"We investigated the propagation of femtosecond laser pulses through a metamaterial that has a negative index of refraction for wavelengths around 1.5 micrometers. From the interference fringes of a Michelson interferometer with and without the sample, we directly inferred the phase time delay. From the pulse-envelope shift, we determined the group time delay. In a spectral region, phase and group velocity are negative simultaneously. This means that both the carrier wave and the pulse envelope peak of the output pulse appear at the rear side of the sample before their input pulse counterparts have entered the front side of the sample."
does your daughter blog about your sex life on MySpace?
I'm married with 2 teenage kids. What sex life?
Third, should it come up, let her know that most rational males still consider her a virgin. You have to actually participate in something to unset that bit, and it sounds like she was probably an unwitting bystander to the act.
This was a tough one. As you said, her physical virginity is different from her emotional one. In the process of recovering from this ordeal we tried very hard to get her to see where her responsibility lie and where it ended. She was responsible for a string of bad decisions which lead up to the rape, but she was not responsible for the rape. She chose to go to a party with older, college-age kids (and other high schoolers), where she knew there would be drinking, against our wishes - her responsibility. She chose to accept an alcoholic drink from a stranger even though she was underage - her responsibility. She went unconscious, was stripped in front of a crowd of guys and raped - NOT her responsibility.
She doesn't consider this her first sexual experience because she remembers very little of it (she woke up right at the end). She's much more careful now and realizes that there can be serious repercussions for her actions and decisions. It's not the way I would have had her learn that. We've done our best to minimize the emotional trauma on her (which is why we never tried to drag this through the court system). We are confident that she'll be able to lead a healthy, happy, sexual life with someone who loves her.
...you would know that "wanting to get to know her as a person" is a pickup line. It is what you tell them to get them drop their pants.
Of course it's a pickup line. I'm well aware that the purpose for 17 year old male's existence is to get laid as for as they're concerned. But, being roughly in her peer group, the 17-year-old stands a better chance of having enough interests/friends/activites in common with my daughter that he'd try to make friends with her to [earn his way] into her pants. This is how relationships generally start. Usually the successful relationships are the ones where both parties waited long enough and the guy was willing to put a great deal of effort into getting involved with the girl's life.
Of course it is possible for a 50-year-old to have a loving relationship with a teen. Strange, but possible. My contention is that with so many decades between then in age and experience there is far less chance of them having enough interests/friends/activites to enable them to develop a close relationship if his goal is to get into her pants. A 50-year-old who actively pursues a 17-year-old girl for sex is acting far enough out of the social norm as to be dangerous, in my opinion.
...you seem to say that a 50yr old seducing your daughter is worse then the 17yr old who raped her.
Not at all. The 17-year-old(s) (they were older) who took advantage of my daughter's unconscious body are slime. It was also a 17-year-old boy who pulled them off her when he saw it and brought her home.
Let me tell you one tiny thing then. Old men would have beaten the crap out of any 17yr old boy trying something like that.
Not the kind of old man that wants to get into a 17-year-old girl's pants. Her naked, unconscious body would have been a dream come true!
As I said in my previous post, you have to consider the people and the situation involved and wing it from there. There are no cut-and-dried rules. As a parent I have to help her make those decisions and hope she's got the tools to continue making the right decisions after she leaves home.
I absolutely see your point. I hope I can address it properly.
I agree with the premise that any red-blooded male would want to sleep with my daughter (really, she's stunning). I, myself, as a happily married man (20 years), all things being equal and ignoring legal/ethical issues, would happy sleep with a beautiful teenage girl (shyah, when monkeys fly out of my butt). As a parent, I'm protective of my daughter - often, way more so than she'd like (oh the long, lovely discussions I've had with her on this issue).
One thing to consider is that (I believe) sex is different for a man than it is for a woman on a fundamental level. Sex for a man is a very external act. We do it too a woman. Our equipment is external to our bodies and is intended to penetrate into the female's body. On the other hand, sex for a woman is very internal and very personal. I think this fact can have a great impact on the emotional response to sex that a young, inexperienced girl has, as opposed to a guy.
That being said, I'd like to see my daughter date someone who is at a close enough stage in life so that they can reasonably find common ground emotionally. I'd like any relationship they have to able to be based on common interests, activities, peer interaction, etc., instead of sex. This is most likely to occur when her date is close to her age range and in her peer group. Strangely enough, at this stage in her life, I'd just as soon she not have sex at all.
If she is just going out just to have sex for sex's sake, then you are correct; it doesn't matter how old the guy is, what his personality is like, etc. He's apparently just a self-powered dildo. If this is the case and we aren't worried about her emotional well-being and have no consideration for her future love-life then why don't I just have sex with her? After all, it would solve a lot of problems. I'm clean, I'm gentle, I'm caring, I'm skilled, I'm fixed! But we do care about her emotional well-being and her future. And now things like this start to matter.
If a 50 year-old man wanted to "get together" with my daughter, I can be pretty confident that he's only after one thing. If a 17 year old kid wants to "get together" with my daughter then I can at least hope that he might actually want to get to know her, spend time with her, and "earn" his way into her pants (to be crude about it). Just like I earned my way into my wife's pants when I was in college. I wooed her. I dated her. I got to know her, and I made a commitment to her. In short, yes, I wanted to sleep with her, but I also was interested in doing a lot of other things with her. We were friends. Then we became lovers.
Now, I happen to know for a fact that my daughter has had sex. She lost her virginity when she was invited to a college party, slipped a micky, and raped. It took us, as a family, a long time to come to grips with what happened. I think she's handled it quite well, but it goes to show that even people close to her own age can be dangerous to her.
I know she's going to be curious about sex. That's healthy. It's my responsibility to give her the tools necessary to make the right descisions about sex and to provide an appropriate level of protection and structure for her while she's living under my roof. Sometimes, that means forbidding her to date someone who I think is inappropriate (too old, too bad a reputation, too pushy, too abusive, too disrespectful of her, etc.). Sometimes it's giving her enough freedom to make mistakes for herself.
What it all boils down to, though, is that I am involved in her life. I have educated myself about what goes on on MySpace and am vigilant for signs of trouble. When I see cause for alarm, I must assert my authority as her father to do what I believe is in her best interest. And as you parents of teenagers know, this is a fine line we walk. We have to learn to pick our battles carefully or risk loosing our children.
I've got a teenage daughter (17) who's had a MySpace account for a long time now. I monitor it as best I can (along with all her internet activity) and keep myself involved in her life. She spends a lot more time on MySpace than I'd prefer, but I've not seen any particularly disagreeable interaction take place on her site. Some of her "friends" are older than I'd let her date and make remarks to her online that they'd never do in my hearing (and live to tell about it), but that's part of growing up and learning to deal with it "one step removed" like this seems alright to me. I did see one user attempt to get her to sneek out of the house one night to meet him, but she obviously knew him personally and handled it correctly ("No way. My Dad will kill me if I get caught - and then he'd kill you!").
I know she'd be crushed if it was taken away from her until she was 18. It's one "social" activity she is involved in where I don't have to worry about her getting involved with drinking or drugs or worse...
Protecting my child is my responsibility as a parent - not the State's - and not MySpace. That being said, if I, as a parent, contact MySpace with a concern about my daughter's account they'd better damn well sit up and take notice!
Apple is crapping on the 40's white color workers, but it's the 40sh white color workers that make all corporate purchasing decisions today... (emphasis mine)
Its white-collar. White-collar, as in they wear white shirts with white-collars (probably with ties attached) instead shirts with "blue-collars" or t-shirts or tank-tops or what-have-you, implying that they don't "get their hands dirty" when they work like "blue-collar" workers do. This means that you can actually include non-caucasians in the white-collar category too.
Or where you making some sort of statement and I missed it entirely?;-)
> But all parties are permitted to conduct research. If said scientists are
> unable to gain public funding for their work, they are free to approach
> whatever other monied groups or individuals they wish to seek funding from.
> There is no law saying that the government is the only legal source of science
> funding. (In fact, an awful lot of research is privately funded - eg by the
> pharma companies)
If they can't get funding from the state then they should get funding from industry.
Oh, wait. That makes their data invalid, because then they are just "industry shills"
Hey guys, the whole idea of an April Fool's joke is that it's supposed to be believable. I would have bought the OpenSSH one if someone had posted a thoughtful article on a security page. Perhaps peppering enough clues to it's being a fake so that those "real" admins would know it was false because the exploit described was not plausible, while the "wannabies" spent their Saturday at work combing the net for the patch and filling up forums with "OMG, WTF?! I can't find a patch for my Ubuntu web server!"
The saddest part is, this is the most believable story yet.
I'm a pastor's kid and I still think it's funny. I use variations of it on my kids all the time: "What do you mean you'll do that for a buck? If you want to do the Right Thing(tm), you'll see it needs to be done and do it without needing to be paid. So, what...I gotta pay you to be good now? Why can't you just be good for nothing, like me?"
I PURPOSELY set Safari Version 2.0.3 (417.8) under Mac OS X 10.4.5 to "open safe files" and I have admin privileges.
It downloaded the file.
To get it to unzip I had to double-click on it.
To get it to execute I had to double click on it.
I'm running Safari 2.0.3(417.8) with the "Open safe files after downloading" option checked on an Administrative account. When I click on the link it downloaded, unzipped and executed by itself.
I then created a brand new test account with no admin priv's and tried it and it worked there also.
And seriously, this isn't any bigger than any number of social engineering security vulnerabilities that take advantage of some flaw or shortcoming in any other OS...
As much as I hate it, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I can add an exploit to my web page that will tell your browser to automatically download a file when the page is viewed - the only user interaction necessary would be to visit my page. If you haven't configured you browser to NOT open "safe" files (the default is to go ahead and open them automatically) then my exploit is triggered - no user interaction, again. I have now infected your system.
Granted, if I try to change firewall settings or affect anything outside of your account's permissions you will be prompted for a password. But I could still delete or corrupt all your files, change your bookmarks, send email to your friends and family with an exploit and try to IM your buddies with it - I just have to choose a well-crafted malware.
I'd say this is a potentially evil hole. I just had my wife and kids change their default settings (I'd always had mine disabled - never thought to change my family's). I think, though that this one will also be quickly and simply patched. And really, the more "benign" wake-up calls Mac users get the better protected they will be and the more difficult it will be for any malware to gain traction.
So what are you going to do? Anything at all (other then your slashdot post)?
YOu will simply go on with your life until it hits closer to home. So some liberal democrat scientists gets hassled in Idaho, what does that have to do with you. Right?
To be perfectly blunt, yes. It would be rather pointless and disingenuous of me to put anti-war stickers on my car when 1) I don't really feel that way, and 2) I don't have anyone in my vicinity who has been overstepping their bounds in this regard. Along these lines I've said many times that I'd like to see some PETA activist throw blood or red paint on me when I walk by in my leather jacket. Just because this is known to have happened elsewhere in the world, does it make sense for me to assault the next PETA freak I see - even if they've never done this to me? I live in Alaska, we have a lot of animal activists up here - I'd have plenty of chance to do it. But they've never overstepped their bounds around me yet, so I leave them be.
I know this is not exactly the same scenario as I posted about earlier, but the sentiment is the same: "Shame on the people who are abusing their authority (or other citizen's rights). If I get the chance to do anything about it, I will". To put this into a more likely scenario: I have a liberal coworker. He's young, and naive yet, so we kinda keep him around as a mascot, of sorts. My town is located between an Army Post and an Air Force base. My wife is currently active duty and I'm ex-Navy. The military is a huge part of our local economy. Naturally, most people are pretty supportive of our troops and the war in Iraq. If my coworker was getting hassled by the local authorities about his anti-war bumper stickers, I'd be the first one out the door to defend him. I've served my time defending his right to be a liberal peace-nick and my wife is still serving this country (in fact she leaves next week, again) so that all of you can have a safe place to do your little demonstrations.
I was not raised in America. I was in high school before I came to live in this great land. English is my second language and it disgusts me that I have a better grasp of it than most "Americans" seem to. I've seen first hand what corrupt governments do to their people. I've been through the agony of wondering where my father was taken for the weeks he disappeared. I've been face down on the ground with my brothers and sister while soldiers "searched" (read looted) our home simply to harass us. I take civil liberties *very* seriously.
I know you don't know me and I know my first post might have sounded flip, but I meant what I said. I'm also realistic about what my actions can accomplish. So, you tell me, do you really think it would make sense to put anti-war stickers on my car? Especially in light of the fact that my town, of all places, would be the place where you'd expect the "redneck sheriff" to hassle the peace-nick - yet they don't. We know what people's rights are up here - that's why many of us are here in the first place - Instead of the Left Coast. Up here, we still have the right to bear arms, the right to free speech and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And we'll defend that right. We'll even defend your right to be a jerk, as long as you're being a jerk doesn't impact our rights.
A federal employee gets hassled by Homeland Security for antiwar stickers on his car.
I'd classify myself as in support of [the current] war. I also happen to drive a very nice vehicle that I'd never consider putting anything tacky like a bumper sticker on (I don't even like the inspection stickers on my windshield). But I'll tell you what: If I found out that there were government agents hassling people over an anti-war sticker in an official capacity - I'd have my car plastered with them!
That sort of thing has no place in this country! As a private citizen I have a right to disagree with the anti-war people and I can take it up with them, but the Government had better back the fsck off!
According to the F-Secure entry "...the Municipality of Milan had many of their 10,000 machines infected by Nyxem.E and have chosen to switch off their network today."
Claude.A is a Microsoft Word macro virus. How does that make it a Mac virus? I've got several WMF exploits that are sitting on my Mac at home as well as some trojans that one of my Windows Buddies email me by accident (I do have a virus checker on my Mac, BTW)... Does that make them Mac viruses now, just because they are on my Mac and I might send them to a PC where they could spread?
C'mon. You just spent a lot of time telling us that there are a lot of viruses out there for OS X and that we should just research it. Well, I'm sure you've researched it, so enlighten us, please. Name one.
Oh, I know about the "opener" trojan. A shell script that never went anywhere. BTW here is a much more destructive "Mac OS X trojan" called "runme.sh" that also affects Linux and Unix! Oh my. Here it is, read with caution:
sudo rm -fr/
The only viruses I've seen on macs are word macro viruses - namely Claude.A
So, oh wise one, educate me and the rest of use please. I am aware that there are security weaknesses which could be expoited. But so far, none have. I agree, that we have to be vigilant, but for now, you are just talking out of your ass.
But if they control Windows update - you know, the site from which updates to the operating system are downloaded and installed, automatically on most machines, why would they need a backdoor?
Touché
But, what if I have heard that one of their updates will disable my computer because I don't have a valid copy of windows (or whatever)? So I don't go to the windows update site and I've got ActiveX turned off and my firewall is set to block any incoming traffic that isn't initiated by me, etc. MS could just put this exploit on one of their other sites or in any Ad they've got running on a myriad of sites (including Shashdot) and the "patch" would be installed.
Paranoia speaking? Yeah, probably. But I smell a rat...and for some reason, it smells "fishy"...
There are dozens of plausible explanations for the length==1 statement in the code.
How many times does the length==1 statement accidently start a new thread and begin executing code where no code is even expected to be executed? My understanding is that the closest this was supposed to come was to provide the address of a callback function in the originating application so that Windows could notify it that the print job had been aborted or for some reason could not be completed. How does that suddenly translate into "let's fire up a thread and start executing code that resides in the WMF file itself starting right here"? Shouldn't it be expecting an address at the location specified by the header and defined by the length field in the WMF file instead of the code to execute itself? Or am I misunderstanding the situation?
Let me rephrase then: The only sites that most windows machines access on a semi-regular basis which are controlled by an entity that might logically know about this backdoor would be Microsoft's. I'd say windows update, msn, etc. are probably pretty commonly accessed by the majority of windows users, wouldn't you? They probably access google and yahoo too, but wait, how would google know about this backdoor? Oh, they wouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
That service is not operational yet. They said it should be "soon".
She doesn't consider this her first sexual experience because she remembers very little of it (she woke up right at the end). She's much more careful now and realizes that there can be serious repercussions for her actions and decisions. It's not the way I would have had her learn that. We've done our best to minimize the emotional trauma on her (which is why we never tried to drag this through the court system). We are confident that she'll be able to lead a healthy, happy, sexual life with someone who loves her.
Of course it is possible for a 50-year-old to have a loving relationship with a teen. Strange, but possible. My contention is that with so many decades between then in age and experience there is far less chance of them having enough interests/friends/activites to enable them to develop a close relationship if his goal is to get into her pants. A 50-year-old who actively pursues a 17-year-old girl for sex is acting far enough out of the social norm as to be dangerous, in my opinion.
Not at all. The 17-year-old(s) (they were older) who took advantage of my daughter's unconscious body are slime. It was also a 17-year-old boy who pulled them off her when he saw it and brought her home. Not the kind of old man that wants to get into a 17-year-old girl's pants. Her naked, unconscious body would have been a dream come true!As I said in my previous post, you have to consider the people and the situation involved and wing it from there. There are no cut-and-dried rules. As a parent I have to help her make those decisions and hope she's got the tools to continue making the right decisions after she leaves home.
I agree with the premise that any red-blooded male would want to sleep with my daughter (really, she's stunning). I, myself, as a happily married man (20 years), all things being equal and ignoring legal/ethical issues, would happy sleep with a beautiful teenage girl (shyah, when monkeys fly out of my butt). As a parent, I'm protective of my daughter - often, way more so than she'd like (oh the long, lovely discussions I've had with her on this issue).
One thing to consider is that (I believe) sex is different for a man than it is for a woman on a fundamental level. Sex for a man is a very external act. We do it too a woman. Our equipment is external to our bodies and is intended to penetrate into the female's body. On the other hand, sex for a woman is very internal and very personal. I think this fact can have a great impact on the emotional response to sex that a young, inexperienced girl has, as opposed to a guy.
That being said, I'd like to see my daughter date someone who is at a close enough stage in life so that they can reasonably find common ground emotionally. I'd like any relationship they have to able to be based on common interests, activities, peer interaction, etc., instead of sex. This is most likely to occur when her date is close to her age range and in her peer group. Strangely enough, at this stage in her life, I'd just as soon she not have sex at all.
If she is just going out just to have sex for sex's sake, then you are correct; it doesn't matter how old the guy is, what his personality is like, etc. He's apparently just a self-powered dildo. If this is the case and we aren't worried about her emotional well-being and have no consideration for her future love-life then why don't I just have sex with her? After all, it would solve a lot of problems. I'm clean, I'm gentle, I'm caring, I'm skilled, I'm fixed! But we do care about her emotional well-being and her future. And now things like this start to matter.
If a 50 year-old man wanted to "get together" with my daughter, I can be pretty confident that he's only after one thing. If a 17 year old kid wants to "get together" with my daughter then I can at least hope that he might actually want to get to know her, spend time with her, and "earn" his way into her pants (to be crude about it). Just like I earned my way into my wife's pants when I was in college. I wooed her. I dated her. I got to know her, and I made a commitment to her. In short, yes, I wanted to sleep with her, but I also was interested in doing a lot of other things with her. We were friends. Then we became lovers.
Now, I happen to know for a fact that my daughter has had sex. She lost her virginity when she was invited to a college party, slipped a micky, and raped. It took us, as a family, a long time to come to grips with what happened. I think she's handled it quite well, but it goes to show that even people close to her own age can be dangerous to her.
I know she's going to be curious about sex. That's healthy. It's my responsibility to give her the tools necessary to make the right descisions about sex and to provide an appropriate level of protection and structure for her while she's living under my roof. Sometimes, that means forbidding her to date someone who I think is inappropriate (too old, too bad a reputation, too pushy, too abusive, too disrespectful of her, etc.). Sometimes it's giving her enough freedom to make mistakes for herself.
What it all boils down to, though, is that I am involved in her life. I have educated myself about what goes on on MySpace and am vigilant for signs of trouble. When I see cause for alarm, I must assert my authority as her father to do what I believe is in her best interest. And as you parents of teenagers know, this is a fine line we walk. We have to learn to pick our battles carefully or risk loosing our children.
So, does age matter
I know she'd be crushed if it was taken away from her until she was 18. It's one "social" activity she is involved in where I don't have to worry about her getting involved with drinking or drugs or worse...
Protecting my child is my responsibility as a parent - not the State's - and not MySpace. That being said, if I, as a parent, contact MySpace with a concern about my daughter's account they'd better damn well sit up and take notice!
Or where you making some sort of statement and I missed it entirely? ;-)
Yeah. Windows only. GREAT alternative!
Oh, wait. That makes their data invalid, because then they are just "industry shills"
The saddest part is, this is the most believable story yet.
OK, maybe not that funny.
I then created a brand new test account with no admin priv's and tried it and it worked there also.
This is on a fully patched OS X 10.4.5 system.
Just FYI.
Granted, if I try to change firewall settings or affect anything outside of your account's permissions you will be prompted for a password. But I could still delete or corrupt all your files, change your bookmarks, send email to your friends and family with an exploit and try to IM your buddies with it - I just have to choose a well-crafted malware.
I'd say this is a potentially evil hole. I just had my wife and kids change their default settings (I'd always had mine disabled - never thought to change my family's). I think, though that this one will also be quickly and simply patched. And really, the more "benign" wake-up calls Mac users get the better protected they will be and the more difficult it will be for any malware to gain traction.
I know this is not exactly the same scenario as I posted about earlier, but the sentiment is the same: "Shame on the people who are abusing their authority (or other citizen's rights). If I get the chance to do anything about it, I will". To put this into a more likely scenario: I have a liberal coworker. He's young, and naive yet, so we kinda keep him around as a mascot, of sorts. My town is located between an Army Post and an Air Force base. My wife is currently active duty and I'm ex-Navy. The military is a huge part of our local economy. Naturally, most people are pretty supportive of our troops and the war in Iraq. If my coworker was getting hassled by the local authorities about his anti-war bumper stickers, I'd be the first one out the door to defend him. I've served my time defending his right to be a liberal peace-nick and my wife is still serving this country (in fact she leaves next week, again) so that all of you can have a safe place to do your little demonstrations.
I was not raised in America. I was in high school before I came to live in this great land. English is my second language and it disgusts me that I have a better grasp of it than most "Americans" seem to. I've seen first hand what corrupt governments do to their people. I've been through the agony of wondering where my father was taken for the weeks he disappeared. I've been face down on the ground with my brothers and sister while soldiers "searched" (read looted) our home simply to harass us. I take civil liberties *very* seriously.
I know you don't know me and I know my first post might have sounded flip, but I meant what I said. I'm also realistic about what my actions can accomplish. So, you tell me, do you really think it would make sense to put anti-war stickers on my car? Especially in light of the fact that my town, of all places, would be the place where you'd expect the "redneck sheriff" to hassle the peace-nick - yet they don't. We know what people's rights are up here - that's why many of us are here in the first place - Instead of the Left Coast. Up here, we still have the right to bear arms, the right to free speech and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And we'll defend that right. We'll even defend your right to be a jerk, as long as you're being a jerk doesn't impact our rights.
That sort of thing has no place in this country! As a private citizen I have a right to disagree with the anti-war people and I can take it up with them, but the Government had better back the fsck off!
Wasn't there a Stephen King story about this - Oh yeah "Langoliers".
Also see here (if you speak Italian)
Seems like having to have 10,000 computers shut down for a day is a big deal... We won't hear about the real impact until next week, I'm guessing.
Claude.A is a Microsoft Word macro virus. How does that make it a Mac virus? I've got several WMF exploits that are sitting on my Mac at home as well as some trojans that one of my Windows Buddies email me by accident (I do have a virus checker on my Mac, BTW)... Does that make them Mac viruses now, just because they are on my Mac and I might send them to a PC where they could spread?
We were talking about OS X, not System 7.
Name one.
C'mon. You just spent a lot of time telling us that there are a lot of viruses out there for OS X and that we should just research it. Well, I'm sure you've researched it, so enlighten us, please. Name one.
Oh, I know about the "opener" trojan. A shell script that never went anywhere. BTW here is a much more destructive "Mac OS X trojan" called "runme.sh" that also affects Linux and Unix! Oh my. Here it is, read with caution:
The only viruses I've seen on macs are word macro viruses - namely Claude.ASo, oh wise one, educate me and the rest of use please. I am aware that there are security weaknesses which could be expoited. But so far, none have. I agree, that we have to be vigilant, but for now, you are just talking out of your ass.
But, what if I have heard that one of their updates will disable my computer because I don't have a valid copy of windows (or whatever)? So I don't go to the windows update site and I've got ActiveX turned off and my firewall is set to block any incoming traffic that isn't initiated by me, etc. MS could just put this exploit on one of their other sites or in any Ad they've got running on a myriad of sites (including Shashdot) and the "patch" would be installed.
Paranoia speaking? Yeah, probably. But I smell a rat...and for some reason, it smells "fishy"...
Stop being a pedantic idiot.