And you showed nothing that describes dowloading. The owner of the server controls whether a copy is made or a file is transfered and is responsablty for the distribution.
You have to stretch really hard to get any of that to apply. Case law is not law either. Judges have been wrong before and they will be wrong in the future.
Didn't MS just introduce something that promises to send even more? I think it built into the latest version of windows and is supposed to help them fix it or something.
Lol. Did you seriously not read my post? I specifically mentioned the probles with roads but lets get into the post office too. They are constantly floating with bankruptcy yet offer commerial mail discounts so steep that postage to send a lettle or post card by a private citizen has almost trippled in my life time.
Oh, and these ISPs are already in the same place as telecoms. They enjoy limited competition already. They have fast tracks to right of ways already. If you actually looked at the situation, we are where we are at mostly because government and telecoms/cable service.
Yes government can be part of the answer. But government owning the ISP is not.
Getting what you pay for and forbiding ISPs from purosely limiting your service or any part of it to below the advertised speedscan be instituted without the government taking over the internet distribution/last mile infrastructure.
Having the government own the last mile or even the ISP does luttle to nothing to net neutrality.
We can see how that already works out. Roads is something that used to be largely private but now are mostly public. We pay a special tax to fund them.
Now that sounds good until you realize that the funding is not beholden to its intended uses. Highway trust funds get used to fund parks, bike and walking paths where no roads exist, they fund travel lanes that only select people can use ( hov, mass transit only, no commercial vehicles lanes). It is ever used for busy work where the need has nothing to do with maintaning the roads but to keeps workers employed when they aren't really needed.
I'm not saying comcast is the answer, but government replacing them is not really the cure. At least not the cure unless you want your internet carrying 10 times the load it was designed for and the solution pushed being expanding lanes that only a small portion of people can legally use- or worse yet, have to pay a premium for express travel. Yes, some expansion to existing freeways have been adding toll lanes to an otherwise non toll road.
Well not only that but i would think there might ve fears of driving development in directions that depend on ir outright violate those patents and then taking them to town down the road by requiring an expensive license. I think they call that submarining or something similar when it is done on standards.
There are infectious disease protocals that should be in place at any hospital. H.I.V. and measles or viral menangitus risks combined with trauma injuries for instance would have required enough protections in the initial contact to have prevented the spread. They simply were not prrepared to have a third world disease in a first world country.
As for sealing off the state. The nurse in question already went running around the country trying to see how many people she could expose. It could be too late to isolate it but you would only need to seal off Dallas. Texas has a huge border we already cannot close. If we tried to seal off the entire state, you might as well make screen doors for submarines. This government simply isn't up to the task.
Amber Joy Vinson after knowing of her exposure to an Ebola patient who died from the disease, decided with her vast knowlege of healthcare issues that it was prudent to travel to cleavland ohio on a commercial airliner and return to Texas hours before reporting her symptoms on the same type of travel.
When the healthcare workers decide to move about and interact with the public- crossing state lines- after knowing other healthcare workers with the same patient contracted the disease, you should be very concerned and panic. The CDC, who makes brown and the Katrina response by FEMA look like a perfectly executed plan, has failed in providing guidence competent enough that someone potentially exposed figured what the hell, lets travel within the incubation period. We are all going to get screwed in this.
Some people think it ids government trying to be too politically correct. I think it is either incompetance or intentional. I'm reminded of an interview on PBS where Ted Turner was asked about his over population stance that he and many greenies take. He said you can kill people and you cannot sterilize them so you have to educate people. He said eventually mother nature will catch up and solve the problrm. Except if a disease kills people, it is the natural way and all fits in. I think people in positions of power may qant this to spread in order to thin the herd out. This will lower carbon use and solve the so called population problem.
Thats right, i think this is intentional and by design. The lack of the most simple common sense protections points to this.
There seems to be some confusion here. I have never supported hosting files to be downloaded, just that the act of downloading a file is not magically illegal despite no law defining it so. The theory that when you download you cause a copy to be made is erroneous because there are specifically outlined situations in law where a transfer in that way is legal and the onus rests on the server to be compliant- not the downloader.
I wouldn't be so sure the permitting process would be that permissive. We have already saw that as part of the reason why pickens abandonded his wind project after raising millions from public donations. The procesd is highly entrenched and strongly favors existing players.
A reoccuring theme i have been trying to get you to understand is that this is not a free market. It is not capitalism as you think it is. Its not corruption- it is protection. Regulators are charged with ensuring the power will be there and limiting competition is one way that is achieved.
If there us competition or a way to diferentiate products it will.
The permitting process and business sense along with the fact that you are not providing to the consumer prevents you from making another wind farm and undercutting me. For instance, any power generating facility making more that 10MW in my home state has to be permitted by the state. Anything over 3 or 4 times that has to be permited by the feds also. Each has a set of regulations and you have to supply at least a certain amount or be fined because countries see their energy supplies as part of their national security planning. And that capacity is per site- it doesn't matter if you have 1 generator or 2000. But all you do is supply to someone who supplies to someone else. There is no real competition.
Now from a business perspective, you would essentially be throwing money away. If you had investors, they could sue for the difference, possibly remove you from the control of the company.. and that is if the regulatory entities don't bust you for dumping (which is essentially selling below market costs) But even if you were a sole propriator and sold the energy at half the market price, you are not selling to the consumer, you are selling to a provider who sells to a consumer.
There is no real competition. There is market price which is effectef by supply and demand. You would essentially have to increase supply in ways that don't increase demand in order to undercut me. That isn't likely to happen if you are selling below market price. Cheap energy also spurs increased usage.
Every single economic upswing or period that we would consider thriving has had cheap energy availability. It doesn't matter what country- cheap energy ushers in prosperity. Prosperity allows more wealth to be created, more wealth allows more tax revenue, more tax revenue allows better roads, research, government services, security, - the stuff that makes a country successful.
Now of course cheap is a reletive term and can be defeated by other factors like raw material costs or taxes.Successful is reletive too. But it can be comparable to Europe verses africa or the US verses China.
I didn't mean to imply you suggested a company could run at a loss, i mentioned it because it is a factor that would increase market prices. Gov regulation allows manipulation to guard against loss of power supply. It is somewhat built into the planning and permiting processes.
The monopolies in power are in connection to "the last mile" and the grid itself. Generators generally compete.
Not really. Generators end up placing their product on a market interchange and bids are made. This is where the lack of competition comes in. The grids or markets do not serve country wide and only serve portions of a country at a time and are mostly owned by the same companies who own the last mile.
If the problem is that the two can't be distinguished by the end consumer and so there can be no competition, then capitalism has indeed failed in that market and cannot succeed. Your argument sounds thoroughly socialist.
It's not a failure in capitalism. It is demand pricing. If you owned a gas well and natural gas was selling for $1 per cubic foot, you would be losing 25 cents per cubic foot if you only charged 75 cents per cubic foot. Likewise, if I have a wind farm and electricity is selling for $40 a kW but it only costs me $5 per kW, I would be losing $35 a kW by selling for $5 so I sell at market price. So I charge the market rate which will not change much unless supply outstrips demand or demand surpasses supply. Now if you increase the costs of 20% of the supply, those suppliers will tone their production down until they at least break even causing costs to rise which is the same as passing it on to the consumer. In a loosely regulated market (like if they were creating flashlights), they would be allowed to fail and go bankrupt. But because of regulation and requirements for a specific amount of energy, the prices simply raise. Likewise, my wind farm will charge market price because it can.
This is not a failure in capitalism because capitalism is largely limited here. There are a lot of features of capitalism at work, but you can hardly consider it as capitalism when the regulations exist the way they do and limits on the amount of production exists (permitting, max power output regulations and so on). Generating power is not the same as you purchasing a home generator or a solar panel and having excess energy you can do whatever with.
Since the state is the people living in the state, they are exactly equivalent. Either way, the polluter is harming the state for it's own profit and should be stopped or at least forced to pay for the real externalized costs.
lol.. The lower costs benifit the state. and the corporation will not pay it's own costs- the public or consumers will. Absolutely no corporation runs at a loss. They have to increase costs in order to profit else go bankrupt. So all costs will be passed on to the people which as you say is the state making nothing significant other than a convoluted attempt that retards the economy or causes a revolt.
Of course, they could go full on socialist and nationalize the polluter in order to make the needed changes.
They could, but the end result would be the same, either they do not make changes and costs remain level, they make changes and costs rise causing the people to pay more, or they could end up going one step further and creating a communist dictatorship to quell the masses who would object to the excess costs.
Or a bank of capacitors that collected energy to be released over time.
Still not happening any time soon but could cut down on the size and make it more of a reality sooner than later. Of course that is assuming a capacitor of sufficient size exists and is safe enough to be used.
I do get to complain if a corporation cheaps out and makes people need more healthcare in general.
no, you do not. That's the pitfall of socialism- that corporation benefits the country, the country provides socialized health care. That is how things work whether you like it or not.
The same complaints you make above apply equally well to insurance BTW.
This you could complain about. Why is it different? Because you are responsible for the cost of your coverage where with socialized medicine, it is the state who is responsible for your healthcare. Even if the state (country) benefits, you do not share that benefit within your healthcare costs.
If joe blow charges $50 and i make the same product for $10, i'm still charging $49 or $50 dollars because there is _no _real _competition. You just pay more and i profit more.
If there was competition, I would agree with you, but I hardly call it capitalism without real competition due to regulation. I can understand your confusion though, if it really was capitalism, the costs to the consumer would likely drop.
But you see, those same suppliers will have coal plants they need to recover the costs of too. So when my coal plant makes something for 20 cents a unit and a 5 cent profit (25 cents altogether) and the wind makes something at 15 cents a unit with a 10 cent profit (again 25 cents), I certainly am not going to undercut my own coal plant and my electricity cannot be distinguished from the coal power on the same lines enough to justify charing less to sell more. I will still charge the market rates that create profit for the coal plants or close to them.
No harddrive needed. You just spent a good deal of time stating digital files are different then hard copies like books. You almost was comparing digital files to computer software. Actually, I think you achieved that.
Copyright does already deal with digital files under the sections of computer programs which also covers data. That section also spells out how to transfer copies in which deleting yours is part of. I can see some judges now understanding this and being hung up on the fact it is a song or movie file but it is in reality no different than a computer program if we were to insist it was different from a book or CD or whatever. It won't be long before someone who follows the rule will not be suckered into that limbo where copyright doesn't address something but also addresses it in order to find penalties.
Do you like setting up sstrawmen so you csn knock them over? Does that make you feel better about your otherwise pathetic life?
I do not belive anyone said anything about it being occupied but you. The land has to come from somewhere and they need spaced apart far enough that one doesn't interupt the availible wind power of another though. The energy produced doesn't magically fly through the air either.
The land being occupied is the easiest thing to worry about. Seriously, just eminate domain it and kick them off. If you don't want to do that, then look at puting it in their back yards (nimby), or you can clear cut forests anf place them there or any number of other things. You dificulty is going to be in tieing them altogether and fistributing it reliably to the areas that are occupied.
And yet your energy costs have not gone down. A quick look shows yhe cost per kilowatt in germany is three times as much as the US and almost twice as expensive as france.
But hey, as long as they increase your rates at a slower pace it means i'm wrong right? Here is a hint, 25 years ago, germany's eletrical costs were on par with the US. Rates have not gone down in the US. You suppliers are not passing all the savings down. They are banking most of it. BTW wind energy raw costs in the US is about 7-9 cents per kwh(adapted from Mwh). Or course there will be about 4 cents more by the time it reaches a house which is still a fraction of the average cost of electricity in Germany.
You actually proved my point while feeling good about being raked over.
This is not in the US, it is about Europe and they have socialized medicine. That is how it works by design. The costs are shared- you may pay way more in than you might ever use and the town drunk night use way more than he would ever put in.
You don't get to cry that you want everyone else to pay more than you because they do things that cause more costs. Instead, you have to suck it up and pay your fair share which is whatever your tax burden is. And you have to do that because it is socialized medicine and that is its design.
I never argued capitalism was a failure. And i would hardly call artificially raising the costs of something through government action in order to push something else capitalism. Especially when government regulation has limited probably the most important aspect of capitalism which would be competition.
You see, you didn't build that. Other people did. What i mean is you are benifiting from cheaper costs passed along over the years so if you recover anything, you would be responsible for the excess costs. Or in other words, it all that costs had been built in from the start, the costs would have been somewhat prohibitive to have the advancements in life that we do today.
So those costs are accounted for in cheaper energy and a better life that had they always been accounted for. And we know it would have restricted use in the past specifically because the intention in the present is to restric usage. Alternative forms of energy in the past simply wouldn't hold a candle to the capabilities of today so it would just be a rich mans domain. That is likely yhe outcome of trying to impose it now anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
And you showed nothing that describes dowloading. The owner of the server controls whether a copy is made or a file is transfered and is responsablty for the distribution.
You have to stretch really hard to get any of that to apply. Case law is not law either. Judges have been wrong before and they will be wrong in the future.
Didn't MS just introduce something that promises to send even more? I think it built into the latest version of windows and is supposed to help them fix it or something.
Lol. Did you seriously not read my post? I specifically mentioned the probles with roads but lets get into the post office too. They are constantly floating with bankruptcy yet offer commerial mail discounts so steep that postage to send a lettle or post card by a private citizen has almost trippled in my life time.
Oh, and these ISPs are already in the same place as telecoms. They enjoy limited competition already. They have fast tracks to right of ways already. If you actually looked at the situation, we are where we are at mostly because government and telecoms/cable service.
Yes government can be part of the answer. But government owning the ISP is not.
Getting what you pay for and forbiding ISPs from purosely limiting your service or any part of it to below the advertised speedscan be instituted without the government taking over the internet distribution/last mile infrastructure.
Having the government own the last mile or even the ISP does luttle to nothing to net neutrality.
We can see how that already works out. Roads is something that used to be largely private but now are mostly public. We pay a special tax to fund them.
Now that sounds good until you realize that the funding is not beholden to its intended uses. Highway trust funds get used to fund parks, bike and walking paths where no roads exist, they fund travel lanes that only select people can use ( hov, mass transit only, no commercial vehicles lanes). It is ever used for busy work where the need has nothing to do with maintaning the roads but to keeps workers employed when they aren't really needed.
I'm not saying comcast is the answer, but government replacing them is not really the cure. At least not the cure unless you want your internet carrying 10 times the load it was designed for and the solution pushed being expanding lanes that only a small portion of people can legally use- or worse yet, have to pay a premium for express travel. Yes, some expansion to existing freeways have been adding toll lanes to an otherwise non toll road.
Well not only that but i would think there might ve fears of driving development in directions that depend on ir outright violate those patents and then taking them to town down the road by requiring an expensive license. I think they call that submarining or something similar when it is done on standards.
There are infectious disease protocals that should be in place at any hospital. H.I.V. and measles or viral menangitus risks combined with trauma injuries for instance would have required enough protections in the initial contact to have prevented the spread. They simply were not prrepared to have a third world disease in a first world country.
As for sealing off the state. The nurse in question already went running around the country trying to see how many people she could expose. It could be too late to isolate it but you would only need to seal off Dallas. Texas has a huge border we already cannot close. If we tried to seal off the entire state, you might as well make screen doors for submarines. This government simply isn't up to the task.
Yes, it is. And yes I'm being serious.
Amber Joy Vinson after knowing of her exposure to an Ebola patient who died from the disease, decided with her vast knowlege of healthcare issues that it was prudent to travel to cleavland ohio on a commercial airliner and return to Texas hours before reporting her symptoms on the same type of travel.
When the healthcare workers decide to move about and interact with the public- crossing state lines- after knowing other healthcare workers with the same patient contracted the disease, you should be very concerned and panic. The CDC, who makes brown and the Katrina response by FEMA look like a perfectly executed plan, has failed in providing guidence competent enough that someone potentially exposed figured what the hell, lets travel within the incubation period. We are all going to get screwed in this.
Some people think it ids government trying to be too politically correct. I think it is either incompetance or intentional. I'm reminded of an interview on PBS where Ted Turner was asked about his over population stance that he and many greenies take. He said you can kill people and you cannot sterilize them so you have to educate people. He said eventually mother nature will catch up and solve the problrm. Except if a disease kills people, it is the natural way and all fits in. I think people in positions of power may qant this to spread in order to thin the herd out. This will lower carbon use and solve the so called population problem.
Thats right, i think this is intentional and by design. The lack of the most simple common sense protections points to this.
Its also plenty of time for companies to set up a location sk the irish government still gets the revenue.
There seems to be some confusion here. I have never supported hosting files to be downloaded, just that the act of downloading a file is not magically illegal despite no law defining it so. The theory that when you download you cause a copy to be made is erroneous because there are specifically outlined situations in law where a transfer in that way is legal and the onus rests on the server to be compliant- not the downloader.
I wouldn't be so sure the permitting process would be that permissive. We have already saw that as part of the reason why pickens abandonded his wind project after raising millions from public donations. The procesd is highly entrenched and strongly favors existing players.
A reoccuring theme i have been trying to get you to understand is that this is not a free market. It is not capitalism as you think it is. Its not corruption- it is protection. Regulators are charged with ensuring the power will be there and limiting competition is one way that is achieved.
If there us competition or a way to diferentiate products it will.
The permitting process and business sense along with the fact that you are not providing to the consumer prevents you from making another wind farm and undercutting me. For instance, any power generating facility making more that 10MW in my home state has to be permitted by the state. Anything over 3 or 4 times that has to be permited by the feds also. Each has a set of regulations and you have to supply at least a certain amount or be fined because countries see their energy supplies as part of their national security planning. And that capacity is per site- it doesn't matter if you have 1 generator or 2000. But all you do is supply to someone who supplies to someone else. There is no real competition.
Now from a business perspective, you would essentially be throwing money away. If you had investors, they could sue for the difference, possibly remove you from the control of the company.. and that is if the regulatory entities don't bust you for dumping (which is essentially selling below market costs) But even if you were a sole propriator and sold the energy at half the market price, you are not selling to the consumer, you are selling to a provider who sells to a consumer.
There is no real competition. There is market price which is effectef by supply and demand. You would essentially have to increase supply in ways that don't increase demand in order to undercut me. That isn't likely to happen if you are selling below market price. Cheap energy also spurs increased usage.
Every single economic upswing or period that we would consider thriving has had cheap energy availability. It doesn't matter what country- cheap energy ushers in prosperity. Prosperity allows more wealth to be created, more wealth allows more tax revenue, more tax revenue allows better roads, research, government services, security, - the stuff that makes a country successful.
Now of course cheap is a reletive term and can be defeated by other factors like raw material costs or taxes.Successful is reletive too. But it can be comparable to Europe verses africa or the US verses China.
I didn't mean to imply you suggested a company could run at a loss, i mentioned it because it is a factor that would increase market prices. Gov regulation allows manipulation to guard against loss of power supply. It is somewhat built into the planning and permiting processes.
Not really. Generators end up placing their product on a market interchange and bids are made. This is where the lack of competition comes in. The grids or markets do not serve country wide and only serve portions of a country at a time and are mostly owned by the same companies who own the last mile.
It's not a failure in capitalism. It is demand pricing. If you owned a gas well and natural gas was selling for $1 per cubic foot, you would be losing 25 cents per cubic foot if you only charged 75 cents per cubic foot. Likewise, if I have a wind farm and electricity is selling for $40 a kW but it only costs me $5 per kW, I would be losing $35 a kW by selling for $5 so I sell at market price. So I charge the market rate which will not change much unless supply outstrips demand or demand surpasses supply. Now if you increase the costs of 20% of the supply, those suppliers will tone their production down until they at least break even causing costs to rise which is the same as passing it on to the consumer. In a loosely regulated market (like if they were creating flashlights), they would be allowed to fail and go bankrupt. But because of regulation and requirements for a specific amount of energy, the prices simply raise. Likewise, my wind farm will charge market price because it can.
This is not a failure in capitalism because capitalism is largely limited here. There are a lot of features of capitalism at work, but you can hardly consider it as capitalism when the regulations exist the way they do and limits on the amount of production exists (permitting, max power output regulations and so on). Generating power is not the same as you purchasing a home generator or a solar panel and having excess energy you can do whatever with.
lol.. The lower costs benifit the state. and the corporation will not pay it's own costs- the public or consumers will. Absolutely no corporation runs at a loss. They have to increase costs in order to profit else go bankrupt. So all costs will be passed on to the people which as you say is the state making nothing significant other than a convoluted attempt that retards the economy or causes a revolt.
They could, but the end result would be the same, either they do not make changes and costs remain level, they make changes and costs rise causing the people to pay more, or they could end up going one step further and creating a communist dictatorship to quell the masses who would object to the excess costs.
Or a bank of capacitors that collected energy to be released over time.
Still not happening any time soon but could cut down on the size and make it more of a reality sooner than later. Of course that is assuming a capacitor of sufficient size exists and is safe enough to be used.
no, you do not. That's the pitfall of socialism- that corporation benefits the country, the country provides socialized health care. That is how things work whether you like it or not.
This you could complain about. Why is it different? Because you are responsible for the cost of your coverage where with socialized medicine, it is the state who is responsible for your healthcare. Even if the state (country) benefits, you do not share that benefit within your healthcare costs.
Nope.. Not a typo at all.
If joe blow charges $50 and i make the same product for $10, i'm still charging $49 or $50 dollars because there is _no _real _competition. You just pay more and i profit more.
If there was competition, I would agree with you, but I hardly call it capitalism without real competition due to regulation. I can understand your confusion though, if it really was capitalism, the costs to the consumer would likely drop.
But you see, those same suppliers will have coal plants they need to recover the costs of too. So when my coal plant makes something for 20 cents a unit and a 5 cent profit (25 cents altogether) and the wind makes something at 15 cents a unit with a 10 cent profit (again 25 cents), I certainly am not going to undercut my own coal plant and my electricity cannot be distinguished from the coal power on the same lines enough to justify charing less to sell more. I will still charge the market rates that create profit for the coal plants or close to them.
No harddrive needed. You just spent a good deal of time stating digital files are different then hard copies like books. You almost was comparing digital files to computer software. Actually, I think you achieved that.
Copyright does already deal with digital files under the sections of computer programs which also covers data. That section also spells out how to transfer copies in which deleting yours is part of. I can see some judges now understanding this and being hung up on the fact it is a song or movie file but it is in reality no different than a computer program if we were to insist it was different from a book or CD or whatever. It won't be long before someone who follows the rule will not be suckered into that limbo where copyright doesn't address something but also addresses it in order to find penalties.
Do you like setting up sstrawmen so you csn knock them over? Does that make you feel better about your otherwise pathetic life?
I do not belive anyone said anything about it being occupied but you. The land has to come from somewhere and they need spaced apart far enough that one doesn't interupt the availible wind power of another though. The energy produced doesn't magically fly through the air either.
The land being occupied is the easiest thing to worry about. Seriously, just eminate domain it and kick them off. If you don't want to do that, then look at puting it in their back yards (nimby), or you can clear cut forests anf place them there or any number of other things. You dificulty is going to be in tieing them altogether and fistributing it reliably to the areas that are occupied.
And yet your energy costs have not gone down. A quick look shows yhe cost per kilowatt in germany is three times as much as the US and almost twice as expensive as france.
But hey, as long as they increase your rates at a slower pace it means i'm wrong right? Here is a hint, 25 years ago, germany's eletrical costs were on par with the US. Rates have not gone down in the US. You suppliers are not passing all the savings down. They are banking most of it. BTW wind energy raw costs in the US is about 7-9 cents per kwh(adapted from Mwh). Or course there will be about 4 cents more by the time it reaches a house which is still a fraction of the average cost of electricity in Germany.
You actually proved my point while feeling good about being raked over.
This is not in the US, it is about Europe and they have socialized medicine. That is how it works by design. The costs are shared- you may pay way more in than you might ever use and the town drunk night use way more than he would ever put in.
You don't get to cry that you want everyone else to pay more than you because they do things that cause more costs. Instead, you have to suck it up and pay your fair share which is whatever your tax burden is. And you have to do that because it is socialized medicine and that is its design.
I never argued capitalism was a failure. And i would hardly call artificially raising the costs of something through government action in order to push something else capitalism. Especially when government regulation has limited probably the most important aspect of capitalism which would be competition.
I have a problem with that way of thinking.
You see, you didn't build that. Other people did. What i mean is you are benifiting from cheaper costs passed along over the years so if you recover anything, you would be responsible for the excess costs. Or in other words, it all that costs had been built in from the start, the costs would have been somewhat prohibitive to have the advancements in life that we do today.
So those costs are accounted for in cheaper energy and a better life that had they always been accounted for. And we know it would have restricted use in the past specifically because the intention in the present is to restric usage. Alternative forms of energy in the past simply wouldn't hold a candle to the capabilities of today so it would just be a rich mans domain. That is likely yhe outcome of trying to impose it now anyways.
Ok. I misread the original post. I thought it was talking 11 square miles not the size of the square. It makes a lot more sense now. Thanks.