Do you deal with vibrational relaxation, or non-equilibrium kinetic theory?
A better way to think of it may be try and understand that there are more than the regular states of vibration (3), rotation (3) and translation (3). They arise from the extra dimensions in string theory. The next idea is to just visualize a vibrating string, and the mode that it is vibrating in. There are so many modes for a string, and each string may vibrate in a different number of dimensions.
Think of the strings as following bose statistics for each possible vibrational mode (but there are many modes for each dimension!).
In the end, you just have these bits of stuff that vibrate in several dimensions and have energy levels for each dimension. Just the way a molecule has vibration, translation and rotational modes... so does a string. But it also has each of those types of movements in many dimensions (instead of the familiar three).
I don't mean to make it sound so trivial, but that's the gist of the idea. To get your thinking in the right frame of mind, you might want to think about the Vlasov or Boltzmann equations and how they represent the dynamics of a system (basically, take moments of the continuity equation and sum them to infinity; each moment has different degrees of freedom associated with it). Or do a search on vibrational relaxation (that's a good one for string theory, I think).
Then again, you could just say I'm full of BS. =)
Oh and for books on the math, I'd recommend some on geometry of manifolds, M-theory, and there are even a couple that have string theory in their titles. They are math books written by math guys/gals, so be prepared for some boring material. Just keep in mind that quantum mechanics deals with particles; string theory turns those particles into bits of vibrating string.
If your universe expands forever, then the energy unit per unit of volume approaches zero as your energy gets spread out.
Eventually, if the universe expands forever, the universe becomes colder and colder. From a thermodynamics point of view, colder == less energy. The energy is still all there and still a constant. But it's spread so thin that it appears to be zero.
An embedded linux kernel is really quite small... say on the order of several hundred kilobytes.
The biggest drawback for linux on embedded systems is the fact that the embedded system will need some kind of chip that does memory management. Otherwise the kernel is useless. That's part of the reason that linux is not as widespread as it could be... the equipment has to have the required architecture. Plus the algorithm that linux uses is not suited to most embedded systems that require real-time computations.
On the other hand, there are some useful attributes of linux besides cost. Memory footprint is one.
Here is a thread that is from a conversation with a previous poster and myself. I know I kind of got excited when I found out about the actual memory footprint of linux. As for what I am probably going to use on my next project... that will most likely be CMX-RTX on an ARM processor. CMX's stuff might be worth checking out too.
Personally, I also think there is a HUGE market potential for medical systems.
From my point of view. My background is in fluid mechanics, and even though I've only obtained my master's, I couldn't have told that scientist where the momentum was transfered.
The same thing for aircraft: tip vortices and a bound vortex on the wing alter the direction of the incoming air, which changes the air's momentum and provides lift. And all that happens because of friction between the molecules of air on the surface of the wing, and their neighbors directly above them. Then THEIR neighbors directly above them, and so on until you get to the overall flowfield.
And when you get to the tip of the wing, the downwash pulls the air past the tips into a vortex.
Those scientists that study these kinds of things would do well to actually study vortex dynamics (Kelvin's theorem would have told them the answer!). They would rather try and reinvent the wheel though.:(
I don't know how many times people say that we went to Iraq to kill people. But I KNOW that if the US really wanted to kill people, they'd use chemical weapons. You know, the things that melt your skin off, make your lungs bleed, or how about stop your nerves from transmitting signals?
People that are anti-American don't seem to realize that if the US was REALLY in the business of killing people, we wouldn't mess around. That's part of American thinking. We'd drop a few nukes and make a few apologies for the fallout.
I was reading some of their documents, and I did not find a specific definition of the rules for this type of aircraft.
There was a UAV which crossed the Atlantic years ago. It was designed and built by a collaborative effort betwen the Insitu Group, and the University of Washington's AA department (my alma matter).
I'm just wondering if there are additional restrictions under FAI rules for the vehicle.
Well, the system that I was referring to was a fly-by-wire system for an aircraft, that used a programmable force-feedback active control stick for a trainer. And there was another system that was flight rated that is currently used in a helicopter. Both of them had identical failsafe requirements, with the addition of the trainer craft also having a second stick for the teacher.
That particular system had three redundant and identical processors which all talk to the FLCC. If the fault was software, and not affecting a critical item, the processor was rebooted. If the fault was critical, then the processor was shut down and the other two went into a "safe" mode of operation; reduced functionality, no funky stuff like soft end-stops, breakouts, etc. Each processor had their own watchdog timer, this was because even the watchdog time needed triple redundancy.
You're right that the practical and important thing is the MTBF. That determines the overall system reliability.
Re:Why reboot systems at all?
on
In-Flight Reboot?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
They do.
There are several redundant systems. Let's say for example that your FLCC has 3 identical systems. If one fails, the other two take over until the watchdog timer kicks in and restarts the third (in the case of a software fault).
Anything that is rated for piloted flight is this way, especially fly-by-wire systems or other mission critical components.
This claim is not surprising at all, since it happens all the time.
The US government continues to crap on Native Americans. They've done so for centuries, and will continue to do so until people speak up.
I am part Native American (at least 1/8th blackfoot). I am grateful that my parents divorced when I was younger and I grew up with my dad. There are no opportunities on most reservations.
The actions of the DOI (or lack thereof) stated in the article just goes to prove that the BIA does just the bare minimum.
It's truly sad.:(
Yes, perpendicular to the plane of the platters.
And just a technicality: there are no such things as magnetic particles. If you think so, cut that magnet in half and you'll always get another North-South pair.;)
One thing to add is that as you make your workout more intense (progress from walking to running), you'll need to increase your energy intake. That means that you'll have to adjust your diet a bit more to include more carbs. And you should stick with rices, and other grains. If you are running for the entire hour, then you should have something like some cereal in the morning, some rice at lunch and some potatos in the afternoon. Try to not consume any foods within a few hours of your bedtime too.
There is no way that you can "target" a muscle group. You need to do cardio stuff. Walking is probably the best for someone that is not into doing exercise.
And watch the diet with the carbs and fats. Look at it like carbs are pure energy. You need so much energy for a given day. For most people, they only need some cereal in the morning, and some rice or something in the afternoon. Juices and pop have a TON of sugar, so try to eat the fruits and vegetables instead of drinking them. Your intake of salts also will make your body retain water (to keep the h2o-salt balances correct).
As for getting enough cardio to make progress, do this:
Set aside a chunk of time each day (an hour at the most). Then start off just walking as far as you can in that hour. It doesn't have to be one continuous hour either; you can walk some in the morning, then some in the evening or whatever. Then you keep trying to walk a little bit farther each day. After a couple weeks or months, you'll be walking fast enough that you'll need to run to go far enough to fill up an hour's worth of activity. Once you get to the level where you are jogging or running, it does not matter what body type or metabolic rate you have. You WILL shed pounds.
Even if you only do that for half an hour a day, that's plenty for most people regardless of their diets. Just don't dive headfirst into a new diet and a harsh exercise routine. You'll fail if you try to do it all at once. Make gradual changes and you'll stick with them longer.
a medical study co-sponsored by the US Army. The report stated that 1 quart of water every hour or two is necessary for a soldier doing moderate work. So, if you are not a soldier (or work out) you probably don't NEED that much water.
On the other hand, water really IS good for you. The general rule given by doctors is that if your urine is clear, rather than yellow, you are drinking enough water. There is no set amount of water for a person to drink; people are different sizes, different body chemistries, have different diets, and so on. I drink 4 liters of water per day. And I work out every other day.
Of course, I have to pee all the time. But I feel more awake, I rarely get sick, never have headaches, and never feel tired during the day.
And in the Army at least, they say that if you aren't peeing all the time, you are not drinking enough water.
That's the thing... for launch vehicles, chemical propellants are the best that there is. Unless you count an elevator concept... which is technically propellantless. It's not broken technology, it's the laws of physics.
It's only when you get away from most of earth's atmosphere that you can start to think about other propulsion devices. (Like ion, hall-effect, arcjet, cold-gas, fusion, and matter+antimatter.) The ones involving accelerating ions (all except cold-gas) won't work when there is an atmosphere around.
But... until people are willing to put several hundreds of millions (or a few billions!) of dollars up for these things, we're not going to see widespread interplanetary travel.
I know about the research using lasers to heat the underside air of a spinning projectile too (in case you thought I forgot to mention it). But those only reach heights of a few hundred meters, and will need immense breakthroughs in materials science to get them at a level where they're useful.
I am fairly certain that the reason NASA is having so many problems is two-fold: tiny budget for all the things that they're asked to do, and HUGE mismanagement.
Drag increases with the square of the velocity. That piece of foam they shot in the experiment was probably travelling slower than the one that actually hit the wing.
Heavy or not doesn't matter. It's how the force is spread over the area of contact, and whether the foam can disintegrate fast enough.
It's kind of like if you fall from something really high (say an airplane, and your chute doesn't open), and you are over the ocean. When you hit the water, even though the water is a liquid, you will likely die from the impact.
Things are not intuitive when you are in situations that you don't normally encounter. It seems that there are a lot of people (not only here at/.) that try to apply their intuition to things. Those NASA guys honestly didn't know what would happen to a shuttle wing when a piece of foam hit it. No one did the analysis, and because of beauracracy, the omission was not caught.
I can say that when a company does write software for something that goes into a military project, it has to conform to certain coding standards. IEEE 12207 is the standard most used for the US military.
So the software put into these electronics is well documented with specifications, design documents and quality assurance documents.
The government also gets to review all source code supplied along with running their own tests and so on to ensure that the software is of the proper quality. The master of the source is encrypted and put into a secure location.
The software and hardware is not always bug free, but between the customer and the buyer, the code is open.
Since the NSA is run by the Air Force, I would think that this guy is just moving some hot air around.
As for outsourcing the coding to a non-US company, that happens when the company happens to be a subcontractor for an American company, or if the American companies can't compete. The US isn't in the business of propping up American companies (at least, not in the sense that Europe does with say, Airbus). They will almost always go for the solution presented by the lowest bidder which performs the best in the tasks that are required.
Since I doubt the NSA is run by a bunch of idiots, I would say that they check the software that is supplied to them. Let me put it this way: you can't stay in the business of protecting the US and its interests if you are an idiot.
Why not? Those "cheaper and better" gadgets are built using slave labor in south-east Asia.
Why not put that money into aerospace research and aerospace companies?
First, if the US were building an empire, we would attempt what we did with the Phillipines in the early 1900's. That didn't go so well... in fact, the US started a bloody and brutal campaign to rid the islands of any and all anti-US fighters. The guerilla bands were hunted down, slaughtered, then the islands were garrisoned for nearly 50 years. That's not something the American people will tolerate, no matter how it's presented to them.
Second, if we were building an empire, we would have moved a LOT more quickly to basically subjugate the people in the lands that we've fought in. We would have poured money and manpower into building up the infrastructure so that we would harness the new land in the American Empire. No way would it be indirect... we would go in, eliminate anyone and anything that stood in the way, and claim the land's peoples "free". We wouldn't care about "collateral damage", nor would we care about the people. They would be treated as a commodity and slave labor.
Now, if you mean an empire stemming from trade, capitalist ideas, and friendly relations, then I can see that point. But an empire through military action? No, I don't think so.
This whole "peace through strength" mindset is total bullshit and if we could
rid the world of people that think that way, the rest of us would be better off.
How so? If you walk every day through a part of town that is "rough", and you appear weak, then what do you think will happen? Violence is _never_ something that should be taken lightly. It's an extremely sad affair, for all sides lose. But if you don't have the abilities to stave off a potential attacker, or the ability to respond to an attacker, then you may lose your life, property, or dignity. _That_ is where the idea of "peace through strength" comes in. It's a known fact that someone will commit a crime against someone else if they appear to be weak. I used to get into fights all the time when I was younger (on the defensive side!), because I'm more of a gentle kind of guy. I don't attempt to dominate others, even though it would be extremely easy for me to toss pretty much anyone I wanted around like a doll.
If you don't understand that idealism must be tempered with realism, then you will always be one of those people that needs to be protected from those that wish to cause harm. I would much rather live in a world where violence, killing, rape, murder were non-existent. But as long as I do live in this world, I'm going to make sure that I have the best defenses and offenses that I can.
And even though you may think that I don't care much for your comments, I do. The kind of idealism that you espouse is the stuff that people fight for.
The only comment of yours that I have a problem with is your attempt at putting words in my mouth. That is not something I appreciate.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you deal with vibrational relaxation, or non-equilibrium kinetic theory?
A better way to think of it may be try and understand that there are more than the regular states of vibration (3), rotation (3) and translation (3). They arise from the extra dimensions in string theory. The next idea is to just visualize a vibrating string, and the mode that it is vibrating in. There are so many modes for a string, and each string may vibrate in a different number of dimensions.
Think of the strings as following bose statistics for each possible vibrational mode (but there are many modes for each dimension!).
In the end, you just have these bits of stuff that vibrate in several dimensions and have energy levels for each dimension. Just the way a molecule has vibration, translation and rotational modes... so does a string. But it also has each of those types of movements in many dimensions (instead of the familiar three).
I don't mean to make it sound so trivial, but that's the gist of the idea. To get your thinking in the right frame of mind, you might want to think about the Vlasov or Boltzmann equations and how they represent the dynamics of a system (basically, take moments of the continuity equation and sum them to infinity; each moment has different degrees of freedom associated with it). Or do a search on vibrational relaxation (that's a good one for string theory, I think).
Then again, you could just say I'm full of BS. =)
Oh and for books on the math, I'd recommend some on geometry of manifolds, M-theory, and there are even a couple that have string theory in their titles. They are math books written by math guys/gals, so be prepared for some boring material. Just keep in mind that quantum mechanics deals with particles; string theory turns those particles into bits of vibrating string.
If your universe expands forever, then the energy unit per unit of volume approaches zero as your energy gets spread out. Eventually, if the universe expands forever, the universe becomes colder and colder. From a thermodynamics point of view, colder == less energy. The energy is still all there and still a constant. But it's spread so thin that it appears to be zero.
An embedded linux kernel is really quite small... say on the order of several hundred kilobytes.
The biggest drawback for linux on embedded systems is the fact that the embedded system will need some kind of chip that does memory management. Otherwise the kernel is useless. That's part of the reason that linux is not as widespread as it could be... the equipment has to have the required architecture. Plus the algorithm that linux uses is not suited to most embedded systems that require real-time computations.
On the other hand, there are some useful attributes of linux besides cost. Memory footprint is one.
Here is a thread that is from a conversation with a previous poster and myself. I know I kind of got excited when I found out about the actual memory footprint of linux. As for what I am probably going to use on my next project... that will most likely be CMX-RTX on an ARM processor. CMX's stuff might be worth checking out too.
Personally, I also think there is a HUGE market potential for medical systems.
You could always do something exotic like cooling with a liquid lithium cycle between 700 C and 1000 C.
;)
Though that means that you'll need an entirely self-contained system with no possibility of the Lithium getting exposure to water.
From my point of view. My background is in fluid mechanics, and even though I've only obtained my master's, I couldn't have told that scientist where the momentum was transfered.
:(
The same thing for aircraft: tip vortices and a bound vortex on the wing alter the direction of the incoming air, which changes the air's momentum and provides lift. And all that happens because of friction between the molecules of air on the surface of the wing, and their neighbors directly above them. Then THEIR neighbors directly above them, and so on until you get to the overall flowfield.
And when you get to the tip of the wing, the downwash pulls the air past the tips into a vortex.
Those scientists that study these kinds of things would do well to actually study vortex dynamics (Kelvin's theorem would have told them the answer!). They would rather try and reinvent the wheel though.
You know...
I don't know how many times people say that we went to Iraq to kill people. But I KNOW that if the US really wanted to kill people, they'd use chemical weapons. You know, the things that melt your skin off, make your lungs bleed, or how about stop your nerves from transmitting signals?
People that are anti-American don't seem to realize that if the US was REALLY in the business of killing people, we wouldn't mess around. That's part of American thinking. We'd drop a few nukes and make a few apologies for the fallout.
Doh!
Thanks!
I was reading some of their documents, and I did not find a specific definition of the rules for this type of aircraft.
There was a UAV which crossed the Atlantic years ago. It was designed and built by a collaborative effort betwen the Insitu Group, and the University of Washington's AA department (my alma matter).
I'm just wondering if there are additional restrictions under FAI rules for the vehicle.
Well, the system that I was referring to was a fly-by-wire system for an aircraft, that used a programmable force-feedback active control stick for a trainer. And there was another system that was flight rated that is currently used in a helicopter. Both of them had identical failsafe requirements, with the addition of the trainer craft also having a second stick for the teacher.
That particular system had three redundant and identical processors which all talk to the FLCC. If the fault was software, and not affecting a critical item, the processor was rebooted. If the fault was critical, then the processor was shut down and the other two went into a "safe" mode of operation; reduced functionality, no funky stuff like soft end-stops, breakouts, etc. Each processor had their own watchdog timer, this was because even the watchdog time needed triple redundancy.
You're right that the practical and important thing is the MTBF. That determines the overall system reliability.
They do.
There are several redundant systems. Let's say for example that your FLCC has 3 identical systems. If one fails, the other two take over until the watchdog timer kicks in and restarts the third (in the case of a software fault).
Anything that is rated for piloted flight is this way, especially fly-by-wire systems or other mission critical components.
This claim is not surprising at all, since it happens all the time.
The US government continues to crap on Native Americans. They've done so for centuries, and will continue to do so until people speak up. I am part Native American (at least 1/8th blackfoot). I am grateful that my parents divorced when I was younger and I grew up with my dad. There are no opportunities on most reservations. The actions of the DOI (or lack thereof) stated in the article just goes to prove that the BIA does just the bare minimum. It's truly sad. :(
Those are all the user names I could think of!
Yes, perpendicular to the plane of the platters. And just a technicality: there are no such things as magnetic particles. If you think so, cut that magnet in half and you'll always get another North-South pair. ;)
LOL!
:D
Umm.... That's what Depends are for!
One thing to add is that as you make your workout more intense (progress from walking to running), you'll need to increase your energy intake. That means that you'll have to adjust your diet a bit more to include more carbs. And you should stick with rices, and other grains. If you are running for the entire hour, then you should have something like some cereal in the morning, some rice at lunch and some potatos in the afternoon. Try to not consume any foods within a few hours of your bedtime too.
There is no way that you can "target" a muscle group. You need to do cardio stuff. Walking is probably the best for someone that is not into doing exercise.
And watch the diet with the carbs and fats. Look at it like carbs are pure energy. You need so much energy for a given day. For most people, they only need some cereal in the morning, and some rice or something in the afternoon. Juices and pop have a TON of sugar, so try to eat the fruits and vegetables instead of drinking them. Your intake of salts also will make your body retain water (to keep the h2o-salt balances correct).
As for getting enough cardio to make progress, do this:
Set aside a chunk of time each day (an hour at the most). Then start off just walking as far as you can in that hour. It doesn't have to be one continuous hour either; you can walk some in the morning, then some in the evening or whatever. Then you keep trying to walk a little bit farther each day. After a couple weeks or months, you'll be walking fast enough that you'll need to run to go far enough to fill up an hour's worth of activity. Once you get to the level where you are jogging or running, it does not matter what body type or metabolic rate you have. You WILL shed pounds.
Even if you only do that for half an hour a day, that's plenty for most people regardless of their diets. Just don't dive headfirst into a new diet and a harsh exercise routine. You'll fail if you try to do it all at once. Make gradual changes and you'll stick with them longer.
a medical study co-sponsored by the US Army. The report stated that 1 quart of water every hour or two is necessary for a soldier doing moderate work. So, if you are not a soldier (or work out) you probably don't NEED that much water.
On the other hand, water really IS good for you. The general rule given by doctors is that if your urine is clear, rather than yellow, you are drinking enough water. There is no set amount of water for a person to drink; people are different sizes, different body chemistries, have different diets, and so on. I drink 4 liters of water per day. And I work out every other day.
Of course, I have to pee all the time. But I feel more awake, I rarely get sick, never have headaches, and never feel tired during the day.
And in the Army at least, they say that if you aren't peeing all the time, you are not drinking enough water.
Because the shuttle is the only vehicle in the world with the heavy lift capability it has.
That's the thing... for launch vehicles, chemical propellants are the best that there is. Unless you count an elevator concept... which is technically propellantless. It's not broken technology, it's the laws of physics.
It's only when you get away from most of earth's atmosphere that you can start to think about other propulsion devices. (Like ion, hall-effect, arcjet, cold-gas, fusion, and matter+antimatter.) The ones involving accelerating ions (all except cold-gas) won't work when there is an atmosphere around.
But... until people are willing to put several hundreds of millions (or a few billions!) of dollars up for these things, we're not going to see widespread interplanetary travel.
I know about the research using lasers to heat the underside air of a spinning projectile too (in case you thought I forgot to mention it). But those only reach heights of a few hundred meters, and will need immense breakthroughs in materials science to get them at a level where they're useful.
I am fairly certain that the reason NASA is having so many problems is two-fold: tiny budget for all the things that they're asked to do, and HUGE mismanagement.
Drag increases with the square of the velocity. That piece of foam they shot in the experiment was probably travelling slower than the one that actually hit the wing.
Heavy or not doesn't matter. It's how the force is spread over the area of contact, and whether the foam can disintegrate fast enough.
/.) that try to apply their intuition to things. Those NASA guys honestly didn't know what would happen to a shuttle wing when a piece of foam hit it. No one did the analysis, and because of beauracracy, the omission was not caught.
It's kind of like if you fall from something really high (say an airplane, and your chute doesn't open), and you are over the ocean. When you hit the water, even though the water is a liquid, you will likely die from the impact.
Things are not intuitive when you are in situations that you don't normally encounter. It seems that there are a lot of people (not only here at
I can say that when a company does write software for something that goes into a military project, it has to conform to certain coding standards. IEEE 12207 is the standard most used for the US military.
So the software put into these electronics is well documented with specifications, design documents and quality assurance documents.
The government also gets to review all source code supplied along with running their own tests and so on to ensure that the software is of the proper quality. The master of the source is encrypted and put into a secure location.
The software and hardware is not always bug free, but between the customer and the buyer, the code is open.
Since the NSA is run by the Air Force, I would think that this guy is just moving some hot air around.
As for outsourcing the coding to a non-US company, that happens when the company happens to be a subcontractor for an American company, or if the American companies can't compete. The US isn't in the business of propping up American companies (at least, not in the sense that Europe does with say, Airbus). They will almost always go for the solution presented by the lowest bidder which performs the best in the tasks that are required.
Since I doubt the NSA is run by a bunch of idiots, I would say that they check the software that is supplied to them. Let me put it this way: you can't stay in the business of protecting the US and its interests if you are an idiot.
That paperclip needs a lot of CPU cycles.
Why not? Those "cheaper and better" gadgets are built using slave labor in south-east Asia. Why not put that money into aerospace research and aerospace companies?
First, if the US were building an empire, we would attempt what we did with the Phillipines in the early 1900's. That didn't go so well... in fact, the US started a bloody and brutal campaign to rid the islands of any and all anti-US fighters. The guerilla bands were hunted down, slaughtered, then the islands were garrisoned for nearly 50 years. That's not something the American people will tolerate, no matter how it's presented to them.
:)
Second, if we were building an empire, we would have moved a LOT more quickly to basically subjugate the people in the lands that we've fought in. We would have poured money and manpower into building up the infrastructure so that we would harness the new land in the American Empire. No way would it be indirect... we would go in, eliminate anyone and anything that stood in the way, and claim the land's peoples "free". We wouldn't care about "collateral damage", nor would we care about the people. They would be treated as a commodity and slave labor.
Now, if you mean an empire stemming from trade, capitalist ideas, and friendly relations, then I can see that point. But an empire through military action? No, I don't think so.
This whole "peace through strength" mindset is total bullshit and if we could rid the world of people that think that way, the rest of us would be better off.
How so? If you walk every day through a part of town that is "rough", and you appear weak, then what do you think will happen? Violence is _never_ something that should be taken lightly. It's an extremely sad affair, for all sides lose. But if you don't have the abilities to stave off a potential attacker, or the ability to respond to an attacker, then you may lose your life, property, or dignity. _That_ is where the idea of "peace through strength" comes in. It's a known fact that someone will commit a crime against someone else if they appear to be weak. I used to get into fights all the time when I was younger (on the defensive side!), because I'm more of a gentle kind of guy. I don't attempt to dominate others, even though it would be extremely easy for me to toss pretty much anyone I wanted around like a doll.
If you don't understand that idealism must be tempered with realism, then you will always be one of those people that needs to be protected from those that wish to cause harm. I would much rather live in a world where violence, killing, rape, murder were non-existent. But as long as I do live in this world, I'm going to make sure that I have the best defenses and offenses that I can.
And even though you may think that I don't care much for your comments, I do. The kind of idealism that you espouse is the stuff that people fight for. The only comment of yours that I have a problem with is your attempt at putting words in my mouth. That is not something I appreciate.