That's not really the right question to ask if you want to make your point. It's pretty well accepted that the question isn't of how many bad cops are their, but one of how bad is each individual cop, as well as how bad are they on average.
The guys point still stands. I'm not buying the 140 pounds. At 5'6", she would need a lot more mass than I've ever seen her with to be at 140. Combine that with the fact that she was supposed to be punching out a guy that stands 6 feet tall, who isn't a waif himself. The fact is, this whole, lets take little attractive women, and pretend that they are the athletic match of men much larger than them. I have no problem with the premise that Buffy the Vampire slayer can kick ass. The premise of the show is that she has magic powers. BSG on the other hand has never implied that Starbuck is imbued with supernatural strength. They are trying to play it off like she is just tough.
Don't forget that they also tried to pull off an episode where she could beat a professional athlete at his own game. Even if you forget that in virtually every sport, the best women can't compete with the best men, this was an attempt pass off an ameture competing against a professional. The entire character is a crappy attempt at writing.
It's not just social benefits, but the environmental benefits of massive telecommuting would be huge! I telecommute 4 days a week. I can tell you that I drive about 1/4 as much as I used to. That has to be better for the environment. I still think if our (California's) governor wants to hit a home run, he could appeal to individual residents, family groups, environmentalists, AND big business if he would get a tax break for businesses that have over a certain percentage of telecommuters. Family groups would love the extra time that parents get to spend with their kids. Individual residents would spend a smaller part of their day dedicated to work, as they wouldn't be commuting. Environmentalists would love to have the number of miles cars in the state drive cut in half, as well as not needing to expand roads, since having few cars on the road means our current roads would be big enough. And what business doesn't like to have a nice big tax break. This would also lead to expansion of our telecom business, as telecommuters would need, and be willing to pay for better internet access.
The only problems I see are those interests that want us consuming as much fuel as possible. Obviously oil companies wouldn't want a state like California to cut it's fuel consumption in half. That would be a huge revenue hit. The state might also dislike the reduced revenue from fuel taxes as well. I would think that the reduced cost of road infrastructure would off set that though.
I gave up any expectation of BSG being any good when they had Starbuck punch out a guy twice her size to show that she was a 'tough' woman, and they resorted to stealing characters from Voyager.
You said most. That is because it is not everyone. When your talking about that many people, "some" becomes a very vary large number. Besides, I don't think that you will find a global warming skeptic that thinks EVERYONE that promotes the idea of global warming is in on the 'lie'. I think most people would agree that most people who defend the global warming theory, do in fact believe it. The problem is that most people, just like with religion, are getting their information from a comparatively small set of sources that have other agendas.
I would say that hoax might be a poor term for a lie that is intended to consolidate money and power, but it doesn't change the fact that millions of people being involved does not prove something isn't a lie.
Irrelevant to the argument of warming, the use of the 'C' word is disingenuous. We all know that there are plenty of conspiracies, and anyone who doesn't believe conspiracies exist is not very bright. That being said, it becomes an issue of how big a conspiracy can get, and still keep hold. Historically, we have seen plenty of conspiracies that have involved millions of people. Just take religion as a single undeniable example. We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and various other groups. Now, these groups each have millions of followers, yet their statements of 'fact' are mutually exclusive of each other. This requires millions of people to support each other in the furthering of a lie. I am not going to take sides on which one is right, which ones are wrong, or even if they are all wrong, but it is only possible for one to be right.
I can't count the number of times I have heard people use 'An Inconvenient Truth' as a reference for their pro warming arguments. That particular movie is loaded with outright lies and half-truths. Huge numbers of numbers of people believe it though. The biggest problem with the whole global warming debate is that there is so much money to be made, by so many people that it is almost impossible to get the real facts.
A beauty is the line from an 'An Inconvenient Truth' that says "You can reduce your carbon output to 0." Yet, on the other side, we regularly see the crap that the oil industry pulls on us.
It may not be popular to call a racist a racist if they happen to be black, but those two men definitely fit the definition. They have absolutely tried to push an agenda where a person is judged not by the quality of their character, but by the color of their skin. They are quick to accuse people of being racist just for having been born white.
Your comments imply that if more black people commit crimes, white people must be racist. That is absolutely absurd. One could argue that these things could happen because of racism, but that is not what you did. You simply argued that Jackson and Sharpton are not racist by making unfounded racists remarks yourself.
The reptilian Cylon race was from the original (massively better) Battle Star Galactica. More likely, they will take the path that the original did in starting a crappy new series after they find earth. They can have it be about how a group of Galactica children try to integrate into earth society. They can even ditch the cool Cylon costumes by just saying that they made human looking Cylon... Oh wait... They already did that. Well, at least the storyline can't really get much more cheeseball than it is now.
I figured if the patent is on translating IP address to telephone numbers, Vonage just needs to translate IP addresses to account numbers and then translate the account numbers to telephone numbers. Easy!
The work around to the wheel is simple. You just need a shape that has ~100k flat sides. No round services at all, yet it work just as well provided the size isn't too big. If it is, you must implement the technology of using more than 100k sides.
Personally, I could not care less whether the voting happens on paper or a computer. I just want the data to be entered into the machine before I leave, and I want a piece of paper in a box that is both human and machine readable. I then want anyone who wants to audit the election to be able to go to the paper vote's storage location to run the paper through their own machine. Heck, people should be able to sign up to run the human-machine readable paper immediately after the polls close. Then their should be real penalties to the voting machine manufacturers if the numbers don't match what is on the paper.
You seem to understand the issue. I would disagree on it not being a hard science. The problem isn't that there are not correct and incorrect answers. The problem is that the issue has been so politicized and monetized that any real information is buried in a sea of junk.
You certainly can have a healthy diet eating predominantly carbs with no animal fat or animal protein, but that takes WAY more dedication than most people are willing put into it. One of the problems that most people have with high sugar diets is that while fat sates your appetite, sugar generally doesn't. This is why many of the same people that can sit and eat a pound of Oreos without even thinking about it while watching TV, would be hard pressed to sit and eat a pound of marbled ribeye.
The real problem comes in with the fact the governments pushes people to have high sugar diets, and to avoid the lard. Combine this with the fact that sugar stores dramatically better on store shelves than lard, and you have people surrounded by mostly sugar. Since it takes a lot more will power and awareness to eat healthy on a sugar diet than a lard diet, (I'm assuming that both have plenty of fruits and vegetables) most people tend to over eat.
I didn't make a pun. I assumed that your comment was intended to add value to the conversation. Virtually every fad diet, as well as the governments recommendation to eat 80% sugar, all claim to give you the nutrition you need. So, if your not advocating balancing balancing out physical quantities, then the term balanced diet is meaningless. Reread what you responded to. The thread was about determining what the proper amounts ingredients are. It is very rare for a diet peddler to tell someone that they suggest people avoid an necessary element of dietary health.
The government says you should get ~80% of your calories from sugar, very little protein, and for the most part fill the rest of your dietary needs with fruits and vegetables. Atkins says that you should get ~80% of your calories from fat, very little sugar, and for the most part fill the rest of your dietary needs with fruits and vegetables. Both claim that if you do this, "you've balanced all factors appropriately so that you're getting the nutrition you need."
Given how far apart the two recommendations are, the tired old "balanced diet" mantra, must either mean, 'same weight', or you are just telling everyone with mutually exclusive viewpoints that they are both correct. So, either you are wrong, or your reply was meaningless marketing speak and you didn't know it. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.
In theory I would agree with you. The problem is that our society has gotten way out of whack on the sugar side of things. Meeting in the middle only works if both sides are equal distance away from what should be achieved. Really, what does 'balanced' mean anyway. It has become a mantra with no meaning. Are you getting an equal amount of arsenic in your diet as you are sugar? Do you want to? Or less extreme, are you getting as much vitamin D as you are protein? Do you want to? How much sugar is too much? How much fat is too much? Should you really have equal amounts of fat and sugar just because sugar is easier to store on vendors shelves? That is why sugar has been pushed so hard as a healthy diet. Isn't it possible that just a little sugar is enough? Heck, maybe we should even spend less time arguing about whether we should eat more sugar or fat, and take a good long look at how much protein people are getting. I see lots of people getting almost no protein at all. These same people think they are eating healthy because they are avoiding the fat boogyman.
You seem to have become confused about the definition of the word diet. It is probably due to the fact that we are constantly in the crossfire of a propaganda war between junk foodists and the diet peddlers. Saying 'eat less' is a red herring. It is just a way for thin people to feel superior to fat people. At some point, you are starving yourself, and that might not happen before you loose weight. I had an aunt, a very very stupid aunt that ended up in a hospital after she fell for the low calorie fib. She figured out how big of a piece of chocolate cake she could eat and still meet here calorie goal. It really isn't just how much you eat. Until you start getting into extreme amounts of food, what you eat is as important, if not more important.
I have to say, it has seemed very fishy to me for quite a while that as carb intake goes up in America, so does the average weight. The fact that every single person I have ever met that actually did a high fat/low carb diet lost weight, and a lot of it, while 95% of the people that I have met who did the high carb/low fat diets have not, doesn't lend credence to the fat is evil theory either. Then finish it off with the fact that carbohydrates are by definition sugar. I have a real hard time swallowing the idea that a high sugar diet is a good thing. Heck, I have seen those orange gel Brachs candies on the shelf of the grocery store with large text declaring them a 'Great Source of Vitamin C' and 'Low fat'. It has actually gotten to the point that candy is being sold as health food. Bizzaro.
Wouldn't that just give us all super powers? And if so, what are the odds of getting invisibility as opposed to being turned into a giant green monster that likes to smash?
You have made a mistake. The proper term for an evil nasty has been officially changed from 'Communist' to 'Terrorist'. I am really surprised that you missed the memo. Please correct the verbiage in any future correspondence.
Erm... No, your lawyer must tell you the truth to his/her full knowledge no matter what you want to here IF you might be able to prove that they lied to you.
"I have a firm belief that someone who creates something should have some say about how it is distributed and the right, if they so choose, to demand compensation for it's use."
I would like to formally request that you stop breathing the air that I created by planting trees in my yard. If you don't, please immediately begin sending monthly checks for the very reasonable price of $29.99.
Sincerely,
Your Neighbor
My wife filed a sexual harassment complaint. She didn't want to, but was told that the only way that her boss would be told to stop bitching at her for getting pregnant was to file a formal complaint. When she did, they fired her. They even put the reason in writing of "hostile towards company". She was told by the state (CA) that it didn't prove anything, and by two lawyers that while what happened was illegal, it would cost her more to sue than they could get. So, basically, too bad.
If everyone were really rude, it would be way more effective. If I take a job that includes going around town and pissing on people, it would be stupid of me to think they won't get mad. It would be stupid of me to think that they won't take it out on me. Saying, "You shouldn't get mad at me because I'm not the one screwing you, I'm just the person that was hired to protect the guy who is screwing you." doesn't cut it. If the CSR jobs at crappy companies get really bad, they won't be able to keep people, or they will have to pay the ones that stay more money. This will encourage the company to behave more responsibly.
I hate to tell you this, but you can not fire people, even contractors, for just ANY reason. The reason you don't tell them why you are firing them is because there are so many ways to that firing someone is illegal.
Here in the US, it is very common for big businesses to steal in small amounts. When you are talking about millions of customers, and reoccurring small amounts, $5 really starts to add up. Think about how much money McDonalds makes. I don't think they have a single item on their menu that costs more than $5. Maybe some of the meal packages, but no single item. I have caught businesses stealing in small amounts many times. Just a few years ago, I caught PacBell (now SBC) running a scheme where they stole $6.95 from each customer when they disconnected their phone. They would send out a 'Final Bill' for $6.95 to every customer when they would cancel their phone service. They would claim that the bill was from their long distance carrier for for their final month. Well, I knew for a fact that I had not made any long distance calls for over a month because six weeks prior to the date they claimed they were billing for, the phone company had disconnected my phone line from the junction box located across the street, as well as the date being after I had canceled with the local phone company. Given that it was physically impossible for me to have made any long distance calls, I called the long distance carrier directly. They told me they did not show me as owning anything, and they had no idea why PacBell would be trying to charge me. After this, I started to ask around, and found that most people I knew who had disconnected their phone, did also get this mysterious charge, but just assumed that it was legit. Now, you might think that it isn't worth bothering to steal $6.95 from some guy, but when you figure the hundreds of thousands of disconnects they get a year, and that this kind of scam might happen in other less obvious ways, it starts to make more sense.
Slashdot Mirror
"How many bad cops are there, really?"
That's not really the right question to ask if you want to make your point. It's pretty well accepted that the question isn't of how many bad cops are their, but one of how bad is each individual cop, as well as how bad are they on average.
The guys point still stands. I'm not buying the 140 pounds. At 5'6", she would need a lot more mass than I've ever seen her with to be at 140. Combine that with the fact that she was supposed to be punching out a guy that stands 6 feet tall, who isn't a waif himself. The fact is, this whole, lets take little attractive women, and pretend that they are the athletic match of men much larger than them. I have no problem with the premise that Buffy the Vampire slayer can kick ass. The premise of the show is that she has magic powers. BSG on the other hand has never implied that Starbuck is imbued with supernatural strength. They are trying to play it off like she is just tough.
Don't forget that they also tried to pull off an episode where she could beat a professional athlete at his own game. Even if you forget that in virtually every sport, the best women can't compete with the best men, this was an attempt pass off an ameture competing against a professional. The entire character is a crappy attempt at writing.
It's not just social benefits, but the environmental benefits of massive telecommuting would be huge! I telecommute 4 days a week. I can tell you that I drive about 1/4 as much as I used to. That has to be better for the environment. I still think if our (California's) governor wants to hit a home run, he could appeal to individual residents, family groups, environmentalists, AND big business if he would get a tax break for businesses that have over a certain percentage of telecommuters. Family groups would love the extra time that parents get to spend with their kids. Individual residents would spend a smaller part of their day dedicated to work, as they wouldn't be commuting. Environmentalists would love to have the number of miles cars in the state drive cut in half, as well as not needing to expand roads, since having few cars on the road means our current roads would be big enough. And what business doesn't like to have a nice big tax break. This would also lead to expansion of our telecom business, as telecommuters would need, and be willing to pay for better internet access.
The only problems I see are those interests that want us consuming as much fuel as possible. Obviously oil companies wouldn't want a state like California to cut it's fuel consumption in half. That would be a huge revenue hit. The state might also dislike the reduced revenue from fuel taxes as well. I would think that the reduced cost of road infrastructure would off set that though.
I gave up any expectation of BSG being any good when they had Starbuck punch out a guy twice her size to show that she was a 'tough' woman, and they resorted to stealing characters from Voyager.
You said most. That is because it is not everyone. When your talking about that many people, "some" becomes a very vary large number. Besides, I don't think that you will find a global warming skeptic that thinks EVERYONE that promotes the idea of global warming is in on the 'lie'. I think most people would agree that most people who defend the global warming theory, do in fact believe it. The problem is that most people, just like with religion, are getting their information from a comparatively small set of sources that have other agendas.
I would say that hoax might be a poor term for a lie that is intended to consolidate money and power, but it doesn't change the fact that millions of people being involved does not prove something isn't a lie.
Irrelevant to the argument of warming, the use of the 'C' word is disingenuous. We all know that there are plenty of conspiracies, and anyone who doesn't believe conspiracies exist is not very bright. That being said, it becomes an issue of how big a conspiracy can get, and still keep hold. Historically, we have seen plenty of conspiracies that have involved millions of people. Just take religion as a single undeniable example. We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and various other groups. Now, these groups each have millions of followers, yet their statements of 'fact' are mutually exclusive of each other. This requires millions of people to support each other in the furthering of a lie. I am not going to take sides on which one is right, which ones are wrong, or even if they are all wrong, but it is only possible for one to be right.
I can't count the number of times I have heard people use 'An Inconvenient Truth' as a reference for their pro warming arguments. That particular movie is loaded with outright lies and half-truths. Huge numbers of numbers of people believe it though. The biggest problem with the whole global warming debate is that there is so much money to be made, by so many people that it is almost impossible to get the real facts.
A beauty is the line from an 'An Inconvenient Truth' that says "You can reduce your carbon output to 0." Yet, on the other side, we regularly see the crap that the oil industry pulls on us.
It may not be popular to call a racist a racist if they happen to be black, but those two men definitely fit the definition. They have absolutely tried to push an agenda where a person is judged not by the quality of their character, but by the color of their skin. They are quick to accuse people of being racist just for having been born white.
Your comments imply that if more black people commit crimes, white people must be racist. That is absolutely absurd. One could argue that these things could happen because of racism, but that is not what you did. You simply argued that Jackson and Sharpton are not racist by making unfounded racists remarks yourself.
The reptilian Cylon race was from the original (massively better) Battle Star Galactica. More likely, they will take the path that the original did in starting a crappy new series after they find earth. They can have it be about how a group of Galactica children try to integrate into earth society. They can even ditch the cool Cylon costumes by just saying that they made human looking Cylon... Oh wait... They already did that. Well, at least the storyline can't really get much more cheeseball than it is now.
If the existence of MySpace is causing your corporate networks to become unproductive, you have a lot bigger problems, and none of them are MySpace.
I figured if the patent is on translating IP address to telephone numbers, Vonage just needs to translate IP addresses to account numbers and then translate the account numbers to telephone numbers. Easy!
The work around to the wheel is simple. You just need a shape that has ~100k flat sides. No round services at all, yet it work just as well provided the size isn't too big. If it is, you must implement the technology of using more than 100k sides.
Personally, I could not care less whether the voting happens on paper or a computer. I just want the data to be entered into the machine before I leave, and I want a piece of paper in a box that is both human and machine readable. I then want anyone who wants to audit the election to be able to go to the paper vote's storage location to run the paper through their own machine. Heck, people should be able to sign up to run the human-machine readable paper immediately after the polls close. Then their should be real penalties to the voting machine manufacturers if the numbers don't match what is on the paper.
You seem to understand the issue. I would disagree on it not being a hard science. The problem isn't that there are not correct and incorrect answers. The problem is that the issue has been so politicized and monetized that any real information is buried in a sea of junk.
You certainly can have a healthy diet eating predominantly carbs with no animal fat or animal protein, but that takes WAY more dedication than most people are willing put into it. One of the problems that most people have with high sugar diets is that while fat sates your appetite, sugar generally doesn't. This is why many of the same people that can sit and eat a pound of Oreos without even thinking about it while watching TV, would be hard pressed to sit and eat a pound of marbled ribeye.
The real problem comes in with the fact the governments pushes people to have high sugar diets, and to avoid the lard. Combine this with the fact that sugar stores dramatically better on store shelves than lard, and you have people surrounded by mostly sugar. Since it takes a lot more will power and awareness to eat healthy on a sugar diet than a lard diet, (I'm assuming that both have plenty of fruits and vegetables) most people tend to over eat.
I didn't make a pun. I assumed that your comment was intended to add value to the conversation. Virtually every fad diet, as well as the governments recommendation to eat 80% sugar, all claim to give you the nutrition you need. So, if your not advocating balancing balancing out physical quantities, then the term balanced diet is meaningless. Reread what you responded to. The thread was about determining what the proper amounts ingredients are. It is very rare for a diet peddler to tell someone that they suggest people avoid an necessary element of dietary health.
The government says you should get ~80% of your calories from sugar, very little protein, and for the most part fill the rest of your dietary needs with fruits and vegetables. Atkins says that you should get ~80% of your calories from fat, very little sugar, and for the most part fill the rest of your dietary needs with fruits and vegetables. Both claim that if you do this, "you've balanced all factors appropriately so that you're getting the nutrition you need."
Given how far apart the two recommendations are, the tired old "balanced diet" mantra, must either mean, 'same weight', or you are just telling everyone with mutually exclusive viewpoints that they are both correct. So, either you are wrong, or your reply was meaningless marketing speak and you didn't know it. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.
In theory I would agree with you. The problem is that our society has gotten way out of whack on the sugar side of things. Meeting in the middle only works if both sides are equal distance away from what should be achieved. Really, what does 'balanced' mean anyway. It has become a mantra with no meaning. Are you getting an equal amount of arsenic in your diet as you are sugar? Do you want to? Or less extreme, are you getting as much vitamin D as you are protein? Do you want to? How much sugar is too much? How much fat is too much? Should you really have equal amounts of fat and sugar just because sugar is easier to store on vendors shelves? That is why sugar has been pushed so hard as a healthy diet. Isn't it possible that just a little sugar is enough? Heck, maybe we should even spend less time arguing about whether we should eat more sugar or fat, and take a good long look at how much protein people are getting. I see lots of people getting almost no protein at all. These same people think they are eating healthy because they are avoiding the fat boogyman.
You seem to have become confused about the definition of the word diet. It is probably due to the fact that we are constantly in the crossfire of a propaganda war between junk foodists and the diet peddlers. Saying 'eat less' is a red herring. It is just a way for thin people to feel superior to fat people. At some point, you are starving yourself, and that might not happen before you loose weight. I had an aunt, a very very stupid aunt that ended up in a hospital after she fell for the low calorie fib. She figured out how big of a piece of chocolate cake she could eat and still meet here calorie goal. It really isn't just how much you eat. Until you start getting into extreme amounts of food, what you eat is as important, if not more important.
I have to say, it has seemed very fishy to me for quite a while that as carb intake goes up in America, so does the average weight. The fact that every single person I have ever met that actually did a high fat/low carb diet lost weight, and a lot of it, while 95% of the people that I have met who did the high carb/low fat diets have not, doesn't lend credence to the fat is evil theory either. Then finish it off with the fact that carbohydrates are by definition sugar. I have a real hard time swallowing the idea that a high sugar diet is a good thing. Heck, I have seen those orange gel Brachs candies on the shelf of the grocery store with large text declaring them a 'Great Source of Vitamin C' and 'Low fat'. It has actually gotten to the point that candy is being sold as health food. Bizzaro.
Wouldn't that just give us all super powers? And if so, what are the odds of getting invisibility as opposed to being turned into a giant green monster that likes to smash?
You have made a mistake. The proper term for an evil nasty has been officially changed from 'Communist' to 'Terrorist'. I am really surprised that you missed the memo. Please correct the verbiage in any future correspondence.
Erm... No, your lawyer must tell you the truth to his/her full knowledge no matter what you want to here IF you might be able to prove that they lied to you.
"I have a firm belief that someone who creates something should have some say about how it is distributed and the right, if they so choose, to demand compensation for it's use."
I would like to formally request that you stop breathing the air that I created by planting trees in my yard. If you don't, please immediately begin sending monthly checks for the very reasonable price of $29.99. Sincerely, Your Neighbor
My wife filed a sexual harassment complaint. She didn't want to, but was told that the only way that her boss would be told to stop bitching at her for getting pregnant was to file a formal complaint. When she did, they fired her. They even put the reason in writing of "hostile towards company". She was told by the state (CA) that it didn't prove anything, and by two lawyers that while what happened was illegal, it would cost her more to sue than they could get. So, basically, too bad.
If everyone were really rude, it would be way more effective. If I take a job that includes going around town and pissing on people, it would be stupid of me to think they won't get mad. It would be stupid of me to think that they won't take it out on me. Saying, "You shouldn't get mad at me because I'm not the one screwing you, I'm just the person that was hired to protect the guy who is screwing you." doesn't cut it. If the CSR jobs at crappy companies get really bad, they won't be able to keep people, or they will have to pay the ones that stay more money. This will encourage the company to behave more responsibly.
I hate to tell you this, but you can not fire people, even contractors, for just ANY reason. The reason you don't tell them why you are firing them is because there are so many ways to that firing someone is illegal.
Here in the US, it is very common for big businesses to steal in small amounts. When you are talking about millions of customers, and reoccurring small amounts, $5 really starts to add up. Think about how much money McDonalds makes. I don't think they have a single item on their menu that costs more than $5. Maybe some of the meal packages, but no single item. I have caught businesses stealing in small amounts many times. Just a few years ago, I caught PacBell (now SBC) running a scheme where they stole $6.95 from each customer when they disconnected their phone. They would send out a 'Final Bill' for $6.95 to every customer when they would cancel their phone service. They would claim that the bill was from their long distance carrier for for their final month. Well, I knew for a fact that I had not made any long distance calls for over a month because six weeks prior to the date they claimed they were billing for, the phone company had disconnected my phone line from the junction box located across the street, as well as the date being after I had canceled with the local phone company. Given that it was physically impossible for me to have made any long distance calls, I called the long distance carrier directly. They told me they did not show me as owning anything, and they had no idea why PacBell would be trying to charge me. After this, I started to ask around, and found that most people I knew who had disconnected their phone, did also get this mysterious charge, but just assumed that it was legit. Now, you might think that it isn't worth bothering to steal $6.95 from some guy, but when you figure the hundreds of thousands of disconnects they get a year, and that this kind of scam might happen in other less obvious ways, it starts to make more sense.