know where your candidate is wrong as well as right? Do you know that Kerry's $200 billion number SPENT is wrong and so is Bush's "government controls healthcare"? If you are dumb enough to believe everything said in a debate by either side, I personally believe you may be too dumb to vote. See point two about free speech.
If you think CNN is the opposite of Fox, it shows how far we've got to go. CNN appears to be liberal
Actually, CNN was probably a bad choice. ABC would probably a better choice, what with the memo about Kerry lies being acceptable but Bush lies being dangerous, and so only report on Bush lies.
That they only pay 67% means they really do have a lesser tax burden.
Staggering. Just staggering. The fact they pay more means they pay less. Or are you just saying the fact we don't tax them back into poverty is good enough and they should thank their lucky stars for it? They didn't really EARN that money anyway right? They must have gotten it on the backs of the oppressed. No one can come from a lower class income, work hard, make good choices, and end up rich right? So since they must have gotten it through ill means, it's okay to take a disporportionate amount back from them? Screw the rich, they don't drive the economy, the government does.
you've gotta admit Kerry's better for stopping outsourcing.
I actually disagree entirely. From what Kerry has stated, he doesn't understand at all why companies outsource. He seems to believe, or at least he wants the country to believe that some piddly tax break that amounts to a couple hundred dollars a person a year will cause a multmillion or billion dollar a year company to stop saving thirty to forty thousand a year per person by outsourcing.
People have been getting slammed recently for mentioning there are very valid reasons not to vote. Rights don't exist in a vacuum. The right to bear arms is supposed to come with the responsibility to take up those arms to defend this country against attack. The right of free speach adds the responsibility to defend the right to speak words that offend you. Freedom of religion makes us responsible to defend all against persecution as well as using our religion to strengthen and comfort the poor, weak, and downtrodden. The right to vote comes with the responsibility to educate yourselves. Quite frankly some people ignore this responsibility to the point they really should forfeit their right to vote.
If you blindly believe everything EITHER candidate says, stay home today.
If you think CNN is the word from on high and Fox is the devil, or the other way around, please stay home.
If you believe either candidate is A) planning on using the draft or B) unwilling to use the draft if they have to, stay home today.
If you think Kerry plans on only taxing the rich, or Bush plans on only taxing the poor, stay home today.
If you believe Kerry that the top 20% paying 67% of the governments tax revenue constitutes "the middle class paying the highest burden", please stay home today.
If you believe Bush that Kerry voting against tax breaks is the same as Kerry voting for raising taxes, please stay home today.
If you think Bush is right in making a political issue of a religious commitment to marriage, for no other reason than it's wrong for gays to get married, please stay home today.
If you think you should vote for Kerry because Edwards is young and Cheney is old, please stay home today.
If you think you should vote democrat because they somehow care about your ethnic group without any specific plans on what they will do to help you personally, please stay home today.
If you think you should vote republican because they somehow care about your ethnic group without any specific plans on what they will do to help you personally, please stay home today.
If you think the "major tax break" of not having to pay FICA on overseas workers is the reason that companies save millions of dollars a year paying Achmed 12k a year over paying John 60k a year, please stay home today.
Finally, if you think T. H. Kerry is an attractive women, please gouge your eyes out.
Wrong, the argument is precisely opposite. He stated 2 does not equal 4. You are the one that wants him to qualify, it CAN equal 4 if you add another 2 to it.
.... the Constitution (without states)
I do agree that we may never convince you, willful ignorance will over look cognitive dissonance.
Let's compare directly.
2.......... does not equal.... 4 (without adding 2)
Congress... can not amend
You'll find both statements are true with and without the parentheticals.
See above. It is often debatable whether or not unique features (in this case size) represent a continum or a distinct species. It is not an exact science, and we may never know for sure. However, there is no other example of an adult human being so small.
Bullshit. Tom Thumb was undeniably human and only grew to approx 40 inches, which is almost exactly the height they are talking about. It's not unthinkable that a general predisposition coupled with inbreeding could have produced a family of little people this size.
If you say that PT Barnum exagerated, look up the world record for height. You'll find the people fighting for the title are comfortably under a meter. According to Guiness, the world record is a 36 year old person who stood a scant 57 cm.
Of course they are involved in it, he didn't say they weren't. He said they couldn't amend it, which is true. With out additional support from the states the Constitution stays exactly the way it is short of military uprising.
He can't convince you because you are choosing to be wrong. The states CAN ammend without the Congress, Congress CAN NOT ammend without the states. Easy to understand.
Thank you for playing "Defend the Mispoken", but I'm afraid you'll find the answer was C: Parent was right. As evidence I point to the grandparent you are defending: Or of some worm taking out a bank's system, or some other breach of data storage..
It's not that funny. They did a pretty solid job of running the provinces they were put in charge of, releasing US Marines to be used elsewhere. That's a pretty useful role, and it's exactly the one Kerry promises to get other countries to do if he's elected. The jibe was a fair one, don't piss on allies when you're about to ask them to do the exact same thing.