God, I hope so. Success can turn a person into a Grade A asshole.
Note for this story: When I speak of how great I was in math, I mean compared to my peers in my small town. I am above average at math, but am very much dwarfed by a number of people on this very forum (which shows how dumb I really am!). I do not intend to brag, for there is nothing to brag about. I only intend to recount how I stopped a little genius from being an asshole.
There was a kid about three years younger than us working his way through high school math with us. I was always in different classes from him, and being gifted and interested in math, I stayed ahead of my peers by a year. I had almost completed all math requirements at my high school early, so I took a break from math classes in general (there was nothing at the local community college I could have moved on to anyway) to focus on CS, public speaking, and the social sciences I'd missed out on (we were on a block system, so it was possible to accelerate your class schedule).
After I returned to the last math classes offered in my high school, my peers and the kid had caught up with me in the schedule. Now, I had heard about how smart this kid was, but how he seemed to gleefully demonstrate how much smarter he was than other people ("Don't you know anything?," e.g.). Of course kids don't understand tact well at his age.
In any case, I spent that semester in class with him pointing out all of his mistakes in his work when we were paired together for work (just as a statement of fact, I was most likely the strongest mathematician of my graduating class or one class before or after me, which is why I was able to do what others were not). He took the hint and stopped being an asshole to other people.
Now I completely acknowledge I'm no longer a comparatively brilliant math student. I sold out and went to law school after getting a degree in math. In fact, one of my friends a year younger than me took a number of grad-level math classes at the same university as me. He's surely surpassed me in math ability. Outside of the limited high school setting, my math ability is above average but nothing special at all. Hell, that little kid probably has a Ph.D. in low-dimensional topology or something right now, having surpassed me. But he's hopefully a nice guy now, thanks to my ridiculous emotional bullying.;)
The only point of this story is that young, brilliant children can be major assholes, and sometimes it takes them meeting a superior intellect (granted I was older than him, so I only mean "absolutely superior," not "relatively superior") to put them in their place.
I hope this kid isn't an asshole. He's got a chance at some 20-year-old women judging by parent's picture. He should be getting all in there, not treating them like crap. Good luck, young adventurer!
Agreed. The correct, tactful response is something akin to
While I may have a bit more natural ability than the average person, the true key to my success was my work ethic. I put in hours and hours blah blah.
Humbly acknowledging his natural abilities and inspiration, yet placing more emphasis on the perspiration.
It lets unsuccessful people save face, but still creates the possibility that his success will inspire a lazy kid to work harder.
There's likely a more elegant way to say what I proposed. But the idea is twofold: (1) acknowledge your gifts humbly, and (2) emphasize the hard work you put in.
When I read the talk about users "using [the video player Google included]," I thought the poster was talking about Google being liable for any copyright infringement committed by users of Chrome via the Google-provided video player.
How is it convoluted? Isn't it sort of jackassery to expect to be able to use the US court system and escape liability for your own acts that are illegal in this country?
But yes, software patents in this country are bollocks. I can understand having software patents for like 2 years, but not the 20 or whatever it is right now. I forget the length of the term: I care more about copyright reform than patent reform.
I doubt FFMpeg would benefit from suing in US courts. By suing Google in the US, FFMpeg would be admitting to federal court jurisdiction.
Doesn't FFMpeg infringe on various software patents that exist in the US? If so, FFMpeg would be making themselves available to being sued by whatever consortium holds the H.264 patents, for example.
Anyone who has copyright in a work cannot violate their own license.
That's not true. It's possible to lock yourself out of the right to use your own copyright via a license through really shitty drafting of the license (or on purpose). If I recall correctly from my software licenses class (and I might not), the magic word "exclusive" is all that is needed in the grant clause and BAM, you can't use your own copyrighted work!
I am merely a law school graduate. I haven't taken the bar yet. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.
I didn't know FFMpeg could afford to employ a team of lawyers for years. Note that they cannot use FSF lawyers, because the FSF requires that you assign all copyright over to them before they will defend you.
Note: I think that is true. I recall reading something like that on the FSF site years ago, but take it with a grain of salt.
You're misinterpreting the LGPL. The language quoted by/. above says
if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Library by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Library.
Now, imagine it this way:
Let A be some 3d party software covered by patents that is unrelated to FFMpeg. Let B be Chrome. Let C be FFMpeg. Google got a patent for A. The patent is unrelated to FFMpeg.
The LGPL says that if you cannot distribute C without patent royalties, then you cannot distribute C at all.
People are making one of two mistakes regarding this issue. They're either assuming that the patent Google has cover C (this is thanks to Slashdot's shitty summary that makes it sound like this, but Google points out quite clearly this is not the case) or they think the LGPL says that if any patent restricts the distribution of A contained in B, then you distribute C if it is contained in B. This is a poor interpretation of the above-quoted LGPL clause.
Does my patent license for H.264 extend to any decoding, or only that done by Chrome?
Let's see the EULA for Chrome:
9. License from Google
9.1 Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services as provided to you by Google (referred to as the âoeSoftwareâ below). This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by the Terms.
Much has been said about how a company might not do this because it would be difficult to move that much talent overseas. Microsoft is a large operation; can they really get that many Irish programmers to replace those who are in the US?
Consider this: any US citizen who relocates to Ireland to keep his job will have to pay both US and Irish income tax. Lack of residency does not remove a US citizen's obligation to pay US income tax. We're one of the only nations to require non-resident citizens to pay income tax to the US.
I do realize there are likely a lot of Indian and Chinese nationals working for Microsoft, though. They, of course, wouldn't have to pay taxes if they gave up their green cards or H1 visas (almost typed "H1N1 visa").
Last year, Berkeley (#6) sent fee waivers to a ton of underqualified students. Students who would have never applied to Berkeley because applications cost money to submit. (Hence the fee waiver.) Underqualified students apply (because why not? it's free) and get rejected. Berkeley artificially deflates their acceptance rate, which helps their ranking score. This is likely done by a ton of schools. I just know of Berkeley doing it.
Another factor that affects LS rankings is the offer acceptance rate (basically, how many students who get accepted elect to attend that instutition). Schools will frequently reject obviously overqualified candidates because "they'll decide against going here and attend Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, NYU, etc. instead." Thus, qualified students are rejected for being "too qualified."
Finally, schools like Georgetown (GULC, #14) used to admit a ton of transfer students and part-time students. Neither transfer students nor part-time students affected the LS rankings. Thus, GULC basically could accept many less qualified people, extract $100K from each of them over the next two years, use these extra millions of dollars to entice very qualified candidates to attend with generous scholarship packages (full rides and the like). Because these transfer and part-time students didn't affect the rankings, GULC was effectively using a money-generating machine to attract very qualified candidates who may otherwise have attended a more highly ranked school like Chicago. However, this year, the USNWR started including part-time students in the rankings. Transfers still aren't included.
Of course, the question remains: Does this matter all that much? When a law school like Yale or Harvard has so much money and prestige to leverage to attract the best students even if the students won't get a better classroom education there, aren't other schools equally entitled to game rankings that, at the end of the day, are pretty much bullshit anyway?
Look, I attended a top law school, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the rankings are almost completely meaningless outside of job prospects. The rankings do create some sort of "job prospect tiers." But aside from that USNWR rankings are crap (at least in law, I don't know about other fields).
Found property. If you find and keep property that does not belong to you that has been lost or abandoned (treasure-trove), it is taxable to you at its fair market value in the first year it is your undisputed possession.
Just to point out, found property is not illegal if you keep it. Found property is legally yours. The clue is the use of the term of art "treasure trove." You seem to have been implying that possession of found property is illegal. It is not.
Interesting. In TX it's 8.25%ish for luxuries and 0% for necessities (assuming necessities == food ingredients). Basically, we pay taxes on prepared food like McDonalds, but if I want raw meat, I pay no tax.
Cardozo was also Jewish and on the Court while Brandeis was (Cardozo sat 32-38, I think). I remember my torts professor saying that Cardozo was always lucid, clear, and wrong.
Again, nothing inferring. Just reminiscing about my torts prof.:)
But we do have the makings of a "black seat" unless another black person is appointed before Thomas leaves. Thurgood Marshall left office and Thomas took his seat.
What's interesting is that Thomas is extremely againt affirmative action, but he very likely received his appointment by GHW Bush to fulfill something of a quota on the court.
I don't mean to insinuate Thomas is an intellectual inferior (although many contend he is, he's certainly got better educational credentials than I, and I'm too early in my career to say who is smarter than whom). But I think consensus among Supreme Court watchers is that Bush felt a pressure to keep at least one black person on the court, so he basically set out two requirements: (1) black and (2) Republican. The joke is that Thomas was the only black, Republican federal judge at that time.
I've no idea if that's true, though, as it was way before my SCOTUS awareness.
And to be fair to Republicans, Reagan did appoint the Jewish Douglas Ginsburg. However, the nomination was withdrawn after Ginsburg came under fire because he liked the ganja a little too long for conservative America: he continued to toke it up all the way to the point where he was a prof at Harvard.
If you mean that treaties have the same force as the Constitution, you're wrong. If you mean that treaties have the same force as statutes enacted by Congress that do not violate the Constitution, then you are right.
But treaties most definitely are not on par with the Constitution.
You what's interesting about that? After Souter leaves (and assuming Sotomayor is affirmed), there will be zero WASPs on the Court. They are all either Jewish or Catholic.
The NCLR is a supremacist group? The one funded by Ford, Wal-Mart, and Citigroup? Are you sure you're not thinking of La Raza Unida or some other party with "Raza" in its name?
1. Do you believe nonverbal communication/expression is speech? If not, then diaries and handwritten letters are not protected, as they are neither verbal nor "the press" for First Amendment protection. We're done with the inquiry. If you believe they are, continue to number 2.
2. Murder is nonverbal communication of the idea "I want you to die." Under your absolutist approach, illegalizing murder is unconstitutional. We're done.
A better way to look at it is to look at historical practices that were constitutional as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned and treat those as persistently constitutional (laws against libel, slander, copyright infringement, etc.) unless they step beyond their historical bounds.
In any case, you make an ill-informed argument about the Constitution. First of all, it's pretty obvious from history that libel/slander laws were intended to remain constitutional. The Founding Fathers endorsed such laws. If the guys who wrote the Constitution believed they were constitutional under the document they themselves created, does that not strike against your absolutist position? Unless, of course, you wish to claim that the Founding Fathers were terrible draftsmen and the Constitution itself is a poorly written document.
Second of all, after drafting the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were tasked with convincing their individual states to ratify the Constitution. Each interpreted the Constitution a different way. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay argued for one interpretation of the Constitution in New York. For one thing, they argued the Bill of Rights were unnecessary because the Constitution didn't give the federal government the right to infringe, say, the freedom of speech, so the First Amendment was unnecessary.
The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, argued strenuously for a Bill of Rights. Some of its more illustrious members were S. Adams, Henry, and Mason. They argued that without a Bill of Rights, the government would be too powerful (i.e., the Constitution sans Bill of Rights did not protect certain liberties the Federalists believed it did). This argument was sold in particular to Massachusetts and even affected the way Massachusetts ratified the Constitution: by attaching to its ratification a recommendation that a Bill of Rights be added.
So we see that the states ratified the Constitution under different understandings of what the Constitution actually means. How can we have one authoritative interpretation of the Constitution when the very basis for ratification is so wildly different?
He's not attacking your political position. He's attacking the basis of your position: research. If someone makes a fundamental mistake right off the bat, you can (safely, I'd like to point out) assume that he will continue to make mistakes in his presentation of his research. Why waste your time fact-checking someone when the prelude is obviously not checked for accuracy.
By your own admission, you chose a fact from one source to use as your own (the judge's name). This source was obviously untrustworthy. How do we know other facts you choose don't come from similarly untrustworthy sources without checking all your sources ourselves? At that point, we might as well just be doing our own research without your assistance!
Slashdot Mirror
God, I hope so. Success can turn a person into a Grade A asshole.
Note for this story: When I speak of how great I was in math, I mean compared to my peers in my small town. I am above average at math, but am very much dwarfed by a number of people on this very forum (which shows how dumb I really am!). I do not intend to brag, for there is nothing to brag about. I only intend to recount how I stopped a little genius from being an asshole.
There was a kid about three years younger than us working his way through high school math with us. I was always in different classes from him, and being gifted and interested in math, I stayed ahead of my peers by a year. I had almost completed all math requirements at my high school early, so I took a break from math classes in general (there was nothing at the local community college I could have moved on to anyway) to focus on CS, public speaking, and the social sciences I'd missed out on (we were on a block system, so it was possible to accelerate your class schedule).
After I returned to the last math classes offered in my high school, my peers and the kid had caught up with me in the schedule. Now, I had heard about how smart this kid was, but how he seemed to gleefully demonstrate how much smarter he was than other people ("Don't you know anything?," e.g.). Of course kids don't understand tact well at his age.
In any case, I spent that semester in class with him pointing out all of his mistakes in his work when we were paired together for work (just as a statement of fact, I was most likely the strongest mathematician of my graduating class or one class before or after me, which is why I was able to do what others were not). He took the hint and stopped being an asshole to other people.
Now I completely acknowledge I'm no longer a comparatively brilliant math student. I sold out and went to law school after getting a degree in math. In fact, one of my friends a year younger than me took a number of grad-level math classes at the same university as me. He's surely surpassed me in math ability. Outside of the limited high school setting, my math ability is above average but nothing special at all. Hell, that little kid probably has a Ph.D. in low-dimensional topology or something right now, having surpassed me. But he's hopefully a nice guy now, thanks to my ridiculous emotional bullying. ;)
The only point of this story is that young, brilliant children can be major assholes, and sometimes it takes them meeting a superior intellect (granted I was older than him, so I only mean "absolutely superior," not "relatively superior") to put them in their place.
I hope this kid isn't an asshole. He's got a chance at some 20-year-old women judging by parent's picture. He should be getting all in there, not treating them like crap. Good luck, young adventurer!
Agreed. The correct, tactful response is something akin to
Humbly acknowledging his natural abilities and inspiration, yet placing more emphasis on the perspiration.
It lets unsuccessful people save face, but still creates the possibility that his success will inspire a lazy kid to work harder.
There's likely a more elegant way to say what I proposed. But the idea is twofold: (1) acknowledge your gifts humbly, and (2) emphasize the hard work you put in.
When I read the talk about users "using [the video player Google included]," I thought the poster was talking about Google being liable for any copyright infringement committed by users of Chrome via the Google-provided video player.
My mistake.
No. See The Betamax Case.
How is it convoluted? Isn't it sort of jackassery to expect to be able to use the US court system and escape liability for your own acts that are illegal in this country?
But yes, software patents in this country are bollocks. I can understand having software patents for like 2 years, but not the 20 or whatever it is right now. I forget the length of the term: I care more about copyright reform than patent reform.
I doubt FFMpeg would benefit from suing in US courts. By suing Google in the US, FFMpeg would be admitting to federal court jurisdiction.
Doesn't FFMpeg infringe on various software patents that exist in the US? If so, FFMpeg would be making themselves available to being sued by whatever consortium holds the H.264 patents, for example.
Just a guess from a not-yet-lawyer.
You bet your ass a licensor has to obey the license. Beyond that, it's also possible to draft a license so the licensor cannot use the copyrighted work.http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/3B79CA9C-5199-46E7-BAF2BCF991701681/alpha/E/
My mistake then. I claim that Chris DiBona is being deliberately misleading then. Here's the relevant quote from a posting he wrote:
That's not true. It's possible to lock yourself out of the right to use your own copyright via a license through really shitty drafting of the license (or on purpose). If I recall correctly from my software licenses class (and I might not), the magic word "exclusive" is all that is needed in the grant clause and BAM, you can't use your own copyrighted work!
I am merely a law school graduate. I haven't taken the bar yet. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.
I didn't know FFMpeg could afford to employ a team of lawyers for years. Note that they cannot use FSF lawyers, because the FSF requires that you assign all copyright over to them before they will defend you.
Note: I think that is true. I recall reading something like that on the FSF site years ago, but take it with a grain of salt.
You're misinterpreting the LGPL. The language quoted by /. above says
Now, imagine it this way:
Let A be some 3d party software covered by patents that is unrelated to FFMpeg. Let B be Chrome. Let C be FFMpeg. Google got a patent for A. The patent is unrelated to FFMpeg.
The LGPL says that if you cannot distribute C without patent royalties, then you cannot distribute C at all.
People are making one of two mistakes regarding this issue. They're either assuming that the patent Google has cover C (this is thanks to Slashdot's shitty summary that makes it sound like this, but Google points out quite clearly this is not the case) or they think the LGPL says that if any patent restricts the distribution of A contained in B, then you distribute C if it is contained in B. This is a poor interpretation of the above-quoted LGPL clause.
The last link I provided (http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020035.html) explains better than I the stance Google has taken. I think this stance is correct.
Disclaimer: I am merely a law school graduate. I have not taken the bar yet. I am not a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Let's see the EULA for Chrome:
I'm not sure how those are simultaneously possible.
Much has been said about how a company might not do this because it would be difficult to move that much talent overseas. Microsoft is a large operation; can they really get that many Irish programmers to replace those who are in the US?
Consider this: any US citizen who relocates to Ireland to keep his job will have to pay both US and Irish income tax. Lack of residency does not remove a US citizen's obligation to pay US income tax. We're one of the only nations to require non-resident citizens to pay income tax to the US.
I do realize there are likely a lot of Indian and Chinese nationals working for Microsoft, though. They, of course, wouldn't have to pay taxes if they gave up their green cards or H1 visas (almost typed "H1N1 visa").
Here's some shit law schools have done:
Last year, Berkeley (#6) sent fee waivers to a ton of underqualified students. Students who would have never applied to Berkeley because applications cost money to submit. (Hence the fee waiver.) Underqualified students apply (because why not? it's free) and get rejected. Berkeley artificially deflates their acceptance rate, which helps their ranking score. This is likely done by a ton of schools. I just know of Berkeley doing it.
Another factor that affects LS rankings is the offer acceptance rate (basically, how many students who get accepted elect to attend that instutition). Schools will frequently reject obviously overqualified candidates because "they'll decide against going here and attend Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, NYU, etc. instead." Thus, qualified students are rejected for being "too qualified."
Finally, schools like Georgetown (GULC, #14) used to admit a ton of transfer students and part-time students. Neither transfer students nor part-time students affected the LS rankings. Thus, GULC basically could accept many less qualified people, extract $100K from each of them over the next two years, use these extra millions of dollars to entice very qualified candidates to attend with generous scholarship packages (full rides and the like). Because these transfer and part-time students didn't affect the rankings, GULC was effectively using a money-generating machine to attract very qualified candidates who may otherwise have attended a more highly ranked school like Chicago. However, this year, the USNWR started including part-time students in the rankings. Transfers still aren't included.
Of course, the question remains: Does this matter all that much? When a law school like Yale or Harvard has so much money and prestige to leverage to attract the best students even if the students won't get a better classroom education there, aren't other schools equally entitled to game rankings that, at the end of the day, are pretty much bullshit anyway?
Look, I attended a top law school, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the rankings are almost completely meaningless outside of job prospects. The rankings do create some sort of "job prospect tiers." But aside from that USNWR rankings are crap (at least in law, I don't know about other fields).
Just to point out, found property is not illegal if you keep it. Found property is legally yours. The clue is the use of the term of art "treasure trove." You seem to have been implying that possession of found property is illegal. It is not.
Interesting. In TX it's 8.25%ish for luxuries and 0% for necessities (assuming necessities == food ingredients). Basically, we pay taxes on prepared food like McDonalds, but if I want raw meat, I pay no tax.
Cardozo was also Jewish and on the Court while Brandeis was (Cardozo sat 32-38, I think). I remember my torts professor saying that Cardozo was always lucid, clear, and wrong.
Again, nothing inferring. Just reminiscing about my torts prof. :)
But we do have the makings of a "black seat" unless another black person is appointed before Thomas leaves. Thurgood Marshall left office and Thomas took his seat.
What's interesting is that Thomas is extremely againt affirmative action, but he very likely received his appointment by GHW Bush to fulfill something of a quota on the court.
I don't mean to insinuate Thomas is an intellectual inferior (although many contend he is, he's certainly got better educational credentials than I, and I'm too early in my career to say who is smarter than whom). But I think consensus among Supreme Court watchers is that Bush felt a pressure to keep at least one black person on the court, so he basically set out two requirements: (1) black and (2) Republican. The joke is that Thomas was the only black, Republican federal judge at that time.
I've no idea if that's true, though, as it was way before my SCOTUS awareness.
And to be fair to Republicans, Reagan did appoint the Jewish Douglas Ginsburg. However, the nomination was withdrawn after Ginsburg came under fire because he liked the ganja a little too long for conservative America: he continued to toke it up all the way to the point where he was a prof at Harvard.
If you mean that treaties have the same force as the Constitution, you're wrong. If you mean that treaties have the same force as statutes enacted by Congress that do not violate the Constitution, then you are right.
But treaties most definitely are not on par with the Constitution.
You make it sound like (1) Sears didn't pay the city, and (2) the city didn't pay a fair price to the landowners.
You what's interesting about that? After Souter leaves (and assuming Sotomayor is affirmed), there will be zero WASPs on the Court. They are all either Jewish or Catholic.
The NCLR is a supremacist group? The one funded by Ford, Wal-Mart, and Citigroup? Are you sure you're not thinking of La Raza Unida or some other party with "Raza" in its name?
Riddle me this:
1. Do you believe nonverbal communication/expression is speech? If not, then diaries and handwritten letters are not protected, as they are neither verbal nor "the press" for First Amendment protection. We're done with the inquiry. If you believe they are, continue to number 2.
2. Murder is nonverbal communication of the idea "I want you to die." Under your absolutist approach, illegalizing murder is unconstitutional. We're done.
A better way to look at it is to look at historical practices that were constitutional as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned and treat those as persistently constitutional (laws against libel, slander, copyright infringement, etc.) unless they step beyond their historical bounds.
In any case, you make an ill-informed argument about the Constitution. First of all, it's pretty obvious from history that libel/slander laws were intended to remain constitutional. The Founding Fathers endorsed such laws. If the guys who wrote the Constitution believed they were constitutional under the document they themselves created, does that not strike against your absolutist position? Unless, of course, you wish to claim that the Founding Fathers were terrible draftsmen and the Constitution itself is a poorly written document.
Second of all, after drafting the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were tasked with convincing their individual states to ratify the Constitution. Each interpreted the Constitution a different way. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay argued for one interpretation of the Constitution in New York. For one thing, they argued the Bill of Rights were unnecessary because the Constitution didn't give the federal government the right to infringe, say, the freedom of speech, so the First Amendment was unnecessary.
The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, argued strenuously for a Bill of Rights. Some of its more illustrious members were S. Adams, Henry, and Mason. They argued that without a Bill of Rights, the government would be too powerful (i.e., the Constitution sans Bill of Rights did not protect certain liberties the Federalists believed it did). This argument was sold in particular to Massachusetts and even affected the way Massachusetts ratified the Constitution: by attaching to its ratification a recommendation that a Bill of Rights be added.
So we see that the states ratified the Constitution under different understandings of what the Constitution actually means. How can we have one authoritative interpretation of the Constitution when the very basis for ratification is so wildly different?
He's not attacking your political position. He's attacking the basis of your position: research. If someone makes a fundamental mistake right off the bat, you can (safely, I'd like to point out) assume that he will continue to make mistakes in his presentation of his research. Why waste your time fact-checking someone when the prelude is obviously not checked for accuracy.
By your own admission, you chose a fact from one source to use as your own (the judge's name). This source was obviously untrustworthy. How do we know other facts you choose don't come from similarly untrustworthy sources without checking all your sources ourselves? At that point, we might as well just be doing our own research without your assistance!
No, I didn't; I was never single while I lived there, so the opportunity never presented itself. Why do you ask?
On an unrelated note, why is Slashdot giving me the mod drop-down box on your comment when you responded to a comment I made?