There is tech avaiable today, yes, but the tech isn't spohisticated nor is our understanding of the way the brain works refined enough to provide anything approaching the level of response that's necessary to compete with the reflex/muscle memory responses most gamers have developed.
What i found interesting about the article was the sort of dynamic game-play (making the game harder if the player is nervous), but even that seems redundant. If you're nervous, your hands are already sweaty on the controller, you're not concentrating at your highest potential. Why would something artificial added to the mix make it any harder for you?
maybe there are medical uses (the concentration aids mentioned in the article), but i get the feeling that the vaporware tag is richly deserved in this case...
Whatever about being a publicity stunt, this is just some lads doing something fun. Pioneering spirit and all that. It's akin to hitch-hiking around ireland with a fridge. maybe they'll come out of it with a whole new perspective on life.
or maybe they'll realise that it was a monumental waste of time. but whatever... let them do whatever they want, it's not hurting you, is it?
The general consensus is that the authorities in the US have become too strict, especially with "intellectual property", "the war on drugs", and "computer crimes".
"Remember it's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedoms." - Bill Hicks
It sounds to me like someone spent the weekend power-levelling and wanted to explain to someone how exciting it was... then that became a behemoth blog-post.
Facts are not tremendously relevant ("There are more people playing World of Warcraft in the U.S. today (two million) than had indoor plumbing 100 years ago." - What the hell sort of comparison is that? I have more apples than Jimmy did 6 hours ago). And some of the reasoning is inconsistent (InGameCurrency (TM) will be valid in the real world. Or will it? Or won't it? Well, I don't know, it might be).
The author doesn't deal with some rather important points, such as offspring from the proposed virtual marriages. Or how about what happens when there's a crash that wipes a bunch of people out? Or the thief who just goes off and starts a new character as a Cleric or Paladin. This article reeks of zealotry and MMORPG evangelism.
I *do* think that some day, some of what is described in the article will be possible. But I think that a guy who spends that much time on his blog, and delivers propaganda full of specious reasoning isn't the guy who's vision we should listen to... I liked some of his points, and I was fond of his "quotes" from famous visionaries, but the article just didn't hold water for me.
I can only site from reference to those former criminals who made speeches on our school and my experience with people who take harshis regularly.
This is very common. Reformed alcoholics are often vehemently anti-alcohol. Reformed drug addicts are oftem vehemently anti-drugs. But when you're that opposed to someone, it's hard not to turn into a zelaot. Which is exactly the sort of person you bring into a school run by a government that is waging a "War on Drugs". You want to scare the children away from drugs.
I have no problems with people using drugs for spiritual growth based on experience and knowledge, but this is hardly the case in most homes.
I'm not sure I understand how you can make a distinction. Having a joint and listening to Pink Floyd (for example) might be akin to a religious experience for some people. i'm not being flippant here, I just don't think that any one person (or group of people, like a government, for example) can make that call.
However in our society, many millions of people are addicts and having serious problems.
Yes, this is true, but if you have an addictive personality, you can get addicted to anything. There's a well-known singer in a rock band who was an alcoholic. He stopped drinking and instead became addicted to shopping. And this isn't an isolated incident.
By no means do I want to criticise you for your choice of how to live; I applaud you for your clean living ways, and I'm glad that they're working out for you. But, if you think of it, the sort of people who are going to use drugs (ie, they're looking for a quick thrill) are not exactly the sort of people who are going to put in the time and energy and dedication necessary to get the same sort of pay-off from yoga as your good self.
I'm not a fan of drugs. Don't like to use them myself, but i think that the choice should be up to the individual.
-- Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is mearly energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather. -- Bill Hicks
does any one have a link to an article that's more than just a blurb? What are the applications? How long before we can built Logic out of these chips? According to TFA, all they've managed to create so far is an FET...
from TFA "Improved design to make everyday tasks easier and faster, with better navigation through tabbed browsing; inline search right from the toolbar; shrink-to-fit Web page printing; and a streamlined, redesigned user interface (currently in its early stages in Beta 1)."
No. I do get the whole "shareholders call the shots" thing. I'm just far too young and idealistic to be living in the real world...:P
in soviet russia, shareholders elect a board of directors that they trust will act with integrity and do what's in the best interests of the company. and the best interests of the company shouldn't always be about money. i know that in practise that's NEVER going to happen.
And if a company *does* strive for excellence in their chosen field, then unless they're hugely incompetent, how are they not going to make money?
Actually, I knew a few of the bits that you mentioned, but I was posting off the top of my head, and didn't think back that for or in that much detail...
This is actually something that I find really interesting, so thanks for the book tip!
some would argue that the goal of record companies shouldn't be to make money, but to produce good music. some would argue that the goal of any company should be just like it is in all their mission statements... to strive for excellence in their chosen field.
if you're good at what you do, the money should look after itself... look at google. they don't have a corporate culture that's all about money, sure, they've got people who make sure that they are making some money, but they focus more on making innovative products and actually enjoying the work that they do, and they're raking in the cash.
Nah, see what happened was in the 60's, record companies paid cash directly to DJs, under the table, to play songs. "i'll give you $100 if you play $song".
What Spitzer said sony were doing now was "if you play $song, we'll give you a free laptop to give away, and we'll fly you and 3 friends to cancun for the weekend". Sometimes it was even less direct, with people going through "independant promoters", or with fake competitions where the prize just went straight to the DJ in question.
I blame the DJs as much as sony for this... maybe more. DJs should have the balls to play what they like because they like it...
i don't know... it seems to me that the internet is a little like the wild west... you've got hackers and people like stallman (the folk heroes... wyatt earp, butch and sundance... whatever), conmen, over-zealous sheriffs (lawyers), people looking for a quick buck (we all know who these are), bad guys (those spam and malware folk) and nuts.
The internet is like some new frontier and it's still very young... it'll be a while before it settles down and finds any status quo. *removes pretentious-wank hat*
this is just an australian thing, and even if all this stuff is banned in the "civilised" world, then fuck it, we'll find our MP3s and what have you some place that's hosted in one of those totalitarian regimes who hold the freedom of warez in higher esteem than their own people's...
dammit, that pretentious-wank hat really sticks...
sorry, i take it back... i've been caught out by my wording a few times here. so i'm sorry. i have a lot of american friends who are very smart and moderate and who think bush is a tool, so i should've been more careful...
"OBL himself is the scion of a wealthy Saudi family."
Yeah, but OBL isn't running around with 50lbs of TNT strapped to his chest. The leaders and high-ecehlons of these organisations may be the bored kids from the Middle East's answer to the OC, but i'd lay money that the grunts are the same as they are in any army, agitated lower-class people looking for someone to blame for their hardship, and being led by a very charismatic man who says "look at the wealth west, not only do they have everything you want, look at how they flaunt the virtue of Allah...", just like the KKK... you have educated, well to do charismatic people in the positions of power, but the guys that go out and lynch people are joe pick-up and his 6-pack of mates...
to be fair, i'm willing to be shown wrong on this, which just means that this is a very nasty problem...
i don't know if i agree with you on how to deal with the problem. killing lots of people, being grim to modern sensibilities, can sometimes be as demoralising to the people who are doing the killing as to the people being killed...
"the UK declared war... on 2 innocent countries". the UK declared war on the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. They didn't declare war on the people of these countries. Yes, they went in against the will of the people and killed many of them in the process, but Saddam wasn't exactly the world's most compassionate man, now was he? And the Taliban, they've got a great track record on human rights. "So what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent people they killed?" well what about the hundreds of thousands of innocents that Saddam and the Taliban killed? I don't want to sound like I am/ever was in favour of the war, I marched against it, signed petitions and wrote letters to politicians exhorting them to forbid the USAF from landing in Shannon. "And what about Abu Graib?" Yeah, i think that whole thing was fucked up. There's no excuse for that.
"The problem with your analysis is that other people's lives aren't worth as much to you as westerner's lives..." fuck off! I never said that. I'm sorry if that's what you took from what I wrote, maybe i should've been clearer (but I've got a feeling that whatever I say, it'll be turned against me... won't let that stop me making a twat of myself...). Those innocents that died in Iraq and Afghanistan died in a (maybe misguided) effort on the part of the US and the UK to institute regime change. The US & UK have good intentions, perhaps (yeah, yeah, road to hell), but that doesn't excuse the [i'm sure they'd say accidental] killing of innocents. But to a reasonable person, that might make you think twice before going out and committing an act of terrorism.
"You're also making the fatal mistake of assuming that those who attacked London have the ability to wage a traditional war. They don't. Nor are they interested in waging war. And this is what pisses off Dubya and Bliar so much. The 'terrorists' are simply drawing people's attention to their cause. The problem for those in so-called 'civilised' societies is that our media and our governments refuse to even admit that there is an issue, and instead try to push everything aside by saying "they hate our freedom". What bullshit!"
Hello? More than 30 years of sectarian terrorism in the North of Irland? In Ireland, we're particularly aware of people who commit terrorist acts to draw attention to their cause. Doesn't mean we like it, doesn't mean we support it, and last time you checked, how well had the IRA done? And what's this cause you're talking about? I've heard of no manifesto from al Qaeda, other than bringing about the downfall of the evil west.
I had no part in electing the British government. I'm Irish. We're a separate country. Neutrality is built into our constitution. My name is nowhere near the occupation of Iraq, and it never will be.
As for the people saying London had it coming, some of those are saying it was inevitable that London would be attacked because it was high up the list. A few others said that maybe now they're seeing karma in action, but i haven't seen one yet that came right out and said something along the lines of "serves the fuckers right".
i suppose that's true... how the fuck do you deal with that sort of mentality though? killing them only makes it worse, imposing sanctions only makes it worse, ignoring it doesn't seem to make any difference at all...
my thoughts would be that if you better educate and care for those that would become fanatics and terrorists, then maybe they'll see that they don't have to kill people to make their point.
I heard on the news (I don't know London all that well) that the area affected is where the biggest Mosque in London is and has the densest Muslim population in London too...
A) I'm not British, I'm Irish. Take that into account. My point was that Tony Blair has repeatedly tried to restrain George Bush from his more extreme things. No, the British were not (100%) in the right in going into Iraq. But being there, they've a hell of a lot more experience dealing with terrorists and with local people who may resent their presence.
And B) When they did go into Afghanistan and Iraq, they declared war, thereby agreeing to abide by the rules of war and not do something like, i don't know, kill innocent people as they were on the bus to work. I think that saying "look, we're coming and we're coming armed" is a little less extreme (not to say hideously discourteous, dishonourable, cowardly...) than killing a busload of people. Particluarly in a city that less than a week ago hosted one of the biggest humanitarian events ever.
We Irish aren't known for our love of the English, but I don't think that you'd find any person in this country who'd believe that London deserved this to happen to them.
Been following this for the last 3 hours. Apparently the Army are now on the streets of london, trying to help EMTs get to the injured, there's a train full of people still stuck underground. Public transport hs been shutdown in London and people are being advised to stay where they are and not go into the city. Reports are that there were 6 bombs, 3 on buses and 3 on subway trains.
Tony Blair is on his way back to London from the G8 summit in Edinburgh
Allegedly, al Qa'eda are claiming responsibility, but i haven't been able to find a definite source on this.
BBC.co.uk has been swamped, but news.bbc.co.uk is still available (last i checked)
This pisses me off royally... London was set to celebrate getting the Olympics today, huge open air celebrations, but that's all been cancelled. With all the humanitarian work that's been happening in the last weeks, you'd think that malcontents would be a little less belligerent. Progress is being made. Now the British (who have masses of experience dealing with terrorists) will be pissed off, and the Americans have an excuse to throw their weight around even more...
Also, from talking to people in a few places, everyone seems to be thinking "Are we next?". Yes the British went into Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're been fairly well controlled for the most part. This is extremism at its worst. I don't want to kill the people who did this, i want to slap them in the face and tell them to cop themselves on... this is exactly the opposite of progress.
Slashdot Mirror
There is tech avaiable today, yes, but the tech isn't spohisticated nor is our understanding of the way the brain works refined enough to provide anything approaching the level of response that's necessary to compete with the reflex/muscle memory responses most gamers have developed.
What i found interesting about the article was the sort of dynamic game-play (making the game harder if the player is nervous), but even that seems redundant. If you're nervous, your hands are already sweaty on the controller, you're not concentrating at your highest potential. Why would something artificial added to the mix make it any harder for you?
maybe there are medical uses (the concentration aids mentioned in the article), but i get the feeling that the vaporware tag is richly deserved in this case...
Whatever about being a publicity stunt, this is just some lads doing something fun. Pioneering spirit and all that. It's akin to hitch-hiking around ireland with a fridge. maybe they'll come out of it with a whole new perspective on life.
or maybe they'll realise that it was a monumental waste of time. but whatever... let them do whatever they want, it's not hurting you, is it?
The general consensus is that the authorities in the US have become too strict, especially with "intellectual property", "the war on drugs", and "computer crimes".
"Remember it's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedoms."
- Bill Hicks
Or, y'know, anything by lynrd skynyrd, buddy holly, richie valenz or the big bopper...
you call that an immune system? *this* is an immune system...
or, for those who prefer more canonical nerdism... i welcome our new crocodile overlords...
I wonder could this be adapted and built into prosthetics somehow? And if you combine it with some sort of ultra-thin LCD...
I, for one, welcome our new robo-skinned, chameleon overlords...
Really? I found the reasoning a little... weak.
It sounds to me like someone spent the weekend power-levelling and wanted to explain to someone how exciting it was... then that became a behemoth blog-post.
Facts are not tremendously relevant ("There are more people playing World of Warcraft in the U.S. today (two million) than had indoor plumbing 100 years ago." - What the hell sort of comparison is that? I have more apples than Jimmy did 6 hours ago). And some of the reasoning is inconsistent (InGameCurrency (TM) will be valid in the real world. Or will it? Or won't it? Well, I don't know, it might be).
The author doesn't deal with some rather important points, such as offspring from the proposed virtual marriages. Or how about what happens when there's a crash that wipes a bunch of people out? Or the thief who just goes off and starts a new character as a Cleric or Paladin. This article reeks of zealotry and MMORPG evangelism.
I *do* think that some day, some of what is described in the article will be possible. But I think that a guy who spends that much time on his blog, and delivers propaganda full of specious reasoning isn't the guy who's vision we should listen to... I liked some of his points, and I was fond of his "quotes" from famous visionaries, but the article just didn't hold water for me.
I can only site from reference to those former criminals who made speeches on our school and my experience with people who take harshis regularly.
This is very common. Reformed alcoholics are often vehemently anti-alcohol. Reformed drug addicts are oftem vehemently anti-drugs. But when you're that opposed to someone, it's hard not to turn into a zelaot. Which is exactly the sort of person you bring into a school run by a government that is waging a "War on Drugs". You want to scare the children away from drugs.
I have no problems with people using drugs for spiritual growth based on experience and knowledge, but this is hardly the case in most homes.
I'm not sure I understand how you can make a distinction. Having a joint and listening to Pink Floyd (for example) might be akin to a religious experience for some people. i'm not being flippant here, I just don't think that any one person (or group of people, like a government, for example) can make that call.
However in our society, many millions of people are addicts and having serious problems.
Yes, this is true, but if you have an addictive personality, you can get addicted to anything. There's a well-known singer in a rock band who was an alcoholic. He stopped drinking and instead became addicted to shopping. And this isn't an isolated incident.
By no means do I want to criticise you for your choice of how to live; I applaud you for your clean living ways, and I'm glad that they're working out for you. But, if you think of it, the sort of people who are going to use drugs (ie, they're looking for a quick thrill) are not exactly the sort of people who are going to put in the time and energy and dedication necessary to get the same sort of pay-off from yoga as your good self.
I'm not a fan of drugs. Don't like to use them myself, but i think that the choice should be up to the individual.
--
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is mearly energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.
-- Bill Hicks
does any one have a link to an article that's more than just a blurb? What are the applications? How long before we can built Logic out of these chips? According to TFA, all they've managed to create so far is an FET...
from TFA "Improved design to make everyday tasks easier and faster, with better navigation through tabbed browsing; inline search right from the toolbar; shrink-to-fit Web page printing; and a streamlined, redesigned user interface (currently in its early stages in Beta 1)."
No. I do get the whole "shareholders call the shots" thing. I'm just far too young and idealistic to be living in the real world... :P
in soviet russia, shareholders elect a board of directors that they trust will act with integrity and do what's in the best interests of the company. and the best interests of the company shouldn't always be about money. i know that in practise that's NEVER going to happen.
And if a company *does* strive for excellence in their chosen field, then unless they're hugely incompetent, how are they not going to make money?
Actually, I knew a few of the bits that you mentioned, but I was posting off the top of my head, and didn't think back that for or in that much detail... This is actually something that I find really interesting, so thanks for the book tip!
some would argue that the goal of record companies shouldn't be to make money, but to produce good music.
some would argue that the goal of any company should be just like it is in all their mission statements... to strive for excellence in their chosen field.
if you're good at what you do, the money should look after itself... look at google. they don't have a corporate culture that's all about money, sure, they've got people who make sure that they are making some money, but they focus more on making innovative products and actually enjoying the work that they do, and they're raking in the cash.
Nah, see what happened was in the 60's, record companies paid cash directly to DJs, under the table, to play songs. "i'll give you $100 if you play $song".
What Spitzer said sony were doing now was "if you play $song, we'll give you a free laptop to give away, and we'll fly you and 3 friends to cancun for the weekend". Sometimes it was even less direct, with people going through "independant promoters", or with fake competitions where the prize just went straight to the DJ in question.
I blame the DJs as much as sony for this... maybe more. DJs should have the balls to play what they like because they like it...
but think about that... google would also have lawyers who'd be much better dealing with this sort of thing.
also, google's primary function isn't to link to mp3s... this guy's site was called mp3s4free...
i don't know... it seems to me that the internet is a little like the wild west... you've got hackers and people like stallman (the folk heroes... wyatt earp, butch and sundance... whatever), conmen, over-zealous sheriffs (lawyers), people looking for a quick buck (we all know who these are), bad guys (those spam and malware folk) and nuts.
The internet is like some new frontier and it's still very young... it'll be a while before it settles down and finds any status quo.
*removes pretentious-wank hat*
this is just an australian thing, and even if all this stuff is banned in the "civilised" world, then fuck it, we'll find our MP3s and what have you some place that's hosted in one of those totalitarian regimes who hold the freedom of warez in higher esteem than their own people's...
dammit, that pretentious-wank hat really sticks...
sorry, i take it back... i've been caught out by my wording a few times here. so i'm sorry. i have a lot of american friends who are very smart and moderate and who think bush is a tool, so i should've been more careful...
"OBL himself is the scion of a wealthy Saudi family."
Yeah, but OBL isn't running around with 50lbs of TNT strapped to his chest. The leaders and high-ecehlons of these organisations may be the bored kids from the Middle East's answer to the OC, but i'd lay money that the grunts are the same as they are in any army, agitated lower-class people looking for someone to blame for their hardship, and being led by a very charismatic man who says "look at the wealth west, not only do they have everything you want, look at how they flaunt the virtue of Allah...", just like the KKK... you have educated, well to do charismatic people in the positions of power, but the guys that go out and lynch people are joe pick-up and his 6-pack of mates...
to be fair, i'm willing to be shown wrong on this, which just means that this is a very nasty problem...
i don't know if i agree with you on how to deal with the problem. killing lots of people, being grim to modern sensibilities, can sometimes be as demoralising to the people who are doing the killing as to the people being killed...
"the UK declared war ... on 2 innocent countries". the UK declared war on the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. They didn't declare war on the people of these countries. Yes, they went in against the will of the people and killed many of them in the process, but Saddam wasn't exactly the world's most compassionate man, now was he? And the Taliban, they've got a great track record on human rights. "So what about the hundreds of thousands of innocent people they killed?" well what about the hundreds of thousands of innocents that Saddam and the Taliban killed? I don't want to sound like I am/ever was in favour of the war, I marched against it, signed petitions and wrote letters to politicians exhorting them to forbid the USAF from landing in Shannon. "And what about Abu Graib?" Yeah, i think that whole thing was fucked up. There's no excuse for that.
"The problem with your analysis is that other people's lives aren't worth as much to you as westerner's lives..." fuck off! I never said that. I'm sorry if that's what you took from what I wrote, maybe i should've been clearer (but I've got a feeling that whatever I say, it'll be turned against me... won't let that stop me making a twat of myself...). Those innocents that died in Iraq and Afghanistan died in a (maybe misguided) effort on the part of the US and the UK to institute regime change. The US & UK have good intentions, perhaps (yeah, yeah, road to hell), but that doesn't excuse the [i'm sure they'd say accidental] killing of innocents. But to a reasonable person, that might make you think twice before going out and committing an act of terrorism.
"You're also making the fatal mistake of assuming that those who attacked London have the ability to wage a traditional war. They don't. Nor are they interested in waging war. And this is what pisses off Dubya and Bliar so much. The 'terrorists' are simply drawing people's attention to their cause. The problem for those in so-called 'civilised' societies is that our media and our governments refuse to even admit that there is an issue, and instead try to push everything aside by saying "they hate our freedom". What bullshit!"
Hello? More than 30 years of sectarian terrorism in the North of Irland? In Ireland, we're particularly aware of people who commit terrorist acts to draw attention to their cause. Doesn't mean we like it, doesn't mean we support it, and last time you checked, how well had the IRA done? And what's this cause you're talking about? I've heard of no manifesto from al Qaeda, other than bringing about the downfall of the evil west.
I had no part in electing the British government. I'm Irish. We're a separate country. Neutrality is built into our constitution. My name is nowhere near the occupation of Iraq, and it never will be.
As for the people saying London had it coming, some of those are saying it was inevitable that London would be attacked because it was high up the list. A few others said that maybe now they're seeing karma in action, but i haven't seen one yet that came right out and said something along the lines of "serves the fuckers right".
i suppose that's true...
how the fuck do you deal with that sort of mentality though? killing them only makes it worse, imposing sanctions only makes it worse, ignoring it doesn't seem to make any difference at all...
my thoughts would be that if you better educate and care for those that would become fanatics and terrorists, then maybe they'll see that they don't have to kill people to make their point.
So you weren't that moved by seeing Pink Floyd reunite then...
I heard on the news (I don't know London all that well) that the area affected is where the biggest Mosque in London is and has the densest Muslim population in London too...
Doesn't make sense coming from al Qaeda...
not that we can be sure it's them...
A) I'm not British, I'm Irish. Take that into account. My point was that Tony Blair has repeatedly tried to restrain George Bush from his more extreme things. No, the British were not (100%) in the right in going into Iraq.
But being there, they've a hell of a lot more experience dealing with terrorists and with local people who may resent their presence.
And B) When they did go into Afghanistan and Iraq, they declared war, thereby agreeing to abide by the rules of war and not do something like, i don't know, kill innocent people as they were on the bus to work. I think that saying "look, we're coming and we're coming armed" is a little less extreme (not to say hideously discourteous, dishonourable, cowardly...) than killing a busload of people. Particluarly in a city that less than a week ago hosted one of the biggest humanitarian events ever.
We Irish aren't known for our love of the English, but I don't think that you'd find any person in this country who'd believe that London deserved this to happen to them.
in the last 10 minutes, reports have come in of more than 50 deaths
Been following this for the last 3 hours.
Apparently the Army are now on the streets of london, trying to help EMTs get to the injured, there's a train full of people still stuck underground. Public transport hs been shutdown in London and people are being advised to stay where they are and not go into the city.
Reports are that there were 6 bombs, 3 on buses and 3 on subway trains.
Tony Blair is on his way back to London from the G8 summit in Edinburgh
Allegedly, al Qa'eda are claiming responsibility, but i haven't been able to find a definite source on this.
BBC.co.uk has been swamped, but news.bbc.co.uk is still available (last i checked)
This pisses me off royally... London was set to celebrate getting the Olympics today, huge open air celebrations, but that's all been cancelled. With all the humanitarian work that's been happening in the last weeks, you'd think that malcontents would be a little less belligerent. Progress is being made.
Now the British (who have masses of experience dealing with terrorists) will be pissed off, and the Americans have an excuse to throw their weight around even more...
Also, from talking to people in a few places, everyone seems to be thinking "Are we next?". Yes the British went into Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're been fairly well controlled for the most part. This is extremism at its worst. I don't want to kill the people who did this, i want to slap them in the face and tell them to cop themselves on... this is exactly the opposite of progress.