Actually, this got me thinking... I can imagine someone doing the 2-sim dance with some custom firmware; after 4:59, the phones automatically establish an alternate connection and drop the previous one, for "uninterrupted" voice communication....
You propose saving hundreds of miles of land at a cost of hundreds of billions. I propose a cheaper alternative, move. Build a big tower inland and move there.
Will the "FreshPaper" cost the same as replacing spoiled produce or less? If not then I only see this being a niche product for those who are already trying to be more environmentally conscious. The only reference to price in the article is the use of the phrase "low-cost", which is ambiguous at best.
Well, if it's reasonable in bulk, I can see this being a significant waste saver -- not at the consumer level, but at the grocery store level. Stores toss HUGE quantities of produce because of spoilage. If they can keep them fresh longer, that means more profit for them, better produce for the consumer, and (hopefully) lower prices.
Refrigeration doesn't do much with produce. Other than keeping it cold. I usually keep my fruit un-refrigerated. It tastes better and lasts just as long.
Refrigeration provides a controlled clean environment; the temperature doesn't have much to do with it for many foods, but the sealed space keeps out insects etc. and the humidity control is an added bonus.
THIS is something that could be extremely beneficial to most of the world, especially areas near the equator.
What has SEA accomplished? Seriously, other than being annoying douche bags?
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, managed to make America spend more than a trillion dollars and to some extent as a result, sink itself into economic trouble. They've also managed to trick us into ruining our reputations on the world stage, curtail our own freedoms, invite us to spy on ourselves and essentially forego constitutional protections. Plus these protracted conflicts abroad have nearly broken the back of our mighty military.
I'd say terrorist bombings have worked a lot better than hacking the NYT.
Except it wasn't the airplane crashes themselves, but the media's portrayal of them that did that.
As far as the actual impact destroying the WTC had, most of that side of things never even got covered by the media, and most people don't know about it. And most of those things you're discussing were already in the works and just waiting for an "event" to be put into motion. One of the other things in that slate was attacking Iraq -- which the US went and did even though the event didn't really line up well with it.
so would harrassing, terroriznig, fraternizing, and other wise trying to bend media to your will.
1. they are soft targets. They don't cary guns, body armor, ride in armored vehicles, or rarely militarty training, awareness, etc... They would be prone to panic under attack, as well as easy to overpower.
2. Easy to track, friends and family, don't live in worlds of secrecy nor protect their identities. Information you'd need to harass them can be found easily. very visable in public.
3. Often criticial of the government, and concious of not looking like government supporters.
4. Lack of real integrity, they really don't care what they publish so long as no one will question their credibility.
Seems the NSA decided to double down on the Tor network since the cat is out of the bag. Quite logical that people would flock to it given the circumstances, thinking the NSA can't handle the extra load. The irony here, is that I'm betting the NSA was waiting for this to happen.
Oh! Did they fire 90% of their sysadmins yet?
Remember that not only do they have a large number of exit nodes, they also have carte blanche to capture ALL traffic coming out of them, as they have no foreknowledge of whether or not it came from a US citizen. Tor helps them get around the entire PRISM issue be legitimizing their storage of the data.
I wonder if the same goes for I2P... I haven't heard much about that lately (probably people trying to keep it out of the spotlight).
Unlike the good old days when governments had better technology than everyone else and other governments. It's amazing how a bunch of state sponsored hackers can, to a degree, level the playing field a little more. Now if they could only start hacking targets worth hacking instead of media outlets.
I think what they've discovered is that hacking the media outlets is the most effective way to affect change. Way more effective than terrorist bombings in getting things to actually change, as you're guaranteed to get lots of eyeballs and actually get your message across.
What I'm waiting for is a change in DEPTH of hacking media outlets. If they hack the feeds going to and from the outlets, they control the information/propaganda being fed to the consumers of the information. They can use this to increase coverage of underreported stories, change the slant of the data being consumed, or even block information not beneficial to their cause. Just like world governments already do!
Uh, wasn't OLPC created to serve third-party countries, not first world countries?
Freudian slip?
Anyway, it's still focused on technology-poor countries. What they've found is that they can subsidize the devices going to these countries further by selling the same product marked up into technology-rich countries, now that they've got their production line up to high capacity. Everything that goes into them, and the design of the products, is aimed at tech-pooor country feedback; tech-rich countries just have the option of paying extra for a piece of the action without affecting the actual design decisions (much).
If the only thing you have received as a class action settlement is coupons, you have never been involved in a class action for grown ups.
That said, the payment notion has merit -- the lawyers get a percentage of the payout, not a separate deal. That way, if the payout IS coupons, the lawyers have to fence those coupons -- which provides incentive for not settling on something that costs the defendant pretty much nothing (or at least much less than the face value of the settlement).
The only adult class-action suits I've personally witnessed or been part of have been against government agencies; all the "you may be part of this suit if you used Facebook/had a starbucks coffee/etc." cases seem to me to be money grabs for the lawyers only -- usually there's a limited number of people actually harmed in any way, and no intent to harm on the business side.
It makes me think that the first step should always be to confront the business and tell them to change their practice. If they refuse, THEN go after them with a REAL class action suit. If a company has a history of such cases where they're continually being asked to shape up, and always do, but not until they're asked, this should also be grounds for class action. But the coupon-based suits smack of ambulance chasing. I guess they serve a purpose though -- sort of like dung beetles. Unfortunately that purpose is not just to keep corporations behaving well, it's also th make operating a small or medium business prohibitive in certain markets (due to how much you need to pay lawyers).
People are increasingly that allergic to all sorts of things. Are you saying that if I have some communicable disease that you could die from, you should live in a bubble? Because allergies are just the immune system reacting to a perceived hostile substance.
A better analogy would be a case where everyone but you was a carrier of a disease and you were the only person in the area who could suffer severe adverse affects from it... like if your immune system was destroyed.
You may note that in that case, you would be put in a bubble.
Personally, I consider my analogy closer to the truth -- many people have allergies, even if very few send them into shock from exposure to the allergen.
Indeed -- we aren't discussing woman-made objects here.
In Jefferson's era, men took all the credit and "man-made" certainly had to be the accepted phrase regardless of the gender that made it. In any event, he was a cooperative effort. Furthermore, he believed that we were endowed by a Creator, whose gender was commonly male. So. I think he qualified as "man-made" if you're willing to piss off the politically correct, which I certainly am.
While "man" was definitely the gender-neutral term at the time, I think he would have considered you a heretic to consider him "man-made" -- made in God's image by God, who while he spent time as a man, was God. He'd consider himself created, not man-made, no matter how much a humanist he was.
I have been wondering for some time now why peanut allergies are virtually unknown in China and were unknown in The Netherlands until say, 15 years ago. Now, it's every third kid that has a pretty dangerous allergy. And it's not a case of overdiagnosing either.
My hypothesis is that while crop growers are very good at hardening the fruits and vegetables against disease and insects, they forget (or rather: ignore) the fact that the reason fruit and vegetables are resistant is because they are using a frightful array of chemical defenses. And those defenses include proteins, most of them not being analyzed since we're talking "harmless and healthy vegetables". I think that if we'd analyze the chemical defenses in the current crops really carefully, we'd probably discover some nasty surprises.
And I agree that it sounds as if US schools are overreacting horribly. Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.
A common current hypothesis for the increase in peanut allergies (and other immune and auto-immune disorders) in recent decades is the hygiene hypothesis. This kind of makes sense -- as the bacterial exposure level among infants in China (at least) decreases, there's a larger population that can have an improperly regulated immune system.
However, I think your idea plays a part too (and not just with proteins), as I know a number of people who had no allergies who suddenly became reactive to various foods/chemicals later on in life; it almost seems like there are new catalysts entering the products we expose ourselves to that weren't there 20 years ago.
If someone is that allergic to something then they should live in a bubble. The entire would should not have to stop because someone has a condition.
People are increasingly that allergic to all sorts of things. Are you saying that if I have some communicable disease that you could die from, you should live in a bubble? Because allergies are just the immune system reacting to a perceived hostile substance.
As you say, the entire world should not have to stop (for anyone) because someone has a condition. Just eliminate the allergen from the environment and carry on.
Now this becomes more complex when, say, you have vegan people sharing space with someone who has "nut and legume allergies" -- these two groups basically can't/won't touch or eat each other's food. Should the vegan have to start eating meat? Should the allergic person go bubble themselves away? Are only non-allergic meat-eating "normal" people allowed freedom of movement?
Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.
I can't be held accountable if Bob steals my lunch, then eats it.
You can in some jurisdictions. Just like you can be sued for negligence if a burglar breaks his ankle falling through your stairs while attempting to break into your house.
I think that the punchline is " if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving."
Merely sending a text message, or making a phone call, or being a talkative passenger, or something, is not a problem. Only doing so with knowledge (how this would be obtained is unclear, and the situation is hypothetical) that the driver will be distracted by your action is seen as problematic.
Driver: LULZ m drvn 2 jps rt nw Friend: LOL u knw jps lft 5 min; txt nw r 2 lte Driver: WTF??? (crash)
Seems to me many texters love to broadcast what they're currently doing, including driving. This would pertain more to younger drivers of course, who are already at higher risk of accident while driving.
I would assume Tesla's API to be better than industry standard before I took George's opinion.
First rule of code security: if you implemented it yourself, it's not secure. Security requires many eyes, as the halting problem has not been solved yet.
You're driving around in a potentially $90k vehicle which contains theft deterrents that pretty much only work when the car is locked and hasn't been started yet. Please tell me you're not daft enough that you fail to see how the information you listed could be put to use in a way that would deprive you of your shiny new toy.
Say I am John Q. Private. Can you give me a scenario where I might care that someone has this information?
A stalker, your spouses lawyer, just to name a couple. It's not a case of 'what can they do', or 'I have nothing to hide', but rather a case of 'it should not be that easy'.
I was thinking something more along the lines of "Hmm... let's see if there are any Teslas in the area right now. Oh, there's one that's parked over in the shopping district! I think I'll go over, open the sun roof and see if there's anything I like inside...."
Even more than you might think... this thing was discovering that people were spending more time indoors immediately after they were told to stay indoors if possible, and around the time people's emergency radios were going off in the middle of the night (sleep disruption).
The one curious bit is the decrease in phone calls and texts -- that indicates some actual positive stress correlation, as I would have expected the opposite to be true as people started coping with the event.
I hadn't heard of Nuance, but OmniPage has been the cream of the OCR crop for over a decade. I thought it was owned by the Omni Group (who bring us OmniGraffle, OmniFocus, OmniPlan and OmniOutliner), but it appears that's not the case. So the issue appears to be that Nuance doesn't market the company well, not that the product itself is unknown.
Wikipedia says
OmniPage is an optical character recognition application available from Nuance Communications.
OmniPage was one of the first OCR programs to run on personal computers.[1] It was developed in the late 1980s and sold by Caere Corporation, a company headed by Robert Noyce. The original developers were Philip Bernzott, John Dilworth, David George, Bryan Higgins, and Jeremy Knight.[2][3][4] Caere was acquired by ScanSoft in 2000.[5] ScanSoft acquired Nuance Communications in 2005, and took over its name.[6]
OmniPage supports more than 120 different languages.[7]
That said, I fail to see how there could be a valid patent dispute... patents still last 20 years, right? 20 years ago was 1993, by which point OmniPage was already a very mature product (they'd been perfecting multilingual OCR on crappy fax-level document scans for 13 years by that point). Any actual novel inventions (software or otherwise) should have already been released to the public. In fact, I believe ABBYY moved from translation services into the OCR realm about the year 2000, when some of the original OCR patents had expired.
ABBYY was founded in 1989 by David Yang[4] and was named BIT Software before 1997. ABBYY Group headquarters are located in Moscow with representative offices in Germany (Munich), the UK (Theale), the USA (Milpitas, CA), Japan (Tokyo), Taiwan (Taipei), Russia (Moscow), Ukraine (Kiev), Canada (Ontario), Australia (Sydney), and Cyprus.[5] In 2007, a branch specializing in publishing dictionaries, reference books, encyclopedias and guide-books, ABBYY Press, was established.[6] ABBYY also owns ABBYY Language Services, a high-tech translation and localization agency.[7]
These guys have been squabbling for the past decade, as each encroaches further onto the other's turf.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, this got me thinking... I can imagine someone doing the 2-sim dance with some custom firmware; after 4:59, the phones automatically establish an alternate connection and drop the previous one, for "uninterrupted" voice communication....
They need to have a family plan where it's limited to 2 minutes for the kids....
hahah *gasp* heh *gasp* *snort*
good one.
You propose saving hundreds of miles of land at a cost of hundreds of billions.
I propose a cheaper alternative, move. Build a big tower inland and move there.
I hear Greenland is finding themselves with an increasing area of land these days. Seems like the obvious place to relocate to; added benefit is that the Danish government actually seems to be promoting both the environment AND technology.
Will the "FreshPaper" cost the same as replacing spoiled produce or less? If not then I only see this being a niche product for those who are already trying to be more environmentally conscious. The only reference to price in the article is the use of the phrase "low-cost", which is ambiguous at best.
Well, if it's reasonable in bulk, I can see this being a significant waste saver -- not at the consumer level, but at the grocery store level. Stores toss HUGE quantities of produce because of spoilage. If they can keep them fresh longer, that means more profit for them, better produce for the consumer, and (hopefully) lower prices.
Refrigeration doesn't do much with produce. Other than keeping it cold.
I usually keep my fruit un-refrigerated. It tastes better and lasts just as long.
Refrigeration provides a controlled clean environment; the temperature doesn't have much to do with it for many foods, but the sealed space keeps out insects etc. and the humidity control is an added bonus.
THIS is something that could be extremely beneficial to most of the world, especially areas near the equator.
What has SEA accomplished? Seriously, other than being annoying douche bags?
Al Qaeda, on the other hand, managed to make America spend more than a trillion dollars and to some extent as a result, sink itself into economic trouble. They've also managed to trick us into ruining our reputations on the world stage, curtail our own freedoms, invite us to spy on ourselves and essentially forego constitutional protections. Plus these protracted conflicts abroad have nearly broken the back of our mighty military.
I'd say terrorist bombings have worked a lot better than hacking the NYT.
Except it wasn't the airplane crashes themselves, but the media's portrayal of them that did that.
As far as the actual impact destroying the WTC had, most of that side of things never even got covered by the media, and most people don't know about it. And most of those things you're discussing were already in the works and just waiting for an "event" to be put into motion. One of the other things in that slate was attacking Iraq -- which the US went and did even though the event didn't really line up well with it.
so would harrassing, terroriznig, fraternizing, and other wise trying to bend media to your will.
1. they are soft targets. They don't cary guns, body armor, ride in armored vehicles, or rarely militarty training, awareness, etc... They would be prone to panic under attack, as well as easy to overpower.
2. Easy to track, friends and family, don't live in worlds of secrecy nor protect their identities. Information you'd need to harass them can be found easily. very visable in public.
3. Often criticial of the government, and concious of not looking like government supporters.
4. Lack of real integrity, they really don't care what they publish so long as no one will question their credibility.
Excellent points.
Exactly!
Seems the NSA decided to double down on the Tor network since the cat is out of the bag. Quite logical that people would flock to it given the circumstances, thinking the NSA can't handle the extra load. The irony here, is that I'm betting the NSA was waiting for this to happen.
Oh! Did they fire 90% of their sysadmins yet?
Remember that not only do they have a large number of exit nodes, they also have carte blanche to capture ALL traffic coming out of them, as they have no foreknowledge of whether or not it came from a US citizen. Tor helps them get around the entire PRISM issue be legitimizing their storage of the data.
I wonder if the same goes for I2P... I haven't heard much about that lately (probably people trying to keep it out of the spotlight).
Unlike the good old days when governments had better technology than everyone else and other governments. It's amazing how a bunch of state sponsored hackers can, to a degree, level the playing field a little more. Now if they could only start hacking targets worth hacking instead of media outlets.
I think what they've discovered is that hacking the media outlets is the most effective way to affect change. Way more effective than terrorist bombings in getting things to actually change, as you're guaranteed to get lots of eyeballs and actually get your message across.
What I'm waiting for is a change in DEPTH of hacking media outlets. If they hack the feeds going to and from the outlets, they control the information/propaganda being fed to the consumers of the information. They can use this to increase coverage of underreported stories, change the slant of the data being consumed, or even block information not beneficial to their cause. Just like world governments already do!
Uh, wasn't OLPC created to serve third-party countries, not first world countries?
Freudian slip?
Anyway, it's still focused on technology-poor countries. What they've found is that they can subsidize the devices going to these countries further by selling the same product marked up into technology-rich countries, now that they've got their production line up to high capacity. Everything that goes into them, and the design of the products, is aimed at tech-pooor country feedback; tech-rich countries just have the option of paying extra for a piece of the action without affecting the actual design decisions (much).
If the only thing you have received as a class action settlement is coupons, you have never been involved in a class action for grown ups.
That said, the payment notion has merit -- the lawyers get a percentage of the payout, not a separate deal. That way, if the payout IS coupons, the lawyers have to fence those coupons -- which provides incentive for not settling on something that costs the defendant pretty much nothing (or at least much less than the face value of the settlement).
The only adult class-action suits I've personally witnessed or been part of have been against government agencies; all the "you may be part of this suit if you used Facebook/had a starbucks coffee/etc." cases seem to me to be money grabs for the lawyers only -- usually there's a limited number of people actually harmed in any way, and no intent to harm on the business side.
It makes me think that the first step should always be to confront the business and tell them to change their practice. If they refuse, THEN go after them with a REAL class action suit. If a company has a history of such cases where they're continually being asked to shape up, and always do, but not until they're asked, this should also be grounds for class action. But the coupon-based suits smack of ambulance chasing. I guess they serve a purpose though -- sort of like dung beetles. Unfortunately that purpose is not just to keep corporations behaving well, it's also th make operating a small or medium business prohibitive in certain markets (due to how much you need to pay lawyers).
People are increasingly that allergic to all sorts of things. Are you saying that if I have some communicable disease that you could die from, you should live in a bubble? Because allergies are just the immune system reacting to a perceived hostile substance.
A better analogy would be a case where everyone but you was a carrier of a disease and you were the only person in the area who could suffer severe adverse affects from it... like if your immune system was destroyed.
You may note that in that case, you would be put in a bubble.
Personally, I consider my analogy closer to the truth -- many people have allergies, even if very few send them into shock from exposure to the allergen.
Indeed -- we aren't discussing woman-made objects here.
In Jefferson's era, men took all the credit and "man-made" certainly had to be the accepted phrase regardless of the gender that made it. In any event, he was a cooperative effort. Furthermore, he believed that we were endowed by a Creator, whose gender was commonly male. So. I think he qualified as "man-made" if you're willing to piss off the politically correct, which I certainly am.
While "man" was definitely the gender-neutral term at the time, I think he would have considered you a heretic to consider him "man-made" -- made in God's image by God, who while he spent time as a man, was God. He'd consider himself created, not man-made, no matter how much a humanist he was.
His body doesn't count as a man-made object, or this wouldn't have broken the record.
Indeed -- we aren't discussing woman-made objects here.
I have been wondering for some time now why peanut allergies are virtually unknown in China and were unknown in The Netherlands until say, 15 years ago. Now, it's every third kid that has a pretty dangerous allergy. And it's not a case of overdiagnosing either.
My hypothesis is that while crop growers are very good at hardening the fruits and vegetables against disease and insects, they forget (or rather: ignore) the fact that the reason fruit and vegetables are resistant is because they are using a frightful array of chemical defenses. And those defenses include proteins, most of them not being analyzed since we're talking "harmless and healthy vegetables". I think that if we'd analyze the chemical defenses in the current crops really carefully, we'd probably discover some nasty surprises.
And I agree that it sounds as if US schools are overreacting horribly. Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.
A common current hypothesis for the increase in peanut allergies (and other immune and auto-immune disorders) in recent decades is the hygiene hypothesis. This kind of makes sense -- as the bacterial exposure level among infants in China (at least) decreases, there's a larger population that can have an improperly regulated immune system.
However, I think your idea plays a part too (and not just with proteins), as I know a number of people who had no allergies who suddenly became reactive to various foods/chemicals later on in life; it almost seems like there are new catalysts entering the products we expose ourselves to that weren't there 20 years ago.
If someone is that allergic to something then they should live in a bubble. The entire would should not have to stop because someone has a condition.
People are increasingly that allergic to all sorts of things. Are you saying that if I have some communicable disease that you could die from, you should live in a bubble? Because allergies are just the immune system reacting to a perceived hostile substance.
As you say, the entire world should not have to stop (for anyone) because someone has a condition. Just eliminate the allergen from the environment and carry on.
Now this becomes more complex when, say, you have vegan people sharing space with someone who has "nut and legume allergies" -- these two groups basically can't/won't touch or eat each other's food. Should the vegan have to start eating meat? Should the allergic person go bubble themselves away? Are only non-allergic meat-eating "normal" people allowed freedom of movement?
I can't be held accountable if Bob steals my lunch, then eats it.
You can in some jurisdictions. Just like you can be sued for negligence if a burglar breaks his ankle falling through your stairs while attempting to break into your house.
I think that the punchline is " if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving."
Merely sending a text message, or making a phone call, or being a talkative passenger, or something, is not a problem. Only doing so with knowledge (how this would be obtained is unclear, and the situation is hypothetical) that the driver will be distracted by your action is seen as problematic.
Driver: LULZ m drvn 2 jps rt nw
Friend: LOL u knw jps lft 5 min; txt nw r 2 lte
Driver: WTF??? (crash)
Seems to me many texters love to broadcast what they're currently doing, including driving. This would pertain more to younger drivers of course, who are already at higher risk of accident while driving.
That joke was like when AT&T was considering using a talking goat as a mascot.... ....baaaaaaaaad
But impossible to pass up when people are passionately discussing trammatical errors regarding cellphones and hangups.
I would assume Tesla's API to be better than industry standard before I took George's opinion.
First rule of code security: if you implemented it yourself, it's not secure. Security requires many eyes, as the halting problem has not been solved yet.
You're driving around in a potentially $90k vehicle which contains theft deterrents that pretty much only work when the car is locked and hasn't been started yet. Please tell me you're not daft enough that you fail to see how the information you listed could be put to use in a way that would deprive you of your shiny new toy.
Note to self: never drive Tesla in Florida.
Say I am John Q. Private. Can you give me a scenario where I might care that someone has this information?
A stalker, your spouses lawyer, just to name a couple.
It's not a case of 'what can they do', or 'I have nothing to hide', but rather a case of 'it should not be that easy'.
I was thinking something more along the lines of "Hmm... let's see if there are any Teslas in the area right now. Oh, there's one that's parked over in the shopping district! I think I'll go over, open the sun roof and see if there's anything I like inside...."
and other obvious news at 11
Even more than you might think... this thing was discovering that people were spending more time indoors immediately after they were told to stay indoors if possible, and around the time people's emergency radios were going off in the middle of the night (sleep disruption).
The one curious bit is the decrease in phone calls and texts -- that indicates some actual positive stress correlation, as I would have expected the opposite to be true as people started coping with the event.
I hadn't heard of Nuance, but OmniPage has been the cream of the OCR crop for over a decade. I thought it was owned by the Omni Group (who bring us OmniGraffle, OmniFocus, OmniPlan and OmniOutliner), but it appears that's not the case. So the issue appears to be that Nuance doesn't market the company well, not that the product itself is unknown.
Wikipedia says
That said, I fail to see how there could be a valid patent dispute... patents still last 20 years, right? 20 years ago was 1993, by which point OmniPage was already a very mature product (they'd been perfecting multilingual OCR on crappy fax-level document scans for 13 years by that point). Any actual novel inventions (software or otherwise) should have already been released to the public. In fact, I believe ABBYY moved from translation services into the OCR realm about the year 2000, when some of the original OCR patents had expired.
These guys have been squabbling for the past decade, as each encroaches further onto the other's turf.
I'll second this.
He seems to be getting better at refraining from posting when it would only hurt his credibility, too.