I'll take Paul as "Speaker of the House" for a consolation prize.
Seriously, as a (now) liberal (formerly centrist), I can't stand tea-partiers and have gained new respect for libertarians (realistic ones at least).
Something would actually get done in Washington if we only had moderate left/right . . . I'm anti-corporate welfare, but open to pretty much everything else.
If you think the Libertarian Party is equivalent to moderate centrism, you really haven't been looking at what they stand for. Removing government as a regulatory force is essentially a rewrite of the clock back to the 1890's robber barony style of capitalism, which is pretty much what the One Percenters were gaining under Bush and are looking to push forward no matter who wins.
Because, sadly, the media has far too much say in who is allowed to run for president. I know very few Republicans who want Mitt Romney and very few Democrats who want to re-elect Obama, but thanks to our absurd system and the media, those two wretched choices are what we'll have.
People refer to the "media" as if it were truly still the Fourth Estate, some independent force. Fact of the matter is all of the major media in this country is owned. Owned by big corporate powers with vested interests. The slants given to news on all stations are no accident, nor are they whims of the media front office. They're executing the will of the corporate masters that own them.... own them and just about any politician with a shot at winning major office.
IMNSHO that's a lot better chance than the ancient Egyptians building the pyramids using whatever limited technology they had thousands of years ago
Or the chance for America (then a bunch of developing colonies) winning a war for independence against the British Empire (which at the time had influence all across the known world), creating a nation under principles of freedom which is rarely seen, and actually prospered and became one of the largest and most powerful nations of its time.
So I don't think chance matters. What matters is as the Nike slogan: just do it.
To be brutally honest, the war for American Independence was not won on the battlefield by George Washington at Yorktown. It was won by Benjamin Franklin in Paris. If the other big european superpower (what passed for superpowers in the 18th century), England's main rival France, (with the later help of Spain and Holland) had not decided to support the American cause, the war would have most likely ground down to a British victory.
The French involvement was not trivial either. It was so expensive, that it drove the country to near bankruptcy and destabilised it's government which would lead to it's own internal more brutal revolution later.
Neither Ron Paul nor most of his supporters are isolationists. They are non-interventionists. There is a difference. North Korea is isolationist, Switzerland is non-interventionist. Ron Paul and his supporters (including myself) believe in the same thing the founding fathers believed in as far as foreign relations are concerned: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none". - Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson also idolized feudal culture and was dedicated to recreating such lifestyles in the South.
If you're really young and ignorant and latch on to the anti-war bit, maybe you can be fooled for a while. But in a national campaign, the opposition will inevitably bring up all the well documented bugfuck nuttery and racism which has come out of Crazy Uncle Ron's mouth over the years, and he'd be done. (And rightfully so. That he has been a part of the national government for so long is a mark of shame for Texas voters.)
If you want a good non mainstream candidate to vote for in this election, you should probably consider voting Socialist Party. Yes, really. Don't knee-jerk about socialism being EVIL DICTATOR COMMUNISM BLAH BLAH BLAH and, instead, go look up what their candidate actually stands for. I don't agree with everything in the party's platform, but there's a lot of it which makes a lot of sense and is what I'd like the Democrats to actually be, so it's not a bad protest vote.
Ron Paul is apparently the John Anderson of this college generation. Anderson was a similar latch on for disaffected college youth, Most most of them did not really pay attention that once you took his "anti-war" stance, apart he pretty much was against everything they'd believe in. But he sold himself as a "progressive candidate". I'm just going to chalk both of these down as cults of personality.
Exactly. Most supporters of Ron Paul are not "loyal republicans" and will vote for a third party before they will vote for Romney..
Paulists might hate Romney and scorn the Republican leadership, but like most Libertarians, they hate the Democrats a lot more. When it comes down to brass tacks, they'll join their Tea Party cousins and their ultimate vote will be a Take Down Obama vote.
I learned to read with comic books as a 3 year old, so these are perfect..
The comics you read as a 3 year old have been replaced by dark, graphic, and quite frankly far more adult themes that never would have been allowed on the stands for your 3 year old self. Anyone who thinks that the current crop of Marvel and DC is acceptable material for people that young, have really forgotten how different comics were at our turn at being single digits.
Superman = invincible person who has magic powers for no other reason than accident of birth beats up people with advanced PhDs.
That's always been the big mystery of America superhero fiction to me. The heroes are usually powerful by complete accident (just born that way, bitten by a radioactive lab animal, etc.), while the villains have a strong work ethic, work hard, are very intelligent and highly qualified, etc. And the heroes always win. The moral of the story seems to be it doesn't matter if you work hard, you can't overcome dumb luck. And that intelligence and qualifications are something to be wary of.
Superman hasn't changed that much, but the comic book stories about him now are more writers looking to deconstruct him rather than actually presenting him as the classic icon of good he was generations ago. It's like Batman, he's gone from being the Dark Avenger to the ultra-paranoid who almost let Max Lord screw up the world with O.M.A.C.
Reading to them prepares them for what? Being helpless?
There is no believable evidence that reading to kids gets them reading sooner or better than formal reading instruction.
It should amaze me how far people will go to justify being lazy with their kids, but sadly it's no surprise to me. Perhaps maybe it's just worth doing it to bond with your child? Getting involved with your children's learning shows him that the activity is important to you much more than if your interaction is restricted to glowering at Johnny's bad grades.
.... why the hell should it?
Let's just compare Linux to the closest thing there is to it on the Consumer space: OS X.
OS X, like Linux shares a lot of DNA with UNIX. But who would imagine giving a UNIX computer to their mother, their grandmother, their tech-challenged brother.
The people who think that Linux should be taking the world by storm I notice are all gear-heads with presumably a fair high level of technical competence. And that's the problem. Does anyone in their right mind think that any distro of Linux is even close to the ease of use of OS X and OS X applications? Linux advocates seem to forget that desktop computing isn't the sole province of the University computer nerds, and hasn't been for decades.
Plus, that 2.6 billion cost estimate was for a "Prime contractor design, test & build based on NASA-provided specs" with NASA insight/oversight. I'd be willing to bet that a wholly private effort could do a similar mission at a cost quite a bit less than that. (I would also point you to the NASA study that stated the cost difference between SpaceX's Falcon 9 and a NASA developed Falcon 9 was more than half.)
I'm pretty sure that a good source of the cost savings comes from building on work that NASA had already done.
They didn't start a "software alliance" that focuses almost exclusively on piracy of MS products and provides incentives for people frame their employers for fun and profit. Apple didn't file lawsuits against open source projects trying to give people viable options.
Are you seriously implying that Google wouldn't be doing the same things if their main product was boxed software? LOL, you probably are. It's amazing how much doublethink fanboys can hold in their heads when they really work at it.
It doesn't matter whether Google would have done the same as Microsoft if they were in the latter's shoes.
Microsoft was in those shoes and they DID.
From what I can tell, wages are higher in non-RTW states, but cost of living is also much higher as well..
Unions have been eliminated from my working experience. They were eliminated from my last job midway through my 20 years working there.
I can tell you that my cost of living has not decreased.
Pretty much everything but food and shelter is not absolutely necessary. Slashdot is equally unnecessary, so why would you post here if you believe what you say?
~S
So true. Electricity is a plus, but not really necessary.
It is a necessity on the gross scale. Our population is far past the point where we can keep it alive on the ox and plow level of technology.
How could you even begin to assume that I am a liberal and a union supporter (when, in fact, I am not and do not, respectively) merely on the basis of my desire to see that freedom of speech and expression are upheld for public employees?
It's the popular opinion of a fair number of people that public employees have no such rights. There are public positions by de jure where a fair number of such rights are suspended for the time you're within those positions and those suspensions are 24/7. The military being a big example.
Bullshit. 1,000,000% relevant. If I am at work, on corporate equipment, I have no rights to privacy as long as I am performing work in accordance with my job. That's reasonable. Once I am off the clock, at home, using my own equipment (that I paid for), nobody can claim a "right" to invade my privacy.
Here's the problem. The internet not only blurs lines between countries, it blurs lines between work and non-work. Especially in the case of teachers or anyone else that uses Facebook in the course of professional activities. If you're a teacher and you friend your students, or post on their facebook pages, you've broken the separation between your private life and your working life. You've opened the door for legitimate inquiries into your actions from the professional side.
In the US we have a political party which doesn't understand that corporations and employers are as great or greater of a threat to your freedom and liberty as the government.
The poster is wrong. In the United States we have two main political parties, both subservient to the corporations that feed them campaign funds. Or rather we have two houses of legislature staffed by politicians to whom thanks to our ruddy Supreme Court among others spend most of their time raising money for their war chests. The recent supreme court decision opened the floodgates to unlimited spending during campaigns.
So who do you think THEY"RE representing then? Our politicians understand very well. They also know which side of their bread is buttered.
Guess we'll have to get SpaceX's Dragon working then. Too bad that SLS money won't help a bit.
We didn't throw away "our only viable spacecraft"
We shut down and put the mercy killing to an absolute failure of a manned system that wasn't ever going to deliver on it's promise on cheap and frequent access to Earth Orbit. Keeping it around because it's the only system we have is not a good enough reason to throw good money after bad.
A jury is made up of 12 people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty, and too apathetic to act like they might have an opinion (which would have resulted in them being disqualified as a juror).
It's quotes like this that give my my opinion of the future of the American branch of Western Civilization.
I am not in the least bit convinced of this. If Ravi played the Peeping Tom when his gay roommate kicked him out so he could steam up the place, I don't see any reason to believe that Ravi would not do the same if his roommate was straight.
You also weren't on the jury and didn't hear the full disclosure of the case and the numerous charges on it. A jury of 12 others thought differently. Easy judgements are worth the time spent on them.
If the victim had been heterosexual he woud not have been a victim, Ravi wouldn't have gone for him.
...but when I am, I prefer Gay Sex!
I am not in the least bit convinced of this. If Ravi played the Peeping Tom when his gay roommate kicked him out so he could steam up the place, I don't see any reason to believe that Ravi would not do the same if his roommate was straight. Unless, of course, Ravi was also gay. Which he's not. He's just a dick who reacted poorly to his roommate having sexcapades in his dorm room. Which makes his roommate a bit of a dick too.
I see the facts that he is a straight dick or that his roommate was a bent dick as both being somewhat orthogonal to the actual problem, which is that two people were dicks to each other, and one of them jumped off a bridge.
He's also someone who.....
1. Tried to tamper with a witness.
2. Refused a plea bargain that would have kept him from jail time.
3. Was convicted of violating his roommates privacy 62 times. So we're not talking about a momentary lapse of judgement here, we're talking about premeditated and repitative assaults on his roommates privacy.
His entire defense was based on "he's a jerky kid". The jury of his peers unaminously voted that such a defense did not wash.
At this point the question should be is there anything that you're buying in stores like Walmart, Best Buy, or the Dollar Stores which are starting to supplant them, that doesn't involve a sweatshop in it's production. I suspect that the question is something that not many people are going to want to search the answer to.
It's pretty hypocritical to suddenly launch on Apple for Foxcomm, when we've been tolerating far worse conditions to get our Nikes.
Vague? That is only a statement which could be uttered by someone who didn't see the evidence presented and/or who wants to preserve his ability to intimidate those who lead a different lifestyle.
The charges were quite specific as was the evidence for convictions. These actions would not have conceivably happened if the victim had been heterosexual as revealed by the defendant's text messages.
If the victim had been heterosexual he woud not have been a victim, Ravi wouldn't have gone for him. The definition of convicting him as guilty of hate crimes is the fact that Ravi TARGETED this man for for exposure and humiliation BECAUSE of his sexual orientation. Outing someone against their will is a horrible nasty thing to do to a person, and it was an act that led to his victim's death.
But why should I be surprised. A couple of generations ago whenever a woman was raped... it was always "obviously" "her" fault. And there are still those who hold that view today.
I'm watching the "From Earth to the Moon" series right now, and t made me pretty sad to see the one shuttle with its guts all removed, and the other moving in to share the same fate. I wonder if the U.S. will ever have a manned space program again. If NASA is like a lot of other government agencies, there is a large percentage of the workforce that is getting ready to retire and without a program to enable hiring younger people, I imagine that manned U.S. space flight will be done.
Posts like this almost make me split my sides. For DECADES, I've been reading posts from legions of verbal Slashdotters who've been crying for the end of NASA's manned space program. And now that they've actually gotten their desire, they're just as frothing mad as ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Plagiarism!!! Obama/Paul was *MY* Idea.
I'll take Paul as "Speaker of the House" for a consolation prize.
Seriously, as a (now) liberal (formerly centrist), I can't stand tea-partiers and have gained new respect for libertarians (realistic ones at least).
Something would actually get done in Washington if we only had moderate left/right . . . I'm anti-corporate welfare, but open to pretty much everything else.
If you think the Libertarian Party is equivalent to moderate centrism, you really haven't been looking at what they stand for. Removing government as a regulatory force is essentially a rewrite of the clock back to the 1890's robber barony style of capitalism, which is pretty much what the One Percenters were gaining under Bush and are looking to push forward no matter who wins.
Because, sadly, the media has far too much say in who is allowed to run for president. I know very few Republicans who want Mitt Romney and very few Democrats who want to re-elect Obama, but thanks to our absurd system and the media, those two wretched choices are what we'll have.
People refer to the "media" as if it were truly still the Fourth Estate, some independent force. Fact of the matter is all of the major media in this country is owned. Owned by big corporate powers with vested interests. The slants given to news on all stations are no accident, nor are they whims of the media front office. They're executing the will of the corporate masters that own them.... own them and just about any politician with a shot at winning major office.
So you believe Richard Nixon was a Libertarian?
Compared to the Republicans of today, Richard Nixon was a Far Left Liberal.
IMNSHO that's a lot better chance than the ancient Egyptians building the pyramids using whatever limited technology they had thousands of years ago
Or the chance for America (then a bunch of developing colonies) winning a war for independence against the British Empire (which at the time had influence all across the known world), creating a nation under principles of freedom which is rarely seen, and actually prospered and became one of the largest and most powerful nations of its time.
So I don't think chance matters. What matters is as the Nike slogan: just do it.
To be brutally honest, the war for American Independence was not won on the battlefield by George Washington at Yorktown. It was won by Benjamin Franklin in Paris. If the other big european superpower (what passed for superpowers in the 18th century), England's main rival France, (with the later help of Spain and Holland) had not decided to support the American cause, the war would have most likely ground down to a British victory. The French involvement was not trivial either. It was so expensive, that it drove the country to near bankruptcy and destabilised it's government which would lead to it's own internal more brutal revolution later.
Most of them are isolationists
Neither Ron Paul nor most of his supporters are isolationists. They are non-interventionists. There is a difference. North Korea is isolationist, Switzerland is non-interventionist. Ron Paul and his supporters (including myself) believe in the same thing the founding fathers believed in as far as foreign relations are concerned: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none". - Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson also idolized feudal culture and was dedicated to recreating such lifestyles in the South.
If you're really young and ignorant and latch on to the anti-war bit, maybe you can be fooled for a while. But in a national campaign, the opposition will inevitably bring up all the well documented bugfuck nuttery and racism which has come out of Crazy Uncle Ron's mouth over the years, and he'd be done. (And rightfully so. That he has been a part of the national government for so long is a mark of shame for Texas voters.)
If you want a good non mainstream candidate to vote for in this election, you should probably consider voting Socialist Party. Yes, really. Don't knee-jerk about socialism being EVIL DICTATOR COMMUNISM BLAH BLAH BLAH and, instead, go look up what their candidate actually stands for. I don't agree with everything in the party's platform, but there's a lot of it which makes a lot of sense and is what I'd like the Democrats to actually be, so it's not a bad protest vote.
Ron Paul is apparently the John Anderson of this college generation. Anderson was a similar latch on for disaffected college youth, Most most of them did not really pay attention that once you took his "anti-war" stance, apart he pretty much was against everything they'd believe in. But he sold himself as a "progressive candidate". I'm just going to chalk both of these down as cults of personality.
Exactly. Most supporters of Ron Paul are not "loyal republicans" and will vote for a third party before they will vote for Romney. .
Paulists might hate Romney and scorn the Republican leadership, but like most Libertarians, they hate the Democrats a lot more. When it comes down to brass tacks, they'll join their Tea Party cousins and their ultimate vote will be a Take Down Obama vote.
I learned to read with comic books as a 3 year old, so these are perfect. .
The comics you read as a 3 year old have been replaced by dark, graphic, and quite frankly far more adult themes that never would have been allowed on the stands for your 3 year old self. Anyone who thinks that the current crop of Marvel and DC is acceptable material for people that young, have really forgotten how different comics were at our turn at being single digits.
Superman = invincible person who has magic powers for no other reason than accident of birth beats up people with advanced PhDs.
That's always been the big mystery of America superhero fiction to me. The heroes are usually powerful by complete accident (just born that way, bitten by a radioactive lab animal, etc.), while the villains have a strong work ethic, work hard, are very intelligent and highly qualified, etc. And the heroes always win. The moral of the story seems to be it doesn't matter if you work hard, you can't overcome dumb luck. And that intelligence and qualifications are something to be wary of.
Superman hasn't changed that much, but the comic book stories about him now are more writers looking to deconstruct him rather than actually presenting him as the classic icon of good he was generations ago. It's like Batman, he's gone from being the Dark Avenger to the ultra-paranoid who almost let Max Lord screw up the world with O.M.A.C.
Reading to them prepares them for what? Being helpless?
There is no believable evidence that reading to kids gets them reading sooner or better than formal reading instruction.
It should amaze me how far people will go to justify being lazy with their kids, but sadly it's no surprise to me. Perhaps maybe it's just worth doing it to bond with your child? Getting involved with your children's learning shows him that the activity is important to you much more than if your interaction is restricted to glowering at Johnny's bad grades.
.... why the hell should it? Let's just compare Linux to the closest thing there is to it on the Consumer space: OS X. OS X, like Linux shares a lot of DNA with UNIX. But who would imagine giving a UNIX computer to their mother, their grandmother, their tech-challenged brother. The people who think that Linux should be taking the world by storm I notice are all gear-heads with presumably a fair high level of technical competence. And that's the problem. Does anyone in their right mind think that any distro of Linux is even close to the ease of use of OS X and OS X applications? Linux advocates seem to forget that desktop computing isn't the sole province of the University computer nerds, and hasn't been for decades.
Plus, that 2.6 billion cost estimate was for a "Prime contractor design, test & build based on NASA-provided specs" with NASA insight/oversight. I'd be willing to bet that a wholly private effort could do a similar mission at a cost quite a bit less than that. (I would also point you to the NASA study that stated the cost difference between SpaceX's Falcon 9 and a NASA developed Falcon 9 was more than half.)
I'm pretty sure that a good source of the cost savings comes from building on work that NASA had already done.
Are you seriously implying that Google wouldn't be doing the same things if their main product was boxed software? LOL, you probably are. It's amazing how much doublethink fanboys can hold in their heads when they really work at it.
It doesn't matter whether Google would have done the same as Microsoft if they were in the latter's shoes. Microsoft was in those shoes and they DID.
>
From what I can tell, wages are higher in non-RTW states, but cost of living is also much higher as well. .
Unions have been eliminated from my working experience. They were eliminated from my last job midway through my 20 years working there. I can tell you that my cost of living has not decreased.
Pretty much everything but food and shelter is not absolutely necessary. Slashdot is equally unnecessary, so why would you post here if you believe what you say?
~S
So true. Electricity is a plus, but not really necessary.
It is a necessity on the gross scale. Our population is far past the point where we can keep it alive on the ox and plow level of technology.
How could you even begin to assume that I am a liberal and a union supporter (when, in fact, I am not and do not, respectively) merely on the basis of my desire to see that freedom of speech and expression are upheld for public employees?
It's the popular opinion of a fair number of people that public employees have no such rights. There are public positions by de jure where a fair number of such rights are suspended for the time you're within those positions and those suspensions are 24/7. The military being a big example.
Bullshit. 1,000,000% relevant. If I am at work, on corporate equipment, I have no rights to privacy as long as I am performing work in accordance with my job. That's reasonable. Once I am off the clock, at home, using my own equipment (that I paid for), nobody can claim a "right" to invade my privacy.
Here's the problem. The internet not only blurs lines between countries, it blurs lines between work and non-work. Especially in the case of teachers or anyone else that uses Facebook in the course of professional activities. If you're a teacher and you friend your students, or post on their facebook pages, you've broken the separation between your private life and your working life. You've opened the door for legitimate inquiries into your actions from the professional side.
In the US we have a political party which doesn't understand that corporations and employers are as great or greater of a threat to your freedom and liberty as the government.
The poster is wrong. In the United States we have two main political parties, both subservient to the corporations that feed them campaign funds. Or rather we have two houses of legislature staffed by politicians to whom thanks to our ruddy Supreme Court among others spend most of their time raising money for their war chests. The recent supreme court decision opened the floodgates to unlimited spending during campaigns. So who do you think THEY"RE representing then? Our politicians understand very well. They also know which side of their bread is buttered.
We just threw away our only viable spacecraft
Guess we'll have to get SpaceX's Dragon working then. Too bad that SLS money won't help a bit.
We didn't throw away "our only viable spacecraft" We shut down and put the mercy killing to an absolute failure of a manned system that wasn't ever going to deliver on it's promise on cheap and frequent access to Earth Orbit. Keeping it around because it's the only system we have is not a good enough reason to throw good money after bad.
A jury is made up of 12 people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty, and too apathetic to act like they might have an opinion (which would have resulted in them being disqualified as a juror).
It's quotes like this that give my my opinion of the future of the American branch of Western Civilization.
...but when I am, I prefer Gay Sex!
I am not in the least bit convinced of this. If Ravi played the Peeping Tom when his gay roommate kicked him out so he could steam up the place, I don't see any reason to believe that Ravi would not do the same if his roommate was straight.
You also weren't on the jury and didn't hear the full disclosure of the case and the numerous charges on it. A jury of 12 others thought differently. Easy judgements are worth the time spent on them.
If the victim had been heterosexual he woud not have been a victim, Ravi wouldn't have gone for him.
...but when I am, I prefer Gay Sex!
I am not in the least bit convinced of this. If Ravi played the Peeping Tom when his gay roommate kicked him out so he could steam up the place, I don't see any reason to believe that Ravi would not do the same if his roommate was straight. Unless, of course, Ravi was also gay. Which he's not. He's just a dick who reacted poorly to his roommate having sexcapades in his dorm room. Which makes his roommate a bit of a dick too.
I see the facts that he is a straight dick or that his roommate was a bent dick as both being somewhat orthogonal to the actual problem, which is that two people were dicks to each other, and one of them jumped off a bridge.
He's also someone who .....
1. Tried to tamper with a witness.
2. Refused a plea bargain that would have kept him from jail time.
3. Was convicted of violating his roommates privacy 62 times. So we're not talking about a momentary lapse of judgement here, we're talking about premeditated and repitative assaults on his roommates privacy.
His entire defense was based on "he's a jerky kid". The jury of his peers unaminously voted that such a defense did not wash.
At this point the question should be is there anything that you're buying in stores like Walmart, Best Buy, or the Dollar Stores which are starting to supplant them, that doesn't involve a sweatshop in it's production. I suspect that the question is something that not many people are going to want to search the answer to. It's pretty hypocritical to suddenly launch on Apple for Foxcomm, when we've been tolerating far worse conditions to get our Nikes.
some vague charge of "bias intimidation."
Vague? That is only a statement which could be uttered by someone who didn't see the evidence presented and/or who wants to preserve his ability to intimidate those who lead a different lifestyle.
The charges were quite specific as was the evidence for convictions. These actions would not have conceivably happened if the victim had been heterosexual as revealed by the defendant's text messages.
If the victim had been heterosexual he woud not have been a victim, Ravi wouldn't have gone for him. The definition of convicting him as guilty of hate crimes is the fact that Ravi TARGETED this man for for exposure and humiliation BECAUSE of his sexual orientation. Outing someone against their will is a horrible nasty thing to do to a person, and it was an act that led to his victim's death. But why should I be surprised. A couple of generations ago whenever a woman was raped... it was always "obviously" "her" fault. And there are still those who hold that view today.
I'm watching the "From Earth to the Moon" series right now, and t made me pretty sad to see the one shuttle with its guts all removed, and the other moving in to share the same fate. I wonder if the U.S. will ever have a manned space program again. If NASA is like a lot of other government agencies, there is a large percentage of the workforce that is getting ready to retire and without a program to enable hiring younger people, I imagine that manned U.S. space flight will be done.
Posts like this almost make me split my sides. For DECADES, I've been reading posts from legions of verbal Slashdotters who've been crying for the end of NASA's manned space program. And now that they've actually gotten their desire, they're just as frothing mad as ever.