You have it backwards. The economics is derived from the abortion rate.
Pre legalized Abortion: Each year 1 million unwanted embroys come to term. They grow up in families that do not have the resources to educate them, come up with little or no usable skills (including social skills), in a society where everyone else had skills. (On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner)
A percentage of the unwanted overcome their dis-advantages, get skills and get a job. But even then, those jobs are RARELY new jobs - they are instead low end jobs. So they are just taking a job that would have gone to someone else. Net Net: an extra 1 million people that don't have jobs, have little if any social skills, and were not brought up right. This creates crime.
Post legalized Abortion: each year 1 million fewer unwanted embroys are born. Fewer children mean smaller class sizes. Fewer unwanted children mean the parents tend to be better parents. Average education rate soars. Less poor, uneducated people with low social skills means a higher percentage of job creators to job takers. End result: More jobs available. Less crime. Everyone is happy except the anti-abortion people.
Bringing things down is only slightly expensive. We do it all the time with things like comet dust. Yes, those things are light, but the principle still applies. Down costs far less then up.
The basic problem is they start off thinking violence is evil.
It isn't evil, it is a natural part of the world that God created. Predators violently attack and eat other creatures. All the really succesfull species (humans and several insect species) go to war. Just like power by itself isn't evil, it is what you use it for that determines if violence is evil or not.
That is why they keep failing to pass laws. They try to show that the games make you think violent thoughts, or make you a tiny bit violent, as if that should be enough to pass the laws. But those points are IRRELEVANT.
Another word for violent thoughts after playing a violent game is MEMORIES. There is nothing wrong with violent thoughts - it is not illegal and should not be illegal. If we outlawed violent thoughts, it would mean outlawing every soldier, cop, body contact sport, and many other good things about our society.
As for violent actions they claim occur -they are always small and legal. Frankly, it does not matter if someone, after playing the games, is likely to violently pull their toys away from other kids instead of politely doing it.
The real test is simple: Do normal, average kids/adults that play the game become more likely to commit crimes? And the answer is a resounding NO, THEY DON'T. There has been a huge drop in crime since the introduction of violent games, not an increase. (Note that drop is almost certainly a direct result of legallizing abortions - it prevents unwanted children from being born to people that don't want them and usually don't have the mental or phsyical resources to properly raise them).
Everything else doesn't matter. The studies they make up are not relevant to the issue. It just is a smoke screen to hide the fact that the anti-violence people have some twisted, false ideas about human psychology. Mind control is almost impossible and even influencing the human mind is extremely dificult, no mere video game will do it unless the person is either already evil or the rest of the real world heavily supports the mind control attempt.
1) You are thinking that the owner of the metal will sell it all at once, and the price drop is a bad thing. No. We are talking about decades to mine out of the asteroid. It is not 20 trillion instantly hitting the market, destroying it. Instead it is spread out over many decades (if not centuries), and during that time we avoid starting newer mines in less profitable loads, because it would not be worth it. I doubt the value of the metal, if we could mine it, would drop more than 10%. But that is a POSITIVE effect for most of the world. It means that manufacturing costs go down, for greater profits for everyone - except the owners of earthly mines that don't get a piece of the action.
2) You are also assuming we have to ship the stuff down to earth. Forget that foolishness. We use the metals to start a manufacturing plant in orbit, that begins to build earth satelites and space ships to explore the rest of the solarsystem.
The basic problem with ALL plant based oils is non-essential production.
Plants take their fuel, which consists of fertilizer, water, air, and sunlight and use it to make complex chemicals.
These chemicals are all used by the plant for various things, such as cell walls, etc.
Corn, soybean, or any other food plant is a RIDICULOUS thing to start with. Making something edible takes a lot of effort/energy. Drop the silly idea of starting with a food plant.
If we REALLY want to create a biodiesal fuel plant, we need to start from the beginning: Genetically enginer a plant that makes the perfect fuel, not take a food plant and change it to make a fuel.
After watching the video, I think this new touch screen seems to be a major improvement. I can see it replacing the mouse for laptops, then later desktops, unlike the current stuff that is nowhere near that good.
Which really surprised me. Just the simple things like zooming that you can do with two touch points (move fingers together to zoom out, move fingers away to zoom in), really impressed me.
NTP was at one time a real company that sold real products using the patent involved. They lost money and went out of business, in part because of competion with you guessed it, Blackberry. Now they have only one real asset, the patent that they claim Blackberry violated.
However, I think their product failed not because of competition, but because it was an inferior product that cost too much.
The problem there is that YOU also often do not know if you are in violation. So you never think of a migration strategy until after the lawyers come knocking at your door.
The web is a distrubition service. That is all it is. Therefore, services that aid in distrubition should be the major profit making web services.
Those would be ISP's, Domain Hosters, and Search engines.
The real problem is the owner has too HIGH a value on the content. Media Content is not really that valuable, depsite what the content creators (and yes, I am one of them) like to think. Media Content gets created by itself, without anyone paying anything for it. Yes, when you pay people, you get higher quality content, but the truth is, any real artist will create content even if no one ever paid them for it. Them same can not be said of distrbution.
Worse, having your coworker slander you and your father as a joke, is not an error, it is an obnoxious bit of stupidity. (As was the case behind that little error you mentioned).
To then complain about it and sue because no one fixed instead of say, actually fixing it YOURSELF, the way the Wiki is expected to work, just proves that you are as foolish as your co-worker.
Your comments sound awfully lot like the words of physicists when asked what happens when you try to travel faster than light, in say the year 1919. They would be absolutely sure it could happen and laugh at anyone that said "We don't know enough to answer that question".
When I say "we don't know enough about molecular science" and you respond, "not according to x science", it does not demonstrate my ignorance, it demonstrates your arrogance.
Your argument is a solid "as far as we know" and I am saying we don't know, and we can't possibly know because we have not done nearly enough looking, testing, or experimenting.
"As far as we can tell life requires complex molecules". That statement is not true at all. What is true is that Our definitions of life pretty much require complex building blocks (molecules are your assumption, made for no reason whatsoever besides the fact that we know about them). Yes, the only complex building blocks we know of are carbon molecules. We assume that therefore carbon molecules are the only ones, but have ZERO evidence to prove that.
The absence of knowledge is not an indication that something is unlikely.
If I wanted to get REALLY strange, I could start off by discussing such wierd ideas as life on nuetron stars, or black holes, or a thousand other very common areas that we have zero conception of. We don't even need molecules at all for that.
But I don't have to go that far. Most of the universe is not in the pressure or heat range found on earth, and we do not know enough about how even normal chemiclas react there.
Your statement about complex molecules don't exist is not based on fact, it is based on conjecture that has not been fairly tested.
I am willing to say that:
1) If all our theories regarding how matter interacts at temperature and pressure found in gas giants of the range of jupiter to say 500 x jupiter are correct.
and
2) There are no other laws of physics that apply in those situation and that we don't know of.
Then you would be correct. But I would bet you my entire life savings that neither of those statements are correct. We have never examined samples from a natural area with that much pressure and energy (which would give it the thousands of years for stable complex forms to create). We have not made a serious attempt to create such complex molecules in a high pressure, high temperature (or low temperature) area. Without at least a couple of decades of solid research, claims that it is impossible are just foolish people thinking we know everything when we don't.
Despite the common belief, we have not discovered all there is to know, science is not coming to an end (which by the way, people have been claiming for 200 years), we continue to know but a small fraction of the laws of the universe.
I thinkyou are speculating quite a bit. You are making a lot of assumptions that are not neccessarily valid, and basing your information on biased data.
First, we have FAR more information about carbon compounds because we are made of carbon compounds. We simply don't know anywhere near as much about non-carbon compounds to really make the statement you are making.
Secondly, we continue to know very little about any compounds, carbonor otherwise, outside of a fairly narrow range of pressure and heat that is found on earth. Go to Jupiter and boom, that pressure and heat create conditions that we know little about and where carbon compounds are useless.
I am not saying you are definitely wrong, just that no one on earth really knows enough to make definitive statements like the ones you made.
Wrong. ID is a religion that CLAIMS to be science.
By claiming to be science, you subject yourself to being debunked, even if you are wrong and it is a religion.
If they admit that it is a religion, then they can't teach it and no one has to debunk it.
They left out the short lived two year cartoon from 1973-1975.
That is the ONLY set of shows that I have not already watched to completion, and they left it out.
What's the point if it is not complete?
Besides, don't you want to see Kzinti threaten to eat vulcans? (One of the few episodes of the cartoons was written by Larry Niven - it was basicall a re-write of one one his better short stories about Slaver weapons and Kzinti and he even kept the Kzinti)
Your basic assumption is false. There is NO way to demonstrate accuracy. None, zip, Nadda.
Demonstration can only show innaccuracy. If it mamakes an error we detect it, but the lack of error could be because the demonstrations were insignificant or because the test was accurate. With a 'succesful' demonstration, we believe that the item is accurate, but it is not truly shown, or proven.
Consider lminol. Luminol is the neato liquid cops spray to detect blood. They can go into 1,000 rooms, spray it around, and only the one where blood was is going to glow.
Sounds like it is demonstrated, doesn't it?
Except, when you open the "black box" you find out that Luminol actually detects IRON, not any chemical specific to blood. One you know that, then you can easily throw out the case where a cop used luminol on an iron worker's cloathing to prove that he was involved in the murder next door.
If you stupidly accept the demonstrations, then the innocent man goes to jail. Same principle. We need to know HOW the tests work, not just that they work.
Our job is nto to design a new keyboard for all languages. Non-english speakers already make their own keyboards. But for English speakers, there are a bunch of simple symbols that should definitely go in.
...Math...
Greater than or equal to
Less than or equal to.
Not equal to.
...Programming...
New line symbol.
Is it Alphabetically equal to (does not set, only used for asking. Equivelent to EQ, could co-opt the wavy equal sign)
Is it Numberically equal to (does not set, only used for asking, Equivelent to == in many computer languages, could co-opt the triple line equal sign.)
Then there are the common symbols that are not on the keyboard. These include
paragraph mark
pound mark
the cross used to signify footnotes
The copyright mark
the registered trademark
the small circle indicating temperature.
These 12 symbols are used throught the english world. Again, the idea is NOT to make an english keyboard useable by for other languages, but instead to expand the use of the keyboard to include the 12 most common symbols used within the english world. Non-english language keyboards should of course expand their own keyboard, but that is up to them, not those of us that speak english.
Most of you people are listing problems related to keyboards.
That demonstrates a lack of vision.
MAKE A NEW KEYBOARD.
Not that hard to do. Almost all computers have function keys on top. The majority of users DON'T USE THEM.
Just print up some new keyboards that have single symbols representing the major programer stuff, such as >=, To use them, print them above the F1,F2,F3, etc. access them by typeing shift F1, etc. etc. Allow them to be over-riden by programs that want to over-ride it.
If Apple did this, it would catch on instantly. In one year, Microsoft would steal the idea.
>It takes in materials and energy from its environment, and uses them to maintain itself and to manufacture more like itself.
If you use that simplistic definition of Life, then fire is alive. So are stars. (If you look in the long term they can be considered to reproduce)
And that definition, if applied strictly, does not apply to either Viruses, or any sterile creature such as mules.
Most people require a better definition of life than that.
To negate these problems, people usually throw in a statement that life must also (Paraphrased from wikipedia):
"Couple the exergonic reactions of nutrient absorption to the endergonic processes required to maintain the living state."
Such a statement negates the fire problem and the star problem as they do not do this.
First of all, the word meme is a junk phrase, that tries to imply false information. Try the word myth instead, it meets the use you intended, without attempting to sound all cool and coming off geek-stupid. The concepts of a Meme is heavily over-rated. Some people don't understand why "TRUE", "FALSE", and "Effective" thoughts get spread while others don't.
Second of all, NONE of the cases you mentioned were relevant.
In Bower, no one challenged the validity of the shrink wrap license on grounds that shrink wrap licenses are unenforceable. The license was not even a major issue, just a minor side issue.
While in the other one you mentioned, they did attempt to challenge it, a reading of the case indicates they did a HORRIBLE job of it. They did not present evidence of an attempt to return the product being rejected (which their opponent claimed could be done, but real world experience indicates the companies refuse to do), they did not argue that while it EULA are expected and that anti-Reverse Engineeering agreements are allowable, that anti-reverse engineering agreements are not expected in an EULA.
Thirdly, a large number of cases have instead found the OPPOSITE. The cases you quoted were american state cases. When we say "no court", we generally mean no national court, states can do lots of wierd things.
Fourthly, this is a CANADIAN Discussion, and US law is TOTALLY irrelevant. I may be american, but I certainly no better than to quote American court cases when we are discussing Canadian laws. It also would not surprise me if a Uganda court that the EULA easter eggs that say things like "you agree to give me your first born child" are valid. Such a thing is however, irrelevant to our discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Undercharging - the price should be around 5 cents, not 1 cent.
2) Theft - the RECEPIENT of the email should be paid, not AoL.
You mean every pound of gold brought from space will be mixed with 100 lbs of terran gold and sold as "containing real gold from OUTER SPACE".
Pre legalized Abortion: Each year 1 million unwanted embroys come to term. They grow up in families that do not have the resources to educate them, come up with little or no usable skills (including social skills), in a society where everyone else had skills. (On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner) A percentage of the unwanted overcome their dis-advantages, get skills and get a job. But even then, those jobs are RARELY new jobs - they are instead low end jobs. So they are just taking a job that would have gone to someone else. Net Net: an extra 1 million people that don't have jobs, have little if any social skills, and were not brought up right. This creates crime.
Post legalized Abortion: each year 1 million fewer unwanted embroys are born. Fewer children mean smaller class sizes. Fewer unwanted children mean the parents tend to be better parents. Average education rate soars. Less poor, uneducated people with low social skills means a higher percentage of job creators to job takers. End result: More jobs available. Less crime. Everyone is happy except the anti-abortion people.
Bringing things down is only slightly expensive. We do it all the time with things like comet dust. Yes, those things are light, but the principle still applies. Down costs far less then up.
It isn't evil, it is a natural part of the world that God created. Predators violently attack and eat other creatures. All the really succesfull species (humans and several insect species) go to war. Just like power by itself isn't evil, it is what you use it for that determines if violence is evil or not.
That is why they keep failing to pass laws. They try to show that the games make you think violent thoughts, or make you a tiny bit violent, as if that should be enough to pass the laws. But those points are IRRELEVANT.
Another word for violent thoughts after playing a violent game is MEMORIES. There is nothing wrong with violent thoughts - it is not illegal and should not be illegal. If we outlawed violent thoughts, it would mean outlawing every soldier, cop, body contact sport, and many other good things about our society.
As for violent actions they claim occur -they are always small and legal. Frankly, it does not matter if someone, after playing the games, is likely to violently pull their toys away from other kids instead of politely doing it.
The real test is simple: Do normal, average kids/adults that play the game become more likely to commit crimes? And the answer is a resounding NO, THEY DON'T. There has been a huge drop in crime since the introduction of violent games, not an increase. (Note that drop is almost certainly a direct result of legallizing abortions - it prevents unwanted children from being born to people that don't want them and usually don't have the mental or phsyical resources to properly raise them).
Everything else doesn't matter. The studies they make up are not relevant to the issue. It just is a smoke screen to hide the fact that the anti-violence people have some twisted, false ideas about human psychology. Mind control is almost impossible and even influencing the human mind is extremely dificult, no mere video game will do it unless the person is either already evil or the rest of the real world heavily supports the mind control attempt.
1) You are thinking that the owner of the metal will sell it all at once, and the price drop is a bad thing. No. We are talking about decades to mine out of the asteroid. It is not 20 trillion instantly hitting the market, destroying it. Instead it is spread out over many decades (if not centuries), and during that time we avoid starting newer mines in less profitable loads, because it would not be worth it. I doubt the value of the metal, if we could mine it, would drop more than 10%. But that is a POSITIVE effect for most of the world. It means that manufacturing costs go down, for greater profits for everyone - except the owners of earthly mines that don't get a piece of the action.
2) You are also assuming we have to ship the stuff down to earth. Forget that foolishness. We use the metals to start a manufacturing plant in orbit, that begins to build earth satelites and space ships to explore the rest of the solarsystem.
Corn, soybean, or any other food plant is a RIDICULOUS thing to start with. Making something edible takes a lot of effort/energy. Drop the silly idea of starting with a food plant.
If we REALLY want to create a biodiesal fuel plant, we need to start from the beginning: Genetically enginer a plant that makes the perfect fuel, not take a food plant and change it to make a fuel.
So, did your trick to get a lot of people to click that link to your website work?
After watching the video, I think this new touch screen seems to be a major improvement. I can see it replacing the mouse for laptops, then later desktops, unlike the current stuff that is nowhere near that good. Which really surprised me. Just the simple things like zooming that you can do with two touch points (move fingers together to zoom out, move fingers away to zoom in), really impressed me.
One is dt(subjective) and the other is dt(objective)
This is in part neccesary due to time dilation experienced as you travel closer to the speed of light.
Some would say this implies a 2nd actual time dimension, which is far easier to explain than space dimensions beyond the base 3.
Changing it so that it is all cable acces, and some people get a discount from full cable price by accepting limits on how much bandwith is fine.
I do agree that it should be content nuetral. No way should they charge you more for going to Google instead of to Yahoo.
However, I think their product failed not because of competition, but because it was an inferior product that cost too much.
The problem there is that YOU also often do not know if you are in violation. So you never think of a migration strategy until after the lawyers come knocking at your door.
You left out the ability to reproduce related to their fitness.
Those would be ISP's, Domain Hosters, and Search engines.
The real problem is the owner has too HIGH a value on the content. Media Content is not really that valuable, depsite what the content creators (and yes, I am one of them) like to think. Media Content gets created by itself, without anyone paying anything for it. Yes, when you pay people, you get higher quality content, but the truth is, any real artist will create content even if no one ever paid them for it. Them same can not be said of distrbution.
To then complain about it and sue because no one fixed instead of say, actually fixing it YOURSELF, the way the Wiki is expected to work, just proves that you are as foolish as your co-worker.
When I say "we don't know enough about molecular science" and you respond, "not according to x science", it does not demonstrate my ignorance, it demonstrates your arrogance.
Your argument is a solid "as far as we know" and I am saying we don't know, and we can't possibly know because we have not done nearly enough looking, testing, or experimenting.
"As far as we can tell life requires complex molecules". That statement is not true at all. What is true is that Our definitions of life pretty much require complex building blocks (molecules are your assumption, made for no reason whatsoever besides the fact that we know about them). Yes, the only complex building blocks we know of are carbon molecules. We assume that therefore carbon molecules are the only ones, but have ZERO evidence to prove that.
The absence of knowledge is not an indication that something is unlikely.
If I wanted to get REALLY strange, I could start off by discussing such wierd ideas as life on nuetron stars, or black holes, or a thousand other very common areas that we have zero conception of. We don't even need molecules at all for that.
But I don't have to go that far. Most of the universe is not in the pressure or heat range found on earth, and we do not know enough about how even normal chemiclas react there.
Your statement about complex molecules don't exist is not based on fact, it is based on conjecture that has not been fairly tested.
I am willing to say that:
1) If all our theories regarding how matter interacts at temperature and pressure found in gas giants of the range of jupiter to say 500 x jupiter are correct.
and
2) There are no other laws of physics that apply in those situation and that we don't know of.
Then you would be correct. But I would bet you my entire life savings that neither of those statements are correct. We have never examined samples from a natural area with that much pressure and energy (which would give it the thousands of years for stable complex forms to create). We have not made a serious attempt to create such complex molecules in a high pressure, high temperature (or low temperature) area. Without at least a couple of decades of solid research, claims that it is impossible are just foolish people thinking we know everything when we don't.
Despite the common belief, we have not discovered all there is to know, science is not coming to an end (which by the way, people have been claiming for 200 years), we continue to know but a small fraction of the laws of the universe.
First, we have FAR more information about carbon compounds because we are made of carbon compounds. We simply don't know anywhere near as much about non-carbon compounds to really make the statement you are making.
Secondly, we continue to know very little about any compounds, carbonor otherwise, outside of a fairly narrow range of pressure and heat that is found on earth. Go to Jupiter and boom, that pressure and heat create conditions that we know little about and where carbon compounds are useless.
I am not saying you are definitely wrong, just that no one on earth really knows enough to make definitive statements like the ones you made.
Wrong. ID is a religion that CLAIMS to be science. By claiming to be science, you subject yourself to being debunked, even if you are wrong and it is a religion. If they admit that it is a religion, then they can't teach it and no one has to debunk it.
That is the ONLY set of shows that I have not already watched to completion, and they left it out.
What's the point if it is not complete?
Besides, don't you want to see Kzinti threaten to eat vulcans? (One of the few episodes of the cartoons was written by Larry Niven - it was basicall a re-write of one one his better short stories about Slaver weapons and Kzinti and he even kept the Kzinti)
Demonstration can only show innaccuracy. If it mamakes an error we detect it, but the lack of error could be because the demonstrations were insignificant or because the test was accurate. With a 'succesful' demonstration, we believe that the item is accurate, but it is not truly shown, or proven.
Consider lminol. Luminol is the neato liquid cops spray to detect blood. They can go into 1,000 rooms, spray it around, and only the one where blood was is going to glow.
Sounds like it is demonstrated, doesn't it?
Except, when you open the "black box" you find out that Luminol actually detects IRON, not any chemical specific to blood. One you know that, then you can easily throw out the case where a cop used luminol on an iron worker's cloathing to prove that he was involved in the murder next door.
If you stupidly accept the demonstrations, then the innocent man goes to jail. Same principle. We need to know HOW the tests work, not just that they work.
...Math...
Greater than or equal to
Less than or equal to.
Not equal to.
...Programming...
New line symbol.
Is it Alphabetically equal to (does not set, only used for asking. Equivelent to EQ, could co-opt the wavy equal sign)
Is it Numberically equal to (does not set, only used for asking, Equivelent to == in many computer languages, could co-opt the triple line equal sign.)
Then there are the common symbols that are not on the keyboard. These include
paragraph mark
pound mark
the cross used to signify footnotes
The copyright mark
the registered trademark
the small circle indicating temperature.
These 12 symbols are used throught the english world. Again, the idea is NOT to make an english keyboard useable by for other languages, but instead to expand the use of the keyboard to include the 12 most common symbols used within the english world. Non-english language keyboards should of course expand their own keyboard, but that is up to them, not those of us that speak english.
That demonstrates a lack of vision.
MAKE A NEW KEYBOARD.
Not that hard to do. Almost all computers have function keys on top. The majority of users DON'T USE THEM.
Just print up some new keyboards that have single symbols representing the major programer stuff, such as >=, To use them, print them above the F1,F2,F3, etc. access them by typeing shift F1, etc. etc. Allow them to be over-riden by programs that want to over-ride it.
If Apple did this, it would catch on instantly. In one year, Microsoft would steal the idea.
>It takes in materials and energy from its environment, and uses them to maintain itself and to manufacture more like itself. If you use that simplistic definition of Life, then fire is alive. So are stars. (If you look in the long term they can be considered to reproduce) And that definition, if applied strictly, does not apply to either Viruses, or any sterile creature such as mules. Most people require a better definition of life than that. To negate these problems, people usually throw in a statement that life must also (Paraphrased from wikipedia): "Couple the exergonic reactions of nutrient absorption to the endergonic processes required to maintain the living state." Such a statement negates the fire problem and the star problem as they do not do this.
Second of all, NONE of the cases you mentioned were relevant.
In Bower, no one challenged the validity of the shrink wrap license on grounds that shrink wrap licenses are unenforceable. The license was not even a major issue, just a minor side issue.
While in the other one you mentioned, they did attempt to challenge it, a reading of the case indicates they did a HORRIBLE job of it. They did not present evidence of an attempt to return the product being rejected (which their opponent claimed could be done, but real world experience indicates the companies refuse to do), they did not argue that while it EULA are expected and that anti-Reverse Engineeering agreements are allowable, that anti-reverse engineering agreements are not expected in an EULA.
Thirdly, a large number of cases have instead found the OPPOSITE. The cases you quoted were american state cases. When we say "no court", we generally mean no national court, states can do lots of wierd things.
Fourthly, this is a CANADIAN Discussion, and US law is TOTALLY irrelevant. I may be american, but I certainly no better than to quote American court cases when we are discussing Canadian laws. It also would not surprise me if a Uganda court that the EULA easter eggs that say things like "you agree to give me your first born child" are valid. Such a thing is however, irrelevant to our discussion.