I typically see it done by determining the amount of energy obtained from a gallon of fuel. Based on the energy, you now have a basis for comparison with the energy required to charge your batteries. Since you can compare a gallon of gas with a unit of energy and you can measure the distance traveled, you can now roughly translate to a mpg rating.
the evidence they destroyed was never collected, they did not destroy it they just didn't save it in the first place
If this is true, it certainly sounds like they have a strong basis for an appeal. After all, simply not saving data is a long, long stretch to destroying evidence. Not to mention, they are protected by the Constitution by this as they are not required to incriminate themselves; which is not saying they committed any wrong doing.
In other words they simply chose not to save some data to which they had no legal obligation. The RIAA states this is destroying evidence. If it is evidence of wrong doing then by law, they are not required to record, save, or present it as according to the RIAA own filings this would be a legal requirement for the first part to incriminate themselves; which is blatantly unconstitutional.
Seems to me the Judge is enjoying the crack pipe a tad too much....or the facts presents are woefully inaccurate.
Look here and I believe you'll find it's unlikely. Besides, the materials were getting fairly close to structural failures from the heat at Mach 3.3. Pushing Mach 4.0 is perhaps a maybe, but based on the pilot, I think not. Speeds greater than Mach 4 is right out because of material limitations.
They did not refuel "immediately after takeoff" because they wanted the plane to fly a distance, allowing it to slowly heat and expand. Only after heating/expanding, did they refuel. The plane would then fly its mission and be refueled again so it could make it home. On some missions, many refueling stops were required.
If you ever wanted to see a "flying pig", I'm pretty sure the SR-71 qualifies.;)
Not trying to be rude, but war brings us many neet things, some of them faster than without war, some are only a result of war. Sick, but true:
The inverse is also true. Just imagine how much father we would be of the Library of Alexandria had not been razed. How far would we be if it were not for the Crusades? You can look at history and find the basis for much of our modern technology sat for centuries because of war or xenophobic leaders.
Granted, we can draw a direct line between ICBMs, the moon shots, and modern communications, but we can also draw a line centuries back where the origins of the technology was horded in China.
Serious, imagine how far we may have come if it were not for war and religion (the primary cause of war). The time line might be accelerated several hundred years.
No they don't. They just have no need to. Why would you want to build a vehicle with 40+ year old technology?
You obviously do not have an engineering background. What the parent post said is true. You need to keep in mind there is a lot more to building something than simply following a blueprint. While shocking today, construction methods were often undocumented. Minor changes to designs often were not drawn up.
Let me give you an example. Today, when a piston airplane is created, it takes 150%-250% more labor to build the same airplane than it did forty years ago. Why do you think that is? Because the people that had all the experience, long ago retired. When they retired, they took their experience with them. Many of the people that built those airplanes were the same ones that learned how to do it during war time, where every plane mattered.
Still don't believe me? Every year the military tests new equipment at environmental test ranges. And every year, lessons learned 50+ years ago must once again be hammered into the young brains making the new equipment.
Hear is another one for you. The B-2 flying wing bomber, after an independent redesign, almost exactly matches the original design and dimensions. Modern engineers scratch their in wonder as they find it incredible how much they got right on slide rulers; especially given how many years it took us to do what they did in half the time with slide rulers.
Believe it or not, even today, we are relearning the same old lessons and yes, still struggle to re-implement some 40-50 years latter. Still doubt me. Go read up on modern rocket engine designs. You'll notice ALL of the current rocket scientists complain about EVERYTHING I just pointed out above. The same old lessons are being relearned, most of the experience has retired, and the same old mistakes are being repeated. In other words, just because it's new doesn't mean it's improved. After all, how can it be improved if they are making the same mistakes which were already resolved 50 years ago?
Another correction is fighters commonly reach speeds around Mach 2.2; most slower, some slightly faster. Especially when you're talking about interceptors.
When I was in CAP, we had two retired SR pilots as part of the squadron. Neither would confirm maximum altitude or speed. The only firm answer we ever got was top speed and altitude is much higher and faster than the publicly available numbers. Misinformation? Perhaps. But I fail to see the value in misinformation to a thirteen year old where it is likely to be dismissed were it to be repeated at the time.
We did ask the older pilot if they were faster than Mach 4.0. He rolled his eyes. We always took that to mean top speed is less than Mach 4...but he could of been annoyed too...hey, we were thirteen.;)
Really? You think? What are you on? Do you honestly believe the BS you're saying or are you just stupid?
First of all, there are LOTS of bank issued *check cards* which have no affiliation with Visa or Mastercard. This is actually the majority as they are far more profitable. Second of all, go read what I said.
The only person looking silly here is you. And that's reinforced by your position as it's clear you're trying to ding me for speaking in absolutes where I clearly did not. I specifically did not. Even further proving your low IQ, is the fact that I specifically said to contact your fucking bank to find out what coverage you do have...because **gasp** some do a pretty good job.
Regardless, even if they provide superior protection than credit cards, as I already explained, you're still a fucking moron for using a check card. Zero cash in your account is still zero fucking cash. And I don't care what you think you read, they are not going to return it to you the day you call to complain. Most take 30-45 days to resolve. It's not uncommon for some to go 120+ days. And in some cases, the money is NEVER returned. Are you really that fucking stupid? We'll obviously the answer is yes...because I'm already repeating my self.
Good luck. I sincerely hope you get targeted by a scam so you can see just how stupid you are.
Well, it also ignores the fact that the headline is wrong. It was not testing time, it was testing the ***human perception*** of time, which is certainly a candidate for good science. Regardless of the outcome, no physics equations would have changed.
So modding him "troll" or "idiot" would be appropriate.;)
Please remember that when you checking account has zero dollars and you're working to get it back...all the while your other checks are bouncing and you credit is going to crap.
But hey...if you want to ignore facts, please go ahead.
If you chose to process your debit card as a credit card, thru the CC network, you get credit-card-like protections from fraud.
Not so. Debit cards have different pricing structures associated with their processing. Credit cards have federal banking laws which guide what can and can not be done. Debit cards do not fall under these same guide lines.
The reason debit cards are so popular with merchants is they tend to cost a lot less to process. The reason being, they tend to offer far less liability for the merchant and processor. Why do they have less liability? Because the card holder, in many cases, is assuming much of that liability. Furthermore, you have zero charge back authority as a debit card user; unless explicitly granted by agreement with you bank. Meaning, you often only have the same protection as any other check writer. This is not the same protection afforded to credit card users.
After saying all that, many banks do extend credit card-like protection for debit card users; often with caveats. But you need to check your bank. Assuming you have the same protection is beyond foolish. To make matters even worse, the fraud picture is completely different for debit card users versus credit card users.
A merchant committing fraud with a debit card can cause no end of problems for debit card users. This is not true for credit card users. If I'm a fraudulent merchant and I wipe out your checking account via your debit card, bluntly stated, you're fucked. It may take you months, IF EVER, for you to recover that money. If a fraudulent merchant does the same thing with my credit card, who cares. I still have cash in my account to make ends meet and there is no pressure to dispute because my next meal doesn't depend on dispute resolution. Worse, all the checks you wrote no bound and you owe hundreds, if not thousands, in bounced check and late payment fees. Plus, your credit score just took a serious ding. You're now a dead beat as far as your creditors are concerned.
Long story short, only fools, unless they know otherwise, use their debit card when a credit card is available. And even then, from a fraud protection perspective, only idiots use their debit cards anywhere other than their bank.
I mean, there are those who also say that a close relative of hemp competes with the psychopharmaceutical industry.
This is factually incorrect. But don't feel bad because you are only repeating the misinformation provided to government by industry. Simple fact is, hemp is not pot. Pot can be used as hemp as it has the same types of fiber. And today, it is possible to plant and grow hemp which has exactly zero THC.
Smoking hemp will result in the world's worst headache. You can not get high from it. If you smoke something that makes you high, it is not hemp. Hemp is closely related to "pot" but they are distinctly different animals. Most industry types are very happy to continue this confusion.
Here's my first problem.....the way you're stating this, the majority of cops are cruising around with a trunk full of cocaine just waiting to frame the innocent. Yes, there are cases where evidence has been planted, but in the ones I've heard of there's usually a stonger motive than "I want to confiscate your car". Unless you cite a good source, there's no way I believe it's that rampant.
Several documentaries have been created on the topic. Even 60-minutes did a show or two. But, in your world county judges don't get to keep "court fees" to augment their income either. And officers who generate tickets don't benefit from the collected fees. After all, the world is all about being just and fair. Never mind that several states are working to fix that abuse and corruption too.
I see paper blamed time and time again but this completely ignores the fact that the chemical companies came into their own immediately proceeding hemp's demise. Lets face it, petro-chemical companies are the real reason hemp was outlawed. Hemp directly competes at almost every level. It was a pile on effect.
Hemp competes with petro-chemical companies. Hemp now competes with corn growers for alternate fuel production. Hemp competes with paper mills. Hemp competes with cotton growers. Hemp to a lessor degree competes with non-corn farmers as it is also a cheap, nutritional, additive.
Basically hemp is the #1 enemy of big business. People also forget that cars used to run on biofuels and then switched to petro-base fuels. Hemp was a contender.
People who believe paper is the cause of hemp's demise do not know/see the whole picture or know/understand history.
Due process is out the window since the War on Drugs.
I'm sure a lot of people have no idea what you're talking about. This started because state police in many states were empowered to seize property, without due process, and *pocket* the proceeds. This created an environment where almost every state cop in the US, where this was implemented, was actually a criminal. Several states, after a decade or more of complaints, finally started to investigate.
It seems it worked like this. Cop sees nice expensive car. Cop pulls over the car. Cop claims you are a drug deal and plants evidence. Cop seizes you car and everything in it. You are arrested. Drug charges were often dropped. You car and all your property within the car is sold at auction. Cop pockets all of the proceeds. Normally out of state cars were the preferred targets, leave you little recourse. And in the end, who wants to champion "drug dealers." States only started to act when it was found that the majority of the "drug dealers" fit a certain profile such as "affluent retirees" passing through the state.
States such as GA, LA, MS, and AL were especially bad. The solution was to tell the police to stop it. They couldn't simply arrest all of the criminal cops because in those four states, as much as 90% of the state police would be behind bars. It was thought that created too much of a risk to public safety to put criminals in jail.
So chances are, if you've been ticketed by a state policeman in these states, you were ticketed by a criminal that has commit more crimes than most any criminal currently convicted, sitting in jail right now.
People have already put a nail in this in other posts, and rightfully so. If we have something like ultra capacitor batteries then this may have hope, as they do not have limited charge/discharge cycles. Otherwise, this concept costs car owners money to assist the electric companies. Batteries have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles and the amount the electric company is willing to pay is most certainly not going to cover the cost of battery wear and tear.
To boot, if this relies on people to actively switch modes, it is dead out of the gate. People will simply leave it in off mode all the time, effectively removing all cars from the grid.
I have seen some bad code before. I've also seen a lot of code that's different from how I would write it. That doesn't make it bad. Good code is good code.
The mark of a good coder is always one which can detach him/herself from their ego. This is very rare. All too often coders slam code for the sake of justifying their sad existence. This code is bad therefore I'm a better, more valuable coder to the company, because I would never write code like that. Generally I find those that are most venomous are the worst coders of the group. I figure deep down they know then and this is their pathetic attempt to justify their paycheck.
If coders spent as much time supporting their comrades and improving their own knowledge as they do tearing down each other, the state of the art would be vastly improved.
I understand. My point being, a mid-air between a UAV and a plane is likely to cite the pilot at error despite the fact he likely won't be. That's like citing pilots in error for bird strikes. The problem stems from UAV which should never be using general use airspace. And the solution to that is not to start an airspace-land-grab.
AUVs simply should not be used in shared airspace until ADS-B is fully deployed, tested, and proven to be 100% reliable. And even then, serious consideration should be given to provide additional visual indicators (high power strobes, etc) so pilots can do their portion to "see and avoid." The problem is, easy to see UAVs is often contrary to the goal of having UAVs in the first place.
a requirement that such aircraft have reliable position beacon systems that other aircraft can reliably see would go a long way to ensuring no collisions.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, MPG rating is to which the public relates.
a planet that can't even provide food to all its people and who kill each other and who have come close to complete annihilation not once but twice?
;)
Because maybe they just found food and water for their people? And space to expand?
Uh, how do you measure MPG in an electric car?
I typically see it done by determining the amount of energy obtained from a gallon of fuel. Based on the energy, you now have a basis for comparison with the energy required to charge your batteries. Since you can compare a gallon of gas with a unit of energy and you can measure the distance traveled, you can now roughly translate to a mpg rating.
the evidence they destroyed was never collected, they did not destroy it they just didn't save it in the first place
If this is true, it certainly sounds like they have a strong basis for an appeal. After all, simply not saving data is a long, long stretch to destroying evidence. Not to mention, they are protected by the Constitution by this as they are not required to incriminate themselves; which is not saying they committed any wrong doing.
In other words they simply chose not to save some data to which they had no legal obligation. The RIAA states this is destroying evidence. If it is evidence of wrong doing then by law, they are not required to record, save, or present it as according to the RIAA own filings this would be a legal requirement for the first part to incriminate themselves; which is blatantly unconstitutional.
Seems to me the Judge is enjoying the crack pipe a tad too much....or the facts presents are woefully inaccurate.
Look here and I believe you'll find it's unlikely. Besides, the materials were getting fairly close to structural failures from the heat at Mach 3.3. Pushing Mach 4.0 is perhaps a maybe, but based on the pilot, I think not. Speeds greater than Mach 4 is right out because of material limitations.
They did not refuel "immediately after takeoff" because they wanted the plane to fly a distance, allowing it to slowly heat and expand. Only after heating/expanding, did they refuel. The plane would then fly its mission and be refueled again so it could make it home. On some missions, many refueling stops were required.
;)
If you ever wanted to see a "flying pig", I'm pretty sure the SR-71 qualifies.
Not trying to be rude, but war brings us many neet things, some of them faster than without war, some are only a result of war. Sick, but true:
The inverse is also true. Just imagine how much father we would be of the Library of Alexandria had not been razed. How far would we be if it were not for the Crusades? You can look at history and find the basis for much of our modern technology sat for centuries because of war or xenophobic leaders.
Granted, we can draw a direct line between ICBMs, the moon shots, and modern communications, but we can also draw a line centuries back where the origins of the technology was horded in China.
Serious, imagine how far we may have come if it were not for war and religion (the primary cause of war). The time line might be accelerated several hundred years.
a "sonic boom"'s intensity is determined by the speed of the aircraft.
Correction, speed and shape.
No they don't. They just have no need to. Why would you want to build a vehicle with 40+ year old technology?
You obviously do not have an engineering background. What the parent post said is true. You need to keep in mind there is a lot more to building something than simply following a blueprint. While shocking today, construction methods were often undocumented. Minor changes to designs often were not drawn up.
Let me give you an example. Today, when a piston airplane is created, it takes 150%-250% more labor to build the same airplane than it did forty years ago. Why do you think that is? Because the people that had all the experience, long ago retired. When they retired, they took their experience with them. Many of the people that built those airplanes were the same ones that learned how to do it during war time, where every plane mattered.
Still don't believe me? Every year the military tests new equipment at environmental test ranges. And every year, lessons learned 50+ years ago must once again be hammered into the young brains making the new equipment.
Hear is another one for you. The B-2 flying wing bomber, after an independent redesign, almost exactly matches the original design and dimensions. Modern engineers scratch their in wonder as they find it incredible how much they got right on slide rulers; especially given how many years it took us to do what they did in half the time with slide rulers.
Believe it or not, even today, we are relearning the same old lessons and yes, still struggle to re-implement some 40-50 years latter. Still doubt me. Go read up on modern rocket engine designs. You'll notice ALL of the current rocket scientists complain about EVERYTHING I just pointed out above. The same old lessons are being relearned, most of the experience has retired, and the same old mistakes are being repeated. In other words, just because it's new doesn't mean it's improved. After all, how can it be improved if they are making the same mistakes which were already resolved 50 years ago?
Just some food for thought.
the fastest fighter planes barely crack Mach 1.6.
;)
Another correction is fighters commonly reach speeds around Mach 2.2; most slower, some slightly faster. Especially when you're talking about interceptors.
When I was in CAP, we had two retired SR pilots as part of the squadron. Neither would confirm maximum altitude or speed. The only firm answer we ever got was top speed and altitude is much higher and faster than the publicly available numbers. Misinformation? Perhaps. But I fail to see the value in misinformation to a thirteen year old where it is likely to be dismissed were it to be repeated at the time.
We did ask the older pilot if they were faster than Mach 4.0. He rolled his eyes. We always took that to mean top speed is less than Mach 4...but he could of been annoyed too...hey, we were thirteen.
Really? You think? What are you on? Do you honestly believe the BS you're saying or are you just stupid?
First of all, there are LOTS of bank issued *check cards* which have no affiliation with Visa or Mastercard. This is actually the majority as they are far more profitable. Second of all, go read what I said.
The only person looking silly here is you. And that's reinforced by your position as it's clear you're trying to ding me for speaking in absolutes where I clearly did not. I specifically did not. Even further proving your low IQ, is the fact that I specifically said to contact your fucking bank to find out what coverage you do have...because **gasp** some do a pretty good job.
Regardless, even if they provide superior protection than credit cards, as I already explained, you're still a fucking moron for using a check card. Zero cash in your account is still zero fucking cash. And I don't care what you think you read, they are not going to return it to you the day you call to complain. Most take 30-45 days to resolve. It's not uncommon for some to go 120+ days. And in some cases, the money is NEVER returned. Are you really that fucking stupid? We'll obviously the answer is yes...because I'm already repeating my self.
Good luck. I sincerely hope you get targeted by a scam so you can see just how stupid you are.
Well, it also ignores the fact that the headline is wrong. It was not testing time, it was testing the ***human perception*** of time, which is certainly a candidate for good science. Regardless of the outcome, no physics equations would have changed.
;)
So modding him "troll" or "idiot" would be appropriate.
BTW, I used to be in the credit card industry. Specifically, transaction and clearing house processing.
You seem to be confusing true debit cards
Wrong. I clearly said debit cards. Debit check cards are different but still do not provide credit card protection.
LOL.
Please remember that when you checking account has zero dollars and you're working to get it back...all the while your other checks are bouncing and you credit is going to crap.
But hey...if you want to ignore facts, please go ahead.
If you chose to process your debit card as a credit card, thru the CC network, you get credit-card-like protections from fraud.
Not so. Debit cards have different pricing structures associated with their processing. Credit cards have federal banking laws which guide what can and can not be done. Debit cards do not fall under these same guide lines.
The reason debit cards are so popular with merchants is they tend to cost a lot less to process. The reason being, they tend to offer far less liability for the merchant and processor. Why do they have less liability? Because the card holder, in many cases, is assuming much of that liability. Furthermore, you have zero charge back authority as a debit card user; unless explicitly granted by agreement with you bank. Meaning, you often only have the same protection as any other check writer. This is not the same protection afforded to credit card users.
After saying all that, many banks do extend credit card-like protection for debit card users; often with caveats. But you need to check your bank. Assuming you have the same protection is beyond foolish. To make matters even worse, the fraud picture is completely different for debit card users versus credit card users.
A merchant committing fraud with a debit card can cause no end of problems for debit card users. This is not true for credit card users. If I'm a fraudulent merchant and I wipe out your checking account via your debit card, bluntly stated, you're fucked. It may take you months, IF EVER, for you to recover that money. If a fraudulent merchant does the same thing with my credit card, who cares. I still have cash in my account to make ends meet and there is no pressure to dispute because my next meal doesn't depend on dispute resolution. Worse, all the checks you wrote no bound and you owe hundreds, if not thousands, in bounced check and late payment fees. Plus, your credit score just took a serious ding. You're now a dead beat as far as your creditors are concerned.
Long story short, only fools, unless they know otherwise, use their debit card when a credit card is available. And even then, from a fraud protection perspective, only idiots use their debit cards anywhere other than their bank.
I mean, there are those who also say that a close relative of hemp competes with the psychopharmaceutical industry.
This is factually incorrect. But don't feel bad because you are only repeating the misinformation provided to government by industry. Simple fact is, hemp is not pot. Pot can be used as hemp as it has the same types of fiber. And today, it is possible to plant and grow hemp which has exactly zero THC.
Smoking hemp will result in the world's worst headache. You can not get high from it. If you smoke something that makes you high, it is not hemp. Hemp is closely related to "pot" but they are distinctly different animals. Most industry types are very happy to continue this confusion.
To be absolutely clear, hemp is not pot.
Here's my first problem.....the way you're stating this, the majority of cops are cruising around with a trunk full of cocaine just waiting to frame the innocent. Yes, there are cases where evidence has been planted, but in the ones I've heard of there's usually a stonger motive than "I want to confiscate your car". Unless you cite a good source, there's no way I believe it's that rampant.
Several documentaries have been created on the topic. Even 60-minutes did a show or two. But, in your world county judges don't get to keep "court fees" to augment their income either. And officers who generate tickets don't benefit from the collected fees. After all, the world is all about being just and fair. Never mind that several states are working to fix that abuse and corruption too.
I see paper blamed time and time again but this completely ignores the fact that the chemical companies came into their own immediately proceeding hemp's demise. Lets face it, petro-chemical companies are the real reason hemp was outlawed. Hemp directly competes at almost every level. It was a pile on effect.
Hemp competes with petro-chemical companies.
Hemp now competes with corn growers for alternate fuel production.
Hemp competes with paper mills.
Hemp competes with cotton growers.
Hemp to a lessor degree competes with non-corn farmers as it is also a cheap, nutritional, additive.
Basically hemp is the #1 enemy of big business. People also forget that cars used to run on biofuels and then switched to petro-base fuels. Hemp was a contender.
People who believe paper is the cause of hemp's demise do not know/see the whole picture or know/understand history.
Due process is out the window since the War on Drugs.
I'm sure a lot of people have no idea what you're talking about. This started because state police in many states were empowered to seize property, without due process, and *pocket* the proceeds. This created an environment where almost every state cop in the US, where this was implemented, was actually a criminal. Several states, after a decade or more of complaints, finally started to investigate.
It seems it worked like this. Cop sees nice expensive car. Cop pulls over the car. Cop claims you are a drug deal and plants evidence. Cop seizes you car and everything in it. You are arrested. Drug charges were often dropped. You car and all your property within the car is sold at auction. Cop pockets all of the proceeds. Normally out of state cars were the preferred targets, leave you little recourse. And in the end, who wants to champion "drug dealers." States only started to act when it was found that the majority of the "drug dealers" fit a certain profile such as "affluent retirees" passing through the state.
States such as GA, LA, MS, and AL were especially bad. The solution was to tell the police to stop it. They couldn't simply arrest all of the criminal cops because in those four states, as much as 90% of the state police would be behind bars. It was thought that created too much of a risk to public safety to put criminals in jail.
So chances are, if you've been ticketed by a state policeman in these states, you were ticketed by a criminal that has commit more crimes than most any criminal currently convicted, sitting in jail right now.
People have already put a nail in this in other posts, and rightfully so. If we have something like ultra capacitor batteries then this may have hope, as they do not have limited charge/discharge cycles. Otherwise, this concept costs car owners money to assist the electric companies. Batteries have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles and the amount the electric company is willing to pay is most certainly not going to cover the cost of battery wear and tear.
To boot, if this relies on people to actively switch modes, it is dead out of the gate. People will simply leave it in off mode all the time, effectively removing all cars from the grid.
I have seen some bad code before. I've also seen a lot of code that's different from how I would write it. That doesn't make it bad. Good code is good code.
The mark of a good coder is always one which can detach him/herself from their ego. This is very rare. All too often coders slam code for the sake of justifying their sad existence. This code is bad therefore I'm a better, more valuable coder to the company, because I would never write code like that. Generally I find those that are most venomous are the worst coders of the group. I figure deep down they know then and this is their pathetic attempt to justify their paycheck.
If coders spent as much time supporting their comrades and improving their own knowledge as they do tearing down each other, the state of the art would be vastly improved.
What's particularly troubling is how the misinformed get better ratings and more hits than the well informed.
/., isn't it.
This is your first time on
I understand. My point being, a mid-air between a UAV and a plane is likely to cite the pilot at error despite the fact he likely won't be. That's like citing pilots in error for bird strikes. The problem stems from UAV which should never be using general use airspace. And the solution to that is not to start an airspace-land-grab.
AUVs simply should not be used in shared airspace until ADS-B is fully deployed, tested, and proven to be 100% reliable. And even then, serious consideration should be given to provide additional visual indicators (high power strobes, etc) so pilots can do their portion to "see and avoid." The problem is, easy to see UAVs is often contrary to the goal of having UAVs in the first place.
a requirement that such aircraft have reliable position beacon systems that other aircraft can reliably see would go a long way to ensuring no collisions.
It is actively being deployed and tested. But we are not there today.