A 12" machine is not a netbook, no matter what CPU it has, it is a subnotebook. Netbooks are small, below 10". Even at exactly 10" a machine is more close to subnotebooks rather than to netbooks. If the machine is up to 5-6" then it is a UMPC, if it is up to 9-9.5" it is a netbook, if it is up to 12" it is a subnotebook, if it is up to 13-14" it is a small laptop, if it is up to 15-16" it is a laptop, if it is up to 17-18" it is a large laptop, and if it is bigger it is a portable for the home or office (portable but not mobile).
As far as I am concerned centralisation of DNS control to a single organisation is a bad thing. It distorts the free market and can lead to political manipulation. People with brains use OpenNIC or run their own DNS servers. Nothing can beat the speed of a DNS server in your LAN, and if you know how to do it right it's also more secure.
The economic crisis will strengthen free (libre) software: during an economic crisis people need to innovate and think of ways to increase their productivity (more production for less effort). Free software and open source software, as well as free and open content like text, need less effort to be produced and the end result is of higher quality. Therefore, as people seek ways to increase their productivity during the economic crisis, everyone will embrace free and open source because as a model of production it allows for much higher productivity to be realised. With closed source software you end up writing the code very similar to that written by your neighbour, because both of you are afraid to let one another see their code. That's absurd. With open source, neighbours let one another see their code and with free software they can benefit from the other's source code so that they don't end up writing the same thing twice. This translates to productivity gains, which is exactly what people seek during an economic crisis.
People offering their labour to free software projects or other similar efforts do not do so for free. They do get paid, but the payment is not in cash: when I participate in a free software project and I have a wish for it, I write down some code implementing my wanted feature. This acts as a catalyst for other developers to come in, either to fix bugs or to implement their own wishes on top of mine (their wishes may have come as a result of my implementation, for example if I implement an OS with a CLI, other people will want a GUI, but if there were no OS to begin by there would be no wish for a GUI at all). One wish leads to another, and the software being free we can all work on realising our wishes. This is my payment when I participate in open source: other people do the same thing and I end up having a superior product in the end, as my participation acts as a catalyst for others to join, and the participation of others acts as a catalyst for my own continuing participation in the project. The result of this participation, the improved software, is part of my payment for my participation, which I offer partly because I want to enjoy the benefits of improved free software, and this can only be done by participating in it. The rise of free software is unstoppable and as people seek more productivity and more free software as a result of the economic crisis, they will participate more in free software development, because there is no way to have free software without participation.
This is economic production, it is pure transfer and generation of wealth, and yet it is not properly counted in the GDP because it is not expressed in terms of money. That's absurd, and it is a result of humans paying so much attention to symbols (money is a symbol) that in the end they cannot discern the reality behind the symbols (the economy and real wealth). In fact, this inability of many humans to see reality without using symbols (or, to put it in another way, to perceive value in a symbol when there is no real value attached) is partly to blame for the current economic crisis: people are too stupid to discern real value and instead seek symbols, which sometimes give the impression of carrying lots of value when in fact they don't, and other times they give the impression of carrying too little value when in fact they carry a lot, but rarely their estimated value has the slighest relevance to the real value behind them (if there is any).
Stop thinking about changing systems, start thinking about changing people. Any system can serve everyone well if it is operated by capable and good people. So, instead of trying to change a system, let's focus on education and developing people's skills and sense of duty and ethics. What we lack and what we need is people who are capable and willing to do what is right. We have lots of systems and every system is guaranteed to fail if no capable and good people can operate it, so focus on what we need most first: people.
I do not pay attention to version numbers, but certainly I do pay attention to misleading marketing, and tend to vote with my money, so a software house wants me as their customer they would certainly need a 1.0 first.
An ad was a way to talk about one's economic product or service by the primitive [[humans]] of the 2000s. A surge of ads was a desperate attempt of sellers to avoid a [[depression]] in [[2008]]. It failed as a result of widespread use of [[adblocker]], (citation needed) which was eventually declared illegal just before [[WW3]] against the Russia-China alliance. Then the earth was taken over by [[alien overlords]] who noticed the planet after a group of [[reckless astronomers]] sent a series of self-incriminating messages in the deep space providing the colonising aliens with evidence of the human position and stupidity (and thus easiness of invasion). As a result of the fusion of the two intelligences, adblocker became a historical oddity as the need for ads disappeared with the [[technological singularity of 2013]].
now my privacy is being raped 8 ways to Sunday, but its worth it for that 15 extra milliseconds of my life.
It's Franklin time: people willing to share their privacy for temporary performance increases deserve neither. (the temporary means that javascript sites will eventually find a good use for this extra speed of chrome, thus in the end you will waste more time to run the same scripts)
Stop seeking.0 releases. Debian 4.0 Etch users want Debian 4.1, not 5.0, because a.1 release can come out much more quickly and with less potential for bugs than a.0 release. What I would like to have is a 4.1 release, followed by a 4.2 and 4.3, and potentially a 4.4 release, which will all make small incremental improvements and risk-free popular package updates within short timeframes, and only then a 5.0 release with lots of new but more riskier package updates and maybe also architectural changes if any.
I run Debian Lenny on the desktop along with many sid and custom stuff. On the servers side I still run etch 4.0, with only a few volatile and custom stuff. I can say that Lenny is surprisingly stable for a testing branch, and that choosing a few packages from it to release as Debian 4.1 would be a great thing, but I can see that a 5.0 release with all packages would probably take some time, albeit not too much as I can see that work progresses quickly (I download newest packages regularly and my bugs get fixed every few weeks, although a few packages seem to be stagnant).
Please, Debian, give us a stable 4.1 now, a "mini-lenny" just to keep ourselves (for the server side at least, as I expect most of us to run lenny on the desktop) an the rest of our userbase and potential new users happy with updates popular packages. After a sucessful 4.1, you can focus on delivering the more time-consuming 5.0, but please first consider a 4.1 or 4.2 before the major step.
Debian GNU/Linux is the distro for real men. That's what I use for desktops and laptops (lenny/testing with a bit of sid/unstable and custom things) and servers (etch/stable with some custom things) and it works extremely well. Debian-based distros are not the real thing. Debian is the real thing and that's what real admins use. It's a shame that Wikipedia overlooked Debian. Some people may think that other distros have "predistable releases" but that's a myth, because you can always get some new stuff from the testing and unstable branches, which contrary to their name are working very well. When all other distros and all other OSes die, Debian will be alive and totally ready to run all PCs and servers with extreme stability and security. I think that they chose another distro just because they didn't researched Debian's advantages well enough. See also this interesting bit here. We, Debian people, should help them understand why Debian is the best distro out there and why it should run their servers.
What we need is wiki-like research, where a mass of people collaborate to finish a research project little by little, asynchronously and spontaneously, just like wikis. If you are interested see this project of mine which although still in pre-alpha mode I hope could be useful some day.
they're trained to click on the big button at the bottom left of the screen that says "start"
For FSM's sake: I had a laptop with Windows and I had put the taskbar on the top, so the start button was at the top-left corner. Someone else had to use my laptop for a moment and had difficulty doing so because of the taskbar position!
In some netbooks the GNU/Linux OS supplied is not what we are used to: it's a locked down OS where in some netbooks you cannot even log in as root or install applications. I believe the return rate has more to do with crippled down GNU/Linux implementations rather than the GNU/Linux as a system itself.
Use a presenter and don't look at your computer's screen at all! When I give presentations I use a computer pointing and laser pointer device (presenter) which allows me to control my computer while looking at the audience or the wall. I can move the mouse pointer, go down or up a page, etc. In fact I have four such presenters.
The problem is that humans in general, and of course also employers, make too many assumptions based on bad heuristics (stereotypes). One such bad heuristic is that they look at you as part of a group rather than an individual person, and if they believe that "your" group is "bad" then they will think that you are also bad as an individual. Employers also assume that since you are asking to become an employee then you must be in a financial need to do so, and furthermore they also assume that everyone out there will want what they consider the "best" job.
These assumptions and the heuristics they are based on are very dangerous and often lead to inefficiency. A manager following such group-based heuristics can damage their company by not hiring the best talent out there, as talent is very often non-conformist, eccentric, especial, and incompatible with many sets of heuristics.
In your case, I think that the line of thinking of the hiring managers you sent your CV to must have been as follows: "this person here by sending me a CV asks me for a job as an employee, which means that they currently have a financial need to work. Since they currently have such a need, it follows that they always had this need. With this in mind, it follows that this person, if they are smart, must have chosen the best possible university places and jobs that would provide them with the highest possible financial and societal return. But in their CV we see that they worked for tech support, which is a job with low financial returns and low social status. Therefore, by accepting this job offer this person proved that they were incapable, at that time, of finding a better job. And since they were incapable of finding a better job then, they must still be an unsatisfactory employee today, so we must reject his application".
This line of thinking is incorrect and bad for a company because it is based on assumptions that derive from heuristics which are very ineffective and inefficient, and lead to a high number of false positives and false negatives. By using these bad heuristics, the manager may lose the best talent. It has happened before: people were saying that Einstein was dim when he was at school, because he didn't fit the heuristics favoured by society at his time. It has happened in much larger scale as well: In the German society before WW2 the Nazis and Nazi followers held the heuristic that everyone who was Jewish was undesirable and as a result they prosecuted or threw out of academia all Jewish physicists and others who they didn't like. But this caused a shortage of physics professors and researchers in Germany, and as a result the Nazis failed to develop an abomb - which was instead developed, together with lots of aerospace technologies, by America and other Allies which happily welcomed these prosecuted physicists.
Thus, we see that a heuristical thinking can lead to loss of productivity and drive out the best talent. Talent is talent because it's creative and intelligent, and creativity is to be unique, which means that lots of talent may end up in places we wouldn't expect them to be, more so if our heuristics about what constitutes "success" are out of touch with reality.
Many white people, until a few decades ago, held similar bad heuristics about groups based on skin colour, and in America large groups of people were called "the colored" as if somehow the skin colour is such an important personal characteristic to make one part of a group or not. People believed then that those with black skin were inferior or incapable of becoming successful. The heuristic was quite simplistic: "black = unsuccessful = undesirable". But this heuristic proved wrong, as at the moment that discrimination against skin colour was eased, the same people who previously were called "the colored" achieved great financial success and today many millionaries and billionaries are black, proving that factors and characteristics leading to success are embedded to the individual rather than to some imaginary
Supposing this story is true, that carbon dating can only be trusted 150 million years ago, this still is sufficient to ridicule those fundamentalist creationists and superstitious who believe that the earth was created 4004 years ago. That's right, folks: even if science makes a mistake, there is always sufficient margin to not give the slightest hope to the superstitious that they might be correct.
The letter is very unbusinesslike. Its grammar is poor. It doesn't have the 'look and feel' of something legitimate. Most interestingly, the email conveys absolutely nothing to identify the potential purchaser.
If somebody doesn't have the time or ability to compose a good email, I would suspect that they wouldn't have the money to fund a substantial domain name purchase either.
If somebody isn't going to tell you (verifiably) who they are, why would you want to do business with them?
This smells bad.
The probability of an ungrammatical message originating from an illegitimate source is higher than the probability of an ungrammatical message originating from a legitimate source, but it *is* possible, and you would be surprised to see how ungrammatical some emails originating by some very rich business leaders of multinational corporations can be or how "cluttered" and "disorganised" their offices are. Of course, "cluttered" and "disorganised" are personal opinions, as these people are usually capable of finding anything they need in their "cluttered" offices.
Bear in mind that many times businesspersons suffer from headaches and sleep debt as they are too busy and have a life full of problems and activity.
Slashdot Mirror
<humour>
From the chatlog:
is there some problem with \ and notepad?
[...]
no there isn't
[...] [...] [...]
So \ it is.
No wonder why many prefer a snake, a gemstone, or a mollusk byproduct.
</humour>
A 12" machine is not a netbook, no matter what CPU it has, it is a subnotebook. Netbooks are small, below 10". Even at exactly 10" a machine is more close to subnotebooks rather than to netbooks. If the machine is up to 5-6" then it is a UMPC, if it is up to 9-9.5" it is a netbook, if it is up to 12" it is a subnotebook, if it is up to 13-14" it is a small laptop, if it is up to 15-16" it is a laptop, if it is up to 17-18" it is a large laptop, and if it is bigger it is a portable for the home or office (portable but not mobile).
Just let the devels work from home. Their morale will be boosted big time and you will save on office space costs.
Perhaps one should first learn what AlphaJet really is before describing it as a fighter. Wikipedia may help.
As far as I am concerned centralisation of DNS control to a single organisation is a bad thing. It distorts the free market and can lead to political manipulation. People with brains use OpenNIC or run their own DNS servers. Nothing can beat the speed of a DNS server in your LAN, and if you know how to do it right it's also more secure.
The economic crisis will strengthen free (libre) software: during an economic crisis people need to innovate and think of ways to increase their productivity (more production for less effort). Free software and open source software, as well as free and open content like text, need less effort to be produced and the end result is of higher quality. Therefore, as people seek ways to increase their productivity during the economic crisis, everyone will embrace free and open source because as a model of production it allows for much higher productivity to be realised. With closed source software you end up writing the code very similar to that written by your neighbour, because both of you are afraid to let one another see their code. That's absurd. With open source, neighbours let one another see their code and with free software they can benefit from the other's source code so that they don't end up writing the same thing twice. This translates to productivity gains, which is exactly what people seek during an economic crisis.
People offering their labour to free software projects or other similar efforts do not do so for free. They do get paid, but the payment is not in cash: when I participate in a free software project and I have a wish for it, I write down some code implementing my wanted feature. This acts as a catalyst for other developers to come in, either to fix bugs or to implement their own wishes on top of mine (their wishes may have come as a result of my implementation, for example if I implement an OS with a CLI, other people will want a GUI, but if there were no OS to begin by there would be no wish for a GUI at all). One wish leads to another, and the software being free we can all work on realising our wishes. This is my payment when I participate in open source: other people do the same thing and I end up having a superior product in the end, as my participation acts as a catalyst for others to join, and the participation of others acts as a catalyst for my own continuing participation in the project. The result of this participation, the improved software, is part of my payment for my participation, which I offer partly because I want to enjoy the benefits of improved free software, and this can only be done by participating in it. The rise of free software is unstoppable and as people seek more productivity and more free software as a result of the economic crisis, they will participate more in free software development, because there is no way to have free software without participation.
This is economic production, it is pure transfer and generation of wealth, and yet it is not properly counted in the GDP because it is not expressed in terms of money. That's absurd, and it is a result of humans paying so much attention to symbols (money is a symbol) that in the end they cannot discern the reality behind the symbols (the economy and real wealth). In fact, this inability of many humans to see reality without using symbols (or, to put it in another way, to perceive value in a symbol when there is no real value attached) is partly to blame for the current economic crisis: people are too stupid to discern real value and instead seek symbols, which sometimes give the impression of carrying lots of value when in fact they don't, and other times they give the impression of carrying too little value when in fact they carry a lot, but rarely their estimated value has the slighest relevance to the real value behind them (if there is any).
Stop thinking about changing systems, start thinking about changing people. Any system can serve everyone well if it is operated by capable and good people. So, instead of trying to change a system, let's focus on education and developing people's skills and sense of duty and ethics. What we lack and what we need is people who are capable and willing to do what is right. We have lots of systems and every system is guaranteed to fail if no capable and good people can operate it, so focus on what we need most first: people.
I do not pay attention to version numbers, but certainly I do pay attention to misleading marketing, and tend to vote with my money, so a software house wants me as their customer they would certainly need a 1.0 first.
Free encyclopedia v2.1, 2014
An ad was a way to talk about one's economic product or service by the primitive [[humans]] of the 2000s. A surge of ads was a desperate attempt of sellers to avoid a [[depression]] in [[2008]]. It failed as a result of widespread use of [[adblocker]], (citation needed) which was eventually declared illegal just before [[WW3]] against the Russia-China alliance. Then the earth was taken over by [[alien overlords]] who noticed the planet after a group of [[reckless astronomers]] sent a series of self-incriminating messages in the deep space providing the colonising aliens with evidence of the human position and stupidity (and thus easiness of invasion). As a result of the fusion of the two intelligences, adblocker became a historical oddity as the need for ads disappeared with the [[technological singularity of 2013]].
GP: And if 'they' insist on Word files, you wouldn't want to work there anyway
Wrong. It means they are used to paying more than they should for things. Sounds like a great environment for negotiating a starting salary in.
Or it means they are used to pirating. Sounds like a bad environment for negotiating a starting salary in.
now my privacy is being raped 8 ways to Sunday, but its worth it for that 15 extra milliseconds of my life.
It's Franklin time: people willing to share their privacy for temporary performance increases deserve neither. (the temporary means that javascript sites will eventually find a good use for this extra speed of chrome, thus in the end you will waste more time to run the same scripts)
Stop seeking .0 releases. Debian 4.0 Etch users want Debian 4.1, not 5.0, because a .1 release can come out much more quickly and with less potential for bugs than a .0 release. What I would like to have is a 4.1 release, followed by a 4.2 and 4.3, and potentially a 4.4 release, which will all make small incremental improvements and risk-free popular package updates within short timeframes, and only then a 5.0 release with lots of new but more riskier package updates and maybe also architectural changes if any.
I run Debian Lenny on the desktop along with many sid and custom stuff. On the servers side I still run etch 4.0, with only a few volatile and custom stuff. I can say that Lenny is surprisingly stable for a testing branch, and that choosing a few packages from it to release as Debian 4.1 would be a great thing, but I can see that a 5.0 release with all packages would probably take some time, albeit not too much as I can see that work progresses quickly (I download newest packages regularly and my bugs get fixed every few weeks, although a few packages seem to be stagnant).
Please, Debian, give us a stable 4.1 now, a "mini-lenny" just to keep ourselves (for the server side at least, as I expect most of us to run lenny on the desktop) an the rest of our userbase and potential new users happy with updates popular packages. After a sucessful 4.1, you can focus on delivering the more time-consuming 5.0, but please first consider a 4.1 or 4.2 before the major step.
Debian GNU/Linux is the distro for real men. That's what I use for desktops and laptops (lenny/testing with a bit of sid/unstable and custom things) and servers (etch/stable with some custom things) and it works extremely well. Debian-based distros are not the real thing. Debian is the real thing and that's what real admins use. It's a shame that Wikipedia overlooked Debian. Some people may think that other distros have "predistable releases" but that's a myth, because you can always get some new stuff from the testing and unstable branches, which contrary to their name are working very well. When all other distros and all other OSes die, Debian will be alive and totally ready to run all PCs and servers with extreme stability and security. I think that they chose another distro just because they didn't researched Debian's advantages well enough. See also this interesting bit here. We, Debian people, should help them understand why Debian is the best distro out there and why it should run their servers.
What we need is wiki-like research, where a mass of people collaborate to finish a research project little by little, asynchronously and spontaneously, just like wikis. If you are interested see this project of mine which although still in pre-alpha mode I hope could be useful some day.
they're trained to click on the big button at the bottom left of the screen that says "start"
For FSM's sake: I had a laptop with Windows and I had put the taskbar on the top, so the start button was at the top-left corner. Someone else had to use my laptop for a moment and had difficulty doing so because of the taskbar position!
I think it does say the return rate is higher than regular notebooks
In some netbooks the GNU/Linux OS supplied is not what we are used to: it's a locked down OS where in some netbooks you cannot even log in as root or install applications. I believe the return rate has more to do with crippled down GNU/Linux implementations rather than the GNU/Linux as a system itself.
The ASUS Eee 900's keyboard is acceptable for coding.
Ugh, those Dells! If they had put a regular keyboard I would be willing to become their customer, but with such a keyboard I am not going to.
Use a presenter and don't look at your computer's screen at all! When I give presentations I use a computer pointing and laser pointer device (presenter) which allows me to control my computer while looking at the audience or the wall. I can move the mouse pointer, go down or up a page, etc. In fact I have four such presenters.
The problem is that humans in general, and of course also employers, make too many assumptions based on bad heuristics (stereotypes). One such bad heuristic is that they look at you as part of a group rather than an individual person, and if they believe that "your" group is "bad" then they will think that you are also bad as an individual. Employers also assume that since you are asking to become an employee then you must be in a financial need to do so, and furthermore they also assume that everyone out there will want what they consider the "best" job.
These assumptions and the heuristics they are based on are very dangerous and often lead to inefficiency. A manager following such group-based heuristics can damage their company by not hiring the best talent out there, as talent is very often non-conformist, eccentric, especial, and incompatible with many sets of heuristics.
In your case, I think that the line of thinking of the hiring managers you sent your CV to must have been as follows: "this person here by sending me a CV asks me for a job as an employee, which means that they currently have a financial need to work. Since they currently have such a need, it follows that they always had this need. With this in mind, it follows that this person, if they are smart, must have chosen the best possible university places and jobs that would provide them with the highest possible financial and societal return. But in their CV we see that they worked for tech support, which is a job with low financial returns and low social status. Therefore, by accepting this job offer this person proved that they were incapable, at that time, of finding a better job. And since they were incapable of finding a better job then, they must still be an unsatisfactory employee today, so we must reject his application".
This line of thinking is incorrect and bad for a company because it is based on assumptions that derive from heuristics which are very ineffective and inefficient, and lead to a high number of false positives and false negatives. By using these bad heuristics, the manager may lose the best talent. It has happened before: people were saying that Einstein was dim when he was at school, because he didn't fit the heuristics favoured by society at his time. It has happened in much larger scale as well: In the German society before WW2 the Nazis and Nazi followers held the heuristic that everyone who was Jewish was undesirable and as a result they prosecuted or threw out of academia all Jewish physicists and others who they didn't like. But this caused a shortage of physics professors and researchers in Germany, and as a result the Nazis failed to develop an abomb - which was instead developed, together with lots of aerospace technologies, by America and other Allies which happily welcomed these prosecuted physicists.
Thus, we see that a heuristical thinking can lead to loss of productivity and drive out the best talent. Talent is talent because it's creative and intelligent, and creativity is to be unique, which means that lots of talent may end up in places we wouldn't expect them to be, more so if our heuristics about what constitutes "success" are out of touch with reality.
Many white people, until a few decades ago, held similar bad heuristics about groups based on skin colour, and in America large groups of people were called "the colored" as if somehow the skin colour is such an important personal characteristic to make one part of a group or not. People believed then that those with black skin were inferior or incapable of becoming successful. The heuristic was quite simplistic: "black = unsuccessful = undesirable". But this heuristic proved wrong, as at the moment that discrimination against skin colour was eased, the same people who previously were called "the colored" achieved great financial success and today many millionaries and billionaries are black, proving that factors and characteristics leading to success are embedded to the individual rather than to some imaginary
My dear friends, this unidentified object in the sky is nothing more and nothing less than the intergalactic equivalent of Slashdot, built by the alien nerds for their own amusement in the highest moment of their career in nerdiness. It is designed to affect all space-observing civilisations by a strong wow signal which is a million times stronger than the extreme physiological, psychological, gravitational, and hyper-newage-quantum ufo-bogodynamical effects an earthian sysop feels when they see the incredible Slashdot effect on their (liquidated) server, causing their alter ego to wake up and take revenge, before understanding that resistance is futile and therefore attempting a career change as a pirate. This intergalactic Slashdot and its big flash, my dear nerds, is the last thing civilisations below 1 in the Kardashev scale manage to see before being wiped out by the intergalactic Slashdot effect that makes our 'mputers go mad and engulfs our planet in a big cosmic hyper hurricane before spaghettificating and totally annihilating us. That is, folks, we are goint to become interplanetary spaghetti, unless we keep our faith strong and pray to the great flying spaghetti monster to save us from spaghettification! (oh, and chanting the monster's name thrice will enable you to see that all the universe started out of Eden, not far from Kansas).
Supposing this story is true, that carbon dating can only be trusted 150 million years ago, this still is sufficient to ridicule those fundamentalist creationists and superstitious who believe that the earth was created 4004 years ago. That's right, folks: even if science makes a mistake, there is always sufficient margin to not give the slightest hope to the superstitious that they might be correct.
Good to see the game being given as freeware, but free software would be better!
The letter is very unbusinesslike. Its grammar is poor. It doesn't have the 'look and feel' of something legitimate. Most interestingly, the email conveys absolutely nothing to identify the potential purchaser. If somebody doesn't have the time or ability to compose a good email, I would suspect that they wouldn't have the money to fund a substantial domain name purchase either. If somebody isn't going to tell you (verifiably) who they are, why would you want to do business with them? This smells bad.
The probability of an ungrammatical message originating from an illegitimate source is higher than the probability of an ungrammatical message originating from a legitimate source, but it *is* possible, and you would be surprised to see how ungrammatical some emails originating by some very rich business leaders of multinational corporations can be or how "cluttered" and "disorganised" their offices are. Of course, "cluttered" and "disorganised" are personal opinions, as these people are usually capable of finding anything they need in their "cluttered" offices.
Bear in mind that many times businesspersons suffer from headaches and sleep debt as they are too busy and have a life full of problems and activity.