Flip it around ; the implication is that women aren't expected to pay because they aren't able to, because they are either incapable of earning money, or not entitled to hold their own finances.
"Other people are expected to support me" IS insulting. Women who exploit their feminine wiles to get guys to pay for stuff ; well, there's another less charitable name for that kind of behaviour. "Gigolo" is probably more reviled than "whore" because of the implication that men should be the breadwinner - and that men depending on the resources of women is somehow worse than vice-versa.
I do sometimes treat my date, but only once I've had the conversation - my opinion is that remuneration is so out of whack with your actual working effort these days that I don't feel guilty about being well paid OR paying for dinner because I can afford it more than some of the women I date. But it's important, especially in the region I live where standing on your own two feet is a matter of pride, that you don't insult someone when doing so.
They think that the relatives of the victims have some twisted sense of justice that requires the murderer to suffer during his execution. It's vengeful and distinctly anti-Christian, even if the inhabitants of the USA typically like to paint themselves as good Christians.
I'd rather people weren't executed at all, but if you have to do it, at least do it in line with your constitutional and religious values, people.
An ex-politician did the research for a BBC documentary - there is a simple, easy method of execution, used to humanely kill pigs in abattoirs, it's cheap, quick and requires no exotic chemicals. Asphyxia with nitrogen.
He asked several people involved in administering the death penalty if they would consider it, and to a man, they all refused to condone the notion. Because the victim feels a few moments of euphoria before they go.
They *want* the pain and suffering, despite the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Constitution. The protocols are explicitly designed to be inhumane, and there is a tacit agreement amongst all those involved that they should stay that way.
still I cannot explain why on Windows in a virtual machine (Linux as host) the sound is better than in Linux itself.
I suspect the Linux builds of Skype don't have all the good audio codecs they've added to the Windows build, Skype now being a Microsoft product. The audio quality is total ass.
It's a big transaction log. When you spend them, you provide the service of signing your transaction with a private key that the network agrees controls the pool of coins from which are spending. You are exchanging this service for the goods and services the recipient of that transaction agreed to provide you with (hopefully).
In the end the only value of a wallet is the ability to provide this service. That's why when a wallet is destroyed those coins it controlled are lost to the network forever.
"Real" currencies are essentially also this kind of service, since we moved off the gold standard. The only value fiat currency has is what someone will agree to give you in exchange for providing the service of telling your bank to move some numbers to their account (whether you do this electronically, or indirectly through cash).
The main differential is that Bitcoin is founded on the mutual trust of all participants, whereas fiat currencies are founded almost entirely on confidence in a few entities - the government, and the banks. Bitcoin probably wins on that count.
The difficulty here is that there is no way to repudiate transactions after the fact - unlike with a bank, there is no "Undo". But this is also a feature. To provide an ability to do this would require a central body to have key escrow of your wallet keys, which would completely undermine the whole network AND be a rich target for exactly this sort of theft.
The problem is that people don't understand Bitcoin. Trusting a web-wallet is an entirely different proposition to trusting a bank, but they are used to thinking about it as if it was a bank.
Why people *ever* used them is beyond comprehension.
You don't even need a server online to *accept* bitcoin transactions, because they occur in the transaction log, so if you pay for hosted mining, or accept payments for cookies, or whatever, you can do it entirely safely just by directing coins to a wallet that has no online keys. You can even check balances without the private key ; wallet balances are public like everything else in the transaciton log.
You only need access to the keys in a wallet to *spend* Bitcoin. So you keep the key in dead storage unless you need to spend.
If you really need a convenient way to spend, keep a "current account" wallet which you recharge from your "deposit account" wallet. Then even if your phone / exchange wallet / usb stick is stolen, you only get a small balance stolen.
There aren't any coins to move. The coins are just an idea. Bitcoin is a large distributed transaction log.
Now, you could make it illegal to exchange Bitcoin transaction services for fiat currency, but that won't stop people still using them as a proxy for value. And I imagine it would be hard to do in a way that actually has legal teeth, but doesn't outlaw all forms of banking (which is mostly providing transaction services these days...)
They provide a service - they hold crypto keys for you and generate transactions signed by those keys.
Now those keys were stolen, but they are of intangible value. Just because certain parties will honour those transactions and exchange the service of providing them for official government scrip, doesn't mean they are worth anything.
Bitcoin is a big distributed transaction log. The record of where all the coins are is public, and verified constantly by clients participating in the network ; each client has a full copy of the transaction log.
Your wallet doesn't store the coins. It stores crypto keys. The coins are all out there - the transaction log says who they belong to, and the private key in your wallet lets you create new transactions to move them around.
When coins are created, the network attests that the coins belong to your wallet by signing the transaction that creates those coins.
To spend those coins requires a transaction record signed by the private key belonging to that wallet. The transaction basically says
"Hey, I'm and I'm transferring coins to " [Signed, wallet-1234]
The network verifies that the signature is correct and adds its own attestation that it is so.
So what happened here was the thieves broke into the server, and accessed private keys that were available to the server, and used them to generate transactions moving the coins they controlled to new wallets (presumably controlled by the thieves).
Tinfoil hat says that it could very well be an inside job (as could MtGox).
I've tried most of the diff / merge tools available but I keep coming back to Beyond Compare ; it's one of the few pieces of commercial productivity software on my machines (both Windows and Linux).
There are a couple of features (like kdiff3's "alignment hint file" feature) that I wish it would adopt, but otherwise it knocks most of the others, freeware and FOSS, into a cocked hat.
Why not GnuWin32 - it too operates in a standard DOS shell but doesn't cost money (unlike MKS Toolkit)?
Having encountered the MKS version of a CVS / issue tracking server (written in Java, crashes when you check out too many files), I'd rather not touch any of their other products.
Diamonds are pretty worthless. Their price is artificially inflated by the De Beers cartel. If you don't believe me, try selling a diamond - take your wife's engagement ring down to the jeweller and get a quote. Now compare the price to that of similar stones available in the same store.
So, nothing to do with the robbery though - the diamonds are still worthless beforehand.
Why the HELL would you want to write your own DNS server, much less want to run it on MySQL.
If you want easy analytics from SQL reports, use a proper DNS server (my instant thought was one that uses LMDB - which PowerDNS supports, apparently) and write a program that dumps the data you want into a MySQL instance, which is the Unix philosophy - tools doing one thing well.
Well, not unless your mattress is made of adamantium and has a passphrase protected lock, can be redundantly backed up in multiple locations, and every time you stuff a handful of cash into it that cash is automatically available from each of the backups... no.
The design of the currency does include charging for transactions, because the peers in the network do the processing - it's always been there to encourage people to actually participate. But the transaction charges should be small compared to standard banking.
Ding! We have a winner. Anyone who uses an exchange as a bank didn't grok the point of a distributed P2P transaction log in the first place. I would have thought it would be a key point for all those libertarians as well - personal responsibility n'all.
Keep your own wallets, keep your keys backed up, and keep them offline unless you need them. ALL these Bitcoin theft stories have one thing in common - the wallets were accessible from a public server. You would have thought that all the Bitcoin banks would have crashed right after the first story as people transferred their balances into personal wallets, but apparently people really do value their convenience much more than their hard-earned Bitcoin.
At a minimum, have a "current account" wallet that you maybe carry around on your personal devices like a phone, and a "deposit account" which you keep the wallet for OFFLINE. You can still transfer TO it any time you like - you only need the keys to transfer FROM it. Store multiple redundant copies of the keys somewhere secure - you might even want to go as far as storing a paper wallet in a real safe deposit box, but a USB memory thumb in your desk drawer and a backup thumb somewhere else is probably secure enough - you do remember your passphrases, right? And they're not the same for each copy of the wallet, right?
Recharge your current account from currency exchanges, or from your deposit account. Transfer any balances that are too large for comfort to your deposit account. Now the only thing that can destroy the value of your coins is... oh, everyone else who's still dumb enough to value convenience over personal responsibility. Que sera.
The emphasis should be on encryption, not physical infrastructure. You can't audit, control and secure physical infrastructure for an internet, because it is by necessity, spread out across a large physical volume. You definitely can make it uneconomic to analyse the traffic.
Of course, this is probably an intentional oversight - all that infrastructure work is a great economic stimulus (or "pork barrel project" if you like). Why cloud the picture with reality when you can both spend billions of Euros on a jingoistic boondoggle AND still be able to collect SIGINT from your own people without difficulty?
While I admit that as a programmer I will inevitably have a skewed point of view, I view it as ill-advised.
A computer is useful primarily because it is NOT a special purpose tool, but a general purpose one.
Whitelisting cripples your computer. If you can't run software without it being on a whitelist, you can't even write a shell script, or a VBA macro. Your computer stops being useful as a general purpose tool - only the software that has been approved remains useful.
Yes, I get that most users are numpties and probably do need to be kept from hurting themselves. But this kind of policy cuts down the tall poppies - the ones who actually can make their computer work for them, instead of just working at their computer, and removes the possibility that any more will arise - no-one will voluntarily seek the rights they need to approve of their own software, because they'll be singled out as potential hackers and troublemakers, and any data breaches that do occur will be attributed to them.
As applied within our organization, it's also soul-crushingly annoying to programmers. We'll have the rights to approve of any software we want to run, but we have to click through an approval dialog for each... new..... file... which of course, means that every time we rebuild our code we face a clickfest just to debug it, or run unit tests on it, etc.... most of us have shied away from being "upgraded" to Windows 7 because of this. Several of us just wish we could change to Linux, being Java programmers.
Indeed, many of our internal teams are also getting the self-approval rights, which just trains them to click "Approve" and you're all the way back to UAC again, no extra security, just extra hassle, reduced performance of the computer (which is now hashing every file you access on the drive to see if it's on the whitelist), and more money diverted into the coffers of the kind of company that sponsored this story in the first place.
Sidebars are a much better idea on a widescreen anyway ; the ribbon just takes up valuable vertical space that's at a premium since people stopped making LCD panels for computer users.
Yeah, for me the problem is getting that date count up.
I've so far been online dating for about 9 months, I've dated only 6 women. Of these :
* The first one entered into a relationship with me that lasted a couple of months, during which I didn't bother with dating sites for obvious reasons * The most recent is promising, but we've only been on one date, and because of distance and logistics, the next date is proving hard to organise
I'm on two subscription dating sites (one is match.com) and two free ones (Plenty of Fish and OKCupid). Of these, I've had two dates from OKCupid, two from POF, one from Match and one from the other subscription site, so on this tiny sample the free sites work better than the paid ones... although they all barely work at all.
I estimate I've probably messaged around 120 women, being picky*, sending proper tailored messages that actually respond to things in their profile, mostly concentrated in POF, OKC, and Match. (the last site is an odd one that only lets you browse a certain number of women per day that it picks out for you, and most of the profiles on there are very poor because their sign-up process numbs the brain). When I actually get a response, I think my "date rate" is around 50%
In contrast, I went speed dating and out of a pool of 13 women I got two "mutual matches" and 5 / 13 expressed an interest in dating me. Clearly something is wrong with the way I express myself online. I've had women turn me down on the grounds that I was "too intellectual for them"... I'm not sure if this is a reflection on me, or the dating pool concerned (POF and Match.com seem to be more "everyman" than OKCupid which is definitely more artsy, professional, and intelligent in tone).
The main surprise for me so far has been how many vegetarians OKCupid matches me up with....
* defined as only messaging women that I actually find attractive
Hell, yes, on the insurance. I can't comprehend it - I've had pretty much the same premium since I qualified (at the age of 24), so it's been dropping in real terms about in line with inflation. But the kids these days are facing premiums of 10 x as much. I just went to a boardgaming meetup and had this confirmed to me by most of the younger attendees.
You could don a tinfoil hat and say that someone wants to restrict their mobility.
You're running into one of the properties of BitCoin here - it's not anonymous, it's pseudonymous. You can't hide the transaction history of a given coin, because that's how BitCoin works - it's a single vast verifiable public transaction log. If someone doesn't want to accept coins that passed through a particular wallet, then it's easy to verify this. And if there are enough people who won't touch Silk Road coins, then their value will be dubious to the people who ordinarily would.
It's impossible to "launder" BitCoin for this reason - you can always trace the entire transaction history for a given coin or subdivisions thereof.
That said, I think it's unlikely that people will turn them down.
Slashdot Mirror
Flip it around ; the implication is that women aren't expected to pay because they aren't able to, because they are either incapable of earning money, or not entitled to hold their own finances.
"Other people are expected to support me" IS insulting. Women who exploit their feminine wiles to get guys to pay for stuff ; well, there's another less charitable name for that kind of behaviour. "Gigolo" is probably more reviled than "whore" because of the implication that men should be the breadwinner - and that men depending on the resources of women is somehow worse than vice-versa.
I do sometimes treat my date, but only once I've had the conversation - my opinion is that remuneration is so out of whack with your actual working effort these days that I don't feel guilty about being well paid OR paying for dinner because I can afford it more than some of the women I date. But it's important, especially in the region I live where standing on your own two feet is a matter of pride, that you don't insult someone when doing so.
They think that the relatives of the victims have some twisted sense of justice that requires the murderer to suffer during his execution. It's vengeful and distinctly anti-Christian, even if the inhabitants of the USA typically like to paint themselves as good Christians.
I'd rather people weren't executed at all, but if you have to do it, at least do it in line with your constitutional and religious values, people.
An ex-politician did the research for a BBC documentary - there is a simple, easy method of execution, used to humanely kill pigs in abattoirs, it's cheap, quick and requires no exotic chemicals. Asphyxia with nitrogen.
He asked several people involved in administering the death penalty if they would consider it, and to a man, they all refused to condone the notion. Because the victim feels a few moments of euphoria before they go.
They *want* the pain and suffering, despite the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Constitution. The protocols are explicitly designed to be inhumane, and there is a tacit agreement amongst all those involved that they should stay that way.
still I cannot explain why on Windows in a virtual machine (Linux as host) the sound is better than in Linux itself.
I suspect the Linux builds of Skype don't have all the good audio codecs they've added to the Windows build, Skype now being a Microsoft product. The audio quality is total ass.
Bitcoin is a service, not a commodity.
It's a big transaction log. When you spend them, you provide the service of signing your transaction with a private key that the network agrees controls the pool of coins from which are spending. You are exchanging this service for the goods and services the recipient of that transaction agreed to provide you with (hopefully).
In the end the only value of a wallet is the ability to provide this service. That's why when a wallet is destroyed those coins it controlled are lost to the network forever.
"Real" currencies are essentially also this kind of service, since we moved off the gold standard. The only value fiat currency has is what someone will agree to give you in exchange for providing the service of telling your bank to move some numbers to their account (whether you do this electronically, or indirectly through cash).
The main differential is that Bitcoin is founded on the mutual trust of all participants, whereas fiat currencies are founded almost entirely on confidence in a few entities - the government, and the banks. Bitcoin probably wins on that count.
The difficulty here is that there is no way to repudiate transactions after the fact - unlike with a bank, there is no "Undo". But this is also a feature. To provide an ability to do this would require a central body to have key escrow of your wallet keys, which would completely undermine the whole network AND be a rich target for exactly this sort of theft.
The problem is that people don't understand Bitcoin. Trusting a web-wallet is an entirely different proposition to trusting a bank, but they are used to thinking about it as if it was a bank.
Why people *ever* used them is beyond comprehension.
You don't even need a server online to *accept* bitcoin transactions, because they occur in the transaction log, so if you pay for hosted mining, or accept payments for cookies, or whatever, you can do it entirely safely just by directing coins to a wallet that has no online keys. You can even check balances without the private key ; wallet balances are public like everything else in the transaciton log.
You only need access to the keys in a wallet to *spend* Bitcoin. So you keep the key in dead storage unless you need to spend.
If you really need a convenient way to spend, keep a "current account" wallet which you recharge from your "deposit account" wallet. Then even if your phone / exchange wallet / usb stick is stolen, you only get a small balance stolen.
It's not the number of coins that's the problem ; they are divisible to a large number of decimal places, enough to cover most projected future needs.
The main problem is the capacity of the network as currently implemented to handle transactions, which can't scale : straight from the horses mouth
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Sca...
There aren't any coins to move. The coins are just an idea. Bitcoin is a large distributed transaction log.
Now, you could make it illegal to exchange Bitcoin transaction services for fiat currency, but that won't stop people still using them as a proxy for value. And I imagine it would be hard to do in a way that actually has legal teeth, but doesn't outlaw all forms of banking (which is mostly providing transaction services these days...)
They provide a service - they hold crypto keys for you and generate transactions signed by those keys.
Now those keys were stolen, but they are of intangible value. Just because certain parties will honour those transactions and exchange the service of providing them for official government scrip, doesn't mean they are worth anything.
Bitcoin is a big distributed transaction log. The record of where all the coins are is public, and verified constantly by clients participating in the network ; each client has a full copy of the transaction log.
Your wallet doesn't store the coins. It stores crypto keys. The coins are all out there - the transaction log says who they belong to, and the private key in your wallet lets you create new transactions to move them around.
When coins are created, the network attests that the coins belong to your wallet by signing the transaction that creates those coins.
To spend those coins requires a transaction record signed by the private key belonging to that wallet. The transaction basically says
"Hey, I'm and I'm transferring coins to " [Signed, wallet-1234]
The network verifies that the signature is correct and adds its own attestation that it is so.
So what happened here was the thieves broke into the server, and accessed private keys that were available to the server, and used them to generate transactions moving the coins they controlled to new wallets (presumably controlled by the thieves).
Tinfoil hat says that it could very well be an inside job (as could MtGox).
I've tried most of the diff / merge tools available but I keep coming back to Beyond Compare ; it's one of the few pieces of commercial productivity software on my machines (both Windows and Linux).
There are a couple of features (like kdiff3's "alignment hint file" feature) that I wish it would adopt, but otherwise it knocks most of the others, freeware and FOSS, into a cocked hat.
Why not GnuWin32 - it too operates in a standard DOS shell but doesn't cost money (unlike MKS Toolkit)?
Having encountered the MKS version of a CVS / issue tracking server (written in Java, crashes when you check out too many files), I'd rather not touch any of their other products.
Well, for this example, yes.
Diamonds are pretty worthless. Their price is artificially inflated by the De Beers cartel. If you don't believe me, try selling a diamond - take your wife's engagement ring down to the jeweller and get a quote. Now compare the price to that of similar stones available in the same store.
So, nothing to do with the robbery though - the diamonds are still worthless beforehand.
Not Invented Here syndrome is a terrible thing.
Why the HELL would you want to write your own DNS server, much less want to run it on MySQL.
If you want easy analytics from SQL reports, use a proper DNS server (my instant thought was one that uses LMDB - which PowerDNS supports, apparently) and write a program that dumps the data you want into a MySQL instance, which is the Unix philosophy - tools doing one thing well.
acq may be "acquisition" - perhaps one of the incumbent banking players is buying them out. Or the mafia. Or someone.
Well, not unless your mattress is made of adamantium and has a passphrase protected lock, can be redundantly backed up in multiple locations, and every time you stuff a handful of cash into it that cash is automatically available from each of the backups... no.
The design of the currency does include charging for transactions, because the peers in the network do the processing - it's always been there to encourage people to actually participate. But the transaction charges should be small compared to standard banking.
Ding! We have a winner. Anyone who uses an exchange as a bank didn't grok the point of a distributed P2P transaction log in the first place. I would have thought it would be a key point for all those libertarians as well - personal responsibility n'all.
Keep your own wallets, keep your keys backed up, and keep them offline unless you need them. ALL these Bitcoin theft stories have one thing in common - the wallets were accessible from a public server. You would have thought that all the Bitcoin banks would have crashed right after the first story as people transferred their balances into personal wallets, but apparently people really do value their convenience much more than their hard-earned Bitcoin.
At a minimum, have a "current account" wallet that you maybe carry around on your personal devices like a phone, and a "deposit account" which you keep the wallet for OFFLINE. You can still transfer TO it any time you like - you only need the keys to transfer FROM it. Store multiple redundant copies of the keys somewhere secure - you might even want to go as far as storing a paper wallet in a real safe deposit box, but a USB memory thumb in your desk drawer and a backup thumb somewhere else is probably secure enough - you do remember your passphrases, right? And they're not the same for each copy of the wallet, right?
Recharge your current account from currency exchanges, or from your deposit account. Transfer any balances that are too large for comfort to your deposit account. Now the only thing that can destroy the value of your coins is... oh, everyone else who's still dumb enough to value convenience over personal responsibility. Que sera.
Excellent irony by using the MS Word lsquot and rsquot characters :-)
The emphasis should be on encryption, not physical infrastructure. You can't audit, control and secure physical infrastructure for an internet, because it is by necessity, spread out across a large physical volume. You definitely can make it uneconomic to analyse the traffic.
Of course, this is probably an intentional oversight - all that infrastructure work is a great economic stimulus (or "pork barrel project" if you like). Why cloud the picture with reality when you can both spend billions of Euros on a jingoistic boondoggle AND still be able to collect SIGINT from your own people without difficulty?
While I admit that as a programmer I will inevitably have a skewed point of view, I view it as ill-advised.
A computer is useful primarily because it is NOT a special purpose tool, but a general purpose one.
Whitelisting cripples your computer. If you can't run software without it being on a whitelist, you can't even write a shell script, or a VBA macro. Your computer stops being useful as a general purpose tool - only the software that has been approved remains useful.
Yes, I get that most users are numpties and probably do need to be kept from hurting themselves. But this kind of policy cuts down the tall poppies - the ones who actually can make their computer work for them, instead of just working at their computer, and removes the possibility that any more will arise - no-one will voluntarily seek the rights they need to approve of their own software, because they'll be singled out as potential hackers and troublemakers, and any data breaches that do occur will be attributed to them.
As applied within our organization, it's also soul-crushingly annoying to programmers. We'll have the rights to approve of any software we want to run, but we have to click through an approval dialog for each... new..... file... which of course, means that every time we rebuild our code we face a clickfest just to debug it, or run unit tests on it, etc.... most of us have shied away from being "upgraded" to Windows 7 because of this. Several of us just wish we could change to Linux, being Java programmers.
Indeed, many of our internal teams are also getting the self-approval rights, which just trains them to click "Approve" and you're all the way back to UAC again, no extra security, just extra hassle, reduced performance of the computer (which is now hashing every file you access on the drive to see if it's on the whitelist), and more money diverted into the coffers of the kind of company that sponsored this story in the first place.
Sidebars are a much better idea on a widescreen anyway ; the ribbon just takes up valuable vertical space that's at a premium since people stopped making LCD panels for computer users.
Yeah, for me the problem is getting that date count up.
I've so far been online dating for about 9 months, I've dated only 6 women. Of these :
* The first one entered into a relationship with me that lasted a couple of months, during which I didn't bother with dating sites for obvious reasons
* The most recent is promising, but we've only been on one date, and because of distance and logistics, the next date is proving hard to organise
I'm on two subscription dating sites (one is match.com) and two free ones (Plenty of Fish and OKCupid). Of these, I've had two dates from OKCupid, two from POF, one from Match and one from the other subscription site, so on this tiny sample the free sites work better than the paid ones... although they all barely work at all.
I estimate I've probably messaged around 120 women, being picky*, sending proper tailored messages that actually respond to things in their profile, mostly concentrated in POF, OKC, and Match. (the last site is an odd one that only lets you browse a certain number of women per day that it picks out for you, and most of the profiles on there are very poor because their sign-up process numbs the brain). When I actually get a response, I think my "date rate" is around 50%
In contrast, I went speed dating and out of a pool of 13 women I got two "mutual matches" and 5 / 13 expressed an interest in dating me. Clearly something is wrong with the way I express myself online. I've had women turn me down on the grounds that I was "too intellectual for them"... I'm not sure if this is a reflection on me, or the dating pool concerned (POF and Match.com seem to be more "everyman" than OKCupid which is definitely more artsy, professional, and intelligent in tone).
The main surprise for me so far has been how many vegetarians OKCupid matches me up with....
* defined as only messaging women that I actually find attractive
Hell, yes, on the insurance. I can't comprehend it - I've had pretty much the same premium since I qualified (at the age of 24), so it's been dropping in real terms about in line with inflation. But the kids these days are facing premiums of 10 x as much. I just went to a boardgaming meetup and had this confirmed to me by most of the younger attendees.
You could don a tinfoil hat and say that someone wants to restrict their mobility.
You're running into one of the properties of BitCoin here - it's not anonymous, it's pseudonymous. You can't hide the transaction history of a given coin, because that's how BitCoin works - it's a single vast verifiable public transaction log. If someone doesn't want to accept coins that passed through a particular wallet, then it's easy to verify this. And if there are enough people who won't touch Silk Road coins, then their value will be dubious to the people who ordinarily would.
It's impossible to "launder" BitCoin for this reason - you can always trace the entire transaction history for a given coin or subdivisions thereof.
That said, I think it's unlikely that people will turn them down.