According to this article, one of the basic themes behind Buffy is that it's a B-horror movie in reverse. Buffy is exactly the type of girl who would get slashed within the first few minutes of such a movie - here it's the other way around.
It just wouldn't be the same with a girl of any other age. That same assumption of helplessness wouldn't be triggered in the audience.
The ambiguity of light (wave and/or particle) has always made my head spin.
No need to be confused. The simple experimental fact is that light is neither a wave nor a particle. We just don't have a model for what it really 'is'.
Of course, under certain conditions you won't be far wrong if you think if it as a wave/a particle.
Well, not any. You could put it in a centrifuge or in a really, really tall glass.
The effect (name escapes me at the moment) you refer to, is the same you see with water in a test tube. Without viscosity, this effect is pronounced, but it's not infinite.
But women don't compete with the larger men for survival, while maybe compete with other women for a man's defense.
My point exactly, the women have to compete more.
Although, if I understand things correctly, the prime targets when a predator hits, are the smallest children. This would be before they are old enough to partake in the defense. So, everyone would be defending them, and they'd be trying their best to stay out of harm's way. One the whole, the dumbest ones would be the ones to fall. If the girls were dumber as a whole, then they'd have the main 'benefit' of the 'survival of the fittest'-filtration.
As for the mice, I'd say that, yes, they are under higher pressure to evolve right now. And they probably are evolving faster right now. But think back to life on the savannah. We were the slowest ones around, the weakest and we were pretty meaty.
What is it about having a submitted post about something out there, that suddenly makes you realise how obvious it is that the exact converse is true.
If anyone cares, I had a mental picture of a lamppost rapidly going by a still-standing cyclist. Except that, the lamp had blinds that would allow it to shine only in one direction. I drew a line from the cyclist's eyes to the lamp, along the edge of his field of vision, and thought, stupidly, that the blinds would have to be open along this line.
The PP's post was entirely right, and mine was entirely wrong, as far as it was different, though the rest still holds.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by converging meaning nothing.
Let's imagine that some hippies form a collective. Some are white, some black. Some are short, others tall.
They decide to make babies, one for every combination of man and woman. They indoctrinate those kids to keep up their work. Generations later, their gene pool will of course have converged. But there was no evolution going on.
Let me make another point, and I'll return to this.
They point out little pieces of it (potential mutations) that might not, at the present, give a huge advantage.
Well, what kind of advantage. To get a partner with large pecs/breasts, rather than just 'settling for less'? Probably. But does that mean more babies? I don't think it does. It's not what I see around me. People with good looks (in the eyes of relevant beholders, i.e. people with good looks) might wait a bit longer to have children. And when they do, it's because their looks are fading. So it really won't enter into the child-bearing phase of their lives anyway.
So, getting back to my point, I think that our gene pool is converging mainly because of the process I described above - mixing. Remember that evolution is slow at best, it doesn't that a great deal of people moving from, say, a sunny region to a chilly one, to cancel out its effects.
I certainly don't think that convergence is due to the fact, that people adapted for outdoor lives are finding it so difficult to live indoors, that they are unable to fill their child-bearing quota.
I should say, when the word 'evolution' is said, it usually means that some sort of change is continually occuring. This was the definition I was thinking of in my previous post, although I myself prefer the broader one, where one might say, e.g. that it's 'evolution' that has kept the proportion of men to women absolutely unchanged for millions of years.
Also, in those terms, evolution is a differential law which might very well lead to a point where no further progress occurs. Compare this with a ball rolling down a hill, by the laws of physics. If the ball enters a deep enough groove, it will stay there, by the same laws, even though the hill goes on down.
I'm making one assumption in writing this. I assume that your cyclist never turns his head. This seems like a likely assumption, since, if he does turn his head, there would be no need for relativity to explain why he can see the lamppost after he's past it.
What you're saying is, that a cyclist going at high speed past a lamppost will at some point see a mirror image of the back of the lamppost. This is flat out wrong. Which parts of the lamppost that are seen by the cyclist, does not depend on his speed.
The mental image I get when I read your post, is that of a cyclist, 'seeing' a billiard ball photon being fired from a lamppost - just as he is passing it - curving in across his path so that he runs into it. This is the ether explanation for the constant speed of light, disproved by the Michelson-Morley (sp?) experiment.
In fact, in any inertial system light always behaves the same. The relative speed of the lamppost emitting the photon, does not affect the behavior of the photon in, say, an inertial system where the cyclist is at rest at origo - apart from deciding what frequency it has. He can see it if it is incident upon him within his field of vision, not otherwise.
Objects going past you at relativistic speeds will indeed appear to be rotated. This is because the perspective you get of the closer part of the object becomes mixed with the perspective of the further off part, which is from an earlier time.
Imagine that a rod has two synchronized watches, one in each end. When the rod is some way off, you have a head-on perspective of it; as you go past it, you will see more of its side. Imagine that your eyes are so fast, that you can tell that the further off watch appears to be behind (whether the rod is moving or not), due to the fact, that the image of that watch has farther to travel. At relativistic speeds, you would then see the closer part of the rod curve away from you, since the side perspective, of the closer part of the rod, becomes mixed with the head-on perspective, of the further off part. (Drawing pictures would help at this point.)
However, the constituent perspectives in all this, are still the same that you would see, if you went past at a non-relativistic speed.
Evolution only means that _if_ certain genetically hereditary traits favor the production of offspring, within a given environment, _then_ those traits will grow more common. (An aside; with 'environment' is also meant the genetic make-up of other individuals. So evolution is necessarily a differential law.)
If production of offspring is largely independant of genetically hereditary traits, then there's no evolution. In western society this seems, to me, to be the case.
It is often said that unattractive people have a hard time finding mates. What is usually meant by this is, on closer inspection, that they have a hard time finding attractive mates. Either way, they end up with 2.4 kids.
The fact, that our gene pool is converging, proves nothing. It is easily explained by the fact, that people have children with people from other parts of the world - or at least from further away, than in the past.
I just feel there's something hypocritical about being unwilling to kill animals, but being willing to have someone else do it for you and pick up the results at the supermarket.
There's plenty of middle ground between being morally opposed to something, and enjoying doing it yourself. E.g. If someone has chosen not to be a surgeon, because they see it as gross and icky, that doesn't mean they have to be turned away if they get cancer.
I don't know if this is exactly what you had in mind, but I would like to suggest a dividing line between those who, in hunting, acquire and maintain an ability to live off the land, and those who do not.
As I see it, you are not a member of a democracy if you can't, ultimately, turn your back on it completely. (Of course, once you do, you're an outlaw, but that's another matter.) So, forming armed militia, hunting and so on, cannot be outlawed - though regulation is another matter. There is no reason for robotic hunting to enjoy these protections of principle. And since there's always a risk of a bad shot creating suffering for the animal, it shouldn't be allowed.
Hitchhiker without silly sound effects? Blasphemy!
From the foreword to the omnibus edition: "Reports that Geoffrey and I and the sound engineers were buried in a subterranean studio for weeks on end, taking as long to produce a single sound effect as other people took to produce an entire series, were all vigorously denied and absolutely true."
Well, you should really start looking in to hidden-variables theory. I don't know where it stands these days - it keeps popping up in slightly different forms, only to get shot down.
My personal opinion is: What's so understandable about classical magnetism anyway, or Newtons law of gravity - action at a distance, that's just weird! Might as well choose whatever weird theory, that accounts for what you see in the simplest mathematical form.
I see now that I could have been clearer.
The amount of deviation of the particles from
their flightpath is proportional to the component of spin parallel to the magnetic field. So classically you find that, if e.g. the spin is perpendicular, there will be no deviation. However, experimentally, half deviate one way, _all with the same amount_, and vice versa with the other half.
Before the observation, the spin could be in any direction, and it might also be precessing, but the observation causes it to be along the magnetic field, or against it.
Yes, the precession could hypothetically fool us by always pointing the spin along, or against, the direction we've happened the choose... Neat trick.
The thing is, certain objects, like spin 1/2 particles, but very much unlike a cat, can be observed in more ways than one.
I'll start by describing a classic experiment (in the sense that it has historical interest, not that it belongs to classical theory). To observe the direction of a spin, you let the particles drift through a magnetic field, and see how their path deviates. It turns out that the result is always either "up" or "down" (both along the magnetic field). Half are up and half are down. According to classical theory, there should be an even spectrum between up and down.
Now, put another magnetic field, at right angles to the first one, in the path of just those particles whose spin were, say, up. Along the new direction, of the second magnetic field, the particles will again be either up or down. If the second field had been along the first one, they would all have been up, and if it had been in the opposite direction, they would all have been down.
Quantum mechanics accounts for these results, in a very elegant way. However, science is not the search for truth but for facts (as Indiana Jones said), so if you really don't like it there may be some hidden-variable theory out there for you.
Please note that the "up" and "down" states have different energy content. So, in observing the particles you have interacted with them, supplying energy to half, and taken energy away from the other half. This is the "observer" from the point of view of the particles, the person who supplies, or takes away energy (with no control over what happens to any individual particle).
Whenever someone talks about superposition of states, remember that that means nothing if they haven't defined what observations they're intending to make, and if they're only making one observation, it's a waste of time. Like the dead-or-alive cat. Obviously, when you open the box, it's either dead or alive, end of story.
I should point out that the cat-story originally involved a phial containing poisonous gas, which would open if a radioactive particle decayed. It was told in response to those who claimed that quantum mechanics ruled the world of atoms, but did not influence the "real" world. To shed light on quantum mechanics itself, it is, however, utterly useless.
To make it interesting one would have to add a second observation to the story, one which doesn't commute with the first one - meaning that the definiteness of the results of the first observation is in conflict with that of those of the second. (Like with the magnetic fields at right angles. There's a conflict between a particle being definitely up in the first, and in the second one.) E.g. if there's a second observation, not commuting with the first, which tells you if the cat is tabby or black. Results of these observation might go: alive, tabby, dead, tabby, tabby, alive, black... (Never two different states of colour of livelyness next to eachother.) If this is silly, that's because of the demand that the second observation, whatever it is, not commute with the dead-or-alive observation.
It's a step towards this particular kind of quantum computers, but there are other kinds. In fact, using NMR-technology, quantum computers have already been "made".
I say "made" since there's no actual construction needed; you just take a phial of a suitable liquid, put it in an NMR-machine and start using it. Last time I checked, which was 2-3 years ago, they'd managed to factor 15 (into 5 and 3).
This technology is unlikely to evolve into anything more powerful than existing computers, since the 'cpu' of the computer is a molecule, within which the bonds all have to be of sufficiently different strength. Also, the number of usable bits increases less than linearly with the number of atoms. More bits also means weaker signal for a given strength of the static magnetic field.
Let me just say first: I'm not trying to be a
PITA here. I'm just curious, because most people
I know shake the pan, even though it's completely
obvious (or so it seems to me), that the popping kernels cause such an uproar in the pan, that shaking it cannot possibly make the slightest bit
of difference.
Indeed, I never shake the pan, and there's never more than a few unpopped kernels. And my pans have glass lids, so I can cleary see the turmoil going on.
In my experience, the key to succesful popping is
heat. I wonder if shaking the pan might not, therefore, worsen the results, espescially if you're picking it up.
I would like to make a guess here. What usually
motivates people to get their exercise in, is
the wish to be thin, not so much to be healthy.
So overweight people exercise more. Most of the skinny people I know don't exercise, they just
don't eat very much.
There are also some questions I'd like answered regarding this study. When someone dies, how is that person classified as overweight or not. Is it overweight throughout most of their life, at the end of it, in their youth? I've read that, in Sweden, one third of those in geriatric care are malnourished. What do their counterparts in the US count as (if they exist)?
1) Do patents stiffle innovation? That's the main argument pro/con. The answer HAS to be an economic one, ie an econometric study or something similar for me believe it. I hear too much rhetoric and NO hard data from either side.
As far as I know, they main datapoints are the industrialisation of Europe and the lack thereof in China, a thousand years ago. Other than that it's mostly "Well, would _you_ like to work for free?"
Slashdot Mirror
The number k is arbitrary only to you, meaning that your solution cannot depend on it being less than anything in particular.
The prisoners, on the other hand, know what k is. So they can just "wait it out".
According to this article, one of the basic themes behind Buffy is that it's a B-horror movie in reverse. Buffy is exactly the type of girl who would get slashed within the first few minutes of such a movie - here it's the other way around.
7 0468&previousRenderType=1
It just wouldn't be the same with a girl of any other age. That same assumption of helplessness wouldn't be triggered in the audience.
(Warning, it's in swedish!)
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1058&a=4
The ambiguity of light (wave and/or particle) has always made my head spin.
No need to be confused. The simple experimental fact is that light is neither a wave nor a particle. We just don't have a model for what it really 'is'.
Of course, under certain conditions you won't be far wrong if you think if it as a wave/a particle.
Will flow outta any container thats not sealed.
Well, not any. You could put it in a centrifuge or in a really, really tall glass.
The effect (name escapes me at the moment) you refer to, is the same you see with water in a test tube. Without viscosity, this effect is pronounced, but it's not infinite.
But women don't compete with the larger men for survival, while maybe compete with other women for a man's defense.
My point exactly, the women have to compete more.
Although, if I understand things correctly, the prime targets when a predator hits, are the smallest children. This would be before they are old enough to partake in the defense. So, everyone would be defending them, and they'd be trying their best to stay out of harm's way. One the whole, the dumbest ones would be the ones to fall. If the girls were dumber as a whole, then they'd have the main 'benefit' of the 'survival of the fittest'-filtration.
As for the mice, I'd say that, yes, they are under higher pressure to evolve right now. And they probably are evolving faster right now. But think back to life on the savannah. We were the slowest ones around, the weakest and we were pretty meaty.
Why would nature divide intelligence equally between gender...?
Erm, evolution? At least if IQ were a measure of ones ability not to get eaten by a predator, or to stay healthy.
Actually, since the females are smaller, one would
guess that they'd be under higher evolutional pressure to become smart.
This is under the assumption, which nothing really leads us to make, that IQ is genetically gender specific.
The authorative source is of course:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079574
What is it about having a submitted post about something out there, that suddenly makes you realise how obvious it is that the exact converse is true.
If anyone cares, I had a mental picture of a lamppost rapidly going by a still-standing cyclist. Except that, the lamp had blinds that would allow it to shine only in one direction. I drew a line from the cyclist's eyes to the lamp, along the edge of his field of vision, and thought, stupidly, that the blinds would have to be open along this line.
The PP's post was entirely right, and mine was entirely wrong, as far as it was different, though the rest still holds.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by converging meaning nothing.
Let's imagine that some hippies form a collective. Some are white, some black. Some are short, others tall.
They decide to make babies, one for every combination of man and woman. They indoctrinate those kids to keep up their work. Generations later, their gene pool will of course have converged. But there was no evolution going on.
Let me make another point, and I'll return to this.
They point out little pieces of it (potential mutations) that might not, at the present, give a huge advantage.
Well, what kind of advantage. To get a partner with large pecs/breasts, rather than just 'settling for less'? Probably. But does that mean more babies? I don't think it does. It's not what I see around me. People with good looks (in the eyes of relevant beholders, i.e. people with good looks) might wait a bit longer to have children. And when they do, it's because their looks are fading. So it really won't enter into the child-bearing phase of their lives anyway.
So, getting back to my point, I think that our gene pool is converging mainly because of the process I described above - mixing. Remember that evolution is slow at best, it doesn't that a great deal of people moving from, say, a sunny region to a chilly one, to cancel out its effects.
I certainly don't think that convergence is due to the fact, that people adapted for outdoor lives are finding it so difficult to live indoors, that they are unable to fill their child-bearing quota.
I should say, when the word 'evolution' is said, it usually means that some sort of change is continually occuring. This was the definition I was thinking of in my previous post, although I myself prefer the broader one, where one might say, e.g. that it's 'evolution' that has kept the proportion of men to women absolutely unchanged for millions of years.
Also, in those terms, evolution is a differential law which might very well lead to a point where no further progress occurs. Compare this with a ball rolling down a hill, by the laws of physics. If the ball enters a deep enough groove, it will stay there, by the same laws, even though the hill goes on down.
I'm making one assumption in writing this. I assume that your cyclist never turns his head. This seems like a likely assumption, since, if he does turn his head, there would be no need for relativity to explain why he can see the lamppost after he's past it.
What you're saying is, that a cyclist going at high speed past a lamppost will at some point see a mirror image of the back of the lamppost. This is flat out wrong. Which parts of the lamppost that are seen by the cyclist, does not depend on his speed.
The mental image I get when I read your post, is that of a cyclist, 'seeing' a billiard ball photon being fired from a lamppost - just as he is passing it - curving in across his path so that he runs into it. This is the ether explanation for the constant speed of light, disproved by the Michelson-Morley (sp?) experiment.
In fact, in any inertial system light always behaves the same. The relative speed of the lamppost emitting the photon, does not affect the behavior of the photon in, say, an inertial system where the cyclist is at rest at origo - apart from deciding what frequency it has. He can see it if it is incident upon him within his field of vision, not otherwise.
Objects going past you at relativistic speeds will indeed appear to be rotated. This is because the perspective you get of the closer part of the object becomes mixed with the perspective of the further off part, which is from an earlier time.
Imagine that a rod has two synchronized watches, one in each end. When the rod is some way off, you have a head-on perspective of it; as you go past it, you will see more of its side. Imagine that your eyes are so fast, that you can tell that the further off watch appears to be behind (whether the rod is moving or not), due to the fact, that the image of that watch has farther to travel. At relativistic speeds, you would then see the closer part of the rod curve away from you, since the side perspective, of the closer part of the rod, becomes mixed with the head-on perspective, of the further off part. (Drawing pictures would help at this point.)
However, the constituent perspectives in all this, are still the same that you would see, if you went past at a non-relativistic speed.
Evolution only means that _if_ certain genetically hereditary traits favor the production of offspring, within a given environment, _then_ those traits will grow more common. (An aside; with 'environment' is also meant the genetic make-up of other individuals. So evolution is necessarily a differential law.)
If production of offspring is largely independant of genetically hereditary traits, then there's no evolution. In western society this seems, to me, to be the case.
It is often said that unattractive people have a hard time finding mates. What is usually meant by this is, on closer inspection, that they have a hard time finding attractive mates. Either way, they end up with 2.4 kids.
The fact, that our gene pool is converging, proves nothing. It is easily explained by the fact, that people have children with people from other parts of the world - or at least from further away, than in the past.
Did you mean infinite _im_probability drive, or was there another level to the joke, that went over my head?
I just feel there's something hypocritical about being unwilling to kill animals, but being willing to have someone else do it for you and pick up the results at the supermarket.
There's plenty of middle ground between being morally opposed to something, and enjoying doing it yourself. E.g. If someone has chosen not to be a surgeon, because they see it as gross and icky, that doesn't mean they have to be turned away if they get cancer.
I don't know if this is exactly what you had in mind, but I would like to suggest a dividing line between those who, in hunting, acquire and maintain an ability to live off the land, and those who do not.
As I see it, you are not a member of a democracy if you can't, ultimately, turn your back on it completely. (Of course, once you do, you're an outlaw, but that's another matter.) So, forming armed militia, hunting and so on, cannot be outlawed - though regulation is another matter.
There is no reason for robotic hunting to enjoy these protections of principle. And since there's always a risk of a bad shot creating suffering for the animal, it shouldn't be allowed.
Hitchhiker without silly sound effects? Blasphemy! From the foreword to the omnibus edition: "Reports that Geoffrey and I and the sound engineers were buried in a subterranean studio for weeks on end, taking as long to produce a single sound effect as other people took to produce an entire series, were all vigorously denied and absolutely true."
The latex head was entirely dead, wasn't it?
Well, you should really start looking in to hidden-variables theory. I don't know where it stands these days - it keeps popping up in slightly different forms, only to get shot down.
My personal opinion is: What's so understandable about classical magnetism anyway, or Newtons law of gravity - action at a distance, that's just weird! Might as well choose whatever weird theory, that accounts for what you see in the simplest mathematical form.
I see now that I could have been clearer.
The amount of deviation of the particles from their flightpath is proportional to the component of spin parallel to the magnetic field. So classically you find that, if e.g. the spin is perpendicular, there will be no deviation. However, experimentally, half deviate one way, _all with the same amount_, and vice versa with the other half.
Before the observation, the spin could be in any direction, and it might also be precessing, but the observation causes it to be along the magnetic field, or against it.
Yes, the precession could hypothetically fool us by always pointing the spin along, or against, the direction we've happened the choose... Neat trick.
The thing is, certain objects, like spin 1/2 particles, but very much unlike a cat, can be observed in more ways than one.
I'll start by describing a classic experiment (in the sense that it has historical interest, not that it belongs to classical theory). To observe the direction of a spin, you let the particles drift through a magnetic field, and see how their path deviates. It turns out that the result is always either "up" or "down" (both along the magnetic field). Half are up and half are down. According to classical theory, there should be an even spectrum between up and down. Now, put another magnetic field, at right angles to the first one, in the path of just those particles whose spin were, say, up. Along the new direction, of the second magnetic field, the particles will again be either up or down. If the second field had been along the first one, they would all have been up, and if it had been in the opposite direction, they would all have been down.
Quantum mechanics accounts for these results, in a very elegant way. However, science is not the search for truth but for facts (as Indiana Jones said), so if you really don't like it there may be some hidden-variable theory out there for you.
Please note that the "up" and "down" states have different energy content. So, in observing the particles you have interacted with them, supplying energy to half, and taken energy away from the other half. This is the "observer" from the point of view of the particles, the person who supplies, or takes away energy (with no control over what happens to any individual particle).
Whenever someone talks about superposition of states, remember that that means nothing if they haven't defined what observations they're intending to make, and if they're only making one observation, it's a waste of time. Like the dead-or-alive cat. Obviously, when you open the box, it's either dead or alive, end of story.
I should point out that the cat-story originally involved a phial containing poisonous gas, which would open if a radioactive particle decayed. It was told in response to those who claimed that quantum mechanics ruled the world of atoms, but did not influence the "real" world. To shed light on quantum mechanics itself, it is, however, utterly useless.
To make it interesting one would have to add a second observation to the story, one which doesn't commute with the first one - meaning that the definiteness of the results of the first observation is in conflict with that of those of the second. (Like with the magnetic fields at right angles. There's a conflict between a particle being definitely up in the first, and in the second one.) E.g. if there's a second observation, not commuting with the first, which tells you if the cat is tabby or black. Results of these observation might go: alive, tabby, dead, tabby, tabby, alive, black... (Never two different states of colour of livelyness next to eachother.) If this is silly, that's because of the demand that the second observation, whatever it is, not commute with the dead-or-alive observation.
It's a step towards this particular kind of quantum computers, but there are other kinds. In fact, using NMR-technology, quantum computers have already been "made".
I say "made" since there's no actual construction needed; you just take a phial of a suitable liquid, put it in an NMR-machine and start using it. Last time I checked, which was 2-3 years ago, they'd managed to factor 15 (into 5 and 3).
This technology is unlikely to evolve into anything more powerful than existing computers, since the 'cpu' of the computer is a molecule, within which the bonds all have to be of sufficiently different strength. Also, the number of usable bits increases less than linearly with the number of atoms. More bits also means weaker signal for a given strength of the static magnetic field.
Let me just say first: I'm not trying to be a PITA here. I'm just curious, because most people I know shake the pan, even though it's completely obvious (or so it seems to me), that the popping kernels cause such an uproar in the pan, that shaking it cannot possibly make the slightest bit of difference.
Indeed, I never shake the pan, and there's never more than a few unpopped kernels. And my pans have glass lids, so I can cleary see the turmoil going on.
In my experience, the key to succesful popping is heat. I wonder if shaking the pan might not, therefore, worsen the results, espescially if you're picking it up.
I suggest an experiment: pop some popcorn without putting a lid on the pan. Do the kernels just lie at the bottom as they pop?
I would like to make a guess here. What usually motivates people to get their exercise in, is the wish to be thin, not so much to be healthy. So overweight people exercise more. Most of the skinny people I know don't exercise, they just don't eat very much.
There are also some questions I'd like answered regarding this study. When someone dies, how is that person classified as overweight or not. Is it overweight throughout most of their life, at the end of it, in their youth? I've read that, in Sweden, one third of those in geriatric care are malnourished. What do their counterparts in the US count as (if they exist)?
and shaking the pan while it cooks
Why do people do that anyway? What sort of perturbation is caused by shaking the pan, but not by the kernels as they pop?
1) Do patents stiffle innovation? That's the main argument pro/con. The answer HAS to be an economic one, ie an econometric study or something similar for me believe it. I hear too much rhetoric and NO hard data from either side.
As far as I know, they main datapoints are the industrialisation of Europe and the lack thereof in China, a thousand years ago. Other than that it's mostly "Well, would _you_ like to work for free?"