>"reduce is really what's necessary but not appealing."
I agree, but it isn't just not appealing, it is often not possible. I, like many consumers, want to reduce trash. But we have little choice on how things are packaged. Things like bringing your own bags is not only very inconvenient (and I reuse those plastic bags), it really makes little or no difference (just like this non-sense with plastic straws). It is just self-serving, feel-good, virtue-signaling.
Recycling is something we CAN do and it CAN make a HUGE difference (way more than half of my solid waste stream, by volume, is recyclables). So it is especially frustrating when we can't recycle what we want to recycle, or when we find that what we are doing is wasted because it ends up being land-fill-dumped or burned. AND yet we are charged a lot extra for the "privilege" of recycling. It is a double insult.
So much for open web standards, privacy, and freedom of choice and platform. The march back to the days of IE are progressing so well. I am sure Google is very pleased, indeed.
I don't know about you, but I will continue to fight it. If a site doesn't at least work on Firefox, it is BROKEN.
>"No they don't. They pay the same. Just the merchant gets to keep more."
That is not how economics works in a free market. If it were true, they could continue to charge anything they like for prices and make any amount of profit they want. But it doesn't work that way because of competition.
Most increased unavoidable costs- fees, taxes, materials, energy, are passed along to the consumer.
>"Anybody who is too paranoid to let "them" know what groceries they buy should be living in the wilderness and eating squirrels."
Are you really that dim? I tell you what- why not start posting an itemized list of EVERYTHING you buy from "stores" for a few years, where you bought it, exactly when, followed by your legal name, to a public site that is stored "forever" and shared.
Then from that data we will statistically "know" where you live (based on geo data), your age, your gender, if you are pregnant, if you have children, how "healthy" your food choices are, if you eat "too much" fat or sugar or meat, if you drink alcohol and how much, if you smoke, if you vape, what kind of health issues you have, if you are sexually active, if you are incontinent, if you rent any sleazy sexual videos or accessories, how far you drive, if you have a weapon, possibly your sexual orientation, and good guesses at how much money you make, possibly your political outlook, your race, who you might associate with, how environmentally "friendly" you are, your work hours, where you might work, etc.
Oh, and if our "assumptions" are wrong based on our analyses, well, too bad. Not only can't you change it, you won't even know what they are. And what decisions companies or governments make based on those assumptions, now or far into the future, who knows. Shall I go on?
"Encouragement Without Education Backfires On Recycling Efforts"
Our local recycling program education was "dumbed down" so much it is laughable. They accept #1 and #2 plastics ONLY. This is not uncommon. But because "the populous" was too "stupid" to understand that, they completely removed that information and replaced it with this: "jars, jugs, and plastic bottles with caps". O M G. So that means a TON of plastics that ARE recyclable don't meet that stupid description, and a TON of plastics that DO meet the description are not. Biggest #2 plastic thing I have? Washing machine liquid bottle. Is that a jug? Is that a plastic bottle with cap? What a waste. Same thing with my large #2 liquid soap bottles and #2 plastic liquid deodorant bottles. The list goes on and on. All are recyclable... but not according to their horrible description.
I even Emailed them to complain, and they simply couldn't understand why I would be confused. Instead they quoted "when in doubt, throw it out" (AKA- no not even try to recycle half or more of your eligible recyclables).
Same thing on the "paper" side. Instead of describing the exact attributes of what they want, they changed it to: "cardboard, paper, food boxes, food & beverage cartons". What is a magazine? What is a windowed envelope? Many food "boxes" are heavily waxed, contain metal, or contain plastic... do those count? My protein drink "carton" is waxed paper but has a PLASTIC spout and cap on it. Is that acceptable?
>"It's not a rich or poor thing, it's a "don't write checks for more than what's in the bank" thing"
Well, that is, of course true. When I said "bad credit" I meant it broadly in the sense of "bad financial decisions". But you will find there is a correlation between being poor, having bad credit, and also making bad financial decisions (of which having bad credit is a sub-set). Not saying it is causal, but it will affect the poor more, in general.
Also, bouncing checks or not handling your checking account properly will often result in the bank reporting that to a credit agency, resulting in a bad score. Again, like you said, you don't have to be poor to do that, but I am sure the poorer are more disproportionately represented there.
>"Credit card companies take 3% of everything you spend. If you use your card all the time, you're Visa's bitch, even if you don't see the bill."
AND all the prices go up by X% due to those fees. So cash users end up paying MORE for the same items.
And before someone points out things like cash theft and cash errors... Card payments often have to deal with errors PLUS "chargebacks" and the labor that goes to dealing with those and fighting those. And those fees usually do NOT include the expensive card readers or other infrastructure (and they have to be updated fairly often). So I would think it is a wash on the overhead. Leaving that 3% or whatever going straight into higher prices due to cards.
That is true. But the ONLY option that really protects privacy is cash.
>"A debit card, spending your money which is stored in your local credit union or bank, is absolutely an option."
Card payments of any type leave a trail AND force you to disclose your identity to not only the retailer but also a third party (both of which prevent privacy).
I will also point out that some people who have bad credit, cannot even open a bank account to get a debit card. And now they are cracking down on anonymous debit card sales, closing that avenue too. So it really can still be both a privacy and a poor issue when you are faced with a cashless business.
>"there is a growing divide between "The Rich" and "The Poor", and the middle-class keeps shrinking, forcing people who were once middle-class into the ranks of "The Working Poor""
That is not what is actually happening in the USA or the world. In both, the "poor class" keeps shrinking while both the middle andupper class have been increasing. In the world it is far more prevalent, but I will stick to the USA
So you have to get the whole picture. ALL people are doing better. So although there is a greater divide on the extremes, far fewer people are actually negatively affected by it.
There isn't a fixed pie. The pie has been growing. More people are eating more pie than ever before.
>"Encryption should have limits. That's the message FBI Director Christopher Wray had for cybersecurity experts Tuesday."
No, it shouldn't. And it can't. We have been over this over and over again. It has been proven in the REAL WORLD over and over again. Either something is secure with encryption or it isn't. You can NOT have back doors or intentional weaknesses in encryption or, eventually, EVERYONE loses and suffers. It is either secure or not secure. Back doors and weaknesses will be found by the "bad doers"- bad governments, rogue elements in governments, corporate competitors, hackers with nothing better to do, terrorists, whatever.
>"it shouldn't provide a playground for criminals where law enforcement can't reach them."
We have ALWAYS had such playgrounds. Before the days of computers and text messages and Email and web logs and "security" cameras everywhere, the government couldn't just watch what everyone did/say/go/read/etc. We had privacy and security BY DEFAULT due to the fact that it was either impractical or impossible to collect such information and sift through it en-mass. And it would have been UNTHINKABLE that citizens would ever allow the government to do so in a free country.
In an age where information is power, privacy and security are more important than ever. And just passing laws to "protect" this or that isn't going to cut it. Strong encryption is the only option we have. Mess that up, and we have no real protections left.
>"They want your phone number to more accuratey ID you in advertising databases."
And to sell your phone number to marketing companies that will then spam the s*** out of your phone, no doubt. Or use it to harass you themselves, for whatever purpose they like. And, of course, to make sure that anonymity dies. I have been warning people this was coming with "two factor authentication" schemes that have ONLY mobile phones as the "choice" for second factor. For most purposes, you should be able to use a land line (callback with voice prompt) or Email address for such things.... but somehow that is never allowed.
>"While a speed limitation is not a cure-all, it's worth doing if we can even save one life."
Seriously? That is such a lame thing to say. What if lowering it to 80MPH would save 100 lives? Is that now even better? What if muting the stereo system during motion saves a life? Disable it? What if cruise control disabling could save a life? What if having the horn automatically beep every 10 seconds could save a life? Remove all cupholders- drinking beverages while driving could be dangerous. Make sunroof un-openable, since a rock or meteor could come in a kill an occupant? Mandatory breathalyzer installation? Refuse to start if seatbelt is not fastened? Phone-home if cornering a bit too hard? Auto shutdown if it detects only one hand on steering wheel instead of two hands?
>"Do you get exercise? Would you sleep more heavily if you were tired from exercise?"
I will admit I do not get much exercise. It does seem to help a little, but it is extremely difficult to get motivated to do it, then I quickly lose interest.
>"That sucks big time. No physical possibilities like sciatica or there's a wear and tear issue on a spinal column disk that and make your arms need constant shifting through the night? I'm no medical doctor, but pain might factor in for kicking out of deep sleep."
No, they had no explanation. That is when I realized they really don't know all that much about sleep.
>"The current trend of obsessing and fixation and stress over not getting "enough sleep"? I sleep 5 hours a night. I go to bed when I'm tired, and don't use an alarm clock to wake up. I wake up feeling refreshed. I'm alert all day except for about 10 minutes around 3 PM. "
Indeed. It isn't as much the quantity of sleep that is important as much as the quality. I used to be like you. But now I can sleep for 6 hours, 8 hours, 10 hours, or 12 hours and still hardly waken and feel completely unrefreshed and tired. The sleep study was useless because I don't have "apnea" or "restless leg syndrome", which are apparently the only two things they know how to treat. All they could do was say my deep sleep was severely fragmented and send me on my way. "60 alpha intrusions into delta sleep every hour." And after 20 years of it, I can attest that it does adversely affect memory and seems to create or worsen other health issues.
> "full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel, and the steering wheel and pedals aren't even needed..."
AND can drive anywhere on its own, in any conditions, at least as safely as an average human driver. And that is not at all possible yet.
>Getting to see the film grain in a whole lot of extra detail is of limited value."
And also, viewing the "old" 1080P bluray master on a 4K upscaling TV of any reasonable size (50-80"), at any reasonable distance (6-12 feet), is far more resolution/picture quality than probably 99% could ever resolve or notice. So..... "yawn."
Stop-and-frisk is more than just asking questions, it is laying hands on the person. Questions are bad enough, themselves, if there is no probable cause. There needs to be a presumption of innocence. At least in the USA....
Now, you might feel it is a violation of your rights... and that is fine/OK (just like you said). But it is not OK if one then extends what one feels is OK for themselves to what should be allowed regardinging other people. I don't feel that way, and my point of view is supposedly backed by the Constitution. It is a mental separation that far too few of the population seem to apply. For example, I don't consume alcohol, never have, probably never will. But I am not for making it illegal. I would never get in a car without wearing a seatbelt, but I don't think adults should be compelled to do so with a law. Etc...
>"Stop and Frisk in Toronto was one of the main drivers of crime downwards. Since Toronto stopped this in high crime areas, the crime rates are screeching ever higher now."
Freedom and safety are often at odds with each other. To me, "stop and frisk" is a vile abuse of government power and a violation of essential civil liberties. Sure, it might be effective at reducing crime, but there is a big cost that comes with it... one that I hope people aren't willing to pay.
Indeed. Mass surveillance is certainly worth arguing about.
>"but the obvious big issue here is that the police help unarmed suspects at gunpoint. We have a severe police hiring, training, and discipline problem."
+1 From the description, the police were grossly overreacting and also breaking the law. And what if those innocent citizens were legally armed and their "database" indicated the vehicle had been in a robbery or murder? How much worse could it have been when more false assumptions were made, or when errors might be compounded?
The problem with such technology is that, more and more, innocent people are going to be intercepted and presumed guilty until cleared. Regardless of how good or bad the technology is, we MUST presume innocence. Our entire system of law and justice was based on this presumption and that it is better that many guilty go free lest one innocent be harmed.
If that had happened to me, I absolutely would sue them. Not because of the mistake, but due to the way they handled it.
>" FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb wrote in a [statement] Tuesday. "
At this time, that link for the statement is broken.
Do be warned- there are, indeed, serious risks with infusing foreign blood. All kinds of blood-borne diseases can be transmitted, as well risk of injection site infections. You can also have severe allergic or other auto-immune reactions. At those *crazy* costs ($8k for just a single treatment of 1 liter), one would think you would be blood typed matched carefully to blood products that have been thoroughly tested and screened and all equipment is sterilized properly. But, who knows.
And there is no proof it does anything at all. Not yet, anyway. And I doubt such profit-motivated "desperation clinics" are performing any controlled studies to help change that.
Slashdot Mirror
>"reduce is really what's necessary but not appealing."
I agree, but it isn't just not appealing, it is often not possible. I, like many consumers, want to reduce trash. But we have little choice on how things are packaged. Things like bringing your own bags is not only very inconvenient (and I reuse those plastic bags), it really makes little or no difference (just like this non-sense with plastic straws). It is just self-serving, feel-good, virtue-signaling.
Recycling is something we CAN do and it CAN make a HUGE difference (way more than half of my solid waste stream, by volume, is recyclables). So it is especially frustrating when we can't recycle what we want to recycle, or when we find that what we are doing is wasted because it ends up being land-fill-dumped or burned. AND yet we are charged a lot extra for the "privilege" of recycling. It is a double insult.
So much for open web standards, privacy, and freedom of choice and platform. The march back to the days of IE are progressing so well. I am sure Google is very pleased, indeed.
I don't know about you, but I will continue to fight it. If a site doesn't at least work on Firefox, it is BROKEN.
>"No they don't. They pay the same. Just the merchant gets to keep more."
That is not how economics works in a free market. If it were true, they could continue to charge anything they like for prices and make any amount of profit they want. But it doesn't work that way because of competition.
Most increased unavoidable costs- fees, taxes, materials, energy, are passed along to the consumer.
>"Anybody who is too paranoid to let "them" know what groceries they buy should be living in the wilderness and eating squirrels."
Are you really that dim? I tell you what- why not start posting an itemized list of EVERYTHING you buy from "stores" for a few years, where you bought it, exactly when, followed by your legal name, to a public site that is stored "forever" and shared.
Then from that data we will statistically "know" where you live (based on geo data), your age, your gender, if you are pregnant, if you have children, how "healthy" your food choices are, if you eat "too much" fat or sugar or meat, if you drink alcohol and how much, if you smoke, if you vape, what kind of health issues you have, if you are sexually active, if you are incontinent, if you rent any sleazy sexual videos or accessories, how far you drive, if you have a weapon, possibly your sexual orientation, and good guesses at how much money you make, possibly your political outlook, your race, who you might associate with, how environmentally "friendly" you are, your work hours, where you might work, etc.
Oh, and if our "assumptions" are wrong based on our analyses, well, too bad. Not only can't you change it, you won't even know what they are. And what decisions companies or governments make based on those assumptions, now or far into the future, who knows. Shall I go on?
"Encouragement Without Education Backfires On Recycling Efforts"
Our local recycling program education was "dumbed down" so much it is laughable. They accept #1 and #2 plastics ONLY. This is not uncommon. But because "the populous" was too "stupid" to understand that, they completely removed that information and replaced it with this: "jars, jugs, and plastic bottles with caps". O M G. So that means a TON of plastics that ARE recyclable don't meet that stupid description, and a TON of plastics that DO meet the description are not. Biggest #2 plastic thing I have? Washing machine liquid bottle. Is that a jug? Is that a plastic bottle with cap? What a waste. Same thing with my large #2 liquid soap bottles and #2 plastic liquid deodorant bottles. The list goes on and on. All are recyclable... but not according to their horrible description.
I even Emailed them to complain, and they simply couldn't understand why I would be confused. Instead they quoted "when in doubt, throw it out" (AKA- no not even try to recycle half or more of your eligible recyclables).
Same thing on the "paper" side. Instead of describing the exact attributes of what they want, they changed it to: "cardboard, paper, food boxes, food & beverage cartons". What is a magazine? What is a windowed envelope? Many food "boxes" are heavily waxed, contain metal, or contain plastic... do those count? My protein drink "carton" is waxed paper but has a PLASTIC spout and cap on it. Is that acceptable?
>"So that's why we're having an obesity problem. Too much pie."
LOL +1 funny
>"It's not a rich or poor thing, it's a "don't write checks for more than what's in the bank" thing"
Well, that is, of course true. When I said "bad credit" I meant it broadly in the sense of "bad financial decisions". But you will find there is a correlation between being poor, having bad credit, and also making bad financial decisions (of which having bad credit is a sub-set). Not saying it is causal, but it will affect the poor more, in general.
Also, bouncing checks or not handling your checking account properly will often result in the bank reporting that to a credit agency, resulting in a bad score. Again, like you said, you don't have to be poor to do that, but I am sure the poorer are more disproportionately represented there.
>"Credit card companies take 3% of everything you spend. If you use your card all the time, you're Visa's bitch, even if you don't see the bill."
AND all the prices go up by X% due to those fees. So cash users end up paying MORE for the same items.
And before someone points out things like cash theft and cash errors... Card payments often have to deal with errors PLUS "chargebacks" and the labor that goes to dealing with those and fighting those. And those fees usually do NOT include the expensive card readers or other infrastructure (and they have to be updated fairly often). So I would think it is a wash on the overhead. Leaving that 3% or whatever going straight into higher prices due to cards.
>Many of us don't use cash or credit.
That is true. But the ONLY option that really protects privacy is cash.
>"A debit card, spending your money which is stored in your local credit union or bank, is absolutely an option."
Card payments of any type leave a trail AND force you to disclose your identity to not only the retailer but also a third party (both of which prevent privacy).
I will also point out that some people who have bad credit, cannot even open a bank account to get a debit card. And now they are cracking down on anonymous debit card sales, closing that avenue too. So it really can still be both a privacy and a poor issue when you are faced with a cashless business.
>"there is a growing divide between "The Rich" and "The Poor", and the middle-class keeps shrinking, forcing people who were once middle-class into the ranks of "The Working Poor""
That is not what is actually happening in the USA or the world. In both, the "poor class" keeps shrinking while both the middle andupper class have been increasing. In the world it is far more prevalent, but I will stick to the USA
http://www.aei.org/publication...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
So you have to get the whole picture. ALL people are doing better. So although there is a greater divide on the extremes, far fewer people are actually negatively affected by it.
There isn't a fixed pie. The pie has been growing. More people are eating more pie than ever before.
>"Encryption should have limits. That's the message FBI Director Christopher Wray had for cybersecurity experts Tuesday."
No, it shouldn't. And it can't. We have been over this over and over again. It has been proven in the REAL WORLD over and over again. Either something is secure with encryption or it isn't. You can NOT have back doors or intentional weaknesses in encryption or, eventually, EVERYONE loses and suffers. It is either secure or not secure. Back doors and weaknesses will be found by the "bad doers"- bad governments, rogue elements in governments, corporate competitors, hackers with nothing better to do, terrorists, whatever.
>"it shouldn't provide a playground for criminals where law enforcement can't reach them."
We have ALWAYS had such playgrounds. Before the days of computers and text messages and Email and web logs and "security" cameras everywhere, the government couldn't just watch what everyone did/say/go/read/etc. We had privacy and security BY DEFAULT due to the fact that it was either impractical or impossible to collect such information and sift through it en-mass. And it would have been UNTHINKABLE that citizens would ever allow the government to do so in a free country.
In an age where information is power, privacy and security are more important than ever. And just passing laws to "protect" this or that isn't going to cut it. Strong encryption is the only option we have. Mess that up, and we have no real protections left.
>"They want your phone number to more accuratey ID you in advertising databases."
And to sell your phone number to marketing companies that will then spam the s*** out of your phone, no doubt. Or use it to harass you themselves, for whatever purpose they like. And, of course, to make sure that anonymity dies. I have been warning people this was coming with "two factor authentication" schemes that have ONLY mobile phones as the "choice" for second factor. For most purposes, you should be able to use a land line (callback with voice prompt) or Email address for such things.... but somehow that is never allowed.
>"While a speed limitation is not a cure-all, it's worth doing if we can even save one life."
Seriously? That is such a lame thing to say. What if lowering it to 80MPH would save 100 lives? Is that now even better? What if muting the stereo system during motion saves a life? Disable it? What if cruise control disabling could save a life? What if having the horn automatically beep every 10 seconds could save a life? Remove all cupholders- drinking beverages while driving could be dangerous. Make sunroof un-openable, since a rock or meteor could come in a kill an occupant? Mandatory breathalyzer installation? Refuse to start if seatbelt is not fastened? Phone-home if cornering a bit too hard? Auto shutdown if it detects only one hand on steering wheel instead of two hands?
>"Do you get exercise? Would you sleep more heavily if you were tired from exercise?"
I will admit I do not get much exercise. It does seem to help a little, but it is extremely difficult to get motivated to do it, then I quickly lose interest.
>"I had considerable trouble getting to sleep"
In my case, I can sleep just about anytime, anywhere. And I am unconscious within about 60 seconds with no more awareness until many hours later.
>"That sucks big time. No physical possibilities like sciatica or there's a wear and tear issue on a spinal column disk that and make your arms need constant shifting through the night? I'm no medical doctor, but pain might factor in for kicking out of deep sleep."
No, they had no explanation. That is when I realized they really don't know all that much about sleep.
>"The current trend of obsessing and fixation and stress over not getting "enough sleep"? I sleep 5 hours a night. I go to bed when I'm tired, and don't use an alarm clock to wake up. I wake up feeling refreshed. I'm alert all day except for about 10 minutes around 3 PM. "
Indeed. It isn't as much the quantity of sleep that is important as much as the quality. I used to be like you. But now I can sleep for 6 hours, 8 hours, 10 hours, or 12 hours and still hardly waken and feel completely unrefreshed and tired. The sleep study was useless because I don't have "apnea" or "restless leg syndrome", which are apparently the only two things they know how to treat. All they could do was say my deep sleep was severely fragmented and send me on my way. "60 alpha intrusions into delta sleep every hour." And after 20 years of it, I can attest that it does adversely affect memory and seems to create or worsen other health issues.
> "full self-driving" means a car in which a person could safely fall asleep behind the wheel, and the steering wheel and pedals aren't even needed..."
AND can drive anywhere on its own, in any conditions, at least as safely as an average human driver. And that is not at all possible yet.
>Getting to see the film grain in a whole lot of extra detail is of limited value."
And also, viewing the "old" 1080P bluray master on a 4K upscaling TV of any reasonable size (50-80"), at any reasonable distance (6-12 feet), is far more resolution/picture quality than probably 99% could ever resolve or notice. So..... "yawn."
>"But losing one freedom never gets you the other freedom, you've simply lost multiple freedoms."
+1 insightful
Stop-and-frisk is more than just asking questions, it is laying hands on the person. Questions are bad enough, themselves, if there is no probable cause. There needs to be a presumption of innocence. At least in the USA....
Now, you might feel it is a violation of your rights... and that is fine/OK (just like you said). But it is not OK if one then extends what one feels is OK for themselves to what should be allowed regardinging other people. I don't feel that way, and my point of view is supposedly backed by the Constitution. It is a mental separation that far too few of the population seem to apply. For example, I don't consume alcohol, never have, probably never will. But I am not for making it illegal. I would never get in a car without wearing a seatbelt, but I don't think adults should be compelled to do so with a law. Etc...
>"Stop and Frisk in Toronto was one of the main drivers of crime downwards. Since Toronto stopped this in high crime areas, the crime rates are screeching ever higher now."
Freedom and safety are often at odds with each other. To me, "stop and frisk" is a vile abuse of government power and a violation of essential civil liberties. Sure, it might be effective at reducing crime, but there is a big cost that comes with it... one that I hope people aren't willing to pay.
>"You can argue about the plate technology"
Indeed. Mass surveillance is certainly worth arguing about.
>"but the obvious big issue here is that the police help unarmed suspects at gunpoint. We have a severe police hiring, training, and discipline problem."
+1 From the description, the police were grossly overreacting and also breaking the law. And what if those innocent citizens were legally armed and their "database" indicated the vehicle had been in a robbery or murder? How much worse could it have been when more false assumptions were made, or when errors might be compounded?
The problem with such technology is that, more and more, innocent people are going to be intercepted and presumed guilty until cleared. Regardless of how good or bad the technology is, we MUST presume innocence. Our entire system of law and justice was based on this presumption and that it is better that many guilty go free lest one innocent be harmed.
If that had happened to me, I absolutely would sue them. Not because of the mistake, but due to the way they handled it.
>" It seems to be a daily occurrence where we have crossed another line in how far we will go to accept massive surveillance as normal."
Forced mass collection of DNA is REALLY crossing a lot of lines. I can't believe anyone would even propose such a bill.
>" FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb wrote in a [statement] Tuesday. "
At this time, that link for the statement is broken.
Do be warned- there are, indeed, serious risks with infusing foreign blood. All kinds of blood-borne diseases can be transmitted, as well risk of injection site infections. You can also have severe allergic or other auto-immune reactions. At those *crazy* costs ($8k for just a single treatment of 1 liter), one would think you would be blood typed matched carefully to blood products that have been thoroughly tested and screened and all equipment is sterilized properly. But, who knows.
And there is no proof it does anything at all. Not yet, anyway. And I doubt such profit-motivated "desperation clinics" are performing any controlled studies to help change that.