I love rebates. I use them all the time, and have yet to have one go bad. -$100 on a monitor, a free 64Meg flash drive, free cd media, free floppy disks, $20 bucks off a phone, 1/2 off a toaster oven. What's not to like?
Everyone should realize that you need to jump through the hoops that they tell you to if you expect no hassle with your rebate. All you have to do is be able to follow the instructions. It usually takes less than 5 minutes to get the right stuff in the mailbox.
Of course they earn interest with the lag time. So what? The free flash drive was the last thing I got (from Fry's). It is a "$30" device with a $30 rebate. How much interest could I earn on $30 in 6 weeks (without breaking kneecaps)? I'd bet it's not enough to pay for a flash drive. They borrow my $30, and give it back in 6 weeks, in return I have a flash drive that I keep permanently. I wish everything had a rebate.
Hundreds of things were "engineered" by people who were not technically "engineers" during the Industrial Revolution. People would have an idea and they would implement it. Today, we just expect anyone who makes something new to have some sort of engineering degree, and when they don't it becomes worthly of the evening news. We are used to the idea that "engineer" [implies] "can build stuff", and we too easily make the incorrect assumption that, "can build stuff" [implies] "engineer".
I think the software project in question has to be evaluated for whether or not it required engineering of some sort to complete it. Did it simply use standard libraries in standard ways? Was some new idea or paradigm used that meant the construction of new classes? Were standard libraries meshed together in an unintended way?
If this is just a question of liability, where do you want the liability to fall? On the person who makes the bricks, or the person who made the wall out of them? In software, things are created to enable the creation of other things, which enable the creation of other things, etc, etc...There is no fine line to be drawn.
It's like asking if you can engineer something with Legos. Can you? Of Course. Despite not engineering the Legos themselves. Does this mean that everything that is built with Legos is engineered? No.
Does the notion that something has been engineered rely on it being done by an "engineer"? No. It depends more on what was done, not the title of the person who did it. If someone without a degree of any kind engineers a piece of software that ends up adversely affecting people, should they escape liability simply because they are not technically an engineer? I don't think so.
Your mention of precision weapons doesn't have anything to do with this
Actually, my mention of them was due to this sentence in the previous post:
The more damage US military does to Iraq's infrastructure, the more money will US corporations make on rebuilding
But since you would like to shift focus, may I point out a few thingies?
1)At last count, there were only 6 well heads on fire. (out of hundreds)
2)The US military urged Iraqis specifically to not destroy them.
3)Part of the early war campaign was to get to the main fields as quickly as possible to prevent the destruction of well heads.
4)Haliburton has had a long history of ties to military and government contracts long before Cheney was with them.
5)KBR is a Haliburton subdivision. They were asked by the Army months ago to make an Iraq oil fire contingency plan. They are planning to hire Boots and Coots, and Wild Well companies to do the work because those companies put out the fires the first time around. (i.e. they know what they are doing)
6)The story you link to is purposefully tilted to rally the left. It can also be found at Indymedia.com, Commondreams.org, CNYtalks.com, fightingDemocrat.com, and some others that I am not familiar with. I particularly like this quote they selected to put in it: "The contract -- to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq -- has no set time limit and no dollar limit and is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer." --Henry Waxman , Democratic Representative
What Waxman is all in a ruffle about is that the contract with KBR is a "cost plus" type of deal, where all incurred expenses get paid plus some percentage for the work done. The reason this type of deal gets made is that the cost of the work to be done is not predictable, but the job needs to be done anyway. Military contractors that are hired to develop new types of combat systems make this type of deal all the time, because the cost of Research and development is very unpredictable. If the deal was not cost plus, nobody would be willing to take the risk.
"The real issue here is that" KBR does not have a notable presence in the Waxman district, but I'm willing to bet that no companies capable of this work do. Not everything the military does is put up for open bidding because the military does not always want everyone to know what it is doing. What would you be saying if you knew that the Iraq fire contingency plan had been hashed out months ago, and then the political option had worked? It serves no purpose to throw the issue into the public domain before the need for the contract is known.
I'm sorry that you believe the purpose of this war is US profit. Especially given that it takes so little brain power to work out the truth. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on this war and we will be lucky to get even half of it back. We are spending coalition lives on this war, and we will not get any of them back. On the up side, there is another entertainment channel out there that you would probably enjoy. Ask your local cable company if you can get Al-Jazeera.
The Haliburton info is a lie, and if you are suggesting that the US is underhanded because the military has been sent in to do maximum damage so that US companies can make money rebuilding it, please note that we are bombing with extremely expensive munitions so as to NOT destroy anything outside of what is intended.
" Every time I think I need to print something in color I price the carts and say "nevermind" "
I do the same thing. To take it further, I often opt to not print at all, and instead just scribble down what I want off the screen onto a post-it. If I didn't have a nag in the back of my mind about the cost of ink every time I hear my printer doing the hula, I would print a helluva lot more stuff out. So, in a way, having expensive ink makes me more environmentally friendly. (tongue in cheek)
To get back on topic, Dell and the low road, what exactly would you have them do? Despite people knowing about the money being made on the ink, the first theing they consider when buying a printer is the cost of the printer. Dell can't exactly reverse the trend of the existing market just because they now have their name on a printer. If Dell decided to do the "normal" thing... by charging enough to make a profit on the hardware, then selling the ink for the profit that it is worth, how would they get their printers into the market? People would look at the price of them and say... "um, no".
Chess is not going to die any time soon, but it seems like if it were judged by the same criteria as the games in this list it would be percieved as one of the doomed.
I think there is just a perception that some genres are fading away because of how much marketing we see. Nobody wants to market and push puzzle games like tetris because they no longer are great money makers. That does not mean that their genre is dying. It is too hard to guarantee financial return for the simpler games. If someone puts a marketing push behind such a game and it becomes popular, it is too easy for a competitor to quickly develop a rip-off to steal some of that market share.
You could watch the latency gradually shrink and grow as it constantly changed distances from its receiver. If you could ping it directly, pinging it from 4 different non-planar sources would allow you to quadrangualte its exact position at any time.
I can't be the only one who is getting really sick of hearing about the RIAA shenanigans (I'm not bitching about Slashdot.. I mean in general). The more crap they try to pull, the more they guarantee that they will only be a flash in the pan.
No organization whose sole motive is greed will ever last. Microsoft started traveling down this path and is now learning about it the hard way on many fronts... which is cool, because they are learning and trying to adjust. RIAA, on the other hand, is incapable of adjusting their greediness because it is their only reason for existence.
Oil field trash from Africa's equitorial west coast might remember this being done over 20 years ago (by Conoco? I can't remember). The company needed communications into the jungle, and the anchored dirgibles solved two problems...
1. They didn't have to cut a path for wires 2. They could avoid the natives stealing the wire.
The problem came in the first monsoon season when , although very heavily anchored, the coastal one was blown hard enough to snap the dirgible from the cable. The cable bounded back like a rubber band, and completely demolished the base station. Tons of thick steel cable flying out of the sky. I wish I could have seen it.
(My dad, now retired from Mobil, told me this story some years ago.)
...just last week. It probably saved my life. I mean, Liz was really pretty and seemed to be very sincere, but typing "Liz Borden" into Google really gave me a shock. You just never know some poeple.
I dont think so. This is the only condoned Star Wars MMORPG. People will play it regardless of this rule.
Also, most people like to pick a character and play it for what it is. The more powerful it grows, the more they will want to stick with it. Players who are discouraged by this rule have likely been spoiled by the benefits of twinking. It seems that this idea will make for a richer gaming experience where people take the world more seriously. Your choosing not to play based on Sony not allowing lots of character switching is probably the exact result they were aiming for.
Thankfully not mature
on
Mandrake News
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Pulled my Mandrake from my shelf and it started wailing such a shrill scream that I almost passed out. The mature distro surely would have killed me.
convenient of you not to point out the exact same thing regarding handguns. Something along the lines of:...
"It's not people that decide to murder that is the problem, it's the societal factors that put people in that situation."
"There are two types of people that commit murder following the purchase of a firearm: those who can't control their emotions (90%) and those who can. If we could create thought suppressants that would not fail, that'd be a whole lot less murders. For the other 10%, people need to be taught about morals, real morals! No more of the 'you have the right to do whatever you like' mentality... why can't we promote that only war entails murder?"
Oh wait... Why don't we just ban handguns? Oh wait... Why don't we just ban abortion?
Can't you fucking see that these two contrasting differences of opinion ARE THE CAUSE OF BOTH PROBLEMS?!
On the last two points, I agree with you, but only in the scope of the times in which we are currently living.
I believe that the second ammendment was included for the sole intent of preventing an opressive government from keeping down the populous. There is no guarantee that there will not be a will in this country (United States) for some sort of political revolution in the distant future.
What happens at that time if 200 years previous, the right to bear "arms" was redefined to mean the right to own a "gunpowder based slug-throwing device" only? What if by that time, "bullet" technology is completely innefective against the current body armor, slug-breakers, nanobot tissue-repair injections, and whatever else? The populous is no longer able to do anything about it's situation without a massive bloodbath because by that days standards they do not have the right to bear "arms".
200 years from today, the same "extreme" rocket launcher will be percieved as little threat to anything.
The problem is that laws passed about this kind of thing today, are still mostly there 200 years from now and beyond. Dig up a state charter and look at how many things are so ridiculously obsolete that they just go ignored today. Now think, if one of these obsolete ideas suddenly finds a new purpose in the eyes of the government, will they take advantage of it?
Human beings seem to be hung on the idea that living in high pressure environments is an amazing thing simply because we can not do it.
Human life depends heavily on gaseous exchanges, which behave differently at different pressures. Since liquids and solids are hardly compressible, it seems like a no-brainer that organisms that do not rely on gaseous exchanges can reamin intact perfectly well in extremely high pressures.
I would have been more surprised if they had been destroyed.
To try to show an unbiased opinion, I will draw references from both sides of the aisle.
As I mentioned the other day, the core of the problem is not guns, it is people. Guns have become the target because it is easier to make blanket decisions about the intermediary than to try to address the real problem of trying to figure out how to pick which people do not deserve to have them.
On the other side, people choose to fouus on banning abortion clinics and the idea of abortion for the same reason. These are easier targets to deal with. It is more difficult to try to deal with the issue that women who decide to have abortions are the problem.
In either of these cases the real problem is people, and ploiticians who want to "take things away" do not want to focus issues on individuals, or stratified groups, because it looks like discrimination and is bad for them politically. So they target the intermediaries... guns, or abortion, or some other soulless impersonal thing or idea.
Dman people, it was supposed to be a joke. Lighten up a little.
Anyway, since this has digressed, I will point out that the house would not have burned down if the people had not placed sources of open flame all over the place for the purpose of being "pretty". People with nerf-ball-aged children know better than to set up this potential hazard. (if they don't... well, I would call this "natural selection"). If the kid was throwing around a ball of asbestos, he could knock a candle into the garland, and bingo. Same result, no Nerf ball.
Using the logic of Consumer Report's Nerf Ball decision, we could ban water because when you put cyanide solids in it, you get deadly cyanide gas, or we could ban bath tubs because they allow Hair-dryers to electrocute us.
This logic only begins to make sense when the true source of the problem is too difficult to change, and the intermediary becomes an easier target. For example, we could ban guns because they allow people to kill us. This makes a lot more sense to people because they find banning guns preferable to the task of sorting out how to decide if someone is homicidal. On the other side (to keep this politically balanced), we could ban abortion clinics because they allow women to have abortions. The real "problem" (if you choose to see it that way) is the woman deciding to have an abortion, not the clinic. But the clinic is an easier target to deal with.
I think it is pretty weak that Consumer Reports used Nerf as the target just because the real source of the problem (open flame in peoples households) was not in their grasp.
Slashdot Mirror
I love rebates. I use them all the time, and have yet to have one go bad. -$100 on a monitor, a free 64Meg flash drive, free cd media, free floppy disks, $20 bucks off a phone, 1/2 off a toaster oven. What's not to like?
Everyone should realize that you need to jump through the hoops that they tell you to if you expect no hassle with your rebate. All you have to do is be able to follow the instructions. It usually takes less than 5 minutes to get the right stuff in the mailbox.
Of course they earn interest with the lag time. So what? The free flash drive was the last thing I got (from Fry's). It is a "$30" device with a $30 rebate. How much interest could I earn on $30 in 6 weeks (without breaking kneecaps)? I'd bet it's not enough to pay for a flash drive. They borrow my $30, and give it back in 6 weeks, in return I have a flash drive that I keep permanently. I wish everything had a rebate.
Hundreds of things were "engineered" by people who were not technically "engineers" during the Industrial Revolution. People would have an idea and they would implement it. Today, we just expect anyone who makes something new to have some sort of engineering degree, and when they don't it becomes worthly of the evening news. We are used to the idea that "engineer" [implies] "can build stuff", and we too easily make the incorrect assumption that, "can build stuff" [implies] "engineer".
I think the software project in question has to be evaluated for whether or not it required engineering of some sort to complete it. Did it simply use standard libraries in standard ways? Was some new idea or paradigm used that meant the construction of new classes? Were standard libraries meshed together in an unintended way?
If this is just a question of liability, where do you want the liability to fall? On the person who makes the bricks, or the person who made the wall out of them? In software, things are created to enable the creation of other things, which enable the creation of other things, etc, etc...There is no fine line to be drawn.
It's like asking if you can engineer something with Legos. Can you? Of Course. Despite not engineering the Legos themselves. Does this mean that everything that is built with Legos is engineered? No.
Does the notion that something has been engineered rely on it being done by an "engineer"? No. It depends more on what was done, not the title of the person who did it. If someone without a degree of any kind engineers a piece of software that ends up adversely affecting people, should they escape liability simply because they are not technically an engineer? I don't think so.
Your mention of precision weapons doesn't have anything to do with this
Actually, my mention of them was due to this sentence in the previous post:
The more damage US military does to Iraq's infrastructure, the more money will US corporations make on rebuilding
But since you would like to shift focus, may I point out a few thingies?
1)At last count, there were only 6 well heads on fire. (out of hundreds)
2)The US military urged Iraqis specifically to not destroy them.
3)Part of the early war campaign was to get to the main fields as quickly as possible to prevent the destruction of well heads.
4)Haliburton has had a long history of ties to military and government contracts long before Cheney was with them.
5)KBR is a Haliburton subdivision. They were asked by the Army months ago to make an Iraq oil fire contingency plan. They are planning to hire Boots and Coots, and Wild Well companies to do the work because those companies put out the fires the first time around. (i.e. they know what they are doing)
6)The story you link to is purposefully tilted to rally the left. It can also be found at Indymedia.com, Commondreams.org, CNYtalks.com, fightingDemocrat.com, and some others that I am not familiar with. I particularly like this quote they selected to put in it:
"The contract -- to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq -- has no set time limit and no dollar limit and is apparently structured in such a way as to encourage the contractor to increase its costs and, consequently, the costs to the taxpayer." --Henry Waxman , Democratic Representative
What Waxman is all in a ruffle about is that the contract with KBR is a "cost plus" type of deal, where all incurred expenses get paid plus some percentage for the work done. The reason this type of deal gets made is that the cost of the work to be done is not predictable, but the job needs to be done anyway. Military contractors that are hired to develop new types of combat systems make this type of deal all the time, because the cost of Research and development is very unpredictable. If the deal was not cost plus, nobody would be willing to take the risk.
"The real issue here is that" KBR does not have a notable presence in the Waxman district, but I'm willing to bet that no companies capable of this work do. Not everything the military does is put up for open bidding because the military does not always want everyone to know what it is doing. What would you be saying if you knew that the Iraq fire contingency plan had been hashed out months ago, and then the political option had worked? It serves no purpose to throw the issue into the public domain before the need for the contract is known.
I'm sorry that you believe the purpose of this war is US profit. Especially given that it takes so little brain power to work out the truth. We are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on this war and we will be lucky to get even half of it back. We are spending coalition lives on this war, and we will not get any of them back. On the up side, there is another entertainment channel out there that you would probably enjoy. Ask your local cable company if you can get Al-Jazeera.
Is that a troll?
The Haliburton info is a lie, and if you are suggesting that the US is underhanded because the military has been sent in to do maximum damage so that US companies can make money rebuilding it, please note that we are bombing with extremely expensive munitions so as to NOT destroy anything outside of what is intended.
jackass
" Every time I think I need to print something in color I price the carts and say "nevermind" "
I do the same thing. To take it further, I often opt to not print at all, and instead just scribble down what I want off the screen onto a post-it. If I didn't have a nag in the back of my mind about the cost of ink every time I hear my printer doing the hula, I would print a helluva lot more stuff out. So, in a way, having expensive ink makes me more environmentally friendly. (tongue in cheek)
To get back on topic, Dell and the low road, what exactly would you have them do? Despite people knowing about the money being made on the ink, the first theing they consider when buying a printer is the cost of the printer. Dell can't exactly reverse the trend of the existing market just because they now have their name on a printer. If Dell decided to do the "normal" thing... by charging enough to make a profit on the hardware, then selling the ink for the profit that it is worth, how would they get their printers into the market? People would look at the price of them and say... "um, no".
Chess is not going to die any time soon, but it seems like if it were judged by the same criteria as the games in this list it would be percieved as one of the doomed.
I think there is just a perception that some genres are fading away because of how much marketing we see. Nobody wants to market and push puzzle games like tetris because they no longer are great money makers. That does not mean that their genre is dying. It is too hard to guarantee financial return for the simpler games. If someone puts a marketing push behind such a game and it becomes popular, it is too easy for a competitor to quickly develop a rip-off to steal some of that market share.
It sounds like they are really proud of getting 3d without having to wear glasses...
1. No possible variance in viewing angle mentioned.
2. Good results only at 40cm.
So... even though this thing does not touch your head, you have to lock your head in synch with it for good results.
I think I'd rather wear the glasses.
I swear I thought it said:
a report entitled 'The National Strategery to Secure Cyberspace'.
(If he runs against Daschle, he can't loose.)
That would be very cool...
You could watch the latency gradually shrink and grow as it constantly changed distances from its receiver. If you could ping it directly, pinging it from 4 different non-planar sources would allow you to quadrangualte its exact position at any time.
I can't be the only one who is getting really sick of hearing about the RIAA shenanigans (I'm not bitching about Slashdot.. I mean in general). The more crap they try to pull, the more they guarantee that they will only be a flash in the pan.
No organization whose sole motive is greed will ever last. Microsoft started traveling down this path and is now learning about it the hard way on many fronts... which is cool, because they are learning and trying to adjust. RIAA, on the other hand, is incapable of adjusting their greediness because it is their only reason for existence.
I wish they would just hurry up and die.
Oil field trash from Africa's equitorial west coast might remember this being done over 20 years ago (by Conoco? I can't remember). The company needed communications into the jungle, and the anchored dirgibles solved two problems...
1. They didn't have to cut a path for wires
2. They could avoid the natives stealing the wire.
The problem came in the first monsoon season when , although very heavily anchored, the coastal one was blown hard enough to snap the dirgible from the cable. The cable bounded back like a rubber band, and completely demolished the base station. Tons of thick steel cable flying out of the sky. I wish I could have seen it.
(My dad, now retired from Mobil, told me this story some years ago.)
...just last week. It probably saved my life. I mean, Liz was really pretty and seemed to be very sincere, but typing "Liz Borden" into Google really gave me a shock. You just never know some poeple.
I dont think so. This is the only condoned Star Wars MMORPG. People will play it regardless of this rule.
Also, most people like to pick a character and play it for what it is. The more powerful it grows, the more they will want to stick with it. Players who are discouraged by this rule have likely been spoiled by the benefits of twinking. It seems that this idea will make for a richer gaming experience where people take the world more seriously. Your choosing not to play based on Sony not allowing lots of character switching is probably the exact result they were aiming for.
Pulled my Mandrake from my shelf and it started wailing such a shrill scream that I almost passed out. The mature distro surely would have killed me.
</potter>
damn, I'm in Karma hell.
How many of these will it take before it starts becoming funny?
Actually...
since it is branched from the main topic to the topic of redundant posts, and is about being modded troll...
ok, good call again.
sorry.
Yeah, what the hell... Hit me again... It's only carma.
Actually... good call.
Sorry.
There have been other Slashdot stories on this topic, but this could be the last one.
/. stories be posted with this threat? Please? Pretty please?
Could more
shutterbrained liberal.
convenient of you not to point out the exact same thing regarding handguns. Something along the lines of:...
"It's not people that decide to murder that is the problem, it's the societal factors that put people in that situation."
"There are two types of people that commit murder following the purchase of a firearm: those who can't control their emotions (90%) and those who can. If we could create thought suppressants that would not fail, that'd be a whole lot less murders. For the other 10%, people need to be taught about morals, real morals! No more of the 'you have the right to do whatever you like' mentality... why can't we promote that only war entails murder?"
Oh wait... Why don't we just ban handguns?
Oh wait... Why don't we just ban abortion?
Can't you fucking see that these two contrasting differences of opinion ARE THE CAUSE OF BOTH PROBLEMS?!
Gah indeed.
On the last two points, I agree with you, but only in the scope of the times in which we are currently living.
I believe that the second ammendment was included for the sole intent of preventing an opressive government from keeping down the populous. There is no guarantee that there will not be a will in this country (United States) for some sort of political revolution in the distant future.
What happens at that time if 200 years previous, the right to bear "arms" was redefined to mean the right to own a "gunpowder based slug-throwing device" only? What if by that time, "bullet" technology is completely innefective against the current body armor, slug-breakers, nanobot tissue-repair injections, and whatever else? The populous is no longer able to do anything about it's situation without a massive bloodbath because by that days standards they do not have the right to bear "arms".
200 years from today, the same "extreme" rocket launcher will be percieved as little threat to anything.
The problem is that laws passed about this kind of thing today, are still mostly there 200 years from now and beyond. Dig up a state charter and look at how many things are so ridiculously obsolete that they just go ignored today. Now think, if one of these obsolete ideas suddenly finds a new purpose in the eyes of the government, will they take advantage of it?
You bet they will.
Human beings seem to be hung on the idea that living in high pressure environments is an amazing thing simply because we can not do it.
Human life depends heavily on gaseous exchanges, which behave differently at different pressures. Since liquids and solids are hardly compressible, it seems like a no-brainer that organisms that do not rely on gaseous exchanges can reamin intact perfectly well in extremely high pressures.
I would have been more surprised if they had been destroyed.
To try to show an unbiased opinion, I will draw references from both sides of the aisle.
As I mentioned the other day, the core of the problem is not guns, it is people. Guns have become the target because it is easier to make blanket decisions about the intermediary than to try to address the real problem of trying to figure out how to pick which people do not deserve to have them.
On the other side, people choose to fouus on banning abortion clinics and the idea of abortion for the same reason. These are easier targets to deal with. It is more difficult to try to deal with the issue that women who decide to have abortions are the problem.
In either of these cases the real problem is people, and ploiticians who want to "take things away" do not want to focus issues on individuals, or stratified groups, because it looks like discrimination and is bad for them politically. So they target the intermediaries... guns, or abortion, or some other soulless impersonal thing or idea.
Kazaa is not free. Each popup cashes in on a little piece of my sanity...
...which is still better than the recording industry cashing in on a large piece of my wallet.
`I dare say you never even spoke to Time!'
`Perhaps not,' Alice cautiously replied: `but I know I have to beat time when I learn music.'
Dman people, it was supposed to be a joke. Lighten up a little.
Anyway, since this has digressed, I will point out that the house would not have burned down if the people had not placed sources of open flame all over the place for the purpose of being "pretty". People with nerf-ball-aged children know better than to set up this potential hazard. (if they don't... well, I would call this "natural selection"). If the kid was throwing around a ball of asbestos, he could knock a candle into the garland, and bingo. Same result, no Nerf ball.
Using the logic of Consumer Report's Nerf Ball decision, we could ban water because when you put cyanide solids in it, you get deadly cyanide gas, or we could ban bath tubs because they allow Hair-dryers to electrocute us.
This logic only begins to make sense when the true source of the problem is too difficult to change, and the intermediary becomes an easier target. For example, we could ban guns because they allow people to kill us. This makes a lot more sense to people because they find banning guns preferable to the task of sorting out how to decide if someone is homicidal. On the other side (to keep this politically balanced), we could ban abortion clinics because they allow women to have abortions. The real "problem" (if you choose to see it that way) is the woman deciding to have an abortion, not the clinic. But the clinic is an easier target to deal with.
I think it is pretty weak that Consumer Reports used Nerf as the target just because the real source of the problem (open flame in peoples households) was not in their grasp.
The nerf ball failed because it caught fire after being exposed to a lit match?
I guess they also condemned:
1. coloring books
2. jigsaw puzzles
3. the hair on childrens heads
Why didn't they just condemn matches?