So where's the patent funded cure for AIDS, cancer, and heart disease?
So where's your capacity to comprehend? I was indicating that there were no artificial barriers to the private-funding of medical research. There aren't.
Oddly enough, there are many patented drugs for treating all of those diseases, and many others. How many drug co-ops that you've funded have produced anything? That, though, wasn't the point. Nice selective illiteracy, though.
What! If it's more then they could possibly provide by themselves, then they wouldn't be able to afford/finance the purchase of durgs these patents "quote" produce.
Patents last for years, allowing the drug to be sold to a much larger audience than exists in any tiny time-frame. A person with cancer or heart disease may not live three years, least of all twenty. They also leverage financial risk from those willing to take it to produce results that those willing to take the financial risk of charities or co-ops clearly don't. There are a lot of people with more mild forms of heart-disease, and their contribution to treating themselves is hardly representative of that fact. Nice selective retardation.
There ARE limited resources in the world, so why do so many potential simple and cheap cures/solutions get passed up while complicated expensive ones get pushed to the top of the list?
Like what? Anything you mention, provide sources for.
If they're so simple and cheap, why don't you undercut the drug companies, that clearly don't find them economical? You've found an excellent business opportunity, right? Or maybe you can form a drug co-op to produce these cheap, simple solution to man's ills.
Because a pharma company would far rather promote a complicated chemical with side effects that can be patented than a drug without that may already be in the public domain.
If they're public domain and a better product, than gee-whiz Mr. Wizard, start up a factory and start producing pills.
Solution - get rid of patents and suddenly their best interests become the publics best interests.
Get rid of patents, and the quantity of quality researchers drops because there's no business interest to pay them, and they can get better jobs elsewhere. Suddenly there is far fewer people making drugs for your the "public domain," for your mindless factories to churn out like zombies.
If they don't want to do it, then fine, at least their big guns won't be able to squeese out anyone else who wants to try.
Competing is hard. But since you have magical public domain cures for all of man's ailments, that are also superior, you can undercut the competition with their more-expensive R&Ded medications.
The notion that nobody is going to do anything new or innovative unless they can restrict comptetition is false.
No one is going to do anything unless they're compensated for it. Intellectual property is expensive to construct, and cheap the reproduce. You can either pay Pfizer over a period of decades, or they can demand the world pay them billions of dollars or they don't release the information about their treatment for a given disease. However, since they need to deal with the FDA to even sell their product, that opens all sorts of retarded situations.
In fact just the opposite is true, when you have real competition then you have real motivation to get the edge, get the markets first, be more efficient.
Real competition like free loaders. IP isn't like a shoe factory. That's why the laws were created, to balance between two broken scenarios: having to pre-pay for products you can't judge the quality of, and having skilless people force creative people into irrelevance.
A dollars worth of research from a million researchers who share and cooperate will get you a lot further than a million dollars worth of research from one that doesn't!
Because poor people who cannot afford a $100/pill bottle of medication can't afford to produce it, either. So then they need someone to manufacture that drug, and sell it to them cheaper, as these poor countries can't afford to publically fund such manufacturing themselves. That factory isn't going to do it for free, they want to profit just like you do. What the fuck did they contribute to creating that drug? Nothing? So do I want them free-loading off of my investment? No. Do I want my Government giving aid money to that foreign country to pay someone else to produce my drug? No.
If you're so concerned about the welfare of these poor, sick people in these poor countries, why don't you buy them their drugs for them? All you're concerned with is their welfare, right? So just buy the entire country all of the medication they need, from the people that made the investment in the first place. I bet you don't want to do that, do you? You don't want to work your entire life so people in another country can have medication, you want other people to work all of their life so those people can have medication.
Patents don't prevent you from researching 'unsolved' deadly diseases. They don't prevent you from licensing rights that might leverage others IP, in order to sell treatment for previously 'unsolved' diseases. What they do is prevent you from creating a factory in China to produce Viagra and sell it to people in the U.S. in order to undercut the people that actually developed the drug, without licensing, simply because you can.
So where is the co-op funded cure for AIDS? How about various cancers? How about heart disease?
Do you think there's anything keeping those people with diseases from raising money for research? There isn't, it's done all of the time for all manner of ailments.
The quantity of money required for that research, is most often several times more than anyone with those ailments could possibly provide by themselves. If an ailment is particularly crippling, then they won't even able to earn further resources for contribution.
So what do you do? You find people that already have money that may or may not have any direct motivation for your particular ailment. And of those, a large percentage will need some sort of self-interest for spending their resources on your particular endeavor. Afterall, there's a world full of disease, and even more so, there's a world full of things to spend money on. Why you? There's far more problems to solve than resources to solve them. So they'll likely want to be investors, and you'll need to make this worthwhile for them. IP is hard to produce and easy to copy, so they will want some reassurance that ten, twenty, or thirty years of funding research, if successful, will result in a benefit for them or their children. They're not giving away this money, they're not looking to maybe make back the enormous investment of their resources in a period of decades. They're not doing this to make anyone else money, and their interest in treating the disease, if any, will be tempered by the reality that there are limited resources in the world.
Patents exist for the betterment of the public welfare, and make more sense for drugs than many other things. They serve to encourage limited resources (people capable of doing effective research and people with capital) to make calculated risks, that if successful, will produce tremendous value for everyone in the form of a better life. This would be in comparison to people devoting their lives and finances to developing important drugs, simply to find themselves driven out of the market by the cheapest means of mass-producing the fruits of their labor. At which time they pack up their bags and find things that benefit them more than doing all of that funding and research for factories.
Or they could try being a parent. I don't know, maybe periodically keep tabs on what they're children are doing. I know it's a fairly outlandish theory in this modern day of ours, what with television being the typical mother and father these days.
It's non-political and involves a computer scientist from before the times of the masses of 16-year olds that populate Slashdot. Don't worry, some other, more redundant "YOUR RIGHTS ONLINE!" or "SONY RELEASED A NEW SEIZUREMATIC 2000!" post will make it through the queue and we'll return to our regularly scheduled unresearched garbage posts.
I would say that this 'interview' is mostly written to tell the reader why they might be interested in seeing Alan Kay speak at the O'Reilly conference on the 24th.
For the people (and I don't mean you, but rather the grandparent and other similar posters) that constantly crap themselves with the "Well what should we do then, Smart Guy?!" attitude, are just inherently resentful towards the positions and accomplishments of researchers from before their time. Even if Alan had absolutely, positively, no idea what we should do to address his concerns, it wouldn't invalidate his criticisms. They're too busy belittling the significance of his (and others, as this behavior is generally pathological) accomplishments to match the giant zero that is their own.
If I had to make an equally offensive and presumptious statement, it would be that you're using a formulaic means of "whoring" kharma. Your comment is all criticism about the intent of the article and the self-opinion of their subject, with no real substance. Pfffft.
The article is indeed a promotion. It's telling you:
1. Who Alan Kay is, and what he's helped contribute.
2. That he's giving a talk at an O'Reilly function.
3. A general idea of what the talk will be about.
4. A few of the reasons Kay feels we shouldn't become complacent and accept the failings of our current computing world, and why he believes we have ended up with this.
5. It talks a bit about the topic of educating children, where the author reminisces about a previous presentation of Kay's that he witnessed.
6. It mentions Squeak's progression and involvement in education.
Overall the article does an alright job of outlining what you can expect from Kay's actual keynote address, why you might listen to him, and some of the things that he's done and is doing. If you want more, see him speak. If you have complaints about the actual article, they would be with the author and not with Kay, and if anyone is out of place with their arrogance, it would be you and not Alan Kay. He's contributed far more than you, and he's not sitting around deriding you on message boards, telling you how much your comments are a waste of disk space and a contentless mechanism for promoting web hosting services.
There are several hours in a day, and for a child that isn't even three yet, I can't say that there exists a tremendous quantity of things for them to be doing to fill their time. Simply being outside for an extra two hours or so isn't going to make a tremendous difference in their capacity to kick or run, and in reality I see most small children spending much of their free time watching television.
The grandparent poster indicated that their child replaced Disney films with computer use, something that stresses literacy, over something that mostly involves vegetation. You may disagree with their assessment about the benefits of computer use over Disney films, but you've no particular reason or grounding to judge another person's parenting by in this, and it's rather rude to posit there's something harmful about the previously mentioned usage, simply because you do not see a reason for it with regard to your children.
Don't assume that because his child spends an aggregate two hours or so using a computer, that that is the extent of her day.
Why don't we instead work on making the terrorists not want to attack us
While you're fixing humanity, you can work on making rapists not want to rape, pedophiles not sexually attracted to children, thieves not compelled to take from others, adulterers not be unfaithful to their significant others, liars not lie, gluttons not hopelessly addicted to food, and so on and so forth. When you're done fixing all of the flaws in man that makes your desire to stick your head in the sand and pretend the world fits into a Hallmark card, any less retarded, you let me know.
Also, some sad, sad part of me hopes that the BBC/PBS/Sci-Fi will someday adapt the Silmarillion/Unfinished Tales/Lost Tales/etc.
After the merciless living-death SciFi gave Messiah and Children of Dune, they would be the last channel I would want adapting any literary piece that I valued.
Surely you see the futility in telling someone else not to complain, using that particular train of thought, with a complaint about the content of their commentary.
Afterall, if you don't like his complaint you can download Slash and start your own "news" site, set your own rules, and sit back and watch no one come to your site either.
Now I, I am not particular sorry for pointing this out, but perhaps sorry I felt deluded enough to consider for a moment that I might prevent one day stumbling upon another attempt by you to provide enlightenment through hypocrisy.
Why would it label itself as "an American site," just to stave off the small quantity of whiny garbage people post with regard to its American content? The site is run and owned by Americans, and it's mostly used by Americans. Do they need to say "American nerds" so twits won't bring up date formatting conventions? So the next "COMMA VERSUS PERIOD DECIMAL NOTATION" flamewar can be be preemptively shot down?
If people don't like the Americanisms, they can freely stuff it and go somewhere else. If those people lack the maturity to see different date formatting without whining like a fucking five year-old, I'm sure we'll be missing out on some premium content with their departure.
I was criticizing the moderation of the post, because it was unwarranted. Your comment wasn't insightful, and it had no facts to be checked. There is no such thing as "common sense" when making blanket statements about the value of certain aspects of visual cognition. You can't simply apply what you recall, remember, believe, think, or assume to have learned from a source you cannot provide to another discussion.
I agree that the original poster was being fairly general in his criticism of icons, but it doesn't mean the moderators should empower your equally generalized, and if I might add, flamebait of a post with its 5, Insightful status.
Perhaps he believes all icons would be better off as text. If they're consistently and constantly abused in his experience, then studies you vaguely recall about visual recognition that were not done on software icons are pretty irrelevant. If on the other hand you actually have sources of research on the effectiveness of the actual usage of icons in real software, then you should, by all means, enlighten us. That would be insightful.
If I have to use Google to verify the content of your post, then a post claiming authority over someone else's witless banter doesn't even deserve your kharma bonus, least of all mod points.
1. There's no citation for this research. What's Insightful here?
2. It contains ad hominem implying ignorance, when it has nothing to support its position. Are we to take this person's word for it?
3. It presumes that the findings of such (unnamed) research shows some sort of uniform value for icons across all parties. Something isn't "complete and utter bullshit" when the finding's of someone's study does not coincide the reality of what an observers knows to be true for themself.
4. It presumes that the result of such research is applicable to the reality of deployed software icons. Since the poster didn't see fit to provide us with any proof as to this "research," one cannot know if it is even meant to apply to actual software. If the premise that given a certain condition X an icon Y is more easily determined within a set of icons Z, doesn't mean, for instance, that Microsoft Office's toolbar (just for example) is at all more efficient than text.
Agreed. I generally detest icons. I only find them useful for inherently visual-spatial tasks, like modeling or image editing. Toolbars of ugly, low-resolution, non-informative icons that require me to read a tooltip to even get the foggiest idea of what it's meant to do, really irk me. I always turn them off for any program I can. I can scan text labels much more fluidly.
Whether or not this will always be the case (in the future software vendors may actually determine more effective visual cues) I don't know, but certainly presently is for me.
Slashdot Mirror
So where's the patent funded cure for AIDS, cancer, and heart disease?
So where's your capacity to comprehend? I was indicating that there were no artificial barriers to the private-funding of medical research. There aren't.
Oddly enough, there are many patented drugs for treating all of those diseases, and many others. How many drug co-ops that you've funded have produced anything? That, though, wasn't the point. Nice selective illiteracy, though.
What! If it's more then they could possibly provide by themselves, then they wouldn't be able to afford/finance the purchase of durgs these patents "quote" produce.
Patents last for years, allowing the drug to be sold to a much larger audience than exists in any tiny time-frame. A person with cancer or heart disease may not live three years, least of all twenty. They also leverage financial risk from those willing to take it to produce results that those willing to take the financial risk of charities or co-ops clearly don't. There are a lot of people with more mild forms of heart-disease, and their contribution to treating themselves is hardly representative of that fact. Nice selective retardation.
There ARE limited resources in the world, so why do so many potential simple and cheap cures/solutions get passed up while complicated expensive ones get pushed to the top of the list?
Like what? Anything you mention, provide sources for.
If they're so simple and cheap, why don't you undercut the drug companies, that clearly don't find them economical? You've found an excellent business opportunity, right? Or maybe you can form a drug co-op to produce these cheap, simple solution to man's ills.
Because a pharma company would far rather promote a complicated chemical with side effects that can be patented than a drug without that may already be in the public domain.
If they're public domain and a better product, than gee-whiz Mr. Wizard, start up a factory and start producing pills.
Solution - get rid of patents and suddenly their best interests become the publics best interests.
Get rid of patents, and the quantity of quality researchers drops because there's no business interest to pay them, and they can get better jobs elsewhere. Suddenly there is far fewer people making drugs for your the "public domain," for your mindless factories to churn out like zombies.
If they don't want to do it, then fine, at least their big guns won't be able to squeese out anyone else who wants to try.
Competing is hard. But since you have magical public domain cures for all of man's ailments, that are also superior, you can undercut the competition with their more-expensive R&Ded medications.
The notion that nobody is going to do anything new or innovative unless they can restrict comptetition is false.
No one is going to do anything unless they're compensated for it. Intellectual property is expensive to construct, and cheap the reproduce. You can either pay Pfizer over a period of decades, or they can demand the world pay them billions of dollars or they don't release the information about their treatment for a given disease. However, since they need to deal with the FDA to even sell their product, that opens all sorts of retarded situations.
In fact just the opposite is true, when you have real competition then you have real motivation to get the edge, get the markets first, be more efficient.
Real competition like free loaders. IP isn't like a shoe factory. That's why the laws were created, to balance between two broken scenarios: having to pre-pay for products you can't judge the quality of, and having skilless people force creative people into irrelevance.
A dollars worth of research from a million researchers who share and cooperate will get you a lot further than a million dollars worth of research from one that doesn't!
I'm sorry, are we working
Yes, that's clearly more convenient than our current system. You should run for public office, and revolutionize the book-writing industry.
That's funny because by definition Objectivists are pragmatic.
Was this an attempt at subtle humor?
Because poor people who cannot afford a $100/pill bottle of medication can't afford to produce it, either. So then they need someone to manufacture that drug, and sell it to them cheaper, as these poor countries can't afford to publically fund such manufacturing themselves. That factory isn't going to do it for free, they want to profit just like you do. What the fuck did they contribute to creating that drug? Nothing? So do I want them free-loading off of my investment? No. Do I want my Government giving aid money to that foreign country to pay someone else to produce my drug? No.
If you're so concerned about the welfare of these poor, sick people in these poor countries, why don't you buy them their drugs for them? All you're concerned with is their welfare, right? So just buy the entire country all of the medication they need, from the people that made the investment in the first place. I bet you don't want to do that, do you? You don't want to work your entire life so people in another country can have medication, you want other people to work all of their life so those people can have medication.
Patents don't prevent you from researching 'unsolved' deadly diseases. They don't prevent you from licensing rights that might leverage others IP, in order to sell treatment for previously 'unsolved' diseases. What they do is prevent you from creating a factory in China to produce Viagra and sell it to people in the U.S. in order to undercut the people that actually developed the drug, without licensing, simply because you can.
Your emotional sentiments don't cure diseases.
So where is the co-op funded cure for AIDS? How about various cancers? How about heart disease?
Do you think there's anything keeping those people with diseases from raising money for research? There isn't, it's done all of the time for all manner of ailments.
The quantity of money required for that research, is most often several times more than anyone with those ailments could possibly provide by themselves. If an ailment is particularly crippling, then they won't even able to earn further resources for contribution.
So what do you do? You find people that already have money that may or may not have any direct motivation for your particular ailment. And of those, a large percentage will need some sort of self-interest for spending their resources on your particular endeavor. Afterall, there's a world full of disease, and even more so, there's a world full of things to spend money on. Why you? There's far more problems to solve than resources to solve them. So they'll likely want to be investors, and you'll need to make this worthwhile for them. IP is hard to produce and easy to copy, so they will want some reassurance that ten, twenty, or thirty years of funding research, if successful, will result in a benefit for them or their children. They're not giving away this money, they're not looking to maybe make back the enormous investment of their resources in a period of decades. They're not doing this to make anyone else money, and their interest in treating the disease, if any, will be tempered by the reality that there are limited resources in the world.
Patents exist for the betterment of the public welfare, and make more sense for drugs than many other things. They serve to encourage limited resources (people capable of doing effective research and people with capital) to make calculated risks, that if successful, will produce tremendous value for everyone in the form of a better life. This would be in comparison to people devoting their lives and finances to developing important drugs, simply to find themselves driven out of the market by the cheapest means of mass-producing the fruits of their labor. At which time they pack up their bags and find things that benefit them more than doing all of that funding and research for factories.
Please, provide us with sources for the drug pipelines of the major drug companies. Indeed, provide sources for the basis of all of your statements.
You mean the creation of the universe? Horrible, that; so much death and decay.
"their"
Sigh.
Or they could try being a parent. I don't know, maybe periodically keep tabs on what they're children are doing. I know it's a fairly outlandish theory in this modern day of ours, what with television being the typical mother and father these days.
It's non-political and involves a computer scientist from before the times of the masses of 16-year olds that populate Slashdot. Don't worry, some other, more redundant "YOUR RIGHTS ONLINE!" or "SONY RELEASED A NEW SEIZUREMATIC 2000!" post will make it through the queue and we'll return to our regularly scheduled unresearched garbage posts.
I would say that this 'interview' is mostly written to tell the reader why they might be interested in seeing Alan Kay speak at the O'Reilly conference on the 24th.
For the people (and I don't mean you, but rather the grandparent and other similar posters) that constantly crap themselves with the "Well what should we do then, Smart Guy?!" attitude, are just inherently resentful towards the positions and accomplishments of researchers from before their time. Even if Alan had absolutely, positively, no idea what we should do to address his concerns, it wouldn't invalidate his criticisms. They're too busy belittling the significance of his (and others, as this behavior is generally pathological) accomplishments to match the giant zero that is their own.
If I had to make an equally offensive and presumptious statement, it would be that you're using a formulaic means of "whoring" kharma. Your comment is all criticism about the intent of the article and the self-opinion of their subject, with no real substance. Pfffft.
The article is indeed a promotion. It's telling you:
1. Who Alan Kay is, and what he's helped contribute.
2. That he's giving a talk at an O'Reilly function.
3. A general idea of what the talk will be about.
4. A few of the reasons Kay feels we shouldn't become complacent and accept the failings of our current computing world, and why he believes we have ended up with this.
5. It talks a bit about the topic of educating children, where the author reminisces about a previous presentation of Kay's that he witnessed. 6. It mentions Squeak's progression and involvement in education.
Overall the article does an alright job of outlining what you can expect from Kay's actual keynote address, why you might listen to him, and some of the things that he's done and is doing. If you want more, see him speak. If you have complaints about the actual article, they would be with the author and not with Kay, and if anyone is out of place with their arrogance, it would be you and not Alan Kay. He's contributed far more than you, and he's not sitting around deriding you on message boards, telling you how much your comments are a waste of disk space and a contentless mechanism for promoting web hosting services.
even three
That was meant to read 'four.'
Alas, I think I required more aids in literacy as a child. Or perhaps proof-reading patience that Internet forums so frequently devour.
There are several hours in a day, and for a child that isn't even three yet, I can't say that there exists a tremendous quantity of things for them to be doing to fill their time. Simply being outside for an extra two hours or so isn't going to make a tremendous difference in their capacity to kick or run, and in reality I see most small children spending much of their free time watching television.
The grandparent poster indicated that their child replaced Disney films with computer use, something that stresses literacy, over something that mostly involves vegetation. You may disagree with their assessment about the benefits of computer use over Disney films, but you've no particular reason or grounding to judge another person's parenting by in this, and it's rather rude to posit there's something harmful about the previously mentioned usage, simply because you do not see a reason for it with regard to your children.
Don't assume that because his child spends an aggregate two hours or so using a computer, that that is the extent of her day.
Why don't we instead work on making the terrorists not want to attack us
While you're fixing humanity, you can work on making rapists not want to rape, pedophiles not sexually attracted to children, thieves not compelled to take from others, adulterers not be unfaithful to their significant others, liars not lie, gluttons not hopelessly addicted to food, and so on and so forth. When you're done fixing all of the flaws in man that makes your desire to stick your head in the sand and pretend the world fits into a Hallmark card, any less retarded, you let me know.
Also, some sad, sad part of me hopes that the BBC/PBS/Sci-Fi will someday adapt the Silmarillion/Unfinished Tales/Lost Tales/etc.
After the merciless living-death SciFi gave Messiah and Children of Dune, they would be the last channel I would want adapting any literary piece that I valued.
Surely you see the futility in telling someone else not to complain, using that particular train of thought, with a complaint about the content of their commentary.
Afterall, if you don't like his complaint you can download Slash and start your own "news" site, set your own rules, and sit back and watch no one come to your site either.
Now I, I am not particular sorry for pointing this out, but perhaps sorry I felt deluded enough to consider for a moment that I might prevent one day stumbling upon another attempt by you to provide enlightenment through hypocrisy.
Take a deep breath and relax...heaven forbid the world might have a sense of humor.
The world might, but the people running Slashdot don't.
Why would it label itself as "an American site," just to stave off the small quantity of whiny garbage people post with regard to its American content? The site is run and owned by Americans, and it's mostly used by Americans. Do they need to say "American nerds" so twits won't bring up date formatting conventions? So the next "COMMA VERSUS PERIOD DECIMAL NOTATION" flamewar can be be preemptively shot down?
If people don't like the Americanisms, they can freely stuff it and go somewhere else. If those people lack the maturity to see different date formatting without whining like a fucking five year-old, I'm sure we'll be missing out on some premium content with their departure.
Why are you crediting Slashdot with the Gentoo Weekly Newsletter's joke?
Only those that are unaware of the cultural nonsense that occurs on the first of April.
I was criticizing the moderation of the post, because it was unwarranted. Your comment wasn't insightful, and it had no facts to be checked. There is no such thing as "common sense" when making blanket statements about the value of certain aspects of visual cognition. You can't simply apply what you recall, remember, believe, think, or assume to have learned from a source you cannot provide to another discussion.
I agree that the original poster was being fairly general in his criticism of icons, but it doesn't mean the moderators should empower your equally generalized, and if I might add, flamebait of a post with its 5, Insightful status.
Perhaps he believes all icons would be better off as text. If they're consistently and constantly abused in his experience, then studies you vaguely recall about visual recognition that were not done on software icons are pretty irrelevant. If on the other hand you actually have sources of research on the effectiveness of the actual usage of icons in real software, then you should, by all means, enlighten us. That would be insightful.
If I have to use Google to verify the content of your post, then a post claiming authority over someone else's witless banter doesn't even deserve your kharma bonus, least of all mod points.
It really astounds me that this was modded up.
1. There's no citation for this research. What's Insightful here?
2. It contains ad hominem implying ignorance, when it has nothing to support its position. Are we to take this person's word for it?
3. It presumes that the findings of such (unnamed) research shows some sort of uniform value for icons across all parties. Something isn't "complete and utter bullshit" when the finding's of someone's study does not coincide the reality of what an observers knows to be true for themself. 4. It presumes that the result of such research is applicable to the reality of deployed software icons. Since the poster didn't see fit to provide us with any proof as to this "research," one cannot know if it is even meant to apply to actual software. If the premise that given a certain condition X an icon Y is more easily determined within a set of icons Z, doesn't mean, for instance, that Microsoft Office's toolbar (just for example) is at all more efficient than text.
Agreed. I generally detest icons. I only find them useful for inherently visual-spatial tasks, like modeling or image editing. Toolbars of ugly, low-resolution, non-informative icons that require me to read a tooltip to even get the foggiest idea of what it's meant to do, really irk me. I always turn them off for any program I can. I can scan text labels much more fluidly.
Whether or not this will always be the case (in the future software vendors may actually determine more effective visual cues) I don't know, but certainly presently is for me.