Fallujah, those guys who got hanged from bridges after being burned and shot. Made headlines worldwide, remember? They were employed by a subsidary of Halliburton. They were charged with transporting some kitchen supplies. Watch 60 minutes on the web or just google it. Halliburton is very nvolved in recruiting arms bearing people in Iraq and elsewhere. Not military, mind you...and that's the problem.
And who built the planes? And if you had taken a stronger stance with Russia (with that psychopath Stalin at the helm), wouldn't the logical conclusion be that nuclear war would've broken out? Yup...as I said, read some history (especially on the military side of things...from both sides).
Bing! You hit my mayor gripe with the blurb; plasma was the first truly new state of matter discovered. Not to take away from the interesting discovery the MIT-ans have made, but it most surely isn't the first new state of matter found.
Byline: to talk about a 'state of matter' I've found is quite illusory. Different configurations and concentrations of atoms/molecules produce different behaviours...lumping them into 'states of matter' just doesn't do reality justice, even though it simplifies things for those who don't delve into that kind of thing (ie non-physicists).
That's funny: I thought your country was founded on a couple of documents.
Face it: after you wiped out the native indians, Mayans and Inca's and before you got hold of Hawaii, the US didn't need an army much, anymore. Geography has seen to that.
"Learned in English? Thank a soldier."
Wow: you have been indoctrinated. Ghandi has proven you wrong, you bloodthirsty idiot. And if there's anyone to thank for any military victory, it's the scientists who cracked the codes, invented radar and built the bomb.
I'd really advise you to read, not just the greek classics, but more importantly (for you) the great military leaders: freedom comes from the people. The military industrial complex (which past US presidents have warned you about!) however has seen to it that 'freedom' has to be imposed on far-off places in ways which just don't work. Every conflict after WWII has bitten you in the ass because you weren't wanted there. Your military is actively fucking up 'freedom' in any area it has gone into since WWII, and is making your country a less safe place, necessitating restrictions of freedom in your own.
So you should have ended your military sermon with the word 'Have your freedoms been restricted lately? Thanks your governments use of it's military to further corperation's goals'.
Sorry, but all the contractors who are war-profiteering (Halliburton and it's subsidiaries) are absolutely not efficient use of military spending.
What's worse though is your rationalisation which amounts to 'poor people are the ones who/should/ die'. And then calling it military efficiency (which, in a rather callous way, it is).
Are you crazy? Haven't you heard of a little thing like 'stop-loss orders'?
The US military is dramatically understaffed. That's one of the reasons why companies like Halliburton can continue their war-profiteering using contractors. Hell, it's so bad that most US government officials going to Iraq and other countries rely on privately contracted body-guards instead of military or other US forces.
"you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator."
Bullshit. Just look at Ghandi and the situation in libia/syria to see that it is not troops which create that atmosphere: it is the people themselves who create that freedom.
And I don't think you've noiticed, but free speech is a whole lot less free in the present USA. And it's that non-serving, lying, hypocritical, corrupt man who you call president who is the frontman for the guy who has made that repressive climate happen in the US.
As for the primary point you where making: how does a job in the military teach personal finance? And "can provide security clearances which translate into govt jobs" is a total nonargument. If you need clearance and you didn't get any through the military, you get it when you need it (and are vetted at that time). Saying that getting it through the military translates into more jobs is insane.
And finally as for "provides excellent job skills for many": NO!. The military teaches yuou one thing: how to kill people. Especially now in the 'outsourced army', if you go military you only learn how to kill someone. And the amount of veterans without jobs is proof that society doesn't want and can't use people who's only skill is killing people. Hell, Vietnam proved that, and every later conflict has just reinforced that.
Am I the only one who is chilled by these kinds of stories? At what point will the average american say 'this is the thing which has made it clear to me: they have gone too far!'?
Seriously: your president has lied to you (often, and on a larger, more important scale than lying about a blowjob), the administration is demonstrably corrupt (Enron and Halliburton) and it's hypocritical (allows pornstars at their functions). Your governments policies have created poverty, debt and terrorists as if it where actively pursuing that purpose; it has screwed up education to the point that illiteracy and innumeracy are reaching third world levels; and now it has created a recruitment agency which literaly leaves no stone unturned. There is now literally no way of getting away from the recruiters...
But that's the whole point: just adding 'by a computer' automatically mean that the application is not non-obvious (a requirement for a patent), ie it/is/ obvious!
Nearly anything which was done analog is/has been transplanted to a computer/ controlled by a cpu. Doing that conversion is utterly obvious and has been since Turing at the least. Any patent using an existing application and just adding 'by a computer' should be automatically invalidated, with some non-obvious exceptions.
I'll add a real-world case why software patents are bad: big companies want them, the rest don't.
Now why should that matter, or even be a point which is worth making in a debate?
Well: big companies have money to burn on things like this, especially since it locks out the smaller competition. And, seriously, that's the only reason a big company would want this kind of thing. Big companies dont want or need something which "provide incentives for companies to innovate and invest in research and development", as innovation is inherently not a part of a big, investor driven company...it's innovation lies in the past, when they where small companies.
In nearly every case in history, to do the right thing means protecting the small fry against those who have power. So it is here: if the small companies don't want software patents, and the big companies do, you can bet your arse that the small companies are fighting for what's right (for them) and the big companies are in it for whatever protects their dominant position.
I also have to agree with what another poster mentioned: this kind of thing is exactly why France and the Netherlands voted against the EU constitution: they just don't trust an institution where the national parliaments and the thus the EU parliament vote against something, only to have a non-elected board (such as the EU council before it) take no notice and implement it anyway.
I totally agree: for a bill to be able to be passed into law, it should only contain clauses relevant to the bill's main aim (as stated in the title, perhaps?).
But you US-ans should be so lucky. The problem you're settled with now is one which should be obvious: in a nation where no-one takes the sciences, but a lawyer is glamorised (along with other law enforcement agencies like the police, CSI etc), you end up with a nation of lawyers. And if your populace is composed of lawyers....they'll do what lawyers do, which is to create laws. And after all the sensible laws are made, they'll add more, and obfusciate the system until a non-lawyer can't possibly understand the law anymore. And then there come the laws which are only good for the lawyers and the ones paying the lawyers...which the general public won't pick up on, because the law has become so cryptic that little by little, what used to be common sense and common law is no more.
It's worse than that: it looks like a realy bad framing of an argument. It's trying to make the point that scientists shouldn't diss religion, as if the speculative fiction called science fiction is to scientists as the bible/torah/koran is to religious persons.
Dude...go actually read some Stephenson. His first book, 'The big U' wasn't a happy-happy-joy-joy book. Nor was 'Zodiac', which was downright depressing. Neither was Snowcrash, 'the Diamond Age'; his 'Baroque cycle', because accurate, was downright dpressing too!
"Just as there has always been bad, junk, or psuedo-science, so to there is bad journalism."
I guess you know what the difference is, reading what you posted. But for the others who don't:
Good science can be verified. The claim made can be proved, even if there is only the claim itself and nothing else. In the same vein, bad science can be disproved using just the claim bad science makes, no context neccessary.
Bad journalism, however, can't be disproved in a vacuum. If bad journalism makes a claim, and that is the only piece of evidence, you cannot disprove it. The only way to disprove bad journalism is to have eiether more sources or a source with greater credibility state something else, thereby disproving the bad journalism.
And that is why good journalism should be edified, and bad journalism should be prosecuted (and I mean this litteraly: Fox journalism should come with a prison sentence for fraud, for decieving the public), because journalism can be taken for truth with no way to see through it. Bad science can be mathematically or empirically diosproven.
Collery: what Bush has done to science in the US should be recognised as treason, as much as his contraventions of the Geneva and SALT/START treaties/conventions.
Yeah...'s like Lucas actually differentiated Star Wars:) - - - If you don't get this, take some elementary calculus. - - -God, in the old days I wouldn't of had to include that disclaimer:(
CNN has for the past years been quite a prominent PR tool. It's days of independant reporting are long gone, if they ever where. 'Embedded reporters' and the rest of Iraq pretty much prove a lack of real independant reporting. Only when blogs and other mediqa force them to will they report on contreoversial issues.
So is it curious that CNN reports that US-ians want someone medling in their internets? Of course not. Who pays the pollster?
Let me put it like this: "Most Americans Want Gov't To Make Internet Safer". WTF is 'safer'?
Has the internet ever killed anyone? Or is it trhe 'morality' of the internet US-ians are concerned about? Kinda like being worried about the morality of a gun, no?
But due to the way the populace is finally starting to see the government, post PATRIOT ACT and post the so-many-eth contradiction in stance (pornstars at the white house, anyone?), 'they' (ie the people who have paid the pollsters...do you/really/ think CNN did this on it's own? What would be the impetus for them to do that?) figured they need a different way of reaching their end. So 'they' decide that this poll should show that the internet should be controlled anyhow.
Then let's have a look at that answer. My brother has studied psychology, and I've had numerous discussion with him about the validity of questionaires. AND THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT A PROPPERLY CONSTRUCTED POLL WOULD SHOW THE RESULT CNN'S DOES!
I can't stress this enough: a poll could not reveal this alternative. ANy psychologist worth his/her degree can't have constructed a poll which goes:
-Do you want the internet censored? -Who should do this? -Do you trust them to do it? -Who should do it then?
It really does not work like that. This poll is suspect in so many ways: a) the question it asks b) the fact that this question was asked in the first place c) the fact that an alternative conclusion was reached (instead of a resolution to the primary question) d) the fact that the alternative conclusion is left undefined!!!
This questionaire was bought and paid for. And we'll never know by whom. All we know is that it serves someones purpose, because otherwise CNN wouldn't publish the results.
And the biggest irony? A story on the front page talking about MS' censorship of chinese blogs...
...but what a crap blurb. At least make some mention of how the fsck this polymer does it's targeting of cancer cells. Or does it release the poison indiscriminately?
I have to say: a brave (potentially stupid) decision by the Beeb. A new doctor in the second season can make or break that season. So commissioning a/third/ season before an episode with the twelfth doctor has been seen by the general public is, IMO, a dumb/dangerous decision.
Don't these guys get it? Have they no idea the volumes of data which they're talking about? Revenue from datastorage/HD companies won't compare to the costs which ISP's must make to comply; this won't be good for the economy, except for some make-work jobs (which seem to be the only jobs Bush can seem to create).
Appart from that, there's the civil liberties aspect. Why does the american government seem so hell-bent on relieving joe public from his rights? And why does no-one seem to realise that this kind of activity, had it been implemented in 2001, WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED 9/11!
So the question becomes: if this wouldn't have prevented that terrorist attack, and is unlikely to pre-empt any other terrorist attack (it might help in the post mortem, but the existing tools/powers the government has would dop the job equally well), why do this?
Unfortunately, there is not really an answer to that question which sets the government in a good light. I'd say draw your own conclusions and let that inform your voting next election.
Hehe...why do you think it's taking 'em so long to get Longhorn out the door? They decided to re-do a whole bunch of stuff, and it seems they've discovered that doing it 'right' means that it takes a hell of a lot more effort than just merely typing out code.
And that's the difference between real engineers and 'software engineers'. When there's real lives on the line (as in when building bridges, or engines or whatever), you just don't have the luxury of considering your ego; if a problem is detected, you're just glad to have caught the problem before the bridge has crashed or the engine has blown up. You then do all you can to fix the problem...you don't have the luxury of getting angry; you move on and fix what needs to be fixed.
Well, in theory. But even in practice that's what civil or mechanical engineers tend to do, 'cause they really don't want to kill people. I imagine that that's what happens to software engineers who do medical software for stuff like remote operations, too.
Heh:) Only the AC comes close to a correct and comprehensive answer:)
Bluetooth is overkill and way too expensive for a mouse. It's also too complex. Why use a tech which is more difficult to integrate than RF when you only need up/down/left/right/buttonclick info to be sent; why use a tech which eats a lot more power than 'just' RF; why use a tech which is more expensive than RF, as bluetooth means having to buy a chip and integrate it wilst RF only needs a transmitter/reciever antenna hooked up to some logic?
In short, using RF means using the propper tool for the job, instead of using the equivelant of a jackhammer when you could use a tiny screwdriver to unscrew something.
Slashdot Mirror
Fallujah, those guys who got hanged from bridges after being burned and shot. Made headlines worldwide, remember? They were employed by a subsidary of Halliburton. They were charged with transporting some kitchen supplies. Watch 60 minutes on the web or just google it. Halliburton is very nvolved in recruiting arms bearing people in Iraq and elsewhere. Not military, mind you...and that's the problem.
And who built the planes? And if you had taken a stronger stance with Russia (with that psychopath Stalin at the helm), wouldn't the logical conclusion be that nuclear war would've broken out? Yup...as I said, read some history (especially on the military side of things...from both sides).
Bing! You hit my mayor gripe with the blurb; plasma was the first truly new state of matter discovered. Not to take away from the interesting discovery the MIT-ans have made, but it most surely isn't the first new state of matter found.
Byline: to talk about a 'state of matter' I've found is quite illusory. Different configurations and concentrations of atoms/molecules produce different behaviours...lumping them into 'states of matter' just doesn't do reality justice, even though it simplifies things for those who don't delve into that kind of thing (ie non-physicists).
That's funny: I thought your country was founded on a couple of documents.
Face it: after you wiped out the native indians, Mayans and Inca's and before you got hold of Hawaii, the US didn't need an army much, anymore. Geography has seen to that.
"Learned in English? Thank a soldier."
Wow: you have been indoctrinated. Ghandi has proven you wrong, you bloodthirsty idiot. And if there's anyone to thank for any military victory, it's the scientists who cracked the codes, invented radar and built the bomb.
I'd really advise you to read, not just the greek classics, but more importantly (for you) the great military leaders: freedom comes from the people. The military industrial complex (which past US presidents have warned you about!) however has seen to it that 'freedom' has to be imposed on far-off places in ways which just don't work. Every conflict after WWII has bitten you in the ass because you weren't wanted there. Your military is actively fucking up 'freedom' in any area it has gone into since WWII, and is making your country a less safe place, necessitating restrictions of freedom in your own.
So you should have ended your military sermon with the word 'Have your freedoms been restricted lately? Thanks your governments use of it's military to further corperation's goals'.
Sorry, but all the contractors who are war-profiteering (Halliburton and it's subsidiaries) are absolutely not efficient use of military spending.
/should/ die'. And then calling it military efficiency (which, in a rather callous way, it is).
What's worse though is your rationalisation which amounts to 'poor people are the ones who
Are you crazy? Haven't you heard of a little thing like 'stop-loss orders'?
The US military is dramatically understaffed. That's one of the reasons why companies like Halliburton can continue their war-profiteering using contractors. Hell, it's so bad that most US government officials going to Iraq and other countries rely on privately contracted body-guards instead of military or other US forces.
"you being able to post self-righteous crap like this and you being forced to obey the whims of some dictator."
Bullshit. Just look at Ghandi and the situation in libia/syria to see that it is not troops which create that atmosphere: it is the people themselves who create that freedom.
And I don't think you've noiticed, but free speech is a whole lot less free in the present USA. And it's that non-serving, lying, hypocritical, corrupt man who you call president who is the frontman for the guy who has made that repressive climate happen in the US.
As for the primary point you where making: how does a job in the military teach personal finance? And "can provide security clearances which translate into govt jobs" is a total nonargument. If you need clearance and you didn't get any through the military, you get it when you need it (and are vetted at that time). Saying that getting it through the military translates into more jobs is insane.
And finally as for "provides excellent job skills for many": NO!. The military teaches yuou one thing: how to kill people. Especially now in the 'outsourced army', if you go military you only learn how to kill someone. And the amount of veterans without jobs is proof that society doesn't want and can't use people who's only skill is killing people. Hell, Vietnam proved that, and every later conflict has just reinforced that.
Am I the only one who is chilled by these kinds of stories? At what point will the average american say 'this is the thing which has made it clear to me: they have gone too far!'?
Seriously: your president has lied to you (often, and on a larger, more important scale than lying about a blowjob), the administration is demonstrably corrupt (Enron and Halliburton) and it's hypocritical (allows pornstars at their functions). Your governments policies have created poverty, debt and terrorists as if it where actively pursuing that purpose; it has screwed up education to the point that illiteracy and innumeracy are reaching third world levels; and now it has created a recruitment agency which literaly leaves no stone unturned. There is now literally no way of getting away from the recruiters...
But that's the whole point: just adding 'by a computer' automatically mean that the application is not non-obvious (a requirement for a patent), ie it /is/ obvious!
Nearly anything which was done analog is/has been transplanted to a computer/ controlled by a cpu. Doing that conversion is utterly obvious and has been since Turing at the least. Any patent using an existing application and just adding 'by a computer' should be automatically invalidated, with some non-obvious exceptions.
Go for it. We could use somone who knows wtf he's talking about regulating what the other lawyers don't have a clue about.
:(
It is such a shame that that is what it has come to. Respectable people having to become lawyers just to protect the non-lawyers
I'll add a real-world case why software patents are bad: big companies want them, the rest don't.
Now why should that matter, or even be a point which is worth making in a debate?
Well: big companies have money to burn on things like this, especially since it locks out the smaller competition. And, seriously, that's the only reason a big company would want this kind of thing. Big companies dont want or need something which "provide incentives for companies to innovate and invest in research and development", as innovation is inherently not a part of a big, investor driven company...it's innovation lies in the past, when they where small companies.
In nearly every case in history, to do the right thing means protecting the small fry against those who have power. So it is here: if the small companies don't want software patents, and the big companies do, you can bet your arse that the small companies are fighting for what's right (for them) and the big companies are in it for whatever protects their dominant position.
I also have to agree with what another poster mentioned: this kind of thing is exactly why France and the Netherlands voted against the EU constitution: they just don't trust an institution where the national parliaments and the thus the EU parliament vote against something, only to have a non-elected board (such as the EU council before it) take no notice and implement it anyway.
I totally agree: for a bill to be able to be passed into law, it should only contain clauses relevant to the bill's main aim (as stated in the title, perhaps?).
But you US-ans should be so lucky. The problem you're settled with now is one which should be obvious: in a nation where no-one takes the sciences, but a lawyer is glamorised (along with other law enforcement agencies like the police, CSI etc), you end up with a nation of lawyers.
And if your populace is composed of lawyers....they'll do what lawyers do, which is to create laws. And after all the sensible laws are made, they'll add more, and obfusciate the system until a non-lawyer can't possibly understand the law anymore.
And then there come the laws which are only good for the lawyers and the ones paying the lawyers...which the general public won't pick up on, because the law has become so cryptic that little by little, what used to be common sense and common law is no more.
It's worse than that: it looks like a realy bad framing of an argument. It's trying to make the point that scientists shouldn't diss religion, as if the speculative fiction called science fiction is to scientists as the bible/torah/koran is to religious persons.
"Their rational is that the government should not spend taxpayer dollars on something private business is already doing"
Of course, you can turn this around: private business shouldn't spend its investor's money on something the government is already doing.
And all three those comments getting +5 Funny is just comedy gold :)
Dude...go actually read some Stephenson. His first book, 'The big U' wasn't a happy-happy-joy-joy book. Nor was 'Zodiac', which was downright depressing. Neither was Snowcrash, 'the Diamond Age'; his 'Baroque cycle', because accurate, was downright dpressing too!
"Just as there has always been bad, junk, or psuedo-science, so to there is bad journalism."
I guess you know what the difference is, reading what you posted. But for the others who don't:
Good science can be verified. The claim made can be proved, even if there is only the claim itself and nothing else. In the same vein, bad science can be disproved using just the claim bad science makes, no context neccessary.
Bad journalism, however, can't be disproved in a vacuum. If bad journalism makes a claim, and that is the only piece of evidence, you cannot disprove it. The only way to disprove bad journalism is to have eiether more sources or a source with greater credibility state something else, thereby disproving the bad journalism.
And that is why good journalism should be edified, and bad journalism should be prosecuted (and I mean this litteraly: Fox journalism should come with a prison sentence for fraud, for decieving the public), because journalism can be taken for truth with no way to see through it. Bad science can be mathematically or empirically diosproven.
Collery: what Bush has done to science in the US should be recognised as treason, as much as his contraventions of the Geneva and SALT/START treaties/conventions.
Yeah...'s like Lucas actually differentiated Star Wars :) :(
-
-
-
If you don't get this, take some elementary calculus.
-
-
-God, in the old days I wouldn't of had to include that disclaimer
Oh, man...where to start...
/really/ think CNN did this on it's own? What would be the impetus for them to do that?) figured they need a different way of reaching their end. So 'they' decide that this poll should show that the internet should be controlled anyhow.
CNN has for the past years been quite a prominent PR tool. It's days of independant reporting are long gone, if they ever where. 'Embedded reporters' and the rest of Iraq pretty much prove a lack of real independant reporting. Only when blogs and other mediqa force them to will they report on contreoversial issues.
So is it curious that CNN reports that US-ians want someone medling in their internets? Of course not. Who pays the pollster?
Let me put it like this: "Most Americans Want Gov't To Make Internet Safer". WTF is 'safer'?
Has the internet ever killed anyone? Or is it trhe 'morality' of the internet US-ians are concerned about? Kinda like being worried about the morality of a gun, no?
But due to the way the populace is finally starting to see the government, post PATRIOT ACT and post the so-many-eth contradiction in stance (pornstars at the white house, anyone?), 'they' (ie the people who have paid the pollsters...do you
Then let's have a look at that answer. My brother has studied psychology, and I've had numerous discussion with him about the validity of questionaires. AND THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THAT A PROPPERLY CONSTRUCTED POLL WOULD SHOW THE RESULT CNN'S DOES!
I can't stress this enough: a poll could not reveal this alternative. ANy psychologist worth his/her degree can't have constructed a poll which goes:
-Do you want the internet censored?
-Who should do this?
-Do you trust them to do it?
-Who should do it then?
It really does not work like that. This poll is suspect in so many ways:
a) the question it asks
b) the fact that this question was asked in the first place
c) the fact that an alternative conclusion was reached (instead of a resolution to the primary question)
d) the fact that the alternative conclusion is left undefined!!!
This questionaire was bought and paid for. And we'll never know by whom. All we know is that it serves someones purpose, because otherwise CNN wouldn't publish the results.
And the biggest irony? A story on the front page talking about MS' censorship of chinese blogs...
...but what a crap blurb. At least make some mention of how the fsck this polymer does it's targeting of cancer cells. Or does it release the poison indiscriminately?
Hohum...off to RTFA.
I have to say: a brave (potentially stupid) decision by the Beeb. A new doctor in the second season can make or break that season. So commissioning a /third/ season before an episode with the twelfth doctor has been seen by the general public is, IMO, a dumb/dangerous decision.
Don't these guys get it? Have they no idea the volumes of data which they're talking about? Revenue from datastorage/HD companies won't compare to the costs which ISP's must make to comply; this won't be good for the economy, except for some make-work jobs (which seem to be the only jobs Bush can seem to create).
Appart from that, there's the civil liberties aspect. Why does the american government seem so hell-bent on relieving joe public from his rights? And why does no-one seem to realise that this kind of activity, had it been implemented in 2001, WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED 9/11!
So the question becomes: if this wouldn't have prevented that terrorist attack, and is unlikely to pre-empt any other terrorist attack (it might help in the post mortem, but the existing tools/powers the government has would dop the job equally well), why do this?
Unfortunately, there is not really an answer to that question which sets the government in a good light. I'd say draw your own conclusions and let that inform your voting next election.
Heh...if only that would happen...
Hehe...why do you think it's taking 'em so long to get Longhorn out the door? They decided to re-do a whole bunch of stuff, and it seems they've discovered that doing it 'right' means that it takes a hell of a lot more effort than just merely typing out code.
And that's the difference between real engineers and 'software engineers'.
When there's real lives on the line (as in when building bridges, or engines or whatever), you just don't have the luxury of considering your ego; if a problem is detected, you're just glad to have caught the problem before the bridge has crashed or the engine has blown up. You then do all you can to fix the problem...you don't have the luxury of getting angry; you move on and fix what needs to be fixed.
Well, in theory. But even in practice that's what civil or mechanical engineers tend to do, 'cause they really don't want to kill people. I imagine that that's what happens to software engineers who do medical software for stuff like remote operations, too.
Heh :) Only the AC comes close to a correct and comprehensive answer :)
Bluetooth is overkill and way too expensive for a mouse. It's also too complex. Why use a tech which is more difficult to integrate than RF when you only need up/down/left/right/buttonclick info to be sent; why use a tech which eats a lot more power than 'just' RF; why use a tech which is more expensive than RF, as bluetooth means having to buy a chip and integrate it wilst RF only needs a transmitter/reciever antenna hooked up to some logic?
In short, using RF means using the propper tool for the job, instead of using the equivelant of a jackhammer when you could use a tiny screwdriver to unscrew something.