The difference between the credit card industry and the medical industry (in terms of privacy): HIPAA. The law prescribes very serious penalties for violating the privacy of medical records - accordingly, it's now big news if someone's records are accessed inappropriately. By contrast, the credit card industry has fought off similar laws governing your credit records, so it's fairly routine to hear that hundreds or thousands of credit card numbers have been stolen - there's simply no consequence to the organization with poor credit data security.
It's all about the incentives.
A million years is a long time to wait...
on
Cosmetic Neurology
·
· Score: 1
While I am not against the use of such drugs because of safety reasons per se, to me, it feels like we're cheating evolution.
So? When we get lifesaving medical treatment, we're cheating evolution too - eventually, natural selection could fix these problems in our descendants. Of course, eventually, we're all dead.
We don't owe evolution anything. If we can solve problems now, I'm in favor of solving them now, rather than waiting a million years for them to be solved by the trial and error of genetics.
I'm not convinced, though, that lack of total concentration is a problem that actually needs to be solved, at least for most people.
Just to get this out of the way, I'm a retired Navy officer with 20 years experience, much of it at sea, and one tour as the CO of a maritime security squadron... we did this stuff for a living.
Your post is bunk. At the risk of repeating a bunch of stuff that's already been said:
Merchant sailors are not capable and have no incentive to effectively repel pirates, no matter how you arm them. Training would be prohibitively difficult and expensive.
Mercenaries are astronomically expensive - it is not cost-effective to protect shipping this way.
Providing US troops for security is administratively difficult, as most of the shipping is not US flagged, so you need permission from host countries like Liberia or Panama. It also puts the cost burden on the US taxpayer... and it's expensive.
Convoying is somewhat more likely to work, but is also expensive and a pain in the ass for shippers... which is why it isn't being done now.
But I guess it's more fun to spout macho bullshit than it is to actually think about the problem and discuss solutions that might actually be practical.
A one or two week training course in weapon skills and combat tactics (which are at least as important as the weapon skills), would give the sailors a huge advantage over the untrained pirates.
There is no freakin' way you're going to be able to assemble the crew of a merchant ship and give them a couple weeks of weapons training. These guys are picked up all over the world, from places like Pakistan, Greece, or the Philippines. They have no training in anything, and mostly likely they don't all even speak the same language.
What's more, the crewmembers have no incentive to actually resist - it makes it much more likely that they'll be killed, and the crew is hardly ever targeted for kidnapping (there's no money in it) - it's mostly the comparatively well-off officers who are nabbed.
My suggestion would be having a few designated marksmen (the best shooters on the ship) with a semi-auto.308 with a good scope for long range engagements. If they can hit one or two pirates before they board, the pirates will probably turn around. The rest of the firearms-trained crew should have something like UMP-45 submachine guns, which are a much better choice in close quarters. Of course all of these weapons should be locked up (unless they have an armed patrol), until a threat is discovered. With modern detection equipment, they should have plenty of time to muster and equip themselves.
You're making my head spin. Navy SEALs practice for freakin' years trying make sniper shots at sea... on a rolling, pitching ship, your random deckhand is not going to have a prayer of making a shot like that. And "modern detection equipment"? Like what, a pirate detector? All those ships have are very basic search radars, and if you sent out the security force every time you got a contact, you'd literally never do anything else. Radar can't tell you if a contact is a pirate, just that there's a boat out there. And in coastal regions like this there are a shitload of boats out there.
You know, contrary to the liberal hype, firearms are NOT that difficult to use properly. US Army basic training includes an grand total of three weeks basic rifle marksmanship. Frankly, I could take a willing subject and teach them the basics in an afternoon.
Frankly, this is fucking ridiculous. You can do in an afternoon what the Army takes three weeks to accomplish? Sure you can.
I'll tell you what - you let me know which ships are being protected by your single-afternoon-trained troops... so I can stay off of them. They'll be more of a danger to themselves than to the pirates.
But the area in which these problems are occurring seems to be relatively small, compared to the entire trip these ships are taking. Why wouldn't it be reasonable to drop off 10-15 marines/mercenaries at a point before they get close enough for pirates to be a threat, and pick them up on the other side. You'd think that it would be getting cheaper than just buying insurance on the cargo pretty soon.
The key word is "relatively". Sure, it's relatively small compared to the Indian Ocean... but it's still thousands of square miles. And to transfer the troops to the ship means you need to keep track of all the merchant vessels - and with dozens of them transiting in every direction, all the time, that's a lot harder than you think. You then need to either have a troop transport rendezvous with them before they enter the danger zone - so they can transfer the troops via small boat - or have a helicopter rendezvous with them to lower the troops one by one to the deck of the merchant (you typically can't land on them). This is difficult and expensive to do.
The fact that these steps have not been taken must mean that the chances of any one ship being taken are still small enough that most companies can afford to take the risk.
You're hitting the nail on the head. Piracy's much in the news these days, but it's still cheaper to just take the losses, at least for now.
Opposition to armed resistance against piracy isn't driven by bleeding-heartism... it's driven by freakin' practicality. Some food for thought:
These ships are non-US-flagged, and are manned by Pakistanis, Greeks, Ecuadoreans, and a bunch of other folks who are paid subminimum wage. They have no training in operating weapons - they'd be more of a danger to themselves than the pirates. Training would be expensive and have to be done repeatedly to maintain proficiency, and so far, the shipping companies (and Lloyds) think it's cheaper to just accept the losses and avoid possible lawsuits by alleged pirates. Not to mention the fact that said crewmembers don't have any particular incentive to resist, as they're likely to get killed if they do, and not very likely to get held for ransom if they don't (everyone already knows they don't have any money - this is why the crew of Maersk Alabama got let go, but not the captain). So the most likely outcome there is that the crew is going to drop their weapons anyway.
Private security companies a la Blackwater would be only too happy to provide professional security... at a very, very high price. Again, it's cheaper to just accept the losses.
Finally, you could put armed marines or sailors onboard, but that has its own set of problems... lots of ports are not real interested in accepting ships with troops embarked. You'd have to get permission from both the homeport country's government (typically Liberia or Panama) to put troops on their ships, which can be difficult. You'd also have to get the shipping company (and again, Lloyds) to buy in. And finally, you're sticking the taxpayer with the bill for providing this service, or collecting from the shipper. The shippers are still finding it cheaper to accept the losses.
This is not to say that I'm particularly in favor of non-lethal means, as they're even less practical than lethal means. I read an article not long ago in which a ship had actually contracted with a private security company to repel pirates. They were "armed" with LRAD, among other things. After being hit with LRAD, the pirates shot up the ship with RPGs, and the security force jumped over the side. Pirates 1, private security 0.
While I was in the reserves, I was the CO of a maritime security squadron that did exactly this kind of thing. People need to understand that unlike in the movies, not every problem can be solved by applying more force. The real solution is probably some combination of convoying/sticking to defined shipping routes, so that naval forces can escort commercial ships; and cleanup of the situation ashore in Somalia.
Marines cost to feed and shelter anywhere you put them so you might as well assign them to ships that are likely to be boarded and let them get some work in.
Right, because there are lots of Marines sitting around with not much to do right now. In reality, doing this with any significant number of ships would require us to, you know, hire more Marines.
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of merchant shipping is not US-flagged, so we'd have to get permission from countries like Panama and Liberia, who are not necessarily all that interested in hosting US troops. Plus you'd need to get buy-in from the shipping companies (and more importantly, their insurers, who are not going to be too interested in exposing themselves to wrongful death lawsuits). Finally, your plan either sticks the US taxpayer with the bill, or forces us to try to recover costs from the shipping company... and most of them think it's cheaper to just accept the losses.
We have plenty of them, they are easily replicated to a point, and can be rapidly sent wherever they're needed.
No, no, and no. We don't have plenty of them, and the ones we have are already kind of busy. I submit to you that pirates are a lot cheaper to replicate than Marines, as the pirates don't need any particular training, whereas Marines do. And getting a bunch of Marines sent to the ships in question is a logistical challenge that you obviously don't appreciate.
There's a whole lot of mindless "let's just kill 'em all" spouting off going on around here. I used to do maritime security for a living, and I can promise you that this problem is a lot harder than people think it is.
These satellites were designed and built in the 70's, when jamming of satellite transmissions was considerably harder than it would be today (strictly speaking, "jamming" of the freqs is still sort of hard... and while "pirating" them appears to be all too easy today, it was hard to imagine it being possible then). The design consideration then was to prevent intercept... which was handled by encryption.
Asides from the fact that these operators were way outside their respective allowed band, they did no harm as these satellites aren't even used anymore by the US-Navy (for whom they were built).
I'm recently retired from the US Navy, and I guarantee you these satellites are still in use.
Mod parent up. The US is, in fact, building a replacement satellite system (as discussed in TFA). Also, the US is not spending the dollars to bust these guys - the Brazilians are (at our behest, as also pointed out in TFA).
It's also important to note that the 70's technology in question was designed and launched... in the 70's. It's not like we put those birds up there yesterday. As also noted in the article.
In conclusion: read the article before posting (I know, I must be new here).
They're pirating bandwidth, which is an extremely scarce commodity in a military situation. Bear in mind that even a small ship has something like 300 people onboard, and most of them have some considerable amount of official business in sending e-mails, making "phone calls" (voice radio transmissions), sending/receiving teletype data, exchanging sensor/intel data, etc, etc, etc. When some of the available bandwidth is "pirated" (for lack of a better term) by folks who really need to talk about the performance of the local futbol team, it affects the ability of the US Navy to do its job.
If you, for example, used a lot of VOIP, (or online gaming, or whatever) and found out that your call quality had deteriorated because your neighbor had tapped into your network connection for his communication needs, how would you feel about that? Do you think it ought to be illegal? After all, this is bandwidth that you are paying for (and the neighbor is not).
An income tax is much more complex and labor-intensive than all other forms of taxation.
It's true that our current income tax system is complex... but it's hardly true that this is an essential feature of income tax systems. We could have a simple income tax system, but we've chosen not to. Similarly, excise and sales taxes can be complex, and some of them are... at the very least, they vary wildly from state to state and product to product.
The only reason for having one is so that you can use carrot-and-stick methods to manipulate the population ("do something we like, get a tax credit; do something we don't like, pay more"). That's the only "benefit"; otherwise it is inferior in every way to all other forms of taxation.
This is utterly ridiculous. The reason for having an income tax is that it can be made progressive (in other words, you can make rich people pay proportionally more), in ways you can't with sales/excise taxes. That's the benefit of an income tax system... and yes, it is in fact a benefit. The carrot & stick effect is by no means exclusive to income taxes, either - excise taxes on, for example, cigarettes, are explicitly a stick being wielded against tobacco use.
This really is very safe, and all the technology is known (not at this scale maybe, but known). The only thing that has stopped us from doing it already has been a lack of willpower.
No. Actually, what's kept us from doing it already is that it's not cost-effective. Lifting machinery into space is very, very expensive. And while space-based collection is more efficient, you give back some of those gains in transmitting the power back down to the surface, and give back some more when you convert the microwaves back to AC power.
"Willpower" has nothing to do with it. Cold, hard, cash does.
Geez, nowhere in the article does it say that California mandated that electric utilities get their power from orbiting solar collectors. They mandated a certain percentage of renewable power, but the source of that power is up to the utility. If PG&E wants to bet on this pie-in-the-sky technology, that's a bad business decision on their part, not a problem with "legislating green laws with total disregard of economics and thermodynamics".
As to the realism of this particular project - if anyone thinks this contract is going to actually perform... I've got some collateralized debt obligations to sell you.
Because I'm definitely going to believe a random web page, with no citations whatsoever, when they tell me that I can consume as much plutonium as some people do caffeine.
Wikipedia does indicate that the chemical toxicity of plutonium is about the same as caffeine, but that it's toxicity is primarily due to its radioactivity. If in the process of eating the plutonium, you happened to inhale a microscopic particle of it... game over. You'd have lung cancer in short order.
No, the hardship wasn't doing Notes development, smartasses - I liked working with it. The truly fun part was when we went into a maintenance period and they started tearing up the deck above our office. Jackhammers going off on the ceiling all day, every day, for probably a week. You had to wear double hearing protection (plugs and muffs) just to be in our office. I'm sure the phones probably rang from time to time while we were in there, but it's not like we could hear or have a conversation anyway. Actually, you got used to the noise after a while - with that much hearing protection it wasn't a big deal at all. The trouble was you couldn't work together with anyone - having a conversation was out of the question, so you had to leave the room... and then you couldn't see the screen, obviously. We started trying to work together by passing notes, but that was of limited use.
Oh, and did I mention we were in a big steel box with no air conditioning during this period? In Norfolk? In July? That I never did get used to.
There are ten trillion things worse one can do to someone than forcing them to watch a movie insulting to them multiple times. Really, there are.
And, as has been pointed out at least 10 trillion times already in this discussion, just because you can think of worse ways to torment someone than forcing him to watch an offensive movie, that doesn't mean that forcing him to watch the movie is hunky-dory.
And if the situation had been reversed and George Bush had been captured by Saddam, you can sure as hell bet George would have been treated ten trillion times worse than Saddam was by the US.
Seriously, that's the best you expect from the US Armed Forces? "Hey, we're not as bad as Saddam!"
At least at the national level. See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ for an example - it started off as a single blogger who actually dug for news. Now it's up to about a dozen people, and they do a really good job of reporting.
The problem, in my view, is LOCAL news. There's no one who's really filling the role of the local paper in holding the local politicos accountable. It used to be that the county board had to tread at least a little bit lightly when cutting crooked deals with real estate developers, for example... because they couldn't discount the possibility that the County Post was checking up on what was going on. But now the County Post only publishes online, and only AP stories and blogs. There's really very little local reporting going on any more.
I solve the problem by bringing in a thermos full of coffee to work. Drink the thermos, and I'm done with caffeine for the day (although in the winter I might drink a cup of tea in the afternoon, but no more than that).
It was more or less a necessity - as I got older, I found that if I drank coffee after about mid-afternoon, I could forget about going to sleep at night.
... even if you're not addicted. It's thought to work by narrowing the blood vessels in your brain, which relieves pain by lowering the pressure the blood vessels exert on the brain tissue.
There's a reason they put caffeine in Excedrin and similar drugs.
I doubt it. That system is meant to be employed much earlier in the flight profile than this... the NK missile got all the way to stage separation, and I really doubt the 747 could get itself into position to shoot it there.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference between the credit card industry and the medical industry (in terms of privacy): HIPAA. The law prescribes very serious penalties for violating the privacy of medical records - accordingly, it's now big news if someone's records are accessed inappropriately. By contrast, the credit card industry has fought off similar laws governing your credit records, so it's fairly routine to hear that hundreds or thousands of credit card numbers have been stolen - there's simply no consequence to the organization with poor credit data security.
It's all about the incentives.
So? When we get lifesaving medical treatment, we're cheating evolution too - eventually, natural selection could fix these problems in our descendants. Of course, eventually, we're all dead.
We don't owe evolution anything. If we can solve problems now, I'm in favor of solving them now, rather than waiting a million years for them to be solved by the trial and error of genetics.
I'm not convinced, though, that lack of total concentration is a problem that actually needs to be solved, at least for most people.
Just to get this out of the way, I'm a retired Navy officer with 20 years experience, much of it at sea, and one tour as the CO of a maritime security squadron... we did this stuff for a living.
Your post is bunk. At the risk of repeating a bunch of stuff that's already been said:
But I guess it's more fun to spout macho bullshit than it is to actually think about the problem and discuss solutions that might actually be practical.
Just to buy the gun would be millions of dollars. Probably a million more to install it. The sailor is going to cost a $150k a year or so.
People ought to think about what they're saying. Oh, right, this is Slashdot.
There is no freakin' way you're going to be able to assemble the crew of a merchant ship and give them a couple weeks of weapons training. These guys are picked up all over the world, from places like Pakistan, Greece, or the Philippines. They have no training in anything, and mostly likely they don't all even speak the same language.
What's more, the crewmembers have no incentive to actually resist - it makes it much more likely that they'll be killed, and the crew is hardly ever targeted for kidnapping (there's no money in it) - it's mostly the comparatively well-off officers who are nabbed.
You're making my head spin. Navy SEALs practice for freakin' years trying make sniper shots at sea... on a rolling, pitching ship, your random deckhand is not going to have a prayer of making a shot like that. And "modern detection equipment"? Like what, a pirate detector? All those ships have are very basic search radars, and if you sent out the security force every time you got a contact, you'd literally never do anything else. Radar can't tell you if a contact is a pirate, just that there's a boat out there. And in coastal regions like this there are a shitload of boats out there.
Frankly, this is fucking ridiculous. You can do in an afternoon what the Army takes three weeks to accomplish? Sure you can.
I'll tell you what - you let me know which ships are being protected by your single-afternoon-trained troops... so I can stay off of them. They'll be more of a danger to themselves than to the pirates.
The key word is "relatively". Sure, it's relatively small compared to the Indian Ocean... but it's still thousands of square miles. And to transfer the troops to the ship means you need to keep track of all the merchant vessels - and with dozens of them transiting in every direction, all the time, that's a lot harder than you think. You then need to either have a troop transport rendezvous with them before they enter the danger zone - so they can transfer the troops via small boat - or have a helicopter rendezvous with them to lower the troops one by one to the deck of the merchant (you typically can't land on them). This is difficult and expensive to do.
You're hitting the nail on the head. Piracy's much in the news these days, but it's still cheaper to just take the losses, at least for now.
Opposition to armed resistance against piracy isn't driven by bleeding-heartism... it's driven by freakin' practicality. Some food for thought:
This is not to say that I'm particularly in favor of non-lethal means, as they're even less practical than lethal means. I read an article not long ago in which a ship had actually contracted with a private security company to repel pirates. They were "armed" with LRAD, among other things. After being hit with LRAD, the pirates shot up the ship with RPGs, and the security force jumped over the side. Pirates 1, private security 0.
While I was in the reserves, I was the CO of a maritime security squadron that did exactly this kind of thing. People need to understand that unlike in the movies, not every problem can be solved by applying more force. The real solution is probably some combination of convoying/sticking to defined shipping routes, so that naval forces can escort commercial ships; and cleanup of the situation ashore in Somalia.
Right, because there are lots of Marines sitting around with not much to do right now. In reality, doing this with any significant number of ships would require us to, you know, hire more Marines.
Not to mention the fact that the vast majority of merchant shipping is not US-flagged, so we'd have to get permission from countries like Panama and Liberia, who are not necessarily all that interested in hosting US troops. Plus you'd need to get buy-in from the shipping companies (and more importantly, their insurers, who are not going to be too interested in exposing themselves to wrongful death lawsuits). Finally, your plan either sticks the US taxpayer with the bill, or forces us to try to recover costs from the shipping company... and most of them think it's cheaper to just accept the losses.
No, no, and no. We don't have plenty of them, and the ones we have are already kind of busy. I submit to you that pirates are a lot cheaper to replicate than Marines, as the pirates don't need any particular training, whereas Marines do. And getting a bunch of Marines sent to the ships in question is a logistical challenge that you obviously don't appreciate.
There's a whole lot of mindless "let's just kill 'em all" spouting off going on around here. I used to do maritime security for a living, and I can promise you that this problem is a lot harder than people think it is.
These satellites were designed and built in the 70's, when jamming of satellite transmissions was considerably harder than it would be today (strictly speaking, "jamming" of the freqs is still sort of hard... and while "pirating" them appears to be all too easy today, it was hard to imagine it being possible then). The design consideration then was to prevent intercept... which was handled by encryption.
I'm recently retired from the US Navy, and I guarantee you these satellites are still in use.
They were launched in the 70's.
Mod parent up. The US is, in fact, building a replacement satellite system (as discussed in TFA). Also, the US is not spending the dollars to bust these guys - the Brazilians are (at our behest, as also pointed out in TFA).
It's also important to note that the 70's technology in question was designed and launched... in the 70's. It's not like we put those birds up there yesterday. As also noted in the article.
In conclusion: read the article before posting (I know, I must be new here).
They're pirating bandwidth, which is an extremely scarce commodity in a military situation. Bear in mind that even a small ship has something like 300 people onboard, and most of them have some considerable amount of official business in sending e-mails, making "phone calls" (voice radio transmissions), sending/receiving teletype data, exchanging sensor/intel data, etc, etc, etc. When some of the available bandwidth is "pirated" (for lack of a better term) by folks who really need to talk about the performance of the local futbol team, it affects the ability of the US Navy to do its job.
If you, for example, used a lot of VOIP, (or online gaming, or whatever) and found out that your call quality had deteriorated because your neighbor had tapped into your network connection for his communication needs, how would you feel about that? Do you think it ought to be illegal? After all, this is bandwidth that you are paying for (and the neighbor is not).
It's true that our current income tax system is complex... but it's hardly true that this is an essential feature of income tax systems. We could have a simple income tax system, but we've chosen not to. Similarly, excise and sales taxes can be complex, and some of them are... at the very least, they vary wildly from state to state and product to product.
This is utterly ridiculous. The reason for having an income tax is that it can be made progressive (in other words, you can make rich people pay proportionally more), in ways you can't with sales/excise taxes. That's the benefit of an income tax system... and yes, it is in fact a benefit. The carrot & stick effect is by no means exclusive to income taxes, either - excise taxes on, for example, cigarettes, are explicitly a stick being wielded against tobacco use.
No. Actually, what's kept us from doing it already is that it's not cost-effective. Lifting machinery into space is very, very expensive. And while space-based collection is more efficient, you give back some of those gains in transmitting the power back down to the surface, and give back some more when you convert the microwaves back to AC power.
"Willpower" has nothing to do with it. Cold, hard, cash does.
Geez, nowhere in the article does it say that California mandated that electric utilities get their power from orbiting solar collectors. They mandated a certain percentage of renewable power, but the source of that power is up to the utility. If PG&E wants to bet on this pie-in-the-sky technology, that's a bad business decision on their part, not a problem with "legislating green laws with total disregard of economics and thermodynamics".
As to the realism of this particular project - if anyone thinks this contract is going to actually perform... I've got some collateralized debt obligations to sell you.
Because I'm definitely going to believe a random web page, with no citations whatsoever, when they tell me that I can consume as much plutonium as some people do caffeine.
Wikipedia does indicate that the chemical toxicity of plutonium is about the same as caffeine, but that it's toxicity is primarily due to its radioactivity. If in the process of eating the plutonium, you happened to inhale a microscopic particle of it... game over. You'd have lung cancer in short order.
No, the hardship wasn't doing Notes development, smartasses - I liked working with it. The truly fun part was when we went into a maintenance period and they started tearing up the deck above our office. Jackhammers going off on the ceiling all day, every day, for probably a week. You had to wear double hearing protection (plugs and muffs) just to be in our office. I'm sure the phones probably rang from time to time while we were in there, but it's not like we could hear or have a conversation anyway. Actually, you got used to the noise after a while - with that much hearing protection it wasn't a big deal at all. The trouble was you couldn't work together with anyone - having a conversation was out of the question, so you had to leave the room... and then you couldn't see the screen, obviously. We started trying to work together by passing notes, but that was of limited use.
Oh, and did I mention we were in a big steel box with no air conditioning during this period? In Norfolk? In July? That I never did get used to.
Ok, cue the Lotus Notes jokes in 3... 2... 1...
And, as has been pointed out at least 10 trillion times already in this discussion, just because you can think of worse ways to torment someone than forcing him to watch an offensive movie, that doesn't mean that forcing him to watch the movie is hunky-dory.
Seriously, that's the best you expect from the US Armed Forces? "Hey, we're not as bad as Saddam!"
At least at the national level. See http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ for an example - it started off as a single blogger who actually dug for news. Now it's up to about a dozen people, and they do a really good job of reporting.
The problem, in my view, is LOCAL news. There's no one who's really filling the role of the local paper in holding the local politicos accountable. It used to be that the county board had to tread at least a little bit lightly when cutting crooked deals with real estate developers, for example... because they couldn't discount the possibility that the County Post was checking up on what was going on. But now the County Post only publishes online, and only AP stories and blogs. There's really very little local reporting going on any more.
I solve the problem by bringing in a thermos full of coffee to work. Drink the thermos, and I'm done with caffeine for the day (although in the winter I might drink a cup of tea in the afternoon, but no more than that).
It was more or less a necessity - as I got older, I found that if I drank coffee after about mid-afternoon, I could forget about going to sleep at night.
... even if you're not addicted. It's thought to work by narrowing the blood vessels in your brain, which relieves pain by lowering the pressure the blood vessels exert on the brain tissue.
There's a reason they put caffeine in Excedrin and similar drugs.
Best estimates are that NK has 6-7 nuclear devices.
I didn't bother reading the rest of your post.
I doubt it. That system is meant to be employed much earlier in the flight profile than this... the NK missile got all the way to stage separation, and I really doubt the 747 could get itself into position to shoot it there.