the probability and note that it is very low. In fact, it is so low that it usually makes sense to simply treat it - and other very low probabilities - as zero
Which is a long-winded way of saying "there almost certainly isn't". And I agree entirely. So we are on the same boat. If I want to claim that there is a Starbucks on Jupiter, I better be ready to prove it, because from all the information available, the probability that there is seems to be so ridiculously low that disproving it isn't an honest request.
Same for afterlife of any kind. Any evidence we have is either fabricated by charlatans exploiting the weaknesses of the grieving, or wishful thinking, or is otherwise weak. In several thousand years of recorded human history, and a few billions going "beyond" in that time, and many more billions grieving for them, and this being one of the topics that moves humans most, you'd think that if there were any evidence to be had, we would have it by now.
Since we don't, anyone claiming an afterlife needs to prove it.
This is an impossible requirement. The very act of experiment rests on at least the assumptions that you have managed to eliminate all the external factors, and that you really did perform the experiment and not, say, dream of it - indeed, since Last Thursdayism is not disprovable, trusting any prior knowledge requires a belief system.
No, it isn't, because it was intentionally created to be unfalsifiable. Which puts it into the category of theories that need not be seriously entertained unless some evidence is brought forward first.
That said, not all scientific activities require strict elimination of all external factors. Science happens in the real world, too, where you often can't. Statistical analysis can eliminate factors mathematically.
And with afterlifes, we've pretty much done that. A lot of people who claim to have access to the afterlife in one way or the other have been tested, and every single case has been positively identified as a fraud or as dillusional, or both. James Randi is one of the guys who has done a lot of good work here. His one million dollar challenge still stands, and has been for many years.
You have no idea what I went through in school. But I could put that behind myself not by making others change their behaviour, but by changing mine.
You are perfectly free to say anything you want, believe anything you want and call anybody anything you want. But you have to be willing to suffer the consequences.
I am. I continue to call black people "black" and I've yet to meet one who was offended by that. Because what the PC crowd doesn't get is that it isn't in the words. You can perfectly respectfully call someone "black" just as easily as you can call someone "coloured" in a disrespectful way. Someone once said that only 30% of the meaning of our conversations is in the words we use, the rest is in intonation, facial expression, tone of voice, context, etc.
but is it really that hard to treat an opinion with respect?
Not every opinion deserves the same amount of respect. Claiming the Petrona Twin Towers are thes tallest buildings in the world, and claiming the Burj Khalifa is are respectful claims that can be settled or even disagreed about in respect. Claiming some hut in western africa is the tallest building in the world simply because nobody has measured its precise height yet, and thus it hasn't been proven to not be very tall is not a respectful claim, it is ridiculous nonsense.
If a belief in the afterlife is not being used to coerce or harm others, than what is the harm in it?
It does damage to the differentiation between respectable claims and ridiculous nonsense. It leads people to respect stuff that doesn't deserve respect, and stop thinking critically. While living in a dream world can be short-term comforting, it is long-term damaging.
She was actually against gun control and for anyone being allowed to carry guns. I wonder if that will change now.
I wonder what the gun-nuts say who always claim that guns make you safer because the criminal will be gunned down by the honest citizen. Didn't happen in this case, did it?
Yeah, but if you use terms like "crosshairs" in the presence of disturbed people, they do crazy things. This says little about their political affiliation. But it does raise the issue of whether using violent (particularly weapon associated) terminology is wise in what should be at most polite disagreements.\
I don't subscribe to the POV. Along that line lie idiocities like political correctness and laws against "hate speech".
We need to bring some almost 100 year old knowledge into our basic education. And I mean "basic" as in primary school, if not earlier. One of them is that the map is not the territory, the word is not the deed, the menu is not particularily well tasting. With regards to political speech: It is speech. And by politicians, no less. Every word should be assumed to have been selected not for its literal meaning, but its emotional impact. In other words: No matter what they say, they don't mean it. They say whatever gets the most impact, not whatever is "correct". If you take a politician (or any other marketing speech) literally, you have a brain deficit.
And I am strongly against restricting everyone just because there are a couple brain damaged people around. Restrict the damaged, not the sane. That goes for PC as well, btw., but we lost that fight when they made us say "coloured person" instead of locking up the five guys who had mental issue with being called "black".
That's just as much a statement of faith as those who believe in the concept of an afterlife.
Only due to the way I stated it, not in principle. See Russell's Teapot for an extensive treatment. If you want an afterlife, you prove it. You can't rest on that it hasn't been disproven, because I can always make a more outrageous claim that you haven't yet falsified. I could claim right now that there's a Starbucks on Jupiter. Prove me wrong.
Ian Stevenson spent his life investigating cases that were suggestive of reincarnation. I have his books somewhere. He never found proof positive of reincarnation, but the evidence he did find is compelling. As long as it doesn't interfere with one's belief system, that is.
I might actually pick it up because I'm interested in such stuff. But the key word is "never found proof positive". For such a dramatic claim that would uproot a lot of science and belief systems, there better be more than some compelling evidence, and it better be independent of belief systems.
I really, REALLY doubt that you can prove that there is no afterlife.
No, but he who makes the more unlikely claim is the one on whom rests the burden of proof. It is not for me to prove that there is no such thing, it is for those who claim there is to prove it.
You fell into one of the usual logic traps that smart religious people (they exist!) build up: Assuming that in the absence of proof, all options are of similar likeliness and should therefore be considered with similar respect. See Russel's Teapot for a more extensive treatment of this subject.
but *I* have still experienced all the horrible agony of death and non-existence.
Almost agreed, until there. The whole point of it, and the part that we can no comprehend, is that you do not experience non-existence. By definition you no-experience non-existence because one of its features is the absence of experience.
Interesting reactions. I've been reading quite a few times on this very forum that politicians in general, politicians of a specific kind or politicial outlook, etc. should be shot. Now one has, and everyone is sorry for her? Come on people, where is our consistency?
I must admit I know nothing about this particular woman, so I won't judge. But I do know that I've been saying things like that a few times, and if one of the people I meant by it were indeed to be shot, I'd stand by my words that they had it coming. So if this is politically motivated (from what I've read we don't know, yet) then at least give the guy credit for actually following through instead of sitting on his couch complaining about the general evil of the world.
And where are the 2nd amendment defenders? Wasn't the right to bear arms specifically added so US citizens could rid themselves of a tyrannical government?
I'll remind you guys of this story next time you talk loudly.
That's all beating around the bush. There is no afterlife, so how about the more serious question of coming to terms with someone's death? I is a frightening aspect that doesn't make it easier to cope that thanks to technology, people can still "act" (i.e. post updates) after they died, due to automation etc.
Does it make it easier or more difficult to cope when the deceased is still around somehow? There's a well-known structure for humans dealing with drastic changes like this, and it has two key parts that matter in this context: The phase where you ignore and fight the truth, i.e. the "he isn't really dead" part. Everyone who griefs has it, some get over it very quickly, some linger on it sometimes for years. The other is the "letting go and re-orienting" phase. Both are presumable more difficult the more old stuff you have around.
I personally think that our ancestors had a good formula: You were given a year to grief, and everyone would understand. But after that, you'd better be done with griefing and continue on with your own life. It at least gave people a guideline.
My dear latin speaking friend: if the law was broken by Google, you go after Google as a company.
Companies can not shield individuals from all responsibility, and that is a good thing. A crime is still a crime even if committed it wearing your business suit and a tie. Going after the company is certainly well and good, but we all know they would pay any reasonable fee out of the cookie jar.
If you go after individuals in this case, why not go after all the individuals that were part of the actions violating the laws? (since when not knowing that you break the law is a defence?)
Sure, but if you have to decide on some place to start, I think they could've chosen worse.
I would submit that the makers of the tool are also the wrong people to punish.
Why not let them have their investigation to determine that? If the tool was made with the express purpose of committing a crime, then the tool maker can be liable.
Although, this sure doesn't warrant punishment in my book.
But your book doesn't matter, the book of law does.;-)
But in reality, these people trade enough volume to make the markets. They don't take a gap that nobody misses. One simple trick is that they can manage to pick up best offers faster than regular market traders, who are then left with the "resale" from the high-frequency traders. They increase the gap in order to make their margin.
There's no chance that 'a centralized database will emerge,' and 'we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this.'"
Uh, no?
Identity one area I would very much love to have in the hands of government.
Why? Because if you put it into the hands of a "private sector" entity, that almost certainly means a commercial entity, which means if it finds a way to make a profit from your data, it will. Or, in other words, it isn't your data anymore, it is theirs. Thank you, but no thanks. I prefer to have an identity instead of renting it.
Sure, there are all kinds of other dangers with the government handling this stuff. But if you are more afraid of the government than of private corporations, you've not been getting the news for the past 20 years, have you?
Where exactly does the dividing line between "spends millions on lobbying and campaign contributions" and "bribes politicians outright" get drawn?
Which line?
Campaign contributions by corporations are legalized bribing, nothing else. It is a clear violation of the basic principles of democracy that entities that have no votes can leverage influence on the political process.
1. first whoever ordered and whoever developed are highly probable two different persons.Did both of them broke the SK law?
The "and" inbetween does indicate that, yes.
2. why they go after the "whoever ordered and developed" and not after "whoever used the tools"? Is it in SK customary to go after the person that manufactured the knife used in a stabbing?
Because that would mean going after the minimum-wage drones who rode in the streetview cars. That's not the people you want to punish for this.
3. the way I know, Google used some open-source components in putting the "tool" together. Is the original author of these components equally guilty?
Non sequitor. Nowhere does it say anything like that, or that they'd go after the manufacturers of the car, or the antennas, cameras, whatever.
Your trying to throw up strawman here to cloud the fact that as far as government reactions go, this one is actually a pretty good one.
Every now and then, they are brought to justice even though they did.
It's not that it used to be any better. Power, influence and money have always managed to put themselves above the law, I doubt you'll find a period in human history where this wasn't so, or where common folks didn't dream of better times when it would not.
I have to agree on the summary, and point out it's one of the reasons we (me and my girlfriend) stopped playing LOTRO. We're not hardcore players, never reached the max level with any characters (though our mains came close) and there were months when we played little or nothing. It just didn't feel right paying for. In fact, had our accounts not been so old as to have been deleted, we'd have taken it up again after it became F2P.
I think this also reveals a major problem of MMORPGs - the whole grinding means that you don't get out so easily (don't want to lose everything), but once you did, you're not likely to come back because you're not going to do it all over again. I know I won't.
Obviously designed by people who are not gamers. Where is my analog input device? Keys only? Hello? How am I supposed to look around in a 3D game, or point and shoot, or turn, or do practically anything else that requires more than just keys?
Nope, these jokers think that PC gaming is all about the keyboard - just watch the ad video. Yeah, right. Because the keyboard is what makes PC gaming what it is. Errr...
Liquidity IS good, and in the end, I don't see how this is doing anything but provide more of it.
It's simple, really. If they make a profit, they take money out of the system. Since the system doesn't generate money, that money is missing somewhere else. Or in other words: Someone else has to pay it. If you think that someone is the other high-speed traders, I have a bridge that you might be interested in.
If everyone on the quiet car thinks that he can make one important call, then the car isn't quiet anymore.
Society works if people don't think they are so special that they deserve an exception.
If you want to know how cell phones can be used responsibly, travel to Japan. I was in Tokio for a week, and during that entire time I heard two cell phone rings, both belonging to foreigners. Everyone keeps their phone on vibrate, and for some reason they understand that you don't have to yell into the phone - you can be on a train full of commuters, every third or so talking on the phone and yet you barely notice because they almost whisper. Try it, you'll be surprised how sensitive cell phone microphones are and how good they can filter out background noise.
the grown up thing to do would be to simply ask the person to pipe down.
The grown up thing is not to be an asshole in the first place. By not acting grown up yourself, you have voided your right to be approached in the same manner by me. Especially when you're not the only one.
You could just as well say "becoming all angry about spam is so childish. The grown up thing to do would be to simply out-put and delete it" - and we all know how well that works. No, assholes need to learn that they are assholes, or they will not change their behaviour.
how do you feel about the woman further down trying to connect with her kid, or the doctor trying to manage prescriptions,
Both of them can do that quietly, and a doctor shouldn't be talking about any patient business in a public place. It may even violate his oath.
or the 10 quiet business people just trying to check their email.
Yes. That is what has kept me from getting a jammer so far. On the other hand, jamming for a second or so would drop the call while it would be barely noticeable for e-mail and web use.
Slashdot Mirror
the probability and note that it is very low. In fact, it is so low that it usually makes sense to simply treat it - and other very low probabilities - as zero
Which is a long-winded way of saying "there almost certainly isn't". And I agree entirely. So we are on the same boat. If I want to claim that there is a Starbucks on Jupiter, I better be ready to prove it, because from all the information available, the probability that there is seems to be so ridiculously low that disproving it isn't an honest request.
Same for afterlife of any kind. Any evidence we have is either fabricated by charlatans exploiting the weaknesses of the grieving, or wishful thinking, or is otherwise weak. In several thousand years of recorded human history, and a few billions going "beyond" in that time, and many more billions grieving for them, and this being one of the topics that moves humans most, you'd think that if there were any evidence to be had, we would have it by now.
Since we don't, anyone claiming an afterlife needs to prove it.
This is an impossible requirement. The very act of experiment rests on at least the assumptions that you have managed to eliminate all the external factors, and that you really did perform the experiment and not, say, dream of it - indeed, since Last Thursdayism is not disprovable, trusting any prior knowledge requires a belief system.
No, it isn't, because it was intentionally created to be unfalsifiable. Which puts it into the category of theories that need not be seriously entertained unless some evidence is brought forward first.
That said, not all scientific activities require strict elimination of all external factors. Science happens in the real world, too, where you often can't. Statistical analysis can eliminate factors mathematically.
And with afterlifes, we've pretty much done that. A lot of people who claim to have access to the afterlife in one way or the other have been tested, and every single case has been positively identified as a fraud or as dillusional, or both. James Randi is one of the guys who has done a lot of good work here. His one million dollar challenge still stands, and has been for many years.
Your priviledge is showing.
You have no idea what I went through in school. But I could put that behind myself not by making others change their behaviour, but by changing mine.
You are perfectly free to say anything you want, believe anything you want and call anybody anything you want. But you have to be willing to suffer the consequences.
I am. I continue to call black people "black" and I've yet to meet one who was offended by that. Because what the PC crowd doesn't get is that it isn't in the words. You can perfectly respectfully call someone "black" just as easily as you can call someone "coloured" in a disrespectful way. Someone once said that only 30% of the meaning of our conversations is in the words we use, the rest is in intonation, facial expression, tone of voice, context, etc.
but is it really that hard to treat an opinion with respect?
Not every opinion deserves the same amount of respect. Claiming the Petrona Twin Towers are thes tallest buildings in the world, and claiming the Burj Khalifa is are respectful claims that can be settled or even disagreed about in respect. Claiming some hut in western africa is the tallest building in the world simply because nobody has measured its precise height yet, and thus it hasn't been proven to not be very tall is not a respectful claim, it is ridiculous nonsense.
If a belief in the afterlife is not being used to coerce or harm others, than what is the harm in it?
It does damage to the differentiation between respectable claims and ridiculous nonsense. It leads people to respect stuff that doesn't deserve respect, and stop thinking critically. While living in a dream world can be short-term comforting, it is long-term damaging.
She was actually against gun control and for anyone being allowed to carry guns. I wonder if that will change now.
I wonder what the gun-nuts say who always claim that guns make you safer because the criminal will be gunned down by the honest citizen. Didn't happen in this case, did it?
Yeah, but if you use terms like "crosshairs" in the presence of disturbed people, they do crazy things. This says little about their political affiliation. But it does raise the issue of whether using violent (particularly weapon associated) terminology is wise in what should be at most polite disagreements.\
I don't subscribe to the POV. Along that line lie idiocities like political correctness and laws against "hate speech".
We need to bring some almost 100 year old knowledge into our basic education. And I mean "basic" as in primary school, if not earlier. One of them is that the map is not the territory, the word is not the deed, the menu is not particularily well tasting. With regards to political speech: It is speech. And by politicians, no less. Every word should be assumed to have been selected not for its literal meaning, but its emotional impact. In other words: No matter what they say, they don't mean it. They say whatever gets the most impact, not whatever is "correct". If you take a politician (or any other marketing speech) literally, you have a brain deficit.
And I am strongly against restricting everyone just because there are a couple brain damaged people around. Restrict the damaged, not the sane. That goes for PC as well, btw., but we lost that fight when they made us say "coloured person" instead of locking up the five guys who had mental issue with being called "black".
That's just as much a statement of faith as those who believe in the concept of an afterlife.
Only due to the way I stated it, not in principle. See Russell's Teapot for an extensive treatment. If you want an afterlife, you prove it. You can't rest on that it hasn't been disproven, because I can always make a more outrageous claim that you haven't yet falsified. I could claim right now that there's a Starbucks on Jupiter. Prove me wrong.
Ian Stevenson spent his life investigating cases that were suggestive of reincarnation. I have his books somewhere. He never found proof positive of reincarnation, but the evidence he did find is compelling. As long as it doesn't interfere with one's belief system, that is.
I might actually pick it up because I'm interested in such stuff. But the key word is "never found proof positive". For such a dramatic claim that would uproot a lot of science and belief systems, there better be more than some compelling evidence, and it better be independent of belief systems.
I really, REALLY doubt that you can prove that there is no afterlife.
No, but he who makes the more unlikely claim is the one on whom rests the burden of proof. It is not for me to prove that there is no such thing, it is for those who claim there is to prove it.
You fell into one of the usual logic traps that smart religious people (they exist!) build up: Assuming that in the absence of proof, all options are of similar likeliness and should therefore be considered with similar respect. See Russel's Teapot for a more extensive treatment of this subject.
but *I* have still experienced all the horrible agony of death and non-existence.
Almost agreed, until there. The whole point of it, and the part that we can no comprehend, is that you do not experience non-existence. By definition you no-experience non-existence because one of its features is the absence of experience.
Interesting reactions. I've been reading quite a few times on this very forum that politicians in general, politicians of a specific kind or politicial outlook, etc. should be shot. Now one has, and everyone is sorry for her? Come on people, where is our consistency?
I must admit I know nothing about this particular woman, so I won't judge. But I do know that I've been saying things like that a few times, and if one of the people I meant by it were indeed to be shot, I'd stand by my words that they had it coming. So if this is politically motivated (from what I've read we don't know, yet) then at least give the guy credit for actually following through instead of sitting on his couch complaining about the general evil of the world.
And where are the 2nd amendment defenders? Wasn't the right to bear arms specifically added so US citizens could rid themselves of a tyrannical government?
I'll remind you guys of this story next time you talk loudly.
That's all beating around the bush. There is no afterlife, so how about the more serious question of coming to terms with someone's death? I is a frightening aspect that doesn't make it easier to cope that thanks to technology, people can still "act" (i.e. post updates) after they died, due to automation etc.
Does it make it easier or more difficult to cope when the deceased is still around somehow? There's a well-known structure for humans dealing with drastic changes like this, and it has two key parts that matter in this context: The phase where you ignore and fight the truth, i.e. the "he isn't really dead" part. Everyone who griefs has it, some get over it very quickly, some linger on it sometimes for years. The other is the "letting go and re-orienting" phase. Both are presumable more difficult the more old stuff you have around.
I personally think that our ancestors had a good formula: You were given a year to grief, and everyone would understand. But after that, you'd better be done with griefing and continue on with your own life. It at least gave people a guideline.
Because on a mobile gaming platform I want to carry a USB mouse with me and find a flat surface to use it?
Hm, then I have forgotten the login data and my e-mail and birthday have changed. :-)
My dear latin speaking friend: if the law was broken by Google, you go after Google as a company.
Companies can not shield individuals from all responsibility, and that is a good thing. A crime is still a crime even if committed it wearing your business suit and a tie. Going after the company is certainly well and good, but we all know they would pay any reasonable fee out of the cookie jar.
If you go after individuals in this case, why not go after all the individuals that were part of the actions violating the laws? (since when not knowing that you break the law is a defence?)
Sure, but if you have to decide on some place to start, I think they could've chosen worse.
I would submit that the makers of the tool are also the wrong people to punish.
Why not let them have their investigation to determine that? If the tool was made with the express purpose of committing a crime, then the tool maker can be liable.
Although, this sure doesn't warrant punishment in my book.
But your book doesn't matter, the book of law does. ;-)
In the textbook, you're right.
But in reality, these people trade enough volume to make the markets. They don't take a gap that nobody misses. One simple trick is that they can manage to pick up best offers faster than regular market traders, who are then left with the "resale" from the high-frequency traders. They increase the gap in order to make their margin.
There's no chance that 'a centralized database will emerge,' and 'we need the private sector to lead the implementation of this.'"
Uh, no?
Identity one area I would very much love to have in the hands of government.
Why? Because if you put it into the hands of a "private sector" entity, that almost certainly means a commercial entity, which means if it finds a way to make a profit from your data, it will. Or, in other words, it isn't your data anymore, it is theirs. Thank you, but no thanks. I prefer to have an identity instead of renting it.
Sure, there are all kinds of other dangers with the government handling this stuff. But if you are more afraid of the government than of private corporations, you've not been getting the news for the past 20 years, have you?
Where exactly does the dividing line between "spends millions on lobbying and campaign contributions" and "bribes politicians outright" get drawn?
Which line?
Campaign contributions by corporations are legalized bribing, nothing else. It is a clear violation of the basic principles of democracy that entities that have no votes can leverage influence on the political process.
1. first whoever ordered and whoever developed are highly probable two different persons.Did both of them broke the SK law?
The "and" inbetween does indicate that, yes.
2. why they go after the "whoever ordered and developed" and not after "whoever used the tools"? Is it in SK customary to go after the person that manufactured the knife used in a stabbing?
Because that would mean going after the minimum-wage drones who rode in the streetview cars. That's not the people you want to punish for this.
3. the way I know, Google used some open-source components in putting the "tool" together. Is the original author of these components equally guilty?
Non sequitor. Nowhere does it say anything like that, or that they'd go after the manufacturers of the car, or the antennas, cameras, whatever.
Your trying to throw up strawman here to cloud the fact that as far as government reactions go, this one is actually a pretty good one.
Every now and then, they are brought to justice even though they did.
It's not that it used to be any better. Power, influence and money have always managed to put themselves above the law, I doubt you'll find a period in human history where this wasn't so, or where common folks didn't dream of better times when it would not.
I have to agree on the summary, and point out it's one of the reasons we (me and my girlfriend) stopped playing LOTRO. We're not hardcore players, never reached the max level with any characters (though our mains came close) and there were months when we played little or nothing. It just didn't feel right paying for. In fact, had our accounts not been so old as to have been deleted, we'd have taken it up again after it became F2P.
I think this also reveals a major problem of MMORPGs - the whole grinding means that you don't get out so easily (don't want to lose everything), but once you did, you're not likely to come back because you're not going to do it all over again. I know I won't.
Obviously designed by people who are not gamers. Where is my analog input device? Keys only? Hello? How am I supposed to look around in a 3D game, or point and shoot, or turn, or do practically anything else that requires more than just keys?
Nope, these jokers think that PC gaming is all about the keyboard - just watch the ad video. Yeah, right. Because the keyboard is what makes PC gaming what it is. Errr...
Liquidity IS good, and in the end, I don't see how this is doing anything but provide more of it.
It's simple, really. If they make a profit, they take money out of the system. Since the system doesn't generate money, that money is missing somewhere else. Or in other words: Someone else has to pay it. If you think that someone is the other high-speed traders, I have a bridge that you might be interested in.
If everyone on the quiet car thinks that he can make one important call, then the car isn't quiet anymore.
Society works if people don't think they are so special that they deserve an exception.
If you want to know how cell phones can be used responsibly, travel to Japan. I was in Tokio for a week, and during that entire time I heard two cell phone rings, both belonging to foreigners. Everyone keeps their phone on vibrate, and for some reason they understand that you don't have to yell into the phone - you can be on a train full of commuters, every third or so talking on the phone and yet you barely notice because they almost whisper. Try it, you'll be surprised how sensitive cell phone microphones are and how good they can filter out background noise.
the grown up thing to do would be to simply ask the person to pipe down.
The grown up thing is not to be an asshole in the first place. By not acting grown up yourself, you have voided your right to be approached in the same manner by me. Especially when you're not the only one.
You could just as well say "becoming all angry about spam is so childish. The grown up thing to do would be to simply out-put and delete it" - and we all know how well that works. No, assholes need to learn that they are assholes, or they will not change their behaviour.
how do you feel about the woman further down trying to connect with her kid, or the doctor trying to manage prescriptions,
Both of them can do that quietly, and a doctor shouldn't be talking about any patient business in a public place. It may even violate his oath.
or the 10 quiet business people just trying to check their email.
Yes. That is what has kept me from getting a jammer so far. On the other hand, jamming for a second or so would drop the call while it would be barely noticeable for e-mail and web use.