Freedom from choice is not it. Freedom from choice is slavery, which is in the end what the bulk of the Religious Right are actually working towards.
Oddly enough, one of their main groups of opponents is also working towards slavery, the same process of slavery, just a different brand.
I cite Kentucky schools as an example: one survey (actually performed by atheists, who are different to Microsoft in that they are sometimes actually able to (knowingly) publish adverse results!) discovered that 80% of Kentucky citizens believe that both systems should be taught, and even 45% of Kentucky State school teachers. Whether one side of the argument or the other is the more correct is not the important point in this issue, but the fact that freedom of choice in a public institution is being restricted on religious grounds and against the collective will of the people concerned!
While the offended Kentucky parents are genrally quite able to (and should) home educate their children (and so should the atheists; their children will be much better off even if Hellmouth weren't a factor), this is still not the point. Censorship is being practiced on religious grounds, and there's not even a social factor like "common decency" as a mitigating factor.
On a different topic (Mr Bioethics), there is now a movement pushing for "post-natal abortion" up to six months after birth on the very same grounds. That's murder, pure and simple, simply because the child's parents don't feel up to caring for them.
But is it any different to what we have now? Consider that babies up to 22 weeks premature (less than halfway) have survived to become normal people, and that babies will struggle against forcible detachment just 8 weeks after conception (ie 32 weeks before birth). They aren't just some kind of funny internal wart before they're born, they're people and already we murder then foe the sake of convenience. It kind of logical, in a sick way, that we should go right on murdering them after they're born.
Aren't you lucky? You weren't murdered for your Mum's convenience.
Quake? Who needs Quake? Mandrake 6.1 came with xkobe, a neat little space shoot-em-up lacking only a double-size mode (a la X11amp) or an extended gameboard (you'd need a faint rectangle to show the fortress's range of sight). Even ten-thumbs me is up to Level 19 and a score of 10,000. (-:
Parsec should be a nice addition to my desktop, when it arrives.
Mammoths have been dead for so long that "genetic damage" doesn't begin to describe what their DNA has suffered.
So runs conventional wisdom.
In reality, even "dead for 70 million years" T. Rex somehow managed to have whole blood cells survive to our time. Methinks it resembles a weasel - but stinks of fish. In particular, "dead for 70 million years" Coelecanth, which you can buy in Indonesian fish markets today.
Curious, I did a Google search on "polystrate" as one unsolved problem for evolution. The explanations that I saw (e.g. from talkorigins) were either that they weren't trees (after laughing for a bit, I wondered how they dealt with, e.g. polystrate spiral shells), or that the fossil replaced a tree (which doesn't actually help the argument, if you think about it), or that the tree was transported there (and they quote from last-century geologists on the topic, because all recent geological investigation of polystrate trees and fossil forests have just made the case worse for evolution).
I summarise:
Real polystrate tree fossils (that cross many rock strata) exist
Even the fossils that are replacements of actual trees (double fossils if you like) don't help evolution since the tree has to have been buried before the first replacement anyway
Invoking fossil forests makes the case worse, since they are invariably transported
Even trees labelled "not transported", apparently ad hoc, have matching ring patterns in different layers, implying that they grew together contemporaneously and were subsequently layered
The few references to Mount Saint Helens make the case still worse by exposing even worse problems for evolution (e.g. 8m/26ft of sedimentary rock laid down in minutes and eroded into a grand-canyon lookalike in hours) while not actually reducing the polystrate tree difficulty at all
Yet a theory which relies on evidence like this must be taught in most schools? Hmmm.
I have to conclude that the Ig Nobel Prize judges either didn't think, or indulged in polystrate thinking to avoid the reality.
Full-out performance may be Larry's wet dream, but in terms of price/performance, which more managers care about, unfortunately Micrsoft NT platforms rule the roost.
Do they? How difficult is it to beat zero dollars per transaction?
While NT doesn't have the remote access features or stability of its unix brethren, it has a huge price advantage.
But what use is cheap if it doesn't actually work? Can you picture the nice car salesman saying, with straight face, "Yes, this new NT model really does only cost $5000 new... but... the doors and seatbelts might fall off sometimes...?"
High-margin unix vendors need to get a reality check on pricing otherwise linux, NT, or both, are going to wipe them out.
Agree... sort of. They can keep their high margins and their business, as long as their products work and keep on working, day and night, practically forever. NT is not really a threat in this arena and may never be (consider the large number of sizeable sites that jumped on the NT bandwagon and have now jumped back off again - to Solaris, HP-UX or similar - in at least one case in Oz, to OS/2).
Where NT has a hope is in a small to medium business setting which keeps good backups and can afford to lose a day or two's data if the SQL server bluescreens and trashes a database every year or so. However, as a poster on another forum pointed out, Solaris is working from the top down, Linux and FreeBSD from the bottom up, and sooner or later they're going to meet in the middle...
On a laptop, use Microsoft MSDE (Microsoft Data Engine). I think this is a nearly full-featured SQL Server 7.0 engine without the scalability.
Is it, now? Which bits of scalability did they remove? Record locking? Multiple simultaneous queries? The SQL part? (-:
Customers will upgrade to full SQL Server once their application demands it.
Oh, you mean with the second user? (-:
Both PostGreSQL and MySQL have run well for me on an IBM Thinkpad 600E laptop, in 64M, with Netscape Communicator and a flock of TCL/Tk apps (will MSDE do that in 64M in realtime with Explorer and a flock of TCL/Tk apps running?) with the scalability, although I think neither of them are any closer than MS-SQL to a viable TPC-D result (or _any_ TPC-D result, short-cuts and all).
Both of the above also run well under these conditions on my 64M K6-II-300 machine at home, with StarOffice running. Add MS-Office to the above mix, and let's see how well MSDE does...
It's a refreshing turnabout to see Microsoft getting mindcrafted.
I wonder if the terabyte in question was served entirely out of RAM, through 4x100MB NICs and in pieces smaller than 4KB? (-:
BTW, crack.linuxppc.org is still up, and so is linuxppc.antionline.com "may he live forever", but I notice that IIS has gronked again at www.windows2000test.com - lies, damn lies, and benchmarks.
I think the deafening silence from the MS PR behemoth says it all... still, if I were Oracle, I'd be putting out weekly headlines like "Million Dollars Still Safe" and "Nobody (Especially Microsoft) Claims Free Million Dollars"... strange that they aren't. Perhaps MySQL got it? (-:
I've seen this happen a lot as reporters come under pressure from thier editors to get something that none of the other papers have. In this instance rumour and conjecture equates fact and gets published, which is then referred to by other articles and so on.
Too true, but the real problem is that nobody, least of all the reporters on the spot, wanted to face the reality - every one of them was looking for a nice, simple (and preferably sensational) excuse for these people's actions.
What nobody wants to face is the faint echoes of frustration and hatred in themselves as they consider what really happened and why.
There are also a lot of disturbing implications in this and similar behaviour that significant parts of society like schools are dysfunctional. They are. Go visit the School Is Dead, Learn In Freedom website, for one example among many. Point by point, school is the single most difficult and debilitating way to learn things. Schools as a genre need not to be improved, but removed. They don't work. But few journos are brave enough to point this out with any firmness.
Never would they create robots (whetever made by iron and silicon or carbon) to give them freedom. This makes it a sin.
Only if you're a Roaming Cattletick. Personally, I'm all in favour of independent robots. You could expect them to respond rationally (unless they were M$-based), and so deny the evolution theory.
I think the religious right will deny this forever.
Deny what? The guy plans to recycled used bits of life. He hasn't actually done it yet. Read this and weep.
Would that animal have the right to be free, as humas has?
Humans aren't. Nor would "the religious right" in general want them to be so. They would prefer that the animal (and us) were required to accept a parody of freedom, and "disruptors" like us would be forced to convert or euthanased. As one of Singapore's leading policemen said, they can think and believe what they like, as long as it's correct. Instant Dark Ages. Rerun the Reign of Terror (or would atheists rather forget that little episode?). St Bartholomew's Day, Take II.
And speaking of euthanasia, have you noticed that Humanists are now campaigning for "post-birth abortion?" Between that and euthanasia, the gap is closing. It won't be long before you are on a death-list somewhere, whoever you are.
All of this from a debate about artifical bacteria. My, aren't consequences interesting things?
some experimenters demonstrated the ability to create the basic amino acids (the building blocks of protiens) can be made in lab conditions that simulated the Earth millions/billions of years ago
Bollocks. Millions/billions of years ago, they didn't have closed retorts with carefully controlled arcs, and didn't deliberately filter out (rescue) the molecules that they didn't know that they were looking for.
Oh, and there is no evidence that Earth ever had a reducing atmosphere, beyond "but it must have because we are here." Circular Reasoning: see entry Circular Reasoning.
A major premise of evolution is that it is not directed, something that Dr Hawkings seems to overlook constantly.
Have you ever wondered why it's okay for Mars to have universal floods (yet there is negligible water there) but not Earth (3/4 buried in the stuff)? Or why it's okay for the surface of Venus to be completely renewed, but Earth's must have been laid down gradually (and never mind the massive rock-layer inversions hundreds of km across with negligible interface disruption)?
These have been the traditional remedies of the Catholic Church (if you don't believe me, go and visit Jesuit HQ, and admire the set-piece sculpture proudly displayed in the foyer, of Jerome and Huss being murdered).
As for what God chooses to do about it, well, freedom of choice seems to be a big issue: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Quite a few times throughout history, mankind would have it no other way. All one can do in the end is stand back and flinch as the inevitable happens.
Note that the bloke hasn't actually made a working bacterium yet, he just trying to. Not only that, he's using second-hand parts instead of newies.
1. What reducing atmosphere? There would be evidence in the rocks, and there ain't.
2. A volcano spuits out, among other things, lots of CO2 and CO. Given the scarcity of carbon in the universe, where did this all come from? And where does it all go? Are you trying to tell us that all of the oxygen remained bound, all of the time?
3. Even given an entire universe made out of amino acids you still won't get a protein in any reasonable time, so if life were a prerequisite for oxygen, where did all this O2 come from?
4. Finally, even presuming a reducing atmosphere, how do you select for desirable compounds as the experimenters did, and how do you keep them from disintegrating, as they are wont to do in minutes?
Given that the generally accepted term for "impossible" is odds of 1E50 against, and that the odds against one small protein forming by accident are phenomenal, forming hundreds or thousands of them by design should at least be interesting.
Finding somewhere to clamp the jumper leads on will be even more interesting. (-:
Yes, but... what if your servers fall over all the time, and you need to have a service available at a specific name for 24x7... like http://www.windows2000test.com/, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk...
Also, since when have M$ and "unwise" been distinct concepts? (-:
Dunno about WP but I've never crashed AS
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 1
I had a box running AfterStep nonstop for over 6 months on kernel, umm, 2.0.36 I think. Then I replaced the box. KDE on 2.2.9 seems to be doing fine too.
I suspect WP would die somewhat more often than that.
I KNOW that M$ Word would never survive a week, probably not a day, maybe not an hour.
Your precious FAQ is full of the same demonstrably wrong assumptions as most of the argument herein.
If somebody dies for something, it doesn't prove that thing to be true. Same goes for feeling smug about something. Neither heroism nor agreement are a substitute for real thought and presonal accountability.
That's something that Rome is working very hard for, and Jesuit-educated Bill Clinton is helping them out lots. If you really want the Dark Ages back, you can do one of two things:
1. Make laws against religion.
...or...
2. Make laws to aid religion.
Laws forcing the unproven theory of evolution to be taught in public schools fall into class 1.
Laws forcing the possibly unprovable theory of special creation by divine fiat to be taught in public schools fall into category 2.
What Kansas has done is the right thing, but probably for the wrong reasons. It will be sad if they desert category 1 only to rush over into category 2.
But history, which we stubbornly refuse to learn from, says that they will try.
Darwin said nothing new, his contribution was to write books about that which had often been said before by others. He did, however, point out several serious flaws in the arguments for evolution, practically none of which have been satisfactorily answered. Not a safe form of idolatry.
The kind of prejudice that abounded in the Dark Ages and got the world declared flat by those in power is exactly the same manner of prejudice that you yourself show in your post.
You are exemplifying the Dark Ages - and fulfilling prophecy: you have been foretold. Thousands of years ago, no crystal ball involved, you were foretold. You are one drop in a rainstorm that will flood the world. Think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
And boy, that is unsubtle! Just plain stupidity, or do they really honestly think that they'll get away with it?
Freedom from choice is not it. Freedom from choice is slavery, which is in the end what the bulk of the Religious Right are actually working towards.
Oddly enough, one of their main groups of opponents is also working towards slavery, the same process of slavery, just a different brand.
I cite Kentucky schools as an example: one survey (actually performed by atheists, who are different to Microsoft in that they are sometimes actually able to (knowingly) publish adverse results!) discovered that 80% of Kentucky citizens believe that both systems should be taught, and even 45% of Kentucky State school teachers. Whether one side of the argument or the other is the more correct is not the important point in this issue, but the fact that freedom of choice in a public institution is being restricted on religious grounds and against the collective will of the people concerned!
While the offended Kentucky parents are genrally quite able to (and should) home educate their children (and so should the atheists; their children will be much better off even if Hellmouth weren't a factor), this is still not the point. Censorship is being practiced on religious grounds, and there's not even a social factor like "common decency" as a mitigating factor.
On a different topic (Mr Bioethics), there is now a movement pushing for "post-natal abortion" up to six months after birth on the very same grounds. That's murder, pure and simple, simply because the child's parents don't feel up to caring for them.
But is it any different to what we have now? Consider that babies up to 22 weeks premature (less than halfway) have survived to become normal people, and that babies will struggle against forcible detachment just 8 weeks after conception (ie 32 weeks before birth). They aren't just some kind of funny internal wart before they're born, they're people and already we murder then foe the sake of convenience. It kind of logical, in a sick way, that we should go right on murdering them after they're born.
Aren't you lucky? You weren't murdered for your Mum's convenience.
Parsec should be a nice addition to my desktop, when it arrives.
http://www.bitboys.fi/ 2000x1600x200FPS with all options on in Quake3. Due February, eatcha heart out! (-:
Mammoths have been dead for so long that "genetic damage" doesn't begin to describe what their DNA has suffered.
So runs conventional wisdom.
In reality, even "dead for 70 million years" T. Rex somehow managed to have whole blood cells survive to our time. Methinks it resembles a weasel - but stinks of fish. In particular, "dead for 70 million years" Coelecanth, which you can buy in Indonesian fish markets today.
I summarise:
- Real polystrate tree fossils (that cross many rock strata) exist
- Even the fossils that are replacements of actual trees (double fossils if you like) don't help evolution since the tree has to have been buried before the first replacement anyway
- Invoking fossil forests makes the case worse, since they are invariably transported
- Even trees labelled "not transported", apparently ad hoc, have matching ring patterns in different layers, implying that they grew together contemporaneously and were subsequently layered
- The few references to Mount Saint Helens make the case still worse by exposing even worse problems for evolution (e.g. 8m/26ft of sedimentary rock laid down in minutes and eroded into a grand-canyon lookalike in hours) while not actually reducing the polystrate tree difficulty at all
Yet a theory which relies on evidence like this must be taught in most schools? Hmmm.I have to conclude that the Ig Nobel Prize judges either didn't think, or indulged in polystrate thinking to avoid the reality.
Hmm. That's two so far. I also know of one sysadmin in Singapore who has run NT+IIS and got similar results. Again, *nothing* extraneous installed.
OTOH, almost every other NT server that I've had contact with needs weekly reboots, and sometimes crashes anyway. I stand by the statements above.
But yes, MS can buy good products from time to time. FoxPro was one such, lest we forget.
Full-out performance may be Larry's wet dream, but in terms of price/performance, which more managers care about, unfortunately Micrsoft NT platforms rule the roost.
Do they? How difficult is it to beat zero dollars per transaction?
While NT doesn't have the remote access features or stability of its unix brethren, it has a huge price advantage.
But what use is cheap if it doesn't actually work? Can you picture the nice car salesman saying, with straight face, "Yes, this new NT model really does only cost $5000 new... but... the doors and seatbelts might fall off sometimes...?"
High-margin unix vendors need to get a reality check on pricing otherwise linux, NT, or both, are going to wipe them out.
Agree... sort of. They can keep their high margins and their business, as long as their products work and keep on working, day and night, practically forever. NT is not really a threat in this arena and may never be (consider the large number of sizeable sites that jumped on the NT bandwagon and have now jumped back off again - to Solaris, HP-UX or similar - in at least one case in Oz, to OS/2).
Where NT has a hope is in a small to medium business setting which keeps good backups and can afford to lose a day or two's data if the SQL server bluescreens and trashes a database every year or so. However, as a poster on another forum pointed out, Solaris is working from the top down, Linux and FreeBSD from the bottom up, and sooner or later they're going to meet in the middle...
Cackle, cackle... and MS used _several_machines_ (and, knowing them, other tomfoolery) to not exceed 10%... (-:
On a laptop, use Microsoft MSDE (Microsoft Data Engine). I think this is a nearly full-featured SQL Server 7.0 engine without the scalability.
Is it, now? Which bits of scalability did they remove? Record locking? Multiple simultaneous queries? The SQL part? (-:
Customers will upgrade to full SQL Server once their application demands it.
Oh, you mean with the second user? (-:
Both PostGreSQL and MySQL have run well for me on an IBM Thinkpad 600E laptop, in 64M, with Netscape Communicator and a flock of TCL/Tk apps (will MSDE do that in 64M in realtime with Explorer and a flock of TCL/Tk apps running?) with the scalability, although I think neither of them are any closer than MS-SQL to a viable TPC-D result (or _any_ TPC-D result, short-cuts and all).
Both of the above also run well under these conditions on my 64M K6-II-300 machine at home, with StarOffice running. Add MS-Office to the above mix, and let's see how well MSDE does...
It's a refreshing turnabout to see Microsoft getting mindcrafted.
I wonder if the terabyte in question was served entirely out of RAM, through 4x100MB NICs and in pieces smaller than 4KB? (-:
BTW, crack.linuxppc.org is still up, and so is linuxppc.antionline.com "may he live forever", but I notice that IIS has gronked again at www.windows2000test.com - lies, damn lies, and benchmarks.
I think the deafening silence from the MS PR behemoth says it all... still, if I were Oracle, I'd be putting out weekly headlines like "Million Dollars Still Safe" and "Nobody (Especially Microsoft) Claims Free Million Dollars"... strange that they aren't. Perhaps MySQL got it? (-:
"Our aspirations are not unique in this area," Microsoft Vice President Brad Chase said Oh, did he now? (-: Who's chasing tail lights now, Billy boy?
I've seen this happen a lot as reporters come under pressure from thier editors to get something that none of the other papers have. In this instance rumour and conjecture equates fact and gets published, which is then referred to by other articles and so on.
Too true, but the real problem is that nobody, least of all the reporters on the spot, wanted to face the reality - every one of them was looking for a nice, simple (and preferably sensational) excuse for these people's actions.
What nobody wants to face is the faint echoes of frustration and hatred in themselves as they consider what really happened and why.
There are also a lot of disturbing implications in this and similar behaviour that significant parts of society like schools are dysfunctional. They are. Go visit the School Is Dead, Learn In Freedom website, for one example among many. Point by point, school is the single most difficult and debilitating way to learn things. Schools as a genre need not to be improved, but removed. They don't work. But few journos are brave enough to point this out with any firmness.
Never would they create robots (whetever made by iron and silicon or carbon) to give them freedom. This makes it a sin.
Only if you're a Roaming Cattletick. Personally, I'm all in favour of independent robots. You could expect them to respond rationally (unless they were M$-based), and so deny the evolution theory.
I think the religious right will deny this forever.
Deny what? The guy plans to recycled used bits of life. He hasn't actually done it yet. Read this and weep.
Would that animal have the right to be free, as humas has?
Humans aren't. Nor would "the religious right" in general want them to be so. They would prefer that the animal (and us) were required to accept a parody of freedom, and "disruptors" like us would be forced to convert or euthanased. As one of Singapore's leading policemen said, they can think and believe what they like, as long as it's correct. Instant Dark Ages. Rerun the Reign of Terror (or would atheists rather forget that little episode?). St Bartholomew's Day, Take II.
And speaking of euthanasia, have you noticed that Humanists are now campaigning for "post-birth abortion?" Between that and euthanasia, the gap is closing. It won't be long before you are on a death-list somewhere, whoever you are.
All of this from a debate about artifical bacteria. My, aren't consequences interesting things?
some experimenters demonstrated the ability to create the basic amino acids (the building blocks of protiens) can be made in lab conditions that simulated the Earth millions/billions of years ago
Bollocks. Millions/billions of years ago, they didn't have closed retorts with carefully controlled arcs, and didn't deliberately filter out (rescue) the molecules that they didn't know that they were looking for.
Oh, and there is no evidence that Earth ever had a reducing atmosphere, beyond "but it must have because we are here." Circular Reasoning: see entry Circular Reasoning.
A major premise of evolution is that it is not directed, something that Dr Hawkings seems to overlook constantly.
Have you ever wondered why it's okay for Mars to have universal floods (yet there is negligible water there) but not Earth (3/4 buried in the stuff)? Or why it's okay for the surface of Venus to be completely renewed, but Earth's must have been laid down gradually (and never mind the massive rock-layer inversions hundreds of km across with negligible interface disruption)?
These have been the traditional remedies of the Catholic Church (if you don't believe me, go and visit Jesuit HQ, and admire the set-piece sculpture proudly displayed in the foyer, of Jerome and Huss being murdered).
As for what God chooses to do about it, well, freedom of choice seems to be a big issue: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Quite a few times throughout history, mankind would have it no other way. All one can do in the end is stand back and flinch as the inevitable happens.
Note that the bloke hasn't actually made a working bacterium yet, he just trying to. Not only that, he's using second-hand parts instead of newies.
1. What reducing atmosphere? There would be evidence in the rocks, and there ain't.
2. A volcano spuits out, among other things, lots of CO2 and CO. Given the scarcity of carbon in the universe, where did this all come from? And where does it all go? Are you trying to tell us that all of the oxygen remained bound, all of the time?
3. Even given an entire universe made out of amino acids you still won't get a protein in any reasonable time, so if life were a prerequisite for oxygen, where did all this O2 come from?
4. Finally, even presuming a reducing atmosphere, how do you select for desirable compounds as the experimenters did, and how do you keep them from disintegrating, as they are wont to do in minutes?
Given that the generally accepted term for "impossible" is odds of 1E50 against, and that the odds against one small protein forming by accident are phenomenal, forming hundreds or thousands of them by design should at least be interesting.
Finding somewhere to clamp the jumper leads on will be even more interesting. (-:
> As a rule of thumb, servers (i.e. hosts that
> need to be accessed via a specific FQDN) ought
> to have a static IP address anyway, and it is
> unwise to create dependencies like this (for
> example, NIS server needs DHCP server in order
> to boot).
Yes, but... what if your servers fall over all the time, and you need to have a service available at a specific name for 24x7... like http://www.windows2000test.com/, hyuk, hyuk, hyuk...
Also, since when have M$ and "unwise" been distinct concepts? (-:
I had a box running AfterStep nonstop for over 6 months on kernel, umm, 2.0.36 I think. Then I replaced the box. KDE on 2.2.9 seems to be doing fine too.
I suspect WP would die somewhat more often than that.
I KNOW that M$ Word would never survive a week, probably not a day, maybe not an hour.
Your precious FAQ is full of the same demonstrably wrong assumptions as most of the argument herein.
If somebody dies for something, it doesn't prove that thing to be true. Same goes for feeling smug about something. Neither heroism nor agreement are a substitute for real thought and presonal accountability.
Yeah, right.
That's something that Rome is working very hard for, and Jesuit-educated Bill Clinton is helping them out lots. If you really want the Dark Ages back, you can do one of two things:
1. Make laws against religion.
...or...
2. Make laws to aid religion.
Laws forcing the unproven theory of evolution to be taught in public schools fall into class 1.
Laws forcing the possibly unprovable theory of special creation by divine fiat to be taught in public schools fall into category 2.
What Kansas has done is the right thing, but probably for the wrong reasons. It will be sad if they desert category 1 only to rush over into category 2.
But history, which we stubbornly refuse to learn from, says that they will try.
Darwin said nothing new, his contribution was to write books about that which had often been said before by others. He did, however, point out several serious flaws in the arguments for evolution, practically none of which have been satisfactorily answered. Not a safe form of idolatry.
And you would be right.
The kind of prejudice that abounded in the Dark Ages and got the world declared flat by those in power is exactly the same manner of prejudice that you yourself show in your post.
You are exemplifying the Dark Ages - and fulfilling prophecy: you have been foretold. Thousands of years ago, no crystal ball involved, you were foretold. You are one drop in a rainstorm that will flood the world. Think about it.