dozing makes a lot of sense. I know in my town our local hospital makes a grab on the next door neighborhoods, grabbing a whole block at a time. They doze it all, and turn it to grass. Then when they need parking or an office, they build a shiny new one. In the meantime, the old, unkept houses are wiped away and we get to enjoy manicured empty space for 3-4 years. There are two things to manage here, first businesses want empty property to build on, they don't want to clean up old houses or factories when they can buy a nicely cleared corn field for one tenth and make people drive. Second, the business districts in places like Detroit or Lansing are scattered all over. One or two strong business support an otherwise rundown block. There's parts of town where streets, water, electric, telephone are servicing one house out of four because they are foreclosed and rundown.
Honestly, they need "city shrinkage" planning. I've seen what they did with the Cleveland University hospital and business district... they wiped a strip from the center of town to the hospital and then repopulated it with mass transit and new businesses. It's still a shrinking city, but its core is rebuilt to pull people closer rather than continually running to the suburbs. I was impressed that the city and university were connected to the airport by mass transit, from out-state Michigan that was pretty cool.
not in Michigan... THAT is what the law changed. Essentially it made telephone and cable right-of-way negotiation the same thing. The problem is it established no minimum baseline for what "video" service was an no quality of service that localities could demand. Anybody can negotiate an exclusive or non-exclusive agreement now, and they essentially can't deny you starting work unless they have some exclusive agreement with somebody else.. the localities have to grant you the right of way. The problem is that "public service" parts of telephone are all at the FCC level, so states don't write their own coverage, or minimum service rules.. and they didn't include them for "video" service in the law. This is the very core of the "network neutrality" debate because one law combine with the FCC rulings essentially makes owning "video" infrastructure under nearly zero "public service" standards like phone service has to cover schools, governments, provide basic services at a reasonable price, etc, etc. This is why even ATT wants the push to U-Verse because the "service" is a "video" service and the "phone" is claiming "fair use" under the telco rules. but the LINES are under the "video" rules which have barely any FCC regulation.
They are not "state wide franchises" at all, the law merely allows "video service" to piggy back on other types of franchises.. like telephone. The thing barring ATT from offering video over their DSL was that they would have had to renegotiate "video rights" for all the already laid copper and fiber used for phone service. It was a chicken-egg problem to bring phone/data and TV/data right-of-way licensing into alignment... the state underestimated the greed and wiliness of the cable companies and ATT.
Essentially the law sets time tables for how quickly a locality MUST sign a contract, or the law make a "reasonable" contract approved by default. The problem is that the law was written to compliment ATT which already has extensive rules for how an where they run phones, those provisions are mostly handled at the FCC level and are uniform for everybody now, so the state didn't include them. The cable companies are using "forced renegotiation" as a tool to get anything they wanted as long as it was "reasonable". They instantly handed all the localities new contracts with slashed services, started the clock and used the state law to make the contracts legal.
Most importantly though, the STATE didn't negotiate ANYTHING with the cable companies, there is no "exclusive contract" other than allowing video to piggyback on other types of contracts, like phone service.
no, the state created a law which allowed Comcast to write terrible contracts and forced the localities to approve them on very short timelines or have the contract ACCEPTED BY THE LOCALITY BY DEFAULT. In sort cable companies could show up with 10k pages of contract terms and the localities only had something like 30 days to make a decision...The lawyers and boards can't even decipher and VOTE in such a short amount of time! All Cable had to do was be terribly wordy, and egregious and wait out the "default" clock.
Detroit is saying the state had no right to create the terms that REQUIRED the locality to grant contracts so quickly, but didn't guarantee any of the standard terms. Therefore the contract pushed through under the new law was void and they go back to the 1985 one. The state didn't make a "contract" or get any remuneration from cable companies, they just tied the local government's hands at the negotiation table.
The problem is that the law as negotiated has nothing to do with being a "franchise contract" it merely outlines the procedures localities have to follow to set up contracts. Essentially it allows the cable companies to use the state "uniform rules" to uniformly strong arm the localities into whatever contract Cable wants... there are time limits on how long a locality can "negotiate" for before the state requires the contract to be signed and permits for work granted. Essentially it put cable companies on the same footing as telephone companies for negotiating right-of-way... but did not lay out ANY of the required levels of service like is done for phone... essentially all the goodies without the strings. The law was written to allow ATT to offer TV shows over their DSL or Fiber lines, of course those lines all have required service levels for the PHONE service, but cable and "data service" has none of those restrictions as the perks were negotiated locally.
Essentially the state sold out the localities for free.
the point would be Comcast is not getting anything ELSE out of the 1985 contract because they signed a new contract with the State they are claiming supersedes it. So they have no obligation to honor the old terms... they just go "poof".
OK, I went and used the Googles.... it looks like the 2006 Michigan law allowed a state wide "uniform agreement" structure. So it's not a "franchise" but it essentially allowed Comcast to re-negotiate all their contracts, and the state put a time-bomb on the Cable Company's side so that localities are hand-tied with how long they have to review and approve contracts before "mandatory" licensing takes place. So essentially Comcast wrote it's OWN contracts and handed them off about 9 months after the legislature forgot what they signed in most of the major cities and towns. It doesn't look like they pay ANY fees to the State directly either. Since then they've been cutting services as quickly as they can and raising fees by requiring digital boxes at the "basic" level... but not calling it "basic". There's a lot of stuff they just wrote out of the new agreements, municipal service to local government offices, education services, PEG channels. There's no room for cities to negotiate because of the mandatory time tables.... the contract is considered "valid" after a certain time passes.
Essentially the Michigan law left the negotiations up to localities, but included none of the standard cable requirements like service to government, education, PEG channels, etc. Ironically, they did it to make ATT a legal "video" provider over DSL by piggy backing on their state-wide phone franchise, except without the strings. It's a smart idea, because there is only really a need for one communications wire into your house now, but the state bungled it thinking companies would keep doing "business as usual" when they could find a way legally not to.
Except these are on a network, so the payout is determined by the server over a group of machines, not an individual machine.
Essentially the computerized slots are more like lottery tickets, all the results are known you get a random one when you pull the lever. The programming will pay out, but by "group" and not by machine. The regulators are OK with this because they vet the code. That's how they know an error was made.. because the server didn't TELL the machine to display a win.
exactly, casinos are set up more like lottery tickets. The server decides what win you get when you put the money in. Essentially all the "tickets" are printed already, just like lottery tickets have serial numbers. In this case the casino determined the "ticket" was a "misprint" because it didn't match the price associated. Of course, ALL THE MACHINES ARE SUSPECT, if they're going to claim that... because they are all managed at once.. so the managing server is also at fault... there's no way to know for sure.
Personally, I think they should be required to eat the loss upto the amount of the jackpot, or refund ALL the money the whole bank of machines took in for the shift, or whatever time since the last maintenance...if ONE play is void, they ALL should be void because you don't know when the error happened (except they DO know, and they aren't entirely honest that the individual machines do not have "independant" chances of winning)
we've been over this before. In today's casinos almost all the machines are connected to a computer network. The NETWORK SERVER picks the winners and losers based on an established probability agreed upon by the casino and the games commission.
In short all of the "chance" machines are really more like getting scratch-off lottery tickets. There is a fixed number of winners already picked out, each game you play is like tearing one card off the roll of lottery tickets at the local kwiki-mart. Of course that's not the game you are TOLD you are playing.... when you play slots you expect the computer is acting "just like a machine" but it's not....
no all "00000000's" and "11111111's" occupy the same width on the hard drive. You don't save any space even though "1" is slimmer. His post reflects this.
You are correct, file system journaling is not a "save all" thing, but on systems where I have had improper shutdowns it's used to verify files are "known good" then I get a small list of files that are "suspect" and I need to look closely at. THEN I need a backup tape that has the files....or one of my other identical (OS, version, patch) systems if that saves time.
it's time to give back Arizona and Texas to the Mexicans... just like the Americans were the illegal immigrants to Mexican territory 150 years ago there's plenty of illegals in the US to just hand them over a state, why not just cut them loose if they're going to run their schools and states like corrupt Mexicans... let's see how they like life on the other side of the line.
I'd think the LAW says the SCHOOL can't provide "minimal nutrition" foods... i.e. vending machines full of pop and candy kids eat instead of lunch. But since the school lost their "kickbacks" from vending they're going overboard and "banning harmful food" brought in by anybody... school administrators are little bitches when somebody takes their "fun money" away.
not to mention these are 1-2 month old phones that will be "unsupported" in another 6 months if the current experience keeps going.... iPhone OS4 and iPhone refresh should be in late June/July time frame so if you're following at all, NOW is not the time to get an iPhone if you're paying attention at all.
but the 9/11 terrorists DID NOT CARRY THE WEAPONS THRU SECURITY at all. They had them planted by the illegal immigrants working at the food service station.. with valid IDs and all.
In short, it was an inside job and the very people with "fast passes" are the ones who were guilty last time.... we're punishing passengers when it was the airport "system" that allowed the attack.
If you're not sure they're sincere no reason to stop.
Seriously, it wasn't one comment, it continued, and should have been dealt with... after all the TSA is promising they won't do EXACTLY THIS SAME THING to passengers.... and they do it to their own employees. I'd definitely want the guy doing the hitting watching my scans... cause HE'LL be professional about it.
it's not like they'd bribe the illegal immigrant food staff (with proper IDs) that loads food on the plane to hide box cutters in the food cart or something!
I do... it's evolution in action! This guy is bigger, stronger, and smart enough to bring a STICK to somebody mouthing off disrupting the workplace and causing the group to perform poorly. This is a proper, evolutionary response. Guy with smart mouth loses to guy who hits harder with stick.... other people shut the fuck up! and society functions better for it.
We forget that when the common law for things like assault were made, they were made to protect the "states assets" from provoking people to "morally, rightfully" duel them. King didn't like people dying in fights so PROVOKING them was also banned.. Supervisor provoked a fight... and got a fight. Guy with the stick didn't do anything wrong.. authority abused him and refused to fix it... he resisted on personal time.
In many places making such comments about "manhood" are considered "provoking a fight"...in other words, assault. It sounds like this occurred "outside of work" in that the harassment continued OFF work time.
I think we've lived too long with "sicks and stone may break my bones..." Evolution of society requires teaching certain members to shut up... This guy is just acting to eject a poor performing supervisor from the system... he's doing civilization a favor here.
The problem with teaching evolution is that nobody likes when the stronger, more threatening actually try to win!
but you know the "house always wins" so if YOU reacted to this crisis several brokers got nice cuts.... when their computers caused the problems in the first place.
it's more like DNS.. when somebody puts a bad route in a trusted host (like sending Yahoo to 127.0.0.1) that gets picked up automatically in up dates until somebody cuts off the "wrong" server or changes that entry. Trading is a lot like those problems, lots of "trusted" systems that take buy and sell and short orders and automatically process them when the criteria is hit. We all know how easy it is for some ISP in Southeast Asia being overly zealous can shut down the internet for a day.. this is the same thing applied to the stock market... there's no excuse, because the OWNERS of these systems caught the mistakes first and made profit from it.
This looks like a lot of fun! I'd bet a high percentage of SIM cards CAN'T do this trick.. wait for the 'tubes to fill up with complaints of chopped up SIM cards... it will be a whoot!
In the US we're mostly worried about boobies and goatsex. In Europe "porn" is an state-rated "mature" material. A History Channel page about Hitler is worse than porn in Germany. In some countries religion (other than mine) would be considered "pornographic".
On one hand I agree with the idea of self-censoring material. It would make keeping kids off porn sites easy. On the other hand NOBODY should be in the business of telling me what I can have on my web page. This would be disaster for someplace like Deviant Art or even the occasional XKCD strip.
FREEDOM of SPEECH isn't EASY!
People have to be responsible for their own consumption... and it means "bad people" get away with bad things.
This may also be a tax violation as well. In many countries "electronic games" are taxed at near 50% as luxury items. "Computers" are for business so get a reduced import tax..... Sony would also be "tax evading" by doing this in some countries... so it clearly was a "feature".
Consider that they had ALREADY called the cops and brought him to the IT office to ask for the passwords. There was no "fair way out" of this one. Even if he handed them over, fully documented, the managers would have promptly broken something, not read manuals, or hired proper staff, and then still blamed HIM for tampering. Then they would have just kept calling him back over and over to "fix it". By sitting in Jail he probably saved himself any other charges. I think they basically got him for having modems on his home network still wired to dial into the routers so he "could have been" causing trouble (intent and all that) Now that the dust is clear, and he can move forward I think he'll be fine... as fine as you can be after sitting in jail 2 years.
Slashdot Mirror
dozing makes a lot of sense. I know in my town our local hospital makes a grab on the next door neighborhoods, grabbing a whole block at a time. They doze it all, and turn it to grass. Then when they need parking or an office, they build a shiny new one. In the meantime, the old, unkept houses are wiped away and we get to enjoy manicured empty space for 3-4 years. There are two things to manage here, first businesses want empty property to build on, they don't want to clean up old houses or factories when they can buy a nicely cleared corn field for one tenth and make people drive. Second, the business districts in places like Detroit or Lansing are scattered all over. One or two strong business support an otherwise rundown block. There's parts of town where streets, water, electric, telephone are servicing one house out of four because they are foreclosed and rundown.
Honestly, they need "city shrinkage" planning. I've seen what they did with the Cleveland University hospital and business district... they wiped a strip from the center of town to the hospital and then repopulated it with mass transit and new businesses. It's still a shrinking city, but its core is rebuilt to pull people closer rather than continually running to the suburbs. I was impressed that the city and university were connected to the airport by mass transit, from out-state Michigan that was pretty cool.
not in Michigan... THAT is what the law changed. Essentially it made telephone and cable right-of-way negotiation the same thing. The problem is it established no minimum baseline for what "video" service was an no quality of service that localities could demand. Anybody can negotiate an exclusive or non-exclusive agreement now, and they essentially can't deny you starting work unless they have some exclusive agreement with somebody else.. the localities have to grant you the right of way. The problem is that "public service" parts of telephone are all at the FCC level, so states don't write their own coverage, or minimum service rules.. and they didn't include them for "video" service in the law. This is the very core of the "network neutrality" debate because one law combine with the FCC rulings essentially makes owning "video" infrastructure under nearly zero "public service" standards like phone service has to cover schools, governments, provide basic services at a reasonable price, etc, etc. This is why even ATT wants the push to U-Verse because the "service" is a "video" service and the "phone" is claiming "fair use" under the telco rules. but the LINES are under the "video" rules which have barely any FCC regulation.
They are not "state wide franchises" at all, the law merely allows "video service" to piggy back on other types of franchises.. like telephone. The thing barring ATT from offering video over their DSL was that they would have had to renegotiate "video rights" for all the already laid copper and fiber used for phone service. It was a chicken-egg problem to bring phone/data and TV/data right-of-way licensing into alignment... the state underestimated the greed and wiliness of the cable companies and ATT.
Essentially the law sets time tables for how quickly a locality MUST sign a contract, or the law make a "reasonable" contract approved by default. The problem is that the law was written to compliment ATT which already has extensive rules for how an where they run phones, those provisions are mostly handled at the FCC level and are uniform for everybody now, so the state didn't include them. The cable companies are using "forced renegotiation" as a tool to get anything they wanted as long as it was "reasonable". They instantly handed all the localities new contracts with slashed services, started the clock and used the state law to make the contracts legal.
Most importantly though, the STATE didn't negotiate ANYTHING with the cable companies, there is no "exclusive contract" other than allowing video to piggyback on other types of contracts, like phone service.
no, the state created a law which allowed Comcast to write terrible contracts and forced the localities to approve them on very short timelines or have the contract ACCEPTED BY THE LOCALITY BY DEFAULT. In sort cable companies could show up with 10k pages of contract terms and the localities only had something like 30 days to make a decision...The lawyers and boards can't even decipher and VOTE in such a short amount of time! All Cable had to do was be terribly wordy, and egregious and wait out the "default" clock.
Detroit is saying the state had no right to create the terms that REQUIRED the locality to grant contracts so quickly, but didn't guarantee any of the standard terms. Therefore the contract pushed through under the new law was void and they go back to the 1985 one. The state didn't make a "contract" or get any remuneration from cable companies, they just tied the local government's hands at the negotiation table.
The problem is that the law as negotiated has nothing to do with being a "franchise contract" it merely outlines the procedures localities have to follow to set up contracts. Essentially it allows the cable companies to use the state "uniform rules" to uniformly strong arm the localities into whatever contract Cable wants... there are time limits on how long a locality can "negotiate" for before the state requires the contract to be signed and permits for work granted. Essentially it put cable companies on the same footing as telephone companies for negotiating right-of-way... but did not lay out ANY of the required levels of service like is done for phone... essentially all the goodies without the strings. The law was written to allow ATT to offer TV shows over their DSL or Fiber lines, of course those lines all have required service levels for the PHONE service, but cable and "data service" has none of those restrictions as the perks were negotiated locally.
Essentially the state sold out the localities for free.
the point would be Comcast is not getting anything ELSE out of the 1985 contract because they signed a new contract with the State they are claiming supersedes it. So they have no obligation to honor the old terms... they just go "poof".
OK, I went and used the Googles.... it looks like the 2006 Michigan law allowed a state wide "uniform agreement" structure. So it's not a "franchise" but it essentially allowed Comcast to re-negotiate all their contracts, and the state put a time-bomb on the Cable Company's side so that localities are hand-tied with how long they have to review and approve contracts before "mandatory" licensing takes place. So essentially Comcast wrote it's OWN contracts and handed them off about 9 months after the legislature forgot what they signed in most of the major cities and towns. It doesn't look like they pay ANY fees to the State directly either. Since then they've been cutting services as quickly as they can and raising fees by requiring digital boxes at the "basic" level... but not calling it "basic". There's a lot of stuff they just wrote out of the new agreements, municipal service to local government offices, education services, PEG channels. There's no room for cities to negotiate because of the mandatory time tables.... the contract is considered "valid" after a certain time passes.
Essentially the Michigan law left the negotiations up to localities, but included none of the standard cable requirements like service to government, education, PEG channels, etc. Ironically, they did it to make ATT a legal "video" provider over DSL by piggy backing on their state-wide phone franchise, except without the strings. It's a smart idea, because there is only really a need for one communications wire into your house now, but the state bungled it thinking companies would keep doing "business as usual" when they could find a way legally not to.
Except these are on a network, so the payout is determined by the server over a group of machines, not an individual machine.
Essentially the computerized slots are more like lottery tickets, all the results are known you get a random one when you pull the lever. The programming will pay out, but by "group" and not by machine. The regulators are OK with this because they vet the code. That's how they know an error was made.. because the server didn't TELL the machine to display a win.
exactly, casinos are set up more like lottery tickets. The server decides what win you get when you put the money in. Essentially all the "tickets" are printed already, just like lottery tickets have serial numbers. In this case the casino determined the "ticket" was a "misprint" because it didn't match the price associated. Of course, ALL THE MACHINES ARE SUSPECT, if they're going to claim that... because they are all managed at once.. so the managing server is also at fault... there's no way to know for sure.
Personally, I think they should be required to eat the loss upto the amount of the jackpot, or refund ALL the money the whole bank of machines took in for the shift, or whatever time since the last maintenance...if ONE play is void, they ALL should be void because you don't know when the error happened (except they DO know, and they aren't entirely honest that the individual machines do not have "independant" chances of winning)
we've been over this before. In today's casinos almost all the machines are connected to a computer network. The NETWORK SERVER picks the winners and losers based on an established probability agreed upon by the casino and the games commission.
In short all of the "chance" machines are really more like getting scratch-off lottery tickets. There is a fixed number of winners already picked out, each game you play is like tearing one card off the roll of lottery tickets at the local kwiki-mart. Of course that's not the game you are TOLD you are playing.... when you play slots you expect the computer is acting "just like a machine" but it's not....
no all "00000000's" and "11111111's" occupy the same width on the hard drive. You don't save any space even though "1" is slimmer. His post reflects this.
You are correct, file system journaling is not a "save all" thing, but on systems where I have had improper shutdowns it's used to verify files are "known good" then I get a small list of files that are "suspect" and I need to look closely at. THEN I need a backup tape that has the files....or one of my other identical (OS, version, patch) systems if that saves time.
it's time to give back Arizona and Texas to the Mexicans... just like the Americans were the illegal immigrants to Mexican territory 150 years ago there's plenty of illegals in the US to just hand them over a state, why not just cut them loose if they're going to run their schools and states like corrupt Mexicans... let's see how they like life on the other side of the line.
I'd think the LAW says the SCHOOL can't provide "minimal nutrition" foods... i.e. vending machines full of pop and candy kids eat instead of lunch. But since the school lost their "kickbacks" from vending they're going overboard and "banning harmful food" brought in by anybody... school administrators are little bitches when somebody takes their "fun money" away.
not to mention these are 1-2 month old phones that will be "unsupported" in another 6 months if the current experience keeps going.... iPhone OS4 and iPhone refresh should be in late June/July time frame so if you're following at all, NOW is not the time to get an iPhone if you're paying attention at all.
but the 9/11 terrorists DID NOT CARRY THE WEAPONS THRU SECURITY at all. They had them planted by the illegal immigrants working at the food service station.. with valid IDs and all.
In short, it was an inside job and the very people with "fast passes" are the ones who were guilty last time.... we're punishing passengers when it was the airport "system" that allowed the attack.
If you're not sure they're sincere no reason to stop.
Seriously, it wasn't one comment, it continued, and should have been dealt with... after all the TSA is promising they won't do EXACTLY THIS SAME THING to passengers.... and they do it to their own employees. I'd definitely want the guy doing the hitting watching my scans... cause HE'LL be professional about it.
it's not like they'd bribe the illegal immigrant food staff (with proper IDs) that loads food on the plane to hide box cutters in the food cart or something!
I do ... it's evolution in action! This guy is bigger, stronger, and smart enough to bring a STICK to somebody mouthing off disrupting the workplace and causing the group to perform poorly. This is a proper, evolutionary response. Guy with smart mouth loses to guy who hits harder with stick.... other people shut the fuck up! and society functions better for it.
We forget that when the common law for things like assault were made, they were made to protect the "states assets" from provoking people to "morally, rightfully" duel them. King didn't like people dying in fights so PROVOKING them was also banned.. Supervisor provoked a fight... and got a fight. Guy with the stick didn't do anything wrong.. authority abused him and refused to fix it... he resisted on personal time.
In many places making such comments about "manhood" are considered "provoking a fight"...in other words, assault. It sounds like this occurred "outside of work" in that the harassment continued OFF work time.
I think we've lived too long with "sicks and stone may break my bones..." Evolution of society requires teaching certain members to shut up... This guy is just acting to eject a poor performing supervisor from the system... he's doing civilization a favor here.
The problem with teaching evolution is that nobody likes when the stronger, more threatening actually try to win!
but you know the "house always wins" so if YOU reacted to this crisis several brokers got nice cuts.... when their computers caused the problems in the first place.
it's more like DNS.. when somebody puts a bad route in a trusted host (like sending Yahoo to 127.0.0.1) that gets picked up automatically in up dates until somebody cuts off the "wrong" server or changes that entry. Trading is a lot like those problems, lots of "trusted" systems that take buy and sell and short orders and automatically process them when the criteria is hit. We all know how easy it is for some ISP in Southeast Asia being overly zealous can shut down the internet for a day.. this is the same thing applied to the stock market... there's no excuse, because the OWNERS of these systems caught the mistakes first and made profit from it.
This looks like a lot of fun! I'd bet a high percentage of SIM cards CAN'T do this trick.. wait for the 'tubes to fill up with complaints of chopped up SIM cards... it will be a whoot!
who decides what's a "porn" site?
In the US we're mostly worried about boobies and goatsex. In Europe "porn" is an state-rated "mature" material. A History Channel page about Hitler is worse than porn in Germany. In some countries religion (other than mine) would be considered "pornographic".
On one hand I agree with the idea of self-censoring material. It would make keeping kids off porn sites easy. On the other hand NOBODY should be in the business of telling me what I can have on my web page. This would be disaster for someplace like Deviant Art or even the occasional XKCD strip.
FREEDOM of SPEECH isn't EASY!
People have to be responsible for their own consumption... and it means "bad people" get away with bad things.
This may also be a tax violation as well. In many countries "electronic games" are taxed at near 50% as luxury items. "Computers" are for business so get a reduced import tax..... Sony would also be "tax evading" by doing this in some countries... so it clearly was a "feature".
Consider that they had ALREADY called the cops and brought him to the IT office to ask for the passwords. There was no "fair way out" of this one. Even if he handed them over, fully documented, the managers would have promptly broken something, not read manuals, or hired proper staff, and then still blamed HIM for tampering. Then they would have just kept calling him back over and over to "fix it". By sitting in Jail he probably saved himself any other charges. I think they basically got him for having modems on his home network still wired to dial into the routers so he "could have been" causing trouble (intent and all that) Now that the dust is clear, and he can move forward I think he'll be fine... as fine as you can be after sitting in jail 2 years.