it has had times where it seemed out of place on either Windows or OSX (particular OSX before it was a native application).
I use NeoOffice on my Mac and see no reason to switch right now.
when I'm using a program and I can tell it wasn't designed for the system I'm running it on, I count that as a problem.
What matters to me is whether it is and how much it's usable. That's one reason I won't switch for now, NeoOffice is quite usable. Then again I hardly use it.
I don't think anyone involved in this thread was arguing that torture is ok if it means that the majority is kept safe, but rather that there are other issues that do not "score points" that they are missing, that are actually quite serious and effect pretty much everyone directly.
I see the issue of whether torture is effective wasn't replied to, neither was what the USA's Founding Fathers said of it. Is torture even effective? No Who gets to decide who is tortured? Saying it's okay to torture one person because it may save a lot more people turns "us" into "them", those who torture are no better than who they fight.
I believe the point was the ACLU should focus on an issue that effects the whole population (the story topic of a group of companies trying to control the internet in the name of "IP") rather then focus on a issue effecting a small number of people (torture/waterboarding).
It does affect everybody, er every American. If government csn torture one person it can torture anybody. But even if not the ACLU does focus on everybody, free speech is everyone's right.
As opposed to the way you seem to take the argument that torture of a few is ok to save the majoritiy
You're wrong big tyme. I oppose torture period, even if it were reliable. Which it isn't. Those being tortured will make up and say whatever the person torturing them wants to hear just to end it.
Even the USA's Founding Fathers opposed torture. As general George Washington ordered his troops to treat prisoners humanly and not to torture them. He ordered them to "Treat them with humanity,". "Let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army." Thomas Jefferson said "millions of innocent men and women, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion" he asked; "to make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites?"
Obama did not create the job, it was created before he was elected by a bill passed by congress.
According to the very link you provide the bill didn't create a czar: "In fact, the House version of the bill did call the position a czar, but it was taken out in conference." If it wasn't there then since Obama is appointing one he did create it. As for how he voted on the bill in the senate, I couldn't find out however Biden his VP is a big supporter of the MP/RIAA.
[citation needed] If you could point out where the parent said torture of anyone was OK I would appreciate it, thanks.
Right here where he says "'m not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty, and all of whom are foreigners vs. an issue that affects the citizenry at large, I think the latter is far more important and deserves more energy." Waterboarding is torture. One the U.S. Labeled Waterboarding a War Crime in 1947.
First I doubt Stallman would ever accept a post as an intellectual property czar. Whether he would or not, Obama creating it has shown he doesn't value liberty. Unless you want to deny rights you don't need any "intellectual property czar". But then again he showed that he didn't care more than a year ago when he voted to give telecos immunity for spying on Americans.
No, missing the forest for the trees would be falsely imprisoning 10 innocents to get 1 guilty person. The 10 innocent is the forest whereas the 1 guilty is the tree.
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
Except the ALCU supported American NAZIs' right to protest. Like the ALCU I disagree with them but I support their right to peacefully protest. As one slashdotter's sig says, paraphrasing, "I may disagree with your speech but I will support your right to say it."
I'm also keenly aware of the irony of a 7-digit-UID'er lecturing a 6-digiter on the finer points of discussion board etiquette
My point had nothing to do with netiquette or any other etiquette but was about facts and the truth. The person I replied to expressed the opinion that it was better to torture a bunch of innocents to get intelligence, while the USA's Founding Fathers fought for a free society which I support myself.
'm not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty
So most of those held at Gitmo were guilty? As were most of those at Abu Grab? All that was required to end up at Gitmo was for a person to be turned over to the US military in return for some money.
Democrats = More govt = More regulation of citizens
Republicans = Less govt = Less social benefits for citizens
This is wrong, this is how they really are:
Democrats = more socialist programs and regulations.
Republicans = more military and police, plus controlling people's private lives.
Both Dems and Reps want bigger government, the only thing different is what part of government is bigger. Republicans haven't been for smaller government since before Nixon. Democrats haven't been for small government maybe since Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party split.
Something like a layered approach of Truecrypt+One Swarm/TOR/other anonymization. That will of course also benefit people who commit actual crimes, as they can hide in the crowd.
I don't think it will come close to any of the books we teach, it does give you a great basis to work from when switching to those books.
Having something that is lighter read to get started with so you get the basics will help you a long way (YMMV).
In a sense I'm between the basics and the intermediate in terms of DBs. As I said earlier I took a Database Management Systems, DBMS, class several years ago. In the class we worked on normalizing tables as well as analyzing system requirements. While I got an A in the class my memory is terrible, if I don't use it I loose it. So I want something as a refresher. But not dry.
Actually I want the same to review calculus, differential equations, and physics. Years ago, after taking all these classes, as a college student I survived an injury that damaged my memory. I want to go back to college, so I'll either need to take a refresher or compleatly retake them.
If you are getting back in the game it might be a fun way to get refreshed on terminology and basic concepts. But if you are doing anything non-trivial then you'll need more.
To start with I thought I'd create a DB of my movies. I literally have hundreds of movies on DVDs and VHS tapes. I want to create tables for the directors, movie titles, genera, actors, and producers. I want to include the movie format, letterbox or TV, and the media type. I'd do the same for my music, I only have a few CDs and tapes but I want to get a new vinyl turntable and buy some vinyl records.
We were talking about the (IMHO very unlikely) possibility of Google blocking UK access to search engines, not ads.
No it wasn't. I included the part I replied to, "Can't work out if this is meant to be a smartass reply, or you're actually missing the point that if Google threw a strop and refused to serve the UK then the remaining major search engines would be able to occupy that vacant market share." That says nothing about blocking only search engines. The only place where they are mentioned is about their ability to occupy a vacant market share. And as I said they will not be an increase in the market for ads, I specifically said They already have market share, where would they get more?". If you can't understand that then I see no reason to continue this with you.
First, I'm going to combine my reply to this post with your other reply. First your first one:
dont misrepresent my statements. you're smarter than that.
Instead of saying:
"> Those banks that did not make bad loans would still be standing after the dust settled. The bailout of those banks that did make bad loans gave them an advantage over good banks."
"and in the mean time the entire economy goes to shit, i cannot believe people honestly think we should let a few douchebags send us into Great Depression 2.0 when we can prevent it and then regulate the fuck out of them to prevent it from happening again."
If you did not mean I was one of those who would allow us to do into another Great Depression you could have said that, but you didn't.
I cannot believe people were dumb enough to lift those regulations [actually I can, because the religion of the free market was involved], second I cannot believe people cant see past [the admittedly sucky fact] that we're having to bail out douchebags to save everyone else from worse.
We didn't have to bail out douche bags though. One proposal was to allow those banks that didn't make bad loans and were still in good shape buy the bad banks. Now while that would still create banks too large to allow to fail, once the banks were turned around the buyer could have thenm spun off the recovered bank. They may of even made a pretty penny doing it by buying bad banks at low prices then selling them at higher prices. On of course there's the question of whether the good banks would want to do that.
PS the definition of depression is four consecutive quarters of GDP shrinkage. we're had that - so this is a depression
oh PS unemployment was a SYMPTOM not a CAUSE. Don't confuse what the antecedent is.
I'm not confused, as you say unemployment was a symptom not a cause. As I've said a number of tymes along with some economists I believe protectionism and protectionist laws like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act caused the Great Depression to be much worse than it would have been otherwise. My point in bringing up unemployment was that it is no where near as bad as it was then.
Starting in 1929.. With the stock market crash. You cite unemployment 4 years later.
I cite unemployment in 1933 because that's when unemployment peaked. It was at 7.8% in 1930 when the act was passed. A year later it jumped to 16.3%, "24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933", from the wiki article.
I included the part I was replying to, can you comprehend what you read?
The postpost I first replied to said "The idea is to raise spending and lower taxes during a recession, take a deficit, and the lower spending and raise taxes during a boom. The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms." So I pointed out that "one of those admins, the Clinton admin, shrunk the national deficit he inherited." Clinton lowered taxes but increased spending and still managed to reduce the deficit. The only way to do that is if there was more revenue, which the Laffer Curve predicts.
Maybe we're talking past each other so I'll let our disagreement slide for now, and hope you'll do the same.
he was a republican, he did support it. Republicans don't admit that their party are the bigger porksters.
Okay.
I wasn't going to reply however I know I just replied to 2 posts of yours that were replies to one of mine. In the second one I said how I replied to the first but didn't realize it that you had made both until after sending both of my replies.
The Laffer Curve also doesn't mean "lower taxes are better" it's about the tax rate which maximizes revenue above that rate you get a disincentive to work because the marginal tax rate is too high, below that rate and you are not utilizing your tax base to it's fullest.
True, but as I replied to the post before yours there is no agreement by economists on where tax revenue can be maxed out.
A Study by the CBO in 2005 says that we're on the point of the Laffer curve (left side) where a tax reduction is only recuperated at a rate of about 28%. Ie you cut the tax rate by X and you get growth in the economy that only gets you a.28X increase in tax revenue.
Do you have a link to this? As I said to the previous poster I googled economics "laffer curve" agreement ranges and looked at a bunch of results without finding any agreement between economists.
don't confuse "considered and rejected as laughably incorrect" with closed mind my friend. don't confuse "considered and rejected as laughably incorrect" with closed mind my friend.
The generally consensus, supported by real world data, that i have seen has said the laffer curve is only valid somewhere above 60% marginal max tax rate
So, where is this agreement among economists on what ranges are appropriate for the Laffer Curve? I googled economics "laffer curve" agreement ranges and checked a bunch of results and not one said there any agreement of the validity of a range of the Laffer Curve.
The generally consensus, supported by real world data, that i have seen has said the laffer curve is only valid somewhere above 60% marginal max tax rate,
One of the pages I found has this scenario:
"By June, you've already made a million dollars, and the progressive tax system promised to tax that income 50 percent. However, anything you make over a million will be taxed 90 percent. Why work the rest of the year when you know you can only keep 10 percent of your income? You'd probably take your half a million and retire to your beach house until next year. At this point, the taxes are discouraging work and tax revenue."
If you let your top marginal tax rate fall below a certain level you then start to perform wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich as the rich gain more benefit per tax dollar than the poor.
If you drop the marginal tax rate the wealthy will keep more money. And they will spend it and or invest it. More spending helps the economy grow, as does more investments. Where money is redistributed by government giving subsidies. Vary few poor people will see any of that whereas the already wealthy will get those subsidies. Cargill, one of the world's largest privately owned corporations, has been called a corporate welfare queen due to the massive subsidies it gets. Government is taking money out of poor workers and giving it to a hugh private business.
i cannot believe people honestly think we should let a few douchebags send us into Great Depression 2.0 when we can prevent it
I can't believe people think we're anywhere near having another great depression. One indicator of a depression is unemployment. The unemployment rate in the US is less than 10%, it was greater than 20% in the Great Depression. In 1933 unemployment peaked at 25%. And what caused it? Protectionism and protectionist laws.
If the only way you can learn a technical subject like databases is to have it presented in a cutesy comic book format, well, should you really be going after a technical skill set?
Why not use it if it works? Not everyone learns the same way.
Slashdot Mirror
it has had times where it seemed out of place on either Windows or OSX (particular OSX before it was a native application).
I use NeoOffice on my Mac and see no reason to switch right now.
when I'm using a program and I can tell it wasn't designed for the system I'm running it on, I count that as a problem.
What matters to me is whether it is and how much it's usable. That's one reason I won't switch for now, NeoOffice is quite usable. Then again I hardly use it.
Falcon
I couldn't find out however Biden his VP is a big supporter of the MP/RIAA.
Yes he is, probably the worst thing about having him as vp.
While bad I don't think that's the worst thing about Biden. What's worse is that he voted for war, is pro spying, and pro "War on Drugs".
Falcon
I don't think anyone involved in this thread was arguing that torture is ok if it means that the majority is kept safe, but rather that there are other issues that do not "score points" that they are missing, that are actually quite serious and effect pretty much everyone directly.
I see the issue of whether torture is effective wasn't replied to, neither was what the USA's Founding Fathers said of it. Is torture even effective? No Who gets to decide who is tortured? Saying it's okay to torture one person because it may save a lot more people turns "us" into "them", those who torture are no better than who they fight.
Falcon
I believe the point was the ACLU should focus on an issue that effects the whole population (the story topic of a group of companies trying to control the internet in the name of "IP") rather then focus on a issue effecting a small number of people (torture/waterboarding).
It does affect everybody, er every American. If government csn torture one person it can torture anybody. But even if not the ACLU does focus on everybody, free speech is everyone's right.
As opposed to the way you seem to take the argument that torture of a few is ok to save the majoritiy
You're wrong big tyme. I oppose torture period, even if it were reliable. Which it isn't. Those being tortured will make up and say whatever the person torturing them wants to hear just to end it.
Even the USA's Founding Fathers opposed torture. As general George Washington ordered his troops to treat prisoners humanly and not to torture them. He ordered them to "Treat them with humanity,". "Let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army." Thomas Jefferson said "millions of innocent men and women, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion" he asked; "to make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites?"
Falcon
Obama did not create the job, it was created before he was elected by a bill passed by congress.
According to the very link you provide the bill didn't create a czar: "In fact, the House version of the bill did call the position a czar, but it was taken out in conference." If it wasn't there then since Obama is appointing one he did create it. As for how he voted on the bill in the senate, I couldn't find out however Biden his VP is a big supporter of the MP/RIAA.
Falcon
I actually find a kernel of hope in this particular deal
What deal, this treaty? Or appointing an IP czar?
I would like them to take their time to really understand the issues. They certainly haven't explored these issues too deepy in the past
The issues of IP has been studied. For instance here's a link to some Independent studies of Copyright Term Extension. The Commission On Intellectual Property has more. Amazon sells the book "Intellectual Property (Studies in International Economics), published in 2003. Google has a preview of the book "The economics of intellectual property in a world without frontiers: A Study of Computer Software".
Falcon
You are aware that treaties the United States enters into are the supreme law of the land?
They may be but unfortunately the US has broken a bunch of treaties.
Falcon
Explain it then.
Falcon
[citation needed] If you could point out where the parent said torture of anyone was OK I would appreciate it, thanks.
Right here where he says "'m not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty, and all of whom are foreigners vs. an issue that affects the citizenry at large, I think the latter is far more important and deserves more energy." Waterboarding is torture. One the U.S. Labeled Waterboarding a War Crime in 1947.
Falcon
First I doubt Stallman would ever accept a post as an intellectual property czar. Whether he would or not, Obama creating it has shown he doesn't value liberty. Unless you want to deny rights you don't need any "intellectual property czar". But then again he showed that he didn't care more than a year ago when he voted to give telecos immunity for spying on Americans.
Falcon
No, missing the forest for the trees would be falsely imprisoning 10 innocents to get 1 guilty person. The 10 innocent is the forest whereas the 1 guilty is the tree.
Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans,
Except the ALCU supported American NAZIs' right to protest. Like the ALCU I disagree with them but I support their right to peacefully protest. As one slashdotter's sig says, paraphrasing, "I may disagree with your speech but I will support your right to say it."
I'm also keenly aware of the irony of a 7-digit-UID'er lecturing a 6-digiter on the finer points of discussion board etiquette
My point had nothing to do with netiquette or any other etiquette but was about facts and the truth. The person I replied to expressed the opinion that it was better to torture a bunch of innocents to get intelligence, while the USA's Founding Fathers fought for a free society which I support myself.
Falcon
'm not advocating torture or waterboarding, but when we're talking about a relative handful of people, most of whom are almost certainly guilty
So most of those held at Gitmo were guilty? As were most of those at Abu Grab? All that was required to end up at Gitmo was for a person to be turned over to the US military in return for some money.
'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'.
Falcon
Democrats = More govt = More regulation of citizens
Republicans = Less govt = Less social benefits for citizens
This is wrong, this is how they really are:
Democrats = more socialist programs and regulations.
Republicans = more military and police, plus controlling people's private lives.
Both Dems and Reps want bigger government, the only thing different is what part of government is bigger. Republicans haven't been for smaller government since before Nixon. Democrats haven't been for small government maybe since Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party split.
Falcon
Something like a layered approach of Truecrypt+One Swarm/TOR/other anonymization. That will of course also benefit people who commit actual crimes, as they can hide in the crowd.
'It's better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted'.
Falcon
Obama showed what he thinks of liberty when he decided to appoint someone as an "intellectual property czar".
Falcon
I don't think it will come close to any of the books we teach, it does give you a great basis to work from when switching to those books.
Having something that is lighter read to get started with so you get the basics will help you a long way (YMMV).
In a sense I'm between the basics and the intermediate in terms of DBs. As I said earlier I took a Database Management Systems, DBMS, class several years ago. In the class we worked on normalizing tables as well as analyzing system requirements. While I got an A in the class my memory is terrible, if I don't use it I loose it. So I want something as a refresher. But not dry.
Actually I want the same to review calculus, differential equations, and physics. Years ago, after taking all these classes, as a college student I survived an injury that damaged my memory. I want to go back to college, so I'll either need to take a refresher or compleatly retake them.
Falcon
If you are getting back in the game it might be a fun way to get refreshed on terminology and basic concepts. But if you are doing anything non-trivial then you'll need more.
To start with I thought I'd create a DB of my movies. I literally have hundreds of movies on DVDs and VHS tapes. I want to create tables for the directors, movie titles, genera, actors, and producers. I want to include the movie format, letterbox or TV, and the media type. I'd do the same for my music, I only have a few CDs and tapes but I want to get a new vinyl turntable and buy some vinyl records.
Falcon
We were talking about the (IMHO very unlikely) possibility of Google blocking UK access to search engines, not ads.
No it wasn't. I included the part I replied to, "Can't work out if this is meant to be a smartass reply, or you're actually missing the point that if Google threw a strop and refused to serve the UK then the remaining major search engines would be able to occupy that vacant market share." That says nothing about blocking only search engines. The only place where they are mentioned is about their ability to occupy a vacant market share. And as I said they will not be an increase in the market for ads, I specifically said They already have market share, where would they get more?". If you can't understand that then I see no reason to continue this with you.
Falcon
First, I'm going to combine my reply to this post with your other reply. First your first one:
dont misrepresent my statements. you're smarter than that.
Instead of saying:
"> Those banks that did not make bad loans would still be standing after the dust settled. The bailout of those banks that did make bad loans gave them an advantage over good banks."
"and in the mean time the entire economy goes to shit, i cannot believe people honestly think we should let a few douchebags send us into Great Depression 2.0 when we can prevent it and then regulate the fuck out of them to prevent it from happening again."
If you did not mean I was one of those who would allow us to do into another Great Depression you could have said that, but you didn't.
I cannot believe people were dumb enough to lift those regulations [actually I can, because the religion of the free market was involved], second I cannot believe people cant see past [the admittedly sucky fact] that we're having to bail out douchebags to save everyone else from worse.
We didn't have to bail out douche bags though. One proposal was to allow those banks that didn't make bad loans and were still in good shape buy the bad banks. Now while that would still create banks too large to allow to fail, once the banks were turned around the buyer could have thenm spun off the recovered bank. They may of even made a pretty penny doing it by buying bad banks at low prices then selling them at higher prices. On of course there's the question of whether the good banks would want to do that.
PS the definition of depression is four consecutive quarters of GDP shrinkage. we're had that - so this is a depression
However you didn't use "depression" you used "Great Depression 2.0".
Now your next one:
oh PS unemployment was a SYMPTOM not a CAUSE. Don't confuse what the antecedent is.
I'm not confused, as you say unemployment was a symptom not a cause. As I've said a number of tymes along with some economists I believe protectionism and protectionist laws like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act caused the Great Depression to be much worse than it would have been otherwise. My point in bringing up unemployment was that it is no where near as bad as it was then.
Starting in 1929.. With the stock market crash. You cite unemployment 4 years later.
I cite unemployment in 1933 because that's when unemployment peaked. It was at 7.8% in 1930 when the act was passed. A year later it jumped to 16.3%, "24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933", from the wiki article.
Falcon
made?
I included the part I was replying to, can you comprehend what you read?
The postpost I first replied to said "The idea is to raise spending and lower taxes during a recession, take a deficit, and the lower spending and raise taxes during a boom. The problem is that the last couple administrations broke that rule by raising spending and lowering taxes during booms." So I pointed out that "one of those admins, the Clinton admin, shrunk the national deficit he inherited." Clinton lowered taxes but increased spending and still managed to reduce the deficit. The only way to do that is if there was more revenue, which the Laffer Curve predicts.
Maybe we're talking past each other so I'll let our disagreement slide for now, and hope you'll do the same.
Falcon
he was a republican, he did support it. Republicans don't admit that their party are the bigger porksters.
Okay.
I wasn't going to reply however I know I just replied to 2 posts of yours that were replies to one of mine. In the second one I said how I replied to the first but didn't realize it that you had made both until after sending both of my replies.
Falcon
The Laffer Curve also doesn't mean "lower taxes are better" it's about the tax rate which maximizes revenue above that rate you get a disincentive to work because the marginal tax rate is too high, below that rate and you are not utilizing your tax base to it's fullest.
True, but as I replied to the post before yours there is no agreement by economists on where tax revenue can be maxed out.
A Study by the CBO in 2005 says that we're on the point of the Laffer curve (left side) where a tax reduction is only recuperated at a rate of about 28%. Ie you cut the tax rate by X and you get growth in the economy that only gets you a .28X increase in tax revenue.
Do you have a link to this? As I said to the previous poster I googled economics "laffer curve" agreement ranges and looked at a bunch of results without finding any agreement between economists.
Falcon
don't confuse "considered and rejected as laughably incorrect" with closed mind my friend. don't confuse "considered and rejected as laughably incorrect" with closed mind my friend.
The generally consensus, supported by real world data, that i have seen has said the laffer curve is only valid somewhere above 60% marginal max tax rate
So, where is this agreement among economists on what ranges are appropriate for the Laffer Curve? I googled economics "laffer curve" agreement ranges and checked a bunch of results and not one said there any agreement of the validity of a range of the Laffer Curve.
The generally consensus, supported by real world data, that i have seen has said the laffer curve is only valid somewhere above 60% marginal max tax rate,
One of the pages I found has this scenario:
"By June, you've already made a million dollars, and the progressive tax system promised to tax that income 50 percent. However, anything you make over a million will be taxed 90 percent. Why work the rest of the year when you know you can only keep 10 percent of your income? You'd probably take your half a million and retire to your beach house until next year. At this point, the taxes are discouraging work and tax revenue."
If you let your top marginal tax rate fall below a certain level you then start to perform wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich as the rich gain more benefit per tax dollar than the poor.
If you drop the marginal tax rate the wealthy will keep more money. And they will spend it and or invest it. More spending helps the economy grow, as does more investments. Where money is redistributed by government giving subsidies. Vary few poor people will see any of that whereas the already wealthy will get those subsidies. Cargill, one of the world's largest privately owned corporations, has been called a corporate welfare queen due to the massive subsidies it gets. Government is taking money out of poor workers and giving it to a hugh private business.
Falcon
i cannot believe people honestly think we should let a few douchebags send us into Great Depression 2.0 when we can prevent it
I can't believe people think we're anywhere near having another great depression. One indicator of a depression is unemployment. The unemployment rate in the US is less than 10%, it was greater than 20% in the Great Depression. In 1933 unemployment peaked at 25%. And what caused it? Protectionism and protectionist laws.
Falcon
If the only way you can learn a technical subject like databases is to have it presented in a cutesy comic book format, well, should you really be going after a technical skill set?
Why not use it if it works? Not everyone learns the same way.
Falcon