But it IS easier to change - a LOT easier to change.
And a lot easier to forge.
To stuff a ballot box, you need the right paper, ink, and print format BEFORE the election. This creates a paper trail and gives us time to stop you before you do it.
It also requires multiple criminals, which may very well turn state's evidence.
To change purely electronic data, it can be done on the fly, during the election, by one angry man, leaving apparently NO traces, according to the analysis of the machines currently used. And their would be no way to recover the original data.
The original paper ballots can and DO get checked by hand. To really fix any election that has paper ballots, it is MUCH harder than a pure electron one.
Part of the problem is that in many areas, laws have been passed saying that only one specific company, approved by the current government, can do exit polling.
Look, the republicans are not smart enough to fix an electronic voting machine and the democrats would fix it so that the votes were split between 3 different right in canidates.
Do you know who/what the NSA are? Before you start spreading generic crap that could be applied to any secreat agency, you might at least make the attempt to make it specific to the agency you are attacking.
A lot of questions and insults. Not surprising, as you appear to have done no research. Well, we do know what the NSA does. The NSA is charged with breaking other people's coded message. In other words, it is basically the MOST defensive, MOST safe secret service we have. The worst it does is invade privacy. And it is very unlikely to invade YOUR privacy, as most people do not use the kind of High end cryptology that they coutner. The CIA is far more dangerous and active. Not to mention the various military agencies that do the black ops for the CIA.
P.S. What fool moded this as interesting. It is clearly off topic.
You are old and non-progressive. It is easy to create a "perpetual motion machine." Shine a light into the night sky. If nothing intereferes with the light, the photons will travel for EVER. I.E. Perpetual Motion.
What is impossible is to steal/get energy OUT of a perpetual motion machine. While this is a technical difference, it is significant.
Well not quite. You can also do the REAL nuke ship, an Orion Class starship. We have the technology to build an Orion Class starship TODAY that will make it Alpha Cent.
But the same people that dislike building a Prometheus get REAL angry when we start talking about Orion class starships.
Translation to spanish and back to english of above post (via google):
Now we were able to see how the seriously automatic translation can be killed. Seriously nevertheless -- he is pleasant to see somebody trying tend a bridge on openings of the language like this. Perhaps this will create a demand for an automatic translation more of high quality. Quicksort robbed my drinks '!
they do in fact make stereos for deaf people. Specifically, they make special sub woofer stuff that the deaf people can feel the beat. This allows them to dance.
The law has previously determined that driving a car requires you to not be blind. Therefore it is not discrimination.
However, the streets are required to be blind person friendly. Specifically, the walk/do not walk signs are designed to make noise when they change, indicating it is/is not safe to walk.
Studies in Australia have shown that it is the distraction of TALKING to someone, not the hand/eye stuff that is responsible for the increased accident rate.
That is, the problem is not taking your eyes off the road, or your hands off the stearing wheel. Instead it is your attention off the road.
In fact, talking with someone in the passenger seat, that has their eyes closed and therefore does not pause when the traffic get's funky, should cause just as much problems as talking on the phone.
I think it is time to simply declare that the spamer's clients are responsible for anything the spammers do. That way when a web site pays a spammer to advertise for them, we do not have to track down the spammers, we just have to click on the link.
And better yet, make it legal to hack any web site that pays for spammers, as long as the only thing you do is put up a black screen that says in gold "This site sent me spam!" I am going to propose this as a poll.
Not worth buying. Make it yourself using MS word. They do not care, they make no attempt to verify at all.
If you are scared, do it from a Copy center, so they do not get your real fax #.
OK, but that would still be 3 US plus 2 soviets = 5 total. Not 3 for the world.
Re:Shielding RFID against security
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 0
Ah but the first place they put the RFID's was IN THE TIN FOIL
Woops, got to go, before the evil Linux Penguins come for me now that I have told their secret.
Re:Am I expected to place my ..
on
RFID Explained
·
· Score: 1
You do realize that tin foil causes cancer...
It collects all that energy that the power lines put out and focuses it into your body.:)
The only problem is that for the Do Not Email registry, they will ask that you give a phone number that they will all and verify.
And of course, they will not be able to call you because you have alread put in a Do not call. list.
And t
No it is NOT like that at all, you are failing to realize exactly what it means to not have installed any security at all.
The best analogy I have seen walking down a street where all the houses are for sale, and none of themhave doors up, to facilitate people coming in and looking at them. You decide to buy one and do so, moving your stuff in, BUT NOT BUYING A DOOR. (As in not even attempting to install any security, not just installing inept security)
If you do this, and then refuse to buy a door, or put up a no-trespassing sign, or do anything else to indicate that people can not enter, then when people come up, it is not trespassing. It is not in fact surprising if people come in, sit down on your sofa, watch your TV, - for all they know this house is like the others, only set up with furniture to make people more likely to buy it. They may even say to themselves, what a nice neighborhood, where the realtor can leave a cool place like this unguarded and nothing gets stolen.
If you make NO, nada, zero, one minus one, one greater than negative one, effort whatsoever to create security or at least indicate that this is private property, then people are legally allowed to enter your area property and look around.
Note, they are still not allowed to TAKE anything. That means it would be illegal for the newspaper to publish any of the secure information, such as names, pictures, grades etc. In addition, if they did not at least make reasonable efforts to inform the owner of the system before they pubish, they could be charged with encourageing criminal actions. But they are allowed to look at it, and definitely allowed to publish the fact that they looked at it.
That would be 3 incidents in the US.
If I remember correctly, the Soviet Union is strongly suspected to have covered up deaths of astronauts.
And the chinese are not doing the same goal as the US mission. The US mission was to reach the moon for Glory purposes and examination of the moon.
The chinese mission is instead to improve their man mission space technology to be competitive with the US and russia. The moon is just a handy tourist attraction that is being used as a mile marker so that they will know they are getting it right.
"Actually, that is the beauty of ideas. In a free market place in which patents do not exist, then the better ideas win. Like capitalism, but without the physical aspect. Patents are like monopolies in such a market place of ideas."
Nice fantasy you have there. Too bad it isn't true. You are assuming that we have money and other resources to test all possible ideas, something that we are FAR from capable of doing. Each day people come up with thousands of ideas. Some of them SUCK, some are OK, some of them are good, and some of them are FANTASTIC. In order for the market place to work, we can not test all of them. Especially as some of them are things like "If we take all the peanutbutter in the world, stack into a single mound, we can climb it and reach the moon." Even if we were willing to test that idea, it would prevent us from testing any other peanutbutter idea, as it takes all the peanut butter." Before the free market can work, we must first identify all the ideas that might possibly have some value, and that is a LOT of work, in part because people disagree about what is valuable and what is junk.
"(re ideas are work) He never fails to realize this. Seems like your using straw man here. " Wrong. He never ever admits that finding ideas is work and therefore valuable in and of itself. Once you admit that finding ideas is work, then you MUST compensate the person for doing the work, or no one will do it.
"He states though, that ideas are not created in a social vacuum. "It would not have been possible without lots of earlier work--both intellectual and nonintellectual--by many other people.""
Here he is not talking about actually finding ideas being work, he is instead discussing the
work done by previous people. And it is not clear if he is talking about the mental work on finding a good idea, or the physical work of verifying it. At no point does he admit that mental work by itself is real work, valuable, and should be compensated monetarily for.
"This statement is very wrong. First I would like to ask you to read about communism before using it in a sentence. That which is practiced by "communistic" countries is not theoretically communism. It can be argued though that it is an attempt at communism. Competition is effective. Yet again, when it comes to ideas, the rules change. A soccer/football/tennis/baseball/etc. game does not involve unequal sides. One side doesn't hold a monopoly on a better bat or shoes."
My statement about capitalism soundly defeating communism is correct. I am very very knoweldgable about communism, in college I was very confused by how people could have been taken in by what was such a horrible failure and I read a lot about it. Yes, Russian Communism et. al. is not real communism (anymore than American Capitalism is real capitalism), but it shared enough of the relevant qualities to be a fair test. As your your concept of monoplies, you are SO wrong. EVERY soccer/football/tennis/baseball etc. DOES involve a monoply on the part that is essential to their winning: TEAM MEMBERS. Peopl are not allowed to play on multiple teams. The bat, the ball etc. are not essential, so are shared, just as the basics of many computer programs are shared.
It isn't a severe problem. People will always have an incentive to create, whether it be physical or intangible. Progress does not end with the elimination of patents.
Prove this blatnatly ridiculous statement. It is a severe problem. Name the incentive you seem to think exists. While yes, there will be SOME incentive, it is so small without patents, that it will only work on obtaining incredibally slow progress. Patents themselves are a relatively new concept, less than 300 years old. Compare the rate of technological progress before patents and after. Yes, there are other things that increased our progress, but Patents were definitely one of the things that helped.
"...overheard an office worker complaining about how hard it was to keep paper in a folder."
Here is one example of what he says:
"Unlike goods, there are no physical obstacles to providing an abundance of ideas. (Indeed, the bigger problem may be an oversupply of ideas.) Intellectual property is an attempt to create an artificial scarcity in order to give rewards to a few at the expense of the many. Intellectual property aggravates inequality. It fosters competitiveness over information and ideas, whereas cooperation makes much more sense."
He fails to consider NON-physical obstacles to providing an abundance of ideas.
He fails to realize that just as certain physical goods are worth more than others (Gold vs. crap), certain ideas are worth more than others, and that while we may have oversupply of ideas in general, we also have oversupply of dirt in general. It is not an "idea" that is valuable, but "good ideas" that are valuable. We have a scarcity of good ideas, as they are hidden by all the junk that is out there.
He fails to realize that those that come up with good ideas have done WORK, just as someone that digs up a gold nugget out of a mountain of dirt.
The concept of "Intellectual property aggravates inequality" is true, but is not relevant to the question. It assumes that the particular inequality will by definition be a bad thing to have. As the intent of this law is to reward people for coming up with a good idea, by definition, it will be giving money to smart people, who are assumed to already have more money. In this way it aggravates an inequality - those that are smart and blessed will also get money.
Again, he assumes thigns not proven when he says that "It fosters competitiveness over information and ideas, whereas cooperation makes much more sense". Capitalism has soundly defeated Communism and thereby show tnat competitiveness can be VERY effective, quite capable of beating cooperation. While cooperation is a valuable concept, that can also be effective, it requires a sense of community, and often requires a strong incentive to create in order to work. NEITHER of these problems with cooperation are sufficently dealt with by him, which is dissapointing, because they are SEVERE problems when it comes to inventions. In large cultures/societis, such as nations, that sense of community is not always present (generally only there in times of peril such as War/terrorism) and often people do not have any incentive to create. Do you know WHY the creator of the Paper Clip designed it? He neded money (To pay off a $300 debt.) and overheard an office worker complaining about how hard it was to keep paper in a folder. If he could not have patented the idea, he would never have tried to figure out a solution, let alone sold the idea and paid off his debt.
Brian then presents several possible arguements in favor of Intelletual Property. But note, he gets them by quoting someone who believes as he does (Hettinger) This is almost ALWAYS a bad idea. It is called the Straw man Fallacy. Why? Because, since one strongly believes the opposing view, it is practically impossible to do a Good job as "Devil's Arguement" and you almost always list artificially weak arguments as "your opponent's" ideas. What would you think if I wrote "You think that patents are evil only because you want to steal them, so you are wrong." Clearly I should not be doing this kind of thing, telling you why you believe something. Instead, he should have quoted the paper of someone that BELIEVED in Patents, when discussing what arguments people with patents have.
Those are some of Brians errors. There are more. Lots of them.
Nope, sorry, but that is a bunch of bull crap. In the real world more often than not a Major company would rather SUPRESS a new patent that buy it. Have you read ANYTHING about how corporations work???
Someone comes up with an idea that could improve the rate of oil production from an oil well by 1%. Would anyone buy it? or would the big oil companies decide not to buy it and 2 years later all start using it for free?
Now remember, it is expensive and unproven. It is in fact just an idea that somebody came up with. If you buy it you will have to spend a TON of money making the prototype and testing it and there exists the possibility that it will not work as planned. Once you do, your potential payoff is only a 1% increase in effeciency. While that is millions of dollars, you are exxon and therefore will not affect your bottom line at all. It will not even effect it if your competition gets the idea and you do not. But the idea is still worth millions of dollars.
And that assumes that there is MORE than one company in that field. If you were talking about something that is a limited field, say production of the Smallpox vaccine that is entirely done by one major company, then that one company has NO incentive to purchase ANY patents. Let them expire and they get them for free.
your idea works fine and is a very good one, as long as you assume that the major corporations are run by ethical, morale people But if we could assume that, then we would not need the patent laws in the first place.
I read Brian's work. I found it to be illogical, and seriously flawed. He repeatedly makes use of the following:
argument from adverse consequences
appeal to ignorance
false dichotomy
straw man
All of which are classic examples of bad logic.
Even if everything he assumes is true, he has not proven his point at all.
Try again with someone that will at least write out ideas that would have correct collusions if his assumptions were valid.
I am not saying that the patent system works, I am saying that it is better than the alternative.
Yes, hard work is worth more than a few minutes thought, but those thoughts ARE worth something, and often those thoughts can save a TON of hard work.
In addition, EVERY civilization has found repaid brain work more than it pays physical work.
The capacity to do it is both rarer than physical work and it is much easier to steel.
For that reason we should compensate people for pure brain work. If some one comes up with a real idea and tells the world (and if you tell the patent office, then you have done that - it is NOT your fault if the world refuses to check the patent office) then they should be compensated for their idea.
The problems are that we do not have a simple, chepa way to nerf the stupid patents, that peopledo NOT check the patent office for cool new things to do, and that we do not always price the ideas reasonably. This is not surprising considering how hard it is to price some things.
Slashdot Mirror
And a lot easier to forge.
To stuff a ballot box, you need the right paper, ink, and print format BEFORE the election. This creates a paper trail and gives us time to stop you before you do it.
It also requires multiple criminals, which may very well turn state's evidence.
To change purely electronic data, it can be done on the fly, during the election, by one angry man, leaving apparently NO traces, according to the analysis of the machines currently used. And their would be no way to recover the original data.
The original paper ballots can and DO get checked by hand. To really fix any election that has paper ballots, it is MUCH harder than a pure electron one.
Part of the problem is that in many areas, laws have been passed saying that only one specific company, approved by the current government, can do exit polling.
Look, the republicans are not smart enough to fix an electronic voting machine and the democrats would fix it so that the votes were split between 3 different right in canidates.
A lot of questions and insults. Not surprising, as you appear to have done no research. Well, we do know what the NSA does. The NSA is charged with breaking other people's coded message. In other words, it is basically the MOST defensive, MOST safe secret service we have. The worst it does is invade privacy. And it is very unlikely to invade YOUR privacy, as most people do not use the kind of High end cryptology that they coutner. The CIA is far more dangerous and active. Not to mention the various military agencies that do the black ops for the CIA.
P.S. What fool moded this as interesting. It is clearly off topic.
What is impossible is to steal/get energy OUT of a perpetual motion machine. While this is a technical difference, it is significant.
But the same people that dislike building a Prometheus get REAL angry when we start talking about Orion class starships.
Spanish.
Bebe = to drink
Now we were able to see how the seriously automatic translation can be killed. Seriously nevertheless -- he is pleasant to see somebody trying tend a bridge on openings of the language like this. Perhaps this will create a demand for an automatic translation more of high quality. Quicksort robbed my drinks '!
they do in fact make stereos for deaf people. Specifically, they make special sub woofer stuff that the deaf people can feel the beat. This allows them to dance.
However, the streets are required to be blind person friendly. Specifically, the walk/do not walk signs are designed to make noise when they change, indicating it is/is not safe to walk.
That is, the problem is not taking your eyes off the road, or your hands off the stearing wheel. Instead it is your attention off the road.
In fact, talking with someone in the passenger seat, that has their eyes closed and therefore does not pause when the traffic get's funky, should cause just as much problems as talking on the phone.
And better yet, make it legal to hack any web site that pays for spammers, as long as the only thing you do is put up a black screen that says in gold "This site sent me spam!" I am going to propose this as a poll.
Not worth buying. Make it yourself using MS word. They do not care, they make no attempt to verify at all. If you are scared, do it from a Copy center, so they do not get your real fax #.
As such, it already applies to non-US police
It should also be noted, that a simple phone call, from an experienced socializer can easily get the same information from 80% of businesses.
P.S. Impersonating a Police Officier is a crime. You can be arrested for doing this, so do not do it.
OK, but that would still be 3 US plus 2 soviets = 5 total. Not 3 for the world.
Ah but the first place they put the RFID's was IN THE TIN FOIL Woops, got to go, before the evil Linux Penguins come for me now that I have told their secret.
You do realize that tin foil causes cancer... It collects all that energy that the power lines put out and focuses it into your body. :)
The only problem is that for the Do Not Email registry, they will ask that you give a phone number that they will all and verify. And of course, they will not be able to call you because you have alread put in a Do not call. list. And t
The best analogy I have seen walking down a street where all the houses are for sale, and none of themhave doors up, to facilitate people coming in and looking at them. You decide to buy one and do so, moving your stuff in, BUT NOT BUYING A DOOR. (As in not even attempting to install any security, not just installing inept security)
If you do this, and then refuse to buy a door, or put up a no-trespassing sign, or do anything else to indicate that people can not enter, then when people come up, it is not trespassing. It is not in fact surprising if people come in, sit down on your sofa, watch your TV, - for all they know this house is like the others, only set up with furniture to make people more likely to buy it. They may even say to themselves, what a nice neighborhood, where the realtor can leave a cool place like this unguarded and nothing gets stolen.
If you make NO, nada, zero, one minus one, one greater than negative one, effort whatsoever to create security or at least indicate that this is private property, then people are legally allowed to enter your area property and look around.
Note, they are still not allowed to TAKE anything. That means it would be illegal for the newspaper to publish any of the secure information, such as names, pictures, grades etc. In addition, if they did not at least make reasonable efforts to inform the owner of the system before they pubish, they could be charged with encourageing criminal actions. But they are allowed to look at it, and definitely allowed to publish the fact that they looked at it.
The system is a lot smarter than you seem to be willing to grant it.
Why does everyone hear assume that a complex auto-breaking system is going to be built by idiots that do not even consider simple situations?
While I am sure that this device might cause problems in complex situations, the simples ones should already be accounted for.
And the chinese are not doing the same goal as the US mission. The US mission was to reach the moon for Glory purposes and examination of the moon.
The chinese mission is instead to improve their man mission space technology to be competitive with the US and russia. The moon is just a handy tourist attraction that is being used as a mile marker so that they will know they are getting it right.
"(re ideas are work) He never fails to realize this. Seems like your using straw man here. " Wrong. He never ever admits that finding ideas is work and therefore valuable in and of itself. Once you admit that finding ideas is work, then you MUST compensate the person for doing the work, or no one will do it.
"He states though, that ideas are not created in a social vacuum. "It would not have been possible without lots of earlier work--both intellectual and nonintellectual--by many other people."" Here he is not talking about actually finding ideas being work, he is instead discussing the work done by previous people. And it is not clear if he is talking about the mental work on finding a good idea, or the physical work of verifying it. At no point does he admit that mental work by itself is real work, valuable, and should be compensated monetarily for.
"This statement is very wrong. First I would like to ask you to read about communism before using it in a sentence. That which is practiced by "communistic" countries is not theoretically communism. It can be argued though that it is an attempt at communism. Competition is effective. Yet again, when it comes to ideas, the rules change. A soccer/football/tennis/baseball/etc. game does not involve unequal sides. One side doesn't hold a monopoly on a better bat or shoes." My statement about capitalism soundly defeating communism is correct. I am very very knoweldgable about communism, in college I was very confused by how people could have been taken in by what was such a horrible failure and I read a lot about it. Yes, Russian Communism et. al. is not real communism (anymore than American Capitalism is real capitalism), but it shared enough of the relevant qualities to be a fair test. As your your concept of monoplies, you are SO wrong. EVERY soccer/football/tennis/baseball etc. DOES involve a monoply on the part that is essential to their winning: TEAM MEMBERS. Peopl are not allowed to play on multiple teams. The bat, the ball etc. are not essential, so are shared, just as the basics of many computer programs are shared.
It isn't a severe problem. People will always have an incentive to create, whether it be physical or intangible. Progress does not end with the elimination of patents. Prove this blatnatly ridiculous statement. It is a severe problem. Name the incentive you seem to think exists. While yes, there will be SOME incentive, it is so small without patents, that it will only work on obtaining incredibally slow progress. Patents themselves are a relatively new concept, less than 300 years old. Compare the rate of technological progress before patents and after. Yes, there are other things that increased our progress, but Patents were definitely one of the things that helped.
"...overheard an office worker complaining about how hard it was to keep paper in a folder."
He fails to consider NON-physical obstacles to providing an abundance of ideas.
He fails to realize that just as certain physical goods are worth more than others (Gold vs. crap), certain ideas are worth more than others, and that while we may have oversupply of ideas in general, we also have oversupply of dirt in general. It is not an "idea" that is valuable, but "good ideas" that are valuable. We have a scarcity of good ideas, as they are hidden by all the junk that is out there.
He fails to realize that those that come up with good ideas have done WORK, just as someone that digs up a gold nugget out of a mountain of dirt.
The concept of "Intellectual property aggravates inequality" is true, but is not relevant to the question. It assumes that the particular inequality will by definition be a bad thing to have. As the intent of this law is to reward people for coming up with a good idea, by definition, it will be giving money to smart people, who are assumed to already have more money. In this way it aggravates an inequality - those that are smart and blessed will also get money.
Again, he assumes thigns not proven when he says that "It fosters competitiveness over information and ideas, whereas cooperation makes much more sense". Capitalism has soundly defeated Communism and thereby show tnat competitiveness can be VERY effective, quite capable of beating cooperation. While cooperation is a valuable concept, that can also be effective, it requires a sense of community, and often requires a strong incentive to create in order to work. NEITHER of these problems with cooperation are sufficently dealt with by him, which is dissapointing, because they are SEVERE problems when it comes to inventions. In large cultures/societis, such as nations, that sense of community is not always present (generally only there in times of peril such as War/terrorism) and often people do not have any incentive to create. Do you know WHY the creator of the Paper Clip designed it? He neded money (To pay off a $300 debt.) and overheard an office worker complaining about how hard it was to keep paper in a folder. If he could not have patented the idea, he would never have tried to figure out a solution, let alone sold the idea and paid off his debt.
Brian then presents several possible arguements in favor of Intelletual Property. But note, he gets them by quoting someone who believes as he does (Hettinger) This is almost ALWAYS a bad idea. It is called the Straw man Fallacy. Why? Because, since one strongly believes the opposing view, it is practically impossible to do a Good job as "Devil's Arguement" and you almost always list artificially weak arguments as "your opponent's" ideas. What would you think if I wrote "You think that patents are evil only because you want to steal them, so you are wrong." Clearly I should not be doing this kind of thing, telling you why you believe something. Instead, he should have quoted the paper of someone that BELIEVED in Patents, when discussing what arguments people with patents have.
Those are some of Brians errors. There are more. Lots of them.
Someone comes up with an idea that could improve the rate of oil production from an oil well by 1%. Would anyone buy it? or would the big oil companies decide not to buy it and 2 years later all start using it for free?
Now remember, it is expensive and unproven. It is in fact just an idea that somebody came up with. If you buy it you will have to spend a TON of money making the prototype and testing it and there exists the possibility that it will not work as planned. Once you do, your potential payoff is only a 1% increase in effeciency. While that is millions of dollars, you are exxon and therefore will not affect your bottom line at all. It will not even effect it if your competition gets the idea and you do not. But the idea is still worth millions of dollars.
And that assumes that there is MORE than one company in that field. If you were talking about something that is a limited field, say production of the Smallpox vaccine that is entirely done by one major company, then that one company has NO incentive to purchase ANY patents. Let them expire and they get them for free.
your idea works fine and is a very good one, as long as you assume that the major corporations are run by ethical, morale people But if we could assume that, then we would not need the patent laws in the first place.
argument from adverse consequences
appeal to ignorance
false dichotomy
straw man All of which are classic examples of bad logic. Even if everything he assumes is true, he has not proven his point at all. Try again with someone that will at least write out ideas that would have correct collusions if his assumptions were valid.
I am not saying that the patent system works, I am saying that it is better than the alternative.
Yes, hard work is worth more than a few minutes thought, but those thoughts ARE worth something, and often those thoughts can save a TON of hard work.
In addition, EVERY civilization has found repaid brain work more than it pays physical work.
The capacity to do it is both rarer than physical work and it is much easier to steel.
For that reason we should compensate people for pure brain work. If some one comes up with a real idea and tells the world (and if you tell the patent office, then you have done that - it is NOT your fault if the world refuses to check the patent office) then they should be compensated for their idea.
The problems are that we do not have a simple, chepa way to nerf the stupid patents, that peopledo NOT check the patent office for cool new things to do, and that we do not always price the ideas reasonably. This is not surprising considering how hard it is to price some things.