You're inferring cause and effect. The same as a lot of people here are doing with Tasers, for that matter. Helps to get the facts behind the situation, which does involve firearms but not in the way that you probably think. We have plenty of good research on the subject of firearms. So far as I know, we have nothing comparable when it comes to the use of Tasers.
There are many reasons why a given society (or even a particular region within a given country) has a high crime rate. Most of those are economic: people with something to lose generally don't go around shooting up other people for fun and profit. People with nothing to lose, on the other hand...
When you look at the numbers, the defensive uses of firearms (which includes all the millions of times a weapon's mere presence ameliorates or prevents a violent confrontation) on the part of both law enforcement and private citizenry far outweigh the negative impact. Doesn't matter if you gun-control advocates think otherwise: facts speak for themselves and need no interpretation. Contrary to popular belief, the prime function of firearms in civilized cultures is not the launching of projectiles at people: it is the projection of fear.
I don't own a gun (well, I have a BB pistol) but I accept that America would be much worse off if the government truly tried to completely remove them from the population. In some places that has happened, and the result was rarely what the local leaders expected, although it was predictable. The sheep does not, after all is said and done, hold its own well against the wolf.
Everything we know about the psychological effects of firearms might be true with Tasers, I don't know. Probably not: if you're a physically healthy criminal capable of handling a Taser charge (particularly if you've already had the experience) you aren't going to be anywhere near as afraid of a good Tasering as you would be of a bullet. As a deterrent to violent crime a Taser is, by its very nature, less potent than a gun.
I'm not really sure where gun control advocates draw the line. Some of them just don't want "We the People" to have guns, others seem to want guns removed from everyone's hands (as if that were possible.) If it were up the the latter crowd, the next logical step in the program would be to remove guns from the police, replacing them with Tasers or other "non-lethal" technologies: I suspect that will result in a lot more dead cops.
Any way you slice this, treating a Taser like a watered-down police special is insufficient. Cops need to know when to use them, when not to use them, and when to just pull their guns. That all requires expensive training, and perhaps the powers-that-be have decided that a few dead citizens is a reasonable tradeoff for saving the bucks.
They know how to deal with the same problems the US cops deal with, but by talking and using their heads instead of escalating the violence by attacking first.
Trust me, those UK cops wouldn't last ten seconds on the South Side of Chicago. I don't have a beef with cops going around armed, as long as they're trained in the use of those weapons, have to account for the use of their weapons, and suffer the consequences of any abuse they mete out.
And that, ultimately, is the crux of the matter. They aren't getting either, and that is resulting in unnecessary deaths. That's the reality of it. Consequently, questioning the continued of Tasers by law enforcement is entirely legitimate. If they don't know how to handle a dangerous device such as a Taser, they shouldn't be allowed to use them. We don't let just anyone carry a badge and a gun, and since the manufacturer's claim of non-lethality for Tasers is demonstrably false we shouldn't let just anybody carry one of those either.
The presumption seems to have been that since the police are trained in the use of firearms they are automatically qualified to be issued Tasers. The further assumption was that Tasers can't hurt their targets. Both assumptions have proven to be way off base, and until we have standards in place to keep the number of abuses and corresponding deaths to a minimum, Tasers should be out of the hands of cops.
There would be no issue if they actually used the Tasers as intended
Absolutely, but my understanding is that, unlike firearms, there really aren't any standards being enforced as to the use of Tasers. Some departments, I'm sure, make sure their officers use them wisely, whereas others seem less conscientious. The only way to know for sure is to piss off a local cop and see if he stuns you.
So, are we questioning the use of a theoretically non-lethal technology that causes a lot of suffering and humiliation, or are we concerned that it isn't always so non-lethal? Or both? Those are two different issues. If it's the former, then cops should be heavily restricted as to how and when they can Tase someone, and should be penalized if they break the rules. On the other hand, if it's the latter... maybe we should simply reconsider their use entirely.
Cops know that everyone is susceptible to bullets so they hesitate to shoot at someone, and there are rules to that game: a bad kill and your career can be over. Enter the Taser, which they've been told is "safe". The thing is, with any given individual there's no way to tell if that's actually true, other than by Tasing them and see if they survive the experience. I suppose the cops could be required to ask if their target has a physical problem that might prove fatal. "Sir, we are authorized to Taser you now. If you have a heart condition or other medical condition which would contraindicate the use of Taser technology, please let us know immediately so that we may switch to an alternate non-lethal methodology to subdue you." Sure. That'd work.
Hell, even in Star Trek sometimes people were killed when hit by a phaser set for stun. Not everybody can take the same degree of punishment.
I wouldn't give up. Keep wasting their customer support time until some algorithm somewhere decides it's cheaper to just give you your money back. But yeah, the only real reason to order anything from Amazon is because... well... well, actually I can't think of a reason. But I do know there's plenty of other places to buy things online.
In other words, the lack of a semi-lethal option like the Taser forces cops to either use their firearms, or find some other way to avoid escalation, ways in which they've been trained but which require more effort and may entail more risk.
The inappropriate or indiscriminate use of the Taser is no less than a cop out, when you get right down to it. It is not the only example of high technology being used as a substitute for quality police work.
keep in mind that huge swaths of the human brain are for data storage, motor control, sensory processing, autonomic functions and other elements not directly related to sentience. If your intent is to use this information to produce a viable synthetic human intelligence, you wouldn't necessarily need to model the who shebang.
any deal they make with the media companies will be null and void the moment it is signed, and those companies will cheerfully break that agreement as soon as they perceive it to be costing them money. Which will be the moment it is signed, so don't do it.
Face it, you can tell when media company executives are lying whether they move their lips or not.
You're cutting Lucas way too much slack. People of all ages enjoyed the first three films, because they were actually good movies that told a grand story. I'm thirty years older now, and I still enjoy them. The fact that the second batch didn't reach the same level of acclaim is because, as movies... they absolutely sucked in comparison. I won't say that Lucas "blew it", because they certainly made a ton of money, but it's too bad he spoiled his legacy that way.
C-3PO may have been goofy but he was a robot with real personality who proved himself useful on many occasions, not the least of which was effective comic relief. Jar-jar now... I saw the original Star Wars when it came out (I was seventeen at the time) and I can state categorically that I would never ever have found that computer-generated dimbulb the least bit entertaining, and he wasn't effective at much of anything, least of all comic relief. He wasn't truly funny like C-3PO: he was a blatant marketing ploy. I tell you, had Jar-jar been one of the original cast the movie would probably have flopped for that reason alone: I'd never have bothered to take in Empire or Jedi. And you're right, special effects do not a great motion picture make, but that's all the more reason you use top-notch actors and the best director you can get. I mean, it wasn't like the first films were exactly devoid of talent: the likes of Sir Alec Guiness are hard to beat, and Harrison Ford is no slouch either.
Unless you were making copies and selling them, you weren't a pirate anyways. No need to make yourself sound worse than you were, unless you just like the notoriety. No argument that you were committing a crime... it just wasn't piracy.
Couldn't agree more. The problem is that you seem confused about who is right. Your comment indicates a certain lack of awareness of the real societal issues (check out some of Ray Beckerman's writings if you want to get a handle on them.) Perhaps you work for a media company. Regardless, there's a lot more going on here that meets the eye.
I would also recommend reading the relevant portions of the Constitution, the history of copyright and its true purpose, current copyright law (what I was able to understand of it as a non-lawyer is depressingly unbalanced), and most important of all discover what the Founders (Jefferson in particular) believed is the proper role of copyright in our society. Once you understand that, you will see just how damaged we have been by the recent divergence in purpose, from promoting "the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" to "securing endless revenue streams for companies that have effectively stolen rights to the works whose authors they claim to represent." The power of Copyright has been conscripted by some particularly evil individuals, with the willing complicity of certain members of Congress. I presume you're an American: given our traditions of freedom and respect for individual rights I am amazed that you could take the position you have. Bankrupting college kids is not a solution: if you think it is you are in error, and are part of the problem.
The problem here is not copyright infringement: it's media companies setting themselves up as private police forces, with unchecked surveillance and enforcement capabilities, and no due process. That goes very much against the grain of, well, pretty much every civilized nation on the planet. These are powers that should be reserved for legitimate government, not the private sector. And don't even start with "they'll have their day in court" or "if they're innocent they have nothing to worry about." Would that were true, but of the thousands of people sued by the RIAA, how many people have actually fought back? How many had the resources to even try to fight back? A tiny fraction: the rest settled out-of-court regardless of actual guilt, the RIAA having served as judge, jury and executioner, using "evidence" (and I use the term loosely) that is largely manufactured out of thin air. Furthermore, the RIAA (and the MPAA) is much like the Internal Revenue Service... it's composed of a bunch of bad dudes, not the kind of people you want having any power over you whatsoever. The facts are thus: the media companies and their "trade organizations" have behaved very irresponsibly all down the line, and have hurt a lot of people. They absolutely should not be granted one iota more power. If anything they need to have their wings clipped. Period. END OF STATEMENT.
Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten that this is supposed to be a nation by, of and for The People. If we, as a nation, have decided that extended copyright and strict enforcement is not something we need or want then nobody, certainly not a bunch of mere copyright holders who themselves have created nothing have any moral high ground here whatsoever. It's a blind, unfounded assumption on your part that we need to get tough on copyright infringement, indeed that we need such extreme laws in the first place. I would argue that we never have, and do not now.
What we have here is a classic example of unenlightened capitalism, the kind of no-holds-barred screw-everyone-but-ourselves school of business management that does nothing but enrich a few at the expense of everyone else, causing a fair amount of collateral damage in the process. Worse yet, our entertainment industry (which at the present time is composed largely of foreign-owned corpor
I didn't convince her, exactly... I just ignored her. That bothered her no end, until she finally figured out that it was easier to join 'em rather than fight 'em.
No, asylums are where the government sends loony people when it runs out of space for them. At that point, they usually appropriate more tax dollars to build additional loony bins (aka "government agencies.")
DUH nothing. If the planes can talk to the towers they could certainly transmit their GPS co-ordinates. There may be some reason why the Feds don't want aircraft broadcasting their precise positions, though.
Risk evaluation (and mitigation) is all about measuring probably times cost
I think you probably meant probability. Governments (all governments) are notorious for making poor judgments when it comes to cost-benefit analysis. Well, that's not entirely true... they're generally very good at spending money for their own benefit. People are generally bad at that too, and at least in America's case, the advancing innumeracy facing our population doesn't help one bit. I know people that will cheerfully swallow completely outrageous statistics. For example, I was watching the end of some crime drama which said "did you know that every second of every day, ten women are raped and killed in the United States alone?" Very impressive, scary numbers. Of course, the producers of the show didn't provide any sources for this amazing statement, so I'm assuming they just pulled it out of their collective asses.
I can state, with some certainty, that 315,360,000 people (roughly the entire population of the United States) were not raped and murdered last year. I know this, because I'm one of those people and I think I'd remember it. Yet government agencies and filmmakers and everyone else with an agenda can bandy such arrant nonsense about because they know they can get away with it. Far too many people can't handle simple arithmetic, much less basic statistics, and will simply accept well-presented, scientific-sounding lies because they don't know any better. If your goal is the manipulation of public opinion for fun and profit, this is a remarkably convenient state of affairs. Makes you wonder if the present drain-bamaged condition of the American school system was entirely accidental.
What's worse, people that I know could see right through these untruths if they simply applied their brains can't be bothered. These are the same individuals that wonder what happened to America. "Where did we go wrong?!" they cry. "You went wrong," I tell them.
Sometimes I think 911 operators moonlight as cell phone customer service people. Or maybe it's the other way around. Seriously though, a lot depends upon where you are. If your local 911 service is provided by the city you'll probably be ok, since they'll know the cops (some of them probably are local cops.) A lot of this 911 stuff is done under contract to private companies, I understand, and that can be a problem when you get a clueless type on the line. Does anyone know there are any towns that are outsourcing 911 to India yet?
Slashdot Mirror
It does to some people. Oddly enough, most of them seem to be gun control advocates.
You're inferring cause and effect. The same as a lot of people here are doing with Tasers, for that matter. Helps to get the facts behind the situation, which does involve firearms but not in the way that you probably think. We have plenty of good research on the subject of firearms. So far as I know, we have nothing comparable when it comes to the use of Tasers.
...
There are many reasons why a given society (or even a particular region within a given country) has a high crime rate. Most of those are economic: people with something to lose generally don't go around shooting up other people for fun and profit. People with nothing to lose, on the other hand
When you look at the numbers, the defensive uses of firearms (which includes all the millions of times a weapon's mere presence ameliorates or prevents a violent confrontation) on the part of both law enforcement and private citizenry far outweigh the negative impact. Doesn't matter if you gun-control advocates think otherwise: facts speak for themselves and need no interpretation. Contrary to popular belief, the prime function of firearms in civilized cultures is not the launching of projectiles at people: it is the projection of fear.
I don't own a gun (well, I have a BB pistol) but I accept that America would be much worse off if the government truly tried to completely remove them from the population. In some places that has happened, and the result was rarely what the local leaders expected, although it was predictable. The sheep does not, after all is said and done, hold its own well against the wolf.
Everything we know about the psychological effects of firearms might be true with Tasers, I don't know. Probably not: if you're a physically healthy criminal capable of handling a Taser charge (particularly if you've already had the experience) you aren't going to be anywhere near as afraid of a good Tasering as you would be of a bullet. As a deterrent to violent crime a Taser is, by its very nature, less potent than a gun.
I'm not really sure where gun control advocates draw the line. Some of them just don't want "We the People" to have guns, others seem to want guns removed from everyone's hands (as if that were possible.) If it were up the the latter crowd, the next logical step in the program would be to remove guns from the police, replacing them with Tasers or other "non-lethal" technologies: I suspect that will result in a lot more dead cops.
Any way you slice this, treating a Taser like a watered-down police special is insufficient. Cops need to know when to use them, when not to use them, and when to just pull their guns. That all requires expensive training, and perhaps the powers-that-be have decided that a few dead citizens is a reasonable tradeoff for saving the bucks.
They know how to deal with the same problems the US cops deal with, but by talking and using their heads instead of escalating the violence by attacking first.
Trust me, those UK cops wouldn't last ten seconds on the South Side of Chicago. I don't have a beef with cops going around armed, as long as they're trained in the use of those weapons, have to account for the use of their weapons, and suffer the consequences of any abuse they mete out.
but with proper oversight and training,
And that, ultimately, is the crux of the matter. They aren't getting either, and that is resulting in unnecessary deaths. That's the reality of it. Consequently, questioning the continued of Tasers by law enforcement is entirely legitimate. If they don't know how to handle a dangerous device such as a Taser, they shouldn't be allowed to use them. We don't let just anyone carry a badge and a gun, and since the manufacturer's claim of non-lethality for Tasers is demonstrably false we shouldn't let just anybody carry one of those either.
The presumption seems to have been that since the police are trained in the use of firearms they are automatically qualified to be issued Tasers. The further assumption was that Tasers can't hurt their targets. Both assumptions have proven to be way off base, and until we have standards in place to keep the number of abuses and corresponding deaths to a minimum, Tasers should be out of the hands of cops.
There would be no issue if they actually used the Tasers as intended
... maybe we should simply reconsider their use entirely.
Absolutely, but my understanding is that, unlike firearms, there really aren't any standards being enforced as to the use of Tasers. Some departments, I'm sure, make sure their officers use them wisely, whereas others seem less conscientious. The only way to know for sure is to piss off a local cop and see if he stuns you.
So, are we questioning the use of a theoretically non-lethal technology that causes a lot of suffering and humiliation, or are we concerned that it isn't always so non-lethal? Or both? Those are two different issues. If it's the former, then cops should be heavily restricted as to how and when they can Tase someone, and should be penalized if they break the rules. On the other hand, if it's the latter
Cops know that everyone is susceptible to bullets so they hesitate to shoot at someone, and there are rules to that game: a bad kill and your career can be over. Enter the Taser, which they've been told is "safe". The thing is, with any given individual there's no way to tell if that's actually true, other than by Tasing them and see if they survive the experience. I suppose the cops could be required to ask if their target has a physical problem that might prove fatal. "Sir, we are authorized to Taser you now. If you have a heart condition or other medical condition which would contraindicate the use of Taser technology, please let us know immediately so that we may switch to an alternate non-lethal methodology to subdue you." Sure. That'd work.
Hell, even in Star Trek sometimes people were killed when hit by a phaser set for stun. Not everybody can take the same degree of punishment.
I've given up on the refund for shipping.
... well ... well, actually I can't think of a reason. But I do know there's plenty of other places to buy things online.
I wouldn't give up. Keep wasting their customer support time until some algorithm somewhere decides it's cheaper to just give you your money back. But yeah, the only real reason to order anything from Amazon is because
In other words, the lack of a semi-lethal option like the Taser forces cops to either use their firearms, or find some other way to avoid escalation, ways in which they've been trained but which require more effort and may entail more risk.
The inappropriate or indiscriminate use of the Taser is no less than a cop out, when you get right down to it. It is not the only example of high technology being used as a substitute for quality police work.
keep in mind that huge swaths of the human brain are for data storage, motor control, sensory processing, autonomic functions and other elements not directly related to sentience. If your intent is to use this information to produce a viable synthetic human intelligence, you wouldn't necessarily need to model the who shebang.
any deal they make with the media companies will be null and void the moment it is signed, and those companies will cheerfully break that agreement as soon as they perceive it to be costing them money. Which will be the moment it is signed, so don't do it.
Face it, you can tell when media company executives are lying whether they move their lips or not.
You're cutting Lucas way too much slack. People of all ages enjoyed the first three films, because they were actually good movies that told a grand story. I'm thirty years older now, and I still enjoy them. The fact that the second batch didn't reach the same level of acclaim is because, as movies ... they absolutely sucked in comparison. I won't say that Lucas "blew it", because they certainly made a ton of money, but it's too bad he spoiled his legacy that way.
... I saw the original Star Wars when it came out (I was seventeen at the time) and I can state categorically that I would never ever have found that computer-generated dimbulb the least bit entertaining, and he wasn't effective at much of anything, least of all comic relief. He wasn't truly funny like C-3PO: he was a blatant marketing ploy. I tell you, had Jar-jar been one of the original cast the movie would probably have flopped for that reason alone: I'd never have bothered to take in Empire or Jedi. And you're right, special effects do not a great motion picture make, but that's all the more reason you use top-notch actors and the best director you can get. I mean, it wasn't like the first films were exactly devoid of talent: the likes of Sir Alec Guiness are hard to beat, and Harrison Ford is no slouch either.
C-3PO may have been goofy but he was a robot with real personality who proved himself useful on many occasions, not the least of which was effective comic relief. Jar-jar now
Was it the Midi-chlorians? Yes.
Jar Jar Binks? Yes.
The actors? Yes.
When did Star Wars jump the shark? Episodes I-III.
Did George Lucas redeem himself in Episode III? No. But he sold a lot of action figures.
Yes, well, the more hung over I am the longer I tend to run on, mainly because my head hurts too much to be doing any of the things I should be doing.
Unless you were making copies and selling them, you weren't a pirate anyways. No need to make yourself sound worse than you were, unless you just like the notoriety. No argument that you were committing a crime ... it just wasn't piracy.
Sometimes, it's about right and wrong
... it's composed of a bunch of bad dudes, not the kind of people you want having any power over you whatsoever. The facts are thus: the media companies and their "trade organizations" have behaved very irresponsibly all down the line, and have hurt a lot of people. They absolutely should not be granted one iota more power. If anything they need to have their wings clipped. Period. END OF STATEMENT.
Couldn't agree more. The problem is that you seem confused about who is right. Your comment indicates a certain lack of awareness of the real societal issues (check out some of Ray Beckerman's writings if you want to get a handle on them.) Perhaps you work for a media company. Regardless, there's a lot more going on here that meets the eye.
I would also recommend reading the relevant portions of the Constitution, the history of copyright and its true purpose, current copyright law (what I was able to understand of it as a non-lawyer is depressingly unbalanced), and most important of all discover what the Founders (Jefferson in particular) believed is the proper role of copyright in our society. Once you understand that, you will see just how damaged we have been by the recent divergence in purpose, from promoting "the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" to "securing endless revenue streams for companies that have effectively stolen rights to the works whose authors they claim to represent." The power of Copyright has been conscripted by some particularly evil individuals, with the willing complicity of certain members of Congress. I presume you're an American: given our traditions of freedom and respect for individual rights I am amazed that you could take the position you have. Bankrupting college kids is not a solution: if you think it is you are in error, and are part of the problem.
The problem here is not copyright infringement: it's media companies setting themselves up as private police forces, with unchecked surveillance and enforcement capabilities, and no due process. That goes very much against the grain of, well, pretty much every civilized nation on the planet. These are powers that should be reserved for legitimate government, not the private sector. And don't even start with "they'll have their day in court" or "if they're innocent they have nothing to worry about." Would that were true, but of the thousands of people sued by the RIAA, how many people have actually fought back? How many had the resources to even try to fight back? A tiny fraction: the rest settled out-of-court regardless of actual guilt, the RIAA having served as judge, jury and executioner, using "evidence" (and I use the term loosely) that is largely manufactured out of thin air. Furthermore, the RIAA (and the MPAA) is much like the Internal Revenue Service
Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten that this is supposed to be a nation by, of and for The People. If we, as a nation, have decided that extended copyright and strict enforcement is not something we need or want then nobody, certainly not a bunch of mere copyright holders who themselves have created nothing have any moral high ground here whatsoever. It's a blind, unfounded assumption on your part that we need to get tough on copyright infringement, indeed that we need such extreme laws in the first place. I would argue that we never have, and do not now.
What we have here is a classic example of unenlightened capitalism, the kind of no-holds-barred screw-everyone-but-ourselves school of business management that does nothing but enrich a few at the expense of everyone else, causing a fair amount of collateral damage in the process. Worse yet, our entertainment industry (which at the present time is composed largely of foreign-owned corpor
I didn't convince her, exactly ... I just ignored her. That bothered her no end, until she finally figured out that it was easier to join 'em rather than fight 'em.
No, asylums are where the government sends loony people when it runs out of space for them. At that point, they usually appropriate more tax dollars to build additional loony bins (aka "government agencies.")
How much more convincing prior mouse clicks does the USPTO need? Good grief.
DUH nothing. If the planes can talk to the towers they could certainly transmit their GPS co-ordinates. There may be some reason why the Feds don't want aircraft broadcasting their precise positions, though.
I'm guessing that that 20 bil is just for the prototype. It'll be another hundred before it's actually operational, if ever.
or Linux finally learns to handle triple and quad displays properly.
I'd settle for two.
You're wasting your breath having a dialog with someone who refers to two of the major operating systems on the market as "Linuzzz" and "Abbles OS".
Microsoft Admits XP Has Same Bug As Win2K
More correctly, "Microsoft Admits XP has same bugs as Win2K."
Risk evaluation (and mitigation) is all about measuring probably times cost
... they're generally very good at spending money for their own benefit. People are generally bad at that too, and at least in America's case, the advancing innumeracy facing our population doesn't help one bit. I know people that will cheerfully swallow completely outrageous statistics. For example, I was watching the end of some crime drama which said "did you know that every second of every day, ten women are raped and killed in the United States alone?" Very impressive, scary numbers. Of course, the producers of the show didn't provide any sources for this amazing statement, so I'm assuming they just pulled it out of their collective asses.
I think you probably meant probability. Governments (all governments) are notorious for making poor judgments when it comes to cost-benefit analysis. Well, that's not entirely true
I can state, with some certainty, that 315,360,000 people (roughly the entire population of the United States) were not raped and murdered last year. I know this, because I'm one of those people and I think I'd remember it. Yet government agencies and filmmakers and everyone else with an agenda can bandy such arrant nonsense about because they know they can get away with it. Far too many people can't handle simple arithmetic, much less basic statistics, and will simply accept well-presented, scientific-sounding lies because they don't know any better. If your goal is the manipulation of public opinion for fun and profit, this is a remarkably convenient state of affairs. Makes you wonder if the present drain-bamaged condition of the American school system was entirely accidental.
What's worse, people that I know could see right through these untruths if they simply applied their brains can't be bothered. These are the same individuals that wonder what happened to America. "Where did we go wrong?!" they cry. "You went wrong," I tell them.
Sometimes I think 911 operators moonlight as cell phone customer service people. Or maybe it's the other way around. Seriously though, a lot depends upon where you are. If your local 911 service is provided by the city you'll probably be ok, since they'll know the cops (some of them probably are local cops.) A lot of this 911 stuff is done under contract to private companies, I understand, and that can be a problem when you get a clueless type on the line. Does anyone know there are any towns that are outsourcing 911 to India yet?
Indeed. And TV shows still have commercials ... okay, not the best example.