It looks like they're talking about doing stuff like including results from Google Maps in your web search results (whilst not doing the same for results from Bing Maps, etc.).
Well, if they "fix" this I SERIOUSLY hope they make it an option to "unfix" it. If I search for something and a map is relevant I'd like to see a map, not just a bunch of SEO'ed sites. Oh, and I'd like the map to be google maps, not flybynite maps.
Maybe they can configure it so that if an MP runs a search they get Apple maps. Would serve them right...
"Nobody actually uses it"? Listing/afs, I see AFS cells at MIT, Stanford, Harvard, CMU, Cornell... and I know my local universities use it internally, although their AFS space isn't publicly accessible. It might not be popular in corporate environments, but it appears to be very much in use at American universities.
That means nothing more than SOMEBODY at a bunch of universities uses it. I doubt the average undergrad at those institutions uses it for anything.
How is that different from an ordinary server cert? I just got a cert for my own domain; that doesn't let me masquerade as a bank. If I get my browser from Mozilla, how do I know that my ISP isn't snooping? If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the entire HTTPS spec is a total wreck, and we'd be better off without it than a false illusion of security?
You aren't a CA. The person who issued you the cert is. THEY CAN masquerade as a bank if they want to.
The issue is more with things like mobile devices - chances are you didn't buy your phone from Mozilla. When the day comes that Ubuntu is selling phones I'd say chances are they'll stick their own CA on them, and thus they could MITM any connection (which isn't to say that they would).
I'm not saying that we're better off without SSL at all - that is as ridiculous as the warnings you get when you connect to a site using a self-signed certificate (which I'd be fine with if they showed up anytime you connected to any site not using SSL). We're just better off with something better than SSL in its current state - such as using DNSSEC to distribute certificates.
Why wouldn't this be exactly the same problem, just a different set of people where you have to trust all of them?
The scope of their authority is at least limited. If I connect to mail.google.com, only those who control the root servers can issue a certificate for.com, only those who control.com can issue a certificate for google.com, and only google.com can issue a certificate for mail.google.com.
Sure, I'd rather not have to trust Verisign to not falsify a google.com certificate, but at least we're down to only one company for any particular domain. The maintainer of.com could not issue.de certificates, and vice-versa.
With current SSL CAs all trust is global. Anybody can issue a certificate for anything.
If I think the government of Estonia is shady then if I don't go to any.ee sites I don't have to worry about them under DNSSEC, but with the current CA system any CA is a source of insecurity.
But hey, I'm not saying it isn't possible to do better still. I just haven't seen any proposals that seem practical - you always need some kind of trusted intermediary to make introductions, even if there are tools to discover certificate changes that can at least help you to know if somebody is going on.
Isn't that the whole point of HTTPS, to ensure that a man-in-the-middle attack (in this case, a probably benign proxy) is impossible?
It is only impossible without the collusion of a trusted certificate authority. When was the last time you reviewed the list on your browser? Oh, and did YOU do anything to determine if any of those organizations were trustworthy.
If you get a mobile device from your mobile provider, there is a pretty good chance that they stuck their own root CA in there somewhere. Maybe they just use it for SSL connections to their own websites/email/etc. But, trusted is trusted in the world of SSL which means they could just MITM every connection you make.
Ditto for any PC you use at work. Chances are your employer has a trusted CA somewhere in there, which means they can MITM any SSL connection you make to any service on the web.
If they didn't actually modify your browser you can probably spot this by pulling up the certificate info for your connection and noting who issued it.
This is why I believe SSL offers a false sense of security. Moving to certificates distributed over DNSSEC would cut out the middlemen, and it would improve security. Only the domain registrar for google.com could tamper with their certificates, for example. That still isn't perfect, but it is better than any CA anywhere on the globe.
Uh, sure. Ever try to actually get it working? Good luck doing that on iOS - it is a royal pain on Linux, let alone Windows.
The sad thing is that OpenAFS is the only networked POSIX filesystem I'm aware of that actually works reasonably well and is secure. Pity that nobody actually uses it. NFSv4 with all the features enabled looks to be almost as good, and just as painful to set up.
Why is it that I can take any Windows box and right click on a folder and turn on sharing, enter a password, and get something that is fairly secure, and yet the same feature does not exist on Linux? Sure, for a fortune 500 company setting up Kerberos and such makes sense, but to share a few files between two PCs?
They're really trying to push it at work but nobody really uses it. Discussion forums and such have some use, but not anything that involves individuals posting to some kind of "wall" or "activity stream" or whatever that is global in scope.
The problem is that our companies (like many) have moved to move of a project-team design which is highly matrixed. For this project I work with these 5 people, and for another project I work with 5 other people. If I followed any of their streams most of the data would be irrelevant to the task at hand. Plus, you can only have so many rounds of layoffs before people get used to only talking to each other when nobody else is around.
I thought the whole point of OICW wasn't for storming rooms (though I imagine it could be used in "dumb mode" with regular bullets for that), but for engagements at moderate range where it would allow you to fairly easily defeat cover with airburst grenades. Landing a mortar on a trench isn't that easy and you're exposed to fire the entire time. With something like OICW you could set the range and basically fire off a bunch of airbursts right across the entire length of it. You could fire an airburst that goes off just past the corner of every building you come to while you're marching down a street (obviously not useful for peacekeeping, but plenty useful during full combat where you shoot at anything that moves).
This could result in a failed hitting of target or an outright disaster.
The whole point of requiring the operator to pull the trigger is to PREVENT a disaster. You don't pull the trigger unless you have a clear range. If you're trying to do a headshot on a hostage taker holding the gun you wouldn't apply any trigger pressure until you had the gun aimed opposite the hostage.
Basically you should treat any gun as if it will discharge the moment you release the safety. Actually, it is best to treat it as if it will arbitrarily kill anybody in front of it at any time even if it is unloaded. It isn't about fear - it is about respect. If you use the enhanced sights to further improve your accuracy then you're fine. You shouldn't be releasing the safety let alone pulling the trigger if the gun isn't aimed down a clear range.
Fair enough. I've never shot competitive so I can't comment on how the weight can impact you.
Basically the logic is this - if at this instant pulling the trigger would cause a miss it is REALLY hard to pull it. If at this instant pulling the trigger would cause a hit then it is REALLY easy to pull it. So, you basically pull with medium force on the trigger the whole time and when you happen to have the gun lined up perfectly your finger will suddenly give way and fire the shot.
A bit analog vs just having the trigger be an authorization to fire and letting the gun take the shot, but it works out about the same in the end. The gun basically fires for you, with your force against the trigger being just another spring in the mechanism.
I believe that lay people that want to claim religious exceptions for things should have to first disclose their religion, and then authorities of that religion should have to be willing to stand up and publicly defend those claims, especially for things that the lay person can't cite chapter-and-verse on, or can't cite existing documentation like from Vatican II or other edicts or the like.
Gee, I'd LOVE to be the judge who gets to hear that case. If somebody's brother is murdered and they claim a right to vengeance on the basis of Deuteronomy, shall we have the court hear argument on the proper interpretation of these passages? Suppose he happens to live in some compound of wackos and can produce three elders and a bishop who will back him up?
How about we instead just let people believe and do whatever they want to until it causes harm to others, and then we lay down the law, and the only arguments that are accepted are ones as to whether or not the law was broken, not whether or not the person ought to be able to break it. Then we can actually have nurses who won't infect us with influenza while we're recovering from chemotherapy without swearing in deacons as expert witnesses.
I'm all for the free expression of any belief, whether personal, institutional, religious, or whatever. However, free expression ends at the same point that all rights end - at the point where they cause harm to others.
Refusal of vaccination causes others harm. It does so for any member of society, but it does so especially for medical personnel. I'd make refusal of vaccination illegal for anybody, but to require vaccination as a condition of employment for nurses is really about as non-intrusive as you can get with this.
"True christians" believe in a Christ, Jesus, and in what he taught-- at least by the definition in use for the last 2000 years and as spelled out in the Bible.
Go ahead and elaborate on what exactly this means, and you'll quickly prove my point. What self-professing Christian doesn't believe that they are a "true christian?" And yet they differ on all manner of issues. Not everybody is as holy as Martin Luther (you know, the guy who believed in infant baptism), or John Calvin (who was for the capital punishment of heretics). Scarcely a century goes by where the Christians of one age would think those of the previous incredibly odd, if not outright heretics.
Good point. Imagine a police officer who believed that charging somebody with a crime amounted to being a "tattle tale." They would be completely ineffective at their job. They can believe whatever they want to believe, as long as it doesn't interfere with their performing their work.
When you're talking about putting patients at risk of death (yes, a flu can kill you, especially if you're hospitalized), there really isn't much wiggle-room for accommodation.
Where in that article is there any talk of the total amount of money inherited annually? Sure, lots of money gets spent by the government on welfare/etc. However, if you want to argue that inheritance is a smaller source of revenue for those who receive it, then you need to compare info on how much money is passed on annually to those programs.
And, I'd argue that inheritance is more of an entitlement, because it is so unequal in its nature. Welfare is at least available to anybody in need.
So what I hear you saying is that people of means should not be able to provide for their children as they see fit?
Yes.
That's not an entitlement program. The parents give it to them; it's their's to give.
As are the tax revenues received by the state from their parents. What is the difference between the right to own property and the right to collect taxes? Both are only as good as the guns used to enforce them. The wealthy parent wouldn't have a dime if the police didn't keep people from robbing the banks those dimes are stored in.
Generally speaking people do not "earn" much in life. They use the stuff they started out with in life to get more stuff. Sometimes the stuff they start out with is inheritance (in one form or another), and sometimes it is talent/intelligence/strength/etc. The bottom line is that nobody is born with any of this stuff because of their own virtue, and nobody is born without it due to their own vice. Those who happen to be born with more have a duty to those who are born with less, as a result.
Absolutely agree with all you say. However, the fact that in your particular case the good parents were wealthy is not a good argument for inheritance.
I recently had a friend tell me that inheritance should be allowed because they had a relative who was struggling to raise an autistic kid in an expensive area to live in, and they couldn't afford to buy a house there but they would receive one from their parents. However, the solution to this isn't to allow free inheritance, but simply to provide more benefits for the parents of autistic children - whether they happen to have wealthy parents or not.
Hey, I'm all for spending it in the most efficient manner first. However, the money paying for the bus is certainly no less productive than paying money to the holders of credit default swaps...
In reality, some children of rich parents will receive millions, and donate to charity of their own free will, or use money in a productive way, that results in earning more money, producing more economic activity, and bettering society.
As will no doubt some welfare recipients. Neither did anything to earn the money, so I'm not quite sure how the one is any different from the other. What most wealthy people do to "earn" their money isn't all that different from what the government does to "earn" its own money - much of it comes from the ownership of capital. In the case of the wealthy the capital is stock and factories and such, and in the case of the government the capital is lots of guns.
The people who paid them aren't the people who got hurt by their poor performance. Sure, those who bought certificates that are still valid might be able to get a refund for the time left after they're de-listed. However, most of the damage was to the Internet at large, who was exposed to risk by somebody they don't even do business with.
Looking at the details that have emerged, the accident occurred after the crew had left the plane. I can't imagine they'd leave an APU on with the plan unmanned - the plane should either be powered off completely, or running off of external power/air (which means nothing that draws fuel would be turned on within the plane - external power/air just keeps the lights on and the air temp regulated - purely electrical/pneumatic systems).
You suggest that religious beliefs are only valid if they are institutional in nature. Religious beliefs are not a valid reason to put patients at risk, period. Whether everybody else in her church agrees with her or not is not relevant - only the demonstrated clinical outcomes of vaccination.
And the best thing about (insert your favorite religion here) is that you're the only one that REALLY gets it. What do all true Christians believe? Well, if I profess to be a Christian then all true Christians believe exactly what I believe. If I profess to not be a Christian then they believe in whatever I consider most abhorrent. Nobody identifies themselves as "member of heretical sect." Everybody claims the orthodox for themselves.
If leaving an APU turned on causes a catastrophic loss of the aircraft, then there is a design flaw.
However, I don't see how leaving one on should cause a battery to overheat. The batteries should be on circuits that limit currents appropriately, whether charging or discharging. This is an aircraft - not a plastic toy.
Don't guard it. What would somebody actually do with it if they stole it? It isn't like they could just walk into a bank and deposit it. It is hard enough to find places willing to accept $100 bills...
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like they're talking about doing stuff like including results from Google Maps in your web search results (whilst not doing the same for results from Bing Maps, etc.).
Well, if they "fix" this I SERIOUSLY hope they make it an option to "unfix" it. If I search for something and a map is relevant I'd like to see a map, not just a bunch of SEO'ed sites. Oh, and I'd like the map to be google maps, not flybynite maps.
Maybe they can configure it so that if an MP runs a search they get Apple maps. Would serve them right...
"Nobody actually uses it"? Listing /afs, I see AFS cells at MIT, Stanford, Harvard, CMU, Cornell... and I know my local universities use it internally, although their AFS space isn't publicly accessible. It might not be popular in corporate environments, but it appears to be very much in use at American universities.
That means nothing more than SOMEBODY at a bunch of universities uses it. I doubt the average undergrad at those institutions uses it for anything.
How is that different from an ordinary server cert? I just got a cert for my own domain; that doesn't let me masquerade as a bank. If I get my browser from Mozilla, how do I know that my ISP isn't snooping? If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that the entire HTTPS spec is a total wreck, and we'd be better off without it than a false illusion of security?
You aren't a CA. The person who issued you the cert is. THEY CAN masquerade as a bank if they want to.
The issue is more with things like mobile devices - chances are you didn't buy your phone from Mozilla. When the day comes that Ubuntu is selling phones I'd say chances are they'll stick their own CA on them, and thus they could MITM any connection (which isn't to say that they would).
I'm not saying that we're better off without SSL at all - that is as ridiculous as the warnings you get when you connect to a site using a self-signed certificate (which I'd be fine with if they showed up anytime you connected to any site not using SSL). We're just better off with something better than SSL in its current state - such as using DNSSEC to distribute certificates.
Why wouldn't this be exactly the same problem, just a different set of people where you have to trust all of them?
The scope of their authority is at least limited. If I connect to mail.google.com, only those who control the root servers can issue a certificate for .com, only those who control .com can issue a certificate for google.com, and only google.com can issue a certificate for mail.google.com.
Sure, I'd rather not have to trust Verisign to not falsify a google.com certificate, but at least we're down to only one company for any particular domain. The maintainer of .com could not issue .de certificates, and vice-versa.
With current SSL CAs all trust is global. Anybody can issue a certificate for anything.
If I think the government of Estonia is shady then if I don't go to any .ee sites I don't have to worry about them under DNSSEC, but with the current CA system any CA is a source of insecurity.
But hey, I'm not saying it isn't possible to do better still. I just haven't seen any proposals that seem practical - you always need some kind of trusted intermediary to make introductions, even if there are tools to discover certificate changes that can at least help you to know if somebody is going on.
Isn't that the whole point of HTTPS, to ensure that a man-in-the-middle attack (in this case, a probably benign proxy) is impossible?
It is only impossible without the collusion of a trusted certificate authority. When was the last time you reviewed the list on your browser? Oh, and did YOU do anything to determine if any of those organizations were trustworthy.
If you get a mobile device from your mobile provider, there is a pretty good chance that they stuck their own root CA in there somewhere. Maybe they just use it for SSL connections to their own websites/email/etc. But, trusted is trusted in the world of SSL which means they could just MITM every connection you make.
Ditto for any PC you use at work. Chances are your employer has a trusted CA somewhere in there, which means they can MITM any SSL connection you make to any service on the web.
If they didn't actually modify your browser you can probably spot this by pulling up the certificate info for your connection and noting who issued it.
This is why I believe SSL offers a false sense of security. Moving to certificates distributed over DNSSEC would cut out the middlemen, and it would improve security. Only the domain registrar for google.com could tamper with their certificates, for example. That still isn't perfect, but it is better than any CA anywhere on the globe.
Uh, sure. Ever try to actually get it working? Good luck doing that on iOS - it is a royal pain on Linux, let alone Windows.
The sad thing is that OpenAFS is the only networked POSIX filesystem I'm aware of that actually works reasonably well and is secure. Pity that nobody actually uses it. NFSv4 with all the features enabled looks to be almost as good, and just as painful to set up.
Why is it that I can take any Windows box and right click on a folder and turn on sharing, enter a password, and get something that is fairly secure, and yet the same feature does not exist on Linux? Sure, for a fortune 500 company setting up Kerberos and such makes sense, but to share a few files between two PCs?
They're really trying to push it at work but nobody really uses it. Discussion forums and such have some use, but not anything that involves individuals posting to some kind of "wall" or "activity stream" or whatever that is global in scope.
The problem is that our companies (like many) have moved to move of a project-team design which is highly matrixed. For this project I work with these 5 people, and for another project I work with 5 other people. If I followed any of their streams most of the data would be irrelevant to the task at hand. Plus, you can only have so many rounds of layoffs before people get used to only talking to each other when nobody else is around.
I thought the whole point of OICW wasn't for storming rooms (though I imagine it could be used in "dumb mode" with regular bullets for that), but for engagements at moderate range where it would allow you to fairly easily defeat cover with airburst grenades. Landing a mortar on a trench isn't that easy and you're exposed to fire the entire time. With something like OICW you could set the range and basically fire off a bunch of airbursts right across the entire length of it. You could fire an airburst that goes off just past the corner of every building you come to while you're marching down a street (obviously not useful for peacekeeping, but plenty useful during full combat where you shoot at anything that moves).
This could result in a failed hitting of target or an outright disaster.
The whole point of requiring the operator to pull the trigger is to PREVENT a disaster. You don't pull the trigger unless you have a clear range. If you're trying to do a headshot on a hostage taker holding the gun you wouldn't apply any trigger pressure until you had the gun aimed opposite the hostage.
Basically you should treat any gun as if it will discharge the moment you release the safety. Actually, it is best to treat it as if it will arbitrarily kill anybody in front of it at any time even if it is unloaded. It isn't about fear - it is about respect. If you use the enhanced sights to further improve your accuracy then you're fine. You shouldn't be releasing the safety let alone pulling the trigger if the gun isn't aimed down a clear range.
Fair enough. I've never shot competitive so I can't comment on how the weight can impact you.
Basically the logic is this - if at this instant pulling the trigger would cause a miss it is REALLY hard to pull it. If at this instant pulling the trigger would cause a hit then it is REALLY easy to pull it. So, you basically pull with medium force on the trigger the whole time and when you happen to have the gun lined up perfectly your finger will suddenly give way and fire the shot.
A bit analog vs just having the trigger be an authorization to fire and letting the gun take the shot, but it works out about the same in the end. The gun basically fires for you, with your force against the trigger being just another spring in the mechanism.
I believe that lay people that want to claim religious exceptions for things should have to first disclose their religion, and then authorities of that religion should have to be willing to stand up and publicly defend those claims, especially for things that the lay person can't cite chapter-and-verse on, or can't cite existing documentation like from Vatican II or other edicts or the like.
Gee, I'd LOVE to be the judge who gets to hear that case. If somebody's brother is murdered and they claim a right to vengeance on the basis of Deuteronomy, shall we have the court hear argument on the proper interpretation of these passages? Suppose he happens to live in some compound of wackos and can produce three elders and a bishop who will back him up?
How about we instead just let people believe and do whatever they want to until it causes harm to others, and then we lay down the law, and the only arguments that are accepted are ones as to whether or not the law was broken, not whether or not the person ought to be able to break it. Then we can actually have nurses who won't infect us with influenza while we're recovering from chemotherapy without swearing in deacons as expert witnesses.
I'm all for the free expression of any belief, whether personal, institutional, religious, or whatever. However, free expression ends at the same point that all rights end - at the point where they cause harm to others.
Refusal of vaccination causes others harm. It does so for any member of society, but it does so especially for medical personnel. I'd make refusal of vaccination illegal for anybody, but to require vaccination as a condition of employment for nurses is really about as non-intrusive as you can get with this.
"True christians" believe in a Christ, Jesus, and in what he taught-- at least by the definition in use for the last 2000 years and as spelled out in the Bible.
Go ahead and elaborate on what exactly this means, and you'll quickly prove my point. What self-professing Christian doesn't believe that they are a "true christian?" And yet they differ on all manner of issues. Not everybody is as holy as Martin Luther (you know, the guy who believed in infant baptism), or John Calvin (who was for the capital punishment of heretics). Scarcely a century goes by where the Christians of one age would think those of the previous incredibly odd, if not outright heretics.
Good point. Imagine a police officer who believed that charging somebody with a crime amounted to being a "tattle tale." They would be completely ineffective at their job. They can believe whatever they want to believe, as long as it doesn't interfere with their performing their work.
When you're talking about putting patients at risk of death (yes, a flu can kill you, especially if you're hospitalized), there really isn't much wiggle-room for accommodation.
Do you want to know what the biggest entitlement program in America is?
You need to check your source - you are WAY OFF.
More than Half of All Federal Spending Will Be on Entitlement Programs in 2012
Where in that article is there any talk of the total amount of money inherited annually? Sure, lots of money gets spent by the government on welfare/etc. However, if you want to argue that inheritance is a smaller source of revenue for those who receive it, then you need to compare info on how much money is passed on annually to those programs.
And, I'd argue that inheritance is more of an entitlement, because it is so unequal in its nature. Welfare is at least available to anybody in need.
So what I hear you saying is that people of means should not be able to provide for their children as they see fit?
Yes.
That's not an entitlement program. The parents give it to them; it's their's to give.
As are the tax revenues received by the state from their parents. What is the difference between the right to own property and the right to collect taxes? Both are only as good as the guns used to enforce them. The wealthy parent wouldn't have a dime if the police didn't keep people from robbing the banks those dimes are stored in.
Generally speaking people do not "earn" much in life. They use the stuff they started out with in life to get more stuff. Sometimes the stuff they start out with is inheritance (in one form or another), and sometimes it is talent/intelligence/strength/etc. The bottom line is that nobody is born with any of this stuff because of their own virtue, and nobody is born without it due to their own vice. Those who happen to be born with more have a duty to those who are born with less, as a result.
Absolutely agree with all you say. However, the fact that in your particular case the good parents were wealthy is not a good argument for inheritance.
I recently had a friend tell me that inheritance should be allowed because they had a relative who was struggling to raise an autistic kid in an expensive area to live in, and they couldn't afford to buy a house there but they would receive one from their parents. However, the solution to this isn't to allow free inheritance, but simply to provide more benefits for the parents of autistic children - whether they happen to have wealthy parents or not.
Hey, I'm all for spending it in the most efficient manner first. However, the money paying for the bus is certainly no less productive than paying money to the holders of credit default swaps...
You, of course, would solve that "problem" by taking away the ability of the rich parents to give their money to their offspring.
Yes.
Some rich parents motivate their progeny to work hard and effectively. George Romney appears to have done so for Mitt.
Some welfare recipients do the same. Next anecdote?
In reality, some children of rich parents will receive millions, and donate to charity of their own free will,
or use money in a productive way, that results in earning more money, producing more economic activity,
and bettering society.
As will no doubt some welfare recipients. Neither did anything to earn the money, so I'm not quite sure how the one is any different from the other. What most wealthy people do to "earn" their money isn't all that different from what the government does to "earn" its own money - much of it comes from the ownership of capital. In the case of the wealthy the capital is stock and factories and such, and in the case of the government the capital is lots of guns.
The people who paid them aren't the people who got hurt by their poor performance. Sure, those who bought certificates that are still valid might be able to get a refund for the time left after they're de-listed. However, most of the damage was to the Internet at large, who was exposed to risk by somebody they don't even do business with.
Looking at the details that have emerged, the accident occurred after the crew had left the plane. I can't imagine they'd leave an APU on with the plan unmanned - the plane should either be powered off completely, or running off of external power/air (which means nothing that draws fuel would be turned on within the plane - external power/air just keeps the lights on and the air temp regulated - purely electrical/pneumatic systems).
You suggest that religious beliefs are only valid if they are institutional in nature. Religious beliefs are not a valid reason to put patients at risk, period. Whether everybody else in her church agrees with her or not is not relevant - only the demonstrated clinical outcomes of vaccination.
And the best thing about (insert your favorite religion here) is that you're the only one that REALLY gets it. What do all true Christians believe? Well, if I profess to be a Christian then all true Christians believe exactly what I believe. If I profess to not be a Christian then they believe in whatever I consider most abhorrent. Nobody identifies themselves as "member of heretical sect." Everybody claims the orthodox for themselves.
If leaving an APU turned on causes a catastrophic loss of the aircraft, then there is a design flaw.
However, I don't see how leaving one on should cause a battery to overheat. The batteries should be on circuits that limit currents appropriately, whether charging or discharging. This is an aircraft - not a plastic toy.
Don't guard it. What would somebody actually do with it if they stole it? It isn't like they could just walk into a bank and deposit it. It is hard enough to find places willing to accept $100 bills...