I am mathematician, and I am intending to sign the pledge, and I think most likely I will also omit pledge no. 2). The reason I am hesitant to make 2) a strict rule is the following (not unlikely) scenario:
A young scientist (say, with a post-doc position) submits an article to an Elsevier journal.
I am a natural choice as referee (i.e. it's easier for me to judge the work than for any other potential referee the editor might think of).
If I refuse to referee the article, the editor may have trouble finding a referee, or the referee may be less qualified. Either will result in a longer delay of the process, and in a more random outcome of the process. Meanwhile, maybe the next job application for the author is only a few months away.
My own judgment is that the author preferably shouldn't have sent this article to an Elsevier journal. But I don't feel so strongly about it that I want this to cause him to have one fewer published article on his CV during his next job hunt.
The other scenario where I would accept to referee is the one pointed out by other commenters: I am aware of a problem with the article (does not cite related results/correct result, but one of the proofs is wrong/incorrect results/...) - it would be a disservice to the community not to point this out to the editor. Which is all a referee report is in such a case.
All NSF stipends for graduate students in my field (math) can only be given to US passport or greencard holders.
(Other grad students earn their salary via their teaching.)
The NSF would really be in a position to push open access with such a policy. It they required all (partially) NSF-funded research articles to be available online, electronically, in their final published version, that would have a huge immediate effect on all scientific journals. Anyone have an idea whether this has been discussed or might be realistic?
Myself, I spend up to 15 minutes a day proofreading Microsoft documentation for free, and I'm always available for any other multibillion dollar corporations who's ideas I can help succeed at no cost to them.
You kids have low standards these days. When I was your age, I spent hours everyday proof-reading and commenting on AT&T whitepapers.
I don't know anything about ZFS, but I think his general point may have merit. Consider the problem of speeding up the boot process. This would require interaction between desktop hackers, init hackers, filesystem hackers, etc. etc. Many possible speedups might require layering violations (desktop application making requests about desired file layout on the disk etc.) Due to the technical, social, political structure of Linux this is just unlikely to happen (unless a single distro has enough resources to throw at this particular problem). Consider this rant (that may be too strong a word) by KDE developer Lubos Lunak: Why does Linux need defragmenting?
I think Robert Steinhäuser is a bad example for your point. Steinhäuser was a member of a shooting club ("Sportschuetze") and thus pretty much exempt to the otherwise quite restrictive gun control laws in Germany.
I believe that if armed citizens trying to play hero caused even more casualties, that would be big news, carried by all the mainstream media....and if a citizen stops a bad guy before he can shoot a bunch of people, that's local-interest news only.
Hmm, I thought it was in the national news as well that the recent shooting in the Trollet Square mall in Salt Lake City was more or less stopped by a CCW holder, an off-duty police officer. (He opened fire on him, forcing him to search for cover, thus constraining him until two on-duty police officers arrived. I don't remember whether it was determined which of the three actually killed him in the end, but that doesn't matter so much.)
So while your point may be right (more legal CCW holders will stop such a shooting more quickly), your conspiracy theory is wrong, unless this part of the story was only covered in local news. (I only looked at local news to read about it, as it happened 2.5 blocks away from my home.)
Btw, I am mentioning this despite being more on the side of those favoring tighter gun controls. There were 1,225 lethal gun accidents in 1995 (http://www.hpjc.org/issues_guncontrol.html, I couldn't find more recent figures quickly - I would be glad if someone could post a link for both more recent figures and a more authoritative source), and I am strongly convinced that many of the "crimes of passion" murders (husband killing wife) would not happen if there wasn't a weapon around in the household. Unfortunately I couldn't find figures about the percentage of crimes of passion among gun homicides, and given the climate of the US gun debate it is quite difficult to find good reliable unbiased figures on the web anyway...
Ok, that was it for me. Just to view articles, you have to be logged in at citizendium. What kind of messed up mindset do you need in the year of 2005/6 to make such an idiotic decision? Are they not aware that just about any web project is more successful, the lower the entry barrier is? I understand that they want some barrier for editing, but for viewing???
There was absolutely no need for the James Bond style assasination. Why not just shoot the bugger using a silencer? Advantages of using a gun:
1. Weapon doesn't decay.
2. Don't need to visit a nuclear reactor (which will have very restricted access on) to get one.
3. Doesn't leave a HUGE trail of everywhere you have been with it.
4. Less chance of target surving long enough to give full description of you.
2. It is not that difficult (but expensive), in my understanding, to get Polonium.
3. Polonium doesn't leave a trail at all if you pack it properly (as in: put in a bottle, wrap that in a paper bag...), so either the murderer was an idiot or he wanted to leave a trail on purpose.
4. Depends on your purpose. If you just want to kill the person, a gun is more efficient. If you also want to scare a lot of people, the Polonium certainly works better.
What a non-sense. Under the bill, you would still be completely free to voice your opinion. Except that you would have to admit publically IF you are getting paid to promote this opinion. You could still use your free speech, except that your readers would know that you are getting paid for it, and it would be in their judgment whether they continue to trust you.
When I read a newspaper, I want to know who is running it. When I see an election ad, I want to know who is paying for it. When I read an op-ed, I want to know the affiliation of the author. When I read a blog, I would like to know in case this blogger is getting paid 100,000$ to promote his opinion while trying to make it look like a private blog. This has nothing to do with preventing free speech, just with making free speech work.
You say you hate rote learning. I hope this doesn't mean that you hate learning by doing problems, because that's (not only in my opinion) the best way to learn mathematics.
Try to find a textbook with a wide range of difficult in the problems. Start with problems that you think you should be able to do. If you have difficulties, don't hesitate to try easier ones first. If you feel confident with some problems, move up to more difficult ones (but be honest about that, try to get them 100% right, not just the "yeah I got the concept"-feeling).
If you can't figure some problems out, go ask s.o. Don't hesitate to go to your teacher's office hours to ask him/her about problems; teachers are usually happy to help students like you who do work on their own. Consider tutoring. Good tutors can help a lot, and your university may well offer some inexpensive tutoring.
I don't think you can learn math just by reading a great explanatory book. (Such a book might give great motivation for math, though.) You won't be able to tell what you understand already and what you didn't get yet before you tried it out in problems. And even if you understand it immediately, you will feel much more confident about it after you have successfully applied it yourself in problems.
I have done quite a lot of high-school tutoring, and it was always amazing to see how quickly students could move on to more difficult stuff after they had found some solid grounds of problems they could do.
Thanks, this is finally a meaningful comparison. US at 0.677 barrels per day per 10 p, Netherlands 0.561, France 0.34 and Germany 0.325. Is this a fair comparison? Certainly not, as the lower population density of the US just makes driving more often necessary. Still, I would claim energy efficiency just isn't enough of a priority yet in the US. SUVs, bad house insulations, over-eager air-conditioning,... The good news is that there is low-hanging fruit to improve on, and that examples in Europe show that nations can substantially gain energy efficiency without hurting its economy.
Sidenote:
Interesting to note: Luxembourg is number 7 and most of the largest consumers per capita are Island Nations.
I wonder whether Luxembourg's number includes all the Germans driving over there to get cheaper gas...
I really doubt that's true. Not that 25% of the world's energy use takes place in America, but that a good energy accounting system would assign all that use to Americans.
Say what?
What I mean is, America uses more energy per capita in a simple account, but think about what we're using that energy for. At least some of it is going toward production of goods & services for export. Should the energy used to manufacture and ship a computer be assigned to us, or to whoever buys it in another country? I think the latter.
Your explanation doesn't make sense. The US has been having a huge trade deficit in recent years, i.e. it was importing a lot more than it was exporting.
Disclaimer: I am living in the US right now, but only since 1.5 months (but have been visiting plenty of times earlier.) So feel free to dismiss (or mod down...) what I write for a lack of knowledge of US media.
I think the success of blogging has a lot to do with the anglo-american etiquette of journalism. The separation of factual reporting and analysis and opinion has gone a lot further here than in the German media (picking Germany as a comparison only because that's the comparison I know well, of course).
A good journalist knows a lot more, and got a lot more impressions, than he can transpire in a strict reporting of fact and current news. In the US, it is considered professional if the journalist restrains himself from transmitting any of these, and instead restricts himself on the mere facts. In a German newspaper article on, say, the situation in Iraq, you will instead find a lot of impressions on the actual situation "on the ground"; the journalist wouldn't be reluctant to include snippets from his own daily life or his situation if they help illustrate the overall situation, and he may explain why he himself feels optimistic/pessimistic/... about future developments.
Of course, this is getting close (or crossing) the border between facts and opinions, and that's why (as far as I can tell) it is left to op-eds or magazines (Atlantic, New Yorker...) in the US print media. An American journalist would only include a, say, pessimistic view on the future if he can quote someone for it.
Now replace "situation in Iraq" with any inner-American topic, on which many more people will have insights beyond the current facts and news.
With so much of the US main media restricted to factual reporting, there is a lot more space for bloggers, who aren't bound by this strict etiquette, who can pick up views for which you can't find a quote by someone sufficiently official, who can enrich factual reporting with their own insights...
Btw, this isn't meant as criticism of US media, just an observation.
You find it funny that a man devoted to advancing the knowledge of human kind was deceived by a journalist? And you think a piece of journalism created by lies and deception "brilliant"?
Yeah I find it funny when Yau believes that a Pulitzer-winning journalist, who has written the book on which "A Beautiful Mind" would fall for the praise of Yau by Hawking. I find it funny because Yau (IMO) misuses Hawking as a publicity wallpaper, and knows that, but doesn't know that Bazar knows it as well...
As for the lies and deception, that's only Yau's claim so far.
As far as Michael Anderson is concerned, it wouldn't be the first time someone claims wrongly that he got misquoted by a journalist. (And anyway, Michael Anderson's quote is pretty unimportant for the article, only in Yau's letter he reaches a big importance because he is the only one that clearly denies his quote in the article.) Anyway, when s.o. says he tried hours to persuade a journalist to leave s.th. out of her article (the Tian-Yau story), then, I am sorry, he just assumes a level of trust from the journalist that he could not possibly deserve. He is not her editor or legal counsel or whatever, just an interview partner; if you assume this level of trust you are naive and will be disappointed, and it's about time you learn a lesson in dealing with media.
Anyway, I find it brilliant because she managed to find out how the large majority of mathematicians in the field think about the Yau-Perelman story and paint a interesting realistic picture of it, s.th. 99.99% of journalists would not even be able to scratch on the surface. (Of course, it's my own belief that her story is realistic, partly from hearsay (I am a mathematician in a related area), partly just from reading the slides of Yau's talks, which obviously include inappropriate remarks about Perelman. Find them yourself on Yau's webpage.)
I agree with you halfway, for example some of the dementis are so lukewarm ("Sorry, I didn't mean to hurt you with that remark.", another more or less saying "Sorry, we know both it's true but I was REALLY trying to persuade here to leave this out from the article."...) that they pretty much emphasize the point...
However, what I find more interesting is the light it shed on how Nasar did her excellent research for this article; it's not like it is easy to get scientists speak openly about one of their most famous and influential peers. Giving them some quotes by Yau, etc. (Yau's claim that she misled them is baseless, IMO -- nobody makes a statement to a journalist about someone he has know well for 30 years just based on a single reported quote; it's just that she got them to talk openly.)
I found it funny how Yau believed she would be captivated by being able to talk with Hawking - something many uninformed journalists would get excited about, whereas Nasar knew well that Hawking didn't have any insights relevant to her article. I just loved to read how she cleverly played along with the cliche... (I don't know why journalists, and slashdot included, still blow Hawking so much out of proportion, but that's another story...)
Not 'in the top' at the top. Yau is a smart man, I've already said that, and winning the Fields Medal was a big event for him. But it wasn't enough. Fields Medal winners don't end up in the Math books really. Or the History books (except as side notes). People who solve things like Poincare however get proofs and other such things named after them that people will study and remember for centuries.
He is at the top, and in the Math books as well. Just do a search on scholar.google.com for Calabi-Yau. About 9190 articles, that's a LOT for mathematics.
Whee... I love Slashdot readers! As usual, nobody feels obliged to read the original article, or the response, before blasting thier commentary. Dr. Yau isn't just some Harvard mathematician; he's heavily connected into Chinese politics and education. The article, if true, suggests that he's built that base on stealing the work of others.
Maybe you should read the article. Yau has done magnificient work. It's just that recently he has tried to claim a little more credit (even when it's on behalf of his students) than appropriate, and that he is more ambitious about getting political influence than what's the norm in the math community, and maybe more than his peers are willing to accept.
Some of what he did is wrong, but it's not like he doesn't deserve his job at Harvard or his Fields medal.
Guys who have more ego than brains, they're smart enough to be in the top ten percent, but they just can't make it to the very top. No one will say they're not smart or hard working, but they're just not Geniuses they're not Inspired as it were.
That doesn't quite fit on Yau. He IS on the top. Proving Calabi's conjecture alone did ensure him a place in the history of mathematics (in fact, it got him a fields medal, seen as the Nobel prize of mathematics by everyone, and I haven't heard anyone claiming he didn't deserve that). Having a job at Harvard and getting many excellent students from China isn't that bad either.
That makes it so hard to understand why he isn't satisfied with that. He has been politically very influential for quite some time (just look at the number of journals for which he is editor on his CV, they are all top journals), but I think with the Perelman story he crossed the line of what his peers would find acceptable.
So they become bitter and nasty and make their grad students lives a living hell (as well as that of anyone around them) because they can't accept being second best.
Unfortunately, from what I have heard, this is sort of true. What I was told is that quite a few of his students had to quit grad school with migraine and/or depressions. However, it's not like he is bitter and nasty to them, probably he is just over-ambitious and pushes them to problems that may be too hard for then. It's not like he is evil.
Do you honestly believe that you have to comply with the law of every country with Internet access in the world if you post something online? Would Chinese law keep you from publishing a story critical of their goverment?
If I already have the ability to target content for a specific country, and use this to provide them with specific content (for ads in the case of NYT), then yes, I would feel obliged to use the same technology to avoid breaking their local laws when possible.
If I were to publish it on a website that is completely agnostic with regards to the location of the readers (and has no specific advertisement contracts with companies from country X or Y), that would be a different thing.
I'm all for capitalism and the idea of "prizes" to encourage research, but have we really become so jaded that it's a complete shock when someone does something worthwhile merely for its own sake?
Lots of people do things for their own sake (as long as they can pay their bills and get some food). But when someone got a prize of a million dollar as a bonus (for what you enjoyed doing anyway), can you really imagine someone turning this down? Well, Perelman hasn't done this (yet), but lots of people could imagine he will do just that.
Slashdot Mirror
If I refuse to referee the article, the editor may have trouble finding a referee, or the referee may be less qualified. Either will result in a longer delay of the process, and in a more random outcome of the process. Meanwhile, maybe the next job application for the author is only a few months away. My own judgment is that the author preferably shouldn't have sent this article to an Elsevier journal. But I don't feel so strongly about it that I want this to cause him to have one fewer published article on his CV during his next job hunt.
The other scenario where I would accept to referee is the one pointed out by other commenters: I am aware of a problem with the article (does not cite related results/correct result, but one of the proofs is wrong/incorrect results/...) - it would be a disservice to the community not to point this out to the editor. Which is all a referee report is in such a case.
All NSF stipends for graduate students in my field (math) can only be given to US passport or greencard holders. (Other grad students earn their salary via their teaching.)
The NSF would really be in a position to push open access with such a policy. It they required all (partially) NSF-funded research articles to be available online, electronically, in their final published version, that would have a huge immediate effect on all scientific journals.
Anyone have an idea whether this has been discussed or might be realistic?
You kids have low standards these days. When I was your age, I spent hours everyday proof-reading and commenting on AT&T whitepapers.
I don't know anything about ZFS, but I think his general point may have merit. Consider the problem of speeding up the boot process. This would require interaction between desktop hackers, init hackers, filesystem hackers, etc. etc. Many possible speedups might require layering violations (desktop application making requests about desired file layout on the disk etc.) Due to the technical, social, political structure of Linux this is just unlikely to happen (unless a single distro has enough resources to throw at this particular problem). Consider this rant (that may be too strong a word) by KDE developer Lubos Lunak: Why does Linux need defragmenting?
yeahright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Steinhäuser
I think Robert Steinhäuser is a bad example for your point. Steinhäuser was a member of a shooting club ("Sportschuetze") and thus pretty much exempt to the otherwise quite restrictive gun control laws in Germany.
Hmm, I thought it was in the national news as well that the recent shooting in the Trollet Square mall in Salt Lake City was more or less stopped by a CCW holder, an off-duty police officer. (He opened fire on him, forcing him to search for cover, thus constraining him until two on-duty police officers arrived. I don't remember whether it was determined which of the three actually killed him in the end, but that doesn't matter so much.)
So while your point may be right (more legal CCW holders will stop such a shooting more quickly), your conspiracy theory is wrong, unless this part of the story was only covered in local news. (I only looked at local news to read about it, as it happened 2.5 blocks away from my home.)
Btw, I am mentioning this despite being more on the side of those favoring tighter gun controls. There were 1,225 lethal gun accidents in 1995 (http://www.hpjc.org/issues_guncontrol.html, I couldn't find more recent figures quickly - I would be glad if someone could post a link for both more recent figures and a more authoritative source), and I am strongly convinced that many of the "crimes of passion" murders (husband killing wife) would not happen if there wasn't a weapon around in the household. Unfortunately I couldn't find figures about the percentage of crimes of passion among gun homicides, and given the climate of the US gun debate it is quite difficult to find good reliable unbiased figures on the web anyway...
...where is the "yay" tag?
Ok, that was it for me. Just to view articles, you have to be logged in at citizendium. What kind of messed up mindset do you need in the year of 2005/6 to make such an idiotic decision? Are they not aware that just about any web project is more successful, the lower the entry barrier is? I understand that they want some barrier for editing, but for viewing???
It might have been a nice idea.
2. It is not that difficult (but expensive), in my understanding, to get Polonium.
3. Polonium doesn't leave a trail at all if you pack it properly (as in: put in a bottle, wrap that in a paper bag...), so either the murderer was an idiot or he wanted to leave a trail on purpose.
4. Depends on your purpose. If you just want to kill the person, a gun is more efficient. If you also want to scare a lot of people, the Polonium certainly works better.
What a non-sense. Under the bill, you would still be completely free to voice your opinion. Except that you would have to admit publically IF you are getting paid to promote this opinion. You could still use your free speech, except that your readers would know that you are getting paid for it, and it would be in their judgment whether they continue to trust you.
When I read a newspaper, I want to know who is running it. When I see an election ad, I want to know who is paying for it. When I read an op-ed, I want to know the affiliation of the author. When I read a blog, I would like to know in case this blogger is getting paid 100,000$ to promote his opinion while trying to make it look like a private blog. This has nothing to do with preventing free speech, just with making free speech work.
Try to find a textbook with a wide range of difficult in the problems. Start with problems that you think you should be able to do. If you have difficulties, don't hesitate to try easier ones first. If you feel confident with some problems, move up to more difficult ones (but be honest about that, try to get them 100% right, not just the "yeah I got the concept"-feeling).
If you can't figure some problems out, go ask s.o. Don't hesitate to go to your teacher's office hours to ask him/her about problems; teachers are usually happy to help students like you who do work on their own. Consider tutoring. Good tutors can help a lot, and your university may well offer some inexpensive tutoring.
I don't think you can learn math just by reading a great explanatory book. (Such a book might give great motivation for math, though.) You won't be able to tell what you understand already and what you didn't get yet before you tried it out in problems. And even if you understand it immediately, you will feel much more confident about it after you have successfully applied it yourself in problems.
I have done quite a lot of high-school tutoring, and it was always amazing to see how quickly students could move on to more difficult stuff after they had found some solid grounds of problems they could do.
Sidenote:
Your explanation doesn't make sense. The US has been having a huge trade deficit in recent years, i.e. it was importing a lot more than it was exporting.
I think the success of blogging has a lot to do with the anglo-american etiquette of journalism. The separation of factual reporting and analysis and opinion has gone a lot further here than in the German media (picking Germany as a comparison only because that's the comparison I know well, of course).
A good journalist knows a lot more, and got a lot more impressions, than he can transpire in a strict reporting of fact and current news. In the US, it is considered professional if the journalist restrains himself from transmitting any of these, and instead restricts himself on the mere facts. In a German newspaper article on, say, the situation in Iraq, you will instead find a lot of impressions on the actual situation "on the ground"; the journalist wouldn't be reluctant to include snippets from his own daily life or his situation if they help illustrate the overall situation, and he may explain why he himself feels optimistic/pessimistic/... about future developments.
Of course, this is getting close (or crossing) the border between facts and opinions, and that's why (as far as I can tell) it is left to op-eds or magazines (Atlantic, New Yorker...) in the US print media. An American journalist would only include a, say, pessimistic view on the future if he can quote someone for it.
Now replace "situation in Iraq" with any inner-American topic, on which many more people will have insights beyond the current facts and news. With so much of the US main media restricted to factual reporting, there is a lot more space for bloggers, who aren't bound by this strict etiquette, who can pick up views for which you can't find a quote by someone sufficiently official, who can enrich factual reporting with their own insights...
Btw, this isn't meant as criticism of US media, just an observation.
As for the lies and deception, that's only Yau's claim so far.
As far as Michael Anderson is concerned, it wouldn't be the first time someone claims wrongly that he got misquoted by a journalist. (And anyway, Michael Anderson's quote is pretty unimportant for the article, only in Yau's letter he reaches a big importance because he is the only one that clearly denies his quote in the article.) Anyway, when s.o. says he tried hours to persuade a journalist to leave s.th. out of her article (the Tian-Yau story), then, I am sorry, he just assumes a level of trust from the journalist that he could not possibly deserve. He is not her editor or legal counsel or whatever, just an interview partner; if you assume this level of trust you are naive and will be disappointed, and it's about time you learn a lesson in dealing with media.
Anyway, I find it brilliant because she managed to find out how the large majority of mathematicians in the field think about the Yau-Perelman story and paint a interesting realistic picture of it, s.th. 99.99% of journalists would not even be able to scratch on the surface. (Of course, it's my own belief that her story is realistic, partly from hearsay (I am a mathematician in a related area), partly just from reading the slides of Yau's talks, which obviously include inappropriate remarks about Perelman. Find them yourself on Yau's webpage.)
However, what I find more interesting is the light it shed on how Nasar did her excellent research for this article; it's not like it is easy to get scientists speak openly about one of their most famous and influential peers. Giving them some quotes by Yau, etc. (Yau's claim that she misled them is baseless, IMO -- nobody makes a statement to a journalist about someone he has know well for 30 years just based on a single reported quote; it's just that she got them to talk openly.)
I found it funny how Yau believed she would be captivated by being able to talk with Hawking - something many uninformed journalists would get excited about, whereas Nasar knew well that Hawking didn't have any insights relevant to her article. I just loved to read how she cleverly played along with the cliche... (I don't know why journalists, and slashdot included, still blow Hawking so much out of proportion, but that's another story...)
He is at the top, and in the Math books as well. Just do a search on scholar.google.com for Calabi-Yau. About 9190 articles, that's a LOT for mathematics.
Maybe you should read the article. Yau has done magnificient work. It's just that recently he has tried to claim a little more credit (even when it's on behalf of his students) than appropriate, and that he is more ambitious about getting political influence than what's the norm in the math community, and maybe more than his peers are willing to accept.
Some of what he did is wrong, but it's not like he doesn't deserve his job at Harvard or his Fields medal.
That doesn't quite fit on Yau. He IS on the top. Proving Calabi's conjecture alone did ensure him a place in the history of mathematics (in fact, it got him a fields medal, seen as the Nobel prize of mathematics by everyone, and I haven't heard anyone claiming he didn't deserve that). Having a job at Harvard and getting many excellent students from China isn't that bad either.
That makes it so hard to understand why he isn't satisfied with that. He has been politically very influential for quite some time (just look at the number of journals for which he is editor on his CV, they are all top journals), but I think with the Perelman story he crossed the line of what his peers would find acceptable.
Unfortunately, from what I have heard, this is sort of true. What I was told is that quite a few of his students had to quit grad school with migraine and/or depressions. However, it's not like he is bitter and nasty to them, probably he is just over-ambitious and pushes them to problems that may be too hard for then. It's not like he is evil.
If I already have the ability to target content for a specific country, and use this to provide them with specific content (for ads in the case of NYT), then yes, I would feel obliged to use the same technology to avoid breaking their local laws when possible.
If I were to publish it on a website that is completely agnostic with regards to the location of the readers (and has no specific advertisement contracts with companies from country X or Y), that would be a different thing.
Lots of people do things for their own sake (as long as they can pay their bills and get some food). But when someone got a prize of a million dollar as a bonus (for what you enjoyed doing anyway), can you really imagine someone turning this down? Well, Perelman hasn't done this (yet), but lots of people could imagine he will do just that.
My battery isn't on the list...I could really need a new one...